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

swampgas

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

To my mind the biggest flaw in the current system is that we need a referendum at all. Elect a government in a general election, and let them get on with it.

Happyman42

swampgas wrote: »

To my mind the biggest flaw in the current system is that we need a referendum at all. Elect a government in a general election, and let them get on with it.

A government that says one thing to get elected and then, when elected, does another?
I'll keep my referenda, if that's alright with you!

ixtlan

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

Well this I agree with, but I'm not sure we agree on the solution... The solution I see is that we should have fewer referendums. Major major changes should go to referendum, but our bar is too low, especially in this case.

I find it amusing that the No side believes a No will strength the government's hand to get something better. I believe the opposite. As others have commented the government has acted in good faith, so their EU counterparts are not going to treat them as villains, just as incompetents, for whom it's not really worth granting concessions because they can't keep up their side of the bargain.

Ix

swampgas

Happyman42 wrote: »

A government that says one thing to get elected and then, when elected, does another?
I'll keep my referenda, if that's alright with you!

Sure - and that's a fair enough point.

Mind you if the electorate didn't keep voting for the parties offering the most populist policies, we wouldn't see so many of them lying through their teeth to get elected.

ixtlan

Happyman42 wrote: »

A government that says one thing to get elected and then, when elected, does another?
I'll keep my referenda, if that's alright with you!

In all honesty though I'd like you to expand you your solution to the flaw. You clearly understand the problem of electing a government to negotiate a complex important international treaty and then having no guarantee that it can actually get it ratified.

Fewer, or no referenda fixes that. What's your solution if you want to keep referenda?

Ix.

Happyman42

ixtlan wrote: »

In all honesty though I'd like you to expand you your solution to the flaw. You clearly understand the problem of electing a government to negotiate a complex important international treaty and then having no guarantee that it can actually get it ratified.

Fewer, or no referenda fixes that. What's your solution if you want to keep referenda?

Ix.

Well, my growing belief is that we need a root and branch examination and fixing of the EU project. The currency is flawed, and the flaws in how its particular brand of democracy works are getting more evident as the crisis deepens. It is getting to the 'back to the drawing board' stage very fast. If it goes on it's merry way and no reform takes place then it will implode, of that I am sure.
Referenda is not the point or the crisis.

Just to add, I am a long time supporter of the EU project, but this time, because of what has been revealed, I actually want that change above or I want it to fail. This constant merry go round of boom and bust and being at the whim of the economic pariahs is wrong, wrong for me now, and wrong for my childrens future.
That is why I am (at this stage) making a political decision and voting No. I did not turn it into a political choice, that choice was made by others, hellbent on copperfastening their positions at the expense of others. The EU has failed us.
If we are left in the cold because we say no, so be it, I would rather suffer and go it alone and have some kind of future than stay in a union that is patently unequal and will consign us to the slag heap when it suits. If I have to leave my children to an airport in the future I want to be able to say...I did something to attempt a change. Because sure as a dog gets fleas, they will be in the position I am in now if the staus quo remains as it is.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

What I am saying is the system is flawed. It shouldn't work like that.

And I'm asking what do you propose they do?

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.

Pressured? We already have a lot of this through Maastricht and the Government stuck to them for a good few years. I don't think FG or Labour had any problems with these rules before the negotiations, unless you've some evidence that either party was against them it's just a conspiracy theory in your head.

Ozymandius2011

Very encouraging poll for the no side.

dvpower

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Very encouraging poll for the no side.

What? The boards poll?

If the No side are supposed to be encouraged by the results of a boards.ie poll, then I think its game over.

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Strangely it is a problem for you as well as all involved, CS, PR or the puppets all have their own interests at heart before their countries.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

And I'm asking what do you propose they do?



Pressured? We already have a lot of this through Maastricht and the Government stuck to them for a good few years. I don't think FG or Labour had any problems with these rules before the negotiations, unless you've some evidence that either party was against them it's just a conspiracy theory in your head.

Are you saying that no pressure, overt or implied is placed on peripheral states? Are you really saying that?

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you saying that no pressure, overt or implied is placed on peripheral states? Are you really saying that?

On this Treaty? No. It seems to be rhetorical questions so do you have backed up examples or is this more conspiracy stuff.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

On this Treaty? No. It seems to be rhetorical questions so do you have backed up examples or is this more conspiracy stuff.

Be as slippery as you want, whatever, can't be arsed dragging it out. I know the answer.

Godge

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Very encouraging poll for the no side.

If you mean the boards poll, it is actually quite the opposite. A 54% no vote on boards would indicate to me, based on previous boards polls, that this referendum is going to be heavily defeated.

The sides in this referendum break down as follows: FG, Lab and FF for, SF, ULA and the motley crew against.

Take a look at this:
http://www.boards.ie/vote/

What does it indicate? Well it shows that in the general election, boards posters under-represented FG, Lab and FF and over-represented SF, ULA and the others. Therefore, in order to ensure a clear victory for the "No" side in the real thing, you would probably need a "No" vote in the boards poll somewhere in the region of 70% or more.

The boards poll at its current state still suggests that in the real poll, between 55-60% will vote yes.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Be as slippery as you want, whatever, can't be arsed dragging it out. I know the answer.

Excuse me but you are the one coming up with vague nonsense, I'm the one asking questions which you seem to have an inability to answer.

Sham Courtney

I'm not registered to vote. Was too late with my papers. I think I would have voted YES after the Frontline programme.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Strangely it is a problem for you as well as all involved, CS, PR or the puppets all have their own interests at heart before their countries.

People like to make this kind of claim, but all it really means, though, is that you personally disagree with what they've negotiated, and that what you want is - to you - so blindingly obviously the right thing that the only possible explanation is that the people negotiating are acting according to other motives.

It's largely meaningless, but it does insult the people who actually work on Ireland's behalf.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Excuse me but you are the one coming up with vague nonsense, I'm the one asking questions which you seem to have an inability to answer.

Vague nonsense? I asked you....Do you really think that pressure isn't brought to bear on peripheral states. You answered; 'in terms of this treaty, no'.
Now, (bear with me here,) 'states' is plural....right? What in my question, makes you think I was asking about this country........go on....I'll give you a few minutes to answer that (then I'm off out to the garden for a glass of Spains finest wine and some Feta nibbles.

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

Vague nonsense? I asked you....Do you really think that pressure isn't brought to bear on peripheral states. You answered; 'in terms of this treaty, no'.
Now, (bear with me here,) 'states' is plural....right? What in my question, makes you think I was asking about this country........go on....I'll give you a few minutes to answer that (then I'm off out to the garden for a glass of Spains finest wine and some Feta nibbles.

K-9 referred to 'this treaty' which applies to many countries (not to 'this referendum' which only applies to this country).

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Vague nonsense? I asked you....Do you really think that pressure isn't brought to bear on peripheral states. You answered; 'in terms of this treaty, no'.
Now, (bear with me here,) 'states' is plural....right? What in my question, makes you think I was asking about this country........go on....I'll give you a few minutes to answer that (then I'm off out to the garden for a glass of Spains finest wine and some Feta nibbles.

No to that as well, can't think of any in relation to this treaty, after all these rules are mostly already there. So unless you can provide this information you have but seem very wary in producing.....................

hatrickpatrick

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).

I'm not getting into a debate about this here, I've been rightly warned against it by mods before, but we all know how flawed that article is. Please don't drag us down this road again.
The only parties you could vote for to oppose this treaty also support a whole bunch of unrelated policies which a lot of us DON'T want. This is why representative democracy as we practice it fails.

In the meantime, thank God our constitution gives the people of this country at least some opportunity to overrule the vested interests in our political establishment from time to time. Not suggesting we always should, of course, merely applauding the fact that we are given that opportunity instead of handing them absolute power for 5 totally unaccountable years.

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

People like to make this kind of claim, but all it really means, though, is that you personally disagree with what they've negotiated, and that what you want is - to you - so blindingly obviously the right thing that the only possible explanation is that the people negotiating are acting according to other motives.

It's largely meaningless, but it does insult the people who actually work on Ireland's behalf.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The only person I can see working on Ireland's behalf is the president. I didn't vote for him but I respect the fact that he is making an effort to show Ireland in a positive light. The only others I can see working on Ireland's behalf are business people. If there are those in politics or the civil servants who feel insulted they only have themselves to blame.

I'm sorry mate but there is not much evidence that Irish politicians or Irish civil servants genuinely work for the betterment of Ireland and a lot of evidence that they are out for themselves in the first instance and doing so without getting caught in the second. If the ruling parties were really interested in Ireland they would adopt austerity personally, start claiming the industrial average wage and forgo all pension claims until the age of 67, and the civil servants would volunteer to tear up the Croke Park agreement. They would drop taxes and vat because that is the only known provable method of increasing the tax take and getting the country growing. They would argue against nonsensical and detrimental Eu laws and directives.

The only thing that is blindingly obvious to me is that there are few politicians that can be trusted, and fewer who have any intelligence. Democracy is a great idea and can work well in some cases but frequently it only goes to show that crowd intelligence does not always make the right decisions. Our political leaders are not elected on their ability to perform but on their ability to win votes or work a deal to from coalitions.
I go out and vote in general elections but to be honest there is no one I actually want to vote for. I vote out of a sense of duty to maintain my democratic right and to reduce the possibility of those I do not like getting a higher percentage.

As for the treaty, regardless of who thought it up or why I need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that it is in Ireland's best interests. I pick and choose where I get my advice from and in general avoid that of politicians and civil servants and look to independent professionals and academics.
As it is the people I can trust and respect are advocating a No vote.

The only argument in favour is access to ESM funds and that presumes failure. That is no reason to vote yes.
The argument that this treaty will impose fiscal constraints that will be detrimental in the future is compelling.

The EU is in an economic crisis - it behoves us to take the economic view point.

Economically there is no merit to this treaty.

hatrickpatrick

StealthRolex wrote: »

The argument that this treaty will impose fiscal constraints that will be detrimental in the future is compelling.

This is precisely why I'm on the no side, so far. I have yet to be convinced that this treaty - regardless of its short term effects - won't hurt us in the future. Its policies are short sighted and misguided - and as I've said before, (in my opinion) address the wrong problem.
I tire of my bandage analogy so here's a new one: It's like trying to use a screwdriver turn a bolt, when what you really need is a wrench or a spanner. And in the meantime, forcefully trying to use the screwdriver in the wrong context could damage the bolt, so that when a wrench is finally available, the bolt will be two screwed up (no pun intended) to be turned.

StealthRolex

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is precisely why I'm on the no side, so far. I have yet to be convinced that this treaty - regardless of its short term effects - won't hurt us in the future. Its policies are short sighted and misguided - and as I've said before, (in my opinion) address the wrong problem.
I tire of my bandage analogy so here's a new one: It's like trying to use a screwdriver turn a bolt, when what you really need is a wrench or a spanner. And in the meantime, forcefully trying to use the screwdriver in the wrong context could damage the bolt, so that when a wrench is finally available, the bolt will be two screwed up (no pun intended) to be turned.

or putting an anorexic on a diet

(that's not my analogy btw)

K-9

StealthRolex wrote: »

The only argument in favour is access to ESM funds and that presumes failure. That is no reason to vote yes.
The argument that this treaty will impose fiscal constraints that will be detrimental in the future is compelling.

Our market rates have nose dived over the last year so some do have faith in the economic management of the country. It is conceivable we might not need another bailout. What will make that less likely is EU turmoil which bumped up our rate last week. Even if we do need a second bailout it will be for a much smaller sum and more manageable.

jetfiremuck

K-9 wrote: »

StealthRolex wrote: »

The only argument in favour is access to ESM funds and that presumes failure. That is no reason to vote yes.
The argument that this treaty will impose fiscal constraints that will be detrimental in the future is compelling.

Our market rates have nose dived over the last year so some do have faith in the economic management of the country. It is conceivable we might not need another bailout. What will make that less likely is EU turmoil which bumped up our rate last week. Even if we do need a second bailout it will be for a much smaller sum and more manageable.

And who decides if we can access more money..,, what if the low corporation tax is on the table in exchange.... I fear that there is a socialistic mentality creeping throughout Europe where every thing is dictated by Europe..., the same rate etc

jetfiremuck

K-9 wrote: »

StealthRolex wrote: »

The only argument in favour is access to ESM funds and that presumes failure. That is no reason to vote yes.
The argument that this treaty will impose fiscal constraints that will be detrimental in the future is compelling.

Our market rates have nose dived over the last year so some do have faith in the economic management of the country. It is conceivable we might not need another bailout. What will make that less likely is EU turmoil which bumped up our rate last week. Even if we do need a second bailout it will be for a much smaller sum and more manageable.

And who decides if we can access more money..,, what if the low corporation tax is on the table in exchange.... I fear that there is a socialistic mentality creeping throughout Europe where every thing is dictated by Europe..., the same rate etc

Hotblack Desiato

jetfiremuck wrote: »

And who decides if we can access more money..,,

The lenders. Like any financial transaction

what if the low corporation tax is on the table in exchange....

It's not, that's purely an Irish sovereign matter, and many of the countries which will be in the ESM support the right of nation states to set their own corporate taxation.

I fear that there is a socialistic mentality creeping throughout Europe where every thing is dictated by Europe..., the same rate etc

Look east, the EU is more than France and Germany, eastern Europe is far less socialistic/statist for obvious reasons. Some of them even have lower corp tax than we do, how do you think they'd feel about us being forced to increase it?

If you're at odds with the leftists worldview, and supporting the same POV on the referendum as ULA, SF, PBP et al, why is that?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is precisely why I'm on the no side, so far. I have yet to be convinced that this treaty - regardless of its short term effects - won't hurt us in the future. Its policies are short sighted and misguided - and as I've said before, (in my opinion) address the wrong problem.
I tire of my bandage analogy so here's a new one: It's like trying to use a screwdriver turn a bolt, when what you really need is a wrench or a spanner. And in the meantime, forcefully trying to use the screwdriver in the wrong context could damage the bolt, so that when a wrench is finally available, the bolt will be two screwed up (no pun intended) to be turned.

You know yourself and stealthrolex keep peddling this line. No serious economist is advocating a "no" vote. Independent agencies like NTMA and the Central Bank call for a "yes" vote.

It is only the madmen of the left (SF/ULA) and the madmen of the right who are calling for a "no".

jetfiremuck

ninja900 wrote: »

jetfiremuck wrote: »

And who decides if we can access more money..,,

The lenders. Like any fin
ancial transaction

what if the low corporation tax is on the table in exchange....

It's not, that's purely an Irish sovereign matter, and many of the countries which will be in the ESM support the right of nation states to set their own corporate taxation.

I fear that there is a socialistic mentality creeping throughout Europe where every thing is dictated by Europe..., the same rate etc

Look east, the EU is more than France and Germany, eastern Europe is far less socialistic/statist for obvious reasons. Some of them even have lower corp tax than we do, how do you think they'd feel about us being forced to increase it?

It was sarkosy and Merkel who were the central figures dictating the policy's that suited themselves and protected their interests. We are not getting an interest free loan from the IMF or Ecb . Regarding soverignty. Doesn't mean much if you ask me if as decisions will be dictated from Europe which the yes crowd can't wait to vote yes .