The Fiscal Treaty Yes or No

Sully

AdMMM wrote: »

I was actually going to vote yes because I thought the time for alternative strategies had long gone (i.e. I think the Government - and the previous one - have chosen the wrong strategy but the wheels had already been set in motion and deviating from it would be even worse for the country).

However, I'm now most likely going to vote No given how the tide seems to be changing across Europe and there's an opportunity to fall in behind other countries such as France, who would have far more clout in Europe than we could ever hope to!

But France isn't changing the treaty, just adding growth? Greece looks set for another election and possibly even a default / exiting of Europe.

AdMMM

The Greeks are just crazy!

However, the Netherlands, from what I can understand, have also turned against the treaty. Lets not forget that the UK also refused to sign up to it in the first place. Even Germany are delaying ratifying it too.

I would certainly be more in favour of deferring the referendum until such time that the Superpowers of Europe i.e. Germany and France, decide what it is they're going to do! Voting at a time of such uncertainty is just madness in my mind and will probably do the Yes side more harm on the day than it would in 6 months time when EVERYONE has a better idea of the situation in Europe.

Sully

Can someone point me to the part about Germany delaying the ratification? I didn't notice it in the media.

Its an interesting point though but I suspect the government doesn't want to take the risk of re-running a campaign and feel its more damaging stopping and starting it.

Bards

Sully wrote: »

Can someone point me to the part about Germany delaying the ratification? I didn't notice it in the media.

Its an interesting point though but I suspect the government doesn't want to take the risk of re-running a campaign and feel its more damaging stopping and starting it.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0510/fiscal-treaty-referendum.html

letsbet

I really trust that this government have worked out all of the costs and benefits of voting yes and no and have thus opted for yes. I mean I wouldn't be worried at all that Paschal Donohoe TD (shown on the Oireachtas Report) five minutes ago just read from his prepared statement (I assume it's in the PAC) that the price relating to building roads increased from €18 to €27 in Dublin and he stated that this was an increase of about one third. They really need to pay these politicians more as they are so intelligent!

Sully

Bards wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0510/fiscal-treaty-referendum.html

Barley makes any reference to it, but Brian Hayes makes a valid point and its one being made by the "Yes Camp" (not just the political parties) in response to claims we will have to go to the polls all over again or it would be redundant in future.

200motels

I see on the latest poll that the yes vote is up 6 points, I can't believe Irish people are that stupid to vote yes, the government are lying through their teeth and the sooner people who are voting yes realise that the better, if you thought the last budget was bad wait till the next one if a yes vote wins because it won't be our government that sets the budget, it will be Germany.

Hijpo

200motels wrote: »

I see on the latest poll that the yes vote is up 6 points, I can't believe Irish people are that stupid to vote yes, the government are lying through their teeth and the sooner people who are voting yes realise that the better, if you thought the last budget was bad wait till the next one if a yes vote wins because it won't be our government that sets the budget, it will be Germany.

I wouldnt read to much into that figure as they were probably all political canvasers. The thing that concerns me is that its blased out over the media meaning the sheeple will think to themselfs "jesus everyones votong ues, i better do the same"

Sully

200motels wrote: »

I see on the latest poll that the yes vote is up 6 points, I can't believe Irish people are that stupid to vote yes, the government are lying through their teeth and the sooner people who are voting yes realise that the better, if you thought the last budget was bad wait till the next one if a yes vote wins because it won't be our government that sets the budget, it will be Germany.

The Irish people were shown to be a bit stupid when they believed all the lies and bull**** spun by the No campaigners in the Lisbon Treaties. I don't see conception. Nor do I see abortion. It was far from a disaster that was made out if we voted Yes. Ireland was already in a crisis, needed more savage cuts and taxes, and we were getting it either way.

Now, if we vote Yes things continue the way they are. More cuts and probably more taxes. Perhaps we will see some proper growth packs and a fairer balance across Europe, which is what the treaty is designed to do because the previous treaty which brought in budget measures was clearly ignored by the bigger countries. This fixes that. Its more stable for Ireland to agree to better budget controls (which we already agreed to) and fines for ignoring it. Its more stable for Ireland to be part of an emergency fund if we need it also, without the risk of not getting money at all or getting it at much higher interest rates and terms which is what is causing austerity in the first place.

So, a No vote clearly gives two fingers to basic logic because your going into uncharted waters and in a very unstable environment. Who are you going to get funding from, if anyone? If someone offers us funding, what will the interest rates be? What about terms and conditions attached? Will they ask for bigger cuts across the board - from the top politicians right down to the pay packet both public and private workers get?

Voting No there is absolutely no guarantee. There is nothing incorrect about that. The No side have admitted this. They have responded say we don't need the bailout - this is what they want, they don't want us to go to anyone for money. The No side insist we can raid the National Pension Reserve Fund and fund our way out of the recession and balance the budgets. Other arguments are that we can introduce a wealth tax. None of these arguments figures actually add up. We are still short. Plus further taxation doesn't come instant - it takes time.

