"Stability" Treaty instead of Fiscal Treaty

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

hang on a minute now... let's be very clear about the time-frame
Recession/Bubble Bursts = Mid 2008
Lisbon treaty law = December 2009

We had a massive construction bubble burst and a world recession happen before the Lisbon treaty came into force. So while our domestic economy is is bad shape exports have been booming. So jobs must have been created for those exports, though they cannot make up for the mess we created before the Lisbon treaty came into effect.

Actually I posted about this some time back. Let me see can I find it...

Just to put figures on that - at the height of the bubble, 12% of employment was directly in construction, 10.33% of GNP was construction activity, while estimates of construction-related proportions of employment and GNP are around 20-25% - a quarter of the domestic economy. 72% of all domestic bank lending was property-related. 15% of our tax take was based on residential property related taxes alone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Youngwisdom

meglome wrote: »

Did they fool the nation previously on a treaty?

Yes, they made us vote a second time, which they will probably do again if we vote no, it insures the people with limited knowledge (those who don't do their own research) change their minds, this fits in well with the over commitment to promote the yes vote.
I was handed a flier promoting the yes vote outside Heuston station the other day, it gave a brief summary of why to vote yes and no reasons to vote no!
:mad:

Again I'll put my fingers in my ears when the government start talking smack!!!

Godge

Youngwisdom wrote: »

Yes, they made us vote a second time, which they will probably do again if we vote no, it insures the people with limited knowledge (those who don't do their own research) change their minds, this fits in well with the over commitment to promote the yes vote.
I was handed a flier promoting the yes vote outside Heuston station the other day, it gave a brief summary of why to vote yes and no reasons to vote no!
:mad:

If the person handing you the leaflet was in an organisation promoting a yes vote, why would the leaflet give any good reason to vote no?

I have seen some of the stuff from the SF/ULA axis of ignorance and their leaflets attempt to promote a no vote by telling a pack of lies.

Youngwisdom

Godge wrote: »

If the person handing you the leaflet was in an organisation promoting a yes vote, why would the leaflet give any good reason to vote no?

I have seen some of the stuff from the SF/ULA axis of ignorance and their leaflets attempt to promote a no vote by telling a pack of lies.

I agree,
Hence the need to get a government which has a common goal (the success of Ireland, Economically, Enviromentally and Socially). The parties only squabble at the expense of the tax payers. Why do people listen to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, when did they do anything right, Sinn Fein have the right ideas but they only say them to go against everyone else for the sake of it, throw out half them chair fillers and elect a real peoples party.

I voted like most people today to be greeted by an 2 old teachers of mine, why are these people, who are being well payed for crossing names of a list, still coming from the public service? Teachers and the like? Don't forget how inefficiently the public service was paid right up to 2008, literally bleeding us dry. Why can't people on the dole do it, they would make more than they do in the week for the few hours today n at least i would feel sick getting up in the morning to pay tax for nothing. Not being insensitive for the unemployed, i know the majority have no choice. How is a treaty which will automatically produce austerity if the government doesn't meet its optimistic targets help us? Sure we havn't hit any of our targets yet, we certainly will be hit with more austerity measures if this treaty is ratified and the government will have no money left for capital investments, which is the only thing providing the construction industry with its last legs, No investment, no growth, and high taxes then no foreign direct investment or tourism!
Simple economics required!

meglome

Youngwisdom wrote: »

Yes, they made us vote a second time,

Sorry I asked did they fool us on a treaty before and you answered a different question as far as I can tell.

I hate to point out the obvious but no one was forced to vote yes or no, or at all. I seem to recall not voting at all in the first Lisbon vote as I didn't know what I was voting on, and happily voted yes the second time. And not a bit of force involved.

Youngwisdom wrote: »

which they will probably do again if we vote no, it insures the people with limited knowledge (those who don't do their own research) change their minds, this fits in well with the over commitment to promote the yes vote.

Or back it the real world... the government asked people why they voted no and got assurances on those points. Since the reasons were mostly not contained in the treaty it was embarrassing yet easy to sort.

Youngwisdom wrote: »

I was handed a flier promoting the yes vote outside Heuston station the other day, it gave a brief summary of why to vote yes and no reasons to vote no!
:mad:

You think the Yes campaign should convince you to vote no? BTW were you angry about the lying no posters up all over the place?

Youngwisdom wrote: »

Again I'll put my fingers in my ears when the government start talking smack!!!

It's fascinating in this country that we distrust the government so much that we'll accept what even bigger liars have to say.

C14N

Psychedelic wrote: »

I noticed the official website for the upcoming Treaty referendum is www.stabilitytreaty.ie and everything there referring to Stability Treaty, instead of Fiscal Treaty which is what I've heard it being referred to all along until now.

Was this the original name for the Treaty as agreed by the EU member states? Or have the Irish Government re-branded it?

Isn't that totally biased in favour of a Yes vote? In a psychological way I mean. If it was called a Fiscal Treaty or Economic Treaty or <insert EU City> Treaty there's no bias.

Well I thought "Stability Treaty" was just propaganda but now it has been revealed that it was the original name. Is it really so shocking that the people who wrote it up (and want to to be passed) would give it an appealing name that describes what they want it to do?

Psychedelic wrote: »

They wouldn't call it the "Instability Treaty" or the "More Austerity Treaty".

No, because that wouldn't get it through or describe what it's supposed to do. And don't worry, there have been plenty of people making up for them with their "Austerity Treaty" and "Bankers' Treaty" nonsense.

Youngwisdom wrote: »

I voted like most people today to be greeted by an 2 old teachers of mine, why are these people, who are being well payed for crossing names of a list, still coming from the public service? Teachers and the like? Don't forget how inefficiently the public service was paid right up to 2008, literally bleeding us dry. Why can't people on the dole do it, they would make more than they do in the week for the few hours today n at least i would feel sick getting up in the morning to pay tax for nothing.

1) Considering they can't teach (since the school closes for referenda and elections) and will be paid anyway (since teachers are paid salary, not an hourly wage), I can't understand your confusion at getting them to do the job of supervising the place. Paying more people to do the job will just cost more money.

2) Long time teachers are usually trusted members of the community.

3) The effort and cost required to advertise the job, screen applicants, hold interviews to make sure they can be trusted and then officially pay them for ONE DAY of work is so ludicrously not worth it that I'm surprised you would even bring it up.

Also, I notice you said this is the 3rd time Germany is trying to take over Europe. Obviously you are melodramatically exaggerating this situation as Germany taking over Europe and another time is WW2 when Hitler managed to amass quite an empire for himself but when else has Germany tried to take over? AFAIK the German Empire was never very big before Hitler's time (certainly not as big as the likes of the Roman or Ottoman empires) so was it another time during the 20th Century as they recovered from WW2 with half a country?

later12

C14N wrote: »

Well I thought "Stability Treaty" was just propaganda but now it has been revealed that it was the original name. Is it really so shocking that the people who wrote it up (and want to to be passed) would give it an appealing name that describes what they want it to do?

Except it doesn't.

The name of the Treaty is the Treaty on Stability, Co-Ordination and Governance in the EMU.

There are three aspects to the Treaty: Stability, Co-Ordination and Governance.

Stability is one of those words that no reasonable person would be opposed to. Co-ordination and Governance, however, imply some level of exchange of which voters are likely to be less automatically in favour.

Now, the Referendum Commission was of the opinion that the "Stability, Co-ordination and Governance Referendum" would be far too many words for voters to handle.

That's pretty strange to my ears, because it's less words as they used for the "Referendum on inquiries by the Oireachtas" in 2011.