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; } } }

Child Item

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

Quick Links

Comments

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure "disingenuous" really covers a situation where doing as suggested (voting No) will have at best no effect on the supposed motivating factor, and carries a very high chance of making things worse.

What would the household charge be if we had to balance our budget overnight?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

The delay in ratification by the German parliament suggests to me that renegotiation might be possible. A two-thirds majority is required in the Bundestag as part of the ratification process. The german Social Democrats are making similar demands to Hollande about the need for a growth agenda. Perhaps a no vote here would encourage a shift in the Treaty away from austerity and towards growth.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The delay in ratification by the German parliament suggests to me that renegotiation might be possible. A two-thirds majority is required in the Bundestag as part of the ratification process. The german Social Democrats are making similar demands to Hollande about the need for a growth agenda. Perhaps a no vote here would encourage a shift in the Treaty away from austerity and towards growth.

Actually not true. A majority of the Bundestag can ratify the treaty, the 2/3 majority is required because the Germans intend to hard wire the treaty into their constitution (unlike us).

Whether Hollande and others want to tag on a growth agenda is by the by, and will probably be done by a protocol to the existing treaty or under existing rules.

Look at Greece. There is plan A which is the current programme. There is Plan B which is to let the MS look out for themselves outside of the euro. All voting no would achieve is to turf us out of the plan A scenario, it could not create a plan C which allows us to continue as we are without complying with the rules.

bryaner

I'm suffering serious brain freeze on this one..

Ozymandius2011

beeftotheheels wrote: »

A majority of the Bundestag can ratify the treaty, the 2/3 majority is required because the Germans intend to hard wire the treaty into their constitution (unlike us)

That's what I meant.

electrictrad

OK, my two cents...

I think the treaty puts us in a vunerable position. It constricts how we can spend, and puts us at a disadvantage compared to other nations.

Also, as far as I'm aware, the treaty will go on regardless of whether we approve or not. Is it not an ideal way for France and Germany to gain yet more control over our finances, albeit indirectly?

I actually think it'll do us major long-term damage, and it is another loss of control to Europe, this time actual financial control.

So there. I'm voting No. And that's why.

beeftotheheels

electrictrad wrote: »

It constricts how we can spend, and puts us at a disadvantage compared to other nations.

No it doesn't. Existing rules constrict what we can spend, the treaty makes no changes to this. Our debt pile restricts what we can spend, the treaty makes no changes to this.

You cannot vote no to allowing the Gov ratify a treaty based on not understanding what the treaty actually does or does not do.

The rules are already there in the six-pack. The deficit is there. The debt is there. A no vote will not change any of this. All it will do is cut us off from ESM funding should we require it.

FreudianSlippers

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No it doesn't. Existing rules constrict what we can spend, the treaty makes no changes to this. Our debt pile restricts what we can spend, the treaty makes no changes to this.

Plus it doesn't immediately apply to us (as far as external control), it only applies should we break the debt to GDP ratio set in the future.

I've yet to hear any coherent line on why a set debt to GDP ratio is a bad thing?

FreudianSlippers

electrictrad wrote: »

It constricts how we can spend, and puts us at a disadvantage compared to other nations.

Nope, all it says is that where a Member State has government debt that exceeds the reference level (a deficit-to-GDP ratio of 3% and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 60%), they shall reduce it at an average rate of a twentieth per annum. These countries are in what is called the EU Excessive Deficit Procedure - what happens then is that WE submit to the Council and Commission our plan to reduce this amount by the set twentieth per annum.

That is hardly putting any sovereign power regarding our budget in the hands of the EU - in fact, they set out the guidelines for countries that are in the EDP and each Member State adjusts their budget accordingly. There is no provision that I have seen that allows the EU (or any part or group therein) to walk into a country and "take over" their budget or impose constraints on how money is spent.

There is a huge difference between saying what you can spend and how you can spend it.

Vita nova

electrictrad wrote: »

OK, my two cents...
I think the treaty puts us in a vunerable position.

We’re already in a very vulnerable position and voting no is more likely to put us in an even more vulnerable position. We won’t have access to the ESM fund and our cost of borrowing will probably be even higher, after all, Moody’s have said a no would impact negatively on Ireland’s credit rating and that normally increases borrowing costs.

It constricts how we can spend, and puts us at a disadvantage compared to other nations.

It’s how we spent that put us in the vulnerable position in the first place; more control and oversight is not necessarily a bad thing.
Less constriction in spending can put you at a short-term advantage relative to other countries but it has a way of biting you in the arse in the long term – look around.

Also, as far as I'm aware, the treaty will go on regardless of whether we approve or not.

Exactly, it’s not like an EU treaty, the train goes on without us should we vote no (assuming enough countries vote yes).

Is it not an ideal way for France and Germany to gain yet more control over our finances, albeit indirectly?

