Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

Scofflaw

ascanbe wrote: »

If it's understood, as even our government and all those calling for a yes vote seem to be line with, that there may be additions/addendums to this treaty in the pipe-line, would it not make sense to postpone this referendum until it's clear what, exactly, it entails?

Would anyone here sign a contract put in front them by someone saying 'well, there may be some changes made to this contract/addendums made after you sign up to it, and of course these changes/addendums will be set-in-stone/ will apply to you as you agreed to that, but don't worry, any changes we make will definitely be in your best interest'.

Anyone who would sign such a contract would be an idiot.

True, but that's not what's on offer. If the treaty is renegotiated, it has to be signed again, and the amendment we're voting on names a specific signing date.

So if the Treaty is renegotiated, this referendum result won't apply to it. Which does mean voting again, but in neither case are you voting blind - if you vote Yes/No at this referendum, you're voting Yes/No to this version and only this version.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Seaneh wrote:

Just to add to this.

Voting NO will not, in any way, mean we won't get another bail out and I shall explain why.

The Euro Zone, sepcifically France and Germany, cannot afford to let us not pay it. They would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

I'm sure we will get a bailout even in the event of a No. The problem is, it's going to come from the same people who would be providing the bailout in the event of a Yes, it's going to have to be negotiated from scratch, and it's going to be an additional charge on their taxpayers above what they're committing to the ESM.

So it will have to go through the relevant parliaments, who will object to it, and it will come out the other end with a pretty much guaranteed higher interest rate and harsher conditions than ESM, plus the ill-will of everybody involved. Politically, it's impossible for anyone to give us a better deal than ESM, and realistically, nobody is going to even want to.

In turn, that means that our bailout costs will be higher, and more of our budget will have to go to servicing the debt. Which means that for exactly the same bailout, a No vote gets you additional austerity.

And, looking at that option, will our government reject the idea of a bailout and go through the process of default and balancing the budget overnight? The answer is rather obviously no, not least because it's not really possible to eliminate a deficit overnight without putting the economy into freefall. Just as the current deficit cutting austerity reduces our economic growth because it removes money from the economy (either spending cuts or tax raises), balancing the budget overnight also causes the economy to contract - except harder and faster because the private sector has less time to adapt to the change.

So your first drastically "balanced budget" results in business collapses, which results in lost jobs, which results in a reduction of the tax take and an increase in social transfers - shrinking government income, increased government costs. Which means - if you can borrow - another tranche of borrowing for your new deficit. If you can't borrow, it means the government budget shrinks even further (and/or taxes go up)...which produces another economic contraction...and you go round again.

No government will take that route if it can borrow - and, as you say, they will be able to borrow. Just on worse terms - because nobody will be happy to lend to us, and our alternative outcome will be really bad, so our "bargaining position" will fundamentally consist of weeping and clutching people's knees.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EURATS

Scofflaw wrote: »

Seaneh wrote:

Just to add to this.

Voting NO will not, in any way, mean we won't get another bail out and I shall explain why.

The Euro Zone, sepcifically France and Germany, cannot afford to let us not pay it. They would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

I'm sure we will get a bailout even in the event of a No. The problem is, it's going to come from the same people who would be providing the bailout in the event of a Yes, it's going to have to be negotiated from scratch, and it's going to be an additional charge on their taxpayers above what they're committing to the ESM.

So it will have to go through the relevant parliaments, who will object to it, and it will come out the other end with a pretty much guaranteed higher interest rate and harsher conditions than ESM, plus the ill-will of everybody involved. Politically, it's impossible for anyone to give us a better deal than ESM, and realistically, nobody is going to even want to.

In turn, that means that our bailout costs will be higher, and more of our budget will have to go to servicing the debt. Which means that for exactly the same bailout, a No vote gets you additional austerity.

And, looking at that option, will our government reject the idea of a bailout and go through the process of default and balancing the budget overnight? The answer is rather obviously no, not least because it's not really possible to eliminate a deficit overnight without putting the economy into freefall. Just as the current deficit cutting austerity reduces our economic growth because it removes money from the economy (either spending cuts or tax raises), balancing the budget overnight also causes the economy to contract - except harder and faster because the private sector has less time to adapt to the change.

So your first drastically "balanced budget" results in business collapses, which results in lost jobs, which results in a reduction of the tax take and an increase in social transfers - shrinking government income, increased government costs. Which means - if you can borrow - another tranche of borrowing for your new deficit. If you can't borrow, it means the government budget shrinks even further (and/or taxes go up)...which produces another economic contraction...and you go round again.

No government will take that route if it can borrow - and, as you say, they will be able to borrow. Just on worse terms - because nobody will be happy to lend to us, and our alternative outcome will be really bad, so our "bargaining position" will fundamentally consist of weeping and clutching people's knees.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Who do u work for scofflaw?
Also..in the event of a No vote...are u saying that after taking the last of our money, they are then going to starve us to death as well?

Scofflaw

EURATS wrote: »

Who do u work for scofflaw?

Myself (and in IT, if that helps). And you?

EURATS wrote:

Also..in the event of a No vote...are u saying that after taking the last of our money, they are then going to starve us to death as well?

No...I think you should probably read what I wrote. The TL;DR version is that in the event of a No, the government, if it needs a second bailout, will take whatever terms it can get, because the alternative is worse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ascanbe

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, but that's not what's on offer. If the treaty is renegotiated, it has to be signed again, and the amendment we're voting on names a specific signing date.

So if the Treaty is renegotiated, this referendum result won't apply to it. Which does mean voting again, but in neither case are you voting blind - if you vote Yes/No at this referendum, you're voting Yes/No to this version and only this version.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But what, exactly, does 'renegotiated' mean?

If our goverment simply accepts any additions/addendums, as a 'yes' vote here would seem to give them license to do, without feeling a need to 're-negotiate', as i've no doubt they won't, then it's set in stone and there's no recourse.

It seems to me that any additions/addendums will be made/added to this treaty as a given/without recourse to another referendum once this treaty is given the go-ahead.

Are you suggesting we'll have another referendum on this if any change is made/if anything is added?

If so, as i stated before, why not just wait until we can vote on something definite/concrete?

EURATS

No...I think you should probably read what I wrote. The TL;DR version is that in the event of a No, the government, if it needs a second bailout, will take whatever terms it can get, because the alternative is worse.

cordially,
Scofflaw[/


Are u speaking on behalf of boards
or are you giving your own opinion?
What difference does it make to them
If ireland is in or out? And why would they punish Ireland for not giving an answer on may 31st?

Scofflaw

EURATS wrote: »

Are u speaking on behalf of boards
or are you giving your own opinion?

My own opinion, obviously.

EURATS wrote: »

What difference does it make to them
If ireland is in or out? And why would they punish Ireland for not giving an answer on may 31st?

The difference it makes is that if Ireland needs a second bailout, it's going to come from the same countries that are paying into ESM. So:

1. those countries are already putting a money into a bailout fund.

2. and if Ireland votes No, it cannot access said bailout fund

3. but it's highly unlikely the rest of the eurozone governments will let us go down the tubes

4. but they won't be able to loan us money through ESM

5. so they'll have to reach into their pockets again, separately, for Ireland, in addition to the money they're putting into ESM

6. and the governments will have to get their parliaments to vote for doing so

7. and their parliaments won't be happy about that, because their voters won't be happy about it

8. so their parliaments will insist on tight terms which will be worse for us than the ESM - higher interest rates and/or tighter fiscal limits

9. but our government will have little choice but to take whatever terms the parliaments of those countries want

10. because the alternative, for Ireland, is really nasty.

Fairly straightforward. If you're going to vote No, you should perhaps worry more about that chain of events than about whether a Boards mod is "speaking on behalf of Boards" or not (and just to reiterate, I'm not).

cordially,
Scofflaw

EURATS

Scofflaw wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

Are u speaking on behalf of boards
or are you giving your own opinion?

My own opinion, obviously.

EURATS wrote: »

What difference does it make to them
If ireland is in or out? And why would they punish Ireland for not giving an answer on may 31st?

The difference it makes is that if Ireland needs a second bailout, it's going to come from the same countries that are paying into ESM. So:

1. those countries are already putting a money into a bailout fund.

2. and if Ireland votes No, it cannot access said bailout fund

3. but it's highly unlikely the rest of the eurozone governments will let us go down the tubes

4. but they won't be able to loan us money through ESM

5. so they'll have to reach into their pockets again, separately, for Ireland, in addition to the money they're putting into ESM

6. and the governments will have to get their parliaments to vote for doing so

7. and their parliaments won't be happy about that, because their voters won't be happy about it

8. so their parliaments will insist on tight terms which will be worse for us than the ESM - higher interest rates and/or tighter fiscal limits

9. but our government will have little choice but to take whatever terms the parliaments of those countries want

10. because the alternative, for Ireland, is really nasty.

Fairly straightforward. If you're going to vote No, you should perhaps worry more about that chain of events than about whether a Boards mod is "speaking on behalf of Boards" or not (and just to reiterate, I'm not).

cordially,
Scofflaw

.....and as for the rush for may31st???

EURATS

Scofflaw wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

Are u speaking on behalf of boards
or are you giving your own opinion?

My own opinion, obviously.

EURATS wrote: »

What difference does it make to them
If ireland is in or out? And why would they punish Ireland for not giving an answer on may 31st?

The difference it makes is that if Ireland needs a second bailout, it's going to come from the same countries that are paying into ESM. So:

1. those countries are already putting a money into a bailout fund.

2. and if Ireland votes No, it cannot access said bailout fund

3. but it's highly unlikely the rest of the eurozone governments will let us go down the tubes

4. but they won't be able to loan us money through ESM

5. so they'll have to reach into their pockets again, separately, for Ireland, in addition to the money they're putting into ESM

6. and the governments will have to get their parliaments to vote for doing so

7. and their parliaments won't be happy about that, because their voters won't be happy about it

8. so their parliaments will insist on tight terms which will be worse for us than the ESM - higher interest rates and/or tighter fiscal limits

9. but our government will have little choice but to take whatever terms the parliaments of those countries want

10. because the alternative, for Ireland, is really nasty.

Fairly straightforward. If you're going to vote No, you should perhaps worry more about that chain of events than about whether a Boards mod is "speaking on behalf of Boards" or not (and just to reiterate, I'm not).

cordially,
Scofflaw

.....and as for the rush for may31st???
Is that to draw us into the frame to bail out Greece?

Also with regard to moderators..are they not stepping into a potential gray area by giving an opinion, as it could be seen as being on behalf of boards and an effort to influence a discussion?

Scofflaw

EURATS wrote: »

.....and as for the rush for may31st???
Is that to draw us into the frame to bail out Greece?

We're not voting on the ESM! We're voting on the Fiscal Treaty. And the "rush" is because the referendum was announced, and there's no way of cancelling it or even postponing it.

EURATS wrote: »

Also with regard to moderators..are they not stepping into a potential gray area by giving an opinion, as it could be seen as being on behalf of boards and an effort to influence a discussion?

Nope. We're unpaid, and mods are invariably drawn from people active in the forum they're asked to mod. Had it been necessary to stop participating in the forums in order to be a mod, I wouldn't have even considered becoming one.

I don't know what Boards' opinion is on the Fiscal Treaty, or even whether they have one. Knowing DeVore, he's probably a No voter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tonycascarino

EURATS wrote: »

Also with regard to moderators..are they not stepping into a potential gray area by giving an opinion, as it could be seen as being on behalf of boards and an effort to influence a discussion?

I agree with this. There is one mod in particular that is very very very pro EU and tries to influence discussion far too often. It was the same for Lisbon II.

cordially,

TonyCascarino

Justice for the individual

Seaneh wrote: »

This.

Our budget short comings aren't what are killing us. AIB/Anglo/BOI's private debt to other private companies is.

We drop that debt, we can return to the markets, that is fact, the markets won't lend to us explicitly because they understand we cannot, EVER, afford to carry the millstone that is the debt of failed, insolvent private banks.

The absolute amount of arse talked on boards.ie, ad hominem, about how much we need to be bailed out because we were stupid is actually disgusting. Private banks ****ed up, they should have been let die, like in Iceland, we should have left the Euro, we'd be well on our way to recovery by now. instead we are treated like the redheaded stepchild of the EU and lectured to by people at home and ****tards like Merkel and the french midget ex-president about how much we should be thankful that they are allowing US to bail THEM out.



The Fiscal Compact Treaty is, without doubt, one of the worst things that could happen to us. It needs to be rejected, for the sake of the future of our country, and below are just some of the many reasons why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcWHBPYOSU

Excellent article, and you have explained and educated a lot of people as to the true facts of what is going on. The government are adopting a position of smoke-screening the truth and trying to panic and frighten the gullible into voting yes. They should be explaining where we are at, and a plan to get us out of this mess. All they appear to be doing is adopting a strategy of how to get money and nothing else. Apart from offering favourable tax exemptions to multi-nationals, where are the growth plans. As a start, the state agencies like Electricity Ireland, Bord Gais, Dublin Bus, CIE, etc, should have their prices reduced. Also, the rates charged by the various county councils should come down. The higher vat rate of 23% should be reduced back to at least 20%. Staff levels, wages of, in particular, from middle-management up in the Public Sector & HSE, should be drastically cut, at least in line with european norms. Reduce the Dail public representatives numbers and wages by at least 50% and abolish the Senate. Completing this exercise, would cut out wastage and costs, create more efficiency, and would signal a genuine effort to getting this country back on its feet. But then why would they make the effort, when we constantly allow them to tell us what to do. A NO vote would signal to them that we are developing minds of our own and a backbone telling them to get lost. PAYING BACK THE LOANS OF OTHERS IS A DISGRACE AND A YES VOTE WILL COPPER-FASTEN US INTO YEARS OF AUSTERITY OVER WHICH WE HAVE NO CONTROL. A No vote will give us back some control and buy extra bargaining power.

Scofflaw

tonycascarino wrote: »

I agree with this. There is one mod in particular that is very very very pro EU and tries to influence discussion far too often. It was the same for Lisbon II.

cordially,

TonyCascarino

And people complain about that rather than trying to answer my points.

amused,
Scofflaw

Richard tea

Here is part 4 of David McWilliams youtube series Punk Economics


Irish Referendum Preview



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHjLO_cw5iE&feature=youtu.be

Its a well put together video explaining what the upcoming referendum is all about. It should help those sitting on the fence decide which way to vote.

Gar965

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the lady in the advert saying yes at 32seconds in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fp9ejad2MTA

EURATS

Scofflaw wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

.....and as for the rush for may31st???
Is that to draw us into the frame to bail out Greece?

We're not voting on the ESM! We're voting on the Fiscal Treaty. And the "rush" is because the referendum was announced, and there's no way of cancelling it or even postponing it.

EURATS wrote: »

Also with regard to moderators..are they not stepping into a potential gray area by giving an opinion, as it could be seen as being on behalf of boards and an effort to influence a discussion?

Nope. We're unpaid, and mods are invariably drawn from people active in the forum they're asked to mod. Had it been necessary to stop participating in the forums in order to be a mod, I wouldn't have even considered becoming one.

I don't know what Boards' opinion is on the Fiscal Treaty, or even whether they have one. Knowing DeVore, he's probably a No voter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why do you keep confusing the ESM and the fiscal treaty? They obviously have links but am well aware which one the referendum is on. And what you say is incorrect...our government decided on may 31...so it's in their power to postpone it. For some strange reason they seem determined not to.

In relation to the mod issue, most mods from what I see seem to hold the same line as you do. maybe it's a coincidence?

Chucky the tree

Seaneh wrote: »

This.

Our budget short comings aren't what are killing us. AIB/Anglo/BOI's private debt to other private companies is.

We drop that debt, we can return to the markets, that is fact, the markets won't lend to us explicitly because they understand we cannot, EVER, afford to carry the millstone that is the debt of failed, insolvent private banks.

The absolute amount of arse talked on boards.ie, ad hominem, about how much we need to be bailed out because we were stupid is actually disgusting. Private banks ****ed up, they should have been let die, like in Iceland, we should have left the Euro, we'd be well on our way to recovery by now. instead we are treated like the redheaded stepchild of the EU and lectured to by people at home and ****tards like Merkel and the french midget ex-president about how much we should be thankful that they are allowing US to bail THEM out.

So hang on, after we re-neg on our sovereign debt that markets will be perfectly happy to lend to us? I find that one hard to believe.

Wibbs

EURATS wrote: »

Also with regard to moderators..are they not stepping into a potential gray area by giving an opinion, as it could be seen as being on behalf of boards and an effort to influence a discussion?

Only to newbies. We're volunteers, just another user with extra levers to pull on our own forums.

EURATS wrote: »

In relation to the mod issue, most mods from what I see seem to hold the same line as you do. maybe it's a coincidence?

Or maybe you ain't reading enough posts from moderators, or far more likely reading what you want to read. Selective bias so to speak. On the mods opinions I've read they are much more divergent than you suggest. Yes we do have some that read like EU shills(mods and posters), we have some hardline Libertarians, some hardline Socialists, some Republicans with a capital R, some downright hippies and an assortment of leftists and rightists across the spectrum. Hell I myself would be close to a Fascist on some issues while not exactly a standard bearer for a federal Europe. However, as Scoffie points out one call always debate each and every one of them point by point. Personally I rarely bother, because politically entrenched types tend to be... well... entrenched, particularly on Europe. More blinkers than the Grand National on all sides.

Me? I see the Euro as a great idea, doomed to failure. Well not exactly doomed to failure, but a structure that was aiming at this point in time. A one size fits all currency was never going to work out for all countries. It doesn't work too well in a fully federal nation with a far more homogenous culture like the US. You end up with Californias as well as Alabamas. The likelihood of fcukup was magnified by the lack of obvious checks and balances dismissed or ignored on the back of the zeal for a further united EU. The state of Greece's finances were, or should have been pretty clear in the run up to the Euro. Ditto for Portugal. Italy needed the beady eye on it too.

We were actually OK on that front, but the Euro was a double edged sword for us too. The cheap credit that came our way on the back of it really mashed the throttle pedal to the carpet and helped fuel our bubble. The pro EU types will claim it didn't, that it was 90% our fault, so break out the hair shirts folks. The anti EU types will claim it was 90% of the problem, so blame everyone else. Neither will tend to acknowledge the middle ground.

The fiscal treaty itself? Another example of kicking the can down the road IMHO. The powers that be seem to be well behind the curve in dealing with this crisis. Yes or No? IMHO it'll make little enough difference in the long run. Again IMHO we've not begun to see the real problems yet. We're living in "interesting times". Those kinda times when future generations will wonder "why didn't they see that coming?". I fervently hope I'm wrong on that score.

Wibbs

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So hang on, after we re-neg on our sovereign debt that markets will be perfectly happy to lend to us? I find that one hard to believe.

Markets tend to have short memories C. I think of them like better informed gamblers. You win some, you lose some types. Yes, they would be reticent for a time alright, but so long as they could see a way that Ireland inc would make them money again, they'll happily take another punt on us. Plus quite a number will have made money betting that we will renege on our debts. Much better than betting on the gee gees. The problem is of course the time between the two mindsets. I don't think people realise how much actual hardship would be in play, or our definitions of hardship have been rejigged since we've become somewhat spoiled with a greater sense of entitlement.

EURATS

Re: wibbs/father jack

Not really a newbie. Have been keeping an eye for a good while,but as a visitor.

In relation to selective bias, again I beg to differ. I haven't seen a hardline Republican or socialist mod. U declaring to be borderline fascist would put you quite in line with EU and Irish government policies and behaviour.

If the poll above has merit, it speaks for itself on how people feel about the government and the EU!!

Also again, the mods are ignoring the May31st issue.

Chucky the tree

Wibbs wrote: »

Markets tend to have short memories C. I think of them like better informed gamblers. You win some, you lose some types. Yes, they would be reticent for a time alright, but so long as they could see a way that Ireland inc would make them money again, they'll happily take another punt on us. Plus quite a number will have made money betting that we will renege on our debts. Much better than betting on the gee gees. The problem is of course the time between the two mindsets. I don't think people realise how much actual hardship would be in play, or our definitions of hardship have been rejigged since we've become somewhat spoiled with a greater sense of entitlement.

Problem is once we re-neg on soverign debt, cut €16bn out of our deficit then we won't be an attractive place for businesses to invest in. With such turmoil I'd be surprised if all the current Multinationals even remained here. People will want to see signs of stability and growth before taking a gamble, can't see much signs of stability after cutting €16bn in one go.

Wibbs

EURATS wrote: »

In relation to selective bias, again I beg to differ. I haven't seen a hardline Republican or socialist mod.

There are a lot of quite wishy washy liberal mods. I can think of three Libertarians and two Socialists from the top of my head. If there's any overall "bias" around here it would be various strands of middle of the road suburban Liberalism(which some bitch about too). You're reading what you want to read. EG

U declaring to be borderline fascist would put you quite in line with EU and Irish government policies and behaviour.

Yea nice emotive stuff there Ted(see what I did there), but you neglected to read where I wrote I'm no standard bearer for the EU and the part where I wrote the Euro was doomed to failure. Two stances that should have me at loggerheads with this "coincidence of mods" you speak of.

Personally speaking I was well up for the EEC, so so with the EC and getting suspicious of the EU. Basically every time they changed a letter I thought "hmmmm". I've voted no to every treaty since Maastricht(back in '92 for the younger viewers). I objected to the strongarm tactics of the Lisbon votes, where our first vote wasn't deemed the "right choice" Oh and I'll be voting NO this time too. Again kinda going against your idea of the mod mind being of one voice, n'est ce pas? *EDIT* it's a pity the poll isn't a public one as I can guarantee that you'd see a helluva lot of mod names in the No/undecided camp as well as the yes camp. Id est the normal spread of opinions one would expect to see.

Also again, the mods are ignoring the May31st issue.

For someone who apparently has been "keeping an eye for a good while" you seem to ignore/not understand that we're neither employees, nor representatives of the entity known as Boards.ie. We don't go around in a secret forum with our left tit exposed exchanging funny handshakes and agreeing on the official political stance. Would that we were. There is no "the mods". I dunno how to explain this to you any more clearly without breaking out the crayons, or suggesting you check out the conspiracy forum hereabouts.

Wibbs

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Problem is once we re-neg on soverign debt, cut €16bn out of our deficit then we won't be an attractive place for businesses to invest in. With such turmoil I'd be surprised if all the current Multinationals even remained here. People will want to see signs of stability and growth before taking a gamble, can't see much signs of stability after cutting €16bn in one go.

It depends. OK let's imagine we went the whole hog and reneged on the debt. Let's say we left the Euro. Our new currency would massively devalue. Wages would drop and we would be a cheaper place to do business in. Horribly simplistic I grant you, but not impossible. OK people point at Iceland as an example of how to do it. It's equally simplistic to say they're the best example, but investors and the market are showing confidence in them today.

Chucky the tree

Wibbs wrote: »

It depends. OK let's imagine we went the whole hog and reneged on the debt. Let's say we left the Euro. Our new currency would massively devalue. Wages would drop and we would be a cheaper place to do business in. Horribly simplistic I grant you, but not impossible. OK people point at Iceland as an example of how to do it. It's equally simplistic to say they're the best example, but investors and the market are showing confidence in them today.

Left the euro and made all of our imports massively expensive? I'm not sure how much more investment we'd see when the cost of things like cars, petrol, most electronic products etc would be hugely expensive. As I said I think you are hugely under-estimating the public un-rest and turmoil that would happen from cutting €16bn. Then we have a huge number of businesses that would close because now people have even less money to spend because of no social welfare, huge cuts to public pay, huge tax increases. It really wouldn't be pretty. Iceland had the advantage of never having a huge budget deficit. Also they don't rely of imports as much as us and are a far smaller country. Last they are allowed into the markets, but still at a rate that is higher than what we are getting form the EU/IMF and far higher than the what the ESM would be.

EURATS

Re wibbs:

Of course I'm going see things as I see them. I read what is said and draw my own conclusions.
I'm not sure who Ted is..figure of speech I assume. Not sure what you did there..no.

Am glad to hear that you are voting no. More work to be done though.

As to whether boards has a secret forum for mods, I can't comment on that..although maybe you go around with the right tit exposed and kicking each other with the right foot.. as that would be more on the fascism side of things.

And again no comment on may 31st?
What's the rush?

Wibbs

Chucky the tree wrote: »

As I said I think you are hugely under-estimating the public un-rest and turmoil that would happen from cutting €16bn.

Oh no, as I said "The problem is of course the time between the two mindsets. I don't think people realise how much actual hardship would be in play". Turmoil indeed.

EURATS wrote: »

Am glad to hear that you are voting no. More work to be done though.

So is this an acknowledgment that there is indeed no "mod bias"? Probably not, but we live in hope.

And again no comment on may 31st?
What's the rush?

The date for the referendum? Given the Euro et al is in a serious state of flux at the moment, the faster solutions or even suggestions come the better. Pointless waiting a year to have this treaty debate as by then it'll likely be game over on a few points.



My reasoning for voting no is simple enough. I don't like the lack of accountability in certain areas of the EU as it is and I'm sure as hell not going to vote to add less. Secondly, we have more leverage on getting a better deal than the other sick men of Europe. We're at least making attempts to play ball to get back on track(though our pubic spending needs to be seriously curbed). Thirdly I don't see it making much of a difference if any, save for adding more power to unaccountable people hundreds of miles away from Ireland.

EURATS

Re: wibbs

I can't agree on the rush for the treaty. Considering "THE GERMANS" aren't even ratifying it till the end of June...it makes no sense.


Well said re ur last paragraph

Wibbs

You had me engaged right up to the point where you typed "the Krauts".

EURATS

Wibbs wrote: »

You had me engaged right up to the point where you typed "the Krauts".

I corrected that. Maybe u can do the same. Write it out of history.
On the other front...there still is lack of justification for the rush job for may31st.

K-9

Once a Referendum is called it can't be postponed constitutionally, unless there's a general election.