Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

dvpower

steve9859 wrote: »

We'll get a bailout if we need one, irrespective of whether we vote yes or no. Saying anythiong else is scaremongering and nothing more. We aren't getting the bailouts to help us remember, we are getting them to in order to stabilise Europe

Where do you think this new bailout will come from, and do you think it will come without preconditions, for example, signing up to the fiscal treaty?

sbsquarepants

Sane people give away their sovreignty to people who are currently raping them, in the hope that they'll be nicer in future?

sbsquarepants

dvpower wrote: »

Where do you think this new bailout will come from, and do you think it will come without preconditions, for example, signing up to the fiscal treaty?

It will come from the IMF

Gurgle

sbsquarepants wrote: »

give away their sovreignty to people who are currently raping them

Do you actually think this phrase means something?

srsly78

If you want sovereignty then balance the budget, simples. Otherwise stop moaning that the people lending us money insist on sensible preconditions.

steve9859

Gurgle wrote: »

Positive:
If Ireland joins this treaty, then it will be much more difficult for a government to buy their way into re-election with a series of giveaway budgets.
The other EU countries that have fcuked up the Eurozone will be similarly constrained. We won't find ourselves in Germany's position next time round, where we're doing alright but have to pay for other people's mistakes.

Negative:
If Ireland joins this treaty, a government can still buy their way into re-election with give-away budgets and it will cost us even more because we'll be punished with a fine. A fine for being broke. Duh!

But that is typical of the 'yes' camp in that they only talk about the fiscal aspects of the treaty, which do make sense in respect of budgetary controls, and with which I have no issue.

But if you read the treaty, it isnt all fiscal, and the non-fiscal parts are very poorly defined and therefore ultimately wide ranging - and it is this centralising of power over other aspects of economic and ultimately social policy (in respect of employment laws for example) that I have an issue with

My name is URL

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It will come from the IMF

Or through bilateral agreements, like we have already.

There's a Q&A thread over in politics where the questions will be posed to Stephen Donnelly, Shane Ross and Constantin Gurdgiev.

I've asked a question about any future bailouts that we might need and the likelihood of being refused one if the treaty is not ratified.

dvpower

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It will come from the IMF

Its a very optimistic view that the IMF will hand us over money when we have refused to take it from the ESM.
The IMF are much more likely to make us join the ESM as a precondition to any further funding.

steve9859

dvpower wrote: »

Where do you think this new bailout will come from, and do you think it will come without preconditions, for example, signing up to the fiscal treaty?

a bailout will come. We come back to the core argument of the yes camp, which is that a bailout is contingent upon signing up. I cry bull****.

the EU arent helping Ireland out of the goodness of their hearts - it is in their own self interest to maintain a stable euro. it is a staring contest at the moment, and one that the EU cannot win if they want the euro to survive

sbsquarepants

Gurgle wrote: »

Do you actually think this phrase means something?

No. I typed it out because i though it was meaningless. I'm odd like that.

sbsquarepants

srsly78 wrote: »

If you want sovereignty then balance the budget, simples. Otherwise stop moaning that the people lending us money insist on sensible preconditions.

Like paying their unsecured bonds?
It's sensible alright, but only from their side of the equation, not so much from ours. These are the people you want to put in control?

dvpower

steve9859 wrote: »

a bailout will come. We come back to the core argument of the yes camp, which is that a bailout is contingent upon signing up. I cry bull****.

Thinking that we will get a bailout on our terms is bull****

steve9859

dvpower wrote: »

Thinking that we will get a bailout on our terms is bull****

Was chatting about this very issue with a couple of sovereign analysts in London investment banks, and both agreed that ratification or otherwise of the treaty by Ireland will have little enough effect on the bailout or conditions. Europe needs ireland to get through this, irrespective of whether Enda's signature is on the bottom of the paper

srsly78

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Like paying their unsecured bonds?
It's sensible alright, but only from their side of the equation, not so much from ours. These are the people you want to put in control?

It was the Americans that forced the paying of unsecured bonds, not the EU. I think it was Geithner that put the foot down over it.

Gurgle

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No. I typed it out because i though it was meaningless. I'm odd like that.

Looks more like a copy & paste from the blog of a nationalist with a chip on his shoulder.

Real waste of time typing it anyway, the same phrase appears on 70% of threads regardless of the topic. Posted by the same dozen or so nationalists with chips on their shoulders.

- Ah, you did type it out yourself. I can tell because you spelled 'sovereignty' wrong.

sbsquarepants

dvpower wrote: »

Its a very optimistic view that the IMF will hand us over money when we have refused to take it from the ESM.
The IMF are much more likely to make us join the ESM as a precondition to any further funding.

Why wouldn't they?
They'll lend money to war torn and basket case governments all over the world, but not to Ireland? Come on now.
They'll of course set terms and condidtions with the loan - they wan't their money back. But crucially they won't be ones that suit Germany and France, like higher corporation tax and so on. We are nothing but a pawn to Germany or to France, they couldn't give a toss if Irish people suffer so long as there is a dollar in it for them.

srsly78 wrote: »

It was the Americans that forced the paying of unsecured bonds, not the EU. I think it was Geithner that put the foot down over it.

My understanding was it was largely Merkel and Sarkozy?

zenno

Vicxas wrote: »

Ok so IF we vote no to this treaty, where does that put us?

Do we really need another bail out. I figured our economy was starting to grow a little bit and the bailout was only to cover the toxic banks?

Correct me if im wrong (which some of you will probaby say that i am)

According to this guy Steven keen on the vincent browne show thinks it's all going to get a lot worse. Well he did predict the financial crisis. Even if we vote no to this treaty we will still get a bailout anyway if we needed one because they will not allow an other EU country to fail.

sbsquarepants

Gurgle wrote: »

Looks more like a copy & paste from the blog of a nationalist with a chip on his shoulder.

Real waste of time typing it anyway, the same phrase appears on 70% of threads regardless of the topic. Posted by the same dozen or so nationalists with chips on their shoulders.

- Ah, you did type it out yourself. I can tell because you spelled 'sovereignty' wrong.

Is there something wrong with being nationalist now? Would it be a better Ireland if we all rolled over and took what's coming to us?
I would consider myself a nationalist, but i wouldn't say i've a chip on my shoulder. I just don't like being forced to pay for others mistakes by a spineless government who were elected to represent the interests of this country, German politicians look out for Germans, Irish politicians don't need to do so.

My sincere apologies for the spelling mistake, i hope it didn't upset you two too much.

Ghandee

srsly78

sbsquarepants wrote: »

My understanding was it was largely Merkel and Sarkozy?

Morgan Kelly wrote:

Ireland’s Last Stand began less shambolically than you might expect. The IMF, which believes that lenders should pay for their stupidity before it has to reach into its pocket, presented the Irish with a plan to haircut €30 billion of unguaranteed bonds by two-thirds on average. Lenihan was overjoyed, according to a source who was there, telling the IMF team: “You are Ireland’s salvation.”

The deal was torpedoed from an unexpected direction. At a conference call with the G7 finance ministers, the haircut was vetoed by US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner who, as his payment of $13 billion from government-owned AIG to Goldman Sachs showed, believes that bankers take priority over taxpayers. The only one to speak up for the Irish was UK chancellor George Osborne, but Geithner, as always, got his way. An instructive, if painful, lesson in the extent of US soft power, and in who our friends really are.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0507/1224296372123.html

Suits a lot of people better to blame Germany ofc tho.

dvpower

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Why wouldn't they?

Because there is a European mechanism in place and we would be refusing to cooperate with it. The IMF are supposed to be a lender of last resort, and we have other places to resort to.

sbsquarepants

srsly78 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0507/1224296372123.html

Suits a lot of people better to blame Germany ofc tho.

Cheers for that. Sounds like the final nail in the coffin though to be honest, more so than America being the driving force. As the article says, the only one who spoke up for us was Britain, and that was only to suit themselves. It's a dog eat dog world, every other country is out looking to get the best deal for themselves, whereas all our shower of twats is doing is trying to please everybody else at our own expense, then hoping to be thrown a crumb or two.

dvpower wrote: »

Because there is a European mechanism in place and we would be refusing to cooperate with it. The IMF are supposed to be a lender of last resort, and we have other places to resort to.

How is there a european mechanism, if we are excluded from it, which is what they are saying will happen if we vote no? The IMF is a lender of last resort, but that doesn't mean that any offer however bad must be taken up first. If that was the case every country that has ever taken an IMF loan would have it's carcass picked clean by it friends and neighbours before the IMF ever got to step in.
We have to get passed this theory of having "friends" in europe. Countries don't have friends, big ones may have hangers on and suckers up but small countries like us certainly don't. Business' don't have friends - why the fúck would countries? It's a big bad world.

beco2010

wasnt the persons solution to steven keen the one from that kid you know the one the pizza kid for the eu competition

dvpower

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How is there a european mechanism, if we are excluded from it, which is what they are saying will happen if we vote no?

We aren't excluded from it - we are entirely free to access the ESM, but like any club, it has rules.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The IMF is a lender of last resort, but that doesn't mean that any offer however bad must be taken up first.

By this logic we could go to the the IMF and dictate to them the terms of a new bailout, rejecting any offer they make until it suits us.

conorhal

I am pie wrote: »

One thing is for sure, you are voting for or against a treaty. If you haven't bothered to understand the implications of voting no or yes then you are a fool.

Fools and their votes are easily parted.

You are not voting for or against the government.

Actually I am.

I'm voting no because I refuse to cede any further soverignty to the EU.
I am also voting no because I do not want this government to have access to futher funds from the ECB, cheap ECB money has become this government's methadone replacement for the crack cocaine of cheap bank borrowing.
The problem is that the government has no intention of kicking the methedone they've been forced onto either, so clearly cold turkey is the only option available to force them to face the facts.
I want this government forced to make the hard decisions on the Croke 'Perk' Agreement, social welfare, and the bloated cost of local governement that it thinks it can avoid by picking our pockets and nibbling around the edges to maintain the status quo.

Vote no.

Gurgle

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Is there something wrong with being nationalist now? Would it be a better Ireland if we all rolled over and took what's coming to us?

But what do you think is coming to us?
Leaving out the bank debts, rightly or wrongly (wrongly imho) these debts were taken on by the state. Now they're our debts, that horse is long gone.

More of a problem is this: We have a state which costs more to run than it brings in. That has to be fixed, we don't need fiscal compact treaties to tell us that. We don't even need Germans to tell us that.

What does 'loss of sovereignty' mean in this context?

I just don't like being forced to pay for others mistakes

Whose mistakes do you claim you're paying for? Are you still hammering on about bankers and builders?

sbsquarepants

dvpower wrote: »

We aren't excluded from it - we are entirely free to access the ESM, but like any club, it has rules..

There is a lot of scaremongering that we will be excluded from future european funds if we don't accept this treaty. That's either true or it's not, but either way it doesn't matter. If we can't get that money for whatever reason, there is still the IMF.
That's what they're there for.

dvpower wrote: »

By this logic we could go to the the IMF and dictate to them the terms of a new bailout, rejecting any offer they make until it suits us.

That's not how i meant it.
Obviously we'd have to aggree terms with the IMF, that suited the IMF. I mean they don't have to wait untill every other offer comes in. If China says we'll lend you the money at 50% and we say no, the IMFs hands are not tied because there is an offer on the table. It's last resort, but within reason.
IMF terms are usually far from easy, but they there isnt the added temptation for them to throw us to the wolves to suit someone else. They were in favour of us burning bondholders, they also most likely wont see the "benefit" of raising corporation tax like our friends in france and germany do.

dvpower

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There is a lot of scaremongering that we will be excluded from future european funds if we don't accept this treaty. That's either true or it's not, but either way it doesn't matter. If we can't get that money for whatever reason, there is still the IMF.
That's what they're there for.

We would be excluding ourselves from ESM funds if we reject the treaty as the rules stand - that much is clear.
The EU could invent a new fund just for us or find another mechanism for us to get around the rules, but it seems very unlikely. If we do need another bailout, they will most likely make us sign up to the fiscal compact as a prerequisite and get the funds from the ESM.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's not how i meant it.
Obviously we'd have to aggree terms with the IMF, that suited the IMF. I mean they don't have to wait untill every other offer comes in. If China says we'll lend you the money at 50% and we say no, the IMFs hands are not tied because there is an offer on the table. It's last resort, but within reason.
IMF terms are usually far from easy, but they there isnt the added temptation for them to throw us to the wolves to suit someone else. They were in favour of us burning bondholders, they also most likely wont see the "benefit" of raising corporation tax like our friends in france and germany do.

There would be an offer on the table from the ESM if we need another bailout. The IMF are likely to tell us to sign up to the fiscal compact and take that offer. The ESM is the bailout mechanism for almost all EU countries - the IMF are hardly likely to view it as 'throwing us to the wolves'.

sbsquarepants

Gurgle wrote: »

But what do you think is coming to us?
Leaving out the bank debts, rightly or wrongly (wrongly imho) these debts were taken on by the state. Now they're our debts, that horse is long gone.

More of a problem is this: We have a state which costs more to run than it brings in. That has to be fixed, we don't need fiscal compact treaties to tell us that. We don't even need Germans to tell us that.

What does 'loss of sovereignty' mean in this context?

What is coming to us is a country being run for the benefit of others at the expense of it's citizens. That is only going to get worse under this new compact. Yes there has to be sensible spending and borrowing which up to now there certainly has not been, but do you really think the solution is to hand the reigns over to Frankfurt or to Paris, both of whom would more or less immediately raise corporation tax to levels that suited their economies not ours? And basically consequences for Ireland be damned.
That's what loss of sovreignty means. Ireland should be run for the benefit of Irish people, not for the benefit of German people.
And I don't mean that in any sort of racist way, I mean all the people who live here. I don't care if German waiting lists are high, or if German roads are maintained. It is quite obviously better for me that industry be based in Ireland rather than Germany and that is what the government should be striving for and consequences for Germany be damned.
This compact at very best endangers that and at worst ensures it won't happen. Europe is already run along franco-german lines and this will only copperfasten that.

Gurgle wrote: »

Whose mistakes do you claim you're paying for? Are you still hammering on about bankers and builders?

The real question is why have you stopped?
At what point after you've been robbed does your property become property of the thief?

This gutless government were elected to overturn these decisions as was the want of the Irish people. They haven't done anything like that and now they're actually making things worse. They are supposed to be our servants, not our masters!

Dyr

humanji wrote: »

That is our fault, though. We've a history of replacing the corrupt and incompetent with the corrupt and incompetent.

Not it is not. As bad as our lot are they could never have managed to drive us into this crisis without the EU providing them with the set of circumstances to do so. Bertie Ahern and the Irish financial system have not blown the arse out of the Greek, Spanish, Italian, Irish and Portuguese economies all at once, the single currency and the fiscal policies of the various treaties we've entered into has. And now we're being told that even more of the same will sort this out? f**k that

This is not an Irish problem, not matter how the right thinking self flagellators in this country would love it to be