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

PopeBuckfastXVI

swampgas wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is that the default position should be Yes, not No.

I disagree, I don't believe there should, necessarily, be a default position. We've been charged as an electorate with making a decision, with the right to choose comes the responsibility to choose wisely.

antoobrien

Happyman42 wrote: »

You weren't listening, I wish him and his ilk never existed. The culture that allowed them to rape and plunder was not some natural progression. They made a concious decision to do that, and they facilitated that type of 'politics' and politician here.
Prosperity would have come anyway as it did across Europe and the western world, we didn't need the greed merchants to take advantage.

You're not listening either - they did good too. You're (theoretically) trying to write out the bits you don't like while ignoring the consequences i.e. turning our economy from a small introverted one into an open one.

Wrtie out the corruption and bribery, take with it the economic growth.

This treaty is about learning from the past - the good and bad - and making sure that we don't repeat the mistakes. What good is that if we don't allow ourselves to remember the stuff we did right?

Rick_nl

Scofflaw wrote: »

If this is going to turn out to be a "they're all just puppets..Goldman Sachs...Bilderberg" thing, please save the screen space.

cheers,
Scofflaw

Hadn't even thought about that one... but now you mention it...:cool:
Let's keep it without the heavy conspiracy for a moment though:

I was just on about the No Gooders in Brussels.

swampgas

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I disagree, I don't believe there should, necessarily, be a default position. We've been charged as an electorate with making a decision, with the right to choose comes the responsibility to choose wisely.

My point is that usually, a No vote means "No Change", and a Yes vote means "Do something differently from now on".

In this case I think that a Yes vote keeps the status quo, so for an undecided voter who wants to avoid change, Yes is the option that best suits.

Why?

Since the start of the EU project we have managed to stay in sync with our European partners. A Yes vote keeps that sync. A No vote is a step away from Europe, and to my mind is a first step towards distancing Ireland from the Euro and the EU in general.

I'm a big fan of the EU project, I think Ireland has on the whole done very well out of membership. I think it would be reckless to start off down the isolationist route at this stage.

Happyman42

antoobrien wrote: »

You're not listening either - they did good too. You're (theoretically) trying to write out the bits you don't like while ignoring the consequences i.e. turning our economy from a small introverted one into an open one.

Wrtie out the corruption and bribery, take with it the economic growth.

This treaty is about learning from the past - the good and bad - and making sure that we don't repeat the mistakes. What good is that if we don't allow ourselves to remember the stuff we did right?

You are still not listening, I wish he and his ilk never existed.
Prosperity would have happened anyway. There was a way to do it with integrity. By not damming the men and women who through greed and ego destroyed this country, people in the future will be conned again and again, just like your father and mine was.

RandomName2

Could someone explain how countries that are currently in breach of the protocols outlined in the treaty (such as Ireland) will be protected?

Also does anyone know what reaction/consequences there have been to the Commission's proposal of trans-national approval of national budgets?

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's this season's 'self-amending treaty', dahling...

Actually talking of which, is this treaty an example of a protocol that changed from veto to QMV on the back of Lisbon?

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Actually talking of which, is this treaty an example of a protocol that changed from veto to QMV on the back of Lisbon?

It's a multilateral treaty, no?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Could someone explain how countries that are currently in breach of the protocols outlined in the treaty (such as Ireland) will be protected?

Protected from what, exactly? We're in an excessive deficit procedure. We have three years' grace from the end of it before the limits kick in again.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Also does anyone know what reaction/consequences there have been to the Commission's proposal of trans-national approval of national budgets?

Depends on what exactly that refers to...?

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are still not listening, I wish he and his ilk never existed.
Prosperity would have happened anyway.

No it wouldn't.

Nobody else had the gumption to do what he did, so no prosperity would not have happened anyways. We would have had what happened for the past 10 or so years - keep doing what we're already doing.

wilson10

thomthomdrum wrote: »

Bit of an ignorant reason for doing so, no?

Should you not vote based on the overall issue at hand and what this treaty means for Europe and Ireland, as opposed to a precived dislike for a particular group?

People voting Yes simply because Shinners or Libertas are on the No side is quite ignorant.........in saying that you may have other more logical reasons for your way of voting........but the above reason is frankly stupid......

I have my own good reasons for voting yes.

I probably could have put it better but I was trying to get the message across that the Libertas supporters in my area are tearing down Yes posters, which apart from being quite despicable is, I believe a criminal offence.

Happyman42

antoobrien wrote: »

Nobody else had the gumption to do what he did, so no prosperity

How would you explain the similar rise in prosperity in the rest of Europe then? Did Charlie do that on his holliers? :rolleyes:

blowtorch

Scofflaw wrote: »

And how is that voted on...?



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

http://opiniojuris.org/tag/functional-immunity/ = IMF 'The only type of immunity that would benefit DSK would be status-based immunity; that is, immunity based on his position as executive head of the IMF' (This article relates to the IMF + USA references.

http://www.trial-ch.org/en/resources/international-law/amnesty-and-immunity.html= Amnesty and immunity are protections granted to individuals or groups of people that guarantee that they will not be brought to justice for crimes that they may have committed.

http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/364/ = Diplomatic Immunity

Those three links you gave. References to DSK rape case. Question - What type of immunity does the Treaty refer to then. I don't think for instance, it's diplomatic immunity (i.e. they can get away with rapes/murders etc), but an immunity from prosecution for any deeds they would do in their function as Directors of the ESM that they knowingly would be to the detriment of Europe in general, or countries of Europe.

goat2

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are still not listening, I wish he and his ilk never existed.
Prosperity would have happened anyway. There was a way to do it with integrity. By not damming the men and women who through greed and ego destroyed this country, people in the future will be conned again and again, just like your father and mine was.

one good thing that came from the past bad spell, are the great roads bypassing towns that were logbacked in the summer adding hours to peoples journeys, thus burning more petrol and waiting in line to pass through towns with narrow streets that there would be only room for a lorry to pass alot of the time, that is one thing that gladen me, lots of old delapitated buildings were made more pleasing on the eye also, and for those of us that were having children in college through the good old times such as myself, we were working night and day as were our college children which in turn helped big time with college, also we had great competition with insurance for first time drivers, i rang about five of them and quinne direct gave me best quote which afforded me the ability to help mine get started,
but i pity those who are now trying to get their children through, no jobs for themselves, and for alot of the college students not able to gain work to help themselves through, is very worrying

sonic85

why do we need to vote for this treaty anyway? the whole basis for it seems to be to try and make countries keep within their budget but surely we should be doing that anyway. our current government in my opinion is failing miserably to reign in spending and cant seem to balance our budget.

what will voting yes for this treaty achieve? if we vote yes well probably only end up having to fork out more money we dont have in fines. the fact is yes or no we have to make more cuts. this buzzword austerity wont go away if we vote no. times will get tougher and tighter no matter what the result of this referendum is.

is any of this right or am i only spouting sh!te? havent got time to go through almost 50 pages

later12

sonic85 wrote: »

why do we need to vote for this treaty anyway? the whole basis for it seems to be to try and make countries keep within their budget

If the only provisions were the fiscal limits, there would be no need for a referendum.

That's why focusing on the fiscal limits is not enough; there are plenty of other issues like the future powers of the EU Commission and the correction mechanism which deserve attention.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Protected from what, exactly? We're in an excessive deficit procedure. We have three years' grace from the end of it before the limits kick in again.

So we have three years' grace from the end of 2012 to get our economy back to 2007/8 levels before automatic penalties kick in?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Depends on what exactly that refers to...?

What it says on the tin.

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

So we have three years' grace from the end of 2012 to get our economy back to 2007/8 levels before automatic penalties kick in?




What it says on the tin.

2018 as we exit the programme in 2015.

Piece explaining it here:
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/complying-with-debt-reduction-rule.html

According to that we would satisfy the debt brake rules by 2018 anyway.

meglome

Jaffser wrote: »

Simply put - There is no other way to vote on May 31 and that is 'NO'!

Why? sell it to me.

oscarBravo

Jaffser wrote: »

Simply put - There is no other way to vote on May 31 and that is 'NO'!

I'm pretty sure there will be a 'yes' option on the ballot paper.

Wild Bill

mikeym wrote: »

I will be spoiling my vote because I am disillusioned with the European Union and the current government.

That's a reason to vote NO!

Ozymandius2011

Now the Portuguese Parliament wants it renegotiated. It's becoming increasingly clear that we will be among friends if we reject the Treaty. We will certainly not be isolated. The Treaty is falling apart.

dvpower

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Now the Portuguese Parliament wants it renegotiated. It's becoming increasingly clear that we will be among friends if we reject the Treaty. We will certainly not be isolated. The Treaty is falling apart.

They've already ratified.

Ozymandius2011

dvpower wrote: »

They've already ratified.

They evidently want it renegotiated though. It shows the French election has been a game changer. Perhaps they could repeal the ratification.

Wild Bill

K-9 wrote: »

2018 as we exit the programme in 2015.

Piece explaining it here:
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/complying-with-debt-reduction-rule.html

According to that we would satisfy the debt brake rules by 2018 anyway.

I can't see the growth assumptions in that article. What are they?

Wild Bill

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Now the Portuguese Parliament wants it renegotiated. It's becoming increasingly clear that we will be among friends if we reject the Treaty. We will certainly not be isolated. The Treaty is falling apart.

We will be isolated (and ridiculed) if we vote "yes" :cool:

dvpower

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

They evidently want it renegotiated though. It shows the French election has been a game changer. Perhaps they could repeal the ratification.

They want an additional growth pact, not a renegotiation of the treaty itself. They have already ratified the treaty.

dvpower

Jaffser wrote: »

Simply put - There is no other way to vote on May 31 and that is 'NO'!

True - that was simply put.

K-9

Wild Bill wrote: »

I can't see the growth assumptions in that article. What are they?

I was taking his worst case scenario. Basically if we fulfill the programme we could conceivably satisfy the debt brake rule in 2015, based on IMF projections, but we all know projections are optimistic atm, Seamus Coffey bases it on 2018. I'm not saying he is right or it is FACT, just worthy of consideration.

dvpower wrote: »

They want an additional growth pact, not a renegotiation of the treaty itself. They have already ratified the treaty.

Indeed. I don't think any of the Euro Governments have specifically come out against the Treaty, none disagree with the need for austerity, just the lack of growth initiatives.

Personally, the electorate seem confused enough about an 11 page document that I'd be fearful of adding more pages about some growth compromise reached. And a compromise will need to be reached, imagine SF and Ganley agreeing on a growth package!

Agreement on a budget treaty was hard enough without bringing in the "growth" buzzword.

Wild Bill

K-9 wrote: »

I was taking his worst case scenario. Basically if we fulfill the programme we could conceivably satisfy the debt brake rule in 2015, based on IMF projections, but we all know projections are optimistic

A masterpiece of understatement!

They are so "optimistic" they easily qualify as "fantasy"!

And policies based on fantasy are not policies; just fantasies, wishful thinking - or whistling past the graveyard.

Unless there is acceptance that a common currency means a eurzone Federal State assuming responsibility for all sovereign debt then we are operating in Europhile loo-la land.

A NO vote to "austerity" is required, in Ireland and elsewhere, to bring the European Establishment to it's senses.

But they fear they can't sell the notion of a Federal State to the periphery; or the notion of a transfer union to the Germans.

And they are RIGHT!

But without that, the current ECB policy (and an Irish "yes" vote) is an exercise in desperate fearful delusion.

Time to confront reality - however painful.

Vote NO for sane policies (and national self-respect).