Austerity games

Mr Lyons, I note that at the start of your game there was no question asking you whether you wanted to spend forty five billion Euro on bailing out failed financial institutions and covering up the failings of a badly designed EMU.

Without the staggeringly large financial sector bailout we are France, not Greece. This invalidates every choice from “You are no longer fiscally sovereign…” on making for a very short “game”.

I blame Daniel Davies for this kind of thing.

@RL
Its certainly visually appealing – although I’m sure that is not the sort of feedback you are looking for.

I don’t see anywhere in the options that one extricates itself from the disaster of the single currency although, it is implicit in the “are you a memeber of US/EU monetary union” if you choose “No”. However, where that leads you, is that you MUST apply to IMF, buy yourself 12 months and ultimately you lose.

There are many permutations beyond leaving the Euro that ultimately would result in a win far sweeter than the actual wins you outline but you have failed address any of those possibilities. Of course there are no certainties but failing to identify them….puts you on to a loser in my view.

@Ronan Lyons

@Shay
You remind me of Moe in the Bear Patrol episode of the Simspons: “Even when it was the bears, I knew it was the immigrants.” Only for you it seems everything comes back to the banks.

Firstly I will tetchily ask whether you think that without the global financial crisis Ireland would still have needed a bailout or whether that the global financial crisis was not due to the financial sector? The story makes no sense without the banks.

I expect smart economists (and you are both smart and an economist, right?) to be able to form a convincing narrative that includes at least the major features of the current crisis and how they relate.

Thus I genuinely believe that your flow chart can not be useful without including the feedback between the pre-crisis financial structures and the nature of their failure and our current situation.

It is a bit of fun though.

@Ronan Lyons

Your implicit acknowledgement of the lack of social scientific validity within the Fiscal Corset is welcome – One hopes that you suggest to your students that voting for NonSense does not make good sense ….

That said, the following assertion is open to challenge:

As of now, the most important attribute of the Fiscal Compact is its ability to get Ireland the funding that it otherwise [WOULD NOT] be able to get … (emphasis added)

To borrow a seasoned soundbite from the Yes campaign – there is NO CERTAINTY whatsoever that this will be the case from a NO Vote.

Does this apply to the second referendum promised by Bruton and then unpromised.

Funny that its all about certainty this referendum. This is like Lisbon isnt it. The Govts heart aint in it really but good little soldiers

@All

A little birdie brings news of a Willem Buiter presentation and the following highlights therein.

Ireland: off the charts figures on debt and errors of historic proportions on policy, most notably our favourite evening in government buildings in September 2008. Despite all the adjustment, prognosis still bleak because public debt is in the danger range while household and non-financial corporate debt still far too high. Can’t believe that regulators and ministers missed the surge in household debt 2000-2008. Now an economy with 4 deleveraging sectors (households, firms, government, banks) — it can’t be done.

Greece: Euro exit alone will be useless or worse than useless — there will be immediate inflation and a rubbish currency. No resource boom to bail them out a la Russia and Argentina. Large scale debt restructuring throught out the economy the only option. Amazed that IMF signed on to the 2010 program and doesn’t know how they managed a debt sustainability analysis. 2010 was the time when a more contained restructuring could have worked.

Eurozone in general. No place entirely immune from debt concerns, even German has rising CDS spreads. Spain to be in troika program this year, Italy next year. Italy managing only because the ratio of PR to performance has been so high, but underneath it’s Monti working with the same political system that got them into the mess into the first place. Does not think that Italy can comply with the fiscal compact without severe disruption given the growth rate and size of debt. In principle Italy has the household wealth to support solvency but with chronic declines in tax administration capacity worldwide, not clear that this can be tapped.

UK: Has Irish style profile in some respects but being helped for now by inflation which is having significant impact on debt reduction due to the maturity profile.

US & Japan. Both fiscal basket cases being protected by special factors — home bias of Japanese savers and the reserve role of the dollar, respectively. Neither can last. Outsiders will be the marginal purchasers of JGB within 5 years and yields will have to rise. US is stuck between social democratic spending preferences and tea party tax preferences. Republicans going for another showdown on debt which will be bad economics and bad politics. Thinks that markets and pundits are too sanguine about dollar as a reserve currency — it can remain a reserve currency but at much higher absolute yields. Then the fiscal crisis will kick in.

Krugman and Summers: Complaints about both. Summers role in the US financial deregulation in the 1990s. Krugman too committed to the Keynesian cross — there is no Keynesian Laffer curve. Austerity is painful but it does reduce deficits. More austerity = more deficit reduction. The constraints are political, not economic.

Demand for “less austerity, more growth” is essentially a demand for non-market financing. Unless a specific kitty or Santa Claus is being identified, it’s meaningless.

Overall outlook: advanced economies need mass debt to equity conversion. Household negative equity becomes bank equity. Sovereign debt converts to GDP warrants. Huge agenda remains on banks — most Eurozone countries still have no special resolution regime for banks, let alone a pan-Eurozone one. Legislation needed to break the pari passu link between depositors and senior unsecured creditors. Household mortgages need to shift to Islamic finance — insane that the system worked for so long with highly specialized households being landed with such a rigid financial instrument like a mortgage. Massive deadweight losses to reposession and bankruptcy.

If we leave the eurozone because of this – cuts to the medium of exchange via cuts to Dole , pensions , civil servants wages etc won’t work as that is where the remaining medium of exchange is coming from.

Anymore cuts and you will have to right off private debt contracts in whatever currency you choose.
We need to get back to at the very least a 8 to 1 credit to money ratio via printing.
(But then again the guys really running this economy have a sick sense of humour so…… who knows ?)

This will be much more effiecent in terms of natural resourse / import / balance of trade / avoiding money exports etc etc etc. blah blah blah.

Otherwise its never ending capital controls to try to keep a overvalued currency inside this Bog Box.
The aim should be enough money for bus tickets and pints but to make cars / oil central heating etc etc unaffordable to many.

As many of yee guys don’t know what a national economy is it should be mighty crack.
The era of the dynamic bullshit economy should be over.
I say thank Christ for that.

“Keynes noted that workers would resist real wage cuts if they were delivered via cuts in money wages but would tolerate them if they were induced by general inflation. The rationale was that the former would disturb relativities while the latter impacted on the wage structure more or less uniformly.
But there is another reason why preserving nominal wages growth is important.

Most of our contractual commitments are denominated in nominal units ($ or whatever currency is applicable). So when real wages are being cut by rising inflation (in this case by a depreciating exchange rate) but nominal wages are preserved, workers can then make adjustments to the composition of their spending without, in the first instance, undermining their capacity to meet their weekly contractual liabilities (for example, their mortgage payments).

Attacking nominal wage levels, more readily undermines the capacity of workers to meet these nominal contractual obligations and opens the possibility for further instability (credit collapse etc).”

bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=19429

As Scott Sumner would say, not only is it not a debt crisis, but debt doesnt really matter in any conceivable way:

“During 1931, all the Very Serious People were obsessed with the debt crisis. In some mysterious way they believed this was a major cause of the Depression itself. I’m not sure why, I think it had something to do with “confidence.” Interestingly, the debt crisis never really got resolved. Instead it just gradually faded away as an issue, as by late 1932 it was becoming increasingly clear that intergovernmental debts were not going to be repaid. And as the debt crisis receded, people discovered that the Great Depression was still there.”

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=14312

At times, we should listen to the Americans. They educate (some) of their young far better than we do

Minister resigns …[ aside … ah now … Ed. who’s makin this up ….]

… er .. himself to some .. er .. ridicule. [phew … back to normal ]

Ministers “Q” up to go on Matt Cooper and admit to mistakes …. Gardai called to move on the Dole “Q” so as not to upset the ministers …..

@Ronan

Where’s the bit that says the economy takes off like a rocket?

Off-topic but, excellent stuff on NWL

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/french-president-set-to-maroon-irish-government/

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/bbc-shines-blood-boiling-spotlight-on-sean-quinn-property-dealings/

VB very funny also.

@ Grumpy

tks for those links, from which:

“France’s new administration is set to cause a major headache for the Irish government. Not only have they announced a 30% pay cut to the salary of their head of state and ministers, but they are insisting that the Fiscal Compact be redrafted to include a “chapter” on growth and growth strategy. This morning, the new French finance minister, Pierre Moscovici said the new French government would not ratify the existing Fiscal Compact. Of course the German position seems to remain a stubborn resistance to any change to the Fiscal Compact but you would have to say there is a good chance of some Entente between the two countries. Where will that leave Ireland?”

Compare the French leadership to defend the interests of French people to the leadership provided by our own embarrassing vassals. Simon Coveney TD, director of elections for the Referendum ludicrous campaign was on radio re Richard Bruton’s gaffe and again denied the substance of Bruton’s gaffe:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bruton-gaffe-on-second-vote-forces-a-flurry-of-denials-3111541.html

Not only have the present Govt failed to negotiate a responsible bailout for Ireland, not only have they chosen to hold a referendum that undermines the efforts of decent people to negotiate terms for a decent bailout be it based on ‘growth’ or other measure, not only do they wish us to ratify a Treaty that sells off our constitutional right to self determination, not only does it bind us to unconscionable and odious debt under sanction of ECJ, not only does it bind us to a Treaty that everyone in Europe expects to be binned, but, wait for it (I’m getting there 🙂 ), this is a real howler 🙂

If the Treaty is not passed, and the FC is amended to contain substantial Hollande changes to its wording, or even minor protocol changes, the’ve made it so that the Irish people will be denied opportunity to vote even on a revised version of the FC?

I mean this is ludicrous nonsense and incompetence of the lowest order. Its almost as embarrassing as the mess they’ve made on negotiating substantial changes to our bailout 🙂

No doubt the propaganda machine will whip up more threats as time goes and the above is only the tip of the iceberg.

Are our politicians in contact with the real world? We are left with the dilemma deciding whether the present Govt are incompetent, or they are liars in which case they will hold a referendum again if we vote No.

There is a vast gulf of options between this compact and an ideal one.

Your argument now is a flustered, “we have to do *something*!” Well, voting no is something. Voting no changes things in Europe as well as here – changes your nod-wink diagram fails to note.

As an aside, the nod and a wink one is a better argument – it at least shows some affection for cleverness. This new one is just huffy.

@RL

Contrary to some of the opinions above – I applaud your willingness to divorce your economist instincts from how one should play the long game unlike the majority of academics in this country. I have worked in regulated industries long enough to see the damage that can be done by wedding oneself to textbook and theory while ignoring the real world. So while I don’t agree with much of what is in your “austerity games” I do respect the approach.

In response to your suggestion that leaving the Euro as being something in the counterfactual, i would submit that it ought to be seen as an option in a dynamic game. I would also dispute your suggestion that Greece could show us the way on what happens to one who exits the euro – regardless of what happens to greece, I think the differences culturally, structurally and economically between Ireland and Greece are such that we should not read very much into the outcome there…..but I strongly suspect the fear brigade of Lucinda, Noonan and Co. will be dishing that at us with a side of feta cheese.

Of course, bahavioural economists will tell you that people discount the effect of things that will happen in the medium and long term way more than they should as compared to what will happen in the short term….

@Ronan Lyons

I know you went to some trouble to produce the flow chart and I can understand its internal logic. I was a <expletive> about it – I posted too quickly. We have a deficit that is far too large given the current flavour of EMU.

Pressure at work prevents me from giving a more helpful response than saying I think that each of the Green outcomes should have a decision box ahead of them that asks “Can you tailor your economic and fiscal policy enough to meet this goal?” and that the “No” that the fiscal compact entails means that all the good outcomes are in question.

If those were my two choices, I would go with option 2.

Do you honestly feel those are our only two choices? I don’t. In fact I would argue that neither of the two options you suggest aren’t very realistic.

Krugman’s recent post, Apocalypse Soonish, would be a good counterpoint to option 2. And option 1 could be averted by the gov’t giving serious consideration to leaving the euro (I honestly don’t want that, but it’s definitely a negotiating gambit). And that assumes the ECB doesn’t wake up and realise it’s current policies are destructive to the currency it is supposed to watch over.

You talk of putting words in your mouth – and yet in your first reply you were happy to do so for me. I do not want a perfect compact. I want a workable one. I have voted yes to every single EU treaty to date – even though I had concerns about several.

This compact is dangerous for Europe. And it’s not just the economy that concerns me. Economics doesn’t just drive money, it drives political direction. In the last European economic crisis right-wing extremists were empowered and millions died in a senseless war. Perhaps this time left-wing extremists will be empowered and maybe something less bad will happen, but that’s grading on a pretty steep curve.

I would rather sensible people started focusing on growth and started coming up with ways to deleverage sectors in a way that doesn’t screw over the poor. Not just for fairness (which is a factor) but for all of our futures.

A very realistic appraisal.

Nice to see what everybody else must be thinking…..i.e. that we should sugn up to the Fiscal Compact now if it means ESM funding…if the economics of it don’t make sense in 5+ years time (when it will actually apply to us) then we can come back to it.

In the bottom left hand corner you include a “Note to Germany”, warning that currency union does not mean that members can never default (giving the US as your example). I find this confusing. From the beginning of the Eurozone crisis, Germany argued that those nations in trouble should write off debts. It was Germany that argued for “Private Sector Involvement” for any country accessing ermergency financing. It was Germany that pushed for higher PSI (i.e. greater debt write-offs) in Greece’s second bail-out. France and the ECB took the opposite corner: they argued that PSI would cause contagion to Italy and Spain and bring down the Eurozone. Events last year seemed to show that the French and the ECB were correct. Only at that point did Merkel bitterly concede that access to the ESM in the future will not require PSI.

So why is your “no default” note directed to Germany?

*If the economic situation has improved in “Europe”

Given that Article 16 of the Compact commits (with some provisos) the Contracting Parties to incorporating the Fiscal Compact into the TEU and TFEU, the recommendation in the bottom left hand corner (‘scrap the compact after 5 years’) is rather optimistic. 5 years will be more than sufficient to build up the necessary ‘acquis communitaire ‘ that the Union strives to preserve. 5 yeasr from now we will – again – be confronted with a treaty that we cannot refuse and, again, those advocating a ‘Yes’ will tell us to ratify it because it is just rubber-stamping what has already been agreed upon.

@Ronan 9:18

RE propaganda machine, just listen to the adverts, if you didn’t know better, FC has nothing to do with anything else other than strengthening our fiscal finances.

Re “If you believe there are steps missing, I would be delighted to hear about them…”

Don’t have time to give anything but a rather circumspect answer, a more rigorous answer though would follow up on some broad tenets, such as:

1. The need for debt writedown is absent in FC.

2. It copper fastens the need to pay back every penny we owe.

3. Your decision tree ignores the option of leaving the euro and does not explore any of the implications/benefits/obstacles.

4. Your analysis presumes the euro is in safe waters and current and future bailouts will continue to be available, affordable, and beneficial to our interests

5. Your analysis is not a broadsheet for growth and has no assessment of our prospects under any set of scenarios, nor do you provide data for any of these scenarios.

6. Some information you given is prejudicial to the outcome you wish to achieve. For example, you make the assumption that we would face higher interest rates following default. Leaving aside the act our bonds are junk at present, interest rates have hit 7.7% and are rising to default levels, you ignore the debt writedown that would have to occur following our exit from the euro. IMF/UK/Canada etc would factor in ‘affordable’ interest rate plus debt writedown. DEBT WRITEDOWN is the capitalist key that returns a country to a fiscally healthy state, not one choked on further debt. At 120% debt to GDP ratios, I’m surprised, as an economist, to see you vote Y without provisions for debt writedown; there again, there are plenty of economists who cheered on ‘soft landing’, ‘growth’ and boom times. Iceland has returned to the markets and is not priced out of the markets as we are.

7. Your analysis trivialises and ignores the social consequences of austerity and against the prevailing view that austerity is not working, you appear to ignore arguments against austerity.

In summary, your main position seems to spring from the belief in austerity-lite under the prudential rules of FC for 5 years with a healthy economy returning 2020’s.

Sweet dreams 🙂 Sorry to tell you the euro is crumbling and there is a queue a mile long awaiting the ESM tap. You might have some credibility if our debt was approx 100% GDP and the euro did not crash; as it is, its pie in the sky. But we’ll have to wait and see who’s right 🙂

Perhaps you also need the benefit of a constitutional and legal expert to explain to you what you are signing away and why we are having a referendum about it. You might also consider the democratic nature of the the unelected, external body free from accountability and transparency and above the law you are binding this country’s constitution to, but this appears to be irrelevant and inconsequential to you.

At best, you are looking at these matters and making an attempt to make sense of it all. But you’ve a good way to go 🙂 Keep up the effort.

@ All

Judge Kevin Feeney explains it all succinctly (for those willing to listen).

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20120518,3290268,3290268,flash,257

The reasons for voting Yes are a no brainer. As one acquaintance not interested much in politics remarked to me; “I’m voting Yes to save my pension”. Of course, the younger largely unemployed generation see the matter differently. They have neither job nor the possibility to build up pension entitlements.

A No outcome might well serve their interests better. The divide is clearly visible in the opinion polls.

Incidentally, Martyn Turner has an amuzing cartoon in today’s IT of John citizen pushing the Sisyphean rock of EU referendums up the nose of a statue representing Dev and his Constitution. This is, of course, the wrong analogy. Dev’s Constitution could not be clearer on the respective prerogatives of government, parliament and people in the matter of conducting the foreign relations of the country. The idiosyncratic Crotty judgement of the Supreme Court is the hill up which the Sisyphean rock has to be pushed.

Maybe the political class is beginning to cop on to this. Or rather, they know full well but, like giving a ball to a large mastiff, the Irish citizenry, they are both unable and willing to get it back.

Before I draw the ire from the usual quarters about my lack of respect for democracy, I repeat the point that not alone are all governments based on the principle of representative democracy, the EU itself is. (Article 10.1 TEU “The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy”).

@DOCM,

Indeed. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, this has little to do with democracy and nothing to do with securing genuine democratic consent. That struggle is being pursued in the creditor nations. Let’s just hope that the very welcome re-emergence of the requirement to secure genuine democratic consent in these countries does not lead to a scuppering of the Euro project.

The contest in Ireland is between Official Ireland (and its multitudes of camp followers) and the ‘raid, tax and spend’ brigade. It would be wonderful if both sides were to lose and for the vast majority of citizens to win. But, unfortunately, that’s not possible.

Re DOCM

”

Judge Kevin Feeney explains it all succinctly (for those willing to listen).

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20120518,3290268,3290268,flash,257

”
I’d like to point out Judge Kevin Feeney’s summary of the FC at the outset here is blatant propaganda in favour of the No Campaign? The reason is it concentrates on the strengthening of the deficit rules under the FC we have to follow, but it clearly does not refer in any way whatsoever to the weakening, loss of self determination, that should be for balance clearly pointed out to the electorate.

Rather surprisingly, Judge Kevin Feeney also gets it wrong in another crucial area. He is asked a question re ECJ sanctions and fudges the answer by stating that sanctions only apply to failure to enact the rules of the FC in law by a member state.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/articles/governance/2012-03-14_six_pack_en.htm

“European Court of Justice (CoJ) may impose financial sanction (0.1% of GDP) if a country does not properly implement the new budget rules in national law and fails to comply with a CoJ ruling that requires it to do so. In the case of “euro-area Member States”, sanctions would be channelled to the ESM, in the case of “non-euro-area Member States”, the money would be attributed to the EU budget.”

Apparently Judge Kevin Feeney hasn’t read the above part where sanctions are channelled to the ESM, perhaps he should do more to understanding this and imaprting this knowledge to the electorate!

The ESM will have a variant of the following:

“Financial sanctions for “euro-area Member States” are imposed in a gradual way, from the preventive arm to the latest stages of the EDP, and may eventually reach 0.5% of GDP. The six-pack introduces reverse qualified majority voting (RQMV) for most sanctions, therefore increasing their likelihood for “euro-area Member States”. (RQMV implies that a recommendation or a proposal of the Commission is considered adopted in the Council unless a qualified majority of Member States votes against it.)”

@ All

FYI

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/greece-spoiling-irish-efforts-bini-smaghi-3112267.html

@ DOCM

Re “Where is the contradiction?”

Sorry, maybe I should have explained it better, but I thought I’d made the point very clearly, so tks for opportunity to clarify.

Its a fine point that makes a distinction between sanctions arising from a failure to pass into national law ““European Court of Justice (CoJ)…..” and the crucial point of enactment of those sanctions and their implementation.

Clarity is not helped by the actual wording:

“sanctions would be channelled to the ESM, in the case of “non-euro-area Member States”, the money would be attributed to the EU budget.”

This is just badly stated as it mixes in the same sentence what ought to be a separate clause namely, “in the case of “non-euro-area Member States”, the money would be attributed to the EU budget.” This requires greater clarity, but they do say the document is in progress.

My gripe is against what programmers would regard in programming as a Trojan horse by the back door.

Specifically you need to focus on the earlier part of that sentence,

“SANCTIONS WOULD BE CHANNELLED TO THE ESM.”

It’s this part of the sentence that Judge Kevin Feeney is disingenuous about. He should as an independent and objective observer be telling people what this exactly means.

What it means is that an unelected bunch of bankers, who are above the law, the ESM committee, get to decide how well we are enacting the legislation, what sanctions will be imposed on us if there is a breach, who give themselves the big stick of the ECJ if we wobble and do not comply.

In summary, there is a sanction for not enacting into law, there is a sanction for failure to implement the law, which is policed by the ESM committee under threat of breaches being brought before the ECJ.

@DOCM

“I take it then that your are criticising Judge Feeney for something he did not say”

Absolutely, its like describing a gift of a horse, but not saying what lies hidden within, as in the Trojan Horse. As Chairman of the Referendum Commission I would expect him to be far more impartial and neutral.

“I imagine that he would have adverted to the fact that the sanctions that we are discussing arise under two entirely different procedures and contexts.”

Indeed, I’m sure, if pressed, he would take that view. That is not to say he has not deliberately misled the public by leaving it to our imagination, rather than being truly objective and fulfilling his duty to inform the public, not to mislead or confuse the public.

I have to say when I first heard those adverts on TV/Radio with the message the FC was to strengthen our finances, I firstly thought they were government propaganda emanating from Lb/Fg. It was a bit of a shock to find they had their origin in the deliberate reductio ad absurdum originating from the Chairman of the Referendum Commission.

‘Evasive, inaccurate and misleading’ was the basis of a court action taken by Patricia McKenna of the Greens re a propaganda leaflet put out re the Lisbon Treaty. It sums up the current so-called objective educational media campaign with adverts emphasising the ‘strengthening of rules re our fiscal finances’.

Sure, I guess it could be worse, in another country, rather than the ESM/ECB taking control of our budget and our finances, he could be advocating that the ‘men’ take over financing previously controlled by their wives.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/mckenna-threatens-court-action-over-partisan-booklet-1875174.html

She won her court case. In my view, the Referendum Commission is surpassing its previous form in its propaganda for a Yes vote in the current referendum campaign.

@ DOCM

Re “You are still confused!”

On the contrary, I’ve actually spent some time making sure I understand these points with crystal clarity and have explained to others and considered these points here:

http://wp.me/pBbF3-hf

For example, ““2. If an ESM Member fails to meet the required payment under a capital call made pursuant to Article 9(2) or (3), a revised increased capital call shall be made to all ESM Members with a view to ensuring that the ESM receives the total amount of paid-in capital needed. The Board of Governors shall decide an appropriate course of action for ensuring that the ESM Member concerned settles its debt to the ESM within a reasonable period of time. The Board of Governors shall be entitled to require the payment of default interest on the overdue amount. “

I discuss the terrifying ‘appropriate course of action’ in that link.

Speaking of being confused, both you and govt specialise on getting it wrong, all the time, which is some feat:

Govt specialises in being wrong on multiple occasions, such as the fact that we will need a second bailout instead of a return to the markets in 2013; or, the fairy tale we are entering a growth cycle enabling us to pay back odious debt; or, the fairy tale the ESM is a ticket to stability when the euro is crashing all around us; or, the fairy tale that NAMA is succeeding; or, the fairy tale, that the out of control extent of mortgage debt and private debt will not require further recapitalisation of the banking system.

Either its you, the Govt, getting it wrong all the time, are both confused and misinformed, or you and the Y campaign are being deliberately misleading and won’t describe a Trojan Horse for what it actually is.

You are confused if you do not see the relationship between the ESM and the Referendum and wish to separate out the 2 for propaganda purposes.

I expect Judge Feeney to run a fair public education programme informing the public as to what they are voting on, not to make himself open to the charge of leading a propaganda campaign.

Things have improved since I drew attention tot he reductio ad absurdum or reducing the FC to a Referendum on making our finances stronger. The latest advert from the Referendum Commission has a man speaking alone without document aids, or other devices, speaking like a character out of Beckett I compare to Lucky in Samuel Beckett, rapidly condensing the FC into a minute or two of uninterrupted monologue like a fast talking car salesman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b542GxhzYiw&feature=related

But at least he gives the substance of the FC if in a disgracefully poor format.