Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Referendum on Fiscal Treaty confirmed
Options
Comments
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »NO sovereignty should be given away EVER without the express consent of the Irish people.
Personally I'd be happy to vote on introducing such budgetary restrictions to be honest (although I do agree that they should be emphasizing stimulus over austerity, but even so the restrictions are definitely a good idea).
My issue with it is that it once again involves acknowledging the self styled king and queen of Europe. No one else wanted this thing. I refuse to accept that membership of the EU means "Merkozy's way or the highway". That's not what it's meant to be about.
That's not actually the case, though - the main opponent of giving the original Stability & Growth Pact automatic sanctions has been France (which is partly why the sanctions are only semi-automatic), and there are other supporters of it besides Germany. I'd agree, though, that the treaty reflects German thinking on the crisis more than anyone else's.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Well I do think that a lot of people are suffering, but you are absolutely right.
I'd have to agree as well. I think what people are calling "austerity budgets" are rather more a case of not keeping people in the boom style to which they were accustomed during a recession. It's hard to see that very much more than that has actually happened.
It's also hard to see that the distribution of what little austerity there has been has been particularly uneven.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I think what people are calling "austerity budgets" are rather more a case of not keeping people in the boom style to which they were accustomed during a recession. It's hard to see that very much more than that has actually happened
True. I think there's still a lot we're used to as a country that we could do without, A real austerity budget is something like the one Greece has just had to implement, with thousands of police, health workers, and front line public service staff being let go, benefits slashed, and taxes hiked by huge amounts for anyone still in a job.
Without being glib though, whos to say that some measure of this won't be necessary for us in the future? If what's in the Fiscal treaty is to be believed word for word, If we vote "no" then we'll have no access to EFSF or (for the moment) money market funding, and we will have to have a properly austere set of budgets driven by our own government's need to balance the books internally, and if we vote "yes",then there's a decent possibility that Mrs Merkel and co will come in and do exactly the same thing to us to bring us to our 0.5% target as the treaty demands, but without any regard for or interest in the implications for our economy or our society.
Is it a case of, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't? I still can't find any clarification on what level of power the EU would have to make those fiscal corrections on top of our current cutbacks, and crucially, over what timeframe they could be made.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »True. I think there's still a lot we're used to as a country that we could do without, A real austerity budget is something like the one Greece has just had to implement, with thousands of police, health workers, and front line public service staff being let go, benefits slashed, and taxes hiked by huge amounts for anyone still in a job.
Without being glib though, whos to say that some measure of this won't be necessary for us in the future? If what's in the Fiscal treaty is to be believed word for word, If we vote "no" then we'll have no access to EFSF or (for the moment) money market funding, and we will have to have a properly austere set of budgets driven by our own government's need to balance the books internally, and if we vote "yes",then there's a decent possibility that Mrs Merkel and co will come in and do exactly the same thing to us to bring us to our 0.5% target as the treaty demands, but without any regard for or interest in the implications for our economy or our society.
Is it a case of, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't? I still can't find any clarification on what level of power the EU would have to make those fiscal corrections on top of our current cutbacks and crucially, over what timeframe.
I believe that this is about the size of it. If we vote no then we default and we accept the consequences.
Or we vote yes, still default but have the fund to fall back on, but we still have to accept the consequences.
Under no circumstances will we be continually and indefinitely funded to spend how we are still spending - that simply will not happen.0 -
If we vote 'No' it does mean no Access to European Funds but that does not atomactically mean Default...If we needed a 2nd bailout the IMF can provide for us on their terms...and with all the contagion talk over the last few years does anyone seriosuly believe the EU wouldn't support Ireland if we posed a risk to other European states if we defaulted.0
-
Advertisement
-
TheSpecialOne wrote: »If we vote 'No' it does mean no Access to European Funds but that does not atomactically mean Default...If we needed a 2nd bailout the IMF can provide for us on their terms...and with all the contagion talk over the last few years does anyone seriosuly believe the EU wouldn't support Ireland if we posed a risk to other European states if we defaulted.
Yes, it means no access to the fund- personally I think a default is inevitable (i will be called something else) but I suppose the fear is that we will then end up like Greece, they may help us out, eventually, but at what cost.
Do we want to take that risk?0 -
Ireland is in Europe, isn’t it?Deleted User wrote: »I guess my attitude re: playing hardball etc, comes from a long history of being bullied by europe into making decisions that are in europe's best interests.
Ireland’s economy is not “in the gutter” by any stretch – a record trade surplus is expected for 2011:...the economy is in the gutter...
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0119/1224310446277.html
Ireland’s problems stem from 1) massive government over-spending, which is not helped by 2) the large number of unemployed people who are in dire need of re-training. Getting the public finances in order is achievable, but getting people “up-skilled”, when in many cases they may be unwilling, is a major challenge.
The cutbacks have to be made regardless – Ireland’s current account deficit is totally unsustainable.Deleted User wrote: »Without being glib though, whos to say that some measure of this won't be necessary for us in the future?0 -
-
Ireland is in Europe, isn’t it?
Ireland’s economy is not “in the gutter” by any stretch – a record trade surplus is expected for 2011:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0119/1224310446277.html
It's not enough to pull the whole economy with it unfortunately.The cutbacks have to be made regardless – Ireland’s current account deficit is totally unsustainable.
I think you'll notice if you look back at my posts that this is the point that I have been making.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Well that depends on what you mean by "the whole economy". I know this is stating the obvious to a large extent, but the downturn in Ireland’s economy is largely due to the collapse of the construction sector. That sector ain’t coming back, at least not any time soon or at the same level at which it existed previously. No amount of growth in other sectors (several of which are performing really well) is going to “pull up” the construction sector. The challenge, as I said, is rectifying the mismatch between skills available and skills required that currently exists in Ireland. Several companies have plans to expand their operations, largely due (rather ironically) to the abundance of cheap office space available in Ireland at present:It's not enough to pull the whole economy with it unfortunately.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-21/dublin-office-market-set-to-revive-as-facebook-google-add-space.html
I think a lot of those jobs, if created, are going to be filled by overseas applicants (and not impact on unemployment levels to a great extent), for the simple reason that a large percentage of unemployed people in Ireland most likely lack the necessary skills that these jobs will require. But, more jobs leads to more jobs, so even some of those who don’t up-skill may benefit indirectly. The problem is a lot will not. That, for me, is Ireland’s big challenge going forward – what do you do with a large number of relatively low-skilled, unemployed young people, many of whom are unwilling to retrain?0 -
Article 32 of the fiscal pact
3. The ESM, its property, funding and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that the ESM expressly waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract, including the documentation of the funding instruments.
4. The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.
5. The archives of the ESM and all documents belonging to the ESM or held by it, shall be inviolable.
I am far from being a Eurosceptic but as someone who has long been concerned about a lack of democracy and accountability at the heart of the EU and who watched with horror as an Irish government committed the Irish people to a bank bail-out without ever feeling the need to put the decision to the electorate I find the proposed creation of any organisation which is placed above the law to be unacceptable.
I simply cannot vote yes to any agreement that contains clauses like those in article 32.0 -
Well that depends on what you mean by "the whole economy". I know this is stating the obvious to a large extent, but the downturn in Ireland’s economy is largely due to the collapse of the construction sector. That sector ain’t coming back, at least not any time soon or at the same level at which it existed previously. No amount of growth in other sectors (several of which are performing really well) is going to “pull up” the construction sector.
Well what I don't mean is the construction sector - that is your view. And in my opinion it was the bursting of the housing market and the downturn in the economy that led to that collapse of the construction sector, not the other way around. We neglected our manufacturing base and put all our eggs in one basket - property.The challenge, as I said, is rectifying the mismatch between skills available and skills required that currently exists in Ireland. Several companies have plans to expand their operations, largely due (rather ironically) to the abundance of cheap office space available in Ireland at present:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-21/dublin-office-market-set-to-revive-as-facebook-google-add-space.html
It's not ironic that companies are availing of "cheaper" (not cheap by the way) office space, it's proof that competitive commercial rents (much like competitive house prices) are good for the economy- not bad.
One part of the challange is to get people off the dole and back into retraining and hopefully employment, another is to free people from mortgage debt allowing them to move to jobs, we have a huge amount of people stuck in properties miles away from where work is.
Another part is to radically change how we pay SW - at the moment people are afraid to take up employment because they lose all their entitlements, they should be weaned off SW over a 12 month period.I think a lot of those jobs, if created, are going to be filled by overseas applicants (and not impact on unemployment levels to a great extent), for the simple reason that a large percentage of unemployed people in Ireland most likely lack the necessary skills that these jobs will require.
You mean the Irish abroad might be tempted to come home?But, more jobs leads to more jobs, so even some of those who don’t up-skill may benefit indirectly. The problem is a lot will not. That, for me, is Ireland’s big challenge going forward – what do you do with a large number of relatively low-skilled, unemployed young people, many of whom are unwilling to retrain?
See my reference to SW - it is not because the do not want to - they are caught in the SW trap.
Also how do you know there is a large number of relatively low skilled people unwilling to retrain? Where did you pick that up - genuinely curious?0 -
I don't think the IMF actually could or would supply us with the full amount necessary. We have to think of the wider implications of voting "no" as well.TheSpecialOne wrote: »If we vote 'No' it does mean no Access to European Funds but that does not atomactically mean Default...If we needed a 2nd bailout the IMF can provide for us on their terms...and with all the contagion talk over the last few years does anyone seriosuly believe the EU wouldn't support Ireland if we posed a risk to other European states if we defaulted.
Remember that as it stands, there is no provision for a country to leave the Eurozone without also leaving the EU. I have yet to hear a good, rational and logical argument for why we should leave the EU.
The people who are voting "no" are, for the most part, thinking they are sticking it to the government rather than actually voting on something with massive and serious consequences to themselves and the rest of the country. This is a problem with referenda in general; the public vote blindly based on irrational thought processes.0 -
I think you've actually quoted Article 27. Article 32 states:Bannasidhe wrote: »I simply cannot vote yes to any agreement that contains clauses like those in article 32.2. The Board of Governors shall decide on any dispute arising between an ESM Member and the ESM, or between ESM Members, in connection with the interpretation and application of this Treaty, including any dispute about the compatibility of the decisions adopted by the ESM with this Treaty. The votes of the member(s) of the Board of Governors of the ESM Member(s) concerned shall be suspended when the Board of Governors votes on such decision and the voting threshold needed for the adoption of that decision shall be recalculated accordingly.
3. If an ESM Member contests the decision referred to in paragraph 2, the dispute shall be submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be binding on the parties in the procedure, which shall take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment within a period to be decided by said Court.0 -
-
An excellent piece by Thomas Moerman on the treaty.
To quote a part that seems to be raised as a concern:Thomas Moerman wrote:The EU will not eat your babies
There are some things in the treaty (click for the pdf) that are a bit difficult to understand. Scary to read them even. The main concerns of people on the internet: immunity of the institution and the fear that they can increase their callable capital to infinite, destructive, unlimited amounts of euro’s in order to dominate the world with only a select group of fat, rich bankers. Let’s take a look at the text and see where this fear comes from.Artice 27.3:
The ESM, its property, funding and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that the ESM expressly waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract, including the documentation of the funding instruments.
Immunty? From every form of judicial process? So they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT?
First of all, in the world of international institutions this is not so strange. For example, the EU has similar immunities, as does the ECB, as does the UN (click, see article 105). Institutions like this sometimes take decisions and actions that not everybody likes, but are – in their judgment – better for us all on the long run. The idea is that these organizations enjoy these immunities because they are necessary for their effective functioning. But perhaps this information just makes it scarier.
But. Of course the ESM is not immune to everything but kryptonite. Why would our national leaders sign such a treaty? Seems like a silly thing to do. That’s why, if you choose to read carefully and not to give in to any panic attacks after article 27.3, you’ll notice these articles in the exact same treaty:Article 32
2. The Board of Governors shall decide on any dispute arising between an ESM Member and the ESM, or between ESM Members, in connection with the interpretation and application of this Treaty, including any dispute about the compatibility of the decisions adopted by the ESM with this Treaty. The votes of the member(s) of the Board of Governors of the ESM Member(s) concerned shall be suspended when the Board of Governors votes on such decision and the voting threshold needed for the adoption of that decision shall be recalculated accordingly.
3. If an ESM Member contests the decision referred to in paragraph 2, the dispute shall be submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be binding on the parties in the procedure, which shall take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment within a period to be decided by said Court.
That’s right. First, our national representatives in the ESM, the Board of Governors, get to say something about any disputes. If an ESM Member (a member state) disagrees, they can go to the European Court of Justice. The judgment of the Court of Justice shall be binding. Bam. There it is. It’s that simple.
But those fat bankers that are running it. What about them? What about their immunity?Article 30.1
In the interest of the ESM, the Chairperson of the Board of Governors, Governors, alternate Governors, Directors, alternate Directors, as well as the Managing Director and other staff members shall be immune from legal proceedings with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity and shall enjoy inviolability in respect of their official papers and documents.
It’s related to things they are doing in their official capacity. If banker John kills his colleague, he is not immune. If he evades tax, he is not immune.
Okay. So the ESM does not hold complete immunity. That’s settled. But what about this then:Article 10.1
The Board of Governors shall review regularly and at least every five years the maximum lending volume and the adequacy of the authorised capital stock of the ESM. It may decide to change the authorised capital stock and amend Article 8 and Annex II accordingly. Such decision shall enter into force after the ESM Members have notified the Depositary of the completion of their applicable national procedures. The new shares shall be allocated to the ESM Members according to the contribution key provided for in Article 11 and in Annex I.
What?! 700.000.000.000 euro is not enough? The Board of Governors (synonym for corrupt bankers) can change the amount of money at any time, forcing the member states to pay EVEN MORE MONEY?!?!?!
First of all I’d like to repeat the question I‘ve asked earlier: why would our national leaders agree on such a thing? It seems like a silly thing to do.
What is important here is the word authorized capital stock. Authorized capital stock is the money (capital) that the institution is allowed (authorized) to have (stock). The authorized capital stock, the maximum amount of money the ESM can have, is equal to, as stated in article 8.1, seven hundred billion euro. That’s not a new number for us, is it?
But. But. But. It says it can amend article 8. So the amount of money can be changed. Yes. You got that right. But please read further: “Such decision shall enter into force after the ESM Members have notified the Depositary of the completion of their applicable national procedures.” National procedures, you know, those things our national governments have to do whatever they do in order to pass an amendment. Usually that means a parliamentary majority is needed. Not in the European Parliament, no, in our very own national parliaments.
So.. the ESM is there to fix the economy, not to rule the world and steal our money?
I think so, yes.
*Note: my emphasis0 -
I think you've actually quoted Article 27. Article 32 states:TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN STABILITY MECHANISM
BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM, THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA, IRELAND, THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG, MALTA, THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS, THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA, THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC AND THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND
ARTICLE 32
Legal status, privileges and immunities
1. To enable the ESM to fulfil its purpose, the legal status and the privileges and immunities set out in this Article shall be accorded to the ESM in the territory of each ESM Member. The ESM shall endeavour to obtain recognition of its legal status and of its privileges and immunities in other territories in which it performs functions or holds assets.
2. The ESM shall have full legal personality; it shall have full legal capacity to:
(a) acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property;
(b) contract;
(c) be a party to legal proceedings; and
(d) enter into a headquarter agreement and/or protocols as necessary for ensuring that its legal status and its privileges and immunities are recognised and enforced.
3. The ESM, its property, funding and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that the ESM expressly waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract, including the documentation of the funding instruments.
4. The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.
5. The archives of the ESM and all documents belonging to the ESM or held by it, shall be inviolable.
http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/582311/05-tesm2.en12.pdf0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »An excellent piece by Thomas Moerman on the treaty.
To quote a part that seems to be raised as a concern:
*Note: my emphasis
I'm afraid Moerman has failed to calm my fears.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »I'm afraid Moerman has failed to calm my fears.
He has calmed mine. I had expected that these things were normal features of international organisations.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »
We're not voting on the ESM Treaty, though. The referendum is on the Fiscal Stability Treaty.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »And is it not the purpose of the FST to create the ESM?
Er, no. The ESM Treaty creates the ESM, and needs only parliamentary ratification.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Fianna Fail deptuty leader resigns his position.0
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »So one has nothing to do with the other?
If you mean can the ESM be created without the FST, yes. The relationship between them is that ratification of the FST by a country is necessary in order for that country to access ESM funding.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
If you mean can the ESM be created without the FST, yes. The relationship between them is that ratification of the FST by a country is necessary in order for that country to access ESM funding.
cordially,
Scofflaw
This would be the ESM that is above any law - unless it decides it isn't - and is run by unelected officials yes?
So unless the FST is ratified we can't be bailed out by the ESM- so by voting yes we are implicitly accepting the terms and conditions as laid down in the ESM Treaty.
I do not accept those terms.
I am sick of hidden terms and conditions.
I am sick of faceless, unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats taking decisions that affect the lives of millions.
I am sick of being bullied by Irish government scare tactics and being urged to show Europe what good puppies we are.
I am sick of Irish governments making us vote again when we chose the 'wrong' answer - as Shatter has indicated may well be the case if we choose incorrectly this time http://www.thejournal.ie/shatter-refuses-to-rule-out-second-fiscal-treaty-referendum-if-voters-say-no-368834-Feb2012/.0 -
To me, the issue isn't the treaty or the budget restrictions, but the methods that Irish politicians choose to reach those, and the fact that they gladly integrate other people's debts into ours.
If and when an Irish government chooses to do things ethically, enforcing THEIR OWN BUDGET CAPS on THEMSELVES, THEN I'll vote for something to prevent future incompetent, self-interested dimwits from wasting cash.
But until FG stop breaking their own rules and taxing me to pay for those, then it's a firm no from me.
Now, if the referendum included government obligations to not break their own caps and not arbitrarily allocate salaries and "expenses" on a whim while screwing the rest of us to foot the bill, THEN I might take it seriously.
As it is, it's farcical and solves nothing.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »This would be the ESM that is above any law - unless it decides it isn't - and is run by unelected officials yes?
Not really - the fund is responsible to the governments. I would imagine they will probably not elect the people who actually run it on a day to day basis.
As to being above the law - Moerman is right, and you are wrong, I'm afraid.Bannasidhe wrote: »So unless the FST is ratified we can't be bailed out by the ESM- so by voting yes we are implicitly accepting the terms and conditions as laid down in the ESM Treaty.
You can vote yes or no - it won't make the slightest bit of difference to the terms of the ESM.Bannasidhe wrote: »I do not accept those terms.
I'm afraid that won't either.Bannasidhe wrote: »I am sick of hidden terms and conditions.
You have access to the ESM Treaty, which contains the ESM's terms and conditions.Bannasidhe wrote: »I am sick of faceless, unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats taking decisions that affect the lives of millions.
What, like the Irish civil service?Bannasidhe wrote: »I am sick of being bullied by Irish government scare tactics and being urged to show Europe what good puppies we are.
You can vote Yes or No without anyone in Europe caring much one way or the other. The effects will be felt here, not elsewhere - I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it's the case anyway.Bannasidhe wrote: »I am sick of Irish governments making us vote again when we chose the 'wrong' answer - as Shatter has indicated may well be the case if we choose incorrectly this time http://www.thejournal.ie/shatter-refuses-to-rule-out-second-fiscal-treaty-referendum-if-voters-say-no-368834-Feb2012/.
Eh, that's something they're legally entitled to do. If the referendum returns a No, I imagine we'd have a second referendum as soon as it becomes clear that we need access to the ESM. Nobody else in Europe will be pressurising us, but, yes, I imagine the government would, what with needing money and all.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/02/29/uk-ireland-referendum-idUKTRE81S1F220120229
Reuters think this referendum wil hinder our chances of recovery especially since we were begiining to be the posters boys in the EU. Why did the AG decide we need a referendum?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement