Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Referendum on Fiscal Treaty confirmed

24567…12

Comments

  • #32
    Kinski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »
    Eh no. The AG is above politics so what people say, even the President, means nothing.

    It is a legal and constitutional decision, that's all.

    That's the theory, but I don't believe anyone is "above politics." The advice may have been purely legal, but I don't find it unimaginable that the President's hint that he would refer this had a bearing on it.

    To put it another way, I think it's possible the advice, or the govt's decision, may have been different if they'd known President Gallagher was sitting in the Aras, eager to sign-off on this lest it make him late for the ribbon-cutting at an opening ceremony for a new hair salon in Tullamore.


  • #33
    The Waltzing Consumer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭The Waltzing Consumer


    Kinski wrote: »
    That's the theory, but I don't believe anyone is "above politics." The advice may have been purely legal, but I don't find it unimaginable that the President's hint that he would refer this had a bearing on it.

    To put it another way, I think it's possible the advice, or the govt's decision, may have been different if they'd known President Gallagher was sitting in the Aras, eager to sign-off on this lest it make him late for the ribbon-cutting at an opening ceremony for a new hair salon in Tullamore.

    It's extremely unlikely and the theory would be more suited in the conspiracy theory forum then here.

    The government consulted the AG, he gave his advice, they took it, end of. That's his job.


  • #34
    Kinski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,555 ✭✭✭Kinski


    The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »
    It's extremely unlikely and the theory would be more suited in the conspiracy theory forum then here.

    The government consulted the AG, he gave his advice, they took it, end of. That's his job.

    Well, surely a part of his job is to advise the govt on how likely it is that the President will feel the need to pass any legislation on to the Council of State. In this case, highly likely. Gay Mitchell (admittedly while campaigning for the role of President) stated that he was aware of cases where the AG advised the Govt to reconsider legislation because "you won't get that past the President" (paraphrasing only slightly).

    And please don't tell me what fucking forum I should be posting in, cheers.:)


  • #35
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Enough of that, thanks.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #36
    Fergus_Nash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 228 ✭✭Fergus_Nash


    Set up an old poll there, lads.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    200yrolecrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭200yrolecrank


    Fergus_Nash wrote: »
    Set up an old poll there, lads.

    I believe if the govt want this vote passed they are going to have to get a serious sweetener from the Europe or the populace are not going to pass it.


  • #38
    rodento
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    Guess a yes vote will lead to a hike in our corporation tax and a financial transaction tax, I'm actually stumped on this one


  • #39
    The Waltzing Consumer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,949 ✭✭✭The Waltzing Consumer


    rodento wrote: »
    Guess a yes vote will lead to a hike in our corporation tax and a financial transaction tax, I'm actually stumped on this one

    Why would it? It has nothing to do with that.

    I really wish, from all sides, that their will be no lies in this campaign. Parties should have a strict code of practice for their campaigning. Parties should not be allowed make up stuff just because they want the referendum to go a certain way.

    From what I have read of the treaty, it says zero about corp tax, it seems to all be about the budget and not overspending.

    So can you help and show me where corp tax will be changed in the treaty?


  • #40
    cavedave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    Kinski

    A Red C poll published at the end of January projected a 53/47% vote in favour if this went to a referendum.

    The Paddy Power betting at the moment is
    Singles Only. Applies to the first national official referendum held on Ireland's acceptance of the EU intergovernmental fiscal stability treaty/compact. Must be held by 31st December 2012.
    Yes
    4/6
    No
    11/10
    This far out betting is not accurate. But it does get more accurate closer to the election


  • #41
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,353 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    • Ireland has little choice but to adopt the treaty given that ratification is a pre-condition for securing future ESM funding.

    Basically we have no option but to vote yes unless we can balance our books immediately which might be reason enough to vote no!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,202 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    You can't have a sensible debate about something as complex as this treaty, particularly for an electorate as clueless about finance as the Irish electorate. Unfortunately this will be reduced to yet another meaningless debate with both sides trying to terrify people, and the electorate will again be looking for some sort of media figure to latch onto as the sage of all wisdom.

    It's a nightmare, and worse this time the rest have put themselves into a position where they can ignore an Irish "no" vote and leave us to our own fate.


  • #43
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Perhaps as a service, Boards might stickie the treaty plus approved links giving the Yes/No side of the issue?


  • #44
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭carveone


    The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »
    The government consulted the AG, he gave his advice, they took it, end of. That's his job.

    Her job I think you'll find. Speaking of which, is there a text of the AG's decision anywhere? Or is it the usual case of her advice being unsuitable for us uncoked earthlings...
    I guess I'll have to go read the thing now, grumble...


  • #45
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,227 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    Basically we have no option but to vote yes unless we can balance our books immediately which might be reason enough to vote no!

    I was thinking the same, I'll probably vote yes (need to read up about it a bit more) but a no vote may make the government make more aggressive cuts.


  • #46
    rodento
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »
    rodento wrote: »
    Guess a yes vote will lead to a hike in our corporation tax and a financial transaction tax, I'm actually stumped on this one

    Why would it? It has nothing to do with that.

    I really wish, from all sides, that their will be no lies in this campaign. Parties should have a strict code of practice for their campaigning. Parties should not be allowed make up stuff just because they want the referendum to go a certain way.

    From what I have read of the treaty, it says zero about corp tax, it seems to all be about the budget and not overspending.

    So can you help and show me where corp tax will be changed in the treaty?
    If they plan to introduce a financial transaction tax, what's to stop them forcing us to change the corporation tax especially when they have made such a big deal about it.

    I'd like to vote yes, but this scares me


  • #47
    steelcityblues
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    Gilmore already getting the key buzzwords in on PT: 'Stability, growth, jobs', but of course not giving the first idea as to how a Treaty would bring about this wonderful situation.


  • #48
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,227 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    rodento wrote: »
    If they plan to introduce a financial transaction tax, what's to stop them forcing us to change the corporation tax especially when they have made such a big deal about it.

    I'd like to vote yes, but this scares me

    How can this lead to an introduction of a financial transaction tax. I thought all it did would limit the governments ability to riddle us with debt.


  • #49
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    carveone wrote: »
    Her job I think you'll find. Speaking of which, is there a text of the AG's decision anywhere? Or is it the usual case of her advice being unsuitable for us uncoked earthlings...
    I guess I'll have to go read the thing now, grumble...

    Unfortunately, the AG's advice to the government is always confidential. That seems outrageous (it's a public service, they're our government etc) until you consider that she is, in effect, the government's lawyer.

    The government being subject to the law means that it can - and frequently does - wind up in court, sometimes on issues the AG has advised them on. Standard counsel-client confidentiality therefore obtains.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #50
    rodento
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    How can this lead to an introduction of a financial transaction tax. I thought all it did would limit the governments ability to riddle us with debt.

    Thought Britain vetoed european treaty over financial tax

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1207/1224308683293.html


  • #51
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,227 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    rodento wrote: »
    Thought Britain vetoed european treaty over financial tax

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1207/1224308683293.html

    That's what I can't understand.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    rodento wrote: »
    Thought Britain vetoed european treaty over financial tax

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1207/1224308683293.html

    Not really - they vetoed on the basis that the eurogroup would, in coming closer together, have more influence over the single market:
    Mr Cameron is believed to be relaxed about the 17 eurozone members pressing ahead with a financial transactions tax, on the grounds that it would drive more business towards the City of London. He has refused to back an EU-wide tax, however, because it would drive business out of London unless applied globally.

    His summit concern is that a tighter-knit "inner core" of 17 countries with their own treaty and financial controls would risk Britain being absent from decisions directly affecting the country - particularly on the EU single market and financial services rules crucial to the City of London.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #53
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,227 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Not really - they vetoed on the basis that the eurogroup would, in coming closer together, have more influence over the single market:



    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    So does this treaty bring in a financial tax or leave the door open for one?


  • #54
    rodento
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Not really - they vetoed on the basis that the eurogroup would, in coming closer together, have more influence over the single market:



    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Thanks you just given me a headache:D

    I'm actually scared by the implications of this, if we vote yes the financial services sector ma well just pack up and head over to the UK, but if we vote no, they may well do the same

    Ma poor head can't handle it


  • #55
    corcaigh1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 647 ✭✭✭corcaigh1


    So we are going to have a referendum (Thank God) on the Fiscal Stability Treaty..

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0228/referendum.html

    I will be voting NO to this because i believe it will lead to us being dictated and cleaned out financially for eternity. Agree??


  • #56
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    I voted No the first time, no the second and will do the same again.

    What part of NO don't these Eurocrats not understand.


  • #57
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    I dont see a compelling reason to pass this treaty as it stands. Sure theres the liveline style "Ah shure the world will end - fire and brimstone Ted, fire and brimstone!!" arguments but similar stupid arguments accompanied great mistakes like NAMA, the guarantee, the failure to revoke the guarantee, and the 2010 "bailout".

    Lets face it - if you are willing to believe the government is right by default, then theres no need for this treaty. The Troika bailout will end successfully and Ireland will be back raising funds in the market normally in 2013/2014 as planned under the bailout. This treaty wont be needed as the 2010 bailout will be a fantastic success.

    If you dont believe the government is right by default then the government hasnt offered any convincing argument to support this treaty. Appeasing the Germans is a bit of foolish errand - the Germans arent interested in being appeased. They dont see this Treaty as being part of any trade so why should Ireland tie its hands with dumb constraints?

    Even in the event of us needing some sort of second bailout (like a hole in the head...) then we can sign up for the treaty at that point.


  • #58
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,227 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    I voted No the first time, no the second and will do the same again.

    What part of NO don't these Eurocrats not understand.

    I absolutely hate this attitude. Vote on the treaty at hand and whether you think it will be a good idea or beneficial to the country. Don't just vote no because you want to stick your middle finger up at the EU.


  • #59
    Defiler Of The Coffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭Defiler Of The Coffin


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    I voted No the first time, no the second and will do the same again.

    What part of NO don't these Eurocrats not understand.

    No to what exactly? Are you saying no to Ireland being able to issue bonds? If so then go ahead and vote no. Do it for the right reasons.

    If a 'yes' to this treaty enforces greater fiscal discipline across the entire eurozone, not just in this country then I am all for it. We cannot complain about the EU doing nothing to halt the rot if we block attempts to do so.


  • #60
    chieftan65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭chieftan65


    corcaigh1 wrote: »
    So we are going to have a referendum (Thank God) on the Fiscal Stability Treaty..

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0228/referendum.html

    I will be voting NO to this because i believe it will lead to us being dictated and cleaned out financially for eternity. Agree??

    Absolutely. They didn't want to hold a referendum on this cause they know well enough it will be defeated and enda wont be getting his tap on the head for being a good little european. The arrogance of the man today was astounding when he said he was positive the irish people would ratify this treaty in a referendum. I thought i was listening to cowen again


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    corcaigh1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 647 ✭✭✭corcaigh1


    chieftan65 wrote: »
    Absolutely. They didn't want to hold a referendum on this cause they know well enough it will be defeated and enda wont be getting his tap on the head for being a good little european. The arrogance of the man today was astounding when he said he was positive the irish people would ratify this treaty in a referendum. I thought i was listening to cowen again

    I know yeah..absolutley sickening listening to him. I just hope the Irish people aren't daft enough (like enda thinks) to fall for this madness. We need to get a substantial debt write down before this treaty could even be contemplated in my view..


Advertisement