The Fiscal Treaty Yes or No

Bards · 28-05-2012 3:00pm

We all know at the end of the day, if we vote NO, the establishment will ignore the vote and re-run the referendum again until they get the answer they want.

Finnbar01 · 28-05-2012 3:01pm

Vita nova wrote: »

Even if we don't add any additonal debt, we will still have to borrow, all countries do. We have existing debts (debt to GDP = 108%) owed to bondholders, these bonds have to be repayed when they reach maturity, e.g. after 2,3,9 10 years etc. Governments pay off the bondholders by issuing new bonds or rolling over debt. This doesn't increase .....community has also indicated that the uncertainty caused by a no vote will impact negatively on their ability to attract investment (see SFA, Exporters Assoc, IBEC, Chambers Ireland).

A yes vote will exacerbate our problems.

We need to default, exit the eurozone and devalue.

wellboytoo · 28-05-2012 3:03pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

A yes vote will exacerbate our problems.

We need to default, exit the eurozone and devalue.

Sher just default so, and I can assure you you won't have to devalue, it will be done for you.
Next day no social welfare, no unmarried mothers, no fuel vouchers, etc, what is your plan then?

Vita nova · 28-05-2012 3:13pm

AdMMM wrote: »

But we've been told that in no circumstances by the Government that we'll need a Second Bailout.

Access to a second bailout is being touted as one of the main advantages to Ireland for ratifying it. However, why should we surrender control of our own fiscal matters to Europe for something that we're being told time and time again we won't need?

Or are our Government lying to us about the necessity for a second bailout?

Whether they are lying or not doesn't really matter (obviously not speaking from a moral point of view). What's important for voters is that there's a strong possibility of needing a bailout either during this or future crises, in which case it would be nice to have access to cheap emergency funding (ESM). Think of it as insurance, you hope you won't need it but it's safer to have it.

Finnbar01 · 28-05-2012 3:17pm

wellboytoo wrote: »

Sher just default so, and I can assure you you won't have to devalue, it will be done for you.
Next day no social welfare, no unmarried mothers, no fuel vouchers, etc, what is your plan then?

We will not lose social welfare, fuel vouchers etc. Granted they will be cuts, but the cuts will equate to 2000/2001 spending.

Look, we're going to default anyway. The sooner the better.

wellboytoo · 28-05-2012 4:10pm

[QUOTE=Finnbar01;78908203

Look, we're going to default anyway. The sooner the better.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't actually disagree with that.

merlante · 28-05-2012 4:41pm

wellboytoo wrote: »

Sher just default so, and I can assure you you won't have to devalue, it will be done for you.
Next day no social welfare, no unmarried mothers, no fuel vouchers, etc, what is your plan then?

Don't see how. Our exports are much larger than our imports so there'd be plenty of demand for our own currency, although we would of course devalue it to stimulate growth, as every other country has ever done in our situation. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that we might then be able to pay back our inflated debts. If not, then we'd default, like every other country has ever done in this situation. Then we'd merely have to live within our means, which everyone is in favour of anyway. Any default situation would be resolved within a few years after the country has recovered. Nobody wants an EU country in a state of default for years.

It might be worth remembering that we had our own currency a decade or so ago, when we were a wealthy country. I seem to remember no problems with social welfare and so on. Funny that. If we had a real debate in this country then these issues would be well understood.

(And yes, there would be huge trouble and chaos for a period of time, but there's no free lunch in our situation.)

wellboytoo · 28-05-2012 4:51pm

merlante wrote: »

Don't see how. Our exports are much larger than our imports so there'd be plenty of demand for our own currency, although we would of course devalue it to stimulate growth, as every other country has ever done in our situation. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that we might then be able to pay back our inflated debts. If not, then we'd default, like every other country has ever done in this situation. Then we'd merely have to live within our means, which everyone is in favour of anyway. Any default situation would be resolved within a few years after the country has recovered. Nobody wants an EU country in a state of default for years.

It might be worth remembering that we had our own currency a decade or so ago, when we were a wealthy country. I seem to remember no problems with social welfare and so on. Funny that. If we had a real debate in this country then these issues would be well understood.

(And yes, there would be huge trouble and chaos for a period of time, but there's no free lunch in our situation.)

Agree completely, but then we are back in Michael O Leary territory, we are running a 15 billion defecit at the moment, so we would have to cut 15billion from our current spending immediately by your reasoning, hence my comments about the social welfare etc, massive cuts in state wages etc.
I have no problem with what you are postulating but feel you should high light the negative of what you are proposing as well.
No gain without pain.

Hoffmans · 28-05-2012 7:25pm

Vita nova wrote: »

AdMMM wrote: »

But we've been told that in no circumstances by the Government that we'll need a Second Bailout.

Access to a second bailout is being touted as one of the main advantages to Ireland for ratifying it. However, why should we surrender control of our own fiscal matters to Europe for something that we're being told time and time again we won't need?

Or are our Government lying to us about the necessity for a second bailout?

Whether they are lying or not doesn't really matter (obviously not speaking from a moral point of view). What's important for voters is that there's a strong possibility of needing a bailout either during this or future crises, in which case it would be nice to have access to cheap emergency funding (ESM). Think of it as insurance, you hope you won't need it but it's safer to have it.

whats cheap about the esm, ireland are required to put 11more billion of iou's into it, its a complete farce like the fine gael eurocrat wannabes

Sully · 28-05-2012 8:05pm

AdMMM wrote: »

But we've been told that in no circumstances by the Government that we'll need a Second Bailout.

Access to a second bailout is being touted as one of the main advantages to Ireland for ratifying it. However, why should we surrender control of our own fiscal matters to Europe for something that we're being told time and time again we won't need?

Or are our Government lying to us about the necessity for a second bailout?

I personally think we will need one. I don't think any government is going to openly admit to it though, as I think it would be damaging. Regardless, however, for any future government - who says they wont need it? Nobody is 100% sure. Its best be safe, rather than sorry.

As an aside Adam, we already surrendered part control on our budgets. The EU wont be poking their nose in unless we go over spending.

Sully · 28-05-2012 8:06pm

Hoffmans wrote: »

whats cheap about the esm, ireland are required to put 11more billion of iou's into it, its a complete farce like the fine gael eurocrat wannabes

We are only required to do so in the event the full EMS is drawn down. We have already done similar to the previous bailout fund which "the fine gael eurocrat wannabes" were not part of.

Hoffmans · 28-05-2012 8:18pm

Sully wrote: »

Hoffmans wrote: »

whats cheap about the esm, ireland are required to put 11more billion of iou's into it, its a complete farce like the fine gael eurocrat wannabes

We are only required to do so in the event the full EMS is drawn down. We have already done similar to the previous bailout fund which "the fine gael eurocrat wannabes" were not part of.

True , but they have just continued down the same rocky road to ruin propping up the last bits of the celtic pyramid scheme, as the last brady bunch i have no doubt if they were in the position for the bank guarantee lark they would have done exactly same as ff

Sully · 28-05-2012 8:27pm

Hoffmans wrote: »

True , but they have just continued down the same rocky road to ruin propping up the last bits of the celtic pyramid scheme, as the last brady bunch i have no doubt if they were in the position for the bank guarantee lark they would have done exactly same as ff

What has that got to do with this treaty?

AdMMM · 28-05-2012 8:30pm

Sully wrote: »

I personally think we will need one. I don't think any government is going to openly admit to it though, as I think it would be damaging. Regardless, however, for any future government - who says they wont need it? Nobody is 100% sure. Its best be safe, rather than sorry.

As an aside Adam, we already surrendered part control on our budgets. The EU wont be poking their nose in unless we go over spending.

If you're in prison, would you rather cosy up with the Bears and let them **** you up the ass at any time for their pleasure, or rather have confidence in your own ability to get through it?

That's essentially what I see this referendum ass.

Vita nova · 28-05-2012 10:16pm

Hoffmans wrote: »

whats cheap about the esm, ireland are required to put 11more billion of iou's into it, its a complete farce like the fine gael eurocrat wannabes

The ESM fund is cheap because it allows us to get emergency funding at close to cost; 3% has been mentioned. Without access to this fund we can't be certain where we'll get funding; in a worst case scenario we would have to get it on the bondmarket, currently we would pay 7.5%. Greece for example would have to pay 30% interest.

...ireland are required to put 11more billion of iou's into it...

The ESM fund will have a capitalization of ~€500b, our commitment to that is €11b based on our GDP relative to others (Germany's commitment is €190b). We would only have to put in €11 should the full €500b be required for emergency funding. We have a cash commitment of €1.27b over 3 years to build up a reserve of ~€80b among members.
Any money we give as part of a bailout is in the form of a loan (as are all bailouts), and we will earn interest on it and get it back at some stage.
Given that we are likely to need access to this fund it makes sense to contribute to it, remember that the amounts we draw will likely be a multiple of our contributions.

To put things in perspective for our current bailout fund is €67.5b made up of contributions from the EFSM, EFSF, IMF, UK, Sweden, etc. That's due to run out in 2013 so it makes sense to put in place access to the ESM fund now.

its a complete farce like the fine gael eurocrat wannabes

I'm not a member or supporter of any political party.

Bards · 28-05-2012 10:39pm

And what happens to the 500,000,000,000 when Spain, Greece and Italy go belly up, there wont be enough money left in the piggy bank for us.

We are in the end game for the euro and the sooner we realise what's happening the better, unless at the little meeting last week they have decided that once Greece exits the euro then they will bring in euro bonds otherwise all bets are off.

In hindsight I think the government would have been better off postponing the referendum as there still won't be stability in the euro zone if we vote yes to the "stability" treaty, as there are still too many unknows to quantify

Cabaal · 28-05-2012 11:31pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

A yes vote will exacerbate our problems.

We need to default, exit the eurozone and devalue.

Things will devalue by default if we default and leave the eurozone, they;'ll we'll be out in the big bad world with a currency worth **** all and a import market which is gone to ****e.

So in no time at all oil will go through the roof and so will every other import we have,

Now with all these higher costs (oil and the big knock on affects it has) we'll have a situation where the government can't keep up with the running costs for the country so at that stage it would make sense to cut the largest running cost by far...the social welfare bill.

(think of the country as a company, if you ran a company with such a high output cost you'd look to cut it too).

Now I suppose that the government could cut taxes on oil/petrol etc but then that creates an even bigger shortfall in the budget for the government and regardless of what party is in power they'll be a nice big shortfall and higher interest rates if we go out into the big bad world to seek a loan.

So now we have higher living costs and anyone on social welfare getting hit the hardest....now wasn't that all worth it?
:rolleyes:

How about you come up with a workable solution instead of some anarchists wet dream?

Boskowski · 29-05-2012 1:47am

I haven't actually seen a single coherent argument from any 'No' poster either here or on the Politics forum. It's all expressed frustrations and side battles and stuff we have either no influence over or have nothing to do with the treaty and then about 75% ignorance.

Its all about the Europeans will do this and the Germans will do that and I believe X, Y & Z but not a single fact. Has anyone actually read the thing?

I mean don't get me wrong, I can understand all that frustration. I don't like bad bank debts either and I thought it was criminal what was done. And I'm also frustrated with the political alternatives in this country. I think they're all the same and nothing will ever change. I'm p!ssed off too, but come on. Give me one somewhat strong argument that is a little thought out and shows a little line I can follow. Just one please.

Bards · 29-05-2012 8:49am

Boskowski wrote: »

I Give me one somewhat strong argument that is a little thought out and shows a little line I can follow. Just one please.

The Treaty has not yet been fully drafted (The growth Pact), we don't know the exact wording, what is and isn't going to be in the final draft - yet we are being asked to take a blind leap of faith and vote Yes

Surely this is a good enough reason to Vote NO

When, and only when Germany & France Ratify the treaty should we be asked to ratify it too

Max Powers · 29-05-2012 10:33am

This article is a good read on the treaty:

Vote Yes to Brussels and end decades of Irish fiscal ineptitude

DAN O'BRIEN
ECONOMICS : TWO WEEKS ago this column explored the risks of voting No to the fiscal treaty. With the probability of Greece being ejected from the euro zone having risen considerably since, the risks for Ireland, and all weaker peripherals, have become much greater.
Lessening the many risks to national wellbeing is among the best reasons for backing the treaty next week.
But there are also straightforward gains. With little discussion in the debate of the benefits of the rules contained in the treaty, it is worth setting out why stronger budget rules and greater external oversight of budgetary policy should be embraced enthusiastically.
This State has a lamentably long record of appalling fiscal mismanagement. This is no accident. It is the result of a political system that is incapable of steering a large modern State in a fast-changing globalised world.
No parliament anywhere in democratic Europe is weaker than the Oireachtas - in both its lawmaking and holding-to-account functions.
The executive branch of government is as weak. It is peopled by part-time amateurs who are usually inexpert in their ministerial briefs, rarely pro-active and, more often than not, more interested in constituency affairs than effectively managing their departments.
With such a system it is little wonder fiscal policy is conducted on an If-I-have-it-I'll- spend-it basis. The decades-long history of fiscal ineptitude is deeply depressing. But it is essential to recount in order to demonstrate the need for greater checks and balances in how politicians manage the public finances.
In the late 1970s Fianna Fáil splurged. A Fine Gael-Labour coalition then squabbled and dithered. The upshot was that Ireland, by 1984, became the first OECD country to run up a central government debt in excess of 100 per cent of GDP. It was not until the mid-1990s that debt returned to safe levels.
One might have thought such an extended trauma would have engendered an ultra- cautiousness in all those with a hand on the public purse strings. But it didn't. Within an electoral cycle they were at it again.
In the two years leading up to the 2002 election, the FF-PD coalition embarked on an unprecedented pre-election spending binge. Nominal general government spending rose by almost 30 per cent between 2000 and 2002 - three times the euro area average. Ireland's headline budget balance underwent the largest deterioration of any euro area country at that time. When the European Commission raised concerns, it was told to shove off.
As luck would have it, the international downturn then was much shallower than that of the late 1970s and early 1980s. But had the slump turned to deep recession, deficits and debt would have run out of control.
That is exactly what happened in 2007-08. Although taking on bank debts has since made matters worse, the disaster is mostly fiscal in its origins (one quarter of outstanding public debt is attributable to bank costs).
The main reason for the current public debt crisis is much reduced tax revenues - something that was not just a risk during the boom times, but always likely to happen. The accompanying chart shows that by 2006 almost 18 per cent of revenues came from taxes on property market transactions alone (this does not include other revenues associated with the property frenzy, such as the income taxes and PRSI paid by 270,000 construction industry employees).
Even if there had been a soft landing, these revenues would have fallen sharply. A crash landing was guaranteed to vaporise them. Despite the fact that these revenues would not last and the considerable risk they would disappear completely, complacency and hubris among politicians and civil servants prevailed. Had there been a greater focus on the underlying fiscal position, these windfall revenues would have been treated as such. If that had happened, the situation now would be infinitely better.
The "structural deficit" rule contained in the fiscal treaty is designed to measure the underlying fiscal position. The ceiling of 0.5 per cent of GDP makes good sense and only deficit-spending addicts could portray it as unreasonably austere.
The treaty says the European Commission will measure the structural deficit. The Brussels bureaucrats may not always get it right, but they offer a better chance of protecting Irish citizens from those who have proven themselves incapable of even moderately prudent fiscal management

Finnbar01 · 29-05-2012 11:31am

Cabaal wrote: »

Things will devalue by default if we default and leave the eurozone, they;'ll we'll be out in the big bad world with a currency worth **** all and a import market which is gone to ****e.

So in no time at all oil will go through the roof and so will every other import we have,

Now with all these higher costs (oil and the big knock on affects it has) we'll have a situation where the government can't keep up with the running costs for the country so at that stage it would make sense to cut the largest running cost by far...the social welfare bill.

(think of the country as a company, if you ran a company with such a high output cost you'd look to cut it too).

Now I suppose that the government could cut taxes on oil/petrol etc but then that creates an even bigger shortfall in the budget for the government and regardless of what party is in power they'll be a nice big shortfall and higher interest rates if we go out into the big bad world to seek a loan.

So now we have higher living costs and anyone on social welfare getting hit the hardest....now wasn't that all worth it?
:rolleyes:

How about you come up with a workable solution instead of some anarchists wet dream?

Leaving the eurozone will not be a bed of roses, but it is the only choice that is correct. We are caught between a rock and a hard place. Do you think the best solution is to drag out this recession over the next 5 to 10 years, while squandering billions?

We will be leaving the eurozone anyways, let's do it now and get it over with.

Max Powers wrote: »

This article is a good read on the treaty:

Vote Yes to Brussels and end decades of Irish fiscal ineptitude

DAN O'BRIEN
ECONOMICS : TWO WEEKS ago this column explored the risks of voting No to the fiscal treaty. With the probability of Greece being ejected from the euro zone having risen considerably since, the risks for Ireland, and all weaker peripherals, have become...

So Mr O'Brien wants the Germans to run our country because us Paddies are too thick to do so.

I remember in school (years ago), my history teacher explaining to me that the reason why the English colonised Ireland is that they believed that the Irish were too stupid to manage their own affairs and run a country in a proper manner.

I hate to say it, but it looks like the English may have been right.

Max Powers · 29-05-2012 12:44pm

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Leaving the eurozone will not be a bed of roses, but it is the only choice that is correct. We are caught between a rock and a hard place. Do you think the best solution is to drag out this recession over the next 5 to 10 years, while squandering billions?

We will be leaving the eurozone anyways, let's do it now and get it over with.

So Mr O'Brien wants the Germans to run our country because us Paddies are too thick to do so.

I remember in school (years ago), my history teacher explaining to me that the reason why the English colonised Ireland is that they believed that the Irish were too stupid to manage their own affairs and run a country in a proper manner.

I hate to say it, but it looks like the English may have been right.

Pretty right there but I dont think we are too thick Finbarr, all in all I think Irish people are good people. HOWEVER, our politicians have been in general a bunch of complete wasters since approximately the 50s. (Before the war and after foundation of free state, the place was ran with survival in mind i.e the country was doing everything to prove to everyone that we could and would manage our own affairs.) Since then, we have a bunch of self-serving, parish pump, incompetent bufoons in charge.

insight_man · 31-05-2012 12:43am

Remember the safety valve when you go to vote later today:

If you don't know Vote No.

We will come back to this treaty again in a few months time when the Gremans and French have agreed what will be in the final version. We shouldn't accept what is basically the 'first draft'.

Lastly a country can join the treaty countries At Any Time in the future once it agrees to the rules at that time. This is Not a one shot game.

Safety First:
If you don't know, Vote No.

sandin · 31-05-2012 8:32am

insight_man wrote: »

Remember the safety valve when you go to vote later today:

If you don't know Vote No.

.

Thankfully I have a reasonable standard of education like most Irish people and also thankfully the issue has been well explained and therefore I have no doubts that this treaty is good for Ireland and will prevent any government over spending to buy an election again.

Therefore, I know and I have voted yes and I predict a 64% yes vote with the usual uneduacated sheep following SF hotspots saying no.

ROCKMAN · 31-05-2012 11:22am

sandin wrote: »

Thankfully I have a reasonable standard of education like most Irish people and also thankfully the issue has been well explained and therefore I have no doubts that this treaty is good for Ireland and will prevent any government over spending to buy an election again.

Therefore, I know and I have voted yes and I predict a 64% yes vote with the usual uneduacated sheep following SF hotspots saying no.

Its crap like this that really annoys me , Maybe the swell in support for SF is more to do with the lack of confidence in the present leaders and their tactics and very little to do with the lack of education , As for the treaty I think we should not be voting on it at the moment especially voting Yes ,We should be waiting till after its ratified by Germany and France. Would you sign an unfinished contract ???

Ps before calling people uneducated learn how to spell.

Bards · 31-05-2012 12:09pm

sandin wrote: »

Thankfully I have a reasonable standard of education like most Irish people and also thankfully the issue has been well explained and therefore I have no doubts that this treaty is good for Ireland and will prevent any government over spending to buy an election again.

Therefore, I know and I have voted yes and I predict a 64% yes vote with the usual uneduacated sheep following SF hotspots saying no.

Are you calling David McWilliams uneducated?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-the-fiscal-treaty-will-only-make-things-worse-3123628.html

Backstreet Moyes · 31-05-2012 12:20pm

Does anybody know if you can vote if you go down with your passport. Cant find my registration papaers so not registered.

Hijpo · 31-05-2012 12:32pm

You dont need a card just bring a form of photo ID as far as i know

ROCKMAN · 31-05-2012 12:39pm

Nuts102 wrote: »

Does anybody know if you can vote if you go down with your passport. Cant find my registration papaers so not registered.

Just been to vote and seen the man infront of me use his driving licence only , had lost his registration card .

Johnny Johnson · 31-05-2012 12:46pm

sandin wrote: »

Thankfully I have a reasonable standard of education like most Irish people and also thankfully the issue has been well explained and therefore I have no doubts that this treaty is good for Ireland and will prevent any government over spending to buy an election again.

Therefore, I know and I have voted yes and I predict a 64% yes vote with the usual uneduacated sheep following SF hotspots saying no.

Condescending claptrap.

sandin · 31-05-2012 1:56pm

Johnny Johnson wrote: »

Condescending claptrap.

How is it condescending. I'm saying I have a reasonable level of education like MOST Irish people.

Most - "majority" "nearly all" etc etc.

Sinn Fein have traditionally gone for areas and get their core vote (regarded at between 8%-10%) from people who will blindly follow them no matter what they say.

Bards · 31-05-2012 2:03pm

sandin wrote: »

How is it condescending. I'm saying I have a reasonable level of education like MOST Irish people.

Most - "majority" "nearly all" etc etc.

Sinn Fein have traditionally gone for areas and get their core vote (regarded at between 8%-10%) from people who will blindly follow them no matter what they say.

It is more than Sinn Fein who are advocating a NO vote - I'm educated and will be voting NO.

Voting NO does not preclude us from ever accessing the ESM. We can have a 2nd, 3rd... go at the cherry.

In Poker parlance, Voting YES now means we are are going All-In Pre-FLOP (Treaty has not been fully drafted, we are missing the Pro Growth Pact for starters)

so we better be sure we are HOLDING Aces or else we are F***ed

ROCKMAN · 31-05-2012 2:04pm

sandin wrote: »

How is it condescending. I'm saying I have a reasonable level of education like MOST Irish people.

Most - "majority" "nearly all" etc etc.

Sinn Fein have traditionally gone for areas and get their core vote (regarded at between 8%-10%) from people who will blindly follow them no matter what they say.

Calling them uneducated (spelling

) kind of does the trick.

Yes i know its a second go at the spelling mistake but I think it deserves it given the content etc.

OldNotWIse · 31-05-2012 2:16pm

Johnny Johnson wrote: »

Condescending claptrap.

The only thing worse than "condescending claptrap" is resorting to insults (and picking on typos) because someone does not agree with you.

I believe you made the assumption that we are uneducated (in respect of the treaty anyway) by yammering on about "voting NO if you're not sure". The poster was, like myself, simply saying that they are educated and know what way they will vote. I am educated. This is not condescending. It is not a dig at other Irish people, and it is not the reason I am voting yes. Plenty of educated people will be voting no (and plenty are simply voting no because they want to "get at the government")

Johnny Johnson · 31-05-2012 2:58pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Johnny Johnson wrote: »

Condescending claptrap.

The only thing worse than "condescending claptrap" is resorting to insults (and picking on typos) because someone does not agree with you.

I believe you made the assumption that we are uneducated (in respect of the treaty anyway) by yammering on about "voting NO if you're not sure". The poster was, like myself, simply saying that they are educated and know what way they will vote. I am educated. This is not condescending. It is not a dig at other Irish people, and it is not the reason I am voting yes. Plenty of educated people will be voting no (and plenty are simply voting no because they want to "get at the government")

I think you may want to have a read of the thread because I have done none of what you suggest.

OldNotWIse · 31-05-2012 3:53pm

Johnny Johnson wrote: »

I think you may want to have a read of the thread because I have done none of what you suggest.

Oh please, that oul' "read the thread" line? I must be mistaken, I didn't realise referring to someones post as "condescending claptrap" was actually a compliment. Silly me.

Johnny Johnson · 31-05-2012 4:40pm

You are a pleasant individual aren't you. To question the education of those who disagree with you is condescending drivel.

It is obvious that you are of the same thinking as the other person so run along now.

OldNotWIse · 31-05-2012 4:48pm

Johnny Johnson wrote: »

You are a pleasant individual aren't you. To question the education of those who disagree with you is condescending drivel.

It is obvious that you are of the same thinking as the other person so run along now.

I have my moments

I refer you to post 281, and no I wont be "running along" anywhere

Let me get this right. "Condescending claptrap" is for posters who disagree with you/are voting yes/are not afraid to admit they are educated and you reserve "condescending drivel" for anyone who agrees with said posters. Interesting. Is nobody allowed to have an opinion without being insulted? I have accused nobody of being uneducated, I am comfortable with those who may not share my views.

danjo-xx · 31-05-2012 7:53pm

Well I did my duty for better or worse so help me God:(

Am Chile · 02-06-2012 4:20pm

Prob the worst thing about the austerity treaty being passed is the low turnout below 50% anyone who didn,t bother going out to vote need not bother complaining about any future cuts or higher taxes, if the the austerity treaty was put to a vote in other eu countries a lot more then 50% would vote, and it would be voted down, michael noonan has being proven right when he said Ireland would be the only country in the eu who would pass the austerity treaty in a referendum.

When the real austerity kicks in now that its passed, lets see how many people will actually admit to voting yes.

Sad to say It takes a foreign news channel to be honest and tell us the real implications of the yes vote in this austerity treaty referendum. at least I can always say hand on heart I actually went out and voted, and voted no.

I won,t comment on the austerity treaty any further until after the budget is issued in december,given the euro yes camp have promised jobs,stabilty and Investment, we see a year from now how well they deliver on this promise.

insight_man · 03-06-2012 8:13pm

Am Chile wrote: »

Prob the worst thing about the austerity treaty being passed is the low turnout below 50% anyone who didn,t bother going out to vote need not bother complaining about any future cuts or higher taxes, if the the austerity treaty was put to a vote in other eu countries a lot more then 50% would vote, and it would be voted down, michael noonan has being proven right when he said Ireland would be the only country in the eu who would pass the austerity treaty in a referendum.

When the real austerity kicks in now that its passed, lets see how many people will actually admit to voting yes.

Sad to say It takes a foreign news channel to be honest and tell us the real implications of the yes vote in this austerity treaty referendum. at least I can always say hand on heart I actually went out and voted, and voted no.

I won,t comment on the austerity treaty any further until after the budget is issued in december,given the euro yes camp have promised jobs,stabilty and Investment, we see a year from now how well they deliver on this promise.

I agree with everything you've said. summed it all up very well. Unfortunatly the rest of us will have to suffer the consequences of those who voted yes.

And you're right very few people will admit to voting yes!

Sully · 04-06-2012 3:10pm

Firstly, this wasn't an Austerity treaty.

Secondly, even parts of the No Campaign admitted that we had austerity regardless of the way we voted and Decembera budget was going to be tough regardless. We knew that as far back as the General Election.

Thirdly, the No camp always insist other European Counties would vote any EU treaty down yet never provide proof. The Greeks look like they want pro bailout parties back in power and the French voted in a President who wasn't going to change the treaty and was still being an active part of Europe.

Finally, a vast amount of people have openly admitted to voting Yes. Likewise to No. Poll after poll put the Yes side ahead but the No camp insisted the polls were government propaganda and false. It turns out it was accuarte unless your going one step further into the loony house and suggesting it was rigged. Turn out in Ireland is always poor and I think this time there were multiple factors including a poor choice of voting day. The referendums were long winded, trying and at times there was so much scare tactics and bullyboy behavior especially in the last few days from the No Camp I think people, sadly, decided to just dismiss the whole thing.

Also, a reminder Ireland is its own country and entitled to vote when it likes and the way it likes. What other Europeana may have done does not apply. Its amusing on the one side the No camp were giving out about the EU dictating to us but when you want to turn the tables your way you complain we didn't go and vote the way Europeans on the ground may have wanted us to vote.

Hijpo · 04-06-2012 3:40pm

Sully wrote: »

regardless of the way we voted and Decembera budget was going to be tough regardless. We knew that as far back as the General Election.

there was so much scare tactics and bullyboy behavior especially in the last few days from the No Camp I think people, sadly, decided to just dismiss the whole thing.

Its funny how you say bullyboy and scare tactics were used by the No side and dont comment on the governments tactics.

For example
You say that everyone knew there was going to be a harsh budget, then completely over look the fact that the government threatend us with harsher budgets following a no vote. So if there was going to be a harsh budget anyway, why feel the need to apply it to a No vote?

Finnbar01 · 04-06-2012 5:23pm

Sully wrote: »

Firstly, this wasn't an Austerity treaty.

Secondly, even parts of the No Campaign admitted that we had austerity regardless of the way we voted and Decembera budget was going to be tough regardless. We knew that as far back as the General Election.

Thirdly, the No camp always insist other European Counties would vote any EU treaty down yet never provide proof. The Greeks look like they want pro bailout parties back in power and the French voted in a President who wasn't going to change the treaty and was still being an active part of Europe.

Finally, a vast amount of people have openly admitted to voting Yes. Likewise to No. Poll after poll put the Yes side ahead but the No camp insisted the polls were government propaganda and false. It turns out it was accuarte unless your going one step further into the loony house and suggesting it was rigged. Turn out in Ireland is always poor and I think this time there were multiple factors including a poor choice of voting day. The referendums were long winded, trying and at times there was so much scare tactics and bullyboy behavior especially in the last few days from the No Camp I think people, sadly, decided to just dismiss the whole thing.

Also, a reminder Ireland is its own country and entitled to vote when it likes and the way it likes. What other Europeana may have done does not apply. Its amusing on the one side the No camp were giving out about the EU dictating to us but when you want to turn the tables your way you complain we didn't go and vote the way Europeans on the ground may have wanted us to vote.

Yep, great result ok. The government adopted scare tactics to 'encourage' a YES vote. Of course most YES folk will think that we can now avoid austerity and have access to a pot of money.They couldn't be more wrong.

As I said in previous posts, the only way out for this country is to default, drop out and devalue. Anything else is time wasting and costly.

merlante · 04-06-2012 5:36pm

Sully wrote: »

Firstly, this wasn't an Austerity treaty.

Secondly, even parts of the No Campaign admitted that we had austerity regardless of the way we voted and Decembera budget was going to be tough regardless. We knew that as far back as the General Election.

Yes, we will have austerity regardless, because our debt levels are too high to take the conventional approach of having the government stimulate demand in a recession. But a constitutional change will ensure that *every* recession, regardless of our debt situation, will lead to austerity.

It's a dumb thing to put in a constitution but nobody seems to mind because they are convinced of some 'greater' (or dire) future assured by throwing ourselves at the feet of greater powers.

I'd say we'll have a vote for a European finance minister within a year. I expect it'll be passed by the same margin by the same people under even greater threats of doom and destruction. And so European democracy will roll on.

looksee · 05-06-2012 12:36am

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Yep, great result ok. The government adopted scare tactics to 'encourage' a YES vote. Of course most YES folk will think that we can now avoid austerity and have access to a pot of money.They couldn't be more wrong.

As I said in previous posts, the only way out for this country is to default, drop out and devalue. Anything else is time wasting and costly.

I voted yes, I was not aware of any scare tactics that made me vote yes. I do not think we will avoid austerity, but having lived through austerity in the 50s and to some extent in the 70s/80s I reckon I will survive, same as we did before.

Would you care to explain just how your solution would create jobs and restore the economy? Spinning gold from straw maybe, or finding the elves that help out shoemakers?

OldNotWIse · 05-06-2012 10:06am

looksee wrote: »

I voted yes, I was not aware of any scare tactics that made me vote yes. I do not think we will avoid austerity, but having lived through austerity in the 50s and to some extent in the 70s/80s I reckon I will survive, same as we did before.

Would you care to explain just how your solution would create jobs and restore the economy? Spinning gold from straw maybe, or finding the elves that help out shoemakers?

Good point. I await the replies

I too take offence at the suggestion that any of us who voted yes did so because we were "scared into it"

wellboytoo · 05-06-2012 11:13am

I voted yes , no one scared me into it, I thought it was the best decision on the Fiscal treaty, you must have voted for a different treaty than I.

Finnbar01 · 05-06-2012 8:03pm

looksee wrote: »

I voted yes, I was not aware of any scare tactics that made me vote yes. I do not think we will avoid austerity, but having lived through austerity in the 50s and to some extent in the 70s/80s I reckon I will survive, same as we did before.

Would you care to explain just how your solution would create jobs and restore the economy? Spinning gold from straw maybe, or finding the elves that help out shoemakers?

I was not trying to generalise(but maybe I came across like that) that all people who voted yes did so because they were scared. The point I was making was towards the OP and I also believe that the government did use scare tatics to get a yes vote.

My solution would be to take all the pain more or less up front.

It means default, drop out and devalue. Yes I know this would be painful, but dragging it out over a number of years would be far worse.

Bards · 06-06-2012 4:31pm

Hope all ye YES People are Happy - Told you we would have got a better deal by voting NO:mad:

"President of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi appears to have ruled out debt relief for Ireland's banking burden, because the country approved the fiscal treaty."

"When asked about debt relief for the country's banking bailout, Mr Draghi said, following the Yes vote: "I don't think there was any grounds for a quid pro quo.""

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0606/kenny-wants-political-solution-to-euro-crisis.html

The Fiscal Treaty Yes or No

Comments