Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

FoxT · 11-05-2012 6:26pm

I am inclined to think that the treaty may not be a bad thing. I'll be voting 'no', however, for a couple of reasons.

- We can change our minds later
if we vote NO and things dont work out, then we will get a chance to change our minds. This won't happen if we vote YES

- Does not address root cause of the problem
The referendum/fiscal compact does not in any way address the root causes of the financial crisis. (Unregulated bank lending at interest rates that were set way too low for peripheral EU countries)

- Taxpayer remains unprotected
Before I embrace the EU any more closely I will want a guarantee that the taxpayer is protected against banks that 'are too big to fail' . The financial regulators need to make sure that if any bank fails, then we can just walk away & let it fail. This is not simple, and has costs - but I want to see steps being taken in that direction.

- Both the Irish Govt & the EU need to get serious about solving the problems
A no vote would give them a well deserved kick in the arse, good chance that they will come back with something better if we reject whats on teh table now.

-FoxT

FoxT · 11-05-2012 6:28pm

dvpower wrote: »

It isn't.

The Stability Treaty, otherwise called the Fiscal Compact or the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

dvpower · 11-05-2012 7:08pm

FoxT wrote: »

The Stability Treaty, otherwise called the Fiscal Compact or the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

Or the 'Austerity Treaty' if you want or the 'Treaty for the subjecation of the European people under the jackboot of the Fourth Reich'.

Whatever you're having yourself.

dvpower · 11-05-2012 7:21pm

FoxT wrote: »

- We can change our minds later
if we vote NO and things dont work out, then we will get a chance to change our minds. This won't happen if we vote YES

If we vote No and this leads to a ratings downgrade (as has been indicated), leading to an an increase in our bond prices, leading to us not being able to borrow from the market and having to turn to other lenders (which may not be available to us, since we willl have excluded ourselves from the ESM).
How exactly does our changing our mind unravel all that?

Scofflaw · 12-05-2012 3:13am

Richard tea wrote: »

As mentioned on the radio yesterday, Enda is only suited to local political work. The usual stuff like getting the potholes fixed and doing a fundraiser for a small playground. He is in power because of the back lash from FF. The little git is even sending info out by post & has it titled '' the stability treaty'' As far as im aware the treaty is called the fiscal compact treaty?

In fact, the fiscal rules bit within the Treaty is called the fiscal compact - "Title III, Fiscal Compact".

The Treaty, however, is called the "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union".

cordially,
Scofflaw

TehDagsBass · 12-05-2012 3:23am

Will be voting "Yes" and am looking forward to getting it out of the way and passed through as the real polls indicate it will.

Then the anti-government, populist socialists can get back in their boxes, finally.

wingsof daun · 12-05-2012 3:28am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toNYdc-2xvU&feature=related

Please watch 12mins to 13. Sheik Imran Hosein speaks directly about the Fiscal treaty. He says our politicians will just follow whatever orders they are given, ie. they will benefit corporations NOT the people. The scum in Fianna Gael supporting a yes vote. I think they are showing their true colours.

TehDagsBass · 12-05-2012 3:32am

wingsof daun wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toNYdc-2xvU&feature=related

Please watch 12mins to 13. Sheik Imran Hosein speaks directly about the Fiscal treaty. He says our politicians will just follow whatever orders they are given, ie. they will benefit corporations NOT the people. The scum in Fianna Gael supporting a yes vote. I think they are showing their true colours.

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to presume whoever it is you're linking to won't either.

wingsof daun · 12-05-2012 3:52am

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to presume whoever it is you're linking to won't either.

At least the sheeple have learnt to type. :pac: That's all I learn from that post.

TehDagsBass · 12-05-2012 3:55am

wingsof daun wrote: »

At least the sheeple have learnt to type. :pac: That's all I learn from that post.

You're so cool and non-conformist, man. Scum and sheeple yo, fight the power, bring down the corporations man.

Scofflaw · 12-05-2012 4:00am

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Will be voting "Yes" and am looking forward to getting it out of the way and passed through as the real polls indicate it will.

Then the anti-government, populist socialists can get back in their boxes, finally.

They'll still be there, pointing to every bad thing that happens and saying "that's because you didn't vote No, we told you that would happen".

cordially,
Scofflaw

TehDagsBass · 12-05-2012 4:06am

Scofflaw wrote: »

They'll still be there, pointing to every bad thing that happens and saying "that's because you didn't vote No, we told you that would happen".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah, indeed, very true.

Although, to be fair, I'll happily take that any day should it mean that they neither get their wishes on referenda or the make-up of government.

dvpower · 12-05-2012 7:43pm

New poll shows increased support for the Yes side.

53% of voters say they'll vote Yes - an increase of six points the last poll a fortnight ago. 31% say they will vote no, down four points, while 16% are undecided, down two points.

Scofflaw · 12-05-2012 8:14pm

dvpower wrote: »

New poll shows increased support for the Yes side.

53% of voters say they'll vote Yes - an increase of six points the last poll a fortnight ago. 31% say they will vote no, down four points, while 16% are undecided, down two points.

Interesting - the two undecided seem to have gone to the Yes side, as well as 4 of the Nos.

cordially,
Scofflaw

12-05-2012 9:28pm

The fact that the undecideds have decided is progress, the question is how many will swap to the other side considering what's happening in Euroland right now!

KINGVictor · 12-05-2012 10:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that the undecideds have decided is progress, the question is how many will swap to the other side considering what's happening in Euroland right now!

Not a lot would swap Dolan. The crises in Greece/Spain and the election of Hollande had taken place before the poll was conducted unless I am mistaken.

If the poll is an 'actual' reflection of how the majority of votes will go on the treaty, then perharps the NO side has lost their argument against the treaty and the majority people aren't believing them or probably they don't want to become another Greece that are being villified and are basically being used as an example for what what happens when an EZ country becomes insubordinate.

Only time will tell; the 31st of May is just round the corner.

Scofflaw · 13-05-2012 12:06am

KINGVictor wrote: »

Not a lot would swap Dolan. The crises in Greece/Spain and the election of Hollande had taken place before the poll was conducted unless I am mistaken.

If the poll is an 'actual' reflection of how the majority of votes will go on the treaty, then perharps the NO side has lost their argument against the treaty and the majority people aren't believing them or probably they don't want to become another Greece that are being villified and are basically being used as an example for what what happens when an EZ country becomes insubordinate.

Only time will tell; the 31st of May is just round the corner.

The poll was conducted Monday-Wednesday of last week, so after the election of Hollande and after the Greek elections, but slightly before the latest round of Greek news.

I think the major issue remains the same - that the No side lack a coherent answer to the major issues facing the country. They have a coherent message - "No to Austerity" - but are unable to explain how voting No actually prevents austerity, and their message is rather self-contradictory, since it obviously requires serious borrowing while preventing access to the only known source of such borrowing.

Interestingly, Declan Ganley is apparently to re-enter the debate, on the No side - http://www.libertas.ie/ is up and running already.

His message seems to be to vote No to force a deal on Ireland's bank debt, although his claim that one can use a No on the Fiscal Treaty to force a renegotiation of bank debt relies on the government deciding to veto the proposed amendment to Article 136 in order to "veto" the creation of ESM. I'm not sure what allies we could then have in negotiations, given we'd quite possibly generate enough uncertainty to force Spain and perhaps Italy into bailout territory - but I don't see any chance of the government using their Article 136 veto, or any certainty of it stopping the creation of ESM if they did.

I note that this time he's not hiding his colours - the slogan at the top is "for a united federal Europe".

cordially,
Scofflaw

SafeSurfer · 13-05-2012 12:24am

Calling this Treaty the Stability Treaty is the ultimate political double speak.
This treaty does not offer stability.
This treaty is a sop to the die hard anti inflationists of the Bundes Bank and a platform for Herr Merkel's re election campaign.

The contempt the politicians who seek a yes vote have for the ordinary Irish voter is evident in labeling our decision as basically pro or anti stability.

It is disingenuous, misleading and an abuse of power to call a treaty the stability treaty. If we are asked to re vote will they call it the anti cancer treaty?

It is cynical in the extreme.

13-05-2012 12:45am

Well Frau Merkel, appears to be very masculine, but even she doesn’t have the balls to admit that the Euro is in serious shit as the Greeks are simply unable to jump through the impossible hoops that the troika have set up for them.

This treaty assumes that economic activity will grow to allow the debts to be repaid, global resource limitations will prove that to be an impossible task.

A rather long video that explains why things are going the way they are (either YES or NO) we're in it up to our necks, regardless of what politicians want us to think!

The key point is that the current economic model is dependent on infinite growth, and the (finite) world is reaching it's limits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

The EU really needs to be rewound back to the EEC, by that I mean as a group of independent countries with a free trading agreement and common trading standards.

The United states of Europe dream (which this treaty is but one small step towards) is dead in the water. Globalisation cannot flourish in a world that is incapable of providing infinite supplies of cheap fuel & labour.

Dwellingdweller · 13-05-2012 12:57am

Scofflaw wrote: »

The poll was conducted Monday-Wednesday of last week, so after the election of Hollande and after the Greek elections, but slightly before the latest round of Greek news.

I think the major issue remains the same - that the No side lack a coherent answer to the major issues facing the country. They have a coherent message - "No to Austerity" - but are unable to explain how voting No actually prevents austerity, and their message is rather self-contradictory, since it obviously requires serious borrowing while preventing access to the only known source of such borrowing.

Interestingly, Declan Ganley is apparently to re-enter the debate, on the No side - http://www.libertas.ie/ is up and running already.

His message seems to be to vote No to force a deal on Ireland's bank debt, although his claim that one can use a No on the Fiscal Treaty to force a renegotiation of bank debt relies on the government deciding to veto the proposed amendment to Article 136 in order to "veto" the creation of ESM. I'm not sure what allies we could then have in negotiations, given we'd quite possibly generate enough uncertainty to force Spain and perhaps Italy into bailout territory - but I don't see any chance of the government using their Article 136 veto, or any certainty of it stopping the creation of ESM if they did.

I note that this time he's not hiding his colours - the slogan at the top is "for a united federal Europe".

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is what I believe is wrong with the financial system nowadays, even the *idea* of uncertainty plays into real life situations (speculators). there's nothing real or empirical about a feeling (or a bet), but they're practically what the global monetary system works on nowadays. what a joke.

Scofflaw · 13-05-2012 1:08am

Deleted User wrote: »

Well Frau Merkel, appears to be very masculine, but even she doesn’t have the balls to admit that the Euro is in serious shit as the Greeke are simply unable to jump through the impossible hoops that the troika have set up for them.

This treaty assumes that economic activity will grow to allow the debts to be repaid, global rosource limitations will prove that to be an impossible task.

A rather long video that explains why things are going the way they are (either YES or NO) we're ion it up to our necks, regardless of what politicians want us to think!

The key point is that the current economic model is dependent on infinite growth, and the (finite) world is reaching it's limits.

There I tend to agree with you, but don't see what the Treaty does to promote such a system. If anything, the decision to keep debt-based government spending within limits runs against the issue of "borrowing forward" against perpetual growth, and has been criticised primarily on that basis.

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU really needs to be rewound back to the EEC, by that I mean as a group of independent countries with a free trading agreement and common trading standards.

I don't see what that would do to improve the finite resources problem either. The EU has been most one of the world's most active bodies in addressing issues such as sustainability, and it would have no role in doing so in an EEC. Instead, the rewind would produce a Europe in which intra-European competition was heightened - a competition which is primarily based on expenditure of resources.

Resources constraints are usually a "common pool" problem, and the solutions to such problems are invariably based on closer cooperation, not on a reduction of cooperation.

Deleted User wrote: »

The United states of Europe dream (which this treaty is but one small step towards) is dead in the water. Globalisation cannot flourish in a world that is incapable of providing infinite supplies of cheap fuel & labour.

Um, so why is Ireland's only known proponent of a united Europe opposed to the Treaty?

cordially,
Scofflaw

TehDagsBass · 13-05-2012 1:21am

I don't know how you do it Scofflaw, but keep fighting the good fight.

bgrizzley · 13-05-2012 1:32am

i did try to look for a reason to vote yes, but as i understand this we have a government telling us to vote for a treaty that will rein them cause they may be too incompetent to balance our books in the future.

we also have the last lot telling us to vote for it, even though they proved they were incompetent.

the circus has come to town............

TehDagsBass · 13-05-2012 1:34am

bgrizzley wrote: »

i did try to look for a reason to vote yes, but as i understand this we have a government telling us to vote for a treaty that will rein them cause they may be too incompetent to balance our books in the future.

we also have the last lot telling us to vote for it, even though they proved they were incompetent.

the circus has come to town............

The competence of the Government has nothing to do with the piece of text that we're being asked to vote on. It's not a vote on how you feel about the government at the moment.

Start here and inform yourself on the actual question being asked. http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie/index.php/en/about_the_treaty/introduction/

bgrizzley · 13-05-2012 1:43am

TehDagsBass wrote: »

The competence of the Government has nothing to do with the piece of text that we're being asked to vote on. It's not a vote on how you feel about the government at the moment.

Start here and inform yourself on the actual question being asked. http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie/index.php/en/about_the_treaty/introduction/

It contributes to these objectives through budgetary rules (intended to ensure good housekeeping in each country)

this has nothing to do with future incompetence?

Anthony16 · 13-05-2012 1:19pm

So,if we reject austerity as it seems greece will,we will have no money to pay our public servants and dolers?
Im guessing our bank accounts would be frozen or destroyed as well?
Gotta be a yes vote.

AudreyHepburn · 13-05-2012 2:05pm

The constant and needless scaremongering on BOTH sides of the treaty debate is getting seriously tedious.

I really wish people would stop jumping on bandwagons and actually sit down and read what the treaty is really about, rather than making it up as you go along or reading into it what isn't there.

It has little if anything to do with austerity, which will remain either way whilst we are in recession. And voting based on who you hate more is childish in my opinion and the wrong way to vote.

To much to ask that people simply read the Referendum Commission's guide and decide for themselves instead of following the flock?

13-05-2012 2:32pm

Anthony16 wrote: »

So,if we reject austerity as it seems greece will,we will have no money to pay our public servants and dolers?
Im guessing our bank accounts would be frozen or destroyed as well?
Gotta be a yes vote.

I don't believe that there would be a total collapse, there are too many VI's involved to allow such a thing to happen.

If the vote is a no, then I expect to see a managed break-up of the Euro over the next two years.

If the vote is a Yes, then I expect to see a managed break-up of the Euro over the next three years.

Because the Fiscal unity was not put in place first, the whole system is unstable and the recent global economic issues have exposed these shortcomings.

Capital flight has already happened, so it is pointless in politicians saying that investors will pull out as they already have moved their money from the PIIGS into Germany.

14-05-2012 11:54am

I knew I'd seen this poster before.
http://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/spausterity1.jpg

It's the 1979 Conservative election poster!

http://srferrao.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/article-1141528-01ccb8730000044d-139_468x227_popup.jpg

33 years standing there, they must be really fed up at this stage.

Biggins · 14-05-2012 3:07pm

Is the Referendum Illegal Anyway? Well is it? One chap that is well educated in these things seems to think so! Bruce Arnold states that it is, cites the law and says that to continue down the path illegally that FG and Labour wish to the public, is madness.

...we have not yet approved the Article 136 amendment of the main EU treaties, which permits this European Stability Mechanism setting up the permanent €500bn bailout fund for the eurozone. It is therefore not yet part of EU law and the EU treaties and cannot come within the aegis of the EU Court of Justice. Yet they are, ironically, within the competence of the Irish Supreme Court to rule on.

Surprisingly, perhaps, the Irish Supreme Court has not had a chance to look at EU developments for nearly 30 years, nor to lay down lines of division in respect of what limits, if any, there are to further EU integration. The Supreme Court cannot carry out such a review without being asked to do so.

One option would be for President Michael D Higgins to refer the matter to the Supreme Court (when a bill to license our €11bn contribution to the proposed ESM fund comes before him). LINK

Lets be honest, it wouldn't be the first time our government has done something wrong and quietly said nothing about part of the matter they don’t want the public to know about!

...At the VERY least I think we should be postponing it.

14-05-2012 4:53pm

Biggins wrote: »

...At the VERY least I think we should be postponing it.

Yes, it's starting to look more and more like training for the 1940 Olympics.

Biggins · 14-05-2012 5:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, it's starting to look more and more like training for the 1940 Olympics.

As I've said elsewhere (blog):

We MUST postpone the referendum.

* François Hollande in France is going to seek changes to it afterwards.

* Greece is going to effect it badly also afterwards (one way or another).

* Other political parties gaining more power in Germany are demanding changes to it.

* Geert Wilders, the head of a Dutch anti- immigrant party, brought down his government recently over concerns about EU austerity and is demanding changes. It looks like to sooth his demands the state might cave to him and his org,

* Meanwhile in Scandinavia, Finland, and more, the far right parties gaining power also, are screaming for changes to it.

* Spain is saying “ENOUGH!”

* ...And Hollande is actually looking like he will back Greece’s position of stop the austerity measures and seek to build an economy – not rob every cent out of people in invented further taxes and just cuts to services!

* Add to that mant Anti-austerity parties are emerging across Europe as gaining mopre power, thus influence and demanding the present policy to be changes - even Merkel has shown some signs that she is under pressure to do something and ease up.

…Whats FG and Labour doing?
Rushing still stupidly in like a bull going down hill into a china shop. There is a crash coming!

Analysts expect some sort of compromise and thus change to the treaty – but that will happen AFTER we have signed up (by saying “Yes”) to something we don’t even NOW know the full details of what will happen later. We will be in a contract without knowing the later details!

What stupidity! Its political and economic suicide.

Does FG and Labour see that? Hell no – they are busy too blind collecting their massive wages, perks and pensions, hoping they will get more of the same from the EU in a rewards like good little lapdogs for fooling the public into saying “Yes” prematurely!

We MUST vote “NO” to stop this 'blank cheque' and stop the damage of the treaty changes later, if the FG and Labour fools don’t postpone.
Anything less is stupidity and thats what FG and labour are behaving in right now!

Its been said over and over again - and shown to be true, you CANNOT just tax (and cut) your way back to prosperity.
You have to build an economy - not ruin it in order to fix it!
Does FG, Labour, FF and the suckers falling for their spin, see that?
Hell no - like fools, they are blindly following them over an Irish cliff like lemmings!

Poster Boy · 14-05-2012 6:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, it's starting to look more and more like training for the 1940 Olympics.

Brilliant analogy.

A year ago the current government was elected on a mandate to "renegotiate the debt", which was largely caused by the ECB driven bank guarantee. Yet instead of securing the write-down, they propose a treaty that seals that former private banking debt as our national debt.

Three quick questions for those advocating a Yes vote:

1. Why wont the ECB release correspondence received by the late Brian Lenihan the night he made the blanket bank guarantee, and which he later described as threatening?
(For more see: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ecb-refuses-to-release-threat-letter-3017084.html )

2. Why did the ECB try to squeeze higher repayments out of us when arranging the so-called bailout than the hitherto dreaded IMF?

3. Why does the ECB tell us we must pay our supposed debts in full - yet they already agreed to a 70% write down for Greece?

If the above questions can be properly answered in a way that demonstrates we are dealing with friends rather than predators, then I am happy to vote yes.

However if the above questions are left unanswered, and the government tries to push through a pact that seals our fiscal downfall, then I must ask, to whom do the Irish government owe their allegiance?

Continued failure by the present government to exercise their mandate in renegotiating the supposed debt is one thing - but to do a complete u-turn and instead advocate sealing the supposed debt, is in my opinion a deliberate subversion of their mandate.

If this government continue pushing this ahead, and should they fail to secure a Yes in the referendum, I believe they will have demonstrated a marked inability to competently govern, and as such will lose credibility - effectively putting their legitimacy into question.

For the sake of genuine stability in the country and continued credibility as governors, I would genuinely urge them to call off this dangerous daft charade.

Chucky the tree · 14-05-2012 6:54pm

The no side clearly no they are going to lose so now are demanding it be called off, lol. Toys out of the pram in style.

Biggins · 14-05-2012 7:01pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The no side clearly no they are going to lose so now are demanding it be called off, lol. Toys out of the pram in style.

Clearly going to lose?
The vote has not taken place yet - and a lot can change minds in the next 48 hours alone with Greece.

No wonder Noonan is crying out for them to stay in! LOL
http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/noonan-urges-greek-parties-to-form-government-and-stay-in-the-euro-450833-May2012/

Poster Boy · 14-05-2012 7:05pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The no side clearly no they are going to lose so now are demanding it be called off, lol. Toys out of the pram in style.

Pity you don't answer any of the three questions I set out, but instead engage in ad hominem distractions

K-9 · 14-05-2012 7:06pm

Poster Boy wrote: »

Three quick questions for those advocating a Yes vote:

1. Why wont the ECB release correspondence received by the late Brian Lenihan the night he made the blanket bank guarantee, and which he later described as threatening?
(For more see: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ecb-refuses-to-release-threat-letter-3017084.html )

That wasn't the guarantee, that was the days before the bailout. It has been reported Lenihan couldn't be contacted pre the guarantee! Irish banks owed the ECB €150/160 Billion at that stage IIRC and this was supposed to be a short term measure. I think what happened was the ECB and EU had finally lost any faith in the government and the crisis just seemed to be getting worse and worse and no amount of FF pleading that we'd enough funding was good enough any more.

2. Why did the ECB try to squeeze higher repayments out of us when arranging the so-called bailout than the hitherto dreaded IMF?

Don't think it was the ECB, it was countries in the EFSF. These countries have to borrow this money. Anyway the rate has been reduced and is cheaper than the IMF, the British loan or market rates.

3. Why does the ECB tell us we must pay our supposed debts in full - yet they already agreed to a 70% write down for Greece?

Because Greece couldn't even fulfill the first bailout package.

Biggins · 14-05-2012 7:07pm

As one poster stated on Journal.ie:

‘We’re selling our souls here’ – Fine Gael mayor to vote No
http://www.thejournal.ie/were-selling-our-souls-here-fine-gael-mayor-to-vote-no-450554-May2012/#comments

We must also take into consideration that the draught legislation for the ESM treaty has been draw up yet Kenny & Co have made it very clear that they will NOT put it to the house until AFTER the Fiscal/austerity treaty. I have cosistently asked the Yes side on this site, where we will get the capital stock of 11 billion euros from and more urgently where will the 1.3 billion euros (amended from 1.6 billion) we must pay into this legally immune institution. I find Articals 9.3 & 10.1 of the ESM treay particularly alarming without mentioning fines of upto 200 million euros should we not manage to pay within 7 (4) days, whatever amounts they ask of us.
They only answer I was given, was that we would only be commitied to paying the 11 billion euro capital stock should another country need bailout money. Given the political and economical climate in Europe at the moment this scenario is looking more and more likely.

Or another:

Lads this Treaty is a complete waste of time. All this talk of investment and stability and were we will get the money in 2014 is a red herring.
Look whats happening in Europe right now ffs!!
If Greece cannot form a gov. by this weeks end then a disorderly default is a near certainty.
The chances of bank runs brought on by a default and now very real. Dont be surprised if you turn on the news someday in the coming months to see troops on the streets of Athens.
Should a default event happen it will force Greece to leave the Euro.
Anyone now how much the ECB has lent to Greece?
Also Spain is also on the verge. Their attempts at bank reform have been piecemeal and they are following our example of socializing bank debts. The thing is the debts are massive!! Something north of 1 trillion euros. Spain is simply too big to fail and too big too bailout.
So all these events in the past 7 days and a game changer.
The Treaty ref is now a pointless endeavor as events happening now will probably render it useless.
So go ahead and argue about shinner this and blueshirt that but your wasting your time. Events elsewhere are about to render this Treaty null.

Then there is this:

The following extract is taken from a letter to Dr Gavin Barrett from Anthony Coughlan director of the National Platform EU research and Information center –
” WHY IRELAND HAS A VETO ON THE ARTICLE 136 TFEU AMENDMENT TO THE EU TREATIES AND THE ESM TREATY WHICH THIS AMENDMENT AUTHORISES

Those on the No-side in our Fiscal Treaty referendum who know what they are talking about are saying that the ESM Treaty and the Article 136 TFEU amendment to the EU Treaties which authorises a “Stability Mechanism” should be put to referendum in Ireland before we can either ratify the ESM Treaty or approve this Article 136 TFEU amendment in accordance with the provisions of EU law and the terms of the Irish Constitution.
This is

(a) because a permanent commitment to the ESM as a new Eurozone Institution of which Ireland becomes a “Member”, together with its accompanying rules and its extraordinary legal and taxation immunities for its Board of Governors and personnel, entails a surrender of much of what is left of Irish State sovereignty;
and

(b) because if the amendment to Article 136 TFEU quoted above is lawfully to permit a Stability Mechanism for the Eurozone like that proposed in the ESM Treaty – which would effectively override a number of existing EU Treaty articles – then a different method of amendment of the EU Treaties needs to be adopted than that being used in the present instance.

It is therefore the No-side people who are seeking in effect to defend EU law and the integrity of the EU Treaties by pointing this out and calling for the Article 136 TFEU authorisation and the ESM Treaty which it purports to authorise to be ratified in the only manner which is lawful under the EU Treaties and constitutional in Ireland – namely, by way of referendum of the people.”
Makes for very interesting and insightful reading. For the full text
http://nationalplatform.org/2012/05/07/reply-to-dr-gavin-barretts-article-on-the-fiscal-treaty-referendum-in-last-fridays-irish-times/

What does FG and Labour (and fans) say about all this?

Aaa.. sure vote "Yes" ...trust us!

Lemmings going over a cliff without first looking ahead!

Chucky the tree · 14-05-2012 7:44pm

Poster Boy wrote: »

Pity you don't answer any of the three questions I set out, but instead engage in ad hominem distractions

I don't work for the ECB so can't answer those questions. Maybe fire them an email.

Biggins wrote: »

As one poster stated on Journal.ie:

‘We’re selling our souls here’ – Fine Gael mayor to vote No
http://www.thejournal.ie/were-selling-our-souls-here-fine-gael-mayor-to-vote-no-450554-May2012/#comments

Or another:

Then there is this:

What does FG and Labour (and fans) say about all this?

Aaa.. sure vote "Yes" ...trust us!

Lemmings going over a cliff without first looking ahead!

Reminds me of the no side. "where will we get a bailout if we vote no?" No-er:" No idea, but trust us, we will get one". That's very reassuring.

K-9 · 14-05-2012 8:00pm

Biggins wrote: »

What does FG and Labour (and fans) say about all this?

Aaa.. sure vote "Yes" ...trust us!

Lemmings going over a cliff without first looking ahead!

Whatever about the points about the treaty being pointless Coughlan always says stuff like that, he's a serial no campaigner, it's bit hypocritical to be so dismissive of the yes side and so accepting of somebody who'll always find reasons to vote no, on any European treaty for years, and has done in the past. I'm wondering why he hasn't taken a court case, he has before on things like this IIRC.

Biggins · 14-05-2012 8:11pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Reminds me of the no side. "where will we get a bailout if we vote no?" No-er:" No idea, but trust us, we will get one". That's very reassuring.

That is a completely stupid reply. One short of actually reading and assessing the contents - NON-answering the actual contents but insulting instead in pitiable poor reply and seeing failing to see the future implications.

In other words a total wasteed reply, that in ANY case, does not forward the "Yes" position at all.

So for the crass, the lazy and the plain wanna-be conveniently blind, let me take time to spell it out it in full.

1. The treaty that we are being asked to sign-up to - IS going to be changed at a later date.
(a) when we will have much less or no say over it then whatsoever
(b) when France and Germany who are in their own way, looking now to see changes in it later to suit their own countries (this in particular I will get back to).

2. This great 2014 money that we are propaganda'ed with by Kenny and Gilmore - well hello... after the mess that is going to be Greece (and Spain & Portugal), ANY funds that is left over, if at all, will go to just sorting out stabilisation of the EU structure and inner banking system - never mind give out further funding to elsewhere if possible.

3. Given that France and Germany alone (in order to placate unrest politically and maybe on the streets in protest as in the latter the far right is yet again rising in strength) will change the treaty later - of which at that stage we can do bugger all - they will change the treaty to suit them.
* And let us not forget that as we, Ireland have been no friend to them in the area of out corporate taxation rates alone, they sure as hell are NOT going to do us further any favours later - when too they know we can at that stage do bugger all about it but just signed up to accept any crap they come up with later!

4. There is the illegality issue of the running of the treaty itself!

5. As the director of the National Platform EU research and Information centre himself points out, the whole things is a mess and a farce (I surmise - feel free to disagree with my assessment of his words) and honestly he (that is one of the TOP men in Europe to talk about this) states "... a different method of amendment of the EU Treaties needs to be adopted than that being used in the present instance."

6. Frankly, FF, FG and Labour are running us over a cliff without right now knowing whats ahead.
THIS in anyones aware mind, is a totally stupid action.
We are now being asked to sign up for something - and we DO NOT KNOW - what the hell is in store for us as they change it later, but one thing is for sure, we will be stuck with it and will probably (as France & Germany alone get payback one way or another) make us Irish pay out even more big time.

7. There is the issue over the penalties to be put upon Ireland with this treaty as outlined below (again):

We must also take into consideration that the draught legislation for the ESM treaty has been draw up yet Kenny & Co have made it very clear that they will NOT put it to the house until AFTER the Fiscal/austerity treaty. I have cosistently asked the Yes side on this site, where we will get the capital stock of 11 billion euros from and more urgently where will the 1.3 billion euros (amended from 1.6 billion) we must pay into this legally immune institution. I find Articals 9.3 & 10.1 of the ESM treay particularly alarming without mentioning fines of upto 200 million euros should we not manage to pay within 7 (4) days, whatever amounts they ask of us.
They only answer I was given, was that we would only be commitied to paying the 11 billion euro capital stock should another country need bailout money. Given the political and economical climate in Europe at the moment this scenario is looking more and more likely.

...But "YES" ...lets all sign-up for something that frankly right now, we DON'T know what the hell is coming and in what changes there is going to be that we cannot say or do anything about frankly!

Lets all be that completely daft!

Now Chucky the tree,

...Instead of avoiding questions,
...Instead of just throwing about digs
...instead of the avoidance, pitiful cocky short replies

How about you answer some of the points above and at least show us that you actually know what the hell your talking about from the other side of this debate?

How about it?

Biggins · 14-05-2012 8:18pm

K-9 wrote: »

Whatever about the points about the treaty being pointless Coughlan always says stuff like that, he's a serial no campaigner, it's bit hypocritical to be so dismissive of the yes side and so accepting of somebody who'll always find reasons to vote no, on any European treaty for years, and has done in the past. I'm wondering why he hasn't taken a court case, he has before on things like this IIRC.

Maybe the man himself given his official title and role, cannot take a case in this instance down to conflict of duties.
He can offer assessment but as he works directly for a EU body - it would be a legal conflict of duty in this case?

Maybe for some reason unknown to us, he just can't?

K-9 · 14-05-2012 8:27pm

Biggins wrote: »

Maybe the man himself given his official title and role, cannot take a case in this instance down to conflict of duties.
He can offer assessment but as he works directly for a EU body - it would be a legal conflict of duty in this case?

Maybe for some reason unknown to us, he just can't?

Sorry Biggins, I suspect you don't know who Anthony Coughlan is and if you think

As the director of the National Platform EU research and Information centre himself points out

I think you are very, very much mistaken if you think that is an EU body.

Wiki on Anthony Coughlan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Coughlan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Platform_for_EU_Research_and_Information_Centre

That's a shocking mistake to make Biggins, surprisingly ill-informed for you.

The man opposed us joining the EEC and every treaty since. That isn't a crime but to somehow think he is a head of an EU body! I find that astonishing Biggins.

My name is URL · 14-05-2012 8:30pm

Has anyone else received a pamphlet through the post calling for a No vote from Europe of Freedom & Democracy?

It's a lot more entertaining that the other leaflets I've received so far.

Biggins · 14-05-2012 8:32pm

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry Biggins, I suspect you don't know who Anthony Coughlan is and if you think

I think you are very, very much mistaken if you think that is an EU body.

Wiki on Anthony Coughlan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Coughlan

That's a shocking mistake to make Biggins, surprisingly ill-informed for you.

Your are right - no question there, in all this complicated mess, I'm getting confused over people.

I would still advocate however that his assessment is greater than a long out of practise school teacher and a whatever the hell Gilmore was before he started out on the political side of life.

Anyone that as Coughlan has become, a half decent expert on these things, we should surely take on board their words of advice and at least caution.

However, as above I stand corrected and your right to point that out.

This whole ruddy mess is going a lot of people's heads in and I suspect the FG and Labour heads like it that way to some extent.

"Aaa.. sure they will vote "yes" just to keep us happy while smouldering in confusion"

Biggins · 14-05-2012 8:42pm

The point about the mess at the moment as regards the treaty is nicely addressed in the following by the Times (England) on Sunday, which they mention in a lengthy article.
I post sections.

Extremists rattle Europe’s old guard
Across the Continent, angry and fearful voters are rejecting the mainstream

It is not only the Greek political landscape that has been reshaped of late: the wreckage of centre-right and centre-left parties litters Europe’s political map, leading to unpredictable political, economic and social consequences for years, if not decades, to come.

Once part of an irrelevant political fringe, some of the politicians now ruling the roost in Athens are not necessarily interested in preserving the system designed by their forebears in antiquity.

Golden Dawn, a neo-Nazi group, won 7% of the vote on a promise to mine the borders against illegal immigrants. It is poised to enter parliament for the first time with 21 MPs.

“Those who betrayed this country must now be afraid,” warned Nikolaos Michaloliakos, the party’s leader, flanked by shaven-headed young men in black shirts. One of his acolytes was reported to be a performer in a “black metal” Satanist rock group.

Tsipras, for his part, managed to persuade voters that it was possible to ditch the austerity programme while staying in the eurozone. He may have been encouraged in this by François Hollande, the nondescript Socialist who won power in France last weekend.

The same complaint is heard in Greece and Spain where many of the young jobless, despairing that things will ever get better, are leaving in search of a future abroad. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has warned that it could be a decade before there is any economic uplift and insists the only way out is through hard work and fiscal rigour — the German religion. It has made her a hate figure for fiscal miscreants on the EU’s freewheeling Mediterranean fringe.

Hollande, by contrast, could emerge as their champion: campaigning against Nicolas Sarkozy, formerly Merkel’s chief ally in Europe, he promised an end to austerity, saying France and other countries needed government investment to produce growth rather than more cutbacks. That is what he will tell Merkel when they meet in Berlin for dinner after he has been sworn in as president on Tuesday.

Analysts expect some sort of compromise. “The election of Hollande will help to usher in a new phase in the eurozone’s search for a political and economic framework,” said Thomas Klau in the Paris office of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Europe/article1037410.ece

Image: http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/584/nws1325europe267407a.jpg

Now give the above ALONE and the pressure that is turning around to stop austerity measures - even in Germany from the far right - which Merkel now has to placate - the changes THAT WILL COME, Ireland will be stuck with!
...And boy, you can be sure of one thing, its gonna cost us much more I assess.

Look at it another way...

What fool signs a blank cheque knowing that he/she WON'T know what will be filled in on it later?
...Well only a person that can afford to write such a one! And we can't afford to write that cheque and take that gamble!

K-9 · 14-05-2012 9:08pm

Biggins wrote: »

Your are right - no question there, in all this complicated mess, I'm getting confused over people.

Who was it you were getting mixed up with? Because if some head of an EU body is pointing to negatives in the Treaty I wouldn't mind reading it.

I would still advocate however that his assessment is greater than a long out of practise school teacher and a whatever the hell Gilmore was before he started out on the political side of life.

Anyone that as Coughlan has become, a half decent expert on these things, we should surely take on board their words of advice and at least caution.

However, as above I stand corrected and your right to point that out.

Tbh I wouldn't lend too much credence to a half decent expert on constitutional matters, I'd prefer real experts on complicated issues like that. Again I'm surprised he hasn't taken a case, he has before.

Biggins wrote: »

Now give the above ALONE and the pressure that is turning around to stop austerity measures - even in Germany from the far right - which Merkel now has to placate - the changes THAT WILL COME, Ireland will be stuck with!
...And boy, you can be sure of one thing, its gonna cost us much more I assess.

I'm a bit confused here, are you saying the rise in popularity of anti-austerity policies is a bad thing and will cost us much more?

Chucky the tree · 14-05-2012 9:18pm

Biggins wrote: »

That is a completely stupid reply. One short of actually reading and assessing the contents - NON-answering the actual contents but insulting instead in pitiable poor reply and seeing failing to see the future implications.

In other words a total wasteed reply, that in ANY case, does not forward the "Yes" position at all.

So for the crass, the lazy and the plain wanna-be conveniently blind, let me take time to spell it out it in full.

1. The treaty that we are being asked to sign-up to - IS going to be changed at a later date.
(a) when we will have much less or no say over it then whatsoever
(b) when France and Germany who are in their own way, looking now to see changes in it later to suit their own countries (this in particular I will get back to).

2. This great 2014 money that we are propaganda'ed with by Kenny and Gilmore - well hello... after the mess that is going to be Greece (and Spain & Portugal), ANY funds that is left over, if at all, will go to just sorting out stabilisation of the EU structure and inner banking system - never mind give out further funding to elsewhere if possible.

3. Given that France and Germany alone (in order to placate unrest politically and maybe on the streets in protest as in the latter the far right is yet again rising in strength) will change the treaty later - of which at that stage we can do bugger all - they will change the treaty to suit them.
* And let us not forget that as we, Ireland have been no friend to them in the area of out corporate taxation rates alone, they sure as hell are NOT going to do us further any favours later - when too they know we can at that stage do bugger all about it but just signed up to accept any crap they come up with later!

4. There is the illegality issue of the running of the treaty itself!

5. As the director of the National Platform EU research and Information centre himself points out, the whole things is a mess and a farce (I surmise - feel free to disagree with my assessment of his words) and honestly he (that is one of the TOP men in Europe to talk about this) states "... a different method of amendment of the EU Treaties needs to be adopted than that being used in the present instance."

6. Frankly, FF, FG and Labour are running us over a cliff without right now knowing whats ahead.
THIS in anyones aware mind, is a totally stupid action.
We are now being asked to sign up for something - and we DO NOT KNOW - what the hell is in store for us as they change it later, but one thing is for sure, we will be stuck with it and will probably (as France & Germany alone get payback one way or another) make us Irish pay out even more big time.

7. There is the issue over the penalties to be put upon Ireland with this treaty as outlined below (again):

...But "YES" ...lets all sign-up for something that frankly right now, we DON'T know what the hell is coming and in what changes there is going to be that we cannot say or do anything about frankly!

Lets all be that completely daft!

Now Chucky the tree,

...Instead of avoiding questions,
...Instead of just throwing about digs
...instead of the avoidance, pitiful cocky short replies

How about you answer some of the points above and at least show us that you actually know what the hell your talking about from the other side of this debate?

How about it?

You have no idea the treaty will be changed, pure guess work on your part. Also if it his changed it will just mean will be asked to vote on it again. I've no idea what points you want me to answer, nearly all of the points you raised are based on assumptions or guess work.

Biggins · 14-05-2012 9:28pm

K-9 wrote: »

...I'm a bit confused here, are you saying the rise in popularity of anti-austerity policies is a bad thing and will cost us much more?

Just to be clear as regards myself, I'm saying that a lot of countries elsewhere now have to try taking back their internal voters and placate the more extremist sides that are gaining.
In order to do this they will have to look more so to their own interests and see that any anti-austerity ideas they have, might mean that in concentrating on their own and seeing that their funds are spent there more so.
They will have to try building their own economies from within more so than just (as we are uselessly doing) just chopping, stopping and butchering.

That said, a further division of funding might become less available just as much as whatever's left after Greece, Spain and Portugal are like to some extent or another, bailed out before 2014 - when this fancy money that FG and Labour are throwing about in propaganda, is supposed to come.

Biggins · 14-05-2012 9:34pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You have no idea the treaty will be changed, pure guess work on your part.

Have you been following events beyond the rag papers?
Try reading the more weighty assessments!

Chucky the tree wrote: »

...I've no idea what points you want me to answer, nearly all of the points you raised are based on assumptions or guess work.

So in other words your avoiding answering.
Thanks. I just wanted that to be clear.

P.S. They are estimates of future situations that are assessments by many to be possibly coming to fruition.
The writing is on the wall all ready.

...But you continue not to address these important issues.

Its questions like that which have people also voting "No" because the other side just have smart-arsed replies - or none at all to give besides useless, pointless trading of insults.

Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

Comments