Sully

Hijpo wrote: »

I wouldnt read to much into that figure as they were probably all political canvasers. The thing that concerns me is that its blased out over the media meaning the sheeple will think to themselfs "jesus everyones votong ues, i better do the same"

Highly unlikely, these polls are generally very accurate and they take great care in who they choose. If they were government supporters than the actual party results would be up, not down.

Hijpo

Sully wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

I wouldnt read to much into that figure as they were probably all political canvasers. The thing that concerns me is that its blased out over the media meaning the sheeple will think to themselfs "jesus everyones votong ues, i better do the same"

Highly unlikely, these polls are generally very accurate and they take great care in who they choose. If they were government supporters than the actual party results would be up, not down.

Most parties want it in, just because the labour party results are down doesnt mean they havent chosen other political party members or whatever term youd use.

I cant trust politicians after whats come to light in the last few years, therefor anything they are pushing to vote in i automatically think that theres an alterior motive. That and fact that the country is a complete mess with greed and none of them seem to know how/have the balls to fix it themselfs so a second bail out is on the cards and with that conditions for creating revenue to pay it off which they will make a mess of and incure fines putting us in more debt until we end up like feckin ethiopia or some place. Yes im exagerating

insight_man

Something you all should know:


The Fiscal Treaty has three main elements.


The first is the idea of a ‘balanced budget’. This is promoted by the Tea party movement in the US and Obama has claimed it would ‘require deep cuts that would jeopardize everything from education to nutrition and health programmes for at-risk children’. Exactly the same argument applies to Ireland.


A ‘balanced budget’ means that a government could not spend any more than it takes in taxes. It would outlaw a stimulus programme for the economy and create difficulties.


Ireland is a case in point. The country is currently in recession – if measured by figures for GNP - because most people do not have money to spend and because capitalists are on an investment strike. Keynesian economists such as Paul Krugman argue that the Irish government should pump money into the economy to kickstart it. His aim is to save capitalism not destroy it but the Fiscal Treaty will make even these moderate proposals illegal.


The second element is that national debt must be cut by one twentieth each year until it reaches 60% of GDP. Ireland’s debt currently stands at 120 % of GDP – twice the target figure – and this means that severe cuts are required. On present figures, these would amount to between €4 billion and €5 billion a year.


These savage cuts would devastate living standards and destroy society.


The third element is punishment. If a country does not meet these artificial targets, it can be brought before the European Court of Justice and fined. In the Irish case, the fine would amount to €160 million.


In addition, the treaty states that the unelected EU Commission can set down guidelines which will determine ‘the nature, size and time frame of the corrective action to be undertaken’. In other words, they can dictate what cuts and tax hikes will take place. At the top of their list will be increased household charges and the removal of free travel for the elderly.



Next will be reduced social welfare, further increases to pension age, more cut backs in hospitals, colleges, schools, roads, housing...essentially nothing and that means NOTHING will be safe or protected.



Remember Lisbon1 & 2...Yes for jobs, Yes for growth, Yes foe stability...and what did we get...disaster. I hope the Irish people arn't foolish enough to fall for it again.


Todays Sunday Business Post commenting on the 6% rise in the yes vote sais "Fear is wining over anger" and that sums it up. This government and the powerful in Europe and FRIGHTENING people into voting yes. Stand up fore yourselves and vote NO

Turnstyle

@ in sight_man

interesting points, do you have links to where you obtained this info as I would like to read a bit further into it?

thank you for posting

Finnbar01

insight_man wrote: »

Ireland is a case in point. The country is currently in recession – if measured by figures for GNP - because most people do not have money to spend and because capitalists are on an investment strike. Keynesian economists such as Paul Krugman argue that the Irish government should pump money into the economy to kickstart it. His aim is to save capitalism not destroy it but the Fiscal Treaty will make even these moderate proposals illegal.

And where exactly will the stimulus package be targetted at? Do you trust the government to pick winners?

We need a balance budget and cut backs to allow the private sector to grow and flourish.

neantog

A YES vote win will Constitutionally harness the Irish population to the task of paying off the unsustainable gambling debts of the EU banks indefinitely - allied with ever deepening cuts in social services : healthcare, welfare, education, infrastructure, and in numerous other areas - further allied with ever increasing taxation of the entire population.

A YES vote is a vote for institutionalised social poverty.

A NO vote will register a potent protest against bank dictatorship - Prevent the People's Constitution from being rendered socially impotent - Prevent the Constitution from becoming a fig leaf for bank dictatorship.

A NO vote is a vote for popular Democracy, and against anti-social bank power.

Finnbar01

neantog wrote: »

A YES vote win will Constitutionally harness the Irish population to the task of paying off the unsustainable gambling debts of the EU banks indefinitely - allied with ever deepening cuts in social services : healthcare, welfare, education, infrastructure, and in numerous other areas - further allied with ever increasing taxation of the entire population.

A YES vote is a vote for institutionalised social poverty.

A NO vote will register a potent protest against bank dictatorship - Prevent the People's Constitution from being rendered socially impotent - Prevent the Constitution from becoming a fig leaf for bank dictatorship.

A NO vote is a vote for popular Democracy, and against anti-social bank power.

What the heck is institutionalised social poverty?

Sully

insight_man wrote: »

The first is the idea of a ‘balanced budget’. This is promoted by the Tea party movement in the US and Obama has claimed it would ‘require deep cuts that would jeopardize everything from education to nutrition and health programmes for at-risk children’. Exactly the same argument applies to Ireland.

Firstly, we already ratified that part in the Stability and Growth Pact and also the six-pack in 2011. This treaty aims to build on those, reinforcing the rules which were broken by the major states. That criteria was;

- an annual budget deficit no higher than 3% of GDP (this includes the sum of all public budgets, including municipalities, regions, etc.)
- a national debt lower than 60% of GDP or approaching that value.

Secondly, in regards to the US, the aim is to have a balanced budget at some stage, just like in the past. The argument is when and their financial situation is a lot worse than ours. Some believed it was possible with a better budget to have the balance sooner, others believe that doing so would be a disaster and it would take much longer (some say beyond our life time).

Its hardly appropriate to compare the US budget to the Irish budget when arguing against the treat.

A ‘balanced budget’ means that a government could not spend any more than it takes in taxes. It would outlaw a stimulus programme for the economy and create difficulties.

The treaty allows us to overspend, to a certain degree. Bound by an existing rule, it state that we must not have a debt bigger than 60% of what we produces in a year (GDP). If we do, we must reduce our debt by one-twentieth of the excess each year. This is an existing EU rule.

Ireland is a case in point. The country is currently in recession – if measured by figures for GNP - because most people do not have money to spend and because capitalists are on an investment strike. Keynesian economists such as Paul Krugman argue that the Irish government should pump money into the economy to kickstart it. His aim is to save capitalism not destroy it but the Fiscal Treaty will make even these moderate proposals illegal.

Mild recession, across Europe. If we go on a spending spree and go well beyond our means, in the hope it kick starts the economy, its going to take an age to repay the debt caused by trying to help the economy. The end result? Austerity.

The second element is that national debt must be cut by one twentieth each year until it reaches 60% of GDP. Ireland’s debt currently stands at 120 % of GDP – twice the target figure – and this means that severe cuts are required. On present figures, these would amount to between €4 billion and €5 billion a year.

These savage cuts would devastate living standards and destroy society.

Cuts are going ahead regardless of the way we vote. We agreed to these changes in the past. We need money to run the country at the moment, and the whole point here is if we say no, and we don't get funding that is cheap or without harsher terms - the likeliness is that we will face more cuts. The No camp have already admitted to this, and some are proposing other ways to fund the economy which have so far not added up. Others on the No side don't give any figures.

The IMF are looking increasingly unlikely to back us with an ex-director stating he doesn't believe we would get funding from them;
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ex-imf-deputy-director-no-way-imf-would-fund-ireland-separately-551346.html

Its so uncertain. The EMS out, the IMF possibly out, will the markets lend to us? What conditions? What interest rate? A No vote is a step into the unknown.

The Treaty will have no impact on the Government’s overall budget targets. The plan to reduce the deficit to under 3% of GDP by 2015 will not be affected by the Treaty. The Government has already announced its €17 billion Infrastructure and Capital Investment Programme running until 2016. The Treaty will have no effect on this plan.

Long before the agreement of Treaty, the Government was committed to reducing our debt burden to safer levels. The Treaty provides for nothing new in this regard, and merely provides a roadmap for this reduction.

The third element is punishment. If a country does not meet these artificial targets, it can be brought before the European Court of Justice and fined. In the Irish case, the fine would amount to €160 million.

In addition, the treaty states that the unelected EU Commission can set down guidelines which will determine ‘the nature, size and time frame of the corrective action to be undertaken’. In other words, they can dictate what cuts and tax hikes will take place. At the top of their list will be increased household charges and the removal of free travel for the elderly.

Any European country that breaches the treaty can be brought before the court and fined. Correct. If a country has been told by the European Commission that they feel its in breach, they can be brought before the courts by any given member state that wishes to do so. The courts then decide if they agree with the commission or not. The odds of a court simply handing out fines to a country that agrees to co-operate and proves it will co-operate is highly unlikely. The commission do not decide this.

The European Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the Commission with one member per member state. All members must be approved by the European Parliament, who are elected officials. If we had an election for every single grouping in the EU, it would be an absolute disaster. We don't operate like this in the Irish Parliament either.

In regards to the figures you mention, Sinn Fein have branded around two figures in their argument about fines. Its important to note that the fines may not exceed 0.1% of our GDP. The 0.1% fine is the max penalty, not the minimum. So the courts may throw down a smaller fine.

Next will be reduced social welfare, further increases to pension age, more cut backs in hospitals, colleges, schools, roads, housing...essentially nothing and that means NOTHING will be safe or protected.

Absolute bull****. There is NOTHING in the treaty that protects this in any shape or form. If anything, one could argue that a No vote could easily LEAD to these cuts and increases because the state is in much harder financial situation than it would have been originally or with a better financial aid package.

Cuts will continue, either way. Nothing is protected as it is. Many are arguing, including those opposing this treaty, that we need to make FURTHER CUTS and that we are not making enough.

Remember Lisbon1 & 2...Yes for jobs, Yes for growth, Yes foe stability...and what did we get...disaster. I hope the Irish people arn't foolish enough to fall for it again.

I remember it well. Remember Abortion? Conscription? What did we get? Neither of those. How about changes to our corporation tax? Seems like its fully intact to me, despite the No vote campaigners. The Irish people are voting Yes because they aren't foolish enough to fall for the down and out lies and scaremongering being caused by the No side.

Did we get jobs and stability? We did indeed. It was a white lie by the Yes side, but it wasn't that incorrect either. The treaty didn't create jobs directly, by agreeing to it we showed to the markets and investors we are a stable country working with Europe. The markets are all over the place in Greece and across Europe because on instability at the moment - imagine the reaction if we voted No then or now? The jobs were created by being a stable and reliable country. The odds of recent job announcements and investments would have been unlikely if we voted any other way.

Microsoft and Paypal - two big investors here in Ireland. Publicly backing a Yes vote. If a Yes was going to be so damaging, as you and others make out, they wouldn't be calling for a Yes vote.

IBEC, The Small Firms Association, Waterford Chamber of Commerce, The Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association and Irish Thoroughbred Marketing, The Irish Business Sector, PharmaChemical Ireland, and ISME. Shall I go on?

Large companies backing a Yes don't just include Microsoft and Paypal but also Ericsson, BT Ireland, HP, IBM, SAP, and Fujitsu. Shall I go on here also?

There is a massive backing for the treaty. Even big names in the GAA are behind it. Can they all be wrong? Are they all lying? Are they all banking on this to screw Ireland over with more austerity and destroy our Irish Economy like the No side are saying? Why would they? They lie on US and Ireland at the moment here. If for any reason they felt it was bad news for Ireland, its bad news for them and they will be out calling for a No vote. But they are fully behind us.

Todays Sunday Business Post commenting on the 6% rise in the yes vote sais "Fear is wining over anger" and that sums it up. This government and the powerful in Europe and FRIGHTENING people into voting yes. Stand up fore yourselves and vote NO

The same paper has articles looking at the other side. The rise in support is down to people informing themselves without listening to the Yes or No side. They look at the facts and the figures for themselves, and make their own choice. For far to long the Irish people have been taken along and treated like idiots by No campaigners in referendums and this time, they wont be taken for mugs. And rightly so.

Your selectively quoting articles to back up the No side. But there are many others, and many other economists including those Sinn Fein called as experts, backing the treaty.

For the other side of the coin, take a look at this Irish Times Editorial; http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0512/1224315982060.html

Why not show people some of what the No side were saying? Would it be because it weakens their whole campaign?

We'll need €10bn in tax hikes if bailout fund cut, admits No side

Source; http://www.independent.ie/national-news/well-need-10bn-in-tax-hikes-if-bailout-fund-cut-admits-no-side-3097535.html

Finnbar01

We're going to have austerity whether we like it or not.

The question is do we have it here and now and get it over with or do we drag it out over the next few years?

insight_man

Sully wrote: »

Firstly, we already ratified that part in the Stability and Growth Pact and also the six-pack in 2011. This treaty aims to build on those, reinforcing the rules which were broken by the major states. That criteria was;

- an annual budget deficit no higher than 3% of GDP (this includes the sum of all public budgets, including municipalities, regions, etc.)
- a national debt lower than 60% of GDP or approaching that value.

Secondly, in regards to the US, the aim is to have a balanced budget at some stage, just like in the past. The argument is when and their financial situation is a lot worse than ours. Some believed it was possible with a better budget to have the balance sooner, others believe that doing so would be a disaster and it would take much longer (some say beyond our life time).

Its hardly appropriate to compare the US budget to the Irish budget when arguing against the treat.



The treaty allows us to overspend, to a certain degree. Bound by an existing rule, it state that we must not have a debt bigger than 60% of what we produces in a year (GDP). If we do, we must reduce our debt by one-twentieth of the excess each year. This is an existing EU rule.



Mild recession, across Europe. If we go on a spending spree and go well beyond our means, in the hope it kick starts the economy, its going to take an age to repay the debt caused by trying to help the economy. The end result? Austerity.




Cuts are going ahead regardless of the way we vote. We agreed to these changes in the past. We need money to run the country at the moment, and the whole point here is if we say no, and we don't get funding that is cheap or without harsher terms - the likeliness is that we will face more cuts. The No camp have already admitted to this, and some are proposing other ways to fund the economy which have so far not added up. Others on the No side don't give any figures.

The IMF are looking increasingly unlikely to back us with an ex-director stating he doesn't believe we would get funding from them;
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ex-imf-deputy-director-no-way-imf-would-fund-ireland-separately-551346.html

Its so uncertain. The EMS out, the IMF possibly out, will the markets lend to us? What conditions? What interest rate? A No vote is a step into the unknown.

The Treaty will have no impact on the Government’s overall budget targets. The plan to reduce the deficit to under 3% of GDP by 2015 will not be affected by the Treaty. The Government has already announced its €17 billion Infrastructure and Capital Investment Programme running until 2016. The Treaty will have no effect on this plan.

Long before the agreement of Treaty, the Government was committed to reducing our debt burden to safer levels. The Treaty provides for nothing new in this regard, and merely provides a roadmap for this reduction.



Any European country that breaches the treaty can be brought before the court and fined. Correct. If a country has been told by the European Commission that they feel its in breach, they can be brought before the courts by any given member state that wishes to do so. The courts then decide if they agree with the commission or not. The odds of a court simply handing out fines to a country that agrees to co-operate and proves it will co-operate is highly unlikely. The commission do not decide this.

The European Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 27 members of the Commission with one member per member state. All members must be approved by the European Parliament, who are elected officials. If we had an election for every single grouping in the EU, it would be an absolute disaster. We don't operate like this in the Irish Parliament either.

In regards to the figures you mention, Sinn Fein have branded around two figures in their argument about fines. Its important to note that the fines may not exceed 0.1% of our GDP. The 0.1% fine is the max penalty, not the minimum. So the courts may throw down a smaller fine.




Absolute bull****. There is NOTHING in the treaty that protects this in any shape or form. If anything, one could argue that a No vote could easily LEAD to these cuts and increases because the state is in much harder financial situation than it would have been originally or with a better financial aid package.

Cuts will continue, either way. Nothing is protected as it is. Many are arguing, including those opposing this treaty, that we need to make FURTHER CUTS and that we are not making enough.



I remember it well. Remember Abortion? Conscription? What did we get? Neither of those. How about changes to our corporation tax? Seems like its fully intact to me, despite the No vote campaigners. The Irish people are voting Yes because they aren't foolish enough to fall for the down and out lies and scaremongering being caused by the No side.

Did we get jobs and stability? We did indeed. It was a white lie by the Yes side, but it wasn't that incorrect either. The treaty didn't create jobs directly, by agreeing to it we showed to the markets and investors we are a stable country working with Europe. The markets are all over the place in Greece and across Europe because on instability at the moment - imagine the reaction if we voted No then or now? The jobs were created by being a stable and reliable country. The odds of recent job announcements and investments would have been unlikely if we voted any other way.

Microsoft and Paypal - two big investors here in Ireland. Publicly backing a Yes vote. If a Yes was going to be so damaging, as you and others make out, they wouldn't be calling for a Yes vote.

IBEC, The Small Firms Association, Waterford Chamber of Commerce, The Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association and Irish Thoroughbred Marketing, The Irish Business Sector, PharmaChemical Ireland, and ISME. Shall I go on?

Large companies backing a Yes don't just include Microsoft and Paypal but also Ericsson, BT Ireland, HP, IBM, SAP, and Fujitsu. Shall I go on here also?

There is a massive backing for the treaty. Even big names in the GAA are behind it. Can they all be wrong? Are they all lying? Are they all banking on this to screw Ireland over with more austerity and destroy our Irish Economy like the No side are saying? Why would they? They lie on US and Ireland at the moment here. If for any reason they felt it was bad news for Ireland, its bad news for them and they will be out calling for a No vote. But they are fully behind us.



The same paper has articles looking at the other side. The rise in support is down to people informing themselves without listening to the Yes or No side. They look at the facts and the figures for themselves, and make their own choice. For far to long the Irish people have been taken along and treated like idiots by No campaigners in referendums and this time, they wont be taken for mugs. And rightly so.

Your selectively quoting articles to back up the No side. But there are many others, and many other economists including those Sinn Fein called as experts, backing the treaty.

For the other side of the coin, take a look at this Irish Times Editorial; http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0512/1224315982060.html

Why not show people some of what the No side were saying? Would it be because it weakens their whole campaign?



Source; http://www.independent.ie/national-news/well-need-10bn-in-tax-hikes-if-bailout-fund-cut-admits-no-side-3097535.html

Time will tell how this thing goes. In about 1 year maybe 2 we will be worse off than we are now and no way out. I think we'll be coming back to this again.

Lets see who's analysis was correct and who's was incorrect.

Sully

insight_man wrote: »

Time will tell how this thing goes. In about 1 year maybe 2 we will be worse off than we are now and no way out. I think we'll be coming back to this again.

Lets see who's analysis was correct and who's was incorrect.

We are all entitled to our opinions based on facts, but there is an awful lot of misinformation being spouted and stuff being made up that isn't in the treaty. That is the main thing I want to correct as I don't think people should go away thinking something about this referendum that actually has nothing to do with it.

Will it cause more austerity? Logically, I fail to see how and so do many others including these big companies and organisations. Perhaps we are all missing something that the No camp are the only people seeing.

