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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…6791112…38

Comments

  • #402
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,345 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I'm voting yes for the simple reason that on a personal level the last few years have shown me that I need to apply the same fiscal principles myself (i.e. balancing my own personal income / expenditure ).


  • #403
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Reuters seems to be contradicting itself. On one hand it quotes Hollande yesterday saying he will "renegotiate" the Treaty. Then it follows up by saying he is not expected to. I prefer to take the man at his word this early one when we don't know enough to suspect him of Irish Labour (remember Frankfurt's Way or Labour's Way)-style U-Turns. I wonder are Reuters above a little spinning, given the European media is overwhelmingly pro-Treaty.

    I don't think it's Reuters who are spinning. Look at what Hollande says:
    ''I said it during my election campaign and I say it again now as president that I want to renegotiate what has been agreed to include a growth dimension,"

    "I want to renegotiate what has been agreed" - no mention of the Treaty being reopened or even renegotiated. No, what's to be renegotiated is "what has been agreed". And how is it to be renegotiated? To "include" a growth dimension.

    Absolutely nothing in what he says there involves reopening the Treaty. It works equally well with a complementary "growth pact". After all, that's not currently part of "what has been negotiated".

    Although a lot depends there on how accurate the translation of what he's saying is, but I suspect that if one operates on the basis that politicians are politicians in any language one won't go far wrong.

    There's not much in the Treaty that's up for renegotiation, though - the limits are the Stability & Growth limits, the excessive deficit procedure is the excessive deficit procedure, and changing the other bits would be largely irrelevant from a left-wing perspective.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #404
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    chieftan65 wrote: »
    Seems very suspicious to me that kenny and co are hell bent on having this voted on now instead of waiting to see whats happening with the rest of europe including germany who were originally behind it and now cant get a government majority for it. something just dont feel right about all this urgency. call me cynical but after being shafted and lied to by politicians for so long i prefer to err on the side of caution now

    There's no legal way of stopping a referendum once you start one. The government can wait to ratify, but the referendum date can only be changed in the event of a general election - and even then only to make the two votes share the same day.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #405
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I don't think it's Reuters who are spinning. Look at what Hollande says:



    "I want to renegotiate what has been agreed" - no mention of the Treaty being reopened or even renegotiated. No, what's to be renegotiated is "what has been agreed". And how is it to be renegotiated? To "include" a growth dimension.

    Absolutely nothing in what he says there involves reopening the Treaty. It works equally well with a complementary "growth pact". After all, that's not currently part of "what has been negotiated".

    Although a lot depends there on how accurate the translation of what he's saying is, but I suspect that if one operates on the basis that politicians are politicians in any language one won't go far wrong.

    There's not much in the Treaty that's up for renegotiation, though - the limits are the Stability & Growth limits, the excessive deficit procedure is the excessive deficit procedure, and changing the other bits would be largely irrelevant from a left-wing perspective.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    Nothing he said excludes the possibility of renegotiating the Treaty though. TV3 has a different slant on it. TV3 News yesterday said he had said it was too early to decide whether or not the Treaty would be renegotiated. The reality then is that Mr.Hollande's exact intentions are unclear and to my mind, that justifies a no vote so we can see what finally takes shape before voting on it. I was listening to the translation of the statement on Euronews yesterday and Hollande mentioned something about them looking into whether or not the outcome would have a judicial character. and July was mentioned for a common proposal on growth. It adds to the impression many of us have that this referendum is premature and rushed.


  • #406
    chieftan65
    Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭chieftan65


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    There's no legal way of stopping a referendum once you start one. The government can wait to ratify, but the referendum date can only be changed in the event of a general election - and even then only to make the two votes share the same day.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Is that a fact?? perhaps those calling for deferral could benefit from your unquestionable knowledge of the constitution


  • #407
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    chieftan65 wrote: »
    Is that a fact?? perhaps those calling for deferral could benefit from your unquestionable knowledge of the constitution

    They could certainly benefit from doing what I did, and reading the relevant legislation. Although - amazingly - the Referendum Commission have done so:
    Once that order [setting the referendum date] is made, the only circumstance in which it may be changed, according to the Referendum Act 1994, is if a general election is called [...] There are no other circumstances in which the Minister has the power to postpone a referendum.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/referendum-vote-cannot-be-postponed-says-commission-452469-May2012/

    I suppose that's why we have one - because many of our legislators can't be bothered finding out whether something is legal before calling for it to be done.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • #408
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Nothing he said excludes the possibility of renegotiating the Treaty though. TV3 has a different slant on it. TV3 News yesterday said he had said it was too early to decide whether or not the Treaty would be renegotiated. The reality then is that Mr.Hollande's exact intentions are unclear and to my mind, that justifies a no vote so we can see what finally takes shape before voting on it. I was listening to the translation of the statement on Euronews yesterday and Hollande mentioned something about them looking into whether or not the outcome would have a judicial character. and July was mentioned for a common proposal on growth. It adds to the impression many of us have that this referendum is premature and rushed.

    Hollande's intentions don't justify a vote either way. If the changes are significant, there would have to be another referendum, whether you vote Yes or No, and you can vote Yes or No then. If they're not, or aren't changes to the Treaty itself at all, then there won't be, and the Yes or No at this referendum is what counts. You don't know which will happen, but you're calling for people to vote No now on the basis of something that may or may not happen - even though they may be deciding the question in this referendum,.

    If you vote your preferred way, you've voted for what you want. If you vote on the basis of second-guessing what a French politician might do instead, you're just playing roulette.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #409
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    I'm not fond of debating this treaty on issues other than those directly mentioned in the treaty itself or included in it, but with regard to the above comment and today's comment by Noonan about a yes vote "sending a positive message to the EU", a no voter could just as easily argue that a no vote would "add our voice" to the growing backlash against German led austerity. While it's true that one nation cannot veto this treaty, a no vote would strengthen the anti austerity wave and further isolate Merkel's policies within the EU.

    I do not advocate voting no for the above reason. However, if yes campaigners are going to pull another Lisbon on this and drag in all sorts of superficial crap about this being a vote for or against the EU, sending a message that we're "committed" and "open for business" or any other such irrelevant sh!te, I feel it's only fair that a representation of opposing views be mentioned.

    If you're going to vote on the treaty for reasons other than the treaty itself, it's only fair that the hypothetical argument from the no side is heard as well as from the yes. To sum up, Noonan says it would send a message that we're committed to Europe, you could just as easily say it would add to the message that more and more Europeans don't want to go down this road in terms of how to fix this.

    Ironically enough, Richard Boyd Barrett himself yesterday slammed the yes campaign for debating on non treaty points, even as the yes side accuse the no side of exactly the same.

    The only such rotten campaigning I've seen this time around on the no side is from Libertas, and as I said before, they're an absolute disgrace and would better serve the no campaign by shutting up and staying the hell out of it.


  • #410
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    chieftan65 wrote: »
    Seems very suspicious to me that kenny and co are hell bent on having this voted on now instead of waiting to see whats happening with the rest of europe including germany

    If I was totally cynical, which I am, I'd suggest that the sooner they can get this vote over with, the sooner they can get right on those who've refused to pay the household tax. Not that it makes any difference now - there's no mechanism to move the referendum anyway.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Absolutely nothing in what he says there involves reopening the Treaty. It works equally well with a complementary "growth pact". After all, that's not currently part of "what has been negotiated".

    Well, that's the thing. It's not as if the Stabiity treaty is this all encompassing EU mega patch that characterised the Lisbon Treaty. This is something like number 10 of a whole series of pacts - 2 pack, 6 pack, ESM treaty, Stability treaty. Adding an 11th or 12th and calling them the Growth twin pact seems reasonable...
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I suppose that's why we have one - because many of our legislators can't be bothered finding out whether something is legal before calling for it to be done.

    It wrecks my head because they do this all the time! It's not as if they don't have advisors who could tell them this. My favourite was back in the day with the West Link - shock and consternation ensued when someone went and actually pulled out the original contract and went "have you seen this bit!"...
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    However, if yes campaigners are going to pull another Lisbon on this and drag in all sorts of superficial crap about this being a vote for or against the EU, sending a message that we're "committed" and "open for business" or any other such irrelevant sh!te, I feel it's only fair that a representation of opposing views be mentioned.

    Did you see the business guys yesterday insisiting that a No vote involved an automatic exit from the Euro. Must find the reference from that... That's way over the top in the other direction.
    Edit: here
    The only such rotten campaigning I've seen this time around on the no side is from Libertas, and as I said before, they're an absolute disgrace and would better serve the no campaign by shutting up and staying the hell out of it.

    Just what the city needed too - more posters taking rubbish. It's getting totally ridiculous at this point; there's going to be a traffic accident as a result.


  • #411
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    I'm not terribly likely to ever vote yes to the Fiscal Treaty, but I am tempted to abstain.

    However, every time I hear Noonan or Kenny spouting "positive synergy europhilia for jobs" happy-clappy yes-men BS the more I feel I should vote no. That may not be taking the relative meriits and demerits of the treaty into porportionate consideration, but I find it dangerous for the architechts of such a treaty to carry on in such a fashion: declaring critical faculties to be of no consideration and instead founding their message upon scaremongering.

    In comparison to the above, the 'no' side political aspect of 'rage against the machine' is harmless.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    I'm not terribly likely to every vote yes to the Fiscal Treaty, but I am tempted to abstain.

    However, every time I hear Noonan or Kenny spouting "positivity synergy europhilia for jobs" happy-clappy yes-men BS the more I feel I should vote no. That may not be taking the relative meriits and demerits of the treaty into porportionate consideration, but I find it dangerous for the architechts of such a treaty to carry on in such a fashion: declaring critical faculties to be of no consideration and instead founding their message upon scaremongering.

    Is "positive synergy europhilia for jobs" scaremongering? The bar is getting lower every day!

    I admit that not watching, listening to, or reading the outpourings of the official Yes side has always been a key part of my ability to vote Yes.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    In comparison to the above, the 'no' side political aspect of 'rage against the machine' is harmless.

