Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

FoxT

I am inclined to think that the treaty may not be a bad thing. I'll be voting 'no', however, for a couple of reasons.

- We can change our minds later
if we vote NO and things dont work out, then we will get a chance to change our minds. This won't happen if we vote YES


- Does not address root cause of the problem
The referendum/fiscal compact does not in any way address the root causes of the financial crisis. (Unregulated bank lending at interest rates that were set way too low for peripheral EU countries)


- Taxpayer remains unprotected
Before I embrace the EU any more closely I will want a guarantee that the taxpayer is protected against banks that 'are too big to fail' . The financial regulators need to make sure that if any bank fails, then we can just walk away & let it fail. This is not simple, and has costs - but I want to see steps being taken in that direction.

- Both the Irish Govt & the EU need to get serious about solving the problems
A no vote would give them a well deserved kick in the arse, good chance that they will come back with something better if we reject whats on teh table now.

-FoxT

FoxT

dvpower wrote: »

It isn't.

The Stability Treaty, otherwise called the Fiscal Compact or the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

dvpower

FoxT wrote: »

The Stability Treaty, otherwise called the Fiscal Compact or the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

Or the 'Austerity Treaty' if you want or the 'Treaty for the subjecation of the European people under the jackboot of the Fourth Reich'.

Whatever you're having yourself.

dvpower

FoxT wrote: »

- We can change our minds later
if we vote NO and things dont work out, then we will get a chance to change our minds. This won't happen if we vote YES

If we vote No and this leads to a ratings downgrade (as has been indicated), leading to an an increase in our bond prices, leading to us not being able to borrow from the market and having to turn to other lenders (which may not be available to us, since we willl have excluded ourselves from the ESM).
How exactly does our changing our mind unravel all that?

Scofflaw

Richard tea wrote: »

As mentioned on the radio yesterday, Enda is only suited to local political work. The usual stuff like getting the potholes fixed and doing a fundraiser for a small playground. He is in power because of the back lash from FF. The little git is even sending info out by post & has it titled '' the stability treaty'' As far as im aware the treaty is called the fiscal compact treaty?

In fact, the fiscal rules bit within the Treaty is called the fiscal compact - "Title III, Fiscal Compact".

The Treaty, however, is called the "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union".

cordially,
Scofflaw

TehDagsBass

Will be voting "Yes" and am looking forward to getting it out of the way and passed through as the real polls indicate it will.

Then the anti-government, populist socialists can get back in their boxes, finally.

wingsof daun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toNYdc-2xvU&feature=related

Please watch 12mins to 13. Sheik Imran Hosein speaks directly about the Fiscal treaty. He says our politicians will just follow whatever orders they are given, ie. they will benefit corporations NOT the people. The scum in Fianna Gael supporting a yes vote. I think they are showing their true colours.

TehDagsBass

wingsof daun wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toNYdc-2xvU&feature=related

Please watch 12mins to 13. Sheik Imran Hosein speaks directly about the Fiscal treaty. He says our politicians will just follow whatever orders they are given, ie. they will benefit corporations NOT the people. The scum in Fianna Gael supporting a yes vote. I think they are showing their true colours.

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to presume whoever it is you're linking to won't either.

wingsof daun

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to presume whoever it is you're linking to won't either.

At least the sheeple have learnt to type. :pac: That's all I learn from that post.

TehDagsBass

wingsof daun wrote: »

At least the sheeple have learnt to type. :pac: That's all I learn from that post.

You're so cool and non-conformist, man. Scum and sheeple yo, fight the power, bring down the corporations man.

Scofflaw

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Will be voting "Yes" and am looking forward to getting it out of the way and passed through as the real polls indicate it will.

Then the anti-government, populist socialists can get back in their boxes, finally.

