[liammur]

Originally Posted by beeftotheheels

Campaigning has barely begun and you only have to look at the amount of rubbish being posited about the place to wonder... all seems very Lisbon and our babbies will be sent to war, and our soldiers will have to collect harmonized corporation tax and whatever...

If too many people don't vote, or vote no in protest it could be sunk.

If you just listened to joe duffy, you would think it hasn't a chance. Same applies here. But I've very, very little doubt it will go through. In fact, most people probably just like to moan, when it comes to it, they will vote Yes.

[meglome]

Originally Posted by liammur

If the YES gets an overwhelming majority, this will give the government a huge ego boost and god alone knows what they'll do next. The Untouchables.

I'd seriously doubt given the mess we're in this will give the government an ego boost. And quite frankly the main issue here is possibly shooting ourselves in the foot again, screw what the government thinks.

[SeanW]

Originally Posted by mikeym

I will be spoiling my vote because I am disillusioned with the European Union and the current government.

Then you should vote no.

A sister treaty to the one we're voting on - the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, contains frightening language, creating a vast Eurocracy with near godlike powers to demand money from member states, has virtually no accountability or oversight, provides a crazy level of criminal immunity for officers, and perhaps most frighteningly of all, provides a clear statement of intent that future banking failures throughout the EuroZone will be dealt with exactly the way Ireland's bank difficulties were. I.E. don't let the bank be liquidated but instead force governments to borrow huge amounts of money to "recapitalise" them while keeping the economy in the crapper because it depends on zombie banks.

REAL austerity (which I favour!) would include telling bank bondholders to go to hell.

I would prefer a National Balanced Budget Amendment that:

1. Constrains government's day-to-day spending.
2. Specifically prevents government from taking on any banking debt, or paying any money in the event of bank failure except compensating retail depositors.
3. Doesn't give any more power away to Brussels.
4. Contains exemptions for capital spending, like roads and railways, school buildings etc.

I have a fundamental problem with the way Europe is going, so I'm voting NO!

[Firblog]

If Thomas Pringles legal challange to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (Fiscal Compact) Treaties is upheld will the referendum go ahead?

[FreudianSlippers]

Originally Posted by SeanW

Then you should vote no.

A sister treaty to the one we're voting on - the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism

That doesn't make sense. Vote on what you're voting on. If you want to vote no on the sister treaty then vote no on that.

, contains frightening language, creating a vast Eurocracy with near godlike powers to demand money from member states, has virtually no accountability or oversight, provides a crazy level of criminal immunity for officers, and perhaps most frighteningly of all, provides a clear statement of intent that future banking failures throughout the EuroZone will be dealt with exactly the way Ireland's bank difficulties were. I.E. don't let the bank be liquidated but instead force governments to borrow huge amounts of money to "recapitalise" them while keeping the economy in the crapper because it depends on zombie banks.

Source?

[later12]

Originally Posted by Firblog

If Thomas Pringles legal challange to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (Fiscal Compact) Treaties is upheld will the referendum go ahead?

Surely the most that can happen there is that it is established that the ESM needs to be ratified by plebiscite. Based on the contributions that have been put forward by legal professionals in the media and in academic work, that seems unlikely.

Good example might be this paper by Dr Gavin Barrett of UCD
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1938659

On a related issue, there is some debate about whether an amendment to Article 136 is even required, apparently.

The House of Commons’ European scrutiny committee in the United Kingdom, for example, obtained legal advice that the amendment of Article 136, which is being done for the purpose of creating the ESM, is not in fact a pre-requisite for the creation of the ESM.

If this is true, then it's hard to see why a constitutional amendment would be required in Ireland.

Furthermore, Ireland vetoing the amendment to Article 136 following on from a potential rejection of the Fiscal Stability Treaty (whatever that would achieve) would not in fact threaten the creation of the ESM. In other words, if an amendment to article 136 is not required, then some would say that Ireland's 'hand' is diminished in Europe.

So that would be worth establishing before deciding on the fiscal treaty, and in that respect, Thomas Pringle's judicial review can only be welcomed for the sake of providing clarity.

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by later12

Surely the most that can happen there is that it is established that the ESM needs to be ratified by plebiscite. Based on the contributions that have been put forward by legal professionals in the media and in academic work, that seems unlikely.

Good example might be this paper by Dr Gavin Barrett of UCD
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1938659

On a related issue, there is some debate about whether an amendment to Article 136 is even required, apparently.

The House of Commons’ European scrutiny committee in the United Kingdom, for example, obtained legal advice that the amendment of Article 136, which is being done for the purpose of creating the ESM, is not in fact a pre-requisite for the creation of the ESM.

If this is true, then it's hard to see why a constitutional amendment would be required in Ireland.

Furthermore, Ireland vetoing the amendment to Article 136 following on from a potential rejection of the Fiscal Stability Treaty (whatever that would achieve) would not in fact threaten the creation of the ESM. In other words, if an amendment to article 136 is not required, then some would say that Ireland's 'hand' is diminished in Europe.

So that would be worth establishing before deciding on the fiscal treaty, and in that respect, Thomas Pringle's judicial review can only be welcomed for the sake of providing clarity.

Yes, in that sense, while it's overall a good thing for the debate, it may not be quite as good for the No side as intended, in that it may end up clarifying quite definitely the ESM and Article 136 issues as red herrings.

I can't see Pringle's challenges succeeding here, and as you say (and as I've said before) I don't think the Article 136 amendment is necessary anyway - it was a safety net in case the German Constitutional Court ruled that the EFSF (and by implication the ESM) was in breach of Articles 122/125 of the EU Treaties. However, since they in fact ruled that the EFSF - and again, by implication the ESM - was not in breach of the Treaties, there is no actual requirement for the Article 136 amendment, which only acknowledges explicitly something determined to have been within the existing Treaty rights of the Member States in any case.

Parts of his challenge case are very waffly - might be worth a separate thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

[Sweenball]

I'll never vote in any Referendum,Local or General election ever again in this state as long I live.

[meglome]

Originally Posted by Sweenball

I'll never vote in any Referendum,Local or General election ever again in this state as long I live.

I imagine your protest will go down as a defining moment in our history.

Sorry for the sarcasm but opting out will ensure your views never get represented. If you don't like the current system ignoring it won't help, trying to change it will though.

[Howjoe1]

I'm moving from a maybe Yes to a probable NO.

I don't believe it will be the walkover the Govt expect.

[meglome]

Originally Posted by FreudianSlippers

That doesn't make sense. Vote on what you're voting on. If you want to vote no on the sister treaty then vote no on that.

It's one of the big problems with the whole No campaign, "Vote No if you don't like the government", "Vote no if you don't like the price of cheese" or whatever. As if the government is not connected to us and the country at all. As if, should the wrong decision be made, that it won't hurt us all. Why oh why do we always feel the need to try to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Originally Posted by Howjoe1

I'm moving from a maybe Yes to a probable NO.

I don't believe it will be the walkover the Govt expect.

How do you figure they expect it to be a walkover?

[later12]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

Yes, in that sense, while it's overall a good thing for the debate, it may not be quite as good for the No side as intended, in that it may end up clarifying quite definitely the ESM and Article 136 issues as red herrings.

I agree. All of the legal commentary on the ESM and Article 136 appears to indicate the entire thing is 'desirable but un-necessary' and, importantly in an Irish context, does not enlarge the powers of the EU institutons.

So in the absence of a convincing argument to the contrary, I agree Sinn Fein's opposition is likely to be more emotional than mindful of the Treaties or the Irish Constitution.

On the other hand, I could see SF attempting to make hay out of a confirmation that the ESM can effectively go ahead without amending Article 136, and that a bailout based on existing provisions does not inherently require a ratification of the Fiscal Treaty, which the amendment to Article 136 does currently require.

[Scofflaw]

Originally Posted by later12

I agree. All of the legal commentary on the ESM and Article 136 appears to indicate the entire thing is 'desirable but un-necessary' and, importantly in an Irish context, does not enlarge the powers of the EU institutons.

So in the absence of a convincing argument to the contrary, I agree Sinn Fein's opposition is likely to be more emotional than mindful of the Treaties or the Irish Constitution.

On the other hand, I could see SF attempting to make hay out of a confirmation that the ESM can effectively go ahead without amending Article 136, and that a bailout based on existing provisions does not inherently require a ratification of the Fiscal Treaty, which the amendment to Article 136 does currently require.

Not sure about that last - sure, the amendment says that the fund will be subject to conditionality, but the ESM can certainly be subject to conditionality without the amendment, as could any other bailout. After all, nothing in the current Treaties says that EFSF access is conditional, but it is conditional. That the conditionality is in part another Treaty is, I think, irrelevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

[later12]

Yes, I appreciate that, and I am not putting the above forward as a credible or creditable suggestion. I just think it's something SF are likely to say in the event of any judicial review going against them.

But as I said, there is no inherent requirement for ratification of the fiscal treaty under article 122, and so Sinn Fein might perpetuate the argument that in spite of such a clause, our European friends would be unlikely to be so retaliatory as to punish Ireland for failing to have ratified the treaty in the midst of a potential future crisis when such a procedure is not an explicitly stated requirement.

[jumpguy]

If the treaty wasn't necessary in the first place, has the government not just needlessly landed itself in a load of bother now? If they could've ratified the treaty without a referendum, then they wouldn't be facing an increasingly grim looking referendum at the end of May.

They can hardly pull out and say "oh no, the referendum isn't necessary anymore." As stated more or less by previous posters, SF would have a field day.