Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1111214161738

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    blowtorch wrote: »
    I've heard it called the Stability Treaty, but also the 'Fiscal Treaty'. 'Stability Treaty' is a FG term.

    So you knew perfectly well what treaty I was referring to?
    I really don't have time for this silliness.
    blowtorch wrote: »
    On the number of people employed........ I mentioned this to highlight Noonan's lack of knoweledge. To pigeon-hole Greece into Holidays and Feta Cheese wasn't that professional. He's Finance Minister - you'd think he'd be aware of the Nation's that invest here, and keep his childish comments to himself.
    Noonan didn't mention Coca Cola at all. I don't think that demonstrates any lack of knowledge on his part.
    The operations of Coca Cola in Ireland don't appear to be at all impacted by whats going on in Greece, as you seem to have accepted yourself now. Why the hell would Noonan need to demonstrate his knowledge of the location of the Head Office of the Coca Cola bottlers in Ireland when it has no relevance at all to what he was talking about?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    blowtorch wrote: »
    My comments in italics above.

    - So, if Ireland has to agree to any changes or calls, Ireland has a Veto?

    Yes.
    blowtorch wrote: »
    - What difference then do 'Voting Rights' make, if changes can't be made
    if we disagree with them.

    If you read through Article 5, you'll see that some other things are agreed by majority or qualified majority, which involves the voting weights. The capital calls and the capital ceiling, however, are by unanimity.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 178 ✭✭blowtorch


    dvpower wrote: »
    So you knew perfectly well what treaty I was referring to?
    I really don't have time for this silliness.


    Noonan didn't mention Coca Cola at all. I don't think that demonstrates any lack of knowledge on his part.
    The operations of Coca Cola in Ireland don't appear to be at all impacted by whats going on in Greece, as you seem to have accepted yourself now. Why the hell would Noonan need to demonstrate his knowledge of the location of the Head Office of the Coca Cola bottlers in Ireland when it has no relevance at all to what he was talking about?

    Of course I knew what treaty you were referring to. The 'silliness' perhaps is in FG forcing the term Stability Treaty on us. Dagger without the cloak.

    Did I say anything about Coca Cola jobs being impacted. Chinese whispers springs to mind.

    How relevant was Greek Holidays and Feta Cheese, except to extract a laugh from his audience?


  • Registered Users Posts: 178 ✭✭blowtorch


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Yes.



    If you read through Article 5, you'll see that some other things are agreed by majority or qualified majority, which involves the voting weights. The capital calls and the capital ceiling, however, are by unanimity.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Tks


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    blowtorch wrote: »
    Of course I knew what treaty you were referring to. The 'silliness' perhaps is in FG forcing the term Stability Treaty on us. Dagger without the cloak.
    I'm a little curious about this.

    Why are the Referendum Commission using the term "Fiscal Stability Treaty". This is not the official name of the Treaty. It's almost as though a vote for the Treaty is going to bring fiscal stability, whereas I think most economists would be of the opinion that (if actually implemented) it would have the opposite effect.

    That's all a little by-the-way. The name of this Treaty is the Treaty on Stability, Co-Ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. I accept it doesn't trip of the tongue, but that's its name.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    blowtorch wrote: »
    Of course I knew what treaty you were referring to. The 'silliness' perhaps is in FG forcing the term Stability Treaty on us. Dagger without the cloak.
    No one is forcing you to call it anything you don't want to
    blowtorch wrote: »
    Did I say anything about Coca Cola jobs being impacted. Chinese whispers springs to mind.
    It was you that mentioned the jobs - no one else. You even made up some figures for employment taxes paid in the country. I don't know why you did it. Maybe you could explain why - or not; it doesn't really matter.
    blowtorch wrote: »
    How relevant was Greek Holidays and Feta Cheese, except to extract a laugh from his audience?
    To demonstrate that we have only very minor economic ties with Greece. Even the yogurt is only Greek style.

    Was Noonan a bit insensitive? Yes. Do Coca Cola care? Hardly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 178 ✭✭blowtorch


    dvpower wrote: »
    No one is forcing you to call it anything you don't want to


    It was you that mentioned the jobs - no one else. You even made up some figures for employment taxes paid in the country. I don't know why you did it. Maybe you could explain why - or not; it doesn't really matter.


    To demonstrate that we have only very minor economic ties with Greece. Even the yogurt is only Greek style.

    Was Noonan a bit insensitive? Yes. Do Coca Cola care? Hardly.

    - So why not call it it's proper name?
    - The 'jobs' reference. Again, I mentioned it as an education for Noonan - to show there was more to Greece than Holidays + Feta. You seem overly occupied with it.
    -So, couldn't he say 'we only have minor economic ties with Greece' instead
    of trying to have a laugh at Greece's expense?


  • Registered Users Posts: 178 ✭✭blowtorch


    later12 wrote: »
    I'm a little curious about this.

    Why are the Referendum Commission using the term "Fiscal Stability Treaty". This is not the official name of the Treaty. It's almost as though a vote for the Treaty is going to bring fiscal stability, whereas I think most economists would be of the opinion that (if actually implemented) it would have the opposite effect.

    That's all a little by-the-way. The name of this Treaty is the Treaty on Stability, Co-Ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. I accept it doesn't trip of the tongue, but that's its name.

    Exactly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


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

    I was asking if the comment had anything to do with the contents of the treaty, which it doesn't. People are voting no because they hate the government or they hate the EU or they believe it stops austerity or they think a magical bunny will make a new treaty that they like better (but they will still vote no to) or whatever other nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual contents of the treaty. Very foolish reasons indeed.

    Walking through town I saw posters and banners saying...
    No to upward only rents, no to liar politicians, no to fiscal compact
    Democracy is dead (etc) Vote no.
    No to austerity. Vote no
    No to household charge etc - Vote no
    and several others, all of which either have nothing to do with the treaty or cannot be changed by a yes or no.

    It's a sea of shíte out there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,582 ✭✭✭swampgas


    meglome wrote: »
    I was asking if the comment had anything to do with the contents of the treaty, which it doesn't. People are voting no because they hate the government or they hate the EU or they believe it stops austerity or they think a magical bunny will make a new treaty that they like better (but they will still vote no to) or whatever other nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual contents of the treaty. Very foolish reasons indeed.

    Walking through town I saw posters and banners saying...
    No to upward only rents, no to liar politicians, no to fiscal compact
    Democracy is dead (etc) Vote no.
    No to austerity. Vote no
    No to household charge etc - Vote no
    and several others, all of which either have nothing to do with the treaty or cannot be changed by a yes or no.

    It's a sea of shíte out there.

    It's a circus. ... and people wonder why politicians are cynical.

    IMO, the fact that we need a referendum at all is the real problem, the government were elected, let them get on with making whatever changes and ratifications they see fit. If we don't like it, we don't vote for them next General Election. That's how it seems to work everywhere else.

    The way Ireland is behaving right now, we might as well decide policy using an X-Factor style TV show, with text voting replacing a referendum.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    meglome wrote: »
    I was asking if the comment had anything to do with the contents of the treaty, which it doesn't. People are voting no because they hate the government or they hate the EU or they believe it stops austerity or they think a magical bunny will make a new treaty that they like better (but they will still vote no to) or whatever other nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual contents of the treaty. Very foolish reasons indeed.

    Walking through town I saw posters and banners saying...
    No to upward only rents, no to liar politicians, no to fiscal compact
    Democracy is dead (etc) Vote no.
    No to austerity. Vote no
    No to household charge etc - Vote no
    and several others, all of which either have nothing to do with the treaty or cannot be changed by a yes or no.

    It's a sea of shíte out there.

    Shock Horror: Voters reject government policy! :eek:


    Tell us this, how or why do you think Hollande got elected? Because the French people wanted to show Sarkosy that they thought his policy was wrong. They had enough of him, do you think they examined Hollande's policy documents in detail?
    Will the government here change tack if they fail in this referendum....almost certainly it will have a profound effect, that is what a huge raft of people, some of whom you mention above, are trying to achieve.

    The electorate will show it's frustrations and anger when they get the oppurtunity....it's how it works everywhere in the world. They have no other way to voice their objections except riot and insurrection.
    Establish a dictatorship if you want it to work any other way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    blowtorch wrote: »
    Exactly.

    I previously sent an email about this and got the following reply:
    Tadhg

    The Commission decided that the long title would be difficult to handle, especially in a short document like its Guide. Accordingly, it decided to use "Fiscal Stability Treaty" as a shorter version.

    I don't understand this. That title completely ignores the economic governance and co-ordination aspects of the Treaty. The word 'fiscal' doesn't even appear in the official treaty title.

    This Treaty is not just about stability. It is also about governance, and I think it is unfortunate that the Referendum Commission is not according the Treaty its full title more explicitly in its literature, even if this does result in an extra word or two being added.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,582 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Shock Horror: Voters reject government policy! :eek:


    Tell us this, how or why do you think Hollande got elected? Because the French people wanted to show Sarkosy that they thought his policy was wrong. They had enough of him, do you think they examined Hollande's policy documents in detail?
    Will the government here change tack if they fail in this referendum....almost certainly it will have a profound effect, that is what a huge raft of people, some of whom you mention above, are trying to achieve.

    The electorate will show it's frustrations and anger when they get the oppurtunity....it's how it works everywhere in the world. They have no other way to voice their objections except riot and insurrection.
    Establish a dictatorship if you want it to work any other way.

    That's the problem right there - deciding whether a change to the constitution is right for the country should be about just that. Hijacking a referendum to display anger at the government completely defeats the purpose of having a referendum in the first place.

    If there were loads of jobs and the economy was going well and you were in love with the government, would you say Yes to any old referendum as a result?

    This inability of many voters to see how the referendum is more important than their desire to vent their frustration at a whole bunch of unrelated issues is incredibly frustrating.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    swampgas wrote: »
    That's the problem right there - deciding whether a change to the constitution is right for the country should be about just that. Hijacking a referendum to display anger at the government completely defeats the purpose of having a referendum in the first place.

    If there were loads of jobs and the economy was going well and you were in love with the government, would you say Yes to any old referendum as a result?

    This inability of many voters to see how the referendum is more important than their desire to vent their frustration at a whole bunch of unrelated issues is incredibly frustrating.

    You are talking about those who are most affected by what is happening remember, they take the brunt of the governments mistakes and failures. It's not about 100 euros out of a very good and adequate wage, it's about basic survival. That they are angry is only natural. That they want to be heard is only to be expected. just think about all the things that happened and they weren't asked about and you will see why there is so much disaffection. It WILL express itself, in rebellion or a lashout at government....call it a safety valve.


  • Registered Users Posts: 178 ✭✭blowtorch


    meglome wrote: »
    I was asking if the comment had anything to do with the contents of the treaty, which it doesn't. People are voting no because they hate the government or they hate the EU or they believe it stops austerity or they think a magical bunny will make a new treaty that they like better (but they will still vote no to) or whatever other nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual contents of the treaty. Very foolish reasons indeed.

    Walking through town I saw posters and banners saying...
    No to upward only rents, no to liar politicians, no to fiscal compact
    Democracy is dead (etc) Vote no.
    No to austerity. Vote no
    No to household charge etc - Vote no
    and several others, all of which either have nothing to do with the treaty or cannot be changed by a yes or no.

    It's a sea of shíte out there.

    I'd agree with you as regards a Sea of S**te. From both sides though.

    But there are a couple of those above that will take their future journey based on the Treaty (in my opinion anyway). If the Treaty is passed, we therefore have to toe the line fiscally within the ESM. If it is not passed, we still have to toe the line, but under our control.

    - Austerity will continue / increase for the foreseeable future.

    - Household Charges, and whatever other new charges are coming down the
    line, will just keep increasing.

    Both of those to try to bring us into budget.

    Both of them will go that way anyway with a Yes or No vote, the difference is that if we vote yes, we're changing our Constitution to allow Europe a bigger say in the running of our country.

    We should be big-minded and confident enough to get out of the mess
    by our own actions at home, and not give away decision-making to
    other Nations.

    The access to funds from the ESM - the amended ESM Treaty with
    the 'blackmail' clause, should be re-amended to remove that clause.
    Does Ireland have the power to have that removed?
    ====================================================


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    blowtorch wrote: »
    Both of them will go that way anyway with a Yes or No vote, the difference is that if we vote yes, we're changing our Constitution to allow Europe a bigger say in the running of our country.


    The access to funds from the ESM - the amended ESM Treaty with
    the 'blackmail' clause, should be re-amended to remove that clause.
    Does Ireland have the power to have that removed?

    Just two things here:

    1. By the same token we *gain* a bigger say in the running of other European countries, in the same way.

    2. You can call it a 'blackmail' clause, but in reality it's a safety clause for us as well as everyone else, would you feel comfortable giving money into an ESM where the potential drawees of that money had not agreed to use it in a fiscally responsible manner? I hate analogies, but feck it, if you are paying into a credit union, and one of the other members is taking a loan to buy a house from the credit union, would you rather they signed a contract stating they would be using the money to actually purchase a house, or should they be free to borrow money unconditionally and p*ss it away on blackjack and coke? The clause protects us at least as much as it may hinder us.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    blowtorch wrote: »
    I'd agree with you as regards a Sea of S**te. From both sides though.

    But there are a couple of those above that will take their future journey based on the Treaty (in my opinion anyway). If the Treaty is passed, we therefore have to toe the line fiscally within the ESM. If it is not passed, we still have to toe the line, but under our control.

    Not quite - we'll still have to toe exactly the same line, because all the fiscal limits in the Treaty are already in force. What will be gained by voting No is that the bigger countries will go on being able to ignore the limits - and we won't be required to create a set of national laws and bodies to keep an eye on the government's handling of the economy.
    blowtorch wrote: »
    - Austerity will continue / increase for the foreseeable future.

    - Household Charges, and whatever other new charges are coming down the
    line, will just keep increasing.

    Both of those to try to bring us into budget.

    Both of them will go that way anyway with a Yes or No vote, the difference is that if we vote yes, we're changing our Constitution to allow Europe a bigger say in the running of our country.

    We should be big-minded and confident enough to get out of the mess
    by our own actions at home, and not give away decision-making to
    other Nations.

    To be honest, when it comes to confidence that our government would set up the kind of independent economic watchdog the Treaty requires and then let it actually remain independent, I prefer to have the government sign up to a Treaty.

    We're not giving away decision-making to other nations, either. I'm not sure what that's supposed to refer to, but unless you're in a bailout, nobody else makes the economic decisions but the government.
    blowtorch wrote: »
    The access to funds from the ESM - the amended ESM Treaty with
    the 'blackmail' clause, should be re-amended to remove that clause.
    Does Ireland have the power to have that removed?
    ====================================================

    Bluntly, no. Not without the support of a number of other countries, and there's no sign of that. Not unreasonably, really, when you consider that taxpayers' money all across Europe is ultimately going on the hook for the bailout funds in ESM - the idea that you can happily dispense with asking bailout recipients to be fiscally prudent is rather optimistic, given Greece's behaviour.

