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

Yes vote a vote for "Stabiltiy"

2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    So, does a return to the bond markets constitute evidence of 'stability' for Ireland? I would say so.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    So, does a return to the bond markets constitute evidence of 'stability' for Ireland? I would say so.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    No because the markets are fickle and it only takes one bad headline/new crisis to push us out again.

    What exactly is stable here? A 6.something% interest? We are still running a deficit. So no returning to the bond markets is not evidence of stability


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    View wrote: »
    No I think you are confusing what the electorate want.

    I understand what "Yes" means. You are the one arguing that it means "No, but..".
    You said a couple of posts ago "the majoirty of the electorate were happy with it"

    I think very few people were happy with it and they just voted out of fear and sheepishness

    Ah, the old "The electorate must be stupid or afraid" to vote differently to me argument.

    You can point out the recent mass demonstrations where the electorate have demanded that we refuse to ratify after all, can't you?
    The negative consequences of the Treaty wont really be felt until
    1: We want to run a deficit or
    2: We lose our ESM contribution when one of the borrowers goes belly up and defaults

    Other than that its just another erosion of the meager soverignty which we had left

    The dire consequences scenario - I suppose they"ll happen around the time we"ll be forced to join NATO (as claimed first in the 1972 referendum on membership), introduce euthanasia and be mass-conscripted...

    Still, no fear mongering in any of those claims, right? :)

    I dont think there was any scaremongering on the No side. Just a rational fear of the unknown.

    And if the European Court wanted euthanasia we would have to provide it. We are pretty much being bullied into legislating for abortion by Europe. Conscious this is off topic a little but you opened the door


    However the Yes side have engaged in outright lies and scaremongering


  • Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭timbyr


    And if the European Court wanted euthanasia we would have to provide it. We are pretty much being bullied into legislating for abortion by Europe. Conscious this is off topic a little but you opebed the door

    No we wouldn't. And no we aren't. If you haven't noticed it has been 20 years since the X Case. This legislation is long overdue.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X
    I dont thibk tgere was any scaremongering on the No side. Just a rational fear of the unknown.
    However the Yes side have engaged in outright lies and scaremongering
    As for this. It is so backward and wrong I'm not even going to bother making an argument.


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    timbyr wrote: »
    No we wouldn't. And no we aren't. If you haven't noticed it has been 20 years since the X Case. This legislation is long overdue.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X


    Eh no. We are being pressurised by the ECJ to legislate. See ABC v Ireland.

    timbyr wrote: »
    As for this. It is so backward and wrong I'm not even going to bother making an argument.

    OK. I win so.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 78 ✭✭timbyr


    Eh no. We are being pressurised by the ECJ to legislate. See ABC v Ireland.
    This actually helps my argument. We have three Irish parties taking a case against the Irish government for failing to enact Irish legislation based on an Irish Supreme court ruling using the ECJ as a medium.

    So no. The ECJ is not forcing us to do anything.
    OK. I win so.
    OK. Let's play it that way.
    You have made claims regarding the campaigns for and against the referendum.
    Convince me these claims are justified.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,969 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    We still dont have any real economy here - its all FDI/service based and we are clinging onto that by our fingertips because of our low tax rate


    The amount of sh1te talking on this thread is almost unbelievable.

    I work for a major software company, and last week my corporate credit card got levied with a 30 euro government tax. Everyone else in my office with a corporate credit card also got levied.

    Whats my point? I work in the Czech republic but our finance office is in Cork, and so my corporate credit card is a Bank of Ireland card and the government tax was the irish Government. The other 1000 or so european employees with corporate cards who live outside of Ireland all got levied.

    I remember going out to dinner with a woman from HR who was visiting, and I thought it hilarious that this HR woman from Israel carried with her, her Bank of Ireland credit card.

    So thats about 30,000 euros for the government coffers, from one company. Add on all the other companies with either financial offices or headquarters here, and thats adding up to serious money, even ignoring the jobs they provide.

    Where is the stability? The stability is in the thousands of IT and Pharma jobs that people are in at the moment. The stability is in Google being headquartered here, not in Zurich or Paris.

    People love trotting out the 450,000 number of people out of work figure. Thats about 14.5% of the population. Its worth pointing out that at the height of the boom when there were jobs a plenty, the unemplyment percentage was about 5%, so the real unemployment figure is really about 9%. Contrast that with the unemployment rate of Spain, where the percentage out of work is over 24%.


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    timbyr wrote: »
    This actually helps my argument. We have three Irish parties taking a case against the Irish government for failing to enact Irish legislation based on an Irish Supreme court ruling using the ECJ as a medium.

    So no. The ECJ is not forcing us to do anything.

    They are pressurising us. No government has legislated on it for a reason. Now the ECJ is telling us to legislate. Pretty simple.

    timbyr wrote: »
    OK. Let's play it that way.
    You have made claims regarding the campaigns for and against the referendum.
    Convince me these claims are justified.

    No. Why dont you convince me that the my previous post was wrong - other than just generally being backward.


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    syklops wrote: »
    Where is the stability? The stability is in the thousands of IT and Pharma jobs that people are in at the moment. The stability is in Google being headquartered here, not in Zurich or Paris.

    People love trotting out the 450,000 number of people out of work figure. Thats about 14.5% of the population. Its worth pointing out that at the height of the boom when there were jobs a plenty, the unemplyment percentage was about 5%, so the real unemployment figure is really about 9%. Contrast that with the unemployment rate of Spain, where the percentage out of work is over 24%.

    Not sure what your point on the credit cards is.

    This so called stability associated with IT and Pharma and Google could not be further from stable; those companies are here primary because of our tax rate and in some cases the "dutch sandwhich" tax trick. We are hostage to these companies which do not allow us to raise our tax or they would be outta here.

    We have no "real" economy - like if all the FDI/IFSC industry in Ireland collapsed, what would we have left in terms of real "stuff" that we make and do? Not very much. And that is highly unstable.

    The comparison to Spain is laughable. Why are you bothering to point to Spain and say "we are not as bad as them"? SO WHAT! I could point out that Spain is not as bad as Rwanda but its irrelevant.

    And the real unemployment figure is 14.5% AND GROWING


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,969 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Not sure what your point on the credit cards is.

    This so called stability associated with IT and Pharma and Google could not be further from stable; those companies are here primary because of our tax rate and in some cases the "dutch sandwhich" tax trick. We are hostage to these companies which do not allow us to raise our tax or they would be outta here.

    They may be here primarily for our tax rate, and yes if we increase it they may leave, so lets not increase it. Meanwhile, they are employing people and paying tax. Sounds like an economy to me.

    We have no "real" economy - like if all the FDI/IFSC industry in Ireland collapsed, what would we have left in terms of real "stuff" that we make and do? Not very much. And that is highly unstable.


    Well if the IFSC collapsed tomorrow we would have bigger things to worry about, such as will Tesco be stocking milk tomorrow, and will Esso have oil so I can drive to tesco to check.
    The comparison to Spain is laughable. Why are you bothering to point to Spain and say "we are not as bad as them"? SO WHAT! I could point out that Spain is not as bad as Rwanda but its irrelevant

    Oh jesus. When the IMF and the ECB are looking at the figures for the countries in trouble. Ireland is put in the same report as Spain, as well as Italy and Greece. So camparing our situation to them is very relevant. If you don't understand that then there is not much point continuing the argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Eh no. We are being pressurised by the ECJ to legislate. See ABC v Ireland.

    The ECJ had no involvement whatsoever in the case you cite.

    That is a completely non-EU matter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    View wrote: »
    The ECJ had no involvement whatsoever in the case you cite.

    Yes OK the ECHR
    View wrote: »
    That is a completely non-EU matter.

    If you say so


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    syklops wrote: »
    Oh jesus. When the IMF and the ECB are looking at the figures for the countries in trouble. Ireland is put in the same report as Spain, as well as Italy and Greece. So camparing our situation to them is very relevant. If you don't understand that then there is not much point continuing the argument.

    The IMF... The ECB. So what!

    I am capable of doing my own research and unlike you, I dont take comfort in the fact that we are slightly better than a country that is doing terribly right now. Thats a flawed methodology.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,969 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    The IMF... The ECB. So what!

    I am capable of doing my own research and unlike you, I dont take comfort in the fact that we are slightly better than a country that is doing terribly right now. Thats a flawed methodology.

    What do you mean so what?

    In fact what the f**k is your main point? You asked, where is the stability. people try to show you it. And you say so what? WTF?

    I have better things to be doing then trying to convince you that things aint so bad.


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    syklops wrote: »
    What do you mean so what?

    In fact what the f**k is your main point? You asked, where is the stability. people try to show you it. And you say so what? WTF?

    I have better things to be doing then trying to convince you that things aint so bad.

    Here is my net point:

    It is invalid to point at Spain and say "at least we are not as bad as they are" to demonstrate stability as (i) all you are proving is, we are not as bad they are, (ii) Spain would not be considered the definition of stability right now, (iii) the fact that we appear above Spain on an IMF report does not mean we as citizens of Ireland who are primarily concerned with Irelands interests should say "ok, we are doing better than Spain so we can consider ourselves stable"

    Our economy is not stable as we issued bonds yesterday that were marginally below the "crisis" level of 7%.

    We are still running deficits.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    I dont think there was any scaremongering on the No side. Just a rational fear of the unknown.

    Right, promising permanent austerity wasn't scaremongering...

    A fear can only be rational if there is a logical legal basis to it and not "the treaty doesn't prohibit ETs invading us, therefore it makes it certain that they will do so" ramblings.
    And if the European Court wanted euthanasia we would have to provide it. We are pretty much being bullied into legislating for abortion by Europe. Conscious this is off topic a little but you opened the door

    No, we wouldn't. The court has no legal basis for such decisions.
    However the Yes side have engaged in outright lies and scaremongering

    Leaving aside your claim, you run into a problem with this argument, namely it ultimately amounts to an argument against the use of referenda as if the electorate is influenced by scaremongering then the results of referenda are going to be so "tainted" that they are largely meaningless.

    That then leaves us with a number of options:
    A) we don't modify the constitution ever - a radical change from our recent practice where we are modifying it more often then we are holding general elections,
    B) we put in restrictions on "wild claims" in referenda which will lead to claims that people's human right to "freedom of expression" are being restricted and/or claims that "the truth" is being suppressed, hence the referenda are "unfair" and meaningless as a test of "true" public opinion,
    C) we change the method we use to modify the constitution with the most obvious method used internationally being the respective parliament modifies it usually by super-majority (typically a 2/3 one).

    Alternatively, the view adopted by our courts seems to be that we have a unique opportunity to engage in nuanced legal arguments in the referenda campaigns and that it is not their fault if the electorate prefer the "Jerry Springer" school of debate. In which case, it is "tough luck"'if you lose.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Yes OK the ECHR



    If you say so

    It doesn't depend on my saying so.

    Point out the ECJ rulings related to the issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    It's great to see all the too and fro-ing on the posts. Which brings me back to the point should politicians be held accountable for the statements they make in the run up to elections and referendums?. If there's this much disparity on the boards about a vote for/against stability what is the confusion out there amonsgt joe public ? So I think politicians are doing us a great dis service with their claims and if they don't deliver should be held accountable. Oh and no rhetoric about they're accountable come election time as this isn't the case. Some of our greatest blaggards were re elected.


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    View wrote: »
    Right, promising permanent austerity wasn't scaremongering...

    No it wasnt as the Treaty does mandate austerity in times of deficit
    View wrote: »
    A fear can only be rational if there is a logical legal basis to it and not "the treaty doesn't prohibit ETs invading us, therefore it makes it certain that they will do so" ramblings.

    I agree with this.
    View wrote: »
    No, we wouldn't. The court has no legal basis for such decisions.

    We would if the ECJ ruled in that manner.


    View wrote: »
    Leaving aside your claim,

    Why leave it aside?
    View wrote: »
    you run into a problem with this argument, namely it ultimately amounts to an argument against the use of referenda as if the electorate is influenced by scaremongering then the results of referenda are going to be so "tainted" that they are largely meaningless.

    No it doesnt amount to an "i dont like refernda" because I do. My argument is we should not elect gombeen, party-line-towing, spineless creeps to represent us, as this type of person is most like to do us a disservice come referandum time.

    I also think we should stop acting like sheep and following the fear tactics.

    And I think the media have a huge degree of culpability - I cant think of more than three/four journalists/TV presenters who I think are thorough.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    No it wasnt as the Treaty does mandate austerity in times of deficit

    Yes it was as the claim was permanent austerity not austerity when your economy is out of control. Rejecting the treaty also didn't alter that we need austerity to meet our pre-existing commitments on the deficit under EU law.

    We would if the ECJ ruled in that manner.

    Again, no legal basis exists for such rulings. If the court starts "inventing" the EU Treaties , the member states will not tolerate it and one or more member states could well leave as a result.

    Why leave it aside?

    To address the more substantial point on the use of referenda.
    No it doesnt amount to an "i dont like refernda" because I do.

    Well, then you are stuck with the "tough luck" scenario where the result is fully "fair and democratic" and you have a problem accepting it because you lost.
    My argument is we should not elect gombeen, party-line-towing, spineless creeps to represent us, as this type of person is most like to do us a disservice come referandum time.

    An interesting argument but the electorate get a free vote and if they vote for people you don't like, that is their democratic decision. No one ever said you get a veto on democratic decisions, did they?
    I also think we should stop acting like sheep and following the fear tactics.

    Again, ultimately, an argument against the use of referenda.

    You are presuming the electorate are "acting like sheep" when, in fact, the electorate voted in favour of us joining the EU and there is no indication of any serious desire to leave or even wide-spread opposition to the objectives/tasks it is tasked with working towards.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    View wrote: »
    Yes it was as the claim was permanent austerity not austerity when your economy is out of control. Rejecting the treaty also didn't alter that we need austerity to meet our pre-existing commitments on the deficit under EU law.

    Its permanent in that it is perpetual. And while rejecting the treaty wouldnt have altered our preexisting committments, it would mean would would not be endorsing them further, nor would we be endorsing their enforcement

    View wrote: »
    Again, no legal basis exists for such rulings. If the court starts "inventing" the EU Treaties , the member states will not tolerate it and one or more member states could well leave as a result.

    Of course a legal basis could exist.


    View wrote: »
    To address the more substantial point on the use of referenda.

    OK
    View wrote: »
    Well, then you are stuck with the "tough luck" scenario where the result is fully "fair and democratic" and you have a problem accepting it because you lost.

    No its not tough luck. Im pointing out the problems with the system. Its not fair and democratic if we are manipulated in a cynical manner
    View wrote: »
    An interesting argument but the electorate get a free vote and if they vote for people you don't like, that is their democratic decision. No one ever said you get a veto on democratic decisions, did they?

    Certainly not. I think we as the electorate are culpable and need to wake up
    View wrote: »
    Again, ultimately, an argument against the use of referenda.

    Can I be really clear here again - I am in favour of referenda
    View wrote: »
    You are presuming the electorate are "acting like sheep" when, in fact, the electorate voted in favour of us joining the EU and there is no indication of any serious desire to leave or even wide-spread opposition to the objectives/tasks it is tasked with working towards.

    I think there is a serious portion of the electorate who would favour leaving Europe - granted it may not be 50% after the spin merchants and media machine are finished with us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,247 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    It's very insulting to call people 'sheep' just because they have the temerity to not vote the way you want.


  • Registered Users Posts: 649 ✭✭✭crusher000


    But if people vote for an agenda based on the fear off " Well if the main parties are telling us it's doom for the country if we don't vote their way" opinion not actual quote taken from a voter and people follow suit they can be compared to sheep. As they're are no offical statistics on people that voted out of fear of the alternative we will never know ( just wait someone will now post a link showing statistics on poeple that voted out of fear of the alternative). I am always open to correction and don't take it personely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Its permanent in that it is perpetual.

    Running a deficit is not mandatory therefore austerity is neither permanent nor perpetual. Hence, to claim either is scaremongering.
    And while rejecting the treaty wouldnt have altered our preexisting committments, it would mean would would not be endorsing them further, nor would we be endorsing their enforcement

    We have already endorsed them and their enforcement since both were already included in the pre-existing treaties. The courts are free to enforce if they so choose.
    Of course a legal basis could exist.

    You mean like the legal basis for ETs invasion could exist. You ignored the second part of my comment I see.

    No its not tough luck. Im pointing out the problems with the system. Its not fair and democratic if we are manipulated in a cynical manner

    In the Supreme Court's opinion, yes it is a case of tough luck. If we don't have that nuanced legal debate, we get to live with the our ill informed decisions, all of which argues politically-speaking against the use of referenda.
    Certainly not. I think we as the electorate are culpable and need to wake up

    That presumes they are asleep...
    I think there is a serious portion of the electorate who would favour leaving Europe - granted it may not be 50% after the spin merchants and media machine are finished with us.

    I don't dispute there is a small portion of the electorate against the EU. The purpose of holding referenda though isn't to keep re-holding the 1972 referendum on membership though...


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    crusher000 wrote: »
    But if people vote for an agenda based on the fear off " Well if the main parties are telling us it's doom for the country if we don't vote their way" opinion not actual quote taken from a voter and people follow suit they can be compared to sheep. As they're are no offical statistics on people that voted out of fear of the alternative we will never know ( just wait someone will now post a link showing statistics on poeple that voted out of fear of the alternative). I am always open to correction and don't take it personely.

    This is just rubbish , may I ask did you vote out of fear ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    I think your entire post misses the point and is bordering on unconvincing tit for tat stuff.



    View wrote: »
    Running a deficit is not mandatory therefore austerity is neither permanent nor perpetual. Hence, to claim either is scaremongering.

    Lets put it this way, the only time we will not have austerity is during periods when we are in surplus


    View wrote: »
    We have already endorsed them and their enforcement since both were already included in the pre-existing treaties. The courts are free to enforce if they so choose.

    Some of the terms of the treaty were never put to referendum before this referendum so you cant say "we have already ratified them" - the government did so. If we are opposed to the terms we should not vote "yes" on the basis that "ah shur they are already binding on us" because the rules on enforcing these (in my opinion, very very bad) rules have been strengthened


    I see you are refusing to read my clarification that I am in favour of referenda so Im not sure In willing to keep going round and round with you on this if you cant accept a fact like that


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Lets put it this way, the only time we will not have austerity is during periods when we are in surplus

    Hence the claim of "permanent austerity" was false and deliberate scaremongering, so spare us the "only the yes side cheats" line.
    Some of the terms of the treaty were never put to referendum before this referendum so you cant say "we have already ratified them" - the government did so.

    I specified the pre-existing treaties all of which were approved in referenda. The point about the government is a bit irrelevant, since what the Oireachtas ratifies, is what "we" ratify as per the constitution.
    If we are opposed to the terms we should not vote "yes" on the basis that "ah shur they are already binding on us" because the rules on enforcing these (in my opinion, very very bad) rules have been strengthened

    I never suggested we should and the result was in favour. A referendum is a Yes/No question, not a "which of a 101 possible options should we go for?" question. The time for that debate is before we - the state/people (as it acts for us in international negotiations) - opt for one of the possible options.
    I see you are refusing to read my clarification that I am in favour of referenda so Im not sure In willing to keep going round and round with you on this if you cant accept a fact like that

    I have read the clarification, I just doubt you favour the practice of them unless they return the result you prefer.

    As I said, the Supreme Court thinks we should hold nuanced legal debate. In reality, we hold a "Jerry Springer" debate in which if it is "fair" for your side to "cheat", you are just whinging if the other side "out-cheats" you and the whole process is politically meaningless - the political equivalent of "casting dice".

    The alternatives to that, as I outlined earlier, are either: a) never to alter the constitution, b) restrict what can be claimed and counter-claimed in the referendum (a highly difficult and dubious issue) or c) dispense with them and move to parliamentary ratification only.

    Those are the options. Currently, we live with the "Jerry Springer" option and will do so, I suspect, until such time as it back-fires badly on us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Spain would not be considered the definition of stability right now,

    So... wait... you can't compare unstable countries in a test of stability; rather only who is more stable of... stable countries?

    Jackie-chan-meme.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    So... wait... you can't compare unstable countries in a test of stability; rather only who is more stable of... stable countries?

    Jackie-chan-meme.jpg

    My point is if you are arguing "Ireland is stable" or something close to that you cannot point to a country that is unstable and say "we are better than they are." Well you can say it if you like but it cant really support the assertion that we are "stable"

    Or put another way. Lets consider stability in linear form. 0 to 100.

    0 is completely unstable and 100 is perfectly stable. Lets say 50 is the point at which you can be considered stable.

    Lets say Spain is plotted as a 35.

    Beating Spain does not mean we are stable.

    Probably an over-elaborate example. As a more general point there is a tendancy during debates on this forum for people to say "at least we arent as bad as Spain or Greece" but thats not meaningful in my opinion. I dont consider myself blessed that we havent descended into Greece's situation - I dont settle for that - nor do I point to that as economic success, or evidence of excellent economic policies or evidence of FG being awesome, or as justification for pursuing grossly inequitable right wing policies

    Like i said earlier, we arent as bad as Somalia - but what does that prove?

    Sorry for the rant.

    PS does that picture look like Jackie Chan?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    My point is if you are arguing "Ireland is stable" or something close to that you cannot point to a country that is unstable and say "we are better than they are." Well you can say it if you like but it cant really support the assertion that we are "stable"

    Or put another way. Lets consider stability in linear form. 0 to 100.

    0 is completely unstable and 100 is perfectly stable. Lets say 50 is the point at which you can be considered stable.

    Lets say Spain is plotted as a 35.

    Beating Spain does not mean we are stable.

    Probably an over-elaborate example. As a more general point there is a tendancy during debates on this forum for people to say "at least we arent as bad as Spain or Greece" but thats not meaningful in my opinion. I dont consider myself blessed that we havent descended into Greece's situation - I dont settle for that - nor do I point to that as economic success, or evidence of excellent economic policies or evidence of FG being awesome, or as justification for pursuing grossly inequitable right wing policies

    Like i said earlier, we arent as bad as Somalia - but what does that prove?

    Sorry for the rant.

    PS does that picture look like Jackie Chan?
    I think the point you're missing is a net one. There are no "stable" countries; one would argue the most stable is the USA who are currently $15.9trillion in debt (that's over $50,000 per citizen and over $139,000 per taxpayer).
    We must therefore compare ourselves to other "unstabe" countries - what are they doing wrong and/or what can we do to not get in that position.

    Furthermore, comparing ourselves to Spain and Greece (et al) is necessary because of our shared currency and issues.


Advertisement