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

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

Options
1…5253555758…63

Comments

  • Options
    #1622
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Kinski wrote: »
    Apologies if this has been asked and answered already (I'm sure it probably has been!), but, in the event of a Yes victory, can an Irish govt "un-ratify" the Fiscal Compact at a later date?

    I realise that today's vote is not a vote on incorporating the Compact into the Constitution, but on allowing the Dail to legally ratify the Treaty and ensuring that no Constitutional challenge to its subsequent standing in Irish law will result.

    But what options remain after ratification? If a future govt decides it is no longer in Ireland's interests to abide by the Treaty, can they withdraw from it? Or would "de-establishing" the Compact require all signatories to agree to tear it up?

    It's covered by the Vienna Convention Section 3 if you care to look it up.

    There's a few ways to get out of treaties, one is by consent of all parties, one is by 'a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty' this could be argued maybe?

    This could be argued:
    1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the
    time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a
    ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:
    (a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to
    be bound by the treaty; and
    (b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed
    under the treaty.

    But most likely it would be superseded by another treaty which might change the limits/conditions or invalidate this one.


  • Options
    #1623
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Because it's easier to believe than Governments actively conspire against their people.

    Bertie Ahern did not guarantee any debt, by the way, it was Brian Cowen.

    I genuinely believe Cowen & Lenihan were incompetent, not malicious, they never thought for a second the banks would fail, allowing them the 'cheapest bailout in history'.

    It may well be that were incompetent but many people spoke of how smart Lenihan was after he sadly passed away. It was Bertie who was in charge when these banks were pretty much unregulated. Our Government failed to do what was right for the people and Guranteed debt that belongs to banks. Those who bought the bonds took a gamble not the the Irish Electorate yet it's the Irish Electorate that has to pay for it and our Taoiseach hasn't even asked for a writedown despite the IMF saying we should and you and OscarBravo think we should trust the Government and trust the boys and girls in Brussels and repay all this debt while driving our economy deeper and deeper into despair?


  • Options
    #1624
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Kinski wrote: »
    Apologies if this has been asked and answered already (I'm sure it probably has been!), but, in the event of a Yes victory, can an Irish govt "un-ratify" the Fiscal Compact at a later date?

    I realise that today's vote is not a vote on incorporating the Compact into the Constitution, but on allowing the Dail to legally ratify the Treaty and ensuring that no Constitutional challenge to its subsequent standing in Irish law will result.

    But what options remain after ratification? If a future govt decides it is no longer in Ireland's interests to abide by the Treaty, can they withdraw from it? Or would "de-establishing" the Compact require all signatories to agree to tear it up?
    I'm on my phone and do not have the treaty to hand, but my recollection is that there is nothing in there to stop us from withdrawing. There would be no point though IMO. If there was a real need to break the rules something could be worked out.

    That's the issue with the no side saying that there aren't clear enough rules on when the rules can be broken; we can never legislate for every possibility so we allow an open ended concept of a case by case basis depending on the individual issues that arise.

    It's an extremely flexible move on the European front, not like them. Us being used to it via common law principles of precedent and the continent being a much stricter civil law system.


  • Options
    #1625
    Heads the ball
    Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    Ma'am! But it is not just my opinion - "loans to" is pretty simple English.

    If they said "put the MS in funds to recap its bank" that might suggest an interpretation such as yours of following the cash, but that is not what it says.

    It says they may make "loans to" requiring the lending of money from one party (the ESM) to another party (the Member State).

    You are making an easy mistake - you are reading one part of a sentence in isolation. Its a common mistake.

    Elsewhere the treaty provides that the terms of the loans can be decided by the Board. There is nothing preventing a loan to the member state containing a term which would novate the loan to a financial institution. You wouldnt have picked up on that as you were determined to read the "to a member state" language in isolation.

    There is an intention obvious throughout the ESM treaty to defer to "the Board."


  • Options
    #1626
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Villain wrote: »
    No but if there was an election in every Country would the Governments remain in power? Sarkozy, Bertie and how many more would be voted out?

    Why do people assume that Governments will do what is right for their people? Was it the electorate who told Lenihan and Bertie to gurantee the debts that night?

    Because it's easier to believe than Governments actively conspire against their people.

    Bertie Ahern did not guarantee any debt, by the way, it was Brian Cowen.

    I genuinely believe Cowen & Lenihan were incompetent, not malicious, they never thought for a second the banks would fail, allowing them the 'cheapest bailout in history'.
    They took two decent individual ideas, bailout and guarantee, and combined them into one massively bad idea.As one of our resident libertarians, I should be against bailout but I think that letting the big banks fail could have been a disaster (a bigger one)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1627
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Because it's easier to believe than Governments actively conspire against their people.

