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

carveone · 14-05-2012 12:29am

meglome wrote: »

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.

Besides, we have elected representatives in the EU parliament too who negotiated on these treaties, including the six pack too which laid most of the groundwork and noone mentions or seems to care that much about. Noone would care about the fiscal treaty either if the AG had a bit less fence sitting ability. The stability/fiscal treaty is a packaging up of legally binding commitments already agreed.

I thought most of the point was to expose when a government was being reckless by, through the elected reps in the EU Parliament, calling them out in public. More transparancy instead of "go and commit suicide" or "bunch of lefty pinkos" which marked the last lot. I'd have been really enthusiastic about the EU parliament bringing Bertie up on that.

The six pack and the fiscal treaty won't guarantee a repetition of another crisis but does insist that EU states live up to the obligation that has been ignored: to "regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern".

Jeff the Yank · 14-05-2012 7:33am

meglome wrote: »

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.

And there in essence is the crux of the matter.

If you truly believe that Ireland shouldn't be in charge of itself then vote Yes.

If you believe as I do that it is a terrible thing to hand away Ireland's hard won independence, vote No. There are other options, although they are all hard ones.

It does seem to me that more checks and balances in the current government structure is called for. Obviously the current structure is not working. It was this very structure that allowed little accountability but maximum abuse of power.

Yes I know that is what the Yes people are saying too. I just think Ireland would be better off if those checks and balances were internal to the state. The price that was paid for Ireland independence should not be so casually thrown aside because we think the government is not capable of doing its job.

meglome · 14-05-2012 9:29am

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

And there in essence is the crux of the matter.

If you truly believe that Ireland shouldn't be in charge of itself then vote Yes.

If you believe as I do that it is a terrible thing to hand away Ireland's hard won independence, vote No. There are other options, although they are all hard ones.

Well no. This post and that last one are pretty exaggerated though obviously we are are voting to have some oversight of our budgets. (Plus what carveone says above)

I'm going to make a meglome's law that if someone needs to use the words sovereignty or independence to win an argument they have lost the argument. Bit like Godwins law.

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

It does seem to me that more checks and balances in the current government structure is called for. Obviously the current structure is not working. It was this very structure that allowed little accountability but maximum abuse of power.

And what examples of abuse of power do we have now so that we should be concerned about the future?

Jeff the Yank wrote: »

Yes I know that is what the Yes people are saying too. I just think Ireland would be better off if those checks and balances were internal to the state. The price that was paid for Ireland independence should not be so casually thrown aside because we think the government is not capable of doing its job.

hehe internal really. And we wouldn't just ignore them or change them? The Irish people have shown a great willingness to vote in whoever promises the most, no matter how foolish those promises are.

FreudianSlippers · 14-05-2012 11:06am

There is absolutely nothing in the treaty that gives up budgetary control to "Europe". This has been pointed out before. The EU cannot tell us how to spend our budget yet this is the main point raised by the no side. Am I having a stroke or...?

golfball37 · 14-05-2012 11:38am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing in the treaty that gives up budgetary control to "Europe". This has been pointed out before. The EU cannot tell us how to spend our budget yet this is the main point raised by the no side. Am I having a stroke or...?

Erm- Did you miss the part where we have to keep our deficit in line with GDP?

If your talking about spending only then say that but don't invigilate or sensationise to make a point ffs. We will be told what our bottom line is, how we spend it is still our decision.

Thats still interference in any language, however.

chemini77 · 14-05-2012 11:55am

i have a question,
I am a British citizen, lived in Ireland 11 years, had a child here in 2005 , assumed that i would not be able to vote in the referendum , but decided to check the register anyway and as it happens, next to my name is the letter P which classes me as an Irish citizen, now i never went through any citizenship process and cannot seem to find information online as to why this may be,
anyone have any ideas?

swampgas · 14-05-2012 12:17pm

golfball37 wrote: »

Erm- Did you miss the part where we have to keep our deficit in line with GDP?

If your talking about spending only then say that but don't invigilate or sensationise to make a point ffs. We will be told what our bottom line is, how we spend it is still our decision.

Thats still interference in any language, however.

Bear in mind that every member of the Eurozone will have the same restrictions, it's not like Ireland is being singled out for special treatment here. These same restrictions could protect Ireland from another Eurozone country mismanaging their economy and dragging the Euro into trouble.

