Fiscal Compact Referendum 2012

robindch

Well, the Lisbon Treaty had its own busy threads in 2009, so here we are in 2012 and there's another EU referendum on the way!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0228/breaking41.html

Thoughts, from an A+A perspective?

Penn

It's the right decision to allow the referendum, but I'd have to do more research to decide which way I'd vote.

Turtwig

There goes all possibility of any meaningful or rational discourse down the drain. I expect this to be an absolute farce of epic proportions.

Dades

How long before someone suggests if we vote "yes" to the Fiscal Compact Referendum that abortion will be made compulsory?

I think I'll just vote the opposite to people/groups I don't like.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I'll just vote the opposite to people/groups I don't like.

Same tactics as the no-side, eh?

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Same tactics as the no-side, eh?

Yes, but they're wrong. :pac:

amacachi

Sigh, gonna be some cluster****.

fisgon

Is there an atheist perspective on this? Can't really see how whether you are a believer in an all powerful deity or not will effect how you vote on this, or what your views will be.

Turtwig

fisgon wrote: »

Is there an atheist perspective on this? Can't really see how whether you are a believer in an all powerful deity or not will effect how you vote on this, or what your views will be.

The regulars round these parts tend to be rational and less swayed by emotional chagrin and irrelevant political strawmen.

robindch

fisgon wrote: »

Can't really see how whether you are a believer in an all powerful deity or not will effect how you vote on this

http://www.coircampaign.org/index.php/news-articles/recent-news/329-budget-lashes-families-and-the-vulnerable-in-eu-takeover-of-irish-economy-

ShooterSF

Uck. Last time I was against Lisbon (twice) and was so sick of the company I was in. Here's hoping this one's a lot better or failing that, the crazies end up on the yes side.

fisgon

robindch wrote: »

http://www.coircampaign.org/index.php/news-articles/recent-news/329-budget-lashes-families-and-the-vulnerable-in-eu-takeover-of-irish-economy-

Actually this website is fascinating, and laugh-out-loud hilarious in parts. Have a look at this page, and especially at the comments.

http://www.coircampaign.org/index.php/about-coir-camp/who-we-are

..I can't work our if they are people from this forum taking the piss or are actually real...

"Fair play to you for campaignin against this Godless treaty, They just want to take away our Holy God and replace Him with science. That too and the Fact that the Godless treaty will lead us to being swamped with asylum seakers and foreigners from Africa is this what Pearse gave his life for I ask you?"

Another one, .....

"Interesting website, very professional..........however do we have to use words such as 'Erected' on our About Us page"

Great stuff.

expectationlost

Dades wrote: »

How long before someone suggests if we vote "yes" to the Fiscal Compact Referendum that abortion will be made compulsory?

I think I'll just vote the opposite to people/groups I don't like.

how long before the yes side say this will get us jobs and growth and confidence, well they already have.

is this the depth of detail they'll be going into again?

are yous going to try and justify a yes vote by hi-lighting some of the no voters/campaigns? pretty poor

robindch

expectationlost wrote: »

is this the depth of detail they'll be going into again?

Quite likely, since it's substantially deeper than most of the no-side ever reached.

Turtwig

I can smell the Inception meme coming into this thread. . .

swampgas

This referendum will be a real test of how far the people of this country actually understand the mess we are in. I don't think they do, to be honest.

I expect lots of people to think purely along idiotic short-term and self-centered lines. I.e. if the government want them to vote yes, then "they will need something in return".

This will be everything from re-opening the Vatican embassy to scrapping water charges and septic tank inspections to ... well, I'll just have to wait and see. I don't expect to be pleasantly surprised though.

Referendums in this country really test my faith in democracy.

Gbear

swampgas wrote: »

This referendum will be a real test of how far the people of this country actually understand the mess we are in. I don't think they do, to be honest.

I expect lots of people to think purely along idiotic short-term and self-centered lines. I.e. if the government want them to vote yes, then "they will need something in return".

This will be everything from re-opening the Vatican embassy to scrapping water charges and septic tank inspections to ... well, I'll just have to wait and see. I don't expect to be pleasantly surprised though.

Referendums in this country really test my faith in democracy.

Indeed. You only need to look at California to see where actual democracy gets you.

Personally, technocracy, as I understand it, is my preference.

Like our current system but the people running the country have to be qualified at something useful rather than being career liars.

Turtwig

Anyone read the AHs thread yet? I'll put you out of your misery right now.


DON'T READ IT!!

amacachi

Jernal wrote: »

Anyone read the AHs thread yet? I'll put you out of your misery right now.


DON'T READ IT!!

I've decided to stay away. I don't care anymore what happens and I'm not going to get wound up about it.

magicbastarder

Jernal wrote: »

The regulars round these parts tend to be rational and less swayed by emotional chagrin and irrelevant political strawmen.

my toes will take several hours to uncurl.

strobe

ShooterSF wrote: »

Uck. Last time I was against Lisbon (twice) and was so sick of the company I was in. Here's hoping this one's a lot better or failing that, the crazies end up on the yes side.

I feel your pain Shooter. Nothing worse than taking a stance on an issue and then looking around you and seeing a bunch of foam mouthed lunatics arguing on the same side as you.

ShooterSF

strobe wrote: »

I feel your pain Shooter. Nothing worse than taking a stance on an issue and then looking around you and seeing a bunch of foam mouthed lunatics arguing on the same side as you.

It was quite soul destroying (aside from the fact that you can't really destroy an imaginary object). Worse is thinking you lose respect of peers whose opinion you nearly always agree with.
Anywho whichever side I end up I know one thing for sure, those f'n posters with their stupid slogans will surely push my blood pressure up again (just thinking of the ones from both sides last time is causing my eye to twitch).

robindch

Here's what Abie Philbin Bowman had to say about ructions in FF:

‎

Abie Philbin Bowman wrote:

Great to see Fianna Fail marking the 90th Anniversary of the Civil War by splitting into two factions. A Pro-Treaty side, led by a Corkman called Micheal, and an Anti-Treaty Side led by a tall guy, with glasses, called Eamon.

Gbear

ShooterSF wrote: »

It was quite soul destroying (aside from the fact that you can't really destroy an imaginary object). Worse is thinking you lose respect of peers whose opinion you nearly always agree with.
Anywho whichever side I end up I know one thing for sure, those f'n posters with their stupid slogans will surely push my blood pressure up again (just thinking of the ones from both sides last time is causing my eye to twitch).

I kind of went the opposite direction. I looked at those on the anti-treaty side (and I did at least skim over the treaty to be fair) and figured.. there's no possible way they're right.
In hindsight it probably wasn't the best way to come to a decision but at least I was sortof informed.

Of course the problem is that one line of reasoning that the anti-treaty side put forward was that if you weren't sure you should vote no. That of course is horse****. If you're not sure enough to make a proper decision, you shouldn't vote at all.

So now.. here we find ourselves a few years later. Does anyone here know of somewhere unbiased I can get information about this referendum and not government spin or no-vote hysteria?
I'd put more trust in this forum than pretty much anywhere else when it comes to dispassionate rational advice.

Turtwig

Gbear wrote: »

I kind of went the opposite direction. I looked at those on the anti-treaty side (and I did at least skim over the treaty to be fair) and figured.. there's no possible way they're right.
In hindsight it probably wasn't the best way to come to a decision but at least I was sortof informed.

Of course the problem is that one line of reasoning that the anti-treaty side put forward was that if you weren't sure you should vote no. That of course is horse****. If you're not sure enough to make a proper decision, you shouldn't vote at all.

So now.. here we find ourselves a few years later. Does anyone here know of somewhere unbiased I can get information about this referendum and not government spin or no-vote hysteria?
I'd put more trust in this forum than pretty much anywhere else when it comes to dispassionate rational advice.

Read Scofflaw's posts in the politics forums.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Here's one I thought summed up the no side quite well. See in Herbert Park during the first referendum. Note the ad for the lost cat lower down the pole.

Sarky

I can't wait to see what kind of loony bullsh*t the likes of Cóir end up putting on their no posters this time. A vote for yes will likely be funding pope assassins and allowing those European fatcats to build a multistory abortionplex in your own back yard.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

how long before the yes side say this will get us jobs and growth and confidence, well they already have.

Don't forget "stability" along with the jobs and growth.

An interesting question is why do neither side just say what the proposal is, and then let the people just vote on that. The answer, I suspect, is that the sheeple have been conditioned to having "truth" interpreted for them, and the politicians stick to the same approach as the clerics.

BTW for those who don't know yet, the proposal is for a debt brake to be enshrined in law. It's a similar idea to having a defined credit limit on your personal credit card. The Germans, being one step ahead of the game as usual, already have one enshrined in their constitution, and if we're all going to be sharing the same credit card (ie the euro currency), they reckon we should all abide by the same kind of credit limit.

mikhail

recedite wrote: »

Don't forget "stability" along with the jobs and growth.

An interesting question is why do neither side just say what the proposal is, and then let the people just vote on that. The answer, I suspect, is that the sheeple have been conditioned to having "truth" interpreted for them, and the politicians stick to the same approach as the clerics.

BTW for those who don't know yet, the proposal is for a debt brake to be enshrined in law. It's a similar idea to having a defined credit limit on your personal credit card. The Germans, being one step ahead of the game as usual, already have one enshrined in their constitution, and if we're all going to be sharing the same credit card (ie the euro currency), they reckon we should all abide by the same kind of credit limit.

As far as I can see, that's the whole idea. Limit each government to making no more than a 3% budget deficit in any given year, and limit the maximum total national debt to 60% of annual income, with fines for countries who fail and are reported as failing (room for politicing, added by France).

I need to read more, but for me at the moment it boils down to: do I still believe in Keynesian economics (which this would all but prevent, not that governments do the whole damping the boom bit anyway)?

For once, I strongly suspect I'm voting yes.

ShooterSF

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Can we not just ban posters?! Anyone that votes for a slogan shouldn't be allowed vote.

*Eye in mega twitch mode*

Daftendirekt

Text of the treaty is here, if anyone's interested. Haven't had a chance to go through it thoroughly yet, but it seems fair enough to me from what I've read so far.

jojo86

Ok, so call me stupid or whatever you like but I have tried read articles and tried listen to arguments and honestly am clueless as to what this is all technically about.
I'm not mad into politics, I like to try keep a breast but honestly anytime I attempt to get a deeper understanding of things the level of absolute bullology within the system sends my brain into turmoil.
So basically can someone tell me in laymans terms what a yes would mean for now and future and what a no would mean. I do not want a biased answer from someone who is adamant on a yay or nay, id like to hear from someone who can offer the pros and cons for both sides of the argument.
Better off asking here than holding my breath for eternity waiting on a politician or media outlet for the truth!!

seamus

Summary:

The Stability Treaty's proper title is "Treaty on Stability, Cooperation and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union", and that actually pretty much describes what the treaty contains and its aims.

At a very high level, it requires that a government maintains a budget which is balanced or which is surplus, provides an automatic correction mechanism which kicks in whenever any signatory breaks the budgetary rules and basically prevents any signatory who is also a member of the eurozone from acting unilaterally on any matter that would impact the eurozone.

A slightly longer brief is here

The outcome of the vote for the eurozone is largely uncertain no matter which way it goes, as this is untested water.

The only things we can say about the impact on Ireland are;

Yes Vote: Ireland will have access to borrow from EU institutions at "reasonable" rates. The budgetary rules will mean that until we balance the books our budgets will be subject to oversight by the European Commission (not by the Germans or the French), and this will require austerity in order to bring our budget in line.
Irish Governments in future will be subject to the budgetary rules set out in the treaty

No Vote: Ireland will have limited access to borrow money, and will have to do so at much higher rates and/or much shorter terms. This will require even more severe austerity in order to increase income and reduce spending to meet the requirements of these loans. Future Governments will be free to budget however they please (within the constraints of any loan/bailout agreements that are entered into).


What voting "yes" or "no" to the treaty will not do either way:

- Guarantee Jobs
- Guarantee Investment
- Guarantee Stability (This is just an aim, not a guarantee)
- End austerity (you only have a choice of "austerity" or "more austerity")
- Allow Ireland to "burn the bondholders"
- Require the Government to scrap the Croke Park Agreement

Dades

seamus wrote: »

What voting "yes" or "no" to the treaty will not do either way:

- Guarantee Jobs
- Guarantee Investment
- Guarantee Stability (This is just an aim, not a guarantee)
- End austerity (you only have a choice of "austerity" or "more austerity")
- Allow Ireland to "burn the bondholders"
- Require the Government to scrap the Croke Park Agreement

You left out a few other things it will not bring about:

- Introduce cheap, over the counter abortions
- Enforced euthanasia (starting with Gay Byrne)
- Teaching German mandatory in all schools

Otherwise, nice summation.

robindch

Won't sombody think of the euroarmy?

Hotblack Desiato

jojo86 wrote: »

Ok, so call me stupid or whatever you like but I have tried read articles and tried listen to arguments and honestly am clueless as to what this is all technically about.
I'm not mad into politics, I like to try keep a breast but honestly anytime I attempt to get a deeper understanding of things the level of absolute bullology within the system sends my brain into turmoil.

Thought I was reading Ross O'Carroll-Kelly there for a sec! :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

Dades wrote: »

- Introduce cheap, over the counter abortions

Cheap, over the counter abortions ain't worth a damn unless they're mandatory, cheap, over the counter abortions.
Think of it as Swift's A Modest Proposal brought right up to date - nobody is going to do the year's worth of nursing these days, so not really suited for the stewing, roasting, baking or boiling. But a nine-month old foetus, well nourished, would nonetheless serve equally well in a fricassee, or a ragout.
Think of it as going one better than the Chinese - we'll impress the shît out of them with our no-child policy!

Daftendirekt

robindch wrote: »

Won't sombody think of the euroarmy?

The one we were all conscripted into and paid 1.84 an hour for our trouble? :pac:

recedite

seamus wrote: »

Yes Vote: Ireland will have access to borrow from EU institutions at "reasonable" rates.

Aside from being a ticket for ESM funding, it looks like signing up will be a prerequisite to being involved in further measures towards a "fiscal union" later on.
But they won't say too much about that yet, the excitement would be too much.
more

seamus

recedite wrote: »

But they won't say too much about that yet, the excitement would be too much.
more

Rather the scaremongering would be too much tbh.

Signing up for this treaty does not obligate a country to join any kind of central fiscal union at any stage, but I wouldn't be surprised if Joe Higgins and Gerry Adams jump on this as proof that we will be locked into a european superstate if we vote Yes.

Newaglish

Did you see the latest in moronic posters?



I'm glad that they managed to get as much stupidity into one concentrated space. While it can be argued whether or not we need more or less austerity measures in the short term, I think it's pretty certain that a No vote would most likely lead to MORE austerity, not less.

They seem to have taken the usual stance of government idea = bad, and are campaigning against something without really taking into account what it actually means or involves. "Reject Home and Water Charges - Vote No" is almost criminally misleading.

Sometimes I despair at the complete abandonment of logic in favour of politics in the case of these relatively straight-forward Yes/No questions.

blowtorch

\

Turtwig

I know times have been tough, but anyone who thinks we're experiencing austerity is kidding themselves. The only thing we have experienced thus far is pre-boom level budgets. Austerity, we most certainly haven't. How people cannot understand this is beyond me and I really hate people spout such misleading slogans like the posters shown above.

Jernal

Jernal wrote: »

I know times have been tough, but anyone who thinks we're experiencing austerity is kidding themselves. The only thing we have experienced thus far is pre-boom level budgets. Austerity, we most certainly haven't. How people cannot understand this is beyond me and I really hate people spout such misleading slogans like the posters shown above.

A couple of years ago someone I know was signing on and remarked on the number of people signing; "It's a wonder the country is still running." The person he was talking to replied "Yeah, and they're talking about cutting the dole again!". He didn't get the tone. :pac:

What we have now isn't austerity. Other than people who took out mortgages from 2000-2006 very few people have reason to complain, and even then they've no-one to blame but themselves. Whenever stats come out showing how poor people are I'd love to see a breakdown of such figures. When someone says they have a couple of hundred euro a month disposable income a month are they including the 4 quid cup of coffee they buy every morning on the way to lunch etc.? I'd love to know if there's anywhere in the world that could match the standard of living a single person on minimum wage can have here.

ShooterSF

Hard to decide on this one. On one hand financial stability through good loans should help but with the way our Governments run this country forcing their hand to make cuts to the bloated sections of our state expenses might not be the worst.

mikhail

Deleted User wrote: »

What we have now isn't austerity. Other than people who took out mortgages from 2000-2006 very few people have reason to complain, and even then they've no-one to blame but themselves...

15% of the workforce can't find a job, a status which comes with financial difficulties, social disapproval and an elevated suicide rate. That number, the 15%, is massively deflated by the fact that a large portion of people in their 20s have had to leave the country of their birth.

Then there's the tens of thousands of people with unmanagable mortgages you mention.

As for the rest of us, yes, we're still employed in the first world, but how many of us have taken pay cuts? I'm on 2/3rds of the pay of my predecessor, my father's income has halved and my mother has been hit with substantial pay cuts and a levy on a pension for which she'll never qualify. Of my closest friends, perhaps half have emigrated, and half of the rest are without work. I will likely have to follow the emigrees before long. And every day there seems to be a new tax.

I've worked in the third world. The only difference in quality of life from here is I wasn't running a car there.

I don't know your position, but it must be nice up there.

ShooterSF

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hard to decide on this one. On one hand financial stability through good loans should help but with the way our Governments run this country forcing their hand to make cuts to the bloated sections of our state expenses might not be the worst.

LOL, do you think that would happen? Short of revolution nothing will ever change. Look at the North, give people a bit of power, they can work together somehow. If it were a "proper" system with full oppositions etc. they wouldn't look so friendly in public. Politics is nothing but an elaborate charade, sometimes a change in government will mean benefits for the mates of different people than under the last government, that's it.

ShooterSF

From YLYL



I wish both were actually put up...

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

15% of the workforce can't find a job, a status which comes with financial difficulties, social disapproval and an elevated suicide rate. That number, the 15%, is massively deflated by the fact that a large portion of people in their 20s have had to leave the country of their birth.

Or you could say it's inflated by people staying. People leaving isn't deflating the figures, they are what they are.

Then there's the tens of thousands of people with unmanagable mortgages you mention.

Done.

As for the rest of us, yes, we're still employed in the first world, but how many of us have taken pay cuts? I'm on 2/3rds of the pay of my predecessor, my father's income has halved and my mother has been hit with substantial pay cuts and a levy on a pension for which she'll never qualify. Of my closest friends, perhaps half have emigrated, and half of the rest are without work. I will likely have to follow the emigrees before long. And every day there seems to be a new tax.

I'm on the dole right and it's a bastard but I get by. The problem is people got used to the "boom" and see it as normal. Barring a (recent) mortgage I fail to see how two people working fulltime could be struggling. Not as well off? Of course, but that still isn't austerity in my book.

I've worked in the third world. The only difference in quality of life from here is I wasn't running a car there.

Nice, next time I get a few quid together I might head over for 6 months, I've seen how low prices there are.

I don't know your position, but it must be nice up there.

Excellent point. Really well thought-out.

robindch

Newaglish wrote: »

Did you see the latest in moronic posters?[...] Sometimes I despair at the complete abandonment of logic in favour of politics [...]

Only sometimes? Sheesh, your lucky

Here's a poster stuck on a lamppost in Herbert Park during the 2008 Lisbon vote which summed up the "No" side's arguments. Note the ad for a lost cat underneath.