An Fear Rua - Why we should vote NO.

Joe's Toes

(1,091 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 11:31

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

I think Cormac Lucey summed it up best in an interview on Newstalk this morning. In response to Pat Fox's line that we should vote yes to have the security of more bailout funds - should we need it he summed it up succinctly thus:

The advocates of yes who say we need a yes to ensure funds are available are like a heroin addict who enters rehab but decides to keep the number of his dealer in case he needs another shot. The problem is insovency - we cannot solve the debt crises with more debt. We need to stop borrowing...!!!

That is the main reason to vote yes blown out of the water AFAIC.
In addition, he asked, if the treaty was in place before the bust would it have stopped the financial crises - no. That was a banking bust fueled by a property boom. That had nothing to do with governments living beyond their means.
Anyone who vites yes is complicit in the government strategy of kicking the can diown the road and a long slow decent into crippling debt year on year. History is the judge of that strategy - and it cost the lives of 50 million people in WW2. Remember - politicians rarely think beyond a 4-5 year election cycle.

This message has been edited - 14-may-2012 @ 16:44

carryharry

(4,804 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 11:53

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Valid points Joe.

But for example, Sinn Fein want a No vote. They say austerity is not the way to get the country out of resession. I agree in principal with that statement, but what i can't understand is how they plan to get the finances back in check without cutting public sector pay and social welfare? Sinn Fein when they eventually give me some figures will then earn a consideration from me, until then it is a vote Yes imo.

I would consider the thought of Europe watching our Goverment's budget plans after recent fiasco's a good thing considering what went on.

IMF Senior Official

(97 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 11:56

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by Joe's Toes:
The advocates of yes who say we need a yes to ensure funds are available are like a heroin addict who enters rehab but decides to keep the number of his dealer in case he needs another shot. The problem is insovency - we cannot solve the debt crises with more debt. We need to stop borrowing...!!!

The advocates of the No vote are like the drug addict that owes money to his supplier , can’t pay it and tells him to f*** off and get his money somewhere else.
Unless the addict kicks his habit by self administered ‘austerity’ measures – call it self discipline if you like, he won’t be getting any support from his supplier into the future. He either kicks his habit or dies.
A vote for No will be a vote for even more stringent austerity.

This message has been edited - 14-may-2012 @ 11:57

Joe's Toes

(1,091 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 12:08

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by carryharry:
Valid points Joe.But for example, Sinn Fein want a No vote. They say austerity is not the way to get the country out of resession. I agree in principal with that statement, but what i can't understand is how they plan to get the finances back in check without cutting public sector pay and social welfare? Sinn Fein when they eventually give me some figures will then earn a consideration from me, until then it is a vote Yes imo.I would consider the thought of Europe watching our Goverment's budget plans after recent fiasco's a good thing considering what went on.

Sinn Fein will be like the emporer with no clothes - if they ever had to make a decision on thiese matters they would find that they would have to make cuts just like they are doing in the North. Anyone who believes this fundamentally dishonest party of chancers, well they deserve what they get - I would get out of here if they were ever elected. Because the only way they have left open to them to claw back the money to pay the ruinous spending we currently undertake is to impose tax hikes that would make the 80's look like charity.

We have to stop borrowing. That means a default on the bank debt - and an overnight slashing of Govt spending by 40%.

In answer to the IMF senior official - your argument is that we should stay on the drugs. Think about it. Austerity is here - its a chouice between a short sharp shock or a long drawn out torture. Give me the shock treatment anyday..Bring it..

Rebel CNC

(4,232 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 12:12

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by carryharry:
Valid points Joe.But for example, Sinn Fein want a No vote. They say austerity is not the way to get the country out of resession. I agree in principal with that statement, but what i can't understand is how they plan to get the finances back in check .

SF know they can tap into the anger over austerity without the need to produce any back up plan.
"Austerity is bad" is the only line they have to throw out.
They'd soon lose their angry voters if they were tasked with implementing measures following a no vote and started putting in place savage cuts to the benchmarking awards and welfare increases that Bertie and Biffo were doling out hand over fist from their pot of bubble money.

In Greece, the parties that garnered the protest vote soon lost their stomach for the fight when they were presented with chance of coalition along with the facts of leaving the eurozone or getting no new funds.

KeepOnHurling

(3,223 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 12:15

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

So to summarise this debate

Reasons to vote No:
We need to think long term and stop the reliance on borrowing

Reasons to vote Yes:
Sinn Fein say to vote No.

Hurlingfan15

(82 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 12:22

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

I agree comewhat with your heroin comparison, however, you do not treat a heroin addict using the cold turkey method. What is your solution to our deficit after 2013?

BTW, the property boom had everything to do with governments living beyond their means with property and construction related revenue (IMO).

Originally posted by Joe's Toes:
I think Cormac Lucey summed it up best in an interview on Newstalk this morning. In response to Pat Fox's line that we should vote yes to have the security of more bailout funds - should we need it he summed it up succinctly thus:The advocates of yes who say we need a yes to ensure funds are available are like a heroin addict who enters rehab but decides to keep the number of his dealer in case he needs another shot. The problem is insovency - we cannot solve the debt crises with more debt. We need to stop borrowing...!!! That is the main reason to vote yes blown out of the water AFAIC.
In addition, he asked, if the treaty was in place before the bust would it have stopped the financial crises - no. That was a banking bust fueled by a property boom. That had nothing to do with governments living beyond their means.
Anyone who vites yes is complicit in the government strategy of kicking the can diown the road and a long slow decent into crippling debt year on year. History is the judge of that strategy - and it cost the lives of 50 million people in WW2. Remember - politicians rarely think beyond a 4-5 year election cycle.

IMF Senior Official

(97 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 12:36

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by Joe's Toes:
In answer to the IMF senior official - your argument is that we should stay on the drugs. Think about it. Austerity is here - its a chouice between a short sharp shock or a long drawn out torture. Give me the shock treatment anyday..Bring it..

Don't worry I have thought about it. You don't give an addict a short sharp shock or you can kill him.
Ireland needs to be weaned off slowly, which is being done now.
It's alright welcoming shock treatment if you are strong enough to take it - stringent austerity will decimate the Public Service (which in some ways might be no bad thing) however there will we even far more hardship accross the country than there is now.

Equalizer

(470 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 12:46

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by KeepOnHurling:
So to summarise this debateReasons to vote No:
We need to think long term and stop the reliance on borrowing

And tell me, how is this to be achieved without cutting government expenditure, the one thing Sinn Fein are against.

let it long

(1,214 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 12:53

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by Joe's Toes:
In addition, he asked, if the treaty was in place before the bust would it have stopped the financial crises - no. That was a banking bust fueled by a property boom. That had nothing to do with governments living beyond their means.

This is the main reason to vote no IMO. The fact that Ireland and Spain were running budget surpluses right up to the banking crisis and Germany was actually running a Deficit shows how flawed the entire treaty is. Its cosmetic at the very best and possibly very dangerous.

There does however need to be a growth strategy put in place across Europe. I heard a very good analogy from a woman on the radio last week which sums up the current path very nicely. She simply said "You can't starve your way out of a famine".

Rufty

(600 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 13:00

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

The problem is that we are still living, after all the cuts, €16bn beyond our means. I mean that our day-to-day spending (not including repayments and bank recapitalization)on things like public sector wages and social welfare is €16bn more than we're taking in on tax revenue. The troika is only set to go on until the middle of 2013. This mean if we vote no we'll have to plug this €16bn hole in the next budget. It's that simple. The markets are still not ready for us to go back there as the current yield (as seen here: www.bloomberg.com/quote/.IRGERSP:IND) is unsustainable. Remember that 7% had us running to the EU/IMF in the first place and a No vote will push our bond yield higher than that mark again.

No side still have not explained this truthfully and when they are questioned on it they revert to attacking the person who put the question to them in the first place. The question for the NO side is, how do you plug the €16bn hole next year or how do you find funding. Telling the investors to take a hike and then asking them for more money is not going to work. Voting No brings us out of the ESM remit and cuts off that avenue. The IMF have already stated categorically that they will not invest without the EU doing so.

Voting No and then hoping for a white knight to come streaming in is suicidal. Voting Yes and setting out a clear path to rational budgets and growth makes perfect sense to me.

Facts speak louder than emotive metaphors and half-baked analogies. Vote Yes!

Hitch

(3,644 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 13:13

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Vote YES to being a slave for the rest of your days.

Massa will look after yall as long as yall do what he tells you to do.

Joe's Toes

(1,091 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 13:15

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by Rufty:
The problem is that we are still living, after all the cuts, €16bn beyond our means. I mean that our day-to-day spending (not including repayments and bank recapitalization)on things like public sector wages and social welfare is €16bn more than we're taking in on tax revenue. The troika is only set to go on until the middle of 2013. This mean if we vote no we'll have to plug this €16bn hole in the next budget. It's that simple. The markets are still not ready for us to go back there as the current yield (as seen here: www.bloomberg.com/quote/.IRGERSP:IND) is unsustainable. Remember that 7% had us running to the EU/IMF in the first place and a No vote will push our bond yield higher than that mark again. No side still have not explained this truthfully and when they are questioned on it they revert to attacking the person who put the question to them in the first place. The question for the NO side is, how do you plug the €16bn hole next year or how do you find funding. Telling the investors to take a hike and then asking them for more money is not going to work. Voting No brings us out of the ESM remit and cuts off that avenue. The IMF have already stated categorically that they will not invest without the EU doing so.Voting No and then hoping for a white knight to come streaming in is suicidal. Voting Yes and setting out a clear path to rational budgets and growth makes perfect sense to me.Facts speak louder than emotive metaphors and half-baked analogies. Vote Yes!

And yet voting yes will continue the treatment that is crippling us - look, all analogies are flawed. But there is no doubting the fact that borrowing and borrowing and borrowing is and has bankrupted us.
We are bankrupt - The sooner we deal with it the sooner we can get out of it.
We will have to survive on current account until we can get growth back in the economy.
There is no growth in this treaty - they are belatedly trying to organise a half baked growth strategy now that there is fightback to the current measures Europe wide - Half Baked measures from an elite vested in the current status quo for thie re-election and a gauraunteed pension does not good economics make.
Europe as a poulitical entity is like a super-tanker with a turning circle of same - Ultimately we are as a union - going down the default and re-negotiation path. It will take years and years. We could do it ourselves in the space of 6 months.

If there was any forthought in this Govt. they would be planning for this eventuality - but that wont happen - This is Ireland indeed.

What was unthinkable is now thinkable and very much reality.

Coddler

(523 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 14:14

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by Rufty:
The problem is that we are still living, after all the cuts, €16bn beyond our means. I mean that our day-to-day spending (not including repayments and bank recapitalization)on things like public sector wages and social welfare is €16bn more than we're taking in on tax revenue. The troika is only set to go on until the middle of 2013. This mean if we vote no we'll have to plug this €16bn hole in the next budget. It's that simple. The markets are still not ready for us to go back there as the current yield (as seen here: www.bloomberg.com/quote/.IRGERSP:IND) is unsustainable. Remember that 7% had us running to the EU/IMF in the first place and a No vote will push our bond yield higher than that mark again. No side still have not explained this truthfully and when they are questioned on it they revert to attacking the person who put the question to them in the first place. The question for the NO side is, how do you plug the €16bn hole next year or how do you find funding. Telling the investors to take a hike and then asking them for more money is not going to work. Voting No brings us out of the ESM remit and cuts off that avenue. The IMF have already stated categorically that they will not invest without the EU doing so.Voting No and then hoping for a white knight to come streaming in is suicidal. Voting Yes and setting out a clear path to rational budgets and growth makes perfect sense to me.Facts speak louder than emotive metaphors and half-baked analogies. Vote Yes!

Rufty, we won’t be cut off from EU funding if we vote No.
There are 2 reasons for this, one legal and one practical.

1. The ESM treaty agreed in July 2011 provides for a future bailout fund for Euro countries like ourselves who are locked out of the markets. Last February, a clause was added into the ESM treaty which says that a country can’t access the bailout fund unless it has ratified the Fiscal treaty. As a result the 2 treaties are now intrinsically linked.
My belief is that the government did not oppose this new blackmail clause (or maybe even actively worked to have it included) in the European Council as they knew it would help them to ram through a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum. It has new become the mainstay of their campaign.
The critical point though is that the Irish Government still has a veto on the ESM treaty. Fine Gael and Labour are keeping extremely quiet about this game changer. The ESM treaty needs unanimous EU agreement as it requires a change to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Both votes, to ratify the ESM and to amend the Treaty on the functioning of the EU will be put to the Dail and Seanad after the referendum. If the Oireachtas does not ratify both then the ESM cannot go ahead.
If the Irish people answer ‘No’ in the Fiscal Treaty referendum then the Irish government will be forced to veto the ESM as it will make no sense to ratify a bailout fund which we can’t access but to which we must contribute (€1.27 billion initially I think). This in turn will force the European elite to formulate another bailout mechanism treaty which will not exclude Ireland.

2. Looking at this practically it’s also clear that they won’t like it but the EU will ensure that Ireland has access to bailout funding even if we reject the Fiscal treaty. The reason for this is purely down to self interest on the EU’s part.
Any bailout (in reality a loan with interest due) that we receive will be a small fraction of the money that Europe will lose if they refuse us the emergency funding and force Ireland to default. For example the €120 billion or so that the ECB has injected into the Irish banks will evaporate overnight.
In addition there is the danger of the contagion where Spain, Italy, Portugal etc will default also and trigger the collapse of the Euro.
The EU simple won’t risk that doomsday scenario happening and so will lend us the money with gritted teeth.

Hurlingfan15

(82 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 14:14

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

All very nice and angry, but how do you propose we reduce the deficit post 2013?

Originally posted by Joe's Toes:
And yet voting yes will continue the treatment that is crippling us - look, all analogies are flawed. But there is no doubting the fact that borrowing and borrowing and borrowing is and has bankrupted us.
We are bankrupt - The sooner we deal with it the sooner we can get out of it.
We will have to survive on current account until we can get growth back in the economy.
There is no growth in this treaty - they are belatedly trying to organise a half baked growth strategy now that there is fightback to the current measures Europe wide - Half Baked measures from an elite vested in the current status quo for thie re-election and a gauraunteed pension does not good economics make.
Europe as a poulitical entity is like a super-tanker with a turning circle of same - Ultimately we are as a union - going down the default and re-negotiation path. It will take years and years. We could do it ourselves in the space of 6 months.If there was any forthought in this Govt. they would be planning for this eventuality - but that wont happen - This is Ireland indeed.What was unthinkable is now thinkable and very much reality.

centreforward

(589 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 14:47

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by Rufty:
The problem is that we are still living, after all the cuts, €16bn beyond our means.

Where did you get this €16bn figure from? Does anyone know what the actual figure is? Last week on the radio someone said it's €12bn deficit and some paper it said the deficit was €19bn. I read somewhere else the deficit next year will be around €9bn.

BTW, I'll be voting no.

Joe's Toes

(1,091 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 15:06

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by Hurlingfan15:
All very nice and angry, but how do you propose we reduce the deficit post 2013?

Nothing angry about it. Im no lefty stoodent type...
The beauty of it is that this is Capitalism.. Reject the treaty either way Europe can no longer ignore us - if they do then default.
Debt write down means no more borrowing - which means we need to accelerate reform of the public finances. In other words - we cannot spend more than we earn anyway. Which is what the treaty is supposed to enforce. This way it has to happen before we run out of money. The treaty means we will add another 20 billion a year to our debt before we actually deal with the problem. This is the gap between what we earn and what we pay for our sub-standard public services.
If you have been following anything thats going on in Europe, you will know that denying reality is their speciality.
If we want to burn the bankers - you must not a borrower be.
Im not saying this will be a picnic. Far from it. But its truly neccessary to stop borrowing to pay for substandard public services and wages.
The real economoy - exports will continue as is if we stay in the Euro. Greece has so why cant we..

The only other way is to leave the Euro and inflate our way out of it.

Joe's Toes

(1,091 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 15:09

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by centreforward:
Where did you get this €16bn figure from? Does anyone know what the actual figure is? Last week on the radio someone said it's €12bn deficit and some paper it said the deficit was €19bn. I read somewhere else the deficit next year will be around €9bn. BTW, I'll be voting no.

Mr Lucey informed us all that Public Spending had actually increased in real terms since the peak of the boom in 2007!!!!!!!!!

There is no chance the deficit will ever reach the required 3% difference this side of armegeddon at this rate.
In the meantime we continue to borrow and borrow to fund this crap.. The road to ruin..

KeepOnHurling

(3,223 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 15:38

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by Equalizer:
And tell me, how is this to be achieved without cutting government expenditure, the one thing Sinn Fein are against.

Of course public spending needs to be cut, we're running a deficit.
If SF say that they can do that without cutting spending I'd say it's just populist nonsense.

Unless they mean to increase the taxes on the super-rich. In fact, do you see Hollandaise's manifesto in France?
I wouldn;t mind someone similar taking over in Ireland to be honest.

The Parting Gas

(158 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 16:21

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by Joe's Toes:
Nothing angry about it. Im no lefty stoodent type...
The beauty of it is that this is Capitalism.. Reject the treaty either way Europe can no longer ignore us - if they do then default.
Debt write down means no more borrowing - which means we need to accelerate reform of the public finances. In other words - we cannot spend more than we earn anyway. Which is what the treaty is supposed to enforce. This way it has to happen before we run out of money. The treaty means we will add another 20 billion a year to our debt before we actually deal with the problem. This is the gap between what we earn and what we pay for our sub-standard public services.
If you have been following anything thats going on in Europe, you will know that denying reality is their speciality.
If we want to burn the bankers - you must not a borrower be.
Im not saying this will be a picnic. Far from it. But its truly neccessary to stop borrowing to pay for substandard public services and wages.
The real economoy - exports will continue as is if we stay in the Euro. Greece has so why cant we.. The only other way is to leave the Euro and inflate our way out of it.

All of this is based on the assumption that when we simply say 'we're not paying', the EU/IMF/whoever the hell else will say 'right, we'll have to sort this out'.

What happens if they don't? What happens if they decide to leave us stew in our own juices? What happens when there's no money to pay public servants?

I'd love to see a convincing argument for default/burn the bondholders that avoids us going out on a limb and a prayer, but I've yet to come across one.

centreforward

(589 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 16:33

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by The Parting Gas:
What happens if they don't? What happens if they decide to leave us stew in our own juices? What happens when there's no money to pay public servants?

We can't afford our day to day expenses so we definitely can't afford our loans so we default on the lot. Therefore wiping out our debt. We then have to slash our current spending by anywhere between €12bn & €20bn depending on who you listen to. This is nasty but we're doing it anyway now over a longer time period. So we get to a situation where income = expenditure because we have no choice. Give it 6 months and the markets will look at us and think they have no debt and no budget deficit, lets make money available for them to borrow. They'll be queuing up!!

The Parting Gas

(158 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 16:55

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by centreforward:

We can't afford our day to day expenses so we definitely can't afford our loans so we default on the lot. Therefore wiping out our debt. We then have to slash our current spending by anywhere between €12bn & €20bn depending on who you listen to. This is nasty but we're doing it anyway now over a longer time period. So we get to a situation where income = expenditure because we have no choice. Give it 6 months and the markets will look at us and think they have no debt and no budget deficit, lets make money available for them to borrow. They'll be queuing up!!

Or they might look at us and say 'hang on, that's the crowd I last lent money to, and when I asked for it back, they told us to eff off'.

Everybody agrees we shouldn't be paying for Anglo, etc. What has yet to be determined is the mechanism by which we stop paying for them. If we're going to default on the bondholders, it strikes me it'd be better off waiting for bigger countries like Spain to come to a head and piggyback there.

Joe's Toes

(1,091 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 17:13

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by The Parting Gas:
Or they might look at us and say 'hang on, that's the crowd I last lent money to, and when I asked for it back, they told us to eff off'.Everybody agrees we shouldn't be paying for Anglo, etc. What has yet to be determined is the mechanism by which we stop paying for them. If we're going to default on the bondholders, it strikes me it'd be better off waiting for bigger countries like Spain to come to a head and piggyback there.

So, let me get this straight - You will continue paying until you figure out how to stop paying them without getting in trouble - By waiting for a bigger boy to do it before you do. Ok Simple enough...

in the meantime we get more and more in debt waitiung for the end game to play out.
One year of being on our uppers - paying for everything out of the 30 billion we make - we are debt free and if when growth returns - we are debt free and its all profit.

Nobody is saying its that easy. What you are voting for is the certainty of a slow death in my opinion, the Japanese method... instead of the a chance of a quick death and rebirth. The Iceland method if you like.

The Parting Gas

(158 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 17:29

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

Originally posted by Joe's Toes:
So, let me get this straight - You will continue paying until you figure out how to stop paying them without getting in trouble - By waiting for a bigger boy to do it before you do. Ok Simple enough...in the meantime we get more and more in debt waitiung for the end game to play out.
One year of being on our uppers - paying for everything out of the 30 billion we make - we are debt free and if when growth returns - we are debt free and its all profit.Nobody is saying its that easy. What you are voting for is the certainty of a slow death in my opinion, the Japanese method... instead of the a chance of a quick death and rebirth. The Iceland method if you like.

Iceland is not in the euro. Iceland's main industries are tourism and fishing. It doesn't have a welter of multinationals with their HQs here who might quite conceivably up sticks if we did leave the euro. In short, we are not Iceland.

Your argument is also simplistic. Defaulting all at once will not make everything 'immediately a profit'. We will still need to borrow some money for capital projects, etc. If it were that easy to just walk away from your debts, everyone would do it. You should also talk to people in Iceland who lost their live savings when their banks were allowed to collapse.

If you look at the bigger picture, a head of steam seems to be building up against the whole austerity regime. Spain is about to come to the boil and will be too big to bail out. Greece is no closer to being resolved and Hollande is making his own noises.

I favour the wait and see approach. We're going nowhere fast, but we are treading water, mass emigration notwithstanding. Apparently, we're already signed up to many of the measures contained in the Treaty anyway - such as reducing our budget deficit - as part of previous deals.

We are simply not big enough to go out on our own. If what Morgan Kelly claimed is correct, the US overruled an IMF write down last time round to avoid panic in the markets. Fair chance of that again this time, but if they're dealing with a few countries rather than just a small island on the edge of Europe, they won't find it so easy.

There's a long way to go on this Yes/No debate, but at the moment, the Yes side appear more convincing to me. Until I see some concrete scenarios from the No camp, as opposed to this 'burn the bondholders' hokum, anyway.

limerick4liam

(159 Posts)

Posted: 14-May-2012 17:38

Quote Edit Delete Report Post Post Reply

As 'carryharry' touched on the main thing is by staying with Europe and voting Yes we continue our present austerity pattern to eventual recovery (we hope)

By voting No we leave ourselves with no option but extreme austerity like you can't imagine...either that or we let the ATM machines go empty and the country will effectively breakdown.

The likes of Adams, McDonald and O'Snodaigh can take swipes at the Yes campaigners arguments for the future after a Yes vote but we have never been told what a No vote would exactly result in, figures for budgets etc.

I will be voting Yes.

	There are 10,277 members signed up to anfearrua.com
All times are Dublin, Ireland.	Always here... with the best in GAA discussion and comment!	© An Fear Rua, 2000 - 2013
Bookmark AFR \| Make AFR your home page	About Us \| Privacy Policy \| Terms of Use	[ Top of Page ]