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

Dubhlinner · 19-05-2012 1:17pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you're voting no on a treaty that you agree with because it has been proposed on a European level?

More so because it will be controlled by Europe. I think it will give momentum in the future for further ceding of sovereignty because people will think "ah sure the decisions are already made at european level what does it matter"

Boulevardier · 19-05-2012 1:49pm

If the treaty led us 1 inch closer to a democratic united states of Europe, then that would be an argument in its favour.

However, the treaty does nothing to change the fact that most of our laws are made by unelected commissions and councils of ministers.

In either event, I am opposed to having anything like balanced budgets written into our laws, or to having our adherence to such rules policed by the undemocratic EU.

djpbarry · 19-05-2012 2:23pm

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Voting no. Its just another step toward a united states of europe.

It's nothing of the sort. If anything, it's just reaffirming budget rules that are already in place.

Dubhlinner wrote: »

The treaty in itself I don't have much against. If a party had proposed it on a national level I'd have been in favour

I honestly have no idea what to do with that. You think it's a good idea but you're voting no anyway? Mind boggling.

fries wrote: »

Remember their Lisbon message ''yes for jobs''? It's been all downhill for Ireland since!

Referendum slogans aside, it really has not been "all downhill" for Ireland since Lisbon became law. Exports are booming and a lot of jobs are being created in certain sectors. Just because Ireland has a bunch of unemployed construction workers does not mean it's been "all downhill".

Right 2B a liar · 19-05-2012 3:16pm

Wow I never knew it was so simple just say no and all our problems will float away

gerryo777 · 19-05-2012 3:20pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Just because Ireland has a bunch of unemployed construction workers does not mean it's been "all downhill".

WHAT??

humanji · 19-05-2012 3:21pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

However, the treaty does nothing to change the fact that most of our laws are made by unelected commissions and councils of ministers.

The treaty does nothing to change this because it's not untrue.

Francie Barrett · 19-05-2012 6:03pm

I am surprised at just how many people here are voting No.

This treaty is the best chance we have to continue funding important services like education, health and social welfare. If we don't get the means to fund vital services that are already stretched to breaking point, we will be condemning the poorest and most vulnerable in society to hardship.

Scofflaw · 19-05-2012 6:26pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

If the treaty led us 1 inch closer to a democratic united states of Europe, then that would be an argument in its favour.

However, the treaty does nothing to change the fact that most of our laws are made by unelected commissions and councils of ministers.

In fact, EU legislation can only be proposed by the "unelected Commission". It's then amended and passed or rejected by the elected parliament and the elected Council of Ministers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

guinnessdrinker · 19-05-2012 7:04pm

At the moment I am veering towards a no but I am still not certain how I will cast my vote on polling day.

My thinking may be quite flawed and maybe I am a little mixed up but one of the reasons I am veering towards no is as follows:

Firstly, I am a little annoyed at the ongoing government mantra of "we inherited this mess" type response to difficult questions about the economy/austerity/lack of growth in the economy. The government knew what they were inheriting so maybe they should stop peddling that line, it's growing tired.

Secondly, and I must say I could be wrong about this but this is how I am picking up government spokespersons. They seem to use the IMF/EU/ECB as a bit of an excuse for government actions. i.e. "we are doing this to fulfill conditions for the bailout". We all know conditions have to be met to receive the funding so stop trying to use this as an excuse, we are paying you to make hard decisions.

I feel the government does not want to take hard decisions by themselves. I hope we emerge from this current bailout without the need for a further bailout. Regardless, Ireland can still apply for funding up to the middle of next year irrespective of how we vote in the referendum. If we do need funding in five years time or further down the line it is up the the government to ensure their own house is in order first, something FF/Greens/PD's couldn't do.

I think what I am saying is, if we vote no then the government have to make their own decisions and I think they are terrified of this more than anything else. I want a government that will make its own decisions however unpopular those decisions may be.

Dubhlinner · 19-05-2012 8:07pm

djpbarry wrote: »

It's nothing of the sort. If anything, it's just reaffirming budget rules that are already in place.

Reaffirming by europe imposing penalties if the rules aren't kept to. How could that not be european control?

I honestly have no idea what to do with that. You think it's a good idea but you're voting no anyway? Mind boggling.

For the reason that its european control and I don't want them gaining any further sovereign power over us. as above

swampgas · 19-05-2012 8:17pm

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Reaffirming by europe imposing penalties if the rules aren't kept to. How could that not be european control?

Actually, it is the biggest countries who are most likely to be affected by the new rules, as the penalties kick in automatically. Right now other countries have to make a move to instigate penalties, and there are plenty of ways large countries can discourage that.

Remember, these new rules would apply to everyone - not just us.

paddydu · 19-05-2012 9:01pm

Thanks guys for all the info in this thread so all I need to do now is vote no to give me a chance of any work and my kids a chance of staying here when they grow up. I used to be proud of my little country and its long struggle with England for independence. Maybe one day we will be independent again, coz id like my kids to know what's it was like, so thanks again for all your views on for and against I'l just vote NO

swampgas · 19-05-2012 9:07pm

paddydu wrote: »

Thanks guys for all the info in this thread so all I need to do now is vote no to give me a chance of any work and my kids a chance of staying here when they grow up. I used to be proud of my little country and its long struggle with England for independence. Maybe one day we will be independent again, coz id like my kids to know what's it was like, so thanks again for all your views on for and against I'l just vote NO

I'm can't see how a No vote will do what you think it will. IMO our future choices are economic success as part of Europe and the Euro or economic decline outside it.

Vita nova · 19-05-2012 10:45pm

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

At the moment I am veering towards a no but I am still not certain how I will cast my vote on polling day.

My thinking may be quite flawed and maybe I am a little mixed up but one of the reasons I am veering towards no is as follows:

Firstly, I am a little annoyed at the ongoing government mantra of "we inherited this mess" type response to difficult questions about the economy/austerity/lack of growth in the economy. The government knew what they were inheriting so maybe they should stop peddling that line, it's growing tired.

Secondly, and I must say I could be wrong about this but this is how I am picking up government spokespersons. They seem to use the IMF/EU/ECB as a bit of an excuse for government actions. i.e. "we are doing this to fulfill conditions for the bailout". We all know conditions have to be met to receive the funding so stop trying to use this as an excuse, we are paying you to make hard decisions.

I feel the government does not want to take hard decisions by themselves. I hope we emerge from this current bailout without the need for a further bailout. Regardless, Ireland can still apply for funding up to the middle of next year irrespective of how we vote in the referendum. If we do need funding in five years time or further down the line it is up the the government to ensure their own house is in order first, something FF/Greens/PD's couldn't do.

I think what I am saying is, if we vote no then the government have to make their own decisions and I think they are terrified of this more than anything else. I want a government that will make its own decisions however unpopular those decisions may be.

The reasons you give to vote no are based on emotion and sentiment and have as much probability of being true as false. I think it's better to make your decision on something concrete such as the articles of the treaty (or the Referendum Commission's interpretation thereof), the specified debt and deficit levels, and the mechanisms to monitor, control and enforce them. For issues not covered directly by the treaty such as the effect on business or other aspects of the economy then there are plenty of economists and business leaders who've already given their expert opinion.
I'm not going to tell you which way to vote but at least base your vote on something concrete.

christmas2012 · 19-05-2012 10:58pm

115 - 271 at the moment for the yes - no vote doesnt look good for them if boards is anything to go by..

I would say im voting no to this fisical treaty im curious to see if the sky will really fall on my head if i say no

Iceland let the banks burn,our first mistake was listening to our government now we are stuck with a vote yes or vote yes again situation

we will be writing into law the household charges,and water charges..

Ozymandius2011 · 19-05-2012 11:33pm

swampgas wrote: »

I'm can't see how a No vote will do what you think it will. IMO our future choices are economic success as part of Europe and the Euro or economic decline outside it.

Iceland is doing fine outside the EU/Euro with 7% unemployment compared to 14% here. I would argue that having unsuitable interest rates imposed on Eurozone countries largely caused the housing bubbles in various EU states such as Ireland and Spain. If we were outside the Euro we could have done what Iceland did and put the failing banks into receivership and refused to bail out the bondholders. The risk of contagion within the Eurozone prevented us doing that. Angela Merkel said a few days ago that the Euro was a "political project".

milewidehead · 19-05-2012 11:44pm

At the moment I'm a D'ont Know. I'm fed up with simplistic mantras from both sides such as 'Austerity is'nt working' or 'Keep Ireland at the heart of Europe'. I d'ont see how this Treaty or 'Fiscal Compact' is going to change things either way. Massive, overwhelming National and personal Debt is the problem, all over Europe practically, and I d'ont see how wishful thinking and good intentions for the future is going to change the Now. Of course we should balance our budgets, just like we should lose weight, eat more vegetables, drive responsibly....etc.etc.
This Treaty seems to be another ceding of our personal responsibility and Sovereigntyto a Centralized European ideal. Future Irish governments will be able to pass the buck on 'Hard Decisions' citing new European Fiscal Rules and regulations. (Nothing new there, think of the ban on turf-cutting).
Hell, I'm not a D'ont Know any more!. I'm voting No, and I'm sure Ireland will remain exactly where it was before the Treaty, regarding Europe.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-05-2012 1:11am

christmas2012 wrote: »

115 - 271 at the moment for the yes - no vote doesnt look good for them if boards is anything to go by..

Boards isn't representative of the Irish population as a whole (especially the part entitled to vote and who actually bother.)

I would say im voting no to this fisical treaty im curious to see if the sky will really fall on my head if i say no

Do you think it is wise to take a needless risk?

Iceland let the banks burn,our first mistake was listening to our government now we are stuck with a vote yes or vote yes again situation

It's been explained time and time again how our situation is not at all comparable to Iceland, Iceland is not in the EU never mind the euro. It's been explained time and time again that this vote has nothing to do with the bank bailouts one way or the other. It's been explained time and time again that the rest of the Eurozone are going ahead with this treaty whichever way we vote, we've no veto over them nor should we have.

we will be writing into law the household charges,and water charges..

It's also been explained time and time again that the household and water charges are nothing to do with this vote either. They're already 'written into law' like any tax or charge is.

Ozymandius2011 · 20-05-2012 2:42am

The relevance of Iceland is that the EU can't force it to bail out the banks whereas the EU did. Perhaps the Euro isn't worth the price of its survival if it impairs our own.

meglome · 20-05-2012 3:10am

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Iceland is doing fine outside the EU/Euro with 7% unemployment compared to 14% here.

To add to what has been said already Iceland had nearly 9 times the unemployment rate after it's bust. Very easy to say their the rate is only 7% now, but that's nearly 8 times more than it was. We lost more jobs in our bust than they have people. Well at least people have stopped comparing us to Norway, that's something I suppose.

milewidehead wrote: »

At the moment I'm a D'ont Know. I'm fed up with simplistic mantras from both sides such as 'Austerity is'nt working' or 'Keep Ireland at the heart of Europe'. I d'ont see how this Treaty or 'Fiscal Compact' is going to change things either way. Massive, overwhelming National and personal Debt is the problem, all over Europe practically, and I d'ont see how wishful thinking and good intentions for the future is going to change the Now. Of course we should balance our budgets, just like we should lose weight, eat more vegetables, drive responsibly....etc.etc.
This Treaty seems to be another ceding of our personal responsibility and Sovereigntyto a Centralized European ideal. Future Irish governments will be able to pass the buck on 'Hard Decisions' citing new European Fiscal Rules and regulations. (Nothing new there, think of the ban on turf-cutting).
Hell, I'm not a D'ont Know any more!. I'm voting No, and I'm sure Ireland will remain exactly where it was before the Treaty, regarding Europe.

So you don't know which way to vote but then you give reasons why to vote no? I can't help but notice the number of times I've seen this same tactic online in the last week or two. Interestingly it was exactly the same up to the Lisbon votes. My other favourite is "I was voting yes but (insert politician here) said (insert comment here) and now I'm voting no".

Scofflaw · 20-05-2012 4:26am

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The relevance of Iceland is that the EU can't force it to bail out the banks whereas the EU did. Perhaps the Euro isn't worth the price of its survival if it impairs our own.

Iceland didn't bail out its banks because their balance sheets were 10 times its GDP - and they've said as much. Ireland bailed out its banks because the government thought they'd come up with a cunning plan to do so - the "cheapest bailout in the world". And the decision to bail out the Irish banks was an Irish decision - nobody made us do it. None of the documentation or what was said at the time even mentions the ECB or the EU, all of whom were visibly unhappy and surprised when presented with Lenihan's "masterstroke" as a fait accompli.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers · 20-05-2012 11:14am

Dubhlinner wrote: »

More so because it will be controlled by Europe. I think it will give momentum in the future for further ceding of sovereignty because people will think "ah sure the decisions are already made at european level what does it matter"

It won't be controlled by Europe though; we will be putting the budgetary constraints into our own constitution/legislation.

karlth · 20-05-2012 12:10pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Iceland didn't bail out its banks because their balance sheets were 10 times its GDP - and they've said as much.

Nevertheless Iceland was offered a "helping hand" from the IMF, Britain and ECB. The offer was declined by the then right wing government. According to the current, left wing, finance minister it wasn't though a "good decision" but a "necessary decision."

Ireland bailed out its banks because the government thought they'd come up with a cunning plan to do so - the "cheapest bailout in the world". And the decision to bail out the Irish banks was an Irish decision - nobody made us do it. None of the documentation or what was said at the time even mentions the ECB or the EU, all of whom were visibly unhappy and surprised when presented with Lenihan's "masterstroke" as a fait accompli

An interesting tidbit surfaced after the trial against Geir Haarde, the icelandic prime minister during the banking crisis. Now Iceland is not a member of the EU but nevertheless EU's José Manuel Barroso telephoned Haarde before the decision was made not to guarantee the banks' debts. Barroso read a pre-written text to Haarde asking that the creditors of the icelandic banks debts would be treated fairly instead of "flushed down the toilet."

I don't of course know whether Barroso telephoned the irish government as well but it is not unlikely.

goat2 · 20-05-2012 1:48pm

HELP
will someone explain in simple terms,
what it mean to vote no,
and what it mean to vote yes.
keep it simple.
as my brain is ravelled by reading all the litrature, and still i am in a state of confusion as there is good and bad on both sides,

djpbarry · 20-05-2012 2:07pm

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Reaffirming by europe imposing penalties if the rules aren't kept to. How could that not be european control?

Ireland was part of Europe last time I checked?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Iceland is doing fine outside the EU/Euro with 7% unemployment compared to 14% here.

How does inflation compare between Iceland and Ireland?

Ozymandius2011 · 20-05-2012 2:21pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ireland was part of Europe last time I checked?
How does inflation compare between Iceland and Ireland?

In April it was 6.4% in Iceland, and 1.9% in Ireland.

Boulevardier · 20-05-2012 4:51pm

Eddie Hobbs in today' Sunday Bizpost magazine says he is voting No because

"Handing over control of our budget toa body that can't be held accountable is not a good idea in my opinion."

This makes sense to me, even though I disagree with Hobbs on a lot of other things.

FreudianSlippers · 20-05-2012 4:59pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

Eddie Hobbs in today' Sunday Bizpost magazine says he is voting No because

"Handing over control of our budget toa body that can't be held accountable is not a good idea in my opinion."

This makes sense to me, even though I disagree with Hobbs on a lot of other things.

Our government?

Scofflaw · 20-05-2012 6:18pm

karlth wrote: »

Nevertheless Iceland was offered a "helping hand" from the IMF, Britain and ECB. The offer was declined by the then right wing government. According to the current, left wing, finance minister it wasn't though a "good decision" but a "necessary decision."

Amidst the sound and fury, it is often forgotten that banks serve a vital economic function.

karlth wrote: »

An interesting tidbit surfaced after the trial against Geir Haarde, the icelandic prime minister during the banking crisis. Now Iceland is not a member of the EU but nevertheless EU's José Manuel Barroso telephoned Haarde before the decision was made not to guarantee the banks' debts. Barroso read a pre-written text to Haarde asking that the creditors of the icelandic banks debts would be treated fairly instead of "flushed down the toilet."

I don't of course know whether Barroso telephoned the irish government as well but it is not unlikely.

More the other way round - Lenihan decided, and then phoned around to tell people. First the rest of the Cabinet, then the UK, France, and the ECB.

Although there is a Fianna Fáil revisionist version, in which a phone call from Trichet that Lenihan neither took nor returned forced the government to guarantee the entire Irish banking system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Vita nova · 20-05-2012 6:25pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Iceland is doing fine outside the EU/Euro with 7% unemployment compared to 14% here. I would argue that having unsuitable interest rates imposed on Eurozone countries largely caused the housing bubbles in various EU states such as Ireland and Spain. If we were outside the Euro we could have done what Iceland did and put the failing banks into receivership and refused to bail out the bondholders. The risk of contagion within the Eurozone prevented us doing that. Angela Merkel said a few days ago that the Euro was a "political project".

Quoting the unemployment rate for a single point in time conveys very little information; one really needs to look at trends and historical precedents to get a more complete picture. In light of that, I've presented the unemployment rates of Iceland and Ireland between 1991 and 2012. The table and plots are compiled from these sources: [1], [2] The rates are for June/July of each year except 2012, wherein it's March.

Iceland has had a lower unemployment rate than Ireland for the last 20 years. In 2007 just before the crisis the relationship was 2.3% vs 4.5%, or if averaged over the period 2000 to 2007, it's 2.8% vs 4.4%. In the pre-boom years, Ireland's rate was at least 2.5 times Iceland's rate (1991-1998) and at its peak it was 5.3% versus 15.7%. Currently both rates stand at 7% and 14%, so from offset and ratio points of view there is nothing unprecedented in the relationship between our rates.

It's a slightly different story when each country is taken individually. There is a historical precedent for high unemployment in Ireland, from the graph we can see that in 1993 it was 15.7%, in fact in the 80s (pre-euro) it was as high as 18% with an even higher rate of emigration than today - ours is a history of boom and bust. Iceland in contrast has no historical precedent of 7% unemployment in the last 20 years.

I think at this stage in our recovery process, it is pointless to advocate an Icelandic style solution to Ireland's problems, that boat has sailed, and given the relative size and nature of our economies it wouldn't necessarily have produced the same result here. That's not to say I wouldn't have liked to see Anglo's debts "flushed down the toilet" but it's too late now.

meglome · 20-05-2012 6:30pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

Eddie Hobbs in today' Sunday Bizpost magazine says he is voting No because

"Handing over control of our budget toa body that can't be held accountable is not a good idea in my opinion."

This makes sense to me, even though I disagree with Hobbs on a lot of other things.

As FreudianSlippers already alluded to, the new body which oversees our spending is an Irish one created in Irish law. In the Fiscal Compact we agree to create it, the fiscal targets already exist in previous agreements. So I'm not sure why Eddie Hobbs said that. Am I missing something?

milewidehead · 20-05-2012 7:24pm

So you don't know which way to vote but then you give reasons why to vote no? I can't help but notice the number of times I've seen this same tactic online in the last week or two. Interestingly it was exactly the same up to the Lisbon votes. My other favourite is "I was voting yes but (insert politician here) said (insert comment here) and now I'm voting no".[/QUOTE] (by meglome)

Meglome, I was'nt trying to be devious or disingenuous. I was simply working it through in my head as I wrote the text. I'm too dumb for 'tactics'. If you want real two-faced, fork-tongued sleeveenery, look no further than our main political parties. (Giving examples would be totally superfluous here.) Basically, Irish politicians have lost the trust of the Irish people. We've been sold-out before, who's to say this is'nt more of it? Cue:The Who...'W'ont Get Fooled Again!'

jimmynokia · 20-05-2012 7:31pm

NO:)

milewidehead · 20-05-2012 7:35pm

jimmynokia wrote: »

NO:)

Got it jimmynokia, but will NO really mean NO? :rolleyes::

meglome · 20-05-2012 7:42pm

milewidehead wrote: »

Meglome, I was'nt trying to be devious or disingenuous. I was simply working it through in my head as I wrote the text. I'm too dumb for 'tactics'. If you want real two-faced, fork-tongued sleeveenery, look no further than our main political parties. (Giving examples would be totally superfluous here.) Basically, Irish politicians have lost the trust of the Irish people. We've been sold-out before, who's to say this is'nt more of it? Cue:The Who...'W'ont Get Fooled Again!'

No problem, have just been seeing a lot of people doing it and as I said it was exactly the same during Lisbon. I'm getting cynical about it.

This isn't about trusting Irish politicians though, many people have come in here and asked questions, those questions have been answered factually. Read the threads in here and you'll find some excellent information. Don't be afraid to ask new questions.

meglome · 20-05-2012 7:46pm

jimmynokia wrote: »

NO:)

YES:) ????

milewidehead wrote: »

Got it jimmynokia, but will NO really mean NO? :rolleyes::

We could run it again but it's perhaps worth noting that as this isn't an EU treaty no one needs us to vote Yes or no. The people a no will hurt is us.

jimmynokia · 20-05-2012 8:36pm

milewidehead wrote: »

jimmynokia wrote: »

NO:)

Got it jimmynokia, but will NO really mean NO? :rolleyes::

NO means NO What part of that are you having difficulty working out.

meglome · 20-05-2012 8:53pm

jimmynokia wrote: »

NO means NO What part of that are you having difficulty working out.

Oh don't mind me I was just reflecting your level of contribution with one of my own.

Fuinseog · 20-05-2012 9:09pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Personally I'll probably be voting No to this as I really don't like the idea of Merkle & Sarkozy having that kind of control over us. I do believe we need to remain part of the EU if we are to stand any chance of getting out of this recession but not like this.

It seems to me however that a lot of people are voting No purely to get one up on the Government and that is simply not a good enough way to vote. If we start basing all our voting decisions on what will piss the government off the most then we stand a good chance voting against something we really ought to vote for, or voting in favour of something we should be against.

If you want to vote No by all means do so, just make sure you do it for the right reasons, and not because you are angry and bitter and want to give Enda K the finger.

we are the only country in the Eu to have a referendum on this. it is expenditure we can ill afford.
the French and Germans feel they should have a say as they have contribute the most towards European unity. SF wants us to vote no. They also did not want us to join the EEC in 1973. we have benefited hugely from EU membership. we have taken their handouts and given them the finger when asked for support.

Fuinseog · 20-05-2012 9:11pm

jimmynokia wrote: »

NO means NO What part of that are you having difficulty working out.

no is not acceptable if we want to be part of the club, ergo this whole referendum is a waste of money.

personally, I do not mind if the EU has more control over this state. it might put an end to the banana republic style corruption and foreigners pulling the strings might advise on how best he government should spend.

Fuinseog · 20-05-2012 9:16pm

JeffK88 wrote: »

I will be voting 'NO' because I do not trust this government or the European Dictatorship. Its basically a treaty on austerity. Remember Lisbon 1 & 2 they promised us jobs and we lost thousands.They told us for months in 2010 we didn't need a bailout and look what happened.They reneged on all their promises. They told us there was growth last year while there was actually contraction. T Everything this government says is always ALWAYS the opposite so if the Fiscal treaty is good for Ireland in reality its the devastating for Ireland and a majority of its citizens.

thats the spirit. we do not need any government. the no crowd are also against any form of tax, which means in the real world the government will have no money for public spending.

C14N · 20-05-2012 9:24pm

milewidehead wrote: »

If you want real two-faced, fork-tongued sleeveenery, look no further than our main political parties. (Giving examples would be totally superfluous here.) Basically, Irish politicians have lost the trust of the Irish people. We've been sold-out before, who's to say this is'nt more of it? Cue:The Who...'W'ont Get Fooled Again!'

I've always found this a ridiculous idea that so many people view their government as antagonists, liars, greedy etc. You know they were voted in by the people? They actually work for us. If they're really that bad, they can be voted out, or could have been not that long ago at the last general election. They want the best thing for Ireland too, they aren't some sort of group of pantomime villains who are trying to hold the working man down just for fun.

Ozymandius2011 · 20-05-2012 10:07pm

meglome wrote: »

As FreudianSlippers already alluded to, the new body which oversees our spending is an Irish one created in Irish law. In the Fiscal Compact we agree to create it, the fiscal targets already exist in previous agreements. So I'm not sure why Eddie Hobbs said that. Am I missing something?

Cormac Lucy explained on Marian Finucane this morning that the ESM will have the power to impose higher contributions by the Irish taxpayer to the ESM. The fact that the ESM is unelected, and that its proceedings will be shielded from media and court/parliamentary scrutiny constitutes an erosion of accountability in Irish budgetary policy and could open the door to corruption, including possibile misappropriation of funds. The ESM risks becoming the European Sleaze Mechanism.

Fuinseog · 20-05-2012 10:20pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Cormac Lucy explained on Marian Finucane this morning that the ESM will have the power to impose higher contributions by the Irish taxpayer to the ESM. The fact that the ESM is unelected, and that its proceedings will be shielded from media and court/parliamentary scrutiny constitutes an erosion of accountability in Irish budgetary policy and could open the door to corruption, including possibile misappropriation of funds. The ESM risks becoming the European Sleaze Mechanism.

Oh my God, if this treaty goes ahead Ireland might have to make a financial contribution to he EU. this would be radical as up until now we have sponged off German taxpayers and gotten a free ride. we might now have to pay for EU states in distress.

Ozymandius2011 · 20-05-2012 10:24pm

Fuinseog wrote: »

Oh my God, if this treaty goes ahead Ireland might have to make a financial contribution to he EU. this would be radical as up until now we have sponged off German taxpayers and gotten a free ride. we might now have to pay for EU states in distress.

Don't forget that we bailed out the German bondholders and the ECB helped ruin the economy with low interest rates that contributed to the housing bubble. And they there's the loss of €200 billion in fishing rights since 1972 (figure from Irish Fisherman's Organisation). Contributing to the ESM is one thing. The problem is the secrecy and the lack of accountability in the model proposed, and the unfettered power of the ESM board to determine the size of the Irish contribution, regardless of the budgetary and economic situation in Ireland at the time. It's a form of taxation without (elected) representation and as such an affront to democracy.

meglome · 20-05-2012 10:59pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Don't forget that we bailed out the German bondholders and the ECB helped ruin the economy with low interest rates that contributed to the housing bubble.

Not this again

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever shown one shred of proof for the myth that we paid off German bondholders. Scofflaw posted a chart from our central bank figures which shows they didn't supply us with the money. (can't find the chart at the moment).

Your claim that the "ECB helped ruin the economy with low interest rates" would imply two things. 1. That all countries in the Eurozone went mad with cheap credit. (They didn't) and 2. That many countries outside of the Eurozone didn't go crazy with cheap credit. (They did).
So it's clear it was the individual countries who made good or bad choices. I have access to the local sweetie shop but I'm not fat.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

And they there's the loss of €200 billion in fishing rights since 1972 (figure from Irish Fisherman's Organisation).

Is that figure really from the Irish Fisherman's organisation? Link?
Not happy enough to state one big myth you then go and state another big myth.

One of my old posts on the subject.

We never had a developed fishing industry and certainly foreign boats were cleaning up before we joined the EU, the same EU that paid for most of our fishery protection vessels. I've read it was anything from €5 billion to €300 billion. The thing is the real figures exist and they are here http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/372/14.aspx?d=1 (show tabular data).

or here http://www.inshore-ireland.com/index...769&Itemid=175

The value of fish taken out of Irish waters from 1950-2004 is approximately €12bn at current exchange rates. Of that, €3.5 billion worth approximately was taken before Ireland joined the EU and the remaining €8.5bn between 1974 and 2004. Of the €12bn, Irish boats have taken approximately 25% or €3bn. The total value of the catch has risen since Ireland joined the EU and Ireland has been amongst the prime beneficiaries from the increased catch (see Fig 1)

So between 1950 and 2004 that's an average of €222 million a year in total. We've given the EU 8.5 billion in fish to 2004 and they have given us at least 50 billion in free cash. Those bastards.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The problem is the secrecy and the lack of accountability in the model proposed, and the unfettered power of the ESM board to determine the size of the Irish contribution, regardless of the budgetary and economic situation in Ireland at the time. It's a form of taxation without (elected) representation and as such an affront to democracy.

How is there a lack of accountability? And how do they have "unfettered power"?

I can't help but notice that even though Europe has given a massive amount of free cash and a load of other cash at low interest rates people don't think we should give them a red cent.

Any other red herrings or goalpost moving you want to do?

EURATS · 20-05-2012 11:45pm

meglome wrote: »

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Don't forget that we bailed out the German bondholders and the ECB helped ruin the economy with low interest rates that contributed to the housing bubble.

Not this again

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever shown one shred of proof for the myth that we paid off German bondholders. Scofflaw posted a chart from our central bank figures which shows they didn't supply us with the money. (can't find the chart at the moment).

Your claim that the "ECB helped ruin the economy with low interest rates" would imply two things. 1. That all countries in the Eurozone went mad with cheap credit. (They didn't) and 2. That many countries outside of the Eurozone didn't go crazy with cheap credit. (They did).
So it's clear it was the individual countries who made good or bad choices. I have access to the local sweetie shop but I'm not fat.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

And they there's the loss of €200 billion in fishing rights since 1972 (figure from Irish Fisherman's Organisation).

Is that figure really from the Irish Fisherman's organisation? Link?
Not happy enough to state one big myth you then go and state another big myth.

One of my old posts on the subject.

We never had a developed fishing industry and certainly foreign boats were cleaning up before we joined the EU, the same EU that paid for most of our fishery protection vessels. I've read it was anything from €5 billion to €300 billion. The thing is the real figures exist and they are here http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/372/14.aspx?d=1 (show tabular data).

or here http://www.inshore-ireland.com/index...769&Itemid=175

The value of fish taken out of Irish waters from 1950-2004 is approximately €12bn at current exchange rates. Of that, €3.5 billion worth approximately was taken before Ireland joined the EU and the remaining €8.5bn between 1974 and 2004. Of the €12bn, Irish boats have taken approximately 25% or €3bn. The total value of the catch has risen since Ireland joined the EU and Ireland has been amongst the prime beneficiaries from the increased catch (see Fig 1)

So between 1950 and 2004 that's an average of €222 million a year in total. We've given the EU 8.5 billion in fish to 2004 and they have given us at least 50 billion in free cash. Those bastards.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The problem is the secrecy and the lack of accountability in the model proposed, and the unfettered power of the ESM board to determine the size of the Irish contribution, regardless of the budgetary and economic situation in Ireland at the time. It's a form of taxation without (elected) representation and as such an affront to democracy.

How is there a lack of accountability? And how do they have "unfettered power"?

I can't help but notice that even though Europe has given a massive amount of free cash and a load of other cash at low interest rates people don't think we should give them a red cent.

Any other red herrings or goalpost moving you want to do?

Those fisheries figures you present, are government figures. Am glad you believe it. Considering the level of corruption currently exposed, and the even greater level that's still under the carpet...you really do insult your own intelligence by accepting it as fact.

And as for free money, no such thing! Nothing in life is free meïn freund.

Have a question for you, as you really seem to be on the ball and in the know..

What's the rush to push this treaty through for may31st?

meglome · 21-05-2012 12:05am

EURATS wrote: »

Those fisheries figures you present, are government figures. Am glad you believe it. Considering the level of corruption currently exposed, and the even greater level that's still under the carpet...you really do insult your own intelligence by accepting it as fact.

And as for free money, no such thing! Nothing in life is free meïn freund.

These fisheries figures are the best international figures available and are used by scientists for working out sustainable catches etc. No offence to you but this sounds like conspiracy theory territory. Why the hell would our own government spend the last 72 years falsifying fish figures and how would no one have twigged it by now?
Not to mention the 200 billion figure is based on... well... nothing as far as I can tell.

The EU pumped money into the likes of Ireland so that if the Irish economy grows we'll need to buy more good from those other EU countries. It's no secret why they gave us the money but we certainly were the winners in the deal.

The problem with 'the Germans dunnit' or the 'EU stole our fish' is lots of people say it but nobody ever proves it.

For example Dr. Karen Devine said on the Saturday with Charlie Bird show (4th of Feb 2012) that we had given the EU 200 billion worth of fish. I emailed Karen Devine and the show to ask where the figures came from. The show had no idea but took on board the figures I sent them and Karen Devine has never replied.

EURATS wrote: »

Have a question for you, as you really seem to be on the ball and in the know..

What's the rush to push this treaty through for may31st?

Well legally speaking once the bill for the treaty is passed there is 90 days for the government to hold the referendum. There is no way around that as far as I know without changing the law. (Which Shane Ross did suggest). Personally though these referenda are just so divisive, we've gone this far and spent so much money we should just get on with it.

EURATS · 21-05-2012 12:18am

I won't argue with you on the fisheries issue other than to say that it is well known that books are fiddled on a grand scale in the fisheries industry. Do you think that our little navy, that spends most of its time in either dry dock or heading on state visits could really have policed our waters?

It's nice to think that the EU really wanted us to grow so that our minuscule 4.5 million population would buy a few bits and pieces off them. We really were a target market.

Who won from the deal considering the sh1t we are in? It was nothing more than an illusion.

Again I ask..what's the rush for a may31st referendum?

Just saw ur addition..well then..there's no panic if we vote NO and see how things pan out. We can always have another one in November.

Is obviously scaremongering on the government side to get it through may31st when there isn't a rush

meglome · 21-05-2012 12:37am

EURATS wrote: »

I wont argue with you on the fisheries issue other than to say that it is well known that books are fiddled on a grand scale in the fisheries industry. Do you think that our little navy, that spends most of its time in either dry dock or heading on state visits could really have policed our waters?

You were happy to accept the 200 billion figure without any backup whatsoever. But are not happy with the much lower figure as you believe the figures are fiddled. You don't see anything contradictory about that?
And most of our navy is Fisheries protection vessels and mostly paid for by the EU.

In 1971 the Naval Service commissioned Verlome Cork Dockyard to build an offshore patrol ship. Named the LÉ Deirdre, it was the first naval vessel purpose-built in Ireland to patrol its waters. The Economic Exclusion Zone of Ireland was increased in 1976 from 12 to 200 miles. The subsequent strain put on the Naval Service prompted funding from the European Economic Community to build seven naval ships, five of which remain in service today; the LÉ Setanta, sold in 1980, and LÉ Deirdre, sold in 2001, having been decommissioned. A Danish stern trawler Helen Basse was leased for a year, serving under the name LÉ Ferdia.

EURATS wrote: »

It's nice to think that the EU really wanted us to grow so that our minuscule 4.5 million population would buy a few bits and pieces off them. We really were a target market.

Why do you think the EU exists?

EURATS wrote: »

Who won from the deal considering the sh1t we are in? It was nothing more than an illusion.

We did very well out of it then we decided to fuel a massive property bubble. Using all the sovereignty the EU supposedly keeps taking from us.

EURATS wrote: »

Again I ask..what's the rush for a may31st referendum?

Legally has to be run then.

EURATS wrote: »

Just saw ur addition..well then..there's no panic if we vote NO and see how things pan out. We can always have another one in November.

Is obviously scaremongering on the government side to get it through may31st when there isn't a rush

I'm planning to vote the best way I can given the question being asked. I don't know (nor does anyone know) what will happen in the future. It's the height of hubris to just assume that something better will happen if we wait around, it could get worse.

And sorry if we're going to talk about scaremongering then I have a long lost of stuff the no campaign are saying.

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

Comments