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

Treaty Referendum: 31 May 2012

Options
135

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Skopzz wrote: »
    Enough with this silly thesis, meglome. You insist on repeating your constant rhythmic mantra as an old worn out cliche --- the worst kind of polemicist. All the 'maybes' and 'could bes' and 'possibilities' sound exactly like a set of issues just ripe for a referendum (or truth panels) somewhere to sift through and sort out.

    Huh? I'm trying to get to the reality and leave the myths behind. You just keep giving your opinion backed up with more of your opinion.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html
    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html

    I can believe the US might give us some money, though like all promises made to get someone elected I'll take it with a big pinch of salt. The question is how we fund the 14 billion we're borrowing this year alone for our overspending. Only 5% of that money is being paid to the banks.

    Even in a best fantasy scenario just how much money can the US really give us? 100 mill? 200mill? A small fraction of what we're borrowing.

    I've been infracted today already so I'll leave it at that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The Boards.ie poll is an online poll open to re-regs, age bias, political bias etc.

    Opinion polls printed by national papers supercedes it. It isn't something open to debate, it's a given.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    People not understanding a proposal leads them to abstain or vote no according to the Referendum Commission.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0416/breaking4.html

    And the Referendum Commission thinks that time is the answer. Because given enough time, every Irish person is perfectly capable of understanding the implications of voting yes or no to permitting the Government ratify the Fiscal Compact?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    previous.gif

    The Irish Times is pro-treaty. The government is also pro-treaty. Two countries have so far opted out of this treaty without any problems. Even George Soros says europe’s fiscal compact can’t work in the current format.

    A nobel prize-winning economist recommended the Irish government immediately axe these bondholder payments. Needless to say, the ECB is still forcing the Irish people to pay despite the fact there is No legal obligation to pay these unguaranteed bondholders. The opportunity still exists for the ECB to allow Ireland more flexibility before it's too late. The socialization of the debts of the Irish banks, funding consisting of financing from mainly, though not solely, German Investment Banks, was transferred by a corrupt Irish Government as a liability of the Irish taxpayers on September 28, 2008. You are correct that the orders came from Chancellor Merkel and that her intent was to protect the German Investment Banks from losses. Do check out the rest of your suppositions and the facts may surprise you. The austerity program, and its effects have devastated Irish standard of living. Yet the politicians are putting a positive spin on things. Since the Constitution of Ireland is the law of the land, no matter how discomforting it is to all you pro-treaty die harders, the Teutonic fist will be clenched once again; perhaps the Irish will grow a backbone this time around.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Skopzz wrote: »
    The Irish Times is pro-treaty. The government is also pro-treaty. Two countries have so far opted out of this treaty without any problems.

    Two non-Eurozone countries, you seem to repeatedly 'forget' that.

    Also the business and Farmers organisations are for it. Almost makes you wonder.
    Skopzz wrote: »
    A nobel prize-winning economist recommended the Irish government immediately axe these bondholder payments.

    He talks about the previous government as if we didn't vote for them repeatedly. Does he mention what we do about the majority of the money we borrowed to fund our day to day spending deficit? Does he also mention how we go back in time and not sign up to these agreements in 2008?
    Skopzz wrote: »
    The socialization of the debts of the Irish banks, funding consisting of financing from mainly, though not solely, German Investment Banks, was transferred by a corrupt Irish Government as a liability of the Irish taxpayers on September 28, 2008. You are correct that the orders came from Chancellor Merkel and that her intent was to protect the German Investment Banks from losses.

    And you'll be able to prove the money went to German banks? Because no one else seems able to, even the people who originally claimed it.
    Skopzz wrote: »
    Do check out the rest of your suppositions and the facts may surprise you. The austerity program, and its effects have devastated Irish standard of living.

    And your proof that our standard of living has been 'devastated' is?
    Skopzz wrote: »
    Yet the politicians are putting a positive spin on things. Since the Constitution of Ireland is the law of the land, no matter how discomforting it is to all you pro-treaty die harders, the Teutonic fist will be clenched once again; perhaps the Irish will grow a backbone this time around.

    Hahaha. Sorry but I just zone out when I see crap like this. I'd like to take you seriously but your rhetoric is just so over the top.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    kittygun21.jpg?w=300&h=225

    Or, Stand up and be counted:
    bondwatch3.jpg?w=623&h=500&h=500


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Skopzz wrote: »
    snip...

