Fiscal Treaty Referendum

[Oldschool]

Personally I think we're f*cked.

..............

We're f%~ked.

Agreed, but think of the treaty as a reach around- It doesn't change the fact that were f%~k?, but it might make you feel better about it????

I'm still undecided

Peg Leg I got up this morning, looked in the mirror (it wasn't a pretty sight, if I'm being honest) and muttered to myself "which way are you voting OS?"
I kid you not, but from out of nowhere (Although it did seem to be coming from the general direction of the mirror), this voice told me which way to vote.
I'm no longer undecided.

[the spoofer]

I'm awfully confused.

On the no side you have the Unions, Shinners, Joe Higgins, RBB, Mick Wallace and Ming.

On the yes side you have ROG.

I just dont know which way to jump.

[Darce]

Is it really a bad thing in the long run to have a tightly managed budget? Thats what it seems to be about to. Plus the formalisation of bailouts

[ronk]

Is it really a bad thing in the long run to have a tightly managed budget? Thats what it seems to be about to. Plus the formalisation of bailouts

Yes.We'll have even less flexibility to respond to changing economic circumstances. It's not just about this mess, this will also make it harder to fix future messes.

[Oldschool]

Is it really a bad thing in the long run to have a tightly managed budget? Thats what it seems to be about to. Plus the formalisation of bailouts

Yes.We'll have even less flexibility to respond to changing economic circumstances. It's not just about this mess, this will also make it harder to fix future messes.

Surely it will make it much more difficult to create messes. Therefore we won't need to fix them.
And even if there is a mess, it will be a little one rather than the mother of all f^cking messes, that Bertie and his gang visited upon us.
For lest we forget, it was the politicians (not the banks, not the speculators, I repeat the politicians) who were the architects of this mess.
Sure the banks and speculators threw oil on the fire, but the politicians struck the match and then didn't even bother to call the fire brigade.
The treaty is about us (not anyone else, US) never letting our politicians have that kind of control (lack of control), ever again.
We've had 90 years of incompetent governance by our our politicians, what makes you think they are suddenly going reform.
And if you want it in one simple phrase. Irish politicians have preside over mass Emigration from this country for most of that time.
The euro zone was our best ever chance and what did they do? They bungled it.
That chance may come again, if we as a nation and our politicians finally realise that there is a better way.
Germany, despite all the bad mouthing of Merkel are the country they are because they fronted up to there problems, stopped bitching about whose fault it was and did something about it. We could worse than learn from them and adapt their philosophy to suit our particular way of approaching things.
The message I get from most of the NO campaigners is keep spending the money we don't have, the rest of Europe owes and will see it that way and will have to pony up. My reply to that is a simple one - Don't f^ck with the Germans, unless you are prepared to work as hard as they are, be as efficient as they are, produce goods and services that are world renowned, like they do. That's what gives them the right to push there agenda.
What right have we earned, begging bowl rights and that's about it. We are a f^cking disgrace, with that kind of an attitude.
I can just see, Mary Lou and Claire - "Angela we want you to tax your hard working citizens even more, so that you can give us 15bn a year and feel lucky that's all we want".

[ronk]

We were model citizens. The Germans were off telling people to follow our lead and encouraging us to borrow more. Yes we shouldn't have borrowed, but we can't be fully responsible for banks that we weren't in control of.

The structural deficit really only appeared after the collapse of of the banking system. These rules would have done nothing, could have done nothing to prevent or mitigate the collapse. In fact they just would have made us more complacent. I don't think we're doing an especially good job of addressing the structural deficit and what Sinn Fein aren't telling people is that avoiding wage cuts now should be justified only on the basis of wage cuts in the future when the economy has recovered.

Unemployment is a bigger problem than debt at the moment. If we fix that first, we will be in a stronger position to deal with the debt later. But we'll still have to fix it. The NO campaign aren't telling people that, but that doesn't change anything. Working harder isn't an option when you can't get a job, German growth was helped by the fact that they were able to lend their savings across the eurozone, which is why there was so much cheap credit available to cause this boom. Everyone saving at the same time is as big a problem as everyone trying to borrow at the same time. Banks make a profit off loans, not savings. It doesn't help the Euro in anyway if everyone becomes good Germans at once, it'd probably cause another credit bubble eventually.

[simplythebest]

Is it really a bad thing in the long run to have a tightly managed budget? Thats what it seems to be about to. Plus the formalisation of bailouts

We ran Surplus's (or near enough) during berties reign of terror. This treaty would not affect one iota of what went on in Ireland during the period 1999 - 2007.

[StrangeButBlue]

Is it really a bad thing in the long run to have a tightly managed budget? Thats what it seems to be about to. Plus the formalisation of bailouts

We ran Surplus's (or near enough) during berties reign of terror. This treaty would not affect one iota of what went on in Ireland during the period 1999 - 2007.

Really? We were offered advice on our budget before this treaty but had no reason to listen.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 53864.html
(to pick one example from many)
Or we could pretend Bertie was never told by the Germans of the damage he was doing, silly little pixie man couldn't have known. There is a difference between a EU Recomendation and an EU budget control commitee.
The treaty is a deliberate step along a path trying to affect what went on in Ireland over the last 15 years. I can't see how the treaty would increase the risks from that period.

[jezzer]

Is it really a bad thing in the long run to have a tightly managed budget? Thats what it seems to be about to. Plus the formalisation of bailouts

Yes.We'll have even less flexibility to respond to changing economic circumstances. It's not just about this mess, this will also make it harder to fix future messes.

Surely it will make it much more difficult to create messes. Therefore we won't need to fix them.
And even if there is a mess, it will be a little one rather than the mother of all f^cking messes, that Bertie and his gang visited upon us.
For lest we forget, it was the politicians (not the banks, not the speculators, I repeat the politicians) who were the architects of this mess.
Sure the banks and speculators threw oil on the fire, but the politicians struck the match and then didn't even bother to call the fire brigade.
The treaty is about us (not anyone else, US) never letting our politicians have that kind of control (lack of control), ever again.
We've had 90 years of incompetent governance by our our politicians, what makes you think they are suddenly going reform.
And if you want it in one simple phrase. Irish politicians have preside over mass Emigration from this country for most of that time.
The euro zone was our best ever chance and what did they do? They bungled it.
That chance may come again, if we as a nation and our politicians finally realise that there is a better way.
Germany, despite all the bad mouthing of Merkel are the country they are because they fronted up to there problems, stopped bitching about whose fault it was and did something about it. We could worse than learn from them and adapt their philosophy to suit our particular way of approaching things.
The message I get from most of the NO campaigners is keep spending the money we don't have, the rest of Europe owes and will see it that way and will have to pony up. My reply to that is a simple one - Don't f^ck with the Germans, unless you are prepared to work as hard as they are, be as efficient as they are, produce goods and services that are world renowned, like they do. That's what gives them the right to push there agenda.
What right have we earned, begging bowl rights and that's about it. We are a f^cking disgrace, with that kind of an attitude.
I can just see, Mary Lou and Claire - "Angela we want you to tax your hard working citizens even more, so that you can give us 15bn a year and feel lucky that's all we want".

The problem OS is what happens when we (inevitably) fall foul of the Treaty conditions. It provides for a "partnership programme" between the EU and the country in breach. Remedies will be jointly decided and enacted by the country in breach, in accordance with the Stability and Growth Pact. It's not clear what the scope of these remedies is. As a small peripheral open economy, we will have far less leverage in terms of negotiating the programme than, say, Germany, who has breached the 3% rule before and gone unsanctioned.

The thing is, we are going to default the Treaty, so while it's true the Treaty sets out rules which should help avoid us doing this again in the future, the more pressing question is how we're going to be treated as a defaulter. On the positive side, we get cheap bailout money, on the negative side, we've signed up to permanent influence of the EU into our finances during this extended era of over-indebtedness, as opposed to the temporary influence of a bailout partner like the Trioka or the IMF alone. If the rumour-mongering is true that this debt will be still hanging over our children's children (which I highly doubt myself), then in theory our economy will be run continuously by Europe for the next two generations, in a manner and scope we don't yet understand.

So, while it's unclear where we would get the money if we said no and a bit of fiscal responsibility is exactly what the doctor ordered for Ireland, the reality is that we are signing up to a very long-lasting surrender of autonomy, rather than a temporary one. Whatever about your opinion of the way we've been running the country lately, that can't be a good thing, if we have any faith in Ireland Inc. at all for the future.

I'm not saying VOTE NO, because I believe that we have a fundamentally sound economy that is worth saving by the EU, but I have grave reservations about handing control of our economy over to Europeans with different cultural, political and social ideals than Ireland has.

[ronk]

Is it really a bad thing in the long run to have a tightly managed budget? Thats what it seems to be about to. Plus the formalisation of bailouts

We ran Surplus's (or near enough) during berties reign of terror. This treaty would not affect one iota of what went on in Ireland during the period 1999 - 2007.

Really? We were offered advice on our budget before this treaty but had no reason to listen.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 53864.html
(to pick one example from many)
Or we could pretend Bertie was never told by the Germans of the damage he was doing, silly little pixie man couldn't have known. There is a difference between a EU Recomendation and an EU budget control commitee.
The treaty is a deliberate step along a path trying to affect what went on in Ireland over the last 15 years. I can't see how the treaty would increase the risks from that period.

And in typical fashion the Germans were worried about inflation and overheating of the economy (and little else). They were off crying wolf and missed the things that caused the main damage. The treaty doesn't do anything to regulate private/banking debt, which is the cause of the problem. It's a placebo, at best.

If we want to have stability, what we need is cross border regulation of banks including (but not limited to) the separation of investment and commercial banking. Mortgage backed derivatives and credit default swaps moved the risk around and hid it, even from many of the people most exposed. This has to be addressed. Budgetary co-operation is not necessarily a bad idea, but these are rules than take no account of the economic cycle, IT CAN ONLY END BADLY!

Sinn Fein want a NO vote because they want to ignore the problem, I want a NO vote because we should address the problem in a different way.

[StrangeButBlue]

And in typical fashion the Germans were worried about inflation and overheating of the economy (and little else). They were off crying wolf and missed the things that caused the main damage. The treaty doesn't do anything to regulate private/banking debt, which is the cause of the problem. It's a placebo, at best. They were a lot closer to seeing a problem than we were

If we want to have stability, what we need is cross border regulation of banks including (but not limited to) the separation of investment and commercial banking Agree. Mortgage backed derivatives and credit default swaps moved the risk around and hid it, even from many of the people most exposed. This has to be addressed Agree on CDS regulation requirement but don't see how voting against the treaty moves in that direction? . Budgetary co-operation is not necessarily a bad idea, but these are rules than take no account of the economic cycle,Insert any fiscal policy here and then say... IT CAN ONLY END BADLY! The lack of economic cycle consideration is a good point, perhaps only capital investment should move with the cycle or it would have made the rules a lot more confusing or, as I suspect ,by leaving it out of the treaty it gives an easy argument for countries (france) looking to bend the rules.

Sinn Fein want a NO vote because they want to ignore the problem, I want a NO vote because we should address the problem in a different way.

[ronk]

Agree on CDS regulation requirement but don't see how voting against the treaty moves in that direction?[/color]

Opportunity cost of the treaty itself.

It's moved the debate about what should be done. CDS regulation is dead in terms of public discourse.

[StrangeButBlue]

Agree on CDS regulation requirement but don't see how voting against the treaty moves in that direction?[/color]

Opportunity cost of the treaty itself.

It's moved the debate about what should be done. CDS regulation is dead in terms of public discourse.

Opportunity cost could be double if you vote no the first time
Strong CDS regulation can, and probobly will, be introduced without a need for public discourse as Frankfurt see it as an opportunity to take some business away from London

[ronk]

Agree on CDS regulation requirement but don't see how voting against the treaty moves in that direction?[/color]

Opportunity cost of the treaty itself.

It's moved the debate about what should be done. CDS regulation is dead in terms of public discourse.

Opportunity cost could be double if you vote no the first time
Strong CDS regulation can, and probobly will, be introduced without a need for public discourse as Frankfurt see it as an opportunity to take some business away from London

German banks failed and needed bigger (not close proportionally) bailouts than ours. That's one reason why we took on the unsecured bond debt.

If anything was going to happen on its own with CDS, it would have happened already. This treaty won't come back in this or similar form. There's a decent chance it won't go through even if we vote yes, in which case all we'd have gone is kept our powder dry/looked weak (depending on your viewpoint).

[lummix]

I think I'm going to vote no, firstly we need a deal on bank debt and secondly I want rid of the crime park deal. My reasoning behind this is I agree we need doctors nurse gardas etc but we certainly don't need all the administrators etc. As long as the government has access to this Money they don't have the will to tackle the public sector. Suppose you cut each nurses wages by 2k a year then for every 15 wages cut you could hire another nurse(repeat this for guards teachers doctors etc) redistribute wealth etc, a stimulus of sorts as people on lower wages spend more of their income in the economy anyhow

[Darce]

I think I'm going to vote no, firstly we need a deal on bank debt and secondly I want rid of the crime park deal. My reasoning behind this is I agree we need doctors nurse gardas etc but we certainly don't need all the administrators etc. As long as the government has access to this Money they don't have the will to tackle the public sector. Suppose you cut each nurses wages by 2k a year then for every 15 wages cut you could hire another nurse(repeat this for guards teachers doctors etc) redistribute wealth etc, a stimulus of sorts as people on lower wages spend more of their income in the economy anyhow

So you're voting no for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty? Great....

[lummix]

Well it does have to do with treaty as the reasoning behind voting for the treaty is to get access to the fund, if we don't get access to the fund then we have to look again at how we are spending our money, plus they are now about to directly capitalise banks in europe so why should the Irish state be on the hook for it if the Spanish state won't.I.e. We should be saying to europe Show me exactly what your proposing the full picture or get lost. All we are doing is voting to let what's going on continue overpaid public servants, greedy bankers, overpaid social welfare,no one goes to jail, etc. The time has come to say no more, sort this out now don't kick the can down the road

[the spoofer]

We were model citizens. The Germans were off telling people to follow our lead and encouraging us to borrow more. Yes we shouldn't have borrowed, but we can't be fully responsible for banks that we weren't in control of.

The structural deficit really only appeared after the collapse of of the banking system. These rules would have done nothing, could have done nothing to prevent or mitigate the collapse. In fact they just would have made us more complacent. I don't think we're doing an especially good job of addressing the structural deficit and what Sinn Fein aren't telling people is that avoiding wage cuts now should be justified only on the basis of wage cuts in the future when the economy has recovered.

Unemployment is a bigger problem than debt at the moment. If we fix that first, we will be in a stronger position to deal with the debt later. But we'll still have to fix it. The NO campaign aren't telling people that, but that doesn't change anything. Working harder isn't an option when you can't get a job, German growth was helped by the fact that they were able to lend their savings across the eurozone, which is why there was so much cheap credit available to cause this boom. Everyone saving at the same time is as big a problem as everyone trying to borrow at the same time. Banks make a profit off loans, not savings. It doesn't help the Euro in anyway if everyone becomes good Germans at once, it'd probably cause another credit bubble eventually.

The structural deficit has been there for the last 12 years but was not visible due to the inflow of taxes from construction. Its simple, we are paying ourselves more than we can afford. Increased taxation (beloved by the Sinn Fein scum) is not the answer.

Most households I know have introduced their own form of "austerity" whether that it not going out, no foreign holidays, cutting back on kids activities or whatever. These are the things we have to do. Its not alien to my generation that grew up in the 70s and 80s as it was something we lived with. As for emigration, 3 years after I had left school, out of my class of 100+ in leaving cert, there were 6 lads living and working in Ireland.

[Darce]

Turn out still below 20% apparently

[Oldschool]

Turn out still below 20% apparently

yeh and falling!