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

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

AudreyHepburn

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

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Scofflaw

Transpirant wrote: »

The bankers are in FAULTY in the first place when they loan money to Ireland with High interest rate and the same time they made BETS that Ireland cannot pay the loans. The problem started in the FRANKFURT Stealing of the Money. The German banks gave Anglo Irish Bank Billions of money but Ireland a small country doesn't have this money and this is the problem we face. So why trust European politicians now??? The German banks loaned money to Ireland with the highest rate to force Ireland to pay for their speculative investments that turned sour. Ireland paid the Germans for gamblers that never did anything for Ireland and who will never reinvest their money in Ireland again. NOW the european countries they will LOAN money to Ireland but they want Ireland to OBEY their demands. I SAY GET THE HELL OUT OF EURO AND FORCE GERMANY TO PAY THE MONEY THEY MUST PAY YOU FOR THEIR BANKS. I WILL VOTE NO.

Are you aware that nobody has ever presented evidence for the "it was the German banks what done it to us" story? That the balance sheets of the Irish banks - which are publicly available from the Central Bank - show no evidence of this supposed deluge of German money? That, on the contrary, the available evidence suggests the money in the Irish banks more likely came from the UK and US money markets where Irish banks have traditionally operated?

Basing national policy on a pub myth is silly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ironically enough, Richard Boyd Barrett himself yesterday slammed the yes campaign for debating on non treaty points, even as the yes side accuse the no side of exactly the same.

The only such rotten campaigning I've seen this time around on the no side is from Libertas, and as I said before, they're an absolute disgrace and would better serve the no campaign by shutting up and staying the hell out of it.

Ah come on, this is ridiculous, are you blind, have you not seen the posters? Let us start with Richard Boyd Barrett himself, the Boy Wonder.

http://www.peoplebeforeprofit.ie/

"Bail out people, not banks, Vote No" is the PfP Slogan. A completely disingenuous interpretation of the Treaty. We have already bailed out our banks so how does voting "No" change this? Incredible rubbish. What is more, voting no means we have to find money from somewhere to pay the bills in future, and nobody on the "No" side has come up with one even one credible argument on who would lend us money. The rest of the stuff is pure drivel, where in the title of the Treaty is the word "Austerity"?

As for cuddly Uncle Joe, how about this?

http://www.socialistparty.net/

What have home charges to do with the referendum? "There is a powerful well of support for the rejection of the treaty in the Campaign against the House Tax", so? They have nothing to do with each other.

Again look at another website set up by Joe and his friends.

http://www.austeritytreaty.ie/

Again I ask, where is the word austerity in the Treaty title? More lies and false campaigning. This website seems to have been set up purely to act as the launch of the European re-election campaing of Paul Murphy. Who? A good question. When you all voted for Joe the last time, you were really voting for Paul. now that Paul has the seat, they need to generate some publicity so that people know who he is. It is the probably the most cynical of all of the tactics used by either side. Use the campaign to get Murphy's name out there.

As for the posters around Dublin talking about household and water charges that will be in place regardless of the treaty, what have they got to do with it?

Come on Joe and the Boy Wonder, tell us who will lend to us if we vote no and need help down the line.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What we're voting on is a specific document with specific provisions inside it.

Actually we are not - we are voting on an amendment to BnahE which will give explicit permission to the Oireachtas to approve a specific treaty should the Oireachtas choose to do so.

In doing so we obviously have to bear in mind that Oireachtas is the body specified in BnahE which should ratify treaties for us and the government the body specified which should negotiate them for us which it has done in this instance.

It is the Oireachtas - not you or I - which gets to ratify or reject treaties based on their contents. We merely get to give it permission to do so or not.

In the long run though, we do have to ask ourselves - since, the people have given these bodies the explicit tasks above by referendum (on BnahE), the obvious question has to be WHY should we reject our own previous decision on the roles of these bodies? And, the obvious follow on from such a decision is WHO exactly we'd prefer to re-assign these tasks to so they can perform them for us?

Ozymandius2011

Richard Bruton said on the Last Word (TodayFM) debate this evening that there would be a second referendum if we vote no and then he retracted, saying he had made a mistake!

meglome

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Richard Bruton said on the Last Word (TodayFM) debate this evening that there would be a second referendum if we vote no and then he retracted, saying he had made a mistake!

Sooo... perhaps he made a mistake. Not to state the obvious like.

Ozymandius2011

meglome wrote: »

Sooo... perhaps he made a mistake. Not to state the obvious like.

He waited 6-8 minutes to take it back, which suggests otherwise to me. Of course anything is possible. This is the party that said services would be restored to Sligo General Hospital before the election and another thing afterwards. My point being that FG and Labour have form in saying one thing before an electoral-contest (including referenda) and another thing afterwards.

I think it's increasingly clear that Hollande is not taking the easy way out and confoming to the Merkel-mantra of "no renegotiation", so we should seize the possibility of renegotiation and a better deal on the bailout if we vote no.

meglome

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

He waited 6-8 minutes to take it back, which suggests otherwise to me. Of course anything is possible. This is the party that said services would be restored to Sligo General Hospital before the election and another thing afterwards. My point being that FG and Labour have form in saying one thing before an electoral-contest (including referenda) and another thing afterwards.

I think it's increasingly clear that Hollande is not taking the easy way out and confoming to the Merkel-mantra of "no renegotiation", so we should seize the possibility of renegotiation and a better deal on the bailout if we vote no.

oscarBravo put it well on a another thread.

oscarBravo wrote: »

He said something you agree with, and you believe it to be true. He retracted and apologised, and you believe that to be false.

There's a technical term for that.

paddydu

I don't know about you lot especially the Irish among us, but I have not so distant past relatives who fought and died for the right to live in an independent Ireland. I am myself centre to right wing in my views and have been that way since a young man, but there is no way I can understand any sense in voting yes!! If you choose to vote yes you will be giving the complete control of our beautiful little country over to Germany and in doing so we will suffer a lot of pain but stretched out over a complete generation maybe a lot longer. I believe it is better that we say no to selling our country and children out and suffer what is coming anyway in one go! If this leads to us leaving the Euro (which may happen anyway) then very quickly we would see growth and Jobs because immediately we would have a devaluation of our currency it would be cheaper straight away for foreign investors to come here ie labour would cost them less selling back out of this country would be extremely competitive and we would have control to print money when needed in a crisis which is needed right now but Germany won't do it! Who we vote for would actually be able to implement their policies which can not be done now as we have seen with Fine Gael and Labour just look at the promises from the last election most have been put on the back burner or ignored all together at the orders of Europe. Argentina and Iceland have gone through similar recent crisis's and now they are among the few countries with growth. So come on get educated and don't listen to fear tactics. I am voting no to this Fiscal Compact for the right to self determination and an Independent Ireland just this time round no one has to give their life to do so!! To think I voted Fine Gael in the last election I am ashamed and feel severely let down, I won't make that mistake again!!

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

He waited 6-8 minutes to take it back, which suggests otherwise to me. Of course anything is possible. This is the party that said services would be restored to Sligo General Hospital before the election and another thing afterwards. My point being that FG and Labour have form in saying one thing before an electoral-contest (including referenda) and another thing afterwards.

I think it's increasingly clear that Hollande is not taking the easy way out and confoming to the Merkel-mantra of "no renegotiation", so we should seize the possibility of renegotiation and a better deal on the bailout if we vote no.

Sorry, I just have to check this...No voters are now calling for a second referendum?

amused,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sorry, I just have to check this...No voters are now calling for a second referendum?

amused,
Scofflaw

My first preference is for the referendum to be deferred (by the govt accepting Shane Ross TD's bill) until we see the eventual composition of any possibly renegotiated treaty. If the government refuses, I support a second referendum on a renegotiated deal. We have an opportunity in a second treaty negotiation process to seek better bailout terms.

K-9

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

My first preference is for the referendum to be deferred (by the govt accepting Shane Ross TD's bill) until we see the eventual composition of any possibly renegotiated treaty. If the government refuses, I support a second referendum on a renegotiated deal. We have an opportunity in a second treaty negotiation process to seek better bailout terms.

Well if Spain and Italy are gone by then as some predict, there mightn't be any terms or second bail out to vote on.

Ozymandius2011

K-9 wrote: »

Well if Spain and Italy are gone by then as some predict, there mightn't be any terms or second bail out to vote on.

If it';s that urgent then the renegotiations probably won't take that long. There are no certainties in this process.

K-9

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If it';s that urgent then the renegotiations probably won't take that long. There are no certainties in this process.

If Italy and Spain go that changes everything, Yes vote or not.

Ozymandius2011

K-9 wrote: »

If Italy and Spain go that changes everything, Yes vote or not.

It's not in Germany's interest to allow that, given the exposure of German banks to those countries. Ultimately the solution is a renegotiation including Eurobonds. During his campaign Hollande called for Eurobonds as part of a renegotiation.

K-9

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It's not in Germany's interest to allow that, given the exposure of German banks to those countries. Ultimately the solution is a renegotiation including Eurobonds. During his campaign Hollande called for Eurobonds as part of a renegotiation.

It is in Germany's interests until they think bailing out Italy and Spain and others would cost more than ditching those countries. Germany has to look after her own interests just like we do and apparently they do look after their own interest, above anything else.

Fromthetrees

I may be looking at the treaty in an over simplistic way but isn't it a bit crazy to be putting in strict restraints on the financing of countries at this current time. Shouldn't the only goal of all EU states at this time be to get growth as high as possible, unemployment as low as possible and after that find ways to have better housekeeping in the EU. For example, if we implemented this treaty 8 years ago it would have been no hassle to us and in a decade or so in the future implementing such a treaty might be of little bother. I understand budget deficits are too high now but surely that should take a back burner to jobs and growth. Shouldn't the plan be broader than cuts, if we got unemployment down to a few percent there effectively wouldn't be a deficit.

Is it just me or is this just not the right time for this?

carveone

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I may be looking at the treaty in an over simplistic way but isn't it a bit crazy to be putting in strict restraints on the financing of countries at this current time.

They are for the most part restatements of the restrictions in place since Maastricht. But this time we really mean it

But I get your point - it seems foolish to try and tax your way out of a recession. Didn't work too well the last time. Never works really - the only people to benefit after the 1930s depression were the US (not during, obviously) and that was after the world paid them mindboggling amounts of money to have a massive war.

I'm (really really) hoping (not a valid investment strategy) there's an overall plan here. As you say "Shouldn't the plan be broader than cuts". I really hope so! I'm optimistically thinking the idea is to attempt to ringfence spending and curb another binge on debt first before getting the central countries to agree to some sort of stimulus and growth package. Which is code for inflationary debt reduction. If inflation is high enough, the debt reduction to 60% (debt to nominal GDP) will be trivial to manage, even in Ireland. Even at 2% inflation it's pretty easy as Scofflaw has shown previously here.

I think the Greece situation has made the EU as a whole a little twitchy about pouring money into any particular growth process without some sort of handcuffing first. And even then that didn't work so well. Billions of euro in writedowns and more billions in multiple bailouts only to reach the current situation of no government and voters opting for the loony brigade. It's a nightmare.

Tis all taking too long really.

Not sure if this helps. It's a question 100s of economists are arguing about so you could get lots of different opinions depending on where you look...

NoAnimalID

Ireland has all the leverage.

If we reject this treaty, and with Germany having stated repeatedly this will not happen, there is a very high possibility this is just another press-based red herring (remember all those FT headlines of an imminent Chinese bailout of Europe?) seeking to exacerbate the political power grab in Europe, where Germany is now surrounded on all sides, this will mean that the outcome of the Irish referendums is no longer relevant, as Hollande will propose an adjustment to the bailout plan, Europe will promptly agree since a pro-bailout "coalition government" of Sinn Fein will have be formed, and all shall be well, at least until the next Irish bailout in a few months. Then the country will need yet another priming DIP from Europe, and the fiasco begins anew, only this time with even less money left in Ireland to be pillaged and plundered by the country's creditors. That, and of course, German capital being pledged in the form of more "contingent liabilities" which are anything but.

Almost everyone has focused upon the sovereign debt, that it is no longer placed at the European banks and that it is resident at the European Central Bank which is protected by all of the nations in Europe. This is true, as far as it goes, but the summation does not go nearly far enough. The hit, when it comes, will require the ECB to be recapitalized, will be felt at the IMF where the United States will take 16% of the hit or around $16 billion which will be trumpeted in the Press by the Republicans and waved like a banner in the Press. The recapitalization of the ECB will require hard cash from the nations in Europe which is quite different than promises and contingent assurances so that nations may get downgraded as a result of their capital outflows. The EIB will also take a hit and it may get downgraded but all of this just focuses upon the sovereign debt and is non-inclusive of the rest of the story or even of the truth of the sovereign debt.

Ireland has EUR200 billion in foreign bank debt that will likely default and the losses will then have to be taken at the French, German and American banks. The contractual obligations of the nation will probably get revoked which will impact the health providers, Irish companies providing goods and services to the country and the Irish banks which have been lending money on these obligations. The number here is someplace between 20-40 billion euros as far as I can find data to understand the breadth of the problem. The banks will probably renounce their obligations to other European banks which is not included in the sovereign debt figures and will certainly have a significant impact. The Irish banks who have their debt guaranteed by the sovereign in an amount just shy of EUR200 billion will also likely default and this EUR200 billion is NOT counted as a part of the Irish sovereign debt as it is a contingent liability and hence not counted by Europe except that the contingent is about to become a quite real liability and an additional hit to the ECB so that the number bandied about in the Press for the Irish liability at the ECB is nowhere close to reality. Then there is the municipal debt which is found throughout the European banks and insurance companies. Next is the loans, the mortgages and other debts that have been securitized and pledged to the ECB and other European banks which then rehypothecated the securities and also pledged them to the ECB as collateral so that there is a cubed effect that is going to be set-off as the house of cards implodes in upon itself. The number is approximately $1.3 trillion in total and all of it is going to default as Ireland heads back to the Punt and thumbs its nose at those that placed them in the “iron maiden” demanding not only confession but absolution which, in the end, will be denied.

We must reject this treaty

meglome

NoAnimalID wrote: »

We must reject this treaty

I don't suppose you want to discuss the things in the actual treaty?

"Ireland has all the leverage." You've just made some stuff up that sounds good in your head and are telling us all we should follow it. No thanks.

Dubhlinner

Voting no. Its just another step toward a united states of europe. The treaty in itself I don't have much against. If a party had proposed it on a national level I'd have been in favour

Ozymandius2011

If as the yes side claims, voting yes will 'reassure investors' etc. then why hasn't that happened in Greece, which has already ratified? Maybe investors do not care.

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

If as the yes side claims, voting yes will 'reassure investors' etc. then why hasn't that happened in Greece, which has already ratified?

Are you trying to claim that Ireland and Greece would be in identical situations, if we ratified the treaty?

I don't know whether to be more depressed at the idea that someone would believe that, or that someone would be so disingenuous as to make such a transparently invalid argument.

Godge

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I may be looking at the treaty in an over simplistic way but isn't it a bit crazy to be putting in strict restraints on the financing of countries at this current time. Shouldn't the only goal of all EU states at this time be to get growth as high as possible, unemployment as low as possible and after that find ways to have better housekeeping in the EU. For example, if we implemented this treaty 8 years ago it would have been no hassle to us and in a decade or so in the future implementing such a treaty might be of little bother. I understand budget deficits are too high now but surely that should take a back burner to jobs and growth. Shouldn't the plan be broader than cuts, if we got unemployment down to a few percent there effectively wouldn't be a deficit.

Is it just me or is this just not the right time for this?

The short answer is yes, it is just you, and you are looking at the treaty in an over-simplistic way. This has been gone over a million times by now and it is getting tiring.

Godge

paddydu wrote: »

Keep it nice and easy and just VOTE NO for our childrens sake if not for your own

yes, vote no and pass on the debts of this generation to our children. They will really thank us for a no vote (insert sarcastic icon).

I really do not understand how voting no will improve our children's situation.

fries

Fromthetrees wrote: »

I may be looking at the treaty in an over simplistic way but isn't it a bit crazy to be putting in strict restraints on the financing of countries at this current time. Shouldn't the only goal of all EU states at this time be to get growth as high as possible, unemployment as low as possible and after that find ways to have better housekeeping in the EU. For example, if we implemented this treaty 8 years ago it would have been no hassle to us and in a decade or so in the future implementing such a treaty might be of little bother. I understand budget deficits are too high now but surely that should take a back burner to jobs and growth. Shouldn't the plan be broader than cuts, if we got unemployment down to a few percent there effectively wouldn't be a deficit.

Is it just me or is this just not the right time for this?

Good insight. The pro-treaty side are usually ill-informed on the consequences. Remember their Lisbon message ''yes for jobs''? It's been all downhill for Ireland since! Enda Kenny is no different to Fianna Fail: Selling our sovereignty to the ECB & forcing us to pay debt of subordinated bondholders.

Godge

fries wrote: »

Good insight. The pro-treaty side are usually ill-informed on the consequences. Remember their Lisbon message ''yes for jobs''? It's been all downhill for Ireland since! Enda Kenny is no different to Fianna Fail: Selling our sovereignty to the ECB & forcing us to pay debt of subordinated bondholders.

Rubbish analysis, can you provide any independent information to back you up?

meglome

fries wrote: »

Good insight. The pro-treaty side are usually ill-informed on the consequences. Remember their Lisbon message ''yes for jobs''? It's been all downhill for Ireland since! Enda Kenny is no different to Fianna Fail: Selling our sovereignty to the ECB & forcing us to pay debt of subordinated bondholders.

Ah for the love of god will people stop going on about the stupid yes for jobs slogan.

"The pro-treaty side are usually ill-informed on the consequences", really that right? Try this link.

meglome wrote: »

hang on a minute now... let's be very clear about the time-frame
Recession/Bubble Bursts = Mid 2008
Lisbon treaty law = December 2009

We had a massive construction bubble burst and a world recession happen before the Lisbon treaty came into force. So while our domestic economy is is bad shape exports have been booming. So jobs must have been created for those exports, though they cannot make up for the mess we created before the Lisbon treaty came into effect.

Actually I posted about this some time back. Let me see can I find it...

meglome wrote: »

...BTW the Lisbon treaty came into force in December 2009, the recession started over a year earlier. So you're complaining that your plane was late when the engines had been damaged by a bird strike and demanding to know why the faster wingtips put on afterwards didn't sort it. They are two different things, it's very simple.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just to put figures on that - at the height of the bubble, 12% of employment was directly in construction, 10.33% of GNP was construction activity, while estimates of construction-related proportions of employment and GNP are around 20-25% - a quarter of the domestic economy. 72% of all domestic bank lending was property-related. 15% of our tax take was based on residential property related taxes alone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

You know, that's a perfectly reasonable and rational reason for you to vote no. It does not, however, justify those who are voting 'no' because they see it as a treaty which gives sovereignty and power to "Brussels" or that it forces permanent austerity on the people.

FreudianSlippers

I suppose I'll field this one

paddydu wrote: »

I don't know about you lot especially the Irish among us, but I have not so distant past relatives who fought and died for the right to live in an independent Ireland.

Ok. I think I see where you're going...

I am myself centre to right wing in my views and have been that way since a young man, but there is no way I can understand any sense in voting yes!!

...

If you choose to vote yes you will be giving the complete control of our beautiful little country over to Germany

Em... no. In fact, we give almost no control to anyone by ratifying this treaty. We still control our budget, we just implement a constitutional spending limit in our own constitution. In fact, if we wanted to change this again we would need a further referendum. As with the majority of European laws, there is a guideline law that must be implemented in each Member State's legislation and it is up to the individual state to write and implement that law in their own way. There is little to nothing to suggest that the legislative drafting that would follow ratification of this treaty would not follow this lengthy tradition.

and in doing so we will suffer a lot of pain but stretched out over a complete generation maybe a lot longer. I believe it is better that we say no to selling our country and children out and suffer what is coming anyway in one go!

So how do you propose we fund our country when we cannot get money from the EU?

If this leads to us leaving the Euro (which may happen anyway) then very quickly we would see growth and Jobs because immediately we would have a devaluation of our currency it would be cheaper straight away for foreign investors to come here ie labour would cost them less selling back out of this country would be extremely competitive and we would have control to print money when needed in a crisis which is needed right now but Germany won't do it!

Because you say so? People with doctorates in economics can't say with certainty what an exit from the Euro would mean for Ireland... so I will not be putting my trust in your pub pontificating if you don't mind.

Who we vote for would actually be able to implement their policies which can not be done now as we have seen with Fine Gael and Labour just look at the promises from the last election most have been put on the back burner or ignored all together at the orders of Europe.

This just blows my mind. Can you expand on this? How has "Europe" stopped FG and Labour from implementing their promises?

Argentina and Iceland have gone through similar recent crisis's and now they are among the few countries with growth.

I think this has been covered SO many times it's not even worth responding to it. Search for Iceland in this forum... read.

So come on get educated and don't listen to fear tactics.

Unfortunately it seems that the educated "no" voters are few and far between. I find that bar some exceptions (a few "no" voters that are posting here) most people haven't an idea of what they're voting "no" to.

I am voting no to this Fiscal Compact for the right to self determination and an Independent Ireland just this time round no one has to give their life to do so!!

Yeah, but nothing removes our right to self-determination (whatever that means).

FreudianSlippers

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Voting no. Its just another step toward a united states of europe. The treaty in itself I don't have much against. If a party had proposed it on a national level I'd have been in favour

So you're voting no on a treaty that you agree with because it has been proposed on a European level?