Referendum on Fiscal Treaty confirmed

Scofflaw

Just announced - the government will hold a referendum on the Fiscal Treaty:

The Taoiseach has told the Dáil that a referendum will be held on the proposed European fiscal stability treaty.

Enda Kenny said the decision followed advice from the Attorney General.

The Taoiseach said he would sign the fiscal compact treaty on Friday and that arrangements for a vote would be made in the coming weeks.

Enda Kenny said the advice of the AG at this morning's cabinet meeting was that, on balance, a referendum should be held.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0228/euro-business.html

Should be an unusually focused referendum debate, if probably both bitter and polarised - but it's worth noting that this is not an EU treaty, so unanimity, and our Yes, is not required. Only 12 signatories need to ratify for the Treaty to come into force for those that ratify.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Valmont

I wonder have they set a date for the "wrong answer, try again" referendum?

Kinski

Interestingly, this comes a few days after Michael D. Higgins suggested that - in the absence of a referendum - he may end up referring this matter to the Council of State. I wonder if that had any bearing on the AG's advice. Perhaps our choice of President wasn't as meaningless as many made out...

I am pie

What are the implications for Ireland if the country votes no and Europe presses on?

Are there elements of the agreement which it would be unconstitutional to implement ?

Sounds like a strange half in / half out, in limbo state of affairs?

There are so many people rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of this referendum. Hopefully the electorate can hold it together and make an informed decision.

Tenner says this thread is a mess by the end of the night

Orion

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Tenner says this thread is a mess by the end of the night

I give it an hour

The AG shouldn't have been even consulted. A treaty of this nature should automatically go to the people. But then with a FG/FG coalition the little people don't matter.

Scofflaw

I am pie wrote: »

What are the implications for Ireland if the country votes no and Europe presses on?

Are there elements of the agreement which it would be unconstitutional to implement ?

Sounds like a strange half in / half out, in limbo state of affairs?

Davy Stockbrokers' conclusion:

Treaty ratification crucial for return to bond markets, but fiscal compact sorely lacking IMF proposals on risk sharing.

Ireland has little choice but to adopt new treaty, which will enshrine two fiscal rules in Irish law
• The Irish government intends to ratify the new European fiscal compact treaty by end-March.
• The key innovation in the new treaty is a commitment to enshrine two fiscal rules in Irish law: Ireland's structural budget deficit must adhere to a limit of 0.5% of nominal GDP, and debt must be reduced to 60% of GDP.
• Ireland has little choice but to adopt the treaty given that ratification is a pre-condition for securing future ESM funding.
Structural budget deficit target of 0.5% is a poor choice
• The structural deficit is an abstract economic concept that cannot be observed with certainty.
• For example, the IMF estimates that Ireland ran a structural budget deficit of 5.4% of GDP in 2006, whereas the EU Commission estimates that Ireland ran a surplus of 2.2% the same year.
• Markets are unlikely to derive confidence in fiscal policy from budgetary targets they cannot observe.
Treaty does not go far enough; IMF proposals that could have preserved Ireland's creditworthiness are not included
• The fiscal compact would have had no bearing on the collapse in Ireland's public finances had it been adopted at the inception of the euro. Ireland adhered to the Stability and Growth Pact rules prior to the collapse of the construction sector.
• However, the IMF has proposed mutual insurance mechanisms for the euro area that could have preserved Ireland's creditworthiness.
• Ireland should actively advocate the IMF's recommendations, not least because they highlight that the sovereign has borne too high a cost in recapitalising banks and deserves additional support from Europe.

http://www.davy.ie/content/pubarticles/fiscalcompact20120227.pdf

So, basically, non-ratification doesn't prevent the others going ahead, prevents Irish access to ESM funding, and may prevent our successful return to the bond markets.

Those two latter points, taken together, mean that Ireland would be rightly buggered by non-ratification. We'd be unable to access either market or European funding.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manco

Here's hoping the electorate ignore the inevitable onslaught of threats and send it packing. Good article here:http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/the-fiscal-compact-last-chance-saloon-for-the-left/

Palmach

Manco wrote: »

Here's hoping the electorate ignore the inevitable onslaught of threats and send it packing. Good article here:http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/the-fiscal-compact-last-chance-saloon-for-the-left/

No doubt there will be more "YES to jobs" mud hurled. I will not be fooled twice. NO all the way for me.

I am pie

Palmach wrote: »

No doubt there will be more "YES to jobs" mud hurled. I will not be fooled twice. NO all the way for me.

No to funding ?

What are you saying No to ?

Sully

Is it a coincidence that the scandal about Sinn Fein breaks, and the government release a bigger item to divert the media and public attention on the printing scandal!? There all in cohorts I tell ya!! (I say this because people moaned about the SF expenses scandal breaking as a poll shows them at 25%).

I have mixed feelings on a referendum. Firstly, we are going to get a whole range on issues being debated on the No side that have nothing to do with the treaty. A new army, abortion, everyone has to get a GPS chip implanted in them etc. The looney left always seem to bring in a raft of issues that have no connection at all with the treaty. Expect a loss of jobs and a downfall in the economy being suggested also. It makes for a depressing period.

But in good news, its not being swept under the carpet by the government like was being suggested by the above good folk. The government did as they said they would - bring it to the AG for review, wait on her recommendation and then decide what to do. They have done just that and many believed the answer would be "No Treaty folks". Instead, the good news is that the Irish will get to have a say on whether we wish to integrate further into the EU for better financial control to avoid a repeat of our current fiasco.

Its a mixed day for everyone. Those who claimed the government would not give the people a choice are disappointed that their allegation was false but on the same side they get to campaign and raise awareness of their random accusations and policies. Those who were neutral now get a chance to have a say but have to listen to a load of nonsense from the No side.

Scofflaw

Manco wrote: »

Here's hoping the electorate ignore the inevitable onslaught of threats and send it packing. Good article here:http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/the-fiscal-compact-last-chance-saloon-for-the-left/

Is this really a great argument, though?

the broader Labour members, from branch level up to TDs, are not stupid, and they’re not evil. At the moment, they’re supporting the programme of austerity as a temporary measure. They’re not holding out for common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, of course, but they are hoping (naively, in my view, but genuinely) that after a few years hardship, it will be possible to dish out the goodies again. The deficit targets in this treaty, though, mean that there will be no goodies for anyone, ever.

Didn't we dish out enough goodies during the Tiger? And do so while running a fiscal surplus? So why is dishing out goodies a great thing in the first place? And why does this Treaty make it impossible?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PCPhoto

I am pie wrote: »

No to funding ?

What are you saying No to ?

No to whatever the government want .... quite simply to inform them they need to listen to the public on the ground before making changes to our economy which affect us - they have not listened in the past and continue to ignore people when they tell the politicians to clean up their own house first then come back and take money from the rest of the country.

Politicians in this country are bleeding it dry - a simple 100K salary a year to every politician and no expenses, if you cannot commute/survive to work on 100K you should not be paid for by the public coffers..... how many politicans will suddenly stop commuting or wasting public money if it stops being public money and starts being their own money, how many will travel to "Vital" european meetings in brussels or how many will travel to visit other dignitaries ...I'm willing to claim not a whole lot of them will be willing to spend their own money.....so why should they spend/waste ours ??

View

Palmach wrote: »

No doubt there will be more "YES to jobs" mud hurled. I will not be fooled twice. NO all the way for me.

The wording of the referendum is going to be:

Vote Yes if you want to keep the constitution as it is,

or

Vote No if you don't want to keep it as it is and wanted it changed as follows.....

The government have figured out what advice SF were putting on the leaflets they have been printing and have decided to wrong-foot them.

Floppybits

Palmach wrote: »

No doubt there will be more "YES to jobs" mud hurled. I will not be fooled twice. NO all the way for me.

Enda Kenny has already stated that a vote for the treaty is a vote for jobs and better public services. :rolleyes:

http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/ireland-to-hold-referendum-on-eu-fiscal-treaty/

RandomName2

In a way it will be refreshing that it won't matter what way the electorate vote (and I don't mean that in the sense of vote again, but rather the 12 state ratification requirement).

It will remove most of the threats and scare-tactics from both sides. Arguably the vote will be mostly meaningless, but even a vote on an EU-treaty is arguably that.

average_runner

I have two questions regarding this treaty:

1) What confidence should the Irish people get from this treaty that it will help solve the bigger European Issue, when they have failed miserable so far?

2)Why did the UK say no to it. Always worry when they say no to stuff as usually call it right!!


Thanks

lucylu

average_runner wrote: »

I have two questions regarding this treaty:

1) What confidence should the Irish people get from this treaty that it will help solve the bigger European Issue, when they have failed miserable so far?

2)Why did the UK say no to it. Always worry when they say no to stuff as usually call it right!!


Thanks

Cameron sought protection for Britain's financial services industry in the UK and Sterling and didn't get it.

Scofflaw

average_runner wrote: »

I have two questions regarding this treaty:

1) What confidence should the Irish people get from this treaty that it will help solve the bigger European Issue, when they have failed miserable so far?

It won't, unless - as has been heavily hinted - signing up to this convinces the Germans to stop blocking solutions they don't like.

average_runner wrote: »

2)Why did the UK say no to it. Always worry when they say no to stuff as usually call it right!!

Their reasoning is quite complex, and very UK-centric - they didn't want the eurozone countries to increase their influence over the EU's internal market. This treaty strengthens integration among the eurozone countries, potentially creating a stronger eurogroup within the EU - so the UK's intention was to block the eurozone countries from using the EU institutions in the Fiscal Treaty, in order to prevent the eurogroup from increasing its influence on the institutions. He was prepared to make a deal on allowing it, as long as strong eurogroup influence over the internal market was prevented from affecting the position of the City in any way.

How does that apply to Ireland? It doesn't, except, I suppose, negatively, given that we're part of the eurozone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

PCPhoto wrote: »

No to whatever the government want .... quite simply to inform them they need to listen to the public on the ground before making changes to our economy which affect us - they have not listened in the past and continue to ignore people when they tell the politicians to clean up their own house first then come back and take money from the rest of the country.

Politicians in this country are bleeding it dry - a simple 100K salary a year to every politician and no expenses, if you cannot commute/survive to work on 100K you should not be paid for by the public coffers..... how many politicans will suddenly stop commuting or wasting public money if it stops being public money and starts being their own money, how many will travel to "Vital" european meetings in brussels or how many will travel to visit other dignitaries ...I'm willing to claim not a whole lot of them will be willing to spend their own money.....so why should they spend/waste ours ??

While you've some valid points in the second paragraph I fail to see the logic in the first.

Unless I'm missing something you're suggesting that one should vote no in protest regardless of one's feelings on the merits/failings of this particular treaty.

average_runner

Scofflaw wrote: »

It won't, unless - as has been heavily hinted - signing up to this convinces the Germans to stop blocking solutions they don't like.



Their reasoning is quite complex, and very UK-centric - they didn't want the eurozone countries to increase their influence over the EU's internal market. This treaty strengthens integration among the eurozone countries, potentially creating a stronger eurogroup within the EU - so the UK's intention was to block the eurozone countries from using the EU institutions in the Fiscal Treaty, in order to prevent the eurogroup from increasing its influence on the institutions. He was prepared to make a deal on allowing it, as long as strong eurogroup influence over the internal market was prevented from affecting the position of the City in any way.

How does that apply to Ireland? It doesn't, except, I suppose, negatively, given that we're part of the eurozone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for that.

Chucky the tree

PCPhoto wrote: »

No to whatever the government want .... quite simply to inform them they need to listen to the public on the ground before making changes to our economy which affect us - they have not listened in the past and continue to ignore people when they tell the politicians to clean up their own house first then come back and take money from the rest of the country.

Politicians in this country are bleeding it dry - a simple 100K salary a year to every politician and no expenses, if you cannot commute/survive to work on 100K you should not be paid for by the public coffers..... how many politicans will suddenly stop commuting or wasting public money if it stops being public money and starts being their own money, how many will travel to "Vital" european meetings in brussels or how many will travel to visit other dignitaries ...I'm willing to claim not a whole lot of them will be willing to spend their own money.....so why should they spend/waste ours ??

Why not just do this in a general election?

View

It should be mentioned that according to the EFSF website:

 A18 - Will EFSF be a permanent institution?
The EFSF has been created as a temporary institution. In accordance with its Articles of Association, the EFSF will be liquidated on the earliest date after 30 June 2013 on which there are no longer loans outstanding to a euro-area Member State and all Funding Instruments issued by EFSF and any reimbursement amounts due to Guarantors have been repaid in full.
This means that after June 2013, EFSF would not enter into any new programmes but will continue the management and repayment of any outstanding debt and will close down once all outstanding debt has been repaid.

In other words, failure to ratify means that, after June 2013, you have cut yourself off from the (the new) ESM and (the old) EFSF won't be loaning you anymore money.

Which means (I think) that we'd need to plan on relying on the global bond markets for our borrowing after that date - that might be in line with what the government says publicly but I suspect they may not fully believe it...

DeadParrot

PCPhoto wrote: »

No to whatever the government want .... quite simply to inform them they need to listen to the public on the ground before making changes to our economy which affect us - they have not listened in the past and continue to ignore people when they tell the politicians to clean up their own house first then come back and take money from the rest of the country.

Politicians in this country are bleeding it dry - a simple 100K salary a year to every politician and no expenses, if you cannot commute/survive to work on 100K you should not be paid for by the public coffers..... how many politicans will suddenly stop commuting or wasting public money if it stops being public money and starts being their own money, how many will travel to "Vital" european meetings in brussels or how many will travel to visit other dignitaries ...I'm willing to claim not a whole lot of them will be willing to spend their own money.....so why should they spend/waste ours ??

Your 1st paragraph is pretty unbalanced. No for whatever the govt. wants is a pretty blinkered way of looking at things.
Your second has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Mark200

Palmach wrote: »

Manco wrote: »

Here's hoping the electorate ignore the inevitable onslaught of threats and send it packing. Good article here:http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/the-fiscal-compact-last-chance-saloon-for-the-left/

No doubt there will be more "YES to jobs" mud hurled. I will not be fooled twice. NO all the way for me.

Whereas I only imagined the "€1.83 minimum wage" and the posters with a girl crying, saying "end to Irish Democracy"

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

It should be mentioned that according to the EFSF website:



In other words, failure to ratify means that, after June 2013, you have cut yourself off from the (the new) ESM and (the old) EFSF won't be loaning you anymore money.

Which means (I think) that we'd need to plan on relying on the global bond markets for our borrowing after that date - that might be in line with what the government says publicly but I suspect they may not fully believe it...

And may not be possible - the Davy analysis linked to earlier points out that in the absence of the EU backstop provided by the ESM, Ireland may not be seen as credibly able to handle its debt, and therefore may be unable to return to the markets:

Ireland has little choice but to ratify the treaty Ireland has little choice but to ratify the treaty. Potential access to funding support from the ESM is conditional upon ratification. Should the treaty not be ratified, the lack of a potential backstop would make any return to the bond market by the Irish government more difficult.

I'd agree, I think, with their other main point, which is not currently on the table, and wouldn't form part of the treaty in any case:

In any case, a prolonged period of fiscal consolidation for Ireland is in prospect and the treaty does not change that stark reality. There is little of substance in the treaty beyond the rules already contained in the updated Stability and Growth Pact. But the treaty does not go far enough, and Ireland should press for the adoption of the IMF's proposals to address design flaws in the euro area.

http://www.davy.ie/content/pubarticles/fiscalcompact20120227.pdf

cordially,
Scofflaw

pandaboy

I posted this up in AH as well. Here's Gilmore's address to the Dáil. This was the only vid I could find outside of RTE's live player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmsvUE0JMSo

Cardinal Richelieu

I can see this ending up as a massive protest vote from people covering a wide political spectrum because essential the result is worthless. Of course SF and ULA will try to use the result as vindication that the people support their policies for years to come.

I am pie

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

I can see this ending up as a massive protest vote from people covering a wide political spectrum because essential the result is worthless. Of course SF and ULA will try to use the result as vindication that the people support their policies for years to come.

I fear for the chances of passing this, it's too easy for the left wing to offer up a smorgasbord of 'No to stuff that the government wants / that Europe want..look wat they done' type soundbites and innuendos without really assessing the impact of voting no.

Kinski

I am pie wrote: »

I fear for the chances of passing this, it's too easy for the left wing to offer up a smorgasbord of 'No to stuff that the government wants / that Europe want..look wat they done' type soundbites and innuendos without really assessing the impact of voting no.

A Red C poll published at the end of January projected a 53/47% vote in favour if this went to a referendum.

The Waltzing Consumer

Kinski wrote: »

Interestingly, this comes a few days after Michael D. Higgins suggested that - in the absence of a referendum - he may end up referring this matter to the Council of State. I wonder if that had any bearing on the AG's advice. Perhaps our choice of President wasn't as meaningless as many made out...

Eh no. The AG is above politics so what people say, even the President, means nothing.

It is a legal and constitutional decision, that's all.

Here is the text anyway for the treaty:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/128035.pdf