Even Declan Ganly isn't making stuff up about the treaty - yet anyway. He is just bringing in a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with the treaty and is asking the people to just use the vote as a "bargaining chip" to get bank debt sorted. That may have worked in Lisbon, but this treaty paves the way for Europe to just shrug their shoulder and let Ireland continue within the EU but not bound by the new fiscal rules and not part of the ESM. Its not like Europe has to wait for us to vote Yes before the ESM can be established or for the rules to be brought it. It doesn't. So, we have absolutely no bargaining power at all.

A vote either way has nothing at all do with the issues he raises (which are valid, may I add).

Its like the No camp were just getting desperate and called in Declan to be help but he cant say very much about the treaty and is bringing in a whole new campaign style to see if that works better than the complete bull**** and scaremongering by the No side.

Am Chile

Good video dealing with the where would we get the money question.

Sully

Am Chile wrote: »

Good video dealing with the where would we get the money question.

1) No guarantees that the EU will fund us. But, if they do decide to anyway, we may be subject to higher interest rates and a new agreement which will see tougher cuts across the board. Hence, more austerity.

2) Absolutely no guarantees the IMF will fund us. Recently, a former IMF director said he didn't think we would get any funding. The IMF have reserved judgement, offically, on whether or not we would get funding. They also clarified that an article in the Sunday Times which they IMF were quoted as saying the opposite, were wrong. In addition, it is also widely accepted (and hinted at in the start of this video) that the IMF would only give us a small amount of money if they decided to go ahead with it. The IMF currently supplies about a third of the €67.5bn bailout funding for Ireland. It has 'preferential' status on getting its money, but would lose this in an IMF-only bailout -- and therefore would be unlikely to lend as much money.

Though, I must ask, why is this even an option when the video is so certain that the EU wouldn't refuse us funding?

3) First, we have no guarantees this would work and no accurate figures on how much it would bring in. Especially when Ireland is in a recession - can the people afford higher taxation and does it have enough big players eligible for bigger tax payments? Also, the money would not be immediately available. A wealth tax, if successful, would take years to bring in the money and would not be immediately available if we needed it. A bailout is instant. Taxation is not. Though, I must ask again, why is this even an option when the video is so certain that the EU & IMF wouldn't refuse us funding? Surely we on the pigs back without having to go look at this?

4) Not funding. Not instant either. Negotiations would take sometime, it would only be a saving and we are left with a debt still. Though, I must ask again, why is this even an option when the video is so certain that the EU, IMF wouldn't refuse us funding? Not forgetting a good deal from those we owe money to! Surely we on the pigs back without having to go look at this?


5) Same as above.

Voting No presents an issue of instability. Nobody knows where Ireland will get funding. Will cuts and austerity be doubled or more as part of an agreement for bailout funds, if we get it from any of the number of sources? All the questions and more cast serious doubt on our economy. People wont invest or create jobs an economy that is not steady or going in a clear direction. The big businesses and the smaller businesses are all backing this - why would they if a No vote wasn't going to throw up complications or instability? Its clear they prefer a yes, because it gives this country the much needed stability to go forward.

So, a Yes vote guarantees us funding that we know we will have. No ifs or buts. No going to numerous parties or looking for great deals and bargains after saying "No Thanks" to better spending rules. Hence, stability. Hence, investment. Hence, Jobs.

merlante

I think this 'yes for certainty' argument is a load of nonsense. There is no certainty in any of this. Even though the EU will keep us alive (like the way that dude in 'Misery' was kept alive) in the medium term, if Ireland becomes a liability -- post Greece -- we'll be dumped. The whole thing will hold together right up till the point it falls apart, and Ireland might be better advised to start making decisions for itself rather than playing supplicant.

People should remember that Ireland has gotten no credit from Germans or rating agencies for taking on Bank debt or from liquidating our NPRF. (Would the Germans give up their pension fund? Not bloody likely.) Eaten bread is soon forgot, and Ireland's good behaviour will count for nothing when they get tired of supporting us.

Most people agree that the debt brake rules are ill advised, but, like all EU treaties, there is a threat against voting on the actual content of the treaty, or where these succession of treaties are going.

Vote YES for a 21st century version of the Act of Union within 10-15 years, and a little more certainty. Vote NO to retain sovereignty, knowing that it's a rocky road ahead (and maybe to find out who our friends are and/or leave the euro). It's a shame to see Ireland sleepwalk into a string of 'YES's' (after the obligatory 'NO' first) for reasons which they won't even recall in 2 or 3 years.

Sully

Greece is in a completely different situation to Ireland. They lied to get into the EU for a start, its been a constant struggle to get them to sort out their finances and now they are in huge uncertainty as nobody will form a long term government. Some are pro-bailout some are not. The Greeks don't like austerity, and are not happy. The EU is warning them that they will be booted out of the Euro if they don't cop on.

Meanwhile, Ireland has stuck by its side of the deal mostly. The EU/IMF reports have been very positive stage after stage, stating we are meeting the required targets. The likeliness of Europe turning their backs on a country that has been much more stable. They seem happy to help, and we are meeting all the targets. They have agreed to bailout others through the new ESM Fund. So getting tired would be highly unusual. They are of Greece, and rightly so.

The "stability" is more in terms of who will give us finance and the positive implications of such. Nothing to do with EU Membership.

The sovereignty was already given up for the most part. This sets in new rules around the fiscal controls. Obviously if we want to be part of Europe, we all agree to work together for the common good of the Euro and Eurozone. If your part of a work union, you do the same. If your part of a political party, you do the very same.

This is not a referendum on whether we wish to be in the Euro or Eurozone. There have been no calls for such. Previous "No" votes were clearly not because of the treaty contents, but because it was an anti-government protest

insight_man

Sully wrote: »

We are all entitled to our opinions based on facts, but there is an awful lot of misinformation being spouted and stuff being made up that isn't in the treaty. That is the main thing I want to correct as I don't think people should go away thinking something about this referendum that actually has nothing to do with it.

Will it cause more austerity? Logically, I fail to see how and so do many others including these big companies and organisations. Perhaps we are all missing something that the No camp are the only people seeing.

Even Declan Ganly isn't making stuff up about the treaty - yet anyway. He is just bringing in a completely separate issue that has nothing to do with the treaty and is asking the people to just use the vote as a "bargaining chip" to get bank debt sorted. That may have worked in Lisbon, but this treaty paves the way for Europe to just shrug their shoulder and let Ireland continue within the EU but not bound by the new fiscal rules and not part of the ESM. Its not like Europe has to wait for us to vote Yes before the ESM can be established or for the rules to be brought it. It doesn't. So, we have absolutely no bargaining power at all.

A vote either way has nothing at all do with the issues he raises (which are valid, may I add).

Its like the No camp were just getting desperate and called in Declan to be help but he cant say very much about the treaty and is bringing in a whole new campaign style to see if that works better than the complete bull**** and scaremongering by the No side.

Tell us all Sully how do we cut the €5 billion (on average) per year for next 20 years required under the 1/20th rule. Just to let you and anyone else reading this post this figure comes from the €100 billion 9possibly 120Billion but I'll keep the maths simple) figure we will need to 'shave' off so our debt/GDP ratio is reduced to 60% legally binding target. 9plus ECJ fines if we don't meet this crazy target.

This €100 Billion is the figure given by the ESRI, the Central Bank, and the Dept. of Finance I believe and it kicks in from 2015 if the traty is passed.

I'm really interested and I'm sure all boards members are really interested as to how you will deliver the €5 Billion of savings/cuts every year for 20 years. I have my own ideas what will happen, but as you seem to know everything...please tell us all without any waffle, mud slinging or innuendo exactly what you (if you have any suggestions) and the government intends to do to reach the target.

Sully

insight_man wrote: »

Tell us all Sully how do we cut the €5 billion (on average) per year for next 20 years required under the 1/20th rule. Just to let you and anyone else reading this post this figure comes from the €100 billion 9possibly 120Billion but I'll keep the maths simple) figure we will need to 'shave' off so our debt/GDP ratio is reduced to 60% legally binding target. 9plus ECJ fines if we don't meet this crazy target.

This €100 Billion is the figure given by the ESRI, the Central Bank, and the Dept. of Finance I believe and it kicks in from 2015 if the traty is passed.

I'm really interested and I'm sure all boards members are really interested as to how you will deliver the €5 Billion of savings/cuts every year for 20 years. I have my own ideas what will happen, but as you seem to know everything...please tell us all without any waffle, mud slinging or innuendo exactly what you (if you have any suggestions) and the government intends to do to reach the target.

You keep referring to rules that will still be there if Ireland votes No. A No vote will make no difference to this rule, which is part of six documents and is known as the "six pack". I mentioned these earlier, and we already agreed to it. End of story.

Yes the treaty refers to the rule, twice. Yes it can appear initially that its something new. But its not. Never mind the fact about the previous pact, the treaty itself (the very one we are being asked to Vote Yes on) states that its not new. The very first mention of this rule is in the preamble, reminding people that a one-twentieth rule already exists. The second reference of this rule is in Article 4 which state that the rule is supposed to work in a way that is set out previously. So in conclusion on this point only, its nothing new. Telling people to vote No to avoid this is reckless, because people will be subject to the rule even if we say No.

Now, about the rule and your figures. Your keeping the maths simple. Did you do it yourself? Or are you just getting it from the No camp? Because most of what you have said so far, you don't challenge what I say. You just come back with something new instead hoping, I assume, your point wont be challenged and proven invalid.

This very rule relates to an average rate of reduction over three years of one-twentieth of the gap between the debt ratio and the 60% reference value. This would require an average pace of reduction of about 3% per year after the debt ratio has peaked.

The €5bn over 20 years is flawed from what I understood, as this claim comes up frequently by the No side. Firstly, I have to say I don't see where this 20 years is coming from. I'm a tad confused here because in the treaty there is nothing about 20 years.

To quote an economics expert, because I most certainly am not and you don't believe a word I say, the figures branded about are flawed. Yet again, the No camp are branding about figures and hoping the tactic sticks, scaring people into think austerity will be increasing and cripple our economy as a result of this treaty. Its not. Let Karl Whelan, a respected and leading economist at UCD explain.

Where does this €5 billion a year figure come from? I’m assuming (and am happy to be corrected) that it comes from the following calculation. Our peak debt level will be €200 billion which will imply a debt-GDP ratio of 120%. At current levels of GDP, a debt ratio of 60% would require a level of debt of €100 billion. One-twentieth of the gap between €200 billion and €100 billion is €5 billion.

This “€5 billion a year debt reduction for 20 years” claim has two serious problems with it.

First, the treaty doesn’t make any reference to 20 years and it’s not a complex mathematical point that closing one-twentieth of a prevailing gap does not eliminate that gap in 20 years because the amount of gap being closed gets progressively smaller. So even if nominal GDP remained unchanged at its current level, the debt reduction needed would gradually reduce over time from €5 billion.

Second, and far more importantly, there is literally nobody who expects this rule to be obeyed by reducing debt levels with constant nominal GDP growth. Even the ECB is committed to having an average inflation rate in the Eurozone of 2% per year, so no nominal GDP growth in Ireland would require continuous ongoing contractions in real GDP of 2% per year.

If this outcome was to come about, the one-twentieth rule would be the least of our problems. In anything close such a scenario, debt sustainability would have to be restored via a major default.

So the rule cannot be thought of in isolation from discussions of potential growth rates of nominal GDP.

Source: http://karlwhelan.com/blog/?tag=austerity-treaty

Bards

The problem I have with all this is twofold

1.) we would be in bailout territory had it not been for the bank bailout.
2.) both sides are telling blatant lies and scaring the electorate into voting for their side

We already have the Maastricht treaty which was meant to limit budget deficits, but Germany deciced that it didnt suit them Nd had no problems breaking the rules a few years ago

But to get a economic pact written into our constitution is madness beyond belief.

Had this been in place prior the boom it still would not have prevented the crash.


What we should have is a limit on government expenditure. I.e they cannot spend more than a certain percentage. This limits then the amount of new taxes they can raise and leads to a better value for money scenario for the tax payer.

Just look at local authorities. they don't care about costs, they just raise rates for local business to meet their expenditure.

We must switch this around. And I would much rater a treaty that imposes cost controls on government rather than borrowing controls

merlante

Bards wrote: »

The problem I have with all this is twofold

1.) we would be in bailout territory had it not been for the bank bailout.
2.) both sides are telling blatant lies and scaring the electorate into voting for their side

We already have the Maastricht treaty which was meant to limit budget deficits, but Germany deciced that it didnt suit them Nd had no problems breaking the rules a few years ago

But to get a economic pact written into our constitution is madness beyond belief.

Had this been in place prior the boom it still would not have prevented the crash.


What we should have is a limit on government expenditure. I.e they cannot spend more than a certain percentage. This limits then the amount of new taxes they can raise and leads to a better value for money scenario for the tax payer.

Just look at local authorities. they don't care about costs, they just raise rates for local business to meet their expenditure.

We must switch this around. And I would much rater a treaty that imposes cost controls on government rather than borrowing controls

This raises a few good points. Firstly, Germany is behaving like a complete hypocrite on debt brakes, since it was the first to break the existing rules, and secondly, Germany/EU/IMF/Technocrats are imposing a revisionist history on us that the crisis was caused by fiscal imprudence.

We are moving forward with an EU and Eurozone that is liable to be dominated by one or two large players, including Germany. Since this crises began, Merkozy has been calling the shots. What Europe needs is stronger democracy and what the Eurozone needs -- if it's to survive -- is a fiscal union. This treaty has nothing to do with either, and in fact just installs into law a set of dubious fiscal rules at the very time when such rules usually go out the window.

The politics at the heart of the EU and Eurozone at the moment are quite simply insane, and I don't see any point in us helping them along in any way. Access to money is not the issue and to continually divert the argument along those lines in moral cowardice and does a disservice to the public. Without democracy Europe is nothing and without a fiscal union, the Eurozone is a gonner. (Which may not be a bad thing.)

And another thing, can the good FGers please explain to me how they can square their support for continuing European integration with their stance on keeping our corporate tax regime sacrosanct? In any country with any *real* politics, people would point out this glaring inconsistency, but FG/Lab/FF seem to think that we can be joined to Europe at the hip in every conceivable sense -- including having access to this "certain" bailout money (in case we need it!) -- but that somehow we're going to be allowed to keep ripping off Germany et al with our off-shore tax regime.

Of course the usual bolt hole for avoiding the reality of the above is that "X is not part of the treaty". Indeed.

letsbet

I'd say Richard Bruton's travel agent will be happy as I'd say Enda will be instructing him to take a holiday until the referendum after today's cock up.

EURATS

Vötáil nein mein freunds