The Fiscal Treaty Yes or No

letsbet · 28-04-2012 1:39pm

Emigration is largely due to choice alright - people have chosen to try to get a job!

Cabaal · 28-04-2012 1:39pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

No we wouldn't have to go to any loan sharks, all we need to do is balance our books and accept deep cuts.

Are these the same cuts that nobody will face up to because some just can't be made?

So say we cut the dole from what it is at the moment to oh I don't know maybe 150e a week, since its one of the biggest outgoings for the government it seems its the best thing to change to have the biggest affect.

We'll then cut further funding for education, HSE, public transport and roads,

Ok then we'll try make massive cuts across the public sector and watch the rolling strikes that will happen because of it,

In time we may indeed balance those books but at what cost exactly?
- Loss of multinational investments
- An employment rate in excess of 20%+ (Hi Spain!)
- Work stoppages to remind us of the strikes in the 80's, these will of course put companys off investing in Ireland further
- Even more emigration as people can't live on 150e a week in Ireland

You want the eu to fail and Ireland to make deep cuts then perhaps you should look at a likely reality of the outcome if such things were allowed to happen.

Sully · 28-04-2012 1:42pm

letsbet wrote: »

Emigration is largely due to choice alright - people have chosen to try to get a job!

When I say "choice" - I am talking about people who are moving due to lifestyle and just a change, rather than struggling to get a job.

Personally, I know of people who have left their employment to go abroad. I know people abroad who are coming back. Its very mixed and not as clear cut as its made out by some.

letsbet · 28-04-2012 1:49pm

It might not be as clear cut but I'd be shocked if it was mainly due to lifestyle choice of people who already have jobs or could get jobs here fairly easily.

Sully · 28-04-2012 1:52pm

letsbet wrote: »

It might not be as clear cut but I'd be shocked if it was mainly due to lifestyle choice of people who already have jobs or could get jobs here fairly easily.

A lot of graduates like to go away for a few years and have no interest in going straight into employment or want to just work abroad for a few years. Common enough, but its nice to twist it and use it as a stick to hit the government of the day with.

letsbet · 28-04-2012 1:55pm

Of course students like to do that. So the increase in the numbers leaving in recent times is because this has become more fashionable for some unknown reason. To try and twist emigration as being mainly down to personal choice in one of the biggest economic crises in the history of the state is laugable. All the people that I know who are leaving Ireland (and I know dozens who are doing so, either in my family or ones that I teach) are doing so because of the mess that this country is in and the lack of jobs.

Sully · 28-04-2012 1:58pm

letsbet wrote: »

Of course students like to do that. So the increase in the numbers leaving in recent times is because this has become more fashionable for some unknown reason. To try and twist emigration as being mainly down to personal choice in one of the biggest economic crises in the history of the state is laugable. All the people that I know who are leaving Ireland (and I know dozens who are doing so, either in my family or ones that I teach) are doing so because of the mess that this country is in and the lack of jobs.

I'm using students as an example, as its a big example and the age group of people leaving the country in the majority. A lot of the people I personally know are graduated a few years, or didn't go to college, and are leaving for a better lifestyle and in some cases giving up jobs.

letsbet · 28-04-2012 2:07pm

Well near the end of 2011 the most common age group that emigrated were those between 25 and 44. I doubt very many of those were just out of college. It may be that a few people that you know are leaving for a nice year in Oz or something but to suggest that this applies to the overall population is a bit of a leap of faith. Also there is no reason why the number of people in the student age group would have increased significantly other than there's no jobs around so you might as well travel. I wouldn't think there's many people who would princiapally attribute the massive increase in emigration to anything other than the weakness of the economy. Of the sample of people that you mentionned that finished college a few years ago or didn't go and are giving up jobs I wouldn't think they'd represent a huge proportion of the overall total.

Sully · 28-04-2012 2:09pm

letsbet wrote: »

Well near the end of 2011 the most common age group that emigrated were those between 25 and 44. I doubt very many of those were just out of college. It may be that a few people that you know are leaving for a nice year in Oz or something but to suggest that this applies to the overall population is a bit of a leap of faith. Also there is no reason why the number of people in the student age group would have increased significantly other than there's no jobs around so you might as well travel. I wouldn't think there's many people who would princiapally attribute the massive increase in emigration to anything other than the weakness of the economy.

Sorry, you seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying. I was giving students as an example. There are many others on either side.

But, the majority are leaving for a personal choice.

Source; http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0317/breaking1.html

Finnbar01 · 28-04-2012 2:15pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Are these the same cuts that nobody will face up to because some just can't be made?

So say we cut the dole from what it is at the moment to oh I don't know maybe 150e a week, since its one of the biggest outgoings for the government it seems its the best thing to change to have the biggest affect.

We'll then cut further funding for education, HSE, public transport and roads,

Ok then we'll try make massive cuts across the public sector and watch the rolling strikes that will happen because of it,

In time we may indeed balance those books but at what cost exactly?
- Loss of multinational investments
- An employment rate in excess of 20%+ (Hi Spain!)
- Work stoppages to remind us of the strikes in the 80's, these will of course put companys off investing in Ireland further
- Even more emigration as people can't live on 150e a week in Ireland

You want the eu to fail and Ireland to make deep cuts then perhaps you should look at a likely reality of the outcome if such things were allowed to happen.

The Eurozone is flawed and is a contradiction in and of itself, that's why it will collapse.

Incidentally both yourself and sully are scaremonegring. This country has been through the rough and tough before and we got thru it.

tfitzgerald · 28-04-2012 2:19pm

I am going to vote NO!

ziedth · 28-04-2012 2:20pm

Sully wrote: »

I'm using students as an example, as its a big example and the age group of people leaving the country in the majority. A lot of the people I personally know are graduated a few years, or didn't go to college, and are leaving for a better lifestyle and in some cases giving up jobs.

Sully it's obvious to me you are ALLOT more clued into the political side of things and Ireland's Macroeconomic environment but you are delusional if you think people are immigrating as a lifestyle choice.

If we go back five/six years I would hazzard a guess that most of us would only know a couple of people who left the country to work( I'm not counting traveling as I'd call that's extended holiday) while now I could easily pick 10 people who I would call friends over the years and at least twice that of local girls and guys from out my way that had no work and had to move.

you can't seriously believe that if there was work available that these people would have still left the country?

letsbet · 28-04-2012 2:23pm

Fair enough. Wonder what the sample size was because any economic report that I've read will cite economic reasons as the main driver of the increase (which is not measured in the above report). Also, it'd be nice to see what jobs the people were working at before they left. It says that 75% said they were in better jobs so it'd nice to know how many people with say masters qualifications were working in bars and got higher paid jobs abroad.

ziedth · 28-04-2012 2:26pm

letsbet wrote: »

. It says that 75% said they were in better jobs so it'd nice to know how many people with say masters qualifications were working in bars and got higher paid jobs abroad.

TBF this is a very good point

jmcc · 28-04-2012 3:02pm

Sully wrote: »

I'm using students as an example, as its a big example and the age group of people leaving the country in the majority. A lot of the people I personally know are graduated a few years, or didn't go to college, and are leaving for a better lifestyle and in some cases giving up jobs.

In real life, Sully, are you Mary Coughlan?

Regards...jmcc

dlofnep · 28-04-2012 3:04pm

I'll be voting no - there is absolutely no benefit to this treaty to the state. It continues to erode our national sovereignty.

blue note · 28-04-2012 3:08pm

dlofnep wrote: »

I'll be voting no - there is absolutely no benefit to this treaty to the state. It continues to erode our national sovereignty.

What about the benefit of having access to funds to continue to meet our expenditure? How would you solve that problem?

lightspeed · 28-04-2012 3:35pm

If we were to vote no and we did not have the funds, how would the promissory notes and continued bailout money get paid back? Would we not just default and then send the euro crashing into a brick wall?
What logical reason is there to believe that Angela Merkel and the powers that be would allow that to happen in comparison to just grinding their teeth and giving Ireland another bail out if needed. Another thing, Given how close we are now to china, If we were that badly on the brink of poverty, could and would the chinese not lend some of their money. What about the internet? Cant we just get some of that internet money[

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Cabaal · 28-04-2012 3:42pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

The Eurozone is flawed and is a contradiction in and of itself, that's why it will collapse.

Interesting?
I what do you suggest will replace it, do you think the systems in place in the likes of America or China or perhaps even Russia are better? Please do tell.

Incidentally both yourself and sully are scaremonegring. This country has been through the rough and tough before and we got thru it.

I'm not scaremongering, I'm being realistic, you suggest the failure of the EU like some anarchists wet dream with no accounting for the actual massive and prolonged negative affects it would have on Ireland and for the people of Europe as a whole.

You suggest that Ireland could survive harsh cuts with obsoletely no accounting for the actual reality of people living day to day and employment in this country,

In short, you dismiss the systems, agreements and governments in place and say they will fail and Ireland will get by but you haven't suggested an alternative and you have not taken into account the massive negative and life changing implications of the failures and changes you want to happen.

jmcc · 28-04-2012 4:26pm

If we vote 'No' does that mean that politicians will have their salaries cut and will former politicians have their pensions cut?

Regards...jmcc

lightspeed · 28-04-2012 4:31pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Interesting?
I what do you suggest will replace it, do you think the systems in place in the likes of America or China or perhaps even Russia are better? Please do tell.

I'm not scaremongering, I'm being realistic, you suggest the failure of the EU like some anarchists wet dream with no accounting for the actual massive and prolonged negative affects it would have on Ireland and for the people of Europe as a whole.

You suggest that Ireland could survive harsh cuts with obsoletely no accounting for the actual reality of people living day to day and employment in this country,

In short, you dismiss the systems, agreements and governments in place and say they will fail and Ireland will get by but you haven't suggested an alternative and you have not taken into account the massive negative and life changing implications of the failures and changes you want to happen.

Borrrow money from china = Alternative?

Cabaal · 28-04-2012 4:48pm

lightspeed wrote: »

Borrrow money from china = Alternative?

How is this any different to borrowing money from Europe and the IMF, instead of loosing stuff to Europe we'd loose stuff to China.

China aren't going to do stuff for us just because they are nice, they are going to want stuff in return.

Finnbar01 · 28-04-2012 5:10pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Interesting?
I what do you suggest will replace it, do you think the systems in place in the likes of America or China or perhaps even Russia are better? Please do tell.

We default and go back to our own currency. We also keep the trade agreements in place. The EU should be about trade not political and fiscal union.

I'm not scaremongering, I'm being realistic, you suggest the failure of the EU like some anarchists wet dream with no accounting for the actual massive and prolonged negative affects it would have on Ireland and for the people of Europe as a whole.

So I'm an anarchist now? Well at least that beats being called a racist and xenophobe when I tried to explain to people years ago about the dangers of joining the eurozone. There's a very good chance that the EU will collapse and I played no act, hand or part in it.

You suggest that Ireland could survive harsh cuts with obsoletely no accounting for the actual reality of people living day to day and employment in this country,

There's plenty of room for cuts without creating massive hardship. We have quangos that need culling and social welfare entitlements that need chopping.

merlante · 28-04-2012 6:46pm

Seems to be there are two future Irelands:

A. Ireland inside the Euro, transiting from Troika programmes to fiscally consolidated united states of Europe over the next 15 years. Ireland will be compensated for the loss of its sovereignty and off-shore tax regime by EU structural funds, as business migrates to the core.

B. Ireland leaves the Euro, pegs against the Euro or Sterling at a particular rate, and bears the slings and arrows of current risk. It provides medium term euro-punt rates to FDI and allows companies to do business in Euro. Irish deficit, debt and unemployment are reduced within 3-5 years as currency is allowed to devalue and the positive balance of trade widens. Ireland is out of favour in Europe but can pursue dynamic economic and foreign policies, ala Denmark, Switzerland, etc. Strong & savvy leadership required. Greater risks and rewards.

This is the only real debate behind all of the other fake debates about "yes for jobs" or "no and the sky falls in" or "no to end/increase austerity". Even the abortion debate is more to the point than the ridiculous "crap treaty but no choice -> reluctant yes" debate we currently have (since A will lead to legalised abortion on a shorter timescale).

Needless to say that we won't get the one and only debate that matters because most political parties are more pro-Europe than voters generally are, or more to the point, are eager to run back to the teat of one large power or other. As McWilliam's says, our elite have been allowed into the European "good room", with the tin of USA biscuits (just for visitors), and they'll be damned if they'll give their new sophisticated friends the finger. (It's a pity our political class were not a generation younger.)

To my mind, if you are in favour of option A, you keeping voting yes (it's always 'yes') to all of these treaties until they stop offering the franchise; and if you're in favour of B, you keep voting no. That's the crux of it. These treaties cannot be viewed in isolation, they're part of a teleology towards a utopian future Europe. I think whether you go along with it or not is a matter of personal philosophy.

Sully · 29-04-2012 12:55am

Finnbar01 wrote: »

The Eurozone is flawed and is a contradiction in and of itself, that's why it will collapse.

Incidentally both yourself and sully are scaremonegring. This country has been through the rough and tough before and we got thru it.

Me? scaremongering? You stated twice that the EU was corrupt because their accounts were never audited. You were wrong. I'd put that down as scaremongering tbh. When you say "Eurozone" do you mean the European Union or the actual Eurozone itself? Either way, the Eurozone survived despite people reporting that it was about to collapse and Europ itself seems to be pulling through this mess despite people saying it was also on the brink.

Those within the EU see the advantages and wont walk away that easily. Look at the UK - they were muttering about a referendum on it but it didn't go through.

ziedth wrote: »

Sully it's obvious to me you are ALLOT more clued into the political side of things and Ireland's Macroeconomic environment but you are delusional if you think people are immigrating as a lifestyle choice.

If we go back five/six years I would hazzard a guess that most of us would only know a couple of people who left the country to work( I'm not counting traveling as I'd call that's extended holiday) while now I could easily pick 10 people who I would call friends over the years and at least twice that of local girls and guys from out my way that had no work and had to move.

you can't seriously believe that if there was work available that these people would have still left the country?

I'm convinced its a mix of both, with a little more leaning towards leaving for a different lifestyle that just lack of jobs / economy. Its just what I have noticed in the current recession. I'm not saying for one second that its all one side. Its a controversial opinion but it seems to be reflected in that Irish Times poll.

Smiley Burnett · 29-04-2012 2:23pm

I'm voting no because that will mean no more spending cuts and no more tax increases!!! Isn't that right??? After all, that's what the shinners and the lefties are telling us!! Vote no to austerity and it will all be fine and dandy!!
P.s. can anyone define what austerity actually is???

insight_man · 30-04-2012 12:02am

Smiley Burnett wrote: »

I'm voting no because that will mean no more spending cuts and no more tax increases!!! Isn't that right??? After all, that's what the shinners and the lefties are telling us!! Vote no to austerity and it will all be fine and dandy!!
P.s. can anyone define what austerity actually is???

Didn't look it up in the dictionary but paying €11.13 Billion for membership of the ESM probably fits the bill. That along with the interest payable on the €11.13 Billion could certainly be described as austerity.

insight_man · 30-04-2012 12:49am

blue note wrote: »

What about the benefit of having access to funds to continue to meet our expenditure? How would you solve that problem?

Funding will be available there is no doubt about that. Certainly you'll hear the scary stories that we won't have money to pay social welfare, nurses, teachers etc. How many times have we heard that line from the FG/Lab government. The same people who said a yes vote to lisbon would bring jobs, investment, security, keep our young people at home etc. remember all that? The same people who are now cutting wages, social welfare, nurses, doctors, guards, education and special needs budgets, just like the previous government.

The euro will NOT be allowed to fail because Ireland 'owes' billions to German, French and other banks and they all want their money back, plus an unravelling of the euro is disastrous for those very same countries. All All economists and bankers have said this already over the last few years.

So we will have availability of money, especially as we have passed every exaamination of our finances by the trioka since we went into the current programme. As a result our government has been telling us that our reputation is being restored and that we won't even need a second loan anyway, so the issue is unlikly to arise in the first place.

However if we vote yes to the austerity treaty the certainity that a number of very important and crippling things will happen to Ireland because its part of the treaty:

We must pay €11.13 billion into the ESM fund, as our contribution, a very expensive 'insurance' policy

We must also reduce our debt to GDP ratio beyond the current 3% target (which is currently crippling the country) to 0.5%. If we can't reach 3% how do you think we reach 0.5%? Just imagine the cuts needed and the social chaos that will entail.

Lastly we must comply immeadiatly with the 60% rule. This means we must lower our debt to 60% of our GDP. That gap is estimated to be (almost exactly) €100 Billion by all leading economists. This gap must be reduced at a rate of 5% over 20 years (know as the 1/20 rule). This means FUTHER cuts of €5 Billion per year on top of all the other cuts ie: (5b x 20 = €100 billion) -Ireland cannot now nor ever will be able for such harsh measures.

Finally, if we fail to make these 'adjustments' the European Court will fine us €120 million per year, as a slap on the hand. So that really helps us out of our troubles.

Hope this clarifies the real hard issues for you and the real questions you must ask yourself, ie how much money this is really going to cost us and can we afford it. Ireland simply cannot survive these measures without destroying any semblence of a caring society. Without leaving total destruction behind.

The measures outlined above will be EU law and will be enforced by the European Court and the unelected commissioners, so there is no 'pulling out' afterwards. We can just about pull back from the abyss at this stage, before the vote, but if we vote yes what has happened here already will be the proverbial walk in the park. Yes or no...you decide.

IRISHREDSTAR · 30-04-2012 1:34am

I'm voting No why should we all suffer so politicians and government quangos can pay themselves huge money make them do what they said in the last election by voting no

CrackisWhack · 30-04-2012 1:54am

Im voting No for jobs

Max Powers · 30-04-2012 11:44am

CrackisWhack wrote: »

Im voting No for jobs

The level of ignorance on here is staggering. First off we should all take a look at what went on in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria now to see what people will go thru to have the right to vote. In that light, voting should not be taken lightly, you should educate yourself on what it is about (not from the tabloids) and make a balanced decision based on what you think is best for the country.

Its not about 'sending a message' to politicans as that mesasge will not be heard and they will continue with their massive salarys and benefits while the rest of the country suffers.
It is not an austerity treaty
Voting yes or no will not magically create jobs

To add my 2 cents to what i see The fiscal compact about is: we will only be able to spend approximately what we take in or a percentage over that. Whether you think that type of basic budgeting (which we all generally live by) is a good or bad thing for this country is up to you.

Somebody mentioned China for a loan of money, that money would be dependent on us providing all sorts of collateral and stipulations. China, judging by the way they operate in Africa and other countries would be one of the last countries I would want to be indebted to.

Cabaal · 30-04-2012 12:47pm

Max Powers wrote: »

The level of ignorance on here is staggering. First off we should all take a look at what went on in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria now to see what people will go thru to have the right to vote.

In that light, voting should not be taken lightly, you should educate yourself on what it is about (not from the tabloids) and make a balanced decision based on what you think is best for the country.

So very true,
People who say "I'm not going to vote as a protest" or "I'll just vote no to spite the government cause I don't know what its about" are complete f*cken idiots imho.

People worked hard for our ability to vote and yet people throw that right away by doing stupid things, your only job is to educate yourself and some people are too lazy to even do that

:rolleyes:

millie35 · 30-04-2012 12:54pm

max powers and cabaal yes or no is the question

Max Powers · 30-04-2012 1:26pm

millie35 wrote: »

max powers and cabaal yes or no is the question

Just for you Millie and your Shakespeare-ish question, Yes, even if its a little early to make up my mind 100%. Reason: mainly because i see prudent budgeting as a good thing for everyone. Our politicans arent capable of running a p-up in a brewery so they seem to need strict guidance.

Finnbar01 · 30-04-2012 3:21pm

Max Powers wrote: »

The level of ignorance on here is staggering. First off we should all take a look at what went on in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria now to see what people will go thru to have the right to vote.

Do you actually think you or anybody else's vote matters one bit?

DERPY HOOFS · 30-04-2012 3:22pm

NO and no again when they make us do it again.

OldNotWIse · 30-04-2012 3:23pm

Doesn't matter a hoot what way we vote. They will just ask us to vote again and second time around we will give them the answer they want.

insight_man · 30-04-2012 3:26pm

Max Powers wrote: »

Just for you Millie and your Shakespeare-ish question, Yes, even if its a little early to make up my mind 100%. Reason: mainly because i see prudent budgeting as a good thing for everyone. Our politicans arent capable of running a p-up in a brewery so they seem to need strict guidance.

Interesting view on prudent budgeting Max Powers.

But consider this in your quest for information and making an informed choice on prudential budgeting and if that concept fits with this treaty:

Article 4 of the Fiscal Compact Treaty also known as the Austerity Treaty, requires contracting parties (us) to bring our debt to GDP ratio to 60%. This is known as the 1/20th rule. It requires the contracting party (us) to reduce any imbalance in our deficit by 1/20 per year of the figure that exceeds 60%, until the 60% is reached.

Most economists estimate (because it's looking forward a bit, it's not possible to state the figure to the nearest cent) that our 'imbalance' in 2015 will be €100 billion. Therefore this rule, which becomes EU law and enforcable by the European Court, means that Ireland will have to introduce cuts and savings of €5 billion per year...for 20 years (5 x 20 = 100)

This is on top and in addition to, any cuts already required / planned under the current programme which is for 2 or 3 more budgets.

Most economists have said that Ireland cannot and will not survive such a programme, without destroying the very fabric of Irish society.

This provision gave rise to the term Permenant Austerity. I'm sure you can see the cause and effects for yourself.

As a numbers person consider this also. Irelands 'insurance' policy ie the ESM, requires us to pay €11.13 billion into the fund. No options, no choices this is the figure.

Ireland does not have the money, so we borrow the money at high interest rates (from German & French banks etc), then try to pay it back with further cuts, higher taxes and charges etc.

You would have to consider all this when you talk about 'prudential budgeting'. It can be argued that this process is the direct opposite to the prudential budgeting you are in favour of.

I hope this post helps you and other boards members when trying to make up your mind wheather to vote yes or no.

insight_man · 30-04-2012 3:36pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Doesn't matter a hoot what way we vote. They will just ask us to vote again and second time around we will give them the answer they want.

Not necessarily true but I understand where you are coming from, Nice 1 & 2, Lisbon 1 & 2.

This treaty only requires 12 countries to sign up to it and it goes ahead at that stage. So we can vote no and not be forced to vote again. If you remember last time the Irish were 'holding europe to ransom' according to FG/Lab/FF/Greens/PD's/The Media etc, etc.

But this time Enda Kenny has given his word that we won't be asked to vote again if we vote no.

Lets test his word and see how good it is.

insight_man · 30-04-2012 3:43pm

Cabaal wrote: »

So very true,
People who say "I'm not going to vote as a protest" or "I'll just vote no to spite the government cause I don't know what its about" are complete f*cken idiots imho.

People worked hard for our ability to vote and yet people throw that right away by doing stupid things, your only job is to educate yourself and some people are too lazy to even do that

:rolleyes:

I agree fully about people needing to educate themselves about this treaty. It will have a significant effect on all our lives and our children's lives too.

merlante · 30-04-2012 4:09pm

What was that joke about the difference between Ireland and Iceland again? You don't hear it so much these days...

Finnbar01 · 30-04-2012 4:17pm

Sully wrote: »

Me? scaremongering? You stated twice that the EU was corrupt because their accounts were never audited. You were wrong. I'd put that down as scaremongering tbh. When you say "Eurozone" do you mean the European Union or the actual Eurozone itself? Either way, the Eurozone survived despite people reporting that it was about to collapse and Europ itself seems to be pulling through this mess despite people saying it was also on the brink.

You should watch this video.

Sully · 30-04-2012 5:02pm

There is no point speaking with you on this anymore, Finbar. You don't fully understand a lot of the points you raised and wont see beyond it even when your points were corrected. There are some people who will debate away and take points from both sides and others who wont, making them pointless to debate with bar making sure there points are corrected to prevent further confusion.

insight_man; Some points raised here were news to me and something I wasn't fully aware off. I'd love to know more about the whole contributing to the bailout fund (which I don't have a problem with in theory, but when we don't have the money and will have to pay even more interest - that's where I am concerned) so I want to chase that up a bit more. Also, in relation to how much the limit for debt actually would be.

I'm not entirely happy with saying there is no "alternative funding" to bailouts, when there is - its a question of how much, what terms, etc. which might not be as favourable as the EU fund. That's why I would prefer we accepted the bailout offer from Europe.

Are the cons to treaty? I think so, from what I understand. Are the cons outweighing the pros? Doesn't seem like it.

Finnbar01 · 01-05-2012 10:27am

Sully wrote: »

There is no point speaking with you on this anymore, Finbar. You don't fully understand a lot of the points you raised and wont see beyond it even when your points were corrected. There are some people who will debate away and take points from both sides and others who wont, making them pointless to debate with bar making sure there points are corrected to prevent further confusion.

What a load of rubbish. You wanted proof that the EU is corrupt and I gave it to you. Giving more power to the EU is crazy, it would be similar to giving alcoholics control of a brewery.

I give it to you though, you and others on here have a religous like belief in politicians and their institutions. Best of luck with that.

And let's stop calling it the European Union, it's really the Franco-German union.

Sully · 01-05-2012 8:36pm

insight_man wrote: »

Just another piece of information to put to everyone. You will have heard the phrase 'its just like taking out an insurance policy'..sounds reasonable. Insurance policies costs money...right.

The cost to Ireland of approving the treaty is €11.1 BILLION. Yes €11.1 BILLION. This is our contribution to the ESM fund in order to establish it. This is in addition to all the interest payments that will have to be made.

Now Ireland doesen't have the money to pay this...so what happens?

Ireland borrows the money at high interest rates from the Germans, French banks etc and then we pay vast amounts back in repayments. So a country that is essentially broke, if you believe that wisdom, gets into even deeper and deeper debt, while trying to get out of debt. The very same goes for Greece, Portugal and Italy and fairly soon Spain too.

However the Germans and the French and Dutch, because of their strong credit rating, simply has to put up guarantees but no hard cash, so it doesent cost them anything, but their banks and bond holders make billions of euro from the countries they are supposedly helping out like good neighbours.

A very very expensive insurance policy. The saying goes 'Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing'.

Okay, this was new to me so I spent a bit of time researching the claim.

Firstly, the emergency / bailout fund total is going to be €500bn (on top of €200 billion already committed to bailouts for Greece, Ireland and Portugal) funded by 17 euro area member states. An initial paid-in capital is required by all such states. For Ireland, we must pay initially €1.273bn in five equal instalments starting in July 2013. We have such money readily available without needing to draw down or ask for an additional loan by the state.

We do not need €11.3bn for "membership" as you describe. This figure you quote is our overall guaranteed sum in the event that the ESM draws down the full €500. So, like other states, if the ESM needs to give someone a massive bailout which means drawing down all funds available (ie €700bn) than that is where we would need to pay out.

insight_man wrote: »

Didn't look it up in the dictionary but paying €11.13 Billion for membership of the ESM probably fits the bill. That along with the interest payable on the €11.13 Billion could certainly be described as austerity.

As above. This figure is incorrect in the terms of how you describe it and there is no interest payable.

insight_man wrote: »

Funding will be available there is no doubt about that. Certainly you'll hear the scary stories that we won't have money to pay social welfare, nurses, teachers etc. How many times have we heard that line from the FG/Lab government. The same people who said a yes vote to lisbon would bring jobs, investment, security, keep our young people at home etc. remember all that? The same people who are now cutting wages, social welfare, nurses, doctors, guards, education and special needs budgets, just like the previous government.

It has already been established that there will be funding available. There are many sources for funding. Like here at home, the bank & credit union may refuse you a loan but you can pop into your local loan shark. The problem? The terms are unknown, we have no idea how much we can get or how much we will have to pay back. Its very unlikely they will offer better rates than the ESM, therefore, austerity will be harsher.

The euro will NOT be allowed to fail because Ireland 'owes' billions to German, French and other banks and they all want their money back, plus an unravelling of the euro is disastrous for those very same countries. All All economists and bankers have said this already over the last few years.

This isn't about the Euro failing or not. Plenty of economists are backing the treaty also.

So we will have availability of money, especially as we have passed every exaamination of our finances by the trioka since we went into the current programme. As a result our government has been telling us that our reputation is being restored and that we won't even need a second loan anyway, so the issue is unlikly to arise in the first place.

Its also about looking ahead - who would have expected this bailout to be needed? Who is to say that we wont get another economic crisis and require additional funding?

However if we vote yes to the austerity treaty the certainity that a number of very important and crippling things will happen to Ireland because its part of the treaty:

We must pay €11.13 billion into the ESM fund, as our contribution, a very expensive 'insurance' policy

Incorrect, already explained this.

We must also reduce our debt to GDP ratio beyond the current 3% target (which is currently crippling the country) to 0.5%. If we can't reach 3% how do you think we reach 0.5%? Just imagine the cuts needed and the social chaos that will entail.

The government have already acknowledged they wont reach this target. Treaty or no treaty, this is a problem we have. There is no sign of harsher austerity as the EU/IMF have given us the "green light" in each review of the bailout programme and are saying we are meeting the requirements.

Lastly we must comply immeadiatly with the 60% rule. This means we must lower our debt to 60% of our GDP. That gap is estimated to be (almost exactly) €100 Billion by all leading economists. This gap must be reduced at a rate of 5% over 20 years (know as the 1/20 rule). This means FUTHER cuts of €5 Billion per year on top of all the other cuts ie: (5b x 20 = €100 billion) -Ireland cannot now nor ever will be able for such harsh measures.

This is one of the parts of the Treaty which is there already in EU law. This will not change even if we vote No.

The process of reducing our debt to 60% of GDP will be a gradual process, happening over many years. Ireland will not have to begin this process until 2019.

Economic growth can be expected to do a lot of the heavy lifting. In the 1990s, we reduced our debt-to-GDP ratio from 95% to 35% through economic growth. This is what we need to do again.

Reducing our debt ratio is in our own interests irrespective of this Treaty. Otherwise, we will continue to spend a huge amount of our taxation revenue (20% at present) paying interest on our national debt, when it could be spent on schools and hospitals.

Finally, if we fail to make these 'adjustments' the European Court will fine us €120 million per year, as a slap on the hand. So that really helps us out of our troubles.

Hope this clarifies the real hard issues for you and the real questions you must ask yourself, ie how much money this is really going to cost us and can we afford it. Ireland simply cannot survive these measures without destroying any semblence of a caring society. Without leaving total destruction behind.

The measures outlined above will be EU law and will be enforced by the European Court and the unelected commissioners, so there is no 'pulling out' afterwards. We can just about pull back from the abyss at this stage, before the vote, but if we vote yes what has happened here already will be the proverbial walk in the park. Yes or no...you decide.

One would hope that by 2019 we won't be in such a situation.

insight_man wrote: »

Interesting view on prudent budgeting Max Powers.

But consider this in your quest for information and making an informed choice on prudential budgeting and if that concept fits with this treaty:

Article 4 of the Fiscal Compact Treaty also known as the Austerity Treaty, requires contracting parties (us) to bring our debt to GDP ratio to 60%. This is known as the 1/20th rule. It requires the contracting party (us) to reduce any imbalance in our deficit by 1/20 per year of the figure that exceeds 60%, until the 60% is reached.

Most economists estimate (because it's looking forward a bit, it's not possible to state the figure to the nearest cent) that our 'imbalance' in 2015 will be €100 billion. Therefore this rule, which becomes EU law and enforcable by the European Court, means that Ireland will have to introduce cuts and savings of €5 billion per year...for 20 years (5 x 20 = 100)

This is on top and in addition to, any cuts already required / planned under the current programme which is for 2 or 3 more budgets.

Most economists have said that Ireland cannot and will not survive such a programme, without destroying the very fabric of Irish society.

This provision gave rise to the term Permenant Austerity. I'm sure you can see the cause and effects for yourself.

As a numbers person consider this also. Irelands 'insurance' policy ie the ESM, requires us to pay €11.13 billion into the fund. No options, no choices this is the figure.

Ireland does not have the money, so we borrow the money at high interest rates (from German & French banks etc), then try to pay it back with further cuts, higher taxes and charges etc.

You would have to consider all this when you talk about 'prudential budgeting'. It can be argued that this process is the direct opposite to the prudential budgeting you are in favour of.

I hope this post helps you and other boards members when trying to make up your mind wheather to vote yes or no.

I have addressed all of that. Its an exaggeration and scaremongering, as it twists the actual facts.

andycapp · 01-05-2012 9:29pm

watch this it's only 3 mins long http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcWHBPYOSU&feature=player_embedded

Max Powers · 02-05-2012 9:50am

insight_man wrote: »

Interesting view on prudent budgeting Max Powers.

But consider this in your quest for information and making an informed choice on prudential budgeting and if that concept fits with this treaty:

Article 4 of the Fiscal Compact Treaty also known as the Austerity Treaty, requires contracting parties (us) to bring our debt to GDP ratio to 60%. This is known as the 1/20th rule. It requires the contracting party (us) to reduce any imbalance in our deficit by 1/20 per year of the figure that exceeds 60%, until the 60% is reached.

Most economists estimate (because it's looking forward a bit, it's not possible to state the figure to the nearest cent) that our 'imbalance' in 2015 will be €100 billion. Therefore this rule, which becomes EU law and enforcable by the European Court, means that Ireland will have to introduce cuts and savings of €5 billion per year...for 20 years (5 x 20 = 100)

This is on top and in addition to, any cuts already required / planned under the current programme which is for 2 or 3 more budgets.

Most economists have said that Ireland cannot and will not survive such a programme, without destroying the very fabric of Irish society.

This provision gave rise to the term Permenant Austerity. I'm sure you can see the cause and effects for yourself.

As a numbers person consider this also. Irelands 'insurance' policy ie the ESM, requires us to pay €11.13 billion into the fund. No options, no choices this is the figure.

Ireland does not have the money, so we borrow the money at high interest rates (from German & French banks etc), then try to pay it back with further cuts, higher taxes and charges etc.

You would have to consider all this when you talk about 'prudential budgeting'. It can be argued that this process is the direct opposite to the prudential budgeting you are in favour of.

I hope this post helps you and other boards members when trying to make up your mind wheather to vote yes or no.

I see Ireland's most important task to 'balance the budget' ASAP. Those figures of 5billion for 20 years are scary and you're right it would kill Ireland, but im sceptical if those facts are totally correct. I think we are borrowing 18billion (approx) a year at the moment so I thought the EU wanted us to get that sorted first and there was special allowances for Ireland, Greece, Portugal with Regard to GDP ratios on that issue.

Minister · 02-05-2012 11:18am

I am voting no.

I really believe a no vote will at least give some voice to the regular Irish Citizen and not those at the top of Irish Society - the so called vested interests - who still never have to worry about having to pay a bill or whether they will they have money if there is a family emergency.

Also, I firmly believe we will still have access to funding as the EU do not want the 'EU project' to fail. They will contrive another grandiose form of words for a bail out such as 'Short Term Funding for the European Economic Reconstruction Support Facility for Smaller Member States'

nice_very · 03-05-2012 1:22am

until this FG/Lab govt. have the liathroidi to tell the german gamblers where to go, and cut the stupidly high salaries and expenses they and the high public service are getting, start to realise that taxing is no way out of a recession.. until then I will oppose them at every turn.

the euro will not be allowed to collapse, nor will the EU (while it is in the vested interest of the germans and french) these threats that are being made to the Irish people about harder budgets, no more bailout money (loans) are false threats and should be seen as such..

honestly, I just cant believe anything this turncoat govt says anymore, there are other options which should be looked at, and for the sake of self interest and self preservation, straws are being clutched at in Dail Eireann. Shame shame shame on you FG/Lab

PS: I will be voting NO

Bards · 03-05-2012 12:06pm

"It's the Economy - Stupid"

Our political masters should learn this.

The Economy is there to serve the people (Electorate) and not the People to serve the Economy.

In my opinion our Governing class consider themselves like royalty and have not learned from the mistakes of FF/Greens. They are going down the same road to ruin with broken promises of how they were not going to pay the bondholders.

So I (And countless others) am voting NO until the government starts to listen to the very people who elected them and start being respectful to the electorate because we can and will throw them out just like we did to FF/Greens.

Civil War politics is over and we will not vote for someone just because they were on the right or left in the so called war.

By Voting NO we can get a better deal from the Troika, because they will and cannot let the Irish Economy fail, because if Ireland fails so does the Euro

and by better deal, I mean, we can shove the bank debt back where it belongs at the door of the ECB

The Fiscal Treaty Yes or No

Comments