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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

12467…38

Comments

  • #152
    BritsOut
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭BritsOut


    Why am I voting no?

    - Europe already have power over us and are very smart in their wording of documents, the wording of this document is very suspicious and is clearly a breach of our sovereignty. Look at the German's history, waging wars based on racism. Now look at the French presidential election, it is an election based on racism. Look at the UK's aggressiveness/racism towards us in the past. Do you want people who hate us to control us? It's as if we're the blacks and Europe are the White Americans.

    You can claim my above response is wrong but how about this.

    - 1 of the main good points of this fiscal treaty is the creation of around 10000 jobs. The previous government also put through many job stimulus' and everybody got the feeling things were getting better but they definately weren't because as soon as 500 jobs are made another 800 could be lost. Our problem isn't making jobs, it's keeping them.

    - 6BILLION AUSTERITY. Where is this going to come from? our pockets of course, no rich person will be paying the brunt of this and of course Foreign bondholders will be protected/bailed out while we pay for the crimes of our politicians. Austerity takes money out of the economy that is a fact when we are supposed to be putting money in.

    If we had let the banks die we wouldn't have the problems we do now.


  • #153
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    meglome, BritsOut, how about you start over? A post should never be met with a dismissive one-liner (although we're all human), because it generates exactly the kind of annoyed response it got. Both posts deleted.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #154
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    BritsOut wrote: »
    - Europe already have power over us and are very smart in their wording of documents, the wording of this document is very suspicious and is clearly a breach of our sovereignty. Look at the German's history, waging wars based on racism. Now look at the French presidential election, it is an election based on racism. Look at the UK's aggressiveness/racism towards us in the past. Do you want people who hate us to control us? It's as if we're the blacks and Europe are the White Americans.

    You can claim my above response is wrong but how about this.

    Yup I'm claiming most of the above is wrong.
    BritsOut wrote: »
    - 1 of the main good points of this fiscal treaty is the creation of around 10000 jobs. The previous government also put through many job stimulus' and everybody got the feeling things were getting better but they definately weren't because as soon as 500 jobs are made another 800 could be lost. Our problem isn't making jobs, it's keeping them.

    There's nothing in the Fiscal compact about creating jobs.
    BritsOut wrote: »
    - 6BILLION AUSTERITY. Where is this going to come from? our pockets of course, no rich person will be paying the brunt of this and of course Foreign bondholders will be protected/bailed out while we pay for the crimes of our politicians. Austerity takes money out of the economy that is a fact when we are supposed to be putting money in.

    We are borrowing one third of all government spending. So in an ideal world we wouldn't want to cut spending but in no reality is our overspending sustainable.
    Would have you been happy to wipe out the bonds held by Irish pension funds too or is it just foreign bondholders?
    BritsOut wrote: »
    If we had let the banks die we wouldn't have the problems we do now.

    The majority of the money we've borrowed didn't go to any bank, it was spent on day to day overspending.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html
    It is impossible to be human and not to be furious about this. But anger – righteous or otherwise – should not cloud analysis. However understandable, that has happened in the debate on bank debt.

    Three claims are frequently made:
    • Most public debt is a result of taking on banking debt;
    • The economic and budgetary outlook would be transformed if banking debt could be offloaded;
    • A bailout would not have been needed had it not been for socialised banking debt.
    These claims are, respectively, plain wrong, wrong and debatable.


  • #155
    sligoface
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭sligoface


    i don't think most people who want to vote NO are basing it on any interpretation of the treaty, it's down to their gut reaction to their current experience of feeling disenfranchised, cheated, and saddled with a dismal future. whether or not this treaty is going to accelerate the misery or protect against things getting even worse is not really known to any one on either side of the fence (though many of course claim to know).

    a lot of people, myself included, are opposed to the idea of more and more power being put into fewer and fewer hands, and this is making them lean towards a NO vote regardless of the fact that it may be needed to stop countries from overspending so much.

    i found it utterly disgusting that the current government are threatening more cuts and harsher budgets if the NO vote wins out. they are trying to scare the most vulnerable, poorest and least powerful into voting YES so they don't lose whatever benefits they are getting to keep a roof over their heads.

    it's plain for all to see that our government is corrupt and greedy and expects everyone but themselves to sacrifice and compromise their futures. we need to get them out. but if the treaty passes, it will be similar to the situation we have now where the next gov. will say their hands are tied by what the last gov. did.


  • #156
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,669 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Although I am a SF supporter I will be voting yes because I think it is the right thing for the country and TBH the No side haven't convinced me with their arguements and I thought Joe Higgins was all over the place last night in the TV3 debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    femur61
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,588 ✭✭✭femur61


    I'm voting Yes.

    One of the reasons cited is people don;t want to give France and Germany more power. We had power ourselves, first the church then our parish pump eletorate systm and we thrived underneath both, didn't we?

    The other reason, where will the money come fom for the (overpaid nurses, teachers) with some of the highest paid PS in the OECD who is going to give us more money to overpay them more. As far as I remember, in my mid 40s now we have always borrowed.


  • #158
    sligoface
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭sligoface


    one thing i don't understand is that the main reason the gov and others are pushing for a yes vote seems to be so that we have access to borrowing more money, which seems to fly in the face of the major aim of the treaty, which is to stop countries going into so much debt?

    i suppose it is because we simply can't survive without more borrowed or bailout funds and that we need to get the money as cheaply, quickly and easily as we can?

    does any one think it is possible that not having access to these borrowed funds could be a good thing in the long run? while the short term pain might be very great, it may force us to make the radical changes that will be needed for the country to become closer to solvency. i don't think this treaty is going to discourage the toxic cycle of borrowing, it will encourage it, along with loads more taxes, cuts to public services/social welfare benefits.

    it's clear that austerity will be the order of the day whether we pass this or not. the only question is how much for how long. it's really not the treaty that's the evil monster causing austerity, it's the rampant overspending. if we could reduce the outrageous pensions and salaries of our current and past government to something sensible, reduce or eliminate unvouched expenses, and stop paying pensions to anyone who is not actually of a retirement age, we could save an enormous amount. if we did that, and enforced a wealth tax, us ordinary joes would feel less victimized as we could see that we are not the only ones being asked to sacrifice. the reason this treaty could be vetoed by the public is mostly due to being told all the time 'we're all in this together', when clearly we are not.


  • #159
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    sligoface wrote: »
    one thing i don't understand is that the main reason the gov and others are pushing for a yes vote seems to be so that we have access to borrowing more money, which seems to fly in the face of the major aim of the treaty, which is to stop countries going into so much debt?

    i suppose it is because we simply can't survive without more borrowed or bailout funds and that we need to get the money as cheaply, quickly and easily as we can?

    does any one think it is possible that not having access to these borrowed funds could be a good thing in the long run? while the short term pain might be very great, it may force us to make the radical changes that will be needed for the country to become closer to solvency. i don't think this treaty is going to discourage the toxic cycle of borrowing, it will encourage it, along with loads more taxes, cuts to public services/social welfare benefits.

    it's clear that austerity will be the order of the day whether we pass this or not. the only question is how much for how long. it's really not the treaty that's the evil monster causing austerity, it's the rampant overspending. if we could reduce the outrageous pensions and salaries of our current and past government to something sensible, reduce or eliminate unvouched expenses, and stop paying pensions to anyone who is not actually of a retirement age, we could save an enormous amount. if we did that, and enforced a wealth tax, us ordinary joes would feel less victimized as we could see that we are not the only ones being asked to sacrifice. the reason this treaty could be vetoed by the public is mostly due to being told all the time 'we're all in this together', when clearly we are not.

    A big problem for us is that we have already borrowed, and some of that borrowed money is falling due - €8.3bn on January 15th 2014, for example, 2 weeks after the troika funding runs out.

    Even without borrowing further, we need to be able to repay or roll over that money.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #160
    packiec50
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭packiec50


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    A big problem for us is that we have already borrowed, and some of that borrowed money is falling due - €8.3bn on January 15th 2014, for example, 2 weeks after the troika funding runs out.

    Even without borrowing further, we need to be able to repay or roll over that money.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Quick question.
    Does the ESM fund not come into effect until 2015? Or is it the Fiscal Treaty that does not comes into effect until 2015?

    Thanks


  • #161
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    packiec50 wrote: »
    Quick question.
    Does the ESM fund not come into effect until 2015? Or is it the Fiscal Treaty that does not comes into effect until 2015?

    Thanks

    1. ESM comes into being in July 2013, or as soon as countries representing 90% of the capital have ratified. We represent 1.6% of the capital.

    2. The Fiscal Treaty comes into effect as soon as 12 countries have ratified it, but doesn't apply to us until 2018 because...

    3. there's a three year grace period after the end of a deficit programme, and Ireland's current programme doesn't end until 2015, although...

    4. Ireland's current troika funding runs out in December 2013.

    They should do a diary, really.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    theroad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 167 ✭✭theroad


    Is there something I have not understood? The government's booklet, "The Stability Treaty" arrived in the post today, it shows six Titles and 16 Articles in the treaty.

    The pdf I downloaded from the Commission's website, "TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN STABILITY MECHANISM..." runs to 64 pages, with eight Chapters, 48 Articles and one Annex.

    Now I am wondering which are text are we voting on, and what is the relationship between these two documents. Can anyone shed any light on this?

    Thanks.


  • #163
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    You are voting on the Treaty which is in the booklet.

    The Treaty on the Commission website is to establish the ESM, the new fund we will/might! have to borrow from.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #164
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    1. ESM comes into being in July 2013, or as soon as countries representing 90% of the capital have ratified. We represent 1.6% of the capital.

    2. The Fiscal Treaty comes into effect as soon as 12 countries have ratified it, but doesn't apply to us until 2018 because...

    3. there's a three year grace period after the end of a deficit programme, and Ireland's current programme doesn't end until 2015, although...

    4. Ireland's current troika funding runs out in December 2013.

    They should do a diary, really.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    And the pro treaty parties might reasonably be expected to learn it before engaging in debates with Joe "additional €6bn cuts in 2015" Higgins.

    Debate was appalling. Joe & Mary Lou "don't put this treaty in our constitution" McDonald telling lies about the treaty, Michael and Simon not being sufficiently versed with the treaty to call them on it.

    Noonan saying that the budget might have to be harsher if we vote no, which is pretty much a fact given our cost of funds will increase, is now "threatening the electorate".

    I now don't think there is any way this referendum will pass, and it won't pass for all the wrong reasons.

    And then we'll run it again. :(


  • #165
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    And the pro treaty parties might reasonably be expected to learn it before engaging in debates with Joe "additional €6bn cuts in 2015" Higgins.

    Debate was appalling. Joe & Mary Lou "don't put this treaty in our constitution" McDonald telling lies about the treaty, Michael and Simon not being sufficiently versed with the treaty to call them on it.

    Noonan saying that the budget might have to be harsher if we vote no, which is pretty much a fact given our cost of funds will increase, is now "threatening the electorate".

    I now don't think there is any way this referendum will pass, and it won't pass for all the wrong reasons.

    I am consistently amazed by the apparent inability of the Irish political parties to brief even those members of the party who will be appearing in public debates, never mind the ordinary TD or Councillor.
    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    And then we'll run it again. :(

    Which will also be "bullying", and, courtesy of the government's claim we won't, will automatically be dishonest. Obviously the chances are it will be re-run once it becomes clear we need the money.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #166
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    I now don't think there is any way this referendum will pass, and it won't pass for all the wrong reasons.

    And then we'll run it again. :(

    I'm being less pessimistic. I think it will likely pass, though I agree with you and Scofflaw as to how it would play out if it doesn't pass.


  • #167
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Sorry if it's been asked and answered before, but if we vote no, would we actually be able to sign up to it at a later date? I don't mean the usual re-run of referenda, but if it because apparent that Ireland couldn't go on without it, would we be able to do a u-turn?


  • #168
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    humanji wrote: »
    Sorry if it's been asked and answered before, but if we vote no, would we actually be able to sign up to it at a later date? I don't mean the usual re-run of referenda, but if it because apparent that Ireland couldn't go on without it, would we be able to do a u-turn?

    Yeah, probably. But it would cost us. It would have to be seen to cost us.

    At the moment the ESM plans on lending to us (if we need to borrow from it) at its borrowing costs which are much lower than ours. Commercially they could lend us the funds at a bit more than that to cause us economic pain. This would be necessary to appeal to the electorates of the creditor countries.

    The act of voting no probably makes a second bail out more likely because the markets could freak out at our recklessness and our borrowing costs could go up, and as Standard and Poors have pointed out they might downgrade us.

    Plus we'd be a laughing stock in Europe. The one country that gets to have referenda on this and we keep voting no and then voting yes.

    We shouldn't have protest voting in a referendum. We should just vote the way we see fit. If that happened then there would be no point in rerunning them as the result would be unlikely to change.

    The only reason we've been rerunning them is because we acknowledge that we, the electorate, have not been doing our job properly. We've been caught out on it twice so it is now pretty much expected.


  • #169
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I heard one govt. guy on the radio Saturday morning (might have been Noonan) saying the referendum would definitely not be re-run in the event of a no vote. He explained (somewhat irrationally) that previous re-runs happened because the EU treaties could not go ahead without our vote, whereas this one can.
    Not that "the word" of a politician means anything.


  • #170
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    humanji wrote: »
    Sorry if it's been asked and answered before, but if we vote no, would we actually be able to sign up to it at a later date? I don't mean the usual re-run of referenda, but if it because apparent that Ireland couldn't go on without it, would we be able to do a u-turn?

    From a legal point of view, there's no difficulty. Mind you, how hilarious would it be if the government stuck to their word and said no, we said no second referendum?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #171
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    recedite wrote: »
    I heard one govt. guy on the radio Saturday morning (might have been Noonan) saying the referendum would definitely not be re-run in the event of a no vote. He explained (somewhat irrationally) that previous re-runs happened because the EU treaties could not go ahead without our vote, whereas this one can.
    Not that "the word" of a politician means anything.

    If we vote no, and we need new funding, and the Europeans refuse to allow us borrow from the EFSF, it would be reckless in the extreme of any Irish Government not to ask us again whether we were really sure we wanted the country to go down the toilet rather than allow them to ratify a pretty benign treaty.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Mind you, how hilarious would it be if the government stuck to their word and said no, we said no second referendum?

    I know I shouldn't but that really made me laugh - first thing to lift my depression about this all day!


  • #173
    Losphel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20 ✭Losphel


    I am going to vote for a no because there are several provisions in the treaty that greatly concern me. A few examples:

    The Contracting Parties that are subject to an excessive deficit procedure under the European Union Treaties shall put in place a budgetary and economic partnership programme including a detailed description which must be put in place and implemented to ensure an effective and durable correction of their excessive deficits.

    That, to me, seems to say that there'll just be more taxes on the horizon if it goes through.

    If, on the basis of its own assessment or of an assessment by the European Commission, a Contact Party considers that another Contract Party has not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgement of the Court of Justice, it may bring the case before the Court of Justice and request the imposition of financial sanctions.

    Or in other words, if one country doesn't feel like another country isn't doing enough, they can ask to impose sanctions on them. That, to me, is completely ridiculous and I really don't see how it can be beneficial in any way.

    ...The Contacting Parties shall take the necessary actions and measures in all the domains which are essential to the good functioning of the euro area...

    Necessary actions and measures. In my eyes, that means more taxes and somehow I doubt that the upper echelon will be contributing to it.

    Based on what I've read of the treaty, it completely lacks any foresight or long term planning, is very vague, doesn't protect the public in any way, shape or form and I honestly believe that passing it will only make things worse.

    Regardless of whether you vote yes or no, I hope you will read the treaty and make an informed decision, as I think this will have a significant impact on our future.

    The link to the full treaty is here:http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/579087/treaty.pdf


  • #174
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Losphel wrote: »
    I am going to vote for a no because there are several provisions in the treaty that greatly concern me.

    Regardless of whether you vote yes or no, I hope you will read the treaty and make an informed decision, as I think this will have a significant impact on our future.

    Can I ask you to head over to Seamus Coffey's blog where he provides a useful summary of the rules already applicable to us? With links to the source documents so you can read them for yourself.

    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/

    I know I'm adding to your reading list, but you can't judge the treaty on its own merits without understanding the particulars of what it would actually change.

    I'm also cheered by a poster suggesting people read the treaty and vote on its merits, despite the fact that you'll be voting in the opposite way to me.


  • #175
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    recedite wrote: »
    I heard one govt. guy on the radio Saturday morning (might have been Noonan) saying the referendum would definitely not be re-run in the event of a no vote. He explained (somewhat irrationally) that previous re-runs happened because the EU treaties could not go ahead without our vote, whereas this one can.
    Not that "the word" of a politician means anything.

    If you look at Scofflaw's post no. 161, Noonan is actually telling the truth!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #176
    ixtlan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    Losphel wrote: »
    That, to me, seems to say that there'll just be more taxes on the horizon if it goes through.

    True. No quite disputes more charges and taxes are on the way. However the question really is whether voting no will mean fewer taxes and charges.
    Losphel wrote: »
    Or in other words, if one country doesn't feel like another country isn't doing enough, they can ask to impose sanctions on them. That, to me, is completely ridiculous and I really don't see how it can be beneficial in any way.

    True, I think... though I'm a little unclear on the precise procedures. I disagree this is ridiculous. You are looking at it from the point of view that Germany will be demanding cuts saying the Irish are wasteful. If the ideal solution comes about, it may involve Eurobonds or some form of bond pooling. Initially that benefits us, but in the longer term if we recover, we may start looking at Greece and Italy and demanding answers as to why we are paying more for our bonds because they are not running their country properly. If we retire at 68, are you happy that other states retire younger... if that affects your tax burden?
    Losphel wrote: »
    Necessary actions and measures. In my eyes, that means more taxes and somehow I doubt that the upper echelon will be contributing to it.

    Well, true more taxes whatever happens, but will it be more or less taxes voting yes or no? As to who contributes, that's going to be a matter of much argument, but again it doesn't really affect the yes/no decision.
    Losphel wrote: »
    Based on what I've read of the treaty, it completely lacks any foresight or long term planning, is very vague, doesn't protect the public in any way, shape or form and I honestly believe that passing it will only make things worse.

    It's vague because the states don't want to be absolutely boxed in. Basically it's a promise to try to be more fiscally responsible in the future, which it is hoped will allow the richer states to take on some of the burden from the harder hit ones. It does not guarantee that, so you might then argue it's pointless, but politics is different to economics, governments and their electorates need to be convinced slowly.
    Losphel wrote: »
    Regardless of whether you vote yes or no, I hope you will read the treaty and make an informed decision, as I think this will have a significant impact on our future.

    The link to the full treaty is here:http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/579087/treaty.pdf

    Agreed.

    Ix.


  • #177
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    True. No quite disputes more charges and taxes are on the way. However the question really is whether voting no will mean fewer taxes and charges.

    We cannot vote our way out of recession, nice though that would be.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #178
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    K-9 wrote: »
    Noonan is actually telling the truth!

    Yes, but the reasoning that any referendum result is invalid when it holds up an EU treaty is very flawed.


  • #179
    C14N
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    I was a bit on the fence but reading the comments here, I think I will vote "Yes". It seems like the negative ramifications are limited and I have generally liked the idea of more solidarity in Europe. I think making it the law to balance deficit is definitely the right idea and that seems to be the primary force behind the treaty in the first place. Also, while this may come across as controversial, I do believe the current government have the country's best interests at heart when they push for a yes and I believe they have more idea what they're doing than the Joe Duffy crowd who get their news from the rag papers (sorry if I'm generalizing, I don't think all No voters are like this).

    I would like to be able to fully understand and read the treaty but, like for a lot of people, reading it just won't get me far. I won't be able to understand it or its implications and I will be lucky to pay attention to the end. As such I am dependent on second hand information and I think choosing a side is something of a valid factor.

    I'm sure there are good reasons to vote "No" but most of the ones I've seen have been down to "I don't trust this government", trying to give the finger to Kenny and the EU and conspiracy theories like we saw during the Lisbon campaign.


  • #180
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,605 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Obviously the chances are it will be re-run once it becomes clear we need the money.

    There may be some reason to vote yes to the flawed economic policies contained in this treaty at that point, as the positives may then outweigh the negatives. Currently, they do not.

    And we have been assured by Official Ireland that the plan is working ever since 2008 - so I'm troubled by your assumption that the "bailout" hatched in November 2010 will fail to return Ireland to the markets despite Ireland sailing through every review by the Troika. Deeply troubled. How can the plan be working, and yet not succeed?

    Given the proposed treaty is being championed by the same brain trust that brought us the "bailout" its worrying that the argument for the treaty seems to hinge on the assumption that the "bailout" is doomed to fail.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    recedite wrote: »
    Yes, but the reasoning that any referendum result is invalid when it holds up an EU treaty is very flawed.

    That was when an Irish Yes vote was essential for Europe as a whole, this time it isn't, an important difference.

    This is more like the Danes voting No to the Euro.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #182
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sand wrote: »
    There may be some reason to vote yes to the flawed economic policies contained in this treaty at that point, as the positives may then outweigh the negatives. Currently, they do not.

    Most of the negatives people raise - where not based simply on misunderstandings - seem to be objections to the fiscal limits, even though we've been signed up to the same fiscal limits for 20 years. What new negatives do you see?
    Sand wrote: »
    And we have been assured by Official Ireland that the plan is working ever since 2008 - so I'm troubled by your assumption that the "bailout" hatched in November 2010 will fail to return Ireland to the markets despite Ireland sailing through every review by the Troika. Deeply troubled. How can the plan be working, and yet not succeed?

    Given the proposed treaty is being championed by the same brain trust that brought us the "bailout" its worrying that the argument for the treaty seems to hinge on the assumption that the "bailout" is doomed to fail.

    If Ireland were the only country in the world in any kind of trouble - and certainly it's easy to get that impression in Irish forums and media - I doubt there would be much of a question mark over the success of the programme. The risks to the programme are primarily exogenous.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #183
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,669 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Are there many other countries voting on the Treaty as well as Ireland?


  • #184
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Are there many other countries voting on the Treaty as well as Ireland?

    Nope. No one else has to.

    In election mode Sarkozy has said that if it fails to pass the legislature in France then he will put it to the people. But due to the Crotty judgement we're the only ones who [potentially] have to.

    But as this is not an EU treaty, our voting it down does not stop it applying to any one else. We can only cut off our nose to spite our face.


  • #185
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Nope. No one else has to.

    In election mode Sarkozy has said that if it fails to pass the legislature in France then he will put it to the people. But due to the Crotty judgement we're the only ones who [potentially] have to.

    But as this is not an EU treaty, our voting it down does not stop it applying to any one else. We can only cut off our nose to spite our face.

    For a slightly less Hiberno-centric definition of "voting on", they're all voting on it. They're just not doing it by referendum, by virtue of the differences between their constitutions and ours.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #186
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    For a slightly less Hiberno-centric definition of "voting on", they're all voting on it. They're just not doing it by referendum, by virtue of the differences between their constitutions and ours.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Pedant!:)


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    I believe that they have left time for two re-votes in case we vote no
    So I would like to see a no vote to see what happens next

    I believe a no vote will not be allowed to be our final answer as it affects project federal state of europe

    I believe that if a no vote is our final answer that we will leave the euro and that that will be a tax on wealth ( as euro savings a counts would change and devalue) and would also rationalise the public sector and much of the private sector pay issues. I think that I'd like to see that happen but I'm not sure that I'd like to live here if it does.

    Finally I have a real issue with the fact that I have to clarify that I'm talking about our final answer as I believe we will have to go again if we vote no .


  • #188
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,669 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Nope. No one else has to.

    In election mode Sarkozy has said that if it fails to pass the legislature in France then he will put it to the people. But due to the Crotty judgement we're the only ones who [potentially] have to.

    But as this is not an EU treaty, our voting it down does not stop it applying to any one else. We can only cut off our nose to spite our face.

    Yeah I was thinking that all right that this time was different and that if we voted no then the others would just move on without us.


  • #189
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Tigger wrote: »
    I believe that they have left time for two re-votes in case we vote no
    So I would like to see a no vote to see what happens next

    Just not true. S&P have suggested that we could be downgraded in the event that we vote no.

    Bond yields would be expected to rise in the event that we vote no.

    NTMA are talking about getting back in the paper market this summer and "dipping their toes" in the bond market later this year. An event which will be made all the less likely if we vote no.

    Voting no could have immediate, negative, consequences for us. Voting yes cannot.
    Tigger wrote: »
    I believe a no vote will not be allowed to be our final answer as it affects project federal state of europe

    Really not true. This treaty can become effective without our approving it. We can shoot ourselves in the foot here (as I suspect that we will). We can't hurt anyone else.
    Tigger wrote: »
    Finally I have a real issue with the fact that I have to clarify that I'm talking about our final answer as I believe we will have to go again if we vote no .

    As do I. Our first answer should be our only answer. Yet your post seems to indicate that you're advocating a No at the first pass with the option of voting Yes later. This, despite the fact that there could be immediate, negative consequences to voting No.

    If you don't agree with rerunning referenda, vote what you mean to vote first time out of the blocks. Yes or No. But vote on the merits of the vote before you, don't vote one way to "bloody the Government's nose [shoot Ireland in the foot]" safe in the knowledge that you'll be given a second stab at it.


  • #190
    Mance Rayder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭Mance Rayder


    As far as I can see a yes will ensure financial discipline in the eurozone and is intended to ensure that the type of banking and spending that got us into this mess (Not just Ireland, but the whole Eurozone) should be prevented by regulating how much countries can allow them selves to financially spiral out of control. It will result in more austerity, as we will have to continue cutting our debt each year to acceptable levels, as will all other eu countries.

    The no vote will not ensure anything, we will not be able to access any further funds from the ECB if we should need a further bail out and in order to make sure we don't need anything of the sort, a tough budget will be required, much tougher then any that has gone before, as we will have no safety net.

    I've given it much thought and I have been changing my mind a lot but it's time to accept that we use the Euro, we are involved and we need to get on board with sorting out this mess. That is why I will vote yes.

    It is easy to be idealistic and want to vote no, to tell the Eurocrats that we are tired of all this bailing out of banks, nationalizing corporate debt etc . Easy to want to say we will go it alone and get back on our feet ourselves, even if that means defaulting and possibly dropping the euro, but I don't think people in Ireland would be prepared for the hardship that we would have to endure if we did. I also don't think Ireland could easily recover international market confidence after that.

    We cannot close our eyes and pretend we are not in this mess, that we are not part of the eurozone. We are now invested in the Euro and it's recovery whether we agree with it or not.

    We really will have to stop talking about what happened and move on, we have been talking about recession for over 4 years now. We are finally starting to claw our way back and I feel a no vote, no matter how much it would satisfy my need for nationalistic , stick it to the man, Irish pride, attitude, would almost certainly leave Ireland alone, exposed for what it really is; An economy built on services and research and other airy fairy stuff that's all well and good but not much use without any industry whatsoever.

    We are not a robust economy that can survive disaster like Germany or France. We are a flexible small and dynamic economy that responds to Western markets. I am as angry with the previous governments mistakes as the next man but we cannot turn back the clock or stick our head in the sand. For us to do well ,we need the Euro to prosper.


  • #191
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Pedant!:)

    I believe this is your petard, madame.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I believe this is your petard, madame.

    amused,
    Scofflaw

    To which the only possible response is "mademoiselle"!


  • #193
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    Terrence McDonough has an article in the Irish Times with a position against the fiscal treaty. He does seem to have a number of points - eg John Maynard Keynes’s paradox of thrift - If a country tries to save by cutting spending, its economy shrinks, drying up the potential savings. You don't generally tax your way out of a hole. But, as many have pointed out here, we don't exactly have the money nor any way of generating it via devaluation. I'm not sure the vast gap between outgoings and incomings can simply be ignored. Nor can we under our bail outs.

    The puzzling thing to me is the way people talk about the "possible need for a second bailout". What do they mean - that we'll suddenly need another 100 billion quid? I've seen the media use bailout in the same way as "borrowing". Can't we simply borrow from the ESM directly if we were in a situation that made it unaffordable to go to the markets? Say, after a downgrade due to voting No.... Oh... wait a minute :)

    He seems to advocate that a game of chicken with the EU is a better plan than advocating a reduction of our debt to 60% of GDP. The SF angle of "funds will be found". I think this is an entirely incorrect position to take. First of all - "a disorderly Irish default would threaten the stability of the European banking system. Funds would be found." I'm not sure that Greece is something Ireland should be thinking of aspiring to. The feeling that the IMF will come to the rescue is not a particularly appealing one given the African experience with being rescued. I also cannot imagine that the interest rate from the IMF (it ain't gonna be free) would be less than the corresponding rate from the ESM.

    But it's the 60% debt to GDP position that I have a problem with. First of all it's nominial GDP after all. Noone on these TV panels is mentioning this. Worse, and shockingly, noone seems to read boards.ie (or the treaty) otherwise they'd stop saying things like "5bn extra in 2015". IT'S 2017 AT THE EARLIEST. JEEZ GUYS!

    The way I figure it, the nominal positions means that inflation, maybe even hyperinflation, is very likely to degrade our debt position with no major corrective action from us. I must do up a graph to show this.


  • #194
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    Crap! Scofflaw (of course!) has done it for me: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78456715&postcount=101

    That's the way I figured it but the worked example illustrates the point nicely. I really believe Scofflaw is being pessimistic with those inflation figures though. I really believe inflation will spike harder than 2% over the next 10 years and thus our position is even better than that indicated.

    I am troubled by the 3% maximum deficit position. I don't think this is reasonable in all circumstances. I know that's been the position for 20 years now but that position wasn't enforced until someone starts taking the piss (us, I assume).

    I agree with Sand's position. (hope this is right) If the bailout is working, then why would access to the ESM be necessary; thus signing a treaty that restricts our position solely for the purposes of accessing a mechanism that we're assured isn't necessary is kinda pointless yes?

    Pragmatically though, the S&P is wielding the big club. If we vote No, then market access becomes impossible courtesy of a stonking downgrade and the ESM is our only mechanism which is now inaccessible due to voting no. This sucks. This is what Stockholm syndrome must feel like.

    Worse, if we vote No initially (which I was somewhat tempted to do just to see), then it is highly likely it will cost us more even if vote yes later. So I'll be voting Yes. I won't be happy about it though.


  • #195
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Voting no could have immediate, negative, consequences for us. Voting yes cannot.

    (Sorry for the blizzard of posts). Could you elaborate on that if you are still awake?! Given that we aren't currently borrowing from the market would the only negative consequence be lack of confidence? Or are there Irish bonds that will roll over coming up sooner than Scofflaw indicated (2013?)


  • #196
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    carveone wrote: »
    Terrence McDonough has an article in the Irish Times with a position against the fiscal treaty. He does seem to have a number of points - eg John Maynard Keynes’s paradox of thrift - If a country tries to save by cutting spending, its economy shrinks, drying up the potential savings. You don't generally tax your way out of a hole. But, as many have pointed out here, we don't exactly have the money nor any way of generating it via devaluation.

    Seamus Coffey does have an interesting analysis on it here

    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/

    While John McHale addresses elements of it here

    http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2012/05/02/some-budgetary-arithmetic-for-fiscal-rules


  • #197
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    carveone wrote: »
    (Sorry for the blizzard of posts). Could you elaborate on that if you are still awake?! Given that we aren't currently borrowing from the market would the only negative consequence be lack of confidence? Or are there Irish bonds that will roll over coming up sooner than Scofflaw indicated (2013?)

    The issue is the Jan 2014 bond. A bond which we need to roll over (meaning that someone else has to finance the taking on of our debt).

    We rolled over €3.5bn odd this year in the swap (until 2015), but that leaves €8.2 bn odd to be serviced in 2014. If we vote no we have no obvious source of funds for that €8+ billion (in 2014, more if we look to 2015).


  • #198
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    carveone wrote: »
    Crap! Scofflaw (of course!) has done it for me: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78456715&postcount=101

    Heh.
    carveone wrote: »
    That's the way I figured it but the worked example illustrates the point nicely. I really believe Scofflaw is being pessimistic with those inflation figures though. I really believe inflation will spike harder than 2% over the next 10 years and thus our position is even better than that indicated.

    I was trying to be as pessimistic as could be said to be reasonable - Eighties style economic growth, ECB target inflation.
    carveone wrote: »
    I am troubled by the 3% maximum deficit position. I don't think this is reasonable in all circumstances. I know that's been the position for 20 years now but that position wasn't enforced until someone starts taking the piss (us, I assume).

    Turns out we've also been signed up to the structural deficit rule since 2005...who knew?
    carveone wrote: »
    I agree with Sand's position. (hope this is right) If the bailout is working, then why would access to the ESM be necessary; thus signing a treaty that restricts our position solely for the purposes of accessing a mechanism that we're assured isn't necessary is kinda pointless yes?

    I'd say (again) that, as per the IMF reports, our bailout is vulnerable to quite a lot of exogenous shocks. There isn't anything that can be done about those within the programme.
    carveone wrote: »
    Pragmatically though, the S&P is wielding the big club. If we vote No, then market access becomes impossible courtesy of a stonking downgrade and the ESM is our only mechanism which is now inaccessible due to voting no. This sucks. This is what Stockholm syndrome must feel like.

    More Catch-22, I think?
    carveone wrote: »
    Worse, if we vote No initially (which I was somewhat tempted to do just to see), then it is highly likely it will cost us more even if vote yes later. So I'll be voting Yes. I won't be happy about it though.

    That's the thing. I just don't see Ireland really going down the path that a No vote implies, so all I see a No vote achieving is raising our borrowing costs and weakening our bargaining power. We'd probably also look very silly, but I managed to survive the X case while in Norway, so I can cope with that.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #199
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    The issue is the Jan 2014 bond. A bond which we need to roll over (meaning that someone else has to finance the taking on of our debt).

    We rolled over €3.5bn odd this year in the swap (until 2015), but that leaves €8.2 bn odd to be serviced in 2014. If we vote no we have no obvious source of funds for that €8+ billion (in 2014, more if we look to 2015).

    Plus we're still expecting to run a deficit that year - about €10bn according to the NTMA figures. Both have to be funded somehow.

    The attitude to the term "bailout" is funny, though. People treat it as if it means taking on debt we otherwise wouldn't have acquired at all, as opposed to what it actually means, which is getting money you were going to spend anyway, but from an official source as opposed to the markets.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #200
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Seamus Coffey does have an interesting analysis on it here

    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/

    While John McHale addresses elements of it here

    http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2012/05/02/some-budgetary-arithmetic-for-fiscal-rules

    OK - I'm pretty pleased to see this:
    Seamus Coffey wrote:
    In a more typical scenario of 4% nominal growth (say 2% inflation and 2% real growth) then the actual debt must never be reduced. Deficits are around 2% of GDP are allowed right from the start and over the 20 year period shown above the nominal debt can increase from 120 to 178.6. The level of debt increase allowed is even greater with 6% nominal growth.

    Today’s article says that the debt brake rule “could require up to €5 billion a year in savings to 2038”. I am not sure what this means. By using the word savings I assume this is money put on deposit or, in this case, money used to pay down debt. There is no plausible scenario in which Ireland will have to reduce the debt by €5 billion per annum.

    Even with zero nominal growth such repayments would not be required. Any nominal growth close to 2% will mean the debt level has just to be maintained and if nominal growth is above 2% the amount of debt can actually be increased. From 1971 to 2010 average annual nominal GDP growth in Ireland was 11.5%.

    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/

    After all, I'm not an economist, and that seems to say more or less what my rather rough and ready spreadsheet exercise came out saying. It's extraordinary the extent to which the public/media debate is being conducted in an almost total fog of ignorance.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #201
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Heh.

    I'll do a search first next time :)
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'd say (again) that, as per the IMF reports, our bailout is vulnerable to quite a lot of exogenous shocks. There isn't anything that can be done about those within the programme.

    I was attempting to post from an insular position. Rather harder to do than SF makes out - I realised what I was saying implied no nasty economic surprised further down the line as I typed it. I buckled and had to follow with the "Pragmatically though..." paragraph.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The attitude to the term "bailout" is funny, though. People treat it as if it means taking on debt we otherwise wouldn't have acquired at all,

    That answers my first post, thanks...
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I managed to survive the X case while in Norway, so I can cope with that.

    Always wondered what it was like for Irish people outside the country. I was in college and wanted to crawl into a hole.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement