Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

AudreyHepburn

Personally I'll probably be voting No to this as I really don't like the idea of Merkle & Sarkozy having that kind of control over us. I do believe we need to remain part of the EU if we are to stand any chance of getting out of this recession but not like this.

It seems to me however that a lot of people are voting No purely to get one up on the Government and that is simply not a good enough way to vote. If we start basing all our voting decisions on what will piss the government off the most then we stand a good chance voting against something we really ought to vote for, or voting in favour of something we should be against.

If you want to vote No by all means do so, just make sure you do it for the right reasons, and not because you are angry and bitter and want to give Enda K the finger.

Biggins

No.

Nothing to do with giving Enda and co any finger.

We have become too answerable to bullies in the EU.
(We should be working with them - not constantly answerable like kids, to them!).
We have paid enough and we still will be doing so for decades to come it looks like.
One way or another, things are going to get tough. There is no debate about that I think.

HOWEVER, we can (I feel) have the choice to suffer thru tough times (perhaps even tougher!) as an Irish nation and come out the other side with more of our sovereign inalienable self-governing rights intact and still ours to have sway over - or we can accept tough times ahead and once again sell our ability at self-governance (or more parts of it) to powers elsewhere. Perhaps never to be regained, once they are gone. Add to that, the further massive monetary bills that they will have like a rope around our necks for generations to come, a rope (lead) they can pull and yank at their leisure in case we further object to something they might try!

The above is the short version why I say "NO!"

Suffer we will but in the long run - our nation, individuality and people should be better off for it.

SEPT 23 1989

NEIN

KeithM89_old

From AH

JeffK88

I will be voting 'NO' because I do not trust this government or the European Dictatorship. Its basically a treaty on austerity. Remember Lisbon 1 & 2 they promised us jobs and we lost thousands.They told us for months in 2010 we didn't need a bailout and look what happened.They reneged on all their promises. They told us there was growth last year while there was actually contraction. T Everything this government says is always ALWAYS the opposite so if the Fiscal treaty is good for Ireland in reality its the devastating for Ireland and a majority of its citizens.

snubbleste

Níl

later12

A very reluctant No.

Fiscal union is the answer, but not these ridiculous formulae, which investors know would never have saved Ireland (and everyone else but Greece) from its fate to begin with. ( Ireland ran an average fiscal surplus from 1999-2007 (much better than Germany). Where's our stability?)

I'm not comfortable with the idea of writing ideological economic theory into binding treaties either, and am uncomfortable with the nature of the correcting mechanisms laid out in the Treaty which appear to suffer from a democratic shortfall.

It's a pity, because fiscal union is exactly what Europe needs. This is a very anaemic attempt at a workable, accountable, stable fiscal union.

bleg

Probably will vote yes as it's the first step to federalisation.

cadete

Biggins wrote: »

Nothing to do with giving Enda and co any finger.

QUOTE]

I will be voting no, but i am voting no to give kenny sarkozy and merkel the finger.

Sand

I'll be voting no. Its a bad treaty of no value or benefit to Ireland. Nothing prevents us from running a sound economic/fiscal policy without this treaty - signing up to this treaty could actually hamper Ireland's ability to run a sound economic/fiscal strategy.

Dob74

Will be voting No, the treaty will only tie our hands and will do nothing to prevent the next banking crisis.
Government ministers are quick to push the blame to Lehmann's and co when it suits them.
This treaty will only limit government expenditure and will not limit borrowing to private banks. Who conviently claim they are to big to fail when they go broke. Sadly no politician in this country or europe has the balls to but them in there place.

SeanW

Will be voting NO.

There's some truly frightening language in there - the fiscal stability fund they're planning to establish will be able to demand, within 7 days, any amount of money from any country they choose. Signatories will be irrevocably be bound to honour any such demand or face serious legal action.

The fiscal stability fund will have the full protection of law against countries, but will itself be immune from any kind of oversight whatsoever, will be immune to any kind of legal challenge from any jurisdiction, and its officers will be immune from prosecution for any crimes committed in relation to their service to the fund.

What the hell are these people planning to do that requires so much power, immunity and secrecy?

It's a bad thing for Ireland, and the people of Europe, so I'm going to oppose it.

Big AK1

It's a No vote for me.
Fine Gael (and Labour) have spent the whole of their first year in government whining about how FF tied their hands (eg memorandum of understanding). Why would they want to sign off on a treaty that ties the hands of future governments in the same way?

Putting another sticking plaster over the gangrenous wounds of the Euro is not going to help. Doing a half-arsed job everytime, fixing a specific problem that presents itself (Greece, Ireland, Spain, etc;) is not going to fix the overall issue, and even doing a temp fix (bailout) will only prolong the problems, because it'll only be a matter of time before we need to fix them again; Greece is the perfect example.
This new referendum will not fix the problems, it will only serve to give overseas bodies the powers to dictate Ireland's budget, and long term, policies; it's a definite step toward a true federal European nation state if you will, with a central power.
If we are all going to be one federal state, then we should be that.
Perhaps It's time for Europe to either sh*t or get off the pot; Europe all in, or all out.

Out for me please!

beeftotheheels

A reluctant yes from me. Don't like the treaty on a European level, don't see that it will change anything for Ireland in the short to medium term other than possibly precluding us from accessing the ESM which could itself then necessitate drawing on the ESM. And a No vote could reverse the gains in political capital we've been making at a European level.

Like the treaty Collins signed it is a stepping stone.

Ronnie Binge

I would want a hell of a lot of intelligent persuasion from sources other than Cóir, the Socialist Workers Party and Sinn Féin that voting no was the right thing to do.

Shay Conway

Thats the part of the problem, taking a side instead of looking at the issues involved.

Dirk Gently

Ronnie Binge wrote: »

I would want a hell of a lot of intelligent persuasion from sources other than Cóir, the Socialist Workers Party and Sinn Féin that voting no was the right thing to do.

This is the attitude of most people tbh. Reactionary. Most people define themselves based on the opposite view of those they dont like. It's a comfort zone.

Just read the thing and decide for yourself.

Ronnie Binge

Dirk Gently wrote: »

This is the attitude of most people tbh. Reactionary. Most people define themselves based on the opposite view of those they dont like. It's a comfort zone.

Just read the thing and decide for yourself.

I just call it as I see it. The Cóir and Libertas posters last time out were crass, emotive and scaremongering, not to mention the army of stickers and non-attributable posters threatening conscription into a non-existent EU army. Whatever way I vote will be based on what I believe is the national interest, not what those on the far left and the far right want. I wouldn't trust them to run a bath, let alone this country.

eire4

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

NEIN

Very funny. I like your humour there.

Skopzz

No sane minded person would vote yes to become a bankrupt slave to Europe.

tomdeere

A big fat NO,

Godge

All bar one of the posters are voting no. The one who said they were voting yes was immediately criticised for his/her reasons even though some of the reasons given for no votes (seriously does anyone believe that voting no is equivalent to giving kenny or merkel the finger?? how childish is that?) were more outlandish.

I will be voting yes, yes because we need the political capital of a "yes" vote, yes because it does not mean as much austerity as the scaremongerers believe, yes because we may need access to the funds if things don't work out over the next few years, yes because we should be fully participating in Europe.

humanji

I've no real idea what way to vote yet. As far as my uneducated mind can tell, a yes vote seems slightly better. Voting yes results in austerity and puts more onus on us to comply with EU wishes, where as a no results in much harder austerity, for possibly a longer period, but we retain a bit more economic soverienty.

We're damned if we do and damned if we dont. But if we do, there seems to be a greater chance that we'll be back on our feet within my lifetime.

Skopzz

Godge wrote: »

All bar one of the posters are voting no. The one who said they were voting yes was immediately criticised for his/her reasons even though some of the reasons given for no votes (seriously does anyone believe that voting no is equivalent to giving kenny or merkel the finger?? how childish is that?) were more outlandish.

I will be voting yes, yes because we need the political capital of a "yes" vote, yes because it does not mean as much austerity as the scaremongerers believe, yes because we may need access to the funds if things don't work out over the next few years, yes because we should be fully participating in Europe.

Well, as long as you are prepared to become a bankrupt slave to Europe who will soon need a second bailout.

Skopzz

To anyone contemplating a Yes vote:

In January alone, Fine Gael handed over €1.25bn of YOUR money to private bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank. This is equal to the amount of new taxes in 2012 that were set out in Budget 2012. So on one day, we paid over all our new taxes to unsecured, unguaranteed bondholders – “speculative investors” as Michael Noonan called them last June. A recent recommendation by economists recommended the gov't of FG-LAB immediately axe the bondholder payments. FG refused, arguing that it's supposedly in our interest to keep paying an unsustainable burden which we don't owe. Last year, Noonan burned €5bn and this didn't upset the ECB or the financial markets. Noonan is too busy capitulating to the illusion that we can continue when clearly we’re heading down the path of Greekification. Ireland Teeters on the Verge of Bankruptcy because we are paying 35% of GDP to a defunct bank. Since the promissory note hasn't been paid yet, the opportunity exists to ring fence it by a simple means of refusing to use it on Anglo Irish Bank thus giving it back to the ECB. Ireland is on the brink of bankruptcy despite the fact that the Euro-Zone recession has yet to hit the country with full force.

humanji

Skopzz wrote: »

Well, as long as you are prepared to become a bankrupt slave to Europe who will soon need a second bailout.

Please describe, in detail, how a no vote is to our advantage, explaining the pro's and cons of such a decision.

Skopzz

humanji wrote: »

Please describe, in detail, how a no vote is to our advantage, explaining the pro's and cons of such a decision.

This is a very cynical ploy by the Irish ruling elites and multi-millionaire posessors of the bankers Ponzi bonds. The choice before the Irish people is stay in the Eurozone and face 6 more years of savage austerity or pull out and use a new IEP which offers hope and prosperity. A government that was remotely interested in the nation's future would stay in, repudiate the bank bailout, lend Euros at base rate, defend its stance and balance the budget by collecting sufficient income tax. This could provide the platform for going forward. However given that the powers that be are holding a gun to the head of the population a choice will have to be made and obviously the FG-LAB-FF movement cannot vote positively for bankers' austerity. It will be necessary for the united left alliance to campaign for a no vote whilst making it clear that they are not opposed to the EU in principle but would stay in the former and renegotiate the founding treaties in accordance with democratic principles to allow Ireland burn Anglo Irish Bank's foreign bondholders. The latest fiscal treaties allows foreign politicians to squander up to 700 Billion of my taxes and as much as they can get away with across Europe.

I DO NOT care what the ECB says. They collect money to promote this treaty and I do not mind. I have never taken this blackmail because I do NOT fall for blackmail by eurocrats. There is no way 45 million Irish-Americans will stand by and watch their motherland burn. And if that wasn't enough, Ireland would also be able to avail of bi-lateral loans from Canada, Australia, NZ etc. We would still be eligible for IMF money in a worst case scenario. Do you really think they will cut Ireland off from ESM and risk the stability of the euro?


The interesting facts about this austerity treaty are:

1.If the goal is to preserve the crony capitalism of FF's legacy, then Mr Kenny did the right thing: offload toxic Anglo's bonds to the Irish taxpayers. Noonan seems to be in that camp. If the goal would have been to face the reality that huge societal and structural impediments cannot sustain that current level of debt, then the alternative approach would be to let it fail while making sure the role of the banks as financial intermediaries is being supported - a la TARP with forced re-capitalization, partial government control, and eventual re-payment of the government money.

2. There is nothing exaggerated about Anglo bondholders - all of them are speculators with worthless paper, weak institutions, a dysfunctional administration, mafia-controlled business world, etc. The private wealth of these investors is in stark contrast to the Irish taxpayers.

3. The economics are daunting, but easy to explain: on the current trajectory, none of the restructures will manage to get debt to a manageable level. You can either change the trajectory, which means more austerity, for which Ireland has already fully stomached. Or you expect the shrinking number of relatively healthy figures to transfer large parts of their life savings to the toxic dump in Anglo Irish Bank.

The guarantees that Ireland had given for the Banks (€200 billion if you add the bad loans) match the order of magnitude of 37% of GDP. If anyone believes this will not affect Irish investment, competitiveness, and standard of living for the Irish people, you are dreaming.

WolfgangWeisen

I've the document sitting on my desk but haven't read it yet, when I do I'll make up my mind on the matter for certain.

Although, all things considered, the side that are against the treaty will bring in so many irrelevant things that have nothing to do with it, derail any real discussion on it and scare people with utter, outright lies as they did with Lisbon, that it really makes the text of the document rather irrelevant.

Admittedly I was very disappointed to see this being brought to referendum and would have much preferred for it to be dealt with by the people I elected to discuss and make such decisions.

humanji

Thanks Skopzz. See? That's much better than scaremongering hyperbole. Although, you are working on the assumption that the government are actively trying to work against the Irish people.

Skopzz

humanji wrote: »

Thanks Skopzz. See? That's much better than scaremongering hyperbole. Although, you are working on the assumption that the government are actively trying to work against the Irish people.

The current government have lost their credibility because they have done a u-turn on their policies.The Irish people haven't forgotten when the ECB came down hard on Ireland. It threatened to cut off emergency lending, and leaned heavily on the Irish central bank chief to pressure us to accept a bailout. Olli Rehn privately warned Irish politicians that the ECB was prepared to cut off vital cash to Irish banks.Our country was sacrificed to save private investors

gerogerigegege

worth a read
http://campaignagainsttheausteritytreaty.wordpress.com/

Matt Bauer

I have a feeling the same people who now say they will vote no were previously complaining that the EU did not stop us from over-spending.

meglome

Skopzz wrote: »

The current government have lost their credibility because they have done a u-turn on their policies.The Irish people haven't forgotten when the ECB came down hard on Ireland. It threatened to cut off emergency lending, and leaned heavily on the Irish central bank chief to pressure us to accept a bailout. Olli Rehn privately warned Irish politicians that the ECB was prepared to cut off vital cash to Irish banks.Our country was sacrificed to save private investors

What u-turns exactly?

And again I have shown you that the majority of the money we've borrowed was/is for day to day spending on our deficit and not for the banks. You choose to carry on and ignore that reality.

gerogerigegege wrote: »

worth a read
http://campaignagainsttheausteritytreaty.wordpress.com/

To be clear about this... we are having austerity whether we vote Yes or we vote No. Anyone who thinks otherwise is very foolish indeed. Of course calling it the austerity treaty makes it all scary and will make some believe that voting no will stop austerity. I wonder if a no vote should happen what lie the likes of Sinn Fein will tell then as to why we're still having austerity.

Matt Bauer wrote: »

I have a feeling the same people who now say they will vote no were previously complaining that the EU did not stop us from over-spending.

Everyone's fault but the people here seemingly. You know the people who kept voting for Fianna Fail.

meglome

Skopzz wrote: »

This is a very cynical ploy by the Irish ruling elites and multi-millionaire posessors of the bankers Ponzi bonds.

I switched off there.

Skopzz wrote: »

The guarantees that Ireland had given for the Banks (€200 billion if you add the bad loans) match the order of magnitude of 37% of GDP. If anyone believes this will not affect Irish investment, competitiveness, and standard of living for the Irish people, you are dreaming.

Don't suppose though you're going to tell us where this 200 billion figure comes from?

mikom

Ronnie Binge wrote: »

I just call it as I see it. The Cóir and Libertas posters last time out were crass, emotive and scaremongering, not to mention the army of stickers and non-attributable posters threatening conscription into a non-existent EU army.

http://www.fiannafail.ie/page/-/images/feature/blenihan_20sept09_600.jpg

http://www.sceala.com/phpBB2/userpix/960_Protest_at_Leinster_House_against_politicians_jobs_1.jpg

meglome

mikom wrote: »

http://www.fiannafail.ie/page/-/images/feature/blenihan_20sept09_600.jpg

http://www.sceala.com/phpBB2/userpix/960_Protest_at_Leinster_House_against_politicians_jobs_1.jpg

We're really going to start comparing, really?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, sorry if this has been done before. I just found an old file on my computer from the time of the last Lison treaty where I'd listed some of the lies that were told by the no campaign. It had plain old lies like the one about the EU having taken €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters but the ones I'm interested in here are things that they said would happen if we voted yes, i.e. they were saying that voting yes would allow something to happen where voting no would prevent it.

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. What I'm wondering is: what "bad" things that the no campaign said would happen actually did? I can't think of anything to be honest.

Now bear in mind I'm not looking for a list of "bad" things that have happened since 2009. I'm looking for things that happened and that were allowed to happen as a direct result of a clause in the Lisbon treaty.

mikom

meglome wrote: »

We're really going to start comparing, really?

Just repeating the message from my "government" at the time.

View

mikom wrote: »

http://www.fiannafail.ie/page/-/images/feature/blenihan_20sept09_600.jpg

http://www.sceala.com/phpBB2/userpix/960_Protest_at_Leinster_House_against_politicians_jobs_1.jpg

Since when has "jobs and investment" counted as "scaremongering"?

mikeym

I will be spoiling my vote because I am disillusioned with the European Union and the current government.

liammur

So it looks like a No from the users on this forum. I do feel however, that many users on boards are your 'joe duffy complaining type' so it wouldn't be accurate reflection imo.

I too will vote NO, but for all the wrong reasons. I don't see the government acting fairly, for instance they are not tackling the huge pensions etc. This has nothing to do with treaty, and I suspect many will vote No for reasons that have nothing to do with it.

Europe is good for us. That's the paradox of it.

later12

If you know it has nothing to do with the Treaty, why would voting No on the Treaty have any impact on these policies?

I can't believe someone would knowingly cast a vote contrary to their position and for no conceivable benefit.

joe duffy avatar notwithstanding.

liammur

later12 wrote: »

If you know it has nothing to do with the Treaty, why would voting No on the Treaty have any impact on these policies?

I can't believe someone would knowingly cast a vote contrary to their position and for no conceivable benefit.

joe duffy avatar notwithstanding.

If the YES gets an overwhelming majority, this will give the government a huge ego boost and god alone knows what they'll do next. The Untouchables.

beeftotheheels

liammur wrote: »

If the YES gets an overwhelming majority, this will give the government a huge ego boost and god alone knows what they'll do next. The Untouchables.

But it won't. And you're risking it not passing at all.

And anyway, this isn't a vote on the Government. I'm not in the slightest concerned that my yes vote will be seen as a vote in favor of FF who are supporting it.

liammur

beeftotheheels wrote: »

But it won't. And you're risking it not passing at all.

And anyway, this isn't a vote on the Government. I'm not in the slightest concerned that my yes vote will be seen as a vote in favor of FF who are supporting it.

The last poll i saw it was well ahead. I would be very surprised if it didn't pass. In fact, I've just checked paddy power's odds.

Yes: 1/4
No: 5/2

beeftotheheels

liammur wrote: »

The last poll i saw it was well ahead. I would be very surprised if it didn't pass. In fact, I've just checked paddy power's odds.

Yes: 1/4
No: 5/2

Campaigning has barely begun and you only have to look at the amount of rubbish being posited about the place to wonder... all seems very Lisbon and our babbies will be sent to war, and our soldiers will have to collect harmonized corporation tax and whatever...

If too many people don't vote, or vote no in protest it could be sunk.

liammur

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Campaigning has barely begun and you only have to look at the amount of rubbish being posited about the place to wonder... all seems very Lisbon and our babbies will be sent to war, and our soldiers will have to collect harmonized corporation tax and whatever...

If too many people don't vote, or vote no in protest it could be sunk.

If you just listened to joe duffy, you would think it hasn't a chance. Same applies here. But I've very, very little doubt it will go through. In fact, most people probably just like to moan, when it comes to it, they will vote Yes.

meglome

liammur wrote: »

If the YES gets an overwhelming majority, this will give the government a huge ego boost and god alone knows what they'll do next. The Untouchables.

I'd seriously doubt given the mess we're in this will give the government an ego boost. And quite frankly the main issue here is possibly shooting ourselves in the foot again, screw what the government thinks.

SeanW

mikeym wrote: »

I will be spoiling my vote because I am disillusioned with the European Union and the current government.

Then you should vote no.

A sister treaty to the one we're voting on - the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, contains frightening language, creating a vast Eurocracy with near godlike powers to demand money from member states, has virtually no accountability or oversight, provides a crazy level of criminal immunity for officers, and perhaps most frighteningly of all, provides a clear statement of intent that future banking failures throughout the EuroZone will be dealt with exactly the way Ireland's bank difficulties were. I.E. don't let the bank be liquidated but instead force governments to borrow huge amounts of money to "recapitalise" them while keeping the economy in the crapper because it depends on zombie banks.

REAL austerity (which I favour!) would include telling bank bondholders to go to hell.

I would prefer a National Balanced Budget Amendment that:

1. Constrains government's day-to-day spending.
2. Specifically prevents government from taking on any banking debt, or paying any money in the event of bank failure except compensating retail depositors.
3. Doesn't give any more power away to Brussels.
4. Contains exemptions for capital spending, like roads and railways, school buildings etc.

I have a fundamental problem with the way Europe is going, so I'm voting NO!

Firblog

If Thomas Pringles legal challange to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (Fiscal Compact) Treaties is upheld will the referendum go ahead?

FreudianSlippers

SeanW wrote: »

Then you should vote no.

A sister treaty to the one we're voting on - the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism

That doesn't make sense. Vote on what you're voting on. If you want to vote no on the sister treaty then vote no on that.

, contains frightening language, creating a vast Eurocracy with near godlike powers to demand money from member states, has virtually no accountability or oversight, provides a crazy level of criminal immunity for officers, and perhaps most frighteningly of all, provides a clear statement of intent that future banking failures throughout the EuroZone will be dealt with exactly the way Ireland's bank difficulties were. I.E. don't let the bank be liquidated but instead force governments to borrow huge amounts of money to "recapitalise" them while keeping the economy in the crapper because it depends on zombie banks.

Source?

later12

Firblog wrote: »

If Thomas Pringles legal challange to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (Fiscal Compact) Treaties is upheld will the referendum go ahead?

Surely the most that can happen there is that it is established that the ESM needs to be ratified by plebiscite. Based on the contributions that have been put forward by legal professionals in the media and in academic work, that seems unlikely.

Good example might be this paper by Dr Gavin Barrett of UCD
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1938659

On a related issue, there is some debate about whether an amendment to Article 136 is even required, apparently.

The House of Commons’ European scrutiny committee in the United Kingdom, for example, obtained legal advice that the amendment of Article 136, which is being done for the purpose of creating the ESM, is not in fact a pre-requisite for the creation of the ESM.

If this is true, then it's hard to see why a constitutional amendment would be required in Ireland.

Furthermore, Ireland vetoing the amendment to Article 136 following on from a potential rejection of the Fiscal Stability Treaty (whatever that would achieve) would not in fact threaten the creation of the ESM. In other words, if an amendment to article 136 is not required, then some would say that Ireland's 'hand' is diminished in Europe.

So that would be worth establishing before deciding on the fiscal treaty, and in that respect, Thomas Pringle's judicial review can only be welcomed for the sake of providing clarity.