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

Galwayguy35

Richard Boyd Barrett is the Yes campaigns secret weapon. The man just hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

carveone

The Referendum Commission has said the fiscal treaty poll cannot be postponed. The relevant act is the Referendum Act 1994.

I'm sure you've all seen this at this point (it's about 11 hours ago according to google!) so I'll just post this note in this thread in case others haven't seen that news item. There was several of us wondering would it be more prudent to delay the referendum to September but apparantly it can't be done:

In a statement, the Commission said once the minister signs the order for a referendum, the polling date could only be changed if a general election was called.

The minister had no power otherwise under the relevant Act to postpone the referendum or to cancel it.

Ozymandius2011

carveone wrote: »

The Referendum Commission has said the fiscal treaty poll cannot be postponed. The relevant act is the Referendum Act 1994.

I'm sure you've all seen this at this point (it's about 11 hours ago according to google!) so I'll just post this note in this thread in case others haven't seen that news item. There was several of us wondering would it be more prudent to delay the referendum to September but apparantly it can't be done:

The Oireachtas might be able to repeal the act.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Oireachtas might be able to repeal the act.

Putting the cart before the horse (if we're to have an honest debate on this).

We're not ratifying the treaty, we're giving the Oireachtas permission to ratify the treaty.

So the Gov could come out tomorrow and state that, even if we vote yes, they won't propose ratifing the treaty until the German "Oireachtas" ratifies it.

But right now the "Greek issue" means that the markets worry about electorates voting for the impossible. So the better answer would be for the Gov to acknowledge the element of doubt between our allowing them ratify and their actual ratification, which could be made dependent on us being State 12, i.e. our Gov will only actually ratify if 11 other States have already done so.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Oireachtas might be able to repeal the act.

As far as the legislation goes, that wouldn't appear to make any difference, since there is, again, no provision for any such action. It would require a Supreme Court judgement, I suspect - I would imagine that the chances of getting such a judgement before the 31st would be minimal, and there is, again, no provision for the Supreme Court to delay the referendum either.

As beeftotheheels points out, the referendum result does not bind the government to ratify the Treaty, nor does it require it to do so in any timeframe. If there is uncertainty over the fate of the Treaty, the government can delay ratification.

It's interesting to consider which is better for Ireland if the Treaty does come to be renegotiated. A "No" means that all is to do over again, while a "Yes" may also mean that, and in addition means that the government is in a position to ratify, and therefore holds the card of being able to be part of bringing the current version into being.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

From Reuters today:

Francois Hollande wrote:

''I said it during my election campaign and I say it again now as president that I want to renegotiate what has been agreed to include a growth dimension," Hollande told a joint news conference with Merkel at her Chancellery in the German capital.''
UPDATE 1-Merkel, Hollande pledge to work together to boost growth | Reuters

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

From Reuters today:

Ahem...same article:

Instead of reopening Merkel's "fiscal compact", they are expected to complement it with a new "growth pact".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ahem...same article:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Reuters seems to be contradicting itself. On one hand it quotes Hollande yesterday saying he will "renegotiate" the Treaty. Then it follows up by saying he is not expected to. I prefer to take the man at his word this early one when we don't know enough to suspect him of Irish Labour (remember Frankfurt's Way or Labour's Way)-style U-Turns. I wonder are Reuters above a little spinning, given the European media is overwhelmingly pro-Treaty.

chieftan65

Seems very suspicious to me that kenny and co are hell bent on having this voted on now instead of waiting to see whats happening with the rest of europe including germany who were originally behind it and now cant get a government majority for it. something just dont feel right about all this urgency. call me cynical but after being shafted and lied to by politicians for so long i prefer to err on the side of caution now

Ozymandius2011

It would be interesting to start a new poll to see if the trends of the Red C poll are reflective of boards.ie members. After all the present poll was posted a good while ago and much has changed in the debate since then.

jimmycrackcorm

I'm voting yes for the simple reason that on a personal level the last few years have shown me that I need to apply the same fiscal principles myself (i.e. balancing my own personal income / expenditure ).

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Reuters seems to be contradicting itself. On one hand it quotes Hollande yesterday saying he will "renegotiate" the Treaty. Then it follows up by saying he is not expected to. I prefer to take the man at his word this early one when we don't know enough to suspect him of Irish Labour (remember Frankfurt's Way or Labour's Way)-style U-Turns. I wonder are Reuters above a little spinning, given the European media is overwhelmingly pro-Treaty.

I don't think it's Reuters who are spinning. Look at what Hollande says:

''I said it during my election campaign and I say it again now as president that I want to renegotiate what has been agreed to include a growth dimension,"

"I want to renegotiate what has been agreed" - no mention of the Treaty being reopened or even renegotiated. No, what's to be renegotiated is "what has been agreed". And how is it to be renegotiated? To "include" a growth dimension.

Absolutely nothing in what he says there involves reopening the Treaty. It works equally well with a complementary "growth pact". After all, that's not currently part of "what has been negotiated".

Although a lot depends there on how accurate the translation of what he's saying is, but I suspect that if one operates on the basis that politicians are politicians in any language one won't go far wrong.

There's not much in the Treaty that's up for renegotiation, though - the limits are the Stability & Growth limits, the excessive deficit procedure is the excessive deficit procedure, and changing the other bits would be largely irrelevant from a left-wing perspective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

chieftan65 wrote: »

Seems very suspicious to me that kenny and co are hell bent on having this voted on now instead of waiting to see whats happening with the rest of europe including germany who were originally behind it and now cant get a government majority for it. something just dont feel right about all this urgency. call me cynical but after being shafted and lied to by politicians for so long i prefer to err on the side of caution now

There's no legal way of stopping a referendum once you start one. The government can wait to ratify, but the referendum date can only be changed in the event of a general election - and even then only to make the two votes share the same day.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think it's Reuters who are spinning. Look at what Hollande says:



"I want to renegotiate what has been agreed" - no mention of the Treaty being reopened or even renegotiated. No, what's to be renegotiated is "what has been agreed". And how is it to be renegotiated? To "include" a growth dimension.

Absolutely nothing in what he says there involves reopening the Treaty. It works equally well with a complementary "growth pact". After all, that's not currently part of "what has been negotiated".

Although a lot depends there on how accurate the translation of what he's saying is, but I suspect that if one operates on the basis that politicians are politicians in any language one won't go far wrong.

There's not much in the Treaty that's up for renegotiation, though - the limits are the Stability & Growth limits, the excessive deficit procedure is the excessive deficit procedure, and changing the other bits would be largely irrelevant from a left-wing perspective.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nothing he said excludes the possibility of renegotiating the Treaty though. TV3 has a different slant on it. TV3 News yesterday said he had said it was too early to decide whether or not the Treaty would be renegotiated. The reality then is that Mr.Hollande's exact intentions are unclear and to my mind, that justifies a no vote so we can see what finally takes shape before voting on it. I was listening to the translation of the statement on Euronews yesterday and Hollande mentioned something about them looking into whether or not the outcome would have a judicial character. and July was mentioned for a common proposal on growth. It adds to the impression many of us have that this referendum is premature and rushed.

chieftan65

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no legal way of stopping a referendum once you start one. The government can wait to ratify, but the referendum date can only be changed in the event of a general election - and even then only to make the two votes share the same day.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is that a fact?? perhaps those calling for deferral could benefit from your unquestionable knowledge of the constitution

Scofflaw

chieftan65 wrote: »

Is that a fact?? perhaps those calling for deferral could benefit from your unquestionable knowledge of the constitution

They could certainly benefit from doing what I did, and reading the relevant legislation. Although - amazingly - the Referendum Commission have done so:

Once that order [setting the referendum date] is made, the only circumstance in which it may be changed, according to the Referendum Act 1994, is if a general election is called [...] There are no other circumstances in which the Minister has the power to postpone a referendum.

http://www.thejournal.ie/referendum-vote-cannot-be-postponed-says-commission-452469-May2012/

I suppose that's why we have one - because many of our legislators can't be bothered finding out whether something is legal before calling for it to be done.

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Nothing he said excludes the possibility of renegotiating the Treaty though. TV3 has a different slant on it. TV3 News yesterday said he had said it was too early to decide whether or not the Treaty would be renegotiated. The reality then is that Mr.Hollande's exact intentions are unclear and to my mind, that justifies a no vote so we can see what finally takes shape before voting on it. I was listening to the translation of the statement on Euronews yesterday and Hollande mentioned something about them looking into whether or not the outcome would have a judicial character. and July was mentioned for a common proposal on growth. It adds to the impression many of us have that this referendum is premature and rushed.

Hollande's intentions don't justify a vote either way. If the changes are significant, there would have to be another referendum, whether you vote Yes or No, and you can vote Yes or No then. If they're not, or aren't changes to the Treaty itself at all, then there won't be, and the Yes or No at this referendum is what counts. You don't know which will happen, but you're calling for people to vote No now on the basis of something that may or may not happen - even though they may be deciding the question in this referendum,.

If you vote your preferred way, you've voted for what you want. If you vote on the basis of second-guessing what a French politician might do instead, you're just playing roulette.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

I'm not fond of debating this treaty on issues other than those directly mentioned in the treaty itself or included in it, but with regard to the above comment and today's comment by Noonan about a yes vote "sending a positive message to the EU", a no voter could just as easily argue that a no vote would "add our voice" to the growing backlash against German led austerity. While it's true that one nation cannot veto this treaty, a no vote would strengthen the anti austerity wave and further isolate Merkel's policies within the EU.

I do not advocate voting no for the above reason. However, if yes campaigners are going to pull another Lisbon on this and drag in all sorts of superficial crap about this being a vote for or against the EU, sending a message that we're "committed" and "open for business" or any other such irrelevant sh!te, I feel it's only fair that a representation of opposing views be mentioned.

If you're going to vote on the treaty for reasons other than the treaty itself, it's only fair that the hypothetical argument from the no side is heard as well as from the yes. To sum up, Noonan says it would send a message that we're committed to Europe, you could just as easily say it would add to the message that more and more Europeans don't want to go down this road in terms of how to fix this.

Ironically enough, Richard Boyd Barrett himself yesterday slammed the yes campaign for debating on non treaty points, even as the yes side accuse the no side of exactly the same.

The only such rotten campaigning I've seen this time around on the no side is from Libertas, and as I said before, they're an absolute disgrace and would better serve the no campaign by shutting up and staying the hell out of it.

carveone

chieftan65 wrote: »

Seems very suspicious to me that kenny and co are hell bent on having this voted on now instead of waiting to see whats happening with the rest of europe including germany

If I was totally cynical, which I am, I'd suggest that the sooner they can get this vote over with, the sooner they can get right on those who've refused to pay the household tax. Not that it makes any difference now - there's no mechanism to move the referendum anyway.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Absolutely nothing in what he says there involves reopening the Treaty. It works equally well with a complementary "growth pact". After all, that's not currently part of "what has been negotiated".

Well, that's the thing. It's not as if the Stabiity treaty is this all encompassing EU mega patch that characterised the Lisbon Treaty. This is something like number 10 of a whole series of pacts - 2 pack, 6 pack, ESM treaty, Stability treaty. Adding an 11th or 12th and calling them the Growth twin pact seems reasonable...

Scofflaw wrote: »

I suppose that's why we have one - because many of our legislators can't be bothered finding out whether something is legal before calling for it to be done.

It wrecks my head because they do this all the time! It's not as if they don't have advisors who could tell them this. My favourite was back in the day with the West Link - shock and consternation ensued when someone went and actually pulled out the original contract and went "have you seen this bit!"...

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

However, if yes campaigners are going to pull another Lisbon on this and drag in all sorts of superficial crap about this being a vote for or against the EU, sending a message that we're "committed" and "open for business" or any other such irrelevant sh!te, I feel it's only fair that a representation of opposing views be mentioned.

Did you see the business guys yesterday insisiting that a No vote involved an automatic exit from the Euro. Must find the reference from that... That's way over the top in the other direction.
Edit: here

The only such rotten campaigning I've seen this time around on the no side is from Libertas, and as I said before, they're an absolute disgrace and would better serve the no campaign by shutting up and staying the hell out of it.

Just what the city needed too - more posters taking rubbish. It's getting totally ridiculous at this point; there's going to be a traffic accident as a result.

RandomName2

I'm not terribly likely to ever vote yes to the Fiscal Treaty, but I am tempted to abstain.

However, every time I hear Noonan or Kenny spouting "positive synergy europhilia for jobs" happy-clappy yes-men BS the more I feel I should vote no. That may not be taking the relative meriits and demerits of the treaty into porportionate consideration, but I find it dangerous for the architechts of such a treaty to carry on in such a fashion: declaring critical faculties to be of no consideration and instead founding their message upon scaremongering.

In comparison to the above, the 'no' side political aspect of 'rage against the machine' is harmless.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm not terribly likely to every vote yes to the Fiscal Treaty, but I am tempted to abstain.

However, every time I hear Noonan or Kenny spouting "positivity synergy europhilia for jobs" happy-clappy yes-men BS the more I feel I should vote no. That may not be taking the relative meriits and demerits of the treaty into porportionate consideration, but I find it dangerous for the architechts of such a treaty to carry on in such a fashion: declaring critical faculties to be of no consideration and instead founding their message upon scaremongering.

Is "positive synergy europhilia for jobs" scaremongering? The bar is getting lower every day!

I admit that not watching, listening to, or reading the outpourings of the official Yes side has always been a key part of my ability to vote Yes.

RandomName2 wrote: »

In comparison to the above, the 'no' side political aspect of 'rage against the machine' is harmless.

It's identical - it says "you're angry, you want to hit something, this is something, don't think about it just hit it".

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Is "positive synergy europhilia for jobs" scaremongering? The bar is getting lower every day!

It's scaremongering by trying to make people believe they are voting on a bunch of things which they are not actually voting on. It's just like the scaremongering during the Lisbon referendum in which "no to Lisbon" somehow translated directly into "no to EU membership".
It's an extremely stupid and naive tactic for the yes side to be using. All it's going to do is make people bitter and angry.

I admit that not watching, listening to, or reading the outpourings of the official Yes side has always been a key part of my ability to vote Yes.

If you don't mind me saying, that's a bit silly is it not? Guilt by association won't get you anywhere, deciding which way to vote purely based on who you'll be "siding with" is daft, it's one of the reasons I get so pissed with people who say "No voter? Must be a shinner then"

It's identical - it says "you're angry, you want to hit something, this is something, don't think about it just hit it".

The opposite is also true of the yes side - "We're desperate, we have to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Is "positive synergy europhilia for jobs" scaremongering? The bar is getting lower every day!

I admit that not watching, listening to, or reading the outpourings of the official Yes side has always been a key part of my ability to vote Yes.

'Fraid so.

I can't be bothered getting a direct quote but it runs much along the lines of: Ireland will be placed in great economic peril if we vote no, companies will flee our shores whilst those considering to move here will be put off. Bonds will break and interest will collapse, equity will dry up, a bailout will be needed and be inachievable!

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's identical - it says "you're angry, you want to hit something, this is something, don't think about it just hit it".

Yup. As long as they don't start saying anything along the lines of 'burn the banks (metaphorically or literally), march on the Dail, loot the shops' I won't be terribly concered by their rent a rabble message.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's scaremongering by trying to make people believe they are voting on a bunch of things which they are not actually voting on. It's just like the scaremongering during the Lisbon referendum in which "no to Lisbon" somehow translated directly into "no to EU membership".
It's an extremely stupid and naive tactic for the yes side to be using. All it's going to do is make people bitter and angry.

That's way too broad a definition of scaremongering. It makes the word equivalent to "political messaging".

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you don't mind me saying, that's a bit silly is it not? Guilt by association won't get you anywhere, deciding which way to vote purely based on who you'll be "siding with" is daft, it's one of the reasons I get so pissed with people who say "No voter? Must be a shinner then"

I've no idea how you managed to extract that from my entirely flippant remark.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The opposite is also true of the yes side - "We're desperate, we have to do something, this is something, therefore we must do it."

Being kindly, one might add "and we've been told by our advisors that this is a good thing to do". After all, there's quite a long list of somethings that the government is not doing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's scaremongering by trying to make people believe they are voting on a bunch of things which they are not actually voting on. It's just like the scaremongering during the Lisbon referendum in which "no to Lisbon" somehow translated directly into "no to EU membership".
It's an extremely stupid and naive tactic for the yes side to be using. All it's going to do is make people bitter and angry.

I don't think anyone is saying our referendum campaigns are well run or at least run in such a way to keep to the pure facts. But honestly it's a bit rich to say "scaremongering by trying to make people believe they are voting on a bunch of things which they are not actually voting on" while there is rampant lying going on from the no side. I dislike it all but one is far worse than the other, and it was the case on Lisbon too. I saw 'yes for jobs' on about twenty posters and written a handful of times from the yes camp but have heard it from the no camp about a hundred times since.

If people want to object to the tactics the government use I support them but... that support is conditional to not being blind to people using worse tactics who happen to be on the same side as them.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

'Fraid so.

I can't be bothered getting a direct quote but it runs much along the lines of: Ireland will be placed in great economic peril if we vote no, companies will flee our shores whilst those considering to move here will be put off. Bonds will break and interest will collapse, equity will dry up, a bailout will be needed and be inachievable!

That at least is scary, which "positive synergy europhilia for jobs" isn't. And I don't think anyone on the No side should claim that "Yes for Jobs" is really a scaremongering message of "No for no jobs", because that would disallow their favoured pastime of going "where's the Lisbon jobs eh? eh?".

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yup. As long as they don't start saying anything along the lines of 'burn the banks (metaphorically or literally), march on the Dail, loot the shops' I won't be terribly concered by their rent a rabble message.

I don't think you get to say those things at an official level. They certainly get said by individuals, but I think Gerry Adams saying them would be a somewhat different proposition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

carveone

Scofflaw wrote: »

After all, there's quite a long list of somethings that the government is not doing.

... like legislating for previous referendums. For 20 years. When I read Article 8.1 (we'll get annoyed if you agree to this treaty and then proceed to implement the legislation in a cackhanded manner) I couldn't help but wonder was that targeted at us.

(Sorry, couldn't help but stray into flippancy. Irish Government has that effect on me)...

Ozymandius2011

Tonight's Millward Browne poll says 37% Yes 24% no. A lot closer than Red C.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's way too broad a definition of scaremongering. It makes the word equivalent to "political messaging".

What we're voting on is a specific document with specific provisions inside it. None of these make any reference to jobs, loyalty to the EU, etc. Anyone who throws such arguments into either campaign is merely speculating, and to pass such speculation off as fact is indeed scaremongering.

Just as it's also scaremongering for the no side to be suggesting that voting yes will automatically and definitely mean X number of years of austerity. While the absurd 0.5% deficit limit might lead to such austerity, it's blatantly untrue to talk as if that's an absolute certainty and we're voting on that outcome.

I've no idea how you managed to extract that from my entirely flippant remark.

Well if you're suggesting that the only way you make yourself vote yes is by tuning out the yes campaign, that to me reads as if campaign tactics in themselves or the behavior of those who campaign influences your decision to vote? If I got that wrong then I duly apologize, but it strikes me as equivelant to me suggesting Ganely's antics would turn me off voting no. I'm voting for my own reasons based on reading the treaty and my understanding of what it entails, if that somehow puts me in the same category as Gerry Adams then so be it:
He breathes oxygen, I also breathe oxygen on a daily basis, so clearly I must support SF

Being kindly, one might add "and we've been told by our advisors that this is a good thing to do". After all, there's quite a long list of somethings that the government is not doing.

Is that in reference to our own governments' ratification of the treaty, or to the people who came up with the treaty in the first place?

In either case, I would argue that those advisors have an appalling track record when it comes to giving advice that doesn't cause trainwrecks, and if you referred to the advisors who helped draft the treaty itself at international level, these are more than likely the same individuals whose previous advice got us into this mess to begin with.

Transpirant

The bankers are in FAULTY in the first place when they loan money to Ireland with High interest rate and the same time they made BETS that Ireland cannot pay the loans. The problem started in the FRANKFURT Stealing of the Money. The German banks gave Anglo Irish Bank Billions of money but Ireland a small country doesn't have this money and this is the problem we face. So why trust European politicians now??? The German banks loaned money to Ireland with the highest rate to force Ireland to pay for their speculative investments that turned sour. Ireland paid the Germans for gamblers that never did anything for Ireland and who will never reinvest their money in Ireland again. NOW the european countries they will LOAN money to Ireland but they want Ireland to OBEY their demands. I SAY GET THE HELL OUT OF EURO AND FORCE GERMANY TO PAY THE MONEY THEY MUST PAY YOU FOR THEIR BANKS. I WILL VOTE NO.

[MOD]Transpirant, please don't cross-post this across multiple threads. It will result in deletion and a ban.[/MOD]