Very sneaky of them…that is if I was reading between the lines…

There is also the clear implication that it was Government debt/deficit that precipitated the crisis, which is flat wrong. Before the crisis Ireland had no debt/deficit problem.

Where is the ‘Treaty on Reckless Banking Supervision & Regulation’ ?

Where is the the ‘Treaty for Growth, Full Employment & Prosperity’ ?

Only by voting NO to this ‘fiscal suicide’ pact will we send a message to the sell out political elites that they had better think again & start representing the interests of citizens over those of the financial sector elites they have solely represented thus far.

This reiterates what ur saying mike.

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/1860381-people-have-become-nuisance

Exactly. So we will be denied the opportunity to get ourselves deeper into debt and won’t have to pay into a fund that allows other countries to get themselves deeper into debt. A debt problem has never, ever been solved by getting into more debt, no more than any fire has ever been put out by dousing it with petrol.

Eh the goal of the treaty is to reduce our debt from 120% of GDP to below 60% of GDP, and the burden of that reduction will fall on our shoulders. There are many ways to solve a debt problem. There is Keynesianism, where a government increase spending during a recession and initiates large scale public infrastructure projects, this is designed to get circulations gong again. This will be banned under this treaty.

Another way to deal with a debt problem, and the one I prefer, is to not pay it, seems to have worked in Iceland and Argentina.

That’s why SF are taking action!! Totally biased and pushes a yes!! Not on, they should know better, dirty politics.

We *already* meet the targets set out by the Treaty. Our current budget deficit is 13.1%. The treaty talks about censuring countries that run a deficit of 60% or more unless they commit to reducing it by 5% a year to get it under control.

The Treaty *does* refer to a 5% (or less) deficit as the ideal countries should be aiming for, but there’s no specific target for how quickly you get to that number. Perhaps you’re conflating the terms of the Treaty with the terms of the ECB/IMF bailout, which are much more specific and somewhat harsher? Those measures require us to get down to 5% by 2015 and we’re on track to get at least close enough to that to secure our future budgets probably without further censure.

Peter, think you might be incorrect about that.

“Constantin Gurdgiev Economist; Ireland will be one
of the worst impacted economies in the group. In 2012, Ireland is forecast
to post a structural deficit in excess of 5.5% of potential GDP. To cut our
structural deficit to 0.5% will require reducing annual aggregate demand in
the economy by some €7-8 billion in today’s terms. Debt reductions over the
period envisioned within the pact will take an additional €12 billion
annually. For an economy with huge private sector debt overhang, paying
some 12% of its GDP annually to adhere to the Fiscal Pact is a hefty bill
on top of the already massive interest bill on public debt.

The Department of Finance estimates that in 2015, Ireland will have a
strucutral deficit of 3.7%. Bringing that down to 0.5% would mean €5.7
billion worth of extra cuts.”

Correct me if Im wrong.

Peter – You’re mixing up two requirements there. The treaty doesn’t deal with *deficits* over 60%, it deals with *debt levels* over that level.

Ireland’s general government debt for last year was €169.2 billion, or 105.1% of its GDP (€161bn). The debt is expected to peak at around 125% of GDP in the next couple of years before we start chipping away at it again. If GDP was to remain flat – although, naturally, we all hope it won’t – Ireland would need to knock €8 billion off its debt every year for eight years before it got debt back to 60% of GDP (€96bn).

That *wasn’t* condescending at all Peter.

You learn something new everyday. Thanks for the clarifications, folks. Yes, I was confusing requirements on budget deficits with those on debt.

Fair dues peter,
i find it hard to get me head around it all too.
I think tho, i have it fairly well down now,
after much trial and error.
Hat off to you Sir!

To be fair, that IS what it’s called. It’s officially the ‘Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union’.

Likewise with the NO side renaming it the austerity treaty.

I thought it was called the Fiscal Compact?

I do find it odd that Wikipedia calls this the European Fiscal Compact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Fiscal_Compact, when not one of those three words appears in the official full title, Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union

David, it is far more accurate of the NO side to name it an Austerity Treaty than
it is for the YES side to call it a Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

To meet the conditions of the Treaty, Ireland would
and I

quote Gavin, the author of the article
“Ireland would need to knock €8 billion off its debt every year for eight years before it got debt back to 60% of GDP (€96bn).”

Really thinking about it,
calling it an Austerity treaty is being nice about it.

I think calling it the
FISCAL SUICIDE PACT
way more accurate

Unless of course Ireland has an economic recovery of BIBLICAL proportions

It depends what is meant by ‘stability’….

If it means ‘stable’ high unemployment & ‘stable’ loss of prosperity for all (except the top few percent) then ‘stability’ is applicable.

If it means ‘stable’ debt slavery of the majority in the interests of the financial elites & top few percent including political leaders & their advisers, mainstream media owners & senior executives, then, again, ‘stability’ is applicable.

If it means ‘stable’ regarding the continuing ability of the financial sector to create more asset price bubbles, Ponzi schemes & casinos, & increase the size of the extractive-to-no-useful-purpose financialised economy generally, then, again, ‘stability’ applies.

our great leaders are unable to act in an unbiased way about anything, fg are the protectors of the wealthy so they cant help but look after the rich at the expense of the rest of us, if you arent poor now but almost are, dont worry, edna and mick noonan will help you cross that treshold any day now, and labour are no longer a labour party, but a squeaky ineffective make up the numbers bunch of sheep, they have to be true to their natures

Gavin, David? Was it not called the fiscal compact treaty? I’m open to correction but this stability treaty lark only jumped out in the last few days.

The very first draft of the treaty, as agreed by 26 countries in December, had no formal title and was given the title ‘fiscal compact’ at the time, as was included in press releases sent at that point.

When the formal text was agreed by leaders in the new year, it had then been given the full title which the http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie website refers to.

@ Gavan Reilly, it is also called the Fiscal Compact. As far as I can tell, using the name Stability Treaty came later. The name change does set a precursor to how the EU want people to read it, so I’d say yes there is a bias. An obvious one.

Thanks Gavin, I am with John on this one. It’s a fairly obvious bias. It implies even in the name that there is no stability without a yes vote. If that’s not bias I don’t know what is. More naming and hoodwinking by Europe to enforce their democracy, ie, where they get the answer they want.

A perfect example of “Unspeak” – words used as weapons. this is up there with ‘surgical strike’, ‘axis of evil’ and ‘intelligent design’. David, if the No camp go a change to name it, they would call it the ‘Austerity Treaty’ as it would infer austerity were the yes camp to win. Get your logic right sir, I know it was a negated negative but its not rocket science.

Nobel Prize winning economist called it the European Economic Suicide pact. It was probably the least favoured title on the EU’s list.

The government, FG, LAB & also FF want us to ratify this treaty so that we can also sign up to the ‘ESM’ mechanism, calling it, in a masterful stroke of Orwellian deceipt, ‘an insurance policy’.

I suggest everybody in Ireland aquaints themselves with what the ESM actually is – get the facts. The I especially think you should get are stated in this youtube clip, quoting from the ESM mechanism documents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcWHBPYOSU&feature=player_embedded

@ Mike, the ESM establishment is the real elephant in the room isn’t it, access to bailouts and being part of Europe is only a distraction from what signing this treaty enacts, it’s our recognition of the ESM, which with those 3 worrying articles included, how can anyone vote in favor of it, they would have to be actually mad.
The need for a “bailout” or more correctly more loans could be the least of our worries if/when we are asked for even an extra 6 billion a year on top of all the other debts we have been burdened with. And to think in 2007 or 2008 the Govt reported close to a billion Euro in actual surplus!! How things changed. The Yes men want to make sure that we never return to those days it seems, Vote Yes for Europe eh….

@ Damhsa

The ESM mandate is very sinister indeed from a democratic perspective isn’t it? One question that remains is who would effectively control such a powerful supranational entity? The answer must surely be the predominantly German based financial elites that also control the ECB & dominate the other EU authorities.

Economist Yanis Varoufakis posts a 1995 analysis by Joseph Halevi pointing to a long standing German mercantilist position that former German finance minister Heiner Flassbeck has recently also described. Which Yanis links in his blog post:

http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2012/04/25/why-wont-germany-turn-joseph-halevis-insightful-analysis-circa-1995/#more-2078

I have just watched a youtube series by Bernard Lietaer talking about his new book ‘New Money For A New World’. Lietaer is a former central banker, later an academic as Prof of International Finance & globally respected scholar of currency systems. A very interesting man, he is clearly also passionate about ecological concerns & the future for our species.

http://www.youtube.com/user/newmoneyforanewworld?feature=watch

Lietaer paints a stark warning concerning the present direction of our societies.

