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

View

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Krugman thinks austerity is the wrong medicine.

Obama got a huge stimulus package - largely funded through borrowing - through a highly, highly reluctant (Democratically controlled) Congress in 2009.

Krugman's response? To lambast Obama for not getting a package twice the size of it through instead. Never mind that the votes were barely there for the package he did get through....

Happyman42

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Can I ask, what were your reasons for voting no yesterday before Krugman opened his mouth?

That a NO vote would force a rethink. And that this Treaty is too little too late and will be irrelevant as the situation develops. We are going back to the drawing board the hard way or the easy way. The easy way being all of the Eurozone taking responsibility for what happened and doing something about it. The hard way being the whole thing imploding.

beeftotheheels

Happyman42 wrote: »

That a NO vote would force a rethink. And that this Treaty is too little too late and will be irrelevant as the situation develops. We are going back to the drawing board the hard way or the easy way. The easy way being all of the Eurozone taking responsibility for what happened and doing something about it. The hard way being the whole thing imploding.

You really think that the twin fires boring in the south western and south eastern corners of the EU won't force a rethink?

There will be a rethink, whether we vote yes or no. The difference is that a yes vote won't increase austerity or uncertainty. A no vote comes with no such guarantees.

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

That a NO vote would force a rethink. And that this Treaty is too little too late and will be irrelevant as the situation develops. We are going back to the drawing board the hard way or the easy way. The easy way being all of the Eurozone taking responsibility for what happened and doing something about it. The hard way being the whole thing imploding.

You realise the Fiscal Treaty is not about fixing the current problem, right!? You seem to think that unless all of Europe bails the few problem countries out that the whole thing will implode. That there are 2 outcomes and 2 outcomes only. One of which is very, very bad and the other of which is very easy. On us particularly. And that the choice is easy.

I wish the real world worked like that.

Happyman42

molloyjh wrote: »

You realise the Fiscal Treaty is not about fixing the current problem, right!?

No?:eek:
And there was me thinking it was all about encouraging stability and growth and business that would get us out of the fix we are in. I must have been living in an unreal world! :rolleyes:

Heads the ball

beeftotheheels wrote: »

The difference is that a yes vote won't increase austerity or uncertainty. A no vote comes with no such guarantees.

At best that statement is speculation, at worst it's patently incorrect

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

No?:eek:
And there was me thinking it was all about encouraging stability and growth and business that would get us out of the fix we are in. I must have been living in an unreal world! :rolleyes:

It's about ensuring that this won't happen again. Which in theory should encourage investment and growth etc. That may help us in the current situation a little, but that's just a by-product of the Treaty, not the purpose of it.

molloyjh

Heads the ball wrote: »

At best that statement is speculation, at worst it's patently incorrect

How so?

fret_wimp2

No, for a number of reasons:

1. The last bailout was used to pay off unsecured bondholders. I still believe the simplistic view that these institutions/people did not deserve the pay off. I do the lotto and don't win, I don't get my money back. Why would I want the government to have access to more funds that will pay off bondholders instead of being used to help the economy and the Irish people.


2. We will be able to try this again in 5 years time.

Happyman42

molloyjh wrote: »

It's about ensuring that this won't happen again. Which in theory should encourage investment and growth etc. That may help us in the current situation a little, but that's just a by-product of the Treaty, not the purpose of it.

Keep going....you'll talk yourself out of the need for it at all. :rolleyes:

FG/Lab are flat out telling us that this will ensure stability and growth. They even changed the name to enhance that aspect...The Fiscal Stability Treaty.

molloyjh

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

No, for a number of reasons:

1. The last bailout was used to pay off unsecured bondholders. I still believe the simplistic view that these institutions/people did not deserve the pay off. I do the lotto and don't win, I don't get my money back. Why would I want the government to have access to more funds that will pay off bondholders instead of being used to help the economy and the Irish people.

I'm afraid that has nothing to do with what we're voting on.

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

2. We will be able to try this again in 5 years time.

Try what again?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Keep going....you'll talk yourself out of the need for it at all. :rolleyes:

FG/Lab are flat out telling us that this will ensure stability and growth. They even changed the name to enhance that aspect...The Fiscal Stability Treaty.

I've no idea what the political parties are saying. I haven't listened to a word any of them have said. But the point is to prevent this from happening again. That does create stability. Stability does help create growth. But it is intended to do that long-term. It is not about getting us out of this hole. Really, it isn't complicated......

Mcanoif

yeah I agree , not sure but thinking no

Happyman42

molloyjh wrote: »

I've no idea what the political parties are saying.

How do you fare out in general elections? Lucky dip or a pin?

tayto lover

beeftotheheels wrote: »

You really think that the twin fires boring in the south western and south eastern corners of the EU won't force a rethink?

There will be a rethink, whether we vote yes or no. The difference is that a yes vote won't increase austerity or uncertainty. A no vote comes with no such guarantees.

Where did you get that from ?
I was always led to believe throughout this debate that a Yes vote would guarantee more austerity. Please explain your opinion.

C14N

tayto lover wrote: »

Where did you get that from ?
I was always led to believe throughout this debate that a Yes vote would guarantee more austerity. Please explain your opinion.

You may have been led to believe that, and one could scarcely blame you, that lie has been printed on every electricity pole I've seen in the last week.

Happyman42

tayto lover wrote: »

Where did you get that from ?
I was always led to believe throughout this debate that a Yes vote would guarantee more austerity. Please explain your opinion.

If we vote Yes, Europe will nail us to the cross, if we vote No, Noonan (by his own admission) will do it.

leggit

I was voting yes anyway as it's the lesser of two evils but the garbage being spouted by the no campaigners is nothing short of ridiculous!

This article epitomizes Sinn Féin in this referendum for me! What the hell? I actually can't put into words how confusing this is!? Or how anybody would let this be used as a serious poster!?

I don't care if UEFA get involved or not but what has Euro 2012 got to do with "the bankers treaty"????

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

How do you fare out in general elections? Lucky dip or a pin?

Could it be any worse if I knew about the candidates!? :pac:

I obviously listen then. On something like this though I don't need their input. I can find out the info for myself. And the less listening I need to do to politicians the better in my book.....

oscarBravo

tayto lover wrote: »

I was always led to believe throughout this debate that a Yes vote would guarantee more austerity.

That wouldn't have anything to do with Sinn Féin and the ULA constantly calling it the "austerity treaty", would it?

A 'yes' vote will allow us to access the ESM, which will be low-cost financing should we need it. Even having access to it should lower our cost of borrowing on the open markets.

A 'no' vote will prevent ESM access (and don't believe any of the lies that this isn't the case), and at least one rating agency has clearly stated that our sovereign debt will be downgraded in the event of a 'no'. More expensive borrowing means not being able to borrow as much as we need, which means more austerity.

Everything points to a 'yes' vote being the safer choice from the austerity perspective, but don't kid yourself that we're going to escape austerity one way or the other.

Wild Bill

leggit wrote: »

I was voting yes anyway as it's the lesser of two evils but the garbage being spouted by the no campaigners is nothing short of ridiculous!

This article epitomizes Sinn Féin in this referendum for me! What the hell? I actually can't put into words how confusing this is!? Or how anybody would let this be used as a serious poster!?

I don't care if UEFA get involved or not but what has Euro 2012 got to do with "the bankers treaty"????

I think you miss just about all the points here! :rolleyes:

Not least that the Indo spins a SF v UEFA situation out of nothing!

Wild Bill

oscarBravo wrote: »

That wouldn't have anything to do with Sinn Féin and the ULA constantly calling it the "austerity treaty", would it?

I think a better name is the Suicide Pact.

Economically, that's what it is.

Keepin' yer eye on the Spanish meltdown I hope Oscar?

Happyman42

molloyjh wrote: »

Could it be any worse if I knew about the candidates!? :pac:

I obviously listen then. On something like this though I don't need their input. I can find out the info for myself. And the less listening I need to do to politicians the better in my book.....

That beggars belief. Already today, two posters on here admitted to not knowing how significant policy was implemented in the past and how it worked out for Ireland and now somebody is deciding on a Treaty to be implemented by an economic and political Union without listening to the politicians that will be implementing it??????

Happyman42

leggit wrote: »

I was voting yes anyway as it's the lesser of two evils but the garbage being spouted by the no campaigners is nothing short of ridiculous!

This article epitomizes Sinn Féin in this referendum for me! What the hell? I actually can't put into words how confusing this is!? Or how anybody would let this be used as a serious poster!?

I don't care if UEFA get involved or not but what has Euro 2012 got to do with "the bankers treaty"????

What has this to do with the Lisbon treaty? Shock horror, somebody uses an event to capture attention. :rolleyes:

C14N

Happyman42 wrote: »

What has this to do with the Lisbon treaty? Shock horror, somebody uses an event to capture attention. :rolleyes:

"Young Fine Gael", what did you expect a couple of students to throw together?:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Already today, two posters on here admitted to not knowing how significant policy was implemented in the past...

And you demonstrated your extensive knowledge of the EU's agricultural policies by claiming that the fraud and corruption that took place in the Irish beef processing industry were the EU's fault.

Which takes me back to the conversation about red herrings, and how people will drag all sorts of irrelevant crap into these debates in a rather desperate attempt to find sticks to beat the other side with.

goat2

just watching the nine o clock news there, spain is now looking like it is getting a bit of a reprieve of one year to reach its target, also i get the impression that they are going to thaw a bit on all countries, glad to hear this

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

And you demonstrated your extensive knowledge of the EU's agricultural policies by claiming that the fraud and corruption that took place in the Irish beef processing industry were the EU's fault.

Jaysus, I'd forgotten that. Larry Goodman was the EU's fault. The No sides penchant for blaming the EU and not our national Government never ceases to amaze.

K-9

tayto lover wrote: »

Where did you get that from ?
I was always led to believe throughout this debate that a Yes vote would guarantee more austerity. Please explain your opinion.

If you believe Mary Lou etc.

I'd go with Seamus Coffey who SF quoted in their leaflets: "Will a "Yes" vote Cost €6 Billion?

SF are already in agreement with the Troika targets, except by 2016, so I can't see what the fuss is about tbh.

swampgas

Wild Bill wrote: »

I think a better name is the Suicide Pact.

Economically, that's what it is.

Keepin' yer eye on the Spanish meltdown I hope Oscar?

Just putting it in bold and calling it scary names doesn't make it true you know.

You'd be more convincing if you actually had some sensible arguments.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

And you demonstrated your extensive knowledge of the EU's agricultural policies by claiming that the fraud and corruption that took place in the Irish beef processing industry were the EU's fault.

Which takes me back to the conversation about red herrings, and how people will drag all sorts of irrelevant crap into these debates in a rather desperate attempt to find sticks to beat the other side with.

Ah now Oscar! I was demonstrating at your request that a previous EU policy was flawed (and it was on many fronts, not just being open to fraud)


I had hoped that your disappearance off that thread signalled a spell of illuminating research for you. You know what they say; 'History tells us everything including the future.'