I guess Journal readers are younger, where most of the No vote lies, where as most of the Yes Vote is in the 55+ segment and unlikely to frequent this as much.

Well i am a younger voter as well and i am also a NO NO NO, but is saying that 5 people in my house are all voting No but this will come down to the retired public sector and current public sector workers and i am just hoping they will put everyone elses concerns before their own but then again we still have croke park deal and poor me mentality.

The Politicians only want a yes so they can still have their over inflated wages and then we have TD’s who cant live on €140k a year and our great leader who hasnt the confidence to debate the issue.

Sarah, I can only speak for myself of course, but this public sector worker is voting no, as are my father, a retired public servant who spent 30 odd years caring for the elderly, and also my brother, who had to leave his public service nursing job to work in the private sector because he could no longer pay his bills due to the cuts imposed on all public servants before the croke park agreement came into being.

And fair play to ya getting out to vote. The government are always depending to young voter apathy to push through their latest bullcrap treaty. This referendum can be won or lost by a single vote, and it could be yours or mine…Can’t wait till next thursday to formally register my vote and say ‘blackmail THIS merkel’.

I agree, Too Trueleft. And, Sarah, that was nothing but insulting towards public sector workers. I really really really wish The Journal would publish some factual information on what public sector workers (not civil servants!) actually earn.
I’m a public sector nurse, my husband a Garda. We have 2 young children and another on the way. We will be emigrating in 2 weeks time as we can no longer afford to pay our bills. And, no, we didn’t overstretched ourselves and we weren’t greedy borrowing money. Our wages have been cut to such a point that when my husband is going from a late shift onto an early he sleeps in the car at work to save money on petrol. We are broke.
So, to Sarah and Neil and all those like you, I hope that someday you need a nurse or a Garda or a fireman. And I hope there is nobody there to help you. Because that’s what you deserve. “poor me attitude”. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

All the momentum is going that way.

All the hyperbole & comments are going that way.

like fg election proposals “sic”

Voting no will not end the austerity Lara. But voting no will allow us as a state and government decide how and at what pace we need to set to get back to balanced books. Voting Yes removes that power from the Irish state and hands it over to the ESM to police.

A no vote means not making a slave state of this country for generations Of course we’ll have austerity but not austerity as dictated by the Merkel woman which would be absolute and abject poverty.

No Laura, we still need to reduce the wages of all those earning over 100k per year in the public sector. This would reduce our deficit by almost 1 billion per year according to the Governments own figures. So, yes, there will be austerity, but it will be focussed on removing/eliminating waste rather than necssary services. SF have also suggested bringing in a third rate of tax for all earnings over 100k per year (a third band of PAYE in the region of 46-48%). This would bring in an estimated 1 billion per year based on the Dept of Finance numbers. This would immediately reduce our fiscal deficit by almost 2 billion. The trick after this is to incentivise growth, so that our fiscal spending deficit % would reduce on a yearly basis (as spending would not increase, but the economy would grow, hence increasing tax revenue further). In summary, any tax increases would be for those that can afford it (ie high earners), while leaving the low to middle classes alone going forward and allow spending to resume.
I hope this answers the question.

Gotta love it. You’ve got a Union guy saying vote No because he wants even more borrowing to bump up Public Sector pay even more, and then peple saying vote No to stop all such borrowing!

Yes campaigners have argued that if Ireland rejects this treaty. Ireland will be cast out into the dark. This is not correct. Bloomberg points out today that Europe’s banks have an exposure of €1.2 trillion to periphery nations.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-22/european-banks-unprepared-for-pandora-s-box-of-greek-exit.html

In addition, a German economist, Hans Werner Sinn, discovered a massive imbalance in the accounts of the Bundesbank. While this currently will not impact Germany, Sinn warns that even if one nation leaves the Euro that effects could be critical for Germany,

“Caught in a Trap’

As long as the monetary union continues to exist, this isn’t a catastrophe. The money is virtual, created by central banks, and its existence doesn’t mean that an equivalent amount is lacking elsewhere. But as soon as a country leaves the euro zone, or the currency union collapses entirely, things get critical.

“We’re caught in a trap,” Sinn says. “If the euro breaks apart, we’re left with an outstanding balance of nearly €500 billion, owed by a system that no longer exists.” That figure, €500 billion, is more than one and a half times Germany’s annual federal budget.”
Der Spiegel 06/03/12

Ireland has much more leverage than the yes side claim and is well positioned to negotiate a restructuring if Ireland’s voters turn down this treaty.

The missing part of the puzzle is, I think, what the report Taft references is actually about – eurobonds. The borrowing power that we don’t have – and without which there’s no prospect of borrowing for a stimulus – would be provided by tapping Germany’s credit rating to reduce our market borrowing rates.

So, rather than reduce the government deficit, or gain competitiveness, we would simply hide behind Germany’s borrowing power to avoid addressing any of our domestic economic issues.

It would be interesting to see what Taft’s projections look like a little further into the future…but I have to give him credit for the best attempt yet at conjuring up a magic money tree that would allow us to continue throwing borrowed money into our state spending.

One little problem, though – what is it makes the Germans sign up for eurobonds when we won’t sign up to be responsible (in their eyes) with the money we borrow using their credit?

Joe o’Reilly.

Germany, while wealthy, has not anywhere near the required funds to recapitalize the Eurozone banks, it’ll do well to capitalize its own.

The ESM’s 750bn (which has yet to be paid in) is not going to be enough to bailout Spain.

The only way the crisis will be paid off is the ECB giving in to Market demands to open up liquidity taps, print several trillion Euro’s, capitalize banks, massive investment across the Eurozone etc. All countries need to be on a stable economy footing, but this foolish treaty is only a distraction from that.

Neil, what in the name of all that is holy are you on about! It’s the Yes side unions who want to ensure the continuation of the gravy train? By the admission of the Yes campaigners including government parties “Access to ESM will ensure we can pay for our public services, a no vote will mean we can’t pay them” (WHICH IS TOTAL BULL BTW), yet now you’re suggesting if we vote no we’ll be borrowing more? Have the Yes side been lying all along so?

Neil, public sector pay, both individual wages and the overall bill has been REDUCED, so how is it ‘bumping it up even more’.

Repeating the same falsehood often enough does not make it true.

Yeah, Neil. Change the record. You’re starting to get boring now .

Why then should we listen to economists from Central bank or IBEC? Will their view not also be biased? Or is bias OK if it’s suggesting a yes vote?

Oooooops you didn’t read my comment properly. If you read it again (shouldn’t take too long) you will find I never said you should listen to anybody else.

Then read David McWilliams in info today ‘fiscal treaty is kamikaze economics for most of EU’ Germany being the exception

@Ross, I read it again but it was taking too long so I decided not to listen to you

While I am sympathetic to your Expansionary fiscal consolidation argument Jose. I believe that the problem of the size Ireland’s debts would need to be tackled first.
Prof. Niall Ferguson has pointed out that no nation in 200 years has sustained Ireland’s level of debt without either a default, devaluation or both. Neither of these options are open to Ireland.
The referendum opens the only opportunity for the Irish voter to force the issue of restructuring. The Irish government would be in a unique negotiating position if they return to Brussels constitutionally unable to ratify the treaty without some concessions.
If Ireland could get its debt below GDP level, perhaps then, fiscal measures could yield growth.

Pity they don’t want to do it.

I’ll wait until the yes side can produce their figures on how we can afford to cut more, tax more and pay into the ESM without actually increasing the austerity that has being with us for 5 years and has proven to be an unmitigated disaster.