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
-
Most of the details are in this fun little document:
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,
Scofflaw
OK, just read page 8 and 9 which appears to deal with my questions and to randomly select one bit it says
iii)if the breach of the benchmark cannot beattributed to the influence of the cycle, to bebe published by the Commission.
assessed according to a common methodology to
Which I take to mean, that the rules under which a country can run outside the parameters are not defined yet. So unless it is in another published document that is at least one of my questions unanswered so my vote would still be no, until this issue was clarified.
0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »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?
Not that in isolation. That + improved enforcement procedures + requirement that we commit to a domestic law procedure for reducing structural deficits (which could have caught our bubble) + certainty of ESM access + distinguishing ourselves from Greece where the electorate seem determined to vote for the impossible.
One of the reasons we are seen as a good place to invest is that we are perceived as a stable society, and a responsible people.
Voting No for uncertainty and fairy tales (not you but that's the average No voter on these boards who doesn't seem to want to engage or go back to source materials, they just want to vote "No to austerity") sends out entirely the wrong message to companies we want and need to invest here (hence the business lobbies all calling for a Yes vote).0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »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.
What has caused the failure is the fact that (in no particular order):
1: Lenders have failed to lend prudently
2: People borrowed irresponsibly, and
3: Other reasons (such as poor regulation; but lets treat them as moot for our argument as its not really addressed in the Treaty)
My point is its not right to encroach on personal freedoms to address point 2.
Let lenders lend prudently.0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Let lenders lend prudently.
My point is where they don't, as a group there's nothing wrong with deciding, together, to be prudent borrowers.0 -
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.
As you have posted the above example, it must convey your understanding of the Treaty. I will therefore attempt to correct it and maybe you will then be able to make up your mind (changes in bold).
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 improving the enforcement of Term X but not changing including Term X except, arguably to make it less stringent. Voters may or may not find are not being asked whether Term X is objectionable
Dont I have a duty to vote No if I find the enforcement of Term X objectionable. Otherwise if I vote no just because I don't like Term X, I am behaving irrationally. I feel I am compounding and perpetuating something that I disagree with.
And I feel that the Government is doing a real disservice pursuing a consistent and honest approach by telling us to ratify B in light of the fact that they accepted A0 -
Advertisement
-
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?
Yes.
It doesnt assault a personal rights. Simply not lending to someone is just being prudent.
You DO have a right to manage your own affairs.
You DO NOT have a right to have others lend to you.0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »My point is where they don't, as a group there's nothing wrong with deciding, together, to be prudent borrowers.
I can see some merit in your argument, but (in my opinion) not at the (perpetual) cost of certain basic freedoms0 -
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.
Ok, but I just had a quick scan of the article Sofflaw kindly linked and it appears that the exceptional circumstances and what qualifies are to be defined later, so I don't think it is unreasonable to say "no" simply because it has not been stated clearly exactly on what you are being asked to vote on. As I said though, in my case a moot point, since I live in England and cannot vote anyway.0 -
OK, just read page 8 and 9 which appears to deal with my questions and to randomly select one bit it says
iii)if the breach of the benchmark cannot beattributed to the influence of the cycle, to bebe published by the Commission.
assessed according to a common methodology to
Which I take to mean, that the rules under which a country can run outside the parameters are not defined yet. So unless it is in another published document that is at least one of my questions unanswered so my vote would still be no, until this issue was clarified.
It's in rafts of published documents, since it's a work in progress. There are endless comparisons of the Commission's methods for calculating cyclical components versus the IMF's methods, and there have been multiple updates:
https://www.google.ie/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&biw=1429&bih=695&q=commission+methodology+cyclically+adjusted+balance&oq=commission+methodology+cyclically+adjusted+balance&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...131111.137380.0.137535.14.14.0.0.0.0.339.1756.5j5j2j1.13.0...0.0.4hGAEqhhQP8
Citations:European Commission (1982) European Economy No. 14, Bruxelles.
European Commission (1995) Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, European Economy
No. 60, Bruxelles.
European Commission (2000) Public Finances in EMU – 2000, European Economy No.
3, Bruxelles.
European Commission (2002) Public Finances in EMU – 2002, European Economy No.
3, Bruxelles.
European Commission (2003) Public Finances in EMU – 2003, European Economy No.
3, Bruxelles.
European Commission (2004) Public Finances in EMU – 2004, European Economy No.
3, Bruxelles.
European Commission (2006) Public Finances in EMU – 2006, European Economy No.
3, Bruxelles.
European Commission (2008) Public Finances in EMU – 2008, European Economy No.
3, Bruxelles.
I appreciate you'd like to see just one definitive paper, so I'll keep digging - but the Cyclically Adjusted Balance (CAB) is a major item in Commission fiscal policy. This article covers it (and its history): http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication14644_en.pdf
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »I can see some merit in your argument, but (in my opinion) not at the (perpetual) cost of certain basic freedoms
That argument, though, really relies on the rules being an external imposition, rather than a joint agreement as they actually are. As I said, it's more like being a member of a credit club.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
As you have posted the above example, it must convey your understanding of the Treaty. I will therefore attempt to correct it and maybe you will then be able to make up your mind (changes in bold).
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 improving the enforcement of Term X but not changing including Term X except, arguably to make it less stringent. Voters may or may not find are not being asked whether Term X is objectionable
Dont I have a duty to vote No if I find the enforcement of Term X objectionable. Otherwise if I vote no just because I don't like Term X, I am behaving irrationally. I feel I am compounding and perpetuating something that I disagree with.
And I feel that the Government is doing a real disservice pursuing a consistent and honest approach by telling us to ratify B in light of the fact that they accepted A
Hi
Im afraid I disagree with your analysis because I find that many of the terms in the Treary are not merely dealing with the enforcement they re-iterate the substantive terms (for example Article 3 reiterates rules on i general deficits, ii structural deficts and iii the debt ratio) so for that reason I disagree with your changes.
Therefore, given that many terms reiterate the original rules to which we are bound, a Yes vote, effectively endorsed those terms further.
However, lets say the Treaty only dealt with enforcement; surely if I disagreed with the original term in the original instrument; it is still rational for me to disagree with signing us up for enforcement of such terms.0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »distinguishing ourselves from Greece where the electorate seem determined to vote for the impossible.
One of the reasons we are seen as a good place to invest is that we are perceived as a stable society, and a responsible people.
Dear me!
You can have 'democracy' as long as you vote the way we want you to vote, as long as you do what we say, that's what you are really saying, isn't it?
'a responsible people'? What patronising tosh. Would that our previous govenors had been 'responsible', or a half dozen senior bankers or our Sean Quinn's!0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Hi
Im afraid I disagree with your analysis because I find that many of the terms in the Treary are not merely dealing with the enforcement they re-iterate the substantive terms (for example Article 3 reiterates rules on i general deficits, ii structural deficts and iii the debt ratio) so for that reason I disagree with your changes.
Therefore, given that many terms reiterate the original rules to which we are bound, a Yes vote, effectively endorsed those terms further.
However, lets say the Treaty only dealt with enforcement; surely if I disagreed with the original term in the original instrument; it is still rational for me to disagree with signing us up for enforcement of such terms.
I would think that if you objected to the structural balance rule being used, you'd certainly vote against the Treaty, because the obligation to create a national enforcement mechanism is definitely new, and would enforce a rule you object to.
The others I don't think you could really object to on the basis of the enforcement change, although I'd accept your basis for a vote on the principle of objection to endorsement of the rules generally.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »Dear me!
You can have 'democracy' as long as you vote the way we want you to vote, as long as you do what we say, that's what you are really saying, isn't it?
Her statement was no different to decrying those who continually voted for Fianna Fail to be honest, I can't imagine you getting too riled up over that.0 -
The others I don't think you could really object to on the basis of the enforcement change, although I'd accept your basis for a vote on the principle of objection to endorsement of the rules generally.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Scoff
I disagree with the structural deficit rules, but I also disagree with the general balance and gdp ratio rules therefore I am DAMN opposed to their enforcement!
Isnt that still fair enough?0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »Dear me!
You can have 'democracy' as long as you vote the way we want you to vote, as long as you do what we say, that's what you are really saying, isn't it?
I'm saying that you cannot vote and pretend that such a vote has no consequences.
Businesses have an obligation to minimise risks for their shareholders, and maximise profits. That's a cold hard fact whether you like it or not.
If a people democraticlly vote in a manner which increases perceived risks for businesses, that is their right. But having exercised that right they then have to accept the risk that businesses will be less likely to invest.
But I forgot the first rule of referendums in Ireland - stating that actions have consequences constitutes "scaremongering" by the yes side.0 -
What conflicts of interest would there be, though?
Let me put it this way, are the interests of Ireland always alligned with the interests of the wider Eurpoean entity? (Think hard now... Simon Coveny said this week on matt cooper and last night on vincent browne that the government WANTED to impose burdensharing on certain bondholders in certain banks but the ECB disallowed it)
Granted, this was not the EC, nor was it a matter with national budgets, but it does highlight the fact that Europe is not a utopian allignement of all its members' interests and conflicts CAN arise...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.
Do you want to bet 10 billion on it? If the Eurozone broke up, would the ECB still have a mandate? Even if it did, would it run the printing presses in that event (what would it be saving?)
Does anyone have a mandate to give the ECB an order? I know one of the instiutions does have certain powers in an emergency but Im not certain anyone can "order" the ECB
Would you agree with me that the ESM may not be a golden goose for Ireland (or at a minimum the Government/Referendum Commission/Media have done a massive disservice in not discussing the risks with us)0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Let me put it this way, are the interests of Ireland always alligned with the interests of the wider Eurpoean entity? (Think hard now... Simon Coveny said this week on matt cooper and last night on vincent browne that the government WANTED to impose burdensharing on certain bondholders in certain banks but the ECB disallowed it)
Granted, this was not the EC, nor was it a matter with national budgets, but it does highlight the fact that Europe is not a utopian allignement of all its members' interests and conflicts CAN arise...
It hardly could be! But I was interested in particular in how a conflict of interest might arise over the time frame for a resolution of an Irish deficit, which I had a hard time with. The existence in general of conflicts of interest in Europe both goes without saying and also hardly shows how one comes to this particular conflict.Heads the ball wrote: »Do you want to bet 10 billion on it? If the Eurozone broke up, would the ECB still have a mandate? Even if it did, would it run the printing presses in that event (what would it be saving?)
Yes, I personally think the risks are sufficiently low, particularly when you look at €10bn as a proportion of Irish government income over the period in question, but...Heads the ball wrote: »Would you agree with me that the ESM may not be a golden goose for Ireland (or at a minimum the Government/Referendum Commission/Media have done a massive disservice in not discussing the risks with us)
...no, as I said, I think the risk calculation is frankly about as solid as the Drake Equation, and it would have served to muddy the waters a lot without anyone coming out of such a debate the wiser. Much of the No side have in fact treated the €11bn as simply a cost, without any suggestion it would ordinarily be recoverable, so my hopes of honesty in that debate would be very low.
And, by all accounts, people are aware these days that there are risks even in lending to sovereigns.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »I'm saying that you cannot vote and pretend that such a vote has no consequences.
Who is saying that a No vote has no consequence?
Have you been in the country lately, have you seen the amount of businesses that have gone to the wall because of the money that has been taken out of the economy?
The people who are saying NO are trying to stem that flow, they are looking at the issues around ratifying this treaty, not just at the treaty itself. You and Enda are just fiddling while Rome burns tbh. But more than that, you are not even looking for the number of the fire brigade.0 -
Heads the ball wrote: »Scoff
I disagree with the structural deficit rules, but I also disagree with the general balance and gdp ratio rules therefore I am DAMN opposed to their enforcement!
Isnt that still fair enough?
Sure - it's just that those rules aren't changing from non-enforcement to enforcement, so I would have said the argument was much weaker there.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Heads the ball wrote: »Yes.
It doesnt assault a personal rights. Simply not lending to someone is just being prudent.
You DO have a right to manage your own affairs.
You DO NOT have a right to have others lend to you.
But to "manage your own affairs" into the deficit position we're talking about would require that someone lends you the money. You don't want the EU "meddling" in a Member States deficit, instead you want banks to simply deny them the money to get there. But how can you tell if a country will or will not "get there" with absolute accuracy? And by creating that dependency on the lender are you not removing their ability to "manage their own affairs"?