Considering the ESM documents, the utter failure, but determination to continue, with destructive economic policies (see UK today) & the political turmoil building (France, Holland, Spain…), the paralysis, arrogance & ignorance that abounds in ‘authorities’ everywhere, it’s hard not to share Lietaer’s view that collapse is a real possibility.

However, Lietaer offers us a uniquely coherent philosophical & practical vision to correct &/or rebuild from the ashes the longstanding systemic failure we see culminating now..

http://www.lietaer.com/

This is what a baised video looks like

“The Stability Treaty” – a digital remix video youtu.be/n3HAw43lEyI

I dunno, I kinda like the fact that they forgot to register http://www.stabilitytreaty.org
It rather allows for puns like “instability treaty”, don’t you think?

Would have been funnier if you said it was satirical, was class though. Saved in my favourites already!

Brilliant!

“Have you ever seen Mad Max have ya?” Quality :D

“A balanced budget is a fine end to aim at…”

Actually with the banking & money system we have, it isn’t. Allow me to explain.

The ‘accounting identity’ of sectoral balances (ie not opinion, rather simple arithmetic) tells us that when the external sector, net import/export flows are in balance (which in the long run, they have to be), then if the non-government sector (households, businesses) is to increase its net financial assets (NFA, money) holdings, the government sector must be reducing its NFA – ie running a deficit.

(Anytime you see a government ‘debt’ clock – it could just as accurately be termed a private sector ‘wealth’ clock. They are two sides of exactly the same coin.)

Now, when banks issue loans, ‘new’ money is created, & when the loan is repaid the money is destroyed or extinguished. So far, so good. However, the +interest+ is +not+ money ‘created’ by the banks, so for the aggregate amount of non-government money to remain at par, or grow slightly as the economy grows, it must come from somewhere else. As it cannot come from the external sector continuously (as net exports payments), there is only one sector left to supply it – the government.

Which is why, in the long run, accumulated government debt is never repaid, only rolled over & the interest serviced. Economic growth allows the debt/GDP to remain roughly stable in the long run.

If this doesn’t happen, debt builds up in the non-government sector (households & businesses) to the point where it can take no more & be able to service it. This happens a lot quicker if a lot of the borrowing goes into asset price bubbles to no productive investment purpose in the real economy (eg the inflated land price element of ‘property’). Consumption & investment spending then falls & the economy the goes into recession & will stay there or stagnate until debts are paid down, whence spending may then begin to increase.

If the private debt overhang is large & the government does not step in & sufficiently increase spending (its deficit), the recession will last for a very long time & may become a full blown depression. Sound familiar?

Furthermore, when a government is not the issuer of its own currency, which gives it the power to dictate its own borrowing interest rate (US, UK, Japan etc.), rather must borrow at the whim of private ‘markets’ (Euro countries) & pay punitive interest rates 2, 3 or 4 times what it otherwise would, the situation is made very much worse. (The more so if it decides to make good banking losses it was not responsible for & add to the gov debt burden.) Sound familiar again?

Of course, any entity which is the monopoly +issuer+ of its own (fiat, free floating) currency has no need whatever to borrow at all to spend (US, UK, Japan etc.). But for political/ ideological/ ignorance reasons (possibly all driven by financial sector vested interests) the pretence remains that they must.

The same is true for the Eurozone’s issuer of currency, the ECB.

Just as the US, UK, Japan etc. have, the Euro system has the capacity to issue currency, debt-free, into the economy to stimulate demand & investment spending & reverse the recession quite quickly.

That’s not to say it can keep doing so indefinitely without the constraint of inflation. But to return to the level of economic activity that existed before the crash will not in itself increase inflation any more than existed then. So, in the present cicumstances, there is no real constraint. Except, of course, the vested interests of the wealthy top few percent, whose wealth relative to the rest can increase just the same in ‘busts’ as during the ‘booms’ – ie, there is no recession for them.

Do you think austerity treaty is more accurate? There’ll be austerity whichever way the vote goes

Speaking of lying…
“Someone has just shown me a leaflet distributed by Sinn Fein promoting the case for a No vote on the Fiscal Compact treaty. The back page contains quotes titled “What the Experts Said”.

One of the quotes is from me. It says:
… the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible …
Did I say that? Well, yes, I uttered those words at a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs. Here‘s what I said without the dots
All that said, although I think the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible, on balance, the arguments favour Ireland’s signing up to it.”
http://karlwhelan.com/blog/?p=359

@ Madeline. No I thought the fiscal treaty was acceptable. I agree we’ll get austerity either way but I think the treaty represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Euro crisis and won’t actually solve anything.

@Gary. I expect both sides to exaggerate and even lie in the campaign but what I really take issue with is when such lies find their way into impartial bodies that are supposed to be above such partisan politics. Imagine how upset you’d be if that SInn Féin leaflet was paid for with tax money!

Lorcan. I also expect both sides to exaggerate but these Sinn Fein leaflets are out and out lies. We have three respected economists calling for a Yes vote and Sinn Fien and making out they are looking for a No.
http://karlwhelan.com/blog/?p=359
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/colm-mccarthy-voting-no-is-a-leap-in-the-dark-that-we-cant-afford-3067573.html
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/evening-echo-150312.html

Unfortunately our budget surplus was a mirage, financed by a mountain of personal debt. The major componenents of that surplus were stamp duty, vehice registration tax, captial gains tax and VAT. These taxes were, in the main, financed by mortgages, hire purchase and leasing, bank loans and credit cards. An unbelievably negligent, or insane, FF government used this income to fund permanant commitments. Of course when the tax income disappeared, new borrowings to fund ongoing government spending moved from the private to the public sector.

Ths lunacy has left us with the twin evils of unmanageable private debt and an unsustainable public sector borrowing requirement.

Blaming the banks for this crisis is responding to the smokescreen put down by the civil service, central bank, and former ministers who failed miserably in both policy advice and regulation.

@ Ben Gunn

No, the budget surplus was not a mirage, it was +real+, as was the pension reserve fund built up.

But it was based on utterly unsustainable policies (& a deeply flawed shared currency system).

You also have cause & effect entirely wrong between politicians & bankers.

The banking & financial elites in Ireland & right across Europe were driving the whole thing with a Euro system +they+ designed, in their interests, not citizens.

The politicians are economics illiterates. Variously ‘captured’ & generally with their snouts in the trough provided by the fianancial elites. It’s no accident, this has been developed over decades. The mainstream of the economics ‘profession’, including those in the public sector ‘advisory’ are equally captured, both by financial means & the intellectual capture of mainstream academe. Most economists work in the private sector & follow the ideology (masquerading as theory) that they are taught. Doesn’t the fact that none of these people, international institutions included (all of them!) had a clue the crash was coming, mere weeks in advance, tell you anything?

The mainstream media are no different. Masive revenues from finance & property sector advertising. Were they really going to challenge all this? Not a chance! Aknowledge their own role? Not a chance!

Keep taking the ‘blue pill’ if you must, but it won’t change the fact that none of us live in a meaningful democracy.

Take a look at what’s coming down the road in the ‘ESM’ if we vote yes. Do you really think an entity that can demand unlimited sums from us at 7 days notice, & is beyond any government control or judicial process, is in our democratic interests?

And what did the Lisbon treaty do exactly?
Wasn’t one of the myths that we’d never have to vote on European treaties again, and yet we are.

Only because it calls for change to our strong constitution, the Govt. spent ages looking into ways to avoid giving us this referendum if you recall, just like all the other country’s in Europe who didn’t get a say or get to hold a referendum.
These things we should not forget.

The European Commission actually granted permission for that, as it did for the bank guarantee and for every subsequent banking recapitalisation…

Of course they did simply because they are so tied up with the industry. They identify with each other and are led to believe saving a banking system is the same as saving their system. This should have been challenged it upsets me that Irish men should participate in the greatest transfer of wealth from this country since Cromwell. When you consider you can’t cut a tree down on the N11 without going to court it a poor poor show.

With ya on that.
In terms of “realpolitik”, this Gov and any Gov will always
put a slant or try to colour in their favour.
Thankfully we do have a few check and balances in place.

Aaron
Difference is, its against the law for any government
to present this sorta information, using taxpayers money,
and be seen to be pushing for one side or the other.
SF aren’t in Gubbermint.

More like he will be advocating the next Yes vote to another treaty to give the EU more powers to fix the mess this treaty makes

david,
i speak for NOBODY but meself,
but if that’s all you have……..

Anyone who disagrees with FFg/Labour/FF is a ‘Shinner’ …. we have been listening to the same line for how long now? If you agree with the Government, you are a Patriot and you are proud to wear the Green jersey, otherwise you are a ‘Shinner’ and a Terrorist. In which case David, i am proud to be a ‘Shinner’ !!!!!!!!!

I am not a supporter of any party, I speak for myself and I think its biased.

I’m just pointing out that people can’t see these polls as being reflective of the rest of the population.

Ur here david…you voted, are you saying now ur vote is not counted? There are plenty of people from every side of the gaping divide on this side, I know I have had plenty of ‘debates’ with them so I would say this site is fairly evenly spread and so the poll (and the comments) is fairly representative of public opinion.

David, Journal.ie was pretty much on the mark, regarding the number of people who registered to pay the household charge. You made the same arguments during that Poll… which turned out to be fairly accurate. Seriously, if you think about it, if this Poll was in the Indo, RTE etc, you would have no gripes with it, as FFg/Labour have vested interests in those media outlets. Thankfully, you parties (FFg/Labour/FF) have not got their grubby hands on Journal.ie yet, so this is where a lot of the non-conformist thinkers, tend to congregate.

David, where’s Enda’s hand in that photo? Enda Kenny, puppet master.

@david
I am not a shinner!! I am a reformed FG voter who holds no party alligence.!
With that sentiment you yourself are SF follower as you frequent this site very regularly!!

Here’s another way to look at this, David. Now that both of the main parties, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael have gotten solidly behind a policy of burning the citizens and bailing out the banks (neither of which option fulfils their obligations under Bunreacht na hEireann) people have gone looking elsewhere for political representation. The options are shockingly few.

I think you’ll find that the largest proportion of Irish voters are currently ticking a box called “looking for a home.”

That is totally false RE: 0.28-0.38 . That is only an attempt to gain domestic political points & to defer any debate on the withdrawl of blanket guarentee for banks !

Phew!!
That’s good then, eh?!
The video goes unchallenged.
Another victory for the mighty forces of democracy and transparency

Spending money on a campaign of information is not an issue.What is an issue is using that finance to promote one side or the other which this site clearly does.I can assure you no one from Sinn Fein was invited to have any input into the making of the video.

This is a completely non-baited question, but do you think the video is biased?

simple answer yes

Thanks for the response Seamus, I should have put an @David Higgins thingy at the start, you lot were faster than I was. Mr. Higgins?

@Chris He has a picture of himself with Spenda Enda. What do you think his answer is going to be?

Ah now, don’t judge a man by his pictures. Thats no way to turn opinion. It doesn’t matter who someone supports, the advice video will still stay the same. It can’t change itself, but it might change opinion.

wheres the jobs that lisbon promised ????? ah yea …..oops

Gary where have you been? Ive missed you. :) in saying that shining the light on sf imperfections makes no odds to me, I wouldn’t be an sf voter, im guessing nor would a lot of people on here, I think as they stand they are chancers. But all that said im still voting no, there are more reasons to vote no than to vote yes. Sorry, Don’t leave it so long the next time ;)

Niamh. This article states that Sinn Fein and seeking legal advice as they believe the governments site on the treaty is biased. But at the same time they are distributing leaflets quoting well known and respected economists which looks like they are calling for a No vote. But these economists are actually calling for a Yes vote. This is stereotypical Sinn Fein behaviour. If this is such a cut and dried matter for a No vote why do they do need to lie to get the message out?
I agree that Irish governments tend to be very poor at informing the public on our treaties but I have a much greater problem with the out and out lying that the No side always engage in.

Philip. Here is a list of 21 different things the No side said would happen if we voted for Lisbon and not one has come to pass. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74672530&postcount=1
Oh and let’s not forget Recession/Bubble Burst=Mid 2008, Lisbon treaty into law=December 2009. See how one cannot have caused the other?

@ Gary Clowry

“….… the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible …
Did I say that? Well, yes, I uttered those words at a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs. Here‘s what I said without the dots
All that said, although I think the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible, on balance, the arguments favour Ireland’s signing up to it.”

Translation

I can keep my options open vis-a-vis my future professional standing, but my own salary & pension will be unaffected, so hey, I can hedge my bets & keep in with the ‘authorities’ (the financial elites, who also dominate academe).