Michael Noonan fires first shots in referendum battle

wiseguy

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not going to happen that way, though. There's no need for them to dissolve the euro, or for them to leave it. The euro will continue to exist

And we will continue to use it as per existing treaties we signed that can not be undone.

Scofflaw wrote: »

we'll just be a semi-detached and ambivalent member of it - but not for long, because the situation isn't stable.

Like all those other countries that use the euro but did not signup to any treaties? Except we did and for us nothing changes, not our relationship with ECB for that matter nor existing bailout.

If anything not being subject to financial transaction tax and giving up corporate taxation would make ireland more competitive in a new totalitarian europe from which businesses will start escaping.

Scofflaw wrote: »

not for long, because the situation isn't stable.

Is that a threat? more scaremongering please :rolleyes:

Provided we honor existing treaties, which we are, there is absolutely nothing all the other members following Merkozys whip can do to harm this country. And any attempts to do so would result in the whole of euro and EU falling appart, since a europe based on blackmail and bullying is not what we and others signed up to.

It is interesting how some are resorting to scaremongering and negative tactics used during Lisbon by the NO side.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

And we will continue to use it as per existing treaties we signed that can not be undone.

Sure - that won't change the fact that the situation will have changed.

wiseguy wrote: »

Like all those other countries that use the euro but did not signup to any treaties? Except we did and for us nothing changes, not our relationship with ECB for that matter nor existing bailout.

Yes, we stay exactly where we are, while the landscape shifts.

wiseguy wrote: »

If anything not being subject to financial transaction tax and giving up corporate taxation would make ireland more competitive in a new totalitarian europe from which businesses will start escaping.

Er, right. I see your position is based on a completely rational appraisal of the situation.

wiseguy wrote: »

Is that a threat? more scaremongering please :rolleyes:

Provided we honor existing treaties, which we are, there is absolutely nothing all the other members following Merkozys whip can do to harm this country. And any attempts to do so would result in the whole of euro and EU falling appart, since a europe based on blackmail and bullying is not what we and others signed up to.

It is interesting how some are resorting to scaremongering and negative tactics used during Lisbon by the NO side.

And it's interesting how it seems to be necessary, as before, to pretend that there is absolutely no downside at all involved in voting No.

Let's be clear here - this is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU one. We don't stop it by voting No. That means whether you vote No or Yes, the status quo is not going to be maintained. There is no point pretending everything will be the same as it is now as long as you vote No, because it won't be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manach

Given as Scofflaw has stated, this is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU one then as the Crotty basis for a referendum only holds for EU treaties. Normal international ones that the Constitution does allow the Government to sign. Then there will be no referendum on this?

wiseguy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - that won't change the fact that the situation will have changed.

Changed for those who accept new "treaty" same for us, Ireland and the other states would still be required to follow EU treaties they signed up to.
If other countries want to get together and mulilaterally sign up to all sorts of stuff, thats their choice, has no affect on us since when it comes to Ireland those countries have to continue to follow the treaty they signed up to.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, we stay exactly where we are, while the landscape shifts.

So? Are you afraid we will be "left out" out of an agreement that has no positive but only negative results for Ireland.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And it's interesting how it seems to be necessary, as before, to pretend that there is absolutely no downside at all involved in voting No.
....
There is no point pretending everything will be the same as it is now as long as you vote No, because it won't be.

What are the downsides to voting NO @Scofflaw, do enlighten us here.

Stop making vague threats and references and tell us of this appocalypse that would happen if we vote no.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's be clear here - this is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU one. We don't stop it by voting No. That means whether you vote No or Yes, the status quo is not going to be maintained.

So it doesnt matter what way we vote since it be steamrolled thru one way or another, is that the Europe you envisaged? whatever happend to this concept called "democracy"?

Laois_Man

wiseguy wrote: »

What are the downsides to voting NO @Scofflaw, do enlighten us here.

Stop making vague threats and references and tell us of this appocalypse that would happen if we vote no.

In fairness to Scofflaw, if I may speak on his behalf, on post #27, he did say what he thinks would happen if we're outside of this club...

Scofflaw wrote: »

The markets, as far as I can see, will see us as (a) subject to less discipline than the stability zone members; and (b) in an ambivalent position. For both those reasons I think the rates for Irish borrowing will be subject to upward pressure in a way that they wouldn't be inside the stability zone - and we have a huge debt load. Because we're still in the eurozone, we'll have limited fiscal instruments to help defend ourselves against such pressure. If our debt dynamics get too bad, we could be forced out of the markets again, and back into troika management under a new bailout.

So I think that remaining in the euro but outside the new stability arrangements will prove to be something that's only temporarily possible - we'll be forced to choose one way or the other by market pressure.

I don't agree with this however. The markets have already shown it doesn't have any regard for this deal that's in the offering and doesn't regard this "We won't break the rules THIS time" promise as any kind of "subject to discipline".

wiseguy

@Laois_Man

Whether we vote NO or YES the deficit will have to be closed as per plans, so whether we remain in euro under existing treaties (NO) or opt into a new agreement (YES). The path that the country has to take to fix its deficit remains them same.

This "agreement" does nothing to solve the current crisis, and will do nothing to fix any future ones. Ill put it this way, if this was implemented in 90s would we still find ourselves where we are? The answer would be YES, after all it was Germany who broke the Stability pact first while Ireland stayed within the rules despite the economy experiencing a bubble.

Debt to GDP ratios do nothing to prevent bubbles.
Handing over corporation does not create more jobs here if anything it will cripple the economy.
Submitting to financial transaction tax puts 30,000 jobs at risk in IFSC directly, and many multiples more indirectly as these would shift to London.
We had a a tax on property transactions, if anything it made the outcome for this country worse not better, as the once off revenue from this was used to buy votes and bribe public/welfare sectors.


There can only be the folowing outcomes

YES
* country gets better because of X,Y,Z
* country gets worse because of X,Y,Z
* nothing changes

NO
* country gets better because of X,Y,Z
* country gets worse because of X,Y,Z
* nothing changes

The minister astonishingly {due to lack of detail!} came out and told us
[PHP]if( $voteNO == true ){ die('disaster as we leave euro!' }[/PHP]

But we can not be kicked out of the euro nor EU, so its a pile of bull**** and scaremongering

---

now regarding Scofflaws points

subject to less discipline than the stability zone members

HAHAHA yeh the market knows that the Stability Pact was a load of bull and have been sceptical of proposals made, saying "this time we really really mean it" changes nothing

For both those reasons I think the rates for Irish borrowing will be subject to upward pressure in a way that they wouldn't be inside the stability zone - and we have a huge debt load

Do tell us Scofflaw was it not one of the reasons we spent 60 odd billions on bank (mostly borrowed!) was to prevent "contagion" yet here we are with the whole of Europe sick and the people picking up the bill for the banks (several billion in interest a year) on top of the public+welfare bill which is out whack.

Anyways as Scofflaw likes to remind us we are not going back to the markets anytime soon, and by the time we do our deficit will be closed.

I do not see why i should vote YES based on these "scaremongering" reasons alone, that dont hold up when put under closer scrutiny.

View

wiseguy wrote: »

So? Are you afraid we will be "left out" out of an agreement that has no positive but only negative results for Ireland.

Just out of curiousity - how do you know at this stage whether the above will be the case?

Laois_Man

wiseguy wrote: »

@Laois_Man

I'm not sure why you directed all that at me - I'm on the same side as you and I have made many of the points you have!

wiseguy

Laois_Man wrote: »

I'm not sure why you directed all that at me - I'm on the same side as you and I have made many of the points you have!

I know I know

View wrote: »

Just out of curiousity - how do you know at this stage whether the above will be the case?

You think no jobs would be lost when handover our corporate tax and financial transaction tax comes in pushing IFSC jobs towards London and US?

Scofflaw

Manach wrote: »

Given as Scofflaw has stated, this is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU one then as the Crotty basis for a referendum only holds for EU treaties. Normal international ones that the Constitution does allow the Government to sign. Then there will be no referendum on this?

That's an interesting question - if Crotty is about sovereignty, which is my reading of the judgement, then the government's agreement to any form of treaty which results in constraints on the exercise of Irish sovereignty requires the people's assent at referendum, whether they are EU treaties or not.

But nobody has ever challenged a non-EU treaty on the basis of Crotty as far as I can see, and the popular expectation seems to be, as you say, that Crotty applies only to EU treaties.

Since that isn't actually the case, this one, even if intergovernmental rather than EU (something I'm frankly not very happy about), might require a referendum depending on what's in it.

If it's just a tightening up of the S&G rules, it shouldn't require any referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

Changed for those who accept new "treaty" same for us, Ireland and the other states would still be required to follow EU treaties they signed up to.
If other countries want to get together and mulilaterally sign up to all sorts of stuff, thats their choice, has no affect on us since when it comes to Ireland those countries have to continue to follow the treaty they signed up to.

Yes and no. Currently we're a member of the euro on exactly the same footing as everyone else. The situation will change for the others, but by virtue of the fact that we're no longer on the same footing as the others, it also changes for us.

wiseguy wrote: »

So? Are you afraid we will be "left out" out of an agreement that has no positive but only negative results for Ireland.

I don't see it as having only negatives.

wiseguy wrote: »

What are the downsides to voting NO @Scofflaw, do enlighten us here.

Stop making vague threats and references and tell us of this appocalypse that would happen if we vote no.

See my longer post, as Laois Man says.

wiseguy wrote: »

Let's be clear here - this is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU one. We don't stop it by voting No. That means whether you vote No or Yes, the status quo is not going to be maintained.

So it doesnt matter what way we vote since it be steamrolled thru one way or another, is that the Europe you envisaged? whatever happend to this concept called "democracy"?

Your complaint is unrelated to democracy - at no point does democracy give you the right to vote to stop other countries agreeing anything they like between themselves. The legal constraints of the EU give us that ability when it comes to EU treaties, but the moment you step outside that framework, they disappear.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dunphy3

Laois_Man wrote: »

My worry is that it is infact you who's reading it the wrong way!
I don't think the EU will be in the slightest bit worried if our referendum asked the question "Stay in the Euro: Yes, No". They KNOW that a referendum with that question would be EASILY passed here without them even having to bribe us - because leaving the Euro would be so so dangerous for OURSELVES!

On the other hand, I can't equate in my own mind how if we need a referendum to allow our tax policies to be dictated by Europe, how does asking the above question legally result in this particular change to the Constitution when the ballot paper doesn't actually seek that specific permission.



There is no mechanism to be kicked out of the Euro just because you don't sign a new treaty!





Do you think Merkel/Sarcozy will come up with text to the treaty that's in any way disadvantageous to Germany/France? Like ****e they will!!

hav just heard confermation of what i suspected on the radio ,ie in 2015 we willhave our borrowings down and will owe what italy now owes.

meglome

the groutch wrote: »

"Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" :rolleyes:

opinionated3 wrote: »

Ha ha...thought the exact same thing myself. Will be voting no.

The next time some says this they should have to repeat the 21 items on this list 1000 times.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is the list:

1. The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84
2. Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack
3. We would lose our neutrality
4. It would create a European superstate
5. Abortion would be made legal
6. Gay marriage would be made legal
7. Euthanasia would be made legal
8. The death penalty would be made legal
9. The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on
10. Michael O'Leary campaigned for the yes side in exchange for being allowed to buy Aer Lingus
11. During the canmpaign polls were rigged to make it look like the yes side were ahead
12. Turkey would be allowed to join the EU
13. The treaty made EU law superior to Irish law (it already was and has been since 1973)
14. We would lose the right to referendums
15. Our constitution would be null and void
16. Healthcare and education would be privatised
17. We would be forced to increase military spending
18. The charter of human rights would allow the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
19. We would lose our veto in all areas
20. A new EU army would be created and which would conscript Irish people
21. Tony Blair would become the EU president

Now that two years have passed and none of those things have happened I think we can all agree they were lies. So that's a list of "bad" things that the no campaign said would happen that didn't.

The whole Lisbon campaign was a joke but the No side lying was far worse. And let's not pretend voting No is some point of principle for you, my guess is you voted No all along.

sensibleken

the groutch wrote: »

"Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" :rolleyes:

Lisbon made loads of jobs. theres the EU army, abortionist, Euthanasiathist etc They only pay €1.84 an hour but a jobs a job

View

wiseguy wrote: »

You think no jobs would be lost when handover our corporate tax and financial transaction tax comes in pushing IFSC jobs towards London and US?

Has even one line of the treaty been written yet? If so, point out where it is so we can see exactly where the above are specified?

Laois_Man

View wrote: »

Has even one line of the treaty been written yet? If so, point out where it is so we can see exactly where the above are specified?

In the stated objectives of what they would like the treaty to look like, there was a desire for a move towards a Common economic policy - a financial transactions tax and/or harmonization of Corporation tax.

You also need to turn on the news and listen to David Cameron's reasons for running a mile from this!

SeanW

View wrote: »

Has even one line of the treaty been written yet? If so, point out where it is so we can see exactly where the above are specified?

There's been some strong indication that a transactions tax will be in it, i.e. it was in the Treaty that the U.K and Hungary vetoed. Only a fool would assume that a new Eurozone pact would not have something like that. It's also safe to assume the French will want to have something in there about common Corporation Tax. That's been a hobby horse of theres for a long time and they've made it clear they're not going to take no for an answer!

sensibleken

Laois_Man wrote: »

In the stated objectives of what they would like the treaty to look like, there was a desire for a move towards a Common economic policy - a financial transactions tax and/or harmonization of Corporation tax.

You also need to turn on the news and listen to David Cameron's reasons for running a mile from this!

he ran on day one. the negotiations hadnt even started then. Of what came out of the meetings nothing was about tax harmonisation and everything was about bugetary oversight

Laois_Man

sensibleken wrote: »

he ran on day one. the negotiations hadnt even started then. Of what came out of the meetings nothing was about tax harmonisation and everything was about bugetary oversight

Last week didn't change that much from October's six-pack of rules which the UK agreed to. Yes there is a new element concerning the average deficit over the cycle - But that's not what Cameron took a huff over! I do think there's a huge element of optics to satisfy the Euro-sceptics in the UK Conservative party, but when you refer to "what came out of the meetings nothing was about tax harmonisation and everything was about bugetary oversight", I'm not sure what you mean considering Cameron has been talking about nothing else on the meeting other than the financial transactions tax and it's implications for the city of London!

sensibleken

Laois_Man wrote: »

Last week didn't change that much from October's six-pack of rules which the UK agreed to. Yes there is a new element concerning the average deficit over the cycle - But that's not what Cameron took a huff over! I do think there's a huge element of optics to satisfy the Euro-sceptics in the UK Conservative party, but when you refer to "what came out of the meetings nothing was about tax harmonisation and everything was about bugetary oversight", I'm not sure what you mean considering Cameron has been talking about nothing else on the meeting other than the financial transactions tax and it's implications for the city of London!

I mean in the agreement. granted we dont have the nuts and bolts but what was announced was only regarding bugetry oversight.

Sand

Karl Whelan has made a good point on Irisheconomy.ie - linking a no vote to a euro exit, as the government is doing, will increase pressure on Irish bank deposits - perhaps inducing another bank run as people presume a sizeable no vote in polling means a Euro exit will shortly follow.

For all the temptation to present such an agreement as a “yes or no” moment on euro membership (a temptation last seen with Mrs. Merkel’s “ya oder nein” moment) the truth is that there is no clearly defined way to expel a country from the single currency. Beyond the potential of a bullying approach back-firing with the Irish public, a focus on a referendum as a decision about euro membership risks triggering a massive bank run as depositors take flight to avoid the redenomination that is being threatened.

The Irish public have a history of responding poorly to threats as a motivation for voting for EU treaties. And if Mr. Noonan is keen on triggering another disastrous bank run (this time also involving retail depositors) then he should keep talking this way and linking the probability of Ireland being in the euro with the latest polls on how likely the referendum is to pass.

Basically what Noonan is saying is that if first newspaper polls show a 40%+ no vote you should rush down to the bank and withdraw your money as soon as you can.

walshb

Why would the governemnet need to scare us; referendum or not, they will keep putting it to the people until the peo;e vote the way the governmnet want.

Lisbon?

Nice?

SuperMacs

meglome wrote: »

The next time some says this they should have to repeat the 21 items on this list 1000 times.



The whole Lisbon campaign was a joke but the No side lying was far worse. And let's not pretend voting No is some point of principle for you, my guess is you voted No all along.

So true. And the point I have being making about the No campaigns bunch of lies, that have never materialised.

My guess is, if this has to go to a vote, the NO side will pull the same arguments a-la-carte like before, and start scaring everyone about the great big hairy EU monster that hides under the Brussells bed.

Scofflaw

walshb wrote: »

Why would the governemnet need to scare us; referendum or not, they will keep putting it to the people until the peo;e vote the way the governmnet want.

Lisbon?

Nice?

The people vote the way the people want every time, though. I voted No at Nice 1 because I felt the government did an appalling job of telling us what the Treaty was about - and I mean, much worse than Lisbon 1, which wasn't great either. I wish I still had a copy of the Nice 1 leaflet, which literally said "this is a complicated document, and you should trust the government to have made the best choice". I voted Yes at Nice 2 because I felt the government had done a decent job of explaining their position and dealing with the concerns raised.

People voted down the Oireachtas Inquiries amendment by a very similar margin to Nice or Lisbon 1, and for similar reasons - the government didn't explain well what was happening, and the opposition to it raised concerns that the government failed to address.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

View wrote: »

Has even one line of the treaty been written yet? If so, point out where it is so we can see exactly where the above are specified?

You are totally right. No one knows the contents of the treaty. So why would Minister Nonaan say that the referendum would be based on in or out of the Euro if he does not know the exact contents of the treaty that is yet to be deliberated upon?

View

Laois_Man wrote: »

In the stated objectives of what they would like the treaty to look like, there was a desire for a move towards a Common economic policy - a financial transactions tax and/or harmonization of Corporation tax.

There is no mention of any form of tax, much less either a financial transactions tax and/or harmonization of Corporation tax, in the "Statement by the Euro area heads of state or government" issued after the Council meeting.

We could of course object to something that isn't there but we'd look a bit stupid demanding the removal of it!

View

SeanW wrote: »

There's been some strong indication that a transactions tax will be in it, i.e. it was in the Treaty that the U.K and Hungary vetoed. Only a fool would assume that a new Eurozone pact would not have something like that. It's also safe to assume the French will want to have something in there about common Corporation Tax. That's been a hobby horse of theres for a long time and they've made it clear they're not going to take no for an answer!

There is no reason why we should act based on assumptions about what might or might not be there. When we see what is formally proposed in the course of the negotiations, we can consider the proposals and see just how much of a problem they might or might not be for us.

goat2

the groutch wrote: »

"Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" :rolleyes:

where did i hear that before

meglome

View wrote: »

We could of course object to something that isn't there but we'd look a bit stupid demanding the removal of it!

Isn't that exactly what we did on Lisbon 1? Great to see we haven't learned a thing.

View

KINGVictor wrote: »

You are totally right. No one knows the contents of the treaty. So why would Minister Nonaan say that the referendum would be based on in or out of the Euro if he does not know the exact contents of the treaty that is yet to be deliberated upon?

I suggest you ask Minister Noonan.

You do realise though that should the people reject the proposed treaty, it is the perjogative of the government to decide to seek our withdrawal from the Euro should they so choose?