Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?
Options
Comments
-
-
Dark Passenger wrote: »Thanks for the info, I appreciate it. The referendum commision website states:
"The Commission strongly encourages you to vote"
I was just looking for info to aid my doing so.
If a Government minister called on people to obey the law would you phone them to report a crime or would you call the Gadaí?
The Department of the Environment is in charge of the practical aspects of polling, the Commission concerns itself with the content of the question asked, it has no mandate to deal with the practicalities.0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »If a Government minister called on people to obey the law would you phone them to report a crime or would you call the Gadaí?
The Department of the Environment is in charge of the practical aspects of polling, the Commission concerns itself with the content of the question asked, it has no mandate to deal with the practicalities.
yawn....true but the government would piss me off as much if they were as snotty about telling me as referendum telephonist.0 -
But we had control of fiscal policy...
Thats why I said it was our only defence!
Not really - they give you an idea of likely growth, but you can't just "include household debt". All it does is give you a nice big figure to wave at others (and yourself) scarily.
Oh it is completely relevant as it shows the taxpayers ability to repay the national debt. How can they pay it back if their money is tied up already?
The last thing Ireland needs now is more debt.
http://cormaclucey.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/vote-no-to-fiscal-compact.htmlin 2007, government gross spending equaled €52.7 billion. This year, after four years of austerity, gross government spending is budgeted to be €60.9 billion, a 15.5% increase on 2007
The money will only go down the drain while kicking the can down the road. Instead we need reform, face our problems not shy away from them. It is a political hot potato and that is why most of the parties are on board for a yes vote.oscarBravo wrote: »I guess this is true, in much the same way as a magnitude 9 earthquake will get rid of a shanty town more efficiently than an urban renewal program. If all you care about is the result, then the damage inflicted in the process is incidental.
You`ll always live in the shanty town then0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The money will only go down the drain while kicking the can down the road. Instead we need reform, face our problems not shy away from them. It is a political hot potato and that is why most of the parties are on board for a yes vote.
And all of the other parties are on board for a 'no' vote for what they claim are the opposite reasons to yours.
I don't think any party in the state advocates your position, that's just an observation by the way, not a judgement.0 -
Advertisement
-
The following are five reasons why I am voting no and some other matters for consideration:
Reason 1. The Treaty imposes requirements to run balanced general and structural budgets (subject to thresholds of 3% and 0.5% of GDP) forever more on contracting States. This is not good economics as Keynesian economists would argue that in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to run deficits; for example in times of contraction in order to allow for increased government spending to compensate for the reduced level of demand for goods and services within the economy. I appreciate that the terms apply to the "economic cycle" but I dont find that satisfactory; its not clearly defined.
Reason 2. If we do have a structural deficit which is in breach of the 0.5-1% threshold we will have to correct it. However we will have to correct it within a time frame which will be "proposed" by the European Commission. I dont see any protection for Ireland if a conflict of interest arose between time frames which were good for Ireland and times frames which were good for Europe.
Reason 3. The terms in the Treaty are permanent. This does not tally with the fact that any assistance which we may need from the ESM would be temporary in nature. Let’s say you meet your bank manager today to ask for a 5 year loan and in return he asked you to sign an agreement that you would never spend more than you earn on an annual basis ever again (even subject to the thresholds). Would you really agree to that? I wouldnt. I would expect that any term relating to a loan ought to "die" upon repayment of the loan.
Reason 4. The Treaty states in its preamble that access to the ESM is contingent upon ratification of the Treaty. I feel there has been a lack of real debate around around the potential risks of being party to the ESM. I see a risk in that I believe that the ESM is a fundamentally unsound fund; heavily indebted countries like Ireland are supporting a fund which is designed to support other heavily indebted countries. I believe that there is a risk that the fund could fail and we could lose our contributions.
Perhaps the fund will be backed by the ECB (Im not sure, but if it is, why not then change the treaties to allow the ECB back national economies instead)?
The amount which Ireland would be required to contribute to the ESM is €1 billion but that figure could rise to €10 billion.
Reason 5. There is no consensus within Europe that this is a good deal. The Treaty has not been signed by either the Czechs or the British. The markets do not believe that this is a solution to the current problems; neither the ISEQ, FTSE or S&P rallied after the agreement was reached.
The arguments on the “Yes” side primarily deal with the consequence of the referendum decision as opposed to the substance of it. If we were asked to ratify a law which would require us to, for example, ban mobile phones subject to the condition that we must ratify that law in order to have access to the ESM. Wouldn’t you agree that the a key focus of the debate ought to be on the merits and otherwise of mobile phone usage (ie the terms in the Treaty)? Would it be appropriate to just peddle slogans like "growth, certainty, jobs etc..." (which we think will be benefit of us having access to the ESM) without engaging in a serious discussion as to whether the terms of the Treaty are good for us.
The “Yes” side have stated that there is nothing new in this Treaty and that the terms of the Treaty exist in law already, however not all of the terms in the Treaty have been ratified by the People. The People have ratified only some of the terms in this Treaty; for example We ratified the terms relating to general government deficits in 1992 as part of the Maastricht Treaty. However this was done in a completely different economic context compared to today and the People are entitled to ask themselves if these rules are fit for purpose today. The People have never ratified the requirement to run a “structural balance” before.
In terms of future funding, the only door which is being shut by rejecting the Treaty is access to the ESM. However there is nothing in the rejection of this treaty which prevents our re-entry to bond markets in 2015. If we choose not to, or are unable to re-enter bond markets in 2015 there is nothing in the rejection of the Treaty which prevents any of the following: the IMF extending their portion of our current program, a syndicate of European countries lending to us, the issuance of “Euro bonds” or seeking bilateral loans with other nations.
0 -
You`ll always live in the shanty town thenI guess this is true, in much the same way as a magnitude 9 earthquake will get rid of a shanty town more efficiently than an urban renewal program. If all you care about is the result, then the damage inflicted in the process is incidental.
As opposed to the refugee camp...
sorry,
Scofflaw0 -
As opposed to the refugee camp...
sorry,
Scofflaw
That is just doomongering
http://cormaclucey.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/vote-no-to-fiscal-compact.htmlIceland’s strategy of speedy debt default and currency devaluation shows us that there is another, viable way. The OECD forecasts economic growth there of 2.4% this year, after 2.9% in 2011. Unemployment is forecast to fall from 7.0% last year to 6.1% this year. Critics may argue that such a strategy would be a disaster. Such frightening language is often heard from what Keynes described as “the clamorous voices of conventional finance” prior to large devaluations: Ireland (1993), Mexico (1994-1995), East Asia (1997-1998) and Argentina (2001-2002). But, viewed in retrospect, it is clear that these devaluations were acts of economic liberation which were followed by sustained economic progress rather than the officially predicted disaster.PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »And all of the other parties are on board for a 'no' vote for what they claim are the opposite reasons to yours.
I don't think any party in the state advocates your position, that's just an observation by the way, not a judgement.
Yeah I`m aware of that, but I know I`m not the only one with this view.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Yeah I`m aware of that, but I know I`m not the only one with this view.
I genuinely wonder that there's no party espousing this philosophy, I've seen it repeated a good few times, you would think if there are votes in it someone would say it. I wonder is it because all our 'fringe' parties are on the left?0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »I genuinely wonder that there's no party espousing this philosophy, I've seen it repeated a good few times, you would think if there are votes in it someone would say it. I wonder is it because all our 'fringe' parties are on the left?
No real economically right wing parties I suppose. RTE & TV3 invited mostly left wingers to the debates. RTE or TV3 never invited Shane Ross, Hobbs, McWilliams, Cormac Lucey, Paul Sommerville - its always the lefties0 -
Advertisement
-
Heads the ball wrote: »The following are five reasons why I am voting no and some other matters for consideration:
Reason 1. The Treaty imposes requirements to run balanced general and structural budgets (subject to thresholds of 3% and 0.5% of GDP) forever more on contracting States. This is not good economics as Keynesian economists would argue that in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to run deficits; for example in times of contraction in order to allow for increased government spending to compensate for the reduced level of demand for goods and services within the economy. I appreciate that the terms apply to the "economic cycle" but I dont find that satisfactory; its not clearly defined.
There is rather more elasticity than that in the Treaty - exceptions to the fiscal rules are made for exceptional circumstances, which include periods of low or negative growth as well as external shocks, as well as the balance rules being applied over more than a 1-year period.
Further, the idea of Keynesian economics is surely to run a surplus in the good years so that you can run a stimulus in the bad years, no? And if you're spending your surplus as a stimulus, it doesn't contribute to your deficit.Heads the ball wrote: »Reason 2. If we do have a structural deficit which is in breach of the 0.5-1% threshold we will have to correct it. However we will have to correct it within a time frame which will be "proposed" by the European Commission. I dont see any protection for Ireland if a conflict of interest arose between time frames which were good for Ireland and times frames which were good for Europe.
I think that mixes up the time frame for an excessive deficit correction with the time frame for a structural deficit correction. The latter is dealt with in Article 3(2) which sets up the correction mechanism obligation, and says:The Contracting Parties shall put in place at national level the correction mechanism mentioned in paragraph 1.e) on the basis of common principles to be proposed by the European Commission, concerning in particular the nature, the size and the time-frame of the corrective action to be undertaken, also in the case of exceptional circumstances, and the role and independence of the institutions responsible at national level for monitoring the observance of the rules.
That looks more like the time frame will be determined in the implementation of the structural correction mechanism, and while that will still be subject to the 'general principles' proposed by the Commission, my reading of your concern here is that the time frame is ad hoc, which it doesn't seem to be.Heads the ball wrote: »Reason 3. The terms in the Treaty are permanent. This does not tally with the fact that any assistance which we may need from the ESM would be temporary in nature. Let’s say you meet your bank manager today to ask for a 5 year loan and in return he asked you to sign an agreement that you would never spend more than you earn on an annual basis ever again (even subject to the thresholds). Would you really agree to that? I wouldnt. I would expect that any term relating to a loan ought to "die" upon repayment of the loan.
We've had the same terms in place for years, though - 20 years in the case of the 3% and 60% rules, and 7 years in the case of the structural rule, although the latter was much looser. It's more like being a member of a credit club in that sense (unsurprisingly).Heads the ball wrote: »Reason 4. The Treaty states in its preamble that access to the ESM is contingent upon ratification of the Treaty. I feel there has been a lack of real debate around around the potential risks of being party to the ESM. I see a risk in that I believe that the ESM is a fundamentally unsound fund; heavily indebted countries like Ireland are supporting a fund which is designed to support other heavily indebted countries. I believe that there is a risk that the fund could fail and we could lose our contributions.
There's obviously such a risk! The question is not whether it exists, but whether it's particularly large (and except in the case of Greece, I don't see many likely defaulters), and whether it's being taken into account, which it is, by margins, various over-capitalising mechanisms, and preferred creditor status.Heads the ball wrote: »Perhaps the fund will be backed by the ECB (Im not sure, but if it is, why not then change the treaties to allow the ECB back national economies instead)?
Because the ECB is backed by the national economies anyway.Heads the ball wrote: »The amount which Ireland would be required to contribute to the ESM is €1 billion but that figure could rise to €10 billion.
€1.27bn and €11.15bn respectively - smaller than our EFSF commitment was.Heads the ball wrote: »Reason 5. There is no consensus within Europe that this is a good deal. The Treaty has not been signed by either the Czechs or the British. The markets do not believe that this is a solution to the current problems; neither the ISEQ, FTSE or S&P rallied after the agreement was reached.
It's a small part of the overall package, though - just happens to be a bit we have a referendum on. As to the Czechs and the UK, their reasons are their reasons.Heads the ball wrote: »The arguments on the “Yes” side primarily deal with the consequence of the referendum decision as opposed to the substance of it. If we were asked to ratify a law which would require us to, for example, ban mobile phones subject to the condition that we must ratify that law in order to have access to the ESM. Wouldn’t you agree that the a key focus of the debate ought to be on the merits and otherwise of mobile phone usage (ie the terms in the Treaty)? Would it be appropriate to just peddle slogans like "growth, certainty, jobs etc..." (which we think will be benefit of us having access to the ESM) without engaging in a serious discussion as to whether the terms of the Treaty are good for us.
Hmm...you've previously claimed there's no public debate about ESM, now you're claiming the debate is all about ESM?
To be frank, the referendum would naturally tend to be dominated by the practical question because that's what's of most interest to people.Heads the ball wrote: »The “Yes” side have stated that there is nothing new in this Treaty and that the terms of the Treaty exist in law already, however not all of the terms in the Treaty have been ratified by the People. The People have ratified only some of the terms in this Treaty; for example We ratified the terms relating to general government deficits in 1992 as part of the Maastricht Treaty. However this was done in a completely different economic context compared to today and the People are entitled to ask themselves if these rules are fit for purpose today. The People have never ratified the requirement to run a “structural balance” before.
The government ratified the change to the Stability & Growth Pact in 2005, as far as I recall. Most people probably paid no attention whatsoever.Heads the ball wrote: »In terms of future funding, the only door which is being shut by rejecting the Treaty is access to the ESM. However there is nothing in the rejection of this treaty which prevents our re-entry to bond markets in 2015. If we choose not to, or are unable to re-enter bond markets in 2015 there is nothing in the rejection of the Treaty which prevents any of the following: the IMF extending their portion of our current program, a syndicate of European countries lending to us, the issuance of “Euro bonds” or seeking bilateral loans with other nations.
The IMF have already indicated they don't want to engage in further lending to rich countries, and won't engage in Europe without European involvement. The syndicate of European countries would be the same countries already shelling out for ESM and signing up to the Fiscal Treaty, and we could expect rather tighter terms from them. Eurobonds the Germans have made clear will definitely not happen without people signing up to the Fiscal Treaty.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »I genuinely wonder that there's no party espousing this philosophy, I've seen it repeated a good few times, you would think if there are votes in it someone would say it. I wonder is it because all our 'fringe' parties are on the left?
The problem with it is that you have to close your eyes very hard to the effects of such a policy, and think only about the utopia on the other side. One at least knows the majority of the left aren't really serious.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Thank you - just some more points to consider (and Im hoping this QUOTE business works)There is rather more elasticity than that in the Treaty - exceptions to the fiscal rules are made for exceptional circumstances, which include periods of low or negative growth as well as external shocks, as well as the balance rules being applied over more than a 1-year period.
Further, the idea of Keynesian economics is surely to run a surplus in the good years so that you can run a stimulus in the bad years, no? And if you're spending your surplus as a stimulus, it doesn't contribute to your deficit.
My point is that we should be free to run a deficit if in our opinion it is warranted for whatever reason we decide.I think that mixes up the time frame for an excessive deficit correction with the time frame for a structural deficit correction. The latter is dealt with in Article 3(2) which sets up the correction mechanism obligation, and says:
That looks more like the time frame will be determined in the implementation of the structural correction mechanism, and while that will still be subject to the 'general principles' proposed by the Commission, my reading of your concern here is that the time frame is ad hoc, which it doesn't seem to be.
Thank you. Also Article 3.1.b states that the convergance is to be done on a timeframe proposed by the EC.
I am not concerned that it is ad hoc per se, I am concerned that the Treaty appears to give the power to the EC to "propose" the timescale and I am concerned about potential future conflicts of interest.There's obviously such a risk! The question is not whether it exists, but whether it's particularly large (and except in the case of Greece, I don't see many likely defaulters), and whether it's being taken into account, which it is, by margins, various over-capitalising mechanisms, and preferred creditor status.
Because the ECB is backed by the national economies anyway.
Can I ask does anyone know if the ESM (which I understand is still to be actually set up) will be backed by the ECB? That would give me some assurance that the risk of losing our contributions would be reduced.Hmm...you've previously claimed there's no public debate about ESM, now you're claiming the debate is all about ESM?
I dont recall a good TV or radio debate where the yes side have actually gone through the terms of the Treaty, rather they have spent most of their time speaking of "growth, stability etc" which is what they believe will result from a ratification of the Treaty.
What I actually said was there was very little debate about the risk of us losing our contribution to the ESM. I also stand by what i said about the yes side peddling slogans that they associate with the benefits of the ESM. Sorry to be pedantic on this, but I dont believe they are inconsistent statements.The government ratified the change to the Stability & Growth Pact in 2005, as far as I recall. Most people probably paid no attention whatsoever.
I accept that, but my point was that not all these terms have been put to the People* (ie by referendum). So its not ipso facto that the people should accept the Terms if they dont believe they are good for Ireland. The macro economics in 2005 were vastly different to today. My net point is, Yes, these rules do exist, but we have never ratified them as a people and we ought to be able to consider them afresh now, unaffected by the fact that they have already been signed up to by the Government of the day.
* and Im not suggesting that we should run a society where every decision the government takes is subject to a referendum0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »My point is that we should be free to run a deficit if in our opinion it is warranted for whatever reason we decide.
The other side of that coin is that you have to confer a similar freedom to all other governments that use our currency.
Do you really believe it's a good idea to put absolutely no limits on government borrowing across the entire eurozone, when our currency and their currency are the same? When any possible default for them would destabilize our currency? No controls whatsoever?0 -
The question is not whether it exists, but whether it's particularly large (and except in the case of Greece, I don't see many likely defaulters), and whether it's being taken into account, which it is, by margins, various over-capitalising mechanisms, and preferred creditor status.
I dont agree with that. Spain, Italy, Portugal... Any other country which may run into trouble.
Either way, thats fine if you believe that Greece is the only defaulter, but again my point is that I am dissappointed that the Government (or the other Yes side parties, or in fact, the media) have not explained the risks to us. Listening to government ministers would suggest the the ESM is the golden egg!
Im just thinking to myself: Hold on, does this make sense; we are borrowing to pay this fund to maybe bail us out in the future...0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »I accept that, but my point was that not all these terms have been put to the People* (ie by referendum). So its not ipso facto that the people should accept the Terms if they dont believe they are good for Ireland. The macro economics in 2005 were vastly different to today. My net point is, Yes, these rules do exist, but we have never ratified them as a people and we ought to be able to consider them afresh now, unaffected by the fact that they have already been signed up to by the Government of the day.
* and Im not suggesting that we should run a society where every decision the government takes is subject to a referendum
But they're already binding on us. So whether we pass or reject this referendum, those rules already bind us and absent being prepared to leave the EU there is no way for us to stop them binding us.
It doesn't matter whether you personally think that the people should have been consulted, there was no legal requirement to consult us, so we weren't consulted.
Should we consider and vote on giving women a vote since that wasn't something we ever voted on by referendum?0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »The other side of that coin is that you have to confer a similar freedom to all other governments that use our currency.
Do you really believe it's a good idea to put absolutely no limits on government borrowing across the entire eurozone, when our currency and their currency are the same? When any possible default for them would destabilize our currency? No controls whatsoever?
I prefer to see the argument this way.
Prior to lending to a country (or buying their bonds), do your homework.
If you have concerns then either seek a (i) premium on the interest rate or (ii) insert covenants into the loan but please... the covenants should die when the loan is paid back or (iii) dont lend to them0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »But they're already binding on us. So whether we pass or reject this referendum, those rules already bind us and absent being prepared to leave the EU there is no way for us to stop them binding us.
It doesn't matter whether you personally think that the people should have been consulted, there was no legal requirement to consult us, so we weren't consulted.
Should we consider and vote on giving women a vote since that wasn't something we ever voted on by referendum?
Hi
My opinion is:
Yes the government of the day have signed up to these terms. But now a new instrument (the Treaty) is being put to the people and we are being asked to ratify it. I believe I am entitled to look at this instrument and make a decision on whether I agree with these terms or not and I should be able to do that in a context which is free from the statement that "these terms have been agreed to already by the government in a different instrument so just ratify this new instrument"0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Hi
My opinion is:
Yes the government of the day have signed up to these terms. But now a new instrument (the Treaty) is being put to the people and we are being asked to ratify it. I believe I am entitled to look at this instrument and make a decision on whether I agree with these terms or not and I should be able to do that in a context which is free from the statement that "these terms have been agreed to already by the government in a different instrument so just ratify this new instrument"
+1
Just because your government approves of something doesn't mean you have to.
The referendum is a free vote. Talk about 'Europe moving on without us' or 'There's no point in voting no as it will be passed nationally/internationally anyway' are irrelevant or baseless.
The treaty should be approved or rejected by the people entirely on its own merits; not on some BS about investment or austerity.0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »My point is that we should be free to run a deficit if in our opinion it is warranted for whatever reason we decide.
Unfortunately that can easily end up going bad for us, and a a result going bad for the EU. I think certain European countries have shown a complete disregard for both facts so to protect the Member States individually and the EU as a whole this really is required. Some of us aren't grown up enough to handle the responsibility.Heads the ball wrote: »Thank you. Also Article 3.1.b states that the convergance is to be done on a timeframe proposed by the EC.
I am not concerned that it is ad hoc per se, I am concerned that the Treaty appears to give the power to the EC to "propose" the timescale and I am concerned about potential future conflicts of interest.
They propose it, but the Member States (contracted parties...whatever) decide it:Article3.1.b wrote:The Contracting Parties shall ensure rapid convergence towards their respective medium-term objective. The time-frame for such convergence will be proposed by the European Commission taking into consideration country-specific sustainability risks.Heads the ball wrote: »Can I ask does anyone know if the ESM (which I understand is still to be actually set up) will be backed by the ECB? That would give me some assurance that the risk of losing our contributions would be reduced.
Not as far as I'm aware. From what I can gather (and I'm no expert) it acts as a separate entity. That whole piece is covered in Chapter 5, but from what I can see it invests some of the funds (the dividends can be paid back to the Member States) and holds a reserve fund to cover any losses. Any further losses are covered b the Member States.
All Member States will review the P&L for the ESM on a quarterly basis so it should never happen that the Member States would need to bail out the fund itself. That would be incompetence on a huge level, i.e. by the ESM itself and each Government that are a member of the ESM (20+).Heads the ball wrote: »I dont recall a good TV or radio debate where the yes side have actually gone through the terms of the Treaty, rather they have spent most of their time speaking of "growth, stability etc" which is what they believe will result from a ratification of the Treaty.
You won't get good radio or TV debate on this. With fiction being so widely passed off as truth and detailed discussion being so dull it's become all about the short and snappy catch phrase.Heads the ball wrote: »I accept that, but my point was that not all these terms have been put to the People* (ie by referendum). So its not ipso facto that the people should accept the Terms if they dont believe they are good for Ireland. The macro economics in 2005 were vastly different to today. My net point is, Yes, these rules do exist, but we have never ratified them as a people and we ought to be able to consider them afresh now, unaffected by the fact that they have already been signed up to by the Government of the day.
* and Im not suggesting that we should run a society where every decision the government takes is subject to a referendum
So are you suggesting that decisions should be made but potentially later overturned by referendum? Wouldn't we be better off just referring everything to public decision then? While I get your point, it's sadly not a realistic one. People should accept these decisions because they are the reality of the situation. Just like an Irish Nationalist in the North must accept that there are Unionists there. It's done, it's the reality of the situation we find ourselves in and we just need to get on with it. We can't look back at decisions after the fact and change our minds. If we could I'd be giving up my mortgage because I never signed on for negative equity....0 -
Advertisement
-
Heads the ball wrote: »I prefer to see the argument this way.
Prior to lending to a country (or buying their bonds), do your homework.
If you have concerns then either seek a (i) premium on the interest rate or (ii) insert covenants into the loan but please... the covenants should die when the loan is paid back or (iii) dont lend to them
So a new country, which has just joined the Eurozone, let's call it Higginstopia can borrow and borrow and borrow, go bust, default, and it won't affect us at all, in your opinion?0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Thank you - just some more points to consider (and Im hoping this QUOTE business works)
My point is that we should be free to run a deficit if in our opinion it is warranted for whatever reason we decide.
But that's unchanged by the Treaty.Heads the ball wrote: »Thank you. Also Article 3.1.b states that the convergance is to be done on a timeframe proposed by the EC.
Point.I am not concerned that it is ad hoc per se, I am concerned that the Treaty appears to give the power to the EC to "propose" the timescale and I am concerned about potential future conflicts of interest.
What conflicts of interest would there be, though?Can I ask does anyone know if the ESM (which I understand is still to be actually set up) will be backed by the ECB? That would give me some assurance that the risk of losing our contributions would be reduced.
It's not, as far as I know, but in the event of a total loss of the fund, I can't see the ECB not being given the order to run the printing presses. Defaults worth €700bn across the eurozone are something of a game-changer.I dont recall a good TV or radio debate where the yes side have actually gone through the terms of the Treaty, rather they have spent most of their time speaking of "growth, stability etc" which is what they believe will result from a ratification of the Treaty.
There I can''t help you - I neither watch TV nor feel much sympathy for the official Yes campaigns.What I actually said was there was very little debate about the risk of us losing our contribution to the ESM. I also stand by what i said about the yes side peddling slogans that they associate with the benefits of the ESM. Sorry to be pedantic on this, but I dont believe they are inconsistent statements.
No, you're right, and I took you up wrong. I don't think the risks of losing the whole €11bn are calculable in any meaningful way, though - you have to speculate your way through the question of whether Spain and Italy need bailouts (the general feeling is yes for Spain, no for Italy), what size those bailouts will be, their likely chances of defaulting, the extent of that default, and the duration of that default.
By the time you've multiplied all the uncertainties involved, you've got something which has a range of error of several orders of magnitude.I accept that, but my point was that not all these terms have been put to the People* (ie by referendum). So its not ipso facto that the people should accept the Terms if they dont believe they are good for Ireland. The macro economics in 2005 were vastly different to today. My net point is, Yes, these rules do exist, but we have never ratified them as a people and we ought to be able to consider them afresh now, unaffected by the fact that they have already been signed up to by the Government of the day.
* and Im not suggesting that we should run a society where every decision the government takes is subject to a referendum
No, I knew (and I accept) what you were saying, but the point about government ratification is that the people are not getting to decide right now whether these rules are applicable, because they will remain applicable whether the Treaty goes into force or not.
While one can make the argument that rejection of the Treaty might indicate a more general rejection of the fiscal rules, one cannot really say that it's the case, because that choice isn't actually there, and one can only really use the outcome of a referendum as a guide to what was actually voted on.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Unfortunately that can easily end up going bad for us, and a a result going bad for the EU. I think certain European countries have shown a complete disregard for both facts so to protect the Member States individually and the EU as a whole this really is required. Some of us aren't grown up enough to handle the responsibility.
They propose it, but the Member States (contracted parties...whatever) decide it:
Not as far as I'm aware. From what I can gather (and I'm no expert) it acts as a separate entity. That whole piece is covered in Chapter 5, but from what I can see it invests some of the funds (the dividends can be paid back to the Member States) and holds a reserve fund to cover any losses. Any further losses are covered b the Member States.
All Member States will review the P&L for the ESM on a quarterly basis so it should never happen that the Member States would need to bail out the fund itself. That would be incompetence on a huge level, i.e. by the ESM itself and each Government that are a member of the ESM (20+).
You won't get good radio or TV debate on this. With fiction being so widely passed off as truth and detailed discussion being so dull it's become all about the short and snappy catch phrase.
So are you suggesting that decisions should be made but potentially later overturned by referendum? Wouldn't we be better off just referring everything to public decision then? While I get your point, it's sadly not a realistic one. People should accept these decisions because they are the reality of the situation. Just like an Irish Nationalist in the North must accept that there are Unionists there. It's done, it's the reality of the situation we find ourselves in and we just need to get on with it. We can't look back at decisions after the fact and change our minds. If we could I'd be giving up my mortgage because I never signed on for negative equity....
Hi,
Basically I look at it like this:
Instrument A is signed by the government in 2005 and contains Term X. The Government is not required to seek the approval of the people.
Instrument B is required to be ratified by the People. Instrument B contains numerous terms including Term X. Voters may or may not find Term X objectionable.
Dont I have a duty to vote No if I find Term X objectionable. Otherwise I feel I am compounding and perpetuating something that I disagree with.
And I feel that the Government is doing a real disservice by telling us to ratify B in light of A.0 -
I'll confess that I'm living in UK so can't vote, but a question to those more informed than myself.
Am I correct that the language of the treaty
(i) sets in law, strict set paramters to which national budgets must comply
(ii) that in certain exceptional circumstances governments can run outside the paramters for a certain period of time
(iii) if they exceed the paramters while not qualifying for exceptional circumstances, then corrective measures will be applied.
If that is correct, have the details around points (ii) and (iii) been defined? What are the exceptional circumstances? What is the period of time? Who makes that decision? What is the corrective measure exactly??
If they have not been defined, then I would be voting no, purely because no-one has explained to me exactly what it is I am voting for.
Possibly a poor analogy, but isn't it akin to asking for a sign off on "if someone commits the crime of armed robbery, we will punish them" while admitting that we don't know yet if the punishment will be ten years in prison or death by firing squad.."0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Hi
My opinion is:
Yes the government of the day have signed up to these terms. But now a new instrument (the Treaty) is being put to the people and we are being asked to ratify it. I believe I am entitled to look at this instrument and make a decision on whether I agree with these terms or not and I should be able to do that in a context which is free from the statement that "these terms have been agreed to already by the government in a different instrument so just ratify this new instrument"
But you cannot make an informed decision if you don't know what the treaty is actually changing. Since you cannot, by voting yes or no, impact in any way on those rules that are already in the six-pack, you are only really voting on those rules that are not.
If you want to understand this you have to read not only the treaty, but also the existing binding rules, which I would encourage you to do.
But you cannot simply pretend that the rules which bind us do not, nor can you pretend that voting against a referendum because of elements of the law not being changed is in any way meaningful.
The only elements being changed are the enforcement elements, not the numbers (not entirely true, one number is in fact being relaxed a tiny bit).0 -
I'll confess that I'm living in UK so can't vote, but a question to those more informed than myself.
Am I correct that the language of the treaty
(i) sets in law, strict set paramters to which national budgets must comply
(ii) that in certain exceptional circumstances governments can run outside the paramters for a certain period of time
(iii) if they exceed the paramters while not qualifying for exceptional circumstances, then corrective measures will be applied.
If that is correct, have the details around points (ii) and (iii) been defined? What are the exceptional circumstances? What is the period of time? Who makes that decision? What is the corrective measure exactly??
If they have not been defined, then I would be voting no, purely because no-one has explained to me exactly what it is I am voting for.
Possibly a poor analogy, but isn't it akin to asking for a sign off on "if someone commits the crime of armed robbery, we will punish them" while admitting that we don't know yet if the punishment will be ten years in prison or death by firing squad.."
Most of the details are in this fun little document:Specifications on the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact
and
Guidelines on the format and content of Stability and Convergence Programmes
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/pdf/coc/2012-01-24.pdf
It's just as much fun as it sounds, because it's pretty detailed.
Bear in mind that the Fiscal Treaty is more or less an update to the Stability & Growth Pact, and much of what it references in terms of detail has been thrashed out and decided on already.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »So a new country, which has just joined the Eurozone, let's call it Higginstopia can borrow and borrow and borrow, go bust, default, and it won't affect us at all, in your opinion?
Hi Pope
The common sense argument is that Higginstopia ought to behave responsibly, but ultimately Higginstopia should not be binded in a way that does not allow it to manage its own economy as it sees fit. Let me give you the micro-economic analogy
Lets say we live in country X. If some people in country X borrow and borrow and borrow and go bust it affects the wider population of X. Should the wider population of X have the power to deny individuals the right to manage their own affairs?
Surely the appropriate approach with country X is for lenders to selectively lend to financially responsible people in X. Isnt that a more just approach? And isnt that more consistent with the notions of automony, freedom, human rights and modern democracy?
If you now replace:
Country X represents the EU
The irresponsible borrowers in X represent Higginstopia and other countries
All the other people in Country X represent other nations in the EU0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »But you cannot make an informed decision if you don't know what the treaty is actually changing. Since you cannot, by voting yes or no, impact in any way on those rules that are already in the six-pack, you are only really voting on those rules that are not.
If you want to understand this you have to read not only the treaty, but also the existing binding rules, which I would encourage you to do.
But you cannot simply pretend that the rules which bind us do not, nor can you pretend that voting against a referendum because of elements of the law not being changed is in any way meaningful.
The only elements being changed are the enforcement elements, not the numbers (not entirely true, one number is in fact being relaxed a tiny bit).
Sir - I have read the Treaty and I understand the terms to the best of my ability and I disagree with them (for reasons 1 - 5 set out earlier) and that is the substantive reason why I am voting No.
I am making my own mind up as I feel I would be shirking my duty if I simply said: some of these terms have already been signed up to
Beef, I think we actually understand each other's points: yours is, broadly, these terms are substantially the same as other, already binding terms, therefore you are voting yes (although you didnt say that last part). Mine is as described above.
Can I ask you, would you agree that while my point is not in your opinion a substantive reason to vote No, is my point a valid reason to ask the Government to not advance this ("most of the terms are already binding") as a substantive reason to vote yes?0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Hi Pope
The common sense argument is that Higginstopia ought to behave responsibly, but ultimately Higginstopia should not be binded in a way that does not allow it to manage its own economy as it sees fit. Let me give you the micro-economic analogy
Lets say we live in country X. If some people in country X borrow and borrow and borrow and go bust it affects the wider population of X. Should the wider population of X have the power to deny individuals the right to manage their own affairs?
Surely the appropriate approach with country X is for lenders to selectively lend to financially responsible people in X. Isnt that a more just approach? And isnt that more consistent with the notions of automony, freedom, human rights and modern democracy?
If you now replace:
Country X represents the EU
The irresponsible borrowers in X represent Higginstopia and other countries
All the other people in Country X represent other nations in the EU
The problem is your market solution has failed, time and again, at the national, and international level.
The 'individual' analogy somewhat fails because the population is many orders of magnitude smaller than an individual against a country, it's 1 country in perhaps 10 or 20, and the effects are a lot more marked on the other countries.
I take your point about leaving it to the market, but unfortunately the markets have so far failed to provide a solution.0 -
Advertisement
-
Heads the ball wrote: »Hi,
Basically I look at it like this:
Instrument A is signed by the government in 2005 and contains Term X. The Government is not required to seek the approval of the people.
Instrument B is required to be ratified by the People. Instrument B contains numerous terms including Term X. Voters may or may not find Term X objectionable.
Dont I have a duty to vote No if I find Term X objectionable. Otherwise I feel I am compounding and perpetuating something that I disagree with.
And I feel that the Government is doing a real disservice by telling us to ratify B in light of A.
But voting based on an issue with Term X is a futile and pointless exercise. It's already in place regardless of what the referendum outcome would be. You'll still find Term X objectionable, it will still be there and so voting No on that basis (and on solely that basis) will have achieved absolutely nothing.I'll confess that I'm living in UK so can't vote, but a question to those more informed than myself.
Am I correct that the language of the treaty
(i) sets in law, strict set paramters to which national budgets must comply
(ii) that in certain exceptional circumstances governments can run outside the paramters for a certain period of time
(iii) if they exceed the paramters while not qualifying for exceptional circumstances, then corrective measures will be applied.
If that is correct, have the details around points (ii) and (iii) been defined? What are the exceptional circumstances? What is the period of time? Who makes that decision? What is the corrective measure exactly??
If they have not been defined, then I would be voting no, purely because no-one has explained to me exactly what it is I am voting for.
Possibly a poor analogy, but isn't it akin to asking for a sign off on "if someone commits the crime of armed robbery, we will punish them" while admitting that we don't know yet if the punishment will be ten years in prison or death by firing squad.."
My understanding is that, in short, it will be down to the countries themselves to decide on the solution (the Commission can make proposals but the countries jointly decide). So a lot will obviously depend on the details of the exceptional circumstance or the degree of the deficit. Each case could be vastly different and so putting set rules in place probably doesn't make much sense.Heads the ball wrote: »Hi Pope
The common sense argument is that Higginstopia ought to behave responsibly, but ultimately Higginstopia should not be binded in a way that does not allow it to manage its own economy as it sees fit. Let me give you the micro-economic analogy
Lets say we live in country X. If some people in country X borrow and borrow and borrow and go bust it affects the wider population of X. Should the wider population of X have the power to deny individuals the right to manage their own affairs?
Surely the appropriate approach with country X is for lenders to selectively lend to financially responsible people in X. Isnt that a more just approach? And isnt that more consistent with the notions of automony, freedom, human rights and modern democracy?
If you now replace:
Country X represents the EU
The irresponsible borrowers in X represent Higginstopia and other countries
All the other people in Country X represent other nations in the EU
So you want the ECB to refuse money to the country but not meddle in their right to manage their own affairs? How is that any different? In fact isn't that worse? How do you determine "responsible" in the short term? Where do you draw the line when it comes to the lending? Do you base it on forecasts and plans that could be wrong or vary wildly over a period of time?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement