No Side Tactics

meglome

After posting on the Journal for the past few weeks about the Fiscal Compact I just wanted to share my observations on how the No side (for the most part) is operating.

No side tactics…
1. Pull on the heart strings.
2. Try to drum up nationalistic fervour.
3. Claim the person is a sheep, an idiot or whatever other name they fancy.
4. Scaremongering. But they *are* stealing our babies.
5. Blame anyone else, especially the Germans. (Often included with xenophobic mentions of Nazis, Fascists etc).
6. Claim the person is being paid for their opinions.

Don't me wrong I'm not saying this Fiscal Compact is the best thing ever, far from it. But it's a sad reflection that the majority (IMO) of the No side are stooping to these.

I think given Sam Vines post about No side lies on the Lisbon treaty it's really doesn't reflect well on the level of debate generally.

ouncer

meglome, did you ever consider that people may be voting 'no' because they truly believe it is the right choice. your insistence on this 'yes' vote and that all people who vote 'no' are somehow involved in a conspiracy is certainly not inspiring more people to vote 'yes'. people will vote how they will vote and most will do so out of genuine concern for our country and our future. what that choice may be is up to each individual. some will be moved by the views of different political parties, some will research a little, some will simply vote one way or another just because that's how they want so vote. there is no conspiracy.

meglome

ouncer wrote: »

meglome, did you ever consider that people may be voting 'no' because they truly believe it is the right choice.

I never suggested otherwise. Though it would be nice if they could articulate the reasons for it without using points 1 to 6.

ouncer wrote: »

your insistence on this 'yes' vote and that all people who vote 'no' are somehow involved in a conspiracy is certainly not inspiring more people to vote 'yes'.

I'd just like facts and logic, which is very lacking from the No side. (See points 1 to 6). Mine is an unexcited yes vote, just not buying the "but we lose all our sovereignty" argument yet again.

ouncer wrote: »

people will vote how they will vote and most will do so out of genuine concern for our country and our future.

Never said otherwise. Though it would be nice if they could articulate the reasons for it without using points 1 to 6.

ouncer wrote: »

some will research a little, some will simply vote one way or another just because that's how they want so vote. there is no conspiracy.

See you say there is no conspiracy but many in the No camp are full of conspiracy stories.

swampgas

ouncer wrote: »

... some will simply vote one way or another just because that's how they want to vote.

You would hope that for such an important referendum, that people would actually think it through properly rather than "simply vote one way or another just because that's how they want to vote". Experience indicates otherwise unfortunately.

ouncer

its a very complex issue. its not like divorce or the like where it is clear in the voters mind what they are voting for. there is such huge instability in europe at the moment, such a massive debt burden, such a lack of visibility of where europe is going and so many folk simply struggling to put bread on the table. On this basis the referendum has taken on a new life where fiscal controls may be what the voter will vote for but because of the complexity of the issue they may end up voting on personal circumstances or what they consider as being an unfair european regime laying down the law. If you look at most polls it would seem that the No vote leads by a 2 to 1 margin. Is it the right vote? I just don't know. The more I read the more I get concerned about not only the future of Ireland but the future of what has been in the past the worlds major economies. Who's to say that a 'NO' vote will not be the tipping point for the collapse of Europe as we see it today. And then again would this be a good thing or a bad thing? As I said before the European project is constantly learning and correcting but with no clear end vision in site. Will a NO vote help or will it be counter-productive. There is a fine thesis for a phd and I look forward to the results of that phd. And thats what the Irish people are faced with when voting. It is anything but black or white

meglome

ouncer wrote: »

its a very complex issue. its not like divorce or the like where it is clear in the voters mind what they are voting for. there is such huge instability in europe at the moment, such a massive debt burden, such a lack of visibility of where europe is going and so many folk simply struggling to put bread on the table. On this basis the referendum has taken on a new life where fiscal controls may be what the voter will vote for but because of the complexity of the issue they may end up voting on personal circumstances or what they consider as being an unfair european regime laying down the law. If you look at most polls it would seem that the No vote leads by a 2 to 1 margin. Is it the right vote? I just don't know. The more I read the more I get concerned about not only the future of Ireland but the future of what has been in the past the worlds major economies. Who's to say that a 'NO' vote will not be the tipping point for the collapse of Europe as we see it today. And then again would this be a good thing or a bad thing? As I said before the European project is constantly learning and correcting but with no clear end vision in site. Will a NO vote help or will it be counter-productive. There is a fine thesis for a phd and I look forward to the results of that phd. And thats what the Irish people are faced with when voting. It is anything but black or white

Em sure we don't know how things will all turn out but this treaty is only 14 pages. And sorry but there is no reason for any of the 6 points I posted above to be used while analysing them.

3DataModem

Megalome, old pal...

I really want a "No" vote because I have £200 bet on it at 2/1

Best reason I can think of.

ouncer

ah for feic sake


1. Pull on the heart strings.

sinn fein/socialists pulling on my heat strings. not likely. current government pulling on my heart strings, what a concept
2. Try to drum up nationalistic fervour.
now thats just darn funny. we have eamon gilmore/enda,michael telling us we are dead if we vote NO, we have socialists/Sinn Fein telling us we should vote yes. can't think of any one of these folks that could drive me to nationalistic fervour :-)
3. Claim the person is a sheep, an idiot or whatever other name they fancy.
Lucinda Creighton does this best of all :-)
4. Scaremongering. But they *are* stealing our babies.
For the love of God, FG and LAB are doing just that
5. Blame anyone else, especially the Germans. (Often included with xenophobic mentions of Nazis, Fascists etc).
Feic sake our politicians have blamed everybody else for years
6. Claim the person is being paid for their opinions.
Now wouldn't that be unusual :-)

Ozymandius2011

On the contrary the majority of the no side argument is the proposition that the F.C. copperfastens austerity, and unlike the yes arguments have been based on the contents of the Treaty. The govt campaign has been the one laced with FUD (Fear Innuendo and Doubt). The govt is not running a yes-campaign. They are running a "the-sky-will-fall-in-if-you-vote-no" campaign. I haven't heard anyone prominent in the no campaign raise the abortion issue.

meglome

3DataModem wrote: »

Megalome, old pal...

I really want a "No" vote because I have £200 bet on it at 2/1

Best reason I can think of.

I appreciate the reason, but I imagine being in the UK will insulate you from repercussions other than losing your 200 quid. So I'll buy you a pint when you lose it

meglome

ouncer wrote: »

ah for feic sake

I hope you appreciate the difference here. But the list I posted has been said directly to me, in response to me. You have just thrown some muck.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

On the contrary the majority of the no side argument is the proposition that the F.C. copperfastens austerity, and unlike the yes arguments have been based on the contents of the Treaty. The govt campaign has been the one laced with FUD (Fear Innuendo and Doubt). The govt is not running a yes-campaign. They are running a "the-sky-will-fall-in-if-you-vote-no" campaign. I haven't heard anyone prominent in the no campaign raise the abortion issue.

Oh the No side say all sorts of things but that list is my experience of when you try and pin them down. Our government may run and poor campaign and also may like rubbish slogans but the rampant scaremongering I'm seeing about this treaty is pretty much all from the no side.

Ozymandius2011

meglome wrote: »

I how appreciate the difference here. But the list I posted have been said directly to me., in response to me. You have just thrown some muck.



Oh the No side say all sorts of things but that list is my experience of when you try and pin them down. Our government may run and poor campaign and also may like rubbish slogans but the rampant scaremongering I'm seeing about this treaty is pretty much all from the no side.

So calling a no vote a 'lethal injection to the Irish economy' is not scaremongering? Please. :rolleyes:

meglome

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

So calling a no vote a 'lethal injection to the Irish economy' is not scaremongering? Please. :rolleyes:

Let's have the entire piece...

“Politics is about people and their lives and their careers and their opportunities and that’s what I deal in.

“I have no intention of delivering a lethal injection to the Irish economy by trying to bridge that extent of the deficit in one year,” the Taoiseach said yesterday.

Seems okay to me.

ouncer

ozy, you don't get away that easy. yes it is easy to say no but if we say no we will have austerity like we have never seen. we have a 16 billion deficit and to correct this will mean a massive correction in the next budget if we vote no. as explained in the past we will also need credit, like any business does, and that credit will cost us a lot if we decide to vote no. the only benefit is that we have finally taken our future under our own control. but for that decision we will pay heavily. the sinn fein/socialast propaganda is rubbish. austerity will be doubled on our country by a 'no' decision. the ultimate benefit is that we decide our future but the cost will be enormous.

Ozymandius2011

ouncer wrote: »

ozy, you don't get away that easy. yes it is easy to say no but if we say no we will have austerity like we have never seen. we have a 16 billion deficit and to correct this will mean a massive correction in the next budget if we vote no. as explained in the past we will also need credit, like any business does, and that credit will cost us a lot if we decide to vote no. the only benefit is that we have finally taken our future under our own control. but for that decision we will pay heavily. the sinn fein/socialast propaganda is rubbish. austerity will be doubled on our country by a 'no' decision. the ultimate benefit is that we decide our future but the cost will be enormous.

Part of the austerity is because the EU is forcing us to bail out the bondholders. By voting no we can unite with Francois Hollande to demand renegotiation of the Fiscal Compact to promote growth not austerity, and to burn the bondholders. That will reduce the debt and consequently bring a balanced budget faster than would otherwise have been the case. You are also forgetting the extortionate cost of the ESM in terms of the requirement for member states to contribute to it which we cannot afford. Public services are being sacrificed on the altar of a vanity-project of a currency.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Part of the austerity is because the EU is forcing us to bail out the bondholders. By voting no we can unite with Francois Hollande to demand renegotiation of the Fiscal Compact to promote growth not austerity, and to burn the bondholders. That will reduce the debt and consequently bring a balanced budget faster than would otherwise have been the case.

The bondholders have been replaced with official creditors for the most part. We cannot burn the official creditors, we cannot do it without leaving the EU as in it is legally impossible.

So voting No cannot meaningfully reduce our debt burden, and will have no impact on the "bondholders".

Voting Yes and working through the Spanish scenario which the ECB is pushing, that Spanish banks are bailed out at an EZ rather than a MS level, just might result in some of the cost of our banking bailout being transferred back to the ESM. A position Patrick Honohan was pushing today in London.

ouncer

yes and no. we will for starters never be uniting with Hollande. His stuff was based on winning a presidential election. If we burn bondholders and also vote NO then where is our credit facility into the future. I remain in the NO camp but I want people to understand what the NO vote means. Taxes will go thru the roof and welfare will be halfed. It will not be easy

Ozymandius2011

ouncer wrote: »

yes and no. we will for starters never be uniting with Hollande. His stuff was based on winning a presidential election. If we burn bondholders and also vote NO then where is our credit facility into the future. I remain in the NO camp but I want people to understand what the NO vote means. Taxes will go thru the roof and welfare will be halfed. It will not be easy

That assumes we will need a second bailout and the govt denies that. We can also request an IMF bailout if necessary, which the IMF spokesperson told the Sunday Times before Noonan got to them. The existing EFSF bailout is unaffected. Iceland burned the bondholders and put its banks into receivership and has been back on the bond markets since last year. The EU reminds me of the loanshark in the Terry Duckworth story on Coronation Street threatening dire consequences if we don't pay up.

beeftotheheels

ouncer wrote: »

If we burn bondholders and also vote NO then where is our credit facility into the future.

We have precious few bondholders left to burn so this cannot be a meaningful part of any one's consideration of the stability treaty (other than as part of the continued misinformation campaign from SF/ ULA)

ouncer

the second bailout is a definite. the points have already been explained on this forum. there is no other option if we continue on our current path.

Ozymandius2011

Iceland burned the bondholders and is successfully raising finance on the bond markets ouncer.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Iceland burned the bondholders and is successfully raising finance on the bond markets ouncer.

Not true.

1. Iceland allowed its banks to fail which it could do not being an EU Member State. We could not.

2. That was back in 2008. Since then we have largely replaced the bank creditors with official sector borrowings, so even if we could have burnt the banking bondholders in '08-'10 we cannot do so now.

3. Iceland has managed a private placement of foreign currency (US$) at yields, which factoring in the forex risk Iceland is carrying, comparable to our current bond yields, and greatly exceed the borrowing costs we could expect from the ESM if we approve the stability treaty.

So this is not a reason for voting no.

hatrickpatrick

meglome wrote: »

After posting on the Journal for the past few weeks about the Fiscal Compact I just wanted to share my observations on how the No side (for the most part) is operating.

No side tactics…
1. Pull on the heart strings.
2. Try to drum up nationalistic fervour.
3. Claim the person is a sheep, an idiot or whatever other name they fancy.
4. Scaremongering. But they *are* stealing our babies.
5. Blame anyone else, especially the Germans. (Often included with xenophobic mentions of Nazis, Fascists etc).
6. Claim the person is being paid for their opinions.

Don't me wrong I'm not saying this Fiscal Compact is the best thing ever, far from it. But it's a sad reflection that the majority (IMO) of the No side are stooping to these.

I think given Sam Vines post about No side lies on the Lisbon treaty it's really doesn't reflect well on the level of debate generally.

Yes side tactics:
1: Try to scare the bejaysus out of people
2: Biased weasel words (eg, calling it the 'stability' treaty instead of the fiscal treaty)
3: The usual irrelevant sh!te - yes for jobs, yes for Europe, etc
4: On the above point, acting as if voting for or against this treaty = voting for or against our very membership of the EU
5: Guilt tripping the electorate over the state of the nation
6: Claim that the no side are communists, and that somehow being a protestor or activist automatically means that (a) you're unemployed, (b) lazy, (c) don't care about the issue at hand and (d) have no right to a voice or an opinion,
7: Claim that by voting no, you are effectively endorsing others who advocate a no (guilt by association, e.g "Sure why don't you just vote for the shinners in the next election then")

Need I go on?

ouncer

hence the quandry. this is not a simple yes or no. i see the arguments on this thread and on many others. The arguments are complex and yet I am struggling to vote one way or the other. Was definite on a NO vote but now I'm just darned confused. All the more reason that this referendum is mad. And how is the guy on the street supposed to vote?

beeftotheheels

ouncer wrote: »

All the more reason that this referendum is mad. And how is the guy on the street supposed to vote?

zactly! The whole thing is mad and should not be being decided by a plebiscite but such is the Crotty legacy.

I'm vaguely hoping that the Pringle case might give the SC the opportunity to revisit Crotty and put that mistake back in its box, or at least distinguish the bejaysus out of it to restrict future referenda.

This is complex, and I don't think very many people are enthusiastically on one side or the other. Personally I'm a reluctant yes because I think the chances of us avoiding a second bailout if we don't have guaranteed ESM access will disappear.

Ironic but denying ourselves the second bailout fund increases the likelihood that we'll need that second bailout.

I also think most of the substantive provisions are already in the six pack so the treaty changes very little on the ground if we approve it. As the Commission suggested today even the six pack has flexibility where needed - Spain being the case in point.

ouncer

beef. understand your viewpoint but we as a nation do not strategically form our countries policy. we expect this from our politicians. and these monkeys have failed us which is likely that we will vote no against europe just to vote against the monkeys that are our politicians. it is staggering that these individuals have not been able to advise us left or right

hatrickpatrick

I'd just like to state for the record that I'm advocating a no vote because I honestly believe it's a bad treaty, a bad policy, and a generally bad direction for the EU to take.

Just pre-empting anyone accusing me of being a shinner, or voting no "to spite our government", or voting no as some kind of bargaining counter, or voting no because I'm a commie, or... etc etc etc.

The fact that this post is necessary says it all. The tactics of some on the yes side are a disgrace. And you accuse the no side of emotional blackmail...?

beeftotheheels

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd just like to state for the record that I'm advocating a no vote because I honestly believe it's a bad treaty, a bad policy, and a generally bad direction for the EU to take.

You've obviously thought about this which is good.

Do you mind my asking which particular elements of the treaty, as distinct from the six pack which already binds us, do you object to?

Not the 60% limit as that is in the six pack. Not the structural deficit rule as that already binds us. Not the Commission having oversight of our budget as we're already in excessive deficit procedure under the existing rules and will remain so until 2015 at the earliest and possibly until we comply with the 60% debt to GDP ratio (as is provided for under the TFEU).

So what precisely is the objectionable departure in this treaty?

K-9

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Part of the austerity is because the EU is forcing us to bail out the bondholders. By voting no we can unite with Francois Hollande to demand renegotiation of the Fiscal Compact to promote growth not austerity, and to burn the bondholders. That will reduce the debt and consequently bring a balanced budget faster than would otherwise have been the case. You are also forgetting the extortionate cost of the ESM in terms of the requirement for member states to contribute to it which we cannot afford. Public services are being sacrificed on the altar of a vanity-project of a currency.

There seems to be an assumption that we must vote No to do that. Hollande is still going to be there as our knight in shining armor if we vote yes or no.

As for the extortionate cost of the ESM, the current EU interest rate was reduced to 3.5/4%, lower than the IMF and the British loan.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

That assumes we will need a second bailout and the govt denies that. We can also request an IMF bailout if necessary, which the IMF spokesperson told the Sunday Times before Noonan got to them. The existing EFSF bailout is unaffected. Iceland burned the bondholders and put its banks into receivership and has been back on the bond markets since last year. The EU reminds me of the loanshark in the Terry Duckworth story on Coronation Street threatening dire consequences if we don't pay up.

The IMF spokesman said we can apply, he doesn't have the authority to say we'd get it. We already are over the IMF lending limit and the IMF are finding it hard to raise additional finance. As far as I can see we'd need to pay them back most of their funding to borrow more.

The EFSF will run out about the same time we'll be looking for additional funding. Even if we did get more from them, what's to stop inserting similar criteria?

I do find it strange that many who would have opposed the Troika now seem to welcome them as an alternative!

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Iceland burned the bondholders and is successfully raising finance on the bond markets ouncer.

Our bond rates have dropped substantially over the last year or so.

TehDagsBass

@meglome: What, may I asked, spurred you to waste your time on the comments section on TheJournal?

The reason I ask is that I personally see the comments section there as being choc-full of the dregs of the Irish online. Devoid of any rational, logical or in any way educated discussion, it is a soapbox for uneducated, socialist clowns to post their vacuous, populist rhetoric and slap one another's backs. Indeed, those writing and publishing to TheJournal seem to merely cater for these people now. I genuinely had a laugh at their plans to produce a paper copy of what amounts to their summary of other news outlets stories and the reposting of things trending on twitter. I really did.

The very same clowns, I might add, are found every single day spamming the comments to wall posts on Fine Gael's facebook page, seemingly forgetting that we have a two party Government. How convenient, given that most of them were Labour voters in the last General Election.

You are not going to change these people's minds here or on TheJournal by posting facts or trying to argue with them using logic, they are the proponents of bar-stool politics and are influenced by what they perceive will benefit them the most, such as not paying charges, and that only. Now, let us not make mistakes, this does not refer to "them" as being in the plural or community sense, it does not mean they act in a way they believe will benefit the country the most in the long or short term, but what will benefit them as individuals the most and as quickly as possible.

They lack any form of fundamental understanding of politics or economics and thus want their pockets alleviated NOW with no regard for any potential consequences in the short term, never mind the long term. Evidence of this can be seen in their reaction to Lisbon, they seem to have genuinely believed that there would be jobs created overnight and are now angry that there wasn't!

They have no need for things like stability, certainty and confidence. Sure how will they affect their drinking money this weekend, wha?! This complete disregard for these things is echoed and pushed in the media and the Dail by socialist failures such as Richard Boyd-Barrett, Gerry Adams and Joe Higgins and thus the populist socialist movement has gathered pace, despite the fact that not one has credible policies and that any of them pose the potential for absolute catastrophe should any of their bull**** dreams be realised, such as giving the finger to Europe over the debt the country owes. That is without even breaching the subject of what a complete sham these entities are themselves.

Given this, what did you expect? Of course their entire campaign lacks any real substance. It did for Lisbon, it will now and indeed it will for any EU referendum that comes up in the future. Since the inception of the EC, Sinn Fein have urged people to vote against any referendum put to them ... how would we ever expect a reasonable argument on a paper from them, given that they haven't provided one in the entire history of the union?!

Expect nothing and be pleased if something of substance is provided, however history shows that it never will be. You can't argue things such as the benefits of certainty, stability and market confidence to people who neither understand the variables involved nor how they affect the country or how a swing in the state of these variables would affect the country and our daily lives. People who posses no desire to understand them/such things and who want results for their own position and want them now, without putting any effort in at all (which is what put them in their own personal position in the first place...).

You can't argue the merits of a piece of text or legislation with people who will never, ever take the time to actually read the thing and make their mind up for themselves. Sure why would they, when they can get their political knowledge from their mate down in the pub, who himself is probably spoon fed it by a source such as Sinn Fein? And above all, how can you argue the points of a text with people who simply want to say "No", for the sake of doing so? Because they're angry there's Polish people in the country, because they've a pot-hole on their road, because they don't like Enda Kenny's accent, or any of the other frivolous bollocks these people use their votes for?

However, thankfully, it truly is a case of the people who know the least being the loudest, as the polls (not polls on socialist hubs such as here and TheJournal, credible polls) still show support majority for the treaty.

They will keep chanting that the government are scaremongering, without even stopping to consider that the government and economic experts might genuinely be afraid of the consequences of instability in the union for each member state and each citizen living there.

When you have an uneducated, uncivilised (their protests have shown this), group of people who want chaos and anarchy for the sake of anarchy and chaos, you cannot reason with them, no matter what you have in your hands to reason with.

As such, expect more bull**** from Barrett, Adams and Higgins in the coming weeks. I don't know whether they genuinely believe that huge instability, us not paying back our debts and taking an additional 15 billion off the "rich" here per year would actually work out well, because everyone with half a brain knows it wouldn't, however they and their masses are sure to be both vocal and deflective of logic in the coming weeks and as such, I would simply advise you to not bother with them.

Bit of a rant but truth be told I'm absolutely sick of seeing this socialist **** recently. Those voting for it honestly deserve the hell they would drag the country into, yet we have to stick it out and fight against it because we've to live here too. Grumble grumble grumble :mad:

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yes side tactics:
1: Try to scare the bejaysus out of people

Haven't seen that to be honest. What did I miss?
Strangely I've seen some very truthful statements from the government, and loads of people then complaining about that, all the while complaining that the government never tells them the truth. Makes no sense but there you go.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

2: Biased weasel words (eg, calling it the 'stability' treaty instead of the fiscal treaty)

Em what would you expect them to call it? They are after all looking for stability. I can't help but feel if they called it the 'We will punch you in the face' treaty you wouldn't quite be happy.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

3: The usual irrelevant sh!te - yes for jobs, yes for Europe, etc

Sure usual slogans, not a fan myself. Though I'm not sure how you can sex this treaty up to 'sell' it. Especially when the No side can say whatever it is they like about it... and by golly they do. Large numbers complain about these treaties being too complicated and the same ones are complaining this one is being dumbed down too much. Makes no sense.

And you know what the really ironic thing about 'Yes for Jobs' is... I saw it on a few government posters and heard it said a by a few Yes supporters but I'd easily say 95% of the times I've heard it was from No voters. I still hear it almost daily now from No voters. Course those same no voters always have a very bad memory about all the lies the No side told. Make of that what you will.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

4: On the above point, acting as if voting for or against this treaty = voting for or against our very membership of the EU

Has someone in the government said that? Though a default might lead to just that.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

5: Guilt tripping the electorate over the state of the nation

Did they? Though the electorate should feel bad about the state we're in. We repeatedly voted for it, then didn't like what we got.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

6: Claim that the no side are communists, and that somehow being a protestor or activist automatically means that (a) you're unemployed, (b) lazy, (c) don't care about the issue at hand and (d) have no right to a voice or an opinion,

Haven't seen most of that myself. Though the hard left are out in force supporting a no vote. Polls on the The Journal show a comfortable no vote. Yet they also show a large majority who haven't read this treaty and don't intend to. Go figure.

Journal Poll (70% either haven't read the treaty or don't plan to read it)

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

7: Claim that by voting no, you are effectively endorsing others who advocate a no (guilt by association, e.g "Sure why don't you just vote for the shinners in the next election then")

Now I have seen this. But given some of the... em... nutters... on the hard left I suppose it a relevant point. It would genuinely make me think if I were on the same side as these people.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Need I go on?

Sure go for it.

meglome

TehDagsBass wrote: »

@meglome: What, may I asked, spurred you to waste your time on the comments section on TheJournal?

The reason I ask is that I personally see the comments section there as being choc-full of the dregs of the Irish online. Devoid of any rational, logical or in any way educated discussion, it is a soapbox for uneducated, socialist clowns to post their vacuous, populist rhetoric and slap one another's backs. Indeed, those writing and publishing to TheJournal seem to merely cater for these people now. I genuinely had a laugh at their plans to produce a paper copy of what amounts to their summary of other news outlets stories and the reposting of things trending on twitter. I really did.

They will keep chanting that the government are scaremongering, without even stopping to consider that the government and economic experts might genuinely be afraid of the consequences of instability in the union for each member state and each citizen living there.

I won't attempt to respond to all of your excellent post, though I will say I pretty much agree with all of it.

The reason I post on the Journal is I suppose why I used to post on the conspiracy theories forum. It's not that I'm contrary though I'm usually in the minority. It's not even that I think any of the hard core will ever change their views. I suppose it boils down to trying to get some balance out to people who perhaps won't get it otherwise, and you know along the way I'll learn a thing or two. Using as many facts as I can I still have no idea if that will change anyone's mind but it's bound to do that with a few.

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Bit of a rant but truth be told I'm absolutely sick of seeing this socialist **** recently. Those voting for it honestly deserve the hell they would drag the country into, yet we have to stick it out and fight against it because we've to live here too. Grumble grumble grumble :mad:

Sure it was a rant but a damn good one. And that's the final reason I do it, we all have to live here and it's better for all of us if we fight for it. Though not in the fantasy nationalistic way I seem to come up against.

hatrickpatrick

beeftotheheels wrote: »

You've obviously thought about this which is good.

Do you mind my asking which particular elements of the treaty, as distinct from the six pack which already binds us, do you object to?

Not the 60% limit as that is in the six pack. Not the structural deficit rule as that already binds us. Not the Commission having oversight of our budget as we're already in excessive deficit procedure under the existing rules and will remain so until 2015 at the earliest and possibly until we comply with the 60% debt to GDP ratio (as is provided for under the TFEU).

So what precisely is the objectionable departure in this treaty?

Specifically this part:

General government budgets shall be balanced or in surplus. The annual structural deficit must not exceed 0.5% of nominal GDP.

As I've said in other threads, I agree that the current deficit is unsustainable. My objection to this treaty does not necessarily relate to this current situation we are actually in at the moment, but the future. Sometimes, running a deficit temporarily and deficit spending is the more economically sound and beneficial thing to do. Counter cyclical policy, while we're still stuck with this daft monetary system we use, is generally regarded as relatively safe - this treaty, it seems, would effectively ban doing any of that in a catastrophic situation like we're experiencing now.
Sure, I've heard people mention that there is some leeway for "emergency situations" in which these rules could be breached - but who decides whether that's valid or not?

Then this:

Member States agree to take the necessary actions and measures, "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." They also ensure that all major economic policy reforms that they plan to undertake will be discussed ex-ante and, where appropriate, coordinated among themselves and with the institutions of the European Union.

There are several issues with this section. Again, who decides which actions are "essential"? Who decides what course of action reinforces financial stability and sustainability? Is it another case in which economically sound policies which go against this rule at that moment in time can be overruled by those who are doing well at that moment in time? If so, it's madness.
Secondly: "all major economic policy reforms that they plan to undertake will be discussed ex anti and, where appropriate, coordinated among themselves and with the institutions of the European Union".
Does this amount essentially to having to ask for permission to change a country's economic model? Does it amount to giving other countries a say in our affairs - even when we're NOT currently in a crisis at that moment in time?

As I said, this simply isn't the direction I want the EU to take. You are free to disagree with me if you do disagree, I have no problem with that at all. And honest campaigning to change my mind is fine.

What is not fine, is "Fair enough then vote for Sinn Fein", "You're one of those 'crusties' aren't you", "Do you want to get us kicked out of the EU, is that your game?" or any such absolute bullsh!t I've seen both on this board and in general public debate over the last few months.

I have been completely vocal about how I feel some of Sinn Fein's tactics are damaging to the no campaign. I'd be interested to see some on the yes side attack the above bully boy tactics I've outlined. It's EXACTLY like Lisbon.

Look at this paragraph from FG's own "vote yes" PDF:

On the 31st of May, Ireland has a chance to safeguard our recovery. Voting Yes ensures that we can chart our own path to better economic times. A Yes vote will help us to restore our sovereignty by helping us get back into the international markets quicker. It is vitally important that we bring back jobs and growth. A Yes vote will sustain the conditions to protect the jobs we have and create the jobs we need.

"Yes for jobs", anyone? NONE of the above is mentioned in the treaty and is at best hopeful. There's no guarantee whatsoever that that's how things will pan out regardless of a yes vote.

As I say, I as a no voter fully accept and admit that some on the no side are using ridiculously stupid campaigning tactics which are likely to hurt the argument for a no - for instance, I've said several times over the last few weeks that SF would be better serving no's interests if they'd just shut up for a while - I have not however seen any yes campaigners lashing out against such appalling propaganda from FG.

It doesn't help your side, all it's going to do is piss people off.

EDIT: Meglome I have to rush off to college now but I'll respond fully to your post this evening when I get home. I'm not ignoring you just to be mean or anything :P

beeftotheheels

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I say, I as a no voter fully accept and admit that some on the no side are using ridiculously stupid campaigning tactics which are likely to hurt the argument for a no - for instance, I've said several times over the last few weeks that SF would be better serving no's interests if they'd just shut up for a while - I have not however seen any yes campaigners lashing out against such appalling propaganda from FG.

It doesn't help your side, all it's going to do is piss people off.

EDIT: Meglome I have to rush off to college now but I'll respond fully to your post this evening when I get home. I'm not ignoring you just to be mean or anything :P

But all of what you're objecting to is already binding on us through the six pack.

This is a huge problem with this treaty debate. No one is bothering to explain what the treaty actually changes because the answer is very little.

Gavin Barrett has a guest post on the Irisheconomy.ie website today fleshing out stuff he wrote in the Irish Times on this.

The treaty makes very few changes to the substantive rules. Personally I'm with the Commission in thinking that the treaty was pointless since the six-pack could already address most of the issues. The six-pack is already binding on all of us Member States.

Voting no to the treaty cannot alter the six-pack and hence cannot alter the substantive rules.

Ozymandius2011

Why should we believe Gavin Barrett given he wrote an article in the IT arguing a referendum was not needed?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Specifically this part:


As I've said in other threads, I agree that the current deficit is unsustainable. My objection to this treaty does not necessarily relate to this current situation we are actually in at the moment, but the future. Sometimes, running a deficit temporarily and deficit spending is the more economically sound and beneficial thing to do. Counter cyclical policy, while we're still stuck with this daft monetary system we use, is generally regarded as relatively safe - this treaty, it seems, would effectively ban doing any of that in a catastrophic situation like we're experiencing now.
Sure, I've heard people mention that there is some leeway for "emergency situations" in which these rules could be breached - but who decides whether that's valid or not?

Might address your reasons for voting no one by one.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/hitting-structural-deficit-target.html#more

This article by Seamus Coffey (you might remember him from SF's lies about the economists advocating a no vote - he was one of those inaccurately quoted) shows what is required to bring about a structural deficit of 0.5%. Seems a reasonable way of ensuring we do our best to avoid making the same mistakes again.

In relation to your point about running a deficit in the bad times, this quote from the EU Regulation is interesting:

"The Council shall take into account whether a higher adjustment effort is made in economic good times, whereas the effort may be more limited in economic bad times."

I would be interested to know if there is anything you disagree with in Coffey's article as it sufficiently reassures me that the targets are achievable in the short-term without any more austerity than already planned and that given our own record of budget crisis caused by populist parties (FF in the past, possibly SF and ULA in the future) that we do need a control from outside so I am voting yes.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Why should we believe Gavin Barrett given he wrote an article in the IT arguing a referendum was not needed?

And I agree with him and suspect that the A-G actually sat on the fence on this but suggested that the better answer might be to have the referendum.

The law, especially case law, is never black and white. It is an interpretation of the precedent, an interpretation which is always open to doubt. Especially when dealing with a horrific, badly reasoned, illogical decision like Crotty.

wrfc

so if europe is basicly going to over see our budgets from now on, what will the goverment do and why are we still paying them so Much? thats like giveing the asstitant the same wages as the manager,
How about this Vote Yes but lets say sack 60% of the goverment everyone wins, Vote No and have still have a bunch of spoiled mammys boys who havent a clue about how to budget keep running the country into the ground.:D

beeftotheheels

Yes, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy is not only spouting rubbish suggesting that a No vote would involve us burning banking bondholders who have largely been replaced with official loans, but they decided to wheel out the old line on the CCCTB which the Stability Treaty has NOTHING to do with.

GGGrrrr this $h!te coming through my letter box is going through others up and down the country.

Godge

beeftotheheels wrote: »

And I agree with him and suspect that the A-G actually sat on the fence on this but suggested that the better answer might be to have the referendum.

The law, especially case law, is never black and white. It is an interpretation of the precedent, an interpretation which is always open to doubt. Especially when dealing with a horrific, badly reasoned, illogical decision like Crotty.

Yeah, he probably did sit on the fence, the government had to make a decision. Imagine if they said a referendum wasn't needed and Crotty II or the ULA/SF axis of ignorance went to court and the judge (smarting from his pay-cut after the last referendum) backed them. The subsequent referendum would have no chance lost in the "they tried to sneak it past you illegally" type of campaign we would have had.

beeftotheheels

Godge wrote: »

Yeah, she probably did sit on the fence, the government had to make a decision. Imagine if they said a referendum wasn't needed and Crotty II or the ULA/SF axis of ignorance went to court and the judge (smarting from his pay-cut after the last referendum) backed them. The subsequent referendum would have no chance lost in the "they tried to sneak it past you illegally" type of campaign we would have had.

I did fix your post because our AG is a woman (Maire Whelan).

meglome

wrfc wrote: »

so if europe is basicly going to over see our budgets from now on, what will the goverment do and why are we still paying them so Much? thats like giveing the asstitant the same wages as the manager,
How about this Vote Yes but lets say sack 60% of the goverment everyone wins, Vote No and have still have a bunch of spoiled mammys boys who havent a clue about how to budget keep running the country into the ground.:D

What you think is happening/will happen isn't/won't.

meglome

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Yes, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy is not only spouting rubbish suggesting that a No vote would involve us burning banking bondholders who have largely been replaced with official loans, but they decided to wheel out the old line on the CCCTB which the Stability Treaty has NOTHING to do with.

GGGrrrr this $h!te coming through my letter box is going through others up and down the country.

I really don't understand now in these referenda that people (mainly no campaigners) can say whatever they like.

beeftotheheels

meglome wrote: »

I really don't understand now in these referenda that people (mainly no campaigners) can say whatever they like.

That's the problem isn't it. Throw enough $h!te about and the yes campaign are doomed to trying to explain it away, while hopefully being honest enough to try and explain that there are no certainties around this.

Honesty therefore becomes self defeating when only one side is so constrained.

I can't say that the EU will never harmonise taxes, I can only explain that they can't do it under current rules, and that the stability treaty does nothing to alter that. But I have to admit that either a future treaty change, or an activist Court, could allow the future rendering of an EU tax at some point.

antoobrien

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yes side tactics:
1: Try to scare the bejaysus out of people
2: Biased weasel words (eg, calling it the 'stability' treaty instead of the fiscal treaty)

The no side are at this as well - the austerity muck really p*sses me off. I knocked off the TV3 debate when St Joe used the words "Austerity Treaty" - right there and then I knew he had nothing to offer.

This is not a treaty about austerity it's about enshrining fiscal responsibility at all stages of an economic cycle into law. The fact is that depending on the part of the economic cycle we are in, that fiscal responsibility is called different things by people who have axes to grind.

Right now its austerity because we are in recession. We are spending more than we earn and we need to cut it out. So we have to bring up taxes and down spending - that's simply prudent economic practice - try making €50 last two weeks because you've no credit card or overdraft and you'll find that pints aren't that important and food is.

At the hight of the boom, running a surplus - was a bad thing because we weren't spending enough on <insert bleeding heart cause of choice>, despite the fact that we were putting money into the NPRF, as well as the SSIA schemes (some of your counter cyclical, it just didn't go far enough and the SSIAs actually came out a couple of years too early). As it turns out the NPRF has helped us to weather the storm somewhat. Imagine what would have happened if we didn't have that €20 billion lying around in the bank - we'd have had to borrow it, making the both the debt and deficit situations worse.

There is one very good thing about the need to run a budget surplus - it forces a medium term view on incomes and expenditures. We've got €48 billion coming in this year - what's coming in next year and the year after? How much of it can we spend and still stay within the rules?
It should help lessen the impact of giveaway budgets and promises like every political party made in 2007 to abolish stamp duty (which paradoxically stopped house sales because everybody wanted to wait for the cut, causing trouble before the financial storm hit).

Ozymandius2011

Whether you agree or disagree with the contents of the Treaty, there seems little point in voting for it when considerable uncertainty exists that it will ever come into force. There is now a possibility of a renegotiation and events in Germany, France and Greece increase it. Best to hold off approval until the dust has settled and we know what the final package will look like. The German Parliament will not ratify probably until July. What's the hurry? We can vote no and then approve a better deal negotiated by Hollande.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

What's the hurry? We can vote no and then approve a better deal negotiated by Hollande.

No we cannot. The act of voting no would have consequences for us including a potential spike in our bond yields and downgrade in our credit rating.

My strong preference would be to have no vote on this. My second choice would be to defer the vote until there is more certainty.

But if the vote goes ahead then the vote has to be yes. Look at Greece - the ECB and EU leaders are now openly talking about Greece leaving the euro.

This is not the time to vote fecklessly.

Ozymandius2011

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No we cannot. The act of voting no would have consequences for us including a potential spike in our bond yields and downgrade in our credit rating.

My strong preference would be to have no vote on this. My second choice would be to defer the vote until there is more certainty.

But if the vote goes ahead then the vote has to be yes. Look at Greece - the ECB and EU leaders are now openly talking about Greece leaving the euro.

This is not the time to vote fecklessly.

There is a lot more to the Greek situation than a Treaty. They are being held accountable for not keeping to their existing commitments under the terms of their bailout. The F.C. is not a bailout agreement in operational terms. Rather it sets up a framework for future bailouts via the ESM. Previous Greek govts were also found to have cooked the books in order to enter the Euro unlike Ireland. The Greek crisis has nothing to with EU Treaties.

The current EFSF funding programme for Ireland continues until 2013. Plenty of time for renegotiation. Remember: if one Euro countries goes down they all do because of contagion. We have little to fear in the bailout stakes and the govt can't make up its mind whether we will need one or not. And of course we can got back to the IMF if needs be.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

There is a lot more to the Greek situation than a Treaty. They are being held accountable for not keeping to their existing commitments under the terms of their bailout. The F.C. is not a bailout agreement in operational terms. Rather it sets up a framework for future bailouts via the ESM. Previous Greek govts were also found to have cooked the books in order to enter the Euro unlike Ireland. The Greek crisis has nothing to with EU Treaties.

It doesn't matter what the vote is on (although you're correct in your analysis). The message which will be sent by a No vote is that the Irish people are rejecting the bailout (which we're not) and cutting off our route to ESM funding.

Which more importantly, reduces the chances of the NTMA getting away paper and bonds later this year. Increasing the likelihood that we'll need ESM funding.

The treaty won't change. The "Growth pact" will be kept separate, either in a treaty or more likely in a few well worded official statements. Think about it, increased funding for the EIB has no place in this treaty. Whatever else is in the growth pact has no place in this treaty. There's no logical reason for it to change.

Ozymandius2011

beeftotheheels wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the vote is on (although you're correct in your analysis). The message which will be sent by a No vote is that the Irish people are rejecting the bailout (which we're not) and cutting off our route to ESM funding.

Which more importantly, reduces the chances of the NTMA getting away paper and bonds later this year. Increasing the likelihood that we'll need ESM funding.

The treaty won't change. The "Growth pact" will be kept separate, either in a treaty or more likely in a few well worded official statements. Think about it, increased funding for the EIB has no place in this treaty. Whatever else is in the growth pact has no place in this treaty. There's no logical reason for it to change.

Whether the Treaty is going to be changed or not there is still a reason to vote no. At the very least Hollande says he won't sign without concessions on growth. If he can put his foot down and demand concessions then we should do the same in terms of a write-down or write-off of Irish debt. After all the European banks recklessly lent to Irish financial institutions so they share the blame for fuelling the property bubble here with reckless lending.

meglome

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

After all the European banks recklessly lent to Irish financial institutions so they share the blame for fuelling the property bubble here with reckless lending.

You know if I had a yoyo for every time someone said this. Dare I ask have you any proof for this statement? because in the years since it's been first said I've still seen none.