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

FreudianSlippers

Heads the ball wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's a legal term and a legal truth. Novation is consensual obligation, not a term such as an assignment, etc. It's fairly basic finance law.

I agree it is consensual. It is not precluded by the Treaty as far as I can see. Feel free to send me on the relevant article.

Furthermore I dont see an article which would prevent a loan agreement containing a term which would offer a concession to the member state regarding repayment should its bank go bust.

We cannot legislate for all eventualities. To borrow a phrase: jelly beans.

stefanovich

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?

You can be sure that after a no vote Fine Gael will blame all future problems on the rebellious and uninformed majorities decision.

oscarBravo

stefanovich wrote: »

You can be sure that after a no vote Fine Gael will blame all future problems on the rebellious and uninformed majorities decision.

Which will be completely unjust, because any negative consequences of a 'no' vote will be someone else's fault, right?

joshrogan

First time voting and voted yes. I was a bit underwhelmed by the whole voting process; I was expecting to walk into a private booth close the door and cast my vote and place it in a hole in the wall.:o

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

I agree it is consensual. It is not precluded by the Treaty as far as I can see. Feel free to send me on the relevant article.

Furthermore I dont see an article which would prevent a loan agreement containing a term which would offer a concession to the member state regarding repayment should its bank go bust.

This is "it doesn't explicitly say it can't be done, so ner ner" stuff.

amused,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

beeftotheheels wrote: »

The only interpretation of 15(1) is that loans may be made to MSs.

What you should have wrote:

"The correct way to read a legal document is to read all of Article 15 and all of the rest of the document. The purpose of reading a document this way is to ensure that the conclusions one arrives at are harmonious with the overall agreement as opposed to fighting tooth and nail over three words in one sentence without engaging in proper analysis. When one does that one sees that:

(paraphrasing) Loans may be made to Member States subject to terms which are to be negotiated."

stefanovich

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which will be completely unjust, because any negative consequences of a 'no' vote will be someone else's fault, right?

No. There may be negative consequences as a result of a no vote. I just won't be surprised when they start using it as a get out of jail free card for any economic issues we encounter.

beeftotheheels

Heads the ball wrote: »

I agree it is consensual. It is not precluded by the Treaty as far as I can see. Feel free to send me on the relevant article.

Furthermore I dont see an article which would prevent a loan agreement containing a term which would offer a concession to the member state regarding repayment should its bank go bust.

It is not in the treaty. It is in the general body of EU law that European Institutions can only act within the powers specifically granted to them and it is clear that they have the power to make loans to MSs, since they have not been specifically granted the power to lend to banks they do not have that power. It is called the principle of conferral in Article 5 TEU.

Once you accept that the counter-party is, and must remain, the MS, Article 125 TFEU is what prevents any terms being agreed in the event that the banking system goes kaput.

Which is where I started this discussion several hours ago and am ending it now.

hatrickpatrick

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Anglo was 70% funded by deposits - not bonds. Disproportionately funded by deposits and that was the issue (and hence the huge ELA that replaced the deposits).

That, and the fact that it would have been very difficult to firewall AIB (and the BoI)...

Not saying that the solution was the best possible one, but it really is difficult even with 20-20 hindsight to see any solution that wouldn't have been fraught with huge risks.

But those who deposited chose to deposit there of their own free will, did they not?
Also, could we not have guaranteed deposits without guaranteeing debts? Why couldn't the Irish government have said, "if Anglo collapses and you had money deposited with them, we'll insure that" and leave it there?

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh look, another rhetorical flourish. Now the democratically elected governments of the member states are outcasts.

Can you stow the emotional language and actually just make a point? So you're subscribing to StealthRolex's completely unsubstantiated view that the governments of all the member states are putting Germany's interests ahead of their own countries', in order to "profit". Right. And, any minute now, you'll finally outline what that course of action is.

Or not.

Jesus, you really do have a deficit in the old history dept.
FF and FG are the same animal. They want the status quo to remain, (German dominance of the Eurozone) because that is how and when they and the people they 'really' represent profitted.
Look at the history Oscar. Look at what happened under FF and what has been happening since FG came to power.

The course of action is that ALL the member states accept responsibility for what happened and sit down and navigate a way out of it for ALL the member states. That's how a fair and equitable Union works.
The Yes side keep shouting about how the markets work and the 'rules' work.....The Union made the rules.


Re: rethoric; here's some more rethoric for you.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But those who deposited chose to deposit there of their own free will, did they not?
Also, could we not have guaranteed deposits without guaranteeing debts? Why couldn't the Irish government have said, "if Anglo collapses and you had money deposited with them, we'll insure that" and leave it there?

I agree with your first part, but with your second it's not legally possible to put depositors above senior bond holders in the stack ranking of creditors of a financial institution. At least that's what I've learned from reading these forums.

Heads the ball

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Once you accept that the counter-party is, and must remain, the MS

A. I dont agree with this assertion, and
B. Even if i did, I dont see an article which would prevent a loan agreement containing a term which would offer a CONCESSION to the member state regarding repayment should its bank go bust.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happyman42 wrote: »

The course of action is that ALL the member states accept responsibility for what happened and sit down and navigate a way out of it for ALL the member states. That's how a fair and equitable Union works.
The Yes side keep shouting about how the markets work and the 'rules' work.....The Union made the rules.

'The Union' = 'ALL the member states'

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

The course of action is that ALL the member states accept responsibility for what happened and sit down and navigate a way out of it for ALL the member states. That's how a fair and equitable Union works.

Good idea. Maybe the outcome of sitting down and navigating the way out would be a treaty. Then we'd all sign up to the treaty, and work together towards that outcome. Of course, Ireland might have to have a referendum on that treaty...

I'm still waiting for you to explain what the "way out of it for ALL the member states" would involve. So far, all you've done is bang on at length about how everyone is doing everything wrong, but you're short on constructive suggestions for how things could be done better.

beeftotheheels

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But those who deposited chose to deposit there of their own free will, did they not?
Also, could we not have guaranteed deposits without guaranteeing debts? Why couldn't the Irish government have said, "if Anglo collapses and you had money deposited with them, we'll insure that" and leave it there?

Yes, and No.

Legally senior bondholders are pari passu with depositors.

We could have guaranteed amounts up to e.g. €100k which would have favoured retail deposits, but IBRC would still have had a run on institutional deposits and replaced them with ELA (as it ultimately did) which then put us in hoc to the ECB (as we are) although if that had happened prior to us nationalizing Anglo we'd have had a lot more negotiating room because Art 123 (monetary financing prohibition) couldn't have been invoked.

For a little more context though, a hell of a lot of Anglo depositors were in the UK (of Icesave using anti-terrorism legislation to freeze assets fame), and the very issue there was that "institutional" depositors were local authorities and pension funds that the UK Gov felt obliged to go to bat for.

later12

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?

It must be pretty trippy to live in a world where No-Bad and Yes=Good, or other such black and white determinations.

I just voted No and quite reluctantly so. There is no easy answer to this question for a lot of people both on the Yes side and the No side who found themselves wavering between both.

I could just as easily put the same question as you have asked above back to you. When the Treaty is passed and is transposed into law, if it all goes wrong and causes crises in the European periphery, or if there are worrying difficulties in calculating Ireland's structural deficit, or if Scofflaws back-of-the-envelope calculations based on all current projections being realized do not materialize, will the Yes voters say "we shouldn't have voted Yes"?

When the time comes to judge the success or failure of the European sovereign, financial and currency crisis will you look back and say you stuck to your principles as an Irish citizen and a European? That you made the best decision based on the available economic evidence? It's not for me to answer that for you; that's a truth you have to face up to yourself.

And yet, those of us who are genuinely concerned that Europe is on the wrong path, and that Ireland is on the wrong path within Europe, and who express that concern at the ballot box, are derided as naysayers or lunatics. It actually beggars belief sometimes, to see this sort of arrogance against anything that challenges or disagrees with what some of us see as profound institutional mistakes in Europe.

If you don't see the path that Europe and Ireland are taking as detrimental on the balance of probabilities, then your obligation is to vote Yes. However, those of us who do not share your optimism in this context also have an obligation to vote with our principles and you should at least show some basic respect for that.

Happyman42

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

'The Union' = 'ALL the member states'

Yes it is...what is your point?

Heads the ball

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Yes, and No.

Legally senior bondholders are pari passu with depositors.

This doesnt address the question of could we not guarantee the debt. There were junior bondholders also and that is the part that people find most distatseful.

And I certainly dont trust your legal bona fides.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Good idea. Maybe the outcome of sitting down and navigating the way out would be a treaty. Then we'd all sign up to the treaty, and work together towards that outcome. Of course, Ireland might have to have a referendum on that treaty...

I'm still waiting for you to explain what the "way out of it for ALL the member states" would involve. So far, all you've done is bang on at length about how everyone is doing everything wrong, but you're short on constructive suggestions for how things could be done better.

What is wrong with suggesting that all the member states sit down and in a fair and equitable way work out what to do?

molloyjh

Happyman42 wrote: »

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

'The Union' = 'ALL the member states'

Yes it is...what is your point?

That you want all member states to sit down and agree a way out. They have. We're going on it today. A couple of people have already pointed this out to you. Have you really not coped it yet?

Ken.

Went to vote this morning and my name has been removed from the register since the last vote we had in October. Not a happy bunny.

Villain

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I've yet to hear what you're talking about, you can start with links to exactly what 'the IMF' said, and exactly what Kenny said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NsmVjulsbac

Happyman42

molloyjh wrote: »

They have. We're going on it today.

You sure that this treaty is agreed by ALL the member states of the EU? :rolleyes:

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happyman42 wrote: »

The course of action is that ALL the member states accept responsibility for what happened and sit down and navigate a way out of it for ALL the member states. That's how a fair and equitable Union works.
The Yes side keep shouting about how the markets work and the 'rules' work.....The Union made the rules.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes it is...what is your point?

A. The course of action is that ALL the member states accept responsibility for what happened and sit down and navigate a way out of it for ALL the member states.
B. The Union made the rules.
C. "ALL the member states" = "The Union"

You've accepted or stated the above as true, so All the member states made the rules, and this is the course of action which you recommend, therefore what has happened, i.e. the making of those rules is what you recommend, so you must be in favour of Union made rules?

If you accept there's no conflict between the Union and the Member States, that they are the same entity, I don't know how you can put down the fact that they made some rules, and advocate that any rules they make are the correct course of action.

Scioch

ken wrote: »

Went to vote this morning and my name has been removed from the register since the last vote we had in October. Not a happy bunny.

How can they remove you from the register ??

StealthRolex

antoobrien wrote: »

Turnout is usually bad early in the day. Most people that vote tend to do so after work.

Our current system is such that only the politically motivated vote. This only presents then an opinion of what the politically motivated think and not what the majority think.

If you believe that voting is a civic duty then alternative that results in a more representative and accurate view of what the majority think is available in the form of compulsory voting.

The only things that can be said for the system as she is employed in Ireland is that if you didn't vote you have no right to complain later and the numbers who do not vote leaves the system open to abuse.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Villain wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NsmVjulsbac

I can't make sense of that, it doesn't show what 'write down' Coveney is talking about, or when, and it doesn't show what 'write off' Kenny is talking about six months prior to the discussion with Conveney.

There's insufficient information for me to draw an informed conclusion, or opinion I'm afraid. I'm not going to accuse you of that though.

Happyman42

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

A. The course of action is that ALL the member states accept responsibility for what happened and sit down and navigate a way out of it for ALL the member states.
B. The Union made the rules.
C. "ALL the member states" = "The Union"

You've accepted or stated the above as true, so All the member states made the rules, and this is the course of action which you recommend, therefore what has happened, i.e. the making of those rules is what you recommend, so you must be in favour of Union made rules?

If you accept there's no conflict between the Union and the Member States, that they are the same entity, I don't know how you can put down the fact that they made some rules, and advocate that any rules they make are the correct course of action.

You are missing the point......they make the rules AFTER they take responsibility, fix the problems and flaws if they can be fixed (I doubt the Euro in it's current form can be fixed) and then we have something that can be really called an EU. Fair and equitable to ALL member states. It has never been that, the need for this current bull**** fix is testament to that fact.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are missing the point......they make the rules AFTER they take responsibility, fix the problems and flaws if they can be fixed (I doubt the Euro in it's current form can be fixed) and then we have something that can be really called an EU. Fair and equitable to ALL member states. It has never been that, the need for this current bull**** fix is testament to that fact.

And what should that course of action be, in your opinion?

blowtorch

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Which German bankers, exactly?

I know that Sean FitzPatrick wasn't German, I know he had 'gambling debts' from Anglo, so does that make the Anglo bailout justified?

Pick a few from here. http://www.irishcentral.com/news/List-of-bondholders-in-Anglo-Irish-Bank-leaked-110903209.html