No Side Tactics

beeftotheheels wrote: »

You've obviously thought about this which is good.

Do you mind my asking which particular elements of the treaty, as distinct from the six pack which already binds us, do you object to?

Not the 60% limit as that is in the six pack. Not the structural deficit rule as that already binds us. Not the Commission having oversight of our budget as we're already in excessive deficit procedure under the existing rules and will remain so until 2015 at the earliest and possibly until we comply with the 60% debt to GDP ratio (as is provided for under the TFEU).

So what precisely is the objectionable departure in this treaty?

Specifically this part:

General government budgets shall be balanced or in surplus. The annual structural deficit must not exceed 0.5% of nominal GDP.

As I've said in other threads, I agree that the current deficit is unsustainable. My objection to this treaty does not necessarily relate to this current situation we are actually in at the moment, but the future. Sometimes, running a deficit temporarily and deficit spending is the more economically sound and beneficial thing to do. Counter cyclical policy, while we're still stuck with this daft monetary system we use, is generally regarded as relatively safe - this treaty, it seems, would effectively ban doing any of that in a catastrophic situation like we're experiencing now.
Sure, I've heard people mention that there is some leeway for "emergency situations" in which these rules could be breached - but who decides whether that's valid or not?

Then this:

Member States agree to take the necessary actions and measures, "which are essential to the good functioning of the euro area in pursuit of the objectives of fostering competitiveness, promoting employment, contributing further to the sustainability of public finances and reinforcing financial stability." They also ensure that all major economic policy reforms that they plan to undertake will be discussed ex-ante and, where appropriate, coordinated among themselves and with the institutions of the European Union.

There are several issues with this section. Again, who decides which actions are "essential"? Who decides what course of action reinforces financial stability and sustainability? Is it another case in which economically sound policies which go against this rule at that moment in time can be overruled by those who are doing well at that moment in time? If so, it's madness.
Secondly: "all major economic policy reforms that they plan to undertake will be discussed ex anti and, where appropriate, coordinated among themselves and with the institutions of the European Union".
Does this amount essentially to having to ask for permission to change a country's economic model? Does it amount to giving other countries a say in our affairs - even when we're NOT currently in a crisis at that moment in time?

As I said, this simply isn't the direction I want the EU to take. You are free to disagree with me if you do disagree, I have no problem with that at all. And honest campaigning to change my mind is fine.

What is not fine, is "Fair enough then vote for Sinn Fein", "You're one of those 'crusties' aren't you", "Do you want to get us kicked out of the EU, is that your game?" or any such absolute bullsh!t I've seen both on this board and in general public debate over the last few months.

I have been completely vocal about how I feel some of Sinn Fein's tactics are damaging to the no campaign. I'd be interested to see some on the yes side attack the above bully boy tactics I've outlined. It's EXACTLY like Lisbon.

Look at this paragraph from FG's own "vote yes" PDF:

On the 31st of May, Ireland has a chance to safeguard our recovery. Voting Yes ensures that we can chart our own path to better economic times. A Yes vote will help us to restore our sovereignty by helping us get back into the international markets quicker. It is vitally important that we bring back jobs and growth. A Yes vote will sustain the conditions to protect the jobs we have and create the jobs we need.

"Yes for jobs", anyone? NONE of the above is mentioned in the treaty and is at best hopeful. There's no guarantee whatsoever that that's how things will pan out regardless of a yes vote.

As I say, I as a no voter fully accept and admit that some on the no side are using ridiculously stupid campaigning tactics which are likely to hurt the argument for a no - for instance, I've said several times over the last few weeks that SF would be better serving no's interests if they'd just shut up for a while - I have not however seen any yes campaigners lashing out against such appalling propaganda from FG.

It doesn't help your side, all it's going to do is piss people off.

EDIT: Meglome I have to rush off to college now but I'll respond fully to your post this evening when I get home. I'm not ignoring you just to be mean or anything :P

Why should we believe Gavin Barrett given he wrote an article in the IT arguing a referendum was not needed?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Why should we believe Gavin Barrett given he wrote an article in the IT arguing a referendum was not needed?

And I agree with him and suspect that the A-G actually sat on the fence on this but suggested that the better answer might be to have the referendum.

The law, especially case law, is never black and white. It is an interpretation of the precedent, an interpretation which is always open to doubt. Especially when dealing with a horrific, badly reasoned, illogical decision like Crotty.

Yes, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy is not only spouting rubbish suggesting that a No vote would involve us burning banking bondholders who have largely been replaced with official loans, but they decided to wheel out the old line on the CCCTB which the Stability Treaty has NOTHING to do with.

GGGrrrr this $h!te coming through my letter box is going through others up and down the country.

Godge wrote: »

Yeah, she probably did sit on the fence, the government had to make a decision. Imagine if they said a referendum wasn't needed and Crotty II or the ULA/SF axis of ignorance went to court and the judge (smarting from his pay-cut after the last referendum) backed them. The subsequent referendum would have no chance lost in the "they tried to sneak it past you illegally" type of campaign we would have had.