    Various people believe that we could veto ESM by vetoing the proposed amendment of article 136 of the EU Treaties, which they believe is vital to allow ESM to go ahead. However, as beeftotheheels pointed out, the reason this amendment is supposed to be so vital is that the existing EU Treaties have a "no-bailout" clause in Article 125 - but Article 125 is not being amended, so clearly Article 125 doesn't prevent the setting up of the ESM, and the article 136 amendment is not actually necessary, just desirable.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭stonetrower


    This website helped me make my mind up. www.taleoftwotreaties.tumblr.com/aboutesm


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,739 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    I wonder how tight the margin is between the Yes and No side at the moment?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭carveone


    swampgas wrote: »
    If there were loads of jobs and the economy was going well and you were in love with the government, would you say Yes to any old referendum as a result?

    I remember (just about) Maastricht and I don't remember anyone reading anything about it or much about issues. I do remember the economy was still doing rather badly at the time amid political turmoil. That was the year of the X Case storm and all the other things that made 1992 a busy year! The Treaty was so important - after all it was the start of the EMU - and it passed without a bother here. If I remember correctly there was a certain degree of British mockery that Ireland would sign anything for a few bob. 6 billion pounds IIRC!
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    To be honest, when it comes to confidence that our government would set up the kind of independent economic watchdog the Treaty requires and then let it actually remain independent, I prefer to have the government sign up to a Treaty.

    That's quite depressing. It's an admittance that Irish governments have never been able to stop interfering in any body that tries to regulate or watch over or even plan for the future whenever they figure that body is in the way of a power grab. How much planning went into land purchases over years and years to accomadate traffic and public transport infrastructure that were destroyed when some corrupt politician decided to make a quick buck off them.

    Any independent watchdog here would require great big teeth. Preferably Constitutional ones.

    PS: I wonder if they add some growth pacts on can we call the grouping the stability and growth pact. Rewind to 1997...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 528 ✭✭✭EURATS


    carveone wrote: »
    swampgas wrote: »
    If there were loads of jobs and the economy was going well and you were in love with the government, would you say Yes to any old referendum as a result?

    I remember (just about) Maastricht and I don't remember anyone reading anything about it or much about issues. I do remember the economy was still doing rather badly at the time amid political turmoil. That was the year of the X Case storm and all the other things that made 1992 a busy year! The Treaty was so important - after all it was the start of the EMU - and it passed without a bother here. If I remember correctly there was a certain degree of British mockery that Ireland would sign anything for a few bob. 6 billion pounds IIRC!
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    To be honest, when it comes to confidence that our government would set up the kind of independent economic watchdog the Treaty requires and then let it actually remain independent, I prefer to have the government sign up to a Treaty.

    That's quite depressing. It's an admittance that Irish governments have never been able to stop interfering in any body that tries to regulate or watch over or even plan for the future whenever they figure that body is in the way of a power grab. How much planning went into land purchases over years and years to accomadate traffic and public transport infrastructure that were destroyed when some corrupt politician decided to make a quick buck off them.

    Any independent watchdog here would require great big teeth. Preferably Constitutional ones.

    PS: I wonder if they add some growth pacts on can we call the grouping the stability and growth pact. Rewind to 1997...


    Poll above still looking pretty good. Slight drop, but to be expected. No less random than red C.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭carveone


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Various people believe that we could veto ESM by vetoing the proposed amendment of article 136 of the EU Treaties, which they believe is vital to allow ESM to go ahead.

    Various people being Ganley and SF. Have they explained why they'd want to do this? It seems completely bizarre. Let's say a group of 17 friends (ok, business colleagues) set up a 1000 euro fund to insure against eventualities on a ski trip or something. Then one friend, who was contributing 16 euro, decides to leverage some technicality to scupper this fund, for no reason other than to see what would happen... well... I think the friendship might be somewhat strained.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    EURATS wrote: »
    Poll above still looking pretty good. Slight drop, but to be expected. No less random than red C.
    No less random than RedC?
    Then how is it that the results of this poll and the various RedC polls are almost a mirror image?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,150 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    carveone wrote: »
    Various people being Ganley and SF. Have they explained why they'd want to do this? It seems completely bizarre. Let's say a group of 17 friends (ok, business colleagues) set up a 1000 euro fund to insure against eventualities on a ski trip or something. Then one friend, who was contributing 16 euro, decides to leverage some technicality to scupper this fund, for no reason other than to see what would happen... well... I think the friendship might be somewhat strained.
    To force the EU into renegotiating the F.U. Treaty, assuming 12 countries will not have ratified in the aftermath of an Irish "no" vote and resistance to the Treaty in France and Germany. It's not even certain we will need the ESM, and even if we did, the EFSF lasts into 2013 so what's the hurry? There is plenty of time to setup an ESM between now and then. But we need to see the final shape of the F.U. before we vote on it. What is there now imho will be renegotiated by Hollande. The elites in my humble opinion want a yes vote from Ireland in the hope of bouncing Hollande into selling out his election promises to renegotiate the Treaty.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    To force the EU into renegotiating the F.U. Treaty, assuming 12 countries will not have ratified in the aftermath of an Irish "no" vote and resistance to the Treaty in France and Germany. It's not even certain we will need the ESM, and even if we did, the EFSF lasts into 2013 so what's the hurry? There is plenty of time to setup an ESM between now and then. But we need to see the final shape of the F.U. before we vote on it. What is there now imho will be renegotiated by Hollande. The elites in my humble opinion want a yes vote from Ireland in the hope of bouncing Hollande into selling out his election promises to renegotiate the Treaty.

    Hollande is part of "the elites", though - unless of course the dividing line is whether one agrees with people or not, as often seems to be the case. One should really say that some of "the elites" might like an Irish No in order to promote renegotiation, while others might like a "Yes" in order to prevent it.

    I think it's hard to know which is better for an Irish negotiating position if the Treaty were to be reopened. A No could be taken - particularly a strong No - as indicating that there's little point in considering Irish demands, because the government clearly cannot guarantee an Irish Yes to any renegotiated version either. After all, I don't think there's any point in pretending that Sinn Fein et al are actually going to promote a Yes vote to a new version. A Yes, on the other hand, means that the Irish public probably will also OK an amended version, while the fact that the government has been able to deliver that Yes strengthens its credibility in negotiations.

    But you could just vote on what's actually in the amendment, which is this version and no other.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    The elites in my humble opinion want a yes vote from Ireland in the hope of bouncing Hollande into selling out his election promises to renegotiate the Treaty.

    The best answer to that is what my dad, who works in a factory stores department, told me last night. In his own words he's voting yes because "if SF or any of that lot every get into power we'll need strong rules on them"


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    But you could just vote on what's actually in the amendment, which is this version and no other.
    See, that's just crazy talk.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,760 ✭✭✭golfball37


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The best answer to that is what my dad, who works in a factory stores department, told me last night. In his own words he's voting yes because "if SF or any of that lot every get into power we'll need strong rules on them"


    You devoid of independent thought by any chance? Its the hereditery passing down of civil war politics that has ruined this country. If you would genuinely vote based on a future assumption of what might be then you are no better than someone saying Vote no as we'll have abortion in the morning or a minimum wage of 1.80.

    Of course I hope your father mentioned these rules are being suggested for Ireland because of the behaviour of the traditional parties not SF or any of that crowd you mention. I hope he realises we are in the Sh*t because of our "repsonsible parties" actions and not those of Sf/ULA etc?

    Or does that not really matter? The truth, I mean.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    To force the EU into renegotiating...

    A No vote can't force our government to renegotiate never mind any of the others. And reaching agreement is something else again.
    What is there now imho will be renegotiated by Hollande.

    Inda just vetoed those (non-existent) proposals. Next spurious excuse please...


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,150 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    View wrote:
    A No vote can't force our government to renegotiate never mind any of the others. And reaching agreement is something else again.
    The Treaty is in trouble across Europe and we just need to give it to coup-de-grace. Just 3 countries have ratified so far. There is a legal challenge pending to the Treaty in the Netherlands, and French and German ratifications are looking problematic. I think a no vote here would make pressure for renegotiation unstoppable.
    Inda just vetoed those (non-existent) proposals. Next spurious excuse please...
    Really where did you hear that?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    The Treaty is in trouble across Europe and we just need to give it to coup-de-grace. Just 3 countries have ratified so far. There is a legal challenge pending to the Treaty in the Netherlands, and French and German ratifications are looking problematic. I think a no vote here would make pressure for renegotiation unstoppable.?

    You are quite frankly clutching at straws.

    Nobody has proposed any amendments for "re-negotiation" and there is no suggestion that anyone is about to formally do so.
    Really where did you hear that

    The point was any member of the European Council - even Inda - can veto any proposed amendments to the treaties. They don't have to re-negotiate at all and even if they want to do so, they can say "Stick the proposals into an amending treaty and we'll ratify them just as soon as the current version of the treaty enters force".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    The Treaty is in trouble across Europe and we just need to give it to coup-de-grace. Just 3 countries have ratified so far. There is a legal challenge pending to the Treaty in the Netherlands, and French and German ratifications are looking problematic. I think a no vote here would make pressure for renegotiation unstoppable.Really where did you hear that?

    Out of curiosity, what is the minimum gain in a renegotiated treaty that would secure a 'yes' vote from you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,150 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Out of curiosity, what is the minimum gain in a renegotiated treaty that would secure a 'yes' vote from you?
    Eurobonds and a 50% write-off of the cost of the bailout.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Interesting watch for all who are going to vote on the 31st

    Have you noticed how Ireland is depicted at the poker table as the only player with no chips... how accurate!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Eurobonds and a 50% write-off of the cost of the bailout.

    Who will be taking the 50% haircut? What is it 50% of? When you say the cost do you mean interest on money, or the principal?

    I'd like some more details on your plan? Do you think it's feasible?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    antoobrien wrote: »
    The best answer to that is what my dad, who works in a factory stores department, told me last night. In his own words he's voting yes because "if SF or any of that lot every get into power we'll need strong rules on them"

    Pity that he and his generation hadn't been so conscientious for the last 40 years! :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 528 ✭✭✭EURATS


    dvpower wrote: »
    EURATS wrote: »
    Poll above still looking pretty good. Slight drop, but to be expected. No less random than red C.
    No less random than RedC?
    Then how is it that the results of this poll and the various RedC polls are almost a mirror image?


    I don't know. You tell me!!! Are you not one of the people that has an answer for everything?

    [MOD]EURATS, please don't personalise the debate.[/MOD]


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,150 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Who will be taking the 50% haircut? What is it 50% of? When you say the cost do you mean interest on money, or the principal?

    I'd like some more details on your plan? Do you think it's feasible?
    I mean the principal. I think it is feasible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    golfball37 wrote: »
    You devoid of independent thought by any chance? Its the hereditery passing down of civil war politics that has ruined this country. If you would genuinely vote based on a future assumption of what might be then you are no better than someone saying Vote no as we'll have abortion in the morning or a minimum wage of 1.80.

    Of course I hope your father mentioned these rules are being suggested for Ireland because of the behaviour of the traditional parties not SF or any of that crowd you mention. I hope he realises we are in the Sh*t because of our "repsonsible parties" actions and not those of Sf/ULA etc?

    Or does that not really matter? The truth, I mean.


    SF are a bunch of economic illiterates that want to spend their way out of the mess were by increasing taxes. Take a look at the tax take from the 80s and 90s, when we had 48% tax on about €16k(inflation adjusted). The tax take was a fraction of what it is today. So history tells us that SF policies would destroy the tax take.

    Putting a brake on future spending plans can only be a good thing. As I see it this treaty is about learning from past mistakes and preventing them from happening in future. That goes double for the left - who think that money grows on trees.

    As for independent thought answer this one. If we vote no, how will we pay for our funding needs in 2014 when:
    antoobrien wrote: »
    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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    EURATS wrote: »
    I don't know. You tell me!!! Are you not one of the people that has an answer for everything?
    Because the Boards poll doesn't involve any sort of polling methodology at all, has a very narrow sample base and a much smaller sample.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Pity that he and his generation hadn't been so conscientious for the last 40 years! :rolleyes:

    A little food for thought (or denial) for the short of memory.

    His generation voted in the governments that put in place the economic framework that created the expansion of the 1990s.

    Our generation voted in the governments that created the boom and bust.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    antoobrien wrote: »
    His generation voted in the governments that put in place the economic framework that created the expansion of the 1990s.

    Charlie? :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 528 ✭✭✭EURATS


    dvpower wrote: »
    EURATS wrote: »
    I don't know. You tell me!!! Are you not one of the people that has an answer for everything?
    Because the Boards poll doesn't involve any sort of polling methodology at all, has a very narrow sample base and a much smaller sample.


    So you work for RED C? The only thing people have in common here is a computer and access to the Internet. Everybody is free to join and vote. Wouldn't call that sample base narrow!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    EURATS wrote: »
    So you work for RED C? The only thing people have in common here is a computer and access to the Internet. Everybody is free to join and vote. Wouldn't call that sample base narrow!
    Yeah but Red C don't just gather the opinions of anyone who can muster the energy to click on Option 1 or Option 2 when happening across it on the internet.

    I think it's reasonable to suggest that the real result will look nothing like the poll above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Charlie? :rolleyes:

    Whatever else he did wrong, he is the basis for what we did right (for a while). He changed the tax regime, started the regeneration of Dublin city center, started spending money on infrastructure, all of which brought in international investors bringing about the prosperity that (eventually) followed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 528 ✭✭✭EURATS


    later12 wrote: »
    EURATS wrote: »
    So you work for RED C? The only thing people have in common here is a computer and access to the Internet. Everybody is free to join and vote. Wouldn't call that sample base narrow!
    Yeah but Red C don't just gather the opinions of anyone who can muster the energy to click on Option 1 or Option 2 when happening across it on the internet.

    I think it's reasonable to suggest that the real result will look nothing like the poll above.


    It isn't just the poll in this thread. Polls are just indicators. Nothing more. Nothing less.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    EURATS wrote: »
    So you work for RED C? The only thing people have in common here is a computer and access to the Internet. Everybody is free to join and vote. Wouldn't call that sample base narrow!

    I've no doubt that if RedC qualified their sample to Boards.ie users, the results would be different.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 thomthomdrum


    Have you noticed how Ireland is depicted at the poker table as the only player with no chips... how accurate!

    Did not notice that no :o)

    Did notice that my post seems to be missing however, or else I am doing something wrong?:confused:

    Is there something wrong with posting youtube clips?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Did not notice that no :o)

    Did notice that my post seems to be missing however, or else I am doing something wrong?:confused:

    Is there something wrong with posting youtube clips?

    It's in the charter that you can't post youtube clips without discussing them, this being a discussion forum an' all. So to answer your question... Yes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Whatever else he did wrong, he is the basis for what we did right (for a while). He changed the tax regime, started the regeneration of Dublin city center, started spending money on infrastructure, all of which brought in international investors bringing about the prosperity that (eventually) followed.

    Brown envelopes, planning ignored, personal greed, rampant senses of entitlement. His fall from grace revealed just what the culture of FF has done to this country. Have you been living in a bubble?
    I wish him and his ilk never existed, they built a society based on falseness, aided and abetted by Brussels. We are now in payback mode and will be for generations and still we keep digging.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement