The return of Declan Ganley

OhNoYouDidn't

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Being part of the Euro and the years preceding it lead to record low interest rates, which is one, if not the main cause of the banking problem we are experiencing now.

So DG's economic rescue plan is based on anti-EU sentiment.

All together now, HMMMMMM.....

Lockstep

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Being part of the Euro and the years preceding it lead to record low interest rates, which is one, if not the main cause of the banking problem we are experiencing now.

The main problem with the banking sector is a lack of financial regulation.
Low interest rates can be a good thing, encouraging consumer spending and start-up businesses, whereas high interest rates can do the opposite (but encourage saving)
Low interest rates can cause the overheating of the economy if they are not held in check but the Euro can't be blamed for the recklessness and irresponsibility of the Fianna Fáil government.

K-9

He's no Des O'Malley if that's what people are looking for.

Palmach

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If you're not willing to substantiate a point, then don't bring it up in the first place.

This thread is about Ganley not a re-run of Lisbon. I raised to point out that a lot of what he said is close to the truth but you won't see any official docuemnts for obvious reasons.

Devaluation is a double edged sword: while it *could* boost exports, it would mean that our currency is worth less, making it even more difficult to pay off our colossal deficit.
It's grand in a country with an in-demand export and low public debt (which is why it worked so well for Russia)
Given our massive public debt and the structural weaknesses of our economy, it'd give a short term boost without doing anything to help the long-term problems (high debt, no reform of the economy)

I wasn't suggesting devaluation on its own. Obviously there are other things that need to be done in tandem.

Scofflaw

This thread is about Ganley not a re-run of Lisbon. I raised to point out that a lot of what he said is close to the truth but you won't see any official docuemnts for obvious reasons.

No, seriously - if you can't substantiate your claim to have worked with the Commission and to be in on some sort of privileged information allowing you to make authoritative statements, don't make the claim. Definitely don't make the claim and then say it doesn't need to substantiated because it's not what the thread is about, or claim that "officious jobsworth moderators" wouldn't want you to say it.

All boards.ie threads should at least aspire to levels above the kind of utter drivel that passes for similar debate elsewhere - you can assist in that by not claiming authority you can't substantiate.

officiously,
Scofflaw

Lockstep

Palmach wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting devaluation on its own. Obviously there are other things that need to be done in tandem.

It doesn't change the fact that it makes it even harder to pay back our debt. Devaluation is not a good idea when combined with crushing debt. Devaluations aren't a panacea that boost exports with no ill effects, otherwise governments would be doing it the whole time.

IrishTonyO

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, seriously - if you can't substantiate your claim to have worked with the Commission and to be in on some sort of privileged information allowing you to make authoritative statements, don't make the claim. Definitely don't make the claim and then say it doesn't need to substantiated because it's not what the thread is about, or claim that "officious jobsworth moderators" wouldn't want you to say it.

All boards.ie threads should at least aspire to levels above the kind of utter drivel that passes for similar debate elsewhere - you can assist in that by not claiming authority you can't substantiate.

officiously,
Scofflaw

Just curious, but how would someone substantiate that on an internet forum?

Scofflaw

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Just curious, but how would someone substantiate that on an internet forum?

To be honest, they almost certainly can't, which is why it's better not to make such claims, or at least not to make them part of your argument. Someone could go into a thread on clerical child abuse claiming to be an expert in child psychology, and say that in their expert opinion nobody had ever been abused. Clearly that would be little different from trolling - there's a wide grey area, but the net effect is fairly similar.

Or, of course, you could claim to be an expert in running a national economy because you've run a business - or because you're a lawyer...

cordially,
Scofflaw

acer1000

SCOFFLAW WROTE:
‘My experience of them is that they want the power to influence things, but don't always have a clear idea of what it is they want to influence. It's very rarely about the money, at least initially. Ganley fits in perfectly well there.’


I think one can assume he wants to influence the people of Ireland to give it a shape or form to his liking, within the context of a Europe that he would also like to mould to his liking. Fair enough? Isn’t that what our mainstream politicians are supposed to be about, too.? Of course that requires a vision, which our mainstream politicians don’t seem to have. The only vision they have in relation to Europe is plum jobs for themselves, their families and their friends. For that, they weren’t going to inform themselves and in turn us, of any potential difficulties that they may have noticed, had they done so, unlike Mr Ganley who did, and spent his own money to tell us so. The same old theme, they want to fill their pockets, while he empties his quite a fair bit for what he believes in. Mr Ganley’s alleged thwarting of the democratic process pales in comparison. Remember those times when the people voted ‘no’, we were manipulated by scare tactics into voting ‘yes’. So much for Mr Ganley’s scare tactics.

SCOFFLAW WROTE:
‘ I don't doubt that in his personal dealings and personal life, Ganley is a man of irreproachable character. Unfortunately, that wasn't even remotely true of the political campaigns he ran, any more than Ian Paisley's lack of bigotry on a personal level was reflected in his political stance. Ganley gave us campaigns full of self-serving lies, dodgy dealings, questionable 'friends', disinformation, and sharp practice on the donations front. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth on subjects from CAP (he's on public record as saying that CAP should be utterly abolished, but he was all for it when speaking to farmers, and chose an ex-IFA man for his Leinster candidate) to immigration (famously saying here that he'd restrict immigration from the accession states, while saying in Poland that he'd seek to open new opportunities for them in the old EU), and never published his policies in written form - it was all just what he said on the day, which changed with the day and the audience.

You're welcome to consider that an addition to Irish public life, but I don't, and I can't see why, when a man has so clearly blotted his public copybook in such a way, he should get a free pass because he happens to have "strong convictions". Being honest in public life is the first conviction a politician should have - and the evidence accumulated over three campaigns suggests that Ganley, from that point of view, is no improvement on the shabbiest chancer in the Dáil. ‘

It boggles the mind how anybody can write the above about one Irish political entity in full cognisance of the current Irish political landscape. You know it isn’t teeming with honesty and integrity, quite the opposite.

I think Irish people in the political/media world are still in some form of denial, hoping that by changing the deckchairs on The Titanic, it’s going to make a difference.

djpbarry

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Being part of the Euro and the years preceding it lead to record low interest rates, which is one, if not the main cause of the banking problem we are experiencing now.

I would say poor management was the main cause of the crisis – had banks no control over the interest rates they were offering on their financial products?

Palmach wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting devaluation on its own. Obviously there are other things that need to be done in tandem.

Such as?

Tea drinker

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Being part of the Euro and the years preceding it lead to record low interest rates, which is one, if not the main cause of the banking problem we are experiencing now.

I Agree with this. Sure weren't we told all along we can't set our interest rate to dampen the economy and now *at the worst possible time* the interest rates magically rise! we should have left the Euro years ago, leaving with now is possibly too late.

Tea drinker

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say poor management was the main cause of the crisis – had banks no control over the interest rates they were offering on their financial products?

These dopes are far more liable for our poor standing than the low interest Euro. Is there something about their previous behaviour which leads you to belive in what you typed above or are you just highlighting their failings? Central bank is in charge of lending regardless, anoher bunch of morons.

Scofflaw

Tea drinker wrote: »

I Agree with this. Sure weren't we told all along we can't set our interest rate to dampen the economy and now *at the worst possible time* the interest rates magically rise! we should have left the Euro years ago, leaving with now is possibly too late.

Not sure what you're trying to say there - the ECB hasn't raised interest rates:

IT, 02/10 wrote:

The European Central Bank held interest rates at a record low today and extended its liquidity safety-net in response to a lopsided recovery and worries about vulnerable banks.

And the point that Irish banks have raised their interest rates, and that the Central Bank is "in charge of lending" are rather opposed to the handy laying of the blame at the doors of the ECB.

Still, since Declan Ganley predicted none of these things, I'm not sure what the relevance is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Tea drinker wrote: »

Is there something about their previous behaviour which leads you to belive in what you typed above or are you just highlighting their failings?

The latter. The banks didn't have to offer cheap credit to everyone who asked and everyone (not literally everyone, of course) didn't have to blow said credit on property. Blaming our economic collapse on low interest rates is like blaming McDonalds for obesity.

Raskolnikov

Has anyone been following him on Twitter? http://twitter.com/declanganley

While Brian Cowen, Eamonn Gilmore and Enda Kenny are all advocating slash and burn policies to appease the Wall Street speculators, Ganley seems to be one of the few sane voices that's willing to say that enough is enough. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but right now, he's one of the few sane voices who doesn't seem hellbent of wrecking the country for future generations.

galwayrush

Raskolnikov wrote: »

Has anyone been following him on Twitter? http://twitter.com/declanganley

While Brian Cowen, Eamonn Gilmore and Enda Kenny are all advocating slash and burn policies to appease the Wall Street speculators, Ganley seems to be one of the few sane voices that's willing to say that enough is enough. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but right now, he's one of the few sane voices who doesn't seem hellbent of wrecking the country for future generations.

Have to agree, looks like his pre Lisbon treaty warnings that were scoffed at are sadly turning out to be true. Right now, i'd vote for him.

djpbarry

Raskolnikov wrote: »

While Brian Cowen, Eamonn Gilmore and Enda Kenny are all advocating slash and burn policies to appease the Wall Street speculators, Ganley seems to be one of the few sane voices that's willing to say that enough is enough.

Ganley will say whatever the listener du jour wants to hear – it’s all a load of hollow sound-bites.

evercloserunion

galwayrush wrote: »

Have to agree, looks like his pre Lisbon treaty warnings that were scoffed at are sadly turning out to be true. Right now, i'd vote for him.

Such as?

jock101

kickoutthejams wrote: »

He canvassed me during the 2009 elections, very dodgy character.

And the other clowns are not?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Especially the one's in power!:mad:

galwayrush

evercloserunion wrote: »

Such as?

Loss of sovereignty , European army.

goose2005

Scofflaw wrote: »

We tried that last time with the Libertas manifesto for the Euro elections, and they definitely hadn't published them on the 1st of June, 4 days before the vote. I'm not sure if they ever did publish a manifesto - the only summary of their position I've seen is on Wikipedia, scarily enough.

I don't think I've ever seen a summary of FF's positions beyond "um... do, you know, good things?"

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Will Declan be heavily funded this time around from unknown sources, which may or may not have an affect on his political convictions?

Well my friendly local FF TD got €10,000 from the construction industry to fund her campaign.

K-9

galwayrush wrote: »

European army.

There must be jobs in it. Where do I enlist?

PanchoVilla

He predicted a further loss of Irish sovereignty and an erosion of Ireland's power in the EU. The new changes to Lisbon the Germans are demanding regarding the suspension of voting rights for any country deemed in violation of EU standards fits into that category quite nicely. Lisbon is far from over and we have yet to see what's really planned for the EU. Give it another few years and I think people like Scofflaw will be/should be apologizing to people like Ganley.

Edit: I believe another change proposed will make bank bailouts mandatory throughout the EU, meaning Ireland will not only be forced to bail out our own incompetent banks but those of other EU countries through EU budget contributions.

irishh_bob

Tea drinker wrote: »

I Agree with this. Sure weren't we told all along we can't set our interest rate to dampen the economy and now *at the worst possible time* the interest rates magically rise! we should have left the Euro years ago, leaving with now is possibly too late.

we should never have joined the eurozone in the 1st place , thier are many reasons but the main reason why we shouldnt is because the britts didnt , thier by far our biggest trading partner and due to the strength of the euro v sterling this past number of years , our exports have suffered badly

K-9

PanchoVilla wrote: »

The new changes to Lisbon the Germans are demanding regarding the suspension of voting rights for any country deemed in violation of EU standards fits into that category quite nicely.

That isn't in the agreed plan AFAIK. I think Euro sceptics hear some politician saying these things and forget that EU is about 27 countries or 16 with the Euro. Just because a few politicians say something doesn't mean it will happen.

K-9

irishh_bob wrote: »

we should never have joined the eurozone in the 1st place , thier are many reasons but the main reason why we shouldnt is because the britts didnt , thier by far our biggest trading partner and due to the strength of the euro v sterling this past number of years , our exports have suffered badly

We reduced our dependence on them and the Euro area is now our biggest export market. Breaking our economic ties with them isn't all bad news.

PanchoVilla

K-9 wrote: »

That isn't in the agreed plan AFAIK. I think Euro sceptics hear some politician saying these things and forget that EU is about 27 countries or 16 with the Euro. Just because a few politicians say something doesn't mean it will happen.

No, it's very much part of the plan and Merckel is pushing it pretty hard. They've tabled it for the moment as many EU member states are very concerned with it but it hasn't been dismissed completely.

Berlin is now insistent that the bailout fund needs to be put on a permanent and sound legal footing, partly because it fears the German constitutional court will rule that the fund breaches article 125 of the Lisbon Treaty, namely the no bailout clause.

Germany also wants the EU to be able to suspend a country's voting rights if it repeatedly breaches deficit and debt rules. If that option and the bailout fund both require a re-opening of the Lisbon Treaty, says Berlin, then so be it.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1028/treaty.html

Edit: By the article it would seem that the EU was in violation of the Lisbon Treaty when they bailed out Greece. Now they want to change the treaty quickly to avoid any legal repercussions for making that decision.

1. The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-3-union-policies-and-internal-actions/title-viii-economic-and-monetary-policy/chapter-1-economic-policy/393-article-125.html

K-9

PanchoVilla wrote: »

No, it's very much part of the plan and Merckel is pushing it pretty hard. They've tabled it for the moment as many EU member states are very concerned with it but it hasn't been dismissed completely.



http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1028/treaty.html

Edit: By the article it would seem that the EU was in violation of the Lisbon Treaty when they bailed out Greece. Now they want to change the treaty quickly to avoid any legal repercussions for making that decision.



http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-3-union-policies-and-internal-actions/title-viii-economic-and-monetary-policy/chapter-1-economic-policy/393-article-125.html

Focusing on what one country wants, while interesting, means little.

Here's a good piece from after the negotiations:
Compromise may heal rift for now, but trouble lies ahead - The Irish Times - Sat, Oct 30, 2010

However, there are fears in Berlin that Germany’s powerful constitutional court will take issue with it in a ruling due next spring.
This helps explain Dr Merkel’s push for a revision of the treaty, something designed to iron out any lingering questions over the legality of the rescue mechanism. She has a result on this front, but her plan to deprive governments with wayward finances of their voting rights was rebuffed. Her opponents on this front included Greek prime minister George Papandreou, a man so hostile to the notion of “second-class” EU membership with no votes that he is reputed to have told Dr Merkel she might as well take back Berlin’s loans to Athens.




Most of the proposals seem reasonable enough. Wish they had actually fined McCreevey and Cowen for ignoring warnings on the economy!

djpbarry

PanchoVilla wrote: »

No, it's very much part of the plan and Merckel is pushing it pretty hard.

Might have something to do with the fact that several member states, including Ireland, keep pissing German money up a badly-insulated wall. Just a thought.

PanchoVilla

K-9 wrote: »

Focusing on what one country wants, while interesting, means little.

Here's a good piece from after the negotiations:
Compromise may heal rift for now, but trouble lies ahead - The Irish Times - Sat, Oct 30, 2010

However, there are fears in Berlin that Germany’s powerful constitutional court will take issue with it in a ruling due next spring.
This helps explain Dr Merkel’s push for a revision of the treaty, something designed to iron out any lingering questions over the legality of the rescue mechanism. She has a result on this front, but her plan to deprive governments with wayward finances of their voting rights was rebuffed. Her opponents on this front included Greek prime minister George Papandreou, a man so hostile to the notion of “second-class” EU membership with no votes that he is reputed to have told Dr Merkel she might as well take back Berlin’s loans to Athens.




Most of the proposals seem reasonable enough. Wish they had actually fined McCreevey and Cowen for ignoring warnings on the economy!

So they broke the treaty which they wrote up and everyone signed up to and now want to change the treaty quickly to avoid legal ramifications for breaking it in the first place. I don't know, but that sounds pretty suspect to me. I wonder if these questionable changes will only be the first in a complete reworking of the entire treaty without the consent of the original signatories. Reminds me of the countless broken treaties signed between the U.S. federal government and the native Americans during the 19th and 20th centuries.

PanchoVilla

djpbarry wrote: »

Might have something to do with the fact that several member states, including Ireland, keep pissing German money up a badly-insulated wall. Just a thought.

It actually has nothing to do with what Ireland does with EU funding. We only get EU funding for specific projects and the EU are careful to ensure it's spent correctly.

This is about stealing money from taxpayers to bail out corrupt, incompetent private banks throughout Europe. It's about making that practice legally binding so that future governments will be forced to bail out private banks using taxpayers money. It's a complete reversal of article 125 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Lockstep

jock101 wrote: »

And the other clowns are not?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Especially the one's in power!:mad:

No other candidate came close to being as dubious as him.

I've been canvassed by pretty much every party in the West (even Republican Sinn Féin came to my house) but he was by far the creepiest.

sensibleken

kickoutthejams wrote: »

No other candidate came close to being as dubious as him.

I've been canvassed by pretty much every party in the West (even Republican Sinn Féin came to my house) but he was by far the creepiest.

dead right, he's CEO of rivada networks who are a military contractor for the US army. And refused to divulge where he got his money from.

I love the way he courted the anti- war crowd without them doing even a tiny bit of research on the man.

djpbarry

PanchoVilla wrote: »

It actually has nothing to do with what Ireland does with EU funding. We only get EU funding for specific projects and the EU are careful to ensure it's spent correctly.

I didn’t mean literally. It’s about putting a solid mechanism in place to essentially ensure that, so far as is possible, we don’t end up with another Greek crisis in the Eurozone.

PanchoVilla wrote: »

This is about stealing money from taxpayers to bail out corrupt, incompetent private banks throughout Europe. It's about making that practice legally binding so that future governments will be forced to bail out private banks using taxpayers money. It's a complete reversal of article 125 of the Lisbon Treaty.

I have no idea where you’re getting that from, but it sounds like something straight out of the Declan Ganley hand-book.

Lockstep

djpbarry wrote: »

I have no idea where you’re getting that from, but it sounds like something straight out of the Declan Ganley hand-book.

He gave me a copy of his book "The fight for flight of Democracy"
Really bizarre stuff.

Scofflaw

There seems to be a good deal of confusion over what's happening at the moment, but there are a few clear points:

1. the "Lisbon Treaty" is not being re-opened. The Lisbon Treaty is finished with - it was an amending treaty, and has done its bit. Any revisions involve opening the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which were the treaties Lisbon amended.

2. the bailout fund for Greece isn't an EU fund, but an intergovernmental fund in the form of a limited company with the countries as stakeholders. It is therefore not in breach of Article 125, because it is not legally a Union issue.

3. German involvement in the fund has been challenged on the basis that it is against the German constitution and against the EU treaties - however, the case is highly unlikely to be successful. The participants are serial unsuccessful litigators against anything EU - having previously attempted to block Lisbon and the adoption of the euro - and include our old friend Schnachtscheider, who was responsible for the particularly daft claim that Lisbon reintroduced the death penalty.

4. unless the German case is, to general surprise, successful, claiming that the Treaties have already been breached has no legal foundation.

5. the Germans have not succeeded in getting the suspension of voting rights included in the sanctions deal - that turns out to have been a sacrificial pawn. That's hardly surprising, since it was never going to be a runner, but the Germans have to be on board:

Merkel was reportedly the central figure in the negotiations, taking a hard line on Germany’s demands. However, she failed to push through the suspension of voting rights for those EU countries failing to fulfil their financial commitments.

“Merkel became quite emotional during the debate about voting rights,” said one EU diplomat.

But by abandoning that demand, the chancellor was able to convince other EU leaders to back her other priorities.

As for trade with the UK, it now forms only 16% of our exports, and 30% of our imports, whereas the eurozone countries form 45% of our exports and 28% of our imports.

Finally, what Declan Ganley claimed about Lisbon remains 99% spoof, and the main reason people think he's right is because they still don't know what's going on. His claims relied on people misunderstanding the EU, Lisbon, and Ireland's relationship with the EU - luckily for his credit in No circles, some people still cling to those misunderstandings. People are like that, though - there are still believers in orthodox Stalinism out there, next to the MMR-autism people, the mercantilists, and the rest of the some of the people who can be fooled all of the time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Avgas

Scofflaw wrote: »

There seems to be a good deal of confusion over what's happening at the moment, but there are a few clear points:

2. the bailout fund for Greece isn't an EU fund, but an intergovernmental fund in the form of a limited company with the countries as stakeholders. It is therefore not in breach of Article 125, because it is not legally a Union issue.

3. German involvement in the fund has been challenged on the basis that it is against the German constitution and against the EU treaties - however, the case is highly unlikely to be successful."

Some more details to back these welcome assertions would be welcome Scofflaw if you've time. How can you be so sure about assertions 2 and 3? (Your other points are totally sound)

I found this on the web which puts across a different view (please convince me its all wrong).

"the German think-tank Centrum für Europäische Politik has now also produced a very interesting study on the topic. In the study, the CEP trashes the legality of the €60 billion credit facility, agreed in May (as part of the €500 billion bailout package). This facility, as we set out here, involves the European Commission borrowing on the markets, using the EU budget as collateral. The legal base for the fund is Article 122 of the EU Treaties, intended to provide assistance to EU states in the event of natural disasters or sudden energy blackouts, ("exceptional circumstances" beyond a member state's control, as the text states).

The study is all over the German press - and it certainly provides ammunition to the legal challenges against the bailout, currently making their way through the German Constitutional Court. The study claims that the public has been deceived on several points, arguing that the aid scheme will not be limited to three years, as the Commission claims, but would be “installed indefinitely”.

http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/is-eurozone-bailout-legal.html


I'm not familiar with this German think-tank. Of course its possible its partisan and reflecting more the fringes of CSU/FDP type rhetoric of the issue. Moreover since then it may have been defused as an 'expert view'....but I for one am far from convinced a neat argument can be made that the German legal challenge is without any foundation or chance of success.....if it wasn't such a threat why all the supposedly limited Treaty changes that nobody says they want?

IrishTonyO

Scofflaw wrote: »

There seems to be a good deal of confusion over what's happening at the moment, but there are a few clear points:

1. the "Lisbon Treaty" is not being re-opened. The Lisbon Treaty is finished with - it was an amending treaty, and has done its bit. Any revisions involve opening the Treaty on European Union or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which were the treaties Lisbon amended.

2. the bailout fund for Greece isn't an EU fund, but an intergovernmental fund in the form of a limited company with the countries as stakeholders. It is therefore not in breach of Article 125, because it is not legally a Union issue.

3. German involvement in the fund has been challenged on the basis that it is against the German constitution and against the EU treaties - however, the case is highly unlikely to be successful. The participants are serial unsuccessful litigators against anything EU - having previously attempted to block Lisbon and the adoption of the euro - and include our old friend Schnachtscheider, who was responsible for the particularly daft claim that Lisbon reintroduced the death penalty.

4. unless the German case is, to general surprise, successful, claiming that the Treaties have already been breached has no legal foundation.

5. the Germans have not succeeded in getting the suspension of voting rights included in the sanctions deal - that turns out to have been a sacrificial pawn. That's hardly surprising, since it was never going to be a runner, but the Germans have to be on board:



As for trade with the UK, it now forms only 16% of our exports, and 30% of our imports, whereas the eurozone countries form 45% of our exports and 28% of our imports.

Finally, what Declan Ganley claimed about Lisbon remains 99% spoof, and the main reason people think he's right is because they still don't know what's going on. His claims relied on people misunderstanding the EU, Lisbon, and Ireland's relationship with the EU - luckily for his credit in No circles, some people still cling to those misunderstandings. People are like that, though - there are still believers in orthodox Stalinism out there, next to the MMR-autism people, the mercantilists, and the rest of the some of the people who can be fooled all of the time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think you should clarify the above which you claim are clear points. Some are facts and some are your opinions, you should identify which are facts and which are your opinions.

Scofflaw

Avgas wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

There seems to be a good deal of confusion over what's happening at the moment, but there are a few clear points:

2. the bailout fund for Greece isn't an EU fund, but an intergovernmental fund in the form of a limited company with the countries as stakeholders. It is therefore not in breach of Article 125, because it is not legally a Union issue.

3. German involvement in the fund has been challenged on the basis that it is against the German constitution and against the EU treaties - however, the case is highly unlikely to be successful."

Some more details to back these welcome assertions would be welcome Scofflaw if you've time. How can you be so sure about assertions 2 and 3? (Your other points are totally sound)

To be fair, there is a certain legal sleight of hand involved here. The fund is not set up as an EU fund, but an intergovernmental SPV with the participating states as shareholders - details are here, and the states aren't guaranteeing the loans made to member states, but instead are guaranteeing the funds raised from third parties by the company. The fund is not legally based in the EU Treaties, but has its own intergovernmental agreement - the European Financial Stability Facility Framework Agreement (in Ireland, participation in that Agreement takes the form of the European Financial Stability Facility Bill 2010). No breach of Article 125 is involved, because no member state is taking on the liabilities of any other, but only a liability to third parties who the fund raises money from.

However, the point about legal sleight of hand is that the law is what is written as the law, as we've found in the case of NAMA with developers' wives.

As to the German case, there's quite a bit of analysis out there on it, and the most likely result seems at the moment to be a dismissal on the basis of the plaintiffs having no standing:

The latest case also doesn’t have strong chances for success, one law professor said.

“Calling it absurd sounds a bit hard, but the suit seems to claim that German citizens have an individual right to have the government keep the currency stable,” Christian Graf von Pestalozza, professor emeritus of constitutional law at Berlin’s Free University, said in an interview yesterday. “We all know it doesn’t work that way. At least in the copy of the constitution I have, you don’t find such a right.”

Individual Harm

The court is likely to reject the case for procedural reasons, because individual citizens can’t base a suit on the fact that EU laws may have been violated, Pestalozza said. The plaintiffs can’t show that they are directly and individually affected by the aid to Greece, he said.

The suit argues that the court said in earlier cases that citizens may sue if the EU oversteps the powers it was granted under the treaties. Since EU stability rules, including the no bailout-clause, were violated by the Greek aid, the court needs to step in, the lawsuit says.

In addition to the EU arguments, the group says that the German constitutional right to the protection of property covers currency stability.

“Economic stability is a paramount value under our constitution, the court has said that many times,” Schachtschneider said. In a previous decision on the EU treaties “the court said that Germany needs to leave the EU if the stability policies are undermined.”

The difficulty here for the plaintiffs is that they need to show that they have personally been affected in order for them to have standing in the case, and then they need to show that Article 125 can be held to bind the member states when they're acting through something other than the EU, as well as defeating the legal obstacle presented by the arrangement of gaurantees.

The involvement of Schachtschneider, I have to say, makes it appear to me as likely to be largely a nuisance case, but we'll see.

Avgas wrote: »

I found this on the web which puts across a different view (please convince me its all wrong).

"the German think-tank Centrum für Europäische Politik has now also produced a very interesting study on the topic. In the study, the CEP trashes the legality of the €60 billion credit facility, agreed in May (as part of the €500 billion bailout package). This facility, as we set out here, involves the European Commission borrowing on the markets, using the EU budget as collateral. The legal base for the fund is Article 122 of the EU Treaties, intended to provide assistance to EU states in the event of natural disasters or sudden energy blackouts, ("exceptional circumstances" beyond a member state's control, as the text states).

The study is all over the German press - and it certainly provides ammunition to the legal challenges against the bailout, currently making their way through the German Constitutional Court. The study claims that the public has been deceived on several points, arguing that the aid scheme will not be limited to three years, as the Commission claims, but would be “installed indefinitely”.

http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/is-eurozone-bailout-legal.html


I'm not familiar with this German think-tank. Of course its possible its partisan and reflecting more the fringes of CSU/FDP type rhetoric of the issue. Moreover since then it may have been defused as an 'expert view'....but I for one am far from convinced a neat argument can be made that the German legal challenge is without any foundation or chance of success.....if it wasn't such a threat why all the supposedly limited Treaty changes that nobody says they want?

The German think-tank in question is an 'ordoliberal' think tank - which is to say liberalism within a state-regulated framework. That's a pretty mainstream view in Germany, as far as I know, having been the foundation of their immediately post-war growth.

The study in question does challenge the legality of the fund, but does so largely on the same basis as the current case - again, as a result, it's likely to run into the same issue that nothing in the Treaties can automatically be held to exclude aid between member states other than through the EU.

Open Europe's analysis of it, though...is not something I'd give any more weight to than I would to Schnachtschneider's opinion, I have to say. Both have a very strong track record of making extremely tendentious interpretations of EU-related matters. Schnachtschneider's claim during Lisbon that the Treaty reinstated the death penalty was utter rubbish, and when a law professor comes out with utter rubbish one is relatively certain that it's not through innocence of the law, while Open Europe would quite happily publish "research" showing Lady Di had been killed by the EU if they thought that would be believed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

It's perhaps worth pointing out that the Germans see economics and politics as inter-dependent to a far higher degree than most other nations - the economic failure of Weimar is seen as largely responsible for the rise of National Socialism and the disasters that followed from Hitler's regime.

The majority of European states see a stable and strong economy as the foundation for a strong state on the world stage, whereas the Germans see it as the foundation of the stability of the state itself. Ireland, by contrast, seems to see the economy as simply a money pot out of which one can hope to pull more than other people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Avgas

Hmmm...still not convinced.

I thought the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism (EFSM) was one part of the arrangement and this was based on Article 122 of the Treaty (emergency provisions). This provided 60bn in funds and was backed on EU assets. The European Financial Stablity facility (EFSF) is related but different and that manages 400bn in funds and is outside the EU institutional system....but as you admit...it is actually a sleight of hand.

In fact the best thing I've read about the legalities of the no-bail out clause comes from Belgian economist and all round rum-chap, Paul de Grauwe:

"It is sometimes said that bail-outs in the Eurozone are illegal because the Treaty says so (see Wyplosz 2009 on this). But this is a misreading of the Treaty. The no-bail-out clause only says that the EU shall not be liable for the debt of governments, i.e. the governments of the Union cannot be forced to bail out a member state. But this does not exclude that the governments of the EU freely decide to provide financial assistance to one of the member states. In fact this is explicitly laid down in Article 100, section 2.3
Eurozone governments have the legal capacity to bail out other governments, and in my opinion they are very likely to do so in the Eurozone if the need arises."

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4384

The problem is this may be a too elastic reading of Article 125.

FULL TEXT OF article 125 follows:

Article 125
(ex Article 103 TEC)

1. The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.

2. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may, as required, specify definitions for the application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 123 and 124 and in this Article.

I think the problem for Paul de Grauwe is the use of the word 'shall not' is usually taken as a strict injunction. Although as he puts it there is a big difference between volunteering to give Greece (and soon Ireland?) a few hundred billion Euro and saying your assuming all Irish and Greek debts. But the phrase 'assume' is ambiguous and could strictly mean any scale or extent of assuming, however temporary.
By giving such aid you are de facto paying Greek and others debts. The member states did not merely use the words 'may not be obliged to' in Article 125.

On the other had the references to "without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project" could at a massive stretch be widened to include a limited and finite stability fund mechanism as a specific project under emergency aid provisions.

Still not very clear…at least to me.

Scofflaw

Avgas wrote: »

Hmmm...still not convinced.

I thought the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism (EFSM) was one part of the arrangement and this was based on Article 122 of the Treaty (emergency provisions). This provided 60bn in funds and was backed on EU assets.

It is, and the argument against it is based on the idea that an economic bust isn't an 'extraordinary' event - for the same reason, it can't, in its current form, be used as a legal basis for a permanent fund.

Avgas wrote: »

The European Financial Stablity facility (EFSF) is related but different and that manages 400bn in funds and is outside the EU institutional system....but as you admit...it is actually a sleight of hand.

To 'admit', I'd need to have denied it, rather than making the point myself!

Avgas wrote: »

In fact the best thing I've read about the legalities of the no-bail out clause comes from Belgian economist and all round rum-chap, Paul de Grauwe:

"It is sometimes said that bail-outs in the Eurozone are illegal because the Treaty says so (see Wyplosz 2009 on this). But this is a misreading of the Treaty. The no-bail-out clause only says that the EU shall not be liable for the debt of governments, i.e. the governments of the Union cannot be forced to bail out a member state. But this does not exclude that the governments of the EU freely decide to provide financial assistance to one of the member states. In fact this is explicitly laid down in Article 100, section 2.3
Eurozone governments have the legal capacity to bail out other governments, and in my opinion they are very likely to do so in the Eurozone if the need arises."

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4384

The problem is this may be a too elastic reading of Article 125.

FULL TEXT OF article 125 follows:

Article 125
(ex Article 103 TEC)

1. The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.

2. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may, as required, specify definitions for the application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 123 and 124 and in this Article.

I think the problem for Paul de Grauwe is the use of the word 'shall not' is usually taken as a strict injunction. Although as he puts it there is a big difference between volunteering to give Greece (and soon Ireland?) a few hundred billion Euro and saying your assuming all Irish and Greek debts. But the phrase 'assume' is ambiguous and could strictly mean any scale or extent of assuming, however temporary.
By giving such aid you are de facto paying Greek and others debts. The member states did not merely use the words 'may not be obliged to' in Article 125.

On the other had the references to "without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project" could at a massive stretch be widened to include a limited and finite stability fund mechanism as a specific project under emergency aid provisions.

Still not very clear…at least to me.

I don't think you need to stretch the article like that, though. If you are in financial difficulties, and I loan you money, have I thereby assumed your debts or liabilities? Can your creditors come to me for repayment? No, they can't, because assuming your debts is not what I have done. Instead, I have become another of your creditors.

What we're seeing is a collision between the spirit of the rules, which I would say is pretty clearly that there should be no bailout, however it happens, and economic reality, which is that the eurozone states are in fact jointly responsible for the stability of all the members, because they all have a large stake in it. In the medium term it will be resolved, as far as I can see, in favour of changing the rules to reflect the reality - in the short term, though, the immediate question is whether there's enough room in the letter of the law to allow what is necessary to happen. Given that you have to presume national sovereignty where it is not explicitly given up, and that a loan allowing the repayment of debt isn't the same as assumption of debt, I'd be pretty certain that by choosing the option of a separate SPV offering only loans there's room enough.

Certainly I'd be happy enough in the case of a legal contract that by loaning you money I wasn't assuming liability for your debts, as long as I had some explicit proviso to that effect - much like Article 125. Which, in turn, is why I expect Article 125 won't be changed as part of the long-term legal basis for the EFSF's successor - and the absence of a proposal for change strongly suggests that the article is not regarded as a legal impediment to the EFSF or its successor, but would remain a protective bulwark against any attempt to make the other Member States jointly (through the EU) or severally liable for the debts of a Member State that defaults.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Avgas

No point going on and on about this...but it does come down to legal interpretation.....a strict reading of "assume" under article 125 could imply loans to pay off debts are in fact a type of temporary assumption of debt.

I owe a bank 4,000 euro. You agreed to loan me 2,000 euro to help pay off the debt. You are of course not liable for the remaining 2,000, if I don't pay off the remainder, but by lending me 2,000 you have assumed the debt in the ordinary sense of having facilitated its part payment up to 2,000 euro.

You have not assumed legal liability-your 100% there. BUT note article 125 makes a distinction between legal liability for a debt (in fact it uses the broader word 'commitment' rather than debt) and the word 'assume'. Whatever 'assume' means, whether constructed strictly or otherwise, this distinction suggests it is not about the legal liability of a given debt. The example you gave was about assuming a legal liability of debt.

The Commission line is that merely because the form of aid takes the guise of loan rather than a grant, therefore it cannot be in breech of Article 125.

This seems a bit obscurist and weak.

Yes the loan will/might be paid back but there is a cost and risk to that. There is also the not trivial matter of the commercial rate of the loan-is it a preferential loan...if so that may be closer to a bailout merely disguised as a loan.

The bottom line is that the Treaties have said there should be no bail out since 1993. In my view that has always been nonsense but that is what the Treaties said and still say. We do actually need a bail-out fund IMHO. The problem is that EU states have now agreed since May 2010 what is in plain language a bail-out fund for Greece and others, even though the Treaties suggest this should not have in fact happened.

Moreover, the fact that they are now agreeing some kind of limited/technical treaty change, of article 122 [?], must indicate there is some doubt over the legality of what they have done so far, no?

sealgaire

.

Scofflaw

Avgas wrote: »

No point going on and on about this...but it does come down to legal interpretation.....a strict reading of "assume" under article 125 could imply loans to pay off debts are in fact a type of temporary assumption of debt.

I owe a bank 4,000 euro. You agreed to loan me 2,000 euro to help pay off the debt. You are of course not liable for the remaining 2,000, if I don't pay off the remainder, but by lending me 2,000 you have assumed the debt in the ordinary sense of having facilitated its part payment up to 2,000 euro.

Not really - I've loaned you 2,000 euro, and what you do with it is actually up to you. After all, your interpretation would mean that banks assumed the liabilities of their customers, which I somehow doubt they'd accept!

Avgas wrote: »

You have not assumed legal liability-your 100% there. BUT note article 125 makes a distinction between legal liability for a debt (in fact it uses the broader word 'commitment' rather than debt) and the word 'assume'. Whatever 'assume' means, whether constructed strictly or otherwise, this distinction suggests it is not about the legal liability of a given debt. The example you gave was about assuming a legal liability of debt.

The Commission line is that merely because the form of aid takes the guise of loan rather than a grant, therefore it cannot be in breech of Article 125.

This seems a bit obscurist and weak.

Yes the loan will/might be paid back but there is a cost and risk to that. There is also the not trivial matter of the commercial rate of the loan-is it a preferential loan...if so that may be closer to a bailout merely disguised as a loan.

The bottom line is that the Treaties have said there should be no bail out since 1993. In my view that has always been nonsense but that is what the Treaties said and still say. We do actually need a bail-out fund IMHO. The problem is that EU states have now agreed since May 2010 what is in plain language a bail-out fund for Greece and others, even though the Treaties suggest this should not have in fact happened.

Moreover, the fact that they are now agreeing some kind of limited/technical treaty change, of article 122 [?], must indicate there is some doubt over the legality of what they have done so far, no?

If they were concerned about the legality of what they've done so far, they'd presumably be changing Article 125 - because Article 125 is the legal basis for the challenges. What they're doing instead is beefing up the legal basis of the existing EU fund - Article 122 - to provide a legal basis for a permanent fund on the same lines as the Commission's stabilisation fund. That doesn't necessarily argue there's no legal basis for what they've done to date, but only that there's no adequate legal basis for doing it in a permanent way through the EU, which I don't think there's any argument over.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PanchoVilla

Avgas wrote: »

Still not very clear…at least to me.

Sorry for editing your post, just want to point out that the treaty was written in such a way that most people would not understand it. "Legalese" is very different from common English and is used to deny regular people information which should be made available to them. I know Youtube videos are usually frowned upon here but I think the following is relevant to back up my statement. There was a campaign by the EU parliament to make the treaty easier to understand for regular people and it was blocked completely by the EU. I'm sure there was a very good reason for blocking it.

sensibleken

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Sorry for editing your post, just want to point out that the treaty was written in such a way that most people would not understand it. "Legalese" is very different from common English and is used to deny regular people information which should be made available to them. I know Youtube videos are usually frowned upon here but I think the following is relevant to back up my statement. There was a campaign by the EU parliament to make the treaty easier to understand for regular people and it was blocked completely by the EU. I'm sure there was a very good reason for blocking it.

it was not written that way in order to decieve you. Laws are written in legaleese so as not to be ambiguous. All laws are like that, read any tort law, land law, family law etc. they are all in the same language.

It is tricky to get your head around because it was a treaty that amended several other treaties which you needed to have knowledge of in order to see what it was doing.

Im sorry if some people found it difficult to understand but if you want to vote on international treaties between 27 countries then you have a duty to educate yourself. Not listen to lobbiests be they government or private interest, its your responsibility at the end of the day

Scofflaw

sensibleken wrote: »

it was not written that way in order to decieve you. Laws are written in legaleese so as not to be ambiguous. All laws are like that, read any tort law, land law, family law etc. they are all in the same language.

And it's worth pointing out that despite writing it to exclude a bailout, there's room for a loan facility that many people would consider the equivalent of a bailout.

I think, though, that a lot of people believe that legalese is written specifically to allow such things to happen, rather than prevent them, as is actually the case. I'm sure that there's a camp of opinion which would replace Article 125 with the statement "no bailouts" and believe that to be more watertight.

sensibleken wrote: »

It is tricky to get your head around because it was a treaty that amended several other treaties which you needed to have knowledge of in order to see what it was doing.

Or one could have read the consolidated version, which came out on April 16th - before the referendum. The claim that the Treaty was 'deliberately unreadable' remains one of the most effective lies used by the No side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PanchoVilla

sensibleken wrote: »

it was not written that way in order to decieve you. Laws are written in legaleese so as not to be ambiguous. All laws are like that, read any tort law, land law, family law etc. they are all in the same language.

I'd have to saw laws are quite ambiguous, which is why lawyers are paid lots of money to interpret them in favor of their client. A good lawyer can have a guilty person found not guilty by abusing the countless loopholes and interpretations of the law. Edit: We wouldn't be looking at this German court case if the treaty had been so unambiguous.

It is tricky to get your head around because it was a treaty that amended several other treaties which you needed to have knowledge of in order to see what it was doing.

Im sorry if some people found it difficult to understand but if you want to vote on international treaties between 27 countries then you have a duty to educate yourself. Not listen to lobbiests be they government or private interest, its your responsibility at the end of the day

Actually, I believe it's the responsibility and duty of legislatures to ensure that the laws they pass are understood by the majority or the population. If it was so easy to understand what was written in the treaty then why did the EU parliament vote unanimously in favor of a reader friendly version and why was it blocked by the powers within the EU?

PanchoVilla

Scofflaw wrote: »

And it's worth pointing out that despite writing it to exclude a bailout, there's room for a loan facility that many people would consider the equivalent of a bailout.

I think, though, that a lot of people believe that legalese is written specifically to allow such things to happen, rather than prevent them, as is actually the case. I'm sure that there's a camp of opinion which would replace Article 125 with the statement "no bailouts" and believe that to be more watertight.

I would have been happy with something along the lines of "no state institution will be liable for or allowed to rescue a private financial institution with taxpayers money without the consent of those involved". Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Or one could have read the consolidated version, which came out on April 16th - before the referendum. The claim that the Treaty was 'deliberately unreadable' remains one of the most effective lies used by the No side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So why was an initiative unanimously voted in favor of by the EU parliament to write up a reader friendly version blocked by the EU? That seems to me to be a very deliberate attempt to keep the treaty unreadable.