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

Sand

Chucky the tree wrote: »

But most likely at different rates.

"Most likely"? On what evidence is this assertion being made?

Chucky the tree

Sand wrote: »

"Most likely"? On what evidence is this assertion being made?

Well the current one is at different rate from the ESM despite being given by the same people. Also I'm sure they will be an added charge for us basically using the bailout money while not putting a cent into it, I doubt that will go down with the rest of the European countries. What is yours that it will be the same?

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's fair enough in and of itself, but it's falling into the standard trap of claiming that a "no" vote will have no repercussions. If you believe that a "yes" vote won't achieve the desired outcomes, and that a "no" vote will lead to a better outcome than that which the treaty aims to achieve, then you've got a compelling argument for voting against it. It would help if you could give a convincing explanation for how a decision not to be in a position to avail of ESM funds is in our best interests, however.

There are repercussions to both a yes vote and a no vote. On balance the repercussions of a no vote are preferential to the repercussions of the yes vote.
The ESM doesn't matter a damn because a) it doesn't exist yet and b) it may never exist as the treaty required to set it up must be ratified unanimously and that is not going to happen if France and Estonia get their way. Someone put the cart before the horse and there is no guarantee of funds being available.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If my bank contacted me in the morning to offer my business access to an overdraft facility, I could justifiably claim not to need one - we've managed without one for several years.

Under what conditions is this bank offering you this facility? What do you have to sign away in order to be able to use it should the need arise even if you don't think you need it now?
Bottom line is the bank is offering you the opportunity for you to legally put yourself in debt at a time of your choosing and by the time you need to use it the conditions will have changed and most certainly will not in your favour.
By they way if a bank is prepared to offer you an overdraft and you refuse it what happens? They make you a better offer. Why? because banks don't make money unless they have you in their pocket.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure how I would be benefiting my business by refusing to accept the offered facility just because I hope not to need it. The old electrician's adage goes "it's better to be looking at it than looking for it" - can you explain why we would be better off not having access to this funding in the event that we did turn out to need it?

None of us should willing indebt ourselves to a bank or anyone else. If you don't need the facility you are doing your business a favour by not taking the offer. If your business track record is good enough then you can ask when you need it. Taking it before you need it puts your business at unnecessary risk. It's not that much different from having a credit card you don't need in your pocket. If you don't have it your can't spend it.
If you have it and use it you wind up in debt. Ask yourself, why do banks give credit cards to people?

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's fair enough in and of itself, but it's falling into the standard trap of claiming that a "no" vote will have no repercussions. If you believe that a "yes" vote won't achieve the desired outcomes, and that a "no" vote will lead to a better outcome than that which the treaty aims to achieve, then you've got a compelling argument for voting against it. It would help if you could give a convincing explanation for how a decision not to be in a position to avail of ESM funds is in our best interests, however.

If my bank contacted me in the morning to offer my business access to an overdraft facility, I could justifiably claim not to need one - we've managed without one for several years.

I'm not sure how I would be benefiting my business by refusing to accept the offered facility just because I hope not to need it. The old electrician's adage goes "it's better to be looking at it than looking for it" - can you explain why we would be better off not having access to this funding in the event that we did turn out to need it?

I want access to the fund but under different conditions which I believe could be obtained by the pending renegotiations of the Fiscal Compact. I am looking for a renegotiation of the bailout to include a write-off/down of the debt. I want to see a proper resolution of the banking system so that taxpayers are no longer lumbered with paying for its mistakes. I also want to reduce the powers of the ESM board to impose increased contributions on member state governments, and to make it more transparent. The shielding of the ESM board from scrutiny is not acceptable in a democracy, considering the great power it will wield over our finances. Also Citigroup has said we may have access to another bailout even if we vote no.

Furthermore the very existence of the ESM will be brought closer when we get a Treaty acceptable to European govts. It is apparent now that with ratification problems in France and Germany, that the likelihood is that the present Fiscal Compact is unlikely to come into force. So what's the point in voting for it? Would you sign a contract that hasn't been written yet?