    It's identical - it says "you're angry, you want to hit something, this is something, don't think about it just hit it".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #413
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Is "positive synergy europhilia for jobs" scaremongering? The bar is getting lower every day!

    It's scaremongering by trying to make people believe they are voting on a bunch of things which they are not actually voting on. It's just like the scaremongering during the Lisbon referendum in which "no to Lisbon" somehow translated directly into "no to EU membership".
    It's an extremely stupid and naive tactic for the yes side to be using. All it's going to do is make people bitter and angry.
    I admit that not watching, listening to, or reading the outpourings of the official Yes side has always been a key part of my ability to vote Yes.

    If you don't mind me saying, that's a bit silly is it not? Guilt by association won't get you anywhere, deciding which way to vote purely based on who you'll be "siding with" is daft, it's one of the reasons I get so pissed with people who say "No voter? Must be a shinner then"
    It's identical - it says "you're angry, you want to hit something, this is something, don't think about it just hit it".


    The opposite is also true of the yes side - "We're desperate, we have to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."


  • #414
    RandomName2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Is "positive synergy europhilia for jobs" scaremongering? The bar is getting lower every day!

    I admit that not watching, listening to, or reading the outpourings of the official Yes side has always been a key part of my ability to vote Yes.

    'Fraid so.

    I can't be bothered getting a direct quote but it runs much along the lines of: Ireland will be placed in great economic peril if we vote no, companies will flee our shores whilst those considering to move here will be put off. Bonds will break and interest will collapse, equity will dry up, a bailout will be needed and be inachievable!
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It's identical - it says "you're angry, you want to hit something, this is something, don't think about it just hit it".

    Yup. As long as they don't start saying anything along the lines of 'burn the banks (metaphorically or literally), march on the Dail, loot the shops' I won't be terribly concered by their rent a rabble message.


  • #415
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    It's scaremongering by trying to make people believe they are voting on a bunch of things which they are not actually voting on. It's just like the scaremongering during the Lisbon referendum in which "no to Lisbon" somehow translated directly into "no to EU membership".
    It's an extremely stupid and naive tactic for the yes side to be using. All it's going to do is make people bitter and angry.

    That's way too broad a definition of scaremongering. It makes the word equivalent to "political messaging".
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    If you don't mind me saying, that's a bit silly is it not? Guilt by association won't get you anywhere, deciding which way to vote purely based on who you'll be "siding with" is daft, it's one of the reasons I get so pissed with people who say "No voter? Must be a shinner then"

    I've no idea how you managed to extract that from my entirely flippant remark.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    The opposite is also true of the yes side - "We're desperate, we have to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."

    Being kindly, one might add "and we've been told by our advisors that this is a good thing to do". After all, there's quite a long list of somethings that the government is not doing.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #416
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    It's scaremongering by trying to make people believe they are voting on a bunch of things which they are not actually voting on. It's just like the scaremongering during the Lisbon referendum in which "no to Lisbon" somehow translated directly into "no to EU membership".
    It's an extremely stupid and naive tactic for the yes side to be using. All it's going to do is make people bitter and angry.

    I don't think anyone is saying our referendum campaigns are well run or at least run in such a way to keep to the pure facts. But honestly it's a bit rich to say "scaremongering by trying to make people believe they are voting on a bunch of things which they are not actually voting on" while there is rampant lying going on from the no side. I dislike it all but one is far worse than the other, and it was the case on Lisbon too. I saw 'yes for jobs' on about twenty posters and written a handful of times from the yes camp but have heard it from the no camp about a hundred times since.

    If people want to object to the tactics the government use I support them but... that support is conditional to not being blind to people using worse tactics who happen to be on the same side as them.


  • #417
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    'Fraid so.

    I can't be bothered getting a direct quote but it runs much along the lines of: Ireland will be placed in great economic peril if we vote no, companies will flee our shores whilst those considering to move here will be put off. Bonds will break and interest will collapse, equity will dry up, a bailout will be needed and be inachievable!

    That at least is scary, which "positive synergy europhilia for jobs" isn't. And I don't think anyone on the No side should claim that "Yes for Jobs" is really a scaremongering message of "No for no jobs", because that would disallow their favoured pastime of going "where's the Lisbon jobs eh? eh?".
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Yup. As long as they don't start saying anything along the lines of 'burn the banks (metaphorically or literally), march on the Dail, loot the shops' I won't be terribly concered by their rent a rabble message.

    I don't think you get to say those things at an official level. They certainly get said by individuals, but I think Gerry Adams saying them would be a somewhat different proposition.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #418
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    After all, there's quite a long list of somethings that the government is not doing.

    ... like legislating for previous referendums. For 20 years. When I read Article 8.1 (we'll get annoyed if you agree to this treaty and then proceed to implement the legislation in a cackhanded manner) I couldn't help but wonder was that targeted at us.

    (Sorry, couldn't help but stray into flippancy. Irish Government has that effect on me)...


  • #419
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Tonight's Millward Browne poll says 37% Yes 24% no. A lot closer than Red C.


  • #420
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That's way too broad a definition of scaremongering. It makes the word equivalent to "political messaging".

