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

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so we've established that you believe that the heads of government have conspired among themselves to destroy their respective countries. You think that this is a more reasonable explanation for their collective decision-making than the possibility that they have negotiated what they feel is the best compromise between their respective competing political agendas and in the collective best interests of the union as a whole.

Now all you have to do is explain why all these people from their disparate national and political backgrounds are conspiring against the people who elected them.

Not that you're going to, because that's not how you roll.

Oscar, you need to stay on the ball. My answer was to the 'kill their respective states' part. I don't believe in conspiracy theories here, neither yours about the No side or the Yes sides claims. I put all the responsibility on the EU encouraging the baser instincts of the human.....GREED.
I know what you would like to believe about my stance and about most of the No voters, but try and keep in touch with the 'real' debate and read all of my answers that came from your ridiculous post.

meglome

Villain wrote: »

The same was said when Bertie and his cowboys guranteed all the bank debt......

The important word there is 'cowboys'. We knew there were a bunch of corrupt asshats and we still kept voting for them.

And sorry the idea that all 16 other Eurozone countries are getting tricked into something is just total nonsense.

Heads the ball

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Yes - to the States which then invokes Art 125 TFEU as I've already pointed out.

A better answer would be to by-pass the sovereign, but that is not possible at this time.

One reading of "to the Member State" is that the money is lent to the member state and that member state is the ultimate borrower ("your secanrio").

Another reading of "to the Member State" is that the cash could be advanced to the State for the purposes of recapitalising the bank and that the liability would also be passed on to the bank. (In other words the language is not specific enough to disallow the loan to rest soley with the sovereign, there is scope to push it to the financial institution*). In such a case the nation would not have the debt and article 125 would not apply.

Therefore if that entity bankrupted there would be no recourse.

* Further supported by Articles 15.2 and 13.3 which says the terms of the loans are to be determined by the Board.

sparkling sea

Happyman42 wrote: »

The sensible and prudent would you suggest that you need to ask why you are borrowing in the first place.
Nobody offering loans wants to destroy you, they want to keep you borrowing and paying back the interest. It all goes pearshaped when the person offering the loans makes it too cheap for you to borrow. That is lesson that was learned here, the solution you vote for when you vote YES is that you take all the pain and the person who made the cheap loans does not have any responsibility and ultimately doesn't lose...YOU DO.
Can you spot a winner in that?

A bit of reality here, we are not a sensible or prudent nation - we are a corrupt country that learns very little from tribunals or inquires. We also refuse in the main to criminalize corrupt politicans and we ignore for the most part the people who actually pay the bribes - thats how this country works!!!

We've already lost, we are taking all the pain anyway - we can't win - its not about winning.

We are borrowing because we are living above our means a nation. Our government cannot with any pace and for various reasons ( the main one being they wouldn't get through and no one would ever vote for them again) impose measures that will allow them to curb spending - so its the long and slow road.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

The same was said when Bertie and his cowboys guranteed all the bank debt......

...which they did, unilaterally, in a panic one night. You're telling me the heads of government of the member states did the same thing?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Oscar, you need to stay on the ball. My answer was to the 'kill their respective states' part. I don't believe in conspiracy theories here, neither yours about the No side or the Yes sides claims. I put all the responsibility on the EU encouraging the baser instincts of the human.....GREED.

OK, so you believe that the member states (because that's what the EU is, a collection of member states) encouraged the baser instincts of the heads of government of the member states, and made them greedy, so they decided to destroy their own countries.

Sorry, you're still not making any sense.

Either the heads of government of the member states agreed on something that they thought was in the best interests of their countries, or they agreed on something that they thought was not in the best interests of their countries. That's a fairly simple dichotomy: which are you claiming is the case?

Villain

meglome wrote: »

The important word there is 'cowboys'. We knew there were a bunch of corrupt asshats and we still kept voting for them.

And sorry the idea that all 16 other Eurozone countries are getting tricked into something is just total nonsense.

Oh so only the Irish electorate are stupid enough to elect people thinking that they will do what people elected them to do and protect their state first and foremost??

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

...which they did, unilaterally, in a panic one night. You're telling me the heads of government of the member states did the same thing?

Well you obviously believe that every Government does what is right for their own state rather than what the vested interests that line their pockets want them to do or the non elected boys and girls in Brussels want!

beeftotheheels

Heads the ball wrote: »

One reading of "to the Member State" is that the money is lent to the member state and that member state is the ultimate borrower ("your secanrio").

Another reading of "to the Member State" is that the cash could be advanced to the State for the purposes of recapitalising the bank and that the liability would also be passed on to the bank. (In other words the language is not specific enough to disallow the loan to rest soley with the sovereign, there is scope to push it to the financial institution*). In such a case the nation would not have the debt and article 125 would not apply.

Therefore if that entity bankrupted there would be no recourse.

* Further supported by Articles 15.2 and 13.3 which says the terms of the loans are to be determined by the Board.

No, the loan is made to the State to allow the State recap their banks.

...loans to an ESM Member for the purpose...

The counter-party for the loan is the MS, not their banks.

There is no ambiguity here at all apart from in the eyes of someone determined to find such ambiguity.

meglome

Villain wrote: »

Oh so only the Irish electorate are stupid enough to elect people thinking that they will do what people elected them to do and protect their state first and foremost??

The only country is Europe in worse position to us is Greece and for some odd coincidence they have a very corrupt system.

And I say again anyone who thinks that all 17 Eurozone countries would allow their affairs to be actually dictated from abroad is in a fantasy land.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

Well you obviously believe that every Government does what is right for their own state rather than what the vested interests that line their pockets want them to do or the non elected boys and girls in Brussels want!

And you obviously believe the conspiracy theory that every government is working to a secret agenda directly at odds with the wishes of their respective electorates. Fair enough.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Villain wrote: »

LOL why ask a queston that you know the Government hasn't released the details on, it doesn't matter which banks or even which country those banks reside in, the points I made still stand.

Instead of asking questions which you know can't be answered why not reply to the fact that a Minister has told us the IMF said we should get a write down but our Taoiseach has said we haven't and won't ask for one!

So you readily admit that you don't know which banks got paid, but expect the German taxpayer to eat the loss.

I'm neither a Taoiseach nor a Minister, why do you expect me to reply on their behalf, especially without seeing what was actually said.

Happyman42

sparkling sea wrote: »

A bit of reality here, we are not a sensible or prudent nation - we are a corrupt country that learns very little from tribunals.

We've already lost, we are taking all the pain anyway - we can't win - its not about winning.

We are borrowing because we are living above our means a nation. Our government cannot with any pace and for various reasons ( the main one being they wouldn't get through and no one would ever vote for them again) impose measures that will allow them to curb spending - so its the long and slow road.

Well I have more pride in my fellow citizens.
This crisis was caused ultimately by greed, by allowing the unscupulous to capitalise on the desire to have a better lifestyle. Corruption is endemic everywhere if you allow it to triumph. Spain, Greece, Italy etc.
By voting yes and enshrining the principle that greed wins you are consigning yourself and worse your fello citizens to endure that culture until the whole thing eats itself....you won't be just worried about your debts when that happens..(.look at Greece, food queues, scavenging just to survive.

Morally, the only way I can live with myself, is to do something that will bring an end and a rethink on where we are going. I wouldn't be able to look my children in the eye if I didn't. And before the others jump in....I know that I risk a lot in the short to medium term by doing that. But if it doesn't change, the cycle will just continue, in circles of boom and bust and the pariahs keep winning.

Villain

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So you readily admit that you don't know which banks got paid, but expect the German taxpayer to eat the loss.

I'm neither a Taoiseach nor a Minister, why do you expect me to reply on their behalf, especially without seeing what was actually said.

I expect whatever banks from whatever country that hold the bonds to agree to a debt write off or face been burned yes.

Villain

meglome wrote: »

The only country is Europe in worse position to us is Greece and for some odd coincidence they have a very corrupt system.

And I say again anyone who thinks that all 17 Eurozone countries would allow their affairs to be actually dictated from abroad is in a fantasy land.

Really umm saying yes to this treaty pretty much allows their affairs to be ditctated from abroad?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Villain wrote: »

I expect whatever banks from whatever country that hold the bonds to agree to a debt write off or face been burned yes.

Slow down your goalposts there Villain.

You started out saying the German tax payer should eat the debt.

Now you are saying any bank in any country that hold current bonds be told to write it of of face being burned?

And this is exactly what to do with this treaty or bargaining with Germans?

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

And you obviously believe the conspiracy theory that every government is working to a secret agenda directly at odds with the wishes of their respective electorates. Fair enough.

Well I believe that Governments are doing what they believe they should do based on what vested interests and unelected people in Brussels yes, but if you think thats crazy just remember the number of people who elected Bertie a few years ago and I was laughed at then for calling him a few things too, which all turned out to be true.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

Well I believe that Governments are doing what they believe they should do based on what vested interests and unelected people in Brussels yes...

Why? Are they all corrupt? Has every single head of government of all the member states been bribed by the same vested interests? Quite the feat.

Villain

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Slow down your goalposts there Villain.

You started out saying the German tax payer should eat the debt.

Now you are saying any bank in any country that hold current bonds be told to write it of of face being burned?

And this is exactly what to do with this treaty or bargaining with Germans?

I used Germany as one example, anyone who has any interest in these matters would realise that they are one example.

FreudianSlippers

Just voted yes. I'm wondering though, if 'no' wins how long do we have to wait until they admit they were wrong when things go wrong?

Or will the no people finally admit that the majority of them are anti-EU no matter what the issue is. They would rather see us out of the EU and broke than in and prosperous.

darkman2

Yes from me.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? Are they all corrupt? Has every single head of government of all the member states been bribed by the same vested interests? Quite the feat.

No but if there was an election in every Country would the Governments remain in power? Sarkozy, Bertie and how many more would be voted out?

Why do people assume that Governments will do what is right for their people? Was it the electorate who told Lenihan and Bertie to gurantee the debts that night?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

...which they did, unilaterally, in a panic one night. You're telling me the heads of government of the member states did the same thing?

OK, so you believe that the member states (because that's what the EU is, a collection of member states) encouraged the baser instincts of the heads of government of the member states, and made them greedy, so they decided to destroy their own countries.

Sorry, you're still not making any sense.

Either the heads of government of the member states agreed on something that they thought was in the best interests of their countries, or they agreed on something that they thought was not in the best interests of their countries. That's a fairly simple dichotomy: which are you claiming is the case?

You ever heard of Fianna Fail? They acted in the interests of Ireland...yeh?
Greed is the answer Oscar, you don't need to construct a huge conspiracy theory, it's all there in the baser instincts of man.

Again, I know you don't look to history to provide you with answers....but I ask myself, why did men and women like those in FF and Fg come to power, why did Lab sell it's soul to get into power? Think about that and get back to me if you have an answer other than simple GREED. Then apply the same thinking to why has the EU gone in the direction it has.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Villain wrote: »

I used Germany as one example, anyone who has any interest in these matters would realise that they are one example.

You didn't indicate it was 'one example', your whole theory is pie in the sky to be honest, you don't know the following:

who got the money
how much they got
how to get it back
what countries they were in
who we currently owe
who our banks currently owe

And you think that our banks should threaten someone, anyone with default until they get a 'write down' from someone, anyone.

Ill conceived, is about as politely as I can put it.

Kinski

Apologies if this has been asked and answered already (I'm sure it probably has been!), but, in the event of a Yes victory, can an Irish govt "un-ratify" the Fiscal Compact at a later date?

I realise that today's vote is not a vote on incorporating the Compact into the Constitution, but on allowing the Dail to legally ratify the Treaty and ensuring that no Constitutional challenge to its subsequent standing in Irish law will result.

But what options remain after ratification? If a future govt decides it is no longer in Ireland's interests to abide by the Treaty, can they withdraw from it? Or would "de-establishing" the Compact require all signatories to agree to tear it up?

Heads the ball

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No, the loan is made to the State to allow the State recap their banks.

The counter-party for the loan is the MS, not their banks.

There is no ambiguity here at all apart from in the eyes of someone determined to find such ambiguity.

That, sir, is your opinion

beeftotheheels

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just voted yes. I'm wondering though, if 'no' wins how long do we have to wait until they admit they were wrong when things go wrong?

They won't. They'll wait for the second referendum the Government will be obliged to hold if we're falling off a financial cliff, and then they'll campaign against it as undemocratic safe in the knowledge that any Ganley/ McWilliams No voters will swing back around to yes to carry the second vote leaving them and ULA to proftit at the expense of Labour in the next GE.

Cynical much?!

carveone

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just voted yes. I'm wondering though, if 'no' wins how long do we have to wait until they admit they were wrong when things go wrong?

Or will the no people finally admit that the majority of them are anti-EU no matter what the issue is. They would rather see us out of the EU and broke than in and prosperous.

If beeftotheheels is right* then not long at all. When the next set of bonds roll over in Jan 2014. That's still 18 months...


* I was reading some old posts of his last year saying that Greece would form a government just to get the next bailout tranche and then go right back to instability. Spooky

PopeBuckfastXVI

Villain wrote: »

No but if there was an election in every Country would the Governments remain in power? Sarkozy, Bertie and how many more would be voted out?

Why do people assume that Governments will do what is right for their people? Was it the electorate who told Lenihan and Bertie to gurantee the debts that night?

Because it's easier to believe than Governments actively conspire against their people.

Bertie Ahern did not guarantee any debt, by the way, it was Brian Cowen.

I genuinely believe Cowen & Lenihan were incompetent, not malicious, they never thought for a second the banks would fail, allowing them the 'cheapest bailout in history'.

sparkling sea

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well I have more pride in my fellow citizens.
This crisis was caused ultimately by greed, by allowing the unscupulous to capitalise on the desire to have a better lifestyle. Corruption is endemic everywhere if you allow it to triumph. Spain, Greece, Italy etc.
By voting yes and enshrining the principle that greed wins you are consigning yourself and worse your fello citizens to endure that culture until the whole thing eats itself....you won't be just worried about your debts when that happens..(.look at Greece, food queues, scavenging just to survive.

Morally, the only way I can live with myself, is to do something that will bring an end and a rethink on where we are going. I wouldn't be able to look my children in the eye if I didn't. And before the others jump in....I know that I risk a lot in the short to medium term by doing that. But if it doesn't change, the cycle will just continue, in circles of boom and bust and the pariahs keep winning.

As I said we need to be realistic about what we are like as a people and a country. We love the cute whore, the sterotype didn't come from nowhere; we vote for cute whores; and we even take pride in cute whores:mad:

But cute whores only look after themselves and the rest of us have to pay for their cuteness.

Fringe groups on the far right are on the rise in Greece and just like here, the powerful feware still prospering while the rest of us falter.

A yes vote to me is the worest of two evils

beeftotheheels

Heads the ball wrote: »

That, sir, is your opinion

Ma'am! But it is not just my opinion - "loans to" is pretty simple English.

If they said "put the MS in funds to recap its bank" that might suggest an interpretation such as yours of following the cash, but that is not what it says.

It says they may make "loans to" requiring the lending of money from one party (the ESM) to another party (the Member State).