Too much paranoia for my liking. By the way, there are 27 members of the EU and 17 members of the Eurozone.

I actually think it'll do us major long-term damage, and it is another loss of control to Europe, this time actual financial control.

The intention is for countries to put in place measures that prevent long-term damage to themselves. Furthermore, we are part of the EU and Eurozone and have obligations to other members to act in a manner which does not mess up the financial system for the rest -something which has not happened under the existing set-up.

So there. I'm voting No. And that's why.

It's not too late; reconsider!

goat2

i have been listning to fine gael going on about this, last night on vb i cant think what her name is the blone lady she did not put across any good points as a matter of fact i would say that she does not have a clue about the whole thing,
so for that reason i cannot see why we should be voting atall, just put this thing back for a few months until they get their act together,
not one of them has spoken anything assuring on this

Jack_Plumber

I have not decided which way I will vote yet.

An important issue for me is whether the adoption of this Fiscal Compact would have prevented the excesses by Bertie Aherne/Brian Cowen/Brian Lenihan/Financial Regulator etc that have caused the mess that is now drowning the Irish people?

FreudianSlippers

Jack_Plumber wrote: »

I have not decided which way I will vote yet.

An important issue for me is whether the adoption of this Fiscal Compact would have prevented the excesses by Bertie Aherne/Brian Cowen/Brian Lenihan/Financial Regulator etc that have caused the mess that is now drowning the Irish people?

In a round-a-bout way; yes. If our government went on a spending rampage again and we exceeded a deficit-to-GDP ratio of 3% and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 60% then our government would have to account for this spending before it got out of hand. The issue is that in boom times these things are raised but nobody cares.

We need a silent alarm which will tell us all to stop spending when we don't want to.

Scofflaw

Jack_Plumber wrote: »

I have not decided which way I will vote yet.

An important issue for me is whether the adoption of this Fiscal Compact would have prevented the excesses by Bertie Aherne/Brian Cowen/Brian Lenihan/Financial Regulator etc that have caused the mess that is now drowning the Irish people?

The fiscal limits in the Treaty would not do so by themselves, but the Treaty is only part of what's being done. The peer review system and the increased financial sector oversight would have provided a better early warning of what was happening. Improving structural deficit monitoring should also help highlight such issues in advance, and some of the mechanisms being put in place in Ireland as part of the Treaty obligations should also help.

However, at the end of the day, Ireland is a sovereign nation, and no amount of warnings or peer review from Europe or from within Ireland can prevent our government from making a mess if that's what they really want to do, and what people want them to do for them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In a round-a-bout way; yes. If our government went on a spending rampage again and we exceeded a deficit-to-GDP ratio of 3% and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 60% then our government would have to account for this spending before it got out of hand. The issue is that in boom times these things are raised but nobody cares.

We need a silent alarm which will tell us all to stop spending when we don't want to.

Was it not the Germans firing cheap money around that allowed the spending spree here in the first place?
How are we guaranteed that they won't do the same again and ignore the rules when it suits them, they and the other large members having been doing up to now, have they not?

beeftotheheels

Happyman42 wrote: »

Was it not the Germans firing cheap money around that allowed the spending spree here in the first place?
How are we guaranteed that they won't do the same again and ignore the rules when it suits them, they and the other large members having been doing up to now, have they not?

Because that is a very important part of the change from the SGP. Previously, if you broke the rules, you needed a majority to enforce the sanctions. Now, if you break the rules, the sanctions are automatic and only a majority can block them.

This means that if, in 10 years time, Germany is the one breaking the rules, the new treaty makes it a hell of a lot harder for them to avoid the consequences of breaking the rules, consequences which were way too easy for them to avoid under the original SGP.

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

Was it not the Germans firing cheap money around that allowed the spending spree here in the first place?

It was more a global loosening of credit, together with the virtual death of prudential lending rules here. There doesn't ever seem to have been much German (or even eurozone) money in the Irish domestic banks, as far as can be seen from their balance sheets.

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite

Scofflaw wrote: »

There doesn't ever seem to have been much German (or even eurozone) money in the Irish domestic banks, as far as can be seen from their balance sheets.

Well it sure as hell didn't come from ordinary people's deposits.

Jeff the Yank

Dear Mr Kenny,

This treaty should not be ratified.

There is no reason you should abdicate your responsibility to the Irish people and hand the reigns of economic control to the unelected bureaucrats and bankers in Brussels. You are needlessly lessening the status of the very people you claim to represent. There are so many things you could do rather than kowtow to the economic experiments of the Euro-Elite and their lackeys. Instead, you could enact better legislation than this patched together EU response could ever manage.

You could take the reins of Ireland's economy back and start creating the banking legislation that will save Ireland from future lapses into the economic morass we currently enjoy and build towards steady job growth and a renewed Ireland. You could create a real and powerful Irish agency to regulate banking. Give that agency a budget big enough to do the job and give it teeth so banks will not only cooperate but will be forced to act responsibly.

Please stop waiting for the bankers to fix things for you. Fix it yourself and save what’s left of Irish sovereignty.

Don’t let the EU force a second referendum vote when you lose this first one. Instead, get us back on the Punt so we can start a cycle of devaluation to bring growth and job building back to our island. Stop this idiotic idea of growth through austerity and realize that all the leading economists say you SPEND your way out of recession not cut. Austerity is needlessly painful and does not work.

“One answer — an answer that makes more sense than almost anyone in Europe is willing to admit — would be to break up the euro, Europe’s common currency. Europe wouldn’t be in this fix if Greece still had its drachma, Spain its peseta, Ireland its punt, and so on, because Greece and Spain would have what they now lack: a quick way to restore cost-competitiveness and boost exports, namely devaluation.

As a counterpoint to Ireland’s sad story, consider the case of Iceland, which was ground zero for the financial crisis but was able to respond by devaluing its currency, the krona (and also had the courage to let its banks fail and default on their debts). Sure enough, Iceland is experiencing the recovery Ireland was supposed to have, but hasn’t.”

From...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/opinion/krugman-those-revolting-europeans.html

SHOVELLER

As an aside the No side are not doing themselves any favours hanging up posters at eye level.

RandomName2

Hold on,

We can agree to enter the fiscal compact (provided it comes into force) at any time in the future, but we cannot apparently leave it if we sign (even if we leave the Euro!)

There are already mechanisms to deal with states in the EU that are financially reckless. The EU has in the past threatened, and indeed posed fines on member states for their budgetary fecklessness.

The Fiscal Compact would install a penalisation system into the national constitution (or equivalent level). The manner in which this system is implemented is up to the member state, but it must fit a manner as suggested by the Commission.

Fiscal Compact members must submit their budgetary plans to one another (although we have infamously had this already happen here).

Members who are in budgetary deficit will be monitored and their actions supervised by the Commission.

----

The Commission meanwhile has seemingly outlined separate ideas to

"require eurozone countries to present their draft budgets at the same time each year. The Commission could then issue an opinion on them, if necessary, and ask governments to revise them in line with their eurozone obligations.

The second would enhance surveillance for eurozone countries being supported by financial assistance or that are threatened by serious financial instability"

Whole thing is a bit creepy imo. :pac:

Wild Bill

SHOVELLER wrote: »

As an aside the No side are not doing themselves any favours hanging up posters at eye level.

Can't afford ladders. Austerity thingy.

RandomName2

Wild Bill wrote: »

Can't afford ladders. Austerity thingy.

They're socialist. They believe we should all be on the same level.

Wild Bill

RandomName2 wrote: »

They're socialist. They believe we should all be on the same level.

You don't have to be a Socialist to realise this treaty is daft though :cool:

beeftotheheels

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hold on,

We can agree to enter the fiscal compact (provided it comes into force) at any time in the future, but we cannot apparently leave it if we sign (even if we leave the Euro!)

Rubbish. The Oireachtas can leave it at any time even without leaving the euro. However, the substantive provisions are already in the six-pack. Which already binds us, and which we can only stop binding us if we leave the EU. So the bit we're voting on we can undo. Only we're really not voting on all that much.

RandomName2 wrote: »

There are already mechanisms to deal with states in the EU that are financially reckless. The EU has in the past threatened, and indeed posed fines on member states for their budgetary fecklessness.

Exactly. These are the substantive provisions and we're not voting on these.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Fiscal Compact would install a penalisation system into the national constitution (or equivalent level). The manner in which this system is implemented is up to the member state, but it must fit a manner as suggested by the Commission.

It has been agreed that an Act of the Oireachtas is sufficient for us because our constitution is a f***ing nightmare to change compared to every one elses.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Fiscal Compact members must submit their budgetary plans to one another (although we have infamously had this already happen here).

Members who are in budgetary deficit will be monitored and their actions supervised by the Commission.

As you noted, this part is already happening and our vote cannot change it at all.

meglome

recedite wrote: »

Well it sure as hell didn't come from ordinary people's deposits.

So if it didn't come from the Eurozone banks, that's the only other place you can think of? How about the US or the UK?

meglome

I'm not an economist but this article is mostly crap.

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

There is no reason you should abdicate your responsibility to the Irish people and hand the reigns of economic control to the unelected bureaucrats and bankers in Brussels.

Funny I don't seem to recall those specific provisions of the treaty.

Fix it yourself and save what’s left of Irish sovereignty.

Jebus wept.

Don’t let the EU force a second referendum vote when you lose this first one.

Can't seem to recall ever being forced to have any referendum or rerun. And why the hell would Europe need us to rerun this one, it only needs twelve signatures and we can be bypassed.

Stop this idiotic idea of growth through austerity and realize that all the leading economists say you SPEND your way out of recession not cut

We're borrowing one third of all government spending and he thinks we can just spend our way out of it. Jebus.

“One answer — an answer that makes more sense than almost anyone in Europe is willing to admit — would be to break up the euro, Europe’s common currency. Europe wouldn’t be in this fix if Greece still had its drachma, Spain its peseta, Ireland its punt, and so on, because Greece and Spain would have what they now lack: a quick way to restore cost-competitiveness and boost exports, namely devaluation.

The markets are circling us like vultures but his solutions is to leave the safety net of the Euro. Jebus.

As a counterpoint to Ireland’s sad story, consider the case of Iceland, which was ground zero for the financial crisis but was able to respond by devaluing its currency, the krona (and also had the courage to let its banks fail and default on their debts). Sure enough, Iceland is experiencing the recovery Ireland was supposed to have, but hasn’t.”

Any other countries not in the same situation as Ireland that he'd like to compare us to.

Crap.. crap... crap.

Jeff the Yank

You don't remember the forced re-vote of the Lisbon treaty? Really?

As for your other enlightened responses please look up Keynesian economics.

I'll just leave you with a thought. The Euro is not a safety net. Its a lead weight weighing us down in the financial ocean. Eventually we wont be able to tread water anymore.

I believe he makes a point of Iceland because they were the only country that let their banks collapse. Ireland's collapse and Iceland's were very similar other than Ireland took the completely idiotic tact of bailing out its banks with money it did not have and the obvious difference that Iceland still had control of its own economic destiny. By being able to devalue its own currency it has an automatic release valve for improving exports and creating jobs. We do not.

The main point stands. Ireland cannot devalue its currency and Germany has no interest in doing anything that doesn't help Germany. The banks simply want the people to pay off all their bad loans and investments and apparently have most of the world leaders either in their back pockets or scared enough to do their bidding. The entire idea of investment risk has been superseded by social financing of Big Banking.

The Markets and Banks should not be running the country. The People of Ireland should be.

This other thought is my own. Ireland does not need to trap itself into a treaty with the EU to fix the poor regulation of its banking and investment industry. It also doesn't need to trap itself into a EU treaty that in effect gives more power to the un-elected folks that make up the power structure of the EU. Ireland could very easily create its own laws dictating how to better manage a strong economy and police the out of control nature of Big Banking and the Markets.

ouncer

what jeff the yank fails to mention but is probably very relevant is that we run a country less than the economic size of manchester and yet we fail to do so. Our economy is so small its crazy that our politicians can get it so wrong. Anyway the reality is that the No vote is currently running 2:1 against the YES vote so that says enough

K-9

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

Dear Mr Kenny,

This treaty should not be ratified.

There is no reason you should abdicate your responsibility to the Irish people and hand the reigns of economic control to the unelected bureaucrats and bankers in Brussels. You are needlessly lessening the status of the very people you claim to represent. There are so many things you could do rather than kowtow to the economic experiments of the Euro-Elite and their lackeys. Instead, you could enact better legislation than this patched together EU response could ever manage.

You could take the reins of Ireland's economy back and start creating the banking legislation that will save Ireland from future lapses into the economic morass we currently enjoy and build towards steady job growth and a renewed Ireland. You could create a real and powerful Irish agency to regulate banking. Give that agency a budget big enough to do the job and give it teeth so banks will not only cooperate but will be forced to act responsibly.

Please stop waiting for the bankers to fix things for you. Fix it yourself and save what’s left of Irish sovereignty.

Don’t let the EU force a second referendum vote when you lose this first one. Instead, get us back on the Punt so we can start a cycle of devaluation to bring growth and job building back to our island. Stop this idiotic idea of growth through austerity and realize that all the leading economists say you SPEND your way out of recession not cut. Austerity is needlessly painful and does not work.

“One answer — an answer that makes more sense than almost anyone in Europe is willing to admit — would be to break up the euro, Europe’s common currency. Europe wouldn’t be in this fix if Greece still had its drachma, Spain its peseta, Ireland its punt, and so on, because Greece and Spain would have what they now lack: a quick way to restore cost-competitiveness and boost exports, namely devaluation.

As a counterpoint to Ireland’s sad story, consider the case of Iceland, which was ground zero for the financial crisis but was able to respond by devaluing its currency, the krona (and also had the courage to let its banks fail and default on their debts). Sure enough, Iceland is experiencing the recovery Ireland was supposed to have, but hasn’t.”

From...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/opinion/krugman-those-revolting-europeans.html

Thread merged with existing "how will you vote" thread". Many of these points have been debated in this thread so fits well here.