Confirmed: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking41.html
Here we go again.. abortion, Euro Army etc, etc, etc.
Printable View
Confirmed: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking41.html
Here we go again.. abortion, Euro Army etc, etc, etc.
Ugh. The only thing I look forward to less than the no campaign is the yes campaign.
Indeed. The debate around these referenda rarely gets closer than nodding terms with the actual issues involved.
On that note, here is the actual treaty . Only 11 pages long, but pretty heavy going.
An explanation here seems to sum it up pretty well from what I read: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking46.html
Leo Varadkar will be distraught, as we only have these things to "amend the constitution" in his eyes.
Have to say I'm very surprised. No requirement for one was cited as a reason for it, but it should be held "on balance" instead. :confused:
It will come into effect once 12 EUcountriesprovinces ratify it.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking1.html
Here we go. The government will ramrod this up the rears of the citizens. If the Irish are going to stand up for a change, it has to be now. I read the treaty (thanks Mr. A) this morning and while it's dry stuff, there are some very worrying points.
We can rat out another country who isn't behaving - and then what? Be penalised? Christ sake. It seems the EU is being run like the LOI, we'll have countries docked points in the Eurovision next. No, this treaty just doesn't make sense. We have to clear up our own house before letting others run riot. I'm a supporter of the EU and all it offers and has done, but this, I'm hearing Ciaran Fitzgerald in my head!
edit: It won't matter what we do as once 12 do as they're told, we're all in.
Eh not quite. We'll be in the slow lane with the Brits, while the rest get on with whipping each other into German-oriented fiscal order. Two-Speed Europe by the back door.
But we won't be, because the people will obey the government and Vote Yes for those non-existent jobs they were promised two years ago. Which still haven't turned up.
Again...
Regardless of individual stances on the EU, I don't see how this treaty would address the economic situation - whether it be the US under FDR, or Germany post-WW2, the most effective solutions to recessions have be government-backed stimulus packages, concentration on R&D, and indeed, the strategic investment banks that we never got after the last election. Deflating economies by tying Europe into an austerity straight-jacket makes little logical sense, and as for the argument that a No vote would see us shut out of the ESM, the implications of such an action by the ECB would further destabilise Spain and Italy, while the UK and US would hardly allow a strategic trading partner to be starved of investment, so the IMF would take up the whole slack.
What's the alternative to austerity? The Government, as far as I can see, is still trying to attract investment even under the current programme.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
If you're struggling under credit card debt, is the solution to go out and get another credit card? Or is it to take your oil, scrimp for however long it takes to get back on sound financial footing and hope you've learned your lesson? And if that means we're in recession for a generation, then that's unfortunate - we've made our bed and can now lie in it. But any alternative seems to be kicking the can down the road. [/cliche mode]
I'm in a quandary on this; on the one hand, I've never voted for an EU referendum, but on the other hand, if this is basically a referendum on austerity, it makes sense.
No. If we don't ratify it, we're out. If 12 ratify it, 12 are in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
It's not supposed to address the economic situation, it's supposed to prevent it happening again. It won't prevent it happening again either, but European leaders like to appear proactive.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
We'll have austerity with or without the compact. The question is whether we want EU-approved austerity that involves repaying private investors while ignoring severe structural problems and preserving privelege, or if we want IMF-approved austerity which will be swifter and more brutal considering we've frittered away billions to bondholders, but at least would address the problems with our economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I'll be voting against, and I won't even read it. I'll vote against anything pro-EU for the foreseeable future. I'm pro-Europe, but I've had enough of the power-hungry ahabs that are in charge right now. They can stuff it, I'd prefer to default and take my chances. It's been done before by countries both smaller and bigger than us, it can be done again.
Fair dues to FG for at least giving the people a say. Even the Greeks with all their rioting didnt achieve that!
Well it's not Fine Gael, it's the Attorney General.
Yeah. But still a shock - too used to the FF dark days for surprises like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Mypost has a point, and this is something I really questioned back when they made us vote again the last time. I came home for it and everything was "we don't vote yes, we're out of Europe, we lose jobs, we won't get any money, we're gone." No, they're scaring with - if it's No then it's a general election. Good, get FG and Labour out, smash the parties and then let the EU/IMF/ECB appoint their buddies to asset strip us, at leas we'll be able to hoenstly blame the pesky foreigners.
Since 2008 my take home pay has gone down 600eu pm. They can stick their austerity up their holes. I didn't run up their bills. And, while I welcome being controlled by the Germans more than I do by Gombeen men from the arse end of Mayo I trust none of them. Unless there's something substantial on the table for me and my family they can take this treaty and feck off.
There's no chance of a general election regardless of the outcome. The government is strong and stable with a massive majority. It will take a bit more than an EU-ref defeat to bring it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Since the last EU ref, we've had 3 very harsh domestic budgets, priced out of the markets, punted into the IMF, refused debt federalisation and burden-sharing, a domestic economy stagnate, and hundreds of thousands emigrating.
So what was the point of voting yes then or now?
What should be on the table?Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
eh, the people could always have voted no a second time! Both sides use scaremongering. The yes side will use the threat of being kicked out of the euro and/or no possible second bailout. The no side will use things like 100 years of austerity, tax harmonisation etc (never mind conscription/ abortion). Both are equally culpable, and it basically boils down to too many of the electorate buying this crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Or maybe a majority just agreed with the treaty rather than just deciding to obey the Government.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
On this whole being asked twice thing, would people prefer that we were stuck in the dark ages regarding divorce, if the first defeated referendum has been allowed to stand? Or is it just because the second Nice and Lisbon referenda didn't give the answer you wanted?
Personally I haven't decided how I'll vote. I'm probably leaning more towards a No as things stand. However, I could probably be brought to some degree with less onerous terms on our current bailout, especially the promissory notes (we'd have less to fear if we were on the hook for less).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Well in hindsight (which was obvious) they were wrong. Still waiting for those jobs that the politicians conned the people with.
Assuming people actually believed that in the first place, and voted purely on that basis. Still, at least we can be comforted by knowing that the no side were right about tax harmonisation, self amending treaty, conscription to an EU army and abortions, eh? Both sides are as bad as each other when it comes to trying to convince the gullible.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
Yeah cause that's what all the no side were on about, seriously,tsk. Proof is in the state of the country at the moment and the day when the Euro goes balls up. How is Iceland doing at the moment, a default hasnt sunk that country yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
But "yes for jobs" was the only thing the yes side said?? FFS...Quote:
Originally Posted by bennocelt
But that was coming from most of the FF/FG rhetoric, a big difference to be fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Isn't a part of this our support for the euro currency or not? Obviously we're in it and not looking to leave but a stronger euro needs certain fiscal policies to be brought in between states so that the eurozone will be more stable.
My stolen 600eu pm.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Your stolen E600 p/m that you wouldn't have been earning had not the country become artificially "rich" by borrowing lots and lots of money?
We've got to get used to the notion that we're not a rich country, and the days of nice wages and new cars and cool phones are gone. For a long time.
The decision was best summed up by me by the line of a voter on the day of the poll reported in the British press: "This is my vote and basically I've been told what to do with it." That's how it was for many people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
You're not seriously comparing an exclusively Irish referendum with a European one?Quote:
On this whole being asked twice thing, would people prefer that we were stuck in the dark ages regarding divorce, if the first defeated referendum has been allowed to stand? Or is it just because the second Nice and Lisbon referenda didn't give the answer you wanted?
I made many arguments over Lisbon, none of them were to do with EU armies or abortions. Our tax rates are constantly threatened everytime we go looking for something in Europe. They want something in return, and the first thing they go for is the corp tax rate. Lisbon is self-amending, this is the first European referendum since, there was no automatic right to one, the AG simply decided "on balance" there should be one.Quote:
Assuming people actually believed that in the first place, and voted purely on that basis. Still, at least we can be comforted by knowing that the no side were right about tax harmonisation, self amending treaty, conscription to an EU army and abortions, eh? Both sides are as bad as each other when it comes to trying to convince the gullible.
I'm pro-Euro but this is nothing to do with the Euro currency. There are 8 non-Euro countries in this agreement. This is a question of whether we want to be part of the agreement or not also.Quote:
Originally Posted by legendz
No, you've misunderstood. The AG decided a referendum was required because the terms of the compact would require Ireland enshrine its tenets in national law, and it's impossible for the government to do this with legislation alone. The referendum will basically ask us if we want to enshrine strict budgetary controls in national law for good, and we the people are the only ones with the authority to do that. Even if this was introduced through amending Lisbon, we'd still have to amend the Constitution to enshrine it in law, so a referendum would still be required.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
No, the 600eu p/m that I worked for.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I'm still working except that I'm doing two people's work now for 600 eu less. That's not 'rich' - I'm barely above the breadline.
Plenty of nice wages, new cars and cool phones five minutes' drive from me over in Malahide. Plenty of wealth in this country.
I don't accept this 'we' nonsense. 'They' decided to underwrite the gambling debts of capitalists who 'they' consider too big to go under.
I won't accept it and they can shove 'their' treaty up 'their' holes.
Voters were asked to support it, for a variety of reasons. No one forced any voter to vote either way. Anyone who genuinely believed is probably a bit of a knob.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Yes. We don't have irish or european referenda. We have constitutional ones. I don't see why the principle is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
And have our tax rates changed? They wouldn't need to threaten if they could just do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Do you honestly think that if the AG didn't think there was a need, we'd be having one? Even with the knowledge that the President would most likely refer it to the Supreme Court to be sure? You're assuming the phrase Kenny used was exactly what the AG said.
You were overpaid. I'm overpaid. We're all overpaid, and borrowing is a good chunk of how that's come to be. We're going to have to accept that fact and adjust.Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
We had to be overpaid to pay for the overpriced goods and services... They're not dropping as much as salaries and wages, or social welfare benefits.
Inclined to vote against the compact.
The Sunday Business Post has a list of 5 essential things you need to know about the treaty here: http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/H...f-c58021195434
The five things are:
There's also an assessment by Cliff Taylor here: http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/C...5-91b778500710Quote:
- The Treaty comes into effect January 1 2013, provided at last 12 countries sign up.
- Its basic requirement is that national budgets must be "balanced or in surplus". This rule is also deemed upheld if a country follows a country specific medium-term objective. Deviations are permitted "in exceptional circumstances" only.
- Countries must commit to the balanced budget rule in a permanent way, "preferably constitutional".
- If countries have excessive deficits, they must agree a plan with the EU to reduce them.
- Ratifying the treaty is the only way to access the euro zone's planned permanent emergency fund.
In general, I think that being in a single currency , it's a good idea to have a set of rules that make it less likely that one member can go bananas (like the Greeks did pretty stylishly) and take everyone down with them. But I'm not sure these rules will really do that.
What jumps out at me is that we got ourselves into a heap of trouble while we probably would have been meeting these rules. Plus this treaty seems to rule out the idea of ever providing a major stimulus to attempt to break out of downward spirals, which seems to be an unnecessary limitation on the countries involved.
Basically, I can see arguments that the rules will be too strict in some scenarios and also that they won't really be strict enough to prevent future meltdowns. But then this treaty isn't really about the banking and financial sector who ballsed things up pretty badly last time round.
On balance I don't think it's a bad thing to commit to keeping our budget in check- we should do that anyway, but I'm not sure how I'll vote yet.
However I think the treaty will be defeated in any case. I really cannot see it getting through with the current mood in the country. I have been very uncomfortable with some of the stuff coming from Germany and France through this crisis, the EU isn't meant to be dominated this way, and it's not so long ago they were the ones breaking financial rules and doling out the cash for the delinquents to spend on their exports. Leaks from the German parliament are hideously embarrassing and increase the perception that all our decisions are being made for us. Not strictly relevant to the question at hand but it certainly poisons the atmosphere against the EU.
Anyhow.. bit of a random stream of consciousness there but I'd better go do some work so will leave it at that for now...
You can go further than that. We met these rules right up until 2008, while the economy was actively collapsing around us. This compact would have done nothing to prevent what happened here or anywhere in Europe except Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
I'd echo a lot of your post, but I'd just add Germany and France were actually the first ones* to break the financial rules out of the entire eurozone! *based on figures at the time, which may or may not have really been the case for Greece. There's also the whole issue of the definition of a structual deficit, of which there are many at the moment. It's very hard to judge the possible effect when we are not 100% sure on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
I'm not sure how I'll vote. The mood music has already started to suggest it's effectively a referendum on staying in the eurozone, given that the other countries will ratify it, and it's not really logical to stay in with a different set of rules. I'm not sure that changes much, because for the same reasons outline by Mr A, I think there's a mood out they to tell them to stick it, and we'll default on all the ecb debt and peg to sterling. I'm don't necessarily agree with the rationale there either. I just hope there's a proper debate so I can make up my mind with some confidence.
Well, it appears Enda has made the eurozone membership quote to the Wall Street Journal - even implying that EU membership is at stake, which is patently false, given the UK and Czechs have opted out, and France's Socialist candidate, Francois Hollande also has his doubts. In any case, I'd agree with Macy that stressing the euro is hardly a vote-getter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Below is where I was coming from.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
We'll see how those essentials apply to France and Germany, when it's their turn to be outside the budgetary limits. Didn't exactly help much the last time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
I don't think there's a big problem with the idea of stricter budget controls, unfortunately the reality on the ground is that some countries are so far out of kilter with the existing rules, that agreements like this could put them in a permanent straitjacket. Ireland is the worst Eurozone country after Greece, so we can't cope with those rules and the deeper austerity measures they will lead to.
For those who can't be bothered reading FIVE whole things I've narrowed it down to two:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
If you vote NO - ATM machines will leap out of the walls and run down the road screaming. Old people and puppies will die in ditches.
If you vote YES - Your aborted children will be conscripted to fight in the European Army.
You shouldn't accept it, although, to be honest, all that I'm doing is complaining and accepting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Listen to me complain:
Borrowing by ordinary people wasn't at the core of what made this mess: Nosiree, it was stealing and stupidity.
Stealing:
At the height of the boom the biggest earners paid a maximum tax rate of 12.5% while the likes of us paid 20% on a good day.
That was and it still is stealing. Of course, the shibboleth of saying 'our' corporate tax rate makes 'us' 'competitive' was and still is the standard lie thrown around to bewilder and terrify the proles.
Stupidity:
We had a tax base that was idiotic - taxes on property transactions made the Celtic Tiger phase 2 (2001-06). When the arse fell out of the market the tax take evaporated. Then the Fianna Fail had to go borrowing.
Stealing:
When it turned out that no-one would lend them money anymore because the banks' liabilities were about to drag the whole country under, FF, supported by every mainstream party in the country decided to guarantee those liabilities. This stealing is stealing from our children and their children.
We have a referendum on whether to sign up to fiscal regulations designed by the ruling elites to serve their interests, not mine.
If they want my vote then I want at least the return of my 600eu.
There are alternatives to complaining about this on a football forum. But I'm too tired after working 2 people's jobs to seize control of the relations and means of production and turn them to the service of the rights of ordinary working people, and besides, I'm off to Tolka to do some stewarding.
Robofoetuses stalking the battlefields of the 21st Century shooting jets of molten placenta into the massed ranks of the infidel hordes - good way of dealing with Shamrock Rovers' scum element, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lim till i die