I did fix your post because our AG is a woman (Maire Whelan).

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yes side tactics:
1: Try to scare the bejaysus out of people
2: Biased weasel words (eg, calling it the 'stability' treaty instead of the fiscal treaty)

The no side are at this as well - the austerity muck really p*sses me off. I knocked off the TV3 debate when St Joe used the words "Austerity Treaty" - right there and then I knew he had nothing to offer.

This is not a treaty about austerity it's about enshrining fiscal responsibility at all stages of an economic cycle into law. The fact is that depending on the part of the economic cycle we are in, that fiscal responsibility is called different things by people who have axes to grind.

Right now its austerity because we are in recession. We are spending more than we earn and we need to cut it out. So we have to bring up taxes and down spending - that's simply prudent economic practice - try making €50 last two weeks because you've no credit card or overdraft and you'll find that pints aren't that important and food is.

At the hight of the boom, running a surplus - was a bad thing because we weren't spending enough on <insert bleeding heart cause of choice>, despite the fact that we were putting money into the NPRF, as well as the SSIA schemes (some of your counter cyclical, it just didn't go far enough and the SSIAs actually came out a couple of years too early). As it turns out the NPRF has helped us to weather the storm somewhat. Imagine what would have happened if we didn't have that €20 billion lying around in the bank - we'd have had to borrow it, making the both the debt and deficit situations worse.

There is one very good thing about the need to run a budget surplus - it forces a medium term view on incomes and expenditures. We've got €48 billion coming in this year - what's coming in next year and the year after? How much of it can we spend and still stay within the rules?
It should help lessen the impact of giveaway budgets and promises like every political party made in 2007 to abolish stamp duty (which paradoxically stopped house sales because everybody wanted to wait for the cut, causing trouble before the financial storm hit).

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

What's the hurry? We can vote no and then approve a better deal negotiated by Hollande.

No we cannot. The act of voting no would have consequences for us including a potential spike in our bond yields and downgrade in our credit rating.

My strong preference would be to have no vote on this. My second choice would be to defer the vote until there is more certainty.

But if the vote goes ahead then the vote has to be yes. Look at Greece - the ECB and EU leaders are now openly talking about Greece leaving the euro.

This is not the time to vote fecklessly.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

There is a lot more to the Greek situation than a Treaty. They are being held accountable for not keeping to their existing commitments under the terms of their bailout. The F.C. is not a bailout agreement in operational terms. Rather it sets up a framework for future bailouts via the ESM. Previous Greek govts were also found to have cooked the books in order to enter the Euro unlike Ireland. The Greek crisis has nothing to with EU Treaties.

It doesn't matter what the vote is on (although you're correct in your analysis). The message which will be sent by a No vote is that the Irish people are rejecting the bailout (which we're not) and cutting off our route to ESM funding.

Which more importantly, reduces the chances of the NTMA getting away paper and bonds later this year. Increasing the likelihood that we'll need ESM funding.

The treaty won't change. The "Growth pact" will be kept separate, either in a treaty or more likely in a few well worded official statements. Think about it, increased funding for the EIB has no place in this treaty. Whatever else is in the growth pact has no place in this treaty. There's no logical reason for it to change.

meglome wrote: »

Labour in populist statement shocker!!

I can find you several more people who said it as well if you'd like. I've been asking for people to support this with evidence for years and not one has. It could be true but if it was so clear cut I'm guessing I'd have got some evidence for it by now.



Indeed but what has that got to do with the point.

Well the Irish banks were being fed credit by the Eurozone, which encouraged them to lend wrecklessly.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If he can put his foot down and demand concessions then we should do the same in terms of a write-down or write-off of Irish debt.

This is not going to happen. This can not happen. We have already replaced the vast majority of bank creditors with official sector creditors to the sovereign and they (including the ECB) cannot write off that debt.

Santy, tooth fairies, and debt write-offs on demand! Watch Greece destroy itself by insisting on believing that there's a painless solution to the crisis, and that "someone else" in the EU will just give them a helping hand.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No, I just think that fools will grasp at the Hollande straw and use it as an excuse to vote no when in reality the treaty will not change and we'll still have to ratify it in order to get ESM access.

It seems the tactic is to brand the treaty "the austerity treaty" with presumably Hollande's additions magically making it "The growth treaty"

The government position is that there might be a post it note attached that says "we can haz growth" and that'll be it.

Perhaps it would be ideal to defer in case the AG decides a growth pact also mysteriously affects foreign policy decisions and we have a second referendum later in the year. That would be just great. Gawd, I'm becoming very sardonic in my old age.

Ideally I'd like to see the vote in September. Greece should have blown themselves up by then which should focus a few minds in Ireland.

Be a few changes of trousers too. I'm getting the impression that the Swiss might be backstopping the euro at the moment (that's unlikely to be cheap) in a attempt to keep it at 1.20. I'm thinking holding a large euro position right now might prove to be expensive later.