I'll raise taxes if you vote No, Noonan warns

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Faith+1

This guy shouldn't be encouraged. He claims to be doing this in the interest of the Irish People, then perhaps he can explain why as minister for health he dragged infected women (Hep c) to court as they couldn't be bought to keep silent.

mod snip

Sleepy

Yes and no.

Ideologically, I'd be fiscally conservative. I'm not about to vote in a way that will lead to my taxes increasing dramatically however because I don't trust the government to balance the books correctly: i.e. I think they'll tax the average PAYE earner out of existence before they'll make the necessary cuts to welfare or public sector expenditure (i.e. break the CPA).

Faith+1

Sorry for being abusive bluewolf. The guy just really bugs me. Apologies.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Sleepy wrote: »

Yes and no.

Ideologically, I'd be fiscally conservative. I'm not about to vote in a way that will lead to my taxes increasing dramatically however because I don't trust the government to balance the books correctly: i.e. I think they'll tax the average PAYE earner out of existence before they'll make the necessary cuts to welfare or public sector expenditure (i.e. break the CPA).

I think welfare has been cut to bits as it is. Public sector definitely needs to be tackled, as do the quangos

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Sleepy wrote: »

Yes and no.

Ideologically, I'd be fiscally conservative. I'm not about to vote in a way that will lead to my taxes increasing dramatically however because I don't trust the government to balance the books correctly: i.e. I think they'll tax the average PAYE earner out of existence before they'll make the necessary cuts to welfare or public sector expenditure (i.e. break the CPA).

I think welfare has been cut to bits as it is. Public sector expenditure definitely needs to be tackled, as do the quangos

Faith+1

jar_of_coins wrote: »

I think welfare has been cut to bits as it is. Public sector definitely needs to be tackled, as do the quangos

+1. Do OAP's, People on illness benefit, JSB etc... honestly think that the social welfare can maintain the levels payed out on a weekly basis when we have 500,000 on the live register?

daltonmd

Out loud he said "I'll raise taxes if you vote no"

And in his head he said:

"And I'll raise them if you vote yes" *snigger*....

seamus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is the thing that's been cooking my noodle a bit on the treaty.

On one hand, I like the idea that future Irish governments will be locked into an EU agreement which sets out controls on government spending and budgetary discipline. It's what we need, because the Irish electorate has a stunningly short memory and I don't trust anyone not to make the same bloody mistakes again. I'm especially concerned that SF would get into power, and then more than ever we would need fiscal rules to stop them from making a complete hash of it.

But on the other hand like yourself I've been complaining that budgets since 2008 haven't been harsh enough, and there's a fair argument that the stability treaty would mean that we spend the next 10 years chipping away at our problems, rather than 2 or 3 years of exceptionally harsh budgets, slashing and burning and coming out leaner and stronger on exports in five years' time. The latter is a riskier strategy though.

A "no" on the treaty would likely give the government the power to turn to the public sector unions and say, "We just don't have it", and rip up the croke park agreement and push ahead with reforms of PS spending and social welfare without consulting with the unions.
That's probably pie-in-the-sky thinking though.

RoverZT

If we vote No, we are on our own.

Of course we have to balance the books.

If people want ous to live within our means.

That will have to include serious cuts.

20 billion a year/50% of our budget has to be slashed.

Social welfare down 50% across the board, everywhere from dole, fis, child allowance, ras, everything slashed.

Public sector pay down 50%.

Tax increases everywhere, paye, income levy, prsi, diesel/petrol, road tax, household charge, set rate water charges for every home, vat increase.

Living within our means will be seriously painful, very few countries live within our means, we sure can't as we have no money generator eg oil!!

We are not Norway, if people want a nice life, then we can't do it alone.

http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10395-public-deficit-by-country.html#axzz1tcnXhuZN

We had a deficit of -31.3 in 2010.

I hope we vote yes, because I like my life.

Welease

seamus wrote: »

This is the thing that's been cooking my noodle a bit on the treaty.

On one hand, I like the idea that future Irish governments will be locked into an EU agreement which sets out controls on government spending and budgetary discipline. It's what we need, because the Irish electorate has a stunningly short memory and I don't trust anyone not to make the same bloody mistakes again. I'm especially concerned that SF would get into power, and then more than ever we would need fiscal rules to stop them from making a complete hash of it.

But on the other hand like yourself I've been complaining that budgets since 2008 haven't been harsh enough, and there's a fair argument that the stability treaty would mean that we spend the next 10 years chipping away at our problems, rather than 2 or 3 years of exceptionally harsh budgets, slashing and burning and coming out leaner and stronger on exports in five years' time. The latter is a riskier strategy though.

A "no" on the treaty would likely give the government the power to turn to the public sector unions and say, "We just don't have it", and rip up the croke park agreement and push ahead with reforms of PS spending and social welfare without consulting with the unions.
That's probably pie-in-the-sky thinking though.

That is precisely my problem with voting Yes (and I would prefer us to be locked into a mechanism of budgetary discipline).. "Yes" means we keep borrowing further and fail to address the problems that need to be addressed.
"No" means we have to get our house in order.. However, my concern is again the government would avoid this path and just borrow at international loan shark levels..

comeback_kid

jar_of_coins wrote: »

I think welfare has been cut to bits as it is. Public sector expenditure definitely needs to be tackled, as do the quangos

some areas of social wellfare have not been touched at all since the bad times arrived

golfwallah

Richard Boyd Barrett and the No Campaign are advising people to vote No to the Fiscal Treaty because a Yes vote “will copper fasten austerity, make even emergency public expenditure impossible, and worsen poverty”.

So far, 4 unions, The Civil Public and Services Union, Technical Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU), UNITE and Mandate have come out against the fiscal treaty.

They have given a variety of reasons, such as “the treaty on fiscal stability did nothing for workers” and it “would weaken Europe and enshrine austerity”.

SIPTU will only support a Yes vote if there is an “off balance sheet stimulus plan to create tens of thousands of jobs”.

The above mentioned seem to believe that Voting No will stave off austerity. Talk about turkeys voting from Christmas!

Now Michael Noonan is promising a tougher budget and even more austerity, if the No vote prevails.

Seems like we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t and the real choice is between taking the medicine in a long or short glass.:eek:

Tora Bora

Was going to vote yes, as it's "possibly", the lesser of the available evils.

After Noonan's "threat", I'm definitely voting NO!

The government's job, is to put the information before the people, to campaign for a yes vote as it is their recommendation, and belief that it is in the country's best long term interest.

However, it's not all that long ago since we crawled out from under the military might of the next door neighbour. Having threats from Brits, replaced by threats from Noonan, is just the last straw.

I suspect more than me will react negatively to this sh1t, from Noonan.

Fcuk him. No is the answer.:(

blowtorch

golfwallah wrote: »

..........
Seems like we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t and the real choice is between taking the medicine in a long or short glass.:eek:

Seems like we're bullied yet again. First Phil Hogan with the HT, then Gilmore telling us we wouldn't be able to get loans if we voted 'no', John Bruton wading in with his comparisons to Credit Unions (who incidentially also refuse loans), and now Bully Noonan (Hep C case).

The difference these days, Ministers and former Ministers, is that people have the advantage of good education, and the ability to discuss issues in places like boards.ie. The 'Party Vote' is quickly being eliminated from society. No longer do people take everything that Ministers say as gospel.

Enough scare-mongering, and in particular lies. The results of the Household Charge registrations have confirmed that we were being fed lies all along, and once those results are independently viewed, I'm certain that the lies will turn out to be bigger

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

blowtorch

..........if we vote No, we cannot avail of the ESM. Probably a good thing that we couldn't 'avail', as we'd have to pay into the ESM approx €1.1bn right from the beginning. (Maybe we'd get a loan from the EU or IMF to do that :-0) It's probably the ESM treaty we should be looking at, as a reason to vote no or yes to this one.

flutered

blowtorch wrote: »

Seems like we're bullied yet again. First Phil Hogan with the HT, then Gilmore telling us we wouldn't be able to get loans if we voted 'no', John Bruton wading in with his comparisons to Credit Unions (who incidentially also refuse loans), and now Bully Noonan (Hep C case).

The difference these days, Ministers and former Ministers, is that people have the advantage of good education, and the ability to discuss issues in places like boards.ie. The 'Party Vote' is quickly being eliminated from society. No longer do people take everything that Ministers say as gospel.

Enough scare-mongering, and in particular lies. The results of the Household Charge registrations have confirmed that we were being fed lies all along, and once those results are independently viewed, I'm certain that the lies will turn out to be bigger

the above is one of the reasons they like to hit education and jobs keep them poor and ingorant.

Tora Bora

blowtorch wrote: »

..........if we vote No, we cannot avail of the ESM. Probably a good thing that we couldn't 'avail', as we'd have to pay into the ESM approx €1.1bn right from the beginning. (Maybe we'd get a loan from the EU or IMF to do that :-0) It's probably the ESM treaty we should be looking at, as a reason to vote no or yes to this one.

What Gilmore really means, is that if we vote NO, we will be no longer be able to avail of ESM, CPA:cool: Now thwt wouldn't be good for Labour, would it. :cool:

BuzzFish

Tora Bora wrote: »

Was going to vote yes, as it's "possibly", the lesser of the available evils.

After Noonan's "threat", I'm definitely voting NO!

Why would you let Noonan decide your vote? Why not look at the facts and decide yourself? Half the problem we have here, people voting just to P#ss off the government and the likes. Voting either way just to take a stand shows the real stupidity of people and how we walk ourselves into this crap to start with.

I'm not saying you are wrong to vote no.... I myself am still undecided. Just do it for the right reasons and with the right information.

meglome

blowtorch wrote: »

Enough scare-mongering, and in particular lies. The results of the Household Charge registrations have confirmed that we were being fed lies all along, and once those results are independently viewed, I'm certain that the lies will turn out to be bigger

How the fluppin hell do the lack of household charge registrations show us anything was a lie. Perhaps you should have a read of this...http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78435191&postcount=70

flutered wrote: »

the above is one of the reasons they like to hit education and jobs keep them poor and ingorant.

Judging by many of the No campaign arguments we really do have a problem with education in this country.

Tora Bora wrote: »

What Gilmore really means, is that if we vote NO, we will be no longer be able to avail of ESM, CPA:cool: Now thwt wouldn't be good for Labour, would it. :cool:

Well that's okay then, seeing as cutbacks will only effect people who work for the government. Oh wait...

Tora Bora wrote: »

Was going to vote yes, as it's "possibly", the lesser of the available evils.

After Noonan's "threat", I'm definitely voting NO!

So are you offended by the rampant lying/exaggerating that is going on from the No side or is this just Noonan you have a problem with?

I really despair when I read this stuff.

golfwallah

TV3 tonight at 9PM - opening TV debate on Fiscal Treaty, etc.

Simon Coveney & Michael Martin should make interesting partners on the Yes side. Don't know who will represent the No side.

As for Vincent Brown (on again at 11PM), I guess he'll represent himself as per usual.

Will this debate create initial lasting impressions that will decide the referendum results?

Idbatterim

Funny how he mentions tax increases as he doesnt specify what taxes and thus isnt targettng any particular group. IF we didnt have access to the ESM we would enter major decision time, and surely I dont need to remind an expert like the MOF that raising taxes is far more damaging than cutting waste. He knows this though, I reckon they may well postpone voting on it, as the no camp seems to be gaining momentum. Also could you imagine to balance the books with only tax rises what would happen to the black economy, it would absolutely sky rocket, people would be back shopping over the border etc.

This is why voting No is starting to appeal to me more and more, as a middle class private sector worker we are constantly the ones getting screwed over relatively far more than any other group in Irish society (you can ad the newly unemployed also), despite the fact that we are the largest group. We have reached the point of diminishing returns on most taxes, whats he going to do raise the Vat again, raise PAYE etc and make even less worthwhile to work?

The way I see it is, if we cant even make the remotely difficult decisions now in our darkest hour, they will never be made. This could be a golden opportunity... after 4 years I have had enough of the debt by a million cuts, lets just tough it out in the short term and have some optimism for the future... Also as usual the politicians are making sure they feather their nest first and foremost, imagine for ine second, that we dont have access to ESM, drastic cuts and whatever tax increases, the first thing the government would be forced to cut is their own pay and pensions. They would have absolutely no moral authority otherwise, this would be a best case scenario for them!

Caveat_

I feel the thread title is a bit disingenuous to the minister.
which ever way this treaty goes we'll have sever budgets in the immediate to medium term.

liammur

Caveat_ wrote: »

I feel the thread title is a bit disingenuous to the minister.
which ever way this treaty goes we'll have sever budgets in the immediate to medium term.

He should have learnt after hogan threatening people, that this isn't the way to conduct business.

Finnbar01

I guess it is a case of death or um bonga bonga.

RoverZT

liammur wrote: »

He should have learnt after hogan threatening people, that this isn't the way to conduct business.

He is not threatening though.

He's saying

NO = serious financial pain.

YES = less pain, keep going as we are with cuts.

ESM = A bank if we need it.

We are like a business, it would be great if we didn't need any loans and could look after our finances and always have cashflow to keep the business afloat.

What happens if we don't?

Imagine a business if they have no bank for credit when a disaster happens, like a fire that destroyed your warehouse, insurance won't cover it and you don't have the cash to pay for it to be fixed and the cash to pay your debtors.

You go bust.

We are not strong enough alone, that's why I would vote YES.

Richard tea

Im so voting NO now. It wont be long before the house of cards comes tumbling down. Slash public/ welfare pay by 50% blah blah blah, the sooner the better.

Welease

RoverZT wrote: »

Imagine a business if they have no bank for credit when a disaster happens, like a fire that destroyed your warehouse, insurance won't cover it and you don't have the cash to pay for it to be fixed and the cash to pay your debtors.

You go bust.

We are not strong enough alone, that's why I would vote YES.

We are bust already..

Yet, we continue to spend spend spend so that the same ministers can run a full term and get voted in again (must not alienate Social Welfare claimants, Public Sector, PAYE sector, OAP's etc.)..

Killing the easy credit line may force some serious decisions to be made in the long term interests of the country rather than the short term interests of the current government. Even Patrick Honahan has come out and said as much finally.

That is why I will likely vote No .. (which interestingly enough is contrary to most No voters reasons.. I want a proper Austerity now!).

RoverZT

Welease wrote: »

We are bust already..

Yet, we continue to spend spend spend so that the same ministers can run a full term and get voted in again (must not alienate Social Welfare claimants, Public Sector, PAYE sector, OAP's etc.)..

Killing the easy credit line may force some serious decisions to be made in the long term interests of the country rather than the short term interests of the current government. Even Patrick Honahan has come out and said as much finally.

That is why I will likely vote No .. (which interestingly enough is contrary to most No voters reasons.. I want a proper Austerity now!).

Nearly every country is bust.

We are not alone:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Welease

RoverZT wrote: »

Nearly every country is bust.

We are not alone:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

True..

But the longer we take to correct our position, the more we continue to rack up in debt and interest that we ultimately will have to cut from services and add to taxes.. Nothing we are getting comes for free.. It has to be repaid with interest, so we will end up rationalising spend and increasing taxes anyway.. the sooner we do, the less we have to repay externally, and the more we can spend to keep essential services alive.

I would prefer for us to rationalise our position now and begin to deliver services and collect taxes within our means.

Icepick

Ironically, people who want to vote yes are more likely to afford to vote no.
It's also funny to see people who are broke going to vote no. You'd think they know what it is to be broke and not be able to borrow.

golfwallah

Interesting coalition of pro and anti PS interests is developing on the No side.

Richard Boyd Barrett & Co. of the No Campaign, The Civil Public and Services Union, Technical Engineering and Electrical Union, UNITE, Mandate, SIPTU, Sinn Fein are urging a No vote to stave off austerity.

Anti-Public Service / Social Welfare lobby and people, who don’t like being “bullied”, are urging a No Vote to bring about austerity.

Could only happen in Ireland.

Count Dooku

If they want to see tax take decreased and only to punish people, it will be the best strategy
Fianna Fail already tried increase effective tax rates for 2011 through USC increases

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/exchequerstatements/2011/enddecexcheqstat.pdf

income tax take 2010 - 11,276,092 + 2.4Bn of health levy = 13,676,092
income tax take 2011 - 13,797,532 ( with increased rates of USC)

increase of 121,440,000

VAT take 2010 - 10,101,284
VAT take 2011 - 9,740,525

decrease 360,759,000

net loss 239,319,000

Bullseye1

Didn't Noonan say he expects us to be out of the IMF/EU bailout in 2015. Or is he lying and expects us to still need the bailout and hence the need to ratify this treaty.

I will say I find his double speak and arrogance unwarranted. He doesn't have the ability to pull it off.

Count Dooku

golfwallah wrote: »

Interesting coalition of pro and anti PS interests is developing on the No side.

Richard Boyd Barrett & Co. of the No Campaign, The Civil Public and Services Union, Technical Engineering and Electrical Union, UNITE, Mandate, SIPTU, Sinn Fein are urging a No vote to stave off austerity.

Anti-Public Service / Social Welfare lobby and people, who don’t like being “bullied”, are urging a No Vote to bring about austerity.

Could only happen in Ireland.

it is more about establishment supporters vs antiestablishmentarians

Manach

Give the current relative progressive nature of Irish society, in no small part funded by Government spending, I'm a little surprised that not more liberal organisations/press would come out and support the Yes campaign.

blowtorch

meglome wrote: »

How the fluppin hell do the lack of household charge registrations show us anything was a lie. Perhaps you should have a read of this...http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78435191&postcount=70QUOTE]

We were lied to as regards the No. of Registrations. In the end, out of 32 councils, only 1 of them got above 50%, and in 22 of them, under 40%.

A total of 890,184 homeowners have registered to pay the charge, figures from the Local Government Management Agency showed early April.

And the figures at the end of April?
Some 648,739 have paid the tax in full (which included late registrations)

blowtorch

RoverZT wrote: »

He is not threatening though.

He's saying

NO = serious financial pain.

YES = less pain, keep going as we are with cuts.

ESM = A bank if we need it.

We are like a business, it would be great if we didn't need any loans and could look after our finances and always have cashflow to keep the business afloat.

What happens if we don't?

Imagine a business if they have no bank for credit when a disaster happens, like a fire that destroyed your warehouse, insurance won't cover it and you don't have the cash to pay for it to be fixed and the cash to pay your debtors.

You go bust.

We are not strong enough alone, that's why I would vote YES.

He, and the rest of the 'Yes' camp are being frugal with the information. For example, the ESM...tell me if the quotations from the ESM shown here are true or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CZr17HLH5U

And - our nearest neighbour - the UK. is Michael Noonan saying that the UK will not get loans from Europe (because they're not part of the ESM), and therefore might not get loans from the IMF if required.

GSF

RoverZT wrote: »

He is not threatening though.

He's saying

NO = serious financial pain.

YES = less pain, keep going as we are with cuts.

ESM = A bank if we need it.

We are like a business, it would be great if we didn't need any loans and could look after our finances and always have cashflow to keep the business afloat.

What happens if we don't?

Imagine a business if they have no bank for credit when a disaster happens, like a fire that destroyed your warehouse, insurance won't cover it and you don't have the cash to pay for it to be fixed and the cash to pay your debtors.

You go bust.

We are not strong enough alone, that's why I would vote YES.

Taking away peoples toys or telling them the truth in an unvarnished manner is now deemed bullying. I suppose its seen as more grown up that putting fingers in the ears and singing lalalalala - well marginally so anyway.

liammur

RoverZT wrote: »

He is not threatening though.

He's saying

NO = serious financial pain.

YES = less pain, keep going as we are with cuts.

ESM = A bank if we need it.

We are like a business, it would be great if we didn't need any loans and could look after our finances and always have cashflow to keep the business afloat.

What happens if we don't?

Imagine a business if they have no bank for credit when a disaster happens, like a fire that destroyed your warehouse, insurance won't cover it and you don't have the cash to pay for it to be fixed and the cash to pay your debtors.

You go bust.

We are not strong enough alone, that's why I would vote YES.

Now, of course you are right. But, he must be tactful in the way he goes about it.

tfitzgerald

He's acting the bully . I hate bully's fcuk him

[MOD]This is a virtually worthless post. Don't do this. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.[/MOD]

swampgas

tfitzgerald wrote: »

He's acting the bully . I hate bully's fcuk him

Seems to me he's calling it like it is. If telling you what you don't want to hear makes him a bully, well that explains a lot about how the country ended up in the state it's in now. Politicians have been terrified of telling the electorate the hard facts, and for good reason. Seems like the reaction of a lot of people is to shoot the messenger.

Never mind that calling this "bullying" is a bit of an insult to anyone who has experienced genuine bullying.

djpbarry

seamus wrote: »

A "no" on the treaty would likely give the government the power to turn to the public sector unions and say, "We just don't have it", and rip up the croke park agreement and push ahead with reforms of PS spending and social welfare without consulting with the unions.

Then Sinn Féin power to victory at the next election, roll out their economic "reforms" and make de Valera's Ireland look positively utopian.

K-9

A couple of posts aren't adding much to the discussion and aren't politics board standard.

Any more posts like that will be sanctioned.

meglome

blowtorch wrote: »

We were lied to as regards the No. of Registrations. In the end, out of 32 councils, only 1 of them got above 50%, and in 22 of them, under 40%.

