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

Fiscal Compact Referendum 2012

12357

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Zamboni wrote: »
    The parties who want you to vote yes would close your local hospital quicker than take a relevant paycut themselves.


    That's a cheap shot to be honest. You are advocating massive economic disruption because you think it is the only way to force the government to cut costs. I prefer to believe that an adjustment over a number of years makes more sense and will do less damage to the economy, and will have a less severe impact on peoples lives.

    Closing the deficit immediately (if that is what you are advocating) seems like a very extreme and impatient action, and should only be considered as an absolute last resort.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    swampgas wrote: »
    That's a cheap shot to be honest. You are advocating massive economic disruption because you think it is the only way to force the government to cut costs. I prefer to believe that an adjustment over a number of years makes more sense and will do less damage to the economy, and will have a less severe impact on peoples lives.

    It is not a cheap shot in the slightest. A Yes Vote will mean the state being drip fed credit from the ESM maintaining the status quo of a bloated public service, overpaid and pensioned polticians, semi state staff, quangos and a vast array of unnecessary social welfare entitlements.
    This of course will be sold to you on the threat that it will be health that will take the cuts.
    If you want to buy into that then fire ahead.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    The parties who want you to vote yes would close your local hospital quicker than take a relevant paycut themselves.
    Quite apart from the salary cuts taken by politicians, that's not an unreasonable position anyway, given that the funds allocated to run central government are trivial in comparison to the €14 billion it takes to run the health service.

    FYI, the Irish state spends ~40% of its national budget on Social Protection (aka, the dole), and a further ~35% on the health service. Everything else the state pays for -- education, roads, police, army, politicians in the Dail who belong to "parties who want you to vote yes" (as well as those who want you to vote no) etc, etc, -- comes from the remaining ~25%.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    Quite apart from the salary cuts taken by politicians, that's not an unreasonable position anyway, given that the funds allocated to run central government are trivial in comparison to the €14 billion it takes to run the health service.

    FYI, the Irish state spends ~40% of its national budget on Social Protection (aka, the dole), and a further ~35% on the health service. Everything else the state pays for -- education, roads, police, army, politicians in the Dail who belong to "parties who want you to vote yes" (as well as those who want you to vote no) etc, etc, -- comes from the remaining ~25%.

    The point stands regardless of the figures.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,532 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Zamboni wrote: »
    It is not a cheap shot in the slightest. A Yes Vote will mean the state being drip fed credit from the ESM maintaining the status quo of a bloated public service, overpaid and pensioned polticians, semi state staff, quangos and a vast array of unnecessary social welfare entitlements.
    This of course will be sold to you on the threat that it will be health that will take the cuts.
    If you want to buy into that then fire ahead.

    I agree that significant reforms are needed, I disagree with you that a No vote will achieve those reforms in a better way. It will take time to resolve many of these issues, and this is in itself frustrating, however if you want to buy into the idea that a massive budget correction will bring about the magical reform of everything that is wrong with this state in one fell swoop, and that the collateral damage is worth it, then fire ahead yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    The point stands regardless of the figures.
    It's an unhelpful debating point which is (a) wrong and (b) suggests that the politicians should spend their time saving a few million, when they should be saving a few billion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    It's an unhelpful debating point which is (a) wrong and (b) suggests that the politicians should spend their time saving a few million, when they should be saving a few billion.

    I didn't intend it to be a debating point, but illustrating the misguided priorities of the advocates should hopefully result in people questioning their real motivation for a yes vote.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    Zamboni wrote: »
    The No side is the default position as it involves doing nothing. It is up to the Yes side to outline the reasons to motivate a yes at the ballot box.
    And apart from more credit and some loose Europhile waffle there does not appear to be one yet.
    No.
    Simply no.

    The default position is "I don't know", and if you don't know, don't vote.
    It is up to either side to convince me to vote yes/no, and so far yes is doing a much better job than no.

    Nope. It is perfectly reasonable to actively vote to maintain the status quo if you are unsure that changing the constitution is the correct thing to do.
    So, I'm with Zamboni. There's nothing wrong with being a default No voter until someone can convince you otherwise.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    I didn't intend it to be a debating point, but illustrating the misguided priorities of the advocates should hopefully result in people questioning their real motivation for a yes vote.
    So, you're suggesting that when people are considering which way to vote on the treaty, that they shouldn't read the treaty itself or try to understand what it's trying to achieve, and should instead consider only one of many possible interpretations of the intentions of TD's?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    It is perfectly reasonable to actively vote to maintain the status quo if you are unsure that changing the constitution is the correct thing to do.
    If you don't have an opinion on whether pushing a button left or right is the right thing to do, then the best thing is not to push the button.

    Voting one way because you don't understand the issue you're voting on is not really fulfilling one's democratic responsibility to be an informed voter.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    So, you're suggesting that when people are considering which way to vote on the treaty, that they shouldn't read the treaty itself or try to understand what it's trying to achieve, and should instead consider only one of many possible interpretations of the intentions of TD's?

    Come now. I never suggested anything of the sort. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    robindch wrote: »
    If you don't have an opinion on whether pushing a button left or right is the right thing to do, then the best thing is not to push the button.

    Voting one way because you don't understand the issue you're voting on is not really fulfilling one's democratic responsibility to be an informed voter.


    Firstly, there's a massive difference between not having an opinion and not being sure of the correct thing to do.
    Secondly, as a citizen and a resident of this country, the pushing or not of that button will affect me. So to tell me to stand away from it and leave it to the experts doesn't cut it. If someone is happy with the button where it is they are perfectly democratically entitled to have their say to leave it as is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Firstly, there's a massive difference between not having an opinion and not being sure of the correct thing to do.
    Secondly, as a citizen and a resident of this country, the pushing or not of that button will affect me. So to tell me to stand away from it and leave it to the experts doesn't cut it. If someone is happy with the button where it is they are perfectly democratically entitled to have their say to leave it as is.
    No one is sayiong only experts should vote. They are simply saying you should spend a little time, gain some knowledge yourself and don't vote potentially the wrong way simply due to self enforced wilful ignorance.

    MrP


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,736 ✭✭✭smokingman


    I haven't made my decision on this as I haven't read it yet but I'm amazed at the amount of people I meet that have no intention of reading it.

    I knew I was one of the few that actually read through the Lisbon treaty but am I really that out of touch supposing that people might read what they're voting on here?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Come now. I never suggested anything of the sort. :)
    Well, in all fairness, you did suggest that voters' primary concern should be your interpretation of their intentions, and not the text of the treaty.

    Or did I pick you up wrong when you said that "The parties who want you to vote yes would close your local hospital quicker than take a relevant paycut themselves." and "The point stands regardless of the figures."?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Secondly, as a citizen and a resident of this country, the pushing or not of that button will affect me. So to tell me to stand away from it and leave it to the experts doesn't cut it.
    I'm not telling you to stand aside and leave it to the experts :)

    I'm saying, as Mr Pud does above, that if you don't understand what the treaty is intended to do, nor how it intends to do it, then you are not behaving rationally when indicating a fixed preference, and therefore, you have no business in voting for or against it.

    The treaty is really quite easy to understand, there's nothing which threatens Ireland in any way, and a few minor points which are trying to enforce governments to live within their means. The summary here is short and to the point:

    http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie/index.php/en/about_the_treaty/the_treaty_in_brief/


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    Well, in all fairness, you did suggest that voters' primary concern should be your interpretation of their intentions, and not the text of the treaty.

    Or did I pick you up wrong when you said that "The parties who want you to vote yes would close your local hospital quicker than take a relevant paycut themselves." and "The point stands regardless of the figures."?

    I didn't indicate it as a primary concern though and to be honest I don't know how you read it that way.
    I simply think it is a useful additonal tool in coming to an informed opinion. It's important to be skeptical.
    I certainly didn't suggest not reading the text of the treaty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Look, I don't give a fiddlers about Adams, Boyd Barret etc.
    Their no vote campaign is as misguided as their policies in general.
    But FG and Lab want a yes vote because they are scared stiff that they will be forced into being the governing parties that actually implement the required action of cutting public expenditure.
    Rehtorical nonsense about stability and growth should be enough to indicate that FG and Lab are full of it on this particular issue. Blatant lies.

    I will genuinely vote yes if I get one solid benefit to Ireland from this treaty.
    So far I haven't had one.

    So will you vote no if you don't get one ? the correct outcome to your logic then I would have though would be not to vote at all.

    It appears to me you just want to see cuts and more cuts and anything that prevents than is to be opposed ?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 169 ✭✭skoomi


    Does this Faecal Impact treaty contain any specific anti-corruption measures?

    By the way, who is the corruption watchdog in this country?


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    Zamboni wrote: »
    It is not a cheap shot in the slightest. A Yes Vote will mean the state being drip fed credit from the ESM maintaining the status quo of a bloated public service, overpaid and pensioned polticians, semi state staff, quangos and a vast array of unnecessary social welfare entitlements.
    This of course will be sold to you on the threat that it will be health that will take the cuts.
    If you want to buy into that then fire ahead.

    As I pointed out here, even balancing the budget overnight won't remove our need to borrow many billions of euro in the coming years to keep our national debt rolling over as individual bonds mature.

    Would you like to address that in the context of a No vote and the ESM closed off to us? We know we are going to have to borrow - because even if we could afford to balance the budget, paying off all of our national debt as it falls due is simply impossible - so why should we take a course which will at the very least significantly increase the interest rates we will have to pay on future borrowings, and at worst raises the possibility of national default when sufficient funding cannot be accessed?

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    ninja900 wrote: »

    Would you like to address that in the context of a No vote and the ESM closed off to us?
    No. That would be too hard.

    MrP


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    I didn't indicate it as a primary concern though and to be honest I don't know how you read it that way.
    Well, you did produce it as a serious response, so I'm inclined to think that you might give it some weight. If you don't, well AH is here :)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    smokingman wrote: »
    [...] am I really that out of touch supposing that people might read what they're voting on here?
    In 2009, around half of the posters who said they'd be voting on the Lisbon said they'd read the treaty. That said, the Lisbon Treaty wasn't an easy read, but this one's nine small pages and reading it still seems to be beyond the interest or the ability, or both, of a significant portion of the population.

    /sheesh


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    Well, you did produce it as a serious response, so I'm inclined to think that you might give it some weight. If you don't, well AH is here :)

    I can't believe you are actually going on about this.
    It was a flippant remark, yes. Does the point stand? Yes, I think it is important to question the agenda of the proponent.
    Is it more important than actually reading the treaty? No.

    I'm not even arguing for the No side so I don't see why you have the urge to undermine my post by directing me to AH.


  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Slozer


    Are they really going to cut/stop our funding if we vote no? Is this not just propoganda and scare mongering by our government and eurpoe.

    I will be voting no because I want a stop to the charade that europe has become. I want our country to be free and independent and if that means hardship for a few years so be it.

    If our government chooses to waste our funding well maybe we should vote to not have any more funding, it might be the wake up call our government needs to get their fingers out and do some creative thinking.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Is it more important than actually reading the treaty? No.
    I'm glad we agree on that :)
    Zamboni wrote: »
    It was a flippant remark, yes. Does the point stand? Yes, I think it is important to question the agenda of the proponent.
    Well, as above, cutting TD's salaries by 50% will save perhaps 10 million euro. Cutting the health service budget by 10% will save around 1,500 million euro, so I think it's pointless suggesting that the two should be given anything like equal weight in a debate, at least if one wants to cut the deficit anyway. Neither do I think it's useful to question the motives of the politicians here, especially in terms of positing the existence of "agendas".

    The treaty exists, it's written in plain English and recommends prudent macroeconomic policy at the constitutional level -- whether or not voters support the treaty's provisions should really be their only concern.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Slozer wrote: »
    Are they really going to cut/stop our funding if we vote no?
    No, since the current bailout is supervised by the EU and IMF. If we need a second bailout next year, then that'll be done through the ESM, but only if we vote to accept this treaty, and thereby, become part of the euro-zone which has tighter fiscal control.
    Slozer wrote: »
    Is this not just propoganda and scare mongering by our government and eurpoe.
    The EU and IMF will not stop the current bailout if we vote no. It's scaremongering to claim that they will.
    Slozer wrote: »
    I will be voting no because I want a stop to the charade that europe has become.
    Voting "no" won't stop anything in Europe. All it will do is let future Irish governments borrow recklessly if they want to. Your call on whether that's a good idea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,796 ✭✭✭Calibos


    But putting aside the Bank Guarantee, they didn't borrow recklessly during the Celtic Tiger years. The reckless thing they did was increase long term spending based on property bubble increased tax receipts. Does the treaty prevent that?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Calibos wrote: »
    The reckless thing they did was increase long term spending based on property bubble increased tax receipts. Does the treaty prevent that?
    Yes, that's one of the reckless things FF did. And Nope, the treaty doesn't address that problem at all.

    The treaty simply tries to rein in governments who borrow excessively. As I mentioned here, they could have done a lot more with this treaty and if they had, it would have been much more applicable for Ireland and much better for the EU generally. As it stands, it's only vaguely applicable and vaguely useful.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    The treaty exists, it's written in plain English and recommends prudent macroeconomic policy at the constitutional level -- whether or not voters support the treaty's provisions should really be their only concern.

    Could we not just have a referendum to change the constitution to write in prudent macroeconomic policy by ourselves without entering the Compact?


Advertisement