Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

dvpower

Wild Bill wrote: »

The last desperate hope of the Irish Regime is now that Mr Hollande has lied his way to power as cynically as Noonan and Gilmore did.

Hollande has already rowed back on his stance on the treaty and is now looking for additions, not changes, to it to include some growth protocol to it.

I expect that he will dilute this demand over the next couple of weeks to settle for a separate growth pact to operate side by side with the treaty.

ebairead

Hi

"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty"

Am I the only one who thinks that clause extremely dangerous? Mr Noonan decides that "we can't afford Irish". Does he simply then, by decree, abolish the language? And how about property rights, say in the context of compulsory acquisition?

I think it might be open to seriously abuse.

Eoin

Stark

Mandatory euthanasia to replace retirement. No, hold on, that was Lisbon.

Gurgle

ebairead wrote: »

"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty"

As far as I know, the obligations under the treaty are to commit 1% of the fund and balance our books.

So why do they want to throw a general catch-all into it?

dvpower

Gurgle wrote: »

So why do they want to throw a general catch-all into it?

Nothing particularly new - we had similar wording in the Lisbon amendment .

28th Amendment wrote:

6. No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5 of this section or of the European Atomic Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by—
i. the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy Community, or by institutions thereof,
ii. the European Communities or European Union existing immediately before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, or by institutions thereof, or
iii. bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section,

ebairead

Because the original said "we want to be members, no matter what". And the "what" in that case was probably a good thing, given our record in areas like the environment & basic rights. This amendment says "if we think it costs money, we can dump it", and that's significantly different.

Wild Bill

dvpower wrote: »

Hollande has already rowed back on his stance on the treaty and is now looking for additions, not changes, to it to include some growth protocol to it.

An addition is a change :rolleyes:

dvpower

Wild Bill wrote: »

An addition is a change :rolleyes:

Yes. And a change to Hollande's position.

Wild Bill

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. And a change to Hollande's position.

I think not. But time will soon tell, so let's not argue about it now.

paddyandy

Many don't understand it but clever rhetoric will decide the result .Popular Democracy ! when it's at it's scariest .

Wild Bill

paddyandy wrote: »

Many don't understand it but clever rhetoric will decide the result .Popular Democracy ! when it's at it's scariest .

And unpopular democracy is.......what?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9255534/Eurozone-crisis-Angela-Merkel-forced-to-postpone-fiskalpakt-ratification.html
Eurozone crisis: Angela Merkel forced to postpone 'fiskalpakt' ratification

Angela Merkel was on Wednesday forced to postpone German ratification of the eurozone's "fiskalpakt" until after an Irish referendum on May 31 by a gathering domestic and European backlash against austerity.

Even the Germans are having second thoughts!
Unravelling faster than Dougal's sweater!

woodoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Even the Germans are having second thoughts!
Unravelling faster than Dougal's sweater!

Enda and Michael will still be getting dressed for dinner as the titanic sinks. Carry on as normal regardless. The vote must go ahead.

Scofflaw

ebairead wrote: »

Hi

"No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by the obligations of the State under that Treaty"

Am I the only one who thinks that clause extremely dangerous? Mr Noonan decides that "we can't afford Irish". Does he simply then, by decree, abolish the language? And how about property rights, say in the context of compulsory acquisition?

I think it might be open to seriously abuse.

Eoin

Gurgle wrote: »

As far as I know, the obligations under the treaty are to commit 1% of the fund and balance our books.

So why do they want to throw a general catch-all into it?

To balance the books, or at least bring them close to balance with some room left for movement, yes - but the 1% (1.5922%) is part of ESM, not the Fiscal Treaty.

As to the general catch-all - the wording ensures that it's possible for the State to carry out any obligations it has signed up to under the Treaty, because - in international law - national law (whether legislative or constitutional) isn't an acceptable reason for not fulfilling such obligations when a country has signed up to a treaty.

However, such a "catch-all" isn't anything like a catch-all in Irish law. It's a very narrow window, because to avail of the protection of such a clause, an action (be it an executive action or legislation) must be both definitely required by the treaty in question and must also be done in such a way as causes least conflict with the Constitution.

If there are two ways of meeting an obligation in a treaty, where one breaches the Constitution and the other does not, the government doesn't have the option of the first one - it can be struck down as unconstitutional despite the protective clause.

cordially,
Scofflaw

previous user

I'm votin no if it means burning the bondholders, and giving hope for our country. I'm unemployed and on the social and i'll probably get my dole cancelled if I vote no, but if it means giving all those corrupt fukers the two fingers than so be it.

blowtorch

Gurgle wrote: »

As far as I know, the obligations under the treaty are to commit 1% of the fund and balance our books.

So why do they want to throw a general catch-all into it?

Today's Indo........Eamon Gilmore's take on the ESM
"Ireland will commit itself to giving 1.6pc of the total ESM fund: around €11bn.
However, the Tanaiste insisted not all this money will need to be handed over."

Problem is that if the funds are 'needed' to bail out some country, then the 11bn could well be called upon.

Stark

Ah I'm sure Greece will pay us back if that happens.

golden lane

Stark wrote: »

Ah I'm sure Greece will pay us back if that happens.

not till portugal, italy, and spain does............

Scofflaw

blowtorch wrote: »

Today's Indo........Eamon Gilmore's take on the ESM
"Ireland will commit itself to giving 1.6pc of the total ESM fund: around €11bn.
However, the Tanaiste insisted not all this money will need to be handed over."

Problem is that if the funds are 'needed' to bail out some country, then the 11bn could well be called upon.

No, the fund capital isn't loaned. The money to be loaned is raised on the markets as and when needed. The capital is there to cover losses in the event of a default by the country being bailed out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

blowtorch

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, the fund capital isn't loaned. The money to be loaned is raised on the markets as and when needed. The capital is there to cover losses in the event of a default by the country being bailed out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm getting more and more confused now. FG and Labour are selling us this Treaty saying that the ESM will provide us funds at lower rates than the markets. But - as you said above - the fund capital isn't loaned, and it's the markets where the money is raised. So if money is raised on the markets, then isn't it market rates of interest that will be paid? - As it is, Greece seems to be precarious - probably could default - they have received bail out funds - so this fund could be rifled almost immediately?

Scofflaw

blowtorch wrote: »

I'm getting more and more confused now. FG and Labour are selling us this Treaty saying that the ESM will provide us funds at lower rates than the markets. But - as you said above - the fund capital isn't loaned, and it's the markets where the money is raised. So if money is raised on the markets, then isn't it market rates of interest that will be paid?

Yes, but not our rates. For example, the current EFSM rate to us is 2.97%, the current EFSF rate to us is 3.06%, where we would have been paying somewhere between 7-8% for similar loans direct from the market at the time.

How it works is that when the ESM goes to raise money for Ireland on the market, repayment of the market lenders isn't up to Ireland - it's covered by everyone, while Ireland's obligation is to pay back the fund. So the market lenders don't concern themselves with our capacity to pay back the money, but with the capacity of the rest of the eurozone (or all ESM countries) to do so - hence lower rates than we could get for ourselves.

blowtorch wrote: »

- As it is, Greece seems to be precarious - probably could default - they have received bail out funds - so this fund could be rifled almost immediately?

That's a genuine concern. The Greeks are into the EFSF for a total of €164bn, which will presumably be shifted to ESM, so, yes, a 50% default on the whole lot by Greece would obviously see new capital being pulled in - presumably, since the current paid-in capital is €80bn, of which Ireland's share is €1.26bn, we would wind up putting in another €1.26bn, since the fund's losses would amount to the total of paid-in capital.

Our original guarantee commitments under EFSF were actually larger, at €12.4bn, although as far as I can see those no longer apply since we're in a programme ourselves. And, of course, we already loaned the Greeks €350m bilaterally under the Greek Loan Facility.

If the Greeks default, though, it's likely, I would think, to be sooner rather than later (their bond curve is massively inverted), quite possibly before the ESM comes into operation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

blowtorch

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, but not our rates. For example, the current EFSM rate to us is 2.97%, the current EFSF rate to us is 3.06%, where we would have been paying somewhere between 7-8% for similar loans direct from the market at the time.

How it works is that when the ESM goes to raise money for Ireland on the market, repayment of the market lenders isn't up to Ireland - it's covered by everyone, while Ireland's obligation is to pay back the fund. So the market lenders don't concern themselves with our capacity to pay back the money, but with the capacity of the rest of the eurozone (or all ESM countries) to do so - hence lower rates than we could get for ourselves.



That's a genuine concern. The Greeks are into the EFSF for a total of €164bn, which will presumably be shifted to ESM, so, yes, a 50% default on the whole lot by Greece would obviously see new capital being pulled in - presumably, since the current paid-in capital is €80bn, of which Ireland's share is €1.26bn, we would wind up putting in another €1.26bn, since the fund's losses would amount to the total of paid-in capital.

Our original guarantee commitments under EFSF were actually larger, at €12.4bn, although as far as I can see those no longer apply since we're in a programme ourselves. And, of course, we already loaned the Greeks €350m bilaterally under the Greek Loan Facility.

If the Greeks default, though, it's likely, I would think, to be sooner rather than later (their bond curve is massively inverted), quite possibly before the ESM comes into operation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks Scofflaw - the explanations are appreciated.

Wild Bill

blowtorch wrote: »

Problem is that if the funds are 'needed' to bail out some country, then the 11bn could well be called upon.

Money we'd have to borrow! From who though???

steve9859

It is becoming clear now that Spain has not even begun to address it's banking issues, and it is looking like another Greece. As Yeats said, 'the centre cannot hold'.

Believe it or not, I am starting to feel sorry for Merkel, trying to hold this whole thing together.

There is no doubt IMO that Greece will exit the euro. Most who I talk to in London think it inevitable. Is just a matter of how and when, and the IMF will be called in. Anyone who argues otherwise does not have a grasp of basic math. No big deal tho: the CDS have already been triggered and bonds have already been significantly written down.

But after that, who knows. Spain is screwed and no-one is even talking about Italy yet. I am in the UK now, and am anticipating buying very cheap euros or possibly Punts in the next couple of years.

It makes a joke of the fiscal treaty that the Irish are being asked to vote on!!

paddyandy

How many people in this country understand the treaty ? Will the Electorate be swayed by blind anger and coaxed along by slick rhetoric .Then what is the worst possible scenario within a few years .We won't go there ?

blackdog2

I will vote no, because there is no point in voting for bad law, the proposed treaty is already out of date, and I have no doubt in my mind that it shall be renegotiated.

A yes vote writes bad law into our books.

That people say we have a gun to our heads etc is nonsense. The only consequence of a gun being fired at us would be an even larger bailout from Germany... and less of a chance of them being repaid...

Wompa1

neil_hosey wrote: »

this explained it for me...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0419/1224314926338.html

I call shennanigans since they reference two lecturers from Irish third level institutes. Products of a broken system themselves. F'k em

My name is URL

lol @ Enda Kenny refusing to go on Vincent Browne to debate the treaty.. poor man had his feelings hurt when Vincent suggested that he go into a dark room with a revolver and a bottle of whiskey!

Good on ya, Enda.. a man of many principles! Or just a complete chicken **** that knows he'll be turn apart by Vincent in such a debate.

Anyone remember that time when Kenny called (jokingly of course, as if it matters) Patrice Lumumba a nigger, and then asked journalists not to report it? And he has the nerve to take the moral high ground over a throwaway comment made by Browne.. The sniveling little shite of a man.

Richard tea

My name is URL wrote: »

lol @ Enda Kenny refusing to go on Vincent Browne to debate the treaty.. poor man had his feelings hurt when Vincent suggested that he go into a dark room with a revolver and a bottle of whiskey!

Good on ya, Enda.. a man of many principles! Or just a complete chicken **** that knows he'll be turn apart by Vincent in such a debate.

Anyone remember that time when Kenny called (jokingly of course, as if it matters) Patrice Lumumba a nigger, and then asked journalists not to report it? And he has the nerve to take the moral high ground over a throwaway comment made by Browne.. The sniveling little shite of a man.

As mentioned on the radio yesterday, Enda is only suited to local political work. The usual stuff like getting the potholes fixed and doing a fundraiser for a small playground. He is in power because of the back lash from FF. The little git is even sending info out by post & has it titled '' the stability treaty'' As far as im aware the treaty is called the fiscal compact treaty?

dvpower

Richard tea wrote: »

The little git is even sending info out by post & has it titled '' the stability treaty'' As far as im aware the treaty is called the fiscal compact treaty?

It isn't.