A total of 890,184 homeowners have registered to pay the charge, figures from the Local Government Management Agency showed early April.

And the figures at the end of April?
Some 648,739 have paid the tax in full (which included late registrations)

My guess is that it's the difference between those who've registered and paid and those who registered and are exempt. Let's look at the evidence though before we accuse people of lying.

Actually see here http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/04/26/00144.asp

This gives a total number of 921,101 household charge declarations made. Against an estimate of some 1.62 million residential properties liable to the household charge, this represents a registration rate of some 57%.

swampgas wrote: »

Seems to me he's calling it like it is. If telling you what you don't want to hear makes him a bully, well that explains a lot about how the country ended up in the state it's in now. Politicians have been terrified of telling the electorate the hard facts, and for good reason. Seems like the reaction of a lot of people is to shoot the messenger.

Never mind that calling this "bullying" is a bit of an insult to anyone who has experienced genuine bullying.

Well said. Honestly if the government says anything at all about the consequences of a No vote the screaming about it is unbelievable. Spend ten minutes on the The Journal and the ranting about the most innocuous of government comments is unreal. And usually not a single **** is given about No side lying and exaggeration. Seems for a lot of people scaremongering or lying or exaggeration is only a problem if it's not agreeing with you.

BOHtox

Tora Bora wrote: »

Was going to vote yes, as it's "possibly", the lesser of the available evils.

After Noonan's "threat", I'm definitely voting NO!

The government's job, is to put the information before the people, to campaign for a yes vote as it is their recommendation, and belief that it is in the country's best long term interest.

However, it's not all that long ago since we crawled out from under the military might of the next door neighbour. Having threats from Brits, replaced by threats from Noonan, is just the last straw.

I suspect more than me will react negatively to this sh1t, from Noonan.

Fcuk him. No is the answer.:(

You should vote using your head not with your disliking of a politician advocating a particular vote. Politics like that got this country in to the mess we're in!

goat2

this statement, i will raise taxes if the people vote no, equals, blackmail, i dont do blackmail

golfwallah

swampgas wrote: »

Seems to me he's calling it like it is. If telling you what you don't want to hear makes him a bully, well that explains a lot about how the country ended up in the state it's in now. Politicians have been terrified of telling the electorate the hard facts, and for good reason. Seems like the reaction of a lot of people is to shoot the messenger.

Never mind that calling this "bullying" is a bit of an insult to anyone who has experienced genuine bullying.

Totally agree about making out the Minister as a "bully" for calling it like it is.

Childish behaviour - if you don't like the message, resort to abuse and name calling.

A lot of people in Ireland only want to hear good news - this is what gets votes and, perhaps, explains the expression "you get the government you deserve and deserve the government you get".

Contrast the reaction to the 2012 EU referendum to the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty 20 years ago. No problem with getting a Yes vote, but then Albert came back from an EU meeting with IR£8 Billion "in the bag".

People here want it both ways - they want the benefits of being in the EU without the downside of having to behave responsibly.

We're in big people school now - it's time for people to wake up and smell the coffee, act responsibly and stop expecting politicians or foreign bankers to make everything OK, whatever is happening in the big bad world around them.

Pete_Cavan

goat2 wrote: »

this statement, i will raise taxes if the people vote no, equals, blackmail, i dont do blackmail

Where is the statement "i will raise taxes if the people vote no"? Did you just read the title of the thread and decide it was a direct quote from Noonan?

Noonan said "If there's a No vote the Budget I'll be planning for later in the year will be dramatically more difficult than if there's a Yes vote". It is obvious we will need to balance our budget faster if we reject the Treaty, therefore making the Budget planed for later in the year dramatically more difficult. Most economists, major employers in this country, even Permabear in the OP, have alluded this, are they also bullying and blackmailing?

stoneill

So far the government has lots to say why we shouldn't vote No.
Very little as to why we should vote Yes.
This negative selling of the treaty by the government is not convincing me any any way shape or form that the treaty is good for the country.

The EU has been battling for the last three years to prevent economic meltdown by providing loans to ailing economies. Is that going to suddenly stop post referendum?
Germany (through the ECB) isn't lending us this money because they are great friends of ours, they are simply protecting their own circumstance. Germany is deathly afraid of slipping back into an economy that they had between wars where money was worthless. Whether we ratify the treaty or not the EU, driven by German economic might will do everything to prevent a Euro meltdown, they can't afford not to.