They'll still be there, pointing to every bad thing that happens and saying "that's because you didn't vote No, we told you that would happen".

cordially,
Scofflaw

TehDagsBass

Scofflaw wrote: »

They'll still be there, pointing to every bad thing that happens and saying "that's because you didn't vote No, we told you that would happen".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah, indeed, very true.

Although, to be fair, I'll happily take that any day should it mean that they neither get their wishes on referenda or the make-up of government.

dvpower

New poll shows increased support for the Yes side.

53% of voters say they'll vote Yes - an increase of six points the last poll a fortnight ago. 31% say they will vote no, down four points, while 16% are undecided, down two points.

Scofflaw

dvpower wrote: »

New poll shows increased support for the Yes side.

53% of voters say they'll vote Yes - an increase of six points the last poll a fortnight ago. 31% say they will vote no, down four points, while 16% are undecided, down two points.

Interesting - the two undecided seem to have gone to the Yes side, as well as 4 of the Nos.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The fact that the undecideds have decided is progress, the question is how many will swap to the other side considering what's happening in Euroland right now!

KINGVictor

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that the undecideds have decided is progress, the question is how many will swap to the other side considering what's happening in Euroland right now!

Not a lot would swap Dolan. The crises in Greece/Spain and the election of Hollande had taken place before the poll was conducted unless I am mistaken.

If the poll is an 'actual' reflection of how the majority of votes will go on the treaty, then perharps the NO side has lost their argument against the treaty and the majority people aren't believing them or probably they don't want to become another Greece that are being villified and are basically being used as an example for what what happens when an EZ country becomes insubordinate.

Only time will tell; the 31st of May is just round the corner.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

Not a lot would swap Dolan. The crises in Greece/Spain and the election of Hollande had taken place before the poll was conducted unless I am mistaken.

If the poll is an 'actual' reflection of how the majority of votes will go on the treaty, then perharps the NO side has lost their argument against the treaty and the majority people aren't believing them or probably they don't want to become another Greece that are being villified and are basically being used as an example for what what happens when an EZ country becomes insubordinate.

Only time will tell; the 31st of May is just round the corner.

The poll was conducted Monday-Wednesday of last week, so after the election of Hollande and after the Greek elections, but slightly before the latest round of Greek news.

I think the major issue remains the same - that the No side lack a coherent answer to the major issues facing the country. They have a coherent message - "No to Austerity" - but are unable to explain how voting No actually prevents austerity, and their message is rather self-contradictory, since it obviously requires serious borrowing while preventing access to the only known source of such borrowing.

Interestingly, Declan Ganley is apparently to re-enter the debate, on the No side - http://www.libertas.ie/ is up and running already.

His message seems to be to vote No to force a deal on Ireland's bank debt, although his claim that one can use a No on the Fiscal Treaty to force a renegotiation of bank debt relies on the government deciding to veto the proposed amendment to Article 136 in order to "veto" the creation of ESM. I'm not sure what allies we could then have in negotiations, given we'd quite possibly generate enough uncertainty to force Spain and perhaps Italy into bailout territory - but I don't see any chance of the government using their Article 136 veto, or any certainty of it stopping the creation of ESM if they did.

I note that this time he's not hiding his colours - the slogan at the top is "for a united federal Europe".

cordially,
Scofflaw

SafeSurfer

Calling this Treaty the Stability Treaty is the ultimate political double speak.
This treaty does not offer stability.
This treaty is a sop to the die hard anti inflationists of the Bundes Bank and a platform for Herr Merkel's re election campaign.

The contempt the politicians who seek a yes vote have for the ordinary Irish voter is evident in labeling our decision as basically pro or anti stability.

It is disingenuous, misleading and an abuse of power to call a treaty the stability treaty. If we are asked to re vote will they call it the anti cancer treaty?

It is cynical in the extreme.

Well Frau Merkel, appears to be very masculine, but even she doesn’t have the balls to admit that the Euro is in serious shit as the Greeks are simply unable to jump through the impossible hoops that the troika have set up for them.