    Well just when you think it can't get any worse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Skopzz wrote: »
    previous.gif

    The Irish Times is pro-treaty. The government is also pro-treaty. Two countries have so far opted out of this treaty without any problems. Even George Soros says europe’s fiscal compact can’t work in the current format.

    A nobel prize-winning economist recommended the Irish government immediately axe these bondholder payments. Needless to say, the ECB is still forcing the Irish people to pay despite the fact there is No legal obligation to pay these unguaranteed bondholders. The opportunity still exists for the ECB to allow Ireland more flexibility before it's too late. The socialization of the debts of the Irish banks, funding consisting of financing from mainly, though not solely, German Investment Banks, was transferred by a corrupt Irish Government as a liability of the Irish taxpayers on September 28, 2008. You are correct that the orders came from Chancellor Merkel and that her intent was to protect the German Investment Banks from losses. Do check out the rest of your suppositions and the facts may surprise you. The austerity program, and its effects have devastated Irish standard of living. Yet the politicians are putting a positive spin on things. Since the Constitution of Ireland is the law of the land, no matter how discomforting it is to all you pro-treaty die harders, the Teutonic fist will be clenched once again; perhaps the Irish will grow a backbone this time around.

    The total amount that burning unguaranteed senior bondholders after the expiry of the Guarantee would have saved is of the order of €6-8bn. Nothing wrong with saving it, but it wouldn't exactly make a hell of a lot of difference to our current debt position.

    Outside the simplistic fist-waving world of slogans, both our problems and any potential solutions are much more complicated and a good deal less like silver bullets.

    And, as others have said, the hysterical rhetoric doesn't actually make your case any stronger. It just makes it look more ridiculous.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    previous.gif

    I'm talking about the promissory note too. It could be torn up if we simply enacted new local laws to enable it to be wiped. This would save well over €100 billion thus making Ireland easily service its structural deficit. There is nothing hysterical or exaggerated about this. FG/LAB have the opportunity to do this except Kenny wants a job in Brussels after his term in office expires. We are about to strip ourselves of all remaining control over our sovereignty and our money. We should think again before listening to people like you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Skopzz wrote: »
    I'm talking about the promissory note too. It could be torn up if we simply enacted new local laws to enable it to be wiped.

    Really? The PN is a promise by the Irish Gov to put enough cash into IBRC (who we own) to allow IBRC repay its debt to the Central Bank of Ireland (who we own). So if we don't put the cash into IBRC then that entity is insolvent. And it cannot repay the CBI so that entity is insolvent. In which scenario we have to put exactly the same amount of cash into the CBI because you cannot operate with an insolvent Central Bank.

    Please, please, please can you do a little research before posting things which are not true. I know it is difficult because there is a load of rubbish being put about out there. But your suggestion above is completely at odds with any proposed by the Gov or any one sensible and the reason for it is because the PNs are to back a debt between two entities which we own.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Skopzz wrote: »
    previous.gif

    I'm talking about the promissory note too. It could be torn up if we simply enacted new local laws to enable it to be wiped. This would save well over €100 billion thus making Ireland easily service its structural deficit. There is nothing hysterical or exaggerated about this. FG/LAB have the opportunity to do this except Kenny wants a job in Brussels after his term in office expires. We are about to strip ourselves of all remaining control over our sovereignty and our money. We should think again before listening to people like you.

    And the figure of 100 billion comes from? And your proof that Enda Kenny wants a job in Brussels? The conspiracy theory stuff is getting tired to say the least.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,096 ✭✭✭✭the groutch


    People not understanding a proposal leads them to abstain or vote no according to the Referendum Commission.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0416/breaking4.html

    As happened with Lisbon I, and is running the risk of happening again.
    If FG want to pass this referendum, they need to be straight with the people, come out and tell the people exactly what the treaty entails.
    Not just doing like with FF with the Lisbon vote where they just said "here's a 4,000 page treaty, figure it out for yourself", and turn it into a game of scaremongering from both sides.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 535 ✭✭✭Skopzz


    As happened with Lisbon I, and is running the risk of happening again.
    If FG want to pass this referendum, they need to be straight with the people, come out and tell the people exactly what the treaty entails.
    Not just doing like with FF with the Lisbon vote where they just said "here's a 4,000 page treaty, figure it out for yourself", and turn it into a game of scaremongering from both sides.

    What makes you assume people don't understand the ramifications of this treaty? If you mistakenly vote yes on the referendum, you just cannot undo it! They don't have it programmed in the fiscal treaty. So, there are obviously many mistaken people willing to sign up.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ...turn it into a game of scaremongering from both sides.
    Sadly, scaremongering is already a given on at least one side. Case in point:
    Skopzz wrote: »
    If you mistakenly vote yes on the referendum, you just cannot undo it! They don't have it programmed in the fiscal treaty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Skopzz wrote: »
    If you mistakenly vote yes on the referendum, you just cannot undo it!
    If you vote yes in the referendum, the Irish Government does not have to ratify the fiscal compact although they probably will. But, if you get your way and Sinn Fein/ ULA form the next Irish Government they are free to exit the fiscal compact. It is only binding on us so long as our Government agrees to be bound. So it can be undone by voting SF/ ULA.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    later12 wrote: »
    Thirdly, there are some legitimate concerns about the exclusionary nature of a correction mechanism with respect to the transgressing member state (the contracting party), a mechanism which appears mainly to be a matter for the EU Commission and the Council excluding the contracting party, as per Article 7 of the TSCG. I think there is a legitimate concern as to the democratic nature of that provision.

    The mechanism outlined in Article 7 of the TSCG would appear to be highly similiar/virtually identical to that contained in Article 126.13 of the TEU (i.e. the current mechanism).

    The member states presumably want the same/highly similar mechanisms in operation at the same time in the two treaties to reduce complications.

    Also, as the mechanisms outlined are essentially a QMV "peer review" method, there would appear to be an inherent conflict in having the party under review "on their own jury" particularly as a larger state could potentially use their greater voting power to over turn any close votes against them whereas a smaller state would find this very difficult to do (and such a possibility in either case would seriously undermine any point in doing a peer review).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    I was under the impression that the council member is presently only excluded from the vote which determined the existence or otherwise of an excessive deficit & subsequent recommendation. The Council is not bound to recommend what the Commission proposes, however.
    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E126:EN:HTML

    My reading of Article 7 makes it seem that the process is altered in that there is a commitment to support whatever the Commission proposes in this respect:
    "the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro commit to supporting the proposals or recommendations submitted by the European Commission where it considers that a Member State of the European Union whose currency is the euro is in breach of the deficit criterion in the framework of an excessive deficit procedure.

    I understand why people feel this is necessary, but no I wouldn't consider that the same as previous provisions on excessive deficits.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    Sinn Fein have been left red faced today after they quoted economists in their no campaign leaflets suggesting that they were not in support of the treaty. The leaflet selectively quoted a number of economists and it appeared that the economists were against the treaty and thus Sinn Fein were right to be calling for a no vote.

    As it turns out, the full quotation when obtained painted a very different picture. The economists instead were not calling for a No vote but in fact, a Yes vote.

    Sinn Fein have confirmed the error and said it was a "printing error" (humours excuse considering their experience with printers!).

    Karl Whelan was one of the economists quoted as backing the call for a No vote who responded on his blog to deny he was calling for a No vote and expanded on how Sinn Fein just took a snap shot of his quotation and made it appear he was calling for a No vote.
    One of the quotes is from me. It says:

    … the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible …

    Did I say that? Well, yes, I uttered those words at a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs. Here‘s what I said without the dots

    All that said, although I think the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible, on balance, the arguments favour Ireland’s signing up to it.

    Source; http://karlwhelan.com/blog/?p=359


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    They may have been quoted out of context, but they were not misquoted. They did actually say those things.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    They may have been quoted out of context, but they were not misquoted. They did actually say those things.

    But they ended by saying on weighing up all the options, they are calling for a Yes vote. Sinn Fein call them experts and want the people to believe what they say. So, they picked on the negative aspects (which there is in anything) and completely ignored the positive aspect. Its completely misleading.

    Its a bit like a family walking into a hospital as their brother is very sick. The doctor goes onto say "Well, your brother is very sick, terminally ill and in very poor shape following that accident. Saying that, if we put him on the right course of medication we can get him on the road to recovery and back on his feet in no time. The choice is yours.".

    Does the family only listen to part of the doctors statement, and decided to leave him "go"? No, they listen in full and decide to treat the brother and get him back on his feet.


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    They may have been quoted out of context, but they were not misquoted. They did actually say those things.
    Sinn Fein's website says:
    Sinn Fein is an Irish Republican party. Its objective is ... British rule in Ireland.
    I may be selectively quoting it, but those words are definitely on their site.

    I'm sure you'd agree that it's dishonest to take some of what somebody says and use it to claim that they believe something different from what they actually believe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    They may have been quoted out of context, but they were not misquoted. They did actually say those things.

    You'd be screaming blue murder if the government did half of that.

    As always our referendum campaign is poor but this Sinn Fein tactic is basically out and out lying.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    Standard & Poor's have today confirmed they are not downgrading Ireland's credit rating and that a No vote will result in its downgrading.

    Source: http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0427/standard-poors-retains-bbb-irish-credit-rating.html

    Next leaflet from Sinn Fein?
    Standard & Poor confirmed ... vote will result in its downgrading.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Sully wrote: »
    Next leaflet from Sinn Fein?
    "Standard & Poor's bullying Irish people into a Yes vote."

    Because, presumably, stating as a fact that we will be downgraded in the event of a "no" vote is bullying, whereas claiming that a "yes" vote will condemn us to near-permanent austerity is not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭stonetrower


    I voted for Labour's way and got Frankfurts way in the General Election. This time I will not be caught out by Gilmore's lies. I'm voting NO.
    I saw a banner today which read Labour's way is Frankfurt's way
    Last year it was Labour's way or Frankfurt's way


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    I voted for Labour's way and got Frankfurts way in the General Election. This time I will not be caught out by Gilmore's lies. I'm voting NO.
    I saw a banner today which read Labour's way is Frankfurt's way

    Just as a suggestion you could listen to people other than Gilmore. Seems rather foolish to base a decision on one person either way. Any remotely sensible reason for voting no?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18 Obair979


    (1) Ireland would still be legible to get funds from the EFSF because the ESM doesn't come into force until later.


    (2) Ireland would still be eligible for a new IMF loan because it meets their 4 criteria for a new loan.


    (3) Ireland would be able to access the ESM because there is absolutely no way Europe would risk financial instability by cutting a fellow Euro-Zone member from vital funding. We've seen this before with Greece.


    By voting 'no' people are saving themselves from more austerity and also putting the pressure on the government to honor their commitments (burn the bondholders and refuse to pay the promissory note). In any case, this treaty will be watered down once Francois Hollande wins the French presidency. A Hollande victory is in Ireland's interests because Merkel is 100% isolated in her austerity policies. Ireland's interests hinge on a Hollande victory.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Obair979 wrote: »
    (1) Ireland would still be legible to get funds from the EFSF because the ESM doesn't come into force until later.

    The EFSF won't be engaging in new lending.
    Obair979 wrote: »
    (2) Ireland would still be eligible for a new IMF loan because it meets their 4 criteria for a new loan.

    No, Ireland is drastically over the IMF quota limit of 600% (we're at 1350% now, will be at 1550% by programme end), and the IMF have made it clear they will not take on further exposure to Ireland, particularly without European partners there to take the first hit in the case of default.
    Obair979 wrote: »
    (3) Ireland would be able to access the ESM because there is absolutely no way Europe would risk financial instability by cutting a fellow Euro-Zone member from vital funding. We've seen this before with Greece.

    No, it will be illegal for the ESM to give us funding. If they try, a case against them doing so is open and shut - no Fiscal Treaty ratification, no ESM access.

    We will get some kind of funding, but it legally can't be ESM funding, and politically it will have to be a worse deal.
    Obair979 wrote: »
    By voting 'no' people are saving themselves from more austerity and also putting the pressure on the government to honor their commitments (burn the bondholders and refuse to pay the promissory note).

    You cannot save yourself from austerity by voting not to have access to a borrowing facility.
    Obair979 wrote: »
    In any case, this treaty will be watered down once Francois Hollande wins the French presidency. A Hollande victory is in Ireland's interests because Merkel is 100% isolated in her austerity policies. Ireland's interests hinge on a Hollande victory.

    Hollande may or may not (a) want to reopen negotiations once actually elected, and (b) may or may not refuse to ratify if negotiations are not reopened. Hollande may well settle for an additional "growth pact" tacked onto the Treaty. In both cases, France will be unable to simply dictate the agenda, because Merkel is not in fact alone in her preferences, but has the support of several other governments.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    Whats the story again re: paying money towards the bailout fund? The one that the EU/IMF will use for future bailouts and if I understand correctly all EU countries must contribute towards?


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Obair979 wrote: »
    By voting 'no' people are saving themselves from more austerity...
    This blatant lie has a ridiculous amount of currency.

    We're spending vastly more than we're taking in. We need to raise taxes and cut spending. The process of raising taxes and cutting spending is called "austerity". The alternative to austerity is borrowing even more money than we currently do, which we can't afford to do.

    A little bit of honesty wouldn't go astray.


Advertisement