Referendum on Fiscal Treaty confirmed

Godge

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?

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/.

I think you missed Scofflaw's point. The ESM Treaty will be ratified by the Oireachtas, it will come into existence whether or not the referendum is passed. It has nothing to do with the referendum.

In fact, it seems to me (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that if the Oireachtas votes in the ESM Treaty and the electorate reject the FST Treaty, we will be obliged to fund/guarantee future bailouts of other countries but we will not be able to avail of such bailouts ourselves. In fact we will have to borrow at high rates on the markets (because we are outside the FST) while others borrow our money at lower rates!!! If that is right, voting no will be a real case of shooting oneself in the head. But don't let that stop you voting no because you don't like what you describe as Irish government scare tactics (which may in fact actually be the truth).

by the way, what are the hidden terms and conditions if you and/or Scofflaw have been able to get the full details from the web?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

Another principled person voting on the merits of the treaty. No scratch that, you are actually voting no and jeopardising the future of the country and our children and grandchildren because a handful of people are overpaid and because FF (now hounded out of office) guaranteed the banks. Wow, that is some principle, pass me the spilt milk.

Godge

femur61 wrote: »

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?

You can also say the other way around that a strong yes vote by Ireland would give a confidence boost to the market, to the European project and thereby help our recovery.

Bannasidhe

So once again we are being told we have no choice.
Apparently, the government will ratify whether we agree or not - they are just going through the motions. Shades of the so-called debate on SOPA in the Dáil eh?

If we don't do as we are told - Europe will abandon us. Is that like Lisbon will bring jobs?

Democracy my arse.

This is beyond big government.
This is the removal of the right of the citizen to decide whether or not we agree to have our fiscal policy determined by bureaucrats in Europe.

I don't actually care what Europe thinks about how I vote - I care about how I vote and I will be voting no as I do not wish to hand over control of our finances, in perpetuity, to unelected, unaccountable, officials and a 'mechanism' that has placed itself above any law.

As far as I am aware - I still have that right.

FreudianSlippers

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So once again we are being told we have no choice.
Apparently, the government will ratify whether we agree or not - they are just going through the motions. Shades of the so-called debate on SOPA in the Dáil eh?

If we don't do as we are told - Europe will abandon us. Is that like Lisbon will bring jobs?

Democracy my arse.

This is beyond big government.
This is the removal of the right of the citizen to decide whether or not we agree to have our fiscal policy determined by bureaucrats in Europe.

I don't actually care what Europe thinks about how I vote - I care about how I vote and I will be voting no as I do not wish to hand over control of our finances, in perpetuity, to unelected, unaccountable, officials and a 'mechanism' that has placed itself above any law.

As far as I am aware - I still have that right.

Europe isn't going to "abandon" us. If we want to continue within the Eurozone, I don't see how we can continue to do so without ratifying this treaty. The point follows that there is no current mechanism that allows for a country to leave the Eurozone without also leaving the EU.

It's not a threat, it's reality.

The rest of what you're saying is more than a slight over-reaction to the situation.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So once again we are being told we have no choice.
Apparently, the government will ratify whether we agree or not - they are just going through the motions. Shades of the so-called debate on SOPA in the Dáil eh?

If we don't do as we are told - Europe will abandon us. Is that like Lisbon will bring jobs?

Democracy my arse.

This is beyond big government.
This is the removal of the right of the citizen to decide whether or not we agree to have our fiscal policy determined by bureaucrats in Europe.

I don't actually care what Europe thinks about how I vote - I care about how I vote and I will be voting no as I do not wish to hand over control of our finances, in perpetuity, to unelected, unaccountable, officials and a 'mechanism' that has placed itself above any law.

As far as I am aware - I still have that right.

No they are not ratifying whether we agree or not - there are two separate provisions.

As for the potential effects of the treaty, have a read of this article, it explains it very well. Too many people rely on hysterical misunderstandings of the treaty promulgated by organisations such as SF or the ULA

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/02/repaying-debt.html

Scofflaw

femur61 wrote: »

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?

Essentially, I think it's because while we've previously agreed to similar limits under the EU Stability & Growth Pact (as part of Maastricht), we're now - technically and legally - agreeing to them in a different legal context. That is, while the people we'd be entering the FST with are all EU Member States, they're not the EU as such.

The basis of Crotty, in simple terms, is that whenever the government agrees to in some new way restrict its freedom to exercise its powers, the consent of the people (from whom those powers derive, and which are only delegated to the government) is required.

So even though the government - and the people at referendum - have previously agreed to the same limitations on the government's budget deficits and debt (and hence their power to freely choose Ireland's fiscal course), they made those agreements in a different legal context. The AG presumably looked at the Maastricht amendment as only covering such an agreement with the EU and within the EU - which is to look at such agreements and amendments as only covering the particular agreement (Maastricht) explicitly mentioned in the amendment. To my mind, that's the right way to look at it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

No they are not ratifying whether we agree or not - there are two separate provisions.

As for the potential effects of the treaty, have a read of this article, it explains it very well. Too many people rely on hysterical misunderstandings of the treaty promulgated by organisations such as SF or the ULA

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/02/repaying-debt.html

I haven't read a blessed thing either SF or ULA have said about it. I read the Treaties. I am not hysterically misunderstanding phrases like

Article 9 section 3

When a potential shortfall in ESM funds is detected, the Managing Director shall make such capital call(s) as soon as possible with a view to ensuring that the ESM shall have sufficient funds to meet payments due to creditors in full on their due date. ESM Members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally undertake to pay on demand any capital call made on them by the Managing Director pursuant to this paragraph, such demand to be paid within seven (7) working days of receipt of such demand.

7 days???? We could be expected to provide billions within 7 days??? From where exactly?

Or

Article 4 section 6 :

The voting rights of each ESM member, as exercised by its appointee or representative on the Board of Governors or Board of Directors, shall be equal to the number of shares allocated to it in the authorized capital stock of the ESM as set out in Annex 2 to this treaty.

'Our' voting share will be 1.5922%.

The Waltzing Consumer

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I haven't read a blessed thing either SF or ULA have said about it. I read the Treaties. I am not hysterically misunderstanding phrases like

7 days???? We could be expected to provide billions within 7 days??? From where exactly?

Or
'Our' voting share will be 1.5922%.

Where are you getting that text by the way? I don't see it in the draft linked.

Scofflaw

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Where are you getting that text by the way? I don't see it in the draft linked.

Bannasidhe is quoting the ESM Treaty, not the Fiscal Stability Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Waltzing Consumer

Scofflaw wrote: »

Bannasidhe is quoting the ESM Treaty, not the Fiscal Stability Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But we are not voting on that, why is quoting that if it is not in the picture yet? This is what creates the confusion and lies, someone will read it and assume it is the fiscal treaty.

Mods, can we not remove it and have a referendum thread that removes anything that is actually 100% wrong and not in the treaty we are voting on?

Liam Byrne

Godge wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

Another principled person voting on the merits of the treaty. No scratch that, you are actually voting no and jeopardising the future of the country and our children and grandchildren because a handful of people are overpaid and because FF (now hounded out of office) guaranteed the banks. Wow, that is some principle, pass me the spilt milk.

Excuse me ? The treaty is farcical; it imposes limits without imposing fair ways in which those limits should be achieved.

And it's not just FF either; the current shower continue to waste our cash, with the EU allowing this and also supporting ordinary people having to pay others' debts.

Neither of the above is fit to impose any austerity or fiscal limits on anyone until they agree to do it fairly.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

Strange, i got the exact opposite from watching Vincent Browne. I don't believe that Europe would have the balls to cut us off from our last source of funding after we've been such good boys and started to pay our bills, regardless of what they say, especially after how they bent over backwards to look after Greece after it's continued shambolic mismanagement of it's finances, just to keep the € together. In my mind, that takes away a lot of the fear of the big stick of banishment from access to the stability fund, which is their main threat if we vote no. It would be as much against their interest as against ours if that happened, as the next best course of action for us then would be to leave the common currency and start to print our own money, which would be a political and financial disaster for them and for the €.

Going on how the previous guidelines lacked teeth and by the looks of it effectiveness (after all we met them all repeatedly until 07/08), I'd say that part will be largely ignored politically. The compromise will be if countries are broadly going in the right direction, politicians wont recommend sanction. I read a piece recently suggesting these targets will not have to be met to about 2018 anyway.

If we vote No, well we are kind of in a strange limbo, wanting another bail out but not willing to abide by the new rules. IMO something similar will be part of the conditions for another bail out anyway, so the question is: do we want these rules in our constitution long term?

Secondly, the issue of the forced austerity, and the timeline for it being undefined in the treaty is crucial. We would lose further control of our own finances and infrastructural investment & job creation spending. Regardless of the SWP's moral stance against any further austerity, which in my opinion is neither here nor there, further austerity of the kind that would be required to get us down to a 0.5% deficit from where we are currently could completely cripple the domestic economy here and entirely stunt the growth that we are hoping against hope to achieve. There doesn't seem to be anything to say that that austerity couldn't be forced on us literally overnight, with a crude "slash and burn"attitude to the public sector and a disregard for any consequences to our domestic economy. It is a measure which would seem to have been put in place by Germany for German and European interests, to keep european defecits down and cut the cost of bailouts without any real appreciation of what daily life on the ground in Ireland is like, or any kind of acceptance that it takes two types of people to create a debt crisis-those who borrow too much, but also those who lend too much.

If we meet the current bail out conditions we'll have gone a significant way in meeting these conditions by 2015 anyway. The capital expenditure part would worry me, I think it should be open to Governments to decide to cut or tax more in a certain area and put the savings in spending on infrastructural areas it sees as worthy. I'd need to read the treaty on that particular issue.

Without a proper definition of any scale, timeline or restrictions on what further austerity measures would look like, this agreement, should we sign up to it, could actually necessitate a second bailout for ireland through completely stunted economic growth, which would play us further into the hands of Germany and the people who control the stability fund.

We'll know probably by next year if the current measures are working. Personally I don't hold out much hope for internal growth in the next couple of years anyway and I don't really see an alternative to austerity. The Governments choices on how to implement it? Yes, I think there is a choice there. On actually trying to meet the targets and an alternative to austerity? I don't see it.

What's the alternative? We borrow more? Adding more to high debt levels and deficits? Unless we get them basically interest free I don't see the benefit.

Thirdly, the issue of the treaty being designed in such a way as it will go ahead with or without our agreement is totally against the rule and ethos of the european project, and in effect will create a 2-tier europe of those who ratify it and those who don't, with access to different levels of sovreign rights, powers, and levels of financial assistance. This is not what we signed up to when we joined the union, and our constitution protects us from the goalposts being moved in such a fashion without our say so, which is why i suspect the Attorney general was of the opinion that a referendum was called for. I also suspect the FG/Lab government might be playing a long game here, knowing that this treaty in it's current form is not likely to pass an Irish vote, and angling for Europe to sweeten the pot by defining dates and time frames for any forced austerity, and even (heaven forbid) actually ASKING for a write-down of the bank debts we've been crippled by which are as much Europe's doing as they are ours. I think we'll see some movement on EU positions towards Ireland either during the campaign, or should a no vote arise, afterwards in the run up to any second referendum which might happen.

What we signed up to when we joined the Union and where we are now are completely different Unions. We already have a 2 tier Europe as regards the Euro and those outside it.

As regards the banking debts, as far as I can see that's an ECB problem. Loans to Irish banks have dropped significantly in the last year but its still a huge figure. I can't see how Irish banks can be expected to significantly pay back that level of funding and operate as "normal" banks. The ECB will say that's a different issue to this Treaty and they probably are right.

I'm still undecided on how I'll vote, but logical reasons like these aside, i also have moral reservations about what I've heard from Europe so far to justify a yes vote. To my mind, the kind of friend that forces us to go ahead with something that's clearly more in their immediate interest than it is ours and who holds a vague threat of leaving us out in the dark over us in order to get their way isn't the kind of friend that i want to have.

Well this not being in our interest is a subjective opinion. Unfortunately austerity seems to be the one opinion coming out of Brussels not just on Ireland, but on all the countries in difficulty. Is this a particular threat on Ireland? I don't think so though I know its a popular narrative and consistent with all EU Referenda I'm familiar with.

Back in school, the name we had for that kind of friend was a bully, and bullies don't respect people who roll over and do as they're told, they only respect strength and courage, and the will to be stubborn and fight against a forced agenda. Based on the current mood, i think Ireland is sick of being bullied by Europe, and i think that's what a lot of Irish people intend to show Europe on polling day unless a much better reason not to than we have at the moment is made clear.

I suppose that is one way of looking at it. I look at it as something akin to MABS. They ask you to do certain things when you are in difficulty financially and put certain conditions on your income and expenditure. I don't think they are bullying people but again it ties in with the Germans and French bullying the rest of Europe, which is odd to me as Sarkozy and Merkel have significant differences of opinions on the solutions as well.

K-9

Godge wrote: »

No they are not ratifying whether we agree or not - there are two separate provisions.

As for the potential effects of the treaty, have a read of this article, it explains it very well. Too many people rely on hysterical misunderstandings of the treaty promulgated by organisations such as SF or the ULA

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/02/repaying-debt.html

That's the piece I was thinking of for the first part of my last post. Well worth reading as an example of the possible economic impact of the Treaty.

daltonmd

http://irishdebate.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/the-fiscal-compact-with-professor-of-finance-brian-m-lucey/

Really interesting and informative from Brian Lucey.

Well worth a listen.

RandomName2

Godge wrote: »

In fact, it seems to me (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that if the Oireachtas votes in the ESM Treaty and the electorate reject the FST Treaty, we will be obliged to fund/guarantee future bailouts of other countries but we will not be able to avail of such bailouts ourselves. In fact we will have to borrow at high rates on the markets (because we are outside the FST) while others borrow our money at lower rates!!! If that is right, voting no will be a real case of shooting oneself in the head. But don't let that stop you voting no because you don't like what you describe as Irish government scare tactics (which may in fact actually be the truth).

Could someone clarify the above?

carveone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Essentially, I think it's because while we've previously agreed to similar limits under the EU Stability & Growth Pact (as part of Maastricht), we're now - technically and legally - agreeing to them in a different legal context. That is, while the people we'd be entering the FST with are all EU Member States, they're not the EU as such.

While I kind of get that in a legal sense, it does blow my mind from a techy viewpoint. Like a subset not being equivalent to the superset even if the subset contains all the members of the set (sorry, bit nerdy that). Can I assume that the absense of the UK and the Czech Republic has little bearing on the decision - ie: it's not a case of "If everyone in the EU isn't in, then it's not the EU"?

So it's more a case of taking the view that "EU members" deciding on a course of action collectively, even if it's all 27 of them, (including us) and even if it's just retracing similar actions taken previously and voted on previously, is the not the same as an decision by the "EU". That's very lawyery

carveone

RandomName2 wrote: »

Originally Posted by Godge
In fact, it seems to me (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that if the Oireachtas votes in the ESM Treaty and the electorate reject the FST Treaty, we will be obliged to fund/guarantee future bailouts of other countries but we will not be able to avail of such bailouts ourselves. In fact we will have to borrow at high rates on the markets (because we are outside the FST) while others borrow our money at lower rates!!! If that is right, voting no will be a real case of shooting oneself in the head. But don't let that stop you voting no because you don't like what you describe as Irish government scare tactics (which may in fact actually be the truth).

Could someone clarify the above?

Well, I assume ratification of the ESM by the Oireachtas as a given so it does look that what Godge says is true (as much as I know about the ESM, which isn't enough). But given the existence of the EFSF and our existing commitment to that (wikipedia says €12bn) then...er... ok, I'm lost now. Has Ireland actually put any money into the EFSF? Would that commitment be binding even if the fiscal compact failed here? I've no clue - I've still wading through CONSCIOUS and RECALLING and BEARING IN MIND...

One thing seems sure, politicians will be happily mushing the ESM and FSC together to suit whatever argument they want to make.

Hotblack Desiato

Can I assume that the absense of the UK and the Czech Republic has little bearing on the decision - ie: it's not a case of "If everyone in the EU isn't in, then it's not the EU"?

So it's more a case of taking the view that "EU members" deciding on a course of action collectively, even if it's all 27 of them, (including us) and even if it's just retracing similar actions taken previously and voted on previously, is the not the same as an decision by the "EU". That's very lawyery

If all members agree to do something - the EU institutions can be used

If not all agree - the EU institutions can be used if the members not participating agree to that.

If some members don't want to participate and don't want to allow the rest to proceed using the EU institutions, then a mechanism not using the EU institutions has to be found. Thanks to Call-me-Dave, this is where we are and is probably the only reason a referendum is needed.

Hotblack Desiato

carveone wrote: »

But given the existence of the EFSF and our existing commitment to that (wikipedia says €12bn) then...er... ok, I'm lost now. Has Ireland actually put any money into the EFSF?

12bn is our maximum commitment if the full fund is drawn down, the idea of course of having a huge fund is to prevent speculators from even trying to beat you, so you end up using little or none of it.

We would have contributed some small proportion of what was lent out to Greece first time around, I'm not sure if the fact that we were already in a bailout when Greece2 and Portugal came around, gave us a let off? It makes no real difference anyway.

carveone

ninja900 wrote: »

If some members don't want to participate and don't want to allow the rest to proceed using the EU institutions, then a mechanism not using the EU institutions has to be found. Thanks to Call-me-Dave, this is where we are and is probably the only reason a referendum is needed.

Ah yes! Forgot about the EU institutions thing. I guess the AG decided that, since the UK vetoed that path, the agreement with the remaining 25 didn't count as the "EU" as the EU institutions weren't, couldn't, be used. And that involved a restriction of freedom (or whatever you want to call it) with a new legal entity. All very subtle.

Thanks Ninja900, makes more sense to me now.

Plus: Sorry, yes, I meant to say 12bn is our existing maximum commitment - quite a difference. I guess most states have made commitments but are all hoping not to have to cough up. A virtual Panzerfaust if you will.

Lou.m

RandomName2 wrote: »

In fact, it seems to me (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that if the Oireachtas votes in the ESM Treaty and the electorate reject the FST Treaty, we will be obliged to fund/guarantee future bailouts of other countries but we will not be able to avail of such bailouts ourselves. In fact we will have to borrow at high rates on the markets (because we are outside the FST) while others borrow our money at lower rates!!! If that is right, voting no will be a real case of shooting oneself in the head. But don't let that stop you voting no because you don't like what you describe as Irish government scare tactics (which may in fact actually be the truth). Could someone clarify the above?

The Fiscal treaty is what is being voted on ..the ESM treaty..is separate and as far as i understand it will be subjected to the same inspection by the AG....

By the way non Euro countries have access to the ESM in certain circumstances i think...so saying if we reject the FC treaty we dont get access is not accurate

The Oireachtas could not simply pass the ESM treaty....it would go through the same process but the Fiscal compact sets it up....

But the esm treaty includes collection action clauses meaning if we default the debt does not go back to its place of origin...Germany takes no losses...meaning we could not use default as leverage....

But if we say no....then that doe not mean we don't have access ....it would actually mean we would have access to funds under better circumstances possibily

But the ESM as far as i understand is a separate treaty ...and would beundr the same scrutiny by the AG

Here is something about the ESM TREATY REFERENDUM...http://www.people.ie/eu/esmref.pdf

THIS IS TO TRST THE MOOD OF THE PEOPLE REALLY!!

Scofflaw

Just a quick mod point. Posts like this:

U be stoopied paddy and boneless.

Watch you country burn

are just going to be deleted because they're mindless low-quality rubbish, and they'll likely be infracted for the same reason. Don't post this kind of stuff, it contributes absolutely nothing to the debate.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Lou.m

carveone wrote: »

Well, I assume ratification of the ESM by the Oireachtas as a given so it does look that what Godge says is true (as much as I know about the ESM, which isn't enough). But given the existence of the EFSF and our existing commitment to that (wikipedia says €12bn) then...er... ok, I'm lost now. Has Ireland actually put any money into the EFSF? Would that commitment be binding even if the fiscal compact failed here? I've no clue - I've still wading through CONSCIOUS and RECALLING and BEARING IN MIND...

One thing seems sure, politicians will be happily mushing the ESM and FSC together to suit whatever argument they want to make.

It is clearly confusing since both the EFSM and the ESM are part of EU Treaties but the EFSF is not; but the distinction is clear.

TheEFSF is a temporary measure which the germans worry is not legal...in the longterm....it paves the way for the ESM which is why we hear nothing will change and we have already signed up WE HAVE NOT...it was a temporary measure...the ESM is a permant mechanism

The ESM is in the form of an international treaty (already signed but not yet ratified) binding only on the countries parties to it - the EZ 17 - but which will require an amendment to the Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (for an explanation as to why this should be necessary, an explanation is best sought from Germany which insisted upon it) which has to be approved by all 27 member states of the EU. The 27 countries have already indicated that they are agreeable to this. In the case of the UK, the recently adopted legislation on "sovereignty", by a lucky coincidence, stipulates that agreements that do not bind the UK are not caught by any referendum requirement.

It will however probably be caught by Ireland for a referendum...

By the way Ireland may not be the only country about the ESM...it is an amendment to the treay insisted by germany ...so actually it makes referenda more likely

K-9

ninja900 wrote: »

12bn is our maximum commitment if the full fund is drawn down, the idea of course of having a huge fund is to prevent speculators from even trying to beat you, so you end up using little or none of it.

We would have contributed some small proportion of what was lent out to Greece first time around, I'm not sure if the fact that we were already in a bailout when Greece2 and Portugal came around, gave us a let off? It makes no real difference anyway.

We did contribute to Greece as we had no bail out at that stage. My understanding is a country doesn't have to contribute once it is bailed out. Don't quote me on that.

Scofflaw

Lou.m wrote: »

The Fiscal treaty is what is being voted on ..the ESM treaty..is separate and as far as i understand it will be subjected to the same inspection by the AG....

By the way non Euro countries have access to the ESM in certain circumstances i think...so saying if we reject the FC treaty we dont get access is not accurate

I'm afraid it is accurate - non-euro countries that ratify the Fiscal Stability Treaty will have access, but euro countries that don't, won't.

Lou.m wrote: »

The Oireachtas could not simply pass the ESM treaty....it would go through the same process but the Fiscal compact sets it up....

No, it can simply go through the Oireachtas. There has been no suggestion it requires a referendum.

Lou.m wrote: »

But the esm treaty includes collection action clauses meaning if we default the debt does not go back to its place of origin...Germany takes no losses...meaning we could not use default as leverage....

No, it means that losses are shared according to the shares the country has in the ESM.

Lou.m wrote: »

But if we say no....then that doe not mean we don't have access ....it would actually mean we would have access to funds under better circumstances possibily

No, it means we don't have access:

STRESSING the importance of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism as an element of a global strategy to strengthen the Economic and Monetary Union and POINTING OUT that the granting of assistance in the framework of new programmes under the European Stability Mechanism will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of this Treaty by the Contracting Party concerned and, as soon as the transposition period mentioned in Article 3(2) has expired, on compliance with the requirements of this Article,

Lou.m wrote: »

But the ESM as far as i understand is a separate treaty ...and would beundr the same scrutiny by the AG

Been done, last year as far as I'm aware.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Lou.m wrote: »

It is clearly confusing since both the EFSM and the ESM are part of EU Treaties but the EFSF is not; but the distinction is clear.

TheEFSF is a temporary measure which the germans worry is not legal...in the longterm....it paves the way for the ESM which is why we hear nothing will change and we have already signed up WE HAVE NOT...it was a temporary measure...the ESM is a permant mechanism

The ESM is in the form of an international treaty (already signed but not yet ratified) binding only on the countries parties to it - the EZ 17 - but which will require an amendment to the Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (for an explanation as to why this should be necessary, an explanation is best sought from Germany which insisted upon it) which has to be approved by all 27 member states of the EU. The 27 countries have already indicated that they are agreeable to this. In the case of the UK, the recently adopted legislation on "sovereignty", by a lucky coincidence, stipulates that agreements that do not bind the UK are not caught by any referendum requirement.

It will however probably be caught by Ireland for a referendum...

By the way Ireland may not be the only country about the ESM...it is an amendment to the treay insisted by germany ...so actually it makes referenda more likely

As far as I know, no referendum is expected on the ESM Treaty at all, since there are no sovereignty elements in it. It requires Oireachtas ratification because it "involves a charge upon public funds".

The ESM Treaty is not an EU Treaty, but, like the Fiscal Stability Treaty, is intergovernmental. It involved the following change to TFEU Article 136:

The member states whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality.

There are, again, no sovereignty implications in that change - nor does the change grant any new powers to the EU. The change has been agreed by all the Member States.

cordially,
Scofflaw

washman3

Godge wrote: »

This post is ridiculous. How will our deficit be financed if we vote no?

If you want social welfare cut by 50%, if you want public service pay cut by 20%, if you want income tax increased by 10%, vote no.

Funny to see the vasted interests crawl out of the woodwork.:)

In the same way as our deficit is being financed at the moment.!!
It's not, its actually being increased by the minute. the "tranches" of bailout funds forwarded to us now by the troika are loans in case you've forget, loans that must be repaid at a penal rate.
our deficit will only be reduced when we get a total write-off of bank debt from Europe. then we can tackle the sovereign debt,which over time can be handled.
Think Eamon O'Cuiv has put many of your theories to bed.:D
(was never a fan of his but admire him today)

oscarBravo

washman3 wrote: »

In the same way as our deficit is being financed at the moment.!!
It's not, its actually being increased by the minute.

If it's increasing, it's being financed. We are borrowing to pay for our deficit. If we can't borrow, the deficit will have to go away with a big bang, and that means austerity in the real sense of the word.

K-9

washman3 wrote: »

the "tranches" of bailout funds forwarded to us now by the troika are loans in case you've forget, loans that must be repaid at a penal rate.

What rate are you basing a penal rate on?

our deficit will only be reduced when we get a total write-off of bank debt from Europe. then we can tackle the sovereign debt,which over time can be handled.

Only?

We could try and get a handle on the deficit first, which after all is the recurring, annual problem in our finances, banking debt has reached its nadir, barring Credit Unions and PTSB.

Think Eamon O'Cuiv has put many of your theories to bed.:D
(was never a fan of his but admire him today)

Hmmm, in fairness to Martin and as an observer of Haughey and FF during the 80's referenda on Abortion and Divorce in particular, O'Cuiv is playing typical FF cute hoorism, ala Haughey. Martin has always been pro EU. To me O'Cuiv is playing Haughey political opportunism and feck principes and I'd say a political heave is first and foremost in his mind.

As Francis Urqhart would say, "You might well think that, I couldn't possibly comment"!

K-9

Martin has always been pro EU, but also capable of doing his own thing on Palestine and the flotilla and passports question.

Compare that to O'Cuiv's line on foreign or social matters and if it comes down to a personality debate within FF, well..............

I give out about Enda and how FG have took a step back from 30 years ago from Garret's social reforming agenda, so about the 50's, wait till you see O'Cuiv's agenda!

DeV and Costelloe but with no Browne or MacBride.