nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

AudreyHepburn

Personally I'll probably be voting No to this as I really don't like the idea of Merkle & Sarkozy having that kind of control over us. I do believe we need to remain part of the EU if we are to stand any chance of getting out of this recession but not like this.

It seems to me however that a lot of people are voting No purely to get one up on the Government and that is simply not a good enough way to vote. If we start basing all our voting decisions on what will piss the government off the most then we stand a good chance voting against something we really ought to vote for, or voting in favour of something we should be against.

If you want to vote No by all means do so, just make sure you do it for the right reasons, and not because you are angry and bitter and want to give Enda K the finger.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sand

Couple of points:

They're apparently not, though. Either that, or the Treaty is not Germany's baby.

Or they simply don't share this imaginary quid pro quo you presume exists without any evidence whatsoever, other than hope...

Have you *any* evidence at all that Germany is offering anything meaningful in exchange for this treaty? If they are, why are they not in the Treaty? Lets be clear - you're hoping that the Germans view this as an exchange or a payoff. The Germans themselves have said again and again and again and again - No.

Against an utterly fixed narrative that small states spend their days in fear and trembling while the locker-room bullies strut about unchallenged, there's not much point in arguing.

So you think then that if Germany breaches the terms of the fiscal treaty that Ireland should bring Germany to court? You would be advocating that, right? I mean, what would Ireland have to fear from going against Germany in this post-conflict Europe of partners and common interests...

If this Europe existed, we wouldn't need enforcement and the stability and growth pact would be perfectly sufficient. The reality is France and Germany blatantly ignored the Stability and Growth pact when it suited them and the only penalty measures taken were against Portugal in 2002 and Greece in 2005. Germany and France both used their influence to avoid penalties and will continue to do so. Giving France and Germany more power to bully smaller states is not going to solve that problem.

Rubbish. Not sure you've even bothered reading the mechanisms before trotting this out. The two mechanisms are quite different in terms of how easy it is for large states to prevent sanctions. In one all they needed to do was not support them and they had pretty much a guaranteed block - in this version they need to line up a proper qualified majority, which includes a numerical majority.

Actually you clearly didn't bother to read the mechanisms - the vote of the state in question was and is automatically discounted from the decision under the existing EU treaties so they never had a veto by simply not supporting them.

When the Council adopts the measures referred to in paragraphs 6 to 9, 11 and 12, it shall act
without taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State
concerned.
A qualified majority of the other members of the Council shall be defined in accordance with
Article 238(3)(a).

They needed allies to block the mechanism previously, the same allies that will help them block the mechanism proposed under the fiscal treaty. They will find those allies for the same reasons - it will never be in the interests of the smaller states to go against the core when the core is bankrolling those small states.

You should know this: the spectre of Ireland and the other peripheral states being driven out of the EU and Euro if we didnt sign up to every daft deal proposed by the core has been pretty consistently advocated by supporters of the core narrative.

And again we're back at a paranoid fear of the larger states. Plus, again, not reading the Treaty. The Treaty does not empower the states to take each other to court for breaches of the fiscal limits.

Wrong:

Article 8 - 1

Where a Contracting Party considers, independently of the Commission's
report, that another Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3 (2), it may also bring the
matter to the Court of Justice.

Article 8-2

If, on the basis of its own assessment or of an assessment by the European Commission, a
Contracting Party considers that another Contracting Party has not taken the necessary measures to
comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice referred to in paragraph 1, it may bring the case
before the Court of Justice

I'll take your misdirection above though as admitting that no, you wouldnt be advocating Ireland take Germany to court should it breach the terms of the fiscal compact. I'm not sure why you believe any of the other smaller states would be much braver - and would any of France, Italy or Spain really champion a puritan stance against fiscal deficits and excessive debt? :pac:

For the record I'm not paranoid or fearful of Germany or the larger states - its just I'm not naive. I think they're simply representing their own interests and that fine. I'm going to vote No to this treaty and I hope the majority of the country follows suit as that is in Ireland's interests.

I don't expect Germany to engage in any sort of vengeful or bitter retaliation against us as a result. I don't expect them to hold any grudges or engage in petty politics. I think that so long as we maintain an honest and reasonable attitude we will find the Germans and the EU and rest of the Eurozone will help us help ourselves. As I said we can happily point out to anyone concerned that we are already signed up to those fiscal limits and that we were model citizens in observing them up until 2008.

The fear of angering Germany/the core.... that's the argument of the advocates of the treaty. Don't project it on to me, thanks.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

Couple of points:

Or they simply don't share this imaginary quid pro quo you presume exists without any evidence whatsoever, other than hope...

Have you *any* evidence at all that Germany is offering anything meaningful in exchange for this treaty? If they are, why are they not in the Treaty? Lets be clear - you're hoping that the Germans view this as an exchange or a payoff. The Germans themselves have said again and again and again and again - No.

I'm happy enough if what Germany gets out of it is a greater trust in the other eurozone states. It would be nice if that trust led to some material payoff, but I don't view that as necessary.

If the Fiscal Treaty were a straight exchange for something, I don't imagine it would buy something like eurobonds.

Sand wrote: »

So you think then that if Germany breaches the terms of the fiscal treaty that Ireland should bring Germany to court? You would be advocating that, right? I mean, what would Ireland have to fear from going against Germany in this post-conflict Europe of partners and common interests...

If this Europe existed, we wouldn't need enforcement and the stability and growth pact would be perfectly sufficient. The reality is France and Germany blatantly ignored the Stability and Growth pact when it suited them and the only penalty measures taken were against Portugal in 2002 and Greece in 2005. Germany and France both used their influence to avoid penalties and will continue to do so. Giving France and Germany more power to bully smaller states is not going to solve that problem.

I guess if Germany didn't enact the corrective mechanisms required by the Treaty into law, yes, Ireland should take Germany to court. That seems unlikely, though.

I think, however, that you think the Treaty gives the Member States the power to - or even requires them to - take each other to court over breaches of the fiscal limits in the Treaty.

And that's not in fact the case.

Sand wrote: »

Actually you clearly didn't bother to read the mechanisms - the vote of the state in question was and is automatically discounted from the decision under the existing EU treaties so they never had a veto by simply not supporting them.

When the Council adopts the measures referred to in paragraphs 6 to 9, 11 and 12, it shall act
without taking into account the vote of the member of the Council representing the Member State
concerned.
A qualified majority of the other members of the Council shall be defined in accordance with
Article 238(3)(a).

They needed allies to block the mechanism previously, the same allies that will help them block the mechanism proposed under the fiscal treaty. They will find those allies for the same reasons - it will never be in the interests of the smaller states to go against the core when the core is bankrolling those small states.

That's a fair addendum, but doesn't change the point being made, which is that there is a difference between needing a minority to block and needing a majority to block. Since your ideas revolve around big-state/small-state differences, the difference should be obvious.

And coming back to this "small state/big state" mental thing, the states currently being bailed out are Portugal, Greece, and Ireland - but those on the watch list are Spain and Italy, which are not small states. So mapping a small state/big state divide onto the bailed-out/bailing-out divide doesn't match reality.

Sand wrote: »

You should know this: the spectre of Ireland and the other peripheral states being driven out of the EU and Euro if we didnt sign up to every daft deal proposed by the core has been pretty consistently advocated by supporters of the core narrative.

So? Leaving the EU has been pretty consistently advocated by opponents of the core narrative.

Sand wrote: »

Wrong:

Article 8 - 1

Where a Contracting Party considers, independently of the Commission's
report, that another Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3 (2), it may also bring the
matter to the Court of Justice.

Article 8-2

If, on the basis of its own assessment or of an assessment by the European Commission, a
Contracting Party considers that another Contracting Party has not taken the necessary measures to
comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice referred to in paragraph 1, it may bring the case
before the Court of Justice

Yes...now you need to look up Article 3(2):

2. The rules mentioned under paragraph 1 shall take effect in the national law of the Contracting Parties at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Treaty through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional, or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes. The Contracting Parties shall put in place at national level the correction mechanism mentioned in paragraph 1.e) on the basis of common principles to be proposed by the European Commission, concerning in particular the nature, the size and the time-frame of the corrective action to be undertaken, also in the case of exceptional circumstances, and the role and independence of the institutions responsible at national level for monitoring the observance of the rules. This mechanism shall fully respect the prerogatives of national Parliaments.

In other words, the states can take each other to court over failure to enshrine the fiscal rules in an adequate format. Not over breaches of the fiscal limits on an ongoing basis.

Sand wrote: »

I'll take your misdirection above though as admitting that no, you wouldnt be advocating Ireland take Germany to court should it breach the terms of the fiscal compact. I'm not sure why you believe any of the other smaller states would be much braver - and would any of France, Italy or Spain really champion a puritan stance against fiscal deficits and excessive debt? :pac:

See above. The question doesn't actually arise, because the Treaty does not empower the Member States to take each other to court over breaches of the fiscal limits. That is not the enforcement mechanism.

A retraction of the charge of misdirection would be nice here - I may or may not be wrong (and I can't see where if I am) but I do not misdirect.

Sand wrote: »

For the record I'm not paranoid or fearful of Germany or the larger states - its just I'm not naive. I think they're simply representing their own interests and that fine. I'm going to vote No to this treaty and I hope the majority of the country follows suit as that is in Ireland's interests.

I don't expect Germany to engage in any sort of vengeful or bitter retaliation against us as a result. I don't expect them to hold any grudges or engage in petty politics. I think that so long as we maintain an honest and reasonable attitude we will find the Germans and the EU and rest of the Eurozone will help us help ourselves. As I said we can happily point out to anyone concerned that we are already signed up to those fiscal limits and that we were model citizens in observing them up until 2008.

The fear of angering Germany/the core.... that's the argument of the advocates of the treaty. Don't project it on to me, thanks.

I haven't done so at any point, nor is that my argument or anything to do with it, so you may extend me the same courtesy, and drop claims I want to "appease" Germany, with all the overtones that carries.

You say you're a realist, and you say you have no problem with Germany pursuing its interests, and that you don't see it as acting "bitter or vengeful". Neither do I. But you don't seem willing to factor in that "Germany" isn't a monolith, and that the German parliament is quite capable of frustrating their government's intentions when it comes to bailing out Ireland further.

Germany is putting its hand in its pocket for ESM funding - something that has been legally challenged in Germany, and something that had to be steered through their parliament with a degree of care and concessions. If Ireland requires a second bailout - which at this point I see as likely, due to the continued market negativity and Ireland's upcoming 2014 fiscal requirements, which are currently unfunded - and does not have ESM access, I can see the German government having difficulties extending us further funding. Not because they don't want to, but because they undoubtedly will face both political and legal challenges to their ability to do so.

On that basis I have no difficulty with voting Yes, because the upside is a certainty of bailout funding that actually improves our chances of not needing it, while the "downside" consists of accepting again those rules we are already signed up for and which, prior to this crisis, we were able to observe consistently. I don't see any actual downside in that, to be honest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm happy enough if what Germany gets out of it is a greater trust in the other eurozone states. It would be nice if that trust led to some material payoff, but I don't view that as necessary.

If the Fiscal Treaty were a straight exchange for something, I don't imagine it would buy something like eurobonds.

Essentially Scoff, the answer there is that no, there is no evidence the Germans perceive the treaty as being part of a trade.

I guess if Germany didn't enact the corrective mechanisms required by the Treaty into law, yes, Ireland should take Germany to court. That seems unlikely, though.

I think, however, that you think the Treaty gives the Member States the power to - or even requires them to - take each other to court over breaches of the fiscal limits in the Treaty.

And that's not in fact the case.

So you'd only grant that Ireland *should* on the basis of your belief that Ireland cant (which is incorrect).

That's a fair addendum, but doesn't change the point being made, which is that there is a difference between needing a minority to block and needing a majority to block. Since your ideas revolve around big-state/small-state differences, the difference should be obvious.

It does change the point - big states like Germany will be judged by states which are dependent upon their goodwill for funding and concessions. As I noted, none of France, Spain, Italy, Belguim, Portugal, Greece, Ireland are going to be taking a puritan stance on enforcing the fiscal limits: nobody else in Europe even wants them, let alone wants them enforced. All of the states in the Eurozone will be desperate to win some minor concession from Germany - none of them will dare anger the Germans.

Germany will easily find allies to win qualified majorities like they have done in the past. Small states will find it much harder to win allies - its no mystery that of all the states to breach the terms prior to the crisis only Portugal and Greece suffered penalties.

So that particular mechanism is just as prone to the influence of the bigger states as the existing mechanism is.

And coming back to this "small state/big state" mental thing, the states currently being bailed out are Portugal, Greece, and Ireland - but those on the watch list are Spain and Italy, which are not small states. So mapping a small state/big state divide onto the bailed-out/bailing-out divide doesn't match reality.

Yep, you're listing the ready made allies Germany will find to avoid any penalty against Germany - afterall, Spain and Italy will be very much dependant on the goodwill of the Germans to win some relief on the ECB's bondbuying, Eurobonds, fiscal transfers etc...

So? Leaving the EU has been pretty consistently advocated by opponents of the core narrative.

Leaving the EU/Euro as a policy is madness. But the point is that the often stated vision of Ireland being beaten out of the Euro (and the EU!) if we didn't do what the big boys told us doesn't fit with your disbelief that the big nations might act in their own interest to the detriment of the smaller states.

Yes...now you need to look up Article 3(2):

In other words, the states can take each other to court over failure to enshrine the fiscal rules in an adequate format. Not over breaches of the fiscal limits on an ongoing basis.

Yeah, I've read it - breaching the fiscal limits on an ongoing basis is by definition a failure to enshrine the fiscal rules in an adequate format. 3(2) states the national budgetary policy will meet the fiscal restrictions in 3(1).

The rules set out in paragraph 1 shall take effect in the national law of the Contracting Parties at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Treaty through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional, or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes. The Contracting Parties shall put in place at national level the correction mechanism referred to in paragraph 1(e) on the basis of common principles to be proposed by the European Commission, concerning in particular the nature, size and time-frame of the corrective action to be undertaken, also in the case of exceptional circumstances, and the role and independence of the institutions responsible at national level for monitoring compliance with the rules set out in paragraph 1. Such correction mechanism shall fully respect the prerogatives of national Parliaments.

I dont think the Eurozone will be impressed by claims of "Shure, we are fully respecting the treaties - honest. We dunno how we keep on breaching the limits. Ah well, shure it'll sort itself out in the end".

And you know that too. The "reassurance" that Germany seeks is that it will be able to intervene to investigate and punish "rogue states" in the Eurozone regardless of the Commission or the rest of the Eurozone. Articles 7 and 8 offers them that power. Without that power, the treaty is barely any more enforceable than the existing EU treaty.

See above. The question doesn't actually arise, because the Treaty does not empower the Member States to take each other to court over breaches of the fiscal limits. That is not the enforcement mechanism.

A retraction of the charge of misdirection would be nice here - I may or may not be wrong (and I can't see where if I am) but I do not misdirect.

Okay, I'll withdraw the charge of misdirection - its clear you're just mistaken in your belief that one contracting party cannot bring another contracting party to court over their breaches of the fiscal limits. That's fine, the man who never made a mistake never made anything.

I haven't done so at any point, nor is that my argument or anything to do with it, so you may extend me the same courtesy, and drop claims I want to "appease" Germany, with all the overtones that carries.

You say you're a realist, and you say you have no problem with Germany pursuing its interests, and that you don't see it as acting "bitter or vengeful". Neither do I. But you don't seem willing to factor in that "Germany" isn't a monolith, and that the German parliament is quite capable of frustrating their government's intentions when it comes to bailing out Ireland further.

Germany is putting its hand in its pocket for ESM funding - something that has been legally challenged in Germany, and something that had to be steered through their parliament with a degree of care and concessions. If Ireland requires a second bailout - which at this point I see as likely, due to the continued market negativity and Ireland's upcoming 2014 fiscal requirements, which are currently unfunded - and does not have ESM access, I can see the German government having difficulties extending us further funding. Not because they don't want to, but because they undoubtedly will face both political and legal challenges to their ability to do so.

On that basis I have no difficulty with voting Yes, because the upside is a certainty of bailout funding that actually improves our chances of not needing it, while the "downside" consists of accepting again those rules we are already signed up for and which, prior to this crisis, we were able to observe consistently. I don't see any actual downside in that, to be honest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Its clear you and me wont agree on this, and that's fine - we didnt agree about the desperate necessity to reverse the guarantee, the danger of NAMA or the inevitable failure of the November 2010 bailout either. You didnt see the downsides in following "the plan" at that time as well. As time has progressed, the new "normal" has been reset further and further downwards. Its not so long ago Leo Varadkar was strung up and howled at by Official Ireland for daring to whisper that Ireland might need a second bailout. Now the requirement of second bailout is unashamedly voiced as an argument for this treaty. Quite amusing.

I'll be voting no. Its a bad treaty, with the wrong answer to a question nobody asked. Its against the interest of Ireland.

So long as Ireland is honest and reasonable in its dealings, Ireland will be supported - this has been constantly repeated and Ireland has done everything demanded of it under the "bailout" plan - its a lousy, lousy plan but that's hardly Ireland's fault. Perhaps the ESM may be cut off, maybe it wont but a way will be found. There was no bailout mechanism for Ireland in 2009, but a way was found when it suited the Troika.

Of course, we would be far better off if we get a real bailout. ESM access is not a bailout.

Lantus

I'll be voting no.

Not just for the first one but when the EU and the Irish gov come back again and again to secure the answer they want just like Lisbon.

Dont get fooled by some clever re-wording the 2nd or 3rd time around.

Either way Enda is set for life. A guranteed €100,000 lump sum upon retirement and €30,000 a year for being a teacher for 4 years (they count 34 years even though he's been a TD.)

Plus his TD's pension which could fetch him €100,000 annually. As well any other whole host of perks and paymens that normal folk could only dream of.

What manner of fiscal management created such a perverse and sick situation where TD's could amass so much personal wealth?

Sand

Lantus wrote: »

What manner of fiscal management created such a perverse and sick situation where TD's could amass so much personal wealth?

Irish fiscal management?

Scofflaw

Sand wrote:

Yeah, I've read it - breaching the fiscal limits on an ongoing basis is by definition a failure to enshrine the fiscal rules in an adequate format. 3(2) states the national budgetary policy will meet the fiscal restrictions in 3(1).

The rules set out in paragraph 1 shall take effect in the national law of the Contracting Parties at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Treaty through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional, or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes. The Contracting Parties shall put in place at national level the correction mechanism referred to in paragraph 1(e) on the basis of common principles to be proposed by the European Commission, concerning in particular the nature, size and time-frame of the corrective action to be undertaken, also in the case of exceptional circumstances, and the role and independence of the institutions responsible at national level for monitoring compliance with the rules set out in paragraph 1. Such correction mechanism shall fully respect the prerogatives of national Parliaments.

I dont think the Eurozone will be impressed by claims of "Shure, we are fully respecting the treaties - honest. We dunno how we keep on breaching the limits. Ah well, shure it'll sort itself out in the end".

And you know that too. The "reassurance" that Germany seeks is that it will be able to intervene to investigate and punish "rogue states" in the Eurozone regardless of the Commission or the rest of the Eurozone. Articles 7 and 8 offers them that power. Without that power, the treaty is barely any more enforceable than the existing EU treaty.

I'm going to have to do some digging on this one, because what I see is that the Contracting Parties can take each other to the CJEU on the question of whether they have properly put legislation in place to ensure that the fiscal limits are respected - and that is not, as far as I can see, the same thing as taking each other to court for breaches of the fiscal limits when the Treaty is in operation.

The purpose, as far as I can see, is to add an extra binding to the idea of putting debt brakes into legislation, in that any attempt to water it down or put a loophole in it can result in a case being taken. I do not, however, see that if the legislation is considered adequate in itself, that there is any mechanism for the Contracting Parties to take each other to court over a breach of the limits. Nor is there any mention of such cases in any of the material either in the Treaty or elsewhere dealing with the excessive deficit procedure - yet the excessive deficit procedure definitely does deal with breaches of the fiscal limits, and the existence of a CJEU case in respect of breaches of fiscal limits can hardly be said to be either irrelevant or unimportant in that context.

IIEA on the subject seems to agree entirely with my position:

In connection with the requirement to include the debt brake provision in its national law, a Member State party to the Treaty may bring a case against another such Member State to the Court of Justice of the EU, either on its own initiative or on foot of a report by the European Commission.

The Court of Justice will adjudicate on whether the debt brake has been transposed correctly into national law.

If the Member State does not comply with the judgement of the Court, a fine (limited to 0.1% of GDP) can be imposed. The Court of Justice will not rule on whether the balanced budget rule or the other budgetary rules have themselves been breached.

Court of Justice involvement in relation to an intergovernmental non-EU Treaty is already enabled by Article 273 of the EU Treaty, which allows the Court to adjudicate in disputes between Member States.

http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/the-stability-treaty-faq-frequently-asked-questions

cordially,
Scofflaw

femur61

Lantus wrote: »

I'll be voting no.

Not just for the first one but when the EU and the Irish gov come back again and again to secure the answer they want just like Lisbon.

What manner of fiscal management created such a perverse and sick situation where TD's could amass so much personal wealth?

The Fiscal treaty doesn't need our signature, it will go ahead without us.

I totally agree with that TDs in this country get vastly overpaid as do a lot of the PS. But I'm looking after my coffers by voting yes, I believe it will be the best option for this country in that we need foreign investment. One of our bargining tools beside speaking English, we trade in the Euro.

We will be on the outside looking in. If we have tight rules on borrowing then I believe all wages will come down to meet European rates.

BunShopVoyeur

I'll be voting no. However, I fully expect to be told off and made to vote again as I "didn't understand".

FreudianSlippers

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

I'll be voting no. However, I fully expect to be told off and made to vote again as I "didn't understand".

We've never had the same referendum twice AFAIK, so it's highly unlikely it will happen on this one.

C14N

Lantus wrote: »

I'll be voting no.

Not just for the first one but when the EU and the Irish gov come back again and again to secure the answer they want just like Lisbon.

Dont get fooled by some clever re-wording the 2nd or 3rd time around.

Is it not somewhat ignorant to decide without even knowing the terms which way you're going to vote?

Lantus wrote: »

Either way Enda is set for life. A guranteed €100,000 lump sum upon retirement and €30,000 a year for being a teacher for 4 years (they count 34 years even though he's been a TD.)

Plus his TD's pension which could fetch him €100,000 annually. As well any other whole host of perks and paymens that normal folk could only dream of.

What manner of fiscal management created such a perverse and sick situation where TD's could amass so much personal wealth?

Has this got anything to do with the treaty at all?

RandomName2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We've never had the same referendum twice AFAIK, so it's highly unlikely it will happen on this one.

semantics aside: Divorce, Nice, Lisbon

(can't step in the same river twice, eh?)

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

semantics aside: Divorce, Nice, Lisbon

(can't step in the same river twice, eh?)

I don't think one can set semantics aside in constitutional matters - still, it makes no difference, because running exactly the same referendum twice was ruled on at Lisbon, and is not constitutionally or legally a problem.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wild Bill

Great news from both Greece and France tonight!

At least in those two countries the folk with some backbone outnumber the cowardly huddled middle-class sinecurists

carveone

Adieu Sarko.... I see Eamonn Gilmore was in France for the result. He said something briefly on the news that the result doesn't mean a change in the treaty - possible additions on growth, which is what others here have said. I can't imagine the result affecting the referendum in any way...

Somewhat alarming that the neo Nazis have made rather significant advances in Greece although not altogether unexpected.

milkymoo24

another Soviet Union, another Yugoslavia, and another Hitler as EU president.. have we learned nothiing.This should,be called the Fiasco Treaty.... resounding NO...I vow a hunger strike if YES gets the vote!!!!! We want out of europe all together!! Oh, and as for Germany, just last week they asked the UK for a loan of 100 MIllion Euro (No media will run it cos it would be anarchy cos if the Germans are screwed, we are even worse off!!, They also have a stock of swiss franks on standby the past year for when the euro crashes.... which means our savings and wages will be monopoly money soon. If you agree with this then please sign this petition to get Ireland fixed using same tactics as Iceland http://www.petitiononline.ie/petitio...to-europe/1471

milkymoo24

And any governemt that has to use scare tactics and threats via media to get the YES vote cannot be trusted! And the folk out there voting YES should hang their heads in untter shame... not to bring up the past but why fight for centuries for independent from England, one country, to then hand it over the Germany and France... talk about Out of the frying pan, into the fire, cop on for yourselves people, VOTE NO!!!

meglome

milkymoo24 wrote: »

another Soviet Union, another Yugoslavia, and another Hitler as EU president.. have we learned nothiing.This should,be called the Fiasco Treaty.... resounding NO...I vow a hunger strike if YES gets the vote!!!!! We want out of europe all together!! Oh, and as for Germany, just last week they asked the UK for a loan of 100 MIllion Euro (No media will run it cos it would be anarchy cos if the Germans are screwed, we are even worse off!!, They also have a stock of swiss franks on standby the past year for when the euro crashes.... which means our savings and wages will be monopoly money soon. If you agree with this then please sign this petition to get Ireland fixed using same tactics as Iceland http://www.petitiononline.ie/petitio...to-europe/1471

I got warned (fairly) in the last week about doing something similar but holy sweet jebus this is total nonsense.

milkymoo24

what is nonsense may I ask???

carveone

milkymoo24 wrote: »

what is nonsense may I ask???

Hunger strike. Go nuts. I feel hungry now.

milkymoo24

haha... me too!!! BUT, I dont think it will come to that, outta europe we needa get fast and no one will be starving themselves... stay within europe, and families all over Ireland will be starving every day with this IMF debt eating into our hardworking peoples taxes!!

kilkee1998

We need to grow up and start to live within our means. Successive governments did not care how much the overspent , so long as they were re-elected.
If we balance our day to day spending we can then tackle the problem of bailing out the banks because we will be in a stronger position to do a deal with the EU/IMF.

carveone

kilkee1998 wrote: »

We need to grow up and start to live within our means. Successive governments did not care how much the overspent , so long as they were re-elected.

That was my initial reaction too. Why would be want the government to access to more funding to fund another bailout? Does that mean when it comes to reelection they could draw down a pile of money and make things looks rosier for a bit? Isn't piles of money what got us here in the first place?

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Without access to bailout funds, it makes our economic position look less stable, thus making it more likely we'd have a very expensive time accessing market funding. Conversely, access to bailout funds means that our return to the market is more likely and thus we're less likely to need access to the ESM. In essence the whole thing is about making sure we don't need access to emergency funding that exists solely to make nervous people less so. (Scoff is better at this than I am)

Yes, it's a bit twisted but that's life!

Edit: I'll add that a deficit cannot be adjusted to zero overnight without incredible jarring pain for an economy. Like a car running out of road - you need to take the bushes, not the wall. The paintwork gets wrecked and there's a lot of dents but it's better than the alternative.

milkymoo24

kilkee1998 wrote: »

We need to grow up and start to live within our means. Successive governments did not care how much the overspent , so long as they were re-elected.
If we balance our day to day spending we can then tackle the problem of bailing out the backs because we will be in a stronger position to do a deal with the EU/IMF.

Very true, we all got caught up in Celtic Tiger, even though it was nothing more than a false economy! Bertie had us all thinking we were all upper classes with credit cards n loans on tap!!! I myself am still in debt and unemployed from those times, but the real issue is, why pay back a debt for rogue developers, bankers and bondholders... thats where most of that IMF loan went! And giving more power to France and Germany is basically making us more unstable.... we have little say, might as well let the UK take the whole of Ireland back if thats d case, and I never thought I would say that!!!! If we do recover from recession, and someone else doesnt, were in the same boat again bailing them out them, its called a vicious circle and aint gonna work. END OFF! We need to pull out like the UK, pay our dues, and worry about ourselves! The Euro is dead money, that dream is over and people need to wake up to that!!! There is NO SOLUTION! And ur right, we do need to grow up, and grow some balls, and say NO MORE, why are more average people getting sent to court every week for stealing clothes and food n chemist supplies, just to keep the family cared for and a roof over their heads, treated like common dirt in social welfare offices, while the comfortable working upper classes think the YES vote is great COS they never felt this recession... The gangsters that kicked off the whole crisis with greed get to keep their D4 mansions, countless foreign properties and still getting bonuses and pension, and security and private mercs drving them around! Yes sir, indeed we need to grow up, we might have made mistakes and lived beyond our means, who wouldnt with difffernt banks trying to pawn off all types of creditcards and loans like they were dvd rentals... we all got carried away, but least we are suffering for them now, and paying our dues back, ya hear daily about middle aged women with families in court for credit union/bank arrears less than a months wage getting a bollocking off an over-paid greedy upper class judge over a few euros, while these B*%$terds running this country are swanning around, claiming expenses still, claiming an absurd wage, and using fear tactics to get the working class to pay back THEIR loans, the rich looks after their own. Thats the bottom line.....:P

K-9

milkymoo24 wrote: »

another Soviet Union, another Yugoslavia, and another Hitler as EU president.. have we learned nothiing.This should,be called the Fiasco Treaty.... resounding NO...I vow a hunger strike if YES gets the vote!!!!! We want out of europe all together!! Oh, and as for Germany, just last week they asked the UK for a loan of 100 MIllion Euro (No media will run it cos it would be anarchy cos if the Germans are screwed, we are even worse off!!, They also have a stock of swiss franks on standby the past year for when the euro crashes.... which means our savings and wages will be monopoly money soon. If you agree with this then please sign this petition to get Ireland fixed using same tactics as Iceland http://www.petitiononline.ie/petitio...to-europe/1471

Please take a read of the charter here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056544394

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

Rumours and conspiracy theories don't qualify as sources as this is a politics discussion board.

milkymoo24

Do you mean you would like to see the website for the petition????

FreudianSlippers

RandomName2 wrote: »

semantics aside: Divorce, Nice, Lisbon

(can't step in the same river twice, eh?)

The wordings were different and posed different questions regarding the same subject.

Shiny Cactus

I see what both sides (Yes/No) are doing and is mainly only scaring the vote into the people, we'll be in the pockets of germany or its the only way to improve the economy.
All sides are idiots when trying to improve the country even before the recession, I' am a "leftist" I guess to put a tag on myself but the left parties are as bad as the right or centre with no true plans for recovery.
Anyway, I like to vote no but that's just anger and my real fears for the future of Ireland, but to vote yes means to hold position and reduce the debt until a proper revolutionary idea can come to the forefront.

A vote for Yes or No means no results anyway, and boycotting is worthless.

C14N

milkymoo24 wrote: »

And any governemt that has to use scare tactics and threats via media to get the YES vote cannot be trusted! And the folk out there voting YES should hang their heads in untter shame... not to bring up the past but why fight for centuries for independent from England, one country, to then hand it over the Germany and France... talk about Out of the frying pan, into the fire, cop on for yourselves people, VOTE NO!!!

Right, because calling it the "Austerity Treaty", putting up posters declaring the treaty will lead to "5, 10, 20 years of austerity" and saying "vote no to Household and Water taxes" isn't using scare tactics at all is it?

Why fight for independence from England? Did you learn at all about the English regime in Ireland? It was brutal. Ireland was kept in poverty, we were a third world country. People love using phrases like "Dev/Collins/whoever would roll in their grave if we do so and so", I think they'd roll over in their graves if they knew we were comparing our first world problems to what our ancestors from a century ago had to face. You take it one step further and even say that was only the frying pan compared to Europe's "fire". I really think you need to get a grip on reality because it sounds like you think we will literally be sent to forced labour camps to work honourably for the glory of the great and mighty Angela Merkel.

RandomName2

C14N wrote: »

Right, because calling it the "Austerity Treaty", putting up posters declaring the treaty will lead to "5, 10, 20 years of austerity" and saying "vote no to Household and Water taxes" isn't using scare tactics at all is it?

I am no fan of the 'Austerity Treaty' line. Austerity is a matter of economic circumstance rather than sovereignty. However, 'vote no to Water Taxes, etc'' isn't actually scare mongering per se. Just kinda disingenuous.

C14N wrote: »

Why fight for independence from England? Did you learn at all about the English regime in Ireland? It was brutal. Ireland was kept in poverty, we were a third world country. People love using phrases like "Dev/Collins/whoever would roll in their grave if we do so and so", I think they'd roll over in their graves if they knew we were comparing our first world problems to what our ancestors from a century ago had to face. You take it one step further and even say that was only the frying pan compared to Europe's "fire". I really think you need to get a grip on reality because it sounds like you think we will literally be sent to forced labour camps to work honourably for the glory of the great and mighty Angela Merkel.

Now you're doing exactly the same thing!

Sure you should vote yes; you should be happy not to be having to eat a blighted potato and digging for turf with your bear hands - where would you be if it weren't for Europe, etc. ("What have the Romans ever done for us?" argument CAN actually be used in relation to the UK as well by the way :pac:)

Enough of the affectation.

C14N

RandomName2 wrote: »

Now you're doing exactly the same thing!

Sure you should vote yes; you should be happy not to be having to eat a blighted potato and digging for turf with your bear hands - where would you be if it weren't for Europe, etc. ("What have the Romans ever done for us?" argument CAN actually be used in relation to the UK as well by the way :pac:)

Enough of the affectation.

What are you talking about? That's not what I'm saying at all and I'm not sure how you pulled that stuff out of my post. I don't think I said anything to the effect of "we only have all this because of Europe" or that we should be grateful and do exactly what they tell us. I didn't even advocate the Yes vote in that post.

What I did say is that no matter what happens, our problems are very trivial compared to what our ancestors faced and that the poster I was replying to seemed to have these unsupported crackpot theories about how we would go back to that if we vote yes, going so far as to say "stay within europe, and families all over Ireland will be starving every day". All I was doing was putting down this hyperbole.