Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

jhegarty

Deleted User wrote: »

First time I've heard of that, but the Fiscal Compact as far as I can understand it writes into the constitution that ECB rules must be obeyed without question etc
(say that in a Bavarian accent!:P)

If the ECB wants to ban trackers, then it's goodbye trackers!

If the tracer is banned the mortgage is void and everyone can walk away.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

jhegarty

jhegarty wrote: »

If the tracer is banned the mortgage is void and everyone can walk away.

I wish!!!

The bastards would convert them into variable rate ones! :mad:

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

First time I've heard of that, but the Fiscal Compact as far as I can understand it writes into the constitution that ECB rules must be obeyed without question etc
(say that in a Bavarian accent!:P)

If the ECB wants to ban trackers, then it's goodbye trackers!

You have no idea what you're talking about.:mad:

Phoenix Park

Deleted User wrote: »

I wish!!!

The bastards would convert them into variable rate ones! :mad:

How?. The contract is for a tracker. They void the contract...then so can i?. I signed up for a tracker, nothing else.

Phoenix Park

cml387 wrote: »

Also I heard if you vote yes Europe will take your first-born.

Or your XBOX.

First-born it is, so.

Mance Rayder

Getoffmytrain wrote: »

v=EPcWHBPYOSU

I can't see any reason to vote Yes.

I just read the treaty in full and none of the BS in the video is in the treaty.


In fact the treaty makes sense.

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

You have no idea what you're talking about.:mad:

Phoenix Park wrote: »

How?. The contract is for a tracker. They void the contract...then so can i?. I signed up for a tracker, nothing else.

With the ECB's recent track record, I wouldn't put too much faith in them allowing the Irish Banks to continue taking losses on trackers.

just wait until the ECB wants repayments of the nearly one trillion Euros loaned to European banks in the past three months, they're due after three years!

(some of) The banks are broke!

steve9859

I've read the treaty in full and am voting no. Check out article 9 and my earlier post in this thread. There is more to this treaty than the fiscal rules

It really p*sses me off the yes vote continue to peddle the myth that a bailout / further funds are dependent on a yes vote. It is absolutely not true, and you will not find a sovereign analyst in London, who writes on the euro daily, who thinks a no vote will impact on the terms of a further bailout.

zenno

It's time to give the euro a good kick up the arse and get out of it, never mind this fiscal treaty, we should leave the euro before it ruins us completely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB4hECsQK9o

lugha

steve9859 wrote: »

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.

steve9859 wrote: »

It really p*sses me off the yes vote continue to peddle the myth that a bailout / further funds are dependent on a yes vote. It is absolutely not true, and you will not find a sovereign analyst in London, who writes on the euro daily, who thinks a no vote will impact on the terms of a further bailout.

Are you not failing to distinguish between assistance already granted and future assistance that might be sought?

i.e. on page 7 of the treaty document

STRESSING that no provision of this Treaty is to be interpreted as altering in any way the economic policy conditions under which financial assistance has been granted to a Contracting Party in a stabilisation programme involving the European Union, its Member States or the International Monetary Fund;

While on page 8

… and POINTING OUT that the granting of financial assistance in the framework of new programmes under the European Stability Mechanism will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of this Treaty by the Contracting Party concerned and, as soon as the transposition period referred to in Article 3(2) of this Treaty has expired, on compliance with the requirements of that Article;

Unknown Soldier

I'll be voting no.


I hear yesterday that a yes vote is as good as handing back your tracker mortgage to the banks as the EU will do away with them for the good of...the banks.

steve9859

lugha wrote: »

steve9859 wrote: »

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.

steve9859 wrote: »

It really p*sses me off the yes vote continue to peddle the myth that a bailout / further funds are dependent on a yes vote. It is absolutely not true, and you will not find a sovereign analyst in London, who writes on the euro daily, who thinks a no vote will impact on the terms of a further bailout.

Are you not failing to distinguish between assistance already granted and future assistance that might be sought?

i.e. on page 7 of the treaty document

STRESSING that no provision of this Treaty is to be interpreted as altering in any way the economic policy conditions under which financial assistance has been granted to a Contracting Party in a stabilisation programme involving the European Union, its Member States or the International Monetary Fund;

While on page 8

… and POINTING OUT that the granting of financial assistance in the framework of new programmes under the European Stability Mechanism will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of this Treaty by the Contracting Party concerned and, as soon as the transposition period referred to in Article 3(2) of this Treaty has expired, on compliance with the requirements of that Article;

If Ireland needs money, it will get money. Europe is not going to let us hang out to dry...it is not in their interest. This is a game of brinkmanship, and I really hope Ireland doesn't blink first, and give up control of everything, as outlined in article 9

Phill Ewinn

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I'll be voting no.


I hear yesterday that a yes vote is as good as handing back your tracker mortgage to the banks as the EU will do away with them for the good of...the banks.

I heard the same. There's a voice in my head telling me to ride yor ma. Should I listen to that also?

lugha

steve9859 wrote: »

If Ireland needs money, it will get money. Europe is not going to let us hang out to dry...it is not in their interest.

That is an interesting view. Some of us are of the opinion that Europe very much already have let us hang out to dry, with large, expensive bells on,with their demand that we save our banks!

In any case, you described as a myth the claim that future help will depend on our ratifying this treaty. You can argue if you want that a way will be found to circumvent this condition if the need arises. But to describe as a "myth" a condition that is explicitly stated in the treaty?

Maybe article 9 is a myth too? :pac:

Unknown Soldier

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I'll be voting no.


I hear yesterday that a yes vote is as good as handing back your tracker mortgage to the banks as the EU will do away with them for the good of...the banks.

I'd like to hear where that came from.
If there's any truth in it, it'll certainly put a few bats up a lot of nightdresses.

michealomainin

I can not see how they can say a yes vote is good for Ireland!


Mod edit

Please don't spam your blog, blog link removed.

littlefriend

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I hear yesterday that a yes vote is as good as handing back your tracker mortgage to the banks as the EU will do away with them for the good of...the banks.

I've heard this a few times albeit not from reliable sources - does anyone know if it is true. If my tracker mortgage is transferred to a regular type it will be the end of me owning a house. Quite spooked by this as I'm sure a lot of people are.

Unknown Soldier

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd like to hear where that came from.
If there's any truth in it, it'll certainly put a few bats up a lot of nightdresses.

Twas on the radio the day before yesterday.

The jist, as I understood it, was that tracker contracts could be broken and that the "cases" would be shipped off to the European High court, or what ever it is called.

The guy was some Euro legislative expert. Might have been Trinity based.

He didn't say that is was going to happen but it was something that could happen with the treaty in place. Hypothetically. For the good of the country and Europe (Read as banks....)

Mance Rayder

steve9859 wrote: »

I've read the treaty in full and am voting no. Check out article 9 and my earlier post in this thread. There is more to this treaty than the fiscal rules

It really p*sses me off the yes vote continue to peddle the myth that a bailout / further funds are dependent on a yes vote. It is absolutely not true, and you will not find a sovereign analyst in London, who writes on the euro daily, who thinks a no vote will impact on the terms of a further bailout.

Article 9

Building upon 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 that fosters the proper 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 areas which are essential to the proper 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.

Whats so bad about that?

srsly78

fostering competitiveness, promoting employment, contributing further to the sustainability of public finances and reinforcing financial stability.

Sounds bad for the public sector. All good

Chazz Michael Michaels

i will vote no

_Gawd_

It's common knowledge that whatever Phil Hogan, Gimmemore, Inda and Co are voting for....as a hard working citizen supporting your family, you vote against.

dvpower

_Gawd_ wrote: »

It's common knowledge that whatever Phil Hogan, Gimmemore, Inda and Co are voting for....as a hard working citizen supporting your family, you vote against.

We voted FOR these people just a year ago. Now we should vote against their recommendations?

Richard tea

dvpower wrote: »

We voted FOR these people just a year ago. Now we should vote against their recommendations?

Stop codding yourself. Voting for FG & Lab was a protest vote. FACT

dvpower

Well, since you say it in such a large font....

Eric Cartman

If we vote yes, your tracker mortgage will be the least of your worries

westendgirlie

I'm confused. Can someone link me to the part in a mortgage t&c's that states that changes can be made to it willy nilly....but only on the lenders side.

Voting NO cos I have no idea what this treaty is about. If in doubt, and all that.

force eleven

There is nothing of benefit in this so called 'compact'

An economic straitjacket just when we don't need it. Suits France and Germany in their efforts to get their gambling banks' money back.

Believe me, voting no poses no threat to jobs nor did it ever.

dvpower

westendgirlie wrote: »

I'm confused. Can someone link me to the part in a mortgage t&c's that states that changes can be made to it willy nilly....but only on the lenders side.

Voting NO cos I have no idea what this treaty is about. If in doubt, and all that.

There isn't anything in your mortgage contract that allows anyone to change it willy nilly.

OP is just scaremongering people into rejecting the treaty by raising false doubts based on nothing at all. And suceeding.