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

oscarBravo · 31-05-2012 3:12pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is wrong with suggesting that all the member states sit down and in a fair and equitable way work out what to do?

Nothing, it sounds like a really good idea. Ideally, they'd work out something that would stabilise the situation. In order to do that they'd have to co-ordinate their respective national policies in order to ensure that they were promoting good governance within the union.

Then they could put together a document built around those agreed principles of stability, co-ordination and governance. In order to have any effect, it would have to be a treaty that all would ratify; at least, all that wanted to participate in the shared approach that they had agreed among themselves.

So then having negotiated a treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance among the countries participating in the economic and monetary union, nobody could accuse them of not having sat down in a fair and equitable way and worked out what to do. Right?

Am Chile · 31-05-2012 3:14pm

Just cast my vote, turnout is slowly starting to pick up at the polling station.

Happyman42 · 31-05-2012 3:18pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

And what should that course of action be, in your opinion?

I don't know, but I sure as hell will be involved with the discussion. And discussion and analysis of what happened is what is needed.

A common currency will never work unless all members sign up to it and it is an instrument of a centrally governed Europe, which is something that is anathema to me from a social and cultural point of view. But I think Europe is begining to see that. The failure of this Treaty to do anything substantive to fix the problem will see belief growing. That is if the Euro and consequently the EU hasn't collapsed and leaves Europe in tatters before that.
I have no idea how it will all pan out.

hatrickpatrick · 31-05-2012 3:19pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

And what should that course of action be, in your opinion?

I know this isn't addressed to me but I'll chip in here: Completely redesigning the financial and monetary system, and I mean fundamentally redesigning the concept of what money is, how it comes into circulation, firewalling the financial sector from the rest of society so they can't put us on the hook for their screwups, completely reorganizing what a "bank" is, etc.

In other words, going back to the very drawing board of currency and redesigning what it means. If we have the resources and knowledge to produce things, we shouldn't be held back by something we designed which isn't working as it should.

Villain · 31-05-2012 3:19pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I can't make sense of that, it doesn't show what 'write down' Coveney is talking about, or when, and it doesn't show what 'write off' Kenny is talking about six months prior to the discussion with Conveney.

There's insufficient information for me to draw an informed conclusion, or opinion I'm afraid. I'm not going to accuse you of that though.

LOL It's pretty obvious, but ok

PopeBuckfastXVI · 31-05-2012 3:20pm

blowtorch wrote: »

Pick a few from here. http://www.irishcentral.com/news/List-of-bondholders-in-Anglo-Irish-Bank-leaked-110903209.html

How much did they get?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 31-05-2012 3:21pm

Villain wrote: »

LOL It's pretty obvious, but ok

Well explain it to me then please?

What exactly was Coveney talking about 'writing down' and what, exactly, was Kenny talking about 'writing off' and were those things the same thing?

If it's so obvious, you should have no problem educating me!

PopeBuckfastXVI · 31-05-2012 3:22pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In other words, going back to the very drawing board of currency and redesigning what it means.

I'm not going to hold my breath on that one...

blowtorch · 31-05-2012 3:23pm

carveone wrote: »

The way I see it is that it was US bankers not German ones. Which is probably why we ended up with carrying the can. Besides, it's spilt milk - say Bob cannot pay his credit card bill and I offer to cover that bill at low interest (or zero) so he can survive. It wouldn't be right for Bob to turn around and say that credit card bill was reckless lending by the bank (even if it was) and then refuse to pay me back on that basis.

Anyway - don't forget to leave boards.ie for 10 minutes and actually vote! We could argue this till the cows come home but it all looks very silly if we don't get out there, in the rain, and back up those arguments with our tick mark!

Bit of a difference between a Credit Card Bill and Gambling.

Say Bob was a Gambler. He has a friend that works in a casino. His friend decides to pull a stroke for Bob, the gambler. - "Come in here and gamble. If you win that's great, but if it looks like you're going to lose, then I'll fix the cards for you, and guarantee that you won't lose anything - Don't worry, we'll just force the locals to give us money, tell them you've threatened us and this is protection money"

Happyman42 · 31-05-2012 3:24pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nothing, it sounds like a really good idea. Ideally, they'd work out something that would stabilise the situation. In order to do that they'd have to co-ordinate their respective national policies in order to ensure that they were promoting good governance within the union.

Then they could put together a document built around those agreed principles of stability, co-ordination and governance. In order to have any effect, it would have to be a treaty that all would ratify; at least, all that wanted to participate in the shared approach that they had agreed among themselves.

So then having negotiated a treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance among the countries participating in the economic and monetary union, nobody could accuse them of not having sat down in a fair and equitable way and worked out what to do. Right?

Yes, after they take responsibility for their parts in what happened, not before. Right?

blowtorch · 31-05-2012 3:25pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

How much did they get?

Google it. You were smart enough to try insinuate that German bankers did not get anything. So now that you know that they did, do your own investigation.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 31-05-2012 3:26pm

blowtorch wrote: »

Bit of a difference between a Credit Card Bill and Gambling.

Say Bob was a Gambler. He has a friend that works in a casino. His friend decides to pull a stroke for Bob, the gambler. - "Come in here and gamble. If you win that's great, but if it looks like you're going to lose, then I'll fix the cards for you, and guarantee that you won't lose anything - Don't worry, we'll just force the locals to give us money, tell them you've threatened us and this is protection money"

Continuing your analogy, once the locals have given you their money, they can't afford rent, so they borrow money from a local credit union.

Then they realise they got taken for a ride by Bob and his friend so they tell the credit union they can whistle for their money?

hatrickpatrick · 31-05-2012 3:27pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm not going to hold my breath on that one...

I know you're not, that's the problem. It needs to happen, but nobody is talking about it.

If a farmer produces the exact same amount of food this year as he did last year, and if there are still the exact same number of people willing to work for him, and the exact same number of people who need food, why should people be going hungrier this year because the oil for this machine isn't functioning properly?

If we have the exact same number of trained medical staff this year as last year, and the exact same number of people who need their services, why should A&E units have to close?

Supply and demand clearly isn't working when we have demand, we have supply, but the oil which makes that model work has hit a problem. Currency as an artificial concept shouldn't be able to change physical reality, the reality that we have what we need, we have the skills we need, etc.

If that system is holding us back from reaching the potential we could be, then we need to redesign it to more accurately reflect what it's physically possible for us to achieve.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 31-05-2012 3:28pm

blowtorch wrote: »

Google it. You were smart enough to try insinuate that German bankers did not get anything. So now that you know that they did, do your own investigation.

I didn't say they didn't get anything, I asked who they were and how much they got in response to a proposed plan to burn them. Well if you are trying to sell me on burning someone, I'd like to know who they are and a very good justification for doing it. Something a bit more nuanced than f*cking 'google it'.

oscarBravo · 31-05-2012 3:30pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, after they take responsibility for their parts in what happened, not before. Right?

So apportioning blame is more important than agreeing on a future strategy?

Did your proposed meeting to decide on a fair and equitable solution involve actual self-flagellation, or just Mao-style "confessions"?

darkman2 · 31-05-2012 3:30pm

Interesting to observe how useless these boards.ie polls are. In Lisbon 2 it was vast majority saying no on here but in the real world it passed comfortably. I do think these polls are a waste of time on previous evidence really. But anyway..

later12 · 31-05-2012 3:32pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So apportioning blame is more important than agreeing on a future strategy?

Surely the point is that taking responsibility and recognizing mistakes is part of building future strategy.

But no. I'm sure it't the Mao one. That's a much more comfortably silly argument.

Happyman42 · 31-05-2012 3:38pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

So apportioning blame is more important than agreeing on a future strategy?

Did your proposed meeting to decide on a fair and equitable solution involve actual self-flagellation, or just Mao-style "confessions"?

:D So you think we are the only ones at fault in all of this?

Taking responsibility Oscar.....that's the point. Member States, Bankers, Ministers, Bondholders, individuals. Do that first, then you draw up your treaties. Because if they don't make them responsible and accountable, then sure as hell it will happen again and again.
But then you aren't great on the old history.:rolleyes:

stefanovich · 31-05-2012 3:42pm

ken wrote: »

Went to vote this morning and my name has been removed from the register since the last vote we had in October. Not a happy bunny.

Did you receive a card in the post? Why would you be removed from the register?

blowtorch · 31-05-2012 3:44pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Continuing your analogy, once the locals have given you their money, they can't afford rent, so they borrow money from a local credit union.

Then they realise they got taken for a ride by Bob and his friend so they tell the credit union they can whistle for their money?

Forgot to mention this - Bob owns the Credit Union

PopeBuckfastXVI · 31-05-2012 3:45pm

blowtorch wrote: »

And Bob, who owns the Credit Union then loans them the money.

Except he doesn't, he's long gone with your money.

Now if you manage to get more money out of Bob somehow, you could start to talk about not paying him back.

carveone · 31-05-2012 3:55pm

blowtorch wrote: »

Bit of a difference between a Credit Card Bill and Gambling.

Say Bob was a Gambler. He has a friend that works in a casino. His friend decides to pull a stroke for Bob, the gambler. - "Come in here and gamble. If you win that's great, but if it looks like you're going to lose, then I'll fix the cards for you, and guarantee that you won't lose anything - Don't worry, we'll just force the locals to give us money, tell them you've threatened us and this is protection money"

That's probably a reasonable approximation of the US system. Except the friend is the US Senate and Bob "earned" $1m in salary and $300m in bonuses which he uses to control the media to tell his workers that they are poor because they don't believe in the dream enough. I'd put a smiley after this but I'm not really joking!

The underlying issue - and I'ld align myself more with hatrickpatrick and others even though I'm a yes voter - is the intermix of gambling and investment and deposits and banking with no sign of anyone bothering their arse doing anything about it. It should be illegal to combine a commercial bank with an investment bank in such a way as to allow speculative gambling with depositors' funds.

We had the chance to fix this and the City won. "The City provides many many jobs" they bleat, ignoring the fact that all those jobs are in commercial high street banking. I was going to say that hanging a few of them from lampposts, possibly literally, has the tendency to make the rest of them more compliant but that might viewed as touch right wing!!

Edit: I should hurry to add that I don't believe that the Irish problem was quite the same and I wandered off on a US/UK centric rant!

oscarBravo · 31-05-2012 3:57pm

later12 wrote: »

Surely the point is that taking responsibility and recognizing mistakes is part of building future strategy.

Sure. I'm just rejecting the rather stupid premise that the leaders of the member state governments started with the assumption that no mistakes had ever been made in the past.

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D So you think we are the only ones at fault in all of this?

Jesus, you just love your old straw men, don't you? I'm sure you're having a whale of a time pretending I said things so that you can disagree with them, but it's a pretty transparent device.

Taking responsibility Oscar.....that's the point. Member States, Bankers, Ministers, Bondholders, individuals. Do that first, then you draw up your treaties.

You really don't get how stupid that sounds, do you?

You want everyone - down to individuals - to accept responsibility for their mistakes before the process of negotiating a way forward can happen.

I can just see it now: "Lads, cancel the summit: there's a plumber in Ireland who still doesn't understand how his 110% mortgage was a part of the problem."

Because if they don't make them responsible and accountable, then sure as hell it will happen again and again.
But then you aren't great on the old history.:rolleyes:

If who don't make whom responsible? Is there any danger at any point in this discussion of you saying something intelligible? What will happen again and again?

Is there any danger of you contributing something constructive to this discussion?

insanity50 · 31-05-2012 4:10pm

Voted No. Mainly for the sake of our children and our granchildren. The bank debts can't continue. Also voted no just to stick two fingers up to Kenny, Gilmore and Scofflaw.

Cordially,

50.

Happyman42 · 31-05-2012 4:11pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus, you just love your old straw men, don't you? I'm sure you're having a whale of a time pretending I said things so that you can disagree with them, but it's a pretty transparent device. You really don't get how stupid that sounds, do you?

You don't see the need to apportion blame Oscar. YOU said that, not me. Therefore, in your view, nobody was wrong. Therefore you are advocating a situation whereby the same people can do the same thing again and again. Should anybody go to jail for what happened here for instance? Putting somebody in jail for what they did is a process of blame and accountability. Nothing strawman about advocating that as part of the process, but no, you want to forget that and force through your precious treaty. Is it because blaming somebody might affect you personally. Your not Bertie are you? He had bother with his history and memory too.

You want everyone - down to individuals - to accept responsibility for their mistakes before the process of negotiating a way forward can happen.

I can just see it now: "Lads, cancel the summit: there's a plumber in Ireland who still doesn't understand how his 110% mortgage was a part of the problem." If who don't make whom responsible? Is there any danger at any point in this discussion of you saying something intelligible? What will happen again and again?

Yes I do, EVERYBODY. That includes, most importantly, the people at the summit. Once they do, then they can point the finger at all the plumbers.

Is there any danger of you contributing something constructive to this discussion?

:rolleyes: Yeh Oscar, we'll just forget who was responsible, move on etc etc.
And you talk of a fair and equitable EU....gimme a break!

laoch na mona · 31-05-2012 4:13pm

votáil níl in my first ever election

oscarBravo · 31-05-2012 4:19pm

Happyman42 wrote: »

You don't see the need to apportion blame Oscar. YOU said that, not me. Therefore, in your view, nobody was wrong.

Sorry, I'm not interested in wasting my time trying to have a discussion with someone who is only interested in scoring points by misrepresenting me.

For the record, this is at least the second time you have used a blatant bare-faced lie to try to discredit my arguments. It's a fairly pathetic approach to discussion, but it's an Irish referendum campaign, so I guess I shouldn't have hoped for better.

charlemont · 31-05-2012 4:26pm

Just back from voting now and I voted Yes although it was a tough decision, My first time wrestling with my conscience about to vote, Most other referendums were straight forward, I voted Yes mainly because I think if the circumstances arose again our lot would squander it all over again, Boom to bust.

Europe needs stability anyway.

molloyjh · 31-05-2012 4:27pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not interested in wasting my time trying to have a discussion with someone who is only interested in scoring points by misrepresenting me.

For the record, this is at least the second time you have used a blatant bare-faced lie to try to discredit my arguments. It's a fairly pathetic approach to discussion, but it's an Irish referendum campaign, so I guess I shouldn't have hoped for better.

I'm just surprised you lasted this long. I've actively avoided the politics forum since Lisbon II, coming back to see how things are now. I can't see how I ever stuck it in the first place. As I said earlier, some people don't want to see the truth. They want to have their outrage, misguided and poorly conceived though it may be. And they'll do anything to prevent anyone taking it away from them. Including any kind of strange insistence that you said something you never did. Addressing your actual point may cause their house of cards to collapse. And they'd much rather be wrong than, well, be wrong. On any other forum it would be viewed as trolling.

Happyman42 · 31-05-2012 4:31pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not interested in wasting my time trying to have a discussion with someone who is only interested in scoring points by misrepresenting me.

For the record, this is at least the second time you have used a blatant bare-faced lie to try to discredit my arguments. It's a fairly pathetic approach to discussion, but it's an Irish referendum campaign, so I guess I shouldn't have hoped for better.

Here's your answer Oscar, you wrote it, solution before apportioning blame and presumeably people taking responsibility.

Your attitude to that process is fairly clear and underscored in the second part of your answer, no? Maybe you should take more care of how you phrase yourself. Now you run away AGAIN. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo wrote: »

So apportioning blame is more important than agreeing on a future strategy?

Did your proposed meeting to decide on a fair and equitable solution involve actual self-flagellation, or just Mao-style "confessions"?

p.s. your little dig at your fellow Irish says more about you than me. The deep seated inferiority complex of the Fine Gaeler surfacing, perhaps??:D

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

Comments