Opinion Polls - Fiscal Stability Treaty Referendum May 2012

[C. Flower]

http://stephenspillane.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/pollwatch-sunday-timesbehaviour-and-attitudes-april-22nd/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


The poll by Behaviour and Attitudes survey of 946 over seven days ending on Tuesday.

The topline figures on the Treaty Referendum are as follows:


Yes: 42%
No: 27%
Undecided: 31%
When undecideds are excluded the the figures look more familiar:

Yes: 61%
No: 39%
So no major news there. The interest is when people were asked to they understand the treaty, the responses were as follows:

Understood Very Well: 6%
Understand Quite Well: 12%
Understand to some extent: 27%
Do not understand it particularly well: 23%
Do not understand it all: 32%
The big task on the Yes sides now will be to get the 55% of people who don’t understand to understand! If the Yes manages that will win the referendum on May 31st!

Claire McGing on twitter says -

50% of men are on yes & 33% women, while 22% of men & 39% of women don't know.

[C. Flower]

SBP 24th March

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0324/referendum.html


Just over 1,000 voters around the country were questioned for the Sunday Business Post poll between Monday and Wednesday.
These show that 49% say they will vote yes, up five points since the last poll three weeks ago. 33% say they will vote no - an increase of four points - while 18% remain undecided.
When they are excluded, the yes side leads by 60% to 40% - the same as three weeks ago.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0428/poll-shows-slight-narrowing-in-treaty-support.html

Sunday Business Post Poll, today.


47% of those asked said they would vote for the Treaty, while 35% said they would vote no - up two points. 18% said they had not made up their minds.

1,000 voters around the country were questioned between Monday and Wednesday for the poll, with those unlikely to vote removed from the results.
Excluding undecided voters, 58% are for and 42% against - a slight move against the Treaty since the end of last month.

Support for the Treaty among Fianna Fáil voters has dropped significantly, down from 72% to 52%.

The campaign does not formally get underway until Minister Phil Hogan signs the Referendum Order on Monday, however both sides are already getting their campaigns into shape.

6 % difference in it, in terms of the shift required.

Much will depend on who actually gets out and votes.

[DCon]

It would appear that FG HQ have not sent the party members instructions to debase our poll yet

[tomasocarthaigh]

Claire McGing on twitter says -

50% of men are on yes & 33% women, while 22% of men & 39% of women don't know.

The women who dont know... refuse to ask for directions!!!

;-p

Sorry... couldnt resist!!! rotfl!!!

[Dr. FIVE]

Latest SBP/Red C > Yes: 50% (-3), No: 31% (nc), Don't know: 19% (+3)

[Griska]

Latest SBP/Red C > Yes: 50% (-3), No: 31% (nc), Don't know: 19% (+3)

It does raise the question about our relationship with Europe.
I would imagine such a referendum would be laughed at in the majority of Euro countries.
Surely the irony is that we are most un-European, if the latest polls are correct.

[MPB]

Latest SBP/Red C > Yes: 50% (-3), No: 31% (nc), Don't know: 19% (+3)

Obviously a lot of soft Yes votes in that original 50%, while the No vote is rock hard.

The arrival of Ganley into the debate is, in my opinion the reason for the change.

His insistence on including the Bank reparations in the debate will definitely win Votes to the No side.

Also his questioning of the ability of the ESM to manage to fund the likes of Spain, as well as the legality of the ESM will prevent the Yes side from constantly referring to the ESM as the whole basis for voting Yes.

[Griska]

Obviously a lot of soft Yes votes in that original 50%, while the No vote is rock hard.

The arrival of Ganley into the debate is, in my opinion the reason for the change.

His insistence on including the Bank reparations in the debate will definitely win Votes to the No side.

Also his questioning of the ability of the ESM to manage to fund the likes of Spain, as well as the legality of the ESM will prevent the Yes side from constantly referring to the ESM as the whole basis for voting Yes.

Ganley is a busted flush.
His ability to influence the outcome is overstated.

[Dr. FIVE]

A lot of support he would get would be Thatcherite types who would already be voting no in hope of killing the CPA.
Still might pick up a few though. He picked up a couple of thousand votes in euros and west will probably be returning the strongest no.

[Griska]

A lot of support he would get would be Thatcherite types who would already be voting no in hope of killing the CPA.
Still might pick up a few though. He picked up a couple of thousand votes in euros and west will probably be returning the strongest no.

Aye, his people will already be counted on the no side.
He'll have little influence on the result.

[C. Flower]

Ganley is a busted flush.
His ability to influence the outcome is overstated.

Personally he may not be doing much, but having a few posters about the place won't harm the "No" sentiment.

[unspecific]

Oh, and the eurozone is collapsing.

[Richardbouvet]

Face it folks. Ganley may be a sleaze-ball, but in a referendum, the side which is consistently trailing in the polls needs all the allies it can get.

[Griska]

Face it folks. Ganley may be a sleaze-ball, but in a referendum, the side which is consistently trailing in the polls needs all the allies it can get.

Stop it.
You're making me feel dirty:(

[rebellin]

Oh, and the eurozone is collapsing.

This is the most important factor. Voters can't vote for the government's stability spin, when everyday JP Morgan is down the tubes, then Greece. Spain etc.-- this is what is unfolding in the last days of the referendum campaign

http://laroucheirishbrigade.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/voting-no-against-national-suicide/

[Dr. FIVE]

poll on 4fm shows

6% yes
94% no

[fluffybiscuits]

The yes side are in for a shock...

[theUO]

Brief summary of some of the key points of discussion in this campaign

http://theunanimityofone.blogspot.com/

[Dr. FIVE]

Irish Times Ipsos MRBI Yes 57%, No 43% excluding don't knows/ would not vote.

[riposte]

Asked how they were likely to vote on the treaty, 39 per cent of voters said Yes, 30 per cent said No and 31 per cent either didn’t know or won’t vote.

That allows MRBI a sufficently big loophole to climb out of if the treaty is defeated.

They only got it 24% wrong on the first NICE referendum.

[Andrew49]

Asked how they were likely to vote on the treaty, 39 per cent of voters said Yes, 30 per cent said No and 31 per cent either didn’t know or won’t vote.

That allows MRBI a sufficently big loophole to climb out of if the treaty is defeated.

They only got it 24% wrong on the first NICE referendum.

This is more like it ... though I'd put the difference between the No's and the Yes' as a bit wider .... but the NO vote is hard and definite .... I think most of the undecideds will either not vote or vote Yes. Up to the NO's to go after them.

I've only been canvassed by the NO side so far ... apparently the neighbourhood is being taken for granted by the Yessirs Yessirs.

[fluffybiscuits]

Brief summary of some of the key points of discussion in this campaign

http://theunanimityofone.blogspot.com/

Are you working for the Yes side :p? Your blog has said that it is unchartered waters if we need a second bailout? The Euro would fail and throw the whole European project into disarray and thereby cause a fall out all over Europe. With this in mind I highly doubt that they would want Ireland to fall as this would mean then that the Euro would fail..

[theUO]

hi fluffybiscuits...

firstly i do believe that should the should the Treaty be rejected and should a second bailout be needed that we are indeed heading into unchartered waters. It is also true that there may exist sufficient funds in the EFSF to provide the State with a second bailout. Having said this the wisdom in calling the bluff of European authorities on the provision of future funding when they have made it clear only members that ratify the Treaty would be entitled to such, is highly questionable. I concur with your contention that Europe has no desire to see "Ireland fall" but considering the increasing evidence that contingency plans for a Greek withdrawal from the Single Currency are being drawn up this is no time for blind faith and bravado on our part, only to be proven wrong and face all the potential consequences we would then face. Jean Claude Juncker, PM of Luxembourg has said that while it is preferential to keep Greece in the monetary union “We need to be armed for all eventualities.”

In the current climate nothing can be taken for granted. The EU may cough up the funds for a second bailout, but equally they may not and in that case what is to happen to the country? While the threat of no funding may be an attempt at scaremongering on their behalf to encourage a Yes vote, is it really beyond the realms of possibility that following another referendum rejection and in light of the current economic environment that if their hand were forced they might consider a similar contingency plan for us?

I have no desire to be bullied by the powers that be in Europe. I do not like large parts of this Treaty, yet at times common sense must prevail and in my opinion a Yes vote is therefore the most prudent option.

[fluffybiscuits]

hi fluffybiscuits...

firstly i do believe that should the should the Treaty be rejected and should a second bailout be needed that we are indeed heading into unchartered waters. It is also true that there may exist sufficient funds in the EFSF to provide the State with a second bailout. Having said this the wisdom in calling the bluff of European authorities on the provision of future funding when they have made it clear only members that ratify the Treaty would be entitled to such, is highly questionable. I concur with your contention that Europe has no desire to see "Ireland fall" but considering the increasing evidence that contingency plans for a Greek withdrawal from the Single Currency are being drawn up this is no time for blind faith and bravado on our part, only to be proven wrong and face all the potential consequences we would then face. Jean Claude Juncker, PM of Luxembourg has said that while it is preferential to keep Greece in the monetary union “We need to be armed for all eventualities.”

In the current climate nothing can be taken for granted. The EU may cough up the funds for a second bailout, but equally they may not and in that case what is to happen to the country? While the threat of no funding may be an attempt at scaremongering on their behalf to encourage a Yes vote, is it really beyond the realms of possibility that following another referendum rejection and in light of the current economic environment that if their hand were forced they might consider a similar contingency plan for us?

I have no desire to be bullied by the powers that be in Europe. I do not like large parts of this Treaty, yet at times common sense must prevail and in my opinion a Yes vote is therefore the most prudent option.

Welcome to the forum btw :)

Ireland now days is not a country of risk takers. The Celtic cubs knew they could flog their houses for extortionate money and make a quick buck. That psyche being ever prevalent will mean that they are going to stick with the devil they dont know and be scared into voting yes . You are correct we may not know where the money will come from but we should assume an air of confidence not bordering on arrogance that it will come from somewhere (IMF, ECB, EU, UK etc.) . A contingency plan for us could very well happen in which case we will see our purse strings tightened and perhaps exports grow as a result but at the same time they could very well see their policy is a failed one. :)


PS Stick around , like your blog :)

[theUO]

Welcome to the forum btw :)

Ireland now days is not a country of risk takers. The Celtic cubs knew they could flog their houses for extortionate money and make a quick buck. That psyche being ever prevalent will mean that they are going to stick with the devil they dont know and be scared into voting yes . You are correct we may not know where the money will come from but we should assume an air of confidence not bordering on arrogance that it will come from somewhere (IMF, ECB, EU, UK etc.) . A contingency plan for us could very well happen in which case we will see our purse strings tightened and perhaps exports grow as a result but at the same time they could very well see their policy is a failed one. :)


PS Stick around , like your blog :)

I certainly can't say I agree with your logic on the issue, intentionally placing ourselves in a more precarious position at a time like this to me makes little sense. However, that I suppose is why we all get a vote so each to their own!

Thanks, for the welcome and the support. Appreciate it

[MPB]

hi fluffybiscuits...

firstly i do believe that should the should the Treaty be rejected and should a second bailout be needed that we are indeed heading into unchartered waters. It is also true that there may exist sufficient funds in the EFSF to provide the State with a second bailout. Having said this the wisdom in calling the bluff of European authorities on the provision of future funding when they have made it clear only members that ratify the Treaty would be entitled to such, is highly questionable. I concur with your contention that Europe has no desire to see "Ireland fall" but considering the increasing evidence that contingency plans for a Greek withdrawal from the Single Currency are being drawn up this is no time for blind faith and bravado on our part, only to be proven wrong and face all the potential consequences we would then face. Jean Claude Juncker, PM of Luxembourg has said that while it is preferential to keep Greece in the monetary union “We need to be armed for all eventualities.”

In the current climate nothing can be taken for granted. The EU may cough up the funds for a second bailout, but equally they may not and in that case what is to happen to the country? While the threat of no funding may be an attempt at scaremongering on their behalf to encourage a Yes vote, is it really beyond the realms of possibility that following another referendum rejection and in light of the current economic environment that if their hand were forced they might consider a similar contingency plan for us?

I have no desire to be bullied by the powers that be in Europe. I do not like large parts of this Treaty, yet at times common sense must prevail and in my opinion a Yes vote is therefore the most prudent option.

Ireland is currently in an austerity programme invented by the EU/ECB/IMF.

It is sticking to its requirements ( stupidly ) so if it requires access to the ESM, why would it be refused if it voted No, considering it the only difference is that we did not enshrine the treaty in our constitution?

[C. Flower]

hi fluffybiscuits...

firstly i do believe that should the should the Treaty be rejected and should a second bailout be needed that we are indeed heading into unchartered waters. It is also true that there may exist sufficient funds in the EFSF to provide the State with a second bailout. Having said this the wisdom in calling the bluff of European authorities on the provision of future funding when they have made it clear only members that ratify the Treaty would be entitled to such, is highly questionable. I concur with your contention that Europe has no desire to see "Ireland fall" but considering the increasing evidence that contingency plans for a Greek withdrawal from the Single Currency are being drawn up this is no time for blind faith and bravado on our part, only to be proven wrong and face all the potential consequences we would then face. Jean Claude Juncker, PM of Luxembourg has said that while it is preferential to keep Greece in the monetary union “We need to be armed for all eventualities.”

In the current climate nothing can be taken for granted. The EU may cough up the funds for a second bailout, but equally they may not and in that case what is to happen to the country? While the threat of no funding may be an attempt at scaremongering on their behalf to encourage a Yes vote, is it really beyond the realms of possibility that following another referendum rejection and in light of the current economic environment that if their hand were forced they might consider a similar contingency plan for us?

I have no desire to be bullied by the powers that be in Europe. I do not like large parts of this Treaty, yet at times common sense must prevail and in my opinion a Yes vote is therefore the most prudent option.

I would just ask you to read the Treaty - it is not long - and the ESM Treaty - and remember that you are voting for an intergovernmental Treaty that is permanent in effect.

[theUO]

Ireland is currently in an austerity programme invented by the EU/ECB/IMF.

It is sticking to its requirements ( stupidly ) so if it requires access to the ESM, why would it be refused if it voted No, considering it the only difference is that we did not enshrine the treaty in our constitution?

The Introduction to the Treaty clearly states the following;

"STRESSING the importance of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism as an
element of the global strategy to strengthen the economic and monetary union and POINTING OUT
that the granting of financial assistance in the framework of new programmes under the European
Stability Mechanism will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of this Treaty by
the Contracting Party concerned and, as soon as the transposition period referred to in Article 3(2)
of this Treaty has expired, on compliance with the requirements of that Article; "

Written in black and white. If we do not ratify the treaty, we are not- after March 2013- eligible for assistance from the fund. I'm failing to see where the difficulty lies with this?

[theUO]

I would just ask you to read the Treaty - it is not long - and the ESM Treaty - and remember that you are voting for an intergovernmental Treaty that is permanent in effect.

I have indeed read both Treaties, more than once, and agree that neither are particularly long. A welcome change you'll no doubt agree! I am also fully aware of the permanent nature of the Treaty.

[C. Flower]

I have indeed read both Treaties, more than once, and agree that neither are particularly long. A welcome change you'll no doubt agree! I am also fully aware of the permanent nature of the Treaty.

And are you concerned about the way so much power would be held by unaccountable people and bodies?

[theUO]

And are you concerned about the way so much power would be held by unaccountable people and bodies?

Absolutely. However, if you are suggesting that this a strong cause for rejection of the Treaty I would contend that your priorities are somewhat misplaced. If it is the power and degree of accountability of the EU that worries you I'm afraid that ship has long since sailed. The EU and its institutions have long been subject to scrutiny over the apparent democratic deficit that exists in the structure of said institutions. For example the Governing council refuse to even publish the minutes of their meetings as they claim it would create a "false transparency".

If this is a motive for a No vote, I would suggest you are some years late in trying to address the issues of power and accountability within the EU. This Treaty has more important aspects than attempting to readress the balance of power that has long been established and which a No vote would likely do little to change.

[MPB]

,
The Introduction to the Treaty clearly states the following;

"STRESSING the importance of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism as an
element of the global strategy to strengthen the economic and monetary union and POINTING OUT
that the granting of financial assistance in the framework of new programmes under the European
Stability Mechanism will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of this Treaty by
the Contracting Party concerned and, as soon as the transposition period referred to in Article 3(2)
of this Treaty has expired, on compliance with the requirements of that Article; "

Written in black and white. If we do not ratify the treaty, we are not- after March 2013- eligible for assistance from the fund. I'm failing to see where the difficulty lies with this?

The ESM is a fund that will be run by Bankers, with no rules for Governance by member states of the EU. It cannot be challenged legally, has full authority to increase financial demands on member states and also full authority to sue member states.

It has no rules as to what interest rate it will charge or what demands it will impose or collateral it will demand.

It is being set up as a European Monetary Fund, the word stability is just a PR stunt and just like the IMF it will be used to privatise the utilities of nations using the loan facility.

We would be better off borrowing from the markets even at 6% and if we dumped the Bank debt back to where it belongs i.e the ECB, we could borrow from the markets at 3-4%.

[theUO]

,

The ESM is a fund that will be run by Bankers, with no rules for Governance by member states of the EU. It cannot be challenged legally, has full authority to increase financial demands on member states and also full authority to sue member states.

It has no rules as to what interest rate it will charge or what demands it will impose or collateral it will demand.

It is being set up as a European Monetary Fund, the word stability is just a PR stunt and just like the IMF it will be used to privatise the utilities of nations using the loan facility.

We would be better off borrowing from the markets even at 6% and if we dumped the Bank debt back to where it belongs i.e the ECB, we could borrow from the markets at 3-4%.

Your stance on the issue is not altogether coherent. Firstly you seem unperturbed by the notion that according to the Treaty only members that ratify the treaty will have access to the ESM. "It is sticking to its requirements ( stupidly ) so if it requires access to the ESM, why would it be refused if it voted No, considering it the only difference is that we did not enshrine the treaty in our constitution?" Your train of thought seems to be that there will be no problem accessing the fund in the event that it is needed, and so everything is alright. this seems to be in contrast to your most recent comment where you appear wholly against the use of the ESM at all.

With regards to governance each member state will elect a governor and an alternative governor for times when the latter is not available. Voting rights will e determined as a result of the capital investment and consequent share allocation of each member state. A qualified majority majority of 80% of the vote is needed to adopt a decision. So I wouldn't quite agree with your contention that there are "no rules for governance by Member States"

"Dumping the bank debt back to where it belongs, i.e. the ECB" while a desirable outcome is one that I find it hard to envisage as possible given the governments accession. It is true that part of Ireland's debt burden has been unfairly left at our doorstep, unlike any other European country, the ECB bullied us and we relented.But do you really think it's likely that the debt burden will be lessened if the Treaty is defeated? I doubt it. We are currently paying an interest rate of 3.4% on the bailout, as opposed to 7% on 10yr bonds at the moment?

A lot of what is being bandied about on this issue is irresponsible, fanciful rhetoric that seeks to give false hope. We must face up to the realities of the situation we find ourselves in no matter how harsh they may be, wishful thinking and second-guessing will get us nowhere. Borrowing at a lower rate of interest makes sense. If you really believe that the ESM is going to impose an interest rate of 7% on us, then perhaps the markets are the best place to borrow. I will however err on the side of logic and wish to access the cheaper funding on offer.

[MPB]

Your stance on the issue is not altogether coherent. Firstly you seem unperturbed by the notion that according to the Treaty only members that ratify the treaty will have access to the ESM. "It is sticking to its requirements ( stupidly ) so if it requires access to the ESM, why would it be refused if it voted No, considering it the only difference is that we did not enshrine the treaty in our constitution?" Your train of thought seems to be that there will be no problem accessing the fund in the event that it is needed, and so everything is alright. this seems to be in contrast to your most recent comment where you appear wholly against the use of the ESM at all.

With regards to governance each member state will elect a governor and an alternative governor for times when the latter is not available. Voting rights will e determined as a result of the capital investment and consequent share allocation of each member state. A qualified majority majority of 80% of the vote is needed to adopt a decision. So I wouldn't quite agree with your contention that there are "no rules for governance by Member States"

"Dumping the bank debt back to where it belongs, i.e. the ECB" while a desirable outcome is one that I find it hard to envisage as possible given the governments accession. It is true that part of Ireland's debt burden has been unfairly left at our doorstep, unlike any other European country, the ECB bullied us and we relented.But do you really think it's likely that the debt burden will be lessened if the Treaty is defeated? I doubt it. We are currently paying an interest rate of 3.4% on the bailout, as opposed to 7% on 10yr bonds at the moment?

A lot of what is being bandied about on this issue is irresponsible, fanciful rhetoric that seeks to give false hope. We must face up to the realities of the situation we find ourselves in no matter how harsh they may be, wishful thinking and second-guessing will get us nowhere. Borrowing at a lower rate of interest makes sense. If you really believe that the ESM is going to impose an interest rate of 7% on us, then perhaps the markets are the best place to borrow. I will however err on the side of logic and wish to access the cheaper funding on offer.

I am indeed against using the ESM and am very much against contributing to it.

My point about access is purely about the current Yes argument that maintains there will be absolutely no access if the treaty is rejected. This is, I believe a misnomer and I would argue that the statement about access to the ESM in the preamble would not stand up in Court, for numerous reasons, mostly pertaining to previous treaties.

As for the ESM itself, it is not a replacement for market funding, as it not a similar form of borrowing in any way, shape or form.

The markets loan to you at a set interest rate over a fixed period with no terms and conditions attached, the ESM will not. The ESM will replace the Troika not the markets.

If we access the ESM, everything is up for grabs including our Corporate Tax rate.

We will not be dealing with fellow EU members when we go to the ESM, we will be dealing with Central Bankers with an agenda. An agenda without any outside influence whatsoever. Who are we to complain to if they demand we increase our CT rate?

[disability student]

I am indeed against using the ESM and am very much against contributing to it.

My point about access is purely about the current Yes argument that maintains there will be absolutely no access if the treaty is rejected. This is, I believe a misnomer and I would argue that the statement about access to the ESM in the preamble would not stand up in Court, for numerous reasons, mostly pertaining to previous treaties.

As for the ESM itself, it is not a replacement for market funding, as it not a similar form of borrowing in any way, shape or form.

The markets loan to you at a set interest rate over a fixed period with no terms and conditions attached, the ESM will not. The ESM will replace the Troika not the markets.

If we access the ESM, everything is up for grabs including our Corporate Tax rate.

We will not be dealing with fellow EU members when we go to the ESM, we will be dealing with Central Bankers with an agenda. An agenda without any outside influence whatsoever. Who are we to complain to if they demand we increase our CT rate?

+100 and with an immunity clause as well. So they will not be prosecuted if things went wrong on their watch.

[disability student]

Article from Cormac Lucey:http://cormaclucey.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-im-voting-no-to-fiscal-compact.html

After some intial uncertainty and having previously always voted “Yes” to European referenda, I have decided to vote against the Fiscal Compact Treaty.

It’s not that I am against the goals of the treaty. Far from it: I am an accountant and, by instinct, a fiscal conservative. So I agree that the gap between a government’s annual and spending should not exceed 3% of national income and that a government’s total debt should not exceed 60% of national income. And I agree with the notion that, over a full economic cycle, governments should run balanced budgets.

Indeed I am one of the few who is angered that, across the developed world, government debt levels are systematically understated by simply ignoring state pension liabilities. While Germany insists that the declared liabilities of Eurozone states should never exceed 60% of national income, its own undeclared pension liabilities have been estimated to equal 300% of national income. This is a ticking time bomb whose existence few are willing to discuss. But I object to the high-handedness of the European Union which demands ever greater powers of fiscal surveillance over its member states without examining the moat in its own eye.

The EU was one of the many economic watchdogs which fell asleep as Ireland’s financial imbalances grew further and further out of kilter. In March 2008, by which stage Irish banks had already lost half of their stock market value and alarm bells should have been ringing, the EU reported reassuringly of Ireland that “Despite the weakening in the budgetary position in 2007, the medium-term objective, which is a balanced position in structural terms, was reached by a large margin.” So one reason I will vote “No” is that I object to the EU and ECB insisting on ever greater powers over Ireland and ever greater budgetary retrenchment in Ireland without ever publicly examining their own culpability in our crisis.

I also object to the insistence, by the Fiscal Compact, that Ireland keep its structural (or underlying) budget deficit below half a per cent of national income. For the measures of Ireland’s structural budget deficit which were published by the EU and the IMF in the years leading up our crisis were wholly positive. As well as the EU, the IMF also reported that Ireland was running a structural surplus in 2007.

But in 2009, the IMF revised its methodology and, hey presto, it discovered that in 2007 Ireland had actually been running an enormous structural deficit of over €15 billion! As leading economist Colm McCarthy has said “The measurement of structural deficits is more or less impossible and the inclusion of an un-measurable concept in an international treaty is a reckless piece of drafting.” I object to the Fiscal Compact enshrining into our constitutional law an economic factor which economists are unable to measure definitively.

I also object to the details of government fiscal policy being prescribed in detail in the Constitution. Locking fiscal policy autonomy into the Constitution and throwing away the keys may make sense most of the time. But there will be times of economic crisis when policy flexibility is needed. If this treaty is passed, such flexibility would be prohibited.

But the fundamental problem I have with the Fiscal Compact is that allows the Germans who are promoting this treaty to think that they have closed the stable door through which our current economic crisis bolted. Yet, by pretending that the roots of our current crisis lie in rampant government spending deficits, this treaty ignores the central role played by the Euro in the current depression.

By sharply reducing our rate of interest, the Euro promoted a debt explosion in Ireland. That debt explosion promoted bubbles in lending, property values, employment numbers, wages levels, public services and costs. Now the bubble has burst leaving us with bust banks, bust construction companies, bust citizens and a bust state all facing prolonged deflation in wage levels, costs and property prices.

Our crisis results from our membership of the Euro and not - contrary to what is implied by the Fiscal Compact - from lax budgetary practices. Thus another reason for my “No” vote is that not only does this treaty not provide us with a solution to our current crisis; it would not have prevented it either. By voting “Yes” to this treaty we only give false succour to those who insist on misreading the nature of this crisis so that they can (a) escape their own culpability for it and (b) avoid the ultimate solution: debt default and Eurozone breakup.

Official Ireland and Official Europe may want us to believe that this crisis was “three quarters home-made”, as Central Bank Governor Patrick Honohan concluded. And it may suit the political agenda of political opponents of Fianna Fáil and Bertie Ahern to promote this argument: this was the line advanced by Minister Pat Rabbitte on Thursday evening on RTÉ’s “Prime Time”. But how then does he, and the other representatives of Official Ireland, explain the simultaneous eruption of debt crises right across the Eurozone periphery? Was Ireland’s single transferable bogeyman, Bertie, to blame for all that too? Come off it.

The debt crisis is a Euro crisis unleashed by Eurozone interest rates which under-priced debt and thus encouraged debt explosions across the Eurozone periphery. While public discourse may currently be focussed on the fiscal consequences of that crisis, it remains a crisis whose origin is fundamentally monetary in nature and rooted in the mistaken creation of the Euro.

It may be argued that we must vote “Yes” to this treaty as we may need to access to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) if a second bailout is required in 2014. It is true that voting “No” to this treaty would close off the possibility of tapping into that fund. But if in 2014 Ireland should still need a renewed European bailout, I think it would make more sense to forego it. It would be nonsense to vote “Yes” for fiscal prudence in theory so that we can embrace continued fiscal imprudence in practice.

If our tax-raising capacity has been permanently and significantly reduced, isn’t it time that state spending was permanently and significantly reduced too? Government receipts (including social insurance) are expected to be around €50 billion this year, down 17% from their level in 2007. Gross government spending is expected to be €70 billion, up 12% from its 2007 level (with only half of that increase due to increased social spending following increased unemployment). Our national solvency is being held hostage by a public sector which has yet to adjust to Ireland’s permanently reduced circumstances.

Allowing Ireland access to the ESM cookie jar from 2014 onwards would only give the public sector another excuse to delay its long-overdue adjustment to reality. If we haven’t fixed this by 2014 it’s not more financial methadone Ireland’s public sector will need, it will be financial cold turkey.

This is a bad treaty that neither addresses the cause of the crisis nor does it offer a solution. It’s a political placebo offered to appease our German masters (and mistress). We should reject it on its own terms and because we would be better off without the associated inducement intended to secure its passage, access to the European Stability Mechanism from 2014 onwards.

[disability student]

The Threat to Independence Posed by the ESM Treaty: Posting on irisheconomy.ie

Thank you for your kind words. You can evaluate the detailed European Stability Mechanism proposals for yourself. The bill setting out Irish ratification is available here:

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/eu%20legislation/2012/ESMbill.pdf

The critical clauses, IMO, are:

Article 9 (2) “The Board of Directors may call in authorised unpaid capital by simple majority decision to restore the level of paid-in capital if the amount of the latter is reduced by the absorption of losses below the level established in Article 8(2), as may be amended by the Board of Governors following the procedure provided for in Article 10, and set an appropriate period of time for its payment by the ESM Members.” (Page 43)

And …

Article 10 (1) “The Board of Governors shall review regularly and at least every five years the maximum lending volume and the adequacy of the authorised capital stock of the ESM. It may decide to change the authorised capital stock and amend Article 8 and Annex II accordingly.” (Page 44)

And …

Article 35 (1) “In the interest of the ESM, the Chairperson of the Board of Governors, Governors, alternate Governors, Directors, alternate Directors, as well as the Managing Director and other staff members shall be immune from legal proceedings with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity and shall enjoy inviolability in respect of their official papers and documents.” (Page 53)

In Summary
Article 9 (2) allows the ESM board to require states to pay authorised unpaid capital to cover losses. Article 10 (1) allows the ESM board to change the ESM’s authorised capital stock at any time. And Article 35 (1) gives the ESM board immunity from any legal action.

Conclusions
These proposals do not amount to full fiscal union but they do amount to (a) full risk sharing and (b) a fundamental change in the nature of the EU from a situation where member states control the EU towards (N.B. not “to” but definitely “towards”) one where the EU controls member states. If these proposals are ratified, we will have a situation where an EU body can dip into our national exchequer as and when it judges appropriate. This is a major reason why I intend voting “No” next Thursday.

[theUO]

I am indeed against using the ESM and am very much against contributing to it.

My point about access is purely about the current Yes argument that maintains there will be absolutely no access if the treaty is rejected. This is, I believe a misnomer and I would argue that the statement about access to the ESM in the preamble would not stand up in Court, for numerous reasons, mostly pertaining to previous treaties.

As for the ESM itself, it is not a replacement for market funding, as it not a similar form of borrowing in any way, shape or form.

The markets loan to you at a set interest rate over a fixed period with no terms and conditions attached, the ESM will not. The ESM will replace the Troika not the markets.

If we access the ESM, everything is up for grabs including our Corporate Tax rate.

We will not be dealing with fellow EU members when we go to the ESM, we will be dealing with Central Bankers with an agenda. An agenda without any outside influence whatsoever. Who are we to complain to if they demand we increase our CT rate?

I am willing to acquiesce to your point on the legal strength of the terms of the Treaty as I simply do not know if this is the case or not, perhaps it is. I have previously heard of no such concerns, but that does not mean that they are not valid. I simply base my argument on what is clearly stated in the Treaty, that if ratified, we will be signing up to. As such it we should expect to be bound by the rules to which we agree.

I am aware of the differences between market funding and that provided by the ESM. The ESM will of course replace the Troika, but it will replace the Troika as the alternative to market funding, that is the key issue. While funding from bond markets and funding from the ESM are vastly dissimilar, they are certainly an alternative to each other. The problem is that if access is denied and we are unable to reenter the bond markets at any reasonable interest rate, to whom do we then turn? We will have conceivably left ourselves without a leg to stand on.

I agree that should ESM funds be accessed that the EU MAY make unreasonable demands on us. However, if they do so- for example on our CT as you summise- I don't believe they will be successful. Even this government are staunchly opposed to changes in our CT rate and not likely to relent. Additionally I think there is general appreciation that the country has been harshly shackled by the constraints imposed by the Troika, especially in terms of the initial interest rate on the bailout. This appreciation along with the fact that we are seen to be complying to the terms of the bailout (whatever the merits of these may be) has garnered us enough support amongst the European community and further afield that should such demands be made on us we will have adequate backing in resisting.In any case such a scenario is wholly speculative.

[Dr. FIVE]

Sunday Business Post RedC Poll:

Yes 49 -4
No 35 +4
DK 16

[theUO]

Article from Cormac Lucey:http://cormaclucey.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-im-voting-no-to-fiscal-compact.html

After some intial uncertainty and having previously always voted “Yes” to European referenda, I have decided to vote against the Fiscal Compact Treaty.

It’s not that I am against the goals of the treaty. Far from it: I am an accountant and, by instinct, a fiscal conservative. So I agree that the gap between a government’s annual and spending should not exceed 3% of national income and that a government’s total debt should not exceed 60% of national income. And I agree with the notion that, over a full economic cycle, governments should run balanced budgets.

Indeed I am one of the few who is angered that, across the developed world, government debt levels are systematically understated by simply ignoring state pension liabilities. While Germany insists that the declared liabilities of Eurozone states should never exceed 60% of national income, its own undeclared pension liabilities have been estimated to equal 300% of national income. This is a ticking time bomb whose existence few are willing to discuss. But I object to the high-handedness of the European Union which demands ever greater powers of fiscal surveillance over its member states without examining the moat in its own eye.

The EU was one of the many economic watchdogs which fell asleep as Ireland’s financial imbalances grew further and further out of kilter. In March 2008, by which stage Irish banks had already lost half of their stock market value and alarm bells should have been ringing, the EU reported reassuringly of Ireland that “Despite the weakening in the budgetary position in 2007, the medium-term objective, which is a balanced position in structural terms, was reached by a large margin.” So one reason I will vote “No” is that I object to the EU and ECB insisting on ever greater powers over Ireland and ever greater budgetary retrenchment in Ireland without ever publicly examining their own culpability in our crisis.

