Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

Fenian Army

Scofflaw wrote: »

It could well look that way to you, but I learned the folly of the idea in the endless Creationist thread in the Christianity forum long before enduring the two head-to-the-brick-wall sessions that were Lisbon 1 & 2.

I have no objection at all to someone voting No on solid rational grounds (see exchanges with Head The Walls today, for example), but to be honest I dislike seeing anyone doing anything on the basis of misinformation, misdirected emotion, and misuse of logic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What did you make of vincent Brownes reasons for voting no?

http://politico.ie/latest-from-politico/tonight-with-vincent-browne-liveblog/8584-vinb-voting-no-treaty.html

tolosenc

Fenian Army wrote: »

What did you make of vincent Brownes reasons for voting no?

http://politico.ie/latest-from-politico/tonight-with-vincent-browne-liveblog/8584-vinb-voting-no-treaty.html

He's voting the way he is voting based on reasons that have nothing to do with what he was voting on.

It's like voting potato for president.

Scofflaw

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The one doing the borrowing is a government, so calling it the government rather than the economy is more accurate in this context.

Since we're arguing about the effects of such borrowing on the economy, no. The government does not improve or grow by borrowing.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Which is exactly what I said. If your growth is coming from loans, and will vanish if the loans are removed, its not growth. Its some sort of zombified half life.

It's not exactly what you said, which is why I wound up saying it! You simply said that borrowing couldn't produce growth.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

In a business context, taking out loans to open new markets or expand the company does lead to real sustainable growth. Where is this sustainable growth meant to come from with these EU loans?

In this case nobody is expecting them to produce growth - they're aimed, instead, at preventing the economy from going into shock as a result of immediately having to balance the budget.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

We've survived a lot worse, as have many others.

Sure - people survived the world wars. It doesn't make me eager to repeat them, and I wouldn't regard "far from pleasant" as an adequate description there ether.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The only question is whether or not its better than the alternative, which is the crux of our disagreement. My point is that I think we can keep borrowing until we are literally unable to repay, at which point we have a default and we owe a hell of a lot more for a hell of a lot longer. I'm taking the longer view here, in saying its preferable to replace that uncertainty and immense risk with a harsh short term adjustment.

OK - but we're not aiming to "keep borrowing until we are literally unable to repay" - come to that, repayment has never been something we were going to do.

What's happening is a series of quite steep adjustments towards a sustainable deficit - and while that increases the debt, it doesn't increase it past what we can bear.

Because we don't plan on repaying (states don't repay, by and large), what's important is whether we can roll the debt over, and what interest rates we can get. Interest payments cut into our government spending, and are obviously of no value to our economy (except perhaps where the debt is held by Irish residents) - but we're not, on current forecasts (note, not government ones), expecting the proportion of our tax take that goes on such payments to hit 20% - and, coming back to the "we've survived worse", we were putting 28% of tax take to interest payments in 1991.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Give people a decent choice and they'll vote for it. The problem is the lack of decent choices. And the electorate is very capable of handing out punishments and rewards as it sees fit, look what happened to the Greens and FF.

Unfortunately, that illustrates the point - the electorate punished FF (and the Greens) not for the decade of laissez-faire non-regulation and cronyism that created banks with balance sheets several times our GDP and an unsustainably imprudent business model, and not for the deliberate ramping up of one of the world's sharpest property bubbles, but for the bank guarantee and the troika intervention.

Currently a big chunk of the electorate would vote like a shot for anyone who could confidently promise to bring back the boom.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

We aren't going back to the 80s, that's fearmongering.

Well, quit with the "there'll be free puppies for everyone" nonsense.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Prewar Germany had a lot more in common with Ireland than you might think. Almost all of their economic growth was based on loans. The point however is that even in extreme cases there is no scarring, unless you mean the odd bunker or bomb crater, which is hardly salient to the discussion.

I think you've hugely missed the point, but let prinz's response stand. Are we not engaged in a debate that revolves around Germany's supposed reluctance to repeat the 30's? Is that not 'scarring'?

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its fairly simple - businesses relying on unsustainable income from the government will go under, to be replaced by better businesses or not replaced if they are unneccessary. And that's just the private sector, the public sector is where the most radical changes will take place, which is a good thing.

Unfortunately, the idea that there are "good businesses" which have no government contracts and would therefore be virtuously unaffected, while the "wicked companies" who survive on government handouts perish in the fiery flames, is rather obviously mythological. Ireland's domestic businesses are intimately connected to each other, and the effects of turning off government spending flow right through the system.

A gradual reduction of the deficit gives Irish businesses time to adjust to the removal of government spending, find new business, make savings, rationalise, etc. Fast adjustments don't - you simply go out of business instead.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Fenian Army wrote: »

What did you make of vincent Brownes reasons for voting no?

http://politico.ie/latest-from-politico/tonight-with-vincent-browne-liveblog/8584-vinb-voting-no-treaty.html

Not very much:

I will vote No to reject the incorporation of stringent fiscal rules into our constitution, not because adherence to fiscal rules is not sensible but because, in our political culture, such adherence will be done at the expense of the lower paid.

"I will vote against having certain rules not because they bind us, but because of the way we choose to exercise our freedoms." Fail.

I will vote No to register opposition to the European Union elite that in 2008 insisted no bank should fail when the financial crisis broke and then refused to spread the burden of ensuring that.

I will vote No on the basis of pub myths and Fianna Fáil revisionism contradicted by every contemporary account, and supported by no facts whatsoever. Fail.

I will vote No to register opposition to this Fine Gael/Labour government which was elected to office on the promise to reject the policies of the outgoing Fianna Fáil-led government and on the promise that they would secure a write-down of the bank debt. In office, this new government has perpetuated the policies of the former and, according to Enda Kenny, done nothing at all to secure a write-down of the bank debt.

Just fail. Doesn't really need explaining - this is not an election.

I will vote No to register opposition to the imposition here and throughout Europe of a neoliberal agenda, an agenda that will institutionalise inequalities and social cruelties through permanent supervision of budgetary, economic, labour and competitiveness policies, inevitably, from the perspective of that neoliberal agenda. (By neoliberalism I mean the ideology that ordains free markets must be the primary instrument of economic and social development, markets driven by demand, not need.)

I will vote No because <loads of buzzwords unrelated to the Treaty>. The Treaty prescribes no particular economic policy stance bar prudence - and prudence is not an ideological position. Fail again.

I will vote No in solidarity with peoples throughout Europe who are and have been denied any say in this treaty or any say on the other European treaties, treaties that, in the main, favour rich and powerful elites throughout the union at the expense of the mass of people.

I will vote No because I disagree with the way other countries have chosen to arrange their constitutional affairs. Fail.

I will vote No to express indignation with the cavalier disregard of the procedures and protocols of the European Union itself of the sovereignty of its member states, in the conduct of the leaders of the EU institutions and of Germany and France, in their insolence in interfering with the internal affairs of Greece and Italy, in their disregard for “democratic” procedures of the Union - even in the way this Fiscal Treaty came about.

I will vote No because the EU is run by the member states. Fail.

I will vote No to defy the wishes of the German elite, which benefited so spectacularly from the emergence of the Eurozone and now makes modest redistribution of that generated wealth, conditional on adherence to its economic and budgetary diktats, diktats that disadvantage not only the mass of people throughout the rest of Europe but the mass of people in Germany itself.

I will vote No because I've been to the pub again and heard some more evidence-deficient myths. Fail.

I will vote No to give backbone to the government’s dealings with the EU on the promissory notes and the other bank debt.

I will vote No in order to reduce the government's room for manouever in negotiations, and to reduce their credibility with their negotiating partners. Fail again.

To be honest, VB epitomises for me the irrational side of politics - anger based on fact-deficient narrative simplifications of complex issues. He does a good shouty red face, and that's about it - and that's occasionally a good thing, for a TV interviewer. As far as analysis goes, though, he is to politics what McWilliams is to economics with his "Sloganomics" - and is equally popular in some quarters for precisely the same reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Doc Ruby

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not exactly what you said, which is why I wound up saying it! You simply said that borrowing couldn't produce growth.

You're the one who decided to confuse the government and economy with businesses. If this were a thread about business I'd assume the context would also be clear.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In this case nobody is expecting them to produce growth - they're aimed, instead, at preventing the economy from going into shock as a result of immediately having to balance the budget.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Um, no, that's entirely wrong. The problem with the property bubble was that a house doesn't actually grow - but that doesn't apply to economies, or indeed businesses. If a company borrows money to expand the business, and pays back the loan out of the expanded business, your claim is that this is "not growth", which is very obviously not true.

This is what I'm talking about. You swapped business loans into the discussion for some reason.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - people survived the world wars. It doesn't make me eager to repeat them, and I wouldn't regard "far from pleasant" as an adequate description there ether.

So do you now believe we will be invaded if we vote no? Rather taking scaremongering to the next level aren't we?

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK - but we're not aiming to "keep borrowing until we are literally unable to repay" - come to that, repayment has never been something we were going to do.

Where we're aiming to go and where we actually go with this shower at the wheel are very rarely the same thing. And that's when they bother to tell us where we're aiming to go. It has been a litany of broken promises and failed aspirations from day one.

Scofflaw wrote: »

What's happening is a series of quite steep adjustments towards a sustainable deficit - and while that increases the debt, it doesn't increase it past what we can bear.

Because we don't plan on repaying (states don't repay, by and large), what's important is whether we can roll the debt over, and what interest rates we can get. Interest payments cut into our government spending, and are obviously of no value to our economy (except perhaps where the debt is held by Irish residents) - but we're not, on current forecasts (note, not government ones), expecting the proportion of our tax take that goes on such payments to hit 20% - and, coming back to the "we've survived worse", we were putting 28% of tax take to interest payments in 1991.

I get all this - my concern, and I feel it is a valid concern, is that the savings created by austerity measures so far are being largely eaten by the interest payments on loans taken to keep expenditure as high as it is. And looking into the future, I have no confidence in the growth scenario that would allay my concerns.

What was it the lads from the tent said, one euro in five going on interest before too long. Have we managed to achieve the what, €14 billion in austerity measures needed to merely equal this? And that's not really helping our position at all.

Better to get it over with, at least this way we'll owe less at the end of the day. Besides which I have questions on just how severe the effects on the economy would be if cuts are targeted by people who aren't union members.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, that illustrates the point - the electorate punished FF (and the Greens) not for the decade of laissez-faire non-regulation and cronyism that created banks with balance sheets several times our GDP and an unsustainably imprudent business model, and not for the deliberate ramping up of one of the world's sharpest property bubbles, but for the bank guarantee and the troika intervention.

And rightly so. As misguided as it was, nobody was forced to buy a house. If you wanted to opt out, it was very easy, and a great many people did. What the bank guarantee did was make someone else's problem everybody's problem, and that was massively irresponsible.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Currently a big chunk of the electorate would vote like a shot for anyone who could confidently promise to bring back the boom.

Its great how yourself and a couple of other commentators have confidently appointed themselves official spokespeople for the citizens of the Republic. Maybe I missed an election?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, quit with the "there'll be free puppies for everyone" nonsense.

What?

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think you've hugely missed the point, but let prinz's response stand. Are we not engaged in a debate that revolves around Germany's supposed reluctance to repeat the 30's? Is that not 'scarring'?

I didn't respond to prinz's comment because I feel it is irrelevant. Germany has one of the strongest economies on earth right now, rebuilt from rubble within living memory. Geographical features have no bearing on this. So much for permanent scarring, and you'd have to be deliberately trying to miss that point.

Although in fairness you have managed to twist it beyond reasonable expectation to a shadow of relevance - no, that's not scarring, that's called "experience", and they should be in no rush to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, the idea that there are "good businesses" which have no government contracts and would therefore be virtuously unaffected, while the "wicked companies" who survive on government handouts perish in the fiery flames, is rather obviously mythological. Ireland's domestic businesses are intimately connected to each other, and the effects of turning off government spending flow right through the system.

Please, I know strawmen are easier to knock down but at least try to make them less blatant. I said nothing whatsoever about good or evil businesses, merely those who exist more or less as semi state bodies. If we can't afford them, that's that. Dead weight.

Also don't make the mistake of thinking you're talking to a libertarian or rabid free market supporter, you aren't. Different problems have different fixes.

Scofflaw wrote: »

A gradual reduction of the deficit gives Irish businesses time to adjust to the removal of government spending, find new business, make savings, rationalise, etc. Fast adjustments don't - you simply go out of business instead.

You need to have customers to make an adjustment, where are these new markets going to come from?

EURATS

Scofflaw wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

To be truthful scofflaw, the amount of posts you have posted and the content of them would indicate otherwise.

It could well look that way to you, but I learned the folly of the idea in the endless Creationist thread in the Christianity forum long before enduring the two head-to-the-brick-wall sessions that were Lisbon 1 & 2.

I have no objection at all to someone voting No on solid rational grounds (see exchanges with Head The Walls today, for example), but to be honest I dislike seeing anyone doing anything on the basis of misinformation, misdirected emotion, and misuse of logic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is exactly how it looks scofflaw. And once I hear the religious end of things coming into it..wouldn't be where I'd be looking for direction.

We do have solid grounds to vote NO. We don't trust kenny and co. They are a disgrace to this country. They let their voters down consistently and without remorse.

It's the same stuff being regurgitated on a daily basis. Nothing you, or the others like you have said, has made any impact on the NO sides numbers in here. In fact, you have had the opposite effect.
Maybe that's the goal? Reverse psychology?

And as for people looking to reduce Kennys credibility...he does that all on his own!!! By being himself!!

Morrisseeee

The problem though is that the public (especially those who are struggling) are hurting, they're like a wounded animal, and look at who wounded them, the politicians\bankers\financial-regulators\property-speculators\European banks & governments\financial gamblers etc.

So what does a wounded animal do..............it doesn't turn the other cheek (even if you could convince them that that was the best outcome), no, they get their revenge (even if there's a possibility of that action having dire consequences) !

Imagine you're in a vice and the blood is being squeezed out of you, does it really matter who squeezes the last drop: our own beloved Government or the big guns from Europe ??!!

/therefore.............I wouldn't be surprised if the Irish public voted NO

woodoo

According to BBC Newsnight. Spain has negotiated a 1 year break on ratifying this fiscal treaty. Germany already delayed ratification.

This treaty is a busted flush.

laugh

woodoo wrote: »

According to BBC Newsnight. Spain has negotiated a 1 year break on ratifying this fiscal treaty. Germany already delayed ratification.

This treaty is a busted flush.

Makes our government look like gombeen yesmen though.

Mance Rayder

woodoo wrote: »

According to BBC Newsnight. Spain has negotiated a 1 year break on ratifying this fiscal treaty. Germany already delayed ratification.

This treaty is a busted flush.

Because Spain knows best right?

christmas2012

didnt sinn fein bring it to court and lose it was over the content of the treaty,and there still talking like they won in fairness..what i want to know is what alternative the 'no' side have to what the yes side has to offer which is access to low interest money after all we are in debt all thanks to the banks and idiots in power and that were previously in power..

JONJO THE MISER

Look at the adds from Fine Gael at the bottom of this thread, they have a Barclays logo on it, im sure there is some copyright issues there, time to email barclays.

LH Pathe

Yes looks good regardless doesn't it; yes men.. in this feelgood age.

Mance Rayder

christmas2012 wrote: »

didnt sinn fein bring it to court and lose it was over the content of the treaty,and there still talking like they won in fairness..what i want to know is what alternative the 'no' side have to what the yes side has to offer which is access to low interest money after all we are in debt all thanks to the banks and idiots in power and that were previously in power..

I think Sinn Fein are offering tickets to Euro 2012 if we vote no, that and a united Ireland as well.

Declan Ganleys suggesting we blackmail our creditors and hold the euro to ransom (A sure fire way to make them want to do business with us in the future)

Meanwhile Joe Higgins is suggesting we tighten up our budgetary rules and increase government accountability by rejecting the treaty designed to tighten up our budgetary rules and increase government accountability.

Dyr

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Meanwhile Joe Higgins is suggesting we tighten up our budgetary rules and increase government accountability by rejecting the treaty designed to tighten up our budgetary rules and increase government accountability.

Generally speaking, government accountability is meant to be to it's electorate, not to other governments.

PC CDROM

As a No voter I do hope the yes vote wins.

That way when it all goes pear shaped again...at least they can't blame the "no" vote and will be seen for the liars that they are.

Not that it will make much of a difference in this country.

christmas2012

borrow money at low interest - yes

borrow money at high interest - no

make ur vote

My name is URL

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Look at the adds from Fine Gael at the bottom of this thread, they have a Barclays logo on it, im sure there is some copyright issues there, time to email barclays.

This is the ad I'm seeing - http://omg.wthax.org/treateh.png :pac:

Dyr

PC CDROM wrote: »

As a No voter I do hope the yes vote wins.

That way when it all goes pear shaped again...at least they can't blame the "no" vote and will be seen for the liars that they are.

Not that it will make much of a difference in this country.

Truth is that we're probably borked no matter what way the vote goes.

tbh when it goes pear shaped it can never be the EU's fault, it's stinky little Ireland not being good enough Europeans.

Firefox11

Bambi wrote: »

Generally speaking, government accountability is meant to be to it's electorate, not to other governments.

Well that hasn't worked out too well for us has it.

Dyr

Firefox11 wrote: »

Well that hasn't worked out too well for us has it.

Your right mate lets scrap this whole democracy thing, that's where the problem is. A continent wide autocracy is the way to go.

Jesus fkin wept.

squod

christmas2012 wrote: »

borrow money at low interest - yes

borrow money at high interest - no

make ur vote

WTF? How could you possibly know what we're going to borrow?

We have no idea how much we will end up contributing to the fund as we don't know how much the fund will be. The total cost to Ireland is an unknown figure.

PC CDROM

Bambi wrote: »

Your right mate lets scrap this whole democracy thing, that's where the problem is. A continent wide autocracy is the way to go.

Jesus fkin wept.

People seem to confuse Electing Governments and people voting with "Democracy"

squod

Bambi wrote: »

Your right mate lets scrap this whole democracy thing..........

In fairness the party whip has done away with democracy in this country. Debates are just for show on the floor of the house and most deals are done before the debate etc.

K-9

Bambi wrote: »

Jesus fkin wept.

Indeed.

squod

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Meanwhile Joe Higgins is suggesting we tighten up our budgetary rules and increase government accountability by rejecting the treaty designed to tighten up our budgetary rules and increase government accountability.

We'll just pay the fines. Our government couldn't give a toss truly.

i8mancs

christmas2012 wrote: »

borrow money at low interest - yes

borrow money at high interest - no

make ur vote

EHH NO

Dempsey

I shall be voting no tomorrow. Its probably the most badly put together treaty thats ever come out of the EU.

Stinicker

I'm voting No tomorrow, I am predicting a small turn-out and tommorows good weather will see the sheeple doing other more important things, these are the people the Yes boys are appealing. No will win handily enough with about 54% No out of a < 40% voter turn out.

I don't want bailouts or access to more cheap Money, I want jobs for our young people. I want the Public sector trimmed and the waste got rid of, I want lower salaries for public and civil service employees, their jobs for life are worth 25-30% of salary. I want training schemes and jobs for the youth, I want people in Ireland to have a future in Ireland not in Australia or elsewhere. I want Ireland out of the Euro and EU, I want a real economy with jobs for Irish people in Ireland.

I'm voting No and I am an Irish patriot and am not willing to betray the Irish state.

tony007

christmas2012 wrote: »

borrow money at low interest - yes

borrow money at high interest - no

make ur vote

Be legally tied into cyclical austerity policies- yes
Not be legally tied into cyclical austerity policies- no