Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

145791063

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sand wrote: »
    There may be some reason to vote yes to the flawed economic policies contained in this treaty at that point, as the positives may then outweigh the negatives. Currently, they do not.

    Most of the negatives people raise - where not based simply on misunderstandings - seem to be objections to the fiscal limits, even though we've been signed up to the same fiscal limits for 20 years. What new negatives do you see?
    Sand wrote: »
    And we have been assured by Official Ireland that the plan is working ever since 2008 - so I'm troubled by your assumption that the "bailout" hatched in November 2010 will fail to return Ireland to the markets despite Ireland sailing through every review by the Troika. Deeply troubled. How can the plan be working, and yet not succeed?

    Given the proposed treaty is being championed by the same brain trust that brought us the "bailout" its worrying that the argument for the treaty seems to hinge on the assumption that the "bailout" is doomed to fail.

    If Ireland were the only country in the world in any kind of trouble - and certainly it's easy to get that impression in Irish forums and media - I doubt there would be much of a question mark over the success of the programme. The risks to the programme are primarily exogenous.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,191 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Are there many other countries voting on the Treaty as well as Ireland?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Are there many other countries voting on the Treaty as well as Ireland?

    Nope. No one else has to.

    In election mode Sarkozy has said that if it fails to pass the legislature in France then he will put it to the people. But due to the Crotty judgement we're the only ones who [potentially] have to.

    But as this is not an EU treaty, our voting it down does not stop it applying to any one else. We can only cut off our nose to spite our face.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Nope. No one else has to.

    In election mode Sarkozy has said that if it fails to pass the legislature in France then he will put it to the people. But due to the Crotty judgement we're the only ones who [potentially] have to.

    But as this is not an EU treaty, our voting it down does not stop it applying to any one else. We can only cut off our nose to spite our face.

    For a slightly less Hiberno-centric definition of "voting on", they're all voting on it. They're just not doing it by referendum, by virtue of the differences between their constitutions and ours.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    For a slightly less Hiberno-centric definition of "voting on", they're all voting on it. They're just not doing it by referendum, by virtue of the differences between their constitutions and ours.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Pedant!:)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,707 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    I believe that they have left time for two re-votes in case we vote no
    So I would like to see a no vote to see what happens next

    I believe a no vote will not be allowed to be our final answer as it affects project federal state of europe

    I believe that if a no vote is our final answer that we will leave the euro and that that will be a tax on wealth ( as euro savings a counts would change and devalue) and would also rationalise the public sector and much of the private sector pay issues. I think that I'd like to see that happen but I'm not sure that I'd like to live here if it does.

    Finally I have a real issue with the fact that I have to clarify that I'm talking about our final answer as I believe we will have to go again if we vote no .


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,191 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Nope. No one else has to.

    In election mode Sarkozy has said that if it fails to pass the legislature in France then he will put it to the people. But due to the Crotty judgement we're the only ones who [potentially] have to.

    But as this is not an EU treaty, our voting it down does not stop it applying to any one else. We can only cut off our nose to spite our face.

    Yeah I was thinking that all right that this time was different and that if we voted no then the others would just move on without us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Tigger wrote: »
    I believe that they have left time for two re-votes in case we vote no
    So I would like to see a no vote to see what happens next

    Just not true. S&P have suggested that we could be downgraded in the event that we vote no.

    Bond yields would be expected to rise in the event that we vote no.

    NTMA are talking about getting back in the paper market this summer and "dipping their toes" in the bond market later this year. An event which will be made all the less likely if we vote no.

    Voting no could have immediate, negative, consequences for us. Voting yes cannot.
    Tigger wrote: »
    I believe a no vote will not be allowed to be our final answer as it affects project federal state of europe

    Really not true. This treaty can become effective without our approving it. We can shoot ourselves in the foot here (as I suspect that we will). We can't hurt anyone else.
    Tigger wrote: »
    Finally I have a real issue with the fact that I have to clarify that I'm talking about our final answer as I believe we will have to go again if we vote no .

    As do I. Our first answer should be our only answer. Yet your post seems to indicate that you're advocating a No at the first pass with the option of voting Yes later. This, despite the fact that there could be immediate, negative consequences to voting No.

    If you don't agree with rerunning referenda, vote what you mean to vote first time out of the blocks. Yes or No. But vote on the merits of the vote before you, don't vote one way to "bloody the Government's nose [shoot Ireland in the foot]" safe in the knowledge that you'll be given a second stab at it.


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


    As far as I can see a yes will ensure financial discipline in the eurozone and is intended to ensure that the type of banking and spending that got us into this mess (Not just Ireland, but the whole Eurozone) should be prevented by regulating how much countries can allow them selves to financially spiral out of control. It will result in more austerity, as we will have to continue cutting our debt each year to acceptable levels, as will all other eu countries.

    The no vote will not ensure anything, we will not be able to access any further funds from the ECB if we should need a further bail out and in order to make sure we don't need anything of the sort, a tough budget will be required, much tougher then any that has gone before, as we will have no safety net.

    I've given it much thought and I have been changing my mind a lot but it's time to accept that we use the Euro, we are involved and we need to get on board with sorting out this mess. That is why I will vote yes.

    It is easy to be idealistic and want to vote no, to tell the Eurocrats that we are tired of all this bailing out of banks, nationalizing corporate debt etc . Easy to want to say we will go it alone and get back on our feet ourselves, even if that means defaulting and possibly dropping the euro, but I don't think people in Ireland would be prepared for the hardship that we would have to endure if we did. I also don't think Ireland could easily recover international market confidence after that.

    We cannot close our eyes and pretend we are not in this mess, that we are not part of the eurozone. We are now invested in the Euro and it's recovery whether we agree with it or not.

    We really will have to stop talking about what happened and move on, we have been talking about recession for over 4 years now. We are finally starting to claw our way back and I feel a no vote, no matter how much it would satisfy my need for nationalistic , stick it to the man, Irish pride, attitude, would almost certainly leave Ireland alone, exposed for what it really is; An economy built on services and research and other airy fairy stuff that's all well and good but not much use without any industry whatsoever.

    We are not a robust economy that can survive disaster like Germany or France. We are a flexible small and dynamic economy that responds to Western markets. I am as angry with the previous governments mistakes as the next man but we cannot turn back the clock or stick our head in the sand. For us to do well ,we need the Euro to prosper.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Pedant!:)

    I believe this is your petard, madame.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I believe this is your petard, madame.

    amused,
    Scofflaw

    To which the only possible response is "mademoiselle"!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,206 ✭✭✭carveone


    Terrence McDonough has an article in the Irish Times with a position against the fiscal treaty. He does seem to have a number of points - eg John Maynard Keynes’s paradox of thrift - If a country tries to save by cutting spending, its economy shrinks, drying up the potential savings. You don't generally tax your way out of a hole. But, as many have pointed out here, we don't exactly have the money nor any way of generating it via devaluation. I'm not sure the vast gap between outgoings and incomings can simply be ignored. Nor can we under our bail outs.

    The puzzling thing to me is the way people talk about the "possible need for a second bailout". What do they mean - that we'll suddenly need another 100 billion quid? I've seen the media use bailout in the same way as "borrowing". Can't we simply borrow from the ESM directly if we were in a situation that made it unaffordable to go to the markets? Say, after a downgrade due to voting No.... Oh... wait a minute :)

    He seems to advocate that a game of chicken with the EU is a better plan than advocating a reduction of our debt to 60% of GDP. The SF angle of "funds will be found". I think this is an entirely incorrect position to take. First of all - "a disorderly Irish default would threaten the stability of the European banking system. Funds would be found." I'm not sure that Greece is something Ireland should be thinking of aspiring to. The feeling that the IMF will come to the rescue is not a particularly appealing one given the African experience with being rescued. I also cannot imagine that the interest rate from the IMF (it ain't gonna be free) would be less than the corresponding rate from the ESM.

    But it's the 60% debt to GDP position that I have a problem with. First of all it's nominial GDP after all. Noone on these TV panels is mentioning this. Worse, and shockingly, noone seems to read boards.ie (or the treaty) otherwise they'd stop saying things like "5bn extra in 2015". IT'S 2017 AT THE EARLIEST. JEEZ GUYS!

    The way I figure it, the nominal positions means that inflation, maybe even hyperinflation, is very likely to degrade our debt position with no major corrective action from us. I must do up a graph to show this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,206 ✭✭✭carveone


    Crap! Scofflaw (of course!) has done it for me: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78456715&postcount=101

    That's the way I figured it but the worked example illustrates the point nicely. I really believe Scofflaw is being pessimistic with those inflation figures though. I really believe inflation will spike harder than 2% over the next 10 years and thus our position is even better than that indicated.

    I am troubled by the 3% maximum deficit position. I don't think this is reasonable in all circumstances. I know that's been the position for 20 years now but that position wasn't enforced until someone starts taking the piss (us, I assume).

    I agree with Sand's position. (hope this is right) If the bailout is working, then why would access to the ESM be necessary; thus signing a treaty that restricts our position solely for the purposes of accessing a mechanism that we're assured isn't necessary is kinda pointless yes?

    Pragmatically though, the S&P is wielding the big club. If we vote No, then market access becomes impossible courtesy of a stonking downgrade and the ESM is our only mechanism which is now inaccessible due to voting no. This sucks. This is what Stockholm syndrome must feel like.

    Worse, if we vote No initially (which I was somewhat tempted to do just to see), then it is highly likely it will cost us more even if vote yes later. So I'll be voting Yes. I won't be happy about it though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,206 ✭✭✭carveone


    Voting no could have immediate, negative, consequences for us. Voting yes cannot.

    (Sorry for the blizzard of posts). Could you elaborate on that if you are still awake?! Given that we aren't currently borrowing from the market would the only negative consequence be lack of confidence? Or are there Irish bonds that will roll over coming up sooner than Scofflaw indicated (2013?)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    carveone wrote: »
    Terrence McDonough has an article in the Irish Times with a position against the fiscal treaty. He does seem to have a number of points - eg John Maynard Keynes’s paradox of thrift - If a country tries to save by cutting spending, its economy shrinks, drying up the potential savings. You don't generally tax your way out of a hole. But, as many have pointed out here, we don't exactly have the money nor any way of generating it via devaluation.

    Seamus Coffey does have an interesting analysis on it here

    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/

    While John McHale addresses elements of it here

    http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2012/05/02/some-budgetary-arithmetic-for-fiscal-rules


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    carveone wrote: »
    (Sorry for the blizzard of posts). Could you elaborate on that if you are still awake?! Given that we aren't currently borrowing from the market would the only negative consequence be lack of confidence? Or are there Irish bonds that will roll over coming up sooner than Scofflaw indicated (2013?)

    The issue is the Jan 2014 bond. A bond which we need to roll over (meaning that someone else has to finance the taking on of our debt).

    We rolled over €3.5bn odd this year in the swap (until 2015), but that leaves €8.2 bn odd to be serviced in 2014. If we vote no we have no obvious source of funds for that €8+ billion (in 2014, more if we look to 2015).


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    carveone wrote: »
    Crap! Scofflaw (of course!) has done it for me: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78456715&postcount=101

    Heh.
    carveone wrote: »
    That's the way I figured it but the worked example illustrates the point nicely. I really believe Scofflaw is being pessimistic with those inflation figures though. I really believe inflation will spike harder than 2% over the next 10 years and thus our position is even better than that indicated.

    I was trying to be as pessimistic as could be said to be reasonable - Eighties style economic growth, ECB target inflation.
    carveone wrote: »
    I am troubled by the 3% maximum deficit position. I don't think this is reasonable in all circumstances. I know that's been the position for 20 years now but that position wasn't enforced until someone starts taking the piss (us, I assume).

    Turns out we've also been signed up to the structural deficit rule since 2005...who knew?
    carveone wrote: »
    I agree with Sand's position. (hope this is right) If the bailout is working, then why would access to the ESM be necessary; thus signing a treaty that restricts our position solely for the purposes of accessing a mechanism that we're assured isn't necessary is kinda pointless yes?

    I'd say (again) that, as per the IMF reports, our bailout is vulnerable to quite a lot of exogenous shocks. There isn't anything that can be done about those within the programme.
    carveone wrote: »
    Pragmatically though, the S&P is wielding the big club. If we vote No, then market access becomes impossible courtesy of a stonking downgrade and the ESM is our only mechanism which is now inaccessible due to voting no. This sucks. This is what Stockholm syndrome must feel like.

    More Catch-22, I think?
    carveone wrote: »
    Worse, if we vote No initially (which I was somewhat tempted to do just to see), then it is highly likely it will cost us more even if vote yes later. So I'll be voting Yes. I won't be happy about it though.

    That's the thing. I just don't see Ireland really going down the path that a No vote implies, so all I see a No vote achieving is raising our borrowing costs and weakening our bargaining power. We'd probably also look very silly, but I managed to survive the X case while in Norway, so I can cope with that.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    The issue is the Jan 2014 bond. A bond which we need to roll over (meaning that someone else has to finance the taking on of our debt).

    We rolled over €3.5bn odd this year in the swap (until 2015), but that leaves €8.2 bn odd to be serviced in 2014. If we vote no we have no obvious source of funds for that €8+ billion (in 2014, more if we look to 2015).

    Plus we're still expecting to run a deficit that year - about €10bn according to the NTMA figures. Both have to be funded somehow.

    The attitude to the term "bailout" is funny, though. People treat it as if it means taking on debt we otherwise wouldn't have acquired at all, as opposed to what it actually means, which is getting money you were going to spend anyway, but from an official source as opposed to the markets.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Seamus Coffey does have an interesting analysis on it here

    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/

    While John McHale addresses elements of it here

    http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2012/05/02/some-budgetary-arithmetic-for-fiscal-rules

    OK - I'm pretty pleased to see this:
    In a more typical scenario of 4% nominal growth (say 2% inflation and 2% real growth) then the actual debt must never be reduced. Deficits are around 2% of GDP are allowed right from the start and over the 20 year period shown above the nominal debt can increase from 120 to 178.6. The level of debt increase allowed is even greater with 6% nominal growth.

    Today’s article says that the debt brake rule “could require up to €5 billion a year in savings to 2038”. I am not sure what this means. By using the word savings I assume this is money put on deposit or, in this case, money used to pay down debt. There is no plausible scenario in which Ireland will have to reduce the debt by €5 billion per annum.

    Even with zero nominal growth such repayments would not be required. Any nominal growth close to 2% will mean the debt level has just to be maintained and if nominal growth is above 2% the amount of debt can actually be increased. From 1971 to 2010 average annual nominal GDP growth in Ireland was 11.5%.

    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/

    After all, I'm not an economist, and that seems to say more or less what my rather rough and ready spreadsheet exercise came out saying. It's extraordinary the extent to which the public/media debate is being conducted in an almost total fog of ignorance.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,206 ✭✭✭carveone


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Heh.

    I'll do a search first next time :)
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'd say (again) that, as per the IMF reports, our bailout is vulnerable to quite a lot of exogenous shocks. There isn't anything that can be done about those within the programme.

    I was attempting to post from an insular position. Rather harder to do than SF makes out - I realised what I was saying implied no nasty economic surprised further down the line as I typed it. I buckled and had to follow with the "Pragmatically though..." paragraph.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The attitude to the term "bailout" is funny, though. People treat it as if it means taking on debt we otherwise wouldn't have acquired at all,

    That answers my first post, thanks...
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I managed to survive the X case while in Norway, so I can cope with that.

    Always wondered what it was like for Irish people outside the country. I was in college and wanted to crawl into a hole.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,206 ✭✭✭carveone


    If we vote no we have no obvious source of funds for that €8+ billion (in 2014, more if we look to 2015).

    Including the 10 billion Scofflaw mentions, along with the possibility in a downgrade of reaching the July '11 highs of 14%, that's 18 billion at 14%? That's appalling even if those are 10 year bonds not the more likely 3 year. And then doing that again in 2015. Sounds super. Where do I sign up...


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    carveone wrote: »
    Always wondered what it was like for Irish people outside the country. I was in college and wanted to crawl into a hole.

    I was working in Norway, and a deputation of Norwegians came in to me when the business first broke, saying "this is barbaric, how can your country allow this?", to which I said "it won't actually happen like that - I know that's what our law says, but some way round it will be found". Which of course it was - and they were, if anything, even more appalled.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    carveone wrote: »
    Including the 10 billion Scofflaw mentions, along with the possibility in a downgrade of reaching the July '11 highs of 14%, that's 18 billion at 14%? That's appalling even if those are 10 year bonds not the more likely 3 year. And then doing that again in 2015. Sounds super. Where do I sign up...

    May 31st - just tick the right box...

    apologies,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,206 ✭✭✭carveone


    Which of course it was - and they were, if anything, even more appalled.

    I feel rather bad for finding that statement funny...
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It's extraordinary the extent to which the public/media debate is being conducted in an almost total fog of ignorance.

    I didn't realise that the structural deficit rule had been in place since June 2005. So the compact is actually less stringent not more. So... along with the other incorrect points in the Irish Times article should I be concerned at the state of economics at NUI Galway? I mean even I got the wrongness of his second point on my own (2. Debt should be 60 per cent of GDP, €5 billion a year, 20 years etc) I'm an engineer not an economist.
    May 31st - just tick the right box...

    Lol!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    carveone wrote: »
    I didn't realise that the structural deficit rule had been in place since June 2005. So the compact is actually less stringent not more. So... along with the other incorrect points in the Irish Times article should I be concerned at the state of economics at NUI Galway? I mean even I got the wrongness of his second point on my own (2. Debt should be 60 per cent of GDP, €5 billion a year, 20 years etc) I'm an engineer not an economist.

    This is a huge part of the issue and the intellectual dishonesty around the debate.

    In order to actually understand what we're voting on you need to understand what the treaty is changing, the answer to which is actually not a whole lot.

    So while I personally would back the Commission's view that everything that needs to be done can be done within the current rules, the treaty has been signed and I see little point in refusing our Government the ability to ratify it.

    p.s. John McHale is also at NUIG and he's one of the cheerleaders for understanding the treaty so I wouldn't write off their economics faculty just yet.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    carveone wrote: »
    I didn't realise that the structural deficit rule had been in place since June 2005. So the compact is actually less stringent not more
    The Germans want a debt brake inserted inserted into the laws and constitutions of other member states, as they have themselves done. Previous "rules" weren't kept.
    K-9 wrote: »
    That was when an Irish Yes vote was essential for Europe as a whole, this time it isn't, an important difference.
    This is more like the Danes voting No to the Euro.
    I don't like this implication that the people of a country are only sovereign when they agree with the Brussels plan. Its a bit fascist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Has it ever been explained why we have to borrow from the markets regardless? It makes absolutely no sense to borrow money to pay wages, SW, pensions etc. I can understand borrowing for infrastructural projects as it helps the economy and is is like a mortgage. But borrowing to make up a deficit even a 3% one is madness. Surely you cut your cloth to the money you bring in in taxes and reduce payments out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Has it ever been explained why we have to borrow from the markets regardless? It makes absolutely no sense to borrow money to pay wages, SW, pensions etc. I can understand borrowing for infrastructural projects as it helps the economy and is is like a mortgage. But borrowing to make up a deficit even a 3% one is madness. Surely you cut your cloth to the money you bring in in taxes and reduce payments out.

    Not quite that simple I'm afraid.

    Let's look at the case of Mr X, a higher paid public servant who earns €200k.

    We cut his salary by €100k so we save €100k, right?

    Wrong.

    Of the €100k we cut 50% odd had come back to us already through income taxes. So after income taxes cutting €100k saves us €50k. But then Mr X cuts back on spending. Which reduces the amount of VAT we get out of him. It also puts pressure on the businesses Mr X used to spend his salary in.

    This is why smaller cuts over a longer period are generally preferred to huge cuts now. The huge cuts don't actually save the amount they would appear to save, and have hugely negative knock on consequences for the rest of the economy.

    That's not to say I approve of public sector employees earning €200k in Ireland - I don't. I just chose this as an example.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 kearn83


    I will be voting "yes" not for the government sake but for the Irish people sake. I have no love for this government and especially last government, the fact of the matter is the Irish government has put this country into turmoil not the EU.

    The only way this country can help getting out of recession is by sticking with the EU we need to borrow money we need to create jobs without EU help we are screwed. Let the big boys of Europe like France and Germany bully our government around what do we care they need a good kick up the ass. There are to many young people leaving Ireland too many family's broken up over the Irish governments constant **** ups which us the Irish people have to pay for.

    Which ever way you vote just consider us the Irish people not useless ****s we call our government.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,206 ✭✭✭carveone


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Has it ever been explained why we have to borrow from the markets regardless? It makes absolutely no sense to borrow money to pay wages, SW, pensions etc.
    .....

    This is why smaller cuts over a longer period are generally preferred to huge cuts now. The huge cuts don't actually save the amount they would appear to save, and have hugely negative knock on consequences for the rest of the economy.

    I guess it's hard to underestimate the size of the correction the economy underwent without seeing the GDP numbers. According to googles graphs:

    2005: 6.02%
    2006: 5.32%
    2007: 5.63%
    2008: -3.55%
    2009: -7.58%

    An 8% correction in an economy is a nightmare. We got lulled into the dream that the 6% growth rate would last forever allowing us to run a relatively tight budget surplus for the good years on enormous GDP growth, while also reducing the debt (but only as a % of GDP). Meanwhile running up salaries and welfare and pensions and inflation based on the 6% forever numbers.

    The graphs actually look ok percentage-of-GDP-wise until 2008 when it all goes absolutely horrible. The budget deficit is so bad by 2011 it's eye watering. I guess the government couldn't just cut everything by the same amount due to what beeftotheheels says - you can't turn an economy on a dime... The private and building sectors took the hit almost instantly though.

    Edit: Oops, that's a touch off topic...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement