Treaty Referendum: 31 May 2012

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SnowDrifts

Basically the said treaty trumps our Constitution. I think a study of the treaty would be more important.

Scofflaw

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Basically the said treaty trumps our Constitution. I think a study of the treaty would be more important.

"Trumps our constitution" is an over-broad (and over-used) phrase, although I'd agree with the general thrust of your comment, since the treaty - and any legislation "necessitated by the obligations of the State under that treaty" - is exempt from constitutional challenge.

To be honest, though, I would be more concerned by such exemptions if I felt the Constitution was particularly relevant to daily life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dirk Gently

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Basically the said treaty trumps our Constitution. I think a study of the treaty would be more important.

Pretty much yeah.

From my reading any laws enacted under the treaty become law in the Irish state as the treaty shall not be challenged in any way by our constitution.

Does that mean if at any future point an elected government wants to opt out of this treaty we will require another referendum to essentially remove this one? Does this block the Irish government from not complying with legislation?

BlaasForRafa

I'm not a lawyer so I could be getting this completely wrong but this provision looks like it gives the government of the day carte blanche to do whatever it likes and justify it as being necessary to the performance of the stability pact.

For example, it would seem that a government could get rid of child benefit payments and justify it as being necessary despite the provisions in the constitution relating to the child and the family etc. Now thats an extreme and broad brush example and no government that wished to get re-elected would do it but it would seem that its possible under this provision.

If this amendment were time limited (say 8-10 years) or subject to reconfirmation with another referendum in 8-10 years than it might seem less powerful than it is.

On another point entirely, if there was a significant debt writedown (not the payment delay thats currently being proposed) then I might be more inclined to vote yes than I am now. I realise thats a mercenary viewpoint but so what, I'm not ashamed to admit I'm open to inducement.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer so I could be getting this completely wrong but this provision looks like it gives the government of the day carte blanche to do whatever it likes and justify it as being necessary to the performance of the stability pact.

For example, it would seem that a government could get rid of child benefit payments and justify it as being necessary despite the provisions in the constitution relating to the child and the family etc. Now thats an extreme and broad brush example and no government that wished to get re-elected would do it but it would seem that its possible under this provision.

If this amendment were time limited (say 8-10 years) or subject to reconfirmation with another referendum in 8-10 years than it might seem less powerful than it is.

On another point entirely, if there was a significant debt writedown (not the payment delay thats currently being proposed) then I might be more inclined to vote yes than I am now. I realise thats a mercenary viewpoint but so what, I'm not ashamed to admit I'm open to inducement.

Actually, that illustrates quite well the kind of problems I have with phrases like "trumps our constitution", because that's a similarly over-broad reading.

If a government decided to do away with child benefit, then, first and foremost, there's nothing in the Constitution to stop them doing so.

Second, assuming that there were something in the Constitution which would otherwise prevent them, they can't merely wave at this and claim it as protective. In the inevitable court challenge, the government would be forced to show that the abolition of child benefit was a specific outcome of treaty implementation - which, unless child benefit is specifically mentioned in the treaty, they couldn't possibly do.

At most, the government could show that compliance with the treaty meant that government expenditure compared to revenue had to remain within a certain envelope, and that remaining within this envelope - given the government's other spending and taxation choices - required a level of savings that could be financed by abolishing child benefit.

It should be immediately obvious, I hope, that the abolition of child benefit under those circumstances is in fact the outcome of the government's other spending and taxation choices, and is one possible way of meeting the targets, and therefore is not in any way specifically "necessitated by the obligations of the State under that treaty". Therefore, unless all the other spending and taxation choices had better constitutional protection than child benefit, there could be no obligation on the state to engage in something constitutionally repugnant to meet the targets in the treaty.

The exemption from constitutional challenge for treaty-derived law is not a carte blanche, but a very narrow exemption only for what can be shown to be a direct obligation of the treaty in question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Pretty much yeah.

From my reading any laws enacted under the treaty become law in the Irish state as the treaty shall not be challenged in any way by our constitution.

Does that mean if at any future point an elected government wants to opt out of this treaty we will require another referendum to essentially remove this one? Does this block the Irish government from not complying with legislation?

No, because the effect is permissive rather than obligatory - "the State may ratify the treaty" rather than "the State shall ratify". Should the state decide at some future point to reverse ratification, then domestically, no referendum is required.

We don't vote in referendums to ratify treaties - we vote to give the Oireachtas or Executive the permission to do so if they choose.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dirk Gently

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer so I could be getting this completely wrong but this provision looks like it gives the government of the day carte blanche to do whatever it likes and justify it as being necessary to the performance of the stability pact.
.

that wouldnt be as bad as my reading of it as it at least leaves a degree of accountability. It looks to me like carte blanche is being given to europe, over the heads of our own government.

Article 7 in particular is worrying

T/SCG/en 15

ARTICLE 7
While fully respecting the procedural requirements of the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro commit to supporting the proposals or recommendations submitted by the European Commission where it considers that a Member State of the European Union whose currency is the euro is in breach of the deficit criterion in the framework of an excessive deficit procedure. This obligation shall not apply where it is established among the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro that a qualified majority of them, calculated by analogy with the relevant provisions of the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, without taking into account the position of the Contracting Party concerned, is opposed to the decision proposed or recommended.

hatrickpatrick

You already know my view Scoffy but I may as well chip in here: If it involves giving a body outside the state of Ireland to override voters inside the state of Ireland in any way, I'll be rejecting it.

It appears to fit this criteria at first glance, however I haven't yet researched it so I won't commit yet to either a yes or a no.

Incidentally, is there a link where I could read the treaty, or an unbiased, neutral summary of what it entails, point by point?

RichardAnd

It's been a long time since I've had to read legal prose but I would translate quote into clearer English thus:


The state has permission to give formal consent to the treaty known as the Fiscal Treaty. Nothing in the constitution can be used to invalidate any measure taken by the state as a result of the said treaty or any measures undertaken by organisations active under the patronage of the state in regards to the treath.


That's my reading of it but I'm open to correction.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You already know my view Scoffy but I may as well chip in here: If it involves giving a body outside the state of Ireland to override voters inside the state of Ireland in any way, I'll be rejecting it.

Since it entails a limit on the ability of the government to go into deficit - and that is perhaps something people might want to vote for - then I guess it does so. On the other hand, you might consider that we're already signed up to almost exactly the same set of fiscal rules elsewhere.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It appears to fit this criteria at first glance, however I haven't yet researched it so I won't commit yet to either a yes or a no.

Incidentally, is there a link where I could read the treaty, or an unbiased, neutral summary of what it entails, point by point?

http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/579087/treaty.pdf

It's not long!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Dirk Gently wrote: »

that wouldnt be as bad as my reading of it as it at least leaves a degree of accountability. It looks to me like carte blanche is being given to europe, over the heads of our own government.

Article 7 in particular is worrying

ARTICLE 7
While fully respecting the procedural requirements of the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro commit to supporting the proposals or recommendations submitted by the European Commission where it considers that a Member State of the European Union whose currency is the euro is in breach of the deficit criterion in the framework of an excessive deficit procedure. This obligation shall not apply where it is established among the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro that a qualified majority of them, calculated by analogy with the relevant provisions of the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, without taking into account the position of the Contracting Party concerned, is opposed to the decision proposed or recommended.

Actually, that is a good point and a genuine concern. Coming back to BlaasForRafa's idea about abolishing child benefit - that's not something which is feasible under the ordinary operation of the Treaty, but is feasible under this clause. In other words, in the deficit mechanism it is possible for the Commission to make "proposals or recommendations" which we are obliged to support unless there's a blocking majority against them.

Such "proposals or recommendations" would presumably then be considered to be obligations in themselves, and therefore exempt from constitutional challenge.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dirk Gently

The first thing that sprung to mind was tax sovereignty but yeah, it could be used to impose anything really unless we managed to convince a majority to back us. We're really being asked to take a gamble on an unknown and hope it's preferable to not being excluded from future EU bailouts.

Eliot Rosewater

Dirk Gently wrote: »

We're really being asked to take a gamble on an unknown and hope it's preferable to not being excluded from future EU bailouts.

That's perhaps true, but then the alternative isn't well determined, either. That is, your concern rests on the unpredictably of the usage of the Treaty by the European government -- however, can one really suggest that the Irish government is any more predictable and/or "better"?

Obviously the Irish government is more accountable in terms of relying more directly on the electorate for their position, but historical evidence suggest that this doesn't ensure that ultimately disastrous economic policies are not followed. The evidence here is the current crisis which was caused in a large way by the low-tax high-spend policies promoted by the 3 major parties. You're hinting that we can't trust the commission -- but should those fears be placed closer to home, too?

One thing I like about the EU (from my limited knowledge) is its "coldness". This treaty isn't here to help some parliamentarians keep their seats, or to shmoozy a few special interests. It is here because running large deficits has a demonstrably negative effect on the long term stability of the Eurozone, and something is needed to safeguard that. If the commission makes fiscal recommendations it probably won't have ideological factors (such as an opposition to child welfare, for instance) in mind, but will only be interested in satisfying the cold mathematical demands of a stable economic policy.

Kinski

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

One thing I like about the EU (from my limited knowledge) is its "coldness". This treaty isn't here to help some parliamentarians keep their seats, or to shmoozy a few special interests. It is here because running large deficits has a demonstrably negative effect on the long term stability of the Eurozone, and something is needed to safeguard that. If the commission makes fiscal recommendations it probably won't have ideological factors (such as an opposition to child welfare, for instance) in mind, but will only be interested in satisfying the cold mathematical demands of a stable economic policy.

You think that the EU Commission is free from ideological commitments, and immune from the appeals of specific interest groups? And you know that the various EU govts appoint its members, right?

later12

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This treaty isn't here to help some parliamentarians keep their seats, or to shmoozy a few special interests.

Really? You don't think it's possible that the particularly tight deficit rules of questionable economic inflexibility and the nature of the correction mechanism dictated by the EU Commission could be - even in part - a sop dem Deustchen Volke, as Merkel eyes her fate?

Dirk Gently

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That's perhaps true, but then the alternative isn't well determined, either. That is, your concern rests on the unpredictably of the usage of the Treaty by the European government -- however, can one really suggest that the Irish government is any more predictable and/or "better"?

Obviously the Irish government is more accountable in terms of relying more directly on the electorate for their position, but historical evidence suggest that this doesn't ensure that ultimately disastrous economic policies are not followed. The evidence here is the current crisis which was caused in a large way by the low-tax high-spend policies promoted by the 3 major parties. You're hinting that we can't trust the commission -- but should those fears be placed closer to home, too?

One thing I like about the EU (from my limited knowledge) is its "coldness". This treaty isn't here to help some parliamentarians keep their seats, or to shmoozy a few special interests. It is here because running large deficits has a demonstrably negative effect on the long term stability of the Eurozone, and something is needed to safeguard that. If the commission makes fiscal recommendations it probably won't have ideological factors (such as an opposition to child welfare, for instance) in mind, but will only be interested in satisfying the cold mathematical demands of a stable economic policy.

In fairness, the EU is a lobbyists wet dream. One of the things I'm worried about is that it's also not in fact immune from political opportunism either and the mechanism I highlighted earlier could well be used to forward an agenda at our expense, for example an instruction to us to raise corporation tax would go down well in a lot of EU countries.

Both of those concerns pale though when I think about the broader point, we are in effect giving up on democracy and looking to unaccountable technocrats to rule us. Representative democracy has failed in Ireland, I'd rather try to fix it though than abandon it. Short term perhaps, this treaty might be a good thing, medium to long term though I'd be looking to withdraw as opposed to getting further sucked in.

The question I need to ask is, do I support a temporary suspension of democracy and or accountability for the greater good of the nation, and will it be a temporary transfer or a permanent one.

Scofflaw

Dirk Gently wrote: »

In fairness, the EU is a lobbyists wet dream.

No more so than any other centre of power, I think. Somewhat less in quite a lot of ways, because the legislation gets voted on by 27 countries, which means quite a lot of national level lobbying is vital for developments at the European level.

Dirk Gently wrote: »

One of the things I'm worried about is that it's also not in fact immune from political opportunism either and the mechanism I highlighted earlier could well be used to forward an agenda at our expense, for example an instruction to us to raise corporation tax would go down well in a lot of EU countries.

But would be a terrible precedent for the other countries not to block. The Commission, precisely because it's not an elected body, but also because it operates by consensus, is less likely to start playing politics, and will be well aware of the limits to its effective mandate. Imposing a deeply nationally unpopular measure like that would do the Commission immense damage.

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Both of those concerns pale though when I think about the broader point, we are in effect giving up on democracy and looking to unaccountable technocrats to rule us. Representative democracy has failed in Ireland, I'd rather try to fix it though than abandon it. Short term perhaps, this treaty might be a good thing, medium to long term though I'd be looking to withdraw as opposed to getting further sucked in.

The question I need to ask is, do I support a temporary suspension of democracy and or accountability for the greater good of the nation, and will it be a temporary transfer or a permanent one.

Eh, and that's basically tosh. The clauses on excessive deficit procedures is only operative when there's an excessive deficit, and applies solely to measures to get us out of the deficit.

And while we're currently in an excessive deficit, we're also exempt from the application of these rules until three years after the end of our current program.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dirk Gently

Scofflaw wrote: »

Eh, and that's basically tosh. The clauses on excessive deficit procedures is only operative when there's an excessive deficit,

which is defined by the commission

Scofflaw wrote: »

and applies solely to measures to get us out of the deficit.

measures which are also defined by the commission



what happens if /when we are in excessive deficit as a result of following the fiscal treaty? Do we get a pass?

Eliot Rosewater

later12 wrote: »

Really? You don't think it's possible that the particularly tight deficit rules of questionable economic inflexibility and the nature of the correction mechanism dictated by the EU Commission could be - even in part - a sop dem Deustchen Volke, as Merkel eyes her fate?

No doubt - but I was discussing what recommendations the Commission would give when dealing with a country under the terms of the treaty, rather than the creation of the treaty itself.

latenia

Astonishingly poor decision-making in setting a date before the French presidential election on May 6. Francois Hollande is a clear favourite to oust Sarkozy and he has stated that he will rewrite the treaty when he is elected.

I predict a massive legal and logistical sh1tstorm... (Not that there wouldn't have been one anyway.)

"I will renegotiate [the fiscal pact], improve it, then ratify it," Hollande told The Guardian at a recent meeting of centre-left leaders in Paris.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/26/francois-hollande-angela-merkel-european-politics?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Dirk Gently

latenia wrote: »

"I will renegotiate [the fiscal pact], improve it, then ratify it," Hollande told The Guardian at a recent meeting of centre-left leaders in Paris.

sounds familiar. I wouldn't worry about it.

latenia

Don't worry about a referendum being called for something which won't even exist in the same form a few weeks later? Or is it going to be worded so that whatever form the treaty may take now or at any point in the future will apply to Ireland, depending on who's in charge of Frence or Germany? What if by some freak result Le Pen gets in? Should I worry then?

Scofflaw

Dirk Gently wrote: »

which is defined by the commission

Who would you prefer it defined by? The Commission's procedures for determining excessive deficit are well established and transparent, and have been in place since Maastricht. While they've been flouted, I don't recall them ever having been applied unfairly.

Dirk Gently wrote: »

measures which are also defined by the commission

Again, not really. The article being cited applies to a fairly specific set of circumstances - a breach of the excessive deficit criterion within the excessive deficit procedure. Under most circumstances what applies is the national plan, either ad hoc or as part of the national "correction mechanism", as per Articles 3.3 and 5.1:

2. The rules mentioned under paragraph 1 shall take effect in the national law of the Contracting Parties at the latest one year after the entry into force of this Treaty through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional, or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes. The Contracting Parties shall put in place at national level the correction mechanism mentioned in paragraph 1.e) on the basis of common principles to be proposed by the European Commission, concerning in particular the nature, the size and the time-frame of the corrective action to be undertaken, also in the case of exceptional circumstances, and the role and independence of the institutions responsible at national level for monitoring the observance of the rules. This mechanism shall fully respect the prerogatives of national Parliaments.

1. The Contracting Parties that are subject to an excessive deficit procedure under the European Union Treaties shall put in place a budgetary and economic partnership programme including a detailed description of the structural reforms which must be put in place and implemented to ensure an effective and durable correction of their excessive deficits. The content and format of these programmes shall be defined in European Union law. Their submission to the European Commission and the Council for endorsement and their monitoring will take place within the context of the existing surveillance procedures of the Stability and Growth Pact.

Dirk Gently wrote: »

what happens if /when we are in excessive deficit as a result of following the fiscal treaty? Do we get a pass?

Apologies - not sure what this refers to?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Also, big talk before an election notwithstanding, the new French president will come under a ****load of pressure to go with the flow when the time comes.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You already know my view Scoffy but I may as well chip in here: If it involves giving a body outside the state of Ireland to override voters inside the state of Ireland in any way, I'll be rejecting it.

Do you want us to withdraw from the EU completely because some functions have already become EU ones? How about the UN? Want us to go it alone there as well? Or our other international obligations?

If you answer yes, fair play, I can understand the madness of your policy position. If you answer no, I can't understand why you are objecting to this particular peice of sovereignty loss and not others?

latenia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You've just emphasised my point rather than counter it. The document Enda Kenny signed could well by toilet paper by the summer.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Also, big talk before an election notwithstanding, the new French president will come under a ****load of pressure to go with the flow when the time comes.

So we go ahead with a referendum on the presumption that one of the most respected politicians in Europe is lying and that everything will be grand anyway rather than waiting for a couple of months.

Dirk Gently

Scofflaw wrote: »

Apologies - not sure what this refers to?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not sure myself seen as how we will (in theory) be out of the current terms of our bailout in 3 years.

What happens then though, is it up to national governments to balance or return a surplus and stay within the parameters set out by this treaty by using their own domestic policies, or is there a programme of directives set out here which we follow to achieve the targets. If the latter, what happens if we follow the directives yet still don't meet the targets. For example, we cut too much or tax too much under direction and fail to balance the budget.

Basically what I'm asking is, after 3 years is it up to us to meet the targets or are we instructed on how to meet them.

Are we not dependant on the trokia anyway to even be in a position to start clean in 3 years. A lot of it seems to be out of our hands, which isn't necessarily a bad thing provided our troika commitments cut the deficit in time, which is very debatable. We could walk into this thing already evoking article 7 from day 1.

oscarBravo

latenia wrote: »

So we go ahead with a referendum on the presumption that one of the most respected politicians in Europe is lying and that everything will be grand anyway rather than waiting for a couple of months.

Alternatively, we bring a process of multilateral ratification of an international treaty to a screeching halt because of the posturing of an election candidate.

Dirk Gently

latenia wrote: »

So we go ahead with a referendum on the presumption that one of the most respected politicians in Europe is lying and that everything will be grand anyway rather than waiting for a couple of months.

will everything not be grand regardless. Does france have a veto? They're either in or out, just like us.

Godge

latenia wrote: »

You've just emphasised my point rather than counter it. The document Enda Kenny signed could well by toilet paper by the summer.



So we go ahead with a referendum on the presumption that one of the most respected politicians in Europe is lying and that everything will be grand anyway rather than waiting for a couple of months.

So a French election candidate has promised something he knows he can't deliver. So what?

We see that all the time over here. Don't you hear Joe Higgins, the ULA, SF and all the other loonies promising to burn the bondholders, get rid of the new taxes and increase public spending while growing the economy, all things that they know they cannot deliver.

K-9

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Basically what I'm asking is, after 3 years is it up to us to meet the targets or are we instructed on how to meet them.

It'll be up to us to meet the targets, but as we see fit. Introduce a 100% Wealth tax fine, a 0% Corporation tax rate fine. I don't see anything stopping those as long as they start seeing a reduction in the deficit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

I get the feeling that the "Europe is stealing our babies' souls" brigade will come out in force once the household tax buzz has died down a bit.

Scofflaw

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Not sure myself seen as how we will (in theory) be out of the current terms of our bailout in 3 years.

What happens then though, is it up to national governments to balance or return a surplus and stay within the parameters set out by this treaty by using their own domestic policies, or is there a programme of directives set out here which we follow to achieve the targets. If the latter, what happens if we follow the directives yet still don't meet the targets. For example, we cut too much or tax too much under direction and fail to balance the budget.

Basically what I'm asking is, after 3 years is it up to us to meet the targets or are we instructed on how to meet them.

Are we not dependant on the trokia anyway to even be in a position to start clean in 3 years. A lot of it seems to be out of our hands, which isn't necessarily a bad thing provided our troika commitments cut the deficit in time, which is very debatable. We could walk into this thing already evoking article 7 from day 1.

No, we have three years after the end of the excessive deficit procedure:

Public debt

The new rules of the amended Stability and Growth Pact make the debt criterion of the Treaty absolutely operational, since it has been largely neglected over the past years. Another major element of the new rules is that a new numerical debt benchmark has been defined: if the 60% reference for the debt-to-GDP ratio is not respected, the Member State concerned will be put in excessive deficit procedure (even if its deficit is below 3%!), after taking into account all relevant factors and the impact of the economic cycle, if the gap between its debt level and the 60% reference is not reduced by 1/20th annually (on average over 3 years).

Given that that most Member States are already in excessive deficit procedure, and therefore have to comply with agreed fiscal consolidation paths, a transitional period is foreseen in the amended legislation to ensure no abrupt change in these agreed paths. Accordingly, each Member State in excessive deficit procedure is granted a three-year period following the correction of the excessive deficit for meeting the debt rule. This does not mean that the debt rule does not apply at all during this period as the amended Regulation foresees that Member States should make sufficient progress towards compliance during this transitional period. A negative assessment of the progress made towards compliance with the debt benchmark during the transition period could lead to the opening of an excessive deficit procedure. Sufficient progress towards compliance with the debt rule should start on 13 December 2011, depending on country-specific deadlines for correction of their excessive deficit.

So, assuming we're out of the excessive deficit procedure we're currently in by 2015, the rules in the Treaty apply at the earliest in 2018. Realistically, though, I would have said we won't have corrected our excessive deficit much this side of...what, maybe 2025?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cardinal Richelieu

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I get the feeling that the "Europe is stealing our babies' souls" brigade will come out in force once the household tax buzz has died down a bit.

They always do, then the red herring stories about the treaty quickly surface until you have people telling you that a Yes vote for the Treaty also extends the Greyhound waste contract with DCC.:D That's the main tactic these days that they use to get the ordinary citizen so confused that the old adage "of if in doubt vote no" applies. Sadly after the mess of the communication of the Household charge I have little confidence that the government is quick enough to handle most of the potential red herrings before they cause major confusion.

Kinski

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

They always do, then the red herring stories about the treaty quickly surface until you have people telling you that a Yes vote for the Treaty also extends the Greyhound waste contract with DCC.:D That's the main tactic these days that they use to get the ordinary citizen so confused that the old adage "of if in doubt vote no" applies. Sadly after the mess of the communication of the Household charge I have little confidence that the government is quick enough to handle most of the potential red herrings before they cause major confusion.

Misrepresentation of the issues is common to both Yes and No campaigners in European treaty referendums. Neither side seems to trust the public enough to engage in honest debate.

Dirk Gently

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, we have three years after the end of the excessive deficit procedure:



So, assuming we're out of the excessive deficit procedure we're currently in by 2015, the rules in the Treaty apply at the earliest in 2018. Realistically, though, I would have said we won't have corrected our excessive deficit much this side of...what, maybe 2025?

cordially,
Scofflaw

so barring some kind of restructuring or default we will most likely fall under article 7 and have policy dictated to us, save for the support of a majority of nations coming to our support.

Scofflaw

Dirk Gently wrote: »

so barring some kind of restructuring or default we will most likely fall under article 7 and have policy dictated to us, save for the support of a majority of nations coming to our support.

Er, no. The point of what I quoted is that we do not become subject to Article 7 by virtue of the existing deficit. We're not subject to the rules in the treaty at all until three years after we've sorted out the existing deficit.

The salient points from the quote:

Accordingly, each Member State in excessive deficit procedure is granted a three-year period following the correction of the excessive deficit for meeting the debt rule.

We're in an excessive deficit procedure under the existing rules. We have not corrected the existing excessive deficit - that is, reduced it below 60% - nor, I imagine, will we do so within the immediate future.

For us, then, Article 7 cannot operate unless we're making no progress in reducing our debt, in which case we could be subject to a new excessive deficit procedure under the new rules:

This does not mean that the debt rule does not apply at all during this period as the amended Regulation foresees that Member States should make sufficient progress towards compliance during this transitional period. A negative assessment of the progress made towards compliance with the debt benchmark during the transition period could lead to the opening of an excessive deficit procedure.

I'll bounce this off some people, but that's my understanding of it - and the understanding of, at the least, Seamus Coffey, who said as much to the Oireachtas Committee.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, we have three years after the end of the excessive deficit procedure.........so , assuming we're out of the excessive deficit procedure we're currently in by 2015, the rules in the Treaty apply at the earliest in 2018. Realistically, though, I would have said we won't have corrected our excessive deficit much this side of...what, maybe 2025?

As i see it, this is one of the many dangers of a yes vote ( i'm not advocating anything here either way BTW, as i see it there are many dangers of a no vote too).

The bailout was built on pie-in-the-sky growth figures which have consistently been fallen short of/revised down by Ireland inc, and with the latest tightening of the retail spending figures there's no real sign of any improvement in growth to come. If anything, when you take the export sector recovery and expatriated foreign multinational profits out of the equation, things are actually still getting slowly but steadily worse for our domestic economy. Apart from the really big players who can afford to weather this storm, we seem to be very slowly being dragged down by the current here, or at the very least, just treading water and going nowhere.

What happens if we haven't, as many people expect, produced enough growth to come out of serious recession or avoid any second bailout program by 2015-2018? What happens if the only lender still available to us then is the IMF/EU? Do we have to then drag ourselves through another lengthy series of political negotiations with the fiscal powers of Europe to seek an exception to the provisions in the treaty? Do we have to ensure that any second bailout program is in place here before the treaty is fully ratified, to allow us further protection under the "existing program" clause? What will that mean for the prospects of re-election of our existing government, and who will we vote for if not them (presuming that FF will still be a non-runner)?

Do we look for yet another exception or bending of the rules on something we signed up to in good faith (perhaps unwisely), as with the bailout renegotiations and the current talk of promissory notes deals? Another EU renegotiation process and all the negative media reporting it would bring would further erode both our own population's faith in the institutions of the EU, as well as their faith in us. This further dragging through the mud would give rise to further euro-scepticism here, and give our government decreased breathing room in terms of their mandate on European matters, right at a time when their re-election and the 100th anniversary of our state would likely be a major factor in their thinking.

Conversely, would Germany and the other major EU states simply tow a hard line on us, paint us with the same brush as greece (ie:can't be expected to live up to their commitments, too fond of breaking their promises, their reach exceeds their grasp, etc), and enforce austerity on us, regardless of our domestic considerations? What would that mean for thousands of public servants and state run services here? How severe would these cuts be, and really, if we haven't had the stomach to make them ourselves by then, is it a bad thing if someone with a cold, dispassionate, outside view comes along and makes them for us?

There are so many variables and unanswered questions here, and it seems so difficult to get clarification or any definite answers to them at the moment. I think if past referendums are anything to go by, the "if in doubt, vote no" ethos is going to play a major part here.

benway

K-9 wrote: »

It'll be up to us to meet the targets, but as we see fit. Introduce a 100% Wealth tax fine, a 0% Corporation tax rate fine. I don't see anything stopping those as long as they start seeing a reduction in the deficit.

I've heard quite a few people referring to the Treaty as enforced austerity to eternity, or words to that effect, I don't buy it either ... in theory.

But, in terms of realpolitik, it doesn't seem likely to me that our Celtic Tiger era tax aversion is likely to abate any time soon, so it's likely to have the same net effect, which I find worrying for social cohesion into the future.

On the flip side, I have more confidence in budgets being overseen by EU technocrats than our own shower being left to their own devices ...

Torn by this, will take my time deciding one way or the other.

Overwhelming sensation at the moment is that if I never have to read another of those treaties again it will be too soon ... especially if "the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro" are involved.

Skopzz

benway wrote: »

I've heard quite a few people referring to the Treaty as enforced austerity to eternity, or words to that effect, I don't buy it either ... in theory.

But, in terms of realpolitik, it doesn't seem likely to me that our Celtic Tiger era tax aversion is likely to abate any time soon, so it's likely to have the same net effect, which I find worrying for social cohesion into the future.

On the flip side, I have more confidence in budgets being overseen by EU technocrats than our own shower being left to their own devices ...

Torn by this, will take my time deciding one way or the other.

Overwhelming sensation at the moment is that if I never have to read another of those treaties again it will be too soon ... especially if "the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro" are involved.

So the EU politboro will end up dictating because "they know what's best"??! What a stupid analogy. Ireland did NOT have a fiscal problem until the pro-EU governments decided to bailout the private banks. Our country was sacrificed to save investors.

Even if we are cut off from the ESM, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. We can also tap the Ireland-America fund or other bilateral loans as our economy grows. The promissory note to unguaranteed bondholders would then be burned by the Irish Authorities (since it's not part of our sovereign debt). At the end of the day, we still hold the cards.

Change is coming. The writing's on the wall: FG/LAB must arrange a write-off of 70 billion relating to Anglo Irish Bank Private Bondholders and their ponzi scheme or else we will reject this treaty.

oscarBravo

Skopzz wrote: »

...EU politboro...

Just FYI: any post that contains a phrase like this is mentally deleted by me, and I'm sure I'm not alone. If you were actually trying to make a valid point that you wanted people to take seriously, I would politely suggest leaving silly phrases like this one out.

Does Skopzzz' post officially mark the end of the household charge debacle?

Skopzz

^^^

I didn't pay the household/bankers charge. I have no intention of paying either because it's not our debt. I recommend the same for all you chronic boards.ie posters.

Scofflaw

Skopzz wrote: »

So the EU politboro will end up dictating because "they know what's best"??! What a stupid analogy. Ireland did NOT have a fiscal problem until the pro-EU governments decided to bailout the private banks. Our country was sacrificed to save investors.

Even if we are cut off from the ESM, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. We can also tap the Ireland-America fund or other bilateral loans as our economy grows. The promissory note to unguaranteed bondholders would then be burned by the Irish Authorities (since it's not part of our sovereign debt). At the end of the day, we still hold the cards.

Change is coming. The writing's on the wall: FG/LAB must arrange a write-off of 70 billion relating to Anglo Irish Bank Private Bondholders and their ponzi scheme or else we will reject this treaty.

Which won't make a blind bit of difference - except perhaps in PR terms - to anyone but us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Skopzz wrote: »

So the EU politboro

Yawn

Skopzz wrote: »

Ireland did NOT have a fiscal problem until the pro-EU governments decided to bailout the private banks. Our country was sacrificed to save investors.

From the link below

It is impossible to be human and not to be furious about this. But anger – righteous or otherwise – should not cloud analysis. However understandable, that has happened in the debate on bank debt.

Three claims are frequently made:

• Most public debt is a result of taking on banking debt;
• The economic and budgetary outlook would be transformed if banking debt could be offloaded;
• A bailout would not have been needed had it not been for socialised banking debt.

These claims are, respectively, plain wrong, wrong and debatable.

Skopzz wrote: »

Even if we are cut off from the ESM, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. We can also tap the Ireland-America fund or other bilateral loans as our economy grows. The promissory note to unguaranteed bondholders would then be burned by the Irish Authorities (since it's not part of our sovereign debt). At the end of the day, we still hold the cards.

Scofflaw already explained to you why this won't work.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The IMF will not lend us more money, because their maximum lending is supposed to be 600% of quota - in other words, six times our contribution to the IMF. They're currently lending us 1350% of quota due to our "exceptional circumstances", which is to say as a favour to the EU.

You can forget further IMF lending.

Bilateral loans and bailouts from Irish Americans? Even more wishful thinking. We've already been in a position where we needed to be bailed out, and we didn't get anything from those sources then.

You can forget meaningful bilateral funding or bailouts from Irish Americans.

ESM funding? No, of course we won't get it. Legally, if we haven't ratified the Fiscal Treaty, we can't get access to ESM funding, making it illegal for the governments involved in the ESM to give us any.

You can forget ESM funding.

Other European funding? Yes, almost certainly we'd get that, rather than being allowed to sink. But it would be on worse terms than the ESM, because the parliaments of the countries being asked to put up the money for us will be unwilling to provide fresh funds in addition to their ESM obligations, and it will be on worse terms because there would have been absolutely no point in agreeing to ESM if any country not using ESM gets a better deal.

regards,
Scofflaw

Skopzz wrote: »

^^^

I didn't pay the household/bankers charge. I have no intention of paying either because it's not our debt. I recommend the same for all you chronic boards.ie posters.

Funny that because I have repeatedly posted info which shows the majority of it is very much our debt. It was borrowed since 2008 for our day to day overspending. So believe in the tooth fairy if you want, the reality may be painful but it's not going away by pretending it's not reality.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77909408&postcount=736

Skopzz

meglome,

We could easily enact new local laws to overrule the commitments FF signed. All it takes is pressure on the government to draft a bill and implement it. But that won't happen unless there is pressure on the government.

I checked out the claims others made and found that Ireland would still get bilateral loans from several countries like we did in 2010. Also, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. There is nothing dubious or wrong about doing this.

If we adopted this treaty, it would take almost 30 years to get debt down to the 60pc of output (GDP) laid down in the this new eurozone fiscal compact.

beeftotheheels

Skopzz wrote: »

We could easily enact new local laws to overrule the commitments FF signed. All it takes is pressure on the government to draft a bill and implement it. But that won't happen unless there is pressure on the government.

I suspect that you'll find in the referendum on leaving the EU required by this proposal you'll find that the majority of Irish people don't agree with you. We're not leaving the EU, and as such we have to honor the debts as required by EU law. The treaties are in our constitution so any Act purporting to break EU law would be unconstitutional.

Skopzz wrote: »

Also, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. There is nothing dubious or wrong about doing this.

http://www.piie.com/blogs/?p=2779#_ftnref1

Skopzz wrote: »

If we adopted this treaty, it would take almost 30 years to get debt down to the 60pc of output (GDP) laid down in the this new eurozone fiscal compact.

We're in a mess and it is going to take us a long time to get our house in order whether we ratify this treaty or not.

meglome

Skopzz wrote: »

We could easily enact new local laws to overrule the commitments FF signed. All it takes is pressure on the government to draft a bill and implement it. But that won't happen unless there is pressure on the government.

New laws that would be unconstitutional.

Skopzz wrote: »

I checked out the claims others made and found that Ireland would still get bilateral loans from several countries like we did in 2010. Also, we will still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. There is nothing dubious or wrong about doing this.

You honestly think we'd get bilateral loans when we've just refused to pay our other loans. Really? Seriously?
And as been shown to you a few times now we cannot borrow more money from the IMF. We're already double what they normally loan. The only reason they have let us borrow that much is because the EU are backing us.

Skopzz wrote: »

If we adopted this treaty, it would take almost 30 years to get debt down to the 60pc of output (GDP) laid down in the this new eurozone fiscal compact.

That's the 'joys' of a rock and a hard place. We will have many years of pain if we vote No and we will have many years of pain if we vote Yes. The pain part is not in doubt.