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

BritsOut · 30-04-2012 7:18pm

Why am I voting no?

- Europe already have power over us and are very smart in their wording of documents, the wording of this document is very suspicious and is clearly a breach of our sovereignty. Look at the German's history, waging wars based on racism. Now look at the French presidential election, it is an election based on racism. Look at the UK's aggressiveness/racism towards us in the past. Do you want people who hate us to control us? It's as if we're the blacks and Europe are the White Americans.

You can claim my above response is wrong but how about this.

- 1 of the main good points of this fiscal treaty is the creation of around 10000 jobs. The previous government also put through many job stimulus' and everybody got the feeling things were getting better but they definately weren't because as soon as 500 jobs are made another 800 could be lost. Our problem isn't making jobs, it's keeping them.

- 6BILLION AUSTERITY. Where is this going to come from? our pockets of course, no rich person will be paying the brunt of this and of course Foreign bondholders will be protected/bailed out while we pay for the crimes of our politicians. Austerity takes money out of the economy that is a fact when we are supposed to be putting money in.

If we had let the banks die we wouldn't have the problems we do now.

Scofflaw · 30-04-2012 8:40pm

meglome, BritsOut, how about you start over? A post should never be met with a dismissive one-liner (although we're all human), because it generates exactly the kind of annoyed response it got. Both posts deleted.

moderately,
Scofflaw

meglome · 30-04-2012 10:01pm

BritsOut wrote: »

- Europe already have power over us and are very smart in their wording of documents, the wording of this document is very suspicious and is clearly a breach of our sovereignty. Look at the German's history, waging wars based on racism. Now look at the French presidential election, it is an election based on racism. Look at the UK's aggressiveness/racism towards us in the past. Do you want people who hate us to control us? It's as if we're the blacks and Europe are the White Americans.

You can claim my above response is wrong but how about this.

Yup I'm claiming most of the above is wrong.

BritsOut wrote: »

- 1 of the main good points of this fiscal treaty is the creation of around 10000 jobs. The previous government also put through many job stimulus' and everybody got the feeling things were getting better but they definately weren't because as soon as 500 jobs are made another 800 could be lost. Our problem isn't making jobs, it's keeping them.

There's nothing in the Fiscal compact about creating jobs.

BritsOut wrote: »

- 6BILLION AUSTERITY. Where is this going to come from? our pockets of course, no rich person will be paying the brunt of this and of course Foreign bondholders will be protected/bailed out while we pay for the crimes of our politicians. Austerity takes money out of the economy that is a fact when we are supposed to be putting money in.

We are borrowing one third of all government spending. So in an ideal world we wouldn't want to cut spending but in no reality is our overspending sustainable.
Would have you been happy to wipe out the bonds held by Irish pension funds too or is it just foreign bondholders?

BritsOut wrote: »

If we had let the banks die we wouldn't have the problems we do now.

The majority of the money we've borrowed didn't go to any bank, it was spent on day to day overspending.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html

It is impossible to be human and not to be furious about this. But anger – righteous or otherwise – should not cloud analysis. However understandable, that has happened in the debate on bank debt.

Three claims are frequently made:
Most public debt is a result of taking on banking debt;

The economic and budgetary outlook would be transformed if banking debt could be offloaded;

A bailout would not have been needed had it not been for socialised banking debt.

These claims are, respectively, plain wrong, wrong and debatable.

sligoface · 02-05-2012 5:57am

i don't think most people who want to vote NO are basing it on any interpretation of the treaty, it's down to their gut reaction to their current experience of feeling disenfranchised, cheated, and saddled with a dismal future. whether or not this treaty is going to accelerate the misery or protect against things getting even worse is not really known to any one on either side of the fence (though many of course claim to know).

a lot of people, myself included, are opposed to the idea of more and more power being put into fewer and fewer hands, and this is making them lean towards a NO vote regardless of the fact that it may be needed to stop countries from overspending so much.

i found it utterly disgusting that the current government are threatening more cuts and harsher budgets if the NO vote wins out. they are trying to scare the most vulnerable, poorest and least powerful into voting YES so they don't lose whatever benefits they are getting to keep a roof over their heads.

it's plain for all to see that our government is corrupt and greedy and expects everyone but themselves to sacrifice and compromise their futures. we need to get them out. but if the treaty passes, it will be similar to the situation we have now where the next gov. will say their hands are tied by what the last gov. did.

Galwayguy35 · 02-05-2012 6:07am

Although I am a SF supporter I will be voting yes because I think it is the right thing for the country and TBH the No side haven't convinced me with their arguements and I thought Joe Higgins was all over the place last night in the TV3 debate.

femur61 · 02-05-2012 7:04am

I'm voting Yes.

One of the reasons cited is people don;t want to give France and Germany more power. We had power ourselves, first the church then our parish pump eletorate systm and we thrived underneath both, didn't we?

The other reason, where will the money come fom for the (overpaid nurses, teachers) with some of the highest paid PS in the OECD who is going to give us more money to overpay them more. As far as I remember, in my mid 40s now we have always borrowed.

sligoface · 02-05-2012 7:09am

one thing i don't understand is that the main reason the gov and others are pushing for a yes vote seems to be so that we have access to borrowing more money, which seems to fly in the face of the major aim of the treaty, which is to stop countries going into so much debt?

i suppose it is because we simply can't survive without more borrowed or bailout funds and that we need to get the money as cheaply, quickly and easily as we can?

does any one think it is possible that not having access to these borrowed funds could be a good thing in the long run? while the short term pain might be very great, it may force us to make the radical changes that will be needed for the country to become closer to solvency. i don't think this treaty is going to discourage the toxic cycle of borrowing, it will encourage it, along with loads more taxes, cuts to public services/social welfare benefits.

it's clear that austerity will be the order of the day whether we pass this or not. the only question is how much for how long. it's really not the treaty that's the evil monster causing austerity, it's the rampant overspending. if we could reduce the outrageous pensions and salaries of our current and past government to something sensible, reduce or eliminate unvouched expenses, and stop paying pensions to anyone who is not actually of a retirement age, we could save an enormous amount. if we did that, and enforced a wealth tax, us ordinary joes would feel less victimized as we could see that we are not the only ones being asked to sacrifice. the reason this treaty could be vetoed by the public is mostly due to being told all the time 'we're all in this together', when clearly we are not.

Scofflaw · 02-05-2012 9:11am

sligoface wrote: »

one thing i don't understand is that the main reason the gov and others are pushing for a yes vote seems to be so that we have access to borrowing more money, which seems to fly in the face of the major aim of the treaty, which is to stop countries going into so much debt?

i suppose it is because we simply can't survive without more borrowed or bailout funds and that we need to get the money as cheaply, quickly and easily as we can?

does any one think it is possible that not having access to these borrowed funds could be a good thing in the long run? while the short term pain might be very great, it may force us to make the radical changes that will be needed for the country to become closer to solvency. i don't think this treaty is going to discourage the toxic cycle of borrowing, it will encourage it, along with loads more taxes, cuts to public services/social welfare benefits.

it's clear that austerity will be the order of the day whether we pass this or not. the only question is how much for how long. it's really not the treaty that's the evil monster causing austerity, it's the rampant overspending. if we could reduce the outrageous pensions and salaries of our current and past government to something sensible, reduce or eliminate unvouched expenses, and stop paying pensions to anyone who is not actually of a retirement age, we could save an enormous amount. if we did that, and enforced a wealth tax, us ordinary joes would feel less victimized as we could see that we are not the only ones being asked to sacrifice. the reason this treaty could be vetoed by the public is mostly due to being told all the time 'we're all in this together', when clearly we are not.

A big problem for us is that we have already borrowed, and some of that borrowed money is falling due - €8.3bn on January 15th 2014, for example, 2 weeks after the troika funding runs out.

Even without borrowing further, we need to be able to repay or roll over that money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

packiec50 · 02-05-2012 10:55am

Scofflaw wrote: »

A big problem for us is that we have already borrowed, and some of that borrowed money is falling due - €8.3bn on January 15th 2014, for example, 2 weeks after the troika funding runs out.

Even without borrowing further, we need to be able to repay or roll over that money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Quick question.
Does the ESM fund not come into effect until 2015? Or is it the Fiscal Treaty that does not comes into effect until 2015?

Thanks

Scofflaw · 02-05-2012 11:04am

packiec50 wrote: »

Quick question.
Does the ESM fund not come into effect until 2015? Or is it the Fiscal Treaty that does not comes into effect until 2015?

Thanks

1. ESM comes into being in July 2013, or as soon as countries representing 90% of the capital have ratified. We represent 1.6% of the capital.

2. The Fiscal Treaty comes into effect as soon as 12 countries have ratified it, but doesn't apply to us until 2018 because...

3. there's a three year grace period after the end of a deficit programme, and Ireland's current programme doesn't end until 2015, although...

4. Ireland's current troika funding runs out in December 2013.

They should do a diary, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

theroad · 02-05-2012 11:16am

Is there something I have not understood? The government's booklet, "The Stability Treaty" arrived in the post today, it shows six Titles and 16 Articles in the treaty.

The pdf I downloaded from the Commission's website, "TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN STABILITY MECHANISM..." runs to 64 pages, with eight Chapters, 48 Articles and one Annex.

Now I am wondering which are text are we voting on, and what is the relationship between these two documents. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Thanks.

K-9 · 02-05-2012 11:25am

You are voting on the Treaty which is in the booklet.

The Treaty on the Commission website is to establish the ESM, the new fund we will/might! have to borrow from.

beeftotheheels · 02-05-2012 1:46pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. ESM comes into being in July 2013, or as soon as countries representing 90% of the capital have ratified. We represent 1.6% of the capital.

2. The Fiscal Treaty comes into effect as soon as 12 countries have ratified it, but doesn't apply to us until 2018 because...

3. there's a three year grace period after the end of a deficit programme, and Ireland's current programme doesn't end until 2015, although...

4. Ireland's current troika funding runs out in December 2013.

They should do a diary, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And the pro treaty parties might reasonably be expected to learn it before engaging in debates with Joe "additional €6bn cuts in 2015" Higgins.

Debate was appalling. Joe & Mary Lou "don't put this treaty in our constitution" McDonald telling lies about the treaty, Michael and Simon not being sufficiently versed with the treaty to call them on it.

Noonan saying that the budget might have to be harsher if we vote no, which is pretty much a fact given our cost of funds will increase, is now "threatening the electorate".

I now don't think there is any way this referendum will pass, and it won't pass for all the wrong reasons.

And then we'll run it again.

Scofflaw · 02-05-2012 3:14pm

beeftotheheels wrote: »

And the pro treaty parties might reasonably be expected to learn it before engaging in debates with Joe "additional €6bn cuts in 2015" Higgins.

Debate was appalling. Joe & Mary Lou "don't put this treaty in our constitution" McDonald telling lies about the treaty, Michael and Simon not being sufficiently versed with the treaty to call them on it.

Noonan saying that the budget might have to be harsher if we vote no, which is pretty much a fact given our cost of funds will increase, is now "threatening the electorate".

I now don't think there is any way this referendum will pass, and it won't pass for all the wrong reasons.

I am consistently amazed by the apparent inability of the Irish political parties to brief even those members of the party who will be appearing in public debates, never mind the ordinary TD or Councillor.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

And then we'll run it again.

Which will also be "bullying", and, courtesy of the government's claim we won't, will automatically be dishonest. Obviously the chances are it will be re-run once it becomes clear we need the money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome · 02-05-2012 3:29pm

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I now don't think there is any way this referendum will pass, and it won't pass for all the wrong reasons.

And then we'll run it again.

I'm being less pessimistic. I think it will likely pass, though I agree with you and Scofflaw as to how it would play out if it doesn't pass.

humanji · 02-05-2012 3:45pm

Sorry if it's been asked and answered before, but if we vote no, would we actually be able to sign up to it at a later date? I don't mean the usual re-run of referenda, but if it because apparent that Ireland couldn't go on without it, would we be able to do a u-turn?

beeftotheheels · 02-05-2012 3:52pm

humanji wrote: »

Sorry if it's been asked and answered before, but if we vote no, would we actually be able to sign up to it at a later date? I don't mean the usual re-run of referenda, but if it because apparent that Ireland couldn't go on without it, would we be able to do a u-turn?

Yeah, probably. But it would cost us. It would have to be seen to cost us.

At the moment the ESM plans on lending to us (if we need to borrow from it) at its borrowing costs which are much lower than ours. Commercially they could lend us the funds at a bit more than that to cause us economic pain. This would be necessary to appeal to the electorates of the creditor countries.

The act of voting no probably makes a second bail out more likely because the markets could freak out at our recklessness and our borrowing costs could go up, and as Standard and Poors have pointed out they might downgrade us.

Plus we'd be a laughing stock in Europe. The one country that gets to have referenda on this and we keep voting no and then voting yes.

We shouldn't have protest voting in a referendum. We should just vote the way we see fit. If that happened then there would be no point in rerunning them as the result would be unlikely to change.

The only reason we've been rerunning them is because we acknowledge that we, the electorate, have not been doing our job properly. We've been caught out on it twice so it is now pretty much expected.

recedite · 02-05-2012 4:11pm

I heard one govt. guy on the radio Saturday morning (might have been Noonan) saying the referendum would definitely not be re-run in the event of a no vote. He explained (somewhat irrationally) that previous re-runs happened because the EU treaties could not go ahead without our vote, whereas this one can.
Not that "the word" of a politician means anything.

Scofflaw · 02-05-2012 4:17pm

humanji wrote: »

Sorry if it's been asked and answered before, but if we vote no, would we actually be able to sign up to it at a later date? I don't mean the usual re-run of referenda, but if it because apparent that Ireland couldn't go on without it, would we be able to do a u-turn?

From a legal point of view, there's no difficulty. Mind you, how hilarious would it be if the government stuck to their word and said no, we said no second referendum?

cordially,
Scofflaw

beeftotheheels · 02-05-2012 4:17pm

recedite wrote: »

I heard one govt. guy on the radio Saturday morning (might have been Noonan) saying the referendum would definitely not be re-run in the event of a no vote. He explained (somewhat irrationally) that previous re-runs happened because the EU treaties could not go ahead without our vote, whereas this one can.
Not that "the word" of a politician means anything.

If we vote no, and we need new funding, and the Europeans refuse to allow us borrow from the EFSF, it would be reckless in the extreme of any Irish Government not to ask us again whether we were really sure we wanted the country to go down the toilet rather than allow them to ratify a pretty benign treaty.

beeftotheheels · 02-05-2012 4:26pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mind you, how hilarious would it be if the government stuck to their word and said no, we said no second referendum?

I know I shouldn't but that really made me laugh - first thing to lift my depression about this all day!

Losphel · 02-05-2012 4:55pm

I am going to vote for a no because there are several provisions in the treaty that greatly concern me. A few examples:

The Contracting Parties that are subject to an excessive deficit procedure under the European Union Treaties shall put in place a budgetary and economic partnership programme including a detailed description which must be put in place and implemented to ensure an effective and durable correction of their excessive deficits.

That, to me, seems to say that there'll just be more taxes on the horizon if it goes through.

If, on the basis of its own assessment or of an assessment by the European Commission, a Contact Party considers that another Contract Party has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgement of the Court of Justice, it may bring the case before the Court of Justice and request the imposition of financial sanctions.

Or in other words, if one country doesn't feel like another country isn't doing enough, they can ask to impose sanctions on them. That, to me, is completely ridiculous and I really don't see how it can be beneficial in any way.

...The Contacting Parties shall take the necessary actions and measures in all the domains which are essential to the good functioning of the euro area...

Necessary actions and measures. In my eyes, that means more taxes and somehow I doubt that the upper echelon will be contributing to it.

Based on what I've read of the treaty, it completely lacks any foresight or long term planning, is very vague, doesn't protect the public in any way, shape or form and I honestly believe that passing it will only make things worse.

Regardless of whether you vote yes or no, I hope you will read the treaty and make an informed decision, as I think this will have a significant impact on our future.

The link to the full treaty is here:http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/579087/treaty.pdf

beeftotheheels · 02-05-2012 5:02pm

Losphel wrote: »

I am going to vote for a no because there are several provisions in the treaty that greatly concern me.

Regardless of whether you vote yes or no, I hope you will read the treaty and make an informed decision, as I think this will have a significant impact on our future.

Can I ask you to head over to Seamus Coffey's blog where he provides a useful summary of the rules already applicable to us? With links to the source documents so you can read them for yourself.

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

I know I'm adding to your reading list, but you can't judge the treaty on its own merits without understanding the particulars of what it would actually change.

I'm also cheered by a poster suggesting people read the treaty and vote on its merits, despite the fact that you'll be voting in the opposite way to me.

K-9 · 02-05-2012 5:20pm

recedite wrote: »

I heard one govt. guy on the radio Saturday morning (might have been Noonan) saying the referendum would definitely not be re-run in the event of a no vote. He explained (somewhat irrationally) that previous re-runs happened because the EU treaties could not go ahead without our vote, whereas this one can.
Not that "the word" of a politician means anything.

If you look at Scofflaw's post no. 161, Noonan is actually telling the truth!

ixtlan · 02-05-2012 5:40pm

Losphel wrote: »

That, to me, seems to say that there'll just be more taxes on the horizon if it goes through.

True. No quite disputes more charges and taxes are on the way. However the question really is whether voting no will mean fewer taxes and charges.

Losphel wrote: »

Or in other words, if one country doesn't feel like another country isn't doing enough, they can ask to impose sanctions on them. That, to me, is completely ridiculous and I really don't see how it can be beneficial in any way.

True, I think... though I'm a little unclear on the precise procedures. I disagree this is ridiculous. You are looking at it from the point of view that Germany will be demanding cuts saying the Irish are wasteful. If the ideal solution comes about, it may involve Eurobonds or some form of bond pooling. Initially that benefits us, but in the longer term if we recover, we may start looking at Greece and Italy and demanding answers as to why we are paying more for our bonds because they are not running their country properly. If we retire at 68, are you happy that other states retire younger... if that affects your tax burden?

Losphel wrote: »

Necessary actions and measures. In my eyes, that means more taxes and somehow I doubt that the upper echelon will be contributing to it.

Well, true more taxes whatever happens, but will it be more or less taxes voting yes or no? As to who contributes, that's going to be a matter of much argument, but again it doesn't really affect the yes/no decision.

Losphel wrote: »

Based on what I've read of the treaty, it completely lacks any foresight or long term planning, is very vague, doesn't protect the public in any way, shape or form and I honestly believe that passing it will only make things worse.

It's vague because the states don't want to be absolutely boxed in. Basically it's a promise to try to be more fiscally responsible in the future, which it is hoped will allow the richer states to take on some of the burden from the harder hit ones. It does not guarantee that, so you might then argue it's pointless, but politics is different to economics, governments and their electorates need to be convinced slowly.

Losphel wrote: »

Regardless of whether you vote yes or no, I hope you will read the treaty and make an informed decision, as I think this will have a significant impact on our future.

The link to the full treaty is here:http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/579087/treaty.pdf

Agreed.

Ix.

Scofflaw · 02-05-2012 5:49pm

True. No quite disputes more charges and taxes are on the way. However the question really is whether voting no will mean fewer taxes and charges.

We cannot vote our way out of recession, nice though that would be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite · 02-05-2012 9:27pm

K-9 wrote: »

Noonan is actually telling the truth!

Yes, but the reasoning that any referendum result is invalid when it holds up an EU treaty is very flawed.

C14N · 02-05-2012 9:37pm

I was a bit on the fence but reading the comments here, I think I will vote "Yes". It seems like the negative ramifications are limited and I have generally liked the idea of more solidarity in Europe. I think making it the law to balance deficit is definitely the right idea and that seems to be the primary force behind the treaty in the first place. Also, while this may come across as controversial, I do believe the current government have the country's best interests at heart when they push for a yes and I believe they have more idea what they're doing than the Joe Duffy crowd who get their news from the rag papers (sorry if I'm generalizing, I don't think all No voters are like this).

I would like to be able to fully understand and read the treaty but, like for a lot of people, reading it just won't get me far. I won't be able to understand it or its implications and I will be lucky to pay attention to the end. As such I am dependent on second hand information and I think choosing a side is something of a valid factor.

I'm sure there are good reasons to vote "No" but most of the ones I've seen have been down to "I don't trust this government", trying to give the finger to Kenny and the EU and conspiracy theories like we saw during the Lisbon campaign.

Sand · 02-05-2012 9:50pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Obviously the chances are it will be re-run once it becomes clear we need the money.

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.

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.

K-9 · 02-05-2012 10:32pm

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but the reasoning that any referendum result is invalid when it holds up an EU treaty is very flawed.

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.

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

Comments