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

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 12:45am

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.

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 12:48am

meglome wrote: »

The problem with 'the Germans dunnit' or the 'EU stole our fish' is lots of people say it but nobody ever proves it.

Explain why fishermen were throwing good fish back in the sea even if they were dead and why the sugar business was shut down.

It's either Irish political stupidity or the EU made them do it.

Go figure.

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 12:58am

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.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 1:06am

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.

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

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.

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

Ozymandius2011 · 21-05-2012 1:15am

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.

meglome · 21-05-2012 1:22am

StealthRolex wrote: »

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

So nothing to do with the treaty at all then.

StealthRolex wrote: »

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.

As is the normal protocol Kenny signed it but it does not get ratified here unless we vote Yes in the referendum. It has no bearing here unless we vote Yes and 11 other countries approve it. The rest is just some conspiracy you've made up in you head.

StealthRolex wrote: »

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.

25 countries agreed to sign up. We are having a vote, and France and Greece won't sign up for now. That leaves 22 countries to sign up and only 12 needed.

StealthRolex wrote: »

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.

I don't seem to recall 'the Brits' saying "The Irish are endemically stupid specifically in matters of politics and economics". Do you have some issue with the actual contents of the treaty or not? Because it's very ironic to be telling us we'll look stupid if we vote Yes but at the same time not actually having a real reason to vote no.

StealthRolex wrote: »

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.

So nothing to do with the contents of the treaty then.

StealthRolex wrote: »

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.

Em... okay... right

StealthRolex wrote: »

Explain why fishermen were throwing good fish back in the sea even if they were dead and why the sugar business was shut down.

It's either Irish political stupidity or the EU made them do it.

Go figure.

I don't seem to recall saying the the EU fisheries policy was perfect. And our sugar business was kept afloat because of EU subsidies, which are now gone. And this has nothing to do with what we were actually discussing.

And unsurprisingly this has nothing to do with the contents of the treaty.

Btw I'm going to stop replying to you now as your posts are only fit for the conspiracy theory's forum.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 1:30am

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

Ozymandius2011 · 21-05-2012 1:35am

Meglome the realpolitick is that if France does not ratify, then many other member states won't either. The ESM won't work without an economy as large as France, and politically they are too important. Merkel's cards are marked as a string of state-election defeats such as North Rhine Westphalia have shown, and she will either have to buckle to Hollande/SPD's growth agenda or lose office, whereupon a new treaty will likely follow.

meglome · 21-05-2012 1:47am

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.

Ozymandius2011 · 21-05-2012 1:57am

Meglome the man quoted from the Irish Fisherman's Organisation is hardly a nutcase.

meglome wrote:

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.

it's contained in the related ESM Treaty, which is interdependent with the Fiscal Compact.

meglome · 21-05-2012 1:58am

EURATS wrote: »

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

Sorry but you don't get it. What we do know for a fact is what's in the treaty, everything else is speculation and wishful thinking. The contents of the treaty are the only thing we know for sure. You're the one that's walking around blindfolded.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Meglome the realpolitick is that if France does not ratify, then many other member states won't either. The ESM won't work without an economy as large as France, and politically they are too important. Merkel's cards are marked as a string of state-election defeats such as North Rhine Westphalia have shown, and she will either have to buckle to Hollande/SPD's growth agenda or lose office, whereupon a new treaty will likely follow.

Any and all of this could happen. However we have only one certainty right now, the Fiscal Compact. If it gets pulled and we voted the best way we possibly could we lose nothing. But if it goes ahead and we vote no for the wrong reasons we could be left in a bad place. Voting Yes is logically more certain than voting no.

meglome · 21-05-2012 2:00am

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Meglome the man quoted from the Irish Fisherman's Organisation is hardly a nutcase.

You might want to reread what I said, I didn't say anything about him being a nutcase.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

it's contained in the related ESM Treaty, which is interdependent with the Fiscal Compact.

I'm saying I take issue with his interpretation of it.

Ozymandius2011 · 21-05-2012 2:03am

meglome wrote: »

Sorry but you don't get it. What we do know for a fact is what's in the treaty, everything else is speculation and wishful thinking. The contents of the treaty are the only thong we know for sure. You're the one that's walking around blindfolded.

Any and all of this could happen. However we have only one certainty right now, the Fiscal Compact. If it gets pulled and we voted the best way we possibly could we lose nothing. But if it goes ahead and we vote no for the wrong reasons we could be left in a bad place. Voting Yes is logically more certain than voting no.

If we vote Yes we legitimise what I call the Austerity Treaty and thereby weaken Hollande's chances of getting a renegotiation. But if we vote no we strengthen his case for a renegotiation as the legitimacy of the project is called into question. We also potentially win a French ally in renegotiating the Irish bailout to secure a possible write-down/off of debt.

meglome · 21-05-2012 2:05am

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If we vote Yes we legitimise what I call the Austerity Treaty and thereby weaken Hollande's chances of getting a renegotiation. But if we vote no we strengthen his case for a renegotiation as the legitimacy of the project is called into question. We also potentially win a French ally in renegotiating the Irish bailout to secure a possible write-down/off of debt.

hehe sorry but our little nation won't make a difference to anyone except us. Hollande will do whatever Hollande does, if that benefits us that's great. In the meantime the only certainty we have is what's in the Fiscal compact.

And honestly you can call it the pink fairy treaty if you like. We're having austerity as we borrow one third of all government spending.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 2:17am

Accurate figures..where have we heard that before? FFS
€8.5 billion worth of fish since the 70's , 40 years of fishing..€8.5 is pittance over that timeframe.

What the Proof is with regard to the navy?go look it up. A little project for you. Won't be too hard to find. 6 of the total of 8 boats are at end of lifespan. 2, the LE Roisín and LE Niamh are relatively new.

In relation to your bank debt statement, the EU funded our banks..therefore the buck stops with them. It was up to them to police the situation. They police everything else(or intend to).

Neither a yes or a no vote will produce a concrete future. You are deluded and obviously FG if you believe a yes vote will in its current unfinished format secure anything.

Have a little patience, and tell your buddy Kenny to cool the jets. If he wants to test the water...tell him to try crossing the M50 with a blindfold on(as I mentioned before) and see how he gets on with that.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 2:25am

meglome wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

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

Sorry but you don't get it. What we do know for a fact is what's in the treaty, everything else is speculation and wishful thinking. The contents of the treaty are the only thing we know for sure. You're the one that's walking around blindfolded.

We may know the current contents of the treaty, but not the contents of the final treaty that we will have agreed to in advance if Kenny and crew do enough to scare and confuse people into a yes vote. Now you may be either brainwashed by your leaders or else taking the pïss at this stage. As far as I see it we wait and asses the situation as it unfolds and we move when we know what we are dealing with.

Scofflaw · 21-05-2012 4:08am

EURATS wrote: »

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.

No, they're from Pew Global Research, not the Irish government. Pew produces an internationally comparative set of figures for catches in all national waters, broken down by various factors such as the nation doing the fishing. The Irish government is apparently incapable of producing any such set of figures on an ongoing basis.

Other studies done specifically on Irish waters produce similar figures, but they're point data only available for a year her and there.

As a reality check, take good old Iceland. They have similar waters to ours in terms of latitude - theirs are less productive (492 mgC/m2/day to our 701 mgC/m2/day), but larger (772,218 sq. km to our 410,534 sq km). And we also fish less sustainably, a result of the CFP.

If the €200bn figure were correct for Irish waters, Iceland's catch should be worth about the same over the same period at roughly €5.7bn annually.

In fact, the value of Icelandic catches over the last 20 years has been about €300m annually - about €10.5bn over the last 35 years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome · 21-05-2012 4:49am

EURATS wrote: »

Accurate figures..where have we heard that before? FFS
€8.5 billion worth of fish since the 70's , 40 years of fishing..€8.5 is pittance over that timeframe.

And mysteriously as Scofflaw points out above the Icelandic fish catch is in the same ballpark. I dunno almost seems like the figures are indeed accurate. Of course you seem determined to refuse to believe them, but that's up to you.

EURATS wrote: »

What the Proof is with regard to the navy?go look it up. A little project for you. Won't be too hard to find. 6 of the total of 8 boats are at end of lifespan. 2, the LE Roisín and LE Niamh are relatively new.

So if I understand this you made a claim but expect me to prove it for you. I'm going to assume you're just making it up unless you have some proof.

EURATS wrote: »

In relation to your bank debt statement, the EU funded our banks..therefore the buck stops with them. It was up to them to police the situation. They police everything else(or intend to).

I've been trying to get this across to you, the figures from our central bank show the EU didn't fund most of the money in our banks. You just keep repeating the myth and then basing your decisions on it. That seems a very foolish approach.

EURATS wrote: »

Neither a yes or a no vote will produce a concrete future. You are deluded and obviously FG if you believe a yes vote will in its current unfinished format secure anything.

So on one hand you're telling me we can vote no and it'll be 'grand' and on the other saying neither a yes or no will provide a concrete future. That's completely contradictory. I've been trying to get across to you that we don't know the future so why would be base our decisions on what we don't know, that would be a stupid thing to do. The Fiscal compact is not 'unfinished', it's a finished treaty. Could new protocols get added or a new treaty negotiated? sure it's possible but it's all in the realms of fantasy and speculation. You can go ahead and vote for a fantasy but I'll stick to what we know and vote Yes now.

Oh and btw I'm not 'FG' I just disagree with you strongly.

EURATS wrote: »

Have a little patience, and tell your buddy Kenny to cool the jets. If he wants to test the water...tell him to try crossing the M50 with a blindfold on(as I mentioned before) and see how he gets on with that.

Ah yes the standard tactic of the no campaign when you put them on the spot, suggest bias. There is no testing the water, it's a nonsense analogy.

EURATS wrote: »

We may know the current contents of the treaty, but not the contents of the final treaty that we will have agreed to in advance if Kenny and crew do enough to scare and confuse people into a yes vote. Now you may be either brainwashed by your leaders or else taking the pïss at this stage. As far as I see it we wait and asses the situation as it unfolds and we move when we know what we are dealing with.

Yes we do indeed know the contents of the treaty, so we can agree on something. You also agree we don't know what will happen in the future. So logically we can only vote on what we know and leave the future to the future. And if a different treaty comes along we can decide the best course of action on that at the time too. Following your logic even if a new one comes along sure we can just hope for the best and maybe another one will come along, since we can just fantasise about what will happen and it'll all be fine.

golfball37 · 21-05-2012 10:07am

Pro establishment boys are playing a blinder on this thread I have to say. Liking each others posts, dissecting every persons NO argument with a tooth comb.

Well done lads.

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 10:14am

meglome wrote: »

So nothing to do with the treaty at all then.

In part but more accurately I don't trust the technocrats who wrote it or the bureaucrats asking or telling us to vote Yes.

The treaty is far from transparent, is not standalone and is dependant on other components, and has been presented to us by people I didn't vote for and don't trust.

If I could trust them I would give it some thought.

Look at the history. With Lisbon they promised us jobs. Did we get any?

Now they are promising stability. Do you really believe them?

oscarBravo · 21-05-2012 10:21am

golfball37 wrote: »

...dissecting every persons NO argument with a tooth comb.

You'd prefer a debate where the arguments you agree with are blithely accepted, whether or not they make any sense?

Sorry, wrong forum.

blowtorch · 21-05-2012 10:23am

All this talk of fish.......... one of our beloved Labour TD's, Ann Phelan, wants (wait for it......) CAVIAR on the menu in the Dail. Ann Phelan. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/td-wants-trout-caviar-put-on-the-dail-menu-3109981.html

Next thing they will be tickling their throats so that they can gorge more of the stuff. 'We need access to funds' is the Yes mantra. Sorry - I don't think Caviar is a worthwhile spend for our elected TD's.

View · 21-05-2012 10:28am

EURATS wrote: »

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

I'd imagine it might have something to do with the intention of the Oireachtas to go on their annual five month Summer holidays as soon as they ratify the treaties.

Plus also that the plan of the member states (according to FAQ on the EFSF website) is to have the ESM active from July this year thus doubling the "firepower" available to the Eurozone member states.

FreudianSlippers · 21-05-2012 10:39am

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

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.

I don't see any evidence to support this claim.

FreudianSlippers · 21-05-2012 10:42am

golfball37 wrote: »

Pro establishment boys are playing a blinder on this thread I have to say. Liking each others posts, dissecting every persons NO argument with a tooth comb.

Well done lads.

So if your blanket arguments don't succeed, attack legitimate and rational thought. Fantastic.

golfball37 · 21-05-2012 10:44am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So if your blanket arguments don't succeed, attack legitimate and rational thought. Fantastic.

Tetchy lot- Can't even accept compliments now.

FreudianSlippers · 21-05-2012 10:49am

golfball37 wrote: »

Tetchy lot- Can't even accept compliments now.

I'm not tetchy... I just don't think the AH-style commentary is necessary here. If the level of discourse from the majority of the 'no' side is limited to talking-points and random nonsense (see the posters which talk about "No to water charges and household taxes" - whatever the feck that has to do with the "Austerity Treaty" :rolleyes:)

I'm here to talk about facts. What the referendum says, what it means for the future and what the treaty is about. I don't want to debunk nonsense shíte from the majority of the 'no' side to see a retort about being too thorough.

I feel sorry for the legitimate and thoughtful "no" posters on this forum like hatrickpatrick tbh. For every thought out and rational post as to why he is voting 'no' there are 10 that are rubbish, based on points that are either irrelevant, far fetched or debunked.

karlth · 21-05-2012 10:54am

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, the value of Icelandic catches over the last 20 years has been about €300m annually - about €10.5bn over the last 35 years.

It depends on how the catch is valued. Last year for example Iceland's fishing industries total export was €1.6b. Due to the instability of our currency that number understandably jumps up and down quite a lot, but it is certainly rising.

I'm not familiar with the fishing sector in Ireland but it was always my understanding that it was different to Iceland due mostly to the gulf stream.

Oceans12 · 21-05-2012 10:56am

VOTING NO!!

golfball37 · 21-05-2012 11:16am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not tetchy... I just don't think the AH-style commentary is necessary here. If the level of discourse from the majority of the 'no' side is limited to talking-points and random nonsense (see the posters which talk about "No to water charges and household taxes" - whatever the feck that has to do with the "Austerity Treaty" :rolleyes:)

I'm here to talk about facts. What the referendum says, what it means for the future and what the treaty is about. I don't want to debunk nonsense shíte from the majority of the 'no' side to see a retort about being too thorough.

I feel sorry for the legitimate and thoughtful "no" posters on this forum like hatrickpatrick tbh. For every thought out and rational post as to why he is voting 'no' there are 10 that are rubbish, based on points that are either irrelevant, far fetched or debunked.

You lost me halfway through the first paragraph.... Sorry.

Scofflaw · 21-05-2012 11:19am

karlth wrote: »

It depends on how the catch is valued. Last year for example Iceland's fishing industries total export was €1.6b. Due to the instability of our currency that number understandably jumps up and down quite a lot, but it is certainly rising.

It is rising, but I think what you're quoting there is the value of all fisheries-related exports from all the fisheries areas the Icelandic fleet has access to, which is somewhat different from the catch figures for the Icelandic EEZ. The rising value is due to the rising price of fish, so one has to be careful not to simply run the current value backwards - the 2010 figure, for example, was €716m for the total catch (in Icelandic waters only).

The numbers quoted in Irish political debate, however, have nothing to do with any real statistics - they're based on an article by a Daily Mail journalist called Tom Prendiville, who produced the "€200bn" figure by taking a catch value of €70bn, and adding twice that amount again for processing. The €70bn figure, in turn, is derived by taking the figure used by politicians, who - when in opposition - claim the catch value taken by other EU countries is "€2 billion annually", and multiplying it by 35 years of CFP membership. Nobody has ever attempted to substantiate the figure, and interestingly, the figure that used to be quoted before the euro was the equally round "£2 billion annually", which makes it clear it's a made-up figure.

Disturbingly, I think I may have had the honour of being the first person in Ireland to introduce more solid figures into the debate.

karlth wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the fishing sector in Ireland but it was always my understanding that it was different to Iceland due mostly to the gulf stream.

That's part of our higher productivity figure.

cordially,
Scofflaw

karlth · 21-05-2012 11:26am

Scofflaw wrote: »

It is rising, but I suspect that what you're quoting there is the value of all fisheries-related exports, which is somewhat different from the catch figures.

The catch figure probably values the raw monetary value, i.e. price per kg * kg of fish caught. While the export number is the value of the catch when it has been packaged and sold abroad. It does not though include fishing machinery/software exports.

That's part of our higher productivity figure.

Ok.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 11:36am

Scofflaw wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

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.

No, they're from Pew Global Research, not the Irish government. Pew produces an internationally comparative set of figures for catches in all national waters, broken down by various factors such as the nation doing the fishing. The Irish government is apparently incapable of producing any such set of figures on an ongoing basis.

Other studies done specifically on Irish waters produce similar figures, but they're point data only available for a year her and there.

As a reality check, take good old Iceland. They have similar waters to ours in terms of latitude - theirs are less productive (492 mgC/m2/day to our 701 mgC/m2/day), but larger (772,218 sq. km to our 410,534 sq km). And we also fish less sustainably, a result of the CFP.

If the €200bn figure were correct for Irish waters, Iceland's catch should be worth about the same over the same period at roughly €5.7bn annually.

In fact, the value of Icelandic catches over the last 20 years has been about €300m annually - about €10.5bn over the last 35 years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well scofflaw. You are entitled to believe those figures if you so wish. I'm not trying to impose my beliefs and understandings upon you or ram them down your throat. There's a lot of that going on in here with self proclaimed know it all's.
I'm no expert on fisheries and I admit that, but the figures sound punitive.

You still haven't answered the rush for a may31st result!

FreudianSlippers · 21-05-2012 11:45am

EURATS wrote: »

Well scofflaw. You are entitled to believe those figures if you so wish. I'm not trying to impose my beliefs and understandings upon you or ram them down your throat. There's a lot of that going on in here with self proclaimed know it all's.
I'm no expert on fisheries and I admit that, but the figures sound punitive.

You still haven't answered the rush for a may31st result!

They set the date ages ago. There is nothing that we can do to change it now other than call for a general election.

oscarBravo · 21-05-2012 11:49am

EURATS wrote: »

You still haven't answered the rush for a may31st result!

It's been answered repeatedly. Not liking the answer doesn't mean you didn't get one.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 11:56am

Re meglome

If that's what you two FG/labour worshipers want to believe, That's up to yourselves. (with regard to the fish catch. Hopefully somebody in that field will come in an kick
Ur figures to touch. As I said to scoffy, I'm no fisheries expert)

With regard to our navy, are you too lazy to look it up? You seem to have plenty of time on your hands. It is a fact though. Will find it for you later.

With regard to the central bank figures..don't have a laugh. Most worthless entity in the country.

In relation to a yes/no vote, I'm saying there is no rush for a may31st YES vote and only deluded FG/labour people seem to think there is. U being on of them. The poll above says it all(hopefully its an accurate representation of the country as a whole)

Telling kenny to cross the M50 in a blindfold is biased? If you don't get that one then that's ur problem, because that's what he is effectively asking us to do by telling us to vote YES.

Again you are either FG or labour. And you are more than likely on the payroll.

Have a look at the poll above buddy!! U have ur work cut out and well u know it.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 12:01pm

Well the vote can be NO...then we can asses the situation and vote on it by November. And if the government want to punish the people and hold us on a no vote..then so be it. . As I said the only people in a rush is FG/labour.
Are u people looking to be "the lick arsè" of Europe?

oscarBravo · 21-05-2012 12:02pm

EURATS wrote: »

Well the vote can be NO...then we can asses the situation and vote on it by November. And if the government want to punish the people and hold us on a no vote..then so be it.

To reiterate an early Scofflaw point: are we actually seeing the "no" side arguing for two referendums on the same issue?

The mind boggles.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 12:06pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

Well the vote can be NO...then we can asses the situation and vote on it by November. And if the government want to punish the people and hold us on a no vote..then so be it.

To reiterate an early Scofflaw point: are we actually seeing the "no" side arguing for two referendums on the same issue?

The mind boggles.

Well it would have to be.. Because you and your incompetent crew set may 31st as the referendum. Which was way too premature. More FG blunders. Surprise surprise!!!

K-9 · 21-05-2012 12:07pm

golfball37 wrote: »

Pro establishment boys are playing a blinder on this thread I have to say. Liking each others posts, dissecting every persons NO argument with a tooth comb.

Well done lads.

golfball37 wrote: »

Tetchy lot- Can't even accept compliments now.

golfball37 wrote: »

You lost me halfway through the first paragraph.... Sorry.

FreudianSlippers wrote:

So if your blanket arguments don't succeed, attack legitimate and rational thought. Fantastic.

Please contribute to the discussion positively, one line replies like these are frowned on in the forum.

Scofflaw · 21-05-2012 12:40pm

karlth wrote: »

The catch figure probably values the raw monetary value, i.e. price per kg * kg of fish caught. While the export number is the value of the catch when it has been packaged and sold abroad. It does not though include fishing machinery/software exports.

Sure. Iceland has a full-scale fish industry, from catch to processing, and, as you say, there's a lot of ancillary stuff there too. We do the same with beef, but despite having quite a decent catch ourselves, we don't bother much with processing or ancillary industry.

It's something that annoys me about the fishing debate here - despite having a catch valued at a couple of hundred million annually (not that small compared to Iceland), we don't have a fish processing industry to speak of. So the idea that we can pretend, as people do, that if only we had a bit more of the catch from Irish waters, we'd suddenly get into fish processing, seems to be rubbish.

We could double up or more the value of what we do have by exploiting the resource properly, but apparently we'd rather not do so, but still whine about how we're not getting our fair share.

cordially,
Scofflaw

C14N · 21-05-2012 1:12pm

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.

I know people blame the ECB's low interest rates a lot and maybe it's a legitamite point but I just find it funny that we're essentially blaming someone for giving us too much freedom. Now we have a treaty that limits our overspending like before and the same people who blamed the EU oppose it.

EURATS wrote: »

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.

You might say it's "well-known", but really you can make up any entirely unsubstantiated fact and pass it off with this title. It's also well-known that America never put a man on the moon and that you only use 10% of your brain, but neither of those are true either.

EURATS wrote: »

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.

You do realise a lot of the EU is made up of other similarly sized populations right? Also, despite your sarcasm, yes that is actually true. Ireland would have been low-investment, low-return but other European countries still wanted to trade with us (as well as most of Europe it would seem).

EURATS wrote: »

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

Now maybe the government are going all North-Korea on the education system but we were taught about recent Irish history for the Junior Cert and I seem to recall us getting a hell of a lot better from 1973 onward. Even now, life is a lot nicer than in the 60s.

EURATS wrote: »

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

Didn't Kenny explicitly say recently that there WON'T be another referendum if we vote no?

StealthRolex wrote: »

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.

There are people who actually think this?

I think you might be just a tad over-dramatic on that one.

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.

Specifically, what has the EU "taken away"? Did they come along an airlift all the major companies who have invested here or rob all our food or something?

Saying it is like a Trojan horse is implying that they were out to get us from the start because of some sort of grudge the entire EU had against us.

EURATS wrote: »

we will never be able to repay what we owe already.

Isn't that the opposite of what we're being told all the time? All the international news seems to indicate Ireland is doing a good job and is on the right track in terms of paying back what we owe.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If we vote Yes we legitimise what I call the Austerity Treaty and thereby weaken Hollande's chances of getting a renegotiation.

Calling it the "Austerity Treaty" is little more than childish name-calling mixed up with scare tactics, so if you want to make a serious argument, it helps to not do that.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

But if we vote no we strengthen his case for a renegotiation as the legitimacy of the project is called into question. We also potentially win a French ally in renegotiating the Irish bailout to secure a possible write-down/off of debt.

You think Hollande will even bring us up if he tries to renegotiate?

"Hey, you know that poxy little PIIGS country that is causing so much trouble for the EU? Well they think the treaty is a bad idea too!".

EURATS wrote: »

You are deluded and obviously FG if you believe a yes vote will in its current unfinished format secure anything.

Have a little patience, and tell your buddy Kenny to cool the jets. If he wants to test the water...tell him to try crossing the M50 with a blindfold on(as I mentioned before) and see how he gets on with that.

Obviously FG? How so? All the major political parties support Yes as well as plenty of economists, IBEC and the IFA. If you're going for slander it doesn't say much for your No arguments.

golfball37 wrote: »

Pro establishment boys are playing a blinder on this thread I have to say. Liking each others posts, dissecting every persons NO argument with a tooth comb.

Well done lads.

The "anti-establishment boys" are more than welcome to join in on the discussion too and do the same thing. Despite this being a political thread in a political forum, you seem to have a problem with people discussing politics, at least when they can make arguments against your views.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Look at the history. With Lisbon they promised us jobs. Did we get any?

Well I don't know about you but I hear about plenty of new jobs in the news often enough. Sure just last week didn't IBM give a load of new jobs, as well as that biomedical company in Galway opening up with the manager saying Ireland is the place to be? I'm sure I can find the news stories online if you don't believe me.

We were also promised conscription and increased corporate tax, did we get any?

EURATS wrote: »

I'm no expert on fisheries and I admit that, but the figures sound punitive.

So really, your entire argument for the gigantic losses the EU has apparently cost us comes from the fact that the official figure just sounds too small for you liking, even though you admit to having no specific expertise in this area?

EURATS wrote: »

If that's what you two FG/labour worshipers want to believe, That's up to yourselves. (with regard to the fish catch. Hopefully somebody in that field will come in an kick Ur figures to touch. As I said to scoffy, I'm no fisheries expert)

With regard to the central bank figures..don't have a laugh. Most worthless entity in the country.

In relation to a yes/no vote, I'm saying there is no rush for a may31st YES vote and only deluded FG/labour people seem to think there is. U being on of them. The poll above says it all(hopefully its an accurate representation of the country as a whole)

Telling kenny to cross the M50 in a blindfold is biased? If you don't get that one then that's ur problem, because that's what he is effectively asking us to do by telling us to vote YES.

Again you are either FG or labour. And you are more than likely on the payroll.

Have a look at the poll above buddy!! U have ur work cut out and well u know it.

Nice, abandon all reason and argument and just start branding everyone who disagrees as "FG/Labour worshippers", "deluded" and "on the payroll". Furthermore, you still want someone to present some kind of figures to keep your fisheries argument going, even though people have posted independent figures consistently to the contrary that you simply refuse to believe because they don't quite sound right and dismissing organisations who provide figures that don't help your case as "worthless".

BlitzKrieg · 21-05-2012 1:23pm

blowtorch wrote: »

All this talk of fish.......... one of our beloved Labour TD's, Ann Phelan, wants (wait for it......) CAVIAR on the menu in the Dail. Ann Phelan. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/td-wants-trout-caviar-put-on-the-dail-menu-3109981.html

Next thing they will be tickling their throats so that they can gorge more of the stuff. 'We need access to funds' is the Yes mantra. Sorry - I don't think Caviar is a worthwhile spend for our elected TD's.

I like that this is an argument for the greed of our TDS when a quick read of the article shows it's a TD trying to ensure she gets re-elected by her constituency by making the government buy their goods:

Labour TD Ann Phelan is pushing for the luxury delicacy, which comes in at €19.95 per 100g, and is made in her constituency, to be put on the menu in the Dail restaurant.

Now still not something i'd be in favour of, but it is not a call for the greed of TD's, it's a horrible PR act, but it is supporting local industry and her own constituency.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 1:28pm

Re:c14N

Since u seem to have an answer to everything, and it all seems to be a copy and paste repeat of some of ur comrades in the yes camps previous posts..answer me this:

Why did Kenny rush into a May 31st referendum when Germany won't ratify it till the end of June?? It doesn't need to be ratified till the end of the year...so again..what's the rush?

Now you can twist and spiel all you like with merrygorounds of jibberish and disect all the NO camp comments all you like. It reeks of desperation and the poll on boards reflects that people are well aware of that.
Again FG got into government on a punish FF ticket and not because of their ability!!

And as for Kenny explicitly saying NO to a second referendum.. That is a threat to get people to vote yes first time, and if they don't he won't give them another oppertunity later in the year if the situation becomes CLEAR and improves.
That is basically saying..if you don't trust me I will punish you"when" I turn out to be correct(hypothetical stuff obviously). I
bet he learned that in the 70's when teachers beat children for not doing what they were told!!

Scofflaw · 21-05-2012 1:38pm

EURATS wrote: »

Re:c14N

Since u seem to have an answer to everything, and it all seems to be a copy and paste repeat of some of ur comrades in the yes camps previous posts..answer me this:

Why did Kenny rush into a May 31st referendum when Germany won't ratify it till the end of June?? It doesn't need to be ratified till the end of the year...so again..what's the rush?

Now you can twist and spiel all you like with merrygorounds of jibberish and disect all the NO camp comments all you like. It reeks of desperation and the poll on boards reflects that.

This is pretty weak, surely? Back when the government first planned the referendum, Germany was ratifying about the same time, and Sarkozy was still in charge in France. And at this stage, Greece has ratified, while Portugal, Poland and Slovenia have all passed it in their parliaments. We won't even have ratified it by the end of the month - that's just the referendum date.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EURATS · 21-05-2012 1:43pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

Re:c14N

Since u seem to have an answer to everything, and it all seems to be a copy and paste repeat of some of ur comrades in the yes camps previous posts..answer me this:

Why did Kenny rush into a May 31st referendum when Germany won't ratify it till the end of June?? It doesn't need to be ratified till the end of the year...so again..what's the rush?

Now you can twist and spiel all you like with merrygorounds of jibberish and disect all the NO camp comments all you like. It reeks of desperation and the poll on boards reflects that.

This is pretty weak, surely? Back when the government first planned the referendum, Germany was ratifying about the same time, and Sarkozy was still in charge in France. And at this stage, Greece has ratified, while Portugal, Poland and Slovenia have all passed it in their parliaments. We won't even have ratified it by the end of the month - that's just the referendum date.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Maybe, but we could also Vote NO and if things pan out correctly...then vote YES in November when or "if" everything settles
down
Herr kenny seems to see this as daunting...I wonder why!!!

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 1:55pm

C14N wrote: »

There are people who actually think this? I think you might be just a tad over-dramatic on that one.

Which part - that the Euro is failing or that it may well end in tears?

The Euro is clearly not healthy. Civil unrest has already occurred and is on going. Or perhaps you think the news reports from Greece are a little over-dramatic.

You might be comfortable with ignoring the lessons of history. Ignorance is your prerogative.

Napoleon tried uniting Europe.

Hitler tried uniting Europe.

Merkel is trying to unite Europe.

Even Obama is trying to get Europe united. :eek:

Have you tried looking at this from an economic perspective? Our financial system runs on credit. It's a fiat system. To continue working money has to circulate.
Now, look at the mechanics of a perpetual motion machine, particularly as it slows down and stops.
That is our current economic system. It is stopping.

Will this fiscal compact start it again? No it won't, so why vote for something that is designed to break the economic system?

Either way the Euro is on it's way to collapse. Voting yes will only accelerate that demise.
To some that may be a good thing.
Personally the fiscal compact contains nothing that is designed to repair a broken system so there is no good reason to vote in favour it.

Or perhaps take a look at the bigger picture. The ESM treaty needs unanimous ratification and currently neither Germany nor France are prepared to do that.
Without that the funds the liars in the Dial are promising will not exist regardless of what we do with the fiscal compact.

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 1:59pm

C14N wrote: »

Well I don't know about you but I hear about plenty of new jobs in the news often enough. Sure just last week didn't IBM give a load of new jobs, as well as that biomedical company in Galway opening up with the manager saying Ireland is the place to be? I'm sure I can find the news stories online if you don't believe me.

so what exactly is our currently unemployment rate? Decreasing significantly is it?
A handful of jobs here and there is not going to make up for the losses incurred over the last few years. Things have to improve well out of sight and that is not happening. What has happened and is happening is that since Lisbon unemployment has increased and is increasing.

C14N wrote: »

We were also promised conscription and increased corporate tax, did we get any?

They're on the way.

Scofflaw · 21-05-2012 2:05pm

EURATS wrote: »

Maybe, but we could also Vote NO and if things pan out correctly...then vote YES in November when or "if" everything settles
down
Herr kenny seems to see this as daunting...I wonder why!!!

If the Treaty is actually going to be reopened - which seems to be your rationale for voting No (OK, one of them) - then there would have to be another vote anyway, because the amendment we're voting on specifies the Stability Treaty...as done on the 2nd March 2012. Whether we vote Yes/No, ratify or don't ratify, makes no difference - us ratifying doesn't prevent the Treaty being reopened if the will to do so is there. If it isn't, then it won't be, and anyone who changed their vote on the basis of it being reopened has thrown their vote away.

You're voting Yes or No to this version only in this vote. There is no point in trying to vote on a future version of the Treaty with this vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo · 21-05-2012 2:11pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

What has happened and is happening is that since Lisbon unemployment has increased and is increasing.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy. If you can demonstrate the specific mechanisms by which the Lisbon treaty caused unemployment in Ireland, please do so.

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

Comments