Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

Boulevardier wrote: »

Eddie Hobbs in today' Sunday Bizpost magazine says he is voting No because

"Handing over control of our budget toa body that can't be held accountable is not a good idea in my opinion."

This makes sense to me, even though I disagree with Hobbs on a lot of other things.

As FreudianSlippers already alluded to, the new body which oversees our spending is an Irish one created in Irish law. In the Fiscal Compact we agree to create it, the fiscal targets already exist in previous agreements. So I'm not sure why Eddie Hobbs said that. Am I missing something?

NO:)

milewidehead wrote: »

Meglome, I was'nt trying to be devious or disingenuous. I was simply working it through in my head as I wrote the text. I'm too dumb for 'tactics'. If you want real two-faced, fork-tongued sleeveenery, look no further than our main political parties. (Giving examples would be totally superfluous here.) Basically, Irish politicians have lost the trust of the Irish people. We've been sold-out before, who's to say this is'nt more of it? Cue:The Who...'W'ont Get Fooled Again!'

No problem, have just been seeing a lot of people doing it and as I said it was exactly the same during Lisbon. I'm getting cynical about it.

This isn't about trusting Irish politicians though, many people have come in here and asked questions, those questions have been answered factually. Read the threads in here and you'll find some excellent information. Don't be afraid to ask new questions.

milewidehead wrote: »

jimmynokia wrote: »

NO:)

Got it jimmynokia, but will NO really mean NO? :rolleyes::

NO means NO What part of that are you having difficulty working out.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Personally I'll probably be voting No to this as I really don't like the idea of Merkle & Sarkozy having that kind of control over us. I do believe we need to remain part of the EU if we are to stand any chance of getting out of this recession but not like this.

It seems to me however that a lot of people are voting No purely to get one up on the Government and that is simply not a good enough way to vote. If we start basing all our voting decisions on what will piss the government off the most then we stand a good chance voting against something we really ought to vote for, or voting in favour of something we should be against.

If you want to vote No by all means do so, just make sure you do it for the right reasons, and not because you are angry and bitter and want to give Enda K the finger.

we are the only country in the Eu to have a referendum on this. it is expenditure we can ill afford.
the French and Germans feel they should have a say as they have contribute the most towards European unity. SF wants us to vote no. They also did not want us to join the EEC in 1973. we have benefited hugely from EU membership. we have taken their handouts and given them the finger when asked for support.

JeffK88 wrote: »

I will be voting 'NO' because I do not trust this government or the European Dictatorship. Its basically a treaty on austerity. Remember Lisbon 1 & 2 they promised us jobs and we lost thousands.They told us for months in 2010 we didn't need a bailout and look what happened.They reneged on all their promises. They told us there was growth last year while there was actually contraction. T Everything this government says is always ALWAYS the opposite so if the Fiscal treaty is good for Ireland in reality its the devastating for Ireland and a majority of its citizens.

thats the spirit. we do not need any government. the no crowd are also against any form of tax, which means in the real world the government will have no money for public spending.

meglome wrote: »

As FreudianSlippers already alluded to, the new body which oversees our spending is an Irish one created in Irish law. In the Fiscal Compact we agree to create it, the fiscal targets already exist in previous agreements. So I'm not sure why Eddie Hobbs said that. Am I missing something?

Cormac Lucy explained on Marian Finucane this morning that the ESM will have the power to impose higher contributions by the Irish taxpayer to the ESM. The fact that the ESM is unelected, and that its proceedings will be shielded from media and court/parliamentary scrutiny constitutes an erosion of accountability in Irish budgetary policy and could open the door to corruption, including possibile misappropriation of funds. The ESM risks becoming the European Sleaze Mechanism.

Fuinseog wrote: »

Oh my God, if this treaty goes ahead Ireland might have to make a financial contribution to he EU. this would be radical as up until now we have sponged off German taxpayers and gotten a free ride. we might now have to pay for EU states in distress.

Don't forget that we bailed out the German bondholders and the ECB helped ruin the economy with low interest rates that contributed to the housing bubble. And they there's the loss of €200 billion in fishing rights since 1972 (figure from Irish Fisherman's Organisation). Contributing to the ESM is one thing. The problem is the secrecy and the lack of accountability in the model proposed, and the unfettered power of the ESM board to determine the size of the Irish contribution, regardless of the budgetary and economic situation in Ireland at the time. It's a form of taxation without (elected) representation and as such an affront to democracy.

meglome wrote: »

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Don't forget that we bailed out the German bondholders and the ECB helped ruin the economy with low interest rates that contributed to the housing bubble.

Not this again

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever shown one shred of proof for the myth that we paid off German bondholders. Scofflaw posted a chart from our central bank figures which shows they didn't supply us with the money. (can't find the chart at the moment).

Your claim that the "ECB helped ruin the economy with low interest rates" would imply two things. 1. That all countries in the Eurozone went mad with cheap credit. (They didn't) and 2. That many countries outside of the Eurozone didn't go crazy with cheap credit. (They did).
So it's clear it was the individual countries who made good or bad choices. I have access to the local sweetie shop but I'm not fat.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

And they there's the loss of €200 billion in fishing rights since 1972 (figure from Irish Fisherman's Organisation).

Is that figure really from the Irish Fisherman's organisation? Link?
Not happy enough to state one big myth you then go and state another big myth.

One of my old posts on the subject.

We never had a developed fishing industry and certainly foreign boats were cleaning up before we joined the EU, the same EU that paid for most of our fishery protection vessels. I've read it was anything from €5 billion to €300 billion. The thing is the real figures exist and they are here http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/372/14.aspx?d=1 (show tabular data).

or here http://www.inshore-ireland.com/index...769&Itemid=175

The value of fish taken out of Irish waters from 1950-2004 is approximately €12bn at current exchange rates. Of that, €3.5 billion worth approximately was taken before Ireland joined the EU and the remaining €8.5bn between 1974 and 2004. Of the €12bn, Irish boats have taken approximately 25% or €3bn. The total value of the catch has risen since Ireland joined the EU and Ireland has been amongst the prime beneficiaries from the increased catch (see Fig 1)

So between 1950 and 2004 that's an average of €222 million a year in total. We've given the EU 8.5 billion in fish to 2004 and they have given us at least 50 billion in free cash. Those bastards.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The problem is the secrecy and the lack of accountability in the model proposed, and the unfettered power of the ESM board to determine the size of the Irish contribution, regardless of the budgetary and economic situation in Ireland at the time. It's a form of taxation without (elected) representation and as such an affront to democracy.

How is there a lack of accountability? And how do they have "unfettered power"?

I can't help but notice that even though Europe has given a massive amount of free cash and a load of other cash at low interest rates people don't think we should give them a red cent.


Any other red herrings or goalpost moving you want to do?

Those fisheries figures you present, are government figures. Am glad you believe it. Considering the level of corruption currently exposed, and the even greater level that's still under the carpet...you really do insult your own intelligence by accepting it as fact.

And as for free money, no such thing! Nothing in life is free meïn freund.


Have a question for you, as you really seem to be on the ball and in the know..

What's the rush to push this treaty through for may31st?

I won't argue with you on the fisheries issue other than to say that it is well known that books are fiddled on a grand scale in the fisheries industry. Do you think that our little navy, that spends most of its time in either dry dock or heading on state visits could really have policed our waters?

It's nice to think that the EU really wanted us to grow so that our minuscule 4.5 million population would buy a few bits and pieces off them. We really were a target market.

Who won from the deal considering the sh1t we are in? It was nothing more than an illusion.

Again I ask..what's the rush for a may31st referendum?


Just saw ur addition..well then..there's no panic if we vote NO and see how things pan out. We can always have another one in November.

Is obviously scaremongering on the government side to get it through may31st when there isn't a rush

I'm voting No because I'm tired of Noonans Jingoistic bolloxology and Gilmores lies.

Kinny has already signed the darn thing and once 12 others in the Eurozone have ratified it all that is required is to make the necessary changes in law, none of which need to be in the Constitution because it is all fiscal. One way or another they will find a way to get it through the Dail as legislative changes so voting No will have no effect.

Unless that is only 11 ratify it in which case if we all vote No they will come back and ask us again to get the 12th.

I don't put much store by the polls but if there is a yes vote it will only go to prove one thing and one thing only. The Brits were right all along. The Irish are endemically stupid specifically in matters of politics and economics.

Tellin' stories, painting pictures, ritin' poetry and plays and producing a few decent comedians is all well and good but when it comes to playing on the world stage we haven't a clue. Heck, we even have one or two good economists but who is listening to them.

Get a grip Ireland - the Euro is a failed project and its time to get out. There is a war coming over this issue and if we do not get out now we will not be allowed be neutral.

meglome wrote: »

And sorry if we're going to talk about scaremongering then I have a long lost of stuff the no campaign are saying.

If you want scaremongering how's this. They won't let Greece leave the Euro and even if they default because despite what Noonan says Greece is a lot more than Feta cheese. They will do their damndest to keep her in the Euro because it is in the Euro's best interests to do so.

Ireland on the other hand is more than cheddar cheese. It's beef (slaughtered and on the hoof), butter, milk, potatoes and until recently sugar. It's also software engineering and probably a lot more. It makes sense to kick Ireland out of the Euro so that all of the above become a whole lot cheaper for the Eurozone in general and the UK, Germany and France in particular.

Voiting Yes is only kicking the can down the road.

Meglome the unfettered power of the ESM board to force Ireland to increase the size of its contribution to the ESM was explained yesterday morning on "Marian Finucane" on Radio1 by Cormac Lucey.

meglome wrote:

Is that figure really from the Irish Fisherman's organisation? Link?
Not happy enough to state one big myth you then go and state another big myth.

Here you go. The source indicates it may even be as high as €600 billion in losses to the State when fish processing is included. Also remember that quota violators are hardly likely to keep records of their catch.

It's to do with waiting to see what we are really dealing with!
Would you walk across the M50 with a blindfold on?

EURATS wrote: »

Re:meglome

I,like yourself have to interpret these figures, as we didn't calculate them ourselves. It involves trust, and trust isn't there.
A figure of 8.5 billion since the 50's is ludicrous considering we have/had some of the best fishing grounds in Europe and the scale of the european fleets fishing them.

I noticed you avoided my point. That 200 billion figure has no back-up to it whatsoever yet you have chosen to believe it. There is no 'interpretation' of the figures needed they are the most accurate figures available in the world, using landed catches. You're just choosing to not believe them.

Do you think fish are made from gold or something? 8.5 billion euro in fish is one hell of a lot of fish.

EURATS wrote: »

In relation to our navy, as I said, more of the boats are in dry dock than out at sea at any given time.

Proof is?

EURATS wrote: »

Why does the EU exist? Well it tends to give out "free" money to countries that need it, builds them up to heights they never could have imagined in their widest dreams, and then it takes it all from them. Kind of a Trojan horse situation. .

And are you going to explain how they took it all away from us? I seem to recall us doing this to ourselves while being warned multiple times by the EU about our property bubble.

EURATS wrote: »

Again, there is no rush for a may31st result. Most people know it. Considering the sh1t that has happened here, caution is a minimum requirement to deal with the situation. Unfortunately Kenny and crew don't know the meaning of the word, and that really is worrying, but not a surprise.

A few months won't do any harm. What's a few billion(at worst) anyway considering we will never be able to repay what we owe already.
Is also the height of "hubris" to assume something worse will happen if we wait a few months

Well that's okay then as long as someone has a crystal ball and knows it'll all be fine in the future. Do you not see the massive difference between saying "sure it'll be grand" and knowing what will actually happen?
I'm assuming nothing, I'm preparing to vote on a treaty which now legally has to be run, and I'll vote the best way I can. That's the only sensible thing to do, anything else is just playing Russian roulette while believing nothing can go wrong.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Meglome the unfettered power of the ESM board to force Ireland to increase the size of its contribution to the ESM was explained yesterday morning on "Marian Finucane" on Radio1 by Cormac Lucey.

Indeed but I was really asking where in the treaty this supposedly happens. As I read it and didn't see that bit, or at least how it's described by Cormac Lucey.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Here you go. The source indicates it may even be as high as €600 billion in losses to the State when fish processing is included. Also remember that quota violators are hardly likely to keep records of their catch.

So I ask you for proof and you give me a link to a leaflet from an anti-EU group headed by who I can only describe as a bit of a headcase, Patricia McKenna. There are so many things factually incorrect on that leaflet I wouldn't know where to start.

Also I'd suggest you search for the text they quote "we estimate European vessels have taken up to €200 billion worth of fish out of our waters". It comes up with 4 links one of which mentions Jim Corr and none are from the Irish Fisherman's Organisation. nuff said.