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

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

As CEO of a business, if I sat down and negotiated a deal with another business in good faith, shook hands on it and walked away, I would expect the deal to go ahead as agreed.

Legally speaking, I wouldn't have entered into a binding contract, but if the other party suddenly started trying to re-negotiate, I would be very reluctant to enter into another good-faith negotiation with them again.

When you sign up to a treaty, you're committing to ratifying it.

Not quite - you're only committing to try to ratify it according to the constitutional process in your country (or company), and the government that signed the deal is committing to doing whatever they legally can to get it ratified, but you're not actually committing to ratification.

In the company situation, you'd be quite within your rights to say that you were satisfied, but that it would have to go to the Board, whose agent you were - you wouldn't usually be committing the Board to approve it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If a negotiator is compromised or lazy,they may agree to a deal less than the best they believe they can get. Do you accept that?

Sure - that's really what a negotiator is saying who recommends a No. And as a voter in this referendum, you have the right to decide whether you personally believe that to have been the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not quite - you're only committing to try to ratify it according to the constitutional process in your country (or company), and the government that signed the deal is committing to doing whatever they legally can to get it ratified, but you're not actually committing to ratification.

In the company situation, you'd be quite within your rights to say that you were satisfied, but that it would have to go to the Board, whose agent you were - you wouldn't usually be committing the Board to approve it.

Accepted. The most succinct description I've seen to date is: "...a State that signs a treaty is obliged to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty."

Remember, I'm replying ultimately to a poster who is saying that the government which has signed the treaty should now go back to the other governments and threaten not to ratify it in order to achieve a re-negotiation. I can't think of any spin on such an action that wouldn't constitute acting in bad faith.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Remember, I'm replying ultimately to a poster who is saying that the government which has signed the treaty should now go back to the other governments and threaten not to ratify it in order to achieve a re-negotiation. I can't think of any spin on such an action that wouldn't constitute acting in bad faith.

So what is Enda going to do if the Irish people say No?


Can't you see the gaping flaws in the system? Classic cart before horse. He had no business agreeing to anything if we are going to get a say on it. It only places government in an impossible position.

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

As CEO of a business, if I sat down and negotiated a deal with another business in good faith, shook hands on it and walked away, I would expect the deal to go ahead as agreed.

Legally speaking, I wouldn't have entered into a binding contract, but if the other party suddenly started trying to re-negotiate, I would be very reluctant to enter into another good-faith negotiation with them again.

When you sign up to a treaty, you're committing to ratifying it. You're subscribing to the view I described earlier: it's OK to negotiate in bad faith, because the important thing is to get one over. It's not a view I share. ...or we don't have the chips you claim we do. It's far too easy to claim that we have a strong negotiating position when you're not the one having to do the negotiating.

It isn't the first time in this thread that a particular issue has be explained by a real world analogy.

What you say about business is fair. But what we are talking about here is politics.

I really do not see how the comparison can be made.

If politicians actually had business brains, and Ireland and Europe where run as business we quite probably would not be in the position we are in or we would be in a better position.

However, your view of business is on the simplistic side. There are many business who had hand shake agreements over the last few years that have had to be renegotiated or certain businesses would not have survived.
If it is the case that the gentleman's agreement has to be broken in favour of a new one that takes account of changing circumstances then it has to be done. They may not be as agreeable as the initial draft but they are still mutually beneficial even if one has to take a hit.

Basically if the request is for all or nothing and only half is offered you should take half as it is clearly better than nothing. Unless you are dealing with Shylock in which case find someone of a higher intelligence to do your negotiating.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Read the post I was replying to.

It may well be that pressure is brought to bear on smaller states, but you seem to want to deny the larger states the right to bring that pressure. Angela Merkel arrives at a negotiation as the head of the German government, and is answerable to the German electorate. Similarly Hollande in France, Kenny in Ireland, Thorning-Schmidt in Denmark, Juncker in Luxembourg...

The idea that Merkel should be in some way inhibited from pushing for the best interests of the German people is a bizarre one to me. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that politicians shouldn't promise things they can't deliver.

QED
Merkel can but we can't.

It's one explanation. It's a pretty cynical explanation, and doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, but I guess it's a satisfying explanation from a certain lazy perspective.

If it's one explanation....how is it a lazy one? Give us your super active one that explains how Irish governments behave when they get to Brussels.

