Should Ireland Leave the EU?

Scofflaw

pat_mas wrote: »

When a country is receiving money from the ESM it is subjected to macro economic adjustments and it doesn't have a real say on what they are and how they will be implemented. The only option is to refuse the MoU but then no money is lent.

ESM/16.2: The conditionality attached to the ESM loans shall be contained in a macro-economic adjustment programme detailed in the MoU, in accordance with Article 13(3).

ESM/13.3
3. If a decision pursuant to paragraph 2 is adopted, the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission – in liaison with the ECB and, wherever possible, together with the IMF – with the task of negotiating, with the ESM Member concerned, a memorandum of understanding (an "MoU") detailing the conditionality attached to the financial assistance facility. The content of the MoU shall reflect the severity of the weaknesses to be addressed and the financial assistance instrument chosen. In parallel, the Managing Director of the ESM shall prepare a proposal for a financial assistance facility agreement, including the financial terms and conditions and the choice of instruments, to be adopted by the Board of Governors.
The MoU shall be fully consistent with the measures of economic policy coordination provided for in the TFEU, in particular with any act of European Union law, including any opinion, warning, recommendation or decision addressed to the ESM Member concerned.

Don't you think there's plenty of room for a loss of sovereignty there ?

Yes, there's obviously room for exactly the same loss of sovereignty as we're currently experiencing.

pat_mas wrote: »

I won't even talk about the legal status of the ESM.

That's probably wise of you.

pat_mas wrote: »

Anyway, what I was saying before is that voting yes to this referendum means accepting the ESM (you can be sure that in such a case the ratification would be a formality). Voting No to the referendum invalidates the ESM contract unless the government adopts a position that makes absolutely no sense (committing to fund the ESM with the certainty of never benefiting from it whatever the circumstances).

In other words this referendum is not only about the TFEU but it is also about the ESM even if it's not made obvious to everybody.

Politically, you may feel that a No vote at the referendum should prevent the government from signing up to ESM, but that's not anything but your personal stance. You seem to be mistaking your personal opinions for facts. The government may feel that involvement in ESM is a worthwhile action in itself, and a No vote on the Fiscal Treaty does not prevent them legally ratifying ESM.

The previous government signed up to EFSF - which entailed guarantees slightly larger than our ESM commitment - at a time when it had no expectation of needing EFSF funding, so clearly they felt that being part of such a fund was in itself the right thing for Ireland to do, without the consideration of whether we might need access to it. They also put up funds for Greece through the Greece Bilateral Fund, which says the same thing.

So I don't think your personal stance here is likely to be reflected by the government - and indeed they have made it clear that they will ratify ESM whatever the outcome of the referendum on the Fiscal Treaty. That may well make you indignant, but they have every right to do it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pat_mas

"Yes, there's obviously room for exactly the same loss of sovereignty as we're currently experiencing" except that it becomes constitutional

"That's probably wise of you." ... you're too good

Did Ireland have the choice of not signing the EFSF back in 2010 when it just asked for a bailout 6 month earlier and when EU austerity policies hadn't been proved a complete failure yet.

"Politically, you may feel that a No vote at the referendum should prevent the government from signing up to ESM, but that's not anything but your personal stance" I wouldn't call it a "personal stance" I'd call it a logical consequence (unless the EU changes the rules).

If the government were to ratify the ESM after a no vote on the TFEU I think it'd become very hard to understand for most of us but there's no doubt you would enlighten us.

"and indeed they have made it clear that they will ratify ESM whatever the outcome of the referendum on the Fiscal Treaty." In other words they say there's some good and some bad in this treaty but we've made sure to have the bad in any cases so that you have no reason to vote against this treaty except to alienate the good part of it. That's a powerful argument I must admit !!!

"That may well make you indignant, but they have every right to do it" don't go too fast time will tell us.

Scofflaw

pat_mas wrote: »

"Yes, there's obviously room for exactly the same loss of sovereignty as we're currently experiencing" except that it becomes constitutional

No, none of the Treaty text is going in the Constitution. You can check that for yourself by looking at the Amendment we're voting on.

pat_mas wrote: »

"That's probably wise of you." ... you're too good

Thanks.

pat_mas wrote: »

Did Ireland have the choice of not signing the EFSF back in 2010 when it just asked for a bailout 6 month earlier and when EU austerity policies hadn't been proved a complete failure yet.

Wrong way round. EFSF = May 2010. Bailout = 6 months later. Not earlier.

pat_mas wrote: »

"Politically, you may feel that a No vote at the referendum should prevent the government from signing up to ESM, but that's not anything but your personal stance" I wouldn't call it a "personal stance" I'd call it a logical consequence (unless the EU changes the rules).

It's a logical stance if you assume the only reason for doing anything is solely in exchange for getting one's hands on some money.

pat_mas wrote: »

If the government were to ratify the ESM after a no vote on the TFEU I think it'd become very hard to understand for most of us but there's no doubt you would enlighten us.

Stability in the eurozone is something Ireland needs - so contributing to a fund designed to help stabilise the eurozone is hardly an odd choice.

pat_mas wrote: »

"and indeed they have made it clear that they will ratify ESM whatever the outcome of the referendum on the Fiscal Treaty." In other words they say there's some good and some bad in this treaty but we've made sure to have the bad in any cases so that you have no reason to vote against this treaty except to alienate the good part of it. That's a powerful argument I must admit !!!

Er, no. Ratification of the two Treaties is still legally separate.

pat_mas wrote: »

"That may well make you indignant, but they have every right to do it" don't go too fast time will tell us.

Time will only tell us whether they will ratify the ESM Treaty - we already know that there's no legal impediment and that the government intend it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

plasmaguy

Looks like we are stuck in it now for good or bad, although it does have the appearances of a sinking ship, which may well pull Ireland down with it. it's hard to know where it went wrong, but I think it's inevitable the Greeks will leave the Euro, as they never should have been in it in the first place with their cooking of the books.

FreudianSlippers

pat_mas wrote: »

"Yes, there's obviously room for exactly the same loss of sovereignty as we're currently experiencing" except that it becomes constitutional

Not really. As I've said before, I view the 30th Amendment as a question of constitutional change rather than a sovereignty issue. It certainly doesn't give blanket powers of ratification or loss of sovereignty outside of the "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union"

EU austerity policies hadn't been proved a complete failure yet.

What exactly are these EU austerity policies? Last I checked we were doing these things ourselves as a condition of receiving monies from the Troika. I don't see an alternative proposal to funding the country tabled by the 'no' side other than "we don't need money!"

If the government were to ratify the ESM after a no vote on the TFEU I think it'd become very hard to understand for most of us but there's no doubt you would enlighten us.

The TFEU has been in force since the Rome treaties in 1958, only renamed TFEU in 2009 by the Lisbon Treaty when we abandoned the pillars system. So, I think you may be more than a little confused here.

plasmaguy wrote: »

Looks like we are stuck in it now for good or bad, although it does have the appearances of a sinking ship, which may well pull Ireland down with it. it's hard to know where it went wrong, but I think it's inevitable the Greeks will leave the Euro, as they never should have been in it in the first place with their cooking of the books.

I think that a member who does not want to cooperate to solve this problem is not a member worth having. I think it's time we cut Greece and focused on recovery. Greece leaving the Eurozone could only benefit the rest of Europe right now.

Lantus

The gold standard only existed up until after the 2nd world war at which point the Breton Woods system was adopted up until 1971 when the US abandoned it and all currencies became true FIAT currency's.

Inflation during times we had the gold standard and partial gold std using bretton woods fluctuated and while you could say overall the rate was relatively low the peaks were higher than after 71.

A key argument of the gold standard is that all economic growth is linked to the supply of gold and therefore you could argue gold mining activites rather than actual economic output is the key economic driver.

What is more of concern is the practice of fractional reserve banking and the creation of all money as we know it literally out of thin air. Heres one of many vids (quality isn't top notch but explanation is.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWl7Mb49vSk

goat2

a small booklet that came in post.
the fiscal union, the treaty that condemns you to perpetual debt, being the name of the booklet.
one point that i beleive in.
" the irish state ( on behalf of the taxpayer ) could repudiate all private franco-german bank debt, let them bear the cost.
i know that i am not one of those who have been the cause of the state our country.

put simply if my neighbour was foolish enough to borrow money they could not pay back, why should i be saddled with their debts

goat2

also in same booklet,
labour leader eamon gilmore said on feb 3rd 2011 ( before the election)
" the first choice that the irish voters are going to have to make in this election is ,quote, whether our budgets are decided in frankfurt or decided by the democratically elected government of the irish people"
where did this promise go

meglome

goat2 wrote: »

a small booklet that came in post.
the fiscal union, the treaty that condemns you to perpetual debt, being the name of the booklet.
one point that i beleive in.
" the irish state ( on behalf of the taxpayer ) could repudiate all private franco-german bank debt, let them bear the cost.
i know that i am not one of those who have been the cause of the state our country.

put simply if my neighbour was foolish enough to borrow money they could not pay back, why should i be saddled with their debts

The problem with this is two fold. Firstly the last government made all the bank debt sovereign debt i.e. all our debt and the original bondholders has basically all been paid off. There is no way to 'repudiate' the debt. Secondly no one has ever shown that French and German banks loaned us the money to begin with. Scofflaw posted a chart using the figures from our central bank which show the money didn't come from French and German banks at all. (Can't see the chart this minute but I'm sure someone will direct you to it).

goat2 wrote: »

also in same booklet,
labour leader eamon gilmore said on feb 3rd 2011 ( before the election)
" the first choice that the irish voters are going to have to make in this election is ,quote, whether our budgets are decided in frankfurt or decided by the democratically elected government of the irish people"
where did this promise go

I never cease to be fascinated that people will happily accept one thing a politicians says (which wasn't even about the Fiscal compact) but then happily ignore everything else as it doesn't suit them. Politician says something to get elected shocker!!!! :rolleyes:
Gilmore said this in the last general election, it has nothing to do with the Fiscal compact which didn't exist then. If you don't want to vote for him or Labour in the next election then fine but that has nothing to do with the Fiscal compact.

goat2

i get what you are saying, you guessed i did switch over to labour last time, and that will be the last time

meglome

goat2 wrote: »

i get what you are saying, you guessed i did switch over to labour last time, and that will be the last time

I have several posts (at least) on boards.ie saying how I thought there was no way Labour could/would follow through on many of their election promises. Though to be fair many of the promises really couldn't have been carried out given our circumstances, even if they wanted to. Whether they knew that is another question.

We should be suspicious of groups from any side who want to make the vote about things other than the contents of this treaty. We are only voting on the contents of the treaty. The government have not been great on that score but the no campaign have been far worse.

Lantus

Politicians can only really promise that we will be all rich, in that regard they are servants of the markets and the financial system to which they are a small part of.

It's little wonder that society spends most of its time bickering about issues of race and gender and parking and taxation and all the other minutia that fills our lives that detracts us from the real debates of how society is run and governed and what represents aa fair monetary system.

What did one of the founding fathers have to day about this?.....

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

We might think that the ramblings of a man who lived over 200 years ago is irrelevant in todays society. How could someone so simply possibly be relevant to our modern sophisticated society?

- Thomas Jefferson spoke 5 languages.
- He had extensive knowledge in architecture, science, religion, invention and philosophy.

He understood that private banking and long term debt that all banking creates would damage our morality and the long term well being of our society.

If someone realised this 200 years ago how com we are in such a mess today. I suppose a war was fought between people like jefferson and the bankers and the bankers won a long time ago.

oscarBravo

Lantus wrote: »

Politicians can only really promise that we will be all rich...

I don't recall any politician ever promising that.


This post brought to you in a vain effort to bring some measure of honesty to this debate.

golden lane

if the average private citizen could have ten houses........and ten other people have none........would he share them.....????

Lantus

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't recall any politician ever promising that.


This post brought to you in a vain effort to bring some measure of honesty to this debate.

Promise is a strong word. The vasy majority of politics is subtlety of languange. Even today I had a leaflet from Labour through the door about the estate been taken in charge and all the work and meetings to achieve it. I might of believed it if it wasn't for the fact that the local RA had for 4+years been working on this and we had held several meetings with the local coco and builders representative toachieve this and pushed it using local press. The fact it is nearly resovled and now major parties who have not has the slightest interest now post letters saying in their name (without directly saying it was them mind you) saying it is about done is shameful.

Modern society is continued only through politicians promising that wealth will be 'ours' if we vote for them.

oscarBravo

Lantus wrote: »

Modern society is continued only through politicians promising that wealth will be 'ours' if we vote for them.

...and 'we' continue to vote for them on the strength of the 'promises' they make.

We deserve each other, really.

Lantus

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and 'we' continue to vote for them on the strength of the 'promises' they make.

We deserve each other, really.

Agreed, the vast majority of the country have neither the interest or the involvlement to make an informed decision. As as a result most parties can manipulate the result or distort the information to their own ends.

AVN_1

mickthemick wrote: »

Should Ireland Leave the EU?

Yes, if we cannot substantially modify it we should abandon it and possibly join EFTA.

FreudianSlippers

AVN_1 wrote: »

Yes, if we cannot substantially modify it we should abandon it and possibly join EFTA.

Can you elaborate on what needs to be modified? My point on the "Is the EU doomed" thread is that, if anything, the EU is working too well. Of course I'm referring to the fundamental four economic freedoms of the EU and by default extension to the EEA.