Angela Merkels speech before the parliament this morning

Boskowski

Angela Merkel has addressed the Bundestag this morning.

She basically reiterated what we already learned over the last few days. The Euro cannot be fixed over night and the fix will be to bring everyone back in line with the stability pact parameters re debt and deficit ceilings. Treaty changes are required to give European bodies the authority to follow through on that.
France and Germany will be taking the lead on this.

She also reiterated her 'No' to sharing liabilities and deficits (Eurobonds).

My opinion is that this sounds reasonable.
The main concern of the markets is the ability and willingness of some Eurozone countries to pay back their debt. The confidence of the markets in said Eurozone countries and the whole Eurozone in fact must be restored. That's hardly going to happen by giving them access to more cheap credit. Especially since they are likely too ease on reducing their deficits and go back to their bad old ways.
Most likely such a Eurobond would be considered too risky in no time too and the hole only gets deeper.

Of course this opinion isn't very popular in countries who need to reduce their deficits and all sorts of stuff is thrown at such an opinion from it's not our fault it's the banks, EU (Germany) is a controlfreak, austerity cannot work blabla but it basically boils down to them being upset they cannot continue spending large swaths of money they don't have.

P.S. Just so much Euro and Germany bashing going on, a lot of it ill informed I find. Like Germany wants to dominate smaller countries, or Germany wants to to make profits on the expense of others or Germany wants to conquer Europe through the backdoor even. :eek: So being German myself I wanted to put a position out there which to me doesn not seem outlandish. I know Germany runs the risk of isolating themselves a bit in some peoples view but again I find Angelas position not outlandish although I have to say generally speaking I wouldn't be a fan of hers and her CDU.

Seeking opinions really. Are we the bad boys again or what?

xflyer

Any 'treaty change' will require a referendum by the Irish people. How likely is it, given the current state of affairs in this country, that the Irish people will vote in favour of a treaty change that will remove our right to set our own taxes and will force us to put forward our budget for approval in Berlin?

Not likely is the answer. Essentially that puts us out of the Euro in due course.

meglome

It does sound reasonable. Personally I don't have an issue with it.

Boskowski wrote: »

Of course this opinion isn't very popular in countries who need to reduce their deficits and all sorts of stuff is thrown at such an opinion from it's not our fault it's the banks, EU (Germany) is a controlfreak, austerity cannot work blabla but it basically boils down to them being upset they cannot continue spending large swaths of money they don't have.

Unfortunately what isn't reasonable is the rhetoric being spewed by many in this country. Large numbers seem to be stating they will vote no without even seeing what it is, epically stupid imo. If we do need to vote on this it will be another fiasco with the extremists crawling out of the woodwork and lying their heads off. And I may start crying because I'll have to listen to yet more moaning about 'yes for jobs' from people who have terrible memories about No side lying.

Funnily someone last night was decrying Lisbon because it was 'self amending' but at the same time stating they would vote no to the new treaty. They seem to have some trouble with logic.

xflyer wrote: »

Any 'treaty change' will require a referendum by the Irish people. How likely is it, given the current state of affairs in this country, that the Irish people will vote in favour of a treaty change that will remove our right to set our own taxes and will force us to put forward our budget for approval in Berlin?

Not likely is the answer. Essentially that puts us out of the Euro in due course.

Where are you getting the bolded bit from?

Nody

meglome wrote: »

Where are you getting the bolded bit from?

Facts are not a strong point when discussion about EU or banks happens here; you should know that.

Anyway I'm willing to put money on that the new treaty will have sod all about EU controlling the tax rates but it will have items such as independant budget review by EU, automatic penalty fees, minimum age for pensions, maximum budget deficit, average deficit over time etc. In short many items already agreed (and ignored) by most parties from existing treaties but with more bite in them (automatic penalties) and possibly even clauses on exclusion from the group if failure to comply with the terms.

meglome

Nody wrote: »

Facts are not a strong point when discussion about EU or banks happens here; you should know that.

Sadly I do.

Nody wrote: »

Anyway I'm willing to put money on that the new treaty will have sod all about EU controlling the tax rates but it will have items such as independant budget review by EU, automatic penalty fees, minimum age for pensions, maximum budget deficit, average deficit over time etc. In short many items already agreed (and ignored) by most parties from existing treaties but with more bite in them (automatic penalties) and possibly even clauses on exclusion from the group if failure to comply with the terms.

Yeah I'd agree with that.

Atilathehun

Boskowski wrote: »

Angela Merkel has addressed the Bundestag this morning.

She basically reiterated what we already learned over the last few days. The Euro cannot be fixed over night and the fix will be to bring everyone back in line with the stability pact parameters re debt and deficit ceilings. Treaty changes are required to give European bodies the authority to follow through on that.
France and Germany will be taking the lead on this.

She also reiterated her 'No' to sharing liabilities and deficits (Eurobonds).

My opinion is that this sounds reasonable.
The main concern of the markets is the ability and willingness of some Eurozone countries to pay back their debt. The confidence of the markets in said Eurozone countries and the whole Eurozone in fact must be restored. That's hardly going to happen by giving them access to more cheap credit. Especially since they are likely too ease on reducing their deficits and go back to their bad old ways.
Most likely such a Eurobond would be considered too risky in no time too and the hole only gets deeper.

Of course this opinion isn't very popular in countries who need to reduce their deficits and all sorts of stuff is thrown at such an opinion from it's not our fault it's the banks, EU (Germany) is a controlfreak, austerity cannot work blabla but it basically boils down to them being upset they cannot continue spending large swaths of money they don't have.

Of course she is generally speaking, correct in "almost", every way.

I believe, countries and banks, which borrowed and lent wrecklessly, in the past, should all take pain.
PIIG countries are taking pain big time, for their past stupidity.
However, the wreckless lenders in France and Germany, are getting away scott free. They were part of the party. They operated stupidly. They should take a significant exocet missile right in the balance sheet.

Frau Merkel, needs to recognize that hard reality.

In future with new rules, the wreckless borrowing and lending should not be possible.

Danke.

Nody

Atilathehun wrote: »

Of course she is generally speaking, correct in "almost", every way.

I believe, countries and banks, which borrowed and lent wrecklessly, in the past, should all take pain.
PIIG countries are taking pain big time, for their past stupidity.
However, the wreckless lenders in France and Germany, are getting away scott free. They were part of the party. They operated stupidly. They should take a significant exocet missile right in the balance sheet.

Frau Merkel, needs to recognize that hard reality.

In future with new rules, the wreckless borrowing and lending should not be possible.

Danke.

Can you please back up your claims that French and German banks lent heavily to Ireland? Every single shred of fact shows that actually it was NOT the case and that the great (as in 80%+) of all the money used by the banks came from Ireland, UK and non EU countries (mainly US) and not the rest of EU. In fact, I'll qoute a post from another thread here to show my point:

swordofislam wrote:

Firstly we are not bailing out the Germans.

Total liabilities of the Guaranteed Banks to the Euro Zone are:
€08.3 bn in bonds
2% of liabilities of the Guaranteed Banks
€11.2 bn on deposit
4% of liabilities of the Guaranteed Banks
€19.5 bn
That is 6% of the total liabilities of the Guaranteed banks are to the Euro zone including deposits.

€16.5 bn in bonds is owed to Irish private individuals.
That's 4% of liabilities of the Guaranteed Banks just to rich individuals
And this is the real reason for the guarantee
Fianna Fail brought in the bank guarantee to ensure that their super rich owners would receive their money back.
€66.5 bn in bonds in owed to Irish institutions
16% of liabilities of the Guaranteed Banks

€87.5 bn is on deposit from the Irish private sector (people and businesses based in Ireland)

.

RichardAnd

xflyer wrote: »

Any 'treaty change' will require a referendum by the Irish people. How likely is it, given the current state of affairs in this country, that the Irish people will vote in favour of a treaty change that will remove our right to set our own taxes and will force us to put forward our budget for approval in Berlin?

Not likely is the answer. Essentially that puts us out of the Euro in due course.

If such a referendum were put to vote, I've little doubt that it would be quashed. However, as we have seen in the past, a 'no' result on such a referendum lasts only until the second referendum on the same treaty returns the "correct" result.

Crazy Horse 6

Good speech by our new prime minister.

irishh_bob

xflyer wrote: »

Any 'treaty change' will require a referendum by the Irish people. How likely is it, given the current state of affairs in this country, that the Irish people will vote in favour of a treaty change that will remove our right to set our own taxes and will force us to put forward our budget for approval in Berlin?

Not likely is the answer. Essentially that puts us out of the Euro in due course.

three things will guarentee that ireland will vote YES in any referendum

public sector workers will see a massive cut in wages if we leave the euro
wellfare recipients ( including pensioners ) will see massive cuts in benefits
mortgage holders will see massive increases on their interest payments

i can see the vote being emphatic

money trumps nationalism and patriotism in the west nowadays

woodoo

irishh_bob wrote: »

mortgage holders will see massive increases on their interest payments

How is that a good thing?

irishh_bob

woodoo wrote: »

How is that a good thing?

where did i say it was

the certainty of leaving the euro will ensure indebted mortgage holders vote yes to further integration as a means of keeping interest rates low

cavedave

irishh_bob

Not likely is the answer. Essentially that puts us out of the Euro in due course.
three things will guarentee that ireland will vote YES in any referendum

public sector workers will see a massive cut in wages if we leave the euro
wellfare recipients ( including pensioners ) will see massive cuts in benefits
mortgage holders will see massive increases on their interest payments

Those are interesting points.
From a public choice perspective a referendum on the EU now would be unpopular. I believe the choice would be tighter EU integration or a no vote resulting in losing membership. That would appear to the Irish people a bit like a boyfriend who beat you up then offering to marry you and telling you you'll be thrown out on the street if you say no.

irishh_bob

cavedave wrote: »

Those are interesting points.
From a public choice perspective a referendum on the EU now would be unpopular. I believe the choice would be tighter EU integration or a no vote resulting in losing membership. That would appear to the Irish people a bit like a boyfriend who beat you up then offering to marry you and telling you you'll be thrown out on the street if you say no.

people will vote with thier walletts , the YES will win by a landslide

il be voting NO for what its worth

femur61

xflyer wrote: »

Any 'treaty change' will require a referendum by the Irish people. How likely is it, given the current state of affairs in this country, that the Irish people will vote in favour of a treaty change that will remove our right to set our own taxes and will force us to put forward our budget for approval in Berlin?

Not likely is the answer. Essentially that puts us out of the Euro in due course.

We will vote to atreaty change, don't really have a great history of making the right choices. Catholic church dominated society for decades and then we continously elected FF.

Dyr

There's a reason why people try to maintain as much control over their personal finances and life choices as they can. Because the only person who acts in your best interests is you.

Yet as a country we believe that handing agency of our own vital interests over to third parties will end well. Good luck with that lads.

meglome

irishh_bob wrote: »

il be voting NO for what its worth

I don't suppose you'd wait and see what was in it... before you vote no obviously.

Bambi wrote: »

There's a reason why people try to maintain as much control over their personal finances and life choices as they can. Because the only person who acts in your best interests is you.

Yet as a country we believe that handing agency of our own vital interests over to third parties will end well. Good luck with that lads.

We've been doing what's in our best interests for years now... oh wait aren't we bankrupt.

bnt

meglome wrote: »

Where are you getting the bolded bit from?

It follows logically from the way Ms. Merkel is pushing "fiscal union" so heavily today. "Fiscal Policy" is the fancy economic term for how the government taxes and spends, and Ireland's low corporate tax rate has been a thorn in Berlin's side for years. If Ireland joined any kind of fiscal union, that would be the first thing to go out the window.

meglome

bnt wrote: »

It follows logically from the way Ms. Merkel is pushing "fiscal union" so heavily today. "Fiscal Policy" is the fancy economic term for how the government taxes and spends, and Ireland's low corporate tax rate has been a thorn in Berlin's side for years. If Ireland joined any kind of fiscal union, that would be the first thing to go out the window.

So you read the words 'fiscal union' and stopped there? Probably would have no harm to actually read all of what she said rather that take two words out of it.

K-9

Bambi wrote: »

There's a reason why people try to maintain as much control over their personal finances and life choices as they can. Because the only person who acts in your best interests is you.

Yet as a country we believe that handing agency of our own vital interests over to third parties will end well. Good luck with that lads.

People though lowering taxes was a good idea in the 90's and 00's and spent it as they thought best. Didn't work out great. Unless you think it did work out well?

Pointing that out wont matter a bit though.

Sand

@Borowski

P.S. Just so much Euro and Germany bashing going on, a lot of it ill informed I find. Like Germany wants to dominate smaller countries, or Germany wants to to make profits on the expense of others or Germany wants to conquer Europe through the backdoor even. So being German myself I wanted to put a position out there which to me doesn not seem outlandish. I know Germany runs the risk of isolating themselves a bit in some peoples view but again I find Angelas position not outlandish although I have to say generally speaking I wouldn't be a fan of hers and her CDU.

Seeking opinions really. Are we the bad boys again or what?

I think theres two groups of critics when it comes to the German reaction to the crisis.

There is the first group, which youve highlighted, which believes Germany is intent on a master plan to dominate smaller countries, make a profit or conquer Europe through the backdoor. These people are the optimists - they believe there is a plan or some logical intent to the German action. Or lack thereof.

Then there is the second group of critics. These people are simply looking on in awe as Germany juggles live hand grenades suspended over a pool of sharks.

Look at Merkels speech. Its a fantastic speech. Full of vision, foresight and brilliant analysis of the risks and neccessary sacrifices that must be made. Like you, I applaud her speech. Its a brilliant statement by a leader of her age.

Theres only one problem with the speech. It wasnt made in 1997.

This is 2011. We are in the Euro. We've tied ourselves together in a suicide pact. Its too late to say should, could or would. Way too late.

We need solutions to the crisis we are facing *now*. Germany and the ECB have been extremely keen to rule out sensible solutions to the debt crisis ( default, inflation, transfers). Having ruled out those options it becomes apparent that Germany must then volunteer something better than "You really should never have got into this problem in the first place".

I fully understand the German desire not to be mugged, whereby the Greeks, Italians, Spanish, Irish and so on keep on spending and the Germans keeps on paying. There are ways to manage that - but Germany is refusing to even discuss them, and when the Euro collapses, Germany wont be sitting in splendid isolation, untouched and unharmed. German jobs and German investments are based on exports and investment in the periphery. With Germany ruling out inflation and fiscal transfers, the inevitable solution is default.

This is the problem the second group of critics have with Germany. They dont see Germany being malicious or selfish. They see Germany simply being stupid.

Of course there is a third group - these are the people who have supported the running of their countries into the ground, who rejected any attempt to find a sensible national solution in favour of a dreamt of "EU grand bargain", who have embraced terrible deals and hardship simply to try to impress the German people with how sorry they are. This group are deeply hurt and wounded. They really did believe that Germany would come riding over the hill with the cavalry like in that Lord of the Rings movie throwing the cash around to ward off the evil markets. Theyre deeply hurt and bitter.

Sand

Nody wrote: »

Can you please back up your claims that French and German banks lent heavily to Ireland? Every single shred of fact shows that actually it was NOT the case and that the great (as in 80%+) of all the money used by the banks came from Ireland, UK and non EU countries (mainly US) and not the rest of EU. In fact, I'll qoute a post from another thread here to show my point:

.

Can I throw up a hand here and ask as question, as I honestly havent crunched the figures and I presume others have?

Given we are often told a large chunk of the Irish external debt figures arent really Irish debt as such and are actually someone elses problem, are we quite sure that what seems to be "Irish" investors are actually genuinely Irish? Might they not equally be some brassplate operation sitting in the IFSC?

View

bnt wrote: »

It follows logically from the way Ms. Merkel is pushing "fiscal union" so heavily today. "Fiscal Policy" is the fancy economic term for how the government taxes and spends, and Ireland's low corporate tax rate has been a thorn in Berlin's side for years. If Ireland joined any kind of fiscal union, that would be the first thing to go out the window.

Just out of curiosity, if Ireland's low corporate tax rate has been such a thorn in Berlin's side for years, why didn't Merkel just go "After you raise your corporate tax rate, we'll loan you the money to fund your current account deficit" a year or so ago? It would have been much simpler, wouldn't it?

amacca

meglome wrote: »

I don't suppose you'd wait and see what was in it... before you vote no obviously.

I wouldn't in any event....I'm already sure whatever it is it will not be in the best interests of this country in the long term. (it will probably be fine when we've become a different country of course)

Its abundantly clear to me the decision making will suit the most populous and powerful countries which is entirely predictable and understandable.

I would be willing to take huge amounts of pain to maintain as much independence as possible regardless of what group of sleeveens the lemmings decide to vote into Leinster house...they would be infinitely preferable the kind of faceless jobsworths in Brussels (just as capable if not more-so of corruption and even harder to get at or influence imo) that will attempt to legislate every tiny part of our lives over time.

Sierra Oscar

irishh_bob wrote: »

people will vote with thier walletts , the YES will win by a landslide

il be voting NO for what its worth

Dont you see that there will be no vote? We are being rail railroaded into concession, Merkel wants a fiscal union and she wants it now - she is not going to wait for Ireland or any other periphery region to agree by consent. I fear the europhiles such as Lucinda Creighton are ready to sigh our sovereignty away for good.

Scofflaw

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Dont you see that there will be no vote? We are being rail railroaded into concession, Merkel wants a fiscal union and she wants it now - she is not going to wait for Ireland or any other periphery region to agree by consent. I fear the europhiles such as Lucinda Creighton are ready to sigh our sovereignty away for good.

Nobody can sign away Irish sovereignty without a referendum. That's a legal given. If what happens, whatever agreement is reached, can be ratified by the Oireachtas without a referendum, then - pending any Supreme Court challenge - by definition it cannot give away Irish sovereignty. The only legal way that can be done is through referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

Can I throw up a hand here and ask as question, as I honestly havent crunched the figures and I presume others have?

Given we are often told a large chunk of the Irish external debt figures arent really Irish debt as such and are actually someone elses problem, are we quite sure that what seems to be "Irish" investors are actually genuinely Irish? Might they not equally be some brassplate operation sitting in the IFSC?

In theory, yes - there's nothing in the definition that stops them being so. Luckily, the CBI's aggregate balance sheets show assets as well as liabilities, and "Holdings of Securities issued by Irish Residents" (aka "bonds") is broken down into "Monetary Financial Institutions" (aka "banks"), "General Government", and "Private Sector".

In other words, we can see how much in the way of Irish bank bonds are being held by banks in Ireland. And the CBI has three sets of stats - for all banks in Ireland (including the IFSC), for domestic banks (those involved in lending within Ireland), and the "covered banks" (the ones we bailed out).

So we can take the Irish bank bond holdings of all banks - €17.593bn - and subtract the bond holdings of the domestic banks - €16.632bn - to get the Irish bank bond holdings of IFSC banks.

The result is €0.961bn. So the IFSC banks are holding less than a billion in Irish bank bonds - and that figure will include holdings in all banks in Ireland, not just the covered banks.

They really did believe that Germany would come riding over the hill with the cavalry like in that Lord of the Rings movie throwing the cash around to ward off the evil markets

God forbid. Germany haven't yet been quite as stupid as a cavalry charge down a very steep slope of loose stone onto massed infantry with polearms. Although, to be fair, that probably wasn't actually quite as stupid as the cavalry charge at orc archers safely ensconced in the ruins of Osgiliath. Seriously, there was never going to be anything for the surviving horsemen to do but get into the rubble for outnumbered hand to hand fighting or turn around and ride away again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

beeftotheheels

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nobody can sign away Irish sovereignty without a referendum. That's a legal given. If what happens, whatever agreement is reached, can be ratified by the Oireachtas without a referendum, then - pending any Supreme Court challenge - by definition it cannot give away Irish sovereignty. The only legal way that can be done is through referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wouldn't necessarily get to the SC (absent another Crotty). Council of State wold be the way to go if Michael D was in the mood. But while it is clear that it should be legally possible (if politically difficult) to manage treaty changes which don't need to come before the people, such changes have to include a quid pro quo from Germany.

The problem then is that canges, in order to be meaningful, must alter the role of the ECB.

At its most meaningful employment ought to be given (at least) parity with price stability, as it is with the Fed's mandate. Yet such a meaningful change would require a referendum, and I have no faith in it passing.

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Wouldn't necessarily get to the SC (absent another Crotty). Council of State wold be the way to go if Michael D was in the mood. But while it is clear that it should be legally possible (if politically difficult) to manage treaty changes which don't need to come before the people, such changes have to include a quid pro quo from Germany.

The problem then is that canges, in order to be meaningful, must alter the role of the ECB.

At its most meaningful employment ought to be given (at least) parity with price stability, as it is with the Fed's mandate. Yet such a meaningful change would require a referendum, and I have no faith in it passing.

Would it? Why would changes to the goals of the ECB involve a referendum here? How does it impact Irish sovereignty?

cordially,
Scofflaw

beeftotheheels

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would it? Why would changes to the goals of the ECB involve a referendum here? How does it impact Irish sovereignty?

cordially,
Scofflaw

It does not, necessarily. It reverts to the role of the Central bank as we traditionally understood it.

But it would be a fundamental change to the treaties as they are, more fundamental than any change from unanimity to qualified majority. So I suspect that it would be of a sort that the Council of State might struggle with under Crotty, which they might feel the need to refer to the SC.

Given the current situation no Irish person would challenge it unless they were taking a longer term view and assumed that at some stage again we might become net contributors. But a German living in Ireland...

meglome

amacca wrote: »

I wouldn't in any event....I'm already sure whatever it is it will not be in the best interests of this country in the long term. (it will probably be fine when we've become a different country of course)

And you're basing this on?

amacca wrote: »

Its abundantly clear to me the decision making will suit the most populous and powerful countries which is entirely predictable and understandable.

What are you basing this on?

amacca wrote: »

I would be willing to take huge amounts of pain to maintain as much independence as possible regardless of what group of sleeveens the lemmings decide to vote into Leinster house...they would be infinitely preferable the kind of faceless jobsworths in Brussels (just as capable if not more-so of corruption and even harder to get at or influence imo) that will attempt to legislate every tiny part of our lives over time.

Ah I see. I think what you seem to be missing is we are the EU as much as anyone is. These 'faceless jobsworths in Brussels' don't really exist except in the minds of some uber nationalists. All EU deals are agreed in advance with all the members, including obviously us. The Germans, rightly IMO, are looking to not be bankers for countries who could just go off and do the same thing again. We had no respect for this much vaunted independence and I fully support our friends in the EU making sure we can't do the same again.

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

It does not, necessarily. It reverts to the role of the Central bank as we traditionally understood it.

But it would be a fundamental change to the treaties as they are, more fundamental than any change from unanimity to qualified majority. So I suspect that it would be of a sort that the Council of State might struggle with under Crotty, which they might feel the need to refer to the SC.

Given the current situation no Irish person would challenge it unless they were taking a longer term view and assumed that at some stage again we might become net contributors. But a German living in Ireland...

Crotty doesn't rely on the question of substantial or fundamental changes to the treaties, though. It relies, in the end, on the question of whether sovereignty is affected - whether the treaty in question places any constraint on the capacity of the Ireland to make decisions freely. The particular part in the SEA that determined the outcome of Crotty was the requirement to take the interests of the other EU states into account in forming Irish foreign policy.

In the case of the ECB having a change of goals...I can't see that it affects Irish sovereignty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

femur61

View wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, if Ireland's low corporate tax rate has been such a thorn in Berlin's side for years, why didn't Merkel just go "After you raise your corporate tax rate, we'll loan you the money to fund your current account deficit" a year or so ago? It would have been much simpler, wouldn't it?

If our CT is/was so attractive then why are companies moving e.g Dell, Aviva, Talk Talk, Intel to name a few.

Alot of computer companies in the gaming industry and Google ae moving here because they can move their profits via Bermuda and pay little tax on their profits.

bnt

femur61 wrote: »

If our CT is/was so attractive then why are companies moving e.g Dell, Aviva, Talk Talk, Intel to name a few.

Because of labour costs, especially the minimum wage, which is among the highest in the EU. I'm surprised that Dell stayed for as long as it has, but then it did make quite substantial investments in the Shannon factory. Writing games is more labour-intensive but needs fewer people.

View wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, if Ireland's low corporate tax rate has been such a thorn in Berlin's side for years, why didn't Merkel just go "After you raise your corporate tax rate, we'll loan you the money to fund your current account deficit" a year or so ago? It would have been much simpler, wouldn't it?

My memory's not perfect on the events of a year or two years ago, but my recollection is that some Euro Parliament types, especially French & Germans, made a bit of noise about it. But, based on the Treaty, they have no real say over Ireland's fiscal policy, and couldn't seriously threaten Ireland on that basis.

Back in April this year, the German Finance Minister hinted that Ireland could "make a gesture" on the tax rate, but this was resisted:

Ireland’s enterprise minister has warned that France and Germany risk “putting a spoke in the wheel” of the Irish economic recovery if they insist on increases in Ireland’s corporate tax rate.

Richard Bruton was responding to comments by Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, who warned that Ireland would have to make a gesture on the tax issue if it wanted to secure a reduction in the cost of its €85bn bail-out by the European Union and International Monetary Fund.

Even today, the government is saying "hands off": Gilmore in the Irish Times.

Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore and Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn have insisted that there is no threat to the State’s 12.5 per cent corporation tax rate and described Mr Sarkozy’s views on “unfair tax competition” as a restatement of a long-standing French position.

Mr Gilmore said yesterday the Irish tax rate would not be altered.

“The position of the Irish Government is absolutely clear. We are retaining our rate of corporation tax,” he said.

“It’s hugely important for us to provide that certainty for investors and potential investors that they know that the Irish Government is not going to increase corporation tax.”

Mr Gilmore said Mr Sarkozy’s comments on tax reform were identical to comments he had made on a number of previous occasions.

“The president said things that the president and the French government have been saying for some time. There’s nothing new in that,” he said.

In short - both this government and the previous one have put their foot down on the corporate tax rate, resisting pressure from European leaders, both subtle and not-so-subtle.

amacca

meglome wrote: »

And you're basing this on?

simple logic.......in the long term our interests will not align with those of the more powerful populous economies and sooner or later decisions will be made which will be very much not suited to almost every grouping you care to choose from our population.........hell it will probably happen in the short term (as far as some are concerned it already has)

do you really think decisions are going to made that will be fair and equitable going forward.....I have very little faith in the whole debacle personally

meglome wrote: »

Ah I see. I think what you seem to be missing is we are the EU as much as anyone is. These 'faceless jobsworths in Brussels' don't really exist except in the minds of some uber nationalists. All EU deals are agreed in advance with all the members, including obviously us. The Germans, rightly IMO, are looking to not be bankers for countries who could just go off and do the same thing again. We had no respect for this much vaunted independence and I fully support our friends in the EU making sure we can't do the same again.

If we are the EU could you explain why Sarkozy and Merkel are currently the public face of it seeming calling the shots (albeit quite badly for us and the EU...until now at least).....could if be because they are the most populous and powerful economies?.....................fair enough most of this mess is of our own making and again fair enough the germans probably should not have to pay for the profligate (although they did benefit hugely from the system for a long time) but you cannot tell me what is happening now shows that we are as much a part of the EU as anyone is because "all deals are agreed in advance" dont make me laugh....lets say I agreed in advance to be a good boy stfu and not do anything when Al Capone comes collecting protection money from other business people would that be a system I was really as much a part of as good old Al?

(not comparing Sarkozy or Merkel to good old Al btw)

meglome

amacca wrote: »

simple logic.......in the long term our interests will not align with those of the more powerful populous economies and sooner or later decisions will be made which will be very much not suited to almost every grouping you care to choose from our population.........hell it will probably happen in the short term (as far as some are concerned it already has)

I don't get your 'logic', seems like assumption to me. I have no idea what you're basing it on which is why I asked, still don't. If anything in the EU the smaller nations hold the voting power.

amacca wrote: »

do you really think decisions are going to made that will be fair and equitable going forward.....I have very little faith in the whole debacle personally

Well yes I do as they have generally been fair in the past.

amacca wrote: »

If we are the EU could you explain why Sarkozy and Merkel are currently the public face of it seeming calling the shots (albeit quite badly for us and the EU...until now at least).....could if be because they are the most populous and powerful economies?.....................fair enough most of this mess is of our own making and again fair enough the germans probably should not have to pay for the profligate (although they did benefit hugely from the system for a long time) but you cannot tell me what is happening now shows that we are as much a part of the EU as anyone is because "all deals are agreed in advance" dont make me laugh....lets say I agreed in advance to be a good boy stfu and not do anything when Al Capone comes collecting protection money from other business people would that be a system I was really as much a part of as good old Al?

(not comparing Sarkozy or Merkel to good old Al btw)

I have no problem differentiating the EU and the many national opinions that exist in parallel. Many in the EU want Germany to back the mess they have made of their economies. Unsurprisingly the Germans are not too happy about that, nor are the French. While Merkel and Sarkozy haven't exactly covered themselves in glory it's hardly surprising that national interests are expressed in a time of crisis. They do after-all have to answer to their own electorates. That won't change the fact the EU has always worked though negotiation and advanced agreement. You keep saying stuff but don't seem to have any foundation for it other than Merkel and Sarkosy expressed some recent views you didn't like.

beeftotheheels

Scofflaw wrote: »

Crotty doesn't rely on the question of substantial or fundamental changes to the treaties, though. It relies, in the end, on the question of whether sovereignty is affected - whether the treaty in question places any constraint on the capacity of the Ireland to make decisions freely. The particular part in the SEA that determined the outcome of Crotty was the requirement to take the interests of the other EU states into account in forming Irish foreign policy.

In the case of the ECB having a change of goals...I can't see that it affects Irish sovereignty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I ought to 'fess up to my issues up front, I studied law in the UK and therefor the UK standards are those against which I test all standards. Ireland is frequently found to be lacking against such a benchmark.

Crotty is by no means clear in the precedent it sets.

62. In enacting the Constitution the people conferred full freedom of action upon the Government to decide matters of foreign policy and to act as it thinks fit on any particular issue so far as policy is concerned and as, in the opinion of the Government, the occasion requires. In my view, this freedom does not carry with it the power to abdicate that freedom or to enter into binding agreements with other States to exercise that power in a particular way or to refrain from exercising it save by particular procedures, and so to bind the State in its freedom of action in its foreign policy. The freedom to formulate foreign policy is just as much a mark of sovereignty as the freedom to form economic policy and the freedom to legislate. The latter two have now been curtailed by the consent of the people to the amendment of the Constitution which is contained in Article 29, s. 4, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution. If it is now desired to qualify, curtail or inhibit the existing sovereign power to formulate and to pursue such foreign policies as from time to time to the Government may seem proper, it is not within the power of the Government itself to do so. The foreign policy organ of the State cannot, within the terms of the Constitution, agree to impose upon itself, the State or upon the people the contemplated restrictions upon freedom of action. To acquire the power to do so would, in my opinion, require a recourse to the people "whose right it is" in the words of Article 6 "...in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good." In the last analysis it is the people themselves who are the guardians of the Constitution. In my view, the assent of the people is a necessary prerequisite to the ratification of so much of the Single European Act as consists of title III thereof. On these grounds I would allow this appeal.

Gobeldeegook! How does one distinguish "economic" from "foreign" affairs?

View

bnt wrote: »

My memory's not perfect on the events of a year or two years ago, but my recollection is that some Euro Parliament types, especially French & Germans, made a bit of noise about it. But, based on the Treaty, they have no real say over Ireland's fiscal policy, and couldn't seriously threaten Ireland on that basis.

All very good but there is obligation in the EU Treaties for the other member states to have provide us with any loans whatsoever. In addition, the EFSF loans are non-EU loans (i.e. they are inter-governmental essentially and made completely outside the EU structures).

So, if - as claimed - the Germans were really upset about our corporate tax rate, it would be the simplest thing in the world for them to engage in a bit of strong-arm (non-EU) inter-governmental politics and there would have very little we could have done about it.

Hence, the Germans would appear to far less upset about this than people here imagine.

_Kaiser_

Now I'm not one for Conspiracy Theories, but someone over on the thread about Enda's State of the Nation address commented on how the Tri-Color was looking a little shabby when compared to the EU flag.



(Above taken from news coverage today on Merkel and Sarkozy's latest pronouncements on the proposed new Treaty)

Perhaps someone more versed in this can explain it to me, but to me the symbolism is very striking - Germany and France at the forefront with the EU flag almost completely hidden by their own national banners.

Given how much preparation goes into these things, surely it's not just an oversight? A not so subtle admission of the shape of things to come perhaps?

Boskowski

When reading up on articles and comments on the Euro crisis on the more reputable German online papers like 'Spiegel Online' or 'Der Tagesspiegel' 'I came across a lot of forum posts sharing a similar opinion on the matter which were also getting a lot of 'thanks' if you like.
I don't necessarily share these and of course its by no means representative and also anecdotal but its seems to explain some sentiments amongst the more educated German electorate.

Basically it goes along he lines of this

- We all know since WW2 there is still a certain amount of distrust if not dislike towards Germany
- This has been appeased by change in Germany and by more recent history but of course also to a large extent by the fact Germany has been the biggest net contributor to the European project
- all EU countries are in debt up to their eyes - including Germany - but some have been plain reckless
- now for the first time in EU history a real test awaits us - the going gets a little tough - because of this debt crisis and now that...
- Germany isn't immediately getting the chequebook out but rather wants to see some real measures put in place against crazy deficits and future longterm indebtedness before they are prepared to throw in their lot...
- old resentments against Germany popping up everywhere as in powerhungry, domination, throwing their weight around etc

Conclusion

- since they don't ever going to be fine with us by the looks of it anyways
- and we're just about being tolerated because of 'chequebook politics' and apparently not much beyond that
- we might as well play hardball and push for what we believe is the best for Europe anyways

Boskowski

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Given how much preparation goes into these things, surely it's not just an oversight? A not so subtle admission of the shape of things to come perhaps?

I get your point alright.

Surely it would have been more fitting to have them all in a row with the EU flag in the middle?

But it was a Franco-German meeting after all and the intention was to take the lead on drawing up a draft proposal for where we (the EU) go from here.

P.S. Standard & Poors have threatened to withdraw AAA for a number of core EU countries including France & Germany. Maybe its not France & Germany whos calling the shots after all? Maybe the mad little fecker (trader) on BBC was right?

Scofflaw

Boskowski wrote: »

When reading up on articles and comments on the Euro crisis on the more reputable German online papers like 'Spiegel Online' or 'Der Tagesspiegel' 'I came across a lot of forum posts sharing a similar opinion on the matter which were also getting a lot of 'thanks' if you like.
I don't necessarily share these and of course its by no means representative and also anecdotal but its seems to explain some sentiments amongst the more educated German electorate.

Basically it goes along he lines of this

- We all know since WW2 there is still a certain amount of distrust if not dislike towards Germany
- This has been appeased by change in Germany and by more recent history but of course also to a large extent by the fact Germany has been the biggest net contributor to the European project
- all EU countries are in debt up to their eyes - including Germany - but some have been plain reckless
- now for the first time in EU history a real test awaits us - the going gets a little tough - because of this debt crisis and now that...
- Germany isn't immediately getting the chequebook out but rather wants to see some real measures put in place against crazy deficits and future longterm indebtedness before they are prepared to throw in their lot...
- old resentments against Germany popping up everywhere as in powerhungry, domination, throwing their weight around etc

Conclusion

- since they don't ever going to be fine with us by the looks of it anyways
- and we're just about being tolerated because of 'chequebook politics' and apparently not much beyond that
- we might as well play hardball and push for what we believe is the best for Europe anyways

Makes sense, alas. I wonder what the mood in France with respect to Germany is?

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Boskowski wrote: »

When reading up on articles and comments on the Euro crisis on the more reputable German online papers like 'Spiegel Online' or 'Der Tagesspiegel' 'I came across a lot of forum posts sharing a similar opinion on the matter which were also getting a lot of 'thanks' if you like.
I don't necessarily share these and of course its by no means representative and also anecdotal but its seems to explain some sentiments amongst the more educated German electorate.

Basically it goes along he lines of this

- We all know since WW2 there is still a certain amount of distrust if not dislike towards Germany
- This has been appeased by change in Germany and by more recent history but of course also to a large extent by the fact Germany has been the biggest net contributor to the European project
- all EU countries are in debt up to their eyes - including Germany - but some have been plain reckless
- now for the first time in EU history a real test awaits us - the going gets a little tough - because of this debt crisis and now that...
- Germany isn't immediately getting the chequebook out but rather wants to see some real measures put in place against crazy deficits and future longterm indebtedness before they are prepared to throw in their lot...
- old resentments against Germany popping up everywhere as in powerhungry, domination, throwing their weight around etc

Conclusion

- since they don't ever going to be fine with us by the looks of it anyways
- and we're just about being tolerated because of 'chequebook politics' and apparently not much beyond that
- we might as well play hardball and push for what we believe is the best for Europe anyways

Ireland did undergo austerity in the late 80's, not sure who we blamed then. FF I think and Ray McSharry, FG and Labour for not tackling the mess FF got us into as well.

I suppose that might explain less resistance here than Greece and Portugal. TBH, France, Italy and Spain would have huge difficulty with our austerity budgets for the last few years and more to come, the largest ever in a developed country.

Dan_Solo

meglome wrote: »

I have no problem differentiating the EU and the many national opinions that exist in parallel. Many in the EU want Germany to back the mess they have made of their economies. Unsurprisingly the Germans are not too happy about that, nor are the French.

Hang on, aren't those countries massively in debt too? Maybe not per capita the mess the PIGS are, but it only means they can pass the buck and look like they're the only game in town.

hatrickpatrick

Seeking opinions really. Are we the bad boys again or what?

Sarkozy and Merkel, together, are acting like joint emperor and empress of Europe. They seem to forget that there are 27 countries in the EU and they are all entitled to a say in how it is run.

I won't get into Lisbon here as it's been done to death, but what I will say is that it's an absolute disgrace that when three separate countries voted against it, technicalities were found to ignore them in the first two cases, and a temper tantrum and bullying from Sarkozy was used in the third.

When the Greek government decided, as is their prerogative (and perhaps, though I don't know, a constitutional requirement?) to hold a referendum into the bailout, Merel and Sarkozy (the pair of them again) appeared on TV together to issue a joint statement attempting to dictate the wording of that referendum. They ultimately wrenched the government of that country from power in order to get their way - if a referendum had been what they wanted, I'm sure things would have panned out very differently in Greece.

You can bet if their next treaty change doesn't pass, it will be the same two again who complain about it and throw tantrums.

There are 27 countries in the EU, not two. Merkel and Sarkozy are equal partners just like all the other heads of government are.
If we wanted to live in a Europe where the French and German government make the rules and everyone else has to either get in line or get out, we would have voted for that. However, that is not what ANYONE voted for - not consciously, anyway.

I have nothing against Germans or French people, only against the arrogance and delusions of grandeur of their governments. I'm told, for example, that Merkel isn't at all popular in Germany itself, and I think it's unfair for everyone to attack the countries themselves instead of their leadership specifically. I know I wouldn't want to see Ireland itself attacked over Fianna Fail's disastrous leadership, so you won't see me for one attacking Germany or France as countries. But the German and French leadership need a major slap in the face to remind them that they are two countries in a 27 member union, and they do not have the right to act as if theirs are the only voices which matter.

sensibleken

S&P have issued a new threat to the AAA rating of the urozone. Funny how everytime a move is made to try and fix the situation these rating agencies threaten a downgrade. Its almost as if they have something to gain from permanent recession.

Dan_Solo

sensibleken wrote: »

S&P have issued a new threat to the AAA rating of the urozone. Funny how everytime a move is made to try and fix the situation these rating agencies threaten a downgrade. Its almost as if they have something to gain from permanent recession.

Yes, anyone would think these threatened downgrades were cheap shots aimed at increasing bond yields for private banking investors.:D

meglome

sensibleken wrote: »

S&P have issued a new threat to the AAA rating of the urozone. Funny how everytime a move is made to try and fix the situation these rating agencies threaten a downgrade. Its almost as if they have something to gain from permanent recession.

I'm no conspiracy theorist but I've been wondering the same recently. Too many people looking for certain bad things to happen, bad in the sense it will hurt the people of the EU.

jmayo

Nody wrote: »

Anyway I'm willing to put money on that the new treaty will have sod all about EU controlling the tax rates but it will have items such as independant budget review by EU, automatic penalty fees, minimum age for pensions, maximum budget deficit, average deficit over time etc. In short many items already agreed (and ignored) by most parties from existing treaties but with more bite in them (automatic penalties) and possibly even clauses on exclusion from the group if failure to comply with the terms.

Well it would be nice to see the French government signing up to a higher pension age for French workers and penalties for disregarding budgetary constraints. :rolleyes:

cavedave wrote: »

Those are interesting points.
From a public choice perspective a referendum on the EU now would be unpopular. ... That would appear to the Irish people a bit like a boyfriend who beat you up then offering to marry you and telling you you'll be thrown out on the street if you say no.

Brilliant analogy.

Bambi wrote: »

There's a reason why people try to maintain as much control over their personal finances and life choices as they can. Because the only person who acts in your best interests is you.

Yet as a country we believe that handing agency of our own vital interests over to third parties will end well. Good luck with that lads.

Yes we had a government and portion of the electorate who have fooked up, but handing over decisions to a foreign power never works out well.

Sand wrote: »

...
We need solutions to the crisis we are facing *now*. Germany and the ECB have been extremely keen to rule out sensible solutions to the debt crisis ( default, inflation, transfers). Having ruled out those options it becomes apparent that Germany must then volunteer something better than "You really should never have got into this problem in the first place".

I fully understand the German desire not to be mugged, whereby the Greeks, Italians, Spanish, Irish and so on keep on spending and the Germans keeps on paying. There are ways to manage that - but Germany is refusing to even discuss them, and when the Euro collapses, Germany wont be sitting in splendid isolation, untouched and unharmed. German jobs and German investments are based on exports and investment in the periphery. With Germany ruling out inflation and fiscal transfers, the inevitable solution is default.

The Germans have a huge fear of quantitative easing and ramping up the printing presses.
I guess they fear another Austrian painter will arrive on the scene.

Also you have a point about how the collapse of Euro will have major turmoil for Germany unlike some around here who claim that us defaulting will only hurt us and not really the powers of Europe.
Germany is an exporting nation and if the markets of Europe are screwed then she is screwed.

Sand wrote: »

Of course there is a third group - these are the people who have supported the running of their countries into the ground, who rejected any attempt to find a sensible national solution in favour of a dreamt of "EU grand bargain", who have embraced terrible deals and hardship simply to try to impress the German people with how sorry they are. This group are deeply hurt and wounded. They really did believe that Germany would come riding over the hill with the cavalry like in that Lord of the Rings movie throwing the cash around to ward off the evil markets. Theyre deeply hurt and bitter.

I think you have two distinct groups there.
There is indeed one who thought that someone would write off the spending and the party could continue unabated.
These are primarily the believers in the dreams of SF and ULA.
They do have point that a lot of debt was run up by a small private sector cliche and should never have been dumped on the taxpayer, but they are deluded in thinking our deficit could be maintained and paid for by some foreign entity.

Then there is another group who believe we should repay everything, no matter who borrowed it, because our former government made a guarantee even though it was a huge blunder.
This groups believes to not do so would mean we will not be seen in a good light in Europe.
Sometimes this group appears to have an inferority complex who crave approval from the leaders of Europe.
They will do anything that Europe demands and then look down their noses at the Greeks, Italians, etc.
Sometimes I think of these as border line Quislings who will willingly sell out the future of this country and it's people.

View wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, if Ireland's low corporate tax rate has been such a thorn in Berlin's side for years, why didn't Merkel just go "After you raise your corporate tax rate, we'll loan you the money to fund your current account deficit" a year or so ago? It would have been much simpler, wouldn't it?

Because maybe that could spark a flight of capital and investment which would make it even harder to get the repayments she demands.
There have been enough incidents of mouthing off about this topic to surmise that it is an ultimate aim of the big European (and indeed some smaller players) to change our tax rates.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Dont you see that there will be no vote? We are being rail railroaded into concession, Merkel wants a fiscal union and she wants it now - she is not going to wait for Ireland or any other periphery region to agree by consent. I fear the europhiles such as Lucinda Creighton are ready to sigh our sovereignty away for good.

Ehh your bunch actually did affectively sign away our sovereignty last year, so stop trying to claim that a member of the current or future government parties are going to to it.
Nice to see the ff pr machine back in action. :rolleyes:

As for rating agencies I think the fact that anyone puts any trust in them after the disasters they made with derivaties based on subprime shows how the world financial markets are truly run.
Always ask who exactly are paying these rating agencies again ?

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

I'm no conspiracy theorist but I've been wondering the same recently. Too many people looking for certain bad things to happen, bad in the sense it will hurt the people of the EU.

Is a conspiracy theory really needed, though? You could argue that the ratings agencies are ensuring that whatever solution emerges it doesn't include private losses to bondholders - and, to be fair, that's part of what an AAA rating implies, that there's next to no chance of you losing your money. The longer no solution emerges, the higher the risk that eventually the losses will be forced on private bondholders.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sensibleken

meglome wrote: »

I'm no conspiracy theorist but I've been wondering the same recently. Too many people looking for certain bad things to happen, bad in the sense it will hurt the people of the EU.

markets are speculators. they aim to get stuff for the lowest price, drive down the cost of bonds and increase the interest.

politicians have already shown that its the markets that control everything and their slightest whim can topple governments. something is very very broken