FISCAL STABILITY – not stability in general! It’s in the ruddy title for God’s sake!

No its 67%, anybody who thinks its 66% are sheep.A Vote for 67% is a vote for higher percentages !

The other 66% were probably too busy trying to figure out how to pay the next months bills and still be able to feed their family!

Go ahead. Vote NO.
If you have any understanding about how the EU functions and about the most adverse consequences this would have on Ireland you need to inform yourself further.
Talking to some people I have come across some unbelievable ignorance and arrogance considering that Ireland amongst some other countries are expendable in their membership of the EU
Vote No and this will be a one way ticket to something a lot worse than austerity.

What other stats? All other stats are saying its a Yes vote. :S

Incorrect kevin. They are showing around a 6-4 split between yes and no with a full third of voters undecided. What this means is that for every 15 people polled 6 are voting yes, 4 are voting no and 5 haven’t made up their mind. Its not as straightforward as you would like to think…..

A bit like saying when you hear moo you think of apples.

Dave, the first five points you make, you haven’t actually pointed out anything that makes them infactual statements and re point six, as someone in business I presume I’d know a little more about it than a public service psychiatric worker, wouldn’t you?

Dave, before you write pieces like that I would also suggest looking at the context of them. Each point was in a direct answer to Archs points yet you ask me why I am bringing it up, pretty silly, sorry! I continue to laugh at this particular line: “More waffle you know nothing about. You dont know these ‘leading business people’ so how can you judge their competency?”. I wouldn’t know anything about nursing, nor would I claim to, so please spare me some rant that suggests you know more about being in business than I do. It’s insulting to the point of being absolutely mental!

Diarmuid,
The old context thing – dont politicians use that line to try to try and make an excuse for silly things they’ve said?

You’re ‘responses’ to Arch’s facts were out of context to what he posted more like.

Infactual is not even a word.

So you run a business. That qualifies you know all about every other business in Ireland does it? I never said I know more about business than you, merely that you cannot judge peoples compentency when you dont even know who they are.
You insult too easily

“in all likelihood”…
according to who?

Irish Eamonn,
Where does it say in article 3 anything about funding for countries?
It doesnt.

Arch, I am neither a member of Sinn Fein or Libertas and I will outline a few facts of my own as a response:

1. Ireland never requested an initial loan package, however, we are now being threatened with non access to a 2nd loan package? Our first loan package was not for our sake, it was for Germanys and the EU, what has changed tell me?
2. The ESM did not exist when we got our first loan package, nor does it even exist now!
3. The ESM IS NOT an institution, it is merely a legal name. Claiming non access to ESM will prevent Europe from giving us money is like saying if you look for a mortgage for a second hand car off a bank and they refuse it, that they won’t give you car finance instead, which is more appropriate to your needs!
4. The corp tax will not be affected, however, the French who have a deep seeded hatred for ours, have already mentioned it just last week in the same conversation as ESM re-negotiations.
5. NONE OF THE COUNTRIES currently in difficulty, bar probably greece would be less screwed today if this treaty had been in place!

I also must note the irony in supposed leading business people suggesting we sign a contract that hasn’t even been finalised. Just wonder about the competence of such voices and how they have risen to such “supremacy” if that’s what they get up to in their own companies or the semi state cushy numbers where profit and loss is merely something the real business sector have to worry about!

Response:

1. The Irish Government (FF-Greens) did request the first bailout of €85bn in November 2010. We are not threatened with a 2nd bailout, we need one (we cannot fund the State costs otherwise).
2. Following the ESM Treaty it will be an organisation, based in Luxembourg. It is intended to operate a permanent rescue funding programme.
3. Again, it will be an organisation, once the Treaty is ratified in Europe.
4. The French have always challenged our corporate tax rate, still has nothing to do with this treaty. It might come up in conversation, as does many things. At the moment it will not affect it.
5. That is not a fact, that is your opinion. How can you surmise that the countries in difficulty at the moment would be “less screwed”? Evidence please?

Also, in your latter point, you mention the competence of leading business people – the people in this article own small firms, and they do worry about profit and loss, and they will vote Yes.

Funny that Arch, you must have had a better insight so than our THEN FINANCE MINISTER Brian Lenihan, who even spoke in a documentary on RTE before he passed away how the ECB forced them into a Loan Package (NOT A BAILOUT – NO FREE MONEY). I can provide you with a link to that RTE interview if you wish? The European Stability MECHANISM WILL NOT BE AN ORGANISATION, that is simply infactual and is also pretty obvious from the title. It’s very easy to surmise actually Arch, if you or the sheep gave your brains a chance: Problem in Spain – BANK DEBT / Problem in Ireland – BANK DEBT etc etc. This treaty has nothing to do with Banks. It merely speaks about sovereign. Maybe with your inside track you could explain how this treaty would have stopped Anglo, AIB, BOI, PTSB from having to be bailed out by us, therefore driving up our debt level? I own a small business, I may be under 30 but even I know piling debt on top of unsustainable debt is ridiculous. But then what do I know, sher I’m a no voter, I am obviously a “lefty idiot who thinks money grows on trees” *insert your insecure and outdated stereotype here!

Diarmaid, your argument began well but began to slide with calling people with a different opinion to you “sheep”.

There is no doubt bank debt is the issue across Europe, ours and most others and I don’t agree on a personal level with the method by which we bailed them out as a private companies. but we were forced into a bailout by the markets, our rate of borrowing was unsustainable at above 10%, we’re currently gettin money from the bailout fund for under 3%, that’s a no brainer, and it would also not take much thought as to why we should avail of a second if needed as our market rates are near 8%. the focus should be on how to bring the soverign budget balance into check. and not completely killing the economy while doing it.

Nothing guarantees that the ESM members will give us further loans when we need the second “bailout” even I’d we vote YES.

The treaty allows ESM members to impose conditions on the bailed out state. France and Germany have the bulk of the votes. Guess what their condition will be?

Bang goes our corporate tax rate. Bang goes the few jobs we have left. Bang goes any hope of future independence.

VOTE NO!

Firstly, can I say, this goes for all commenters – that ALLCAPS make you look incompetent, as if you cannot communicate your message properly. SPEAK LOUDER AND THEY’LL BACK DOWN – looks a big moronic. Also calm down, you’ll give yourself a heart attack.

Bailouts are not free money, and never have been – nobody gives away money for no good reason. If I’m short €5 my friend can bail me out, but I pay him back.

The ESM will be an intergovernmental organisation (please refer to 1st paragraph, page 22 of this report: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/120296.pdf).

Your evidence of this treaty not being about banks is ridiculous. You are right, it is not about banks. However, you are wrong in your point – had this treaty been implemented 20 years ago we would not be in this situation.

If you think you are a lefty idiot who thinks money grows on trees, then that is your own opinion. I think you need to read the reasons and facts behind the treaty again though, I suggest the neutral party informer, the independent referendum commission.

Good man Arch, write a long answer to make yourself look like you’re actually answering, meanwhile on planet earth, you’ve answered nothing!

“Your evidence of this treaty not being about banks is ridiculous. You are right, it is not about banks. However, you are wrong in your point – had this treaty been implemented 20 years ago we would not be in this situation”. This line makes no sense, with no facts, just a random statement!

@Diarmuid: What question did you ask me, that I did not answer? Apart from the sarcastic ones? I think you might have some insecurities regarding your own knowledge of the treaty, and have resorted to personal attacks, rather than attacking the subject at hand (but then, nobody likes fighting a losing battle). You are the evidence I want to show thejournal readers how the No side cannot back up their claims, except with lies and reckless passion in their own false beliefs and fears.

True that last part is my opinion, but it is not a ridiculous point: if we had stricter fiscal rules all of this could have been avoided (of course strciter lending criteria would have also prevented this situation).

Ok Arch, I am resorting to personal attacks cause of my lack of knowledge whilst you tell me to calm down, that I’ll get a heart attack and that I am insecure. Fair enough pal.

Arch, take it from somebody that has been reading this exchange, you are wrong. With the exception of Greece, stricter fiscal rules would not have done squat. Stricter banking regulation, yes, stricter fiscal rules on the sovereign, no. Even Seamus Coffey, one of the main economists advocating a ‘yes’ vote has admitted that, and I quote, “Had the fiscal compact been in place since 1999 it could not and would not have prevented the crisis in Ireland”.

You are simply wrong

Diarmuid,
if you want to be taken seriously stop trying to pass opinions off as facts

What did I pass off as a fact that was opinion Dave?

Arch has that pretty well covered there

No he didn’t Dave, why don’t you confirm to me you’re not talking out your backside too by telling me exactly what opinion I am passing off as fact. If you can point the points out I will retract if you’re correct ?

Humour us dave,what are you disputing that Diarmaid mentioned?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78909677&postcount=1
A little something.

Under the 6th photo of that boards thread, the OP of the thread says the banks ‘have already been bailed out’ as if it is past tense. One of the banks in this country got €2.55 bn pumped into it today, courtesy of the tax payer. Funny how there hasn’t been much mention of that in the media. Now, call it what you want Gary, but that stinks of Govt propaganda to me!

Chooon. The bondholders were almost all paid off by the last government. The promissory notes are owed to our central bank, who in turn owes money to the ECB. So were we to not pay the promissory notes we’d actually be leaving our own central bank insolvent. Not sure what the blowback from that would be but I’d rather we didn’t find out.
None of this means I wouldn’t love a debt write-down as much as the next person or a way to go back in time and stop the last government saving Anglo.
And Yes the only reason anyone would disagree with you is they are paid off, must be a conspiracy.

and new posters here. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78909677&postcount=1
And according to the no camp the yes side are always scaremongering, I think these prove that statement for the lie it is.

Checked out that link Gary, very good. Clearly shows the scar tactics of the No side!

Johnny please stop dividing people, it does the case no good. I have been massively pushing for a no vote, and I am self employed. I do not want German minimum wages and I consider myself an ordinary average citizen, but because I own a small business you have me classified incorrectly. This is not about class, career or age. This is about democracy and morals, something sadly lacking of late in the EU.

The no side then were just a bunch of eurosceptics trying to cover up their xenophobic fears with a lot of fear mongering waffle,
and the no side now are a bunch of eurosceptics trying to cover up their xenophobic fears with a lot of fear mongering waffle – with a bit of anger at the government thrown in.

Ironic eh, who’s passing off opinion as fact now. I am pro Europe, but a democratic one thanks very much. As is Shane Ross, Declan Ganley, David McWilliams etc etc etc.

Now you’re just being silly Diarmuid
Did I say anywhere that my opinion of the No side was fact?
You dont seem to know the difference between fact and opinion, or what Ironic means

So you admit your opinion is plain wrong so. well that’s a step forward anyway! Well done!