Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

Frank Black

I'll be voting 'no' because I don't like the website or Pat Rabitte's smirk.


We're such a sophisticated electorate.

Zebra3

Mickey Dazzler wrote: »

As much as I hate all the politicians Leo Varadkar was right when he said that the people will not be using their vote to vote on the issue but to punish the government for all the other things that are going on.

It's a democracy. People can vote whatever way they want for whatever reason. He won't be objecting to all the fools who'll vote yes because it's their patriotic duty or for jobs or for whatever other crap him and the other traitors come out with. :rolleyes:

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I am voting Yes.

Enda and his team have this country back on the right track and it would be ridiculous to deviate from that path now.

Really? Please explain how....

phasers

I'll be voting no. Both times. I look forward to the "vote yes for jobs" posters making another appearance though.

Bubblefett

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I am voting Yes.

Enda and his team have this country back on the right track and it would be ridiculous to deviate from that path now.

...Enda? Is that you?

blowtorch

Waiiiit. Enda Kenny has already signed this treaty. http://www.merrionstreet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Post-3.bmp

Now, looking at the disclaimer on www.stabilitytreaty.ie it must have been written by
a 10-year-old. http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie/index.php/en/about_this_site/copyright_disclaimer/

Note this sentence...... 'Sometimes we are directly engaging with you on these sites, sometimes we use these services because we want to be where you already are.' For jeebes sake.

As they say on the X-Factor 'It's a NO from me'. But as the git has already signed it, what's his punishment if the referendum is a decided 'no'?

Stark

All treaties have to be signed before they go to a referendum. It's after the referendum that they're ratified.

WoollyRedHat

AdamD wrote: »

People do realise we have to make budget cuts right? EU or no EU...

EU with or without EU,
with or without EU

and Eu give yourself away, and EU give and EU give, and EU give yourself away

blowtorch

Stark wrote: »

All treaties have to be signed before they go to a referendum. It's after the referendum that they're ratified.

Thanks Stark. Didn't know the ins-and-outs.

NinjaK

Im anti-EU so naturally ill be voting No to it. If they were offering free money I would vote No.

HigginsJ

NinjaK wrote: »

Im anti-EU so naturally ill be voting No to it. If they were offering free money I would vote No.

The money their offering isn't free...... change your mind now!!

NinjaK

HigginsJ wrote: »

The money their offering isn't free...... change your mind now!!

I know that. I said even if they were offering free money I would still vote NO

Sky King

smash wrote: »

I would love to know how much they paid for that website.

30 grand according to Enda on Radio 1 this evening. 30 grand for that!

F**k me in the actual ear! The fkin state of it!

footy231

dont be scared into thinking we are doomed by saying no we are not, we cant just be left on the wayside we are part of the euro currency we will affect the rest if we didnt after all we need the loans to pay back our loans to the germans etc. so dont be scared vote no, this government needs to listen to its people, they just want yes to keep their gravy train rolling, cause when the financial system ponzi scheme gets worse or collapses (and it will) they can run off with their huge pensions, us "peasents" will be hit hardest. not the political elite or the gambling bankers. just remember that we are in this because of them both yet they still come out on top, all the hardship is for them.WAKE UP PEOPLE

Dubit10

Write off all our BANK debts and ill vote yes. If not its a no from me.

We all vote no , the no vote will win. We will then have to vote again !!

forfuxsake

In three days time Sarkozy will be gone. Hollande said that he wants to end austerity and wants to change the treaty. Should be an interesting few weeks.

Notorious97

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I am voting Yes.

Enda and his team have this country back on the right track and it would be ridiculous to deviate from that path now.

Lol

By any chance are you appearing in vicar street saturday night? How much are the tickets?

starviewadams

I'll do the exact opposite of what the axis of evil want,so that's a big fat no vote from me!

Son Of A Vidic

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Enda and his team have this country back on the right track and it would be ridiculous to deviate from that path now.

I don't know what your on? But it is must be one powerful hallucinogen.

Dyr

Getoffmytrain wrote: »

v=EPcWHBPYOSU

I can't see any reason to vote Yes.

its sorta funny that the european obsession with avoiding a replay of their dodgy past is creating structures that will make any future dictators ascent so much easier.

patwicklow

Not a hope so a big FO NO but there will be a lot of fools out there that will vote yes!

crashplan

It'll be a NO from me!

KINGVictor

I am not trying to be controversial but the truth is anyone who thinks that the Irish electorate will vote NO to the treaty is either in denial or is just not abreast with the current global economic reality.

Like some posters have mentioned, there won't be any opportunity to reverse the referendum, it simply means that Ireland will not be able to tap into EU funds in the likely event that the country needs a second bail-out.

However, like a lot of folks, I detest this treaty because it stifles growth and places too much emphasis on a strict Germanic level of government spending- the authors and proponents of the treaty erroneously believe in a (one-size fits all approach) which is quite ridiculous because the architecture of the economies in the Eurozone are dissimilar.

That being said, since the majority of EU countries have agreed to sign up to the treaty, it will be a costly mistake to reject it. The alternative will be a very uncertain future fraught with distortions and speculations, something the country hardly needs. It will be wiser to wait till the *powers that be* realise that the treaty is unworkable and adjust accordingly.

Just saying.

laoch na mona

no we shouldn't be thinking about a second bailout

Dyr

D1stant wrote: »

LOL

Where did this come from?

Its from Dole.tv. Thats right, buncha people on the dole can do what RTE can't even if they had a budget the size of a ministerial pension :pac:

nacho libre

forfuxsake wrote: »

In three days time Sarkozy will be gone. Hollande said that he wants to end austerity and wants to change the treaty. Should be an interesting few weeks.

What Hollande says now, will probably not be quite the same as what he does in power. A lot of people who voted for the current government have now realised that's what Politicans tend do in the run up to an election.

Viral Vector

No....

....but people will vote yes after weeks of manipulation through media spin! :rolleyes:

jumpguy

I'm still in a grey area as regards this treaty (waiting to hear arguments that address my concerns...), but I'm slightly leaning towards voting yes.

Ireland has been ran into the ground economically numerous times in it's relatively short lifetime due to the same cycle. Things start picking up economically, such as in the Celtic Tiger, and Ireland's coffers are filling fast. The electorate and the opposition (trying merely to score political points) are screaming at the government to spend more money on x, y and z, and crucially to lower some taxes and abolish others. Irresponsible spending is encouraged, and because income tax is lowered the slack has to be taken up elsewhere (as in the Celtic Tiger, it was the housing market that picked up the slack.)

It's been the same story all the time - and the electorate are to blame. Any government that decided to hold onto a healthy budget surplus and adopt countercyclical fiscal policies would be decimated come the next election.

I don't see the mindset of the electorate changing any time soon, and tbf, I don't think many of them will have the broad mindedness to see that national picture.

I'd support either reform to how our politics here work (some way to make it less local-issues focussed and more good-of-the-nation focussed at national politics level) or giving the power to have safeguards that are out of our government's hands (and the electorate's.)

These safeguards were agreed before we go to vote. They are reasonably and seem to promote good fiscal policy. Essentially, they are what we signed up to when we joined the Euro. However, what happened there was that the nations who were meant to be enforcing these policies were among the first to break them - that is, France or Germany. Ironically, France and Germany probably set the precedent which brought about this debt crisis.

This is essentially a second go at that, with a stronger, more binding agreement to comfort markets.

I have yet to see a good, coherent, non-sensationalist argument against it that doesn't reek of immature "oh let's punish the government" ideology.

Dyr

jumpguy wrote: »

I'm still in a grey area as regards this treaty (waiting to hear arguments that address my concerns...), but I'm slightly leaning towards voting yes.

Ireland has been ran into the ground economically numerous times in it's relatively short lifetime due to the same cycle. Things start picking up economically, such as in the Celtic Tiger, and Ireland's coffers are filling fast. The electorate and the opposition (trying merely to score political points) are screaming at the government to spend more money on x, y and z, and crucially to lower some taxes and abolish others. Irresponsible spending is encouraged, and because income tax is lowered the slack has to be taken up elsewhere (as in the Celtic Tiger, it was the housing market that picked up the slack.)

It's been the same story all the time - and the electorate are to blame. Any government that decided to hold onto a healthy budget surplus and adopt countercyclical fiscal policies would be decimated come the next election.

I don't see the mindset of the electorate changing any time soon, and tbf, I don't think many of them will have the broad mindedness to see that national picture.

I'd support either reform to how our politics here work (some way to make it less local-issues focussed and more good-of-the-nation focussed at national politics level) or giving the power to have safeguards that are out of our government's hands (and the electorate's.)

These safeguards were agreed before we go to vote. They are reasonably and seem to promote good fiscal policy. Essentially, they are what we signed up to when we joined the Euro. However, what happened there was that the nations who were meant to be enforcing these policies were among the first to break them - that is, France or Germany. Ironically, France and Germany probably set the precedent which brought about this debt crisis.

This is essentially a second go at that, with a stronger, more binding agreement to comfort markets.

I have yet to see a good, coherent, non-sensationalist argument against it that doesn't reek of immature "oh let's punish the government" ideology.

Your argument is that the electorate made a balls of it so let's hand executive power over to a bunch of foreign politicians and civil servants instead. History will let you know how that's going to work out.

jumpguy

Bambi wrote: »

Your argument is that the electorate made a balls of it so let's hand executive power over to a bunch of foreign politicians and civil servants instead. History will let you know how that's going to work out.

History has already let me know how the electorate has worked it out. Pretty badly.

"Handing over executive power" is an exaggeration, what it will do is implement limits on things like how much we're allowed run into a budget deficit, how much we're allowed to depend on borrowing etc. It just means no government will be able to run irresponsible fiscal policies so easily again and run this country into the ground economically. Oh, and it's not really "handed over to foreign politicians." Everyone will have to play by the same rules.