Fact check for me

Dave!

Hey folks,

I'm talking to someone else about the referendum and they've brought up tax harmonization. I pointed out that this is not directly related to the treaty, and the response is below.

I've not done much research myself, so I'm not engaging in any debates as such. I've followed the debates throughtout, but I'm still largely at the mercy of the arguments being put forth from each side, and depending on the other side to respond.

Anywho, what so ye make of this?


"
Parts of the treaty is intentionally vague. It erodes and dissolves certain powers, making a state change their constitution to abide by them. God only knows what rules / laws can be passed in the future by the legal ambiguity of it without our consent.

The YES side are saying it is just one tool or a stepping stone to recovery, it's actually not it's one major part of a process of Germanys ultimate goal, "fiscal unity" or in lay mans terms Germany sets the agenda everyone follows.

Remember the ESM are immune from scrutiny, think about that.

They can do what they want, when they want and can't even be questioned on it.

That goes against the very fibre of anything democratic.

Anyways, no need to take my word for it.

Here is the leader of the European Central Banks thoughts on it

"the fiscal treaty was the first step towards a fiscal union....
“If we want to have a fiscal union, we have to accept the delegation of fiscal sovereignty from the national governments to some form of central body, but how do we get there?"

We havn't a fooking hope of meeting any fiscal targets laid down by the treaty, we havn't even started paying back the bulk of the loan from the imf, etc.

Basically we will need to access the ESM, but solely on their terms which includes severe financial punishments, remember legally they can do what they want, without question.
"

oscarBravo

Dave! wrote: »

Hey folks,

I'm talking to someone else about the referendum and they've brought up tax harmonization. I pointed out that this is not directly related to the treaty, and the response is below.

I've not done much research myself, so I'm not engaging in any debates as such. I've followed the debates throughtout, but I'm still largely at the mercy of the arguments being put forth from each side, and depending on the other side to respond.

Anywho, what so ye make of this?


"
Parts of the treaty is intentionally vague. It erodes and dissolves certain powers, making a state change their constitution to abide by them. God only knows what rules / laws can be passed in the future by the legal ambiguity of it without our consent.

The YES side are saying it is just one tool or a stepping stone to recovery, it's actually not it's one major part of a process of Germanys ultimate goal, "fiscal unity" or in lay mans terms Germany sets the agenda everyone follows.

Remember the ESM are immune from scrutiny, think about that.

They can do what they want, when they want and can't even be questioned on it.

That goes against the very fibre of anything democratic.

Anyways, no need to take my word for it.

Here is the leader of the European Central Banks thoughts on it

"the fiscal treaty was the first step towards a fiscal union....
“If we want to have a fiscal union, we have to accept the delegation of fiscal sovereignty from the national governments to some form of central body, but how do we get there?"

We havn't a fooking hope of meeting any fiscal targets laid down by the treaty, we havn't even started paying back the bulk of the loan from the imf, etc.

Basically we will need to access the ESM, but solely on their terms which includes severe financial punishments, remember legally they can do what they want, without question.
"

Fact check? That entire screed is pretty much completely fact-free.

carveone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Fact check? That entire screed is pretty much completely fact-free.

"No need to take my word for it". That's the only sentence that is even coherent. And there was no mention of conscription, missing an opportunity to make even less sense.

Scofflaw

Dave! wrote: »

Hey folks,

I'm talking to someone else about the referendum and they've brought up tax harmonization. I pointed out that this is not directly related to the treaty, and the response is below.

I've not done much research myself, so I'm not engaging in any debates as such. I've followed the debates throughtout, but I'm still largely at the mercy of the arguments being put forth from each side, and depending on the other side to respond.

Anywho, what so ye make of this?

First off, just to point out that anyone who is using arguments like these will simply move the goalposts if you respond.


"

Parts of the treaty is intentionally vague. It erodes and dissolves certain powers, making a state change their constitution to abide by them. God only knows what rules / laws can be passed in the future by the legal ambiguity of it without our consent.

Assuming they're referring to the constitutional protection clause that is part of our constitutional amendment, the answer is no - the only way something can be protected is if it is both an explicit (not vague) obligation under the Treaty and the government chooses the most constitutional way possible of meeting that obligation. It's not an open door by any means.

The YES side are saying it is just one tool or a stepping stone to recovery, it's actually not it's one major part of a process of Germanys ultimate goal, "fiscal unity" or in lay mans terms Germany sets the agenda everyone follows.

That's pretty much "blah blah Germany evil". The main reason for the Treaty is actually because the Germans are reluctant to be forced into the leadership role everyone else wants them to take.

Remember the ESM are immune from scrutiny, think about that.

No, they're entirely open to government scrutiny.

They can do what they want, when they want and can't even be questioned on it.

Nope. That's diplomatic immunity - and even diplomatic immunity can be stripped away by the government granting it.

That goes against the very fibre of anything democratic.

How?

Anyways, no need to take my word for it.

Here is the leader of the European Central Banks thoughts on it

"the fiscal treaty was the first step towards a fiscal union....
“If we want to have a fiscal union, we have to accept the delegation of fiscal sovereignty from the national governments to some form of central body, but how do we get there?"

I don't know - how do we get there? This Treaty doesn't do it.

We havn't a fooking hope of meeting any fiscal targets laid down by the treaty, we havn't even started paying back the bulk of the loan from the imf, etc.

We're not expecting to, either - governments roll debt over, not pay it back. In the long run inflation and growth renders the debts trivial.

As for meeting our targets, I doubt the person has any idea how long we'd have to meet them - we're expecting to meet the deficit target by 2015, and we'd have approximately 184 years to meet the debt target, not 20 as most people think.

Basically we will need to access the ESM, but solely on their terms which includes severe financial punishments, remember legally they can do what they want, without question.
"

No, they can't - what the ESM can do is in the Treaty, and there is no immunity for ESM outside the functions in the Treaty. There are no financial punishments in the ESM, and the Treaty doesn't change the current sanctions system for breaches of the fiscal limits.

As oB says, this is basically fact-free stuff based on half-digested snippets of propaganda. Anyone prepared to use these arguments is not going to change their mind as a result of logic or facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

Are parts of the treaty vague? I've heard that mentioned before. Does it leave any room for further changes to be implemented besides the budgetary limits?

I've heard mention of the ESM being legally immune/unaccountable - what's the significance of that if there is any?

The goal of the EU is ultimately fiscal unity or some kind of federal type system is it not? Is this another incremental step towards that?

If people were not interested in further integration with the EU, shouldn't they reject this? For all EU referenda there has been and will be advantages to accepting it, and consequences to rejecting it, so if you don't want to go "all the way" with whatever plan Europe has, you'll have to eventually say Stop and deal with the fallout, right?

Edit

Posted before scofflaw's post

I was playing devils advocate, but I am interested in what is the ultimate goal or plan in the EU. Is a federal system, or at least more control being given to Europe, the idea down the road?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Dave! wrote: »

I was playing devils advocate, but I am interested in what is the ultimate goal or plan in the EU. Is a federal system, or at least more control being given to Europe, the idea down the road?

That's a big question, I guess the ultimate goal, broadly speaking, is to make life better for the citizens of the Union. What political shape the union takes is down to the peoples & nations of the Union.

It's a bit like asking what's the goal or plan of Dublin, is it to reach a population of 2 million, is it to morph into a single council, or splinter into many more councils, is it to be a highrise city or continue with urban sprawl?

The answer is that there is no answer, decisions are taken at various times to move in various directions, this way or that, whatever seems right at the time, there's no specific direction, as that would imply a consistent director, and there isn't one. The peoples, nations, ideals, politics of the union are constantly in flux, and the institutions can only be moulded by those people and nations, therefore the shape of the mould is always in flux.

Scofflaw

Dave! wrote: »

Are parts of the treaty vague? I've heard that mentioned before. Does it leave any room for further changes to be implemented besides the budgetary limits?

No, why would it? How would it? It would have to explicitly say "and a bit more can be added here in the future".

I've heard mention of the ESM being legally immune/unaccountable - what's the significance of that if there is any?

The real significance is to prevent attempts to influence the ESM by seizing their assets or employees. All multilateral intergovernmental bodies have this kind of immunity - "functional immunity" - and it's a well-trodden legal road. It applies only to the official actions of the ESM, and those are only the ones defined in the Treaty. Private acts for gain such as corruption or peculation are not covered by such immunity.

Dave! wrote: »

The goal of the EU is ultimately fiscal unity or some kind of federal type system is it not? Is this another incremental step towards that?

If people were not interested in further integration with the EU, shouldn't they reject this? For all EU referenda there has been and will be advantages to accepting it, and consequences to rejecting it, so if you don't want to go "all the way" with whatever plan Europe has, you'll have to eventually say Stop and deal with the fallout, right?

Edit

Posted before scofflaw's post

I was playing devils advocate, but I am interested in what is the ultimate goal or plan in the EU. Is a federal system, or at least more control being given to Europe, the idea down the road?

The goal is "ever closer union", but what that means is up to every generation to define for itself. There is no single road-map - everyone involved in the EU has their own, from reversing back to a free trade area to complete dissolution of the member states. Mostly, the EU evolves pragmatically, in response to the wishes of the Member States who write the Treaties and set the direction. The EU remains first and foremost a framework for joint action.

We won't ever come to a USE, or a UE unless that's what the majority of people want over an enduring timeframe.

cordially,
Scofflaw