Govt Yes Leaflet

Fenian Army

Did anyone else get the govt yes vote leaflet today? Its an info leaflet full of yes arguments but it doesnt say from whom.

Very underhanded, it looks like it was published by the referendum commission and as far as I can see doesn't say who published it. It tells people to go to stabilitytreaty.ie hence I'm assuming its from the govt.

I don't have a camera or a scanner, if anyone does and got this leaflet could they upload it?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Fenian Army wrote: »

Did anyone else get the govt yes vote leaflet today? Its an info leaflet full of yes arguments but it doesnt say from whom.

Very underhanded, it looks like it was published by the referendum commission and as far as I can see doesn't say who published it. It tells people to go to stabilitytreaty.ie hence I'm assuming its from the govt.

I don't have a camera or a scanner, if anyone does and got this leaflet could they upload it?

Are any of the arguments in it unfounded, incorrect or misleading?

Fenian Army

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Are any of the arguments in it unfounded, incorrect or misleading?

I'm voting No so I don't agree with the arguments but the issue is that it looks like it is independent advice, say from the referendum commission, because it doesn't say who published it.

Its presented as an information leaflet and as far as I remember it doesn't tell you to vote yes or no directly but the arguments are all yes ones if you follow...

The Waltzing Consumer

Fenian Army wrote: »

Did anyone else get the govt yes vote leaflet today? Its an info leaflet full of yes arguments but it doesnt say from whom.
?

Is that not a clue? :rolleyes:

Fenian Army

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Is that not a clue? :rolleyes:

Help if you read the thread instead of jumping in with smart comments... I said its a govt publication because it links to the govt site... people unfamiliar with things wouldnt know it was a govt leaflet.

The Waltzing Consumer

Fenian Army wrote: »

Help if you read the thread instead of jumping in with smart comments... I said its a govt publication because it links to the govt site... people unfamiliar with things wouldnt know it was a govt leaflet.

Does the word Government not help in all this? Are you presuming someone who see's a government leaflet with government links can't understand?

I worry sometimes...

Fenian Army

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Does the word Government not help in all this? Are you presuming someone who see's a government leaflet with government links can't understand?

I worry sometimes...

It doesnt say govt.... thats the whole point. But it is a govt one, I'm assuming, because it tells you to go to the govt site.

The Waltzing Consumer

Fenian Army wrote: »

It doesnt say govt.... thats the whole point. But it is a govt one, I'm assuming, because it tells you to go to the govt site.

will we call the Gardai or something?

How many front groups does the SWP have? How many front groups have SF also had?

This was widely announced across the media and it has links to the Government site.

Fenian Army

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

will we call the Gardai or something?

How many front groups does the SWP have? How many front groups have SF also had?

This was widely announced across the media and it has links to the Government site.

http://politico.ie/irish-politics/8506-is-the-governments-referendum-information-campaign-constitutional.html


I take it you havent got one, and dont have a scanner and/or a camera to upload it.
Thanks for all the help.

The Waltzing Consumer

Fenian Army wrote: »

http://politico.ie/irish-politics/8506-is-the-governments-referendum-information-campaign-constitutional.html


I take it you havent got one, and dont have a scanner and/or a camera to upload it.
Thanks for all the help.

You're welcome

Notice how you said zero about the actual content of the leaflet, only try to cause some stir about who made it despite being well publicised it was government made and the fact you knew it was the government and the fact it has links to the government websites.

Funny that.

Fenian Army

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

You're welcome

Notice how you said zero about the actual content of the leaflet, only try to cause some stir about who made it despite being well publicised it was government made and the fact you knew it was the government and the fact it has links to the government websites.

Funny that.

Yeah, asking people to upload it had nothing whatsoever to do with people being able to take a look at said content...

The Waltzing Consumer

Fenian Army wrote: »

Yeah, asking people to upload it had nothing whatsoever to do with people being able to take a look at said content...

what about a link to the website? or is the leaflet radically different? Does it mention the referendum commission if you think it is trying to mimic it? Where are the similarities? Can you not post a few of them?

K-9

Fenian Army wrote: »

Did anyone else get the govt yes vote leaflet today? Its an info leaflet full of yes arguments but it doesnt say from whom.

Very underhanded, it looks like it was published by the referendum commission and as far as I can see doesn't say who published it. It tells people to go to stabilitytreaty.ie hence I'm assuming its from the govt.

I don't have a camera or a scanner, if anyone does and got this leaflet could they upload it?

Is it the one that can be downloaded on the website?

http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie/index.php/en/media/article/governments_stability_treaty_guide_delivery_underway_to_every_home/

Fenian Army

K-9 wrote: »

Is it the one that can be downloaded on the website?

http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie/index.php/en/media/article/governments_stability_treaty_guide_delivery_underway_to_every_home/

Nope, its a new one

meglome

Fenian Army wrote: »

Did anyone else get the govt yes vote leaflet today? Its an info leaflet full of yes arguments but it doesnt say from whom.

Very underhanded, it looks like it was published by the referendum commission and as far as I can see doesn't say who published it. It tells people to go to stabilitytreaty.ie hence I'm assuming its from the govt.

I don't have a camera or a scanner, if anyone does and got this leaflet could they upload it?

I genuinely hate to get into this who was worst talk but there are posters all over town from groups I have never heard of before and all looking for a no. And there isn't a statement on one of them that isn't a lie or a misdirection.

What we should be really concerned about is whether the contents are factual or not. Are they factual?

Fenian Army

meglome wrote: »

I genuinely hate to get into this who was worst talk but there are posters all over town from groups I have never heard of before and all looking for a no. And there isn't a statement on one of them that isn't a lie or a misdirection.

What we should be really concerned about is whether the contents are factual or not. Are they factual?

See the link I posted earlier, Eoin Daly explains it rather well...

The Waltzing Consumer

Fenian Army wrote: »

See the link I posted earlier, Eoin Daly explains it rather well...

That's from the 25th of April. You said this is a new leaflet and not the one on their website.

Have to say, it is extremely disappointing that you are not actually telling us how it is mimicking the referendum commission or what the content is. We are two pages in and you are trying to make a big deal of something and not disclosing any info about this leaflet.

later12

K-9 wrote: »

Is it the one that can be downloaded on the website?

http://www.stabilitytreaty.ie/index.php/en/media/article/governments_stability_treaty_guide_delivery_underway_to_every_home/

Presumably this was printed by the Oireachtas as opposed to one of the parties?

Is it appropriate to have official insignia on documents which use terms like "good housekeeping" and "renewed confidence" to describe the Treaty - descriptions which are likely to be quite contentious - during a Referendum campaign?

meglome

Fenian Army wrote: »

See the link I posted earlier, Eoin Daly explains it rather well...

Didn't read it all but it appears he's complaining that the money was spent and that's it's biased but I can't actually see where it's biased. What is the bias he's concerned about?

And of course that ignores his piece is about the last leaflet and not any new one. Not to mention Sinn Fien complaining about bias I take with large a pinch of salt.

the groutch

was it the one delivered along with your polling card?
if so then there might be grounds for complaint.

Fenian Army

later12 wrote: »

Presumably this was printed by the Oireachtas as opposed to one of the parties?

Is it appropriate to have official insignia on documents which use terms like "good housekeeping" and "renewed confidence" to describe the Treaty - descriptions which are likely to be quite contentious - during a Referendum campaign?

add in, among others, "responsible budgeting".

At least that document says its from the govt, this leaflet doesn't and presents itself as impartial, independent advice when it is anything but.

meglome

Fenian Army wrote: »

add in, among others, "responsible budgeting".

At least that document says its from the govt, this leaflet doesn't and presents itself as impartial, independent advice when it is anything but.

We still don't know what's on the fluppin leaflet.

Fenian Army

meglome wrote: »

We still don't know what's on the fluppin leaflet.

Hopefully someone will upload it, I'm not typing the whole thing out and dont want to be accused of taking things out of context.

Basically it says it will bring investment and jobs, it will ensure responsible budgeting and "good house keeping" leading to reduced debt thus having more to spend on hospitals etc and goes on about the ESM also.

djh2009

meglome wrote: »

We still don't know what's on the fluppin leaflet.

Now you do.

Treatyjpg.jpg

djh2009

While we're at it, can anyone explain why, in the preamble to the main treaty are we referred to as Ireland rather than The Republic Of Ireland. Did we get a united Ireland as part of the deal too ?That might help swing it.lol

Fenian Army

djh2009 wrote: »

Now you do.

Treatyjpg.jpg

The other side is the same but in Irish

djh2009

Fenian Army wrote: »

The other side is the same but in Irish

I can scan and post that also if anyone wants it.

later12

djh2009 wrote: »

While we're at it, can anyone explain why, in the preamble to the main treaty are we referred to as Ireland rather than The Republic Of Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland is not the name of the country; Ireland is its constitutional name.

djh2009

later12 wrote: »

The Republic of Ireland is not the name of the country; Ireland is its constitutional name.

Thanks for that. The reason I asked is that all the other countries mentioned are listed like "The Republic Of Bulgaria", The Kingdom Of Belgium", etc.

PS : Love your location in your profile.lol

djh2009

When phrases like “Stability for the Euro “, “Good Housekeeping “, “Job creators need currency stability …….to create jobs “(where have we heard that one before, remember Lisbon 2), “ This would provide a safety net against future economic problems” and on , and on are used it’s hardly rocket science to work out what the intention of this “information” leaflet is. And I for one would like to know , who has paid for the production and distribution of this.

Fenian Army

djh2009 wrote: »

When phrases like “Stability for the Euro “, “Good Housekeeping “, “Job creators need currency stability …….to create jobs “(where have we heard that one before, remember Lisbon 2), “ This would provide a safety net against future economic problems” and on , and on are used it’s hardly rocket science to work out what the intention of this “information” leaflet is. And I for one would like to know , who has paid for the production and distribution of this.

You have. Its produced by the govt.

djh2009

Fenian Army wrote: »

You have. Its produced by the govt.

I thougt we had a Referendum Commission for all that. Talk about overkill .......at my expense.:mad:

K-9

djh2009 wrote: »

Now you do.

Treatyjpg.jpg

Seems like a shorter version of the bigger one. I don't know what the rules or guidelines are. We've the Referendum Commission leaflet for impartiality, this one explaining the Governments position, SF and Farage's leaflets so I don't see a big issue practically.

Fenian Army

K-9 wrote: »

Seems like a shorter version of the bigger one. I don't know what the rules or guidelines are. We've the Referendum Commission leaflet for impartiality, this one explaining the Governments position, SF and Farage's leaflets so I don't see a big issue practically.

People, like my grandfather who brought it to my attention, may think that THIS leaflet is the one from the referendum commission and thus impartial etc. Its an easy mistake to make if you don't follow things or use the net like many elderly people.

It has the state harp on it and doesn't say that it is a govt publication. I addition there is the constitutional question explored in the article I linked earlier.

later12

djh2009 wrote: »

When phrases like “Stability for the Euro “, “Good Housekeeping “, “Job creators need currency stability …….to create jobs “(where have we heard that one before, remember Lisbon 2), “ This would provide a safety net against future economic problems” and on , and on are used it’s hardly rocket science to work out what the intention of this “information” leaflet is. And I for one would like to know , who has paid for the production and distribution of this.

If it's the same as the Government's stabilitytreaty.ie website - and physically it has the same layout and is available on that website - then it will have been paid out of public money.

There look to be genuine questions about impartiality and the McKenna judgement on that leaflet & booklet, if they are publicly funded documents. One would assume this is something the parties' referendum teams have examined and signed off on, so there is a natural inclination to think there is no problem here. But I genuinely don't understand how terms like "good housekeeping" and other contentious language could be seen as impartial.

SandStone

Firstly, the leaflet is clearly designed to be confused with the Referendum Commission leaflet. It uses these tactics to mislead:

1. It does not say who produced it, but has a harp to hint at being "official".
2. It does not explicitly call for a Yes vote (or a No vote).
3. It is reproduced in full in Irish on the reverse side.
4. It does not have the names or logos of the government parties.

Secondly, it is not impartial: it does not discuss any disadvantages to the treaty. But then why would the government issue an impartial information leaflet when the Commission has already done so?

I did not receive a Referendum Commission leaflet at my address, but I did receive this government leaflet, and at first I thought it was the Commission's leaflet.

Godge

djh2009 wrote: »

While we're at it, can anyone explain why, in the preamble to the main treaty are we referred to as Ireland rather than The Republic Of Ireland. Did we get a united Ireland as part of the deal too ?That might help swing it.lol

When using English, Ireland is the official name of the State.

djh2009 wrote: »

When phrases like “Stability for the Euro “, “Good Housekeeping “, “Job creators need currency stability …….to create jobs “(where have we heard that one before, remember Lisbon 2), “ This would provide a safety net against future economic problems” and on , and on are used it’s hardly rocket science to work out what the intention of this “information” leaflet is. And I for one would like to know , who has paid for the production and distribution of this.

Hang on, those phrases are correct. The treaty will provide better "stability for the Euro", it will require "Good Housekeeping", it is also true that "Job creators need currency stability.....to create jobs", that is simple Leaving Cert economics. if you have an unstable currency, people are reluctant to invest. The safety net against future economic problems is the only one I have a little difficult with but overall the leaflet reads as a true and fair interpretation of the Treaty.

Certainly when you compare it to simple-minded posters from the SF/ULA axis of ignorance around the place that talk about rejection of water charges, household charges and bailing out banks, this leaflet is certainly much closer to the truth despite my minor quibbles. Which particular part of the leaflet is saying something that is untrue?

SandStone wrote: »

Firstly, the leaflet is clearly designed to be confused with the Referendum Commission leaflet. It uses these tactics to mislead:

1. It does not say who produced it, but has a harp to hint at being "official".
2. It does not explicitly call for a Yes vote (or a No vote).
3. It is reproduced in full in Irish on the reverse side.
4. It does not have the names or logos of the government parties.

Secondly, it is not impartial: it does not discuss any disadvantages to the treaty. But then why would the government issue an impartial information leaflet when the Commission has already done so?

I did not receive a Referendum Commission leaflet at my address, but I did receive this government leaflet, and at first I thought it was the Commission's leaflet.

I have read the Referendum Commission website and I cannot see anywhere on that website where they discuss any disadvantages to the treaty. In fact, I have yet to see any evidence of any real true disadvantage to the treaty (as opposed to the misleading lies put out by most of the "No" campaign").

It has been shown repeatedly on these boards that once we get through the current programme of austerity up until 2015 which we are already committed to, then the process to meet the Treaty's requirements is relatively straightforward. Secondly, nobody on the "No" side, either here or in the media has produced a credible explanation as to who will lend Ireland money in 2013 and 2014 without us having to cut social welfare and public service pay by 25%. Now if you favour that kind of austerity, maybe you should vote No.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

If it's the same as the Government's stabilitytreaty.ie website - and physically it has the same layout and is available on that website - then it will have been paid out of public money.

There look to be genuine questions about impartiality and the McKenna judgement on that leaflet & booklet, if they are publicly funded documents. One would assume this is something the parties' referendum teams have examined and signed off on, so there is a natural inclination to think there is no problem here. But I genuinely don't understand how terms like "good housekeeping" and other contentious language could be seen as impartial.

I'd have to agree with that. If the booklet has been produced with government funds, as opposed to party funds, then phrases like "good housekeeping" are not neutral. "Balanced Budgets" would have been acceptable.

Was it printed along with the RefComm material as part of this contract? If not, I can't see any other government tender it could have been.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SandStone

Godge wrote: »

I have read the Referendum Commission website and I cannot see anywhere on that website where they discuss any disadvantages to the treaty.

But the Commission doesn't promote perceived advantages of the treaty either, as the government leaflet does.

In fact, I have yet to see any evidence of any real true disadvantage to the treaty (as opposed to the misleading lies put out by most of the "No" campaign").

...

You're going off topic. There are plenty of other threads debating the merits of voting Yes or No. This thread was started to discuss the transparency and appropriateness of the government leaflet.

Godge

SandStone wrote: »

But the Commission doesn't promote perceived advantages of the treaty either, as the government leaflet does.

You're going off topic. There are plenty of other threads debating the merits of voting Yes or No. This thread was started to discuss the transparency and appropriateness of the government leaflet.

When I read the Government leaflet, I see it translating formal referendum commission language into everyday understandable language. Thus

"If a country spends more than it gets in income in any one year, it has a “general government deficit", and "The Treaty proposes to add to the current EU rules on government deficits" on the referendum commission website translate into "good housekeeping".

No contradiction in terms, no misleading, simple restatement of the Referendum Commission's language. How is that restatement of the same thing is in its common everyday form "promoting perceived advantages"?

Again I see no mention of household charge, water charge, €6 bn austerity, bank bailout etc. on the referendum commission's website so no mention of those in the Government leaflet as we all know they have nothing to do with the Treaty.

Godge

SandStone wrote: »

But the Commission doesn't promote perceived advantages of the treaty either, as the government leaflet does.

You're going off topic. There are plenty of other threads debating the merits of voting Yes or No. This thread was started to discuss the transparency and appropriateness of the government leaflet.

Actually, just thought of something. Maybe the referendum commission should add to its website some q and as about what the treaty is not about. For example:

Q. Will the Treaty affect the introduction of water charges?
A. Nothing in the Treaty affects the introduction of water charges.

Q. Will anything in the Treaty affect or change the implications of Brian Lenihan's decision in September 2008 to guarantee the banks?
A. No

Q. Does the Treaty mean that Ireland will require another €6 bn in austerity beyond what has already been committed to.
A. No sane economist believes this is so. In fact, some economists believe that even if the disastorous economic growth conditions of the 1980s were to return, we would still not need any extra austerity.


And so on and so on.

The Waltzing Consumer

Fenian Army wrote: »

It has the state harp on it and doesn't say that it is a govt publication. I addition there is the constitutional question explored in the article I linked earlier.

As far as I remember, that was about the website because it has links to speeches advocating the yes side from TDS. SF brought this up and said it was in brwach of McKenna, the Government then removed the videos.

As for the leaflet, if it is just information, then it is not breaking any rules, if it is funded by political parties and not taxpayers, then again it is not breaking any rules.

More then likely, the whole yes and no side can probably claim lots of it back in expenses anyway.

As for the confusion for who it is, yeah I would certainly like to see front groups done away with in this or any campaign. So that is one front group for the Government and about 100 front groups that SF and SWP have.

blowtorch

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd have to agree with that. If the booklet has been produced with government funds, as opposed to party funds, then phrases like "good housekeeping" are not neutral. "Balanced Budgets" would have been acceptable.

Was it printed along with the RefComm material as part of this contract? If not, I can't see any other government tender it could have been.

cordially,
Scofflaw

http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/emblems.htm = Down a bit in that page, 'The harp is confined to Government Departments and Government agencies'
+ stabilitytreaty.ie is registered to Department Of The Taoiseach.

So this leaflet comes directly from the Taoiseach's department, and therefore fromthe Government. Not Fine Gael. stabilitytreaty.ie is also registered to the Department of the Taoiseach. looking through the leaflet...

in the 'What The Treaty Is Aimed At' They say that the ESM is a fund of €500bn.
The main page of the leaflet tells us that we should have received a copy. It then tells us that the leaflet 'is aimed at informing you before polling day' (So, if we've already got a copy of the full treaty text, we've been informed already).

In the Access to Assistance Funding, the leaflet tells us that it is necessary to rafity 'to continue to be able to access EU assistance funding through the new European Stability Mechanism (ESM). We don't access funding through the ESM, so how can we continue to do so?. The ESM fund isn't set up yet either.

The interesting phrase though (for me anyway) is 'It will require Ireland to put in place in National Laws to ensure we manage our budget responsibility'.

Now - are we not capable of putting in place National Laws ourselves? Why should the EU have to force us to do so.

That's getting away from the point a bit - but this leaflet has the same amount of text on it that an A4 page would have, and this is meant to 'inform' us before polling day.

Shame on the Government to deliver this to us. Afraid to own up to it's publication - no address. The €700bn ESM becomes €500bn. What kind of knops let this leaflet out?

As it's a Government department that has sent this leaflet, not giving the complete picture - weighted towards a 'yes', then the McKenna judgement should kick in?

The Waltzing Consumer

blowtorch wrote: »

http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/emblems.htm = Down a bit in that page, 'The harp is confined to Government Departments and Government agencies'
+ stabilitytreaty.ie is registered to Department Of The Taoiseach.

So this leaflet comes directly from the Taoiseach's department, and therefore fromthe Government. Not Fine Gael. stabilitytreaty.ie is also registered to the Department of the Taoiseach. looking through the leaflet...

in the 'What The Treaty Is Aimed At' They say that the ESM is a fund of €500bn.
The main page of the leaflet tells us that we should have received a copy. It then tells us that the leaflet 'is aimed at informing you before polling day' (So, if we've already got a copy of the full treaty text, we've been informed already).

In the Access to Assistance Funding, the leaflet tells us that it is necessary to rafity 'to continue to be able to access EU assistance funding through the new European Stability Mechanism (ESM). We don't access funding through the ESM, so how can we continue to do so?. The ESM fund isn't set up yet either.

The interesting phrase though (for me anyway) is 'It will require Ireland to put in place in National Laws to ensure we manage our budget responsibility'.

Now - are we not capable of putting in place National Laws ourselves? Why should the EU have to force us to do so.

That's getting away from the point a bit - but this leaflet has the same amount of text on it that an A4 page would have, and this is meant to 'inform' us before polling day.

Shame on the Government to deliver this to us. Afraid to own up to it's publication - no address. The €700bn ESM becomes €500bn. What kind of knops let this leaflet out?

As it's a Government department that has sent this leaflet, not giving the complete picture - weighted towards a 'yes', then the McKenna judgement should kick in?

Well if so, take it to court then, I am sure SF would have if they could, why don't they? They threatened to take it to court to remove videos on the website and that worked, why not now? It would be a huge victory, great publicity, win win for SF and No vote. Why don't they? Because the Government probably did nothing wrong or illegal.

As for your shame comment, SF and the socialist parties have about a million different front groups for every occassion and do this to confuse people, where is your anger there? This is one group which had links to Government sites, symbols of the Government and registered by the Government. The Government have also been on radio/tv/print talking about this site, these leaflets for quite some time. But let the fake outrage continue.

the groutch

I can confirm btw that this was being delivered with polling cards
a call to Joe might be in order

dvpower

blowtorch wrote: »

The €700bn ESM becomes €500bn. What kind of knops let this leaflet out?

I think the ESM fund is €500bn and EFSF money already committed is €200bn that will be rolled into the ESM.

Scofflaw

blowtorch wrote: »

http://www.djei.ie/science/ipr/emblems.htm = Down a bit in that page, 'The harp is confined to Government Departments and Government agencies'
+ stabilitytreaty.ie is registered to Department Of The Taoiseach.

So this leaflet comes directly from the Taoiseach's department, and therefore fromthe Government. Not Fine Gael. stabilitytreaty.ie is also registered to the Department of the Taoiseach. looking through the leaflet...

OK.

blowtorch wrote: »

in the 'What The Treaty Is Aimed At' They say that the ESM is a fund of €500bn.
The main page of the leaflet tells us that we should have received a copy. It then tells us that the leaflet 'is aimed at informing you before polling day' (So, if we've already got a copy of the full treaty text, we've been informed already).

In the Access to Assistance Funding, the leaflet tells us that it is necessary to rafity 'to continue to be able to access EU assistance funding through the new European Stability Mechanism (ESM). We don't access funding through the ESM, so how can we continue to do so?. The ESM fund isn't set up yet either.

That's wrong, but not for the reasons you have it! We are accessing "EU assistance financing", and if you consider the ESM as "EU" then the ESM is where such assistance financing would come from. The ESM is not actually "EU", though - that should say "European", as, ideally, should the first bit (the EFSF isn't EU either).

blowtorch wrote: »

The interesting phrase though (for me anyway) is 'It will require Ireland to put in place in National Laws to ensure we manage our budget responsibility'.

Now - are we not capable of putting in place National Laws ourselves? Why should the EU have to force us to do so.

Er, they're not "forcing us" - we're voting on whether we agree to do it. Next Thursday.

blowtorch wrote: »

That's getting away from the point a bit - but this leaflet has the same amount of text on it that an A4 page would have, and this is meant to 'inform' us before polling day.

Shame on the Government to deliver this to us. Afraid to own up to it's publication - no address. The €700bn ESM becomes €500bn. What kind of knops let this leaflet out?

Again, as pointed out already, that's accurate. The ESM is €500bn in addition to the EFSF's €200bn. Only when the latter is rolled into the former does the full amount become €700bn.

blowtorch wrote: »

As it's a Government department that has sent this leaflet, not giving the complete picture - weighted towards a 'yes', then the McKenna judgement should kick in?

I think the technical excuse being relied on is that the referendum had not been called at that point, and that the leaflet does not call for a Yes. I'd agree, though, that the language is inadequately neutral for something produced by the government in the context of a referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Just to clarify, Article 39 of the ESM Treaty specifies that - during the EFSF wind-up transitional phase - the combined ESM and EFSF lending shall not exceed 500 Billion. After that the ESM limit only (of 500 Billion) would apply.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Just to clarify, Article 39 of the ESM Treaty specifies that - during the EFSF wind-up transitional phase - the combined ESM and EFSF lending shall not exceed 500 Billion. After that the ESM limit only (of 500 Billion) would apply.

I think that has been reviewed, although it would, I think, have been correct at time of going to press:

In order to further improve market confidence and in accordance with the agreement reached at the Euro Area Heads of State or Government (HoSG) meeting on 9 December 2011 and reiterated on 2 March 2012, the HoSG have reassessed the adequacy of the overall EFSF/ESM lending ceiling of EUR 500 billion.

The Eurogroup concluded its review of the ESM capacity on 30 March and agreed in principle the following:

· That the ESM will be the main instrument to finance new programmes as from July 2012. The EFSF will, as a rule, only remain active in financing programmes that have started before that date. For a transitional period until mid-2013, it may engage in new programmes in order to ensure a full fresh lending capacity of EUR 500 billion.

· The current overall ceiling for ESM/EFSF lending, as defined in the ESM Treaty, will be raised to EUR 700 billion such that the ESM and the EFSF will be able to operate, if needed, as described above. As of mid-2013, the maximum lending volume of ESM will be EUR 500 billion. The combined lending ceiling of the ESM and the EFSF will continue to be set at EUR 700 billion.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2012-05-22.784.0

cordially,
Scofflaw