New EU treaties - need more info. (See in-thread Mod Warning before posting)

SeanW · 14-04-2012 03:16AM

I'll be voting No.

I agree with austerity but I don't like the E.U. They were very keen to get Ireland to dump all the bank debt on the backs of the people, that alone makes me think they should be considered our enemies. The IMF wanted us to "burn" the bondholders ... when the IMF are more your friends than your so called "friends" in Europe (and there's plenty of evidence that this is the case) that really ought to be red flag.

Anyone who thinks the E.U. won't be tripping over themselves to loan us money to make bank gamblers rich is living in cloud-cookoo land. Treaty or no treaty. Just look at recent history.

Outside the EU will help attract foreign investment? Really? Have you thought that through?

Because the likes of Switzerland are so totally impoverished???

In any case, even if the ESM treaty were a good thing, which having read it, I clearly don't think it is, it would be no harm for the Eurocrats to be told "NO" because that's a word they don't like to hear.

They proposed a European Constitution.
It was rejected in both of the two countries it was vote on, France and the Netherlands. So the Eurocrats went back to Brussels, and reworded it to have the same meaning but no mention of a Constitution so that it would not have to be put to those pesky referenda, because they knew the French and Dutch would tell them where to put it. So they came up with the Lisbon Treaty. Which we voted on, and rejected. But the Eurocrats didn't like that, so we voted again, but only after the country was wallpapered with "Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" and other such nonsense.

They only had to bulldoze out of the way 3 democratic no votes to get their Constitution.

Honestly, an organisation like that needs to be told "NO" now and then if it is to be kept in check. If it cannot take no for an answer, ever, then there is little separating it from the likes of Syria or the Soviet Union, and it should be consigned to the rubbish tip of history.

meglome · 15-04-2012 04:37PM

Skopzz wrote: »

It doesn't require any more austerity if we vote No. We would still be able to get bilateral loans from other countries like the U.S, U.K, Sweden, Australia etc. Besides, the Ireland-America fund will soon be reinstated by the U.S government. If anything, we have the U.S on our side.

You know it beggars belief that anyone thinks when you just refuse to pay your loans that people will queue up to give you more. The thing about bilateral loans is they have to be very much approved by the local politicians in those countries, politicians who'd like to get re-elected. This is all grand with the UK who export large amounts to us, but what exactly is in this for Sweden or Australia, or even the US?

Skopzz wrote: »

Ireland's bailout was primarily as a result of the transfer of private banking debt to the taxpayer via guarantees given in 2008 to bank bondholders, not as a result of profligate spending (contrary to the emerging narrative). Our economy would still be in the toilet, but a bailout would not have been required without the constant siphoning of public money to bondholders who long since cut their losses in secondary markets.

The problem here is you're almost entirely wrong. You're correct that it is about the narrative though, we've been repeatedly told that it was all 'the banks' fault and that the money was all being paid back to support German and French banks. However when you look for evidence to support these claims it's not forthcoming. Even the people who originally made the claims can't back them up. Then we have the people who have actually crunched the numbers and it shows clearly that the majority of the money we just borrowed didn't go to any bank, we spent it on government services etc. One third of all government spending is borrowed, on top of the money we're being loaned to pay bondholders etc. There is no siphoning, we're getting loaned additional money for bonds.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/deficit-and-banks.html

Though should you have any proof for... well... anything... I'd happily read it.

Skopzz wrote: »

Almost every politician in this country is an economically illiterate two-bit huckster, only willing to cut programmes which impact on the weakest in society while paying themselves some of the highest salaries in the EU. I'm tired of them, and not a fan of the European incompetence project.

I can't help but find it ironic that you have been repeatedly shown to be misinformed yet are happily accusing others of being 'economically illiterate'.

SeanW wrote: »

They were very keen to get Ireland to dump all the bank debt on the backs of the people, that alone makes me think they should be considered our enemies. The IMF wanted us to "burn" the bondholders ... when the IMF are more your friends than your so called "friends" in Europe (and there's plenty of evidence that this is the case) that really ought to be red flag.

We choose our path. Led by a corrupt and inept government that we repeatedly elected.

SeanW wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the E.U. won't be tripping over themselves to loan us money to make bank gamblers rich is living in cloud-cookoo land. Treaty or no treaty. Just look at recent history.

Huh? As the German ambassador said on Today FM...
http://audioserver.todayfm.com/audio...nel_210212.mp3
At 5:28 roughly. He says… “It would be a lot cheaper for us actually… if bailing out German banks were really what we were after, it would be a lot cheaper for Germany to do that directly rather that via Dublin and bailing out the Irish economy…”.

Very difficult to argue against the logic.

SeanW wrote: »

Because the likes of Switzerland are so totally impoverished???

Any other countries not like Ireland you want to compare us to? Maybe Norway?

SeanW wrote: »

In any case, even if the ESM treaty were a good thing, which having read it, I clearly don't think it is, it would be no harm for the Eurocrats to be told "NO" because that's a word they don't like to hear.

Maybe we should pull their pig-tails too?

SeanW wrote: »

They proposed a European Constitution.
It was rejected in both of the two countries it was vote on, France and the Netherlands. So the Eurocrats went back to Brussels, and reworded it to have the same meaning but no mention of a Constitution so that it would not have to be put to those pesky referenda, because they knew the French and Dutch would tell them where to put it. So they came up with the Lisbon Treaty. Which we voted on, and rejected. But the Eurocrats didn't like that, so we voted again, but only after the country was wallpapered with "Yes to Lisbon, Yes to Jobs" and other such nonsense.

They only had to bulldoze out of the way 3 democratic no votes to get their Constitution.

And of course the usual strawman stuff. What the jiggery has the Lisbon treaty got to do with this Fiscal compact? You do realise the Fiscal compact is not even an EU treaty right? And it only needs twelve signatures and we can be bypassed. you know this right?

Also 'bulldoze' my arse... we voted democratically twice on the Lisbon treaty. Ultimately voting yes by a large majority. You obviously don't like it but though luck.

SeanW wrote: »

Honestly, an organisation like that needs to be told "NO" now and then if it is to be kept in check. If it cannot take no for an answer, ever, then there is little separating it from the likes of Syria or the Soviet Union, and it should be consigned to the rubbish tip of history.

Such shíte I can't even be bothered.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

What's depressing me is that you're the first person I've come across putting forward reasoned and informed arguments for voting no.

What's possibly more depressing, is that there is so little honest debate about this.

Which comes to the point that depresses me most, we're having a plebiscite in which the vast majority of people will be voting with no comprehension of the potential consequences of their vote, and yet for some bizarre reason are congratulating ourselves on the "democratic" system that requires the holding of such votes.

Allez Hollande!

Skopzz · 15-04-2012 05:19PM

I DO NOT care what you say. The government is trying to market this stuff and I do not mind. You are shilling this stuff and talking your book. Now that your FG/LAB administration is on it's last legs, you are becoming an old worn out cliche. For a country of our size, Ireland's economy and it's future look bright given the rapid turnaround currently taking place. If the promissory note and bondholders are burned, we would be almost debt free - the austerity would easily make up any shortfall. The U.S will support Ireland given the 45 million Irish-American swing votes. Australia and NZ will follow because of the closer cultural links between Ireland and Oceania. This treaty will be rejected. Get past it.

FreudianSlippers · 15-04-2012 05:30PM

Skopzz wrote: »

I DO NOT care what you say. The government is trying to market this stuff and I do not mind. You are shilling this stuff and talking your book. Now that your FG/LAB administration is on it's last legs, you are becoming an old worn out cliche. For a country of our size, Ireland's economy and it's future look bright given the rapid turnaround currently taking place. If the promissory note and bondholders are burned, we would be almost debt free - the austerity would easily make up any shortfall. The U.S will support Ireland given the 45 million Irish-American swing votes. Australia and NZ will follow because of the closer cultural links between Ireland and Oceania. This treaty will be rejected. Get past it.

So you refuse to accept reality and keep promoting your mindless agenda. Your fantasy world where there is a magic bullet and the US starts sending us crates filled with $100 notes seems like a fantastic magical place of wonderment and awe. I think we all wish we could even visit such a place but unfortunately some of us have to be rooted in reality.

It doesn't matter if you have reasons for voting one way or another, but if you set out your reasons and they are refuted and you still cling on to them and ignore all rational thought, you have to wonder what anyone could say to get you to listen.

Black Swan · 15-04-2012 05:43PM

MOD COMMENT:
Please do not get too personal when attempting to refute another poster's position. Getting too personal violates our charter, degrades the quality of the discussion, and may result in moderator actions. In other words, focus on making meaningful contributions to thread content, and not each other.

Cedrus · 15-04-2012 05:47PM

Skopzz wrote: »

the rapid turnaround currently taking place

All as if by magic, when the government is doing all the wrong things - according to you.

Skopzz wrote: »

If the promissory note and bondholders are burned, we would be almost debt free - the austerity would easily make up any shortfall.

Yeehaw, Fcuk the pension funds, who needs old people anyway? Do you even know what austerity means? It's not an economic tool it's a byproduct.

Skopzz wrote: »

The U.S will support Ireland given the 45 million Irish-American swing votes. Australia and NZ will follow because of the closer cultural links between Ireland and Oceania.

Oh yes, we saw the greek australians rushing to support their motherland, and a lot of americans don't even want to financially support their own federal state never mind anyone elses

Skopzz wrote: »

This treaty will be rejected. Get past it.

Idiot ARE allowed to vote.

meglome · 15-04-2012 05:56PM

Skopzz wrote: »

I DO NOT care what you say. The government is trying to market this stuff and I do not mind. You are shilling this stuff and talking your book. Now that your FG/LAB administration is on it's last legs, you are becoming an old worn out cliche.

Well it's obvious you don't care what anyone has to say if it disagrees with what you currently think. Believe I'm a shill all you want, but all I'm interested in is getting to the facts. People have provided you with facts and balanced opinion, you have chosen to ignore both.

FG and Lab are holding steady in the opinion polls yet you believe they are on their last legs. Look at the end of the day you can believe whatever you want but I'd personally be concerned if I was ignoring reality.

Skopzz · 15-04-2012 06:09PM

meglome wrote: »

Well it's obvious you don't care what anyone has to say if it disagrees with what you currently think. Believe I'm a shill all you want, but all I'm interested in is getting to the facts. People have provided you with facts and balanced opinion, you have chosen to ignore both.

FG and Lab are holding steady in the opinion polls yet you believe they are on their last legs. Look at the end of the day you can believe whatever you want but I'd personally be concerned if I was ignoring reality.

meglome: Unless you can prove to us (the readers) that you possess a devine prescience to be able to infallibly ascribe to the "facts" you claim to observe, that none of those individuals could possibly have an absolutely positive - to the level of exactitude defined by unerring certitude; then you, by the premise of your own definition --- are lying!

P.S. The poll on this board currently gives 52.29% against this treaty - an increase from the previous 50%. While 34.86% support it, 11.01% are undecided.

meglome · 15-04-2012 06:19PM

Skopzz wrote: »

meglome: Unless you can prove to us (the readers) that you possess a devine prescience to be able to infallibly ascribe to the "facts" you claim to observe, that none of those individuals could possibly have an absolutely positive - to the level of exactitude defined by unerring certitude; then you, by the premise of your own definition --- are lying!

I posted three links in the post from 4:37 today. You've also had the actual IMF report posted for you which says why they can't/won't give us more money.

Skopzz wrote: »

P.S. The poll on this board currently gives 52.29% against this treaty - an increase from the previous 50%. While 34.86% support it, 11.01% are undecided.

Online polls are rarely reflective of society in general for a number of reasons. In the professionally run opinions polls the government and the treaty have clear support. I have a feeling though you're going to assume some sort of bias or conspiracy.

Skopzz · 15-04-2012 06:22PM

@ meglome

the interesting facts about your facts are:

1. If the goal is to preserve the crony capitalism of FF's legacy, then FG / LAB did the right thing: offload toxic Anglo's bonds to the Irish taxpayers. You seem to be in that camp. If the goal would have been to face the reality that huge societal and structural impediments cannot sustain that current level of debt, then the alternative approach would be to let it fail while making sure the role of the banks as financial intermediaries is being supported - a la TARP with forced re-capitalization, partial government control, and eventual re-payment of the government money.