    Bertie Ahern did not guarantee any debt, by the way, it was Brian Cowen.

    I genuinely believe Cowen & Lenihan were incompetent, not malicious, they never thought for a second the banks would fail, allowing them the 'cheapest bailout in history'.

    I'm afraid I will never believe that for a second. They didn't deliberately ruin the rest of us, they simply were totally indifferent. It was a case of "bail out our mates, regardless of the wider consequence". I'd say the same for Europe's insistence on paying them back - they're trying desperately to cling on to a broken system rather than accept the inevitability of having to redesign it.


  • Options
    #1628
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Villain wrote: »
    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Because it's easier to believe than Governments actively conspire against their people.

    Bertie Ahern did not guarantee any debt, by the way, it was Brian Cowen.

    I genuinely believe Cowen & Lenihan were incompetent, not malicious, they never thought for a second the banks would fail, allowing them the 'cheapest bailout in history'.

    It may well be that were incompetent but many people spoke of how smart Lenihan was after he sadly passed away. It was Bertie who was in charge when these banks were pretty much unregulated. Our Government failed to do what was right for the people and Guranteed debt that belongs to banks. Those who bought the bonds took a gamble not the the Irish Electorate yet it's the Irish Electorate that has to pay for it and our Taoiseach hasn't even asked for a writedown despite the IMF saying we should and you and OscarBravo think we should trust the Government and trust the boys and girls in Brussels and repay all this debt while driving our economy deeper and deeper into despair?
    Brian Lenihan was a smart, good man and a decent barrister. But he had no place being minister for finance, just as most of our TDs shouldn't be in politics. Nothing against teachers, but...


  • Options
    #1629
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Heads the ball wrote: »
    You are making an easy mistake - you are reading one part of a sentence in isolation. Its a common mistake.

    Elsewhere the treaty provides that the terms of the loans can be decided by the Board. There is nothing preventing a loan to the member state containing a term which would novate the loan to a financial institution. You wouldnt have picked up on that as you were determined to read the "to a member state" language in isolation.

    There is an intention obvious throughout the ESM treaty to defer to "the Board."

    I'm a little surprised by this argument. What's in the Treaty is:
    1. The Board of Governors may decide to grant financial assistance through loans to an ESM Member for the specific purpose of re-capitalising the financial institutions of that ESM Member.

    I cannot see how one can realistically claim that the loan is being made to anyone other than the ESM member. And banks are not ESM members.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1630
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Heads the ball wrote: »
    You are making an easy mistake - you are reading one part of a sentence in isolation. Its a common mistake.

    The treaty provides that the terms of the loans can be decided by the Board. There is nothing preventing a loan to the member state containing a term which would novate the loan to a financial institution. You wouldnt have picked up on that as you were determined to read the "to a member state" language in isolation.

    There is an intention obvious throughout the ESM treaty to defer to "the Board."

    No, no, no, no, no there would need to be express provision in the treaty for the loans to be novated to a non-party which is not there, as acknowledged by the parties and the Commission.

    There is a provision for the loan to be made to the MS for them to recap their banks. A loan from the fund to one of its Members.

    The Governors do not have any right to lend, or acquiesce to the novation of loans, to non Members.

    You're working way too hard to try and find an ambiguity where there is none.


  • Options
    #1631
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    They took two decent individual ideas, bailout and guarantee, and combined them into one massively bad idea.As one of our resident libertarians, I should be against bailout but I think that letting the big banks fail could have been a disaster (a bigger one)

    For who?
    If Anglo had collapsed, who would have suffered apart from those who chose, of their own free will, to invest in it and lend to it?

    As someone without a loan from them or without having lent money to them how would I as an individual have suffered? How would you have suffered?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1632
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm a little surprised by this argument. What's in the Treaty is:



    I cannot see how one can realistically claim that the loan is being made to anyone other than the ESM member. And banks are not ESM members.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    ..."For the specific purpose of recapitalizing..."
    So this treaty continues the idea of bailing out the financial sector instead of allowing it to pay for its own mistakes. Again.

    They've taken an unprecedented opportunity to redesign the monetary system and turned it into a chance to copperfasten it instead. :mad:


  • Options
    #1633
    Heads the ball
    Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    No, no, no, no, no there would need to be express provision in the treaty for the loans to be novated to a non-party which is not there, as acknowledged by the parties and the Commission.

    This is an opinion


  • Options
    #1634
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    For who?
    If Anglo had collapsed, who would have suffered apart from those who chose, of their own free will, to invest in it and lend to it?

    As someone without a loan from them or without having lent money to them how would I as an individual have suffered? How would you have suffered?

    Anglo was 70% funded by deposits - not bonds. Disproportionately funded by deposits and that was the issue (and hence the huge ELA that replaced the deposits).

    That, and the fact that it would have been very difficult to firewall AIB (and the BoI)...

    Not saying that the solution was the best possible one, but it really is difficult even with 20-20 hindsight to see any solution that wouldn't have been fraught with huge risks.


  • Options
    #1635
    Heads the ball
    Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm a little surprised by this argument. What's in the Treaty is:



    I cannot see how one can realistically claim that the loan is being made to anyone other than the ESM member. And banks are not ESM members.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I cited earlier the articles which allow the board to attach term to the loans (i think it was 15.2 and 13.3)


  • Options
    #1636
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    For who?
    If Anglo had collapsed, who would have suffered apart from those who chose, of their own free will, to invest in it and lend to it?

    As someone without a loan from them or without having lent money to them how would I as an individual have suffered? How would you have suffered?

    Anglo was 70% funded by deposits - not bonds. Disproportionately funded by deposits and that was the issue (and hence the huge ELA that replaced the deposits).

    That, and the fact that it would have been very difficult to firewall AIB (and the BoI)...

    Not saying that the solution was the best possible one, but it really is difficult even with 20-20 hindsight to see any solution that wouldn't have been fraught with huge risks.
    +1

    The contagion risk in Ireland alone was an issue. Not to forget at that time we very nearly had a 1920s style run on the banks following all the fearmongering from the far left.


  • Options
    #1637
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    ..."For the specific purpose of recapitalizing..."
    So this treaty continues the idea of bailing out the financial sector instead of allowing it to pay for its own mistakes. Again.

    They've taken an unprecedented opportunity to redesign the monetary system and turned it into a chance to copperfasten it instead. :mad:
    1. The Board of Governors may decide to grant financial assistance through loans to an ESM Member for the specific purpose of re-capitalising the financial institutions of that ESM Member.

    Sounds to me like a request for financial assistance from an ESM member with the specific aim to recapitalise financial institutions may be granted.

    I dont see how thats a term decided by the board.


  • Options
    #1638
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Villain wrote: »
    It may well be that were incompetent but many people spoke of how smart Lenihan was after he sadly passed away. It was Bertie who was in charge when these banks were pretty much unregulated. Our Government failed to do what was right for the people and Guranteed debt that belongs to banks. Those who bought the bonds took a gamble not the the Irish Electorate yet it's the Irish Electorate that has to pay for it and our Taoiseach hasn't even asked for a writedown despite the IMF saying we should and you and OscarBravo think we should trust the Government and trust the boys and girls in Brussels and repay all this debt while driving our economy deeper and deeper into despair?

    My problem with your line of thought is that you are speaking as if the bank debt is yet to be repayed, it isn't, it's already been paid.

    I fundamentally disagree that we should have paid it, we shouldn't have, but we did, unfortunately. Now any advocates for default are advocating defaulting on unrelated sovereign debt, defaulting on parties who are lending us money to keep our whole country going. Or worse, calling for us to somehow attempt put the taxpayers of another country on the hook for it!

    Not only is that just as morally reprehensible as the bailout in the first place, it's not in the best interests of our country!

    Again, for the record, loud and clear, I was completely against the bank guarantee in September 2008, I was against bailing out banks with tax money, I think Anglo should have been left to collapse in on itself and take it's depositors, investors and shareholders with it.

    Unfortunately we are now past the point of that decision, it's done, and cannot be undone.


  • Options
    #1639
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    I agree i dont like the way the whole vote is being done,and how its been designed so far,but what other choice do we have whether we vote yes or no its still going to be a bad situation for us,but what plan do the no side have,they didnt offer any solutions.i think having access to low interest money is key and thats why im voting yes.
    i dont even want to vote yes,but it seems like the lesser of two evils right now..


  • Options
    #1640
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Heads the ball wrote: »
    I cited earlier the articles which allow the board to attach term to the loans (i think it was 15.2 and 13.3)

    Neither of which change the point of Article 15.1, which is the only article that allows the ESM to lend for the purpose of recapitalising an ESM member's banks:
    1. The Board of Governors may decide to grant financial assistance through loans to an ESM Member for the specific purpose of re-capitalising the financial institutions of that ESM Member.

    That's the Article that says the ESM can do it, and it's specific about who the loan is to. There isn't anything I can see in the Treaty which contradicts it - certainly not the articles you're citing.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #1641
    Jeff the Yank
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭Jeff the Yank


    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/30/opinion/prestowitz-prout-germany-eurozone/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

    Interesting idea. Let Germany leave the Euro and allow the Euro to depreciate to a level where all the rest of us can start building again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1642
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Jeff the Yank wrote: »
    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/30/opinion/prestowitz-prout-germany-eurozone/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

    Interesting idea. Let Germany leave the Euro and allow the Euro to depreciate to a level where all the rest of us can start building again.

    Broken link.


  • Options
    #1643
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Villain wrote: »
    It may well be that were incompetent but many people spoke of how smart Lenihan was after he sadly passed away. It was Bertie who was in charge when these banks were pretty much unregulated. Our Government failed to do what was right for the people and Guranteed debt that belongs to banks. Those who bought the bonds took a gamble not the the Irish Electorate yet it's the Irish Electorate that has to pay for it and our Taoiseach hasn't even asked for a writedown despite the IMF saying we should and you and OscarBravo think we should trust the Government and trust the boys and girls in Brussels and repay all this debt while driving our economy deeper and deeper into despair?

    My problem with your line of thought is that you are speaking as if the bank debt is yet to be repayed, it isn't, it's already been paid.

    I fundamentally disagree that we should have paid it, we shouldn't have, but we did, unfortunately. Now any advocates for default are advocating defaulting on unrelated sovereign debt, defaulting on parties who are lending us money to keep our whole country going. Or worse, calling for us to somehow attempt put the taxpayers of another country on the hook for it!

    Not only is that just as morally reprehensible as the bailout in the first place, it's not in the best interests of our country!

    Again, for the record, loud and clear, I was completely against the bank guarantee in September 2008, I was against bailing out banks with tax money, I think Anglo should have been left to collapse in on itself and take it's depositors, investors and shareholders with it.

    Unfortunately we are now past the point of that decision, it's done, and cannot be undone.
    I would totally agree with you here but refer you to beeftotheheels post a few back. She correctly pointed out the level of deposits in the bank at the time

    The moves weren't all right, but letting Anglo fail was too risky


  • Options
    #1644
    Heads the ball
    Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Neither of which change the point of Article 15.1, which is the only article that allows the ESM to lend for the purpose of recapitalising an ESM member's banks:



    That's the Article that says the ESM can do it, and it's specific about who the loan is to. There isn't anything I can see in the Treaty which contradicts it - certainly not the articles you're citing.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I disagree. The articles are clear in that they allow the Board to attach the relevant terms to the loans.

    There is nothing preventing the Board novating the loan, nor is there anything to prevent a term within the loan to grant a concession to the Member State should its financial institution be unable to repay.


  • Options
    #1645
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    The moves weren't all right, but letting Anglo fail was too risky

    Lets not get down that rat hole in this thread!


  • Options
    #1646
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Heads the ball wrote: »
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Neither of which change the point of Article 15.1, which is the only article that allows the ESM to lend for the purpose of recapitalising an ESM member's banks:



    That's the Article that says the ESM can do it, and it's specific about who the loan is to. There isn't anything I can see in the Treaty which contradicts it - certainly not the articles you're citing.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I disagree. The articles are clear in that they allow the Board to attach the relevant terms to the loans.

    There is nothing preventing the Board novating the loan, nor is there anything to prevent a term within the loan to grant a concession to the Member State should its financial institution be unable to repay.
    I am on the touch site. Can you put the relevant part here so I can see what you're referring to?

    My legislative drafting courses have been coming in quite handy the past few years :P


  • Options
    #1647
    Heads the ball
    Registered Users Posts: 331 ✭✭Heads the ball


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I am on the touch site. Can you put the relevant part here so I can see what you're referring to?

    My legislative drafting courses have been coming in quite handy the past few years :P

    Yes:

    A15.2:
    The conditionality attached to financial assistance for the re-capitalisation of an ESM Member's financial institutions shall be detailed in the MoU, in accordance with Article 13(3).

    A13.3:
    3. If a decision pursuant to paragraph 2 is adopted, the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission – in liaison with the ECB and, wherever possible, together with the IMF – with the task of negotiating, with the ESM Member concerned, a memorandum of understanding (an "MoU") detailing the conditionality attached to the financial assistance facility. The content of the MoU shall reflect the severity of the weaknesses to be addressed and the financial assistance instrument chosen. In parallel, the Managing Director of the ESM shall prepare a proposal for a financial assistance facility agreement, including the financial terms and conditions and the choice of instruments, to be adopted by the Board of Governors.
    The MoU shall be fully consistent with the measures of economic policy coordination provided for in the TFEU, in particular with any act of European Union law, including any opinion, warning, recommendation or decision addressed to the ESM Member concerned.


  • Options
    #1648
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    There is no easy way out of this crisis, no quick fix answer, its going to be really hard - its just how hard do we make it for ourselves - we need the lowest interest rate loan and someone to make sure we follow the right road, we are to easily lead astray when left to our own judgement - look at our politicans?

    Quite. Yet it is our politicians that are asking for a yes vote. If you haven't learned yet and are still comfortable with being led astray that's fine.
    sparkling sea wrote: »
    The reality is if Spain and Italy need a bail out we are all in even more trouble anyway however to say there won't be any money for us is a nonsense, no country is going to receive all of the money at the one time.
    Also if the treaty is not passed we will be undermining the Euro so Spain, Italy, us, etc will be more at risk of contagion.

    To say that money will be available to us is a nonesense. First of all the ESM must be ratified and established. Secondly the funds have to be paid in. Thirdly someone has to ask for those funds. And so on and so forth.
    The only way to get anything out of this if the vote is Yes is to wait for the ESM to be established, have some money in it and then default to get it. This country is awash with expertise on insurance fraud as well as other types of fraud so this should not be a problem.
    sparkling sea wrote: »
    I'll correct you there - I do have a point - also I' ll correct you again - the treaty is about Europe - however my post was focusing on certain aspects of why I will vote yes - its a big issue with lots of aspects

    Ah the world of black and white with no grey area - just because Sinn Fein are not the only ones calling for a no vote doesn't mean I don't have a point.

    Respectfully I disagree as this treaty has no ones interests at heart but Germany.
    sparkling sea wrote: »
    Nigel Farage of UKIP is also calling for a no vote. His policies include ending multiculturalism and strictly limiting UK citizenship. They certainly cannot be expected to act in Ireland’s best interests.

    If that is your argument then an argument that suggests voting No because Kenny is a brainless p**** and Gilmore is a gormless c*** is a far better argument.


  • Options
    #1649
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Quite. Yet it is our politicians that are asking for a yes vote.

    Sinn Féin, The Socialist Party, People Before Profit, Shane Ross, Ming Flanagan and Mick Wallace might disagree with you there.

    Or are they not politicians because they are advocating the same position as you?

    No true Scotsman...


  • Options
    #1650
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Villain wrote: »
    Why do people assume that Governments will do what is right for their people?
    Because that's their job. If you're going to operate on the assumption that a government will automatically shaft its electorate, you're condemning the entire idea of representative democracy as completely, fundamentally broken.

    Moreover, if you're going to claim that every single member state government conspired with every other member state government to act against the interests of their respective electorates, the very least you could do is adduce a shred of evidence to support that rather bizarre theory.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Greed is the answer Oscar, you don't need to construct a huge conspiracy theory, it's all there in the baser instincts of man.
    As is the case in almost every post you make, you're just tossing out rhetorical soundbites instead of actually arguing anything.

    If you're arguing that every member state government conspired with every other member state government - and you blithely dismiss this as "constructing a huge conspiracy theory", but that's what you're doing - then you can't just explain this away with a single word and a wave of your hand. If greed is the reason why the member state governments are acting against the interests of their electorates, what are they greedy for? What is the glittering prize that is so enticing that it lures them to willfully destroy their own countries?
    ...I ask myself, why did men and women like those in FF and Fg come to power...
    Because people voted for them. It's sort of how the system works.
    ...why did Lab sell it's soul to get into power? Think about that and get back to me if you have an answer other than simple GREED. Then apply the same thinking to why has the EU gone in the direction it has.
    You use an awful lot of words to disguise the fact that you have absolutely no substance to your replies.

    Explain this to me in short sentences, and without the tedious rhetorical flourishes: how does greed explain the actions of the member state governments in drafting this treaty?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1651
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Sinn Féin, The Socialist Party, People Before Profit, Shane Ross, Ming Flanagan and Mick Wallace might disagree with you there.

    Or are they not politicians because they are advocating the same position as you?

    No true Scotsman...

    I was thinking Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fail who constitute the majority and who are responsible for the damage as they have been the ones in power.

    Leave the Scots out if this. They have enough problems of their own.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement