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

Happyman42

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.

Shock Horror: Voters reject government policy! :eek:


Tell us this, how or why do you think Hollande got elected? Because the French people wanted to show Sarkosy that they thought his policy was wrong. They had enough of him, do you think they examined Hollande's policy documents in detail?
Will the government here change tack if they fail in this referendum....almost certainly it will have a profound effect, that is what a huge raft of people, some of whom you mention above, are trying to achieve.

The electorate will show it's frustrations and anger when they get the oppurtunity....it's how it works everywhere in the world. They have no other way to voice their objections except riot and insurrection.
Establish a dictatorship if you want it to work any other way.

later12

blowtorch wrote: »

Exactly.

I previously sent an email about this and got the following reply:

Tadhg

The Commission decided that the long title would be difficult to handle, especially in a short document like its Guide. Accordingly, it decided to use "Fiscal Stability Treaty" as a shorter version.

I don't understand this. That title completely ignores the economic governance and co-ordination aspects of the Treaty. The word 'fiscal' doesn't even appear in the official treaty title.

This Treaty is not just about stability. It is also about governance, and I think it is unfortunate that the Referendum Commission is not according the Treaty its full title more explicitly in its literature, even if this does result in an extra word or two being added.

swampgas

Happyman42 wrote: »

Shock Horror: Voters reject government policy! :eek:


Tell us this, how or why do you think Hollande got elected? Because the French people wanted to show Sarkosy that they thought his policy was wrong. They had enough of him, do you think they examined Hollande's policy documents in detail?
Will the government here change tack if they fail in this referendum....almost certainly it will have a profound effect, that is what a huge raft of people, some of whom you mention above, are trying to achieve.

The electorate will show it's frustrations and anger when they get the oppurtunity....it's how it works everywhere in the world. They have no other way to voice their objections except riot and insurrection.
Establish a dictatorship if you want it to work any other way.

That's the problem right there - deciding whether a change to the constitution is right for the country should be about just that. Hijacking a referendum to display anger at the government completely defeats the purpose of having a referendum in the first place.

If there were loads of jobs and the economy was going well and you were in love with the government, would you say Yes to any old referendum as a result?

This inability of many voters to see how the referendum is more important than their desire to vent their frustration at a whole bunch of unrelated issues is incredibly frustrating.

Happyman42

swampgas wrote: »

That's the problem right there - deciding whether a change to the constitution is right for the country should be about just that. Hijacking a referendum to display anger at the government completely defeats the purpose of having a referendum in the first place.

If there were loads of jobs and the economy was going well and you were in love with the government, would you say Yes to any old referendum as a result?

This inability of many voters to see how the referendum is more important than their desire to vent their frustration at a whole bunch of unrelated issues is incredibly frustrating.

You are talking about those who are most affected by what is happening remember, they take the brunt of the governments mistakes and failures. It's not about 100 euros out of a very good and adequate wage, it's about basic survival. That they are angry is only natural. That they want to be heard is only to be expected. just think about all the things that happened and they weren't asked about and you will see why there is so much disaffection. It WILL express itself, in rebellion or a lashout at government....call it a safety valve.

blowtorch

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.

I'd agree with you as regards a Sea of S**te. From both sides though.

But there are a couple of those above that will take their future journey based on the Treaty (in my opinion anyway). If the Treaty is passed, we therefore have to toe the line fiscally within the ESM. If it is not passed, we still have to toe the line, but under our control.

- Austerity will continue / increase for the foreseeable future.

- Household Charges, and whatever other new charges are coming down the
line, will just keep increasing.

Both of those to try to bring us into budget.

Both of them will go that way anyway with a Yes or No vote, the difference is that if we vote yes, we're changing our Constitution to allow Europe a bigger say in the running of our country.

We should be big-minded and confident enough to get out of the mess
by our own actions at home, and not give away decision-making to
other Nations.

The access to funds from the ESM - the amended ESM Treaty with
the 'blackmail' clause, should be re-amended to remove that clause.
Does Ireland have the power to have that removed?
====================================================

PopeBuckfastXVI

blowtorch wrote: »

Both of them will go that way anyway with a Yes or No vote, the difference is that if we vote yes, we're changing our Constitution to allow Europe a bigger say in the running of our country.


The access to funds from the ESM - the amended ESM Treaty with
the 'blackmail' clause, should be re-amended to remove that clause.
Does Ireland have the power to have that removed?

Just two things here:

1. By the same token we *gain* a bigger say in the running of other European countries, in the same way.

2. You can call it a 'blackmail' clause, but in reality it's a safety clause for us as well as everyone else, would you feel comfortable giving money into an ESM where the potential drawees of that money had not agreed to use it in a fiscally responsible manner? I hate analogies, but feck it, if you are paying into a credit union, and one of the other members is taking a loan to buy a house from the credit union, would you rather they signed a contract stating they would be using the money to actually purchase a house, or should they be free to borrow money unconditionally and p*ss it away on blackjack and coke? The clause protects us at least as much as it may hinder us.

Scofflaw

blowtorch wrote: »

I'd agree with you as regards a Sea of S**te. From both sides though.

But there are a couple of those above that will take their future journey based on the Treaty (in my opinion anyway). If the Treaty is passed, we therefore have to toe the line fiscally within the ESM. If it is not passed, we still have to toe the line, but under our control.

Not quite - we'll still have to toe exactly the same line, because all the fiscal limits in the Treaty are already in force. What will be gained by voting No is that the bigger countries will go on being able to ignore the limits - and we won't be required to create a set of national laws and bodies to keep an eye on the government's handling of the economy.

blowtorch wrote: »

- Austerity will continue / increase for the foreseeable future.

- Household Charges, and whatever other new charges are coming down the
line, will just keep increasing.

Both of those to try to bring us into budget.

Both of them will go that way anyway with a Yes or No vote, the difference is that if we vote yes, we're changing our Constitution to allow Europe a bigger say in the running of our country.

We should be big-minded and confident enough to get out of the mess
by our own actions at home, and not give away decision-making to
other Nations.

To be honest, when it comes to confidence that our government would set up the kind of independent economic watchdog the Treaty requires and then let it actually remain independent, I prefer to have the government sign up to a Treaty.

We're not giving away decision-making to other nations, either. I'm not sure what that's supposed to refer to, but unless you're in a bailout, nobody else makes the economic decisions but the government.

blowtorch wrote: »

The access to funds from the ESM - the amended ESM Treaty with
the 'blackmail' clause, should be re-amended to remove that clause.
Does Ireland have the power to have that removed?
====================================================

Bluntly, no. Not without the support of a number of other countries, and there's no sign of that. Not unreasonably, really, when you consider that taxpayers' money all across Europe is ultimately going on the hook for the bailout funds in ESM - the idea that you can happily dispense with asking bailout recipients to be fiscally prudent is rather optimistic, given Greece's behaviour.

Various people believe that we could veto ESM by vetoing the proposed amendment of article 136 of the EU Treaties, which they believe is vital to allow ESM to go ahead. However, as beeftotheheels pointed out, the reason this amendment is supposed to be so vital is that the existing EU Treaties have a "no-bailout" clause in Article 125 - but Article 125 is not being amended, so clearly Article 125 doesn't prevent the setting up of the ESM, and the article 136 amendment is not actually necessary, just desirable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stonetrower

This website helped me make my mind up. www.taleoftwotreaties.tumblr.com/aboutesm

Galwayguy35

I wonder how tight the margin is between the Yes and No side at the moment?

carveone

swampgas wrote: »

If there were loads of jobs and the economy was going well and you were in love with the government, would you say Yes to any old referendum as a result?

I remember (just about) Maastricht and I don't remember anyone reading anything about it or much about issues. I do remember the economy was still doing rather badly at the time amid political turmoil. That was the year of the X Case storm and all the other things that made 1992 a busy year! The Treaty was so important - after all it was the start of the EMU - and it passed without a bother here. If I remember correctly there was a certain degree of British mockery that Ireland would sign anything for a few bob. 6 billion pounds IIRC!

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be honest, when it comes to confidence that our government would set up the kind of independent economic watchdog the Treaty requires and then let it actually remain independent, I prefer to have the government sign up to a Treaty.

That's quite depressing. It's an admittance that Irish governments have never been able to stop interfering in any body that tries to regulate or watch over or even plan for the future whenever they figure that body is in the way of a power grab. How much planning went into land purchases over years and years to accomadate traffic and public transport infrastructure that were destroyed when some corrupt politician decided to make a quick buck off them.

Any independent watchdog here would require great big teeth. Preferably Constitutional ones.

PS: I wonder if they add some growth pacts on can we call the grouping the stability and growth pact. Rewind to 1997...

EURATS

carveone wrote: »

swampgas wrote: »

If there were loads of jobs and the economy was going well and you were in love with the government, would you say Yes to any old referendum as a result?

I remember (just about) Maastricht and I don't remember anyone reading anything about it or much about issues. I do remember the economy was still doing rather badly at the time amid political turmoil. That was the year of the X Case storm and all the other things that made 1992 a busy year! The Treaty was so important - after all it was the start of the EMU - and it passed without a bother here. If I remember correctly there was a certain degree of British mockery that Ireland would sign anything for a few bob. 6 billion pounds IIRC!

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be honest, when it comes to confidence that our government would set up the kind of independent economic watchdog the Treaty requires and then let it actually remain independent, I prefer to have the government sign up to a Treaty.

That's quite depressing. It's an admittance that Irish governments have never been able to stop interfering in any body that tries to regulate or watch over or even plan for the future whenever they figure that body is in the way of a power grab. How much planning went into land purchases over years and years to accomadate traffic and public transport infrastructure that were destroyed when some corrupt politician decided to make a quick buck off them.

Any independent watchdog here would require great big teeth. Preferably Constitutional ones.

PS: I wonder if they add some growth pacts on can we call the grouping the stability and growth pact. Rewind to 1997...

Poll above still looking pretty good. Slight drop, but to be expected. No less random than red C.

carveone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Various people believe that we could veto ESM by vetoing the proposed amendment of article 136 of the EU Treaties, which they believe is vital to allow ESM to go ahead.

Various people being Ganley and SF. Have they explained why they'd want to do this? It seems completely bizarre. Let's say a group of 17 friends (ok, business colleagues) set up a 1000 euro fund to insure against eventualities on a ski trip or something. Then one friend, who was contributing 16 euro, decides to leverage some technicality to scupper this fund, for no reason other than to see what would happen... well... I think the friendship might be somewhat strained.

dvpower

EURATS wrote: »

Poll above still looking pretty good. Slight drop, but to be expected. No less random than red C.

No less random than RedC?
Then how is it that the results of this poll and the various RedC polls are almost a mirror image?

Ozymandius2011

carveone wrote: »

Various people being Ganley and SF. Have they explained why they'd want to do this? It seems completely bizarre. Let's say a group of 17 friends (ok, business colleagues) set up a 1000 euro fund to insure against eventualities on a ski trip or something. Then one friend, who was contributing 16 euro, decides to leverage some technicality to scupper this fund, for no reason other than to see what would happen... well... I think the friendship might be somewhat strained.

To force the EU into renegotiating the F.U. Treaty, assuming 12 countries will not have ratified in the aftermath of an Irish "no" vote and resistance to the Treaty in France and Germany. It's not even certain we will need the ESM, and even if we did, the EFSF lasts into 2013 so what's the hurry? There is plenty of time to setup an ESM between now and then. But we need to see the final shape of the F.U. before we vote on it. What is there now imho will be renegotiated by Hollande. The elites in my humble opinion want a yes vote from Ireland in the hope of bouncing Hollande into selling out his election promises to renegotiate the Treaty.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

To force the EU into renegotiating the F.U. Treaty, assuming 12 countries will not have ratified in the aftermath of an Irish "no" vote and resistance to the Treaty in France and Germany. It's not even certain we will need the ESM, and even if we did, the EFSF lasts into 2013 so what's the hurry? There is plenty of time to setup an ESM between now and then. But we need to see the final shape of the F.U. before we vote on it. What is there now imho will be renegotiated by Hollande. The elites in my humble opinion want a yes vote from Ireland in the hope of bouncing Hollande into selling out his election promises to renegotiate the Treaty.

Hollande is part of "the elites", though - unless of course the dividing line is whether one agrees with people or not, as often seems to be the case. One should really say that some of "the elites" might like an Irish No in order to promote renegotiation, while others might like a "Yes" in order to prevent it.

I think it's hard to know which is better for an Irish negotiating position if the Treaty were to be reopened. A No could be taken - particularly a strong No - as indicating that there's little point in considering Irish demands, because the government clearly cannot guarantee an Irish Yes to any renegotiated version either. After all, I don't think there's any point in pretending that Sinn Fein et al are actually going to promote a Yes vote to a new version. A Yes, on the other hand, means that the Irish public probably will also OK an amended version, while the fact that the government has been able to deliver that Yes strengthens its credibility in negotiations.

But you could just vote on what's actually in the amendment, which is this version and no other.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The elites in my humble opinion want a yes vote from Ireland in the hope of bouncing Hollande into selling out his election promises to renegotiate the Treaty.

The best answer to that is what my dad, who works in a factory stores department, told me last night. In his own words he's voting yes because "if SF or any of that lot every get into power we'll need strong rules on them"

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

But you could just vote on what's actually in the amendment, which is this version and no other.

See, that's just crazy talk.

golfball37

antoobrien wrote: »

The best answer to that is what my dad, who works in a factory stores department, told me last night. In his own words he's voting yes because "if SF or any of that lot every get into power we'll need strong rules on them"

You devoid of independent thought by any chance? Its the hereditery passing down of civil war politics that has ruined this country. If you would genuinely vote based on a future assumption of what might be then you are no better than someone saying Vote no as we'll have abortion in the morning or a minimum wage of 1.80.

Of course I hope your father mentioned these rules are being suggested for Ireland because of the behaviour of the traditional parties not SF or any of that crowd you mention. I hope he realises we are in the Sh*t because of our "repsonsible parties" actions and not those of Sf/ULA etc?

Or does that not really matter? The truth, I mean.

View

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

To force the EU into renegotiating...

A No vote can't force our government to renegotiate never mind any of the others. And reaching agreement is something else again.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

What is there now imho will be renegotiated by Hollande.

Inda just vetoed those (non-existent) proposals. Next spurious excuse please...

Ozymandius2011

View wrote:

A No vote can't force our government to renegotiate never mind any of the others. And reaching agreement is something else again.

The Treaty is in trouble across Europe and we just need to give it to coup-de-grace. Just 3 countries have ratified so far. There is a legal challenge pending to the Treaty in the Netherlands, and French and German ratifications are looking problematic. I think a no vote here would make pressure for renegotiation unstoppable.

Inda just vetoed those (non-existent) proposals. Next spurious excuse please...

Really where did you hear that?

View

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Treaty is in trouble across Europe and we just need to give it to coup-de-grace. Just 3 countries have ratified so far. There is a legal challenge pending to the Treaty in the Netherlands, and French and German ratifications are looking problematic. I think a no vote here would make pressure for renegotiation unstoppable.?

You are quite frankly clutching at straws.

Nobody has proposed any amendments for "re-negotiation" and there is no suggestion that anyone is about to formally do so.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Really where did you hear that

The point was any member of the European Council - even Inda - can veto any proposed amendments to the treaties. They don't have to re-negotiate at all and even if they want to do so, they can say "Stick the proposals into an amending treaty and we'll ratify them just as soon as the current version of the treaty enters force".

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Treaty is in trouble across Europe and we just need to give it to coup-de-grace. Just 3 countries have ratified so far. There is a legal challenge pending to the Treaty in the Netherlands, and French and German ratifications are looking problematic. I think a no vote here would make pressure for renegotiation unstoppable.Really where did you hear that?

Out of curiosity, what is the minimum gain in a renegotiated treaty that would secure a 'yes' vote from you?

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what is the minimum gain in a renegotiated treaty that would secure a 'yes' vote from you?

Eurobonds and a 50% write-off of the cost of the bailout.

PopeBuckfastXVI

thomthomdrum wrote: »

Interesting watch for all who are going to vote on the 31st

Have you noticed how Ireland is depicted at the poker table as the only player with no chips... how accurate!

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Eurobonds and a 50% write-off of the cost of the bailout.

Who will be taking the 50% haircut? What is it 50% of? When you say the cost do you mean interest on money, or the principal?

I'd like some more details on your plan? Do you think it's feasible?

Happyman42

antoobrien wrote: »

The best answer to that is what my dad, who works in a factory stores department, told me last night. In his own words he's voting yes because "if SF or any of that lot every get into power we'll need strong rules on them"

Pity that he and his generation hadn't been so conscientious for the last 40 years! :rolleyes:

EURATS

dvpower wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

Poll above still looking pretty good. Slight drop, but to be expected. No less random than red C.

No less random than RedC?
Then how is it that the results of this poll and the various RedC polls are almost a mirror image?

I don't know. You tell me!!! Are you not one of the people that has an answer for everything?

[MOD]EURATS, please don't personalise the debate.[/MOD]

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Who will be taking the 50% haircut? What is it 50% of? When you say the cost do you mean interest on money, or the principal?

I'd like some more details on your plan? Do you think it's feasible?

I mean the principal. I think it is feasible.

antoobrien

golfball37 wrote: »

You devoid of independent thought by any chance? Its the hereditery passing down of civil war politics that has ruined this country. If you would genuinely vote based on a future assumption of what might be then you are no better than someone saying Vote no as we'll have abortion in the morning or a minimum wage of 1.80.

Of course I hope your father mentioned these rules are being suggested for Ireland because of the behaviour of the traditional parties not SF or any of that crowd you mention. I hope he realises we are in the Sh*t because of our "repsonsible parties" actions and not those of Sf/ULA etc?

Or does that not really matter? The truth, I mean.

SF are a bunch of economic illiterates that want to spend their way out of the mess were by increasing taxes. Take a look at the tax take from the 80s and 90s, when we had 48% tax on about €16k(inflation adjusted). The tax take was a fraction of what it is today. So history tells us that SF policies would destroy the tax take.

Putting a brake on future spending plans can only be a good thing. As I see it this treaty is about learning from past mistakes and preventing them from happening in future. That goes double for the left - who think that money grows on trees.

As for independent thought answer this one. If we vote no, how will we pay for our funding needs in 2014 when:

antoobrien wrote: »

a) the current troika loans will have run out
b) the ESM is closed to us
c) the IMF won't loan to use at the rates we will need because the EU aren't in partnership with them
d) the markets won't lend to us at rates we can afford because they think we can't pay it back
e) the higher taxes will make people like me (earning a low-modest wage) emigrate

dvpower

EURATS wrote: »

I don't know. You tell me!!! Are you not one of the people that has an answer for everything?

Because the Boards poll doesn't involve any sort of polling methodology at all, has a very narrow sample base and a much smaller sample.