And Hollande's election is proof of nothing other than that the French electorate considered him the best candidate for the job - the idea that a treaty that happens to be exercising Irish minds at the moment was the prime consideration in that election is the sort of breathtaking arrogance that only Irish people seem to be able to pull off.

Renegotiation was writ large in his policy, the difference is that he is powerful enough to follow through on his promises....whereas Gilmore and Enda aren't. More evidence if it is needed that we are all equal but some are more equal than others.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

So what is going to do if the Irish people say No?


Can't you see the gaping flaws in the system? Classic cart before horse. He had no business agreeing to anything if we are going to get a say on it. It only places government in an impossible position.

No - the government, as our agent, signs off on a deal. They do not ratify it. They then recommend that deal to us, and we make the decision as to whether they can ratify it.

Signing just means "this is the deal we will put in front of the decision makers", whether those decision makers are the people at referendum, or a parliament, or even a Cabinet.

The government can go back to the other parties involved and say "sorry, the people didn't like it", but they cannot recommend to the people to reject it. The former is unfortunate, but the proper outcome of a constitutional process, the latter would be bad faith.

And yes, it does put the government in an awkward position - exactly the awkward position that oscarBravo would be in if his Board rejected his carefully crafted business deal, but those are the breaks.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

So what is Enda going to do if the Irish people say No?


Can't you see the gaping flaws in the system? Classic cart before horse. He had no business agreeing to anything if we are going to get a say on it. It only places government in an impossible position.

I can't really make any sense of what you think should have happened. What exactly should the Government have done?

Scofflaw

The news coming out of the EU leaders meeting today is that there will be no changes to the Treaty text, and that Hollande's Growth Pact will be supplementary.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0524/text-of-the-eu-fiscal-treaty-will-not-be-changed.html

and

The French president expressed his satisfaction that the required by him, "Growth Pact" was seized upon as a supplement to the European Pact for more fiscal discipline.

http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/staatsverschuldung/tid-25912/eu-sondergipfel-in-bruessel-griechenland-soll-in-eurozone-bleiben-aber-nicht-um-jeden-preis_aid_757491.html

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

Remember, I'm replying ultimately to a poster who is saying that the government which has signed the treaty should now go back to the other governments and threaten not to ratify it in order to achieve a re-negotiation. I can't think of any spin on such an action that wouldn't constitute acting in bad faith.

What's wrong with that? most politicans get elected based on promises made over handshakes and baby kissing that are never kept and frequently dismissed once in office.

The vast majority of Irish politicians spend all their lives acting in bad faith especially when trying to get us to elect them so why should they not behave the same way at EU summits?

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

What's wrong with that? most politicans get elected based on promises made over handshakes and baby kissing that are never kept and frequently dismissed once in office.

The vast majority of Irish politicians spend all their lives acting in bad faith especially when trying to get us to elect them so why should they not behave the same way at EU summits?

Funnily enough, that's a problem for you rather than oscarBravo, because the negotiations are usually carried out by the Permanent Representations, not the politicians.

So the civil servants in the Perm Reps have to produce a deal that satisfies politicians who want to be back in Ireland with a popular baby-kissing deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

I can't really make any sense of what you think should have happened. What exactly should the Government have done?

What I am saying is the system is flawed. It shouldn't work like that. It is abundantly evident to me that Kenny, Gilmore et al where pressured to sign up to this, now they have to try and convince us. Evidence of the pressure they are under is the heavy handed scare tactics that have been employed to try and carry the day. A simple piece of housekeeping has been turned into a political football because it reveals some of the major flaws in the EU.
That the Irish(or some of them) will make politics choices at referenda like this is inevitable.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

So what is Enda going to do if the Irish people say No?

He's not going to ratify the treaty, because he legally can't.

If you can't see the difference between being bound by the constitutional provisions of your country's legal system and being a bad-faith negotiator, I'm not sure where to start explaining it to you.

Can't you see the gaping flaws in the system? Classic cart before horse. He had no business agreeing to anything if we are going to get a say on it. It only places government in an impossible position.

Are you arguing that we should have had a referendum on the treaty before the government negotiated it?

Wow. I just don't even know what to do with that.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The vast majority of Irish politicians spend all their lives acting in bad faith especially when trying to get us to elect them so why should they not behave the same way at EU summits?

Perhaps because we as an electorate are incapable of electing anyone who doesn't lie to us and tell us what we want to hear, but other heads of government have slightly higher standards?

Ozymandius2011

Scofflaw wrote: »

The news coming out of the EU leaders meeting today is that there will be no changes to the Treaty text, and that Hollande's Growth Pact will be supplementary.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0524/text-of-the-eu-fiscal-treaty-will-not-be-changed.html

and



http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/staatsverschuldung/tid-25912/eu-sondergipfel-in-bruessel-griechenland-soll-in-eurozone-bleiben-aber-nicht-um-jeden-preis_aid_757491.html

cordially,
Scofflaw

We can force them to renegotiate by vetoing the changes to Article 136.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

We can force them to renegotiate by vetoing the changes to Article 136.

Even assuming that that would work (and from what I've read on this forum - and presumably you have also - it wouldn't), it would be an act of bad faith on our part. Maybe that's not important to you, but there are some of us for whom acting in good faith is sort of important.

Ozymandius2011

oscarBravo wrote: »

Even assuming that that would work (and from what I've read on this forum - and presumably you have also - it wouldn't), it would be an act of bad faith on our part. Maybe that's not important to you, but there are some of us for whom acting in good faith is sort of important.

I never signed up to the Treaty so as a voter I am not bound by its agreements with foreign powers.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I never signed up to the Treaty so as a voter I am not bound by its agreements with foreign powers.

That's as profound a statement of ignorance of how treaties work as I've ever seen expressed. Bravo.

swampgas

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

We can force them to renegotiate by vetoing the changes to Article 136.

And if it turns out that Article 136 isn't the show-stopper you think it is, why shouldn't the rest of the EU tell Ireland to take a hike? After all, that's what you'd do in their shoes, right?

Godge

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I never signed up to the Treaty so as a voter I am not bound by its agreements with foreign powers.

Yes you did, you had the opportunity as a vote in a general election last year to elect a government to represent you. That government signed up to the Treaty on your behalf. That is what representative democracy means (as opposed to the alternative of X-Factor democracy which some seem to espouse).

Ozymandius2011

Godge wrote: »

Yes you did, you had the opportunity as a vote in a general election last year to elect a government to represent you. That government signed up to the Treaty on your behalf. That is what representative democracy means (as opposed to the alternative of X-Factor democracy which some seem to espouse).

The Treaty didn't even exist at the time of the GE so the govt does not have a mandate to ratify. That is why it is holding this referendum - to obtain such a mandate. We are not a representative democracy. We are a hybrid representative-direct democracy.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's as profound a statement of ignorance of how treaties work as I've ever seen expressed. Bravo.

It sounds like Freeman on the Land stuff, to be frank.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

He's not going to ratify the treaty, because he legally can't.

If you can't see the difference between being bound by the constitutional provisions of your country's legal system and being a bad-faith negotiator, I'm not sure where to start explaining it to you.

So what you are saying in reality is: Because the government think this is a good deal, and in order not to cause them to act in bad faith, we should roll over and accept it? Is that your version of a fair and working democracy?
If that isn't what you think please answer the question to the best of your knowledge and less of the patronising guff. What does or will Enda do if we say No.

Are you arguing that we should have had a referendum on the treaty before the government negotiated it?
Wow. I just don't even know what to do with that.

No, I am saying the 'system is flawed' :rolleyes:

Godge

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Treaty didn't even exist at the time of the GE so the govt does not have a mandate to ratify. That is why it is holding this referendum - to obtain such a mandate. We are not a representative democracy. We are a hybrid representative-direct democracy.

You missed the point by a mile, I give up.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Yes you did, you had the opportunity as a vote in a general election last year to elect a government to represent you.

One word that blows that hoary old election promises nonsense out of it's murky waters.....Gilmore. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Treaty didn't even exist at the time of the GE so the govt does not have a mandate to ratify. That is why it is holding this referendum - to obtain such a mandate. We are not a representative democracy. We are a hybrid representative-direct democracy.

You're mixing up "mandate to ratify" with "mandate to negotiate". The government has a permanent standing mandate to conduct negotiations on our behalf.

As for being bound by the Treaty - you're not bound by anything here yet, and are free to vote No. But if the result is a Yes, and the government ratifies, you are not free to make your own law - you are bound by the law of the land. So if the government ratifies a treaty legally, you are bound by it. After all, that's why you're voting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

It sounds like Freeman on the Land stuff, to be frank.

's what I said.

Happyman42 wrote: »

So what you are saying in reality is: Because the government think this is a good deal, and in order not to cause them to act in bad faith, we should roll over and accept it? Is that your version of a fair and working democracy?

That's a rather strained interpretation of what I've said, but I'll play along. I'm not saying how people should vote on it. I'm saying that the government that negotiated and signed the treaty should act in good faith by doing what they can to ratify the treaty. If the electorate deny them permission to ratify the treaty, they will still have acted in good faith.

If that isn't what you think please answer the question to the best of your knowledge and less of the patronising guff. What does or will Enda do if we say No.

If we refuse to allow the government permission to ratify the treaty, then the government won't ratify the treaty. That's the same answer I gave you the first time you asked the question. If you want me to answer a different question, ask a different one.

No, I am saying the 'system is flawed' :rolleyes:

That's just empty rhetoric. You're criticising the government for negotiating and signing a treaty, and then asking the electorate for permission to ratify it. You described that process as "putting the cart before the horse", which implies that the negotiation and signing is the cart and the referendum is the horse, which in turn implies that you want to have the referendum on the treaty before it's negotiated and signed.

If that's not what you meant, you'll have to explain yourself more clearly, I'm afraid.

swampgas

Happyman42 wrote: »

So what you are saying in reality is: Because the government think this is a good deal, and in order not to cause them to act in bad faith, we should roll over and accept it? Is that your version of a fair and working democracy?

Please stop with the "roll over and accept it" rubbish. If you can demonstrate that the government could have got a better deal, go for it.

And yes, we do live in a reasonably fair and working democracy - it's not perfect, but it's not Somalia or Syria either.

Happyman42

swampgas wrote: »

Please stop with the "roll over and accept it" rubbish. If you can demonstrate that the government could have got a better deal, go for it.

What else is it that they are asking us to do? The constant mantra from our leaders is that anybody considering a No is an idiot. Anybody considering making a political gesture and a protest is from some nebulous co-joined lunatic fringe despite the fact that those in the No camp are more nunaced and complex than the Yes side. Seems to me that the Yes side is made up of business interests and those least affected by austerity.

Could successive governments have gotten a better deal? Yes they could if they had put the Irish people first.
Trying to steamroller this treaty through has done more harm to the EU than anything I know of since we joined.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

The constant mantra from our leaders is that anybody considering a No is an idiot.

[citation needed]

Anybody considering making a political gesture and a protest is from some nebulous co-joined lunatic fringe despite the fact that those in the No camp are more nunaced and complex than the Yes side.

Voting 'no' as a political gesture is equally stupid to voting 'yes' as a political gesture. Vote on the treaty.

Seems to me that the Yes side is made up of business interests...

Well, we wouldn't want to do anything that's good for business, would we?

Could successive governments have gotten a better deal? Yes they could if they had put the Irish people first.
Trying to steamroller this treaty through has done more harm to the EU than anything I know of since we joined.

That's all just rhetoric, I'm afraid. Again, it's very easy to claim that a better deal could have been achieved when you're not the one that has to negotiate it. I believe the technical term is "hurler on the ditch".

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a rather strained interpretation of what I've said, but I'll play along. I'm not saying how people should vote on it. I'm saying that the government that negotiated and signed the treaty should act in good faith by doing what they can to ratify the treaty. If the electorate deny them permission to ratify the treaty, they will still have acted in good faith. If we refuse to allow the government permission to ratify the treaty, then the government won't ratify the treaty. That's the same answer I gave you the first time you asked the question. If you want me to answer a different question, ask a different one.

I'm more interested in what happens after we can't ratify. But anyway; don't you think that the system is flawed to the point of being reckless? We all know that Referenda can go down for a myriad of reasons; a ministers performance or gaffe can be enough to sway a close vote, a taoiseach's refusal to debate can be a factor, loads of stuff with nothing to do with the issues can affect the outcome, (Lisbon being a case in point) yet they have to risk the consequences of a No vote.(the risks outlined ad infinitum by Noonan, Gilmore etc)
Is that a system that is without flaw? Unless of course the risks outlined are not risks at all.

That's just empty rhetoric. You're criticising the government for negotiating and signing a treaty, and then asking the electorate for permission to ratify it. You described that process as "putting the cart before the horse", which implies that the negotiation and signing is the cart and the referendum is the horse, which in turn implies that you want to have the referendum on the treaty before it's negotiated and signed.

If that's not what you meant, you'll have to explain yourself more clearly, I'm afraid.

I'm saying again, the system is flawed to the point of being reckless.