The fundamental issue is that the Eurozone countries are sharing a currency - it strikes me that having rules in place that prevent any one member going off on a damaging solo run must be a good idea.

chemini77 · 14-05-2012 12:21pm

Article 32:
3. The ESM, its property, funding and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that the ESM expressly waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract, including the documentation of the funding instruments.
4. The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.
5. The archives of the ESM and all documents belonging to the ESM or held by it, shall be inviolable.
6. The premises of the ESM shall be inviolable.
8. To the extent necessary to carry out the activities provided for in this Treaty, all property, funding and assets of the ESM shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature.
9. The ESM shall be exempted from any requirement to be authorised or licensed as a credit institution, investment services provider or other authorised licensed or regulated entity under the laws of each ESM Member.

im a "NO" voter anyway

RandomName2 · 14-05-2012 3:28pm

meglome wrote: »

I'm going to make a meglome's law that if someone needs to use the words sovereignty or independence to win an argument they have lost the argument.

That might have gone down well with Lenin. Or Mao, Saddam, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Petain, Stalin, Quisling, or any other figure who scoffed at the idea of independence or sovereignty as being anything other than the tolerance of lines on maps and pieces of worthless paper.

meglome-niac's Law, perhaps?

RandomName2 · 14-05-2012 3:34pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing in the treaty that gives up budgetary control to "Europe". This has been pointed out before. The EU cannot tell us how to spend our budget yet this is the main point raised by the no side. Am I having a stroke or...?

Well, Europe of course has current control of our indirect taxation and duties, so that's not up for debate.

The Fiscal Compact would somewhat limit our financial control, so to speak, due to the bounds placed upon national debt, and consequent punitive measures that would occur in the event of the breaking of the protocols outlined in the Compact Treaty (the form of which are to be decided by the Commission).

The Compact would also involve the sharing of budgetary information between members, although without any current obligations for members to either stick to budgetary plans or take on the advice of other nations. However, the Commission has already launched plans whereby national budgets would have to be approved by the Commission. Whether this would actually come to pass is another issue.

K-9 · 14-05-2012 3:36pm

chemini77 wrote: »

i have a question,
I am a British citizen, lived in Ireland 11 years, had a child here in 2005 , assumed that i would not be able to vote in the referendum , but decided to check the register anyway and as it happens, next to my name is the letter P which classes me as an Irish citizen, now i never went through any citizenship process and cannot seem to find information online as to why this may be,
anyone have any ideas?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html

You should have a D not a P going on that, either way you can vote on European referenda as indeed can EU citizens living here.

chemini77 · 14-05-2012 4:41pm

K-9 wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html

You should have a D not a P going on that, either way you can vote on European referenda as indeed can EU citizens living here.

yes i know all the info and that i should have a D , was just curious as to why not, seem sit may be an oversight, which i will not complain about,

fianna saor · 14-05-2012 6:24pm

certain posters seem to want to give up this country and just hand it over to the euros, this treaty is only the tip of the iceberg and is the reverse of home rule in ireland.... ill be voting no in case that wasnt clear

chemini77 · 14-05-2012 7:17pm

i notice the word "republic" seems to have been lost

K-9 · 14-05-2012 7:20pm

chemini77 wrote: »

i notice the word "republic" seems to have been lost

I don't believe it exists officially to lose it.

Stripey Cat · 14-05-2012 8:46pm

K-9 wrote: »

you can vote on European referenda as indeed can EU citizens living here.

Really? I don't think that's right is it?

I thought only Irish citizens could participate in constitutional votes.

K-9 · 14-05-2012 9:13pm

Stripey Cat wrote: »

Really? I don't think that's right is it?

I thought only Irish citizens could participate in constitutional votes.

Sorry it says European elections which I took to mean referenda as well. Not sure tbh then!

meglome · 14-05-2012 9:51pm

RandomName2 wrote: »

That might have gone down well with Lenin. Or Mao, Saddam, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Petain, Stalin, Quisling, or any other figure who scoffed at the idea of independence or sovereignty as being anything other than the tolerance of lines on maps and pieces of worthless paper.

meglome-niac's Law, perhaps?

Well no as they didn't, as far as I know, go an about the loss of sovereignty that wasn't happening. They were the people taking away sovereignty and independence.

carveone · 14-05-2012 11:37pm

K-9 wrote: »

I don't believe it exists officially to lose it.

Indeed! That's pretty high up on the old Bunreacht na hÉireann (Article 4).

K-9 · 15-05-2012 12:13am

carveone wrote: »

Indeed! That's pretty high up on the old Bunreacht na hÉireann (Article 4).

Indeed. I think if people think one of the very first paragraphs is wrong, i.e.Ireland is the name of the state and start nit picking there, well.............

Not a dig at chemini77 at all btw, this isn't the first time the issue has raised its head. I just think if you've that little faith in our bureaucrats that you know better than their naming of the state, well.............

The other one is posters finding some eureka moment and thinking some of the official websites are misleading us and shortening the Treaty. These posters are reading the wrong Treaty.

Wild Bill · 15-05-2012 12:14am

I'll vote No, obviously!

We need to do what Iceland did. They are already on the road to recovery; we are facing 40 years of depression.

(Of course we won't stick with the scam that long - we'll do a Greek/French/Dutch - any nation with balls - sooner or later)

Meanwhile, the head-in-sand clowns who imagine in their feverish wee minds that out debt (rising by €1 billion ever two weeks) is actually repayable!

Lmfao :pac::pac::pac:

Wild Bill · 15-05-2012 12:18am

On the other issue - this state is officially, legally and internationally calledIreland, not "The Republic of Ireland".

Fact. :cool:

FreudianSlippers · 15-05-2012 6:59am

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, Europe of course has current control of our indirect taxation and duties, so that's not up for debate.

The Fiscal Compact would somewhat limit our financial control, so to speak, due to the bounds placed upon national debt, and consequent punitive measures that would occur in the event of the breaking of the protocols outlined in the Compact Treaty (the form of which are to be decided by the Commission).

The Compact would also involve the sharing of budgetary information between members, although without any current obligations for members to either stick to budgetary plans or take on the advice of other nations. However, the Commission has already launched plans whereby national budgets would have to be approved by the Commission. Whether this would actually come to pass is another issue.

That is hardly giving budgetary control to "Brussels"... and I fail to see the problem with implementing a rule into our constitution to do something we need to do anyway!? There is a huge difference between setting out guidelines for debt and then stating that if they are breached the debt must be reduced and saying that Ireland would not be "in charge of itself" or that it would force austerity. Theoretically if we breached the ratio in the future we could implement no austerity and just raise taxes - that point is that it is OUR choice

crazy cabbage · 15-05-2012 11:17am

To be honest i would feel much safer if the all of ye good people of boards ran the country instead to our current goverment (Boards political party anyone??

). I have no faith in any of the parties. All seem to be out of touch. There is a few people i voted for that have a desent head on there sholders but seem to be confirming to the ideas of their polital party instead of speaking their own ideas and opinions and therin lies the problem with our current system of goverment in my opinion.

Both sides have talked sh1t during this campain and now we have to try and organise what is true and what isn't ourselves. I think they should all be kicked out and some ordanary people with no party alliencies should be put together to get us out of their mess.

Think i will end up voting no. I am very unsure what this treaty really means for ireland so i believe that it is better to say no and not write anything in our constution than say yes and write something into law that may be a treat to our soveriencie down the line, or our economy (or anything else what was previsly mentioned). And even that is the 'wrong descision' the goverment can always pretend they didn't get the messege and have another vote like we did with the lisbin treaty.

my 2c

SlickRic · 15-05-2012 11:28am

what bothers me about this entire thing, is that it feels like the "Yes" side is simply giving us reasons not to vote "No", rather than giving the electorate real reasons to vote "Yes".

Gilmore hasn't shut up about Greece for the last couple of weeks for instance.

tell us why it's good, other than just using buzzwords like "stability", "growth" etc, and actually talk to the electorate like intelligent human beings more often, and you may get a very strong "Yes" vote. but it feels like they aren't even trying.

i mean, i watched Leaders' Questions last week, and every query from the ULC or Sinn Féin about the Treaty was just met with derision and laughter. it's like the "Yes" side don't really want to engage.

Boulevardier · 15-05-2012 4:45pm

Does anyone know if there is a non-party campaign against the Fiscal treaty?

I am considering helping out with the No campaign, but I happen to be a member of a pro-yes party, so not much help there. On the other hand, I'm dammed if I am going to give out SF or trot leaflets.

If anyone knows of such a campaign, please post a link if you can.

meglome · 15-05-2012 5:04pm

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Think i will end up voting no. I am very unsure what this treaty really means for ireland so i believe that it is better to say no and not write anything in our constution than say yes and write something into law that may be a treat to our soveriencie down the line, or our economy (or anything else what was previsly mentioned). And even that is the 'wrong descision' the goverment can always pretend they didn't get the messege and have another vote like we did with the lisbin treaty.

my 2c

Saw this reply on the Journal and thought it might be useful.

“Not realy it clearly states nothing in the Constitution can overide any act made under the fiscal pact, And as the pursestrings control everything it in essence wipesout our Constitution in one fell swoop.”

These debt rules were mostly introduced as part of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (the structural balance rule in 2005 by way of an update)., and Maastricht’s ratification went into the Constitution in *exactly* the same way this one does.

So, this:

“Education funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Health funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Welfare funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Garda funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Prison funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Court funding “Sorry fiscal matter” Child welfare “Sorry fiscal matter” Disbursement for oppisition parties “SORRY FISCAL MATTER””

is something that either isn’t the case, or has been the case for the last 20 years, because exactly the same debt rules have had exactly the same constitutional setting since 1992.

I don’t recall it applying over the last 20 years – do you?

SlickRic wrote: »

what bothers me about this entire thing, is that it feels like the "Yes" side is simply giving us reasons not to vote "No", rather than giving the electorate real reasons to vote "Yes".

What do you expect? The country is in the poop and enforcing these limits, while completely necessary, is going to be painful. Not exactly reasons to celebrate no matter how much it needs to be done.

SlickRic wrote: »

Gilmore hasn't shut up about Greece for the last couple of weeks for instance.

tell us why it's good, other than just using buzzwords like "stability", "growth" etc, and actually talk to the electorate like intelligent human beings more often, and you may get a very strong "Yes" vote. but it feels like they aren't even trying.

i mean, i watched Leaders' Questions last week, and every query from the ULC or Sinn Féin about the Treaty was just met with derision and laughter. it's like the "Yes" side don't really want to engage.

Look I'm not a fan of how the government runs these campaigns but let's have some balance here The no side are saying some outrageous nonsense, things which many of them know are completely untrue. It's very difficult for the government to 'sex' this treaty up but very easy for the no campaign to make up any lie they like about it.

hatrickpatrick · 15-05-2012 6:18pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That is hardly giving budgetary control to "Brussels"... and I fail to see the problem with implementing a rule into our constitution to do something we need to do anyway!? There is a huge difference between setting out guidelines for debt and then stating that if they are breached the debt must be reduced and saying that Ireland would not be "in charge of itself" or that it would force austerity. Theoretically if we breached the ratio in the future we could implement no austerity and just raise taxes - that point is that it is OUR choice

As I've said before, sometimes breaching such stringent limits is unavoidable, economically sound, or the lesser of two evils.
Not necessarily in this case, but somewhere down the line? Almost certainly. There are times when one must prioritize growth over getting rid of a deficit in X amount of time regardless of the consequences.

So far, I haven't heard nearly enough to convince me that this treaty does in fact have adequate provision for breaches in emergency situations. Reading the treaty itself it seems fairly unforgiving.

And as I posted previously, there are far too many sections in the treaty which are unacceptably vague with regard to what exactly the rule is and who exactly is responsible for implementing it / interpreting it to decide whether it's been broken.

I posted a detailed post about this before I went off to do essays a couple of days ago, didn't mean to stay away so long but I'll find the post and repost it if I can.

carveone · 15-05-2012 7:15pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I've said before, sometimes breaching such stringent limits is unavoidable, economically sound, or the lesser of two evils.

I've said that too, somewhere in this thread. I'd be very wary of blunt 3% deficit restrictions but Scofflaw has said that the "limits are not as blunt as they're often painted. They're based on three-year averages, and they do take account of special circumstances. If you need to put a stimulus in, there's room to do so. And if times are tight, the system takes account of that".

However reading just the treaty in isolation won't tell you that as the treaty builds on and refers to other documents. Eg: Article 4 refers to the Council Regulation (pdf) which says:

Non-compliance with the numerical benchmark for debt reduction should not be sufficient to establish the existence of an excessive deficit, which should take into account the whole range of relevant factors covered by the Commission’s report under Article 126(3) TFEU. In particular, the assessment of the effect of the cycle and the composition of the stock-flow adjustment on debt developments may be sufficient to avoid that the existence of an excessive deficit be established on the basis of the debt criterion.

and it also says

In implementing the debt ratio adjustment benchmark, account shall be taken of the influence of the cycle on the pace of debt reduction.

That technotalk is the allowance made for situations of low or no growth - as this would be "the influence of the cycle".

And as I posted previously, there are far too many sections in the treaty which are unacceptably vague with regard to what exactly the rule is and who exactly is responsible for implementing it / interpreting it to decide whether it's been broken.

Sand has a few posts with technical subtleties that I couldn't even begin to address. I'm sure they're somewhere in this thread. It degenerates into legal subtleties pretty quickly which is why various interests can say things like look true but aren't (on both sides)

Scofflaw · 15-05-2012 8:06pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

Does anyone know if there is a non-party campaign against the Fiscal treaty?

I am considering helping out with the No campaign, but I happen to be a member of a pro-yes party, so not much help there. On the other hand, I'm dammed if I am going to give out SF or trot leaflets.

If anyone knows of such a campaign, please post a link if you can.

There's Libertas, if you don't mind giving out federalist literature.

There's Farmers for No, and there would be the various anti-Household charge groups. There may well also be local campaigns.

Most of the campaigns, though, are left wing. Is it anything in particular you're looking for?

We might run the "who's campaigning?" thread as we did for Lisbon, which might help.

cordially,
Scofflaw

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

Comments