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

Fuinseog · 21-05-2012 6:52pm

golfball37 wrote: »

Pro establishment boys are playing a blinder on this thread I have to say. Liking each others posts, dissecting every persons NO argument with a tooth comb.

Well done lads.

I think some folk who are undecided want to know the reasons behind voting no.
is it to give the government Eu und ze Germans the finger?

Fuinseog · 21-05-2012 6:58pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

Which part - that the Euro is failing or that it may well end in tears?

The Euro is clearly not healthy. Civil unrest has already occurred and is on going. Or perhaps you think the news reports from Greece are a little over-dramatic.

You might be comfortable with ignoring the lessons of history. Ignorance is your prerogative.

Napoleon tried uniting Europe.

Hitler tried uniting Europe.

Merkel is trying to unite Europe.

Even Obama is trying to get Europe united. :eek:

Have you tried looking at this from an economic perspective? Our financial system runs on credit. It's a fiat system. To continue working money has to circulate.
Now, look at the mechanics of a perpetual motion machine, particularly as it slows down and stops.
That is our current economic system. It is stopping.

Will this fiscal compact start it again? No it won't, so why vote for something that is designed to break the economic system?

Either way the Euro is on it's way to collapse. Voting yes will only accelerate that demise.
To some that may be a good thing.
Personally the fiscal compact contains nothing that is designed to repair a broken system so there is no good reason to vote in favour it.

Or perhaps take a look at the bigger picture. The ESM treaty needs unanimous ratification and currently neither Germany nor France are prepared to do that.
Without that the funds the liars in the Dial are promising will not exist regardless of what we do with the fiscal compact.

the euro is threatened by people who want to promote selfish interests. your comparison of merkel to a dictator (she is a kraut, she has to be) is a a tad far fetched. you could also say the brits wanted to unite the world.

you are listening to much to the brits who want to be part of the club, but independent of it at the same time.
i had to laugh when some fringe anti EU British politicans came over to tell us how we should vote. they degraded themselves by humiliating their anti EU danish colleague who was the pretty face of the operation.

personally, I am all for EU unity.

Fuinseog · 21-05-2012 7:03pm

antoobrien wrote: »

If we vote no it will happen by July 31st 2014. We will run out of money before then because:
a) the current troika loans will have run out
b) the ESM is closed to us
c) the IMF won't loan to use at the rates we will need because the EU aren't in partnership with them
d) the markets won't lend to us at rates we can afford because they think we can't pay it back
e) the higher taxes will make people like me (earning a low-modest wage) emigrate

can we not just take their money and give them the finger? its worked fine until now.
This country is a mass of contradictions when it comes to the EU and treaties. The county of Kerry almost 100% rejected Nice and Lisbon, yet they live almost entirely from tourism.

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 7:16pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

There is an argument that the world is less than ten thousand years old. That doesn't make it true. Mostly because, unlike the silly slogans spun around the Lisbon treaty (which was never explicitly about jobs, growth, or any of those good things) this treaty is explicitly about helping to achieve financial stability in the EU. You can make up your own mind as to whether or not it will achieve it, but if you are going to vote against the treaty for no other reason than that you don't believe what someone else claims about it, you're doing it wrong.

No, I'm voting against it because I don't believe it will achieve what we are being told it will achieve.

All you have to do is look at the economics of it first and then look at the politics of it.

Boulevardier · 21-05-2012 7:19pm

I think that John O'Brennan of NUI Maynooth makes some extremely important points in today's (Monday) Irish Times about where this treaty leaves us vis a vis democracy within the EU. If I may quote:

"The treaty constitutes a significant deepening of European integration in the economic and budgetary sphere, but without any concommitant steps toward legitimation through either international or EU democratic institutions. Neither the Oireachtas nor the European Parliament will have any input into decision-making or crucial scrutiny of deficit and debt levels of the participating states once it is signed."

In other words, it means a further erosion of democracy.

This looks to me like a bad, dangerous treaty.

Boskowski · 21-05-2012 7:24pm

Now I won't be voting as I have no vote being German and all, but I feel like making a few points anyway...

