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

Gingernuts31 · 12-05-2012 2:27pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Voting no to the euro did Denmark and Sweden no harm. Noonan says this is effectively a referendum on euro membership.

Its ok for them as they were never in it to begin with it kept their own currency. We are in a different sit where we are in the euro and for people on trackers and that that are based on the ECB rates they are fcuked. I do hope we leave the euro as I think most people voted it in in the 1st place so it would be cheaper to go on holidays and wages would go up cause of the 1.27€ to the punt. No one really thought of what happens if it doesn't work out. I don't know what to vote as no one has come up with any real straight talkin, easy to understand terms as to why we should vote either way. The booklet the government put into peoples doors is not very easy to understand and doesn't say what will happen if we vote no it only pushs people towards a yes.

Scofflaw · 12-05-2012 5:44pm

Sand wrote:

so no need to sign up to them again so...also the "whats the big deal" misses that the fiscal treaty will grant other EU states (i.e. Germany..) the ability to take Ireland to court independently

Just to clarify - the treaty does not give the member states the power to take others to court over breaches of the fiscal limits.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 12-05-2012 5:53pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The fact that other peripheral Eurozone economies like Spain and Greece have also fallen through suggests a European element to the causation of the crisis rather than an exclusively national one.

That's an awful bit of reasoning. If the only countries to be in trouble were other peripheral eurozone countries then you'd have a point - but the list of countries currently in trouble stretches from the US to Australia via Iceland, the UK, and much of the developing world. It's a global crisis.

It's also worth pointing out that defining Italy as a 'peripheral country' is a heck of a stretch of the term!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand · 12-05-2012 6:07pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just to clarify - the treaty does not give the member states the power to take others to court over breaches of the fiscal limits.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just to clarify - that's based on your reading of the treaty. It does in fact give member states the power to take others to court over breaches of the fiscal limits, as perceived by that member state alone. If the fiscal limits are breached and/or not corrected quickly enough (as perceived by that member state alone), then quite clearly article 3 (2) has been breached.

The rules mentioned under paragraph 1 shall take effect in the national law of the Contracting Parties at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Treaty through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional, or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes.

See the "and adhered to" part? Yeah, not adhering to the rules under paragraph 1 is a breach, which are the fiscal limits. You can choose to believe otherwise, but the Germans wont.

Its also worth noting that when people say Ireland can just reverse the laws later as and when it suits us... that's also a breach of Article 3 (2). And again, Germany brings us to court.

KyussBishop · 12-05-2012 6:23pm

Good (but very lengthy) article relating to Greece at the moment, and the wider policies of austerity and 'TINA' (There Is No Alternative):
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/bill-black-new-york-times-reporters-embrace-the-berlin-consensus-and-ignore-krugman-and-economics.html

There are a lot of good arguments as to why austerity is harmful/counterproductive rather than helpful, but while the article does elaborate on alternatives a bit, it still leaves me kind of unclear on the better alternatives.

Is the fiscal treaty compatible with actions other than austerity?
For instance, does Article 3 imply de-facto austerity? If it does and if that proves unsustainable (which the above article seems to argue reasonably well) does article 8 not just hand the EU a stick to beat us with, for something which may be inevitable?

Scofflaw · 12-05-2012 7:24pm

Sand wrote: »

Just to clarify - that's based on your reading of the treaty. It does in fact give member states the power to take others to court over breaches of the fiscal limits, as perceived by that member state alone. If the fiscal limits are breached and/or not corrected quickly enough (as perceived by that member state alone), then quite clearly article 3 (2) has been breached.

The rules mentioned under paragraph 1 shall take effect in the national law of the Contracting Parties at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Treaty through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional, or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes.

See the "and adhered to" part? Yeah, not adhering to the rules under paragraph 1 is a breach, which are the fiscal limits. You can choose to believe otherwise, but the Germans wont.

Its also worth noting that when people say Ireland can just reverse the laws later as and when it suits us... that's also a breach of Article 3 (2). And again, Germany brings us to court.

I can understand the argument you're making, but it's basically casuistry, and certainly shouldn't be described as "allowed to sue for breaches of the fiscal limits", because you're not even arguing that that's the case.

Your argument would cover the possibility where a government can deliberately breach the fiscal limits without that act being illegal under domestic law - in other words, where the government has left a loophole large enough for it to breach the limits over a sufficient period (a minimum of three years), and for those breaches not only not to be acceptable by virtue of the variety of circumstances taken into consideration by the Commission, but for it to be clear that the breaches of limits were not undertaken on the basis of such circumstances, and for the legislation to fail to prevent that.

I'd agree that's a possibility, but it's not equivalent to your original claim that the countries can sue each other for a breach of the fiscal limits. The important point in your argument is that the legislation has to fail to prevent something that could and should have been prevented legislatively, which is rather different - the breach of fiscal limits is highlighting the inadequacy of the legislation, and the inadequacy of the legislation is both the reason for the case, and the subject of the judgement, rather than the breach of the limits.

A government that has breached the limits as a result of external events or an unexpected fall in tax receipts, as opposed to deliberate overspending, is in no danger of being taken to court. A government that breaches the limits in one year in order to provide stimulus spending is likewise in no danger of being taken to court on that account, since that is allowed for.

So much for the general implications of your argument, but we haven't yet covered the most important point. Your interpretation relies on the idea that the power to sue for failure to correctly implement the necessary legislation is an ongoing one, which it rather clearly isn't. From the treaty:

1. The European Commission is invited to present in due time to the Contracting Parties a report on the provisions adopted by each of them in compliance with Article 3(2).

If the European Commission, after having given the Contracting Party concerned the opportunity to submit its observations, concludes in its report that a Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3(2), the matter will be brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union by one or more of the Contracting Parties.

Where a Contracting Party considers, independently of the Commission's report, that another Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3 (2), it may also bring the matter to the Court of Justice. In both cases, the judgment of the Court of Justice shall be binding on the parties in the procedure, which shall take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment within a period to be decided by the Court.

This is very clearly something put into the Treaty to ensure that the Contracting Parties do not delay unduly creating the required legislation after ratification. In other words, it's a once-off mechanism designed to prevent a country ratifying, and then implementing a version of the legislation that makes a mockery of their commitment to adhere to the Treaty. It is not designed as an ongoing supervision mechanism. A case may be taken by a Contracting Party in the context of the initial report issued by the Commission after ratification - and that's the only circumstance mentioned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand · 12-05-2012 8:53pm

@Scofflaw

Your argument would cover the possibility where a government can deliberately breach the fiscal limits without that act being illegal under domestic law

No, it covers the possibility that Germany believes the government is breaching the fiscal limits - domestic law may or may not consider the government to be in breach of the law, but Germany has the added security of knowing that regardless of Irish law, it can bring the Irish government to the ECJ if German opinion views the Irish government to be in breach of Article 3 (2). That is what the treaty says, that is what we are voting on.

The rest is semantics. Lets not forget, that if we fast forward to 2020 and Ireland is being taken to court by Germany for breaching its fiscal limits you'll be the first to remind dissenters that we all voted to give Germany this power back in 2012 so there's no loss of Irish sovereignty much as you would claim Ireland has lost no sovereignty to the EU other than what Irish sovereignty has chosen to freely surrender under prior treaties...

This is very clearly something put into the Treaty to ensure that the Contracting Parties do not delay unduly creating the required legislation after ratification. In other words, it's a once-off mechanism designed to prevent a country ratifying, and then implementing a version of the legislation that makes a mockery of their commitment to adhere to the Treaty.

Eh - where the time limit in the article you quoted?

What it stated was:

Where a Contracting Party considers, independently of the Commission's report, that another Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3 (2), it may also bring the matter to the Court of Justice.

No time limit mentioned. At all. Instead, the consideration of the contracting party is stressed as being independent of the Commission report.

And again, we are voting on the text as it is written - not as how you hope it will be interpreted.

Scofflaw · 13-05-2012 12:46am

Sand wrote: »

@Scofflaw

No, it covers the possibility that Germany believes the government is breaching the fiscal limits - domestic law may or may not consider the government to be in breach of the law, but Germany has the added security of knowing that regardless of Irish law, it can bring the Irish government to the ECJ if German opinion views the Irish government to be in breach of Article 3 (2). That is what the treaty says, that is what we are voting on.

Article 3(2), which refers to the legislation put into domestic law to prevent breaches, not to breaches themselves.

Sand wrote: »

The rest is semantics. Lets not forget, that if we fast forward to 2020 and Ireland is being taken to court by Germany for breaching its fiscal limits you'll be the first to remind dissenters that we all voted to give Germany this power back in 2012 so there's no loss of Irish sovereignty much as you would claim Ireland has lost no sovereignty to the EU other than what Irish sovereignty has chosen to freely surrender under prior treaties...

The latter I would certainly claim - the former I wouldn't expect to arise. If it did, I hope I'll still be honest enough to admit my error, since I don't see us voting any such thing.

Sand wrote: »

Eh - where the time limit in the article you quoted?

What it stated was:

No time limit mentioned. At all. Instead, the consideration of the contracting party is stressed as being independent of the Commission report.

A single context is given as the context in which the Article operates - that of the report of the Commission. The time limit is the "in due time" of the report.

Again, I can see what your view is based on, but the most obvious reading of the article is sequential:

1. The European Commission is invited to present in due time to the Contracting Parties a report on the provisions adopted by each of them in compliance with Article 3(2).

1. The Commission prepares a report on the transposition of the necessary domestic laws.

If the European Commission, after having given the Contracting Party concerned the opportunity to submit its observations, concludes in its report that a Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3(2), the matter will be brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union by one or more of the Contracting Parties.

2. If the Commission report is negative, the offending party will be taken to court by the other parties.

Where a Contracting Party considers, independently of the Commission's report, that another Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3 (2), it may also bring the matter to the Court of Justice.

3. Even if the report isn't negative, one of the parties may still bring another to court for what it considers to be inadequate legislation.

To me, the "independently" there means "even if the Commission's report is not negative". If it meant what you're claiming for it - that the matter can be raised at any time by any party, there would be no reference to the Commission's report and the sentence would be placed somewhere else to make it clear it's an independent power. As it is, the reference to the Commission's report in the sentence describing the power makes it clear that the context of such a case is that of the Commission report, something also clear from the fact that it's the very next sentence in a sequence describing what happens on the occasion of that report.

Sand wrote: »

And again, we are voting on the text as it is written - not as how you hope it will be interpreted.

It's hardly a matter of "hope". I think your interpretation relies on the traditional method of taking phrases out of context and pushing them well past any ordinary meaning. To be fair, of course, that's a legitimate legal tactic, but not generally a successful one. I think we should agree to disagree here, but I dare say we probably can't agree not to repeat our criticisms of each other's positions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jeff the Yank · 13-05-2012 9:34pm

Folks, George Carlin said it best. The Occupy movement has never said it better.

Democracy is not compatible with financial oligarchy.

There is no easier way to say this. If you vote yes you are voting for more expansive powers of the unelected financial oligarchy running the EU through its unelected bureaucrats.

If you vote yes then its just another thread removed from the quilt of Irish national sovereignty. Will this one take national sovereignty away? No. Will it continue us down the road of hegemony by this oligarchy and their pet politicians? Yes.

What will happen if you vote No? I don't think anyone really knows. Keep in mind that Germany itself is now holding off on ratification. My guess is that nothing will really happen, but it sure would be a call for political change. Maybe that's all any of us can ask for. Change.

meglome · 13-05-2012 11:31pm

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

There is no easier way to say this. If you vote yes you are voting for more expansive powers of the unelected financial oligarchy running the EU through its unelected bureaucrats.

You know I appreciate you're using this a negative but given the incompetence our elected representative have shown repeatedly many of us this see this as a positive. Of course I'm ignoring all the drama you're putting in there for extra effect.

carveone · 14-05-2012 12:29am

meglome wrote: »

You know I appreciate you're using this a negative but given the incompetence our elected representative have shown repeatedly many of us this see this as a positive.

Besides, we have elected representatives in the EU parliament too who negotiated on these treaties, including the six pack too which laid most of the groundwork and noone mentions or seems to care that much about. Noone would care about the fiscal treaty either if the AG had a bit less fence sitting ability. The stability/fiscal treaty is a packaging up of legally binding commitments already agreed.

I thought most of the point was to expose when a government was being reckless by, through the elected reps in the EU Parliament, calling them out in public. More transparancy instead of "go and commit suicide" or "bunch of lefty pinkos" which marked the last lot. I'd have been really enthusiastic about the EU parliament bringing Bertie up on that.

The six pack and the fiscal treaty won't guarantee a repetition of another crisis but does insist that EU states live up to the obligation that has been ignored: to "regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern".

Jeff the Yank · 14-05-2012 7:33am

meglome wrote: »

You know I appreciate you're using this a negative but given the incompetence our elected representative have shown repeatedly many of us this see this as a positive. Of course I'm ignoring all the drama you're putting in there for extra effect.

And there in essence is the crux of the matter.

If you truly believe that Ireland shouldn't be in charge of itself then vote Yes.

If you believe as I do that it is a terrible thing to hand away Ireland's hard won independence, vote No. There are other options, although they are all hard ones.

It does seem to me that more checks and balances in the current government structure is called for. Obviously the current structure is not working. It was this very structure that allowed little accountability but maximum abuse of power.

Yes I know that is what the Yes people are saying too. I just think Ireland would be better off if those checks and balances were internal to the state. The price that was paid for Ireland independence should not be so casually thrown aside because we think the government is not capable of doing its job.

meglome · 14-05-2012 9:29am

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

And there in essence is the crux of the matter.

If you truly believe that Ireland shouldn't be in charge of itself then vote Yes.

If you believe as I do that it is a terrible thing to hand away Ireland's hard won independence, vote No. There are other options, although they are all hard ones.

Well no. This post and that last one are pretty exaggerated though obviously we are are voting to have some oversight of our budgets. (Plus what carveone says above)

I'm going to make a meglome's law that if someone needs to use the words sovereignty or independence to win an argument they have lost the argument. Bit like Godwins law.

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

It does seem to me that more checks and balances in the current government structure is called for. Obviously the current structure is not working. It was this very structure that allowed little accountability but maximum abuse of power.

And what examples of abuse of power do we have now so that we should be concerned about the future?

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

Yes I know that is what the Yes people are saying too. I just think Ireland would be better off if those checks and balances were internal to the state. The price that was paid for Ireland independence should not be so casually thrown aside because we think the government is not capable of doing its job.

hehe internal really. And we wouldn't just ignore them or change them? The Irish people have shown a great willingness to vote in whoever promises the most, no matter how foolish those promises are.

FreudianSlippers · 14-05-2012 11:06am

There is absolutely nothing in the treaty that gives up budgetary control to "Europe". This has been pointed out before. The EU cannot tell us how to spend our budget yet this is the main point raised by the no side. Am I having a stroke or...?

golfball37 · 14-05-2012 11:38am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing in the treaty that gives up budgetary control to "Europe". This has been pointed out before. The EU cannot tell us how to spend our budget yet this is the main point raised by the no side. Am I having a stroke or...?

Erm- Did you miss the part where we have to keep our deficit in line with GDP?

If your talking about spending only then say that but don't invigilate or sensationise to make a point ffs. We will be told what our bottom line is, how we spend it is still our decision.

Thats still interference in any language, however.

chemini77 · 14-05-2012 11:55am

i have a question,
I am a British citizen, lived in Ireland 11 years, had a child here in 2005 , assumed that i would not be able to vote in the referendum , but decided to check the register anyway and as it happens, next to my name is the letter P which classes me as an Irish citizen, now i never went through any citizenship process and cannot seem to find information online as to why this may be,
anyone have any ideas?

swampgas · 14-05-2012 12:17pm

golfball37 wrote: »

Erm- Did you miss the part where we have to keep our deficit in line with GDP?

If your talking about spending only then say that but don't invigilate or sensationise to make a point ffs. We will be told what our bottom line is, how we spend it is still our decision.

Thats still interference in any language, however.

Bear in mind that every member of the Eurozone will have the same restrictions, it's not like Ireland is being singled out for special treatment here. These same restrictions could protect Ireland from another Eurozone country mismanaging their economy and dragging the Euro into trouble.

The fundamental issue is that the Eurozone countries are sharing a currency - it strikes me that having rules in place that prevent any one member going off on a damaging solo run must be a good idea.

chemini77 · 14-05-2012 12:21pm

Article 32:
3. The ESM, its property, funding and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that the ESM expressly waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract, including the documentation of the funding instruments.
4. The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.
5. The archives of the ESM and all documents belonging to the ESM or held by it, shall be inviolable.
6. The premises of the ESM shall be inviolable.
8. To the extent necessary to carry out the activities provided for in this Treaty, all property, funding and assets of the ESM shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature.
9. The ESM shall be exempted from any requirement to be authorised or licensed as a credit institution, investment services provider or other authorised licensed or regulated entity under the laws of each ESM Member.

im a "NO" voter anyway

RandomName2 · 14-05-2012 3:28pm

meglome wrote: »

I'm going to make a meglome's law that if someone needs to use the words sovereignty or independence to win an argument they have lost the argument.

That might have gone down well with Lenin. Or Mao, Saddam, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Petain, Stalin, Quisling, or any other figure who scoffed at the idea of independence or sovereignty as being anything other than the tolerance of lines on maps and pieces of worthless paper.

meglome-niac's Law, perhaps?

RandomName2 · 14-05-2012 3:34pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing in the treaty that gives up budgetary control to "Europe". This has been pointed out before. The EU cannot tell us how to spend our budget yet this is the main point raised by the no side. Am I having a stroke or...?

Well, Europe of course has current control of our indirect taxation and duties, so that's not up for debate.

The Fiscal Compact would somewhat limit our financial control, so to speak, due to the bounds placed upon national debt, and consequent punitive measures that would occur in the event of the breaking of the protocols outlined in the Compact Treaty (the form of which are to be decided by the Commission).

The Compact would also involve the sharing of budgetary information between members, although without any current obligations for members to either stick to budgetary plans or take on the advice of other nations. However, the Commission has already launched plans whereby national budgets would have to be approved by the Commission. Whether this would actually come to pass is another issue.

K-9 · 14-05-2012 3:36pm

chemini77 wrote: »

i have a question,
I am a British citizen, lived in Ireland 11 years, had a child here in 2005 , assumed that i would not be able to vote in the referendum , but decided to check the register anyway and as it happens, next to my name is the letter P which classes me as an Irish citizen, now i never went through any citizenship process and cannot seem to find information online as to why this may be,
anyone have any ideas?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html

You should have a D not a P going on that, either way you can vote on European referenda as indeed can EU citizens living here.

chemini77 · 14-05-2012 4:41pm

K-9 wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html

You should have a D not a P going on that, either way you can vote on European referenda as indeed can EU citizens living here.

yes i know all the info and that i should have a D , was just curious as to why not, seem sit may be an oversight, which i will not complain about,

fianna saor · 14-05-2012 6:24pm

certain posters seem to want to give up this country and just hand it over to the euros, this treaty is only the tip of the iceberg and is the reverse of home rule in ireland.... ill be voting no in case that wasnt clear

chemini77 · 14-05-2012 7:17pm

i notice the word "republic" seems to have been lost

K-9 · 14-05-2012 7:20pm

chemini77 wrote: »

i notice the word "republic" seems to have been lost

I don't believe it exists officially to lose it.

Stripey Cat · 14-05-2012 8:46pm

K-9 wrote: »

you can vote on European referenda as indeed can EU citizens living here.

Really? I don't think that's right is it?

I thought only Irish citizens could participate in constitutional votes.

K-9 · 14-05-2012 9:13pm

Stripey Cat wrote: »

Really? I don't think that's right is it?

I thought only Irish citizens could participate in constitutional votes.

Sorry it says European elections which I took to mean referenda as well. Not sure tbh then!

meglome · 14-05-2012 9:51pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

That might have gone down well with Lenin. Or Mao, Saddam, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Petain, Stalin, Quisling, or any other figure who scoffed at the idea of independence or sovereignty as being anything other than the tolerance of lines on maps and pieces of worthless paper.

meglome-niac's Law, perhaps?

Well no as they didn't, as far as I know, go an about the loss of sovereignty that wasn't happening. They were the people taking away sovereignty and independence.

carveone · 14-05-2012 11:37pm

K-9 wrote: »

I don't believe it exists officially to lose it.

Indeed! That's pretty high up on the old Bunreacht na hÉireann (Article 4).

K-9 · 15-05-2012 12:13am

carveone wrote: »

Indeed! That's pretty high up on the old Bunreacht na hÉireann (Article 4).

Indeed. I think if people think one of the very first paragraphs is wrong, i.e.Ireland is the name of the state and start nit picking there, well.............

Not a dig at chemini77 at all btw, this isn't the first time the issue has raised its head. I just think if you've that little faith in our bureaucrats that you know better than their naming of the state, well.............

The other one is posters finding some eureka moment and thinking some of the official websites are misleading us and shortening the Treaty. These posters are reading the wrong Treaty.

Wild Bill · 15-05-2012 12:14am

I'll vote No, obviously!

We need to do what Iceland did. They are already on the road to recovery; we are facing 40 years of depression.

(Of course we won't stick with the scam that long - we'll do a Greek/French/Dutch - any nation with balls - sooner or later)

Meanwhile, the head-in-sand clowns who imagine in their feverish wee minds that out debt (rising by €1 billion ever two weeks) is actually repayable!

Lmfao :pac::pac::pac:

Wild Bill · 15-05-2012 12:18am

On the other issue - this state is officially, legally and internationally calledIreland, not "The Republic of Ireland".

Fact. :cool:

FreudianSlippers · 15-05-2012 6:59am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, Europe of course has current control of our indirect taxation and duties, so that's not up for debate.

The Fiscal Compact would somewhat limit our financial control, so to speak, due to the bounds placed upon national debt, and consequent punitive measures that would occur in the event of the breaking of the protocols outlined in the Compact Treaty (the form of which are to be decided by the Commission).

The Compact would also involve the sharing of budgetary information between members, although without any current obligations for members to either stick to budgetary plans or take on the advice of other nations. However, the Commission has already launched plans whereby national budgets would have to be approved by the Commission. Whether this would actually come to pass is another issue.

That is hardly giving budgetary control to "Brussels"... and I fail to see the problem with implementing a rule into our constitution to do something we need to do anyway!? There is a huge difference between setting out guidelines for debt and then stating that if they are breached the debt must be reduced and saying that Ireland would not be "in charge of itself" or that it would force austerity. Theoretically if we breached the ratio in the future we could implement no austerity and just raise taxes - that point is that it is OUR choice

crazy cabbage · 15-05-2012 11:17am

To be honest i would feel much safer if the all of ye good people of boards ran the country instead to our current goverment (Boards political party anyone??

). I have no faith in any of the parties. All seem to be out of touch. There is a few people i voted for that have a desent head on there sholders but seem to be confirming to the ideas of their polital party instead of speaking their own ideas and opinions and therin lies the problem with our current system of goverment in my opinion.

Both sides have talked sh1t during this campain and now we have to try and organise what is true and what isn't ourselves. I think they should all be kicked out and some ordanary people with no party alliencies should be put together to get us out of their mess.

Think i will end up voting no. I am very unsure what this treaty really means for ireland so i believe that it is better to say no and not write anything in our constution than say yes and write something into law that may be a treat to our soveriencie down the line, or our economy (or anything else what was previsly mentioned). And even that is the 'wrong descision' the goverment can always pretend they didn't get the messege and have another vote like we did with the lisbin treaty.

my 2c

SlickRic · 15-05-2012 11:28am

what bothers me about this entire thing, is that it feels like the "Yes" side is simply giving us reasons not to vote "No", rather than giving the electorate real reasons to vote "Yes".

Gilmore hasn't shut up about Greece for the last couple of weeks for instance.

tell us why it's good, other than just using buzzwords like "stability", "growth" etc, and actually talk to the electorate like intelligent human beings more often, and you may get a very strong "Yes" vote. but it feels like they aren't even trying.

i mean, i watched Leaders' Questions last week, and every query from the ULC or Sinn Féin about the Treaty was just met with derision and laughter. it's like the "Yes" side don't really want to engage.

Boulevardier · 15-05-2012 4:45pm

Does anyone know if there is a non-party campaign against the Fiscal treaty?

I am considering helping out with the No campaign, but I happen to be a member of a pro-yes party, so not much help there. On the other hand, I'm dammed if I am going to give out SF or trot leaflets.

If anyone knows of such a campaign, please post a link if you can.

meglome · 15-05-2012 5:04pm

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Think i will end up voting no. I am very unsure what this treaty really means for ireland so i believe that it is better to say no and not write anything in our constution than say yes and write something into law that may be a treat to our soveriencie down the line, or our economy (or anything else what was previsly mentioned). And even that is the 'wrong descision' the goverment can always pretend they didn't get the messege and have another vote like we did with the lisbin treaty.

my 2c

Saw this reply on the Journal and thought it might be useful.

“Not realy it clearly states nothing in the Constitution can overide any act made under the fiscal pact, And as the pursestrings control everything it in essence wipesout our Constitution in one fell swoop.”

These debt rules were mostly introduced as part of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (the structural balance rule in 2005 by way of an update)., and Maastricht’s ratification went into the Constitution in *exactly* the same way this one does.

So, this:

“Education funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Health funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Welfare funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Garda funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Prison funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Court funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Child welfare “Sorry fiscal matter” Disbursement for oppisition parties “SORRY FISCAL MATTER””

is something that either isn’t the case, or has been the case for the last 20 years, because exactly the same debt rules have had exactly the same constitutional setting since 1992.

I don’t recall it applying over the last 20 years – do you?

SlickRic wrote: »

what bothers me about this entire thing, is that it feels like the "Yes" side is simply giving us reasons not to vote "No", rather than giving the electorate real reasons to vote "Yes".

What do you expect? The country is in the poop and enforcing these limits, while completely necessary, is going to be painful. Not exactly reasons to celebrate no matter how much it needs to be done.

SlickRic wrote: »

Gilmore hasn't shut up about Greece for the last couple of weeks for instance.

tell us why it's good, other than just using buzzwords like "stability", "growth" etc, and actually talk to the electorate like intelligent human beings more often, and you may get a very strong "Yes" vote. but it feels like they aren't even trying.

i mean, i watched Leaders' Questions last week, and every query from the ULC or Sinn Féin about the Treaty was just met with derision and laughter. it's like the "Yes" side don't really want to engage.

Look I'm not a fan of how the government runs these campaigns but let's have some balance here The no side are saying some outrageous nonsense, things which many of them know are completely untrue. It's very difficult for the government to 'sex' this treaty up but very easy for the no campaign to make up any lie they like about it.

hatrickpatrick · 15-05-2012 6:18pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That is hardly giving budgetary control to "Brussels"... and I fail to see the problem with implementing a rule into our constitution to do something we need to do anyway!? There is a huge difference between setting out guidelines for debt and then stating that if they are breached the debt must be reduced and saying that Ireland would not be "in charge of itself" or that it would force austerity. Theoretically if we breached the ratio in the future we could implement no austerity and just raise taxes - that point is that it is OUR choice

As I've said before, sometimes breaching such stringent limits is unavoidable, economically sound, or the lesser of two evils.
Not necessarily in this case, but somewhere down the line? Almost certainly. There are times when one must prioritize growth over getting rid of a deficit in X amount of time regardless of the consequences.

So far, I haven't heard nearly enough to convince me that this treaty does in fact have adequate provision for breaches in emergency situations. Reading the treaty itself it seems fairly unforgiving.

And as I posted previously, there are far too many sections in the treaty which are unacceptably vague with regard to what exactly the rule is and who exactly is responsible for implementing it / interpreting it to decide whether it's been broken.

I posted a detailed post about this before I went off to do essays a couple of days ago, didn't mean to stay away so long but I'll find the post and repost it if I can.

carveone · 15-05-2012 7:15pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I've said before, sometimes breaching such stringent limits is unavoidable, economically sound, or the lesser of two evils.

I've said that too, somewhere in this thread. I'd be very wary of blunt 3% deficit restrictions but Scofflaw has said that the "limits are not as blunt as they're often painted. They're based on three-year averages, and they do take account of special circumstances. If you need to put a stimulus in, there's room to do so. And if times are tight, the system takes account of that".

However reading just the treaty in isolation won't tell you that as the treaty builds on and refers to other documents. Eg: Article 4 refers to the Council Regulation (pdf) which says:

Non-compliance with the numerical benchmark for debt reduction should not be sufficient to establish the existence of an excessive deficit, which should take into account the whole range of relevant factors covered by the Commission’s report under Article 126(3) TFEU. In particular, the assessment of the effect of the cycle and the composition of the stock-flow adjustment on debt developments may be sufficient to avoid that the existence of an excessive deficit be established on the basis of the debt criterion.

and it also says

In implementing the debt ratio adjustment benchmark, account shall be taken of the influence of the cycle on the pace of debt reduction.

That technotalk is the allowance made for situations of low or no growth - as this would be "the influence of the cycle".

And as I posted previously, there are far too many sections in the treaty which are unacceptably vague with regard to what exactly the rule is and who exactly is responsible for implementing it / interpreting it to decide whether it's been broken.

Sand has a few posts with technical subtleties that I couldn't even begin to address. I'm sure they're somewhere in this thread. It degenerates into legal subtleties pretty quickly which is why various interests can say things like look true but aren't (on both sides)

Scofflaw · 15-05-2012 8:06pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

Does anyone know if there is a non-party campaign against the Fiscal treaty?

I am considering helping out with the No campaign, but I happen to be a member of a pro-yes party, so not much help there. On the other hand, I'm dammed if I am going to give out SF or trot leaflets.

If anyone knows of such a campaign, please post a link if you can.

There's Libertas, if you don't mind giving out federalist literature.

There's Farmers for No, and there would be the various anti-Household charge groups. There may well also be local campaigns.

Most of the campaigns, though, are left wing. Is it anything in particular you're looking for?

We might run the "who's campaigning?" thread as we did for Lisbon, which might help.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galwayguy35 · 15-05-2012 9:23pm

Richard Boyd Barrett is the Yes campaigns secret weapon. The man just hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

carveone · 15-05-2012 9:30pm

The Referendum Commission has said the fiscal treaty poll cannot be postponed. The relevant act is the Referendum Act 1994.

I'm sure you've all seen this at this point (it's about 11 hours ago according to google!) so I'll just post this note in this thread in case others haven't seen that news item. There was several of us wondering would it be more prudent to delay the referendum to September but apparantly it can't be done:

In a statement, the Commission said once the minister signs the order for a referendum, the polling date could only be changed if a general election was called.

The minister had no power otherwise under the relevant Act to postpone the referendum or to cancel it.

Ozymandius2011 · 15-05-2012 9:47pm

carveone wrote: »

The Referendum Commission has said the fiscal treaty poll cannot be postponed. The relevant act is the Referendum Act 1994.

I'm sure you've all seen this at this point (it's about 11 hours ago according to google!) so I'll just post this note in this thread in case others haven't seen that news item. There was several of us wondering would it be more prudent to delay the referendum to September but apparantly it can't be done:

The Oireachtas might be able to repeal the act.

beeftotheheels · 15-05-2012 10:01pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Oireachtas might be able to repeal the act.

Putting the cart before the horse (if we're to have an honest debate on this).

We're not ratifying the treaty, we're giving the Oireachtas permission to ratify the treaty.

So the Gov could come out tomorrow and state that, even if we vote yes, they won't propose ratifing the treaty until the German "Oireachtas" ratifies it.

But right now the "Greek issue" means that the markets worry about electorates voting for the impossible. So the better answer would be for the Gov to acknowledge the element of doubt between our allowing them ratify and their actual ratification, which could be made dependent on us being State 12, i.e. our Gov will only actually ratify if 11 other States have already done so.

Scofflaw · 15-05-2012 10:52pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Oireachtas might be able to repeal the act.

As far as the legislation goes, that wouldn't appear to make any difference, since there is, again, no provision for any such action. It would require a Supreme Court judgement, I suspect - I would imagine that the chances of getting such a judgement before the 31st would be minimal, and there is, again, no provision for the Supreme Court to delay the referendum either.

As beeftotheheels points out, the referendum result does not bind the government to ratify the Treaty, nor does it require it to do so in any timeframe. If there is uncertainty over the fate of the Treaty, the government can delay ratification.

It's interesting to consider which is better for Ireland if the Treaty does come to be renegotiated. A "No" means that all is to do over again, while a "Yes" may also mean that, and in addition means that the government is in a position to ratify, and therefore holds the card of being able to be part of bringing the current version into being.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 · 15-05-2012 10:54pm

From Reuters today:

Francois Hollande wrote:

''I said it during my election campaign and I say it again now as president that I want to renegotiate what has been agreed to include a growth dimension," Hollande told a joint news conference with Merkel at her Chancellery in the German capital.''
UPDATE 1-Merkel, Hollande pledge to work together to boost growth | Reuters

Scofflaw · 16-05-2012 1:30am

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

From Reuters today:

Ahem...same article:

Instead of reopening Merkel's "fiscal compact", they are expected to complement it with a new "growth pact".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 · 16-05-2012 1:43am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ahem...same article:

cordially,
Scofflaw

Reuters seems to be contradicting itself. On one hand it quotes Hollande yesterday saying he will "renegotiate" the Treaty. Then it follows up by saying he is not expected to. I prefer to take the man at his word this early one when we don't know enough to suspect him of Irish Labour (remember Frankfurt's Way or Labour's Way)-style U-Turns. I wonder are Reuters above a little spinning, given the European media is overwhelmingly pro-Treaty.

chieftan65 · 16-05-2012 1:58am

Seems very suspicious to me that kenny and co are hell bent on having this voted on now instead of waiting to see whats happening with the rest of europe including germany who were originally behind it and now cant get a government majority for it. something just dont feel right about all this urgency. call me cynical but after being shafted and lied to by politicians for so long i prefer to err on the side of caution now

Ozymandius2011 · 16-05-2012 2:10am

It would be interesting to start a new poll to see if the trends of the Red C poll are reflective of boards.ie members. After all the present poll was posted a good while ago and much has changed in the debate since then.

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

Comments