Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

17810121370

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    Hmm, so just how close is the poll on here representative of the wider public?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    Hmm, so just how close is the poll on here representative of the wider public?

    Not very.
    FT.COM wrote:
    Opinion polls show a slim majority (30 per cent) in favour, with 23 per cent against. But with 39 per cent of the public undecided concern is rising in government circles that opinion could swing against the treaty during the campaign, as it did in 2008 when Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Personally I'll probably be voting No to this as I really don't like the idea of Merkle & Sarkozy having that kind of control over us. I do believe we need to remain part of the EU if we are to stand any chance of getting out of this recession but not like this.

    It seems to me however that a lot of people are voting No purely to get one up on the Government and that is simply not a good enough way to vote. If we start basing all our voting decisions on what will piss the government off the most then we stand a good chance voting against something we really ought to vote for, or voting in favour of something we should be against.

    If you want to vote No by all means do so, just make sure you do it for the right reasons, and not because you are angry and bitter and want to give Enda K the finger.


  • Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭Justice for the individual


    xflyer wrote: »
    Let's clear something up, this treaty goes ahead with or without our approval. Even if we vote no we will be affected by it. So will the Brits as it happens.

    If we vote no, the impact on us will be practically the same as if we voted yes. But don't expect to hear that from the government. They're going to lie and lie and lie to us. Their main interest is in maintaining our position as the prodigal boy of Europe. We were naughty but now we've learned our lesson.

    If we vote yes, it will reinforce that idea that we're a cowed people prepared to accept any humiliation.

    So vote no and reinforce the message sent to government after the Household Charge shambles. It will also send a message to our true masters, the German government and bankers.

    The threat that if we don't vote yes, we'll be punished, is nonsense. Far from it, once they realise that we Irish have had enough of being treated like some sort of vassal state. They'll change their tune. A bit more debt forgiveness is vital for this country.

    But sadly I think just enough of the Irish people will probably vote yes like all the cowards who paid their household charge.

    The day will come though, what's the saying 'You can't fool all of the people all of the time'.

    As George Bush once got mixed up and said "you can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people most of the time"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    Watched Stephen Donnelly on Vinny tonight and he said that he reluctantly thinks there should be a "Yes" vote on the fiscal treaty. Given that he is a fairly sane individual, does his opinion on this change anyone's opinion on the fiscal treaty?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,968 ✭✭✭✭Praetorian Saighdiuir


    Im voting "maybe"


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,698 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    I think its a damned if we do, damned if we dont scenario


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    There was a lot of talk on Vinny about the "gun to head" situation, it made Leo look pretty uncomfortable. That makes me nervous


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Faith+1


    benwavner wrote: »
    Im voting "maybe"

    Maybe? Maybe not? Maybe F*ckourselves?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,646 ✭✭✭✭Sauve


    mishkalucy wrote: »
    Watched Stephen Donnelly on Vinny tonight and he said that he reluctantly thinks there should be a "Yes" vote on the fiscal treaty. Given that he is a fairly sane individual, does his opinion on this change anyone's opinion on the fiscal treaty?

    Nope. I do my own research and make up my own mind.
    Too many people do what they're told to by somebody that they shouldn't trust.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,331 ✭✭✭Guill


    The tides slowly turns....

















    I'm still voting no.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    According to tradition, first we vote no, then we are warned the sky will fall in unless we vote yes, so we vote again and vote yes, then the sky does fall in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,366 ✭✭✭micropig


    Unions say no...due to this fact, I'm leaning towards a yes:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭D1stant


    He's smart - let's dance like him? No

    Europe can fuck off and you can be sure that when we need a bailout we will get one.

    Stephen is falling fr the usual pre-treaty scaremongering


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Threads merged.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭delw


    mishkalucy wrote: »
    There was a lot of talk on Vinny about the "gun to head" situation, it made Leo look pretty uncomfortable. That makes me nervous
    He made alot of sense in the way he explained things (or just in laymans terms),even the "gun to the head" situation
    However im still on the "not sure" fence


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    delw wrote: »
    He made alot of sense in the way he explained things (or just in laymans terms),even the "gun to the head" situation
    However im still on the "not sure" fence

    Agreed. First person to explain things that you don't need a masters in economics to understand:p
    I am in the "No" camp but wish we could have this forking treaty explained to us by our "leaders"(and I use that term very lightly)in an open and honest fashion*







    *that bump on the head still affects from time to time


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭Mance Rayder


    Why can't someone just read the treaty in full on RTE, with each article followed by an explanation from non partial academics?

    Surely its the sensible thing to do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    micropig wrote: »
    Unions say no...due to this fact, I'm leaning towards a yes:D

    *sigh* :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Why can't someone just read the treaty in full on RTE, with each article followed by an explanation from non partial academics?

    Surely its the sensible thing to do.
    They would be accused of being partial (by both sides).

    This was a good line by line post:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78233433&postcount=62


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭lightspeed


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    OR we could have direct democracy or self-government instead of having these school teacher "yes-men" lead us into oblivion!

    how would thinks be different if we had a dictator?
    Did the majority of the country agree with the banking bail out of Anglo and the likes? No

    Are the irish happy that there are so many people working here from eastern europe and elsewhere that take money out of our economy and send it back home to poland and the likes? No

    How about refugees, Is it the will of the people that we use tax payers money to import people from Africa, give them free houses and continue donate large amounts of money to Africa to a never ending problem regardless of our own economic state. No

    Democracy is putting a name on a piece of paper to decide which rich mans bitch gets to grease the corporate wheel.

    Id happily vote for a dictator that could live up the desires and needs of the majority than the excuse of a democracy that exists all across Europe at the moment.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 410 ✭✭_Gawd_


    I'm not sure if your post is accidentally directed at me when you speak about dictators etc or not (I never posted anything remotely similar) but nevertheless, I'll respond...
    lightspeed wrote: »
    how would thinks be different if we had a dictator? Did the majority of the country agree with the banking bail out of Anglo and the likes? No

    I'd hazard a guess to say that Joe Soap has no idea what a bailout is or what the economic consequences or moral ethical considerations of it are.
    lightspeed wrote: »
    the irish happy that there are so many people working here from eastern europe and elsewhere that take money out of our economy and send it back home to poland and the likes? No

    This comes across as a bit racist to be honest. Didn't the Irish do similar when the diaspora left these shores over how many centuries? Besides, what's wrong with it? You're never going to stop immigration and quite frankly, living in a country that only looked within would be a hell-hole.

    Those Polish people are providing a service - namely, their labour in exchange for money. That benefits them and you as a consumer, regardless of what industry they're involved in. They're helping your economy! The problem arises when people come to sit on the dole. Two very different things.
    lightspeed wrote: »
    about refugees, Is it the will of the people that we use tax payers money to import people from Africa, give them free houses and continue donate large amounts of money to Africa to a never ending problem regardless of our own economic state. No

    Now you're definitely trolling, but I'll play along...

    I don't agree with "import people from Africa" as you've put it. Do you think they're inferior because of the hand they were dealt? Treat everyone as an individual - there are people from Africa in this country that are proud to own a home, have a job and pride themselves of rearing a family. At least these people have a will to succeed - some Irish people think it best to sit on the dole and do f*ck clean all. So please, look at everyone as an individual.

    Nevertheless, I don't agree with sending Asylum Seekers to 5* hotels. Some of these people come from horrible environments - more often than not war-torn regions so I wouldn't be willing to sign up to send them home - but they should be allowed work here and earn their keep. This is a government problem - they created it. No point in blaming the people that avail of it.
    lightspeed wrote: »
    is putting a name on a piece of paper to decide which rich mans bitch gets to grease the corporate wheel.

    Id happily vote for a dictator that could live up the desires and needs of the majority than the excuse of a democracy that exists all across Europe at the moment.

    The European Union is a fascist entity - there is very little Democracy as it is. Just look at what happens when a people doesn't say "how high" when asked to jump...their elected officials get replaced by unelected bureaucrats as seen in Greece and Italy recently.

    Only the uninformed would look to the EU as a model for Democracy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    I like the idea of governments being made to keep a check on their budgets and meeting credit repayments, etc... However, I take issue with the fact that the taxpayer will be forced to pay back the nationalised debt of bankers and those who decided to gamble during the boom. The onus to pay back such debt should lie solely on those who first incurred the debt. It is not fair or right that the taxpayer should be left with this burden. People who did not gamble or take such massive risk during the boom should not be made suffer.

    I agree with the principle of the EU Fiscal Compact treaty, but I do not agree with it's implications on the taxpayer, specifically the raising and introduction of taxes in order to pay off debt that most people didn't have a hand in creating. For this reason, I will be voting NO!!

    Let's face it, the combined debt of all the eurozone countries will never be paid off. Having governments solidify their commitments to the credit repayment on such exorbitant debt is akin to putting oneself in a cage and throwing away the key.

    Debt is the new form of imperialism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Pedant wrote: »
    I agree with the principle of the EU Fiscal Compact treaty, but I do not agree with it's implications on the taxpayer, specifically the raising and introduction of taxes in order to pay off debt that most people didn't have a hand in creating. For this reason, I will be voting NO!!
    How does rejecting the treaty make a difference to our debt?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    dvpower wrote: »
    How does rejecting the treaty make a difference to our debt?

    It doesn't. It only solidifies the fact that we have no choice but to pay off debt, it makes the likelihood of opting for default (or reducing debt via other methods bar increasing taxes and cutting expenditure) even more unlikely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭lightspeed


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    I'm not sure if your post is accidentally directed at me when you speak about dictators etc or not (I never posted anything remotely similar) but nevertheless, I'll respond...

    No my post was not aimed at you, i was drawing upon the fact that if there was a dictator in power i cant see what the difference would be. The majority will pof the people is not served, the government as usual have cosy corrupt relationships with private and corporate interests.

    I'd hazard a guess to say that Joe Soap has no idea what a bailout is or what the economic consequences or moral ethical considerations of it are.

    Well im paying for the bailout so i do know what the bailout is and what the consequences are if the bankng system collapse but thats not democracy. In iceland if im not mistaken they had a referendum on the banking bailout there. Thats democracy and that is not what happened here. I get the feeling you would have been against that idea her but also somehow believe in democracy? Am i right?
    This comes across as a bit racist to be honest. Didn't the Irish do similar when the diaspora left these shores over how many centuries? Besides, what's wrong with it? You're never going to stop immigration and quite frankly, living in a country that only looked within would be a hell-hole.

    Yes they did along with the italians and that put americans out of work cause they could just pay the poor and illiterate irish peanuts particuarlly in construction which to a lesser degree has happened the same way here with the construction black market / cash in hand jobs.
    Those Polish people are providing a service - namely, their labour in exchange for money. That benefits them and you as a consumer, regardless of what industry they're involved in. They're helping your economy! The problem arises when people come to sit on the dole. Two very different things.

    I work with plenty of polish and while they are all perfectly nice people, there are nice people all over the world but that does not make it a sound political and economic argument to have irish people on the dole whle there would be more jobs available if the eastern europeans did not gain access to come to countries like Ireland for work. The fact that they are working and getting paid is not a sound argument, thats just a definition of a job. Several of the polish people that i work with say they send money back to Poland. So that takes money out of our economy to benefit of Poland and all the while Irish people are on the dole cause they cant get a job which would otherwise be available if the polish had not been able to come to harvest the irish jobs market.


    Now you're definitely trolling, but I'll play along...

    I don't agree with "import people from Africa" as you've put it. Do you think they're inferior because of the hand they were dealt? Treat everyone as an individual - there are people from Africa in this country that are proud to own a home, have a job and pride themselves of rearing a family. At least these people have a will to succeed - some Irish people think it best to sit on the dole and do f*ck clean all. So please, look at everyone as an individual.

    Nevertheless, I don't agree with sending Asylum Seekers to 5* hotels. Some of these people come from horrible environments - more often than not war-torn regions so I wouldn't be willing to sign up to send them home - but they should be allowed work here and earn their keep. This is a government problem - they created it. No point in blaming the people that avail of it.


    Trolling? Racist? im so sick of that pathetic argument. Yes its a government problem but not one that Ireland created but yet we have to foot the bill?
    Would it still be racist if Africa was full of white people? Im fine with whatever colour people come here as long we dont have to pay for their free houses. Thats not racist its an opinion based on a factual development. And my questions related to democracy. Was there ever referendum to decide if we should invite people from Africa and and give them free homes at the cost of the Irish tax payer ? No, Can you explain how that is democratic?

    It appears that you only agree with democracy when it comes to arguments that you support. Thats not democracy it just hypocrisy.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Headline From The Times (England) which ye can all read in the morning in the Irish edition.
    Treaty no bar to new IMF bailout

    The International Monetary Fund (IMF) said Ireland could apply to the agency for another bailout if required, regardless of how the country voted in the EU fiscal treaty referendum on May 31.

    The government has stated several times that if Irish voters reject the treaty, the country will not have access to the EU’s €800m European Stability Mechanism (ESM) fund, thereby cutting off its only source of funds outside the markets. Only countries that have ratified the treaty will have access to the ESM, Europe’s permanent bailout fund, under new rules in Brussels agreed by the government...

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/article1027751.ece

    Despite repeated saying by a number of sources that this is the case and that Ireland would have access to further funding - the two faced liars that is FG and Labour have up to today, espoused different so that voters will be persuaded to vote their way!
    Well one more voice - the one that actually REALLY matters, has said different to the crap lies that Enda Kenny and Gilmore are still spouting in stupidity.
    The IMF, however, has told The Sunday Times there is “no reason” why Ireland could not ask it for another loan when the current bailout programme ends in 2013. “Any IMF member country can make an application to us for a loan,” said Bill Murray, its director of external relations.

    FINALLY - even our own state departments have been forced to admit this is the case!
    Responding to the IMF’s remarks, the Department of Finance said: “It is a statement of fact that Ireland could go to the IMF.”

    Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore have been saying that a rejection of the treaty would deprive Ireland of its bailout “insurance policy".
    Aaa... hello lads, time ye koppped yourselves on and started telling the truth, you pair of gobschites!


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Nothing is stopping any country asking the IMF for more funding. Getting the funding is a totally different thing. The IMF have lent us over our limit and the IMF, as widely reported, are in a spot of bother raising finance. Though I suppose, those funding issues magically don't apply to Ireland, just everybody else.

    I suspect SF levels of misquoting here!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    K-9 wrote: »
    Nothing is stopping any country asking the IMF for more funding. Getting the funding is a totally different thing. The IMF have lent us over our limit and the IMF, as widely reported, are in a spot of bother raising finance. Though I suppose, those funding issues magically don't apply to Ireland, just everybody else.

    I suspect SF levels of misquoting here!

    Putting aside for the moment what SF is espousing, the fact is that FG and Labour are slightly (or maybe more intentionally) trying to scaremoner people into thinking that if they don't say "yes" - there will be no further sources of help and funding for Ireland.

    This is simply not true.

    Now, no matter that way SF or any party spins their view of EU or IMF type bodies after that to their own party ends, the basic facts still hold true and against what FG and Labour are advocating, that there will be no further funds available if Ireland votes "No".
    ...Which again, is simply NOT true.

    To quote another part of the article:
    Murray said it did not matter to the agency whether or not a country had access to the ESM. “Our support is based on a country’s balance of payments needs, and nothing else. I am not aware of any conditionality that would link access to IMF funds to anything concerning the ESM. If there are rules in Europe, those are their rules, not ours. We deal directly with our members, and all members are eligible to apply.”

    In their rush to try get a "Yes" while advocating that other funds in clear equivocation, won't be available, they either are uneducated to the IMF funding practises and willingness to help OR they conveniently forgot to mention this so their side of what they are trying to espouse, came with added scaremongering to boot!
    I personally don't take Enda as that stupid sometimes - I do greatly suspect the latter!


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Looks like the last few words in my last post was actually right!
    FG pledges to 'put the frighteners' on electorate

    The shambolic Government referendum campaign has been pushed into further chaos in the wake of claims that a key Fine Gael campaign strategy will be to "put the frighteners on the electorate'' if it fears that there is a real danger that the referendum may be lost.

    In the wake of a top secret FG party meeting, astonished TDs and senators told the Sunday Independent they had been informed by the party's referendum director, Simon Coveney, that "the Government would prefer to win the referendum by being nice but if necessary we will change tack''.

    One party grandee told the Sunday Independent: "We couldn't believe it when Simon said if the campaign is not going well after the first week we [Fine Gael] are going to have to put the frighteners on the public and really spell it out,'' and added, "They have really lost contact with the voters if they think Simon's 'we'll be nice but if necessary we will be nasty' line will work."

    Story continues: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fg-pledges-to-put-the-frighteners-on-electorate-3095196.html

    So there you have it DIRECT from the mouth of the man running the campaign for FG.

    Nice eh?

    Not really - but then not just I but many suspected this was the case for some time!


Advertisement