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 Compact Referendum 2012

13

Comments

  • #102
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭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: 24,420 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: 24,420 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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,492 ✭✭✭✭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...

    Scrap the cap!



  • #107
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,492 ✭✭✭✭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

    Scrap the cap!



  • #108
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,492 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #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, Registered Users 2 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: 24,420 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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭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: 24,420 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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭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: 24,420 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.


  • #122
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


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


    That's a cheap shot to be honest. You are advocating massive economic disruption because you think it is the only way to force the government to cut costs. I prefer to believe that an adjustment over a number of years makes more sense and will do less damage to the economy, and will have a less severe impact on peoples lives.

    Closing the deficit immediately (if that is what you are advocating) seems like a very extreme and impatient action, and should only be considered as an absolute last resort.


  • #123
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    swampgas wrote: »
    That's a cheap shot to be honest. You are advocating massive economic disruption because you think it is the only way to force the government to cut costs. I prefer to believe that an adjustment over a number of years makes more sense and will do less damage to the economy, and will have a less severe impact on peoples lives.

    It is not a cheap shot in the slightest. A Yes Vote will mean the state being drip fed credit from the ESM maintaining the status quo of a bloated public service, overpaid and pensioned polticians, semi state staff, quangos and a vast array of unnecessary social welfare entitlements.
    This of course will be sold to you on the threat that it will be health that will take the cuts.
    If you want to buy into that then fire ahead.


  • #124
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    The parties who want you to vote yes would close your local hospital quicker than take a relevant paycut themselves.
    Quite apart from the salary cuts taken by politicians, that's not an unreasonable position anyway, given that the funds allocated to run central government are trivial in comparison to the €14 billion it takes to run the health service.

    FYI, the Irish state spends ~40% of its national budget on Social Protection (aka, the dole), and a further ~35% on the health service. Everything else the state pays for -- education, roads, police, army, politicians in the Dail who belong to "parties who want you to vote yes" (as well as those who want you to vote no) etc, etc, -- comes from the remaining ~25%.


  • #125
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    Quite apart from the salary cuts taken by politicians, that's not an unreasonable position anyway, given that the funds allocated to run central government are trivial in comparison to the €14 billion it takes to run the health service.

    FYI, the Irish state spends ~40% of its national budget on Social Protection (aka, the dole), and a further ~35% on the health service. Everything else the state pays for -- education, roads, police, army, politicians in the Dail who belong to "parties who want you to vote yes" (as well as those who want you to vote no) etc, etc, -- comes from the remaining ~25%.

    The point stands regardless of the figures.


  • #126
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Zamboni wrote: »
    It is not a cheap shot in the slightest. A Yes Vote will mean the state being drip fed credit from the ESM maintaining the status quo of a bloated public service, overpaid and pensioned polticians, semi state staff, quangos and a vast array of unnecessary social welfare entitlements.
    This of course will be sold to you on the threat that it will be health that will take the cuts.
    If you want to buy into that then fire ahead.

    I agree that significant reforms are needed, I disagree with you that a No vote will achieve those reforms in a better way. It will take time to resolve many of these issues, and this is in itself frustrating, however if you want to buy into the idea that a massive budget correction will bring about the magical reform of everything that is wrong with this state in one fell swoop, and that the collateral damage is worth it, then fire ahead yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    The point stands regardless of the figures.
    It's an unhelpful debating point which is (a) wrong and (b) suggests that the politicians should spend their time saving a few million, when they should be saving a few billion.


  • #128
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    It's an unhelpful debating point which is (a) wrong and (b) suggests that the politicians should spend their time saving a few million, when they should be saving a few billion.

    I didn't intend it to be a debating point, but illustrating the misguided priorities of the advocates should hopefully result in people questioning their real motivation for a yes vote.


  • #129
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    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.
    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    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.

    Nope. It is perfectly reasonable to actively vote to maintain the status quo if you are unsure that changing the constitution is the correct thing to do.
    So, I'm with Zamboni. There's nothing wrong with being a default No voter until someone can convince you otherwise.


  • #130
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    I didn't intend it to be a debating point, but illustrating the misguided priorities of the advocates should hopefully result in people questioning their real motivation for a yes vote.
    So, you're suggesting that when people are considering which way to vote on the treaty, that they shouldn't read the treaty itself or try to understand what it's trying to achieve, and should instead consider only one of many possible interpretations of the intentions of TD's?


  • #131
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Tin Foil Hat wrote: »
    It is perfectly reasonable to actively vote to maintain the status quo if you are unsure that changing the constitution is the correct thing to do.
    If you don't have an opinion on whether pushing a button left or right is the right thing to do, then the best thing is not to push the button.

    Voting one way because you don't understand the issue you're voting on is not really fulfilling one's democratic responsibility to be an informed voter.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    So, you're suggesting that when people are considering which way to vote on the treaty, that they shouldn't read the treaty itself or try to understand what it's trying to achieve, and should instead consider only one of many possible interpretations of the intentions of TD's?

    Come now. I never suggested anything of the sort. :)


  • #133
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,664 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    robindch wrote: »
    If you don't have an opinion on whether pushing a button left or right is the right thing to do, then the best thing is not to push the button.

    Voting one way because you don't understand the issue you're voting on is not really fulfilling one's democratic responsibility to be an informed voter.


    Firstly, there's a massive difference between not having an opinion and not being sure of the correct thing to do.
    Secondly, as a citizen and a resident of this country, the pushing or not of that button will affect me. So to tell me to stand away from it and leave it to the experts doesn't cut it. If someone is happy with the button where it is they are perfectly democratically entitled to have their say to leave it as is.


  • #134
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Tin Foil Hat wrote: »
    Firstly, there's a massive difference between not having an opinion and not being sure of the correct thing to do.
    Secondly, as a citizen and a resident of this country, the pushing or not of that button will affect me. So to tell me to stand away from it and leave it to the experts doesn't cut it. If someone is happy with the button where it is they are perfectly democratically entitled to have their say to leave it as is.
    No one is sayiong only experts should vote. They are simply saying you should spend a little time, gain some knowledge yourself and don't vote potentially the wrong way simply due to self enforced wilful ignorance.

    MrP


  • #135
    smokingman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,754 ✭✭✭smokingman


    I haven't made my decision on this as I haven't read it yet but I'm amazed at the amount of people I meet that have no intention of reading it.

    I knew I was one of the few that actually read through the Lisbon treaty but am I really that out of touch supposing that people might read what they're voting on here?


  • #136
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Come now. I never suggested anything of the sort. :)
    Well, in all fairness, you did suggest that voters' primary concern should be your interpretation of their intentions, and not the text of the treaty.

    Or did I pick you up wrong when you said that "The parties who want you to vote yes would close your local hospital quicker than take a relevant paycut themselves." and "The point stands regardless of the figures."?


  • #137
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Tin Foil Hat wrote: »
    Secondly, as a citizen and a resident of this country, the pushing or not of that button will affect me. So to tell me to stand away from it and leave it to the experts doesn't cut it.
    I'm not telling you to stand aside and leave it to the experts :)

    I'm saying, as Mr Pud does above, that if you don't understand what the treaty is intended to do, nor how it intends to do it, then you are not behaving rationally when indicating a fixed preference, and therefore, you have no business in voting for or against it.

    The treaty is really quite easy to understand, there's nothing which threatens Ireland in any way, and a few minor points which are trying to enforce governments to live within their means. The summary here is short and to the point:

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


  • #138
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    Well, in all fairness, you did suggest that voters' primary concern should be your interpretation of their intentions, and not the text of the treaty.

    Or did I pick you up wrong when you said that "The parties who want you to vote yes would close your local hospital quicker than take a relevant paycut themselves." and "The point stands regardless of the figures."?

    I didn't indicate it as a primary concern though and to be honest I don't know how you read it that way.
    I simply think it is a useful additonal tool in coming to an informed opinion. It's important to be skeptical.
    I certainly didn't suggest not reading the text of the treaty.


  • #139
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Zamboni wrote: »
    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.

    So will you vote no if you don't get one ? the correct outcome to your logic then I would have though would be not to vote at all.

    It appears to me you just want to see cuts and more cuts and anything that prevents than is to be opposed ?


  • #140
    skoomi
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 169 ✭✭skoomi


    Does this Faecal Impact treaty contain any specific anti-corruption measures?

    By the way, who is the corruption watchdog in this country?


  • #141
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,492 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Zamboni wrote: »
    It is not a cheap shot in the slightest. A Yes Vote will mean the state being drip fed credit from the ESM maintaining the status quo of a bloated public service, overpaid and pensioned polticians, semi state staff, quangos and a vast array of unnecessary social welfare entitlements.
    This of course will be sold to you on the threat that it will be health that will take the cuts.
    If you want to buy into that then fire ahead.

    As I pointed out here, even balancing the budget overnight won't remove our need to borrow many billions of euro in the coming years to keep our national debt rolling over as individual bonds mature.

    Would you like to address that in the context of a No vote and the ESM closed off to us? We know we are going to have to borrow - because even if we could afford to balance the budget, paying off all of our national debt as it falls due is simply impossible - so why should we take a course which will at the very least significantly increase the interest rates we will have to pay on future borrowings, and at worst raises the possibility of national default when sufficient funding cannot be accessed?

    Scrap the cap!



  • Advertisement
  • #142
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    ninja900 wrote: »

    Would you like to address that in the context of a No vote and the ESM closed off to us?
    No. That would be too hard.

    MrP


  • #143
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    I didn't indicate it as a primary concern though and to be honest I don't know how you read it that way.
    Well, you did produce it as a serious response, so I'm inclined to think that you might give it some weight. If you don't, well AH is here :)


  • #144
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    smokingman wrote: »
    [...] am I really that out of touch supposing that people might read what they're voting on here?
    In 2009, around half of the posters who said they'd be voting on the Lisbon said they'd read the treaty. That said, the Lisbon Treaty wasn't an easy read, but this one's nine small pages and reading it still seems to be beyond the interest or the ability, or both, of a significant portion of the population.

    /sheesh


  • #145
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    Well, you did produce it as a serious response, so I'm inclined to think that you might give it some weight. If you don't, well AH is here :)

    I can't believe you are actually going on about this.
    It was a flippant remark, yes. Does the point stand? Yes, I think it is important to question the agenda of the proponent.
    Is it more important than actually reading the treaty? No.

    I'm not even arguing for the No side so I don't see why you have the urge to undermine my post by directing me to AH.


  • #146
    Slozer
    Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭Slozer


    Are they really going to cut/stop our funding if we vote no? Is this not just propoganda and scare mongering by our government and eurpoe.

    I will be voting no because I want a stop to the charade that europe has become. I want our country to be free and independent and if that means hardship for a few years so be it.

    If our government chooses to waste our funding well maybe we should vote to not have any more funding, it might be the wake up call our government needs to get their fingers out and do some creative thinking.


  • #147
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Zamboni wrote: »
    Is it more important than actually reading the treaty? No.
    I'm glad we agree on that :)
    Zamboni wrote: »
    It was a flippant remark, yes. Does the point stand? Yes, I think it is important to question the agenda of the proponent.
    Well, as above, cutting TD's salaries by 50% will save perhaps 10 million euro. Cutting the health service budget by 10% will save around 1,500 million euro, so I think it's pointless suggesting that the two should be given anything like equal weight in a debate, at least if one wants to cut the deficit anyway. Neither do I think it's useful to question the motives of the politicians here, especially in terms of positing the existence of "agendas".

    The treaty exists, it's written in plain English and recommends prudent macroeconomic policy at the constitutional level -- whether or not voters support the treaty's provisions should really be their only concern.


  • #148
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Slozer wrote: »
    Are they really going to cut/stop our funding if we vote no?
    No, since the current bailout is supervised by the EU and IMF. If we need a second bailout next year, then that'll be done through the ESM, but only if we vote to accept this treaty, and thereby, become part of the euro-zone which has tighter fiscal control.
    Slozer wrote: »
    Is this not just propoganda and scare mongering by our government and eurpoe.
    The EU and IMF will not stop the current bailout if we vote no. It's scaremongering to claim that they will.
    Slozer wrote: »
    I will be voting no because I want a stop to the charade that europe has become.
    Voting "no" won't stop anything in Europe. All it will do is let future Irish governments borrow recklessly if they want to. Your call on whether that's a good idea.


  • #149
    Calibos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,810 ✭✭✭Calibos


    But putting aside the Bank Guarantee, they didn't borrow recklessly during the Celtic Tiger years. The reckless thing they did was increase long term spending based on property bubble increased tax receipts. Does the treaty prevent that?


  • #150
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Calibos wrote: »
    The reckless thing they did was increase long term spending based on property bubble increased tax receipts. Does the treaty prevent that?
    Yes, that's one of the reckless things FF did. And Nope, the treaty doesn't address that problem at all.

    The treaty simply tries to rein in governments who borrow excessively. As I mentioned here, they could have done a lot more with this treaty and if they had, it would have been much more applicable for Ireland and much better for the EU generally. As it stands, it's only vaguely applicable and vaguely useful.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Zamboni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,306 ✭✭✭Zamboni


    robindch wrote: »
    The treaty exists, it's written in plain English and recommends prudent macroeconomic policy at the constitutional level -- whether or not voters support the treaty's provisions should really be their only concern.

    Could we not just have a referendum to change the constitution to write in prudent macroeconomic policy by ourselves without entering the Compact?


Advertisement