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

carveone

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the Article that says the ESM can do it, and it's specific about who the loan is to. There isn't anything I can see in the Treaty which contradicts it - certainly not the articles you're citing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Guardian Business blog says the same thing (hope I get it right this time!):

Draghi's remarks this morning presumably mean that the ESM firewall would need to be deployed for a banking union, perhaps for the direct recapitalisation of Spanish banks. This is not possible under the treaty setting up the ESM. The money can only go to governments which can then funnel it to the banks. For that to happen, though, a government has to request a bailout with all that that implies - humiliation, very tight strings attached.

Not sure this helps at all

FreudianSlippers

Heads the ball wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I am on the touch site. Can you put the relevant part here so I can see what you're referring to?

My legislative drafting courses have been coming in quite handy the past few years :P

Yes:

A15.2:
The conditionality attached to financial assistance for the re-capitalisation of an ESM Member's financial institutions shall be detailed in the MoU, in accordance with Article 13(3).

A13.3:

3. If a decision pursuant to paragraph 2 is adopted, the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission – in liaison with the ECB and, wherever possible, together with the IMF – with the task of negotiating, with the ESM Member concerned, a memorandum of understanding (an "MoU") detailing the conditionality attached to the financial assistance facility. The content of the MoU shall reflect the severity of the weaknesses to be addressed and the financial assistance instrument chosen. In parallel, the Managing Director of the ESM shall prepare a proposal for a financial assistance facility agreement, including the financial terms and conditions and the choice of instruments, to be adopted by the Board of Governors.

The MoU shall be fully consistent with the measures of economic policy coordination provided for in the TFEU, in particular with any act of European Union law, including any opinion, warning, recommendation or decision addressed to the ESM Member concerned.

There is nothing unusual there, lenders of last resort always apply a MoU which is negotiated with the borrower.
The board gets no special control here, in fact it's clear that they play no real part leaving it to the MS and the lenders to sort out. Maybe I'm missing your point though?

molloyjh

goat2 wrote: »

i was going to vote, until this morning, and knowing this is big, but not knowing how big, there should have been proper debating, people were evading questions in most of the discussions of television, when there is uncertainty like that by the people who are supposed to know,
it is bound to rub of on us the people of the country watching it, there was nothing but evasion and evasion of important questions, which leads me to beleive that we dont know what we are voting for, so i would rather stay away from something i dont fully understand.

The Referendum Commission sent around a leaflet and have a website with all the info you need. It also contains the link to the Treaty text itself. The Treaty isn't that long or complicated. All these things have been available to you for weeks (if not longer). You've had amble opportunity to find this stuff out on your own.

I must say it is very dis-heartening to see people not voting because they don't understand something when the information is there. How seriously do we as a people actually take our democracy? It's just really sad that over the last 10 years we've seen people fight and die and brave death for democracy in other nations, yet here we can't even read a website or a leaflet.

Villain wrote: »

It may well be that were incompetent but many people spoke of how smart Lenihan was after he sadly passed away. It was Bertie who was in charge when these banks were pretty much unregulated. Our Government failed to do what was right for the people and Guranteed debt that belongs to banks. Those who bought the bonds took a gamble not the the Irish Electorate yet it's the Irish Electorate that has to pay for it and our Taoiseach hasn't even asked for a writedown despite the IMF saying we should and you and OscarBravo think we should trust the Government and trust the boys and girls in Brussels and repay all this debt while driving our economy deeper and deeper into despair?

So because the Government that we, the Irish taxpayer, elected (continually) didn't properly regulate our banking sector and because we drove the economy here in the direction it went it should be someone other than us that takes responsibility for that. So what are we responsible for? Anything? Or are we poor harmless little victims that have been trampled on by our Government (that we elected), our banks (that we happily took cheap credit off) and the EU (which has given us so much over the years)? :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Respectfully I disagree as this treaty has no ones interests at heart but Germany.

Amazing how the heads of state of so many countries can sit down and negotiate something that has none of their interests at heart bar one.

You must have a phenomenal amount of respect for Angela Merkel's negotiating skills, and none whatsoever for anyone else's.

jmc1243

No

antoobrien

StealthRolex wrote: »

Did he not say 500 million?

No 5-10 billion (though it could just be the shockingly bad reporting of his comments).

Claire Daly (I think) said somewheer between 500m &2 bn this week

Edit - ffs I just came back from lunch and there's 5 pages of posts since my previous post. don't you people have jobs?

shocksy

A definate NO, an it will give me great pleasure in ticking the NO box.

Heads the ball

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is nothing unusual there, lenders of last resort always apply a MoU which is negotiated with the borrower.
The board gets no special control here, in fact it's clear that they play no real part leaving it to the MS and the lenders to sort out. Maybe I'm missing your point though?

It is less than certain that the ESM Treaty would prevent a loan to a member state being novated (or in some other way passed on) to the underlying financial institution, thereby meaning that we (the Irish people) would, by contributing to the fund, be bailing out a Spanish bank.

Your point above doesnt raise anything substantive which would change my opinion on that.

(The argument arose earlier with someone on the Yes side who he conceded that he would view the operation of the ESM as "criminal", in his words, if we were bailing out other people's debts without recourse).

carveone

molloyjh wrote: »

I must say it is very dis-heartening to see people not voting because they don't understand something when the information is there. How seriously do we as a people actually take our democracy? It's just really sad that over the last 10 years we've seen people fight and die and brave death for democracy in other nations, yet here we can't even read a website or a leaflet.

The turnout seems to be terrible. Maybe it's the rain and maybe more people will vote later. We'll have to see. Contrast the lively (and battering) debate on these forums with the disinterest outside... it's kinda depressing.

100% turnout on Inishfree though! Irish Times reports that the only man to actually live there cast his vote. He then treated the returning officer to a tune his saxophone. Cool

FreudianSlippers

Heads the ball wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is nothing unusual there, lenders of last resort always apply a MoU which is negotiated with the borrower.
The board gets no special control here, in fact it's clear that they play no real part leaving it to the MS and the lenders to sort out. Maybe I'm missing your point though?

It is less than certain that the ESM Treaty would prevent a loan to a member state being novated (or in some other way passed on) to the underlying financial institution, thereby meaning that we (the Irish people) would, by contributing to the fund, be bailing out a Spanish bank.

Your point above doesnt raise anything substantive which would change my opinion on that.

(The argument arose earlier with someone on the Yes side who he conceded that he would view the operation of the ESM as "criminal", in his words, if we were bailing out other people's debts without recourse).

As I said before, one cannot legislate for all eventualities. It has to be trusted that the MoU would contain the provision you envisage if appropriate. It's an insurance fund effectively; do you get a say where your insurance premium goes?

antoobrien

carveone wrote: »

The turnout seems to be terrible. Maybe it's the rain and maybe more people will vote later. We'll have to see. Contrast the lively (and battering) debate on these forums with the disinterest outside... it's kinda depressing.

100% turnout on Inishfree though! Irish Times reports that the only man to actually live there cast his vote. He then treated the returning officer to a tune his saxophone. Cool

Turnout is usually bad early in the day. Most people that vote tend to do so after work.

goat2

Quote:
Originally Posted by goat2
i was going to vote, until this morning, and knowing this is big, but not knowing how big, there should have been proper debating, people were evading questions in most of the discussions of television, when there is uncertainty like that by the people who are supposed to know,
it is bound to rub of on us the people of the country watching it, there was nothing but evasion and evasion of important questions, which leads me to beleive that we dont know what we are voting for, so i would rather stay away from something i dont fully understand.

posted by molloyjh

The Referendum Commission sent around a leaflet and have a website with all the info you need. It also contains the link to the Treaty text itself. The Treaty isn't that long or complicated. All these things have been available to you for weeks (if not longer). You've had amble opportunity to find this stuff out on your own.

I must say it is very dis-heartening to see people not voting because they don't understand something when the information is there. How seriously do we as a people actually take our democracy? It's just really sad that over the last 10 years we've seen people fight and die and brave death for democracy in other nations, yet here we can't even read a website or a leaflet.

in answer molloyjh



indeed i did read it from cover to cover, yet when i came to the end, i did pick up some of it but not fully understand more of it, and was this book put together by the heads of the european union or here in ireland.
then when i watched the debates on television, and what was most remarkable to me was, that our top man could not come on any of the debates to send his side of the arguement acorss, which to me personally shows, that he may not know what we really signing ourselves up to, while those he did send were not able to answer all of what was put before them,
even joan burton from labour, she who would be the best of the lot of them at getting her point across, was evading questions,

FreudianSlippers

antoobrien wrote: »

carveone wrote: »

The turnout seems to be terrible. Maybe it's the rain and maybe more people will vote later. We'll have to see. Contrast the lively (and battering) debate on these forums with the disinterest outside... it's kinda depressing.

100% turnout on Inishfree though! Irish Times reports that the only man to actually live there cast his vote. He then treated the returning officer to a tune his saxophone. Cool

Turnout is usually bad early in the day. Most people that vote tend to do so after work.

What about all the 'no' voters that don't have to work?


KIDDING. Obvious joke should be obvious!

niamhish

On the way to the polling station to vote YES.

beeftotheheels

Heads the ball wrote: »

It is less than certain that the ESM Treaty would prevent a loan to a member state being novated (or in some other way passed on) to the underlying financial institution, thereby meaning that we (the Irish people) would, by contributing to the fund, be bailing out a Spanish bank.

Your point above doesnt raise anything substantive which would change my opinion on that.

(The argument arose earlier with someone on the Yes side who he conceded that he would view the operation of the ESM as "criminal", in his words, if we were bailing out other people's debts without recourse).

It is clear that the loan has to be made to the MS regardless of what you would like to believe.

It is perfectly clear that the Governors have flexibility to determine the terms of that loan, the novation of a loan is not a term of the loan and as such the board have no such power.

It would be ultra vires and this argument is getting very tired.

The ESM treaty also doesn't specifically state that the ESM may not blow the entire fund on jelly beans and tip them into the mid-atlantic. Do you lose sleep over that risk too?

antoobrien

goat2 wrote: »

then when i watched the debates on television, and what was most remarkable to me was, that our top man could not come on any of the debates to send his side of the arguement acorss, which to me personally shows, that he may not know what we really signing ourselves up to, while those he did send were not able to answer all of what was put before them,
even joan burton from labour, she who would be the best of the lot of them at getting her point across, was evading questions,

When companies sell products its most often not the CEO they send out but a designated specialist in the area. So why people think that it's a bad thing that the head of the country continues running the country and letting people like Lucinda Creighton (who is the minster for Europe) do their jobs is beyond me.

StealthRolex

oscarBravo wrote: »

Amazing how the heads of state of so many countries can sit down and negotiate something that has none of their interests at heart bar one.

You must have a phenomenal amount of respect for Angela Merkel's negotiating skills, and none whatsoever for anyone else's.

Perhaps ask Neville Chamberlain.

Heads the ball

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As I said before, one cannot legislate for all eventualities. It has to be trusted that the MoU would contain the provision you envisage if appropriate. It's an insurance fund effectively; do you get a say where your insurance premium goes?

OK thank you. I dont see anything here which contrdicts my position.

I think the Yes siders who were going toe to toe with me (such as beefontheheels etc...) have dropped off this line of argument presumably because they saw that I was right (or perhaps they just went back to work) - either way, if anyone wants to challenge that position please do but if not it would be nice for the yes side to now acknowledge that the ESM may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread and there are risks inherent in it.

FreudianSlippers

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

It is less than certain that the ESM Treaty would prevent a loan to a member state being novated (or in some other way passed on) to the underlying financial institution, thereby meaning that we (the Irish people) would, by contributing to the fund, be bailing out a Spanish bank.

Your point above doesnt raise anything substantive which would change my opinion on that.

(The argument arose earlier with someone on the Yes side who he conceded that he would view the operation of the ESM as "criminal", in his words, if we were bailing out other people's debts without recourse).

It is clear that the loan has to be made to the MS regardless of what you would like to believe.

It is perfectly clear that the Governors have flexibility to determine the terms of that loan, the novation of a loan is not a term of the loan and as such the board have no such power.

It would be ultra vires and this argument is getting very tired.

The ESM treaty also doesn't specifically state that the ESM may not blow the entire fund on jelly beans and tip them into the mid-atlantic. Do you lose sleep over that risk too?

I had a dream last night that Germany went back to the DM and I had to face this thread, but it was like in person... Now I'll have a dream about this, thanks!

FreudianSlippers

Heads the ball wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As I said before, one cannot legislate for all eventualities. It has to be trusted that the MoU would contain the provision you envisage if appropriate. It's an insurance fund effectively; do you get a say where your insurance premium goes?

OK thank you. I dont see anything here which contrdicts my position.

I think the Yes siders who were going toe to toe with me (such as beefontheheels etc...) have dropped off this line of argument presumably because they saw that I was right (or perhaps they just went back to work) - either way, if anyone wants to challenge that position please do but if not it would be nice for the yes side to now acknowledge that the ESM may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread and there are risks inherent in it.

See beeftotheheels point re jelly beans

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

.

Explain this to me in short sentences, and without the tedious rhetorical flourishes: how does greed explain the actions of the member state governments in drafting this treaty?

They want the staus quo to remain. Namely The Euro.
Why?
In the vain and mistaken belief that they (the pariahs) can continue to profit.

The Euro is a young currency. Because of the flaw in it's setting up, the pariahs circled and fed on the booms across the Eurozone (something caused those booms) But that frenzy has a limited duration.
Germany though, is still feeding happily on the profits it can make on the existence of the Euro, that is why they want it to survive and that is why it hasn't naturally collapsed.

There is no conspiracy Oscar, it's precisely the same thing that happened with Intervention, the flaw fed the greed. But as in Intervention, the foodsource will eventually run out.
You don't need to be a highly qualified economist to analyse what is happening, they actually seem unable to step away from the carcass and see that it is disappearing. Not one of them has called it right and they seem unable to come to a cohesive course of action to sort it out.

Heads the ball

beeftotheheels wrote: »

the novation of a loan is not a term of the loan and as such the board have no such power.

This is not backed up by any substantive analysis. You should prefix it with "I think."

FreudianSlippers

Heads the ball wrote: »

beeftotheheels wrote: »

the novation of a loan is not a term of the loan and as such the board have no such power.

This is not backed up by any substantive analysis. You should prefix it with "I think."

It's a legal term and a legal truth. Novation is consensual obligation, not a term such as an assignment, etc. It's fairly basic finance law.

goat2

antoobrien wrote: »

When companies sell products its most often not the CEO they send out but a designated specialist in the area. So why people think that it's a bad thing that the head of the country continues running the country and letting people like Lucinda Creighton (who is the minster for Europe) do their jobs is beyond me.

selling toilet paper and coffee beans is different to selling us on the future of our children, the coffee if we do not like it we can put in bin and never buy again, but this treaty is going to be here with our children and grandchildren, different,
and anyway since it is the most important issue for mr kenny with the past week to get this thing through, he could have taken part on these discussions, after all it is most important issue

Villain

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

My problem with your line of thought is that you are speaking as if the bank debt is yet to be repayed, it isn't, it's already been paid.

Unfortunately we are now past the point of that decision, it's done, and cannot be undone.

We do have other options, you may not like them and you may believe they would be worse than our chosen path but we do have options.

I have still yet to hear why the IMF was wrong to state we should look for a write down on our debt and why Kenny is right to ignore them?

beeftotheheels

Heads the ball wrote: »

This is not backed up by any substantive analysis. You should prefix it with "I think."

Oh Lord, you're like that looney federal Judge in The Good Wife "In my opinion"!

I don't think, I have provided substantive analysis which agrees with the position of the Commission, Mario Draghi, Angela Merkel etc.

The only interpretation of 15(1) is that loans may be made to MSs.

The rest of Article 15 has to be read as adding to, rather than altering that (that is how we read treaties), although I cannot read anything in the subsequent provisions as being capable of altering that.

In pretty clear and simple English the Board may negotiate the terms of the loan, and the terms of the banking recap.

Novating a loan is not a term of a loan, it is the alteration of the counter-party of the loan once negotiated, to a counter-party who is not a signatory of the Treaty with no rights or obligations under that treaty.

If the board did that, absent such consent, they would be acting ultra-vires such that any such acts would be illegal.

All of which is a moot point because of who the board are and therefore they would have no motivation to risk their capital in that manner.

Jellybeans.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Heads the ball wrote: »

(The argument arose earlier with someone on the Yes side who he conceded that he would view the operation of the ESM as "criminal", in his words, if we were bailing out other people's debts without recourse).

That was me and I have no problem with advancing loans to member states, on the condition that the ESM is the most senior creditor.

What I described as criminal was the idea that we should not repay the German taxpayer it's loans, because we bailed out our own banks.

And further, if an individual Member State borrowed from the ESM to bail out the banks, and then refused to pay back the ESM, then yes, that would be criminal, on their part, not the ESMs!

Heads the ball

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's a legal term and a legal truth. Novation is consensual obligation, not a term such as an assignment, etc. It's fairly basic finance law.

I agree it is consensual. It is not precluded by the Treaty as far as I can see. Feel free to send me on the relevant article.

Furthermore I dont see an article which would prevent a loan agreement containing a term which would offer a concession to the member state regarding repayment should its bank go bust.

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Perhaps ask Neville Chamberlain.

Nothing like a snappy comeback to avoid answering a question. Come back to me when you have something to say.

Happyman42 wrote: »

They want the staus quo to remain. Namely The Euro.
Why?
In the vain and mistaken belief that they (the pariahs) can continue to profit.

Oh look, another rhetorical flourish. Now the democratically elected governments of the member states are outcasts.

Can you stow the emotional language and actually just make a point?

The Euro is a young currency. Because of the flaw in it's setting up, the pariahs circled and fed on the booms across the Eurozone (something caused those booms) But that frenzy has a limited duration.
Germany though, is still feeding happily on the profits it can make on the existence of the Euro, that is why they want it to survive and that is why it hasn't naturally collapsed.

So you're subscribing to StealthRolex's completely unsubstantiated view that the governments of all the member states are putting Germany's interests ahead of their own countries', in order to "profit". Right.

You don't need to be a highly qualified economist to analyse what is happening, they actually seem unable to step away from the carcass and see that it is disappearing. Not one of them has called it right and they seem unable to come to a cohesive course of action to sort it out.

And, any minute now, you'll finally outline what that course of action is.

Or not.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Villain wrote: »

We do have other options, you may not like them and you may believe they would be worse than our chosen path but we do have options.

I have still yet to hear why the IMF was wrong to state we should look for a write down on our debt and why Kenny is right to ignore them?

I've yet to hear what you're talking about, you can start with links to exactly what 'the IMF' said, and exactly what Kenny said.