Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

A no vote gives a clear signal that the people are fed up with the "market" milking them for their mistakes!

The governmnet would be able to renegotiate for better bailout conditions next time round!

dvpower

Deleted User wrote: »

A no vote gives a clear signal that the people are fed up with the "market" milking them for their mistakes!

A clear signal carrying a very confused message. What does "people are fed up with the "market" milking them for their mistakes" mean and what policy decisions does it imply?

Deleted User wrote: »

The governmnet would be able to renegotiate for better bailout conditions next time round!

The idea that we could negotiate better bailout conditions after rejecting access to the bailout fund is plain daft.

Scofflaw

highcream wrote: »

Do people not agree that an irish default is an inevitability anyway?

No, not really.

highcream wrote: »

We are never going to be able to pay back those loans?

The same argument could have been made at the beginning of the Nineties, when public debt was 95% of GDP and interest payments were absorbing nearly 30% of tax revenues - but we neither paid back the debt nor defaulted.

highcream wrote: »

How can an economy grow if its hindered by cuts in all directions.
do u think The fear of a 50% cut in public spending is what is holding us back from default?
We all know the government are great buddies with the likes of jack o connor

if a default means a 50% cut in government spending, then why on earth would it be a better options than smaller cuts?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

A no vote gives a clear signal that the people are fed up with the "market" milking them for their mistakes!

Oh, come on - a No vote does no such thing, because people vote No for a variety of reasons.

Deleted User wrote: »

The governmnet would be able to renegotiate for better bailout conditions next time round!

Better than rates around 3%? I rather doubt it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pal

practice wrote: »

With the likes of Phil Hogan, Alan Shatter, Eamon Gilmore telling me to vote yes I guess the only way to vote is NO

I'm going to play safe and do the opposite of whatever the Sinners want.

GreenLady

Pal wrote: »

I'm going to play safe and do the opposite of whatever the Sinners want.

Pretty good rule really isn't it? Especially if UKIP and co want me to vote that way too

Fenian Army

One of the facts people are overlooking is that if people vote yes they are giving the govt carte blanch to implement any laws in relation to the treaty with no heed needed to be paid to the constitution;

The referendum is asking us to support or oppose the addition of the following subsection to Article 29.4 of the Constitution: “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. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by bodies competent under that Treaty from having the force of law in the State.”

To my layman’s understanding, this clause is stating that the Irish Constitution is to be set aside when it comes to government activities conducted under the auspices of the fiscal treaty and is therefore effectively asking the Irish citizenry to suspend its own Constitution and the rule of law for any and all activities issuing from ratification of the treaty.

Taken fro a letter to the Irish times (the fist one): http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224316805222

Morrisseeee

onemorechance wrote: »

Sunday Indo

There's real news -- and there's the stuff with which we distract ourselves. ......Diarmuid O'Flynn's small blog, where he chronicles the relentless flow of wealth from Irish citizens to the reckless bank bondholders.

Two-and-a-quarter billion tomorrow. Almost eight million on Wednesday, 50 million next Saturday, 57 million the following Monday . . . and on and on and on. Reckless rich people -- in the UK, Germany, France -- bet on AIB and Bank of Ireland and Anglo. The Irish banksters in turn gambled on property speculators -- and they all lost. And we, who had no role in creating this debt, are directed to pay the bondholders, as though they won.

Meanwhile, on the front pages . . .

Enda the Bondholders' Friend smiles for yet another photo opportunity, and runs away from yet another debate. And Mr Gilmore tells us about staying at the heart of Europe. And he does so in exactly the same belligerent tone of voice he used when he warned us against Frankfurt's Way.

This is why I hate politics, and it shows the fundamental (or just mental) attitude of politicians: dangle carrots and false promises in front of the general public to get votes, but sort out the 'rich-person' or 'influential-person' first & foremost.

It really is absurd (or sick, or in-humane) that they hand over SO much money to the gamblers without even blinking a eye but yet watch their own people, the same people who voted them in, suffering.

As regards the vote: I am still undecided.
I want to vote "the right way", ie. what's best for Ireland & it's citizens, for my kids future.

I certainly won't be bullied into a Yes vote just because it means WE can borrow at a lower rate, how true is that anyway!!?? and I won't be mis-guided by the No vote just trying to 'get one over' on FG/Labour.

One of the No's points is the fact that we are signing a contract that we don't know the full terms & condition of, now that's worrying !!

Another point I'm hearing alot of people discussing is the fact that Europe is in meltdown, Greece & Spain in particular, so why should we should we sign a contract with so many unknowns. The majority of people are in agreement though, Yes's & No's, that the Vote be delayed and pushed out to a future date.

/end ramblings of a worried/confused voter !

Scofflaw

Fenian Army wrote: »

One of the facts people are overlooking is that if people vote yes they are giving the govt carte blanch to implement any laws in relation to the treaty with no heed needed to be paid to the constitution;


Taken fro a letter to the Irish times (the fist one): http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224316805222

No, again. The protective clause in the Constitution is well tested in the context of the EU Treaties, and is subject to two tests:

1. the action being undertaken must explicitly be an obligation under the Treaty - the protective clause does not simply cover anything the government might choose to claim they're doing "in relation to" the Treaty.

2. the action taken must also be the option with the least conflict with the Constitution - that is, if the government could act to satisfy an obligation under the Treaty in one of two ways, it cannot choose the more constitutionally offensive option. If they do so, their action can be struck down as unconstitutional, because it forfeits the protection of the clause.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qW0L6vw7e6wJ:www.jsijournal.ie/html/Volume%25204%2520No.%25202/4%255B2%255D_Tomkin_Implementing%2520Community%2520Legislation%2520into%2520National%2520Law.pdf+&hl=en&gl=ie&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESixKDY_rI__EVH-t6uIVfYeyVGayA8oEDhM2zaghjbBreVHygR95iOPvz0n6G6E0JV7PQxZRWlrT7thgfL3YTF0CxGUJ7ANU6CTpixzo6Yd_OYOfghkAByBj8Fj1Epa2mbcwJhX&sig=AHIEtbTwsep8f5__dcZ9Q789-tEazdxHAg

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Morrisseeee wrote: »

One of the No's points is the fact that we are signing a contract that we don't know the full terms & condition of, now that's worrying !!

It's also inaccurate, but since it's worrying, they're not going to stop saying it.

The Treaty is not being reopened. There may be a growth pact, but a No vote on the Fiscal Treaty will not change that (except perhaps to make Germany more intransigent).

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Another point I'm hearing alot of people discussing is the fact that Europe is in meltdown, Greece & Spain in particular, so why should we should we sign a contract with so many unknowns.

Because it has fewer unknowns than voting No, perhaps.

Morrisseeee wrote: »

The majority of people are in agreement though, Yes's & No's, that the Vote be delayed and pushed out to a future date.

But the vote can't be delayed, and voting No is not a vote to delay ratification, but to reject ratification.

cordially,
Scofflaw

GreenLady

funny thing but all the opinion polls show that everyone thinks all politicians are evil - except the ones they know personally and trust. And they say they know personally and trust the ones they vote for. Which means that everyone in the Dail has thousands of people who trust them

squod

GreenLady wrote: »

funny thing but all the opinion polls show that everyone thinks all politicians are evil - except the ones they know personally and trust. And they say they know personally and trust the ones they vote for. Which means that everyone in the Dail has thousands of people who trust them

No-one I voted for is in the Dail.

Morrisseeee

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's also inaccurate, but since it's worrying, they're not going to stop saying it.

The Treaty is not being reopened. There may be a growth pact, but a No vote on the Fiscal Treaty will not change that (except perhaps to make Germany more intransigent).

Does 'inaccurate' mean there could be some truth in what they are saying, or are they totally wrong ?!

Because it has fewer unknowns than voting No, perhaps.

You say "perhaps", so you're not totally convinced. I'm slicing/dicing your every word, but I need to be convinced that either a Yes or a No is good for the country, there should be NO unknowns!

But the vote can't be delayed, and voting No is not a vote to delay ratification, but to reject ratification.

............and this is the regret, ie. there should be a third option, undecided (delay).

You're obviously a Yes man, but are you open to the possibility that a delay might be a better option for Ireland, given Europe's current volatile state ?
/you can PM me the answer to that one :pac:

Scofflaw

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Does 'inaccurate' mean there could be some truth in what they are saying, or are they totally wrong ?!

They're totally wrong.

Morrisseeee wrote: »

You say "perhaps", so you're not totally convinced. I'm slicing/dicing your every word, but I need to be convinced that either a Yes or a No is good for the country, there should be NO unknowns!

There can't be no unknowns about the future, though (which also applies to the above). And my "perhaps" refers to whether you might find it persuasive that there are fewer unknowns in voting Yes, not whether there are - there I can be quite definite.

I can definitely state that there are more unknowns in a No vote than a Yes vote, the biggest and most obvious being that we don't know where we'd get money if we need it after a No.

We don't know what will happen with Spain and Italy (but we do know that people are writing scare stories), but we know that a Yes means we're facing those uncertainties in a pact with the other eurozone countries, while a No means there are additional uncertainties in how the ongoing crisis will affect us differently from the other eurozone countries, and the extent to which, having made our own bed, the view of the rest of the eurozone will be that we can lie in it. And while the rest of the euqozone has pulled the fat out of the fire for us in a couple of different ways already, the ECB has certainly taken the view that the consequences of our decisions are something we have to live with.

Morrisseeee wrote: »

............and this is the regret, ie. there should be a third option, undecided (delay).

You're obviously a Yes man, but are you open to the possibility that a delay might be a better option for Ireland, given Europe's current volatile state ?
/you can PM me the answer to that one :pac:

Oh, I don't mind saying it publicly - I don't think it makes any difference. If you really look at it, you'll note that the referendum does not in fact ratify the Treaty. Instead, it has one of two outcomes - in the case of a No, the government cannot ratify the Treaty, in the case of a Yes it may ratify the Treaty, either immediately or after delaying to see what happens.

So I could claim that a Yes is the vote that gives the government greatest flexibility, if I thought that it was a valid reason for voting either way, which, to be honest, I don't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

snaps

If this poll is anything to go by than looks like we are heading to a no.

dvpower

snaps wrote: »

If this poll is anything to go by than looks like we are heading to a no.

I can confidently predict that it will be a No ... in this poll.

Lockstep

snaps wrote: »

If this poll is anything to go by than looks like we are heading to a no.

Boards polls are notoriously inaccurate. If they were, then Labour and SF would be the biggest parties around, we'd have a strong libertarian party and Dylan Haskins would have been elected on a landslide.

The current opinion polls reported in the media show Yes leading but there are still a lot of undecideds.

Scofflaw

dvpower wrote: »

I can confidently predict that it will be a No ... in this poll.

The day I see a Yes in an internet poll of voting intentions on an EU treaty I'll look to the West for the sunrise.

This one was Lisbon 2: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055615489&page=227

44.66% Yes, 52.13% No.

National result: Yes 67.1%, No 32.9%

cordially,
Scofflaw

smash

Debate on Matt Cooper is interesting. There's scare tactics coming strong from the yes side about foreign investment, downgrading of the country, tougher budgets etc etc.

Have to say I'm annoyed with the likes of PayPal and eBay saying they want a yes vote before they expand.

Scofflaw

smash wrote: »

Debate on Matt Cooper is interesting. There's scare tactics coming strong from the yes side about foreign investment, downgrading of the country, tougher budgets etc etc.

Have to say I'm annoyed with the likes of PayPal and eBay saying they want a yes vote before they expand.

Why? If anyone can contribute to the debate - and it seems anyone can - why not them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

smash

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why? If anyone can contribute to the debate - and it seems anyone can - why not them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

They weren't part of the debate. It was a press statement which was mentioned.

srsly78

And it's quite relevant to the debate, so what is the problem? It annoys you because it shows some of the consequences of voting no?

dvpower

smash wrote: »

They weren't part of the debate. It was a press statement which was mentioned.

I think he means the wider debate, not the Today FM one.

dvpower

smash wrote: »

Have to say I'm annoyed with the likes of PayPal and eBay saying they want a yes vote before they expand.

Does this mean "YES for jobs" is a legitimate slogan?

Anthony16

Does anybody know what the EU-IMF opinion is on the Croke Park deal?
I cant ever see us paying back our loans until that is cut into.
All public servants should have been cut by 1/3 like their private sector counterparts but of course this wont happen unless it is a last resort.

smash

srsly78 wrote: »

And it's quite relevant to the debate, so what is the problem? It annoys you because it shows some of the consequences of voting no?

It annoys me because private companies with their own interest in mind should not be making threats to sway a vote which will affect our country's future.

This vote, be it yes or no should make no difference to eBay or Paypal. They still get their low corporation tax and are still getting skilled staff.

dvpower

smash wrote: »

It annoys me because private companies with their own interest in mind should not be making threats to sway a vote which will affect our country's future.

This vote, be it yes or no should make no difference to eBay or Paypal. They still get their low corporation tax and are still getting skilled staff.

It clearly does make a difference to them.

smash

dvpower wrote: »

It clearly does make a difference to them.

would you go away Enda and do some work.

humanji

smash wrote: »

It annoys me because private companies with their own interest in mind should not be making threats to sway a vote which will affect our country's future.

This vote, be it yes or no should make no difference to eBay or Paypal. They still get their low corporation tax and are still getting skilled staff.

We get so many people complaining that we don't know what will happen with either voting option, and now you're complaining that some companies are telling you exactly what will happen with them?

3rdDegree

Lockstep wrote: »

Boards polls are notoriously inaccurate.

I wonder why?