First of all a lot of the 'No' arguments are very contradictory. They say 'No' because they want financial independence from the EU as if the EU had taken financial independence from them. In fact Irish politicians have taken independence from Ireland with their 'it'll be grand sure and if not I'll be grand anyways' attitude.

They say 'No' because they don't want to be indebted forever when in reality what they propose will mean Ireland will be indebted for even longer. Whatever the armchair economists say, adjusting a 16b deficit overnight is not going to give Ireland its independence back, it will ruin her. The alternative is to seek funding outside of the ESM which is going to be more expensive than inside, so how is that going to help?

Also Ireland has entered a shared economic space in which rules and regulations apply to ensure no member can damage this space or other members. Ireland and other countries have damaged this space and themselves by applying shortsighted economic policies and now require help to to get out of this hole and prevent *long-lasting* damage to the shared space and also to themselves. Help meaning money and time to adjust.

This shared space has set up a rescue fund to do such a thing, providing money and time, effectively acting as a guarantor for cases like Ireland.
Now you show me a guarantor in the world who is not putting conditions on such funding to ensure such funds are actually being put to the right cause and not pissed into the wind. I'd bet you will find that difficult.

On top of it these conditions we are now voting on aren't even set up as that - unilateral controls on the 'bad boys' - but set up like a multilateral agreement.

Nobody wants to control Ireland or Greece or anyone but its multilateral. Ireland and Greece and whoever are being controlled as much as Germany, France and Austria. We all can call a foul on each other with this. Its not actually the big bad Germans trying to get Ireland under their thumb despite peoples best efforts to picture it like that.

Also its not an effort to rule the world by Germany or some Eurocrats as people so eloquently put it, its an effort to prevent the vulture markets to topple our shared economic space in order to make a killing. These markets would happily topple the Euro and create long-lasting damage in the EU countries just to make a few quick bob. The ESM and the treaty is an effort to prevent them from doing that by putting the space onto a healthier financial footing and create (at least an illusion of) stability.

Now how in gods name could that be a bad thing?

EURATS · 21-05-2012 7:26pm

antoobrien wrote: »

EURATS wrote: »

Re:c14n

Common sense? Well that's a matter of perspective.
Are u basically refering to 55% of the voters in this thread as being devoid of common sense?

I'd take this poll with a large pinch of snuff - the polls on boards have a habit of being ....inaccurate.... vs the actual results.

Take a look at the "prediction" from last years GE where it said that only 3 FF seats would remain & the greens would win 4.

Ur right ANTO. But I never said take it as fact. Red C says 50% yes. Who are we to believe huh?

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 7:27pm

Fuinseog wrote: »

the euro is threatened by people who want to promote selfish interests.

You mean bankers, traders and politicians.

Fuinseog wrote: »

your comparison of merkel to a dictator (she is a kraut, she has to be) is a a tad far fetched.

So you don't believe we are being dictated to? Wake up.

Besides she is not a kraut, she is an east German who has lived with the concept of austerity for the unwashed for so long she thinks that's the way the world is supposed to be. I don't see any of these "leaders" will to live on the average industrial wage. Perhaps they should try that before seeking to impose austerity on the rest of us.

Fuinseog wrote: »

you could also say the brits wanted to unite the world.

You might say that. I would say they wanted to rule it.

Fuinseog wrote: »

you are listening to much to the brits who want to be part of the club, but independent of it at the same time.
i had to laugh when some fringe anti EU British politicans came over to tell us how we should vote. they degraded themselves by humiliating their anti EU danish colleague who was the pretty face of the operation.

Actually I haven't heard what any of the brits are saying on the matter but I have been reading what a number of bona fide intelligentsia in the world of finance and economics have been writing about it.

Fuinseog wrote: »

personally, I am all for EU unity.

European Union unity eh? A union where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That's your unity.

Boskowski · 21-05-2012 7:33pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

European Union unity eh? A union where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That's your unity.

Ah well, I think Ireland herself is a prime example of a country where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Briefly interrupted by a phase where sooo much was made that you could give the poor a few boob too what harm, after all we need their vote too don't we?

In fact this principle is the principle that the entire western world (and more) is built on. If you don't want that then we are talking socialism (which I'm actually not all that opposed to), but you need to know thats really the only alternative to the 'rich get richer and poor get poorer'.

I don't think keep borrowing til the cow comes is an alternative.

Boskowski · 21-05-2012 7:42pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

I don't see any of these "leaders" will to live on the average industrial wage. Perhaps they should try that before seeking to impose austerity on the rest of us.

Fair point. You will find that the new socialist President of France has cut all cabinet wages by 30% across the board. First thing he did.

Token gesture? Maybe. Didn't see Enda doing it all the same.

dvpower · 21-05-2012 8:09pm

Boskowski wrote: »

Didn't see Enda doing it all the same.

One of the first things Enda Kenny did was to cut his pay and that of senior Ministers. Not by 30% granted, but he did cut pay.

milewidehead · 21-05-2012 8:12pm

C14N wrote: »

I've always found this a ridiculous idea that so many people view their government as antagonists, liars, greedy etc. You know they were voted in by the people? They actually work for us. If they're really that bad, they can be voted out, or could have been not that long ago at the last general election. They want the best thing for Ireland too, they aren't some sort of group of pantomime villains who are trying to hold the working man down just for fun.

I was'nt always this bitter and twisted, or paranoid borderline schizophrenic,(really, we're not!), but nothing that our elected politicians have done in the last four years has been done out of compassion and concern for ordinary individual average-income citizens. In fact I, and the majority of people I know, are completely bewildered and shell-shocked by what has happened to our lives and our livelihoods. It's incomprehensible to me that the sins of the greedy elites have been foisted onto the backs of O.D.C's,(Ordinary Decent Citizens).
Back on topic now! It's interesting that people other than ourselves are getting distinctly cooler about this treaty. In any case, the pace of events as they are unfolding in Greece and elsewhere may render this potential treaty as relevant as the Bertie Bowl.

bogfire · 21-05-2012 8:28pm

I will be voting no.
Vote yes, and we write into the constitution that we will have a balance budget, so we stop ourselves from borrowing -
Vote no, we exclude our selves from additional available funding.

So same result for yes or no. not that I want to borrow more (to keep bailing out banks) , but I don't see the point of voting yes.

Ozymandius2011 · 21-05-2012 9:10pm

Boscowski wrote:

First of all a lot of the 'No' arguments are very contradictory. They say 'No' because they want financial independence from the EU as if the EU had taken financial independence from them. In fact Irish politicians have taken independence from Ireland with their 'it'll be grand sure and if not I'll be grand anyways' attitude.

A lot of the "Yes" arguments are very contradictory. They say "Yes" to get a second bailout but then say we don't need one e.g. Lucinda Creighton on Marian Finucane on Sunday. And if the problem was confined to national economic policy then why has the crisis spread to Spain, Greece, Portugal and to some extent Italy?

They say 'No' because they don't want to be indebted forever when in reality what they propose will mean Ireland will be indebted for even longer. Whatever the armchair economists say, adjusting a 16b deficit overnight is not going to give Ireland its independence back, it will ruin her. The alternative is to seek funding outside of the ESM which is going to be more expensive than inside, so how is that going to help?

The Treaty is likely to be renegotiated and by voting no, we gain a possible French ally (as Hollande is pushing for renegotiations and this strengthens his case) in negotiating a write-down/off of Irish debt. The govt made a virtue of not linking the Treaty with the debt. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Oceans12 · 21-05-2012 9:13pm

FG have not got a clue.. none.

I was talking to a pensioner the other day and she said

" sure what would a school teacher know about running a country".

meglome · 21-05-2012 9:20pm

bogfire wrote: »

I will be voting no.

Good for you. No doubt you've informed yourself of the contents of the treaty and have lots of good reasons.

bogfire wrote: »

Vote yes, and we write into the constitution that we will have a balance budget, so we stop ourselves from borrowing - .

Ah for a minute there I thought you'd informed yourself, then you go and spoil it. The fiscal limits set down in the this treaty already exist in other agreements, some from 20 years ago. The only thing we have to write into the constitution now is the permission for the government to ratify the treaty.

bogfire wrote: »

so we stop ourselves from borrowing -
Vote no, we exclude our selves from additional available funding.

Nope we'll most likely be able to borrow just not at the nice low rates the bailout provides so we'd be worse off.

bogfire wrote: »

So same result for yes or no. not that I want to borrow more (to keep bailing out banks)

Well the problem here is everything that was 'bank debt' is now our debt.

bogfire wrote: »

but I don't see the point of voting yes.

You don't want us to borrow more but at the same time don't want to vote Yes to a treaty which stops us borrowing too much in the long run. Makes no sense.

meglome · 21-05-2012 9:21pm

Oceans12 wrote: »

FG have not got a clue.. none.

I was talking to a pensioner the other day and she said

" sure what would a school teacher know about running a country".

Great story I'm sure but has this got anything to do with the contents of the treaty?

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 9:57pm

C14N wrote: »

I wait with bated breath. I'll have to ask for you to provide some kind of facts to back up statements like this, apparently the mainstream media has been kept in the dark.

I think that pretty much sums it up for you. You are prepared to believe politicians and the mainstream media over your own intelligence and common sense.

Boskowski · 21-05-2012 10:12pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

A lot of the "Yes" arguments are very contradictory. They say "Yes" to get a second bailout but then say we don't need one e.g. Lucinda Creighton on Marian Finucane on Sunday.

I did't hear about a second bailout. In fact this treaty is not about Ireland at all, although I can understand how someone would see their country first and foremost. This treaty is about putting enforceable measures around rules of prudent budgeting, rules that were there all along but not really enforceable. This treaty is ultimately about restoring confidence to 'the markets' so that we all can borrow and the markets believe us to pay back. If we don't have a concept of restoring some sort of prudent budgeting then the markets won't believe us and we will never be able to borrow again at reasonable rates.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

And if the problem was confined to national economic policy then why has the crisis spread to Spain, Greece, Portugal and to some extent Italy?

I never said it was confined to national economic policy. However there are countries that currently require help and then there are countries that don't. Not surprisingly all countries that lived through a recent property and credit bubble seem to require now 'bailouts'.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Treaty is likely to be renegotiated and by voting no, we gain a possible French ally (as Hollande is pushing for renegotiations and this strengthens his case) in negotiating a write-down/off of Irish debt. The govt made a virtue of not linking the Treaty with the debt. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

This is simply don't follow, actually I don't understand even what you are saying. Let me make one point though. Some people in Ireland seem to have this misconception that an Irish 'No' is going to threaten this treaty and Ireland has some sort of bargaining power. I even saw placards saying 'write down our banking debt or No'. I don't quite understand how and who most importantly could write down Irish bank debts. Is there like a really big bad powerful German who wave her finger and say 'Hey you banks! Write down Irish debt!'? I don't think there is, thats why I don't get this argument at all.
Also - like I said - there is no bargaining power, if Ireland votes 'No' they are just not in it and have no access to ESM funds. It's not like the whole thing needs to be renovated then 'cos Ireland has said 'No'. It's more like 'No? Ok then, you're out so.'.

StealthRolex · 21-05-2012 10:40pm

Boskowski wrote: »

The ESM and the treaty is an effort to prevent them from doing that by putting the space onto a healthier financial footing and create (at least an illusion of) stability.

Now how in gods name could that be a bad thing?

Because it is an illusion?

The economic system itself is broken and this does nothing to fix it. We have been working a fiat money system that is nothing more than debt sexed up as credit.
Add to that the political system. I don't know much about other European countries but I can see what democracy has brought to Ireland and the UK in the way of politicians. It's not pretty, is it.

Ozymandius2011 · 21-05-2012 10:44pm

Boskowski wrote: »

I did't hear about a second bailout. In fact this treaty is not about Ireland at all, although I can understand how someone would see their country first and foremost. This treaty is about putting enforceable measures around rules of prudent budgeting, rules that were there all along but not really enforceable. This treaty is ultimately about restoring confidence to 'the markets' so that we all can borrow and the markets believe us to pay back. If we don't have a concept of restoring some sort of prudent budgeting then the markets won't believe us and we will never be able to borrow again at reasonable rates.

I never said it was confined to national economic policy. However there are countries that currently require help and then there are countries that don't. Not surprisingly all countries that lived through a recent property and credit bubble seem to require now 'bailouts'.

This is simply don't follow, actually I don't understand even what you are saying. Let me make one point though. Some people in Ireland seem to have this misconception that an Irish 'No' is going to threaten this treaty and Ireland has some sort of bargaining power. I even saw placards saying 'write down our banking debt or No'. I don't quite understand how and who most importantly could write down Irish bank debts. Is there like a really big bad powerful German who wave her finger and say 'Hey you banks! Write down Irish debt!'? I don't think there is, thats why I don't get this argument at all.
Also - like I said - there is no bargaining power, if Ireland votes 'No' they are just not in it and have no access to ESM funds. It's not like the whole thing needs to be renovated then 'cos Ireland has said 'No'. It's more like 'No? Ok then, you're out so.'.

We could access a renegotiated ESM. We may not even need it if what Lucinda Creighton has said on Marian Finucane about not needing a second bailout is anything to go on. We may be back on the bondmarkets by the time the ESM is in operation. We have the EFSF until the middle of 2013. Plenty of time to negotiate better terms by voting no, as the rest of Europe that hasn't already ratified won't likely proceed without France. A no vote will give Hollande's stance more legitimacy uin symbolic terms, and he may return the favour by pushing our case for a write-off/down of debt.

It is possible we can veto the establishment of the ESM by the Oireachtas blocking the relevant treaty changes like Article 136. So we can say to Europe: if we don't get the ESM noone does. That will bring Merkel and co to their senses.

golden lane · 21-05-2012 10:48pm

meglome wrote: »

Great story I'm sure but has this got anything to do with the contents of the treaty?

if that pensioner is a voter.....yes, very much so..........

Sand · 21-05-2012 10:53pm

The "Yes" arguments have been falling like skittles over the past few days.

1 - Richard Bruton let the cat out of the bag that the Treaty could be put to the people at some later point when its relevant or conditions had changed in some way that made the Treaty beneficial. The government spin has been laughable since, with Bruton forced to retract his common sense remarks, and Coveney saying that a second vote is impossible under any circumstances. At all. Ever.

So even if the Troika and the people beg for a second run at some point in the future, if a bailout is desperately needed and the price is the treaty being passed the government is going to have a sulk and refuse to run the referendum again, preferring to go bankrupt. Yes folks, the government is literally talking down to us like we're surly children. :rolleyes:

This is even before its recognized that the referendum wording is specific to the treaty done in March, so *any* change to that treaty will invalidate the referendum result - and our friends in France are demanding that the Treaty be changed and confirming that they will *not* ratify the Treaty as it stands.

BEFORE MINISTER Richard Bruton set the debate ablaze yesterday with his comments on a referendum rerun, new French finance minister Pierre Moscovici was the main source of kindling for those seeking a bit of heat in the referendum campaign.

Moscovici said France would not sign up to the fiscal pact unless it included provisions for growth. “What we have said is the treaty will not be ratified as it stands . . . we are firm on this,” he told BFM TV.

2 - Meanwhile the whole argument around ESM access is being shot down as Citibank economists tell us what anyone sensible already knew - that so long as Ireland is reasonable and sensible, we will be supported regardless of the Treaty being passed or not passed.

Ireland may get a second aid package, even if voters reject the treaty, economists at Citigroup Inc. in London said today.
“We believe a second program would be forthcoming if requested, probably initially without private sector involvement unless the Irish government itself insisted that PSI is needed, which is unlikely in our view,” said Citigroup economists including Juergen Michels and Michael Saunders in a note. “With Ireland’s high government debt level and low potential growth, the risk of eventual government debt restructuring (PSI, Official Sector Involvement or both) also is likely to persist.”

As the "Yes" vote states - nobody cares if Ireland passes the Treaty or not. It wont win us any benefits, it wont cost us any help or support. So given this and how questionable the underlying economic principles are and how questionable it is to leave Ireland open to the threat of other countries (i.e. Germany...) taking us to court over breaches as perceived by those countries alone, what arguments are left for a Yes vote?

The Treaty is a bad deal for Ireland - no real benefits, a lot of downsides. If theres ever some tradeoff where Ireland gets something useful in exchange for accepting these foolish terms then we can weigh it up at that point.

Chucky the tree · 21-05-2012 11:01pm

Don't suppose the citigroup lads told us what interest rate we'd be paying?

beeftotheheels · 21-05-2012 11:03pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It is possible we can veto the establishment of the ESM by the Oireachtas blocking the relevant treaty changes like Article 125.

TFEU Art 136 is the one being changed, not Art 125. But then again details and facts only seem to concern those of us voting yes.

Ozymandius2011 · 21-05-2012 11:19pm

beeftotheheels wrote: »

TFEU Art 136 is the one being changed, not Art 125. But then again details and facts only seem to concern those of us voting yes.

Typo-error. Edited.

beeftotheheels · 21-05-2012 11:36pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Typo-error. Edited.

Typing 163, or 137 or 135 would have been a typo. Art 125 (which is actually the article which needs changing to allow eurobonds, and about which the Germans are still adamant against, and any change to which would no doubt be rejected by SF/ ULA) was not a typo, it was a failure to check facts.

But back to the facts. You cannot look at events in Greece at the moment, sleep walking their way towards a euro/ EU exit, and pretend that time is on our side here. Each vote counts. The last Greek general election results are impacting on Greek bank deposits, on Greek bond yields, on Greek tax collection, on Greece's ability to remain in the EZ/ EU.

Even if the Greek people vote for a pro-Troika Government next time out of the blocks, it may well be too late for them (given the vast majority of Greek voters want to remain in the euro).

The Troika now perceive there to be a significant risk that the Greek electorate will refuse to pay them back and will refuse to extend further credit to Greece.

The private sector who got involved in PSI then saw the [lack of] Greek Government pay out 100% to the foreign law bondholders whose bonds fell due at a moment in time when Greece didn't have a Government, which reduces the chances of the private sector getting involved in any future PSI when there is perceived political risk.

Every vote counts. You can't vote no based on the assumption that you'll get a second chance at it, you can't vote on the assumption that there will be no immediate consequences to that vote.

I'm voting yes first time around. If there is a second vote I'll vote no in protest at the people who think that either there should be a second vote (there should not), and in protest against people who view it as their right to register protest votes in referendums.

oscarBravo · 21-05-2012 11:45pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

No, I'm voting against it because I don't believe it will achieve what we are being told it will achieve.

That's fair enough in and of itself, but it's falling into the standard trap of claiming that a "no" vote will have no repercussions. If you believe that a "yes" vote won't achieve the desired outcomes, and that a "no" vote will lead to a better outcome than that which the treaty aims to achieve, then you've got a compelling argument for voting against it. It would help if you could give a convincing explanation for how a decision not to be in a position to avail of ESM funds is in our best interests, however.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

A lot of the "Yes" arguments are very contradictory. They say "Yes" to get a second bailout but then say we don't need one...

If my bank contacted me in the morning to offer my business access to an overdraft facility, I could justifiably claim not to need one - we've managed without one for several years.

I'm not sure how I would be benefiting my business by refusing to accept the offered facility just because I hope not to need it. The old electrician's adage goes "it's better to be looking at it than looking for it" - can you explain why we would be better off not having access to this funding in the event that we did turn out to need it?

Sand · 21-05-2012 11:46pm

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Don't suppose the citigroup lads told us what interest rate we'd be paying?

We'd be getting it from the same bunch of people either way. Either the ESM would be used as a sock puppet or some other ad hoc front would be used as the sock puppet. And that's without considering if we should accept any "bailout" - the November 2010 deal was a lousy, lousy deal that worsened our position. We should have rejected it. Choosing not be "bailed out" has to remain an option until an actual bailout is offered - or even if its not.

Chucky the tree · 21-05-2012 11:47pm

Sand wrote: »

We'd be getting it from the same bunch of people either way. Either the ESM would be used as a sock puppet or some other ad hoc front would be used as the sock puppet.

But most likely at different rates.

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

Comments