Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget?

Permabear · 04-10-2010 01:45PM #1

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't · 04-10-2010 01:56PM

Anglo might be Fiscal Idiocy, on that we 100% agree, but FF are the mandated government of this country and are entitled to govern. Badly admittedly, and I think they will get spanked very hard as a result, but the idea of a constitutional ban on running a surplus or deficit is too restricting for me. Debt itself is not the problem, and if raised to build public infrastructure is very healthy. Its that we are raising it to sink into a hole with no return.

I'm surprised you are advocating more law DF....

ei.sdraob · 04-10-2010 02:00PM

We already are meant to be operating under very low deficits (~3%) since we joined the euro (no slap on the wrist for going to 33% :rolleyes: )
which is not too far from what @donegalfella is proposing.

Infrastructure projects could be funded separately as some already are via European investment bank

You seem to think that @donegalfella is anti-legislation for some reason,
this measure he is proposing is designed to limit the power of the government (in the case of Ireland ensure some sort of responsibility when mortgaging the future of its people!) and dare i said fits perfectly into the smaller government aims...

@donegalfella whats there to stop the government then getting involved in NAMA like public/private farce structures, like they do now in order to sidestep those "pesky" EU rules

Permabear · 04-10-2010 02:04PM

This post has been deleted.

Rabble Rabble · 04-10-2010 02:05PM

California, here we come.

Right back where we started from.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 04-10-2010 02:09PM

I'd be for a constitutional requirement that limits debt to a percentage of GDP.

Permabear · 04-10-2010 02:11PM

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't · 04-10-2010 02:12PM

I don't disagree in principal, but I don't think banning suprluses or deficits is the way to go either. It would be impossible to manage as well. If they had a surplus would we all get a rebate in December?

I don't think the M50 was 'wasteful'.

Fair enough, that I accept. But the core point is that the Government of the day have to have the right to govern. If that involves a surplus or a deficit, well so be it.

We agree that Anglo is wrong, but thats FF's right to do and the electorate will decide if they were right or wrong rather than the courts.

Permabear · 04-10-2010 02:13PM

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone · 04-10-2010 02:15PM

There would have to be provision for emergencies would there not? I mean if something big came up we would need the cash.

Should the government impose restrictions on citizens borrowing too?

Justin Collery · 04-10-2010 02:16PM

+1

Not only would I vote for this, it would be in my top 5 wants. If I set up a party in the morning this would one of my pillars. We need this desperately.

metrovelvet · 04-10-2010 02:16PM

Can't Bono negotiate a write off like he did for Africa?

ei.sdraob · 04-10-2010 02:20PM

We need "checks and balances" and "restraints" on the government from doing stupid things that could potentially hurt the people of this country, I know it might be too late for the mistakes already made, but FF keep digging a deeper hole for us.

anyways

tho our reality is closer to this quote

Permabear · 04-10-2010 02:21PM

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob · 04-10-2010 02:23PM

Put it away for a rainy day says Keynes

you know so we could actually do a proper stimulus if the outside world decides to have a financial fart again.

Justin Collery · 04-10-2010 02:26PM

The beauty of the system. In the knowledge that borrowing is impossible fiscal decisions become all the more conservative. I do believe that capital expenditure should be separate however, perhaps allowing 10% of tax take to be borrowed to fund capital projects.

OhNoYouDidn't · 04-10-2010 02:28PM

But you are arguing they should not be allowed to that....

Permabear · 04-10-2010 02:37PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 04-10-2010 02:44PM

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob · 04-10-2010 02:45PM

Isnt a referendum a way of people deciding on an important issue that affect the constitution?
there's nothing wrong with asking people to vote on a matter like this its quite democratic we had referenda for much less important issues.

If the government has unrestrained power, then how are we different from medieval serfs and their lords?

Lockstep · 04-10-2010 03:01PM

Creating general parameters for the budget to follow isn't a bad idea.

The EU system is a good example: aiming for a 3% deficit, 60% debt to GDP and allows for these to be deviated from, in extenuating circumstances

Permabear · 04-10-2010 03:27PM

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't · 04-10-2010 03:42PM

And to me that is the inherent corruption with capitalism. FF were too busy handing out contratcts to mates than getting proper value.

Not at all, I have argued against NAMA / Anglo to tedium. I'm saying that the Governement should be anwserable to you and me at the end of their term and the courts should by and large stay out of economic policy.

I believe you are right as it happens, but still don't think the courts should have a veto over fiscal planning.

OhNoYouDidn't · 04-10-2010 03:43PM

Which the EU will overrule as per Lisbon....

Wolfe Tone · 04-10-2010 03:52PM

TBH I think that the courts actually have too much power in our system. So much is subject to their interpretation.

acer1000 · 04-10-2010 04:11PM

LOL

Maybe, we could convince him to setup a LiveAid for Ireland in Africa. Hell, they surely could spare some change for us after what our Bono did for them, they can't be that ungrateful, surely?. He'd hope into his leather pants and strut his stuff for us, in a flash.. He's only waiting to be asked, I'd say.

If Bob Geldof hears about this he'll be dying to get in on the act, too.

Permabear · 04-10-2010 04:21PM

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't · 04-10-2010 04:34PM

I'm sure you aren't, but there is no other type.

They lose their seat. Its the democratic way. Are you suggesting they would be more answerable to a court they appoint?

I have clearly stated I do not. I just don't want the courts involved in economic matters

Of course it does, thats the core tenent of it.

Permabear · 04-10-2010 04:50PM

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't · 04-10-2010 05:00PM

Well I'm sure any day now a variant will come along where the nexus between politicians and business isn't corrupt and murky. But to date...

I agree a mechanism would be lovely, but I don't think the courts are it. Especially political appointees staffing those courts.

Not arsed finding the actual provision, but its there. As is the primacy of EU citizenship over Irish.

Put another way, do you think the EU would allow us put a clause in our constitution over-ruling a clause in theirs, especially economic in nature? Judging by the weekend papers we will struggle to keep tax sovereignity, how do you think the idea of an Bunreacht over-ruling the ECB on fiscal matters would sit?

Interesting debate, but a non runner in real politick terms.

ei.sdraob · 04-10-2010 05:00PM

corruption and bribery are traits of any systems that are not transparent and give too much power to too few people

if anything they are more prevalent under socialist systems who make an art form out of these

Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget?

Comments