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

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.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 2:15pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Is a NO vote on a number of grounds scofflaw. U have probably read most.
If its just a version to be voted on, and there's more to come? Then NO , prob NO again. U know yourself.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 2:16pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Well it certainly didnt bring all the jobs they promised!!

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 2:17pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

There is an argument that the provisions of the Lisbon treaty may have caused the current crisis but that is not the point. The point is that those in Government and in Opposition at the time urged us to vote Yes for jobs, growth and all those good things.

Why should we believe that stability is what we are going to get this time?

oscarBravo · 21-05-2012 2:19pm

EURATS wrote: »

Well it certainly didnt bring all the jobs they promised!!

...or the conscription, or the increased corporation tax, or the mandatory abortions, or the abolition of the minimum wage.

Which goes to show that stupid reasons for voting either for or against a constitutional amendment are stupid, and remain stupid for years afterwards. And yet, people keep coming up with stupid reasons to vote for - but much more so to vote against - such amendments.

oscarBravo · 21-05-2012 2:22pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

There is an argument that the provisions of the Lisbon treaty may have caused the current crisis...

There is an argument that the world is less than ten thousand years old. That doesn't make it true.

The point is that those in Government and in Opposition at the time urged us to vote Yes for jobs, growth and all those good things.

Why should we believe that stability is what we are going to get this time?

Mostly because, unlike the silly slogans spun around the Lisbon treaty (which was never explicitly about jobs, growth, or any of those good things) this treaty is explicitly about helping to achieve financial stability in the EU. You can make up your own mind as to whether or not it will achieve it, but if you are going to vote against the treaty for no other reason than that you don't believe what someone else claims about it, you're doing it wrong.

Scofflaw · 21-05-2012 2:24pm

EURATS wrote: »

Is a NO vote on a number of grounds scofflaw. U have probably read most.
If its just a version to be voted on, and there's more to come? Then NO , prob NO again. U know yourself.

Oh, I didn't think you were voting on the basis you were offering as a reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EURATS · 21-05-2012 2:24pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

Well it certainly didnt bring all the jobs they promised!!

...or the conscription, or the increased corporation tax, or the mandatory abortions, or the abolition of the minimum wage.

Which goes to show that stupid reasons for voting either for or against a constitutional amendment are stupid, and remain stupid for years afterwards. And yet, people keep coming up with stupid reasons to vote for - but much more so to vote against - such amendments.

Mandatory abortions? What like china?
In your book everyone seems to be stupid. Are you on the fence with Shane Ross? Is that the best place to be?

EURATS · 21-05-2012 2:29pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

Is a NO vote on a number of grounds scofflaw. U have probably read most.
If its just a version to be voted on, and there's more to come? Then NO , prob NO again. U know yourself.

Oh, I didn't think you were voting on the basis you were offering as a reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

As I said to a previous poster..I feel we should vote NO(considering Herr Kenny has us locked into May31st) and see where we are at then. Will the àrse fall out of the country by july if we vote NO on may31st?
I think not

Dr Galen · 21-05-2012 2:34pm

Can I just everyone to remember which forum you are posting in here.

One liners, rants, raves, ill-thought out diatribes, and generally low quality posts, aren't what this forum is about, and posters who continue to ignore directions will find themselves excluded.

Cheers

DrG

antoobrien · 21-05-2012 2:53pm

EURATS wrote: »

As I said to a previous poster..I feel we should vote NO(considering Herr Kenny has us locked into May31st) and see where we are at then. Will the àrse fall out of the country by july if we vote NO on may31st?
I think not

If we vote no it will happen by July 31st 2014. We will run out of money before then because:
a) the current troika loans will have run out
b) the ESM is closed to us
c) the IMF won't loan to use at the rates we will need because the EU aren't in partnership with them
d) the markets won't lend to us at rates we can afford because they think we can't pay it back
e) the higher taxes will make people like me (earning a low-modest wage) emigrate

Scioch · 21-05-2012 3:13pm

I'm a bit confused I know I should take more interest but I just havent been arsed. I do listen to various td's going on about why we should or shouldnt. But I havent heard anything to sway me from either side.

Its either vote no to stop austerity and people taking the hit for the bakers windfall.

Or its vote yes or we are fcuked, we need money from europe and there will be consequences if we ruin this.

I dont know which way to go because I dont understand firstly what the fcuk the thing is actually about and secondly the consequences of either vote. No vote shouting about austerity doesnt make sense to me considering there will be austerity either way and thats already out of our hands. But then the government aint exactly explaining why its necessary to have a fiscal compact either. Its all scare tactics and vague stuff about avoiding a situation like they have in greece.

Am I wrong in saying the outcome of this vote wont actually change one damn thing in relation to austerity or our economic situation ?

C14N · 21-05-2012 3:18pm

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 people are well aware of that.
Again FG got into government on a punish FF ticket and not because of their ability!!

First off, I most certainly do not know everything, my previous post was largely common sense. Secondly, I wouldn't call all the other Yes promoters my "comrades". I have never had any communication with them outside of this thread.

I don't know why Kenny chose that date, or why you are so hung up about it. It's the date now.

Could you please direct me to my "merrygorounds of jibberish" so that I can amend them? And if you were afraid or offended at having your comments "dissected", perhaps you came to the wrong place.

EURATS wrote: »

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.

So you think he's bluffing. Well maybe, but don't you see that there is still a large risk in voting no based on that? There is certainly no guarantee that the government will want to re-invest all the time, money and effort into another referendum that can go on without us, especially in the same year as it was rejected.

StealthRolex wrote: »

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

Neither of those things. That there will be a war that we have to take part in.

StealthRolex wrote: »

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.

Napoleon and Hitler didn't try to "unite" Europe, they tried to take over it by physical force. You also don't seem to realise that was an entirely different time. You think we're all going to start hating other countries enough to actually build an army and go to war with each other?

StealthRolex wrote: »

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

What exactly had Obama done to unite Europe?

StealthRolex wrote: »

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

Oh, it was "designed" to break the economic system was it? Perhaps you would like to share more details about who exactly wants to break the system and their motivations?

StealthRolex wrote: »

They're on the way.

I wait with bated breath. I'll have to ask for you to provide some kind of facts to back up statements like this, apparently the mainstream media has been kept in the dark.

EURATS wrote: »

Well it certainly didnt bring all the jobs they promised!!

That is very different to it actually costing us jobs. I don't think we were ever "promised" jobs, maybe they were alluded to or hoped for but I don't recall any posters saying "if you vote yes, we promise the unemployment rate will drop by x%".

RandomName2 · 21-05-2012 3:21pm

LordSmeg wrote: »

Am I wrong in saying the outcome of this vote wont actually change one damn thing in relation to austerity or our economic situation ?

Bingo. People saying that a no vote will devastate our economy or conversely remove austerity are being... liberal with the truth.

RandomName2 · 21-05-2012 3:23pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

It is nevertheless quite an early referendum date. Shane Ross' theory of it allowing the space for a second referendum (as worst case scenario) before the ratification deadline does seem to be quite a solid theory.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 21-05-2012 3:33pm

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm a bit confused I know I should take more interest but I just havent been arsed. I do listen to various td's going on about why we should or shouldnt. But I havent heard anything to sway me from either side.

Its either vote no to stop austerity and people taking the hit for the bakers windfall.

Or its vote yes or we are fcuked, we need money from europe and there will be consequences if we ruin this.

I dont know which way to go because I dont understand firstly what the fcuk the thing is actually about and secondly the consequences of either vote. No vote shouting about austerity doesnt make sense to me considering there will be austerity either way and thats already out of our hands. But then the government aint exactly explaining why its necessary to have a fiscal compact either. Its all scare tactics and vague stuff about avoiding a situation like they have in greece.

Am I wrong in saying the outcome of this vote wont actually change one damn thing in relation to austerity or our economic situation ?

Have you been following what is happening with Greece, where decades of rampant government spending in giveaway budgets based on borrowed money finally caught up with them when the credit crunch turned off the drip feed of cheap money?

To my mind that is what this Treaty is about, it's very little to do with Ireland and very much to do with Greece. Greece has endangered all our economies with it's reckless borrowing & spending, because we are locked into the same currency as them. If there had been stricter budgetary controls in place before now, it may have but the brakes on Greece's party hardy attitude to fiscal responsibility. That being the case they wouldn't now be in a position to destabalize our currency by threatening to renegue on their debts (intentionally or otherwise). Ireland would not have run afoul of the treaty limits, Greece very much would have, and if their borrowing had been curbed we would be in a much better position now, as our currency would not be as unstable as it is, making us a safer bet to lend money to for the ever present 'markets'.

This treaty is nothing to do with Austerity, or Bankers (or even Banksters), Property Bubbles, Bond Holders (Burnt or otherwise), Bailouts, FF, FG, SF or Lab, Household Taxes, Water Charges, Sunny Days, Being At the Heart of Anything or Giving Angela Merkel das boot. It's about preventing another eurozone country from spending like a sailor on shore leave using borrowed money, and in turn wreaking havoc on our economy because we are tied into the same currency.

It's about protecting Ireland from our Eurozone 'Partners', because if you lie down with dogs, and don't have an ample supply of flea powder, don't be surprised when you wake up with fleas. And nobody, nobody likes to trade with the kid with fleas.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 3:34pm

Re:c14n

Common sense? Well that's a matter of perspective.
Are u basically refering to 55% of the voters in this thread as being devoid of common sense? Only your opinion is common sense and that seems to be FG and Labours opinion as well. Fairly right wing alright. Labour has landed far from its tree.

Will the government be as accountable as the bankers if they are wrong? Will we see Kenny sailing off into the sunset like the bankers, cowen, Ahern etc?
That is the big concern of most people. No accountability in the past and still no accountability now.

Is it only in Ireland that u get a big fat pension for destroying the country? I assume if kenny gets it wrong..will be same old story

In relation to the government having to reinvest all the time, money etc in a second referendum..wouldn't be the first time!!
Wouldn't it be awful for them to have to do some work for a living!!

We were promised jobs with Lisbon. Either you were born since then..or weren't paying attention!

And considering the system here hasn't changed, bankers, politicians and their ilk are free to make the same mistakes/blatant theft again, free from any form of justice or retribution.
You only have to see ahern giving speeches on how to create a successful economy to see how people's noses get rubbed in it.

RandomName2 · 21-05-2012 3:53pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Have you been following what is happening with Greece, where decades of rampant government spending in giveaway budgets based on borrowed money finally caught up with them when the credit crunch turned off the drip feed of cheap money?

To my mind that is what this Treaty is about, it's very little to do with Ireland and very much to do with Greece. Greece has endangered all our economies with it's reckless borrowing & spending, because we are locked into the same currency as them. If there had been stricter budgetary controls in place before now, it may have but the brakes on Greece's party hardy attitude to fiscal responsibility. That being the case they wouldn't now be in a position to destabalize our currency by threatening to renegue on their debts (intentionally or otherwise). Ireland would not have run afoul of the treaty limits, Greece very much would have, and if their borrowing had been curbed we would be in a much better position now, as our currency would not be as unstable as it is, making us a safer bet to lend money to for the ever present 'markets'.

This treaty is nothing to do with Austerity, or Bankers (or even Banksters), Property Bubbles, Bond Holders (Burnt or otherwise), Bailouts, FF, FG, SF or Lab, Household Taxes, Water Charges, Sunny Days, Being At the Heart of Anything or Giving Angela Merkel das boot. It's about preventing another eurozone country from spending like a sailor on shore leave using borrowed money, and in turn wreaking havoc on our economy because we are tied into the same currency.

It's about protecting Ireland from our Eurozone 'Partners', because if you lie down with dogs, and don't have an ample supply of flea powder, don't be surprised when you wake up with fleas. And nobody, nobody likes to trade with the kid with fleas.

Well it does have something to do with bailouts (ESM)....

But this thing with Greece is nothing new. Greece has been a basket case since it entered the euro, since before it entered the euro, and came close to collapse a couple of years before the credit crunch.

The other EU members have been well acquainted with Greece's financial instability. Hell, everyone knew that Italy's economy was as unstable as an overheating Chernobyl nuclear reactor, and it's a small miracle it has held up as well as it has done in the current crisis.

Nobody really raised an eyebrow about the economy of Greece, the chronic weakness of Italy and Portugal, or the bubbles in Ireland and Spain until the proverbial hit the fan (with the exception of faux shock and threats of fines after Greece's cooked books became obvious a decade ago). Yet, even now, the Fiscal Compact Treaty is not even really closing the door after the horse has bolted (the horse has indeed bolted, but their efforts probably still wouldn't stop the horse from escaping in the first place... to drag an analogy a bit too far). The powerhouses of the EU (France, Germany and the UK) are the countries most at risk from the ramifications of the Fiscal Compact Treaty whilst weak but stable countries (like Bulgaria and Slovakia) are protected.

blowtorch · 21-05-2012 3:54pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

ESM will have the power to impose higher contributions by the Irish taxpayer to the ESM. Yes it does. read the ESM Treaty

The fact that the ESM is unelected, and that its proceedings will be shielded from media and court/parliamentary scrutiny True as well - read the ESM Treaty

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. That's an opinion given. No evidence would exist (yet).

Scofflaw · 21-05-2012 4:31pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

It is nevertheless quite an early referendum date. Shane Ross' theory of it allowing the space for a second referendum (as worst case scenario) before the ratification deadline does seem to be quite a solid theory.

...or one could look at who else is first out of the traps. Portugal, Greece...and Ireland.

Anything in common?

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien · 21-05-2012 4:42pm

EURATS wrote: »

Re:c14n

Common sense? Well that's a matter of perspective.
Are u basically refering to 55% of the voters in this thread as being devoid of common sense?

I'd take this poll with a large pinch of snuff - the polls on boards have a habit of being ....inaccurate.... vs the actual results.

Take a look at the "prediction" from last years GE where it said that only 3 FF seats would remain & the greens would win 4.

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

Comments