2. There is nothing exaggerated about Anglo bondholders - all of them are speculators with worthless paper, weak institutions, a dysfunctional administration, mafia-controlled business world, etc. The private wealth of these banks is in stark contrast to the plight of their losses.

3. The economics are daunting, but easy to explain: on the current trajectory, none of the restructures will manage to get debt to a manageable level. You can either change the trajectory, which means more austerity, for which Ireland has already fully stomached. Or you expect the shrinking number of relatively healthy figures to transfer large parts of their life savings to the toxic dump in Anglo Irish Bank.

The guarantees that Ireland had given for the Banks (€200 billion if you add the bad loans) match the order of magnitude of 37% of GDP. If you believe this will not affect Irish investment, competitiveness, and standard of living for the man on the street, you are dreaming.

FreudianSlippers · 15-04-2012 07:49PM

Skopzz wrote: »

@ meglome

the interesting facts about your facts are:

1. If the goal is to preserve the crony capitalism of FF's legacy, then FG / LAB did the right thing: offload toxic Anglo's bonds to the Irish taxpayers. You seem to be in that camp. If the goal would have been to face the reality that huge societal and structural impediments cannot sustain that current level of debt, then the alternative approach would be to let it fail while making sure the role of the banks as financial intermediaries is being supported - a la TARP with forced re-capitalization, partial government control, and eventual re-payment of the government money.

2. There is nothing exaggerated about Anglo bondholders - all of them are speculators with worthless paper, weak institutions, a dysfunctional administration, mafia-controlled business world, etc. The private wealth of these banks is in stark contrast to the plight of their losses.

3. The economics are daunting, but easy to explain: on the current trajectory, none of the restructures will manage to get debt to a manageable level. You can either change the trajectory, which means more austerity, for which Ireland has already fully stomached. Or you expect the shrinking number of relatively healthy figures to transfer large parts of their life savings to the toxic dump in Anglo Irish Bank.

The guarantees that Ireland had given for the Banks (€200 billion if you add the bad loans) match the order of magnitude of 37% of GDP. If you believe this will not affect Irish investment, competitiveness, and standard of living for the man on the street, you are dreaming.

This has literally nothing to do with the point that was made. Furthermore, it's a lot of crying over spilt milk; the banks were bailed out, whether that was the correct or incorrect thing to do (and I think you'll find few people who say that the bailout that actually happened was correct) but it's done and dusted - there is no going back and stopping that unless you've invented a time machine. I fail to see how voting NO to the fiscal compact treaty is going to fix this problem. Where is your magic bullet?

SeanW · 15-04-2012 08:21PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This has literally nothing to do with the point that was made. Furthermore, it's a lot of crying over spilt milk; the banks were bailed out, whether that was the correct or incorrect thing to do (and I think you'll find few people who say that the bailout that actually happened was correct) but it's done and dusted - there is no going back and stopping that unless you've invented a time machine. I fail to see how voting NO to the fiscal compact treaty is going to fix this problem. Where is your magic bullet?

Speaking for myself, my main problem with the Treaty Establishing the FSM is that it paves the way for more Irish style bank-bailouts to happen throughout the Eurozone, providing as it does a clear statment of intent by policymakers that the Irish response to the banking failure is a model and template for the entire Eurozone.

That means either us, or some other poor suckers in the EZ are eventually going to be saddled with debts they didn't ask for, didn't borrow and don't owe.

In short, I think the whole idea behind the ESM, its lack of accountability and its stance on bank recapitalisation means it's a bad deal not just for us, but for virtually every single Eurozone citizen.

The treaty that we are to vote on is the Fiscal Stability Pact not the Treaty Establishing the FSM, but for my part though I agree with the Fiscal Stability Rules, I'm hoping that no vote on the FST would put some obstacle, anything, in the way of the FSM.

beeftotheheels · 15-04-2012 09:33PM

SeanW wrote: »

Speaking for myself, my main problem with the Treaty Establishing the FSM is that it paves the way for more Irish style bank-bailouts to happen throughout the Eurozone, providing as it does a clear statment of intent by policymakers that the Irish response to the banking failure is a model and template for the entire Eurozone.

That means either us, or some other poor suckers in the EZ are eventually going to be saddled with debts they didn't ask for, didn't borrow and don't owe.

In short, I think the whole idea behind the ESM, its lack of accountability and its stance on bank recapitalisation means it's a bad deal not just for us, but for virtually every single Eurozone citizen.

The treaty that we are to vote on is the Fiscal Stability Pact not the Treaty Establishing the FSM, but for my part though I agree with the Fiscal Stability Rules, I'm hoping that no vote on the FST would put some obstacle, anything, in the way of the FSM.

While I have sympathy with the argument regarding banking bailouts being structured through the sovereign, voting no to the Government ratifying the Fiscal Compact won't actually help, the ESM is as is.

The state of Spanish banks however, just might. In the coming weeks and months Spain will be in the position we were in in 2008 - 2010.

Did you notice today that, in full blown election mode, Sarkozy broke ranks with Merkel again and called for more ECB intervention?

Apologies for using the link behind the FT firewall.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9d26b6b8-870d-11e1-865d-00144feab49a.html#axzz1rpKooBQH

Skopzz · 15-04-2012 09:40PM

@ beeftotheheels

Two countries have already opted out of this fiscal compact (soon to be three). Voting no strengthens Ireland's position because it gives us a bargaining chip and also relieves us from 2 extra years of austerity. The ECB Must become a lender of last resort like any other central bank in the real world. Without ECB bond buying, the Euro will collapse. Every central bank buys bonds to calm the market - it's called monetization of debt. Your predictions aren't trustworthy. FG / LAB prefer higher taxes so the government can distribute taxes euros to whatever organization will vote for their austerity treaty. Of course, they are not counting the millions of euros spent on Kenny and his many vacations as income. Odd that. He gets the use of the "company car" for his personal usage, and it isn't income.

The Bank Bailouts have opened up a massive 32% of GDP deficit (€200 billion in total).

FG / LAB just sanctioned an extra €27,000 on expenses for an extra secretary

FreudianSlippers · 16-04-2012 09:59AM

Skopzz wrote: »

@ beeftotheheels

Two countries have already opted out of this fiscal compact (soon to be three).

Two non-Eurozone countries in completely different positions to us. Also, the referendum will pass... probably narrowly, but it will.

Voting no strengthens Ireland's position because it gives us a bargaining chip and also relieves us from 2 extra years of austerity.

I'm going to take my infraction here; but I want some of whatever you're smoking. You've had it pointed out to you multiple times that this isn't correct, has nothing to do with the treaty and the austerity may actually be miles worse if we vote no. You ignore these points and keep repeating talking points in your (self-professed: see the earlier post citing the "European incompetence project") anti-EU/EZ agenda.

I'm all for rational discourse and discussion. I'd like to be able to alleviate the concerns of a no voter or be convinced to vote anything other than yes... but you're certainly not doing that or making that easy.

The ECB Must become a lender of last resort like any other central bank in the real world. Without ECB bond buying, the Euro will collapse. Every central bank buys bonds to calm the market - it's called monetization of debt. Your predictions aren't trustworthy.

So what's your point here in context?

FG / LAB prefer higher taxes so the government can distribute taxes euros to whatever organization will vote for their austerity treaty.

Frankly, that's not only ridiculous but unfounded and annoying. PS: plural of Euro = Euro (pet peeve).

Of course, they are not counting the millions of euros spent on Kenny and his many vacations as income. Odd that. He gets the use of the "company car" for his personal usage, and it isn't income.

Odd that we pay our head of state. Sure, we never paid any of the others... is Bertie still around, get him back up in here?!

The Bank Bailouts have opened up a massive 32% of GDP deficit (€200 billion in total).

FG / LAB just sanctioned an extra €27,000 on expenses for an extra secretary

Does anyone else want to field this one? My hands are fully facepalmed at the moment.

K-9 · 16-04-2012 10:43AM

Thread seems to be veering off topic. There is a thread on the Elections board about voting intentions etc.

Skopzz · 16-04-2012 01:20PM

We should note this:

It fails to mention that it's standard practice that international organizations and diplomats have immunity from prosecution in carrying out their work. We tend to take for granted that the nations where such organizations are based in are run according to fairness and the rule of law, therefore such immunity is uncalled for. however this may not always be the case -look at Hungary today- and such immunity is to ensure that such organizations may carry out their work free from interference. The same will happen if Ireland ratifies it.

I think its always been the plan to make Europe a stable superpower, and sovereign independence kept threatening that. Thanks to the EU every Irish man, woman and child each owes €390,000.00 debt that they had no hand or part in creating but are being made pay for it.This doesn't even take into account personal debts or monies required to keep a countries services going. Best of Luck Merkel and Sarkozy, whatever happens to the euro, the Irish are going to tell you to shove this treaty up your ass.

nacho libre · 17-04-2012 01:05PM

Skopzz wrote: »

We should note this:
.

. Best of Luck Merkel and Sarkozy, whatever happens to the euro, the Irish are going to tell you to shove this treaty up your ass.

i think you maybe wrong. irritation at the government imposing austerity, will likely be superseded by the fear of the money supply being cut off if we vote no. all the politicians need to do is repeat ad- nauseam, whether it's true or not, that access to the esm will be blocked if a no vote is passed

fear of economic armageddon worked for Cowen's government last time out, it will work again, although FG will be far more subtle in conveying that message, lest they be accused of fear mongering.

later12 · 17-04-2012 01:18PM

Leaving aside the distinction between fear mongering and reasonable hypothesis, which is always going to be contentious, I think that Lisbon 1 taught us that a tiny amount of fear can go a long way.

A small amount of fear can spread through a population like a fire when voters inform and exchange each other opinions, and fear gains currency very rapidly. It only takes one match to burn a thousand trees, as the old cliche goes.

Whether logically based or otherwise, fear is an emotion the Irish voter tends to find enormously convincing. It should see the Fiscal Treaty passed comfortably.

beeftotheheels · 17-04-2012 01:37PM

later12 wrote: »

Leaving aside the distinction between fear mongering and reasonable hypothesis, which is always going to be contentious, I think that Lisbon 1 taught us that a tiny amount of fear can go a long way.

A small amount of fear can spread through a population like a fire when voters inform and exchange each other opinions, and fear gains currency very rapidly. It only takes one match to burn a thousand trees, as the old cliche goes.

Whether logically based or otherwise, fear is an emotion the Irish voter tends to find enormously convincing. It should see the Fiscal Treaty passed comfortably.

Are you really sure that the "austerity" treaty isn't capable of generating its own fears?

later12 · 17-04-2012 03:55PM

I think fear will inform most of the No voters as well.

However, despite the fact that the consolidation has been (fairly) progressive to date, I think the bottom deciles of earners (excluding state pensioners) will (rightly or wrongly) feel more vulnerable to austerity than those who may be insulated by assets or personal wealth, or even state pensioners themselves who have been relatively insulated by Government, and might expect that to continue.

And I wouldn't expect the same level of turnout among those in the lower income deciles who will feel more vulnerable to austerity.

nacho libre · 19-04-2012 09:11PM

later12 wrote: »

Leaving aside the distinction between fear mongering and reasonable hypothesis,

just on that, do you think anyone arguing for a no vote has put forward a reasonable hypothesis? what would you say in response to Cormac Lucey's latest blog entry:

http://cormaclucey.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-access-to-esm-is-poisoned-chalice.html#more

jumpguy · 20-04-2012 01:12AM

nacho libre wrote: »

just on that, do you think anyone arguing for a no vote has put forward a reasonable hypothesis? what would you say in response to Cormac Lucey's latest blog entry:

http://cormaclucey.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-access-to-esm-is-poisoned-chalice.html#more

That would concern those who would vote yes only so we'll have access to the ESM funds. I consider that a bonus, just because it'll be an extra safeguard and hence it'll make it cheaper for us to borrow from the markets. Ultimately though, the treaty isn't about the ESM. It's about fiscal regulation.

I'll be voting yes to prevent any future governments in this country running amok fiscally to the delight of the electorate, landing us back in the same place we are now.

Scofflaw · 20-04-2012 01:13AM

nacho libre wrote: »

just on that, do you think anyone arguing for a no vote has put forward a reasonable hypothesis? what would you say in response to Cormac Lucey's latest blog entry:

http://cormaclucey.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-access-to-esm-is-poisoned-chalice.html#more

I'd say it's quite a good argument for a Yes, at least for anyone but the terminally optimistic. He expects the outcome to be:

(a) accelerated recognition of losses we have already suffered but haven't faced up to ("extend and pretend")

(b) bankruptcy losses triggered by €-exit which would be suffered by losers of the resulting devaluation (as they end up with devalued IR£ assets and full value € liabilities). E.g. an Irish company that had borrowed in London to invest in Ireland would have its equity hit this way. Our banks might be bankrupted all over again through this channel.

(c) uncertainty while the following settle down (i) fears of possible trade war reaction (ii) multinational reaction - they would be happy with the income statement effect of labour cost devaluation but several would be hit by balance sheet effect of equity reduction from having devalued Irish assets and full value foreign liabilities (iii) legal delays in recognising bankruptcies and enforcing laws concerning new currency (iv) pricing as Irish market must adjust to much higher price of imports (eg cars and foreign holidays) while domestically produced goods and services would become relatively much cheaper.

(d) Any Irish government recognition of our chronic overindebtedness and open default would mean an immediate end to our access to Troika funding. That would require an immediate closing of Ireland's budgetary deficit as we simply would not have the funds to bridge the gap. With taxes already very high across the borad, the burden of budgetary adjustment would probably fall on public spending. In particular, a heavy burden of spending cuts would probably fall onto public pay & pensions and welfare rates. These cuts would cause immense personal distress and potentially significant political reaction.

He expects all of that to flush through the system and be over with in "1-2 dismal years", which I would describe as "hopelessly optimistic" to be polite, rising to "barking and frothing mad" based on his comment that he may be being "overly conservative in my 1-2 year timeframe" and that it might all be over with "within months".

To be honest, I think you're looking at a man who confuses economic models with reality. "All over by Christmas"...we've heard that one before.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SeanW · 20-04-2012 04:25PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

We could ratify the Fiscal Treaty (FST), but not take part in the ESM at all, although by ratifying the FST we would be eligible to get ESM bailout funds - and we could ratify the ESM, meaning we put money into it, but not ratify the FST, meaning we wouldn't be eligible to get ESM bailout funds.

|Ratify ESM|Don't ratify ESM|Ratify FST|Don't ratify FST
Put money into ESM|Yes|No||
Get money from ESM|-|-|Yes|No
Subject to fiscal rules|-|-|Yes|No
||||
Who Votes|Oireachtas||Referendum|

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just occured to me yesterday but if we voted No to the treaty on Fiscal Stability and therefore could not access ESM funding, could ANY politician - even our OTT Europhiles - justify signing an ESM treaty that commits us to all that cost and anti-democraticness of the ESM, without being able to benefit from it?

Scofflaw · 20-04-2012 04:30PM

SeanW wrote: »

Just occured to me yesterday but if we voted No to the treaty on Fiscal Stability and therefore could not access ESM funding, could ANY politician - even our OTT Europhiles - justify signing an ESM treaty that commits us to all that cost and anti-democraticness of the ESM, without being able to benefit from it?

From a purely selfish viewpoint, no. Of course, from a purely selfish viewpoint there's not much that can be justified, including social transfers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave · 22-04-2012 10:01AM

SeanW wrote: »

Just occured to me yesterday but if we voted No to the treaty on Fiscal Stability and therefore could not access ESM funding, could ANY politician - even our OTT Europhiles - justify signing an ESM treaty that commits us to all that cost and anti-democraticness of the ESM, without being able to benefit from it?

If you want a higher order of democracy in the EU, start arguing for a much higher level of integration, up to and including a federal Europe or a European 'superstate'. Naturally at the expense of national competence/sovereignty.

In the meantime, it is more democratic that member states retain greater power by acting through the Council, the EU's most powerful institution. And that democratic legitimacy is effected more profoundly at the national level.

New EU treaties - need more info. (See in-thread Mod Warning before posting)

Comments