Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

AVN_1

beeftotheheels wrote: »

2. If you "only" devalue by 10% where are all the jobs going to come from? A 10% devaluation won't make us all that competitive (especially not if we lose the advantage of being in the euro or EU)?

3. The bank debt is already, for the most part, our debt. We've already borrowed from the EFSF and pumped the money into the banks. Therefore we cannot "default" on any meaningful amount of bank debt. It no longer exists. All we can default on is sovereign debt.

2) I said approximately 10-20%, it could be even slightly more. That would be enough to stimulate our growth (export and domestic consumption) which would lead to increase in employment and decline in unemployment.

3) Whatever is the present name, we can default on the part of our sovereign debt which we associate with the bank debt.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Possibly when it's a question for which they actually have a definitive answer; such as a question about something that happened in the past.

Did you see how Simon Coveney performed on that score tonight???
And still you don't have any qualms or need further info?

Badgering a government for definitive answers as to exactly what they'll do in six months time and then crowing triumphantly about not getting a detailed response: that's kindergarten debating.

So the people are not allowed to ask questions or not allowed to ask certain questions, like....do you have a plan if there is a No vote?

What makes it a "major question"? That's just a re-frame, not an answer.

Enda, when asked after the Bruton gaffe, said there would be NO second referendum. Yet 2 of his ministers are not prepared to similarly go on record and say it.
This person, 'who doesn't understand what a Government is' :rolleyes: thinks that, at the very least, that suggests that there is disarray and dispute in MY government heading into the signing of a major and far reaching Treaty and that some ministers are preparing the ground to survive in the future by being able to wash their hands of it.

What difference does it make to you, here and now, whether or not the government will hold another referendum on this treaty?

Oh I don't know.....maybe because I don't like to be lied to, because I and my kind usually end up bearing the brunt of the lies.

Mance Rayder

We have been in a binding fiscal union since we joined the Eurozone, so fiscal independence hasn't truly existed since the punt. This treaty improves the rules governing the use of the single currency and is designed to prevent us from getting in the same situation again.

AVN_1

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I said elsewhere, a No increases the uncertainty for us, because it means that we're not in the same boat as the rest of the eurozone, thereby cutting us off from some forms of mutual assistance.

1) It might slightly increase uncertainty in a short run, however in a long run it brings substantially more certainty than the Yes vote, which leads us nowhere.

2) We shouldn't look for additional Euro Zone assistance, instead we should exit the Euro Zone.

Happyman42

CiscoStudent wrote: »

It sounds like your argument is based on paranoia and speculation to be honest.

Anybody who is not paranoid about the performance of this government, considering the mandate they where given based on the promises they made, is a fool.

Mance Rayder

AVN_1 wrote: »

1) It might slightly increase uncertainty in a short run, however in a long run it brings substantially more certainty than the Yes vote, which leads us nowhere.

2) We shouldn't look for additional Euro Zone assistance, instead we should exit the Euro Zone.

Where is the logic behind these statements?

Ronin247

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Or the markets get spooked by us seeming as feckless as the Greek people voting for the impossible, our bond yields rise, we get downgraded, but no one has any time to think about minding us because everyone is more concerned about Spain, and German taxpayers, spooked by our (and Greek, extrapolated into general PIIGS) fecklessness take more action in front of the German Constitutional Court making it harder for the German Government to take any steps which might calm the crisis....

Lose lose for everyone is the alternative analysis.

Or we vote no,go bust and agree to only pay off the real debts of our country and not the gambling losses of German and French banks.Someone who is more into the markets may be able to correct this,but I think the reason we needed the first bailout was because the markets knew we would not be able to take on the bank debts and pay our day to day expenses.Because we were then a bad risk our bonds headed for the magical 7% and so we needed a bailout.Without the bad bank debts we are actually a safe investment for bondholders.

Mance Rayder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Anybody who is not paranoid about the performance of this government, considering the mandate they where given based on the promises they made, is a fool.

Being skeptical is fine but paranoid? Paranoia is no basis on which to vote, you are basically admitting to succumbing to propaganda.

What has your opinion on this government got to do with this treaty?

AVN_1

Godge wrote: »

Such an approach might work at another time in another place. However, in the current circumstances and in Ireland's particular economic position, and given the European-wide economic crisis, a unilateral controlled devaluation would probably require and lead to the following:

(1) Irish Central Bank interest rates above 10% to prevent capital flight with consequent effects on tracker and variable rate mortgages;
(2) Significant tax rises as our tax revenues will be in punts and the interest on our foreign debts would be in Euros
(3) Significant annoyance among our European partners at the way in which we have escalated the crisis for everyone
(4) A subesuent refusal by our partners in the short-to-medium term to assist in funding our economy
(5) A requirement to introduce a severe austerity package to bring our budget into balance within a year - social welfare down by 25% for example
(6) International investor confidence in Ireland would disappear
(7) The effects of (5) and (6) on our economy would be so severe as to more than negate the boost to domestically produced exports such as agriculture created by the devaluation.

Overall, an Ireland with worse living conditions for its people than today.

1) Capital inflows would be higher than outflows
2) Our debt would be reduced significantly as we default on all the debt associated with bank debt. So our debt service would be significantly lower than it is at the moment.
3) We shouldn't care about our European "partners" who got us into the trouble in the first place
4) We wouldn't need any additional funding, but should we need, we would find it on a bilateral level.
5) Significant increase in economic growth would reduce unemployment and social welfare costs.
6) International investors would flock into Ireland attracted by increasingly affordable costs.
7) Scaremongering

Overall, in a medium to long run, Ireland would be much better off than if we vote Yes and chose to continue staying in the Euro Zone.

Happyman42

CiscoStudent wrote: »

What has your opinion on this government got to do with this treaty?

Everything. Because all this treaty achieves is the maintenance of the status quo, it will not change what is fundamentally wrong.
What I have learned since this all started is that FF, FG, Lab, Greens, all want the status quo to remain, because the people they 'really' represent (not those that they say they represent) will not feel the pain or endure any significant austerity.
Like I said earlier, this crisis has been very revealing, not just to me, but to those who where similarly deluded into voting for them in the usual cyclical way. FF and the Greens demolished, and FG, Lab ensuring that they will be demolished too when the day of reckoning arrives.

AVN_1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Thereby removing about €18bn from the economy overnight. Which will result in a large economic contraction (somewhere round 10-12% of GNP), with resulting business closures and job losses - which will result in a shrinking tax base and an expanding welfare roll...and a new deficit. And when you remove that deficit, the same thing happens over again.

Congratulations - that's about the only thing that could be done that would make things dramatically worse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

scaremongering

PopeBuckfastXVI

AVN_1 wrote: »

2) Our debt would be reduced significantly as we default on all the debt associated with bank debt

Ok, you have me on the hook, now reel me in with some facts and figures; how much exactly, and I mean to the euro, would we default on in your plan, an who exactly would take the hit, I want names and organizations?

You've concluded that it can be done, and in a way that leaves us better off, I can only presume you've already worked out the figures to prove it to yourself, so please, prove it to me.

macshadow

The above poll says 56% will vote NO.
Are boards posters of such a vastly different demographic than the general population? Are we being lied to by the media by any chance?:eek:

Mance Rayder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Everything. Because all this treaty achieves is the maintenance of the status quo, it will not change what is fundamentally wrong.
What I have learned since this all started is that FF, FG, Lab, Greens, all want the status quo to remain, because the people they 'really' represent (not those that they say they represent) will not feel the pain or endure any significant austerity.
Like I said earlier, this crisis has been very revealing, not just to me, but to those who where similarly deluded into voting for them in the usual cyclical way. FF and the Greens demolished, and FG, Lab ensuring that they will be demolished too when the day of reckoning arrives.

But the status quo was a culture of irresponsible spending and this treaty is designed to prevent that! I am afraid that it is you who, in this regard, are fundamentally wrong.

K-9

AVN_1 wrote: »

1) Capital inflows would be higher than outflows
2) Our debt would be reduced significantly as we default on all the debt associated with bank debt. So our debt service would be significantly lower than it is at the moment.
3) We shouldn't care about our European "partners" who got us into the trouble in the first place
4) We wouldn't need any additional funding, but should we need, we would find it on a bilateral level.
5) Significant increase in economic growth would reduce unemployment and social welfare costs.
6) International investors would flock into Ireland attracted by increasingly affordable costs.
7) Scaremongering

Overall, in a medium to long run, Ireland would be much better off than if we vote Yes and chose to continue staying in the Euro Zone.

This Treaty isn't on Euro nor indeed EU or EFTA membership. You already have are posting about this here and a couple of other threads. Keep posts about EU membership out of this thread please.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happyman42 wrote: »

significant austerity

Can you please detail the significant austerity which has so far taken place in Ireland?

I keep hearing it's happening, but I'm actually sketchy on the details.

AVN_1

Happyman42 wrote: »

The EU needs drastic reform or if it can't be reformed then broken up as a failed entity imo, the thoughts of my children dealing with this cycle of boom and bust depresses the hell out of me. I can handle years of austerity if we are actually going towards stability.

+1, Either it drastically reforms or we abandon it. Both the EU and the Euro Zone preclude us from substantial economic growth.

AVN_1

K-9 wrote: »

This Treaty isn't on Euro nor indeed EU or EFTA membership. You already have are posting about this here and a couple of other threads. Keep posts about EU membership out of this thread please.

I'm just explaining why we should vote NO. We start with No and end up outside of the Euro Zone with recovered economy.

Mance Rayder

AVN_1 wrote: »

+1, Either it drastically reforms or we abandon it. Both the EU and the Euro Zone preclude us from substantial economic growth.

We have experienced substantial economic growth as a direct result of being in the Eurozone.

Scofflaw

AVN_1 wrote: »

+1, Either it drastically reforms or we abandon it. Both the EU and the Euro Zone preclude us from substantial economic growth.

Oh totally. We've been a completely growth-free area for decades now. Famous for it.

amused,
Scofflaw

K-9

AVN_1 wrote: »

I'm just explaining why we should vote NO. We start with No and end up outside of the Euro Zone with recovered economy.

And you've explained why you'll vote no. I'm not letting your favourite subject take over this important thread about the Treaty, which has nothing to with EU membership. You can post away on the existing threads that you are using. Anymore posts like that on this thread will result in a weeks ban.

Happyman42

CiscoStudent wrote: »

But the status quo was a culture of irresponsible spending and this treaty is designed to prevent that! I am afraid that it is you who, in this regard, are fundamentally wrong.

Which is fine if I believed that this would work. It won't work, the Germans and French will muscle their way around it when it suits, because, they have to.
The EU is fine in principle, but the reality of how it all works is different. We had fiscal controls and they were flouted again and again. The Germans are quite happy to throw their money around as long as we(the smaller nations) play ball. The notion that Coveney peddled tonight that this treaty is designed to stop 'politicians like me' (his words) screwing things up is astonishing. The elite are selling the house in order to stay in it.

AVN_1

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Where is the logic behind these statements?

logic is with our Euro Zone exit

View

AVN_1 wrote: »

logic obsession is with our Euro Zone exit

A little more accurate...

AVN_1

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Ok, you have me on the hook, now reel me in with some facts and figures; how much exactly, and I mean to the euro, would we default on in your plan, an who exactly would take the hit, I want names and organizations?

You've concluded that it can be done, and in a way that leaves us better off, I can only presume you've already worked out the figures to prove it to yourself, so please, prove it to me.

I don't have up to date figures in front of me now, but we could default on something between 30 to 50% of our total debt, which would significantly improve our position.

AVN_1

macshadow wrote: »

The above poll says 56% will vote NO.
Are boards posters of such a vastly different demographic than the general population? Are we being lied to by the media by any chance?:eek:

kind of

AVN_1

CiscoStudent wrote: »

We have experienced substantial economic growth as a direct result of being in the Eurozone.

The opposite, since we joined the Euro Zone our growth first significantly slowed and then completely declined:


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78931512&postcount=41

PopeBuckfastXVI

AVN_1 wrote: »

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Ok, you have me on the hook, now reel me in with some facts and figures; how much exactly, and I mean to the euro, would we default on in your plan, an who exactly would take the hit, I want names and organizations?

You've concluded that it can be done, and in a way that leaves us better off, I can only presume you've already worked out the figures to prove it to yourself, so please, prove it to me.

I don't have up to date figures in front of me now, but we could default on something between 30 to 50% of our total debt, which would significantly improve our position.

Sorry you've lost me, I had high hopes, but here you've dashed them, just another mountebank long on patter, short on facts and figures.

Why don't you come back when you've got a policy based on more than hot air and bluster?

dvpower

AVN_1 wrote: »

The opposite, since we joined the Euro Zone our growth first significantly slowed and then completely declined:


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78931512&postcount=41

Those figures show quite strong and consistant growth while we were in the EZ, right up to the crash.

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

Those figures show quite strong and consistant growth while we were in the EZ, right up to the crash.

A property bubble is considered growth ?