Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

Scofflaw

steve9859 wrote: »

I dont think it will make it particularly harder, no. That is scaremongering of the yes side.

And what we give away on control of pretty much everything from corporation taxes to eployment law, in the aim of "pan-European economic integration" (see article 9) makes it too high a price IMO

So this:

Building upon the economic policy coordination as defined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Contracting Parties undertake to work jointly towards an economic policy fostering the smooth functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union and economic growth through enhanced convergence and competitiveness. To that end, the Contracting Parties shall take the necessary actions and measures in all the domains which are essential to the good functioning of the euro area in pursuit of the objectives of fostering competitiveness, promoting employment, contributing further to the sustainability of public finances and reinforcing financial stability.

legally gives away all that? Goodness me. I admit I don't see any reference to either tax or employment law in there.

amused,
Scofflaw

force eleven

It's the term 'enhanced convergence' which should get the red mist going for any euro-sceptic. It is precisely this 'enhanced convergence' in the form of cheap credit and ease of banks lending willy-nilly to each other across Europe that caused the bubble here. And now we pay them back for their policies?

Further convergence of an economic nature -i.e this 'treaty', is surely undesirable.

Gurgle

If 'enhanced convergence' means I won't get fùcked over for private gambling debts in the next boom - recession cycle, then I'm all for it.

It's too late for this time around.

Scofflaw

force eleven wrote: »

It's the term 'enhanced convergence' which should get the red mist going for any euro-sceptic. It is precisely this 'enhanced convergence' in the form of cheap credit and ease of banks lending willy-nilly to each other across Europe that caused the bubble here. And now we pay them back for their policies?

Further convergence of an economic nature -i.e this 'treaty', is surely undesirable.

Er, no. That's globalisation, addition of large areas to the world economy over the past 20 years, mobilisation of micro-capital, and the relaxation of bank regulation and capital constraints, not "economic convergence".

It's been going on for the last two decades.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebaz

steve9859 wrote: »

I dont think it will make it particularly harder, no. That is scaremongering of the yes side.

so you think a No vote will make it easier for the Govt. to borrow money on favourable terms ? I'm not scaremongering I'm being realistic , the Govt. needs to borrow money to keep services going - a No vote will keep us in recession for a lot longer , going round begging for money on any terms just to pay for services and social welfare

mikom

Oh -ohhh

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean- Claude Juncker said he’s stepping down as head of the group of euro-area finance ministers because he’s tired of Franco-German interference in managing the region’s debt crisis.

“They act as if they are the only members of the group,” Juncker said today at a podium discussion in Hamburg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-30/juncker-says-ceding-euro-job-due-to-franco-german-interference.html

kenmc

Michael Noonan wrote:

Vote yes, or else.....

:mad:
What's after that, round up all the firstborn sons? :eek:

Captain Darling

I'm sick of the government telling us 'vote yes or else!' They should place bigger emphasis on the positives behind the bloody thing, whatever they are, instead of using scare tactics.

I'm fcuking sick of the ****.

blowtorch

kenmc wrote: »

:mad:
What's after that, round up all the firstborn sons? :eek:

They've probably all emigrated

Dyr

mikom wrote: »

Oh -ohhh

You sure as f**k wont see that on RTE

My name is URL

kenmc wrote: »

:mad:
What's after that, round up all the firstborn sons? :eek:

I don't get the reasoning behind why a No vote would mean a tougher budget. Surely the whole point of the treaty is to ensure that budgets are tougher and more austere in future. I mean, either way, future budgets are going to be a lot harder than they have been in the past.

They're fools for going so blatantly down the road of fear mongering and threats. Look at the outcome that had on the whole water charges thing.

Stark

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't get the reasoning behind why a No vote would mean a tougher budget. Surely the whole point of the treaty is to ensure that budgets are tougher and more austere in future.

A no vote may mean that cheaper credit isn't as easily accessible.

My name is URL

Stark wrote: »

A no vote may mean that cheaper credit isn't as easily accessible.

Noonan says though, in no uncertain terms, that a No vote will mean a tougher* next budget. It's plainly scare tactics on his part.

*tougher in comparison to what, I don't know.

humanji

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't get the reasoning behind why a No vote would mean a tougher budget. Surely the whole point of the treaty is to ensure that budgets are tougher and more austere in future. I mean, either way, future budgets are going to be a lot harder than they have been in the past.

They're fools for going so blatantly down the road of fear mongering and threats. Look at the outcome that had on the whole water charges thing.

I know I'm a conspiracy theories mod so maybe I'm meant to think this way, but you'd almost think that he wants people to vote no. Possibly because he can then do what he wants and blame the people instead of himself?

Micky Dolenz

I know I'm a conspiracy theories mod so maybe I'm meant to think this way, but you'd almost think that he wants people to vote no. Possibly because he can then do what he wants and blame the people instead of himself?

cml387

So you think politicians like introducing tough budgets?

My name is URL

Miriam O'Callaghan, Clare Daly and Lucinda Creighton are partaking in a steamy debate on RTE1.

I've the weirdest boner right now

Battered Mars Bar

No! :mad::D:mad:

and when they ask a second time


yes :rolleyes::(

Justice for the individual

My name is URL wrote: »

Miriam O'Callaghan, Clare Daly and Lucinda Creighton are partaking in a steamy debate on RTE1.

I've the weirdest boner right now

You should leave your dogs food alone!

Justice for the individual

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, Lisbon totally collapsed our property bubble and the construction sector. Oh no, wait, that had already happened.


That is a misrepresentation of my submission. I was referring to the thousands of jobs promised by the Yes camp during the Lisbon Treaty and not to the jobs lost due to the property bubble.

K-9

Justice for the individual wrote: »

Yes, Lisbon totally collapsed our property bubble and the construction sector. Oh no, wait, that had already happened.


That is a misrepresentation of my submission. I was referring to the thousands of jobs promised by the Yes camp during the Lisbon Treaty and not to the jobs lost due to the property bubble.

We've had thousands of jobs announced!

Scofflaw

Justice for the individual wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, Lisbon totally collapsed our property bubble and the construction sector. Oh no, wait, that had already happened.

That is a misrepresentation of my submission. I was referring to the thousands of jobs promised by the Yes camp during the Lisbon Treaty and not to the jobs lost due to the property bubble.

And when you look at the jobless figures, you're able to tell exactly which ones are which? That's an impressive ability!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gurgle

Got the treaty leaflet through the door yesterday, and gave it a good read through.
Here is my current understanding:

Yes: We promise to balance our budget over the next couple of years because we can't pay the fùcking bills on credit forever.

No: We have to balance the budget because we can't pay the fùcking bills on credit forever, but we hereby stick 2 fingers up at the lenders who are trying to make us promise.

Conclusion: Pointless treaty, pointless referendum.

Scofflaw

Gurgle wrote: »

Got the treaty leaflet through the door yesterday, and gave it a good read through.
Here is my current understanding:

Yes: We promise to balance our budget over the next couple of years because we can't pay the fùcking bills on credit forever.

No: We have to balance the budget because we can't pay the fùcking bills on credit forever, but we hereby stick 2 fingers up at the lenders who are trying to make us promise.

Conclusion: Pointless treaty, pointless referendum.

There really ought to be an Atari Jaguar option on this one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

prinz

So did anyone watch the TV3 debate last night? I managed to catch some of it and it just reaffirmed my Yes vote position. How anyone could watch it and reasonably vote no on the advice of Mary Lou and Joe Higgins was beyond me.. perhaps someone else watched more of it than I did, but the bit I did get to see was their solution to the problem while voting No..

Joe Higgins: We'll tax the superwealthy to cover the €16 billion odd shortfall in the next few years and apparently bide our time until there is a pan-Europe rise of the oridnary working men to throw off the shackles of the capitalist system..and everything will be rosy.

Mary Lou: We'll vote no, but when the time comes that we need to borrow we'll go cap in hand to......you guessed it.....Europe, looking for money to cover government spending on public services, social welfare etc.

Seriously? Did anyone else watch the full piece?

Ghost Buster

cml387 wrote: »

So you think politicians like introducing tough budgets?

Yes. Its a chance to put everyone else into tougher and tougher positions whilst they remain amongst the most highly paid in Europe.

dvpower

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Yes. Its a chance to put everyone else into tougher and tougher positions whilst they remain amongst the most highly paid in Europe.

You think that politicans like putting people into tough positions?

Just for laughs or are they sadists by nature or what?

Almaviva

For anyone still in doubt about how to vote, read here:

GAA's leading managers throw weight behind Yes campaign

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gaas-leading-managers-throw-weight-behind-yes-campaign-3101780.html

What better experts could you look to for guidance on the management of European monetary union and governement funding than GAA county managers? All Ireland winning ones to boot, so surely they understand the finer points of international finance. Fortunately they care about you and have decided to help you make the right choice.

Just as the French and Greeks have voted against leaders who support the Fiscal Compact and the austerity it promises!

Pedant

† VOTE YES FOR JESUS!! †