It is announced that Ireland WILL hold referendum on EU fiscal compact treaty

McTigs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its not Lisbon though, the treaty is pretty straightforward. Also the EU doesn't need to convince us of anything, they can implement it themselves without our help, just excluding us.

In fact the single and only important thing about this treaty is if its not implemented there won't be any more EU loans.

Which, as it turns out, suits me just fine.

and we'll close the budget deficit with what?

Lone Stone

I have a sneaky suspicion il be voting no again with a pencil.

I would vote no, because it's a bit like securing your credit card debt to your house while knowing that you can't pay it!

OldNotWIse

hooradiation wrote: »

I didn't realise the suffrage movement had been extended to members of the species Ovis aries

Must have missed that one.

"Sheep" is regularly used to describe those people who blindly follow others for the sake of it - I think that is what you missed.

Doc Ruby

McTigs wrote: »

and we'll close the budget deficit with what?

Expenditure would have to come down and the banks would have to be told to get knotted. The deficit isn't as big of a problem as its made out to be since the tax returns most often reported are just the exchequer returns. There are a lot more sources of income that aren't widely reported. Plus you can cut in areas that aren't directly feeding into the economy.

Keep in mind that government expenditure went wild during the bubble, its still inflated beyond what it should be. Thre's a whole lot of cruft and overpayment - the health services middle management is a big one there.

Its still a big problem of course but its better just to get it over with rather than spend years or decades more on a lifeline that's really a millstone. If nothing else it would force Enda and the boys to actually do some creative governing for a change rather than faffing around in Brussels.

Also it would stop the EU lending to Irish taxpayers, who then gift the cash they have to pay back, to the banks. A nice little spanner in the best laid plans of our "betters", plans which only benefit those "betters" I might add.

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

I would vote no, because it's a bit like securing your credit card debt to your house while knowing that you can't pay it!

For someone who has a "Say NO to Fiscal Union" image in your sig, I was expecting a reason that had something to do with the contents of the fiscal compact.

The fiscal rules in the compact are designed to prevent us from securing credit card debt on our house i.e. selling excessive soverign debt to fund day to day spending.

hooradiation

OldNotWIse wrote: »

"Sheep" is regularly used to describe those people who blindly follow others for the sake of it - I think that is what you missed.

Oh, I got your meaning.
I just decided to take it literally, because the alternative is to heap scorn on anyone so far up their own hole that they'd use the phrase "sheep" to describe people who won't vote the way they'd want.
Which is ironic in addition to being fucking stupid.

Johnny Foreigner

No.
It is a protest vote against; Enda Kenny, Fine Gael, and the EU.
Sinn Fein are now number 2 and rising.

lastlaugh

I'll be voting Yes, 'cause we need all the help we can get.

Tar.Aldarion

I don't know what I'll be voting yet, because I may actually read about it.

Kidchameleon

dvpower wrote: »

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Not going to bother voting

Thanks for dropping by.

Whats the point though? Id vote no and itll be run again till we vote yes

AudreyHepburn

I personally will probably vote simply because I don't like the idea of Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy having that kind of control over us.

I am getting the impression that many people will vote no simply as a way to get 'one up' on the governmnet, to give them finger so to speak. And that kind of attitude worries me because while No may be the correct option here there might be other time a Yes vote is the way to go but people will still vote no.

If you choose to vote No here do so for the right reasons and not because you are bitter and want to stick to the Government ( who I remind everyone, are not responsible for this mess.).

ScumLord

I'm usually a default yes on most things Europe but I'm a default no on this one and probably anything else EU for the foreseeable future.

We're being conned out of our money and the EU is just distracting us while the bankers run out the back door with all our shit.

hooradiation

Johnny Foreigner wrote: »

No.
It is a protest vote against; Enda Kenny, Fine Gael, and the EU.

ಠ_ಠ

Run_to_da_hills

Johnny Foreigner wrote: »

No.
It is a protest vote against; Enda Kenny, Fine Gael, and the EU.
Sinn Fein are now number 2 and rising.

Sinn Fein are the only party that put Irish interests before that of Brussels.

lastlaugh wrote: »

I'll be voting Yes, 'cause we need all the help we can get.

Like all those jobs thst we were promised the last time we voted yes, LOL.

twinytwo

it sets in place fines for every country that has a defecit above a certain %.. basically they can then decide what to do to close the gap... considering we havent a hope of closing our deficits to the amounts they would require within the time period they will step in and raise... you guessed it our corporation tax..lets see how well things go then.

Beefy78

Not sure of my opinions on the treaty itself and I'm generally pro-EU nowadays but I'm a bit sickened by the scaremongering on the 'Yes' side of the argument. Ireland didn't get a bail-out because it was good for Ireland, it got a bail-out because it was good for the EU. The idea that Germany and France would allow (or want) the agreed flow of money to Ireland to suddenly dry up seems extremely farfetched.

My name is URL

lastlaugh wrote: »

I'll be voting Yes, 'cause we need all the help we can get.

Does the treaty explicitly guarantee us any further help, or suggest that if we need any further help then by voting no; we will not be granted it?

Even if that was the case, Kenny & Co, as well as the IMF & ECB are adamant that Ireland will not need a further bailout if we continue to meet the requirement of the current bailout agreement. The current one of course does not depend on any new treaty being signed by us.

If Ireland did ever need a bailout in future, then technically there would be nothing to stop us from signing up to this treaty at a later date. And even if we didn't, and were not entitled to any funding from the EFSF; we'd still have other options available.. there's absolutely nothing to suggest that the IMF or individual nations would not assist us if we don't ratify this treaty.

I really don't see why the passing of this treaty is needed in order to signal that Ireland recognises the need to engage in sensible financial policies. I think that by sticking to agreements outlined in our bailout program, that we are already sending out the message that we need to and indeed want to engage in sensible financial policies. Voting no to this referendum would not negate that message, in my own opinion. All it would suggest is that we want to do it our way rather than under the added threat and strain of possibly devastating sanctions and disciplinary actions.

orangebud

the eu is run by germany, we get the news from france

ArmaniJeanss

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Like all those jobs thst we were promised the last time we voted yes, LOL.

We have two people starting 1st March - we spent most of the last 18 months tendering for a contract with an Austrian firm and signed the deal in January. At the time of LisbonII our boss was adamant that a Yes vote was fairly critical to our tender, that a No Vote would be a negative mark against us. Possibly not fatal, but any sign that Ireland was moving away from the European project, possibly from the Euro itself would do us damage when we were up against French and Scandanavian rivals for the contract.

So theres two jobs. Fairly measly. But thats the way a lot of jobs get created. No Paypal headlines. No fanfare in the paper. Just a small nothing company on a sidestreet deciding that the time is right to go from 40 staff to 42.

There was never going to be any 'oh you've voted Yes, heres a factory for 50,000 people'. It doesn't mean that 'Yes for Jobs' was wrong.

Dubit10

I'm afraid it does'nt matter which way we vote, we all know they will keep coming back until they get the answer they want.

OldNotWIse

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh, I got your meaning.
I just decided to take it literally, because the alternative is to heap scorn on anyone so far up their own hole that they'd use the phrase "sheep" to describe people who won't vote the way they'd want.
Which is ironic in addition to being fucking stupid.

Well what would you call people who "wouldn't vote they way they'd want?"

Can you explain how the use of the term "sheep" is "ironic" and "stupid"? Fair enough if you don't like it's use just say so, but I am curious as to how using a term can be viewed as "ironic" and also how you feel qualified to deduce someone's intellectual ability from their use of a term?

By the way, why do you feel the need to jizz up your point with profanities?

Dubit10

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

We have two people starting 1st March - we spent most of the last 18 months tendering for a contract with an Austrian firm and signed the deal in January. At the time of LisbonII our boss was adamant that a Yes vote was fairly critical to our tender, that a No Vote would be a negative mark against us. Possibly not fatal, but any sign that Ireland was moving away from the European project, possibly from the Euro itself would do us damage when we were up against French and Scandanavian rivals for the contract.

So theres two jobs. Fairly measly. But thats the way a lot of jobs get created. No Paypal headlines. No fanfare in the paper. Just a small nothing company on a sidestreet deciding that the time is right to go from 40 staff to 42.

There was never going to be any 'oh you've voted Yes, heres a factory for 50,000 people'. It doesn't mean that 'Yes for Jobs' was wrong.

But it was wrong. We where told if we voted yes jobs would follow, they have not. In fact we are losing 1000 of our young a week because of inept governence. For that reason alone i'll be voting No this time around after being fooled the last time around.

hooradiation

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Well what would you call people who "wouldn't vote they way they'd want?"

This sentence makes no sense. try again.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Can you explain how the use of the term "sheep" is "ironic" and "stupid"? Fair enough if you don't like it's use just say so, but I am curious as to how using a term can be viewed as "ironic"

Well, let me put it to you this way. As you originally said "...and then all the sheep will vote Yes"
So by voting yes you are, by your lazy reasoning, a "sheep". Given that people don't usually perscribe pejoratives to themselves it's reasonable to assume you'll be voting no and you'd rather people vote the same way as you - otherwise, why bother belittle their choice by calling them sheep?

If you can't see the irony of someone berating people for following the herd and at the same time using that poor attempt at scorn to get them to follow your voting choice, then we're at a not entirely unexpected impasse.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

and also how you feel qualified to deduce someone's intellectual ability from their use of a term?

On the back of this exchange? Eminently.

OldNotWIse

hooradiation wrote: »

This sentence makes no sense. try again.



Well, let me put it to you this way. As you originally said "...and then all the sheep will vote Yes"
So by voting yes you are, by your lazy reasoning, a "sheep". Given that people don't usually perscribe pejoratives to themselves it's reasonable to assume you'll be voting no and you'd rather people vote the same way as you - otherwise, why bother belittle their choice by calling them sheep?

If you can't see the irony of someone berating people for following the herd and at the same time using that poor attempt at scorn to get them to follow your voting choice, then we're at a not entirely unexpected impasse.




On the back of this exchange? Eminently.

Troll much.....?

ArmaniJeanss

Dubit10 wrote: »

But it was wrong. We where told if we voted yes jobs would follow, they have not. In fact we are losing 1000 of our young a week because of inept governence. For that reason alone i'll be voting No this time around after being fooled the last time around.

How many of those jobs were lost because of our Yes vote? I'd guess none, I've yet to hear a company give that as a reason.

Whereas I've given you the HR story from our company about how a Yes vote enabled us to get a contract which led to 2 more more jobs. So the Yes side is already up 2 jobs.

Just because the amount of jobs coming on line isn't what any of us would want doesn't mean that Lisbon Yes hasn't created 100s, 1000s of jobs which wouldn't have been created after a No Vote, leaving us in a worse situation than we are.

mac_iomhair

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm usually a default yes on most things Europe but I'm a default no on this one and probably anything else EU for the foreseeable future.

We're being conned out of our money and the EU is just distracting us while the bankers run out the back door with all our shit.

so you have reset your default to no, you will probably need to restart yourself for that change to be completed.

hooradiation

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Troll much.....?

And we've hit rock bottom, much quicker than normal.

But I wish you the best in your continued pursuit of calling people 'sheep'. I'm certain it'll be a great tactic for convincing people of your well reasoned position.

dvpower

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Troll much.....?

Rhetorical question?

Have a read back over the posts since you labelled people sheep - maybe you honestly misunderstood what was said.

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

Does the treaty explicitly guarantee us any further help, or suggest that if we need any further help then by voting no; we will not be granted it?

Even if that was the case, Kenny & Co, as well as the IMF & ECB are adamant that Ireland will not need a further bailout if we continue to meet the requirement of the current bailout agreement. The current one of course does not depend on any new treaty being signed by us.*

If Ireland did ever need a bailout in future, then technically there would be nothing to stop us from signing up to this treaty at a later date. And even if we didn't, and were not entitled to any funding from the EFSF; we'd still have other options available.. there's absolutely nothing to suggest that the IMF or individual nations would not assist us if we don't ratify this treaty.

I really don't see why the passing of this treaty is needed in order to signal that Ireland recognises the need to engage in sensible financial policies. I think that by sticking to agreements outlined in our bailout program, that we are already sending out the message that we need to and indeed want to engage in sensible financial policies. Voting no to this referendum would not negate that message, in my own opinion. All it would suggest is that we want to do it our way rather than under the added threat and strain of possibly devastating sanctions and disciplinary actions.

*Confirmation on that - http://www.thejournal.ie/european-commission-insists-referendum-no-vote-will-not-affect-current-bailout-369435-Feb2012/