Poll on the Fiscal Referendum

How will you vote in the first referendum on the EU Fiscal Compact

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

What it says on the tin.

Can you add an undecided option?

I would love to vote for the interesting option but I think I will be scared into a yes vote.

I voted No mostly because I don’t fully understanding the nuts and bolts of the whole thing at this stage. I’m not ruling out voting Yes come referendum day, but my gut at the moment says to vote against the government.

I’ll be a YES, as I reckon the country will be fecked if we don’t get a 2nd bailout, which we will def need next year.

Yes. For the jobs :stuck_out_tongue:

I would vote no, because it’s a bit like securing your credit card debt to your house while knowing that you can’t pay it!

If there we a sizeable bank debt restructuring I may be tempted to vote yes.

nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/ … kmail.html

Shouldn’t there be a third option?
No … then Yes

The title of the poll specificaly refers to the first referendum.

I missed that :blush:

Having just read the treaty (european-council.europa.eu/m … treaty.pdf), I can’t see anything objectionable in it at all.
The anti-septic tank, water charges, property tax, welfare reduction arguments are totally irrelevent to this treaty as they are part of the MOU with the Troika and would be required in any case if we were to exert our sovereignty in a more adventurous manner in the morning due to the lack of any credible funding source.
It would seem from past experience that our leaders tend to be less than careful with our money so if external controls, to which it must be noted the other signatories will also be subject to, are what’s needed to encourage more sustainable fiscal behaviour then I can’t see a valid argument against it.


I don’t buy the ‘what if we want stimulus’ argument either. To me, stimulus shouldn’t be about running a massive deficit. It should be about withdrawing stimulus from a well-functioning (or indeed over-heating) sector of the economy and re-directing it to a poorly functioning sector. Could tax expenditure from shit like the section 23 extension and mortgage interest relief, when the property sector was running away with itself, have better been spent on something like a broadband backbone? Of course it could have.

These spending sprees are part of the reason we’re in the shit now. We could have had decent second-class infrastructure with all the money that was pissed away on so-called tax expenditure.

If the bank debt is wiped, I’ll vote yes. Otherwise, I’m sticking with what I voted for in the last two.

No, because all the substantial stuff in the fiscal pact is already in place and this “treaty” is a sop to Merkel and her own polls. Also no because if we need a 2nd bailout then it becomes Merkels and Sarkozys problem about how to fund it whether treaty is in place or not. There is no need for either the treaty or the referendum.

Actually also no because it in no way addresses the real problem that the vast majority of Europe’s banks are fecked because of reckelss lending whether to property, sovereigns or stupidly amongst themselves.

Is there any valid reason or need to vote yes?


In place where? In our laws our constitution? No it is not. Other countries might have these rules, but we don’t.

What has the banks being fecked got to do with this? This about placing constraints on deficit spending by governments, to prevent sovereign debt crises in the future. It has nothing to do with fixing the current problems.

Here’s a metaphor:

Ireland has really bad sunburn, and the EU has some after-sun. But after-sun only soothes, our skin still has to heal. Worse still, there’s too many sunburned countries and non enough after-sun.

The treaty is sunblock, which is fuck all use when your sunburned. The EU rightly wants us to promise to use sunblock in future, before it dishes out the after-sun, because after-sun doesn’t grow on trees.

Now there’s also lots of individually sunburned people, who are crying that the EU and the banks sold them cheap foreign holidays, and Bertie the Budget Holidays rep didn’t force them to use sun-block, but at the end of the day people decided they didn’t need sunblock because they didn’t get burnt on the first few days of the holiday. They’re now paying for their own after-sun, as well as the country’s!

Then there’s the people who wore sunblock, and still have to pay for after-sun for those who didn’t. They also have to share the after-sun they saved up in case the sun-block didn’t work!

So, for me, ‘Bertie and the EU didn’t make me use sun-block, so I shouldn’t have to pay for after-sun’ is not relevant in whether or not we promise to use sun-block in future.

What I want to know is why we are talking about sunblock when we’ve already been diagnosed with a serious melanoma. Address the actual problem, not prevention for something that has already happened.

It’s not designed to solve the problem. We’re not voting for a bailout, or for honouring the bank guarantee, or anything to do with the current bailout? The no camp will try to paint it as such, but this is about getting individual countries to sign into local law, that which exists in European law. It makes nations answerable to their own constitution, instead of Europe, since it’s been flouted to date.

This treaty is about countries setting rules to prevent us ending up here again in 20 years. And we need to sow the seeds now to build trust in the eyes of creditors of the future. Europe needs to play this confidence card before it seeks to build the firewall.

:laughing: fantastic!

Maybe you can submit this to the referendum commission for their literature blast.

But one thing shouldn’t it be sunscreen!