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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Fiscal Compact Referendum 2012

12467

Comments

  • #92
    Banbh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Banbh


    Voting No is the alternative to voting Yes.

    The proposition that we need to amend our Constitution to allow people, not governed by that Constitution, dictate policy does not require an alternative other than the status quo.

    Building into our Constitution clauses that would proscribe borrowing beyond our means on the grounds that if we don't we won't be able to borrow beyond our means is bizarre.


  • #93
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    As it stands I don't see any benefit to Ireland one way or the other.
    Vote Yes, get more debt at nice rates - End result austerity required, some loss of soverignity.
    Vote No, be able to borrow from nobody (apparently). End result austerity required.
    Assuming I am simply wrong and/or uninformed would anyone mind giving some simple bullet points, as to the benefits to Ireland if we vote yes (in comparison to a no vote rather than general Europhile discourse)?


  • #94
    Banbh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm bowing out of this thread as there are several others running in the appropriate forums. Vote...!


  • #95
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Vote Yes, get more debt at nice rates - End result austerity required, some loss of soverignity.
    Vote No, be able to borrow from nobody (apparently). End result austerity required.
    Contrary to what that nice Gerry Adams says, there isn't really any meaningful "loss of sovereignty" or transfer of powers. It's simply a Europe-wide aspiration to limit a country's national debt, in order to stop messes like Greece from happening again. Have a read of this post from above:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78584106&postcount=78


  • #96
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    Contrary to what that nice Gerry Adams says, there isn't really any meaningful "loss of sovereignty" or transfer of powers. It's simply a Europe-wide aspiration to limit a country's national debt, in order to stop messes like Greece from happening again. Have a read of this post from above:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78584106&postcount=78

    Cheers Robin.
    I read your post previously and Seamus too and tbh I cannot seem to find anything in them which would indicate any direct benefit to Ireland voting yes.
    As a financially conservative individual I like the idea of Ireland having less credit and being forced to spend within it's own means regardless of the tangible consequences that would entail.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I guess then it really depends on how you think you can see things panning out after the vote (whichever way it goes).

    I think the majority of people would like to see a Government which only spends what it takes in and doesn't borrow any more. After all, as individuals the vast majority of us when we're in the hole, we stop borrowing and just work with what we have.

    In order for the Government to stop borrowing, we would need to reduce our spending and/or increase our income by €18bn (afair) practically overnight to balance the books.

    Just to give an idea of what would be required to achieve this, we would need to indiscriminately cut social welfare payments and public sector wages by 25%, each. That's a saving of €10bn. The other €8bn would be achieved by raising taxes 13.5% across the board (not to 13.5%, but by 13.5%)

    While I agree that an end to borrowing is the ideal position, I think it's clear from the figures that no matter which way the vote goes, we will have to continue to borrow. The cuts required above would lead to all-out strikes and continued civil unrest. I'm not even sure if we could continue as a viable state if that was imposed; never mind economically, I mean civilly.

    Obviously this is all very fantastical. If we get access to borrow the €18bn we need from the EU (by virtue of a "yes" vote) then cuts will be made slowly and over a prolonged period. Every budget for the lifetime of this government will see cuts of €2bn - €4bn.

    If we can't borrow what we need from the EU, then we will likely not be able to raise €18bn at a sustainable interest rate, and may only be able to raise half that. This will obviously require vicious cuts for at least this year.
    However, cuts will have to continue to be quite severe for the years after that because our revenue is constantly being eaten into by the high interest rates we're repaying on our loans.

    So as far as I can see, the options are for reasonable austerity for 5-6 years (yes vote), versus very harsh austerity for 3-4 years (no vote). Depending on one's point of view, either may be favourable.


  • #98
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Voting No because you oppose the government (or more correctly the financial cartel who are backing this) makes sense to me.
    Voting 'No' as a means of sticking it to the government is incredibly irresponsible. As a citizen of Ireland you're expected to vote on what you think is the best outcome for Ireland. Should we opt in, or out of this treaty? That's what this referendum is about. Nothing more, nothing less. It has absolutely nothing to do with the present government. If you want to stick it to the government then hurt them in the next general election. If this was a referendum on a treaty that would make genocide illegal would you really vote 'No' just to stick it to the government? If you're answer is no, which I expect it is, then why on earth would you vote no in any referendum as means of protest to the government? Deal with the issue at hand and be responsible citizens please. This is Ireland's future you're voting on here, not an individual grudge match.


  • #99
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    seamus wrote: »
    So as far as I can see, the options are for reasonable austerity for 5-6 years (yes vote), versus very harsh austerity for 3-4 years (no vote). Depending on one's point of view, either may be favourable.

    Yep, that's pretty much how I see it and in the absence of any other information, would make me vote no.
    This is as good an oppurtunity as any, for the Irish electorate to force the government to cut it's spending on the public sector and social welfare.


  • #100
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,534 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Yep, that's pretty much how I see it and in the absence of any other information, would make me vote no.
    This is as good an oppurtunity as any, for the Irish electorate to force the government to cut it's spending on the public sector and social welfare.

    While I'm not against accelerated reform of the public sector and welfare, I'm not sure I want to live in a country where I, my family and my friends have to endure *severe* austerity for multiple years.

    Honestly, I'd probably just up sticks and move to the UK or Europe.


  • #101
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Zamboni wrote: »
    This is as good an oppurtunity as any, for the Irish electorate to force the government to cut it's spending on the public sector and social welfare.
    Half of the problem is that the groups advocating a "no" are the same groups who oppose public sector and social welfare cuts at all levels. So if the "no" vote wins, they will be the first to the counter demanding that they remain untouched by the budget.

    Part of my concern for a "no" vote is that this means that public sector and social welfare reform will continue at a snail's pace, while the gap in finances is plugged by increasing taxation in things like excise, motor tax, income taxes, corporation taxes, and so forth. In other words, by doing damage to the economy and decreasing our competitiveness. Tackling public sector costs and social welfare has much less of an effect on competitiveness.

    In short, I have no faith in an Irish government to voluntarily grab public costs and social welfare by the scruff of the neck and do what needs to be done. If a "no" vote is the result, and against my experience this government takes a butcher's knife to their costs, then they are pretty much guaranteed my vote at the next GE.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    seamus wrote: »
    In short, I have no faith in an Irish government to voluntarily grab public costs and social welfare by the scruff of the neck and do what needs to be done. If a "no" vote is the result, and against my experience this government takes a butcher's knife to their costs, then they are pretty much guaranteed my vote at the next GE.

    I would be of a similar persuasion.
    I just think that in the absence of being forced into the position, no incumbent government will make the required tackle on public expenditure. Ever.
    This is chance for the rarely heard tax payer to make that demand to the government.


  • #103
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    I cannot seem to find anything in them which would indicate any direct benefit to Ireland voting yes.
    The main benefit is access to ESM funding, if that turns out to be necessary at some point in the future. Most of the rest of the Treaty is concerned with limiting government expenditure and saying what's to happen if governments do borrow too much (basically, by default, they get pointed at and referred, I think, to the ECJ).
    Zamboni wrote: »
    As a financially conservative individual I like the idea of Ireland having less credit and being forced to spend within it's own means regardless of the tangible consequences that would entail.
    An eminently reasonable point of view :)


  • #104
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    seamus wrote: »
    Half of the problem is that the groups advocating a "no" are the same groups who oppose public sector and social welfare cuts at all levels.
    Same with the anti-bailout goons in Greece at the moment -- who on earth do they think is going to pay for their gold-lined jobs, perks and pensions if they give two fingers to the people who are paying for them at the moment?


  • #105
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Zamboni wrote: »
    I would be of a similar persuasion.
    I just think that in the absence of being forced into the position, no incumbent government will make the required tackle on public expenditure. Ever.
    This is chance for the rarely heard tax payer to make that demand to the government.

    The route you are advocating would sent us back to the 50's, no nation could sustain the severity of the cuts required over such a short timeframe without imploding.

    Needless to say in our usual cockeyed manner we would turf out the governement blaming them for that result, And I shudder to think what would replace them , Out of such chaos who knows ? Gerry and Co perhaps ? I wonder how that will work out for you ?

    There is not one creditable argument from the no side - just a rehashing of issues and decisions already taken.What ever the rights and wrongs , we are where we are and there is no going back. So live we it.


  • #106
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


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

    Don't know where you got that idea.

    Some of us here don't even drink lattes...

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #107
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Banbh wrote: »
    I'm bowing out of this thread as there are several others running in the appropriate forums. Vote...!

    ...and they're more in agreement with you than this one

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #108
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,820 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    seamus wrote: »
    In order for the Government to stop borrowing, we would need to reduce our spending and/or increase our income by €18bn (afair) practically overnight to balance the books.

    Even balancing the budget overnight (which I don't think any Irish government would try, or could possibly succeed in doing) wouldn't remove our need to borrow.

    We'd still need to borrow many billions of euro to roll over the existing government debts as they mature. i.e. issue a new bond to pay the owners of the old bond which has matured. Every government in the world does this. Very rarely does a government actually pay back debt. Even at the height of the boom we rolled over most debt, Charlie McCreevy only paid back a couple of billion off the national debt (and, incidentally, was slated for doing so)

    So, we will be borrowing in future, make no mistake. The only question is whether cheap sources of funds are open to us, or not. This referendum is a no-brainer. But the likes of SF have long been willing to put ideology and nationalism above the welfare of the Irish people.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #109
    jojo86
    Registered Users Posts: 88 ✭✭jojo86


    Ok well I think a yes vote wouldn't necessarily be best for the citizens of Ireland. Its a hard call and I'm not the moat knowledgeable and am probably naive. This will sound laughable but I have a gut wrenching instinctive feeling that a No vote may be the best option at this moment. Don't ask me why but I feel trepidation when I envision an overwhelming yes.
    Look, I'm not all that clued in to all the minute details but from the little bits of straight forward information I have heard I believe a No would be a better decision. I think this because I believe if we vote No it will not mean a "full stop". I'm sure I'm wrong but I truly believe if we vote No the treaty WILL be re worked to maybe be more favorable.
    I'm sure I'm stupid and wrong and not explaining myself properly but its my 2 cents


  • #110
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    jojo86 wrote: »
    Ok well I think a yes vote wouldn't necessarily be best for the citizens of Ireland. Its a hard call and I'm not the moat knowledgeable and am probably naive. This will sound laughable but I have a gut wrenching instinctive feeling that a No vote may be the best option at this moment. Don't ask me why but I feel trepidation when I envision an overwhelming yes.
    Look, I'm not all that clued in to all the minute details but from the little bits of straight forward information I have heard I believe a No would be a better decision. I think this because I believe if we vote No it will not mean a "full stop". I'm sure I'm wrong but I truly believe if we vote No the treaty WILL be re worked to maybe be more favorable.
    I'm sure I'm stupid and wrong and not explaining myself properly but its my 2 cents

    Yes you are wrong, the Europeans don't give a fcuk if we vote no- the treaty still goes ahead, just without us. it will be just ''ourselves alone'', now where did I hear that before ?


  • #111
    golden lane
    Registered Users Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭golden lane


    there is no option, but to borrow...........the fiscal treaty will not change that.....

    but to borrow cheap money, you have to have friends to borrow off.........

    if the imf has to take over all the borrowing.......the costs will be enormous......

    the cost of the public services and wages in ireland......are out of all proportion to the gdp.....and the imf will not support that cost........


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jojo86 wrote: »
    I think this because I believe if we vote No it will not mean a "full stop". I'm sure I'm wrong but I truly believe if we vote No the treaty WILL be re worked to maybe be more favorable.
    As marienbad points out, yes, you are wrong.

    Enda has said there will be no second referendum. So, if Ireland rejects the Stability Treaty in the vote this month, that's it, we're out of it. In any case, there are no "better conditions" to be negotiated, since the terms of the treaty as it stands -- as has been pointed out above a few times -- are generally aimed at Greece and not the other Euro-zone countries.
    jojo86 wrote: »
    Its a hard call and I'm not the moat knowledgeable and am probably naive.
    Have a read of the terms of the treaty -- it won't take more than 90 seconds:

    http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie/index.php/en/about_the_treaty/the_treaty_in_brief/


  • #113
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    marienbad wrote: »
    The route you are advocating would sent us back to the 50's, no nation could sustain the severity of the cuts required over such a short timeframe without imploding.
    Meaningless hyperbole to be fair.
    Sure there would be some civil unrest but the dust would settle.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Needless to say in our usual cockeyed manner we would turf out the governement blaming them for that result, And I shudder to think what would replace them , Out of such chaos who knows ? Gerry and Co perhaps ? I wonder how that will work out for you ?
    This isn't about right or left wing, or party politics. It is about fiscal responsibility.
    In no other realm of the financial world is more debt the answer.
    marienbad wrote: »
    There is not one creditable argument from the no side - just a rehashing of issues and decisions already taken.What ever the rights and wrongs , we are where we are and there is no going back. So live we it.

    The No side is the default position as it involves doing nothing. It is up to the Yes side to outline the reasons to motivate a yes at the ballot box.
    And apart from more credit and some loose Europhile waffle there does not appear to be one yet.


  • #114
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    In no other realm of the financial world is more debt the answer.
    Since the Irish government is currently spending around €20 billion more than it's taking in, the alternative to borrowing money to make up the difference is not borrowing, and dealing with the catastrophic results.
    Zamboni wrote: »
    The No side is the default position as it involves doing nothing. It is up to the Yes side to outline the reasons to motivate a yes at the ballot box. And apart from more credit and some loose Europhile waffle there does not appear to be one yet.
    As above, this Treaty attempts to have euro-zone governments limit the amount of borrowing they do, and to define what happens, and what can happen, when limits are breached.

    If you believe that governments shouldn't attempt to limit their debt to the reasonable limits specified, and can therefore borrow as much money as they wish and thereby potentially become another Greece, then by all means, vote against the Treaty.


  • #115
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Zamboni wrote: »
    The No side is the default position as it involves doing nothing. It is up to the Yes side to outline the reasons to motivate a yes at the ballot box.
    And apart from more credit and some loose Europhile waffle there does not appear to be one yet.

    No.
    Simply no.

    The default position is "I don't know", and if you don't know, don't vote.
    It is up to either side to convince me to vote yes/no, and so far yes is doing a much better job than no.


  • #116
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    Since the Irish government is currently spending around €20 billion more than it's taking in, the alternative to borrowing money to make up the difference is not borrowing, and dealing with the catastrophic results.As above, this Treaty attempts to have euro-zone governments limit the amount of borrowing they do, and to define what happens, and what can happen, when limits are breached.
    Yes vote results in borrowing limits and a no vote results in less options for Ireland to borrow. Same end result.
    robindch wrote: »
    If you believe that governments shouldn't attempt to limit their debt to the reasonable limits specified, and can therefore borrow as much money as they wish and thereby potentially become another Greece, then by all means, vote against the Treaty.

    I'd rather deal with a managed catastrophe of fixing our own balance sheet internally rather than getting a new credit card from the EU.


  • #117
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Meaningless hyperbole to be fair.
    Sure there would be some civil unrest but the dust would settle.


    This isn't about right or left wing, or party politics. It is about fiscal responsibility.
    In no other realm of the financial world is more debt the answer.



    The No side is the default position as it involves doing nothing. It is up to the Yes side to outline the reasons to motivate a yes at the ballot box.
    And apart from more credit and some loose Europhile waffle there does not appear to be one yet.

    Meaningless Hyperbole ?? You must be aware of the amount of our borrowings and this just to keep the ship afloat ! And the no side are advocating a road that would mean even higher interest rates on future borrowings. And of course the dust would settle - it always does even after the must disastrous events - little consolation to those destroyed in the settling though , is it ?

    Of course it is about fiscal responsibility and the is the best reason yet given to vote yes. As a nation for most of our history we have been unable to exercise such responsibility - maybe it is time to write it into law .

    More debt is going to happen whether we vote yes or no - the only variable will the the interest rate.

    The default position is don't know.There are enough arguments already presented to make the case for the yes.

    and if you want one more , have a look at your fellow travellers advocating no - thats enough to scare any undecideds into the yes camp I would have thought:)


  • #118
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    marienbad wrote: »
    and if you want one more , have a look at your fellow travellers advocating no - thats enough to scare any undecideds into the yes camp I would have thought:)

    Look, I don't give a fiddlers about Adams, Boyd Barret etc.
    Their no vote campaign is as misguided as their policies in general.
    But FG and Lab want a yes vote because they are scared stiff that they will be forced into being the governing parties that actually implement the required action of cutting public expenditure.
    Rehtorical nonsense about stability and growth should be enough to indicate that FG and Lab are full of it on this particular issue. Blatant lies.

    I will genuinely vote yes if I get one solid benefit to Ireland from this treaty.
    So far I haven't had one.


  • #119
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,534 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Yes vote results in borrowing limits and a no vote results in less options for Ireland to borrow. Same end result.

    I'd rather deal with a managed catastrophe of fixing our own balance sheet internally rather than getting a new credit card from the EU.

    I think you are right in one respect - it would be a catastrophe if we had to close the deficit immediately.

    However I don't think you can manage a catastrophe all that easily. As someone with significant medical issues I'm not thrilled by the sort of chaos the medical services in this country would experience in the event of the severe adjustment you are advocating.

    It's fine for you to say that we'll be better off in the long run -- small comfort for those left high and dry in the meantime.


  • #120
    Zamboni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,305 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    swampgas wrote: »
    I think you are right in one respect - it would be a catastrophe if we had to close the deficit immediately.

    However I don't think you can manage a catastrophe all that easily. As someone with significant medical issues I'm not thrilled by the sort of chaos the medical services in this country would experience in the event of the severe adjustment you are advocating.

    It's fine for you to say that we'll be better off in the long run -- small comfort for those left high and dry in the meantime.

    The parties who want you to vote yes would close your local hospital quicker than take a relevant paycut themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Yes vote results in borrowing limits and a no vote results in less options for Ireland to borrow. Same end result.
    I'm not sure you understand what's going on. A "yes" vote will allow us access, if we need it, to the ESM when it's set up next year. A "no" vote will mean we will have to source money elsewhere, probably at much higher rates. Alternatively, we simply stop borrowing money and deal with the catastrophe that will result.
    Zamboni wrote: »
    I'd rather deal with a managed catastrophe of fixing our own balance sheet internally rather than getting a new credit card from the EU.
    Ireland won't be dealing with a "managed catastrophe" if we can't borrow money to maintain services. It's more likely that there'll be civil disorder, quite possibly widespread, owing to the drastic dole and public health service cutbacks; a collapse in the authority of the government and business confidence; possibly irrecoverable banks collapses, taking everybody savings and pensions with them. And much more besides. Yes, we might then be able to sign away the IBRC/Anglo bank debts at that point, but at that cost? It's probably quite unwise.


Advertisement