[corcaigh1]

Originally Posted by chieftan65

Absolutely. They didn't want to hold a referendum on this cause they know well enough it will be defeated and enda wont be getting his tap on the head for being a good little european. The arrogance of the man today was astounding when he said he was positive the irish people would ratify this treaty in a referendum. I thought i was listening to cowen again

I know yeah..absolutley sickening listening to him. I just hope the Irish people aren't daft enough (like enda thinks) to fall for this madness. We need to get a substantial debt write down before this treaty could even be contemplated in my view..

[washman3]

If you believe "we all partied", people went mad borrowing", "cribbers should commit suicide", "nobody was forced to pay 4 times the value of a house", "wear the green jersey", "we've turned the corner", "we're making steady progress", "Frankfurts way or Labours way", "jobless recovery", "we are where we are", "yes for jobs", then a yes vote is your best option.
Or, if you have no problem with a retired civil servent getting €1000 a week coupled with the old age pension(both of which are payed by the taxpayer),
or if you believe that developers and speculators who brought about this mess can walk away scot-free from their debts,while in the meantime be paid €100,000 to €200,000 to "manage" their own mess, then a yes vote is a must.!!

Or, if you believe that your local Garda Station,National School,SNA,hospital A&E, cuts of €9 a week to your elderly neighbour's blind pension,school bus routes,and a host of sneaky stealth taxes are sacrificed to pay for the above, then a now vote must be considered.

The choice is yours.......!!!!!!

[[Jackass]]

It's funny to see the extent to which Euro scepticism has developed in Ireland....after all they did for us, huh??

What exactly are you objecting to? This treaty is basically setting up a "rainy day fund" in Europe so that we can't crash to the extent we did this time and not be crippled by bailouts as funding will be held back, and it also promotes sensible (if not entirely achievable) fiscal policies so that Governments can't bankrupt themselves (by not being able to borrow above 60% of GDP iirc) amongst other prudent measures...

The only "fall out" we've really had with Europe has been the attempt to bully us on corporation tax, but you must bare in mind when looking at it from their perspective that this was coming after a quarter of a century of paying for a massive amount of our infrastructure etc., even during time of boom, and right after they gave us close to 100 billion so we could pay our welfare and public sector wages....they did back off as it's an integral part of our investment and economic strategy, but you can't blame them for trying....

And our current auserity mess has little to do with Europe, they just set out guidelines for us as they are essentially bankrolling us, but one way or another, Europe or no Europe, we'd be in the exact same black hole right now (worse without their support) and be doing the exact same thing (if not worse by being bankrupt)...

I will be informed and sensible and not going by the flavour of the month set out by Joe Duffy, and will be voting yes...

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by AlmightyCushion

So does this treaty bring in a financial tax or leave the door open for one?

Neither (sorry) in itself...what it does is create a tighter integration amongst signatories, who would by virtue of their tighter integration have more influence over the internal market, particularly if allowed to use the EU institutions...and some members of that tighter group would like a financial transaction tax.

The UK does not want such a tax, and does not (or the Tories don't) want tighter integration, so therefore a first step was to prevent the others, who probably would agree to closer integration, from being able to use the EU institutions, because doing so opens the door for that more tightly integrated group to implement an EU tax.

A little confusing, I'll grant you. It was something of a gamble on Cameron's part, in fact. However, it works like this (ish):

1. the UK government want the eurozone to sort itself out, and they do regard a fiscal treaty as part of that process

2. however, any such treaty was only going to apply to the eurozone, which the UK isn't part of

3. if all the Member States signed the Treaty, then it would be an EU Treaty, which would allow the use of the EU institutions as part of the new fiscal arrangements

4. but because the treaty only affects the eurozone, the UK would not be using the EU institutions in that way

5. that raised the possibility that those countries (call them "the fiscal group") that had signed up to the treaty would acquire greater influence over the EU institutions than those that didn't

6. that, in turn, raises the possibility that the fiscal group would use that greater influence to push their preferred agendas inside the EU

7. ergo, deny them the use of the EU institutions by refusing to sign the treaty.

An analogy might go like this: take a tennis club. Some of the members would also like to use the premises of the club to hold political meetings. The non-political/tennis-only members fear that if the political members are allowed to use the tennis club premises for their meetings, the tennis club will eventually be reshaped to their preferences. However, they don't mind the political members being political. The best move is to deny use of the premises to the political members from the start.

cordially,
Scofflaw

[Run_to_da_hills]

Originally Posted by AlmightyCushion

I absolutely hate this attitude. Vote on the treaty at hand and whether you think it will be a good idea or beneficial to the country. Don't just vote no because you want to stick your middle finger up at the EU.

And rightly so.


Where are all those jobs that were promised to us from the last referendum.

[carveone]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

Unfortunately, the AG's advice to the government is always confidential. That seems outrageous (it's a public service, they're our government etc) until you consider that she is, in effect, the government's lawyer.

Thanks for that - first time I've understood why the advice is never disclosed.

I guess it also means there's never any way of proving if the government is lying about the advice but you have to take them at their word given the trouble if they were ever found out!

[cavedave]

AlmightyCushion

I absolutely hate this attitude. Vote on the treaty at hand and whether you think it will be a good idea or beneficial to the country. Don't just vote no because you want to stick your middle finger up at the EU.

Many possibly even most people are annoyed they did not get a chance to decide on the bailout and the bank guarantee. As they didnt' get a choice on those they might make that choice now even though it is not on the menu. A fair number feel the promises around last EU referendum were not entirely kosher. Add in some extra who thought voting for labour meant our way not Frankfurt's way. It adds up to a lot of annoyed people.

You hate their attitude but they still get to vote whether you approve of their attitude or not. As the Michale Lewis piece said “The problem with the Irish is that you can push them and push them and push them and they don’t do anything, then they snap and go whacko.”

Voting No might be wacko, and people might be stupid to do it. But telling them their stupid won't get many yes votes. To force a metaphor, the bank guarantee is a gangrenous leg infection crawling up into the body politic. This vote might be about a splinting a different limb. But the Irish people will use the trip to the doctors to try get the leg sorted as well.

[AlmightyCushion]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

Neither (sorry) in itself...what it does is create a tighter integration amongst signatories, who would by virtue of their tighter integration have more influence over the internal market, particularly if allowed to use the EU institutions...and some members of that tighter group would like a financial transaction tax.

The UK does not want such a tax, and does not (or the Tories don't) want tighter integration, so therefore a first step was to prevent the others, who probably would agree to closer integration, from being able to use the EU institutions.

A little confusing, I'll grant you. It was something of a gamble on Cameron's part, in fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I thought as much, cheers for clearing it up.

Originally Posted by Run_to_da_hills

And rightly so.


Where are all those jobs that were promised to us from the last referendum.

Both sides made up awful shíte. Where are all the abortions and why have my wages not been reduced to €1 an hour. I just ignore the waffle and fearmongering and look for the facts when I make my choice.

[Good loser]

I am a definite yes voter - as I have been to all the EU treaties.

McLaughlin of SF says it will result in injustice, punishment, austerity and hardship on the Irish people - all additional excellent reasons for voting yes.

[zig]

Im a yes voter, but Im a made a promise to myself today that Im not going to get into a debate with anyone over it, too stressful lol

[zig]

Originally Posted by chieftan65

Absolutely. They didn't want to hold a referendum on this cause they know well enough it will be defeated and enda wont be getting his tap on the head for being a good little european. The arrogance of the man today was astounding when he said he was positive the irish people would ratify this treaty in a referendum. I thought i was listening to cowen again

Id say hes right tbh.

[zig]

I just broke my promise.Damnit

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by carveone

Thanks for that - first time I've understood why the advice is never disclosed.

I guess it also means there's never any way of proving if the government is lying about the advice but you have to take them at their word given the trouble if they were ever found out!

That's basically it - the AG's advice needs to stand up in court if there's a challenge. If it's bad advice, it won't stand up, the government will lose the case, and will probably, like any losing client, get themselves a new AG.

The claims people were making that the AG would advise the government not to hold a referendum because "that's what the government wants" were based on a fairly complete misconception of both law and government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

[Bullseye1]

This referendum will be about everything but balanced budgets. No doubt thr unions will be out in force to seek a no vote. It's their last chance to protect the waste in the public sector.

[View]

Originally Posted by hmmm

You can't have a sensible debate about something as complex as this treaty, particularly for an electorate as clueless about finance as the Irish electorate. Unfortunately this will be reduced to yet another meaningless debate with both sides trying to terrify people, and the electorate will again be looking for some sort of media figure to latch onto as the sage of all wisdom.

It's a nightmare, and worse this time the rest have put themselves into a position where they can ignore an Irish "no" vote and leave us to our own fate.

The "nightmare" scenario might suit the government though since they can turn around to the electorate and say:

"Well, we were going to borrow some money from the ESM to fund your local hospital, schools etc but since you voted No to that idea and the international bond markets won't touch us as a result - given the large deficit - we are just going to have to bring in much, much larger rounds of spending cuts - and, no this isn't the politicans' fault this time because we advised you correctly and you wouldn't listen to us".

And there would be little point in the electorate whinging, since if you start closing off your options, you'd better be prepared to live with the resulting reduced choices even if they turn out to be more unpleasant than the options you closed off.