Draft International Agreement On A Reinforced Economic Union

Scofflaw

Available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/75872473/Draft-International-Agreement-on-a-Reinforced-Economic-Union

2. The rules mentioned under paragraph 1 shall be introduced in national binding provisions of a constitutional or equivalent nature. The Contracting Parties shall in particular put in place a correction mechanism to be triggered automatically in the event of significant deviations from the reference value or the adjustment path towards it. This mechanism shall be defined at national level, on the basis of commonly agreed principles. It shall include the obligation of the Contracting Parties to present a programme to correct the deviations over a defined period of time. It shall fully respect responsibilities of national Parliaments.

I seem to recall suggesting that we wouldn't get a referendum directly on the ratification, but on implementing a constitutional debt brake. That could still be the case, since if there's an appropriate debt brake in the Constitution I don't think there's a legal need for a further referendum on ratification.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

I seem to recall suggesting that we wouldn't get a referendum directly on the ratification, but on implementing a constitutional debt brake. That could still be the case, since if there's an appropriate debt brake in the Constitution I don't think there's a legal need for a further referendum on ratification.

At first glance, that would appear to be only provision that might need a referendum - most of the rest "agreeing to report" etc. would appear to fall within the parts of the Crotty judgment that did not require a referendum.

No mention of any taxation issues either - maybe they are there in invisible ink though along with the mandatory abortion clauses.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

At first glance, that would appear to be only provision that might need a referendum - most of the rest "agreeing to report" etc. would appear to fall within the parts of the Crotty judgment that did not require a referendum.

No mention of any taxation issues either - maybe they are there in invisible ink though along with the mandatory abortion clauses.

Here are the Council Decisions from the 9th: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/126658.pdf

Likewise, no mention of tax. Also, this is in no sense a 'fiscal union'. It is, as per earlier suggestions, an upgraded version of the S&G Pact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boskowski

How dare you bringing information and facts into this discussion? We were doing just fine on our 4th Reich, Arrogant Frogs, Black & Tans and poor poor (most vulnerable) Paddy diet.

wiseguy

I have a huge issue with article 7 as mentioned here

Breaching the 3% ceiling instantly transfers power away, under best case scenario we wont reach 3% until 2015, and with latest news of GDP shrinking fast and "highly optimistic" growth that was projected not materialising as well as continuing foot dragging when it comes to reform and Croke Park it might be a very long time before we reach 3%.

Ireland would be insane to signup to this.

oscarBravo

wiseguy wrote: »

Breaching the 3% ceiling instantly transfers power away, under best case scenario we wont reach 3% until 2015...

Maybe I'm misreading, but:

...significant deviations from the reference value or the adjustment path towards it...

Doesn't that imply that a country that's on an adjustment path simply needs to stay the course, rather than suddenly arrive at the destination?

wiseguy wrote: »

Ireland would be insane to signup to this.

Well, sure. But of all the criticisms you can level at our government, I don't think insanity is one of them - which means you probably need to check your premises.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

I have a huge issue with article 7 as mentioned here

Breaching the 3% ceiling instantly transfers power away, under best case scenario we wont reach 3% until 2015, and with latest news of GDP shrinking fast and "highly optimistic" growth that was projected not materialising as well as continuing foot dragging when it comes to reform and Croke Park it might be a very long time before we reach 3%.

Ireland would be insane to signup to this.

We have already signed up to exactly the same set of strictures, in the Stability & Growth Pact we signed a decade or so ago.

And oB is quite right, there is no "instant breach" criterion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

For those who, like me, were wondering how this could be justiciable by the ECJ despite not being an EU Treaty, the answer is apparently this:

The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States which relates to the subject matter of the Treaties if the dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement between the parties.

Article 273 TFEU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cavedave

Scofflaw

We have already signed up to exactly the same set of strictures, in the Stability & Growth Pact we signed a decade or so ago.

If we signed up to this already why are we resigning up to it?

What would have obviously happened differently over the last five years if this agreement was in place? If its nothing I dont see how the agreement helps. If its that we would have to have cut the budget deficit faster that would be interesting.

Boskowski

The stability pact was toothless. In fact Germany having pushed for it were the first to breach it.
The new treaty is supposed to make it enforceable is what I take from it.

Scofflaw

cavedave wrote: »

If we signed up to this already why are we resigning up to it?

What would have obviously happened differently over the last five years if this agreement was in place? If its nothing I dont see how the agreement helps. If its that we would have to have cut the budget deficit faster that would be interesting.

As Boskowski says, the original pact was effectively toothless, because the mechanism for activating sanctions consisted of a majority vote for them on the Council. No majority vote was ever achieved.

Unfortunately, as you say, the agreement achieves absolutely nothing in respect of the crisis. The theory (as I've said elsewhere) is that once the stronger economies are happy that what they do won't be a licence for the weaker economies to dip into their pockets, they'll actually do something. Finally.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amtmann

Well, Fitch for one aren't impressed. They've said they view the crisis as technically and politically irresolvable at this point. What on earth will 2012 bring...

Scofflaw

Tremelo wrote: »

Well, Fitch for one aren't impressed. They've said they view the crisis as technically and politically irresolvable at this point. What on earth will 2012 bring...

You do have to wonder. Although I admit I've never seen the crisis as "solvable". Just endurable.

cordially,
Scofflaw