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

Fiscal Compact Referendum 2012

13567

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    The UK aren't taking part for two reasons, they're not in the euro and their prime minister is a Tory. Other non-euro EU members see this treaty as good sense even though they won't be bound by it until they join the euro.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ Hayden Breezy Snake


    Ah, "take a stance", there it is. This treaty is designed to stop countries (including us) getting into a situation like we're in at the moment again. How can that be a bad thing? Anything that reins in giveaway dickhead politicians is a good thing IMO.

    Another excellent line I've come across a load of times in relation to this and other European referendums is "If it doesn't change much then why do we need to vote on it?" and other such ideas. If ever a symptom summed up the overall problem with politics in this country it's this. We complain when not asked to vote, we say **** like we want more "direct democracy" then complain when a vote is necessary.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jojo86 wrote: »
    [...] I for one would like the country to prove that we cannot be bullied or be yes men to our joke government and the mess they got us into.
    You do realize that the main aim of this fiscal compact is to stop governments from spending money they don't have?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    robindch wrote: »
    You do realize that the main aim of this fiscal compact is to stop governments from spending money they don't have?


    Yet the only argument we are given for passing this treaty is so that we can borrow and spend money we don't have.

    That, and blind obedience to a political experiment that has led to the bankruptcy, or near bankruptcy, of at least five Eurozone countries.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Yet the only argument we are given for passing this treaty is so that we can borrow and spend money we don't have.
    Well, not really.

    No matter which way we vote, we will need to borrow money in order to continue as a viable entity.

    The argument for voting yes when it comes to borrowing, is that we will have more ready access to cheaper funding.

    At the moment that appears to be the only argument on the table at all, the "no" side as far as I can tell have no solid reasons why "no" would be the better choice.

    I find it curious that some quarters would claim we have a government trying to pull the wool over our eyes for a "yes" vote or who are otherwise incompetent, but in the next breath claim that if we vote "no", this same shower of incompetents will suddenly become budgetary wizards and drag us painlessly out of the mire.

    Most curious is Joe Higgins's claim that a "no" vote will force the government to look for a better alternative solution. Surely if there was a better alternative, we would be going with that?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Yet the only argument we are given for passing this treaty is so that we can borrow and spend money we don't have.
    As Seamus says, well, not really.

    Page one of the Stability Treaty booklet summarizes what the treaty is for:
    The Stability Treaty is an international agreement among twenty-five European countries including all countries who, like Ireland, use the euro. The Treaty states that its purpose is to support “sustainable growth, employment, competitiveness and social cohesion”.

    To do this, it requires countries to apply discipline to their national budgets through stronger rules to help get debts under control and through a rule which – balanced out in good times and bad taken together – ensures that your government doesn’t spend more than it can raise in taxes over time.

    It is part of a group of plans and rules aimed at helping economic recovery and to prevent a repeat of the economic and financial crisis we’ve had in Ireland and Europe in recent years.
    On page two, the booklet points out that Ireland must sign up to this treaty if it wishes to access ESM bailout funds. These bailout funds are different from the market-originated funds which are the traditional (until fairly recently) source for cash which Ireland can "borrow and spend".


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


    seamus wrote: »
    Most curious is Joe Higgins's claim that a "no" vote will force the government to look for a better alternative solution. Surely if there was a better alternative, we would be going with that?
    If anyone thinks that if we had had this treaty 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in, they are mistaken. The treaty stops us running a serious deficit, which is good, and which its predecessor the European Stability Mechanism also did.
    But, all through the boom years the govt. spending went wildly out of control, yet they still managed to record a modest surplus most years. Why? Because the govt. collected easy revenues by taxing money that was temporarily being loaned into the country. A classic example is charging someone €40k stamp duty, when the person is buying a house with a mortgage.
    Money is always shifting around different countries looking for investment opportunities, and this can inflate a bubble in one country, if the particular country happens to be in vogue with investors, or its domestic banks lend out too much cash. Especially if the cash is being printed in Frankfurt and can't be devalued afterwards, even when the asset value collapses.
    capital flows from countries with relatively large savings to countries with relatively high investment. In EMU this flow of capital was increased by the introduction of the euro...........In Spain and Ireland it went into booming real estate markets, in Greece it funded high government deficits and in Portugal it supported private consumption.
    ^ an extract from a speech by one of the euro big shots which lays out the problems and the solutions in clear and concise manner.
    So this treaty is probably only the start of many further controls on the ability of individual countries to choose their own fiscal policy. Its either that, or go back to having different currencies. In for a penny, in for a pound.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    recedite wrote: »
    If anyone thinks that if we had had this treaty 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in, they are mistaken...
    I don't disagree at all - as you point out, we would have been running a good strong budget and so the EU commission would have no mandate under any such treaty to tell us otherwise.

    The problems really occur afterwards, as we've discovered, when your flimsy tax base collapses. It's when a company is deep in **** that something like this is best to implement as it requires that we can't just fudge our way through it and hope that the market picks up. We effectively remain peer-reviewed until we sort out our finances.
    Then when the market picks up, we have a stable tax base which a government is unlikely to change back to a very unstable one. While economic crashes can and will still happen, in theory we should be much more capable of riding the storm since we've structured our tax base in a way that's sustainable.

    The theory is more that if this is something we'd signed up to in the 80's, we may not be in this mess now.

    But it's all theory.

    Whether it works or not, I like the idea of Irish governments being subject to peer review when their budget is in bits.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    seamus wrote: »
    The theory is more that if this is something we'd signed up to in the 80's, we may not be in this mess now.

    But it's all theory.

    Weren't most of these constraints already built into Maastricht? So, we did sign up to this in the nineties. It was ignored then, simply because it suited France and Germany to do so, It will be ignored again if it suits France and Germany to do so. These kinds of rules will only ever apply to the little people. In any case, all of the main political parties support this treaty. If it's contents are such a great idea, then there is nothing stopping them from operating within it's parameters.

    I have a much more realistic theory. If we had never signed up to the Euro, if we had never allowed our interest rates to be set for the benefits of the larger economies we would not now be bankrupt.

    The more power we give to Berlin and Paris, the more decisions will be made for the benefit of Berlin and Paris, and the more likely we are to sink beneath the waves of the Atlantic ocean. If our needs conflict with theirs then we will come out on the losing end every single time.

    We are always told that Europe has been good for Ireland. That's not true. Politically, there is no such thing as Europe. There was the EEC, then the EC, then the EU. Whatever about the EEC and the EC, the EU has been an absolute disaster for this country.

    It's really time we stopped with our pseudo-religious devotion to the EU. It's time that we stopped looking at ideals and promises and started looking at evidence and results. The EU is an expensive, lumbering administrative nightmare that has led to the bankruptcy or near bankruptcy of a significant percentage of it's members.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Sources?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Weren't most of these constraints already built into Maastricht? So, we did sign up to this in the nineties. It was ignored then, simply because it suited France and Germany to do so, It will be ignored again if it suits France and Germany to do so.
    Haven't checked the treaty texts, but as far as I recall, under Maastricht, countries which overran their deficit targets could be sanctioned by other Euro-nation countries, but only if the sanction was put up for vote, then voted upon, by the other participating countries.

    Under the Stability Treaty, it works the other way around: any government which overruns its deficit targets is subject to automatic sanction by the EU, a sanction which can only be voided by majority vote amongst the participating nations.

    Means that countries will have a much harder time politicking their way out of a deficit overrun.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Ah, "take a stance", there it is. This treaty is designed to stop countries (including us) getting into a situation like we're in at the moment again. How can that be a bad thing? Anything that reins in giveaway dickhead politicians is a good thing IMO.

    It's not really though. It's designed to stop countries from getting into the mess that Greece is currently in. It's not actually got that much to do with our mess at all and won't prevent us from doing most of the same crap again at some future point.

    In the short term the end result of this treaty is just further kicking the can down the road, putting off what will come until a later date. This does not work and generally just makes the final outcome worse in the long run. Things as they currently stand are unviable, and in order to get viable again sooner rather than later, we need to accept just how messed up things are, take the austerity as hard and fast as necessary and start over. As far as I can see this treaty won't help us do that.

    I haven't fully decided yet but if I vote no, I'll be voting no for austerity. For what should have been accepted and done 5 years ago and for what I hope will be done this year and not 5/10/15 years down the road. In the hope that this country will emulate Iceland and not as appears more likely, Japan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    I say vote no.
    Abdicate the liability for private bank debt.
    Close the budget deficit immediately.
    Deal with the social/civil problems that will undoubtedly unfold.
    Then, spend less than we earn.
    Lower the corp rate.
    Don't sell state assets.

    Easy. Peasy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    I am entirely on the fence on this one.

    The treaty seems like more rules, but rules didn't help Spain. Some TV man said they stayed within the current EU rules and are now screwed, but Germany didn't and are OK.
    So I'm thinking, what good are rules that don't help?

    Explain it to me like I'm a 10 year old, please. :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I am entirely on the fence on this one.

    The treaty seems like more rules, but rules didn't help Spain. Some TV man said they stayed within the current EU rules and are now screwed, but Germany didn't and are OK.
    So I'm thinking, what good are rules that don't help?

    Explain it to me like I'm a 10 year old, please. :p

    Vote yes to get a lollipop for yourself and daddy to keep his job.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Jernal wrote: »
    Vote yes to get a lollipop for yourself and daddy to keep his job.

    YAY!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    what good are rules that don't help?
    The main aim of the Stability Treaty is to ensure that messes like Greece don't happen again, firstly by ramping up the monitoring of budgets (the Greek Department of Finance manipulated stats for years, effectively scamming the EU and the private finance markets) and secondly, by ensuring that governments which overspend are contractually and publicly obliged to reduce spending and/or increase taxation, if they do take on excessive debt.

    The Treaty is much less applicable to Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, for the following reasons: Italy has a high budget deficit and national debt, but it's considered (mostly) able to repay this given reasonable economic conditions. Spain's government stuck to the EU targets pretty much faultlessly, but the amount of private credit (delivered via banks) became unsustainable, much as it did in Ireland and Portugal. Property crashes in these three countries wiped billions off the present value of private credit, and governments were forced to step in to avoid a general financial meltdown (bear in mind here the global meltdown that happened when Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers crashed in the US; people seem to forget this disappointingly persistently).

    So in short, the Stability Treaty won't do much to or for Ireland one way or the other since the Irish government has generally stuck to the terms and conditions it lays out anyway. That said, the Irish tax base was heavily dependent on the property sector, so once that went down the pan, so did amount of tax collected by the Irish state; hence the current €20 billion difference between income and expenditure and the governments less-than-successful attempts to widen the tax base. There's also a persuasive argument that the general terms and conditions contained within the Treaty should be governed by primary legislation enacted within the Dail, and not by the Constitution which is difficult to change.

    What the Stability Treaty doesn't do, and what Central Bank Governer Patrick Honohan called for yesterday, is (a) to regulate the private credit market -- aka the banks -- to enforce prudent lending policies and (b) to consider setting up a pan-European banking agency which will step in, at the EU level, to stabilize shaky banks, rather than leaving them become the responsibility of the state (as happened/is happening in Ireland, Spain and Portugal with catastrophic results).

    If the Stability Treaty enacted such an EU-wide institution, people would be start-raving insane to vote against it. As it stands, and with its general inapplicability to Ireland and its missed opportunities, I'm about 60% in favour of the Treaty, so I'll probably be voting yes if I remember to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    YAY!

    It won't really matter whether you vote yes or no.
    Either way the credit cards are being cut up and the kids are not getting lollipops.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,137 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    robindch wrote: »
    bear in mind here the global meltdown that happened when Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers crashed in the US; people seem to forget this disappointingly persistently

    "When America sneezes, Europe catches the cold"

    ^^^ One of the only things I remember from Business Studies class


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Penn wrote: »
    "When America sneezes, Europe catches the cold"
    It wasn't only America sneezing. Rather, the world's entire banking system went into respiratory arrest, causing the Federal Reserve to step in and bail out the whole system with an eye-watering series of secret, undeclared and unvoted guarantees etc totalling over seven trillion dollars, around 50% of the USA's GDP:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

    This money was lent/guaranteed/etc to banks worldwide, including around €8 billion lent to BOI and AIB, and subsequently repaid.

    I believe that this colossal bailout is the main reason that governments worldwide are scared white and shitless about collapsing banks, whether they're German, French or elsewhere's, and to be honest, I think they should be a bit more open about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ Hayden Breezy Snake


    I have a much more realistic theory. If we had never signed up to the Euro, if we had never allowed our interest rates to be set for the benefits of the larger economies we would not now be bankrupt.
    Monetary policy isn't the only way to restrain spending etc., what the hell makes anyone think that if we could have set our own interest rates we wouldn't have done the same thing? Would it be the increases of government spending of ~10% while inflation was already hitting 5%? Oh wait, the central bank is independent and impartial right? :rolleyes:


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


    Zamboni wrote: »
    I say vote no.
    Abdicate the liability for private bank debt.
    Close the budget deficit immediately.
    Good plan if we hadn't adopted the Euro, but too late now either way as the debts have already been transferred onto the State.
    robindch wrote: »
    What the Stability Treaty doesn't do, and what Central Bank Governer Patrick Honohan called for yesterday, is (a) to regulate the private credit market -- aka the banks -- to enforce prudent lending policies and (b) to consider setting up a pan-European banking agency which will step in, at the EU level, to stabilize shaky banks, rather than leaving them become the responsibility of the state (as happened/is happening in Ireland, Spain and Portugal with catastrophic results).
    Also a good plan, as it would shift responsibility for bad banks onto the entire eurozone, and share it out evenly. Which would be fair because the ECB is effectively dictating the rules for banking, and telling us to pay off the bondholders etc. But the Germans will never agree to sharing responsibility for debts unless we sign up for this treaty first (and maybe some other treaties still to come)
    The problem is, we have fallen between two stools.
    So we go along with it. Or else leave the Euro and do an Iceland. But I wouldn't trust our gombeens to pull that one off successfully.

    Banks, IMO are a lot like religions. Their products (credit and creditworthiness) depend on the buyer having faith. If you lose faith in the creditworthiness, the credit is worthless. If you buy into it, they will slowly syphon off your sweat as their profit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    As far as I can see , it makes little difference to the bigger picture if we vote yes or no- it is happening anyway as it is an opt out mechanism. The days of us holding up the Euro-train would appear to be over.

    We have voted yes to every other vote - all of them more important that this one - so it is a bit late to be throwing the toys out of the pram .

    Vote yes and let the cheap(er) money continue to be available- vote no and face what ? No one really knows .

    In any case the French and the Dutch might wreck it anyway and we will avoid being labelled as the villains - pragmatism rules ok.


  • Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭jojo86


    My stance is based from the viewpoint that when all these "good times" were happening my family and I saw none and struggled. My parents worked their asses off so we could be educated and have good opportunities. There was no boom for us. So as far as I can see money was wasted by the government but if we need to sign something to essentially hand X amount of power over to Germany in order to try keep our government from wasting money than there are way bigger problems here and this "band aid" isn't going to be enough.
    Look, we took on the Euro and now everyone is bitching and moaning over it, so all I see when I look in my crystal ball of sh*t repeating itself is that if this gets a yes vote in a couple of years everyone is going be bitching and moaning all over again and then we'll be stuck.
    Yes or No, eventually we'll be out of recession and in about another 15-20 years we'll be back in recession again. Fact. History repeats itself and politicians will always be idiots who love the sound of their own voice, have no cop on and get the job because of who they no/are,they will always be corrupt.
    I for one despise the governments use of scare tactics and false promises they can not guarantee with the Yes campaign. The No campaigners come across as EEJITS and there is zero balance of intellectual argument or debate. The government are a shower of absolute fools and to be honest don't deserve a Yes or a No, it'd be great if everyone could just protest by not voting at all-not one single vote. But we can't so I say No.
    Again just my own personal crazy opinions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    jojo86 wrote: »
    Yes or No, eventually we'll be out of recession and in about another 15-20 years we'll be back in recession again. Fact. History repeats itself and politicians will always be idiots who love the sound of their own voice, have no cop on and get the job because of who they no/are,they will always be corrupt.

