Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Can anyone prove that both Lenihan and McWilliams knew exactly what the full state of the banking system was and with particular regard to the actual state of Anglo Irish Bank?

Let's be honest here. what really should have happen was Lenihan should have posted his ideas and concerns on boards.ie and acted upon the collective wisdom that resides here.

Funnily enough, I don't particularly blame any of those involved for the guarantee. They were in exceptional circumstances, and based on what they knew, I can see that the guarantee would have looked like it wouldn't cost the State, as both Lenihan and McWilliams described it, although it was frankly an enormous gamble to take, something I can't particularly respect.

My problems with Lenihan et al - and not even Lenihan particularly, since he was new in the role, but more with Bertie, McCreevy, and Cowen - are encapsulated in the first point you make. They should have known what the full state of the banking system was, and they didn't, because for the previous decade they'd been letting the banks regulate themselves, while making the Financial Regulator responsible for selling Ireland as a light-touch destination for financial industry. That's the real failing, not the guarantee.

As for McWilliams - again, I don't criticise him specifically for the bank guarantee, although it shares the problem of misidentifying the problem and gambling in a state of ignorance. My issue with McWilliams is that he first claimed credit for it when it looked like a good thing, and has since then done his best to disclaim what he actually advocated - for example his statement at the time was that we shouldn't import models from abroad but do something bold, new, and uniquely Irish, but he now claims he was thinking of the Swedish model really, despite not mentioning that model in any way at the time. And, fair enough, he's not the Minister for Finance or one of his advisors - but, well, let's repeat that, he's not, and that's because he's a self-proclaimed economics guru who specialises in soundbite sloganomics, who has put out at least one disastrous gamble and tried to evade the resulting criticism in a markedly dishonest way....but some people swallow his pap.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tin79

Deleted User wrote: »

It's pretty logical. Weather like the start of the week would've kept turnout down, same if it starts pissing rain now. Sadder that the weather makes a difference but it does and it does just about everywhere in the world.

= joke.

jluv

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Illogical.
If you don't understand the issue, leave the voting to people who actually bothered their arse to try to understand it.

Voting No becasue you don't understand it is retarded, as is voting No to give two fingers to the government or the EU

For numerous reasons people may not be able to comprehend/understand what they are voting on but absolutly noone has the right to tell them not to vote. If everyone votes then someone can always be held accountable.If people don't vote then it's a free pass to say "not my fault". If someone doesn't fully understand they still have the right to vote whichever way they want.

Scofflaw

jluv wrote: »

For numerous reasons people may not be able to comprehend/understand what they are voting on but absolutly noone has the right to tell them not to vote. If everyone votes then someone can always be held accountable.If people don't vote then it's a free pass to say "not my fault". If someone doesn't fully understand they still have the right to vote whichever way they want.

I wouldn't agree that not voting is a free pass to say "not my fault" - you're deciding to let others decide. While that can make sense, it's not an opt-out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Funnily enough, I don't particularly blame any of those involved for the guarantee. They were in exceptional circumstances, and based on what they knew, I can see that the guarantee would have looked like it wouldn't cost the State, as both Lenihan and McWilliams described it, although it was frankly an enormous gamble to take, something I can't particularly respect.

My problems with Lenihan et al - and not even Lenihan particularly, since he was new in the role, but more with Bertie, McCreevy, and Cowen - are encapsulated in the first point you make. They should have known what the full state of the banking system was, and they didn't, because for the previous decade they'd been letting the banks regulate themselves, while making the Financial Regulator responsible for selling Ireland as a light-touch destination for financial industry. That's the real failing, not the guarantee.

As for McWilliams - again, I don't criticise him specifically for the bank guarantee, although it shares the problem of misidentifying the problem and gambling in a state of ignorance. My issue with McWilliams is that he first claimed credit for it when it looked like a good thing, and has since then done his best to disclaim what he actually advocated - for example his statement at the time was that we shouldn't import models from abroad but do something bold, new, and uniquely Irish, but he now claims he was thinking of the Swedish model really, despite not mentioning that model in any way at the time. And, fair enough, he's not the Minister for Finance or one of his advisors - but, well, let's repeat that, he's not, and that's because he's a self-proclaimed economics guru who specialises in soundbite sloganomics, who has put out at least one disastrous gamble and tried to evade the resulting criticism in a markedly dishonest way....but some people swallow his pap.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So you reckon McWilliams would make a good Taoiseach or minister then.

Battered Mars Bar

Scofflaw wrote: »

September 21st 2008: http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2008/09/21/state-must-act-as-a-safeguard

"So what are our options? The first approach to dealing with this is the Lehman model. This is where the state allows the bank to fail. This is not an option for Ireland, as only failed states have failed banks."

Shame, Iceland are doing a lot better than us now.

"The fourth option is the most attractive one, but it hasn’t been tried anywhere and would demand a leap of faith from the authorities. Remember what we said before: the two critical elements are time and confidence. The single most persuasive route to take would be for the Irish government to guarantee all deposits in Irish banks. Yesterday’s announcement of a €100,000 deposit guarantee only goes half the way.
In contrast, a full guarantee would have meant full protection for all creditors, all our own deposits and those of the foreign institutions who have lent to the Irish banks. The government could do this for a limited period – let’s say two years."

The bold bit is was I meant. T'was a full guarantee you're right. I'm better equipped for a drunken debate in my local now :cool:

insanity50

Voted No. Mainly for the sake of our children and our granchildren. The bank debts can't continue. Also voted no just to stick two fingers up to Kenny, Gilmore and Scofflaw.

Cordially,

50.

humanji

jluv wrote: »

For numerous reasons people may not be able to comprehend/understand what they are voting on but absolutly noone has the right to tell them not to vote. If everyone votes then someone can always be held accountable.If people don't vote then it's a free pass to say "not my fault". If someone doesn't fully understand they still have the right to vote whichever way they want.

People have the duty to get themselves informed. If they fail, then that's their problem. The nation's future shouldn't rest on them flipping a coin.

If you vote, vote because you believe that the option you have chosen is what's best for the nation and/or for you. It doesn't matter if this reason turns out to be incorrect in the grand scheme of things. The important thing is that it's what you believed to be right.

What's the point in voting if you don't know why you're voting? And what's the point in claiming people have a right to vote when they shirk the responsibilities of that come with that right?

jluv

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that not voting is a free pass to say "not my fault" - you're deciding to let others decide. While that can make sense, it's not an opt-out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There will always be a small minority though that will not be understanding of the issues. Because a person feels they are more knowledgable does not give them the right to say a person shouldn't vote.If everyone votes then surely it gives a true indication of where we stand? Anyway I understand and have voted:)

flyswatter

What's this about a yes vote meaning tax will be unified across Europe?

Hence corporation tax, multinationals leaving and all that.

Any truth in this?

Amirani

flyswatter wrote: »

What's this about a yes vote meaning tax will be unified across Europe?

Hence corporation tax, multinationals leaving and all that.

Any truth in this?

Absolutely none.

jluv

humanji wrote: »

People have the duty to get themselves informed. If they fail, then that's their problem. The nation's future shouldn't rest on them flipping a coin.

If you vote, vote because you believe that the option you have chosen is what's best for the nation and/or for you. It doesn't matter if this reason turns out to be incorrect in the grand scheme of things. The important thing is that it's what you believed to be right.

What's the point in voting if you don't know why you're voting? And what's the point in claiming people have a right to vote when they shirk the responsibilities of that come with that right?

I would never condone a flip of a coin voting but in fairness the information or lack of can make decisions very difficult for people.I still think noone has the right to say don't vote.Will let it go at that..

humanji

jluv wrote: »

I would never condone a flip of a coin voting but in fairness the information or lack of can make decisions very difficult for people.I still think noone has the right to say don't vote.Will let it go at that..

But that's the problem. If you don't know what you'er voting on, then you are effectively flipping a coin. Now, I think everyone can agree that the information on this treaty was a joke from all sides. But the information was out there. And even if someone doesn't get all the info, but gets enough to come to a conclusion, then that's a good reason to vote.

If they still have no idea on what they are voting on, then there simply isn't a reason for them to vote. It serves no purpose but to skew the result. And it's also pretty insulting to those who made an effort.

SafeSurfer

humanji wrote: »

What's the point in voting if you don't know why you're voting? And what's the point in claiming people have a right to vote when they shirk the responsibilities of that come with that right?

I don't know if you are joking or just naive.

The right to vote does not come with any eligibility criteria except being over 18.

There is no intelligence test, no test to see if you are informed about the issues etc etc.

For years and currently many people maybe even most people voted for political parties because their father did or their grandfather did or because x politician got them a grant or y politician stood them a drink.

So don't try to say that people weigh up carefully the reasons for their vote before casting it because it is far, far removed from reality.

humanji

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don't know if you are joking or just naive.

The right to vote does not come with any eligibility criteria except being over 18.

There is no intelligence test, no test to see if you are informed about the issues etc etc.

For years and currently many people maybe even most people voted for political parties because their father did or their grandfather did or because x politician got them a grant or y politician stood them a drink.

So don't try to say that people weigh up carefully the reasons for their vote before casting it because it is far, far removed from reality.

You have completely misunderstood what I said.

Akrasia

jluv wrote: »

I would never condone a flip of a coin voting but in fairness the information or lack of can make decisions very difficult for people.I still think noone has the right to say don't vote.Will let it go at that..

While people shouldn't be told that they can not vote,
Neither should they be told that they have a moral obligation to vote

There are a lot of people out there that have absolutely no idea what way they should vote, but are being told that if they don't vote, they are irresponsible.

Abstaining from a vote is a perfectly legitimate democratic decision if you do not have a preference one way or another.

Micky Dolenz

hooradiation wrote: »

He's serious and right.

#

Exact same thing can be said for most of the yes voters.

Tumbleweed at the polling station! :rolleyes:

dunner515

Stumbled across this picture and thought I would share it with my fellow boards members

--Kaiser--

dunner515 wrote: »

Stumbled across this picture and thought I would share it with my fellow boards members

I feel sorry for the type of person who would be influenced by such meaningless drivel

My name is URL

humanji wrote: »

If they still have no idea on what they are voting on, then there simply isn't a reason for them to vote. It serves no purpose but to skew the result. And it's also pretty insulting to those who made an effort.

I'd have far more respect for somebody that went on gut instinct and didn't really understand what they were voting for, than I would for those who understand it alright but don't bother their holes to vote anyway.

I'm just back from the polling station now and as of 4pm the turnout was at 8%.. 8 flipping per cent. With turnouts like that nobody should have the right to vote.

What skews results more, a few people not fully understanding what they're voting on or hundreds of thousand of people not exercising their democratic duty to vote at all?

humanji

dunner515 wrote: »

Stumbled across this picture and thought I would share it with my fellow boards members

Voting no will mean allowing dinosaurs to eat your children.

Stark

My Name is URL wrote:

What skews results more, a few people not fully understanding what they're voting on or hundreds of thousand of people not exercising their democratic duty to vote at all?

Wikipedia has a list of arguments for and against compulsory voting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

Tbh, anyone who lets the rain put them off deserves to have their vote taken off them.

humanji

My name is URL wrote: »

I'd have far more respect for somebody that went on gut instinct and didn't really understand what they were voting for, than I would for those who understand it alright but don't bother their holes to vote anyway.

I'm just back from the polling station now and as of 4pm the turnout was at 8%.. 8 flipping per cent. With turnouts like that nobody should have the right to vote.

What skews results more, a few people not fully understanding what they're voting on or hundreds of thousand of people not exercising their democratic duty to vote at all?

I'm not talking about people who go on a gut instinct. I'm talking about people who don't know and randomly choose a side. If you go with a gut instinct, then you're going with the option you believe is best.

Bullseye1

Bambi wrote: »

Don't youse go making a holy show of us in front of europe!!

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

Brilliant stuff LOL.

SafeSurfer

humanji wrote: »

You have completely misunderstood what I said.

No I haven't, I just disagree with you.

You say people have a duty to get themselves informed and have responsibilities with their voting rights. But you are wrong on both counts. The franchise is a universal right and I have the right to remain ignorant of all political issues and spoil my ballot paper by writing "humanji is a fool" on it if I so desire.

K-9

GreenLady wrote: »

I obviously have some sort of intellectual deficit since I can't understand the relationship between whether people believe polls and whether they are accurate. You apparently equate belief and knowledge.

However, the Oireachtas did commission research into the accuracy of opinion polls in ireland and into whether they influenced voting behaviour back in 2009 and specifically around the Lisbon Treaty. The outcome can be found at http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/ - search under political opinion polls to download the pdf.

Of course the source is tainted - the Oireachtas paid for the study so it must be biased, and Professor Marsh, when I last checked, was probably the leading expert on political opinion polls in Europe and therefore obviously doesn't know as much as you do and anyway surely sold out the Fianna Fail government - but others may find it interesting

Opinion polls seem to be only accurate if they agree with their view, an online poll open to re-regs and shills is more accurate than independent polls, it really is a spectacularly dumb way of looking at things but there you are.

EURATS

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

dunner515 wrote: »

Stumbled across this picture and thought I would share it with my fellow boards members

I feel sorry for the type of person who would be influenced by such meaningless drivel

I see. So it's all lies?

EURATS

humanji wrote: »

dunner515 wrote: »

Stumbled across this picture and thought I would share it with my fellow boards members

Voting no will mean allowing dinosaurs to eat your children.

No it won't. It will mean our kids will be allowed eat dinosaurs

humanji

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No I haven't, I just disagree with you.

You say people have a duty to get themselves informed and have responsibilities with their voting rights. But you are wrong on both counts. The franchise is a universal right and I have the right to remain ignorant of all political issues and spoil my ballot paper by writing "humanji is a fool" on it if I so desire.

Then you don't understand the right to vote or why you have the right or possibly even how it was achieved in the first place, which is a very sorry state of affairs.