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

Scofflaw · 22-05-2012 2:00pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

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.

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.

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

Tell me something - if the government had ratified the ESM, including the proviso that ESM access is conditional on ratifying the Fiscal Treaty, what would your attitude be? And do you believe the ESM will, in fact, fail to exist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dvpower · 22-05-2012 2:07pm

blowtorch wrote: »

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

How would a Greek Euro exit impact the operations of the Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company in Ireland?

Positively or negatively?

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 2:22pm

dvpower wrote: »

How would a Greek Euro exit impact the operations of the Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company in Ireland?

Positively or negatively?

Not the point of the post. The point is that Noonan's Feta Cheese comment
shows his ignorance regarding a major employer in Ireland being of Greek origin, and who are probably contributing €30m+ in taxes etc. per annum.
Playing to galleries is not what he was elected for. If he wants to be a comedian, then let him go to the Cat Laughs festival.

dvpower · 22-05-2012 2:31pm

blowtorch wrote: »

Not the point of the post. The point is that Noonan's Feta Cheese comment
shows his ignorance regarding a major employer in Ireland being of Greek origin, and who are probably contributing €30m+ in taxes etc. per annum.
Playing to galleries is not what he was elected for. If he wants to be a comedian, then let him go to the Cat Laughs festival.

He was making a point about the risk of contagion. How are the operations of the Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company in Ireland impacted by anything that happens in Greece?

Or are you making a point that they may pull their operations here because they feel insulted or something?

Anyway, it seems that they are not a major employer in the republic, but have a big bottling operation in Antrim, not that it makes any difference.

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 2:46pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

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.

?

- Article 9. Capital Calls. Basically the can make a Capital call at any time on Members. Article 10 then can change the Capital Stock requirement. So, if they increase the capital Stock requirement (for example to 1400bn), our contribution would increase.

-Article 32 + 35 (1). Immunity of persons....... Have a read.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 22-05-2012 2:52pm

blowtorch wrote: »

- Article 9. Capital Calls. Basically the can make a Capital call at any time on Members. Article 10 then can change the Capital Stock requirement. So, if they increase the capital Stock requirement (for example to 1400bn), our contribution would increase.

-Article 32 + 35 (1). Immunity of persons....... Have a read.

Under what conditions can they change the Capital Stock requirement? Is unanimity required (i.e. any individual country has a veto), or is it done by qualified majority? Also, same question with Capital Calls, and when you say 'any time', I presume you mean within the agreed limits? i.e. you can't repeatedly make capital calls beyond what has been agreed already? Thanks!

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 2:56pm

dvpower wrote: »

He was making a point about the risk of contagion. How are the operations of the Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company in Ireland impacted by anything that happens in Greece? And better ways of making his point than indulging in childish, ill-thought-of comments.
Or are you making a point that they may pull their operations here because they feel insulted or something? Again - the point was about Noonan.

Anyway, it seems that they are not a major employer in the republic, but have a big bottling operation in Antrim, not that it makes any difference.
They employ 1100 people on the Island of Island

And indirectly, in the Logistics field, in the Republic, a knock-on employment.

Again though - my point was about Noonan. Or what's your take on his communication methods? What you'd expect from a Government Minister?

dvpower · 22-05-2012 3:01pm

blowtorch wrote: »

And indirectly, in the Logistics field, in the Republic, a knock-on employment.

Again though - my point was about Noonan. Or what's your take on his communication methods? What you'd expect from a Government Minister?

What knock on employment? How is employment impacted at all?
You haven't demonstrated at all how anything that happens in Greece would have any impact whatever on Coca Cola operations in Ireland.

How this has anything to do with the Stability Treaty escapes me.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 22-05-2012 3:03pm

blowtorch wrote: »

And indirectly, in the Logistics field, in the Republic, a knock-on employment.

Again though - my point was about Noonan. Or what's your take on his communication methods? What you'd expect from a Government Minister?

I'd be interested to see what the general response around these boards, and indeed in the media, and the public at large would be, if, for instance, the Italian finance minister dismissed Ireland's economic ties with Italy as being a few potatoes on the supermarket shelves.

Disgusting, snotty, pig ignorant, smug, self aggrandizing rhetorical rubbish from Noonan.

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 3:06pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Under what conditions can they change the Capital Stock requirement? Is unanimity required (i.e. any individual country has a veto), or is it done by qualified majority? Also, same question with Capital Calls, and when you say 'any time', I presume you mean within the agreed limits? i.e. you can't repeatedly make capital calls beyond what has been agreed already? Thanks!

As far as I read it, Article 10.1 - They can change the Authosized Capital Stock, and amend Article 8.
I don't see anything about 'agreed' limits there. What I'm reading is that the ESM can change is. Full Stop. I can't see anything either about a country having a Veto. The ESM set up is (as far as I can read it) a God to the members - what it says, goes. It's immune from any legal challnges. It's board members are also immune.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 22-05-2012 3:08pm

blowtorch wrote: »

As far as I read it, Article 10.1 - They can change the Authosized Capital Stock, and amend Article 8.
I don't see anything about 'agreed' limits there. What I'm reading is that the ESM can change is. Full Stop. I can't see anything either about a country having a Veto. The ESM set up is (as far as I can read it) a God to the members - what it says, goes. It's immune from any legal challnges. It's board members are also immune.

Well, leaving religion out of it, who are the board members, who appoints them, what is their term and who are they answerable to?

What is the mechanism for changing limits then, qualified majority?

Scofflaw · 22-05-2012 3:10pm

blowtorch wrote: »

- Article 9. Capital Calls. Basically the can make a Capital call at any time on Members. Article 10 then can change the Capital Stock requirement. So, if they increase the capital Stock requirement (for example to 1400bn), our contribution would increase.

And how is that voted on...?

blowtorch wrote: »

-Article 32 + 35 (1). Immunity of persons....... Have a read.

Articles about the kind of functional immunity found in the Treaty - have a read:

http://opiniojuris.org/tag/functional-immunity/

http://www.trial-ch.org/en/resources/international-law/amnesty-and-immunity.html

http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/364/

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 22-05-2012 3:14pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Under what conditions can they change the Capital Stock requirement? Is unanimity required (i.e. any individual country has a veto), or is it done by qualified majority? Also, same question with Capital Calls, and when you say 'any time', I presume you mean within the agreed limits? i.e. you can't repeatedly make capital calls beyond what has been agreed already? Thanks!

From the Treaty:

2. The decisions of the Board of Governors and the Board of Directors shall be taken by mutual agreement, qualified majority or simple majority as specified in this Treaty. In respect of all decisions, a quorum of 2/3 of the members with voting rights representing at least 2/3 of the voting rights must be present.

3. The adoption of a decision by mutual agreement requires the unanimity of the members participating in the vote. Abstentions do not prevent the adoption of a decision by mutual agreement.

6. The Board of Governors shall take the following decisions by mutual agreement:

(c) to make the capital calls, in accordance with Article 9(1);

(d) to change the authorised capital stock and adapt the maximum lending volume of the ESM, in accordance with Article 10(1);

Capital calls can only be made within the agreed ceiling, can only be made by unanimity, and can only be made in a timeframe also agreed unanimously.

As to who appoints the Board of Governors - they are, unsurprisingly, representatives of each of the ESM countries:

1. Each ESM Member shall appoint a Governor and an alternate Governor. Such appointments are revocable at any time. The Governor shall be a member of the government of that ESM Member who has responsibility for finance. The alternate Governor shall have full power to act on behalf of the Governor when the latter is not present.

So, no, the ESM cannot "impose" these capital calls and ceiling changes on Ireland if Ireland is an ESM member, because Ireland, as an ESM member, has to agree to any such changes or calls.

cordially,
Scofflaw

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 3:18pm

dvpower wrote: »

What knock on employment? How is employment impacted at all?
You haven't demonstrated at all how anything that happens in Greece would have any impact whatever on Coca Cola operations in Ireland.

How this has anything to do with the Stability Treaty escapes me.

My post was about Noonan's comment. Basically his ignorance. Where did I say anything about any impact on Coca Cola operations? Where did I say employment would be impacted?

By the way - I don't think that what we're voting for at the end of the month is 'The Stability Treaty'. These's no such thing as 'The Stability Treaty'.

As far as I can read it, it's name is
'TREATY ON STABILITY, COORDINATION AND GOVERNANCE IN THE ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION BETWEEN......'

So, why are you calling it the Stability Treaty - why not call it the Governance Treaty?

dvpower · 22-05-2012 3:32pm

blowtorch wrote: »

My post was about Noonan's comment. Basically his ignorance. Where did I say anything about any impact on Coca Cola operations? Where did I say employment would be impacted?

It was you who made a point of the numbers they employ and the tax they pay. I presume there was a reason for you mentioning it.

blowtorch wrote: »

By the way - I don't think that what we're voting for at the end of the month is 'The Stability Treaty'. These's no such thing as 'The Stability Treaty'.

As far as I can read it, it's name is
'TREATY ON STABILITY, COORDINATION AND GOVERNANCE IN THE ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION BETWEEN......'

So, why are you calling it the Stability Treaty - why not call it the Governance Treaty?

Its commonly referred to as the Stability Treaty. You must know that at this stage?

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 3:36pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

From the Treaty:

Capital calls can only be made within the agreed ceiling, can only be made by unanimity, and can only be made in a timeframe also agreed unanimously.

But... 'unanimously' by who? Are you saying the Ireland has a Veto?

As to who appoints the Board of Governors - they are, unsurprisingly, representatives of each of the ESM countries:

So, no, the ESM cannot "impose" these capital calls and ceiling changes on Ireland if Ireland is an ESM member, because Ireland, as an ESM member, has to agree to any such changes or calls.
And voting rights are equal to the number of shares allocated to each country as regards the authorized Capital stock'
cordially,
Scofflaw

My comments in italics above.

- So, if Ireland has to agree to any changes or calls, Ireland has a Veto?
- What difference then do 'Voting Rights' make, if changes can't be made
if we disagree with them.

K-9 · 22-05-2012 3:37pm

blowtorch wrote: »

My post was about Noonan's comment. Basically his ignorance. Where did I say anything about any impact on Coca Cola operations? Where did I say employment would be impacted?

blowtorch wrote:

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

Well you suggested he might want to write to them about how many they employ in IRELAND for some reason! You're the only person who knows what that reason is as you suggested it.

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 3:42pm

dvpower wrote: »

It was you who made a point of the numbers they employ and the tax they pay. I presume there was a reason for you mentioning it.

Its commonly referred to as the Stability Treaty. You must know that at this stage?

I've heard it called the Stability Treaty, but also the 'Fiscal Treaty'. 'Stability Treaty' is a FG term.

On the number of people employed........ I mentioned this to highlight Noonan's lack of knoweledge. To pigeon-hole Greece into Holidays and Feta Cheese wasn't that professional. He's Finance Minister - you'd think he'd be aware of the Nation's that invest here, and keep his childish comments to himself.

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 3:44pm

K-9 wrote: »

Well you suggested he might want to write to them about how many they employ in IRELAND for some reason! You're the only person who knows what that reason is as you suggested it.

To educate himself - there's more to Greece than Holidays or feta Cheese. That's the reason.

Happyman42 · 22-05-2012 3:47pm

blowtorch wrote: »

you'd think he'd be aware of the Nation's that invest here, and keep his childish comments to himself.

It's fairly typical of the typical FG buffoon, once they put a foot outside what they have been briefed to say, it goes promptly into mouth. :rolleyes:

dvpower · 22-05-2012 3:59pm

blowtorch wrote: »

I've heard it called the Stability Treaty, but also the 'Fiscal Treaty'. 'Stability Treaty' is a FG term.

So you knew perfectly well what treaty I was referring to?
I really don't have time for this silliness.

blowtorch wrote: »

On the number of people employed........ I mentioned this to highlight Noonan's lack of knoweledge. To pigeon-hole Greece into Holidays and Feta Cheese wasn't that professional. He's Finance Minister - you'd think he'd be aware of the Nation's that invest here, and keep his childish comments to himself.

Noonan didn't mention Coca Cola at all. I don't think that demonstrates any lack of knowledge on his part.
The operations of Coca Cola in Ireland don't appear to be at all impacted by whats going on in Greece, as you seem to have accepted yourself now. Why the hell would Noonan need to demonstrate his knowledge of the location of the Head Office of the Coca Cola bottlers in Ireland when it has no relevance at all to what he was talking about?

Scofflaw · 22-05-2012 4:01pm

blowtorch wrote: »

My comments in italics above.

- So, if Ireland has to agree to any changes or calls, Ireland has a Veto?

Yes.

blowtorch wrote: »

- What difference then do 'Voting Rights' make, if changes can't be made
if we disagree with them.

If you read through Article 5, you'll see that some other things are agreed by majority or qualified majority, which involves the voting weights. The capital calls and the capital ceiling, however, are by unanimity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 4:06pm

dvpower wrote: »

So you knew perfectly well what treaty I was referring to?
I really don't have time for this silliness.

Noonan didn't mention Coca Cola at all. I don't think that demonstrates any lack of knowledge on his part.
The operations of Coca Cola in Ireland don't appear to be at all impacted by whats going on in Greece, as you seem to have accepted yourself now. Why the hell would Noonan need to demonstrate his knowledge of the location of the Head Office of the Coca Cola bottlers in Ireland when it has no relevance at all to what he was talking about?

Of course I knew what treaty you were referring to. The 'silliness' perhaps is in FG forcing the term Stability Treaty on us. Dagger without the cloak.

Did I say anything about Coca Cola jobs being impacted. Chinese whispers springs to mind.

How relevant was Greek Holidays and Feta Cheese, except to extract a laugh from his audience?

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 4:13pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes.

If you read through Article 5, you'll see that some other things are agreed by majority or qualified majority, which involves the voting weights. The capital calls and the capital ceiling, however, are by unanimity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tks

later12 · 22-05-2012 4:14pm

blowtorch wrote: »

Of course I knew what treaty you were referring to. The 'silliness' perhaps is in FG forcing the term Stability Treaty on us. Dagger without the cloak.

I'm a little curious about this.

Why are the Referendum Commission using the term "Fiscal Stability Treaty". This is not the official name of the Treaty. It's almost as though a vote for the Treaty is going to bring fiscal stability, whereas I think most economists would be of the opinion that (if actually implemented) it would have the opposite effect.

That's all a little by-the-way. The name of this Treaty is the Treaty on Stability, Co-Ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. I accept it doesn't trip of the tongue, but that's its name.

dvpower · 22-05-2012 4:19pm

blowtorch wrote: »

Of course I knew what treaty you were referring to. The 'silliness' perhaps is in FG forcing the term Stability Treaty on us. Dagger without the cloak.

No one is forcing you to call it anything you don't want to

blowtorch wrote: »

Did I say anything about Coca Cola jobs being impacted. Chinese whispers springs to mind.

It was you that mentioned the jobs - no one else. You even made up some figures for employment taxes paid in the country. I don't know why you did it. Maybe you could explain why - or not; it doesn't really matter.

blowtorch wrote: »

How relevant was Greek Holidays and Feta Cheese, except to extract a laugh from his audience?

To demonstrate that we have only very minor economic ties with Greece. Even the yogurt is only Greek style.

Was Noonan a bit insensitive? Yes. Do Coca Cola care? Hardly.

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 4:32pm

dvpower wrote: »

No one is forcing you to call it anything you don't want to

It was you that mentioned the jobs - no one else. You even made up some figures for employment taxes paid in the country. I don't know why you did it. Maybe you could explain why - or not; it doesn't really matter.

To demonstrate that we have only very minor economic ties with Greece. Even the yogurt is only Greek style.

Was Noonan a bit insensitive? Yes. Do Coca Cola care? Hardly.

- So why not call it it's proper name?
- The 'jobs' reference. Again, I mentioned it as an education for Noonan - to show there was more to Greece than Holidays + Feta. You seem overly occupied with it.
-So, couldn't he say 'we only have minor economic ties with Greece' instead
of trying to have a laugh at Greece's expense?

blowtorch · 22-05-2012 4:34pm

later12 wrote: »

I'm a little curious about this.

Why are the Referendum Commission using the term "Fiscal Stability Treaty". This is not the official name of the Treaty. It's almost as though a vote for the Treaty is going to bring fiscal stability, whereas I think most economists would be of the opinion that (if actually implemented) it would have the opposite effect.

That's all a little by-the-way. The name of this Treaty is the Treaty on Stability, Co-Ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. I accept it doesn't trip of the tongue, but that's its name.

Exactly.

meglome · 22-05-2012 4:37pm

golden lane wrote: »

if that pensioner is a voter.....yes, very much so..........

I was asking if the comment had anything to do with the contents of the treaty, which it doesn't. People are voting no because they hate the government or they hate the EU or they believe it stops austerity or they think a magical bunny will make a new treaty that they like better (but they will still vote no to) or whatever other nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual contents of the treaty. Very foolish reasons indeed.

Walking through town I saw posters and banners saying...
No to upward only rents, no to liar politicians, no to fiscal compact
Democracy is dead (etc) Vote no.
No to austerity. Vote no
No to household charge etc - Vote no
and several others, all of which either have nothing to do with the treaty or cannot be changed by a yes or no.

It's a sea of shíte out there.

swampgas · 22-05-2012 4:48pm

meglome wrote: »

I was asking if the comment had anything to do with the contents of the treaty, which it doesn't. People are voting no because they hate the government or they hate the EU or they believe it stops austerity or they think a magical bunny will make a new treaty that they like better (but they will still vote no to) or whatever other nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual contents of the treaty. Very foolish reasons indeed.

Walking through town I saw posters and banners saying...
No to upward only rents, no to liar politicians, no to fiscal compact
Democracy is dead (etc) Vote no.
No to austerity. Vote no
No to household charge etc - Vote no
and several others, all of which either have nothing to do with the treaty or cannot be changed by a yes or no.

It's a sea of shíte out there.

It's a circus. ... and people wonder why politicians are cynical.

IMO, the fact that we need a referendum at all is the real problem, the government were elected, let them get on with making whatever changes and ratifications they see fit. If we don't like it, we don't vote for them next General Election. That's how it seems to work everywhere else.

The way Ireland is behaving right now, we might as well decide policy using an X-Factor style TV show, with text voting replacing a referendum.

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

Comments