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?

1121315171838

Comments

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


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    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?

    No, quite the contrary. I just don't feel the need to point out the bleeding obvious, merely the conveniently overlooked.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    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.

    Can't destroy the bad without also destroying the good. It may well be that without charlie we wouldn't have had Mahon et al, but I doubt it (FG seem to have been just as bad). It's also worth pointing out Charlie's predecessor, who was an economist, bailed out AIB and didn't make any inroads into creating a better economy (largely thanks to labour's unwillingness to cut). Go Figure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 thomthomdrum


    meglome wrote: »
    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.

    A tad strict.......

    I thought such a video would have simply added to the discussion.........


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


    A tad strict.......

    I thought such a video would have simply added to the discussion.........

    Sorry - yes, video only posts are usually deleted. Not everyone will (or can) watch a video, so it doesn't really further the discussion unless the poster can summarise the contents - and discuss them. Otherwise we might as well all just watch TV.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


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


    A tad strict.......

    I thought such a video would have simply added to the discussion.........

    Various people may not have access to youtube (work firewalls, slow speeds etc) so it's considered unfair to readers and slightly lazy on the poster's behalf (for not explaining their pov and why the video appeals to them).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 Rick_nl


    Since I am not Irish I seem to be unable to vote on a matter of EUROPEAN interest and importance. With the stance that this government takes one should think EVERYBODY in this country would be allowed to vote for their future in Ireland.

    alas....

    So I will not be voting. I WILL however - and am doing that on a daily basis - try to convince all the Irish people to put in their NO vote. As I think the whole idea where an UNELECTED COMMERCIAL CORPORATION can demand money within 7 days from governments without any chance of protesting or declining the DEMAND, and with no legal ( in their system) option to oppose this, is a blueprint for robbing Europe blind, pushing a whole continent into fiscal ( and who knows) physical slavery.

    I will NEVER surrender to any of this.
    It has got NOTHING to do with the money. It is to do with control in every way thinkable.

    If a "NO" can help fight this, then I will urge everyone to say NO.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 thomthomdrum


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Various people may not have access to youtube (work firewalls, slow speeds etc) so it's considered unfair to readers and slightly lazy on the poster's behalf (for not explaining their pov and why the video appeals to them).

    Thats fair enough. I did not want to present it as a personal POV so did not discuss it as such. It was simply a video I viewed recently which I thought was interesting and thought that those in this discussion would be interested in it too. But ineffect, as I see now, I was not joining the discussion.

    For anyone that is interested nit was a video called punk econoimics 4 by David McWilliams and in it he was outlining how Germany benifits from the current crisis in the EU and trys to control it in certian ways. He effectively suggests that if the citizens of countries such as Ireland have issue with the EU and the current ecomomic crisis that they should us their voice via the ballot box to say so. Go to youtube and search for punk econoimics 4 if interested in seeing how David McWilliams puts forward this argument


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


    Rick_nl wrote: »
    Since I am not Irish I seem to be unable to vote on a matter of EUROPEAN interest and importance. With the stance that this government takes one should think EVERYBODY in this country would be allowed to vote for their future in Ireland.

    alas....

    So I will not be voting. I WILL however - and am doing that on a daily basis - try to convince all the Irish people to put in their NO vote. As I think the whole idea where an UNELECTED COMMERCIAL CORPORATION can demand money within 7 days from governments without any chance of protesting or declining the DEMAND, and with no legal ( in their system) option to oppose this, is a blueprint for robbing Europe blind, pushing a whole continent into fiscal ( and who knows) physical slavery.

    I will NEVER surrender to any of this.
    It has got NOTHING to do with the money. It is to do with control in every way thinkable.

    If a "NO" can help fight this, then I will urge everyone to say NO.

    Since the vote to call in capital is by unanimous agreement of the governments who will then have to provide it, your fears are entirely unfounded.

    I daresay you're highly relieved.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


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


    antoobrien wrote: »
    [/B]




    Can't destroy the bad without also destroying the good.

    You weren't listening, I wish him and his ilk never existed. The culture that allowed them to rape and plunder was not some natural progression. They made a concious decision to do that, and they facilitated that type of 'politics' and politician here.
    Prosperity would have come anyway as it did across Europe and the western world, we didn't need the greed merchants to take advantage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 Rick_nl


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Since the vote to call in capital is by unanimous agreement of the governments who will then have to provide it, your fears are entirely unfounded.

    I daresay you're highly relieved.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I will be relieved if the ESM and it's caretakers have been taken out of Europe. And in view of the government we have had and currently HAVE I would say, my fears aren't big enough.....

    Governments will only be a decorative status of a bunch of people telling the country what their masters have told them to say. They will not have any influence on the playfield - as there will be no playfield.

    In fact this is already happening... THAT is the real danger.
    It will be Do or Die.


  • Registered Users Posts: 512 ✭✭✭wilson10


    The majority of No voter won't have a clue what they're voting for, they'll be voting no because the government parties ask them to vote yes, as in the last referendum they voted no and then wondered why the bankers responsible for the mess couldn't be brought before a parliamentary committee to face the music and explain themselves to the electorate.

    I heard on more than one occasion "nobody told me that's what it was about".

    Ignorance is bliss.

    One of the reasons I'll be voting Yes is to vote against the Libertas crowd who are going round tearing down Yes posters and replacing them with their own.


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


    rick_nl. Nl for Nederland no doubt. I'm sure this has no relevance:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-eurozone-esm-dutch-idUSBRE84L1BE20120522

    We'll send our MEPs over and help you decide on Sep 12th :D
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Since the vote to call in capital is by unanimous agreement of the governments who will then have to provide it, your fears are entirely unfounded.

    It's always the capital call isn't it. If someone says: OMG I've found this horrible feature in the ESM, it's either the "immune from legal prosecution" bit or the capital call bit.


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


    wilson10 wrote: »

    One of the reasons I'll be voting Yes is to vote against the Libertas crowd who are going round tearing down Yes posters and replacing them with their own.

    I'm voting No because FG used a horrible font. :rolleyes:


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


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I'm voting No because FG used a horrible font. :rolleyes:

    If it was Comic Sans they'd have deserved it for inflicting such pain on the populace :p

    I haven't seen any pulling down of Yes posters around my place but it's such a blizzard at this stage I can' t tell...


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


    carveone wrote: »
    It's always the capital call isn't it. If someone says: OMG I've found this horrible feature in the ESM, it's either the "immune from legal prosecution" bit or the capital call bit.

    It's this season's 'self-amending treaty', dahling...


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 thomthomdrum


    wilson10 wrote: »
    Ignorance is bliss.

    One of the reasons I'll be voting Yes is to vote against the Libertas crowd who are going round tearing down Yes posters and replacing them with their own.

    Bit of an ignorant reason for doing so, no?

    Should you not vote based on the overall issue at hand and what this treaty means for Europe and Ireland, as opposed to a precived dislike for a particular group?

    People voting Yes simply because Shinners or Libertas are on the No side is quite ignorant.........in saying that you may have other more logical reasons for your way of voting........but the above reason is frankly stupid......


  • Registered Users Posts: 40 pmcb


    if Enda Kenny isn't confident enough to step up to the plate to debate the issue, then as an undecided voter.... I'm not confident enough to vote YES....:confused:


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


    Bit of an ignorant reason for doing so, no?

    Should you not vote based on the overall issue at hand and what this treaty means for Europe and Ireland, as opposed to a precived dislike for a particular group?

    People voting Yes simply because Shinners or Libertas are on the No side is quite ignorant.........in saying that you may have other more logical reasons for your way of voting........but the above reason is frankly stupid......

    Personally I'd see it that anyone voting for reasons other than the actual contents of the treaty is a bad idea, worse it's probably a very foolish idea.

    That said if I had to base my vote on who lied the least that would have to be the Yes campaign. When you've got SF, The ULA, Libertas and various anti-government/anti-EU nutters on a particular side I'd have to strongly wonder about that side.


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


    pmcb wrote: »
    if Enda Kenny isn't confident enough to step up to the plate to debate the issue, then as an undecided voter.... I'm not confident enough to vote YES....:confused:

    Of all the people promoting a Yes you need Enda Kenny to convince you? really? He's the best person to do that? Really?


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


    pmcb wrote: »
    if Enda Kenny isn't confident enough to step up to the plate to debate the issue, then as an undecided voter.... I'm not confident enough to vote YES....:confused:

    It is unfortunate that Enda Kenny is a poor communicator, at least to the general public.

    However - it is still up to you to decide what's best for the country. This treaty was negotiated in good faith by the Eurozone countries, this referendum should really just be a rubber stamp as our government have already approved of it.

    Given that our Government negotiated it, approved it, and want it enacted, it really is up to the NO side to prove that it is bad for the country.

    What I'm trying to say is that the default position should be Yes, not No.


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


    Rick_nl wrote: »
    I will be relieved if the ESM and it's caretakers have been taken out of Europe. And in view of the government we have had and currently HAVE I would say, my fears aren't big enough.....

    Governments will only be a decorative status of a bunch of people telling the country what their masters have told them to say. They will not have any influence on the playfield - as there will be no playfield.

    In fact this is already happening... THAT is the real danger.
    It will be Do or Die.

    If this is going to turn out to be a "they're all just puppets..Goldman Sachs...Bilderberg" thing, please save the screen space.

    cheers,
    Scofflaw


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


    swampgas wrote: »
    What I'm trying to say is that the default position should be Yes, not No.

    I disagree, I don't believe there should, necessarily, be a default position. We've been charged as an electorate with making a decision, with the right to choose comes the responsibility to choose wisely.


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


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You weren't listening, I wish him and his ilk never existed. The culture that allowed them to rape and plunder was not some natural progression. They made a concious decision to do that, and they facilitated that type of 'politics' and politician here.
    Prosperity would have come anyway as it did across Europe and the western world, we didn't need the greed merchants to take advantage.

    You're not listening either - they did good too. You're (theoretically) trying to write out the bits you don't like while ignoring the consequences i.e. turning our economy from a small introverted one into an open one.

    Wrtie out the corruption and bribery, take with it the economic growth.

    This treaty is about learning from the past - the good and bad - and making sure that we don't repeat the mistakes. What good is that if we don't allow ourselves to remember the stuff we did right?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 Rick_nl


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If this is going to turn out to be a "they're all just puppets..Goldman Sachs...Bilderberg" thing, please save the screen space.

    cheers,
    Scofflaw

    Hadn't even thought about that one... but now you mention it...:cool:
    Let's keep it without the heavy conspiracy for a moment though:

    I was just on about the No Gooders in Brussels.


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


    I disagree, I don't believe there should, necessarily, be a default position. We've been charged as an electorate with making a decision, with the right to choose comes the responsibility to choose wisely.

    My point is that usually, a No vote means "No Change", and a Yes vote means "Do something differently from now on".

    In this case I think that a Yes vote keeps the status quo, so for an undecided voter who wants to avoid change, Yes is the option that best suits.

    Why?

    Since the start of the EU project we have managed to stay in sync with our European partners. A Yes vote keeps that sync. A No vote is a step away from Europe, and to my mind is a first step towards distancing Ireland from the Euro and the EU in general.

    I'm a big fan of the EU project, I think Ireland has on the whole done very well out of membership. I think it would be reckless to start off down the isolationist route at this stage.


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


    antoobrien wrote: »
    You're not listening either - they did good too. You're (theoretically) trying to write out the bits you don't like while ignoring the consequences i.e. turning our economy from a small introverted one into an open one.

    Wrtie out the corruption and bribery, take with it the economic growth.

    This treaty is about learning from the past - the good and bad - and making sure that we don't repeat the mistakes. What good is that if we don't allow ourselves to remember the stuff we did right?

    You are still not listening, I wish he and his ilk never existed.
    Prosperity would have happened anyway. There was a way to do it with integrity. By not damming the men and women who through greed and ego destroyed this country, people in the future will be conned again and again, just like your father and mine was.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Could someone explain how countries that are currently in breach of the protocols outlined in the treaty (such as Ireland) will be protected?

    Also does anyone know what reaction/consequences there have been to the Commission's proposal of trans-national approval of national budgets?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    It's this season's 'self-amending treaty', dahling...

    Actually talking of which, is this treaty an example of a protocol that changed from veto to QMV on the back of Lisbon?


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


    Actually talking of which, is this treaty an example of a protocol that changed from veto to QMV on the back of Lisbon?

    It's a multilateral treaty, no?

    puzzled,
    Scofflaw


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


    Could someone explain how countries that are currently in breach of the protocols outlined in the treaty (such as Ireland) will be protected?

    Protected from what, exactly? We're in an excessive deficit procedure. We have three years' grace from the end of it before the limits kick in again.
    Also does anyone know what reaction/consequences there have been to the Commission's proposal of trans-national approval of national budgets?

    Depends on what exactly that refers to...?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


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


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You are still not listening, I wish he and his ilk never existed.
    Prosperity would have happened anyway.

    No it wouldn't.

    Nobody else had the gumption to do what he did, so no prosperity would not have happened anyways. We would have had what happened for the past 10 or so years - keep doing what we're already doing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 512 ✭✭✭wilson10


    Bit of an ignorant reason for doing so, no?

    Should you not vote based on the overall issue at hand and what this treaty means for Europe and Ireland, as opposed to a precived dislike for a particular group?

    People voting Yes simply because Shinners or Libertas are on the No side is quite ignorant.........in saying that you may have other more logical reasons for your way of voting........but the above reason is frankly stupid......

    I have my own good reasons for voting yes.

    I probably could have put it better but I was trying to get the message across that the Libertas supporters in my area are tearing down Yes posters, which apart from being quite despicable is, I believe a criminal offence.


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


    antoobrien wrote: »

    Nobody else had the gumption to do what he did, so no prosperity

    How would you explain the similar rise in prosperity in the rest of Europe then? Did Charlie do that on his holliers? :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 178 ✭✭blowtorch


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And how is that voted on...?



    Articles about the kind of functional immunity found in the Treaty - have a read:

    http://opiniojuris.org/tag/functional-immunity/

    http://www.trial-ch.org/en/resources/international-law/amnesty-and-immunity.html

    http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/364/

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    http://opiniojuris.org/tag/functional-immunity/ = IMF 'The only type of immunity that would benefit DSK would be status-based immunity; that is, immunity based on his position as executive head of the IMF' (This article relates to the IMF + USA references.

    http://www.trial-ch.org/en/resources/international-law/amnesty-and-immunity.html= Amnesty and immunity are protections granted to individuals or groups of people that guarantee that they will not be brought to justice for crimes that they may have committed.

    http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/364/ = Diplomatic Immunity

    Those three links you gave. References to DSK rape case. Question - What type of immunity does the Treaty refer to then. I don't think for instance, it's diplomatic immunity (i.e. they can get away with rapes/murders etc), but an immunity from prosecution for any deeds they would do in their function as Directors of the ESM that they knowingly would be to the detriment of Europe in general, or countries of Europe.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭goat2


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You are still not listening, I wish he and his ilk never existed.
    Prosperity would have happened anyway. There was a way to do it with integrity. By not damming the men and women who through greed and ego destroyed this country, people in the future will be conned again and again, just like your father and mine was.
    one good thing that came from the past bad spell, are the great roads bypassing towns that were logbacked in the summer adding hours to peoples journeys, thus burning more petrol and waiting in line to pass through towns with narrow streets that there would be only room for a lorry to pass alot of the time, that is one thing that gladen me, lots of old delapitated buildings were made more pleasing on the eye also, and for those of us that were having children in college through the good old times such as myself, we were working night and day as were our college children which in turn helped big time with college, also we had great competition with insurance for first time drivers, i rang about five of them and quinne direct gave me best quote which afforded me the ability to help mine get started,
    but i pity those who are now trying to get their children through, no jobs for themselves, and for alot of the college students not able to gain work to help themselves through, is very worrying


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,343 ✭✭✭sonic85


    why do we need to vote for this treaty anyway? the whole basis for it seems to be to try and make countries keep within their budget but surely we should be doing that anyway. our current government in my opinion is failing miserably to reign in spending and cant seem to balance our budget.

    what will voting yes for this treaty achieve? if we vote yes well probably only end up having to fork out more money we dont have in fines. the fact is yes or no we have to make more cuts. this buzzword austerity wont go away if we vote no. times will get tougher and tighter no matter what the result of this referendum is.

    is any of this right or am i only spouting sh!te? havent got time to go through almost 50 pages


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


    sonic85 wrote: »
    why do we need to vote for this treaty anyway? the whole basis for it seems to be to try and make countries keep within their budget
    If the only provisions were the fiscal limits, there would be no need for a referendum.

    That's why focusing on the fiscal limits is not enough; there are plenty of other issues like the future powers of the EU Commission and the correction mechanism which deserve attention.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Protected from what, exactly? We're in an excessive deficit procedure. We have three years' grace from the end of it before the limits kick in again.

    So we have three years' grace from the end of 2012 to get our economy back to 2007/8 levels before automatic penalties kick in?

    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Depends on what exactly that refers to...?

    What it says on the tin.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    So we have three years' grace from the end of 2012 to get our economy back to 2007/8 levels before automatic penalties kick in?




    What it says on the tin.


    2018 as we exit the programme in 2015.

    Piece explaining it here:
    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/complying-with-debt-reduction-rule.html

    According to that we would satisfy the debt brake rules by 2018 anyway.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



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


    Jaffser wrote: »
    Simply put - There is no other way to vote on May 31 and that is 'NO'!

    Why? sell it to me.


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


    Jaffser wrote: »
    Simply put - There is no other way to vote on May 31 and that is 'NO'!
    I'm pretty sure there will be a 'yes' option on the ballot paper.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    mikeym wrote: »
    I will be spoiling my vote because I am disillusioned with the European Union and the current government.

    That's a reason to vote NO!


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


    Now the Portuguese Parliament wants it renegotiated. It's becoming increasingly clear that we will be among friends if we reject the Treaty. We will certainly not be isolated. The Treaty is falling apart.


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


    Now the Portuguese Parliament wants it renegotiated. It's becoming increasingly clear that we will be among friends if we reject the Treaty. We will certainly not be isolated. The Treaty is falling apart.
    They've already ratified.


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


    dvpower wrote: »
    They've already ratified.
    They evidently want it renegotiated though. It shows the French election has been a game changer. Perhaps they could repeal the ratification.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    K-9 wrote: »
    2018 as we exit the programme in 2015.

    Piece explaining it here:
    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/complying-with-debt-reduction-rule.html

    According to that we would satisfy the debt brake rules by 2018 anyway.

    I can't see the growth assumptions in that article. What are they?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    Now the Portuguese Parliament wants it renegotiated. It's becoming increasingly clear that we will be among friends if we reject the Treaty. We will certainly not be isolated. The Treaty is falling apart.

    We will be isolated (and ridiculed) if we vote "yes" :cool:


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


    They evidently want it renegotiated though. It shows the French election has been a game changer. Perhaps they could repeal the ratification.
    They want an additional growth pact, not a renegotiation of the treaty itself. They have already ratified the treaty.


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


    Jaffser wrote: »
    Simply put - There is no other way to vote on May 31 and that is 'NO'!
    True - that was simply put.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    I can't see the growth assumptions in that article. What are they?

    I was taking his worst case scenario. Basically if we fulfill the programme we could conceivably satisfy the debt brake rule in 2015, based on IMF projections, but we all know projections are optimistic atm, Seamus Coffey bases it on 2018. I'm not saying he is right or it is FACT, just worthy of consideration.
    dvpower wrote: »
    They want an additional growth pact, not a renegotiation of the treaty itself. They have already ratified the treaty.

    Indeed. I don't think any of the Euro Governments have specifically come out against the Treaty, none disagree with the need for austerity, just the lack of growth initiatives.

    Personally, the electorate seem confused enough about an 11 page document that I'd be fearful of adding more pages about some growth compromise reached. And a compromise will need to be reached, imagine SF and Ganley agreeing on a growth package!

    Agreement on a budget treaty was hard enough without bringing in the "growth" buzzword.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    K-9 wrote: »
    I was taking his worst case scenario. Basically if we fulfill the programme we could conceivably satisfy the debt brake rule in 2015, based on IMF projections, but we all know projections are optimistic

    A masterpiece of understatement!

    They are so "optimistic" they easily qualify as "fantasy"!

    And policies based on fantasy are not policies; just fantasies, wishful thinking - or whistling past the graveyard.

    Unless there is acceptance that a common currency means a eurzone Federal State assuming responsibility for all sovereign debt then we are operating in Europhile loo-la land.

    A NO vote to "austerity" is required, in Ireland and elsewhere, to bring the European Establishment to it's senses.

    But they fear they can't sell the notion of a Federal State to the periphery; or the notion of a transfer union to the Germans.

    And they are RIGHT!

    But without that, the current ECB policy (and an Irish "yes" vote) is an exercise in desperate fearful delusion.

    Time to confront reality - however painful.

    Vote NO for sane policies (and national self-respect).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement