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

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

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)

So your idea of an acceptable EU policy is one which completely eliminates any possibility of fraud?

Do you apply that standard to everything in life? Anything whatsoever that can be defrauded is anathema and must be destroyed?

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

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.

What Larry was able to get up to was the problem, he and many others exploited the gaping flaws in an EU policy.

Remember the EU trying to offload the beef to Russia on the cheap after all the money that was wasted on the scheme? That wasn't Ireland's fault.
Remember butter mountains (I think our pensioners and social welfare recipients ended up eating that) and wine lakes (no danger of us getting that! ? All of them instigated in Brussels not Dublin.
I was asking Oscar, what was it about previous EU policy decisions that convinced him that this one would work and he asked me to name some failed ones.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

What Larry was able to get up to was the problem, he and many others exploited the gaping flaws in an EU policy.

What, specifically, were the gaping flaws?

leggit

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

...... and pretty much says that by voting yes you're not behind the Irish football team at Euro 2012.


MASSIVE difference but of course you used the rolleyes smiley face so you have won the internet......

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

What Larry was able to get up to was the problem, he and many others exploited the gaping flaws in an EU policy.

Remember the EU trying to offload the beef to Russia on the cheap after all the money that was wasted on the scheme? That wasn't Ireland's fault.
Remember butter mountains (I think our pensioners and social welfare recipients ended up eating that) and wine lakes (no danger of us getting that! ? All of them instigated in Brussels not Dublin.
I was asking Oscar, what was it about previous EU policy decisions that convinced him that this one would work and he asked me to name some failed ones.

I do remember butter mountains, we don't have them now, so the policy was improved. What do you expect, A flawless EU? because there'll always be something people can point at just as your doing now.

All it means is systems can be flawed. All you are doing is throwing dirt, any type of dirt, even 20 year old dirt, and hoping it will stick.

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

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??????

What's in the Treaty is what will be implemented. I've read it. Therefore I know whats in it. Therefore I know what will be implemented.

You realise that you have the opportunity to educate yourself on it's contents, you don't have to sit around and wait for others to tell you.... :rolleyes:

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

What, specifically, were the gaping flaws?

The way it was set-up. The juvenile attempt to control prices, no control on the process, no checking that people where doing what they said they where doing and ultimately no accountability. One person went to jail here (a secretary I think) for comtempt of court.



Have a read of the Beef Tribunal, it's stranger than fiction!

That the ESM is setup with a similar lack of transparency and accountibility suggests that history has taught them nada.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

All it means is systems can be flawed. All you are doing is throwing dirt, any type of dirt, even 20 year old dirt, and hoping it will stick.

molloyjh wrote: »

What's in the Treaty is what will be implemented. I've read it. Therefore I know whats in it. Therefore I know what will be implemented.

You realise that you have the opportunity to educate yourself on it's contents, you don't have to sit around and wait for others to tell you.... :rolleyes:

You two do realise that we had fiscal controls and you also know who flouted them? That isn't 20 years ago either. Another flawed policy of the EU.
Not throwing dirt, I agree, nothing is perfect, I was asked to prove that EU policy failed in the past by somebody who was claiming it hadn't and that this Treaty was flawless. It isn't, the French know that and even the Germans know it. It's incomplete.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

The way it was set-up.

What were the flaws in its setup, and how could it have been done better?

The juvenile attempt to control prices...

Should prices not have been controlled, or should the price controls have been less "juvenile", and if so, how?

...no control on the process...

No control? None whatsoever?

...no checking that people where doing what they said they where doing...

Whose responsibility was that? It wouldn't have been left to the member states to implement the required controls, and Ireland wouldn't have frigged up totally on that point?

...and ultimately no accountability.

So you think that EU programs should be policed by the EU itself, and not left to the member states? Basically, you're advocating EU-level law enforcement?

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

...I was asked to prove that EU policy failed in the past by somebody who was claiming it hadn't and that this Treaty was flawless.

You wouldn't be telling blatant, bare-faced lies now, would you?

Because I presume you can link to the post where 'somebody' said this treaty was flawless. Can't you?

Mance Rayder

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you think that EU programs should be policed by the EU itself, and not left to the member states? Basically, you're advocating EU-level law enforcement?

It almost sounds like he is calling for some sort of EU wide agreement on financial policy..Maybe by means of a treaty ?

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

You two do realise that we had fiscal controls and you also know who flouted them? That isn't 20 years ago either. Another flawed policy of the EU.
Not throwing dirt, I agree, nothing is perfect, I was asked to prove that EU policy failed in the past by somebody who was claiming it hadn't and that this Treaty was flawless. It isn't, the French know that and even the Germans know it. It's incomplete.

This is supposed to make it harder to flout, you know, the whole ceding power to Europe argument you and others have been spouting. But you are against ceding powers so you'll just complain regardless of any logic or reason.

golden lane

the eu gravy train.......only has first class seats now..............

somebody destroyed the economy class..........

K-9

CiscoStudent wrote: »

It almost sounds like he is calling for some sort of EU wide agreement on financial policy..Maybe by means of a treaty ?

Indeed, Happyman42 will just moan anyway, regardless of what is proposed, probably moan about EU red tape in the beef industry in a different thread.

K-9

golden lane wrote: »

the eu gravy train.......only has first class seats now..............

somebody destroyed the economy class..........

Well we need gravy to go with that EU beef Happyman is on about.

Mance Rayder

K-9 wrote: »

Well we need gravy to go with that EU beef Happyman is on about.

With a side of Brussels of course.

Happyman42

Originally Posted by Happyman42
Time and again over 40 years the structures and interventions of the EU have not worked.
OscarBravo
That's a rhetorical soundbite, not an argument. What specific structures and interventions haven't worked, and what structures and interventions would have worked better?


Here's your original question,^ the fact that you had to ask it kinda means to me that you weren't aware of past failures. Why would you ask otherwise?

You then responded with this nugget v and then had a pop at me personally and left the debate

OscarBravo I don't have any very strongly-held views on the EU's agricultural policies, but those policies have been agreed between the member states.

christmas2012

borrow money at low interest - yes

borrow money at high interest - no

make ur vote

Scioch

Just thinking aloud here trying to finalise my decision.

We join the others in this fiscal compact and we can apply to and will be obliged to support an emergency fund for troubled countries. We will not have access to this if we vote no. (a friend informed me today that if we are denied another bailout we can refuse to repay the current debt, drop the euro and re print the punt debt free. Something going around the no side it seems. Sounds like freeman nonsense to me)

We will also be signing up to terms in regards to debt to GDP ratio and whatnot to ensure all countries remain stable. Failure to govern ourselves in accordance with the terms result in fines

This wont mean Germany dictating our budgets (as my friend also me today, popular view on the no side too) just us having to budget in such a way as to meet the terms of the compact. As it stands this means more austerity to achieve that, but that will happen regardless because the debt to GDP ratio in the compact would be what we would have to get to anyway if we were to re-enter the markets.

The change in the constitution is to legally bind us (the same as other countries) to rules regarding what we must do if we do not control structural deficit. Have these rules been outlined ?

This treaty is based around strengthening Europe and the Euro which is what we all want. Nobody wants to weaken the euro.

A no vote will stop all of that and leave us unable to access the ESM for a second bailout. Which would mean we have to seek it elsewhere at higher interest. It will not reduce austerity as without austerity we cannot lower our debt to GDP anyway.

Have I got the gist of it or am I missing any compelling reason to vote no ?

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

OscarBravo
That's a rhetorical soundbite, not an argument. What specific structures and interventions haven't worked, and what structures and interventions would have worked better?


Here's your original question,^ the fact that you had to ask it kinda means to me that you weren't aware of past failures. Why would you ask otherwise?

I asked it to get you to flesh out your soundbite into an argument - which you've done a pretty poor job of, so far.

You then responded with this nugget v and then had a pop at me personally and left the debate

OscarBravo I don't have any very strongly-held views on the EU's agricultural policies, but those policies have been agreed between the member states.

Were the policies agreed between the member states or not?

Were you planning to answer my questions above?

Were you planning to back up or retract your bare-faced lie?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

I asked it to get you to flesh out your soundbite into an argument - which you've done a pretty poor job of, so far. Were the policies agreed between the member states or not?

Were you planning to answer my questions above?

Were you planning to back up or retract your bare-faced lie?

Nonsense, you should have accepted the statement as a given, people who know what they are talking about in debates do that all the time.
You thought that I, like you, was not aware of the history of the EU.:rolleyes: When you got your answer, your disappearance and failure to continue the discussion attests to that. That's all I have to say about Intervention, I never intended to discuss it ad nauseum, I just used it as one example of the EU getting it wrong. The potential to get it wrong again is high, very high.

beeftotheheels

LordSmeg wrote: »

The change in the constitution is to legally bind us (the same as other countries) to rules regarding what we must do if we do not control structural deficit. Have these rules been outlined ?

We're not actually putting the rules into the constitution (imagine the referendum required to get them back out again?), we're putting the rules into a separate Act of the Oireachtas, the draft of which can be found here

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/fisresbillscheme.pdf

The treaty requires that the rules preferably be put into a constitution, but allows for alternatives.

The rules set out in paragraph 1 shall take effect in the national law of the Contracting Parties at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Treaty through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional, or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes.

Our constitution is the divil to change (relative to every one else's as every one else can do it through their legislature) so one assumes that the wiggle room here was designed to make this easier (rather than harder) for us. But best not to mention any evidence that our Government may have negotiated something which helps, rather than hinders us.

Happyman42

beeftotheheels wrote: »

We're not actually putting the rules into the constitution (imagine the referendum required to get them back out again?), we're putting the rules into a separate Act of the Oireachtas, the draft of which can be found here

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/fisresbillscheme.pdf

The treaty requires that the rules preferably be put into a constitution, but allows for alternatives.



Our constitution is the divil to change (relative to every one else's as every one else can do it through their legislature) so one assumes that the wiggle room here was designed to make this easier (rather than harder) for us. But best not to mention any evidence that our Government may have negotiated something which helps, rather than hinders us.

Personally, I always get nervous when governments, economists and bankers would like to sidestep the electorate or who try to find easier ways to get their way.

Mance Rayder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Personally, I always get nervous when governments, economists and bankers would like to sidestep the electorate or who try to find easier ways to get their way.

But its the electorate who give governments there way, by, you know, electing them.

Happyman42

CiscoStudent wrote: »

But its the electorate who give governments there way, by, you know, electing them.

Yes, but only for four years and look at the damage they are capable of in that time! Imagine if they could do stuff without asking us first, like, eh, like....impose austerity cuts and spending restrictions and stuff?:rolleyes:

Mance Rayder

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, but only for four years and look at the damage they are capable of in that time! Imagine if they could do stuff without asking us first, like, eh, like....impose austerity cuts and spending restrictions and stuff?:rolleyes:

They are asking us first.

beeftotheheels

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, but only for four years and look at the damage they are capable of in that time! Imagine if they could do stuff without asking us first, like, eh, like....impose austerity cuts and spending restrictions and stuff?:rolleyes:

Hence my point that being able to remove "austerity cuts and spending restrictions and stuff?" from our law without the delay and uncertainty caused by requiring another referendum would surely be a good thing, no?

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, but only for four years and look at the damage they are capable of in that time! Imagine if they could do stuff without asking us first, like, eh, like....impose austerity cuts and spending restrictions and stuff?:rolleyes:

Yes, we must do away with Governments altogether. They cause us nothing but pain and suffering....... :rolleyes:

Happyman42

CiscoStudent wrote: »

They are asking us first.

Yes, they are asking us to allow an unelected, untransparent, legally protected and unaccountable body to impose austerity cuts and spending restrictions.

porsche boy

Ireland is in a unique position here. The other EU states have not afforded their people the luxury of a voice on this and as such Ireland is now centre stage in the eyes of the European people as they wait to see what we say. Although it hasn't been reported in the mainstream media, there is a substantial movement asking us to vote no. I suppose what I'm saying is that we have to realise that the decision we make later today has ramifications far beyond our little country. Here's a website I found earlier outlining it a little better.

www.tni.org

Here's what they have to say...

Europe’s anti-crisis policies are on the wrong track. The Austerity Treaty – or the so called Fiscal Compact – is intended to impose a permanent regime of austerity in all 25 signatory countries. If the Treaty would enter into force, it would form a major obstacle to redistributive, progressive and socially just economic policies in the future. The economic dogma of ever-tighter budgetary rules is both absurd and highly unjust.

There are clear signs that the Austerity Treaty and related economic policies will not bring recovery or create employment, but could lead to an even deeper economic crisis. The Treaty and the economic policy it represents will lead to more inequality, more poverty and disenfranchisement throughout Europe and globally.

The Austerity Treaty is tailored to the needs of big corporations, including financial corporations, and neglects the needs of the majority. It represents the latest attempt to turn economic policy into a technocratic endeavour outside of democratic control, with unelected bureaucrats in a powerful, decision making role.

There is only one valid response to this Treaty: it must be stopped!

People across the EU are now looking at Ireland. Ireland stands as the only country amongst the 25 signatories that will subject the Treaty to a referendum. On 31 May, Irish citizens will have the chance to say NO to permanent austerity by rejecting the Treaty.

Movements like Occupy and the Indignadosas well as recent election results in France, Greece and Germany show that there is no popular support for EU-driven austerity. Now it’s up to the Irish people to raise their voice and say NO to permanent austerity.

Together with many other Europeans outside Ireland, who have all been deprived of a voice on this Treaty, we are putting our hope in the Irish people: do not to give in to threats and intimidation from your government, the EU institutions or others and vote NO for all of us.