    What we're voting on is a specific document with specific provisions inside it. None of these make any reference to jobs, loyalty to the EU, etc. Anyone who throws such arguments into either campaign is merely speculating, and to pass such speculation off as fact is indeed scaremongering.

    Just as it's also scaremongering for the no side to be suggesting that voting yes will automatically and definitely mean X number of years of austerity. While the absurd 0.5% deficit limit might lead to such austerity, it's blatantly untrue to talk as if that's an absolute certainty and we're voting on that outcome.
    I've no idea how you managed to extract that from my entirely flippant remark.

    Well if you're suggesting that the only way you make yourself vote yes is by tuning out the yes campaign, that to me reads as if campaign tactics in themselves or the behavior of those who campaign influences your decision to vote? If I got that wrong then I duly apologize, but it strikes me as equivelant to me suggesting Ganely's antics would turn me off voting no. I'm voting for my own reasons based on reading the treaty and my understanding of what it entails, if that somehow puts me in the same category as Gerry Adams then so be it:
    He breathes oxygen, I also breathe oxygen on a daily basis, so clearly I must support SF ;)

    Being kindly, one might add "and we've been told by our advisors that this is a good thing to do". After all, there's quite a long list of somethings that the government is not doing.

    Is that in reference to our own governments' ratification of the treaty, or to the people who came up with the treaty in the first place?

    In either case, I would argue that those advisors have an appalling track record when it comes to giving advice that doesn't cause trainwrecks, and if you referred to the advisors who helped draft the treaty itself at international level, these are more than likely the same individuals whose previous advice got us into this mess to begin with. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    Transpirant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭Transpirant


    The bankers are in FAULTY in the first place when they loan money to Ireland with High interest rate and the same time they made BETS that Ireland cannot pay the loans. The problem started in the FRANKFURT Stealing of the Money. The German banks gave Anglo Irish Bank Billions of money but Ireland a small country doesn't have this money and this is the problem we face. So why trust European politicians now??? The German banks loaned money to Ireland with the highest rate to force Ireland to pay for their speculative investments that turned sour. Ireland paid the Germans for gamblers that never did anything for Ireland and who will never reinvest their money in Ireland again. NOW the european countries they will LOAN money to Ireland but they want Ireland to OBEY their demands. I SAY GET THE HELL OUT OF EURO AND FORCE GERMANY TO PAY THE MONEY THEY MUST PAY YOU FOR THEIR BANKS. I WILL VOTE NO.

    [MOD]Transpirant, please don't cross-post this across multiple threads. It will result in deletion and a ban.[/MOD]


  • #422
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Transpirant wrote: »
    The bankers are in FAULTY in the first place when they loan money to Ireland with High interest rate and the same time they made BETS that Ireland cannot pay the loans. The problem started in the FRANKFURT Stealing of the Money. The German banks gave Anglo Irish Bank Billions of money but Ireland a small country doesn't have this money and this is the problem we face. So why trust European politicians now??? The German banks loaned money to Ireland with the highest rate to force Ireland to pay for their speculative investments that turned sour. Ireland paid the Germans for gamblers that never did anything for Ireland and who will never reinvest their money in Ireland again. NOW the european countries they will LOAN money to Ireland but they want Ireland to OBEY their demands. I SAY GET THE HELL OUT OF EURO AND FORCE GERMANY TO PAY THE MONEY THEY MUST PAY YOU FOR THEIR BANKS. I WILL VOTE NO.

    Are you aware that nobody has ever presented evidence for the "it was the German banks what done it to us" story? That the balance sheets of the Irish banks - which are publicly available from the Central Bank - show no evidence of this supposed deluge of German money? That, on the contrary, the available evidence suggests the money in the Irish banks more likely came from the UK and US money markets where Irish banks have traditionally operated?

    Basing national policy on a pub myth is silly.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #423
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Ironically enough, Richard Boyd Barrett himself yesterday slammed the yes campaign for debating on non treaty points, even as the yes side accuse the no side of exactly the same.

    The only such rotten campaigning I've seen this time around on the no side is from Libertas, and as I said before, they're an absolute disgrace and would better serve the no campaign by shutting up and staying the hell out of it.


    Ah come on, this is ridiculous, are you blind, have you not seen the posters? Let us start with Richard Boyd Barrett himself, the Boy Wonder.

    http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/

    "Bail out people, not banks, Vote No" is the PfP Slogan. A completely disingenuous interpretation of the Treaty. We have already bailed out our banks so how does voting "No" change this? Incredible rubbish. What is more, voting no means we have to find money from somewhere to pay the bills in future, and nobody on the "No" side has come up with one even one credible argument on who would lend us money. The rest of the stuff is pure drivel, where in the title of the Treaty is the word "Austerity"?

    As for cuddly Uncle Joe, how about this?

    http://www.socialistparty.net/

    What have home charges to do with the referendum? "There is a powerful well of support for the rejection of the treaty in the Campaign against the House Tax", so? They have nothing to do with each other.

    Again look at another website set up by Joe and his friends.

    http://www.austeritytreaty.ie/

    Again I ask, where is the word austerity in the Treaty title? More lies and false campaigning. This website seems to have been set up purely to act as the launch of the European re-election campaing of Paul Murphy. Who? A good question. When you all voted for Joe the last time, you were really voting for Paul. now that Paul has the seat, they need to generate some publicity so that people know who he is. It is the probably the most cynical of all of the tactics used by either side. Use the campaign to get Murphy's name out there.

    As for the posters around Dublin talking about household and water charges that will be in place regardless of the treaty, what have they got to do with it?

    Come on Joe and the Boy Wonder, tell us who will lend to us if we vote no and need help down the line.


  • #424
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    What we're voting on is a specific document with specific provisions inside it.

    Actually we are not - we are voting on an amendment to BnahE which will give explicit permission to the Oireachtas to approve a specific treaty should the Oireachtas choose to do so.

    In doing so we obviously have to bear in mind that Oireachtas is the body specified in BnahE which should ratify treaties for us and the government the body specified which should negotiate them for us which it has done in this instance.

    It is the Oireachtas - not you or I - which gets to ratify or reject treaties based on their contents. We merely get to give it permission to do so or not.

    In the long run though, we do have to ask ourselves - since, the people have given these bodies the explicit tasks above by referendum (on BnahE), the obvious question has to be WHY should we reject our own previous decision on the roles of these bodies? And, the obvious follow on from such a decision is WHO exactly we'd prefer to re-assign these tasks to so they can perform them for us?


  • #425
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Richard Bruton said on the Last Word (TodayFM) debate this evening that there would be a second referendum if we vote no and then he retracted, saying he had made a mistake!


  • #426
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Richard Bruton said on the Last Word (TodayFM) debate this evening that there would be a second referendum if we vote no and then he retracted, saying he had made a mistake!

    Sooo... perhaps he made a mistake. Not to state the obvious like.


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    meglome wrote: »
    Sooo... perhaps he made a mistake. Not to state the obvious like.
    He waited 6-8 minutes to take it back, which suggests otherwise to me. Of course anything is possible. This is the party that said services would be restored to Sligo General Hospital before the election and another thing afterwards. My point being that FG and Labour have form in saying one thing before an electoral-contest (including referenda) and another thing afterwards.

    I think it's increasingly clear that Hollande is not taking the easy way out and confoming to the Merkel-mantra of "no renegotiation", so we should seize the possibility of renegotiation and a better deal on the bailout if we vote no.


  • #428
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    He waited 6-8 minutes to take it back, which suggests otherwise to me. Of course anything is possible. This is the party that said services would be restored to Sligo General Hospital before the election and another thing afterwards. My point being that FG and Labour have form in saying one thing before an electoral-contest (including referenda) and another thing afterwards.

    I think it's increasingly clear that Hollande is not taking the easy way out and confoming to the Merkel-mantra of "no renegotiation", so we should seize the possibility of renegotiation and a better deal on the bailout if we vote no.

    oscarBravo put it well on a another thread.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    He said something you agree with, and you believe it to be true. He retracted and apologised, and you believe that to be false.

    There's a technical term for that.


  • #429
    paddydu
    Registered Users Posts: 62 ✭✭paddydu


    I don't know about you lot especially the Irish among us, but I have not so distant past relatives who fought and died for the right to live in an independent Ireland. I am myself centre to right wing in my views and have been that way since a young man, but there is no way I can understand any sense in voting yes!! If you choose to vote yes you will be giving the complete control of our beautiful little country over to Germany and in doing so we will suffer a lot of pain but stretched out over a complete generation maybe a lot longer. I believe it is better that we say no to selling our country and children out and suffer what is coming anyway in one go! If this leads to us leaving the Euro (which may happen anyway) then very quickly we would see growth and Jobs because immediately we would have a devaluation of our currency it would be cheaper straight away for foreign investors to come here ie labour would cost them less selling back out of this country would be extremely competitive and we would have control to print money when needed in a crisis which is needed right now but Germany won't do it! Who we vote for would actually be able to implement their policies which can not be done now as we have seen with Fine Gael and Labour just look at the promises from the last election most have been put on the back burner or ignored all together at the orders of Europe. Argentina and Iceland have gone through similar recent crisis's and now they are among the few countries with growth. So come on get educated and don't listen to fear tactics. I am voting no to this Fiscal Compact for the right to self determination and an Independent Ireland just this time round no one has to give their life to do so!! To think I voted Fine Gael in the last election I am ashamed and feel severely let down, I won't make that mistake again!!


  • #430
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    He waited 6-8 minutes to take it back, which suggests otherwise to me. Of course anything is possible. This is the party that said services would be restored to Sligo General Hospital before the election and another thing afterwards. My point being that FG and Labour have form in saying one thing before an electoral-contest (including referenda) and another thing afterwards.

    I think it's increasingly clear that Hollande is not taking the easy way out and confoming to the Merkel-mantra of "no renegotiation", so we should seize the possibility of renegotiation and a better deal on the bailout if we vote no.

    Sorry, I just have to check this...No voters are now calling for a second referendum?

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • #431
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Sorry, I just have to check this...No voters are now calling for a second referendum?

    amused,
    Scofflaw
    My first preference is for the referendum to be deferred (by the govt accepting Shane Ross TD's bill) until we see the eventual composition of any possibly renegotiated treaty. If the government refuses, I support a second referendum on a renegotiated deal. We have an opportunity in a second treaty negotiation process to seek better bailout terms.


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    My first preference is for the referendum to be deferred (by the govt accepting Shane Ross TD's bill) until we see the eventual composition of any possibly renegotiated treaty. If the government refuses, I support a second referendum on a renegotiated deal. We have an opportunity in a second treaty negotiation process to seek better bailout terms.


    Well if Spain and Italy are gone by then as some predict, there mightn't be any terms or second bail out to vote on.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #433
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    K-9 wrote: »
    Well if Spain and Italy are gone by then as some predict, there mightn't be any terms or second bail out to vote on.
    If it';s that urgent then the renegotiations probably won't take that long. There are no certainties in this process.


  • #434
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    If it';s that urgent then the renegotiations probably won't take that long. There are no certainties in this process.

    If Italy and Spain go that changes everything, Yes vote or not.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #435
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    K-9 wrote: »
    If Italy and Spain go that changes everything, Yes vote or not.
    It's not in Germany's interest to allow that, given the exposure of German banks to those countries. Ultimately the solution is a renegotiation including Eurobonds. During his campaign Hollande called for Eurobonds as part of a renegotiation.


  • #436
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    It's not in Germany's interest to allow that, given the exposure of German banks to those countries. Ultimately the solution is a renegotiation including Eurobonds. During his campaign Hollande called for Eurobonds as part of a renegotiation.

    It is in Germany's interests until they think bailing out Italy and Spain and others would cost more than ditching those countries. Germany has to look after her own interests just like we do and apparently they do look after their own interest, above anything else.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #437
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    I may be looking at the treaty in an over simplistic way but isn't it a bit crazy to be putting in strict restraints on the financing of countries at this current time. Shouldn't the only goal of all EU states at this time be to get growth as high as possible, unemployment as low as possible and after that find ways to have better housekeeping in the EU. For example, if we implemented this treaty 8 years ago it would have been no hassle to us and in a decade or so in the future implementing such a treaty might be of little bother. I understand budget deficits are too high now but surely that should take a back burner to jobs and growth. Shouldn't the plan be broader than cuts, if we got unemployment down to a few percent there effectively wouldn't be a deficit.

    Is it just me or is this just not the right time for this?


  • #438
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    I may be looking at the treaty in an over simplistic way but isn't it a bit crazy to be putting in strict restraints on the financing of countries at this current time.

    They are for the most part restatements of the restrictions in place since Maastricht. But this time we really mean it :p But I get your point - it seems foolish to try and tax your way out of a recession. Didn't work too well the last time. Never works really - the only people to benefit after the 1930s depression were the US (not during, obviously) and that was after the world paid them mindboggling amounts of money to have a massive war.

    I'm (really really) hoping (not a valid investment strategy) there's an overall plan here. As you say "Shouldn't the plan be broader than cuts". I really hope so! I'm optimistically thinking the idea is to attempt to ringfence spending and curb another binge on debt first before getting the central countries to agree to some sort of stimulus and growth package. Which is code for inflationary debt reduction. If inflation is high enough, the debt reduction to 60% (debt to nominal GDP) will be trivial to manage, even in Ireland. Even at 2% inflation it's pretty easy as Scofflaw has shown previously here.

    I think the Greece situation has made the EU as a whole a little twitchy about pouring money into any particular growth process without some sort of handcuffing first. And even then that didn't work so well. Billions of euro in writedowns and more billions in multiple bailouts only to reach the current situation of no government and voters opting for the loony brigade. It's a nightmare.

    Tis all taking too long really.

    Not sure if this helps. It's a question 100s of economists are arguing about so you could get lots of different opinions depending on where you look...


  • #439
    NoAnimalID
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭NoAnimalID


    Ireland has all the leverage.

    If we reject this treaty, and with Germany having stated repeatedly this will not happen, there is a very high possibility this is just another press-based red herring (remember all those FT headlines of an imminent Chinese bailout of Europe?) seeking to exacerbate the political power grab in Europe, where Germany is now surrounded on all sides, this will mean that the outcome of the Irish referendums is no longer relevant, as Hollande will propose an adjustment to the bailout plan, Europe will promptly agree since a pro-bailout "coalition government" of Sinn Fein will have be formed, and all shall be well, at least until the next Irish bailout in a few months. Then the country will need yet another priming DIP from Europe, and the fiasco begins anew, only this time with even less money left in Ireland to be pillaged and plundered by the country's creditors. That, and of course, German capital being pledged in the form of more "contingent liabilities" which are anything but.

    Almost everyone has focused upon the sovereign debt, that it is no longer placed at the European banks and that it is resident at the European Central Bank which is protected by all of the nations in Europe. This is true, as far as it goes, but the summation does not go nearly far enough. The hit, when it comes, will require the ECB to be recapitalized, will be felt at the IMF where the United States will take 16% of the hit or around $16 billion which will be trumpeted in the Press by the Republicans and waved like a banner in the Press. The recapitalization of the ECB will require hard cash from the nations in Europe which is quite different than promises and contingent assurances so that nations may get downgraded as a result of their capital outflows. The EIB will also take a hit and it may get downgraded but all of this just focuses upon the sovereign debt and is non-inclusive of the rest of the story or even of the truth of the sovereign debt.

    Ireland has EUR200 billion in foreign bank debt that will likely default and the losses will then have to be taken at the French, German and American banks. The contractual obligations of the nation will probably get revoked which will impact the health providers, Irish companies providing goods and services to the country and the Irish banks which have been lending money on these obligations. The number here is someplace between 20-40 billion euros as far as I can find data to understand the breadth of the problem. The banks will probably renounce their obligations to other European banks which is not included in the sovereign debt figures and will certainly have a significant impact. The Irish banks who have their debt guaranteed by the sovereign in an amount just shy of EUR200 billion will also likely default and this EUR200 billion is NOT counted as a part of the Irish sovereign debt as it is a contingent liability and hence not counted by Europe except that the contingent is about to become a quite real liability and an additional hit to the ECB so that the number bandied about in the Press for the Irish liability at the ECB is nowhere close to reality. Then there is the municipal debt which is found throughout the European banks and insurance companies. Next is the loans, the mortgages and other debts that have been securitized and pledged to the ECB and other European banks which then rehypothecated the securities and also pledged them to the ECB as collateral so that there is a cubed effect that is going to be set-off as the house of cards implodes in upon itself. The number is approximately $1.3 trillion in total and all of it is going to default as Ireland heads back to the Punt and thumbs its nose at those that placed them in the “iron maiden” demanding not only confession but absolution which, in the end, will be denied.

    We must reject this treaty


  • #440
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    NoAnimalID wrote: »

    We must reject this treaty

    I don't suppose you want to discuss the things in the actual treaty?

    "Ireland has all the leverage." You've just made some stuff up that sounds good in your head and are telling us all we should follow it. No thanks.


  • #441
    Dubhlinner
    Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭Dubhlinner


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


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    If as the yes side claims, voting yes will 'reassure investors' etc. then why hasn't that happened in Greece, which has already ratified? Maybe investors do not care.


  • #443
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    If as the yes side claims, voting yes will 'reassure investors' etc. then why hasn't that happened in Greece, which has already ratified?
    Are you trying to claim that Ireland and Greece would be in identical situations, if we ratified the treaty?

    I don't know whether to be more depressed at the idea that someone would believe that, or that someone would be so disingenuous as to make such a transparently invalid argument.


  • #444
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    I may be looking at the treaty in an over simplistic way but isn't it a bit crazy to be putting in strict restraints on the financing of countries at this current time. Shouldn't the only goal of all EU states at this time be to get growth as high as possible, unemployment as low as possible and after that find ways to have better housekeeping in the EU. For example, if we implemented this treaty 8 years ago it would have been no hassle to us and in a decade or so in the future implementing such a treaty might be of little bother. I understand budget deficits are too high now but surely that should take a back burner to jobs and growth. Shouldn't the plan be broader than cuts, if we got unemployment down to a few percent there effectively wouldn't be a deficit.

    Is it just me or is this just not the right time for this?

    The short answer is yes, it is just you, and you are looking at the treaty in an over-simplistic way. This has been gone over a million times by now and it is getting tiring.


  • #445
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    paddydu wrote: »
    Keep it nice and easy and just VOTE NO for our childrens sake if not for your own


    yes, vote no and pass on the debts of this generation to our children. They will really thank us for a no vote (insert sarcastic icon).

    I really do not understand how voting no will improve our children's situation.


  • #446
    fries
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24 ✭fries


    Fromthetrees wrote: »
    I may be looking at the treaty in an over simplistic way but isn't it a bit crazy to be putting in strict restraints on the financing of countries at this current time. Shouldn't the only goal of all EU states at this time be to get growth as high as possible, unemployment as low as possible and after that find ways to have better housekeeping in the EU. For example, if we implemented this treaty 8 years ago it would have been no hassle to us and in a decade or so in the future implementing such a treaty might be of little bother. I understand budget deficits are too high now but surely that should take a back burner to jobs and growth. Shouldn't the plan be broader than cuts, if we got unemployment down to a few percent there effectively wouldn't be a deficit.

    Is it just me or is this just not the right time for this?

    Good insight. The pro-treaty side are usually ill-informed on the consequences. Remember their Lisbon message ''yes for jobs''? It's been all downhill for Ireland since! Enda Kenny is no different to Fianna Fail: Selling our sovereignty to the ECB & forcing us to pay debt of subordinated bondholders.


  • #447
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    fries wrote: »
    Good insight. The pro-treaty side are usually ill-informed on the consequences. Remember their Lisbon message ''yes for jobs''? It's been all downhill for Ireland since! Enda Kenny is no different to Fianna Fail: Selling our sovereignty to the ECB & forcing us to pay debt of subordinated bondholders.

    Rubbish analysis, can you provide any independent information to back you up?


  • #448
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    fries wrote: »
    Good insight. The pro-treaty side are usually ill-informed on the consequences. Remember their Lisbon message ''yes for jobs''? It's been all downhill for Ireland since! Enda Kenny is no different to Fianna Fail: Selling our sovereignty to the ECB & forcing us to pay debt of subordinated bondholders.

    Ah for the love of god will people stop going on about the stupid yes for jobs slogan.

    "The pro-treaty side are usually ill-informed on the consequences", really that right? Try this link.
    meglome wrote: »
    hang on a minute now... let's be very clear about the time-frame
    Recession/Bubble Bursts = Mid 2008
    Lisbon treaty law = December 2009

    We had a massive construction bubble burst and a world recession happen before the Lisbon treaty came into force. So while our domestic economy is is bad shape exports have been booming. So jobs must have been created for those exports, though they cannot make up for the mess we created before the Lisbon treaty came into effect.

    Actually I posted about this some time back. Let me see can I find it...
    meglome wrote: »
    ...BTW the Lisbon treaty came into force in December 2009, the recession started over a year earlier. So you're complaining that your plane was late when the engines had been damaged by a bird strike and demanding to know why the faster wingtips put on afterwards didn't sort it. They are two different things, it's very simple.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Just to put figures on that - at the height of the bubble, 12% of employment was directly in construction, 10.33% of GNP was construction activity, while estimates of construction-related proportions of employment and GNP are around 20-25% - a quarter of the domestic economy. 72% of all domestic bank lending was property-related. 15% of our tax take was based on residential property related taxes alone.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #449
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    As I've said before, sometimes breaching such stringent limits is unavoidable, economically sound, or the lesser of two evils.
    Not necessarily in this case, but somewhere down the line? Almost certainly. There are times when one must prioritize growth over getting rid of a deficit in X amount of time regardless of the consequences.

    So far, I haven't heard nearly enough to convince me that this treaty does in fact have adequate provision for breaches in emergency situations. Reading the treaty itself it seems fairly unforgiving.

    And as I posted previously, there are far too many sections in the treaty which are unacceptably vague with regard to what exactly the rule is and who exactly is responsible for implementing it / interpreting it to decide whether it's been broken.

    I posted a detailed post about this before I went off to do essays a couple of days ago, didn't mean to stay away so long but I'll find the post and repost it if I can.
    You know, that's a perfectly reasonable and rational reason for you to vote no. It does not, however, justify those who are voting 'no' because they see it as a treaty which gives sovereignty and power to "Brussels" or that it forces permanent austerity on the people.


  • #450
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I suppose I'll field this one :o
    paddydu wrote: »
    I don't know about you lot especially the Irish among us, but I have not so distant past relatives who fought and died for the right to live in an independent Ireland.
    Ok. I think I see where you're going...
    I am myself centre to right wing in my views and have been that way since a young man, but there is no way I can understand any sense in voting yes!!
    ...
    If you choose to vote yes you will be giving the complete control of our beautiful little country over to Germany
    Em... no. In fact, we give almost no control to anyone by ratifying this treaty. We still control our budget, we just implement a constitutional spending limit in our own constitution. In fact, if we wanted to change this again we would need a further referendum. As with the majority of European laws, there is a guideline law that must be implemented in each Member State's legislation and it is up to the individual state to write and implement that law in their own way. There is little to nothing to suggest that the legislative drafting that would follow ratification of this treaty would not follow this lengthy tradition.
    and in doing so we will suffer a lot of pain but stretched out over a complete generation maybe a lot longer. I believe it is better that we say no to selling our country and children out and suffer what is coming anyway in one go!
    So how do you propose we fund our country when we cannot get money from the EU?
    If this leads to us leaving the Euro (which may happen anyway) then very quickly we would see growth and Jobs because immediately we would have a devaluation of our currency it would be cheaper straight away for foreign investors to come here ie labour would cost them less selling back out of this country would be extremely competitive and we would have control to print money when needed in a crisis which is needed right now but Germany won't do it!
    Because you say so? People with doctorates in economics can't say with certainty what an exit from the Euro would mean for Ireland... so I will not be putting my trust in your pub pontificating if you don't mind.
    Who we vote for would actually be able to implement their policies which can not be done now as we have seen with Fine Gael and Labour just look at the promises from the last election most have been put on the back burner or ignored all together at the orders of Europe.
    This just blows my mind. Can you expand on this? How has "Europe" stopped FG and Labour from implementing their promises?
    Argentina and Iceland have gone through similar recent crisis's and now they are among the few countries with growth.
    I think this has been covered SO many times it's not even worth responding to it. Search for Iceland in this forum... read.
    So come on get educated and don't listen to fear tactics.
    Unfortunately it seems that the educated "no" voters are few and far between. I find that bar some exceptions (a few "no" voters that are posting here) most people haven't an idea of what they're voting "no" to.
    I am voting no to this Fiscal Compact for the right to self determination and an Independent Ireland just this time round no one has to give their life to do so!!
    Yeah, but nothing removes our right to self-determination (whatever that means).


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dubhlinner wrote: »
    Voting no. Its just another step toward a united states of europe. 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
    So you're voting no on a treaty that you agree with because it has been proposed on a European level?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement