Printable View
It's up there with people spelling 'than' t-h-E-n. As in, 'It feels more normal to say 'amn't' then 'am not.' People who do either should be hung upside-down by their toenails.Quote:
Originally Posted by born2bwild
With regard to the economy, I'd shut the door on Europe. Drop corporate tax rates to 7.5%, introduce secret banking, debt forgiveness and tell Shell the deal is over, we're taking back our oil and we're 'doing a Norway on it.'
If there was no need for a referendum, we wouldn't be having one. It must have been pretty clear cut, as it would inevitably have been referred to the Supreme Court (as the President would be aware it would be challenged by a citizen). Actions speak louder than words.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
No deal imminent. If this remains the ECB's attitude, to debt that shouldn't be our burden, they can stick their fiscal compact.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...313063599.html
What were you expecting? You heard what ex-ECB President Trichet said of our ability to pay our way. You saw what the government said of it too. We will pay, even though we can't, but we will pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
However the vote shouldn't be about it. The proposals benefit countries with their house in order. That obviously isn't us atm. Maybe it will be, if and when we do.
The first debate tonight at 9 with VB as moderator. No Kenny, Gilmore or Burton, so Coveney and Martin will argue the Yes case, opposed by Higgins and McDonald for the No campaign.
Looks like the toughest wimp on the block is in hiding. Lost any last shred of respect I had for Noonan today, total scumbag. I hope that finally Labour will end the joke and walk away from the wimpbiskits in FG and allow them back with their natural allies, FF. Will watch tonight with great interest. Just wondering how often the kissing cousins will refer to SF's past?
One wonders how long the compact will survive in its current form with Hollande wanting a growth clause included, and the Greek elections pushing them ever closer to a default. The French plan is probably closer to what the Coalition wanted when they were elected, but when no change would be possible before June at the earliest, maybe the vote should be postponed as has been suggested.
All very true, and with Merkel's party losing in federal elections in Schleswig-Holstein you have to wonder whether Germans are unhappy with her too. (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0506/loc...and-italy.html) If anything, I can see that making her more determined to ensure that the treaty is passed, while she still has power. Next year could tell a very different story indeed.
Edit: and here she is, straight out of the blocks telling the Greeks off for voting the wrong way. No mention of her own inability to win the Schleswig-Holstein election though.:rolleyes:
'The EU and Germany have stressed Greece must keep to the terms of the two EU/IMF bailouts, after a surge of voter support for anti-austerity parties.
'The two main parties, New Democracy and Pasok, attracted less than a third of the vote, in an election plunging Greece into political uncertainty.
'Chancellor Angela Merkel said Greece's reforms were of "utmost importance".'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17975370
EG, I've found that most folks at home are very unaware of the struggles Merkel is having in Germany, and the strictures she's laying down on her own people. It seems as if there is a need to show external strength while hammering the locals. Meanwhile our own crooks play games with words and continue to ruin any chance of a recovery. We need a good old bloody coup, bloody as in the type where Dame Edna and his lackey Comrade Gilmore are summarily tried then taken out into Stephens Green, tied to each other and drowned. The blood come sin when the ducks start feeding on them.
Samaras, the ND leader gave up after only 12 hours, so Syriza, the alternative communist party, get the chance to try to fix up an Uncle Tom Cobley anti-bailout coalition. Another, even less conclusive election will follow, so the drachma printing presses are probably getting warmed up.
Looks like the FG/Labour regime will get their way, the sheep will vote as they're told. I suppose the threats about job destruction and financial calamity to vote no from the Lisbon treaty has been forgotten and this latest shower of cronies with their threats and bullyboy tactics just accepted. Listening to Howlin huff and fluff his way through another interview - "it'll help get the country off it's feet", a little Freud anyone?
It's depressing alright. Yesterday, RTE online reported that Noonan wanted to send a signal to Europe - expect an increase in emergency flares any day soon.
What bugs me is that we're still not getting the full European picture from the media - after Schleswig-Holstein, Merkel's party lost North Rhine Westphalia last week, another federal parliament out of her control; not just is Sarkozy gone, she no longer has support from the Dutch government. She and the policy of austerity are becoming increasingly isolated in Europe. In twelve months, Merkel is going to be consigned to history by German voters, who are fed up with austerity and fed up paying taxes to maintain German industrial interests (the current state of the euro and low interest rates benefit them, almost uniquely in Europe, David McWiliams said recently - Radio 1 Drivetime, I think). We're going to be voting on a treaty that may be changed (or no longer policy) by the time it is formally ratified by every country.
The government wants to think it's running with the big dogs, but it's pi55ing like puppies all over us.
The No side haven't really come up with a viable alternative funding method, imo. Talking about us not letting us default maybe ok, but that ignores how the IMF have been toned down by being part of a Troika (much to the disappointment of right wing nutters on places like politics.ie).
I think there is a case for delaying ratification/ voting, but I'm also not convinced it won't be something additional rather than changes to this treaty.
I don't really get the "sheep" reference - just because they don't agree with your point of view?
No Macy, not because they don't agree with me, or because they disagree with me. It's the willingness with which so many intelligent and rational people will believe, in all sincerity, that ratifying a treaty that could be dumped within 12months will make it all okay. Or because they've been threatened by the lowest of the low like Noonan with a tough budget that by voting as they're told will mean less pain. I agree that there hasn't been a strong enough case made by the No camp, but when the government are controlling the levers of media power then it will never be fully elaborated.
I cannot see, how this ruling junta are continued to be allowed run rampage over the country with continued lies and broken policies. From "renegotiating" to the olympics joke, they just cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Plus their buddies in Europe are taking a beating.
Can only speak for my own social circle where it's been discussed, but I haven't met any Yes voter who thinks this treaty is going to make it all ok. Least worst option at the moment is the most common feeling I've encountered.
Talk of a ruling junta is ridiculous hyperbole, whatever your opinions of whether there was lies and if there's been broken promises.
Once a bill for a referendum has been enacted, a referendum cannot be delayed, modified or withdrawn. The Referendum Commission cleared this up the other day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
If anybody has any doubt about what they are voting for, I would suggest voting no. The referendum is being held early enough to allow for a re-run in case we get it 'wrong' - there is ample time to hold a re-run in September (and no compelling reason other than the comfort of a second date why it could not have been held then for the first time). By then the European political scene might be a little clearer. I would expect that France will have negotiated a protocol on stimulus by that stage. While that would keep the treaty unchanged for everybody, it does pose the question as to why we are not seeking to have protocols inserted that would similarly provide for stimulus measures. Once we ratify, we effectively prevent ourselves from seeking the inclusion of protocols.
Ratification being the least worst option doesn't sit right with me. Better, I think, to reject, negotiate protocols based on how political and economic thought has been refined from hard economic right over the summer, and vote again in September.
I wouldn't limit criticism to the no side for not providing a clear outline of alternative funding - Merkel and Co and the ECB have 'solved' the problem several times in the last three years, and each time matters have disimproved. As far as I can see, neither side has a clue what the financial and economic ramifications of the treaty are going to be.
No whether about it, they lied, have lied, lie and broke promises. What is worse is that they have threatened, insulted and abused, junta might be (in your opinion) hyperbole, however it is not beyond reason that they attempt to act in an honest and decent fashion. While from Enda Kenny I might accept some silliness, from Noonan I cannot stomach a man who sneered, threatened and insulted a dying mother. Sorry, just the tolerance for him disintegrated when he lied about Europe and then made threats about the budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Agreed with you on the delay of the treaty - however as EG points out it can't be done. Isn't there a case that the President can send it back for further scrutiny (not veto it).
EG, as you're far more clued into the situation, can the treaty be thrown out at European level? I mean, can it be taken off unless all countries ratify it? It's been scheduled very cleverly for ratification (we're the same day as Italy right?), but if Greece and France throw it out, what happens then?
I think the rules behind the compact itself are eminently sensible, however I don't think they require a treaty for us to follow them or to be bound at a European level and, I think, ultimately any well-run nation should be enshrining these principles in law anyway. So I just see the treaty as a straight-forward referendum on the current policy of austerity and giving public money to private billionaires as dictated by Europe, so I'm going to vote no.
For God's sake, Spud - sssshhh!!! You'll blow my cover. I'm as much in the dark about this as the blokes wot wrote up the Treaty!! Clued in? Cluedo, more like!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
The President can only refer an Oireachtas bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality, but a referendum is considered the voice of the people ('We, the people of Eire ... Do hereby adopt enact and give to ourselves this constitution.') and is the final word.
Meantime, I dug this out of the treaty:
Article 14.2. This Treaty shall enter into force on 1 January 2013, provided that twelve Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro have deposited their instrument of ratification, or on the first day of the month following the deposit of the twelfth instrument of ratification by a Contracting Party whose currency is the euro, whichever is the earlier.
So it seems that 12 ratifications are needed to make it binding for all 17 members of the eurozone, and not ratifying it in that instance means that we will be bound by its provisions, but not eligible for financial support. Where that leaves it if France and ourselves and one or two others start seeking protocols is another story.
As I understand it, if we don't get 12 ratificiations, it's dead. If we get 12 or more, those countries which ratified it are bound by it and the others are not. 2 speed Europe is the buzzword, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise