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

It is announced that Ireland WILL hold referendum on EU fiscal compact treaty

18911131416

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,988 ✭✭✭constitutionus


    to quote the amstel ad

    "this is gonna be great ! "

    :):):):D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Why on earth would we vote to install a slash and burn economic manifesto directly into our constitution?
    The agreement provides no mechanism for growth and worse still, doesn't even provide a protection against future economic collapse. Ireland could have happily stayed within a 3% deficit while the banks lent recklessly and overheardd the economy.



    Ireland could have also introduced plenty of tax increases to stop the economy over-heating, but we didn't want to do that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    No, it does not.

    More government is NOT the answer - we need less government. Why would you sign up to something to make sure it doesn't happen again when the very people you're signing up with are the one's that created this mess in the first place? You're putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse! If we reduce the power and scope of our government on this island, they won't have the ability to hurt us or make bad decisions that can effect us again in the future. It's the exact same outcome, minus the bureaucracy.

    Europe didn't create this mess, we did. This way we can't run up such a deficit again. If we did then that time we'd get the outcome you want with no bailout.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,462 ✭✭✭✭WoollyRedHat


    YES SOME NICE TREATIES!!!

    Everyone likes some nice treaties now and then, we've been so good so we deserve another one, the last 'BON 'BON Treaties were a bit sour though, hope it's something a little less bitter this time.


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


    amacachi wrote: »
    Much of which comes from the ESM if I'm not mistaken. All this treaty does is prevent us from getting in such situations in the future. The 3% thing won't be effective immediately.

    We would have a 13 month grace period before ESM funding would be unavailable to us, so there wouldn't need to be an immediate shock.

    It would more likely affect a future bailout, which would become more likely if we rejected the fiscal compact.

    I'm not sure what our other creditors' reaction would be to us rejecting the compact (and the ESM).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 353 ✭✭BackScrub


    amacachi wrote: »
    Europe didn't create this mess, we did. This way we can't run up such a deficit again. If we did then that time we'd get the outcome you want with no bailout.

    There's the flaw in your argument. It's not our debt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,111 ✭✭✭lucylu


    would a No vote have a more negative effect than a positive affect on Irelands re entry into the bond markets or does it depend on who is buying.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Ireland could have also introduced plenty of tax increases to stop the economy over-heating, but we didn't want to do that.

    Exactly. The fact that we had several options and didn't use any makes the idea that if only we'd had one more option open we would've used it is laughable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    BackScrub wrote: »
    There's the flaw in your argument. It's not our debt.
    Right now much of the debt is bank debt, give it a couple of years and most of the debt will be from public spending. The deficit (the 3% scary figure) is well over 20% at the moment without bank spending.
    dvpower wrote: »
    We would have a 13 month grace period before ESM funding would be unavailable to us, so there wouldn't need to be an immediate shock.

    It would more likely affect a future bailout, which would become more likely if we rejected the fiscal compact.

    I'm not sure what our other creditors' reaction would be to us rejecting the compact (and the ESM).
    It would still have to be a massive, sudden correction. A yes vote will make it less likely that the idiots the Irish electorate elect will get us into this mess again in future.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    amacachi wrote: »
    Europe didn't create this mess, we did. This way we can't run up such a deficit again. If we did then that time we'd get the outcome you want with no bailout.

    We blew greece, portugals, spains and italys economies out of the water?:confused:

    Impressive self flagellation that, even by irish standards.


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


    amacachi wrote: »
    Europe didn't create this mess, we did. This way we can't run up such a deficit again. If we did then that time we'd get the outcome you want with no bailout.

    Listen, let me educate you.

    1. One of the principles of capitalism states that it's very core is a profit/loss system. Socialists will say it's all about the profits, but it's not. The loss part is more important because losses wipe out bad companies.
    2. Because of this principle, bailouts are the polar opposite to the capitalist system because it keeps afloat bad companies.
    3. The ECB has been granted authority to expand the credit in the eurozone.
    4. When you expand credit, you flood the eurozone with cheap money that devalues and creates inflation.
    5. More currency in the system leads people to make bad decisions with their money and malinvest in companies that will go nowhere.
    6. Because banks consider themselves untouchable and that Big Brother (Government) or more precisely, the plebs (people - us) will bail them out, they don't operate under capitalistic principles and again, malinvest.
    7. They are allowed to make risky decisions because we do not have a free market banking system - everything they have, they have been granted by the government. I.e - there is no competition in the banking industry.
    8. When you make a deposit into a bank, they don't put it into their vaults. They immediately load it back out. For example, if everyone in this country went to the bank right now and demanded your savings, they wouldn't be there. Your money is not in the banks because banks do not feel it necessary to hold 100% reserves. Fractional Reserve banking which the government have allowed them to do is when they take in say €1,000 and create out of thin air €10,000 and loan it back out. Banks in effect have little physical money, their wealth are IOU's. So when the piper comes calling, they hard physical dough just isn't there.
    9. You want to give more power to the people that created this mess, the ECB and the E.U.
    10. We should be leaving the E.U and the ECB behind. Cut spending, reduce taxes and create a sound stable money. This is the only way to prosperity...why? Because this is capitalism. What you're advocating is corporatism.


  • Registered Users Posts: 353 ✭✭BackScrub


    amacachi wrote: »
    Where would the money come from so?

    From the document:
    STRESSING that none of the provisions of this treaty is to be interpreted as altering in any way the economic policy conditions under which financial assistance has been granted to a Contracting Party in a stabilisation programme involving the European Union, it's Member States and the International Monetary Fund

    We won't be thrown to the wolves and be reset to a 0% debt ratio by not ratifying this treaty. People should desist from insinuating otherwise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,924 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    amacachi wrote: »
    Right now much of the debt is bank debt, give it a couple of years and most of the debt will be from public spending. The deficit (the 3% scary figure) is well over 20% at the moment without bank spending.

    Our budget deficit for 2011 was 8.6% :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 353 ✭✭BackScrub


    amacachi wrote: »
    The deficit (the 3% scary figure) is well over 20% at the moment without bank spending.

    It would still have to be a massive, sudden correction. A yes vote will make it less likely that the idiots the Irish electorate elect will get us into this mess again in future.

    Your figure of 20% can be as big or as small as you want, however it wouldn't matter as there wouldn't be anything in our constitution saying we have to keep it at a particular level and that's where the problem lies with this treaty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    1. One of the principles of capitalism states that it's very core is a profit/loss system. Socialists will say it's all about the profits, but it's not. The loss part is more important because losses wipe out bad companies.
    Herp de derp. Really? You're forgetting though, we're not a capitalist state.
    2. Because of this principle, bailouts are the polar opposite to the capitalist system because it keeps afloat bad companies.
    Again, derp.
    3. The ECB has been granted authority to expand the credit in the eurozone.
    And?
    4. When you expand credit, you flood the eurozone with cheap money that devalues and creates inflation.
    Which states are meant to address. This treaty will give an extra imperative to do so.
    5. More currency in the system leads people to make bad decisions with their money and malinvest in companies that will go nowhere.
    Like people who think they know more than others about economics buying internet-enabled devices.
    6. Because banks consider themselves untouchable and that Big Brother (Government) or more precisely, the plebs (people - us) will bail them out, they don't operate under capitalistic principles and again, malinvest.
    You don't say?
    7. They are allowed to make risky decisions because we do not have a free market banking system - everything they have, they have been granted by the government. I.e - there is no competition in the banking industry.
    You don't say.
    8. When you make a deposit into a bank, they don't put it into their vaults. They immediately load it back out. For example, if everyone in this country went to the bank right now and demanded your savings, they wouldn't be there. Your money is not in the banks because banks do not feel it necessary to hold 100% reserves. Fractional Reserve banking which the government have allowed them to do is when they take in say €1,000 and create out of thin air €10,000 and loan it back out. Banks in effect have little physical money, their wealth are IOU's. So when the piper comes calling, they hard physical dough just isn't there.
    Holy ****, it's the first week of 5th year economics again. My time machine works!
    9. You want to give more power to the people that created this mess, the ECB and the E.U.
    What extra power? Have you read what it's about? The "extra power" would be to refuse to give bailout funds to irresponsible states. Isn't that what you've been arguing for with your beginners' guide to abstract economics?
    10. We should be leaving the E.U and the ECB behind. Cut spending, reduce taxes and create a sound stable money. This is the only way to prosperity...why? Because this is capitalism. What you're advocating is corporatism.
    I'm not advocating corporatism. We've gone down a path and despite generally being a fiscal conservative and libertarian on economic issues but at this stage it's best to continue IMO. There's no appetite for starting from scratch. This treaty at least will somewhat rein in the potential for the kind of political spending we've seen over the last while.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    BackScrub wrote: »
    We won't be thrown to the wolves and be reset to a 0% debt ratio by not ratifying this treaty. People should desist from insinuating otherwise.
    So what exactly is the downside to voting yes other than preventing this in the future?
    Anita Blow wrote: »
    Our budget deficit for 2011 was 8.6% :confused:
    Apologies, I keep forgetting they like to use the stupid Deficit:GDP ratio rather than the Income/Expenditure one.
    BackScrub wrote: »
    Your figure of 20% can be as big or as small as you want, however it wouldn't matter as there wouldn't be anything in our constitution saying we have to keep it at a particular level and that's where the problem lies with this treaty.
    Hopefully there would be. It would at least have to be legislated according to the treaty no? Better than the current no limits.


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


    amacachi wrote: »
    I'm not advocating corporatism. We've gone down a path and despite generally being a fiscal conservative and libertarian on economic issues but at this stage it's best to continue IMO. There's no appetite for starting from scratch. This treaty at least will somewhat rein in the potential for the kind of political spending we've seen over the last while.

    LMFAO

    You're a Libertarian and you see this treaty as benevolent??!!!!!? GTFO....shame on you, what would Murray or Ludwig say?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    _Gawd_ wrote: »
    LMFAO

    You're a Libertarian and you see this treaty as benevolent??!!!!!? GTFO....shame on you, what would Murray or Ludwig say?

    Why would I care? You seem to like groupthink, bit of a socialist idea.

    What exactly is wrong with this treaty from a libertarian POV? It seems to promote fiscal responsibility, something I would have thought you'd like.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    BackScrub wrote: »
    From the document:

    We won't be thrown to the wolves and be reset to a 0% debt ratio by not ratifying this treaty. People should desist from insinuating otherwise.

    The we can shoot it in the knees and carry on, can't we? :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 353 ✭✭BackScrub


    amacachi wrote: »
    So what exactly is the downside to voting yes other than preventing this in the future?

    1. While acknowledging that successive governments of ours have ballsed up the economy beyond belief, there is no need for us to hand over further sovereign powers than we already have. We're a sovereign, democratic state and should remain that way.

    2. I have mentioned the likely attack (IMO) on our corporate tax rate which would likely follow.

    3. The constitutional obligation to maintain a 3% debt ratio will mean savage austerity for who knows how long.

    4. What will the penalties for breaking the treaty be? Debt upon debt?

    5. Why should we continue to be at the mercy of decisions taken by the political, banking and corporate elite? There's a drive to penury which we're being sucked further into as each year passes. Signing treaties like this just expedites it for them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,924 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    amacachi wrote: »
    Why would I care? You seem to like groupthink, bit of a socialist idea.

    What exactly is wrong with this treaty from a libertarian POV? It seems to promote fiscal responsibility, something I would have thought you'd like.

    I'm more concerned with the parts stipulating member states to discuss economic policy reforms (and budgets afaik) with other states and EU institutions before they're published to national parliaments.
    The only people that should decide on Irish economic policy is Irish people, not foreign governments.


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


    amacachi wrote: »
    Why would I care? You seem to like groupthink, bit of a socialist idea.

    What exactly is wrong with this treaty from a libertarian POV? It seems to promote fiscal responsibility, something I would have thought you'd like.

    We're not sitting around in a community here and asking for opinions. For capitalism, you either stick with the rules or you don't, there is no "groupthink" about it - there is a right way and there's a wrong way and your advocating of more government is most certainly the wrong way forward. I am all for economic conservatism so long as government is not directing traffic and the power remains with the people. You seem to think otherwise and that is the exact same slippery slope your economic betters have advised you against as a Libertarian. The proof is in the pudding, you want Liberty, you vote No to more government.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Domo230 wrote: »
    Still looking into things so this view may change but I am currently voting YES.

    My initial reaction was to vote No but as far as I understand the referendum so far, what voting yes means is that we will gain further assistance from the EU, providing we agree to the rules set forth so we act responsibly with our economy (rules dictated by countries that unlike us, are competent enough to run their economies).

    'nother self flagellator so :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 956 ✭✭✭RiseToTheTop


    What is this "European Fiscal Compact Treaty"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    amacachi wrote: »
    What exactly is wrong with this treaty from a libertarian POV? It seems to promote fiscal responsibility, something I would have thought you'd like.

    After the damage has been done although I agree that it seems we have little choice now but to integrate further with the EU.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    DB10 wrote: »
    Yeh well Yes to Lisbon, really did get us jobs didn't it.....

    :rolleyes:


    Vote no.

    Obviously all the stuff the no campaigners said would happen has..........

    I'm glad I'm on the dole, sure the minimum wage is only €1.84 an hour now isnt it?

    Mena wrote: »
    Tree Fiddy says you don't even know what you're saying no to!

    Which is why forcign this stupid referendums is just that, stupid. And pintless. Most people are ignorant of the facts and dotn care enough to learn. They will pull a scaremongerign sentence from somewhere and that will decide for them.

    Everything is bad at the minute because we are in recesion so theres a huge upsurge in "bloody Europeans/Germans tryign to **** all over us/tke all our money/most vulnerable in society/your grandkids will be paying for this......

    When we come out of recession everyone will be happy again until the next one (if your under 50 you'll most likely see another)


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



    When we come out of recession everyone will be happy again until the next one (if your under 50 you'll most likely see another)

    Unless of course we change the monetary system and confine booms and busts to the history books. But this is in the interests of the common man, and we know the EU are not concerned about the interests of the common man.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,281 ✭✭✭donegal_road


    how significant was the timing of the Chinese visit with this announcement? Or is that just too much of a stretch? (us being the only European country with a say in this vs us being the only European country the Chinese vice president visited)


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    so the real question is, will we say yes the 2nd time, or will it take to a new record of 3 times to say yes


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


    how significant was the timing of the Chinese visit with this announcement? Or is that just too much of a stretch? (us being the only European country with a say in this vs us being the only European country the Chinese vice president visited)
    We don't have a say at a European level - we have no veto; the other countries can go ahead without us.


Advertisement