The ECB lends to the banks and the banks lend to the countries. What you promote is the idea that the banks and the ECB should be wholly responsible and the countries themselves not. And if the ECB and banks are not the countries should be allowed to run riot. All parties need to step up and be responsible, not just some of them.Ok, but I just had a quick scan of the article Sofflaw kindly linked and it appears that the exceptional circumstances and what qualifies are to be defined later, so I don't think it is unreasonable to say "no" simply because it has not been stated clearly exactly on what you are being asked to vote on. As I said though, in my case a moot point, since I live in England and cannot vote anyway.
I would imagine exceptional circumstances are a bit of a moveable goal-post though. What could f-up the Irish economy now may not have the same impact in 20 years.Happyman42 wrote: »Would that our previous govenors had been 'responsible', or a half dozen senior bankers or our Sean Quinn's!
Or the electorate that voted in Bertie and co while he was being investigated for financial irregularities. Or the banking customers who gladly ploughed their money into property and racked up credit card debt to kit themselves out with all the finest gear etc. There's been plenty of irresponsible crap over the last while to go around. It's just easier to blame the people in the nicer suits and ignore the role everyone else played.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »Who is saying that a No vote has no consequence?
Have you been in the country lately, have you seen the amount of businesses that have gone to the wall because of the money that has been taken out of the economy?
The people who are saying NO are trying to stem that flow, they are looking at the issues around ratifying this treaty, not just at the treaty itself. You and Enda are just fiddling while Rome burns tbh. But more than that, you are not even looking for the number of the fire brigade.
Funny that the majority of the businesses you are valiantly trying to save are firmly in the Yes camp saying that they need this Treaty to pass. Pay no heed on them though, sure what do they know?0 -
Or the electorate that voted in Bertie and co while he was being investigated for financial irregularities. Or the banking customers who gladly ploughed their money into property and racked up credit card debt to kit themselves out with all the finest gear etc. There's been plenty of irresponsible crap over the last while to go around. It's just easier to blame the people in the nicer suits and ignore the role everyone else played.
Steady on there...wasn't me that said
That was somebody else having their patronising cake and eating it, when it suited them.'we are seen as a stable society and a responsible people'.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »That was somebody else having their patronising cake and eating it, when it suited them.
A comment about how other countries perceive us as being responsible is hardly patronising. Whether it is true or not is a different matter, but if anything being seen as stable and responsible is a good thing in terms of investment etc.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »The people who are saying NO are trying to stem that flow, they are looking at the issues around ratifying this treaty, not just at the treaty itself.
How on earth does a No vote stem that flow?
Creating an uncertain investing environment does not strike me as benefiting any of the businesses struggling to stay open.
Voting "No" to household taxes does not strike me as helping any of those businesses.
Voting "No" to austerity when there's no money in the kitty and thus no alternative to the controlled austerity we are undergoing does not strike me as helping those businesses.
There is no magic pill here, no miraculous answer which will turn the world back into 2008.
So we take small steps to try and rectify what happened, and ensure that it doesn't happen again.0 -
Unfortunately the Tribunals have undermined society's trust in corporate Ireland and its motives when it dips its toe into the political-pond.Funny that the majority of the businesses you are valiantly trying to save are firmly in the Yes camp saying that they need this Treaty to pass. Pay no heed on them though, sure what do they know?0 -
beeftotheheels wrote: »How on earth does a No vote stem that flow?
Because a large amount of the NO voters agree with what this guy is saying.
and because they know that this is about more than the Treaty.
http://www.thejournal.ie/paul-krugman-says-irish-voters-should-vote-no-468368-May2012/0 -
It hardly could be! But I was interested in particular in how a conflict of interest might arise over the time frame for a resolution of an Irish deficit, which I had a hard time with. The existence in general of conflicts of interest in Europe both goes without saying and also hardly shows how one comes to this particular conflict.
OK, lets say we have a situation where Ireland deviates from its structural deficit but is in a position that its long term macro economics are strong than the rest of Europe.
Lets say (just to be ironic) that Germany deviates from its structural deficit and the wider bond markets dont like this and it causes another "crises" for Europe.
Isnt is conceivable in that instance that the EC may decide to "clear house" and propose a short-time frame for re compliance with the structural deficit rules for all countries (lets just say they wanted to "send a message that Europe was going to get its house in order in X years").
Couldnt that give rise to a conflict of interest in that perhaps ireland could have been able to comfortably come into line in X+Y years?Yes, I personally think the risks are sufficiently low, particularly when you look at €10bn as a proportion of Irish government income over the period in question, but...
Have you any idea the hardship which could be avoided if we did not have to raise the 10bn...no, as I said, I think the risk calculation is frankly about as solid as the Drake Equation, and it would have served to muddy the waters a lot without anyone coming out of such a debate the wiser. Much of the No side have in fact treated the €11bn as simply a cost, without any suggestion it would ordinarily be recoverable, so my hopes of honesty in that debate would be very low.
And, by all accounts, people are aware these days that there are risks even in lending to sovereigns.
1: I disagree that the equation is solid.
One of the problems with the fund is: its assets (ie the future contributions) are uncertain - ie many of them are coming from seriously indebted countries and its liabilities are unclear;
can anyone estimate the maximum potential liability to the ESM, and if someone did, would that be the same person who calculated the amounts needed to bail Greece out the first time (which fell short), or the same person who calculated what the Irish banks needed to stay open for the first time (which fell short), or indeed the person who calculated Ireland's initial bailout (which it looks like we may need an additional bailout).
Also, if the Eurozone breaks up in a disorderly fashion, I believe there is a possibility of widespread default.
2: Muddy the waters? Patronising is spelt with a P isnt it? Joking aside, we have to assume we as a people are capable of digesting important information which affects us. Even if some people cant, shouldnt we rely on them to stay at home so and not vote? Muddying the waters is not a valid reason for not discussing the issue.
I respect the fact that you have come to a rational conclusion that the fund is sound (you seem to be familiar with its formula and provisions for over capitalising etc) even though I disagree with that conclusion as its subjective. However I would ask that you respect (and I am not saying that you do not) that I have come to my question/conclusion through rationality too and I, as a citizen who values democracy and engages in serious thought when I am asked to vote would like the govt/referendum commission/media to engage on all material issues related to the referendum.
3: I am certainly on the no side and my position is, it is not a cost if we recover it.
4: People may be aware that lending to soverigns is risky, but schemes like this are less than transparent. If someone asked you to put €20 into the ESM or to the Greek government, wouldnt you agree that the ESM sounds better as you cant see the eventual counterparty?
Sorry to go off topic a little here, but that was one of the issues that exacerbated the mortgage crises in the US (the packing of loans into exotic vehicles that looked like something else: ie package junk-grade loans into a securitisation vehicle that has some bank as its sponsor and HEY PRESTO thats triple A)0 -
A comment about how other countries perceive us as being responsible is hardly patronising.
It is when it is plucked out of the air to have a go at another democracy.
Presently, we are far from stable and historically we where far from responsible. Neither where others, but we are paying the higher price.0 -
Advertisement
-
Happyman42 wrote: »Because a large amount of the NO voters agree with what this guy is saying.
and because they know that this is about more than the Treaty.
http://www.thejournal.ie/paul-krugman-says-irish-voters-should-vote-no-468368-May2012/
Krugman thinks austerity is the wrong medicine. However, he doesn't explain anywhere how Ireland can avoid austerity.
Instead he advocates relaxing the ECB's price stability target and increased spending by the core. However, Krugman's position ignores in its entirety German politics which don't agree with his own and thus he feels free to ignore them as irrelevant, and wrong.
He may be right, but we don't live in an idealist bubble.
We live in the real world.
And so long as we need German movement in order to stabilize the euro zone situation, movement around allowing the ECB's inflation mandate be relaxed, Germany to not use fiscal policy to negate any loosening of the ECB's inflation targeting, movement around eurobonds, movement to allow the ECB actually make a meaningful contribution around the IBRC ELA, our best interests are not served by allowing the Germans paint us as feckless profligate people unwilling and unable to live within their means, and averse to actually taking steps to do so.
Can I ask, what were your reasons for voting no yesterday before Krugman opened his mouth?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement