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

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.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

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.

Yes, in that sense, while it's overall a good thing for the debate, it may not be quite as good for the No side as intended, in that it may end up clarifying quite definitely the ESM and Article 136 issues as red herrings.

I can't see Pringle's challenges succeeding here, and as you say (and as I've said before) I don't think the Article 136 amendment is necessary anyway - it was a safety net in case the German Constitutional Court ruled that the EFSF (and by implication the ESM) was in breach of Articles 122/125 of the EU Treaties. However, since they in fact ruled that the EFSF - and again, by implication the ESM - was not in breach of the Treaties, there is no actual requirement for the Article 136 amendment, which only acknowledges explicitly something determined to have been within the existing Treaty rights of the Member States in any case.

Parts of his challenge case are very waffly - might be worth a separate thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sweenball

I'll never vote in any Referendum,Local or General election ever again in this state as long I live.

meglome

Sweenball wrote: »

I'll never vote in any Referendum,Local or General election ever again in this state as long I live.

I imagine your protest will go down as a defining moment in our history.

Sorry for the sarcasm but opting out will ensure your views never get represented. If you don't like the current system ignoring it won't help, trying to change it will though.

Howjoe1

I'm moving from a maybe Yes to a probable NO.

I don't believe it will be the walkover the Govt expect.

meglome

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

It's one of the big problems with the whole No campaign, "Vote No if you don't like the government", "Vote no if you don't like the price of cheese" or whatever. As if the government is not connected to us and the country at all. As if, should the wrong decision be made, that it won't hurt us all. Why oh why do we always feel the need to try to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Howjoe1 wrote: »

I'm moving from a maybe Yes to a probable NO.

I don't believe it will be the walkover the Govt expect.

How do you figure they expect it to be a walkover?

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, in that sense, while it's overall a good thing for the debate, it may not be quite as good for the No side as intended, in that it may end up clarifying quite definitely the ESM and Article 136 issues as red herrings.

I agree. All of the legal commentary on the ESM and Article 136 appears to indicate the entire thing is 'desirable but un-necessary' and, importantly in an Irish context, does not enlarge the powers of the EU institutons.

So in the absence of a convincing argument to the contrary, I agree Sinn Fein's opposition is likely to be more emotional than mindful of the Treaties or the Irish Constitution.

On the other hand, I could see SF attempting to make hay out of a confirmation that the ESM can effectively go ahead without amending Article 136, and that a bailout based on existing provisions does not inherently require a ratification of the Fiscal Treaty, which the amendment to Article 136 does currently require.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

I agree. All of the legal commentary on the ESM and Article 136 appears to indicate the entire thing is 'desirable but un-necessary' and, importantly in an Irish context, does not enlarge the powers of the EU institutons.

So in the absence of a convincing argument to the contrary, I agree Sinn Fein's opposition is likely to be more emotional than mindful of the Treaties or the Irish Constitution.

On the other hand, I could see SF attempting to make hay out of a confirmation that the ESM can effectively go ahead without amending Article 136, and that a bailout based on existing provisions does not inherently require a ratification of the Fiscal Treaty, which the amendment to Article 136 does currently require.

Not sure about that last - sure, the amendment says that the fund will be subject to conditionality, but the ESM can certainly be subject to conditionality without the amendment, as could any other bailout. After all, nothing in the current Treaties says that EFSF access is conditional, but it is conditional. That the conditionality is in part another Treaty is, I think, irrelevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Yes, I appreciate that, and I am not putting the above forward as a credible or creditable suggestion. I just think it's something SF are likely to say in the event of any judicial review going against them.

But as I said, there is no inherent requirement for ratification of the fiscal treaty under article 122, and so Sinn Fein might perpetuate the argument that in spite of such a clause, our European friends would be unlikely to be so retaliatory as to punish Ireland for failing to have ratified the treaty in the midst of a potential future crisis when such a procedure is not an explicitly stated requirement.

jumpguy

If the treaty wasn't necessary in the first place, has the government not just needlessly landed itself in a load of bother now? If they could've ratified the treaty without a referendum, then they wouldn't be facing an increasingly grim looking referendum at the end of May.

They can hardly pull out and say "oh no, the referendum isn't necessary anymore." As stated more or less by previous posters, SF would have a field day.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

Yes, I appreciate that, and I am not putting the above forward as a credible or creditable suggestion. I just think it's something SF are likely to say in the event of any judicial review going against them.

But as I said, there is no inherent requirement for ratification of the fiscal treaty under article 122, and so Sinn Fein might perpetuate the argument that in spite of such a clause, our European friends would be unlikely to be so retaliatory as to punish Ireland for failing to have ratified the treaty in the midst of a potential future crisis when such a procedure is not an explicitly stated requirement.

Indeed - and also there will be a pony for everyone. I'm not sure how many people would buy the "it doesn't say it so it won't be the case" argument unless already persuaded.

cordially,
Scofflaw