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

RandomName2

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who said that? Source please.

No, that is pretty much what the No side typically says. They are right to a point (change vs no change), but they like using hyperbole. The No side hyperbole in this sense seems more damaging because the No side might say:

This treaty means we'll never vote in a domestic election again!

While the Yes side might say:

Ratifying this treaty will mean we'll be rich and have lots of European friends/allies!

People will say, "knew it was too good to be true" when such riches don't appear, or may alternatively look to the horizon for promised rain. Flabby terms like "the heart of Europe" are so meaningless that one can't actually hold the yes side to such promises in the first place.

But when there are no conscripted armies, no abortion nor euthanasia the doomsayers on the No side look like fools or knaves. It is a bit late at that stage for the No side to point to the horizon and say; yes, but they'll be a'comin' an' soon. As such they tend to remain pretty discrete on the whole affair (wisely).

In this particular case austerity will actually exist after the Fiscal Compact, so the socialists and Sinn Fein will be able to point fingers claiming to have accurately predicted the fallout from a yes vote if it is passed.

Again, there won't be stability after the vote, but the Yes side will say that it has been set in motion and will come, and soon!

Happyman42 wrote: »

To the people who get hammered most there is no real difference if it's the EEC, EU, LEGO, or MIB. Notwithstanding the fact, that I was using 'EEC' to refer to the beginings of the Union.:rolleyes:

In the beginning it was called the ECSC. Lego is a company whilst the MIB don't exist.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ha ha, 'that Dell were not being unduly influenced by the polish grant'!!!!!! Regardless of where the money came from you managed to miss the point. I suppose Dell weren't unduly influenced by the low wages In Lodz either? Does it remind you of the environment that Dell entered into Ireland at all??

The EU facilitates economic migration, both of individuals and companies. This was a spectacular instance of FF incompetence, who allowed wages to increase (due to allowing cost of living to increase, due to allowing inflation to increase) to such an extent that other countries (such as Poland) became very attractive propositions to companies such as DELL. FF also allowing unrestricted immigration of eastern Europeans into Ireland did not help in this matter as apparently a large number of Poles were upskilled, here, prior to the move, before moving with the company.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ha ha, 'that Dell were not being unduly influenced by the polish grant'!!!!!! Regardless of where the money came from you managed to miss the point. I suppose Dell weren't unduly influenced by the low wages In Lodz either? Does it remind you of the environment that Dell entered into Ireland at all??

Isn't that kind of the point though? There's always some up and coming and cheaper country, we used to be it and now Poland and others are, never mind non-EU countries. It's up to us to stay competitive, Germany managed through low wage increases, we didn't.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Isn't that kind of the point though? There's always some up and coming and cheaper country, we used to be it and now Poland and others are, never mind non-EU countries. It's up to us to stay competitive, Germany managed through low wage increases, we didn't.

The point is that the system is rotten from within.....it's just one part of the reason why Europe is failing. The system has to change from economic emphasis to a human one. People come first. Of course we will have economists tripping over themselves to say it can't be any other way....but then, they would say that. Bankers, corporations and individuals have to realise that there is a limit to profiteering.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.
.

First you say, the "No" vote have the past on their side to back up the argument that the future under the EU is bad.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nobody is comparing now to pre '73. .

Then I present the facts and show how Ireland is much better off having spent nearly 40 years inside the EU and you try and say nobody is comparing now to pre '73. Which is it, the past supports a "No" or not?

Either the history books show that the EU was bad for Ireland and therefore support the "No" arguments as you say or they don't.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

First you say, the "No" vote have the past on their side to back up the argument that the future under the EU is bad.

Then I present the facts and show how Ireland is much better off having spent nearly 40 years inside the EU and you try and say nobody is comparing now to pre '73. Which is it, the past supports a "No" or not?

Either the history books show that the EU was bad for Ireland and therefore support the "No" arguments as you say or they don't.

:rolleyes: Show me where I said the past in the EU was bad for Ireland? Please comprehend the posts before you post. What I said was the 'past' showed that the larger member states did not conform to the rules. We have to make a leap of faith to believe that they will in the future.
That is quite a different thing to say, don't you think? :rolleyes:

C14N

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.

What I seem to always hear are not that one side promises change and the other promises no change but that both sides promise change. The Yes side generally promise things like jobs and growth, whilst the No side generally promise a situation just shy of the apocalypse (someone posted a list of No promises at Lisbon time toward the start of the thread which I found an interesting read).

So it seems like the No side can't prove anything. What did they say in the past that has actually come true and that we can clearly see is a result of a Yes vote?

Now admittedly, the Yes side will have just as hard a time proving themselves right, but since they promise vaguer wishy-washier things it's also harder to prove them wrong.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think what was allowed to happen in the case of Dell is pertinent to how Europe works, they got paid x amount of money by the EU to re-locate in Poland from Ireland
'That's the market, that's the way it works' say the champions of this policy, economists and corporate people chiefly.
But what they fail to account for is the damage that move made to real people in real places. Other businesses have loyalty to a location and to a workforce but somehow a corporation has the right to rape and plunder a location because they are aided and abbetted by the legislators. Poland (funnily enough the current darling performer of the EU) will get shafted in due course too, that is the moneymaking cycle that is the corporate model, they'll move on elsewhere.

It seems pretty straightforward what happened with the Dell situation. Factories are generally set up in countries where lots of cheap labour exists (generally poorer but developing countries like Poland, India, China etc) because they just need a pair of hands and not really any qualifications or skills. Once that was us, we were an up and coming country like Poland who had an EU membership and cheap workers.

Thats why Dell came here. Since then though, we have simply become a different country. We have a pretty substantial minimum wage (€8.65 last time I checked) and that makes it just uncompetitive for anyone with large scale manual labour to do business here. Dell aren't a charity when their business becomes unsustainable, they're going to move out. If we had a lower minimum wage, they probably would have stayed.

Since Dell came though, we have become an economy whose educated workforce has become our main appeal. You will find Dell left over 1000 technical jobs behind and there are plenty more at other similar companies. We have easier access to third level education than most other countries (even with the fees rising) and those are the jobs with staying power. We're a small country with a high cost of living, we just aren't a good target for manufacturing anymore. Poland is less likely to get "shafted" because they do have a much larger population and they have the geographic convenience of being right in the middle of Europe.

I also think your calling what Dell did "rape and plunder" is more than a little inaccurate. They gave 20 years of work to people, they didn't actually take anything away. Even after they moved on they left the aforementioned professional jobs behind.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ah, to be fair, both sides are pretty crap and fear-mongering with their respective messages. No side only tends to be more "imaginative" when Coir raise their heads.

I actually decided to look out for this today while I was in Dublin and can't say I saw "fear mongering" on the yes side. All the posters paint a rose tinted bright future with a yes vote but they don't give any threats about what a No will bring.

I mean there was this video with rabid comments all saying "omg this is so true, they're just trying to scare us" and so on:

But I have yet to hear anyone from either FF, FG, Labour or IBEC (all the main groups supporting Yes) say or imply anything at all like this.

Wild Bill

carveone wrote: »

if Greece fails in the summer, it will (perhaps) give us all an idea of how we can be worse off.

Like Iceland did, before it's recovery left us eating dirt?

Godge

Wild Bill wrote: »

Like Iceland did, before it's recovery left us eating dirt?

Here we go again, Iceland this, Iceland that.

Iceland's debt is 130% of GDP, ours is 107%, think I prefer ours.
Iceland's inflation rate in 2011 was 5.4%, ours was around 2%, think I prefer ours.
Iceland's central bank interest rates are also up around 5% while ours are only 1% thanks to our good friends in Europe, think I prefer ours.

Now their unemployment rate is lower, but their major industries are taking the last bit of fish out of the ground and smelting aluminium in a way that environmental regulation doesn't let the rest of us. Not exactly high-tech unlike our IT and pharmaceutical industries.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes: Show me where I said the past in the EU was bad for Ireland? Please comprehend the posts before you post. What I said was the 'past' showed that the larger member states did not conform to the rules. We have to make a leap of faith to believe that they will in the future.
That is quite a different thing to say, don't you think? :rolleyes:

OK, so your only complaint is that the big member states sometimes didn't obey the results in the past. Two questions

(1) Now that the new Treaty improves on that by giving the ECJ a role, why do you object, surely that is better than the current situation?
(2) If Ireland's interests are better served by ratifying the Treaty regardless of what the bigger member states do, what is the point in voting no?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Yes people promise us that the future will be different at every referendum, the No people say it won't. The only ones who can prove it are the No side because they have the past on their side.
.

This quotation is still bothering me. If I remember correctly, ever since Crotty made us have referenda, the "No" side have been saying that we are handing over more and more sovereignty to the EU and that we will have no economic power left.

Yet, all by ourself, without anyone in the EU stopping us, McCreevy, Ahern, Cowen and Lenihan managed to practically bankrupt this country. If all of those "No" campaigns were right, how did it get to the stage when we were spending 15% more than we earned without anyone from the EU stopping us. When Cowen and Lenihan guaranteed the banks (amid howls of outrage from the UK and the EU) why didn't they stop us seeing as we had handed away our sovereignty years before according to the "No" campaigners.

The fact that we messed up ourselves so much shows how little sovereignty we gave away in reality and show how much the little boys of the "No" campaign were shouting wolf.

The past clearly supports the "Yes" arguments, and clearly debunks the "no" position.

Sand

C14N wrote: »

I mean there was this video with rabid comments all saying "omg this is so true, they're just trying to scare us" and so on:

But I have yet to hear anyone from either FF, FG, Labour or IBEC (all the main groups supporting Yes) say or imply anything at all like this.

Ah cmon C14n, that video is satire. It works because it plays on serious pronouncements.

Look in the various politics forums:

"Dye know wats gonna happen if you vote no? Have ye ever seen Mad Max"

Theres a thread in Politics currently where the argument is if Noonan is telling us he will raise taxes as retribution if we vote no, or the more benign version that he'll simply be forced to if we are as mule faced to reject the well meaning direction of our European cousins.

"Dye want us t'be kicked outa de yuro - iz dat wat yur playin at!?"

There has been a *constant* message that Ireland will is merely surviving in the Euro (and the EU) at the mercy of the larger states. If we don't do what they say without quibble then we will be cast out into the darkness.

"There'll be AIDS pouring out of the ATM machines if you bog brains vote against this!"

Again, a constant message that the government was forced to do whatever it was told by the EU/ECB/Troika or "The ATMs would stop working".

There has been an almost continuous message of No choice - No alternative - No option delivered by advocates of the plan. There was widespread hysteria on the forum over the dire consequences of a Greek default, where dark, hidden yet terrible OTC derivative contracts would cast us into doom should Greece default. Greece defaults, nothing happens. Well, there's one less person who reads my posts...the world moves on.

The same cast assure us that there's no requirement for a referendum on the Fiscal compact. And even if there was, shure there's no choice anyway.

But suddenly, wrong as they consistently have been throughout the entire drama (and before you accept their analysis of the implications of the treaty, remember that they didnt believe the implications of the treaty included an Irish referendum), there is a referendum. There is a choice. There is an option. There is an alternative.

Its no wonder that there is a reflexive leap to the "Yiz'all be fecked if yiz dare say no" because the Yes side have never, ever, ever been able to justify even to themselves why the strategy makes sense. They've honestly, if incorrectly presumed that there is no choice - no alternative - no option. So when it comes to actually having to defend and argue for the strategy they resort to fear-mongering.

Isn't it odd that some many vocal advocates of the "Yes" vote identify themselves as reluctantly on the Yes side? Shouldn't such an undeniably brilliant win for Irish economic governance have enthusiastic supporters?

Its also interesting that advocates of the current strategy - which is pinned on adherence to EU/ECB/Core wishes to win favour for an eventual debt relief will simultaneously assure us that such debt relief is entirely impossible? They're incorrect of course, but you'd have to question what their end goal is if they are truly urging Ireland down a self destructive path to win a redemption they believe is impossible under the EU treaties.

C14N

Sand wrote: »

Ah cmon C14n, that video is satire. It works because it plays on serious pronouncements.

Don't get me wrong, I know that. I actually thought the video was kind of funny by itself, but looking at the comments on it, it has really rallied a lot of ignorant people who seem to hold it up as more than enough reason to vote No. I've seen it crop up a few times on boards in a similar context.

Just grabbing the first three comments there that aren't by me:

"having said that at least sarcozy ,who pressured Cowen and his bank bail out euro shmoozing patzies to have another vote on the lisbon treaty after democracy worked and we said NO..well he's gone now and it seems the new president Francois Hollande is resisting this encraoching globalsim. Vote NO people."

"If the result is a No, we will be told,"wrong answer try again." while all the fear mongering nonsense about us being tossed aside,back to the age of the famine,no money for us, for being bold and having an opinion.
10 years from now they will want to castrate the first born boys to reduce population,and chip everyone for our own "safety" and If we diagree the same s**t will be parroted from europe and even our own government puppets....ye'll end up back in the stone age.."

"I rather be poor than vote Yes to an ever closer 4th Reich which is the end game, fiscal union followed by political union is the aim here be under no illusions. the only job thats garaunteed from a yes vote is Lucinda Creightons and so she may continue to live a lavish lifestyle shopping in brown thomas. she would sell her soul to the EU if they asked her. VOTE NO"

Sand wrote: »

Theres a thread in Politics currently where the argument is if Noonan is telling us he will raise taxes as retribution if we vote no, or the more benign version that he'll simply be forced to if we are as mule faced to reject the well meaning direction of our European cousins.

Why has this even come up? I'd like to see the Noonan quote where he hints at these tax rises for voting "no".

Sand wrote: »

"Dye want us t'be kicked outa de yuro - iz dat wat yur playin at!?"

There has been a *constant* message that Ireland will is merely surviving in the Euro (and the EU) at the mercy of the larger states. If we don't do what they say without quibble then we will be cast out into the darkness.

Well where is it? I've been listening to the news, a few talk shows and I've read a few articles in the Times on the referendum, but not once have I seen a quote (directly or indirectly) from a politician or prominent Yes proponent saying "we have to vote Yes or we will (or even might) be kicked back out of the EU/Eurozone" or even anything close. I will change my stance if there is one but I haven't seen it yet.

Sand wrote: »

Its no wonder that there is a reflexive leap to the "Yiz'all be fecked if yiz dare say no" because the Yes side have never, ever, ever been able to justify even to themselves why the strategy makes sense. They've honestly, if incorrectly presumed that there is no choice - no alternative - no option.

Look through this thread, plenty of people have justified the Yes vote quite well. You seem to think all the major parties just have a knee-jerk reaction to vote Yes and aren't really concerned about their own country at all. I heard a soundbite one day recently on the news where Enda Kenny challenged Adams to say what his plan was if we vote No and he had nothing, he just rubbed it off saying "it's my job to ask the questions here". That certainly isn't reassuring.

Nobody has said there is no alternative either, just that Yes is the best option.

Sand wrote: »

So when it comes to actually having to defend and argue for the strategy they resort to fear-mongering.

Well back to my original question. Where exactly is this "fear mongering"? Find me a sign, a website, a leaflet, a quote, anything at all that instills the notion of "we're screwed if we vote no". I can easily go into town and find dark, gloomy signs saying "5, 10, 20 years of austerity", heck their website has "austerity treaty" in the name. I haven't seen a single one showing "No" being positive, just assurances about how awful our lives will be for voting yes.

Sand wrote: »

Isn't it odd that some many vocal advocates of the "Yes" vote identify themselves as reluctantly on the Yes side? Shouldn't such an undeniably brilliant win for Irish economic governance have enthusiastic supporters?

No, its not odd at all. Neither option is going to magically cure the country, it's just that the Yes side believe No will hurt more.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

This quotation is still bothering me. If I remember correctly, ever since Crotty made us have referenda, the "No" side have been saying that we are handing over more and more sovereignty to the EU and that we will have no economic power left.

The Yes side continually let themselves down by claiming that all No voters are of a 'type'. It's why they are continually in trouble in referenda. They assume.
This 'No' voter has always been pro Europe but like many thousands of others has woken up to the fact that this isn't an equal union by any stretch of the imagination.
The elite have woken the tiger, I am convinced they will regret it, the Union is dying, in it's present form at least.

Yet, all by ourself, without anyone in the EU stopping us, McCreevy, Ahern, Cowen and Lenihan managed to practically bankrupt this country. If all of those "No" campaigns were right, how did it get to the stage when we were spending 15% more than we earned without anyone from the EU stopping us. When Cowen and Lenihan guaranteed the banks (amid howls of outrage from the UK and the EU) why didn't they stop us seeing as we had handed away our sovereignty years before according to the "No" campaigners.

The fact that we messed up ourselves so much shows how little sovereignty we gave away in reality and show how much the little boys of the "No" campaign were shouting wolf.

What allowed them to behave like that? Cheap, no holds barred money from Europe.
p.s. In practical terms we have had the same people, with the same ethos in power for more than half a century. I have already said that change is needed.

The past clearly supports the "Yes" arguments, and clearly debunks the "no" position.

No it clearly doesn't.
Again; this is not a referendum about economics, it has been turned into a political referendum because people want to send a message to Europe that enough is enough, Enda and his cronies are patently not able to or won't.

The French, The Greeks are all doing the same in their public displays. Did the French run scared electing Hollande? Did anybody even attempt to scare them by suggesting that electing somebody who wanted to change the terms of the Fiscal Treaty might incur the economic wrath of Europe?

Ozymandius2011

Godge wrote:

Yet, all by ourself, without anyone in the EU stopping us, McCreevy, Ahern, Cowen and Lenihan managed to practically bankrupt this country. If all of those "No" campaigns were right, how did it get to the stage when we were spending 15% more than we earned without anyone from the EU stopping us. When Cowen and Lenihan guaranteed the banks (amid howls of outrage from the UK and the EU) why didn't they stop us seeing as we had handed away our sovereignty years before according to the "No" campaigners.

The fact that we messed up ourselves so much shows how little sovereignty we gave away in reality and show how much the little boys of the "No" campaign were shouting wolf.

The fact that other peripheral Eurozone economies like Spain and Greece have also fallen through suggests a European element to the causation of the crisis rather than an exclusively national one.

karlth

Godge wrote: »

Here we go again, Iceland this, Iceland that.

Iceland's debt is 130% of GDP, ours is 107%, think I prefer ours.
Iceland's inflation rate in 2011 was 5.4%, ours was around 2%, think I prefer ours.
Iceland's central bank interest rates are also up around 5% while ours are only 1% thanks to our good friends in Europe, think I prefer ours.

Now their unemployment rate is lower, but their major industries are taking the last bit of fish out of the ground and smelting aluminium in a way that environmental regulation doesn't let the rest of us. Not exactly high-tech unlike our IT and pharmaceutical industries.

Let me clarify a bit here:

Iceland's government debt is 90% of GDP (the last number in the document). Of which the vast majority is in its own controlled currency.
Inflation is 5-6% and the interest rates are relatively high. GDP grew by 3% last year and similar growth is estimated this year.
The icelandic fishing industry is by no means "the last bit of fish out of the ground". In fact all major fish stocks have grown during the last few years as the Iceland has since the 80s implemented a strict quota system to ensure that all stocks are renewable.
Also "smelting aluminium in a way that environmental regulation doesn't let the rest of us" is not something I'm familiar with. Apart from all smelters being required to run highly effective pollution filters they all run on pure green power (hydro or geothermal).
Tourism is booming, thanks mostly to the fame that came with volcanic activity and the low krona. The hi-tech sector is also doing quite nicely but future growth will probably mostly come from unused green power.

The only serious problem facing Iceland (and it is a major problem) is the currency. It has been a very double edged sword for the country. In the end though I think it has been a necessary tool as it allowed us to have more say in our destiny. It is no fun though when travelling abroad!

But as many have pointed out. What has suited Iceland doesn't necessarily suit Ireland. For example it is impossible to imagine that any international company would want to have its European hq in Ireland if the country dropped the euro and had to implement currency controls.

K-9

It is also worth pointing out that our bond rates have dropped significantly in the last year, we aren't far of sustainable rates like Iceland, so some do have faith that what we are doing can work.

I'd add the caveat that these investors know we have the backing of the EFSF and the new fund if we need it, so we have leeway in correcting our finances, unlike Iceland.

Happyman42

karlth wrote: »

It is no fun though when travelling abroad!

What is happening here is that a large section of the population can't travel abroad or even make their household books balance.....but they will be, as usual, forgotten by the cosy elite in their clamour to maintain their status quo. That is the sickening imbalance in our fiscal policy. There is a solidarity about Iceland that is very attractive. We decimated our fishing fleet at the behest of the EU. Take a trip to Killybegs, look at the empty local harbour and the foreign factory ships out in the bay where locals have no choice but to go and work on and tell me that EU policy is working or even wise.

Sand

C14N wrote: »

Why has this even come up? I'd like to see the Noonan quote where he hints at these tax rises for voting "no".

Irish Times May 1st 2012 - "Noonan comments criticised"

Noonan: "If there's a No vote the Budget I'll be planning for later in the year will be dramatically more difficult than if there's a Yes vote.

"If people think that by voting No they'll avoid further tax cuts (:pac:) and increases, actually a No vote will do the opposite," he added.

11 page thread here: "I'll raise taxes if you vote no, Noonan warns"

Out loud he said "I'll raise taxes if you vote no"

And in his head he said:

"And I'll raise them if you vote yes" *snigger*....

Well where is it? I've been listening to the news, a few talk shows and I've read a few articles in the Times on the referendum, but not once have I seen a quote (directly or indirectly) from a politician or prominent Yes proponent saying "we have to vote Yes or we will (or even might) be kicked back out of the EU/Eurozone" or even anything close. I will change my stance if there is one but I haven't seen it yet.

Irish Independant Dec 14th 2011 "Any referendum a vote on euro membership - Noonan"

“It really comes down on this occasion to a very simple issue, do you want to continue in the euro or not,” Mr Noonan said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

“Faced with that question, I think the Irish people will pass such a referendum.”

Look through this thread, plenty of people have justified the Yes vote quite well. You seem to think all the major parties just have a knee-jerk reaction to vote Yes and aren't really concerned about their own country at all. I heard a soundbite one day recently on the news where Enda Kenny challenged Adams to say what his plan was if we vote No and he had nothing, he just rubbed it off saying "it's my job to ask the questions here". That certainly isn't reassuring.

I haven't seen the Yes vote justified in any credible way. Apart from the scaremongering over a no vote theres been two main lines of thought:

we've already signed up to the limits so whats the big deal

so no need to sign up to them again so...also the "whats the big deal" misses that the fiscal treaty will grant other EU states (i.e. Germany..) the ability to take Ireland to court independently

signing up to the treaty will win us some future favour or save from the core in gratitude

This is sheer hope as policy - even advocates of this view are unable to present any evidence for this hope. Also, supporters of "the plan" are simultaneously pointing out that any relief is completely impossible and illegal even if the Germans wanted to provide it

This view also places a high value on Ireland winning the sympathy and favour of stronger countries - to this mindset, a No vote is a direct provocation to those countries, which they will remember and brood over, waiting for an opportunity to punish us in some petty fashion - if that sounds ludicrous, its because it is.

Nobody has said there is no alternative either, just that Yes is the best option.

Well back to my original question. Where exactly is this "fear mongering"? Find me a sign, a website, a leaflet, a quote, anything at all that instills the notion of "we're screwed if we vote no".

See above.