Ultimately the biggest threat to the survival of the Euro is the banking debt. Renegotiations will potentially resolve that issue, with an Icelandic type solution. I would favour putting zombie banks into receivership and the EU guaranteeing bank-deposits. I favour converting the promissary note part of the bailout from a loan to aid so we don't have to repay it. Economic growth will help get the state's finances back into equilibrium ,which ultimately will mean less austerity. Austerity delays growth which in turn means deflation, lower tax revenues, and more austerity. It is sa vicious cycle and the Fiscal Compact enshrines it into Irish law on a permanent basis.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

There are repercussions to both a yes vote and a no vote. On balance the repercussions of a no vote are preferential to the repercussions of the yes vote.
The ESM doesn't matter a damn because a) it doesn't exist yet and b) it may never exist as the treaty required to set it up must be ratified unanimously and that is not going to happen if France and Estonia get their way. Someone put the cart before the horse and there is no guarantee of funds being available.

No, it doesn't have to be ratified unanimously. It requires countries providing 90% of the capital to ratify. Nor has France given any indication of not intending to ratify the ESM Treaty.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Under what conditions is this bank offering you this facility? What do you have to sign away in order to be able to use it should the need arise even if you don't think you need it now?
Bottom line is the bank is offering you the opportunity for you to legally put yourself in debt at a time of your choosing and by the time you need to use it the conditions will have changed and most certainly will not in your favour.
By they way if a bank is prepared to offer you an overdraft and you refuse it what happens? They make you a better offer. Why? because banks don't make money unless they have you in their pocket.

None of us should willing indebt ourselves to a bank or anyone else. If you don't need the facility you are doing your business a favour by not taking the offer. If your business track record is good enough then you can ask when you need it. Taking it before you need it puts your business at unnecessary risk. It's not that much different from having a credit card you don't need in your pocket. If you don't have it your can't spend it.
If you have it and use it you wind up in debt. Ask yourself, why do banks give credit cards to people?

Because they make money doing so. The IMF and other funds, however, exist to allow countries to access money they need when no commercial lender will touch them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

Scofflaw wrote:

No, it doesn't have to be ratified unanimously. It requires countries providing 90% of the capital to ratify. Nor has France given any indication of not intending to ratify the ESM Treaty.

We have a veto over changing Article 136, which is needed to put the ESM on a legal footing.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

We have a veto over changing Article 136, which is needed to put the ESM on a legal footing.

It is not clear that Art 136 actually needs changing, so I wouldn't be betting the house on that pair of eights.

Ozymandius2011

beeftotheheels wrote: »

It is not clear that Art 136 actually needs changing, so I wouldn't be betting the house on that pair of eights.

One of the reasons Merkel gave for a new Treaty (that became the Fiscal Compact and ESM Treaties) was that the existing Treaties banned bailouts.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

One of the reasons Merkel gave for a new Treaty (that became the Fiscal Compact and ESM Treaties) was that the existing Treaties banned bailouts.

That issue is around Art 125 and the prohibition on transfer unions, and provided that one believes that any funds lent will be repaid (the ECB position regarding SMP) then there is no issue, the fund is not transferring funds from north to south, it is lending funds which will return.

All the proposal on Art 136 does is insert a line saying that the ESM may be created, but since no alteration to Art 125 is being proposed or made, the amendment to Art 136 does nothing to alter the inherent Art 125 risk.

Hence my analysis that I wouldn't bet the house on the change to Art 136.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I want access to the fund but under different conditions which I believe could be obtained by the pending renegotiations of the Fiscal Compact. I am looking for a renegotiation of the bailout to include a write-off/down of the debt. I want to see a proper resolution of the banking system so that taxpayers are no longer lumbered with paying for its mistakes. I also want to reduce the powers of the ESM board to impose increased contributions on member state governments, and to make it more transparent.

Currently it requires unanimity of the member state government to "impose" increased contributions on the member state governments. I'm not sure what more could be done exactly.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The shielding of the ESM board from scrutiny is not acceptable in a democracy, considering the great power it will wield over our finances.

The ESM Board are government appointees, and are not shielded from government scrutiny.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Also Citigroup has said we may have access to another bailout even if we vote no.

I'm sure we may - on what basis, though? At what rates? Who will decide what money we get, what we're charged for it, and what conditions are put on it?

If you don't have an answer to any of that - and you don't - are you not the one voting for a pig in a poke?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Furthermore the very existence of the ESM will be brought closer when we get a Treaty acceptable to European govts. It is apparent now that with ratification problems in France and Germany, that the likelihood is that the present Fiscal Compact is unlikely to come into force. So what's the point in voting for it? Would you sign a contract that hasn't been written yet?

The amendment we're voting on is specific to this version of the Treaty. As I pointed out above, it's actually the No voters who are voting for a contract that hasn't been written yet.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Ultimately the biggest threat to the survival of the Euro is the banking debt. Renegotiations will potentially resolve that issue, with an Icelandic type solution. I would favour putting zombie banks into receivership and the EU guaranteeing bank-deposits. I favour converting the promissary note part of the bailout from a loan to aid so we don't have to repay it. Economic growth will help get the state's finances back into equilibrium ,which ultimately will mean less austerity. Austerity delays growth which in turn means deflation, lower tax revenues, and more austerity. It is sa vicious cycle and the Fiscal Compact enshrines it into Irish law on a permanent basis.

You are arguing, in other words, that we should not even try to balance the budget?

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm a bit confused I know I should take more interest but I just havent been arsed. I do listen to various td's going on about why we should or shouldnt. But I havent heard anything to sway me from either side.

Its either vote no to stop austerity and people taking the hit for the bakers windfall.

Or its vote yes or we are fcuked, we need money from europe and there will be consequences if we ruin this.

I dont know which way to go because I dont understand firstly what the fcuk the thing is actually about and secondly the consequences of either vote. No vote shouting about austerity doesnt make sense to me considering there will be austerity either way and thats already out of our hands. But then the government aint exactly explaining why its necessary to have a fiscal compact either. Its all scare tactics and vague stuff about avoiding a situation like they have in greece.

Am I wrong in saying the outcome of this vote wont actually change one damn thing in relation to austerity or our economic situation ?

I know it is getting a bit long, but I do suggest you read this thread. I would ignore the majority of one-liners and things that seem like nonsense on either side. If you stick to the factual posts you should get an idea of what the arguments are and go from there. The post directly above yours makes an excellent point that has been totally ignored by the 'no' side.

blowtorch wrote: »

ESM will have the power to impose higher contributions by the Irish taxpayer to the ESM. Yes it does. read the ESM Treaty

The fact that the ESM is unelected, and that its proceedings will be shielded from media and court/parliamentary scrutiny True as well - read the ESM Treaty

I have read the treaty. Perhaps you could point out (with your extensive knowledge of the treaty; which I'm sure you have read as well) where these things are written. It's not a particularly long treaty.

constitutes an erosion of accountability in Irish budgetary policy and could open the door to corruption, including possibile misappropriation of funds. The ESM risks becoming the European Sleaze Mechanism. That's an opinion given. No evidence would exist (yet).

It's an opinion based on spin and lunacy. One can have an opinion that recycling goes to factories where they repackage it and sell it as food or orphans - it doesn't make it a realistic opinion based on any evidence. It becomes the ramblings of a madman.

bogfire wrote: »

I will be voting no.
Vote yes, and we write into the constitution that we will have a balance budget, so we stop ourselves from borrowing -
Vote no, we exclude our selves from additional available funding.

So same result for yes or no. not that I want to borrow more (to keep bailing out banks) , but I don't see the point of voting yes.

An opinion which completely fails to take into account any sense of macroeconomics or global financing. We "borrow" money in any event. If we shut ourselves off from the ESM (and effectively the eurozone itself) we cannot get enough money from the IMF to fund ourselves. Even if we weren't getting money from the troika we would need to be on the bond market selling bonds to get money. There is no way we could do this again at the moment. How do you think the state gets money?

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

That issue is around Art 125 and the prohibition on transfer unions, and provided that one believes that any funds lent will be repaid (the ECB position regarding SMP) then there is no issue, the fund is not transferring funds from north to south, it is lending funds which will return.

Essentially the same line as is taken on state aid more generally - a loan is not aid. And wait...hasn't nearly all the people now on the No side being saying that all along, that a loan is not a bailout?

beeftotheheels wrote: »

All the proposal on Art 136 does is insert a line saying that the ESM may be created, but since no alteration to Art 125 is being proposed or made, the amendment to Art 136 does nothing to alter the inherent Art 125 risk.

Hence my analysis that I wouldn't bet the house on the change to Art 136.

Yes - the Article 136 amendment is desirable, but not necessary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

There are repercussions to both a yes vote and a no vote. On balance the repercussions of a no vote are preferential to the repercussions of the yes vote.

That would be a more convincing assertion if you had outlined the repercussions of voting either way, with supporting arguments for those repercussions.

As it is, it's just a statement of faith that "voting no is better".

The ESM doesn't matter a damn because a) it doesn't exist yet and b) it may never exist as the treaty required to set it up must be ratified unanimously...

As has been pointed out, it doesn't require unanimity. That aside, the idea that you shouldn't make plans for something that's quite likely to happen on the grounds that it might not happen... remind me never to hire you in a management role.

Someone put the cart before the horse and there is no guarantee of funds being available.

That's a compelling reason to vote in a way that guarantees those funds not being available to us?

Under what conditions is this bank offering you this facility? What do you have to sign away in order to be able to use it should the need arise even if you don't think you need it now?

All valid questions, and questions I would be asking myself before signing up to such a facility.

Analogously, when deciding whether or not to vote in favour of this amendment, I look at the terms and conditions as set out in the treaty, and find nothing particularly onerous or new. I have to hypothesise as to what the terms are likely to be should we need access to funding having rejected this treaty, but - given S&P's statement about a downgrade in that event - I'm having trouble accepting the idea that we would necessarily be in a better position under those circumstances.

Bottom line is the bank is offering you the opportunity for you to legally put yourself in debt at a time of your choosing and by the time you need to use it the conditions will have changed and most certainly will not in your favour.

I'm having a great deal of trouble following this logic.

You're claiming that if we ratify this treaty, then - should we need access to ESM funds - those funds will be available on less favourable terms that those we're signing up to? You'll have to explain that to me. While you're at it, you might want to explain what makes you so certain that we'll be able to access funding on better terms in the event that we refuse to ratify. Because all I'm seeing so far is articles of faith.

None of us should willing indebt ourselves to a bank or anyone else. If you don't need the facility you are doing your business a favour by not taking the offer.

Your logic is broken. If I don't need the facility, I'm doing my business a favour by not borrowing the money - but I'm doing it no favours by refusing to sign up to a facility on the gamble that, should I need the money, an even better offer will magically become available.

If your business track record is good enough then you can ask when you need it.

If I need it, it's because my financial circumstances have changed. If you're willing to bet the future of your business on your confidence that a bank will give you the best deal possible when you're at your most stretched, good luck with that.

Taking it before you need it puts your business at unnecessary risk. It's not that much different from having a credit card you don't need in your pocket. If you don't have it your can't spend it.

I was stuck in an airport in another country a couple of years ago. Despite all my best-laid plans, a combination of freak weather and ground-crew apathy cause me to miss a transatlantic flight. I had a credit card in my pocket, and was able to buy another flight out of there.

Sometimes having access to credit on pre-arranged terms is very important. Refusing to sign up for a facility on the grounds that you're better off frantically looking for it when you're desperately stuck isn't my idea of a coherent strategy for running a business, or a country.

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

That would be a more convincing assertion if you had outlined the repercussions of voting either way, with supporting arguments for those repercussions.

I see no convincing supporting arguments for voting yes. Vote Yes for Stability? What kind of stability? If you put someone in a straitjacket they eventually fall over.

K-9

StealthRolex wrote: »

I see no convincing supporting arguments for voting yes.

What are the convincing arguments to vote No then?

C14N

EURATS wrote: »

Common sense? Well that's a matter of perspective.
Are u basically refering to 55% of the voters in this thread as being devoid of common sense? Only your opinion is common sense and that seems to be FG and Labours opinion as well. Fairly right wing alright. Labour has landed far from its tree.

No, I was not implying everyone voting No lacks common sense. I was implying that my reply to a series of posts was based on looking at it logically and not being a jerk to other posters.

FG and Labour are not particularly right wing. The maximum rate of tax in this country is over 50% show that to an American politician and see how they react. FG are center-right and Labour are center-left. Labour would be more left-wing if they had more power.

EURATS wrote: »

In relation to the government having to reinvest all the time, money etc in a second referendum..wouldn't be the first time!!
Wouldn't it be awful for them to have to do some work for a living!!

It would be the first time they would have to do it in just a few months without anyone needing them to do it. If they tried to run another referendum in November, they would practically have to start planning it before the votes are even counted.

EURATS wrote: »

We were promised jobs with Lisbon. Either you were born since then..or weren't paying attention!

If your argument is that we should vote No based on not getting everything Yes pushed last time, then you could just as easily vote Yes based on the fact that nothing the No side said would happen, did happen. Why trust the No campaigners any more than the Yes ones?

EURATS wrote: »

You only have to see ahern giving speeches on how to create a successful economy to see how people's noses get rubbed in it.

I've never seen this. Who is paying Ahern money to give speeches like that?

Oceans12 wrote: »

FG have not got a clue.. none.

I was talking to a pensioner the other day and she said

" sure what would a school teacher know about running a country".

Despite the fact that this is off topic and that I also think teachers and lawyers shouldn't be running seemingly every country, this statement is still completely wrong. Sure, Kenny was once a teacher for a few years. He has spent way more years being a politician. I think after 35+ years in the Dáil, he might have picked up a thing or two about running a country, at least more than some aul one who just wants to make vague complaints about the government.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think that pretty much sums it up for you. You are prepared to believe politicians and the mainstream media over your own intelligence and common sense.

No, my own intelligence and common sense just doesn't give any logical reasons at all for conscription to the EU superstate army. You seem to have thought up quite a story there though, I would definitely watch the movie if you made one.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Plenty of time to negotiate better terms by voting no, as the rest of Europe that hasn't already ratified won't likely proceed without France. A no vote will give Hollande's stance more legitimacy uin symbolic terms, and he may return the favour by pushing our case for a write-off/down of debt.

You need to stop thinking that Hollande needs us to legitimise him. If he tries to renegotiate, it wouldn't be very likely we'll come up at all and if we do, you can be sure our influence would be negligible. The voting card doesn't give the options "Yes", "No" and "Renegotiate". A No is a No and doesn't give any particular indication that we actually do want to ratify the treaty, we just support Hollande in his negotiations.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It's not that much different from having a credit card you don't need in your pocket. If you don't have it your can't spend it.
If you have it and use it you wind up in debt. Ask yourself, why do banks give credit cards to people?

It isn't accurate to compare a credit card to the ESM loan. Credit cards are deliberately done on a basis of high interest so the company who loans you the money can make a large profit. The ESM is deliberately low interest so it can help countries recover and to keep the EU stable.

Also, as someone who has had a credit card for nearly a year, it isn't at all difficult to stay out of debt. You don't need a degree in commerce to do it, you just spend within your means and pay it back on time.

StealthRolex

C14N wrote: »

Also, as someone who has had a credit card for nearly a year, it isn't at all difficult to stay out of debt. You don't need a degree in commerce to do it, you just spend within your means and pay it back on time.

Well, it's not accurate to compare it to an overdraft facility for a business that doesn't need one now either, is it!

StealthRolex

K-9 wrote: »

What are the convincing arguments to vote No then?

The fiscal compact is a straitjacket and I don't want it.

ArmaniJeanss

Are any admins/mods able to break the poll results down into a boards 'demographic'?

e.g., a Red C poll would tell you how many 18-35s, 35s + etc are in Yes or No.

The equivalent on boards would be to know how many posts the average Yes/No voter has, how would the poll look if people who regged this year were excluded. How is the vote amongst people with 1000+ posts etc.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

The fiscal compact is a straitjacket and I don't want it.

Which raises two obvious questions:

1. how is it more of a straitjacket than the existing rules?

2. are you aware of how the rules are actually applied, and what degree of flexibility there is in them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which raises two obvious questions:

1. how is it more of a straitjacket than the existing rules?

2. are you aware of how the rules are actually applied, and what degree of flexibility there is in them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bottom line is you are allowed to be in balance or in surplus. Basically you do not need an overdraft nor should you be looking for one, maintaining one, or entertaining offers of such a facility.
Or credit cards for that matter, no matter where you are travelling or what the weather is.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Bottom line is you are allowed to be in balance or in surplus. Basically you do not need an overdraft nor should you be looking for one, maintaining one, or entertaining offers of such a facility.
Or credit cards for that matter, no matter where you are travelling or what the weather is.

...is that an answer?

slightly perplexed,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

...is that an answer?

slightly perplexed,
Scofflaw

Well I'm equally perplexed as to why we are being asked to ratify this before the ESM treaty has been ratified.

Perhaps you enjoy jumping out of aeroplanes with something on your back that might contain a parachute.

I don't

meglome

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well I'm equally perplexed as to why we are being asked to ratify this before the ESM treaty has been ratified.

Perhaps you enjoy jumping out of aeroplanes with something on your back that might contain a parachute.

I don't

Well I'm confused on your last two posts now.

StealthRolex

meglome wrote: »

Well I'm confused on your last two emails now.

Very simple. This compact is dependant on the ESM treaty. That treaty has not yet been ratified and we do not know if it ever will be. Signing up to this compact without the ESM in place or the funding associated is not a lot different to my last analogy.

Wibbs

oscarBravo wrote: »

If my bank contacted me in the morning to offer my business access to an overdraft facility, I could justifiably claim not to need one - we've managed without one for several years.

I'm not sure how I would be benefiting my business by refusing to accept the offered facility just because I hope not to need it. The old electrician's adage goes "it's better to be looking at it than looking for it" - can you explain why we would be better off not having access to this funding in the event that we did turn out to need it?

Would you accept such an offer of an overdraft if by doing so said bank had more oversight on your business, locked you into certain business practices more advantageous to them and could take you to court according to their rules, but you could never take them to court? I wouldn't.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well I'm equally perplexed as to why we are being asked to ratify this before the ESM treaty has been ratified.

Perhaps you enjoy jumping out of aeroplanes with something on your back that might contain a parachute.

I don't

Er...what? The original complaint was that ESM was going to be ratified before the Fiscal Treaty, now the complaint is that the ESM isn't going to be ratified until afterwards?

What's the issue? Nobody is looking for ESM to be reopened, so what's it got to do with voting on the Fiscal Treaty?

still perplexed,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote: »

Would you accept such an offer of an overdraft if by doing so said bank had more oversight on your business,

Actually, that's quite standard where a bank is lending to a business in distress. It's a way of increasing the likelihood that the bank will get its money back - and given that what we're actually talking about is taxpayers' money from eurozone countries being put into distressed sovereigns, I can't really see what's supposed to be outrageous. If we lend money to Greece, are you happy that we have no idea what the Greeks do with it?

Wibbs wrote: »

locked you into certain business practices more advantageous to them

What "business practices"? I appreciate it's an analogy, but I don't see what these are supposed to be?

Wibbs wrote: »

and could take you to court according to their rules, but you could never take them to court? I wouldn't.

Hold up...the ESM can't take us to court. And if you mean the Fiscal Treaty, that doesn't give the ability to take anyone to court for breaches of the fiscal rules either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er...what? The original complaint was that ESM was going to be ratified before the Fiscal Treaty, now the complaint is that the ESM isn't going to be ratified until afterwards?

not with you. As I understand it the ESM is not in place yet. The argument for fiscal compact is access to ESM funds. ESM is not in place yet. The argument is for access to ESM funds that do not exist.

As far as being perplexed goes that's the governments fault. The governments arguments are perplexing me so I cannot in conscience agree to accept something that to all intents and purposes looks like a confidence trick.

Scofflaw wrote: »

What's the issue? Nobody is looking for ESM to be reopened, so what's it got to do with voting on the Fiscal Treaty?

The issue is the ESM is not ratified therefore there are no funds. We are being told we will not be able to access something that does not and may not exist. The governments argument makes no sense.

Scofflaw wrote: »

still perplexed,
Scofflaw

Me too but that is not a good reason to vote yes.

blowtorch

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you want scaremongering how's this. They won't let Greece leave the Euro and even if they default because despite what Noonan says Greece is a lot more than Feta cheese. They will do their damndest to keep her in the Euro because it is in the Euro's best interests to do so.


Voiting Yes is only kicking the can down the road.

Does Michael Noonan know who Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company are? Maybe he'd like to write to them and find out how many people this Greek-based company employ in IRELAND.

Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company
9 Fragoklissias Street
Athens, -- 151 25
Greece
Phone: 30 210 61 83 100
Fax: 30 210 61 83 274

Then again, he could ask Phil Hogan, as in May 2012, .........Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Phil Hogan, TD launched Coca-Cola Clean Coasts Week.

How much VAT did we receive in 2010 from them. Accounts for Coca-Cola HBC Ireland Ltd show that the company’s turnover of about €206 million in 2010. How much PAYE/USC/PRSI?