This treaty assumes that economic activity will grow to allow the debts to be repaid, global resource limitations will prove that to be an impossible task.

A rather long video that explains why things are going the way they are (either YES or NO) we're in it up to our necks, regardless of what politicians want us to think!

The key point is that the current economic model is dependent on infinite growth, and the (finite) world is reaching it's limits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

The EU really needs to be rewound back to the EEC, by that I mean as a group of independent countries with a free trading agreement and common trading standards.

The United states of Europe dream (which this treaty is but one small step towards) is dead in the water. Globalisation cannot flourish in a world that is incapable of providing infinite supplies of cheap fuel & labour.

Dwellingdweller

Scofflaw wrote: »

The poll was conducted Monday-Wednesday of last week, so after the election of Hollande and after the Greek elections, but slightly before the latest round of Greek news.

I think the major issue remains the same - that the No side lack a coherent answer to the major issues facing the country. They have a coherent message - "No to Austerity" - but are unable to explain how voting No actually prevents austerity, and their message is rather self-contradictory, since it obviously requires serious borrowing while preventing access to the only known source of such borrowing.

Interestingly, Declan Ganley is apparently to re-enter the debate, on the No side - http://www.libertas.ie/ is up and running already.

His message seems to be to vote No to force a deal on Ireland's bank debt, although his claim that one can use a No on the Fiscal Treaty to force a renegotiation of bank debt relies on the government deciding to veto the proposed amendment to Article 136 in order to "veto" the creation of ESM. I'm not sure what allies we could then have in negotiations, given we'd quite possibly generate enough uncertainty to force Spain and perhaps Italy into bailout territory - but I don't see any chance of the government using their Article 136 veto, or any certainty of it stopping the creation of ESM if they did.

I note that this time he's not hiding his colours - the slogan at the top is "for a united federal Europe".

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is what I believe is wrong with the financial system nowadays, even the *idea* of uncertainty plays into real life situations (speculators). there's nothing real or empirical about a feeling (or a bet), but they're practically what the global monetary system works on nowadays. what a joke.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

Well Frau Merkel, appears to be very masculine, but even she doesn’t have the balls to admit that the Euro is in serious shit as the Greeke are simply unable to jump through the impossible hoops that the troika have set up for them.

This treaty assumes that economic activity will grow to allow the debts to be repaid, global rosource limitations will prove that to be an impossible task.

A rather long video that explains why things are going the way they are (either YES or NO) we're ion it up to our necks, regardless of what politicians want us to think!

The key point is that the current economic model is dependent on infinite growth, and the (finite) world is reaching it's limits.

There I tend to agree with you, but don't see what the Treaty does to promote such a system. If anything, the decision to keep debt-based government spending within limits runs against the issue of "borrowing forward" against perpetual growth, and has been criticised primarily on that basis.

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU really needs to be rewound back to the EEC, by that I mean as a group of independent countries with a free trading agreement and common trading standards.

I don't see what that would do to improve the finite resources problem either. The EU has been most one of the world's most active bodies in addressing issues such as sustainability, and it would have no role in doing so in an EEC. Instead, the rewind would produce a Europe in which intra-European competition was heightened - a competition which is primarily based on expenditure of resources.

Resources constraints are usually a "common pool" problem, and the solutions to such problems are invariably based on closer cooperation, not on a reduction of cooperation.

Deleted User wrote: »

The United states of Europe dream (which this treaty is but one small step towards) is dead in the water. Globalisation cannot flourish in a world that is incapable of providing infinite supplies of cheap fuel & labour.

Um, so why is Ireland's only known proponent of a united Europe opposed to the Treaty?

cordially,
Scofflaw

TehDagsBass

I don't know how you do it Scofflaw, but keep fighting the good fight.

bgrizzley

i did try to look for a reason to vote yes, but as i understand this we have a government telling us to vote for a treaty that will rein them cause they may be too incompetent to balance our books in the future.

we also have the last lot telling us to vote for it, even though they proved they were incompetent.

the circus has come to town............

TehDagsBass

bgrizzley wrote: »

i did try to look for a reason to vote yes, but as i understand this we have a government telling us to vote for a treaty that will rein them cause they may be too incompetent to balance our books in the future.

we also have the last lot telling us to vote for it, even though they proved they were incompetent.

the circus has come to town............

The competence of the Government has nothing to do with the piece of text that we're being asked to vote on. It's not a vote on how you feel about the government at the moment.

Start here and inform yourself on the actual question being asked. http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie/index.php/en/about_the_treaty/introduction/

bgrizzley

TehDagsBass wrote: »

The competence of the Government has nothing to do with the piece of text that we're being asked to vote on. It's not a vote on how you feel about the government at the moment.

Start here and inform yourself on the actual question being asked. http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie/index.php/en/about_the_treaty/introduction/

It contributes to these objectives through budgetary rules (intended to ensure good housekeeping in each country)

this has nothing to do with future incompetence?

Anthony16

So,if we reject austerity as it seems greece will,we will have no money to pay our public servants and dolers?
Im guessing our bank accounts would be frozen or destroyed as well?
Gotta be a yes vote.

AudreyHepburn

The constant and needless scaremongering on BOTH sides of the treaty debate is getting seriously tedious.

I really wish people would stop jumping on bandwagons and actually sit down and read what the treaty is really about, rather than making it up as you go along or reading into it what isn't there.

It has little if anything to do with austerity, which will remain either way whilst we are in recession. And voting based on who you hate more is childish in my opinion and the wrong way to vote.

To much to ask that people simply read the Referendum Commission's guide and decide for themselves instead of following the flock?

Anthony16

Anthony16 wrote: »

So,if we reject austerity as it seems greece will,we will have no money to pay our public servants and dolers?
Im guessing our bank accounts would be frozen or destroyed as well?
Gotta be a yes vote.

I don't believe that there would be a total collapse, there are too many VI's involved to allow such a thing to happen.

If the vote is a no, then I expect to see a managed break-up of the Euro over the next two years.

If the vote is a Yes, then I expect to see a managed break-up of the Euro over the next three years.

Because the Fiscal unity was not put in place first, the whole system is unstable and the recent global economic issues have exposed these shortcomings.

Capital flight has already happened, so it is pointless in politicians saying that investors will pull out as they already have moved their money from the PIIGS into Germany.

I knew I'd seen this poster before.
http://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/spausterity1.jpg

It's the 1979 Conservative election poster!

http://srferrao.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/article-1141528-01ccb8730000044d-139_468x227_popup.jpg

33 years standing there, they must be really fed up at this stage.

Biggins

Is the Referendum Illegal Anyway? Well is it? One chap that is well educated in these things seems to think so! Bruce Arnold states that it is, cites the law and says that to continue down the path illegally that FG and Labour wish to the public, is madness.

...we have not yet approved the Article 136 amendment of the main EU treaties, which permits this European Stability Mechanism setting up the permanent €500bn bailout fund for the eurozone. It is therefore not yet part of EU law and the EU treaties and cannot come within the aegis of the EU Court of Justice. Yet they are, ironically, within the competence of the Irish Supreme Court to rule on.

Surprisingly, perhaps, the Irish Supreme Court has not had a chance to look at EU developments for nearly 30 years, nor to lay down lines of division in respect of what limits, if any, there are to further EU integration. The Supreme Court cannot carry out such a review without being asked to do so.

One option would be for President Michael D Higgins to refer the matter to the Supreme Court (when a bill to license our €11bn contribution to the proposed ESM fund comes before him). LINK

Lets be honest, it wouldn't be the first time our government has done something wrong and quietly said nothing about part of the matter they don’t want the public to know about!

...At the VERY least I think we should be postponing it.