Also more Noonan fearmonger: Noonan: There’s no backup fund if Ireland votes No

“A No vote is a leap into the unknown,” said Minister Noonan.

Whereas a Yes vote is a leap into certainty :rolleyes: To demonstrate, Enda Kenny assures us that Minister Noonan's around the source of additional funding is irrelevant.

RTE News: Kenny 'absolutely rules out' second bailout

“I do not share the view at all in regard to a second bailout being necessary.”

Well, I'm glad that's certain.

I can easily go into town and find dark, gloomy signs saying "5, 10, 20 years of austerity", heck their website has "austerity treaty" in the name. I haven't seen a single one showing "No" being positive, just assurances about how awful our lives will be for voting yes.

Given its the Yes side which is arguing for a change to our laws to bind us into an economic suicide pact its up to them to justify it. If someone proposed escaping a stampeding herd of elephants by jumping off a cliff, the "No" argument is going to center on the rather dire consequences of jumping off the cliff pretty much by default...

For the record I find the austerity treaty nonsense to be exactly that. Ireland is going to face a decade or more of austerity regardless of the treaty being passed or not passed: we spent and spent and spent and now we pay and pay and pay. Both sides could do with some honesty on that point - ESM access is being held up as some sort of salve which will forestall the need for austerity by the Yes side.

The treaty is based on bad economics, and the treaty proposes to bind Irish economic planning to bad economic principals. Its the classic "do something" response to a problem. Ireland needs fiscal discipline, and it needs institutions and transparency to achieve it. Dumb, stupid treaties like these will not do anything to assist the process - instead they will hide it as the game becomes rigging the statistics (Look at how NAMA was kept off the governments books...) instead of pursuing proper discipline.

Gingernuts31

The thing that gets me is if we only have to get our GDP down to 3% and its forcast we will be down at 8.3 this year whats this thing of Sein Fein austriety for the long term? Once we hit 3% its only a matter of keepin it at that so that shouldn't be too difficult if the state is spending within its mean. Also I believe the EU will not dictate what Ireland can and cannot spend its money on once it keeps its GDP at 3%. Im on the fence because I don't trust Merkel and I don't trust our government but at the same time the same party calling for a no vote has called for a no vote in every single treaty ever put to Ireland, even tho some of them have helped us along?

To me it seems Sein Fein just want there to be a no vote so it will look good on them. They keep singing the same tune " people will have austerity for the next 10 or 15 years". Its the same song every time and they have nothing really to back it up.

Even econimists say that the treaty doesn't really benefit Ireland in a direct way but voting no would be a disaster for us.

Ozymandius2011

Gingernuts31 wrote: »

The thing that gets me is if we only have to get our GDP down to 3% and its forcast we will be down at 8.3 this year whats this thing of Sein Fein austriety for the long term? Once we hit 3% its only a matter of keepin it at that so that shouldn't be too difficult if the state is spending within its mean. Also I believe the EU will not dictate what Ireland can and cannot spend its money on once it keeps its GDP at 3%. Im on the fence because I don't trust Merkel and I don't trust our government but at the same time the same party calling for a no vote has called for a no vote in every single treaty ever put to Ireland, even tho some of them have helped us along?

To me it seems Sein Fein just want there to be a no vote so it will look good on them. They keep singing the same tune " people will have austerity for the next 10 or 15 years". Its the same song every time and they have nothing really to back it up.

Even econimists say that the treaty doesn't really benefit Ireland in a direct way but voting no would be a disaster for us.

Voting no to the euro did Denmark and Sweden no harm. Noonan says this is effectively a referendum on euro membership.

Gingernuts31

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Voting no to the euro did Denmark and Sweden no harm. Noonan says this is effectively a referendum on euro membership.

Its ok for them as they were never in it to begin with it kept their own currency. We are in a different sit where we are in the euro and for people on trackers and that that are based on the ECB rates they are fcuked. I do hope we leave the euro as I think most people voted it in in the 1st place so it would be cheaper to go on holidays and wages would go up cause of the 1.27€ to the punt. No one really thought of what happens if it doesn't work out. I don't know what to vote as no one has come up with any real straight talkin, easy to understand terms as to why we should vote either way. The booklet the government put into peoples doors is not very easy to understand and doesn't say what will happen if we vote no it only pushs people towards a yes.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote:

so no need to sign up to them again so...also the "whats the big deal" misses that the fiscal treaty will grant other EU states (i.e. Germany..) the ability to take Ireland to court independently

Just to clarify - the treaty does not give the member states the power to take others to court over breaches of the fiscal limits.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The fact that other peripheral Eurozone economies like Spain and Greece have also fallen through suggests a European element to the causation of the crisis rather than an exclusively national one.

That's an awful bit of reasoning. If the only countries to be in trouble were other peripheral eurozone countries then you'd have a point - but the list of countries currently in trouble stretches from the US to Australia via Iceland, the UK, and much of the developing world. It's a global crisis.

It's also worth pointing out that defining Italy as a 'peripheral country' is a heck of a stretch of the term!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just to clarify - the treaty does not give the member states the power to take others to court over breaches of the fiscal limits.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just to clarify - that's based on your reading of the treaty. It does in fact give member states the power to take others to court over breaches of the fiscal limits, as perceived by that member state alone. If the fiscal limits are breached and/or not corrected quickly enough (as perceived by that member state alone), then quite clearly article 3 (2) has been breached.

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.

See the "and adhered to" part? Yeah, not adhering to the rules under paragraph 1 is a breach, which are the fiscal limits. You can choose to believe otherwise, but the Germans wont.

Its also worth noting that when people say Ireland can just reverse the laws later as and when it suits us... that's also a breach of Article 3 (2). And again, Germany brings us to court.

KyussBishop

Good (but very lengthy) article relating to Greece at the moment, and the wider policies of austerity and 'TINA' (There Is No Alternative):
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/bill-black-new-york-times-reporters-embrace-the-berlin-consensus-and-ignore-krugman-and-economics.html

There are a lot of good arguments as to why austerity is harmful/counterproductive rather than helpful, but while the article does elaborate on alternatives a bit, it still leaves me kind of unclear on the better alternatives.

Is the fiscal treaty compatible with actions other than austerity?
For instance, does Article 3 imply de-facto austerity? If it does and if that proves unsustainable (which the above article seems to argue reasonably well) does article 8 not just hand the EU a stick to beat us with, for something which may be inevitable?

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

Just to clarify - that's based on your reading of the treaty. It does in fact give member states the power to take others to court over breaches of the fiscal limits, as perceived by that member state alone. If the fiscal limits are breached and/or not corrected quickly enough (as perceived by that member state alone), then quite clearly article 3 (2) has been breached.

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.

See the "and adhered to" part? Yeah, not adhering to the rules under paragraph 1 is a breach, which are the fiscal limits. You can choose to believe otherwise, but the Germans wont.

Its also worth noting that when people say Ireland can just reverse the laws later as and when it suits us... that's also a breach of Article 3 (2). And again, Germany brings us to court.

I can understand the argument you're making, but it's basically casuistry, and certainly shouldn't be described as "allowed to sue for breaches of the fiscal limits", because you're not even arguing that that's the case.

Your argument would cover the possibility where a government can deliberately breach the fiscal limits without that act being illegal under domestic law - in other words, where the government has left a loophole large enough for it to breach the limits over a sufficient period (a minimum of three years), and for those breaches not only not to be acceptable by virtue of the variety of circumstances taken into consideration by the Commission, but for it to be clear that the breaches of limits were not undertaken on the basis of such circumstances, and for the legislation to fail to prevent that.

I'd agree that's a possibility, but it's not equivalent to your original claim that the countries can sue each other for a breach of the fiscal limits. The important point in your argument is that the legislation has to fail to prevent something that could and should have been prevented legislatively, which is rather different - the breach of fiscal limits is highlighting the inadequacy of the legislation, and the inadequacy of the legislation is both the reason for the case, and the subject of the judgement, rather than the breach of the limits.

A government that has breached the limits as a result of external events or an unexpected fall in tax receipts, as opposed to deliberate overspending, is in no danger of being taken to court. A government that breaches the limits in one year in order to provide stimulus spending is likewise in no danger of being taken to court on that account, since that is allowed for.

So much for the general implications of your argument, but we haven't yet covered the most important point. Your interpretation relies on the idea that the power to sue for failure to correctly implement the necessary legislation is an ongoing one, which it rather clearly isn't. From the treaty:

1. The European Commission is invited to present in due time to the Contracting Parties a report on the provisions adopted by each of them in compliance with Article 3(2).

If the European Commission, after having given the Contracting Party concerned the opportunity to submit its observations, concludes in its report that a Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3(2), the matter will be brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union by one or more of the Contracting Parties.

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. In both cases, the judgment of the Court of Justice shall be binding on the parties in the procedure, which shall take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment within a period to be decided by the Court.

This is very clearly something put into the Treaty to ensure that the Contracting Parties do not delay unduly creating the required legislation after ratification. In other words, it's a once-off mechanism designed to prevent a country ratifying, and then implementing a version of the legislation that makes a mockery of their commitment to adhere to the Treaty. It is not designed as an ongoing supervision mechanism. A case may be taken by a Contracting Party in the context of the initial report issued by the Commission after ratification - and that's the only circumstance mentioned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

@Scofflaw

Your argument would cover the possibility where a government can deliberately breach the fiscal limits without that act being illegal under domestic law

No, it covers the possibility that Germany believes the government is breaching the fiscal limits - domestic law may or may not consider the government to be in breach of the law, but Germany has the added security of knowing that regardless of Irish law, it can bring the Irish government to the ECJ if German opinion views the Irish government to be in breach of Article 3 (2). That is what the treaty says, that is what we are voting on.

The rest is semantics. Lets not forget, that if we fast forward to 2020 and Ireland is being taken to court by Germany for breaching its fiscal limits you'll be the first to remind dissenters that we all voted to give Germany this power back in 2012 so there's no loss of Irish sovereignty much as you would claim Ireland has lost no sovereignty to the EU other than what Irish sovereignty has chosen to freely surrender under prior treaties...

This is very clearly something put into the Treaty to ensure that the Contracting Parties do not delay unduly creating the required legislation after ratification. In other words, it's a once-off mechanism designed to prevent a country ratifying, and then implementing a version of the legislation that makes a mockery of their commitment to adhere to the Treaty.

Eh - where the time limit in the article you quoted?

What it stated was:

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.

No time limit mentioned. At all. Instead, the consideration of the contracting party is stressed as being independent of the Commission report.

And again, we are voting on the text as it is written - not as how you hope it will be interpreted.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

@Scofflaw

No, it covers the possibility that Germany believes the government is breaching the fiscal limits - domestic law may or may not consider the government to be in breach of the law, but Germany has the added security of knowing that regardless of Irish law, it can bring the Irish government to the ECJ if German opinion views the Irish government to be in breach of Article 3 (2). That is what the treaty says, that is what we are voting on.

Article 3(2), which refers to the legislation put into domestic law to prevent breaches, not to breaches themselves.

Sand wrote: »

The rest is semantics. Lets not forget, that if we fast forward to 2020 and Ireland is being taken to court by Germany for breaching its fiscal limits you'll be the first to remind dissenters that we all voted to give Germany this power back in 2012 so there's no loss of Irish sovereignty much as you would claim Ireland has lost no sovereignty to the EU other than what Irish sovereignty has chosen to freely surrender under prior treaties...

The latter I would certainly claim - the former I wouldn't expect to arise. If it did, I hope I'll still be honest enough to admit my error, since I don't see us voting any such thing.

Sand wrote: »

Eh - where the time limit in the article you quoted?

What it stated was:

No time limit mentioned. At all. Instead, the consideration of the contracting party is stressed as being independent of the Commission report.

A single context is given as the context in which the Article operates - that of the report of the Commission. The time limit is the "in due time" of the report.

Again, I can see what your view is based on, but the most obvious reading of the article is sequential:

1. The European Commission is invited to present in due time to the Contracting Parties a report on the provisions adopted by each of them in compliance with Article 3(2).

1. The Commission prepares a report on the transposition of the necessary domestic laws.

If the European Commission, after having given the Contracting Party concerned the opportunity to submit its observations, concludes in its report that a Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3(2), the matter will be brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union by one or more of the Contracting Parties.

2. If the Commission report is negative, the offending party will be taken to court by the other parties.

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.

3. Even if the report isn't negative, one of the parties may still bring another to court for what it considers to be inadequate legislation.

To me, the "independently" there means "even if the Commission's report is not negative". If it meant what you're claiming for it - that the matter can be raised at any time by any party, there would be no reference to the Commission's report and the sentence would be placed somewhere else to make it clear it's an independent power. As it is, the reference to the Commission's report in the sentence describing the power makes it clear that the context of such a case is that of the Commission report, something also clear from the fact that it's the very next sentence in a sequence describing what happens on the occasion of that report.

Sand wrote: »

And again, we are voting on the text as it is written - not as how you hope it will be interpreted.

It's hardly a matter of "hope". I think your interpretation relies on the traditional method of taking phrases out of context and pushing them well past any ordinary meaning. To be fair, of course, that's a legitimate legal tactic, but not generally a successful one. I think we should agree to disagree here, but I dare say we probably can't agree not to repeat our criticisms of each other's positions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jeff the Yank

Folks, George Carlin said it best. The Occupy movement has never said it better.

Democracy is not compatible with financial oligarchy.

There is no easier way to say this. If you vote yes you are voting for more expansive powers of the unelected financial oligarchy running the EU through its unelected bureaucrats.

If you vote yes then its just another thread removed from the quilt of Irish national sovereignty. Will this one take national sovereignty away? No. Will it continue us down the road of hegemony by this oligarchy and their pet politicians? Yes.

What will happen if you vote No? I don't think anyone really knows. Keep in mind that Germany itself is now holding off on ratification. My guess is that nothing will really happen, but it sure would be a call for political change. Maybe that's all any of us can ask for. Change.

meglome

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

There is no easier way to say this. If you vote yes you are voting for more expansive powers of the unelected financial oligarchy running the EU through its unelected bureaucrats.

You know I appreciate you're using this a negative but given the incompetence our elected representative have shown repeatedly many of us this see this as a positive. Of course I'm ignoring all the drama you're putting in there for extra effect.