I also object to the insistence, by the Fiscal Compact, that Ireland keep its structural (or underlying) budget deficit below half a per cent of national income. For the measures of Ireland’s structural budget deficit which were published by the EU and the IMF in the years leading up our crisis were wholly positive. As well as the EU, the IMF also reported that Ireland was running a structural surplus in 2007.

But in 2009, the IMF revised its methodology and, hey presto, it discovered that in 2007 Ireland had actually been running an enormous structural deficit of over €15 billion! As leading economist Colm McCarthy has said “The measurement of structural deficits is more or less impossible and the inclusion of an un-measurable concept in an international treaty is a reckless piece of drafting.” I object to the Fiscal Compact enshrining into our constitutional law an economic factor which economists are unable to measure definitively.

I also object to the details of government fiscal policy being prescribed in detail in the Constitution. Locking fiscal policy autonomy into the Constitution and throwing away the keys may make sense most of the time. But there will be times of economic crisis when policy flexibility is needed. If this treaty is passed, such flexibility would be prohibited.

But the fundamental problem I have with the Fiscal Compact is that allows the Germans who are promoting this treaty to think that they have closed the stable door through which our current economic crisis bolted. Yet, by pretending that the roots of our current crisis lie in rampant government spending deficits, this treaty ignores the central role played by the Euro in the current depression.

By sharply reducing our rate of interest, the Euro promoted a debt explosion in Ireland. That debt explosion promoted bubbles in lending, property values, employment numbers, wages levels, public services and costs. Now the bubble has burst leaving us with bust banks, bust construction companies, bust citizens and a bust state all facing prolonged deflation in wage levels, costs and property prices.

Our crisis results from our membership of the Euro and not - contrary to what is implied by the Fiscal Compact - from lax budgetary practices. Thus another reason for my “No” vote is that not only does this treaty not provide us with a solution to our current crisis; it would not have prevented it either. By voting “Yes” to this treaty we only give false succour to those who insist on misreading the nature of this crisis so that they can (a) escape their own culpability for it and (b) avoid the ultimate solution: debt default and Eurozone breakup.

Official Ireland and Official Europe may want us to believe that this crisis was “three quarters home-made”, as Central Bank Governor Patrick Honohan concluded. And it may suit the political agenda of political opponents of Fianna Fáil and Bertie Ahern to promote this argument: this was the line advanced by Minister Pat Rabbitte on Thursday evening on RTÉ’s “Prime Time”. But how then does he, and the other representatives of Official Ireland, explain the simultaneous eruption of debt crises right across the Eurozone periphery? Was Ireland’s single transferable bogeyman, Bertie, to blame for all that too? Come off it.

The debt crisis is a Euro crisis unleashed by Eurozone interest rates which under-priced debt and thus encouraged debt explosions across the Eurozone periphery. While public discourse may currently be focussed on the fiscal consequences of that crisis, it remains a crisis whose origin is fundamentally monetary in nature and rooted in the mistaken creation of the Euro.

It may be argued that we must vote “Yes” to this treaty as we may need to access to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) if a second bailout is required in 2014. It is true that voting “No” to this treaty would close off the possibility of tapping into that fund. But if in 2014 Ireland should still need a renewed European bailout, I think it would make more sense to forego it. It would be nonsense to vote “Yes” for fiscal prudence in theory so that we can embrace continued fiscal imprudence in practice.

If our tax-raising capacity has been permanently and significantly reduced, isn’t it time that state spending was permanently and significantly reduced too? Government receipts (including social insurance) are expected to be around €50 billion this year, down 17% from their level in 2007. Gross government spending is expected to be €70 billion, up 12% from its 2007 level (with only half of that increase due to increased social spending following increased unemployment). Our national solvency is being held hostage by a public sector which has yet to adjust to Ireland’s permanently reduced circumstances.

Allowing Ireland access to the ESM cookie jar from 2014 onwards would only give the public sector another excuse to delay its long-overdue adjustment to reality. If we haven’t fixed this by 2014 it’s not more financial methadone Ireland’s public sector will need, it will be financial cold turkey.

This is a bad treaty that neither addresses the cause of the crisis nor does it offer a solution. It’s a political placebo offered to appease our German masters (and mistress). We should reject it on its own terms and because we would be better off without the associated inducement intended to secure its passage, access to the European Stability Mechanism from 2014 onwards.


My own posts on this forum have advocated a Yes vote. I have done so given the knowledge and understanding I have of the facts of the situation. Yet, I agree with the majority of what you state above, and have largely done so since the beginning and my initial post.

A balanced budget over the business cycle is of course desirable, and an intended consequence of the Treaty.

EU leaders, and German instigators of this Treaty alike have adopted a 'butter wouldn't melt' approach to the whole scenario and are wholly reprehensible for having done so.

The measurement of the structural deficit is far from certain- depending on which experts you listen to. Certainly there is no consensus as to the issue, and as such may be impracticable.

The crisis is largely monetary in nature and rooted in the interest rates of the Single Currency.

The Treaty ignores the origin of the crisis, and illuminates no path for recovery.

On this basis it would seem illogical to ratify. Further steps towards a Fiscal Union are, in my opinion, also undesirable. Yet as you have accurately concluded the inducement dangled in front of us is access to the EMU. The other main reason for ratifying the Treaty, i.e. ensuring prudent fiscal management of policy through national law, I believe is desirable, yet I fail to see why it cannot be achieved without the interference of the EU. Countries such as Sweden and Chile have fiscal responsibility rules enshrined in national law, and which have proven successful, I see no reason why we could not do likewise. It is the issue of the ESM that is most important. In my opinion, should access to the fund be denied we leave ourselves open to a world of uncertainty. The IMF have indicated they would be unwilling to provide additional funding unless it were part of a European initiative, we will have denied ourselves access to the ESM, and the markets do not seem an altogether enticing prospect given the interest rates we would face. My question then is, how do you hold the belief that we are better off in this situation? Were a scenario likely whereby the Treaty be rejected, and the country be healthy position regardless, I would see little reason to ratify the Treaty. However, I just don't see how such a scenario exists?

[C. Flower]

Sunday Business Post RedC Poll:

Yes 49 -4 No 35 +4 DK 16

The Red C on 18th March was Yes: 50% (-3), No: 31% (nc), Don't know: 19% (+3)

Sunday Times/B&A poll Yes 45% (+3) No 30% (+3) Don’t Know *24% (-8) 60/40 lead for Yes when Don’t Knows excluded. See @sixonenews

Sunday Times/B&A poll 21. March - Yes: 42% No: 27% Undecided: 31%

[C. Flower]

"Over the past month the Yes vote climbed and then fell over the last fortnight"

RTE 6 0'clock news.

[MPB]

I am willing to acquiesce to your point on the legal strength of the terms of the Treaty as I simply do not know if this is the case or not, perhaps it is. I have previously heard of no such concerns, but that does not mean that they are not valid. I simply base my argument on what is clearly stated in the Treaty, that if ratified, we will be signing up to. As such it we should expect to be bound by the rules to which we agree.

I am aware of the differences between market funding and that provided by the ESM. The ESM will of course replace the Troika, but it will replace the Troika as the alternative to market funding, that is the key issue. While funding from bond markets and funding from the ESM are vastly dissimilar, they are certainly an alternative to each other. The problem is that if access is denied and we are unable to reenter the bond markets at any reasonable interest rate, to whom do we then turn? We will have conceivably left ourselves without a leg to stand on.

I agree that should ESM funds be accessed that the EU MAY make unreasonable demands on us. However, if they do so- for example on our CT as you summise- I don't believe they will be successful. Even this government are staunchly opposed to changes in our CT rate and not likely to relent. Additionally I think there is general appreciation that the country has been harshly shackled by the constraints imposed by the Troika, especially in terms of the initial interest rate on the bailout. This appreciation along with the fact that we are seen to be complying to the terms of the bailout (whatever the merits of these may be) has garnered us enough support amongst the European community and further afield that should such demands be made on us we will have adequate backing in resisting.In any case such a scenario is wholly speculative.

It seems that although we are voting differently, we are not that far apart in what we believe or understand of the Treaty and the EU.

I have also read your posts to DS and others and it seems that where we differ is on the ESM, not access but on the ESM itself.

I made my feelings on the ESM known in my previous post, but I also have a problem with the fact that we never had a referendum on it. I consider it to have far greater consequences for us than the FST and therefore would like to have seen it debated. With one week to go, the only debate on it has been on whether we can access it or not. And that debate has gone along the lines of whether we want to win the Euro millions in 2014, type of nonsense.

The ESM is not a good idea for Ireland as it would increase our debt levels, yet the FST actually enshrines that we decrease it. The very fact that we would argue for access goes against the FST itself. Therefore it is a non argument because the FST actually prevents us from accessing the ESM.

But we know that that will not be the case, because the ESM is a fund set up not to loan but to buy. It will, as part of its terms and conditions take our utility companies and our CT rate and still force us to repay more than they gave.

As for what will we do without access. Well as I have pointed out before, access to the bondmarkets is just the revoking of 70 billion away.

You say that taht can not happen. I say it is amazing what not having access to a reparations fund can do for ones sense and sensibilities.

As well as the fact that a country of 4 million should be well able to survive on 30 billion a year, it just needs to understand that it does not need 14 Govt Depts when 10 would suffice. It does not need 166 TDs when 100 would suffice and it does not need 34 local councils when 6 would suffice.

[DCon]

Biz Post tomorrow


Pat Leahy ‏@patleahysbp

SBP poll: Yes 49 No 35 d/k16 -- among likely voters. 58-42 excluding d/ks. Sharp fall in support in past week but Yes side still on track



https://twitter.com/#!/CliffTaylorSBP

[Dr. FIVE]

First poll from April on page one of this thread had it at Yes: 61% No: 39%
A month of guff and bluster later, today's result is Yes: 60.3% and No: 39.7%

Massive swing

[Sam Lord]

First poll from April on page one of this thread had it at Yes: 61% No: 39%
A month of guff and bluster later, today's result is Yes: 60.3% and No: 39.7%

Massive swing

It is quite interesting that practically no one changed their mind as a result of all the campaigning and debate. How can this be explained?

[Hapax]

First poll from April on page one of this thread had it at Yes: 61% No: 39%
A month of guff and bluster later, today's result is Yes: 60.3% and No: 39.7%

Massive swing

So much for Ganley's much-trumpeted intervention.

[C. Flower]

So much for Ganley's much-trumpeted intervention.

So much for the campaign.

[PaddyJoe]

First poll from April on page one of this thread had it at Yes: 61% No: 39%
A month of guff and bluster later, today's result is Yes: 60.3% and No: 39.7%

Massive swing
Well spotted:)
In rough terms 60% is around the total that FG/Lab/FF have amassed in opinion polls recently. SF and independents account for around 30 to 35%
Correlation or coincidence?

[Dr. FIVE]

Think we from the off we said the result would be in spite of the political parties. That much was clear early the first week. Both campaigns were a complete liability to their own arguments for most it and no one convinced anyone to change their mind.

Each side almost had enough gaffes, guff and odious characters to cancel each other out

Cox / Ganley etc

[disability student]

It was very disappointing that No vote lost , otherwise i would have won a bet €500 from the bookers.

It seems to me that Irish people can be brainwashed very easily as they are too soft.

[fluffybiscuits]

It was very disappointing that No vote lost , otherwise i would have won a bet €500 from the bookers.

It seems to me that Irish people can be brainwashed very easily as they are too soft.

and cowards, they got scaremongered quite easily...