Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Treaty Referendum: 31 May 2012

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    latenia wrote: »
    You've just emphasised my point rather than counter it. The document Enda Kenny signed could well by toilet paper by the summer.



    So we go ahead with a referendum on the presumption that one of the most respected politicians in Europe is lying and that everything will be grand anyway rather than waiting for a couple of months.


    So a French election candidate has promised something he knows he can't deliver. So what?

    We see that all the time over here. Don't you hear Joe Higgins, the ULA, SF and all the other loonies promising to burn the bondholders, get rid of the new taxes and increase public spending while growing the economy, all things that they know they cannot deliver.


  • Options
    #33
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Dirk Gently wrote: »
    Basically what I'm asking is, after 3 years is it up to us to meet the targets or are we instructed on how to meet them.

    It'll be up to us to meet the targets, but as we see fit. Introduce a 100% Wealth tax fine, a 0% Corporation tax rate fine. I don't see anything stopping those as long as they start seeing a reduction in the deficit.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #34
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I get the feeling that the "Europe is stealing our babies' souls" brigade will come out in force once the household tax buzz has died down a bit. ;)


  • Options
    #36
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Dirk Gently wrote: »
    Not sure myself seen as how we will (in theory) be out of the current terms of our bailout in 3 years.

    What happens then though, is it up to national governments to balance or return a surplus and stay within the parameters set out by this treaty by using their own domestic policies, or is there a programme of directives set out here which we follow to achieve the targets. If the latter, what happens if we follow the directives yet still don't meet the targets. For example, we cut too much or tax too much under direction and fail to balance the budget.

    Basically what I'm asking is, after 3 years is it up to us to meet the targets or are we instructed on how to meet them.

    Are we not dependant on the trokia anyway to even be in a position to start clean in 3 years. A lot of it seems to be out of our hands, which isn't necessarily a bad thing provided our troika commitments cut the deficit in time, which is very debatable. We could walk into this thing already evoking article 7 from day 1.

    No, we have three years after the end of the excessive deficit procedure:
    Public debt

    The new rules of the amended Stability and Growth Pact make the debt criterion of the Treaty absolutely operational, since it has been largely neglected over the past years. Another major element of the new rules is that a new numerical debt benchmark has been defined: if the 60% reference for the debt-to-GDP ratio is not respected, the Member State concerned will be put in excessive deficit procedure (even if its deficit is below 3%!), after taking into account all relevant factors and the impact of the economic cycle, if the gap between its debt level and the 60% reference is not reduced by 1/20th annually (on average over 3 years).

    Given that that most Member States are already in excessive deficit procedure, and therefore have to comply with agreed fiscal consolidation paths, a transitional period is foreseen in the amended legislation to ensure no abrupt change in these agreed paths. Accordingly, each Member State in excessive deficit procedure is granted a three-year period following the correction of the excessive deficit for meeting the debt rule. This does not mean that the debt rule does not apply at all during this period as the amended Regulation foresees that Member States should make sufficient progress towards compliance during this transitional period. A negative assessment of the progress made towards compliance with the debt benchmark during the transition period could lead to the opening of an excessive deficit procedure. Sufficient progress towards compliance with the debt rule should start on 13 December 2011, depending on country-specific deadlines for correction of their excessive deficit.

    So, assuming we're out of the excessive deficit procedure we're currently in by 2015, the rules in the Treaty apply at the earliest in 2018. Realistically, though, I would have said we won't have corrected our excessive deficit much this side of...what, maybe 2025?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Cardinal Richelieu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,407 ✭✭✭Cardinal Richelieu


    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    I get the feeling that the "Europe is stealing our babies' souls" brigade will come out in force once the household tax buzz has died down a bit. ;)

    They always do, then the red herring stories about the treaty quickly surface until you have people telling you that a Yes vote for the Treaty also extends the Greyhound waste contract with DCC.:D That's the main tactic these days that they use to get the ordinary citizen so confused that the old adage "of if in doubt vote no" applies. Sadly after the mess of the communication of the Household charge I have little confidence that the government is quick enough to handle most of the potential red herrings before they cause major confusion.


  • Options
    #38
    Kinski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »
    They always do, then the red herring stories about the treaty quickly surface until you have people telling you that a Yes vote for the Treaty also extends the Greyhound waste contract with DCC.:D That's the main tactic these days that they use to get the ordinary citizen so confused that the old adage "of if in doubt vote no" applies. Sadly after the mess of the communication of the Household charge I have little confidence that the government is quick enough to handle most of the potential red herrings before they cause major confusion.

    Misrepresentation of the issues is common to both Yes and No campaigners in European treaty referendums. Neither side seems to trust the public enough to engage in honest debate.


  • Options
    #39
    Dirk Gently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No, we have three years after the end of the excessive deficit procedure:



    So, assuming we're out of the excessive deficit procedure we're currently in by 2015, the rules in the Treaty apply at the earliest in 2018. Realistically, though, I would have said we won't have corrected our excessive deficit much this side of...what, maybe 2025?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    so barring some kind of restructuring or default we will most likely fall under article 7 and have policy dictated to us, save for the support of a majority of nations coming to our support.


  • Options
    #40
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Dirk Gently wrote: »
    so barring some kind of restructuring or default we will most likely fall under article 7 and have policy dictated to us, save for the support of a majority of nations coming to our support.

    Er, no. The point of what I quoted is that we do not become subject to Article 7 by virtue of the existing deficit. We're not subject to the rules in the treaty at all until three years after we've sorted out the existing deficit.

    The salient points from the quote:
    Accordingly, each Member State in excessive deficit procedure is granted a three-year period following the correction of the excessive deficit for meeting the debt rule.

    We're in an excessive deficit procedure under the existing rules. We have not corrected the existing excessive deficit - that is, reduced it below 60% - nor, I imagine, will we do so within the immediate future.

    For us, then, Article 7 cannot operate unless we're making no progress in reducing our debt, in which case we could be subject to a new excessive deficit procedure under the new rules:
    This does not mean that the debt rule does not apply at all during this period as the amended Regulation foresees that Member States should make sufficient progress towards compliance during this transitional period. A negative assessment of the progress made towards compliance with the debt benchmark during the transition period could lead to the opening of an excessive deficit procedure.

    I'll bounce this off some people, but that's my understanding of it - and the understanding of, at the least, Seamus Coffey, who said as much to the Oireachtas Committee.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No, we have three years after the end of the excessive deficit procedure.........so , assuming we're out of the excessive deficit procedure we're currently in by 2015, the rules in the Treaty apply at the earliest in 2018. Realistically, though, I would have said we won't have corrected our excessive deficit much this side of...what, maybe 2025?

    As i see it, this is one of the many dangers of a yes vote ( i'm not advocating anything here either way BTW, as i see it there are many dangers of a no vote too).

    The bailout was built on pie-in-the-sky growth figures which have consistently been fallen short of/revised down by Ireland inc, and with the latest tightening of the retail spending figures there's no real sign of any improvement in growth to come. If anything, when you take the export sector recovery and expatriated foreign multinational profits out of the equation, things are actually still getting slowly but steadily worse for our domestic economy. Apart from the really big players who can afford to weather this storm, we seem to be very slowly being dragged down by the current here, or at the very least, just treading water and going nowhere.

    What happens if we haven't, as many people expect, produced enough growth to come out of serious recession or avoid any second bailout program by 2015-2018? What happens if the only lender still available to us then is the IMF/EU? Do we have to then drag ourselves through another lengthy series of political negotiations with the fiscal powers of Europe to seek an exception to the provisions in the treaty? Do we have to ensure that any second bailout program is in place here before the treaty is fully ratified, to allow us further protection under the "existing program" clause? What will that mean for the prospects of re-election of our existing government, and who will we vote for if not them (presuming that FF will still be a non-runner)?

    Do we look for yet another exception or bending of the rules on something we signed up to in good faith (perhaps unwisely), as with the bailout renegotiations and the current talk of promissory notes deals? Another EU renegotiation process and all the negative media reporting it would bring would further erode both our own population's faith in the institutions of the EU, as well as their faith in us. This further dragging through the mud would give rise to further euro-scepticism here, and give our government decreased breathing room in terms of their mandate on European matters, right at a time when their re-election and the 100th anniversary of our state would likely be a major factor in their thinking.

    Conversely, would Germany and the other major EU states simply tow a hard line on us, paint us with the same brush as greece (ie:can't be expected to live up to their commitments, too fond of breaking their promises, their reach exceeds their grasp, etc), and enforce austerity on us, regardless of our domestic considerations? What would that mean for thousands of public servants and state run services here? How severe would these cuts be, and really, if we haven't had the stomach to make them ourselves by then, is it a bad thing if someone with a cold, dispassionate, outside view comes along and makes them for us?

    There are so many variables and unanswered questions here, and it seems so difficult to get clarification or any definite answers to them at the moment. I think if past referendums are anything to go by, the "if in doubt, vote no" ethos is going to play a major part here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    K-9 wrote: »
    It'll be up to us to meet the targets, but as we see fit. Introduce a 100% Wealth tax fine, a 0% Corporation tax rate fine. I don't see anything stopping those as long as they start seeing a reduction in the deficit.

    I've heard quite a few people referring to the Treaty as enforced austerity to eternity, or words to that effect, I don't buy it either ... in theory.

    But, in terms of realpolitik, it doesn't seem likely to me that our Celtic Tiger era tax aversion is likely to abate any time soon, so it's likely to have the same net effect, which I find worrying for social cohesion into the future.

    On the flip side, I have more confidence in budgets being overseen by EU technocrats than our own shower being left to their own devices ...

    Torn by this, will take my time deciding one way or the other.

    Overwhelming sensation at the moment is that if I never have to read another of those treaties again it will be too soon ... especially if "the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro" are involved.


  • Options
    #43
    Skopzz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    benway wrote: »
    I've heard quite a few people referring to the Treaty as enforced austerity to eternity, or words to that effect, I don't buy it either ... in theory.

    But, in terms of realpolitik, it doesn't seem likely to me that our Celtic Tiger era tax aversion is likely to abate any time soon, so it's likely to have the same net effect, which I find worrying for social cohesion into the future.

    On the flip side, I have more confidence in budgets being overseen by EU technocrats than our own shower being left to their own devices ...

    Torn by this, will take my time deciding one way or the other.

    Overwhelming sensation at the moment is that if I never have to read another of those treaties again it will be too soon ... especially if "the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro" are involved.

    So the EU politboro will end up dictating because "they know what's best"??! What a stupid analogy. Ireland did NOT have a fiscal problem until the pro-EU governments decided to bailout the private banks. Our country was sacrificed to save investors.

    Even if we are cut off from the ESM, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. We can also tap the Ireland-America fund or other bilateral loans as our economy grows. The promissory note to unguaranteed bondholders would then be burned by the Irish Authorities (since it's not part of our sovereign debt). At the end of the day, we still hold the cards.

    Change is coming. The writing's on the wall: FG/LAB must arrange a write-off of 70 billion relating to Anglo Irish Bank Private Bondholders and their ponzi scheme or else we will reject this treaty.


  • Options
    #44
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Skopzz wrote: »
    ...EU politboro...
    Just FYI: any post that contains a phrase like this is mentally deleted by me, and I'm sure I'm not alone. If you were actually trying to make a valid point that you wanted people to take seriously, I would politely suggest leaving silly phrases like this one out.


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Does Skopzzz' post officially mark the end of the household charge debacle? ;)


  • Options
    #46
    Skopzz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    ^^^

    I didn't pay the household/bankers charge. I have no intention of paying either because it's not our debt. I recommend the same for all you chronic boards.ie posters.


  • Options
    #47
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Skopzz wrote: »
    So the EU politboro will end up dictating because "they know what's best"??! What a stupid analogy. Ireland did NOT have a fiscal problem until the pro-EU governments decided to bailout the private banks. Our country was sacrificed to save investors.

    Even if we are cut off from the ESM, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. We can also tap the Ireland-America fund or other bilateral loans as our economy grows. The promissory note to unguaranteed bondholders would then be burned by the Irish Authorities (since it's not part of our sovereign debt). At the end of the day, we still hold the cards.

    Change is coming. The writing's on the wall: FG/LAB must arrange a write-off of 70 billion relating to Anglo Irish Bank Private Bondholders and their ponzi scheme or else we will reject this treaty.

    Which won't make a blind bit of difference - except perhaps in PR terms - to anyone but us.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #48
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Skopzz wrote: »
    So the EU politboro

    Yawn
    Skopzz wrote: »
    Ireland did NOT have a fiscal problem until the pro-EU governments decided to bailout the private banks. Our country was sacrificed to save investors.

    From the link below
    It is impossible to be human and not to be furious about this. But anger – righteous or otherwise – should not cloud analysis. However understandable, that has happened in the debate on bank debt.

    Three claims are frequently made:
    • Most public debt is a result of taking on banking debt;
    • The economic and budgetary outlook would be transformed if banking debt could be offloaded;
    • A bailout would not have been needed had it not been for socialised banking debt.
    These claims are, respectively, plain wrong, wrong and debatable.
    Skopzz wrote: »
    Even if we are cut off from the ESM, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. We can also tap the Ireland-America fund or other bilateral loans as our economy grows. The promissory note to unguaranteed bondholders would then be burned by the Irish Authorities (since it's not part of our sovereign debt). At the end of the day, we still hold the cards.

    Scofflaw already explained to you why this won't work.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The IMF will not lend us more money, because their maximum lending is supposed to be 600% of quota - in other words, six times our contribution to the IMF. They're currently lending us 1350% of quota due to our "exceptional circumstances", which is to say as a favour to the EU.

    You can forget further IMF lending.

    Bilateral loans and bailouts from Irish Americans? Even more wishful thinking. We've already been in a position where we needed to be bailed out, and we didn't get anything from those sources then.

    You can forget meaningful bilateral funding or bailouts from Irish Americans.

    ESM funding? No, of course we won't get it. Legally, if we haven't ratified the Fiscal Treaty, we can't get access to ESM funding, making it illegal for the governments involved in the ESM to give us any.

    You can forget ESM funding.

    Other European funding? Yes, almost certainly we'd get that, rather than being allowed to sink. But it would be on worse terms than the ESM, because the parliaments of the countries being asked to put up the money for us will be unwilling to provide fresh funds in addition to their ESM obligations, and it will be on worse terms because there would have been absolutely no point in agreeing to ESM if any country not using ESM gets a better deal.

    regards,
    Scofflaw
    Skopzz wrote: »
    ^^^

    I didn't pay the household/bankers charge. I have no intention of paying either because it's not our debt. I recommend the same for all you chronic boards.ie posters.

    Funny that because I have repeatedly posted info which shows the majority of it is very much our debt. It was borrowed since 2008 for our day to day overspending. So believe in the tooth fairy if you want, the reality may be painful but it's not going away by pretending it's not reality.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77909408&postcount=736


  • Options
    #49
    Skopzz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    meglome,

    We could easily enact new local laws to overrule the commitments FF signed. All it takes is pressure on the government to draft a bill and implement it. But that won't happen unless there is pressure on the government.

    I checked out the claims others made and found that Ireland would still get bilateral loans from several countries like we did in 2010. Also, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. There is nothing dubious or wrong about doing this.

    If we adopted this treaty, it would take almost 30 years to get debt down to the 60pc of output (GDP) laid down in the this new eurozone fiscal compact.


  • Options
    #50
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Skopzz wrote: »
    We could easily enact new local laws to overrule the commitments FF signed. All it takes is pressure on the government to draft a bill and implement it. But that won't happen unless there is pressure on the government.
    I suspect that you'll find in the referendum on leaving the EU required by this proposal you'll find that the majority of Irish people don't agree with you. We're not leaving the EU, and as such we have to honor the debts as required by EU law. The treaties are in our constitution so any Act purporting to break EU law would be unconstitutional.
    Skopzz wrote: »
    Also, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. There is nothing dubious or wrong about doing this.

    http://www.piie.com/blogs/?p=2779#_ftnref1
    Skopzz wrote: »
    If we adopted this treaty, it would take almost 30 years to get debt down to the 60pc of output (GDP) laid down in the this new eurozone fiscal compact.

    We're in a mess and it is going to take us a long time to get our house in order whether we ratify this treaty or not.


  • Options
    #51
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Skopzz wrote: »
    We could easily enact new local laws to overrule the commitments FF signed. All it takes is pressure on the government to draft a bill and implement it. But that won't happen unless there is pressure on the government.

    New laws that would be unconstitutional.
    Skopzz wrote: »
    I checked out the claims others made and found that Ireland would still get bilateral loans from several countries like we did in 2010. Also, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. There is nothing dubious or wrong about doing this.

    You honestly think we'd get bilateral loans when we've just refused to pay our other loans. Really? Seriously?
    And as been shown to you a few times now we cannot borrow more money from the IMF. We're already double what they normally loan. The only reason they have let us borrow that much is because the EU are backing us.
    Skopzz wrote: »
    If we adopted this treaty, it would take almost 30 years to get debt down to the 60pc of output (GDP) laid down in the this new eurozone fiscal compact.

    That's the 'joys' of a rock and a hard place. We will have many years of pain if we vote No and we will have many years of pain if we vote Yes. The pain part is not in doubt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Just in relation to the Fiscal Treaty and voting No. Someone asked me why I was voting No and I'm going to put the answer here so that if I have made any grievous mistakes in my understanding of the Treaty, they will be (hopefully) corrected here.

    I particularly appreciate the validity of the argument about Ireland's reputation within Europe, and particularly that of the core. In that sense, voting No is a definite worry.

    However, I think it needs to be re-stated that (i) the treaty provisions will be disobeyed and the treaty discredited next year anyway, or else (ii) the treaty's provisions will be deleterious (particularly) to Spanish and Italian growth in 2013, potentially damaging the fiscal sustainability of the EA periphery during a time of instability. The latter is not something I'd want to put my name to in 'real life', and so I won't do it at the ballot box, even though such a choice is ultimately meaningless.

    So in light of the inevitable, why bother voting No?

    First, there are concerns over how the structural balance would be measured. This is probably worthy of an entire thread in itself, but it's fair to say that this is at least a cause for concern among economists who regularly grapple with the (rather moveable) concept of the structural deficit. If we don't know that our methodology of measuring a structural deficit is very accurate, why are we attaching such importance to its magnitude?

    Secondly, I am worried about some of the quantitative provisions of the Treaty, which will likely mean paying down debt over running surpluses. This is probably not something that concerns a lot of people, but it is one that I think is under-reported in the context of Ireland as a small open economy in a monetary union. For anyone interested in the benefits of running surpluses as opposed to paying down debt, examine Sweden's economic history of the 1990s and its ability to resort to Keynesian tactics as part of its recovery.

    Thirdly, there are some legitimate concerns about the exclusionary nature of a correction mechanism with respect to the transgressing member state (the contracting party), a mechanism which appears mainly to be a matter for the EU Commission and the Council excluding the contracting party, as per Article 7 of the TSCG. I think there is a legitimate concern as to the democratic nature of that provision.

    Fourthly, it's that unfortunately wooly, abstract matter of principle, I'm afraid. It is primarily an obligation on the citizen to vote in accordance with the merits or de-merits of a proposition on its face value, and not out of fear of the adverse hypotheses that are commonly reported without adequate evidence.

    That doesn't mean the repercussions don't ever get considered, but that they are (i) secondary and (ii) hard to elucidate.

    Do I think there is significant likelihood of Ireland being refused a second bailout?

    No. I think that's unlikely for 3 reasons.

    (i)Ireland is eligible for an ESM bailout up until March of 2013 according to the ESM Treaty. It could potentially ratify the TSCG at a later date, or apply to the ESM prior to that date.
    (ii)Moreover, Ireland & Greece were not bailed out under Article 136 of the Treaties, they were rescued in accordance with Article 122, which will remain unchanged.
    Given some form of European loan in the event of a failure to secure market rollover, Ireland could theoretically be extended additional IMF support (we are already being extended credit on top of our current entitlement, & given additional EU/ESM support of both the IMF and ireland, the over-extension argument is probably redundant).
    (iii) It ought to be recalled that the amendment to Article 136 of the Treaties will only be voted on by the Oireachtas after the referendum on the Fiscal Treaty.


  • Options
    #53
    Skopzz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    I suspect that you'll find in the referendum on leaving the EU required by this proposal you'll find that the majority of Irish people don't agree with you. We're in a mess and it is going to take us a long time to get our house in order whether we ratify this treaty or not


    You're wrong - take a look at the poll on this board which gives a Majority 'no' vote (currently 50%)!

    Perfect illustration why binding mandatory and optional referendum tool must be given to the citizens of all countries. You and meglome obviously don't agree with that premise. Ireland would be better off free from EU intrusion. Freedom is much more valuable than the supposed benefits of political subserviance. But you obviously disagree: Reminds me of a Ziggy cartoon where the builder is standing in front of a house he just constructed that has an extant 'wrinkle' off-setting and skewing the entire front edifice and he is looking at the construction drawings that had been 'folded' coincident with the predominant 'wrinkle'. Looks as though it has been constructed using a set of elevational prints that had been wadded up and tossed in a trash can.

    I hope you understood my points: The bondholders did not lend money to the Irish people. They loaned it to individual people, some/many of whom were Irish. Those borrowers, hoping to get rich as individuals or simply hoping to own their own homes, invested the money in a real estate bubble that eventually burst. That doesn't impose a moral obligation on "the Irish people" to pay the money back to the individuals who invested in the bank, and more than it imposes a moral obligation on, say, "the homeowning people" to do so. That is the basis of how capitalism should have worked.

    The case of Ireland shows the difficulties of the EU members to advance together in one direction. But it is important that each country redefines its compromises with the rest of Europe now and not later. The European Union needs a new stable foundation. The writing's on the wall:FG / LAB MUST arrange a write-off of 70 billion relating to Anglo Irish Bank Private Bondholders and their ponzie scheme or else we will reject this treaty. The people of Ireland will be the ones footing the bill. Let us decide how to proceed. In the end this new fiscal compact is a bit of loss of sovereignty so the people have to decide if they want to go along with that.


  • Options
    #54
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    later12 wrote: »
    However, I think it needs to be re-stated that (i) the treaty provisions will be disobeyed and the treaty discredited next year anyway, or else (ii) the treaty's provisions will be deleterious (particularly) to Spanish and Italian growth in 2013, potentially damaging the fiscal sustainability of the EA periphery during a time of instability.

    I don't disagree in the slightest but a no vote by us will not have any impact on this, for us or for anyone else.
    later12 wrote: »
    The latter is not something I'd want to put my name to in 'real life', and so I won't do it at the ballot box, even though such a choice is ultimately meaningless.

    But you're not putting your name to the treaty and this is a crucial point for me and why I'm more comfortable with voting yes. We're not hard baking the compact into our constitution, we're authorizing the Government to ratify it, if they wish. They can just as easily terminate their membership of it at some point in the future. It is not an EU treaty, the very reason why we're having to vote on it, and therefor is a bog standard multilateral convention which can be easily undone (legally speaking).
    later12 wrote: »
    Fourthly, it's that unfortunately wooly, abstract matter of principle, I'm afraid. It is primarily an obligation on the citizen to vote in accordance with the merits or de-merits of a proposition on its face value, and not out of fear of the adverse hypotheses that are commonly reported without adequate evidence.
    Because of a daft Supreme Court decision which provided no guidance, we're having to have a vote on authorizing our democratically elected Government to pass a specific Act of parliament. An Act that they can later rescind at will without recourse to us. To me there's a point of principle there too, we elected the Government and they should have the full power to govern. While I personally don't see the need for referenda on all EU treaties, having opted in we're in for the long ride and should only need a referendum to leave (as we would) that law overrides our own. This does not.
    later12 wrote: »
    (i)Ireland is eligible for an ESM bailout up until March of 2013 according to the ESM Treaty. It could potentially ratify the TSCG at a later date, or apply to the ESM prior to that date.

    Agreed but we cannot, just cannot get into the business of having two referenda on things. We need to create, not destroy political capital. If we vote again on this I'll vote No out of principle.
    later12 wrote: »
    (ii)Moreover, Ireland & Greece were not bailed out under Article 136 of the Treaties, they were rescued in accordance with Article 122, which will remain unchanged.
    Agreed, the EFSF is available but you think we won't be punished through the pricing of any debt?
    later12 wrote: »
    Given some form of European loan in the event of a failure to secure market rollover, Ireland could theoretically be extended additional IMF support (we are already being extended credit on top of our current entitlement, & given additional EU/ESM support of both the IMF and ireland, the over-extension argument is probably redundant).

    Really wouldn't place any eggs in this basket. The IMF will not want to lend us more if the reason is that we refused to take our medicine and play ball with our EZ colleagues, who are already causing the IMF seniority problems.
    later12 wrote: »
    (iii) It ought to be recalled that the amendment to Article 136 of the Treaties will only be voted on by the Oireachtas after the referendum on the Fiscal Treaty.
    Which is fine, but again to the political capital point.

    We're in complete agreement that the treaty itself would neither have prevented this crisis, nor will it cure it. We're in complete agreement that if the treaty will require alteration or abandonment in the coming years long before it impacts on us directly.

    But in the spirit of Michael Collins signing a "stepping stone" treaty, or Dev taking an empty oath, I think we authorise the Government to ratify it.

    Thank you for posting your reasons. I agree with some, and disagree with others, but they are rational, thought out and principled ideas.

    The French elections or the German constitutional court may yet allow us avoid voting on this (fingers crossed)


  • Options
    #55
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    I don't have any criticism of your post, just to repeat that the point you mention re: backing out of the treaty at some point in the future is important.

    I think there is a growing misconception that the Treaty aims to write fiscal austerity into the constitution, or to proscribe Keynesian economics at a constitutional level, which is clearly not the case. Or at least, it is not the case in the Irish context. I think that needs to be nipped in the bud before it assumes Lisbon-esque proportions.

    This is an odd sort of referendum, because unlike say Lisbon, or a domestic referendum, I find it hard to feel passionate about picking a side. I will be voting No without being completely convinced that it's the correct choice.

    Having said that, I do think the Treaty will be ratified in Ireland. It's the outcome of its ratification that will probably prove the most interesting.


  • Options
    #56
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    later12 wrote: »
    I don't have any criticism of your post, just to repeat that the point you mention re: backing out of the treaty at some point in the future is important.

    I think there is a growing misconception that the Treaty aims to write fiscal austerity into the constitution, or to proscribe Keynesian economics at a constitutional level, which is clearly not the case. Or at least, it is not the case in the Irish context. I think that needs to be nipped in the bud before it assumes Lisbon-esque proportions.

    This is an odd sort of referendum, because unlike say Lisbon, or a domestic referendum, I find it hard to feel passionate about picking a side. I will be voting No without being completely convinced that it's the correct choice.

    Having said that, I do think the Treaty will be ratified in Ireland. It's the outcome of its ratification that will probably prove the most interesting.

    What's depressing me is that you're the first person I've come across putting forward reasoned and informed arguments for voting no.

    What's possibly more depressing, is that there is so little honest debate about this.

    Which comes to the point that depresses me most, we're having a plebiscite in which the vast majority of people will be voting with no comprehension of the potential consequences of their vote, and yet for some bizarre reason are congratulating ourselves on the "democratic" system that requires the holding of such votes.

    Allez Hollande!


  • Options
    #57
    Skopzz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    Obama: U.S. to help Irish recover from economic woes

    Source

    ''President Barack Obama said during a meeting with Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny on Thursday that the United States would help Ireland recover from its economic problems''




    Expect this to happen AFTER the November presidential elections. (if the Democrats win).


  • Options
    #58
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Skopzz wrote: »
    Expect this to happen AFTER the November presidential elections. (if the Democrats win).

    I wouldn't go that far as to expect it, words are cheap. Seems like a play for the Irish-American vote, and nothing more - the US has its own problems to worry about.


  • Options
    #59
    Skopzz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    previous.gif

    Peter King seeks U.S. Support for International Fund of Ireland



    King appeals for re-instatement of U.S. funds



    Source


  • Options
    #60
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Skopzz wrote: »
    previous.gif

    Peter King seeks U.S. Support for International Fund of Ireland

    King appeals for re-instatement of U.S. funds

    Source

    So of the 12.8 billion we're borrowing this year alone, that is not for the banks, how much do you think the US will give us?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Skopzz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    Enough with this silly thesis, meglome. You insist on repeating your constant rhythmic mantra as an old worn out cliche --- the worst kind of polemicist. All the 'maybes' and 'could bes' and 'possibilities' sound exactly like a set of issues just ripe for a referendum (or truth panels) somewhere to sift through and sort out. The poll on this board currently gives 52.29% against this treaty - an increase from the previous 50%. While 34.86% support it, 11.01% are undecided.


Advertisement