    So vote for a better class of politician. Stop voting FF/lefty loony for a start.
    The No campaigners come across as EEJITS and there is zero balance of intellectual argument or debate.

    That is because they are eejits!
    The government are a shower of absolute fools and to be honest don't deserve a Yes or a No, it'd be great if everyone could just protest by not voting at all-not one single vote. But we can't so I say No.
    Again just my own personal crazy opinions.

    So what would you rather the government do, given the options realistically available to this country?

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    The thing is this has all played out in a sickeningly obvious way and it's damn well insulting. Govt. supports it obviously as they had a hand in it and go on to put up scaremongering vague bollox posters like the reworded yes to jobs one, "a working Ireland" eh? Then the usual fight everything alliance comes out shouting for a no vote and trying to scare us as well with crap. Austerity isn't working and the only solution you see is no austerity? You don't see the possibility that it's not enough yet? Do you think people are dumb enough not to see that flaw in your logic?

    Then the what's in it for me brigade start to crawl out from the wood work as farmers voice their "concerns" they will need "reassured". I'm sure the Unions will need "reassuring" too.

    So sick of it and so sick of the party line that politicians can hide behind so they don't have to offer their own views. Had you asked me before this vote how each side would lay out their cards I'd have nailed everyone of them without reading a word of what was being proposed with maybe the exception of FF because of them being in an all new situation. Not that big posters with "TA" wrote on them are any more (or sadly any less) informative.

    **** this ****, **** stupid waste of money posters and **** you swear filter too.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Jernal wrote: »
    The regulars round these parts tend to be rational and less swayed by emotional chagrin and irrelevant political strawmen.

    Thats what everyone "thinks", yet I think A+A people would be very socalist in their views, which is not rational at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    The government are a shower of absolute fools and to be honest don't deserve a Yes or a No, it'd be great if everyone could just protest by not voting at all-not one single vote. But we can't so I say No.
    Again just my own personal crazy opinions.

    The time to voice your dissatisfaction with the government and political system is in a general election. This is a relatively simple treaty that constrains the amount future governments of Ireland can borrow and spend - vote for or against it on that basis and that basis alone.

    There is a rational argument to be made that Ireland should be free to borrow and spend as much as our elected politicians of the day want - if that is your view then by all means vote NO for those reasons.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭Banbh


    Voting No because you oppose the government (or more correctly the financial cartel who are backing this) makes sense to me.

    I'm voting No to Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Labrador Party, Denis O'Brien, Lord Reilly, the RTE clique, IBEC etc. In this I am on side with my trade union, assorted left politicians, Sinn Fein, Eamon Dunphy, Vincent Brown, Fintan O'Toole, my family, friends, neighbours and anybody that has seen through the policy that the only way Ireland can progress is by begging.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,137 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Banbh wrote: »
    Voting No because you oppose the government (or more correctly the financial cartel who are backing this) makes sense to me.

    I'm voting No to Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Labrador Party, Denis O'Brien, Lord Reilly, the RTE clique, IBEC etc. In this I am on side with my trade union, assorted left politicians, Sinn Fein, Eamon Dunphy, Vincent Brown, Fintan O'Toole, my family, friends, neighbours and anybody that has seen through the policy that the only way Ireland can progress is by begging.

    The problem in my opinion, is that your trade union, assorted left politicians, Sinn Fein, Eamon Dunphy, Vincent Brown, Fintan O'Toole, your family, friends, neighbours and anybody that has seen through the policy that the only way Ireland can progress is by begging, have not produced a realistic alternate solution.


Advertisement