[FreudianSlippers]

Originally Posted by Skopzz

@ beeftotheheels

Two countries have already opted out of this fiscal compact (soon to be three).

Two non-Eurozone countries in completely different positions to us. Also, the referendum will pass... probably narrowly, but it will.

Voting no strengthens Ireland's position because it gives us a bargaining chip and also relieves us from 2 extra years of austerity.

I'm going to take my infraction here; but I want some of whatever you're smoking. You've had it pointed out to you multiple times that this isn't correct, has nothing to do with the treaty and the austerity may actually be miles worse if we vote no. You ignore these points and keep repeating talking points in your (self-professed: see the earlier post citing the "European incompetence project") anti-EU/EZ agenda.

I'm all for rational discourse and discussion. I'd like to be able to alleviate the concerns of a no voter or be convinced to vote anything other than yes... but you're certainly not doing that or making that easy.

The ECB Must become a lender of last resort like any other central bank in the real world. Without ECB bond buying, the Euro will collapse. Every central bank buys bonds to calm the market - it's called monetization of debt. Your predictions aren't trustworthy.

So what's your point here in context?

FG / LAB prefer higher taxes so the government can distribute taxes euros to whatever organization will vote for their austerity treaty.

Frankly, that's not only ridiculous but unfounded and annoying. PS: plural of Euro = Euro (pet peeve).

Of course, they are not counting the millions of euros spent on Kenny and his many vacations as income. Odd that. He gets the use of the "company car" for his personal usage, and it isn't income.

Odd that we pay our head of state. Sure, we never paid any of the others... is Bertie still around, get him back up in here?!

The Bank Bailouts have opened up a massive 32% of GDP deficit (€200 billion in total).

FG / LAB just sanctioned an extra €27,000 on expenses for an extra secretary

Does anyone else want to field this one? My hands are fully facepalmed at the moment.

[K-9]

Thread seems to be veering off topic. There is a thread on the Elections board about voting intentions etc.

[Skopzz]

We should note this:

It fails to mention that it's standard practice that international organizations and diplomats have immunity from prosecution in carrying out their work. We tend to take for granted that the nations where such organizations are based in are run according to fairness and the rule of law, therefore such immunity is uncalled for. however this may not always be the case -look at Hungary today- and such immunity is to ensure that such organizations may carry out their work free from interference. The same will happen if Ireland ratifies it.

I think its always been the plan to make Europe a stable superpower, and sovereign independence kept threatening that. Thanks to the EU every Irish man, woman and child each owes €390,000.00 debt that they had no hand or part in creating but are being made pay for it.This doesn't even take into account personal debts or monies required to keep a countries services going. Best of Luck Merkel and Sarkozy, whatever happens to the euro, the Irish are going to tell you to shove this treaty up your ass.

[nacho libre]

Originally Posted by Skopzz

We should note this:

.

. Best of Luck Merkel and Sarkozy, whatever happens to the euro, the Irish are going to tell you to shove this treaty up your ass.

i think you maybe wrong. irritation at the government imposing austerity, will likely be superseded by the fear of the money supply being cut off if we vote no. all the politicians need to do is repeat ad- nauseam, whether it's true or not, that access to the esm will be blocked if a no vote is passed

fear of economic armageddon worked for Cowen's government last time out, it will work again, although FG will be far more subtle in conveying that message, lest they be accused of fear mongering.

[later12]

Leaving aside the distinction between fear mongering and reasonable hypothesis, which is always going to be contentious, I think that Lisbon 1 taught us that a tiny amount of fear can go a long way.

A small amount of fear can spread through a population like a fire when voters inform and exchange each other opinions, and fear gains currency very rapidly. It only takes one match to burn a thousand trees, as the old cliche goes.

Whether logically based or otherwise, fear is an emotion the Irish voter tends to find enormously convincing. It should see the Fiscal Treaty passed comfortably.

[beeftotheheels]

Originally Posted by later12

Leaving aside the distinction between fear mongering and reasonable hypothesis, which is always going to be contentious, I think that Lisbon 1 taught us that a tiny amount of fear can go a long way.

A small amount of fear can spread through a population like a fire when voters inform and exchange each other opinions, and fear gains currency very rapidly. It only takes one match to burn a thousand trees, as the old cliche goes.

Whether logically based or otherwise, fear is an emotion the Irish voter tends to find enormously convincing. It should see the Fiscal Treaty passed comfortably.

Are you really sure that the "austerity" treaty isn't capable of generating its own fears?

[later12]

I think fear will inform most of the No voters as well.

However, despite the fact that the consolidation has been (fairly) progressive to date, I think the bottom deciles of earners (excluding state pensioners) will (rightly or wrongly) feel more vulnerable to austerity than those who may be insulated by assets or personal wealth, or even state pensioners themselves who have been relatively insulated by Government, and might expect that to continue.

And I wouldn't expect the same level of turnout among those in the lower income deciles who will feel more vulnerable to austerity.

[nacho libre]

Originally Posted by later12

Leaving aside the distinction between fear mongering and reasonable hypothesis,

just on that, do you think anyone arguing for a no vote has put forward a reasonable hypothesis? what would you say in response to Cormac Lucey's latest blog entry:

http://cormaclucey.blogspot.com/2012...lice.html#more

[jumpguy]

Originally Posted by nacho libre

just on that, do you think anyone arguing for a no vote has put forward a reasonable hypothesis? what would you say in response to Cormac Lucey's latest blog entry:

http://cormaclucey.blogspot.com/2012...lice.html#more

That would concern those who would vote yes only so we'll have access to the ESM funds. I consider that a bonus, just because it'll be an extra safeguard and hence it'll make it cheaper for us to borrow from the markets. Ultimately though, the treaty isn't about the ESM. It's about fiscal regulation.

I'll be voting yes to prevent any future governments in this country running amok fiscally to the delight of the electorate, landing us back in the same place we are now.

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by nacho libre

just on that, do you think anyone arguing for a no vote has put forward a reasonable hypothesis? what would you say in response to Cormac Lucey's latest blog entry:

http://cormaclucey.blogspot.com/2012...lice.html#more

I'd say it's quite a good argument for a Yes, at least for anyone but the terminally optimistic. He expects the outcome to be:

(a) accelerated recognition of losses we have already suffered but haven't faced up to ("extend and pretend")

(b) bankruptcy losses triggered by €-exit which would be suffered by losers of the resulting devaluation (as they end up with devalued IR£ assets and full value € liabilities). E.g. an Irish company that had borrowed in London to invest in Ireland would have its equity hit this way. Our banks might be bankrupted all over again through this channel.

(c) uncertainty while the following settle down (i) fears of possible trade war reaction (ii) multinational reaction - they would be happy with the income statement effect of labour cost devaluation but several would be hit by balance sheet effect of equity reduction from having devalued Irish assets and full value foreign liabilities (iii) legal delays in recognising bankruptcies and enforcing laws concerning new currency (iv) pricing as Irish market must adjust to much higher price of imports (eg cars and foreign holidays) while domestically produced goods and services would become relatively much cheaper.

(d) Any Irish government recognition of our chronic overindebtedness and open default would mean an immediate end to our access to Troika funding. That would require an immediate closing of Ireland's budgetary deficit as we simply would not have the funds to bridge the gap. With taxes already very high across the borad, the burden of budgetary adjustment would probably fall on public spending. In particular, a heavy burden of spending cuts would probably fall onto public pay & pensions and welfare rates. These cuts would cause immense personal distress and potentially significant political reaction.

He expects all of that to flush through the system and be over with in "1-2 dismal years", which I would describe as "hopelessly optimistic" to be polite, rising to "barking and frothing mad" based on his comment that he may be being "overly conservative in my 1-2 year timeframe" and that it might all be over with "within months".

To be honest, I think you're looking at a man who confuses economic models with reality. "All over by Christmas"...we've heard that one before.

cordially,
Scofflaw

[SeanW]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

We could ratify the Fiscal Treaty (FST), but not take part in the ESM at all, although by ratifying the FST we would be eligible to get ESM bailout funds - and we could ratify the ESM, meaning we put money into it, but not ratify the FST, meaning we wouldn't be eligible to get ESM bailout funds.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just occured to me yesterday but if we voted No to the treaty on Fiscal Stability and therefore could not access ESM funding, could ANY politician - even our OTT Europhiles - justify signing an ESM treaty that commits us to all that cost and anti-democraticness of the ESM, without being able to benefit from it?

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by SeanW

Just occured to me yesterday but if we voted No to the treaty on Fiscal Stability and therefore could not access ESM funding, could ANY politician - even our OTT Europhiles - justify signing an ESM treaty that commits us to all that cost and anti-democraticness of the ESM, without being able to benefit from it?

From a purely selfish viewpoint, no. Of course, from a purely selfish viewpoint there's not much that can be justified, including social transfers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

[McDave]

Originally Posted by SeanW

Just occured to me yesterday but if we voted No to the treaty on Fiscal Stability and therefore could not access ESM funding, could ANY politician - even our OTT Europhiles - justify signing an ESM treaty that commits us to all that cost and anti-democraticness of the ESM, without being able to benefit from it?

If you want a higher order of democracy in the EU, start arguing for a much higher level of integration, up to and including a federal Europe or a European 'superstate'. Naturally at the expense of national competence/sovereignty.

In the meantime, it is more democratic that member states retain greater power by acting through the Council, the EU's most powerful institution. And that democratic legitimacy is effected more profoundly at the national level.