Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

UnDeclanGanley

Give your votes to Ganley!

StealthRolex

lkdsl wrote: »

For those of you who are planning to vote no, one question: If it is rejected, then what?

Leave the Euro? Leave the EU? Return to isolationism, protectionism, inflation, high interest rates, etc? These were what preceded our EEC membership.

If it is accepted I am reminded of Neville Chamberlain...

... stability in our time ....

Oceans12

just had FG to my door, depositing their junk mail about the referendum :mad:

ran them and told them to take their junk with them.

is radio / tv not enough for them.


ha and this post is post 666.

ThinkAboutIt

WHO cares.

Justice for the individual

Reason for voting NO in the Stability Treaty.

Since we entered the EU we have LOST

Our sea territory & fishing industry.

Minerals (oil & gas)

Sugar beet production (because of incorrect data & vested interests)

Irish branded products; Waterford Glass, Waterford Stanley (now manufactured in either Belgium or Holland & re-imported back into Waterford); Yoplait (now being produced in France resulting in loss of jobs)
A peculiar situation, as all of the above were or based in Waterford.

Control of setting our own interest rates to counteract inflation.

Financial control (now in the hands of Troika)

Thousands of people through emigration.


WHERE IS GROWTH TO COME FROM?

There is a constant drain from the Irish economy due to the cost of financing the debt imposed on us by Troika (assisted by our government Fine Gael & labour) and supported by Fianna Fail. The unemployment figures at 430,000 + is really putting the nail in the Irish financial coffin. Our government is too incompetent to govern and manage the debt. The only reason some people have for voting yes, is because they prefer the EU to run things for us instead of them.

The only growth area is in the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) sphere and this is due to favourable tax terms. FDI is being promoted as our main source of exports and growth. Again like the property boom, dependence on a particular business source is disastrous. In general, the high-end Research & Development (R & D) is carried out in the home FDI country and the low-value customer service functions, etc are outsourced to developing nations where costs are lower. In some cases, this is beginning to happen because of labour, public utility and energy costs. If our low corporation tax is one of the items on the French agenda and is being secretly added to the French agreement as a tax harmonization, we will not know this until after we vote in the Stability Treaty. Harmonization is the word the government dare not mention. Why did our government not harmonize the tax on motor imports? They negotiated an agreement on VRT instead! Who's side are they on?

If the rate of tax for FDI is brought in, our FDI will drastically dry up, and close off a major income stream from employee tax and add-on income to ancillary industries & utility companies. If this comes to pass, and we lose our FDI industries, our finances will be holed under the waterline and in such a situation, Troika can whistle for their money.

A process has already being entered into to balance our budget, so why do we need this Referendum? a Yes in the Stability Treaty will erode any control we had when we were an "independent country" ( I say this on purpose) and put into the hands of people dedicated to sucking us dry.

If Greece, followed by Ireland, Spain, Italy and Portugal cannot finance their monetary needs, the €500 billion permanent rescue fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) will not be sufficient to bale everybody out. The voting on the Stability Treaty is comparable to buying a pig-in-a-poke.

We should balance our own books, develop our own indigenous industries and tackling /reducing costs. Our biggest costs are: the Public Sector (HSE, Educational, gas,/electricity, business rates, vat, Oireactas/Seanad)
Too many quangos, middle & upper management (what good are they doing?)
As regards the banks? No bonuses, regulated pay terms. Insolvency trustees involved with the banks to bring all the debts together and develop a strategy through the mortgage mess.

It is the SME's who can eventually assist in helping us to start to crawl out of our economic hole. To do this, they will need a concentrated effort by the state bodies concerned who up to now have left them to fend for themselves. Enterprise Ireland should re-focus to this end, instead of concentrating on a few trophy high-end clients. A yes vote will strangle the development of these SME's as all of the Irish effort will be put into paying back the debts of the banks and private bondholders.

If this does not happen, the great EU project may shudder to a halt. Leaving the Euro may not be so bad after all, i.e. Britain never joined the euro and kept its sterling. We could adopt a parallel currency like sterling to run alongside our punt.

Lets get together to control our own future. Our ancestors (and some of mine were hung, drawn and quartered) fought valiantly for their freedom and independence and we insult their honour and sacrifices by allowing our unprincipled leaders to mildly hand over our sovereignty to foreign bodies (EU & Troika) Unfortunately this is the legacy our politicians are endeavoring to leave us with.

If the EU breaks up, we could get back our fishing grounds and rights, gas and oil reserves and innovate our home-grown industries and farming into producing natural green products which are much in demand worldwide.

IRELAND IS NOT FOR SALE - VOTE NO TO GUARANTEE THIS.

IRELAND FOR SALE - follow the advice of the government parties and Fianna Fail.

Ghost Buster

I think The Irish Times had it right today.
We are being asked to accept a penalty clause for a contract not yet finalised.

Scofflaw

Justice for the individual wrote: »

Reason for voting NO in the Stability Treaty.

Since we entered the EU we have LOST

Our sea territory & fishing industry.

Minerals (oil & gas)

Sugar beet production (because of incorrect data & vested interests)

Irish branded products; Waterford Glass, Waterford Stanley (now manufactured in either Belgium or Holland & re-imported back into Waterford); Yoplait (now being produced in France resulting in loss of jobs)
A peculiar situation, as all of the above were or based in Waterford.

Control of setting our own interest rates to counteract inflation.

Financial control (now in the hands of Troika)

Thousands of people through immigration.


WHERE IS GROWTH TO COME FROM?

There is a constant drain from the Irish economy due to the cost of financing the debt imposed on us by Troika (assisted by our government (Fine Gael & labour) and supported by Fianna Fail. The unemployment figures at 300,000 + is really putting the nail in the Irish financial coffin. Our government is too incompetent to govern and manage the debt. The only reason some people have for voting yes, is because they prefer the EU to run things for us instead of them.

...

If the EU breaks up, we could get back our fishing grounds and rights, gas and oil reserves and innovate our home-grown industries and farming into producing natural green products which are much in demand worldwide.

IRELAND IS NOT FOR SALE - VOTE NO TO GUARANTEE THIS.

IRELAND FOR SALE - follow the advice of the government parties and Fianna Fail.

Voting No is not going to break up the EU - or reverse globalisation, for that matter. Nor will it change anything to do with our potential oil & gas reserves, fish, or any of your other points.

cordially,
Scofflaw

srsly78

To "Justice" poster above: Total amount of fish "lost" = feck all. Total amount of oil lost = zero. Please present some proper arguments as spouting this nonsense totally discredits any valid point that may be lurking somewhere in your hyperbole.

Dublin_Gunner

Yes or no - it doesn't really matter, however I will not be voting yes for a treaty not even yet finalised (and apparently open to any amount of amendment afterwards sans vote).

The real crux of the issue is why have Labour taken to creating posters as Gaeilge?

Scofflaw

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Yes or no - it doesn't really matter, however I will not be voting yes for a treaty not even yet finalised (and apparently open to any amount of amendment afterwards sans vote).

If you read the amendment we're voting on, it states a particular version of the Treaty - that done on March 2nd. Amending the Treaty would make it a different version to which this referendum vote does not apply.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the groutch

Lucy joining in on the scaremongering

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0523/1224316552213.html

Scofflaw

the groutch wrote: »

Lucy joining in on the scaremongering

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0523/1224316552213.html

Why is the corporate tax rate being under threat only "scaremongering" when the Yes side do it?

More importantly, does she have a reasonable point or not?

Speaking at a European Chamber of Ireland event Ms Creighton said Ireland would be leaving the EU/IMF funding programme in 2013 and would need to begin looking for funding from the markets in early 2014.

“Our tax is very much safeguarded and it is important to note that the only thing that could jeopardise our tax rate, potentially, is if we don’t have a source of funding when we exit our bailout programme in 2013,” she said.

The Minister said that if access to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) was cut off by a No vote the country would be very exposed as it would be at the mercy of the markets.

“Corporation tax could very well be put on the table and we may not be in a very strong position to say ‘no’.

“If we cannot get all of the money we need from the markets we will need money from some form of stability mechanism and that won’t be available from the ESM if we don’t ratify the treaty, so it means the terms and conditions will be up for negotiation,” she said.

The Minister said other European countries that could potentially contribute to any fund we would draw from could put corporation tax into the mix, along with a range of other issues including high interest rates.

We'll be negotiating a multilateral bailout package from scratch - is it immediately obvious that none of the governments (or parliaments) concerned won't say "well, look, you have the potential to earn more from your corporation tax than you do, which would mean we'd have to lend you less money"?

Our CT rate is only "protected" from the EU, and a multilateral bailout isn't the EU - anything can be put on the table.

cordially,
Scofflaw

drdeadlift

the groutch wrote: »

Lucy joining in on the scaremongering

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0523/1224316552213.html

I read as far as i seen "could".Wouldnt it be great to have politicians out for the countries best interests and not their own.

Tym

It's not really scaremongering if it's true...

Dublin_Gunner

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you read the amendment we're voting on, it states a particular version of the Treaty - that done on March 2nd. Amending the Treaty would make it a different version to which this referendum vote does not apply.

cordially,
Scofflaw

My concern would be that is that the particular draft that will come into law? This doesn't seem clear to me.

By all means clarify this for me if you can, and I'll have to have another think about it. Its just seems we may be voting on that draft, but there does not seem to be any guarantee that this is what will eventually come to pass.

Or if its a case that we'd need another referendum to pass a newer draft, are we going to be sent back to the polls in 6 months time?

trooney

Tym wrote: »

It's not really scaremongering if it's true...

Its not really true when you're putting 'if' before it

StealthRolex

Is David McWilliams worth reading on this issue?

Justice for the individual

drdeadlift wrote: »

I read as far as i seen "could".Wouldnt it be great to have politicians out for the countries best interests and not their own.

There IS a threat (from the French) to the 12.5% Corporation Tax, whether we vote yes or no. Why is Ms. Creighton bringing up the Corporation Tax. maybe she knows a bit more than is being revealed, like Richard Bruton letting the cat out of the bag and suggesting a second referendum in the event of a no vote.

It would be a good exercise to complete a Strength/Weakness/Opportunities/threats (SWOT) Analysis from a neutral standpoint of the Stability Treaty. The result of this referendum will have major repercussions on a micro and maxi level for Ireland and the EU as a whole, so our politicians have to honestly and clearly explain the pros and cons to us and then leave the decision to us alone. A democratic decision by the Irish voters will decide our fate, whatever that may be.

lkdsl

Justice for the individual wrote: »

There IS a threat (from the French) to the 12.5% Corporation Tax, whether we vote yes or no. Why is Ms. Creighton bringing up the Corporation Tax. maybe she knows a bit more than is being revealed, like Richard Bruton letting the cat out of the bag and suggesting a second referendum in the event of a no vote.

It would be a good exercise to complete a Strength/Weakness/Opportunities/threats (SWOT) Analysis from a neutral standpoint of the Stability Treaty. The result of this referendum will have major repercussions on a micro and maxi level for Ireland and the EU as a whole, so our politicians have to honestly and clearly explain the pros and cons to us and then leave the decision to us alone. A democratic decision by the Irish voters will decide our fate, whatever that may be.

There is also a responsibility on the voters to inform themselves. The treaty itself is not that long or particularly complicated. In fact, the treaty is mostly detailing enforcement mechanisms for things that we signed up to a long time ago. The fuss is being created by those who are claiming things (on both sides) that having nothing directly to do with the treaty.
The assumptions being made (on both sides) about what the medium and long term impact of the treaty will be are just that - assumptions. They are based on political and economic biases and, like all predictions, are impossible to verify until after the future has happened.
It's up to us to read the damn thing and make up our own minds. The politicians have their own agendas, mostly to do with seeking, gaining and keeping influence and power. They also get pretty will paid.

Scofflaw

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

My concern would be that is that the particular draft that will come into law? This doesn't seem clear to me.

It's the only one that the referendum result can apply to, legally. So, yes, it's the only one that can come into law by virtue of a Yes.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

By all means clarify this for me if you can, and I'll have to have another think about it. Its just seems we may be voting on that draft, but there does not seem to be any guarantee that this is what will eventually come to pass.

Or if its a case that we'd need another referendum to pass a newer draft, are we going to be sent back to the polls in 6 months time?

If the Treaty really gets reopened, rather than just has a Protocol tacked on, then, yes, I'm afraid so, even if all they do is change one word, because the amendment says "The State may ratify the Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012".

If they reopen that, they have to sign off on it all over again, and it's no longer the "Treaty...done at Brussels on the 2nd day of March 2012", but the one done on some other date.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dpqt

I got around to reading UKIP's leaflet on why Ireland should vote no. While predictable stuff from the UKIP, I have wondered if the differences between Ireland's and Britain's circumstances have ever occured to them? Or to the Irish No campaigners, or people seeking for Ireland to leave the EU? Examples

BRITAIN

• Population of 60 million, large work force and domestic market.
• Plenty of natural resources.
• A lot of manufacturing/ industry, including heavy industry.
• Some of the largest banks and companies in the world, with a banking sector and stock exchange second to only New York globally in certain areas.
• An international currency (Sterling), and a player in the global financial markets.
• One of the most powerful defence forces in the world.
• The UK is a G8 member with global reach and influence regardless of it's in the EU or not.

now,


IRELAND

• Population of 4 million with small workforce and market.
• Few natural resources.
• Little, if any domestic industry. Economy depends on FDI and EU backing. Many companies set up their EU headquarters here.
• Our banks, stock markets etc. are of little significance on the global stage. This is different in the eurozone of which we are a member and have some influence at least.
• Not a G8 member, no global currency and no global reach.
• A lot of our industry and agriculture depend on us been an EU member, unlike Britain a net contributer to the EU budget.

Plenty more examples. Has it ever occured to UKIP or our own anti-EU and anti-treaty quarters that we are a completely different kettle of fish to Britain. We are a small, relatively resourceless island with a tiny population on the edge of Europe, and benefit from EU membership.

SEPT 23 1989

I still won't be bullied into voting Yes

K-9

dpqt wrote: »

Has it ever occured to UKIP or our own anti-EU and anti-treaty quarters that we are a completely different kettle of fish to Britain. We are a small, relatively resourceless island with a tiny population on the edge of Europe, and benefit from EU membership.

UKIP? I doubt it.

Our own no campaigners? Yes but we have loads of kettles of fish and oil offshore or something!

Toby Take a Bow

dpqt wrote: »

Plenty more examples. Has it ever occured to UKIP or our own anti-EU and anti-treaty quarters that we are a completely different kettle of fish to Britain. We are a small, relatively resourceless island with a tiny population on the edge of Europe, and benefit from EU membership.

We may benefit from EU membership, but we should also have a say in how the EU works and develops. That's why we should like at each referendum based on how we feel the EU should develop. We should also look at each referendum (like the one that's coming up) and see whether we think it's beneficial to us as a country. It definitely doesn't mean blindly accepting whatever the powers-that-be tell us to (not saying that's what you're advocating).

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

UKIP? I doubt it.

Our own no campaigners? Yes but we have loads of kettles of fish and oil offshore or something!

We have wha?

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

We have wha?

€200 Billion worth of kettles of fish and €500 Billion worth of oil apparently.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

€200 Billion worth of kettles of fish and €500 Billion worth of oil apparently.

Right.......

I'll just vote "yes" to be on the safe side.

Cabaal

martin kelly. wrote: »

No more budget cuts were suffering enough.

Vote yes and it'll happen

Vote No and it'll happen,

Think of it this way, Ireland is a company and has running costs, it is not making enough profit to cover its running costs (social welfare, public sector etc) so it needs to cut costs.

Now it could get loans but voting no will affect its ability to do so, while these loans won't resolve the problem they will make things somewhat easier.

One way or another its going to have to cut costs, nobody likes it but truth hurts.

Varied

I would seriously consider voting yes if they pushed the referendam forward a few months.

At least until the treaty has been amended accordingly so we know what we're voting for. Having to vote for a treaty that may change is just ridiculous.

Voting no.

Wild Bill

There has been, through no fault of my own, a bit of a hiatus in my contributions to this debate.

So, let's spell out, once again, the central fact of this debate:

Our national debit is increasing by €500,000,000 per week. That's €1 billion per fortnight.

And they claim

- we won't need another bailout at the end of 2013 (Noonan 2 months ago described the notion as "ridiculous")

- we will need another bailout at the end of 2013 (Noonan now, claiming we won't get it if we vote "no")

- we can grow our way out of our debt (mathematically that would need 10% GDP growth pa for the next 17 years)

- that getting approval to spend 50% of "privatization/sell-of" of state assets will allow a massive job creation effort!

(If we flog Coillte and Board Gas we might get enough money to stem the rise in national debt for almost two weeks before it resumes growing at €1 billion per fortnight.

Yet we have our political system (bar SF), the mainstream media commentators (bar a few marginalized and sneered at "celebrity economists") - all the same clowns who brought about our debt disaster selling the snake oil of the "stability pact".
The "yes" advocates are the same people, in the main, who brought about this situation. Without renegotiation/repudiation of our "socialized" German bankers' debt all the policy options offered by the "yes" side are doomed from the start; because they are based on continual denial of the core reality: our "debt" is unrepayable in any possible growth scenario.

End of.