Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

Toby Take a Bow

Scofflaw wrote: »

That I'd agree with - but it's not something that makes McWilliams any better as an analyst.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I wouldn't be a fan of him either. My point is that it's not a very good point regarding this referendum that the majority of economists favour a yes vote, which you were suggesting earlier. In fact, given their previous form in terms of the economic 'difficulties' we face, it would probably favour those advocating a no vote.

squod

*Reaching 0.5% of GDP. Possible under the treaty X

*Getting fined for not ratifying the treaty. Possible under the treaty ✔

*Getting fined for not reaching 0.5% of GDP. Possible under the treaty ✔

*Getting access to sufficient funds to pay SW, pensions, PS pay etc. Possible under the treaty X

*Ireland able to afford another bailout anyway X


So why are the government pushing a yes vote?

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

None of which deals with the substantive issue of the article, which is that a No vote will not prevent austerity around Europe, because none of the countries experiencing austerity are able to borrow in order to do anything else, treaty limits or no.

Will a yes vote make much of a difference either? Nope seems to be the answer.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Give who the keys to the Dáil? The correction mechanism will be Irish, not EU.

Ah come off it S. While the keys to the Dail comment was OTT, when it comes to pimping the EU you've more spin than a propeller factory. Who sets the standard when corrections kick in? Let's look at the treaty itself. Article 5 says that EU members in breach of this treaty have to agree to and I quote;

"(1) A Contracting Party that is subject to an excessive deficit procedure* under the Treaties on which the European Union is founded 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 its excessive deficit. The content and format of such programmes shall be defined in European Union law. Their submission to the Council of the European Union and to the European Commission for endorsement and their monitoring will take place within the context of the existing surveillance procedures under the Stability and Growth Pact.

(2) The implementation of the programme, and the yearly budgetary plans consistent with it, will be monitored by the Commission and by the Council"

*Ireland is currently in this position. The partnership programme bit is not exactly handing the keys over, but it's certainly leaving the door unlocked. Essentially our budgets have to be passed by the EU. Then again this should not come as much of a shock, given our last budget was circulated to every finance minister in the EU, never mind the German parliamentary commitee.

Need more? Article 3

"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, "

Article 7;

"Parties whose currency is the euro commit to support 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"

IE if the EC considers sanctioning a nation, all the rest have to agree. Sure they could try overturning the EC, but good luck with that.

That's something that is said every time, yet the votes never seem to get fewer.

Indeed, yet we had to vote twice with unseemly haste until we got the "correct result" before. Never mind the "permanent character" of all this. Never mind what came straight from the mouth of the ex European Central Bank chief Jean-Claude Trichet this month: "If parliaments do not give us what we want, we will annul them". Yep clear as day. Current ECB executive board member Joerg Asmussen said this week; "ultimately, a fiscal union as well as a banking union and a democratically legitimate political union are needed to stabilize the euro zone. The answer to the crisis is not less, but more Europe"

So I would paraphrase MD and say with every vote we get closer and closer to more oversight and direct control from the EU and the ECB(an organisation that doesn't even release the minutes of any of it's meetings).

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

The correction mechanism will be Irish, not EU.

Can you expand on this? Article 7 of the Treaty commits the contracting parties to the Treaty to "supporting the proposals or recommendations submitted by the European Commission" whenever the Commission considers the member state is "in breach of the deficit criterion in the framework of an excessive deficit", as wibbs has said.

Crucially, and perhaps more importantly, we ought to note that the contracting parties who commit their support to these Commission recommendations do not include the contracting party (in our hypothetical case, Ireland) who is in breach of the deficit criterion. Ireland does not have a voice in that process.

To suggest that this amounts to the correction mechanism being Irish is rather a leap.

What I find quite disturbing about this process is two fold
(i) the unelected nature of the EU Commission compared with the opinion of a democratically elected Irish Government being ignored in the above process
(ii) the fact that in the above scenario, a state like Ireland might still be enjoying cheap access to market funding, and would have to submit to the EU Commission merely on foot of some technical, heavily ideological factor like the above.

dvpower

squod wrote: »

*Getting fined for not ratifying the treaty. Possible under the treaty ✔

We can be fined for not ratifying a treaty under the rules of a treaty that we don't ratify?

That doesn't make any sense.

Micky Dolenz

It might be a good idea to reset the poll early next week in the run up to electon day to see where the undecided fall now and for people whose have changed stance since voting first time around.

K-9

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

That if we fall within a percentage of our GDP, automatic procedures will kick into place to "correct"'the situation.

We may as well just give them the keys to the Dail. I also
Believe everytime we vote yes, we are a step closer to not having a vote in the future.

Money is short term solution to a long term problem. We are
Being bought and I don't care for it.

Good example of how the debt brake would work, we could conceivably comply with it by 2015, more likely 2018.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/complying-with-debt-reduction-rule.html

There's a couple of very incorrect assumptions going round, one being that we'd have to cut debt by 5% and that the rules would mean an extra €6 Billion of cuts as peddled by SF.

As for McWilliams, yep he predicted the boom, he was also one of the first to propose a full bank guarantee. We should be rolling in it now apparently!

@Wild Bill, I don't really see the point continuing this as we had this "discussion" on a previous thread.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

Can you expand on this? Article 7 of the Treaty commits the contracting parties to the Treaty to "supporting the proposals or recommendations submitted by the European Commission" whenever the Commission considers the member state is "in breach of the deficit criterion in the framework of an excessive deficit", as wibbs has said.

Crucially, and perhaps more importantly, we ought to note that the contracting parties who commit their support to these Commission recommendations do not include the contracting party (in our hypothetical case, Ireland) who is in breach of the deficit criterion. Ireland does not have a voice in that process.

To suggest that this amounts to the correction mechanism being Irish is rather a leap.

That the correction mechanism is Irish is rather open and shut, I would have though. The whole point of Article 3(2) is that the correction mechanism (along with the budgetary limits) has to be transposed into national law:

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.

The proposals and recommendations of the Commission aren't anything to do with the correction mechanism, because the correction mechanism is something separate from an excessive deficit procedure.

later12 wrote: »

What I find quite disturbing about this process is two fold
(i) the unelected nature of the EU Commission compared with the opinion of a democratically elected Irish Government being ignored in the above process
(ii) the fact that in the above scenario, a state like Ireland might still be enjoying cheap access to market funding, and would have to submit to the EU Commission merely on foot of some technical, heavily ideological factor like the above.

That is (as far as I can see) because you're misreading the Treaty. This is the requirement to support the proposal or recommendation of the Commission:

While fully respecting the procedural requirements of the European Union Treaties, the Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro commit to support 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 European Union Treaties without taking into account the position of the Contracting Party concerned, is opposed to the decision proposed or recommended.

From the context, and reading the procedure for an excessive deficit procedure, the "proposals or recommendations" in question aren't budgetary proposals of any kind, but the Commission's proposal or recommendation that an excessive deficit exists or that an excessive deficit procedure should be started. Hence the reference to "the decision proposed or recommended" - which is the decision the Council makes on whether an excessive deficit procedure should start.

You're conflating the national correction mechanism from one article (which clearly refers to the correction mechanism) with the decision-making process on excessive deficit procedures in a different article (which equally clearly refers to the excessive deficit procedure), and as a result are under what seems to me to be an entirely false impression of the role of the Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dublin_Gunner

This may be a very simplistic view of it all but trying to condense this in my head all I see is a treaty that we must pass to give us access to the damn bailout that has us more screwed than we were beforehand.

The argument the government is spinning stating if we dont ratify it, we'll definitely need it, but if we do, we may not makes 0 sense to me. That is 100% scaremongering.

While in a way I do agree that a treaty like this certainly is needed, I feel the power we hand over to have ourselves 'austerised' for the foreseeable future just isn't worth it in my opinion.

And before anyone jumps in with 'we'll have austerity for the time being anyway' I fully understand that - but at least without this treaty we would have the option to make up the shortfall using other avenues than cutting public spending, like ratifying the treaty basically forces us to do.

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't on this one IMO so I'm sticking with a firm NO - which if helps get a no vote at least leaves ourselves as masters of our own destiny... or downfall as the case might be.

EDIT

Scoflaw, does this quote from article 3(2)

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,

Not completely contradict what you say below?

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote: »

Will a yes vote make much of a difference either? Nope seems to be the answer.

I think that's pretty much what's implied by "you can't vote your way out of a recession". I'm not suggesting that voting Yes will somehow avoid austerity - just pointing out that voting No doesn't either.

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah come off it S. While the keys to the Dail comment was OTT, when it comes to pimping the EU you've more spin than a propeller factory. Who sets the standard when corrections kick in? Let's look at the treaty itself. Article 5 says that EU members in breach of this treaty have to agree to and I quote;

"(1) A Contracting Party that is subject to an excessive deficit procedure* under the Treaties on which the European Union is founded 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 its excessive deficit. The content and format of such programmes shall be defined in European Union law. Their submission to the Council of the European Union and to the European Commission for endorsement and their monitoring will take place within the context of the existing surveillance procedures under the Stability and Growth Pact.

(2) The implementation of the programme, and the yearly budgetary plans consistent with it, will be monitored by the Commission and by the Council"

*Ireland is currently in this position. The partnership programme bit is not exactly handing the keys over, but it's certainly leaving the door unlocked. Essentially our budgets have to be passed by the EU. Then again this should not come as much of a shock, given our last budget was circulated to every finance minister in the EU, never mind the German parliamentary commitee.

We're actually in an excessive deficit procedure, under the rules of the Stability & Growth Pact. If you think you can point out to me what the Treaty changes about the workings of an excessive deficit procedure, work away.

Wibbs wrote: »

Need more? Article 3

"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, "

Yes - and that's something separate from an excessive deficit procedure.

Wibbs wrote: »

Article 7;

"Parties whose currency is the euro commit to support 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"

IE if the EC considers sanctioning a nation, all the rest have to agree. Sure they could try overturning the EC, but good luck with that.

Or they could read the rest of the article, which you've failed to quote:

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 European Union Treaties without taking into account the position of the Contracting Party concerned, is opposed to the decision proposed or recommended.

Quoting half an article and pretending that this is some kind of choice between abject submission and outright revolt is pretty poor.

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed, yet we had to vote twice with unseemly haste until we got the "correct result" before. Never mind the "permanent character" of all this. Never mind what came straight from the mouth of the ex European Central Bank chief Jean-Claude Trichet this month: "If parliaments do not give us what we want, we will annul them". Yep clear as day. Current ECB executive board member Joerg Asmussen said this week; "ultimately, a fiscal union as well as a banking union and a democratically legitimate political union are needed to stabilize the euro zone. The answer to the crisis is not less, but more Europe"

So I would paraphrase MD and say with every vote we get closer and closer to more oversight and direct control from the EU and the ECB(an organisation that doesn't even release the minutes of any of it's meetings).

No, all that happens is that the voting weight shifts slightly. The claim that we're "coming closer and closer to having no vote at all" is just rhetoric without any basis in fact.

It's low-grade stuff - much like quoting only half an article.

regards,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

The proposals and recommendations of the Commission aren't anything to do with the correction mechanism, because the correction mechanism is something separate from an excessive deficit procedure.

The correction mechanism has nothing to do with the Commission?

Only, the Commission set the medium term objective, they then monitor it, and they are then responsible for seeing to it that the contracting party in question is correcting its deviation.

Granted, I was talking about the EDP previously, but on what planet does the above have nothing to do with the Commission?

From the context, and reading the procedure for an excessive deficit procedure, the "proposals or recommendations" in question aren't budgetary proposals of any kind, but the Commission's proposal or recommendation that an excessive deficit exists or that an excessive deficit procedure should be started.

I think you're reading something into my post that I hadn't written. Article 5 already makes the process quite clear in terms of how the EU Commission monitors and approves of a budgetary plan for a party in excessive deficit. I'm not sure why you chose to read something extra into that post.

Given how Article 5 clarifies how responses to the excessive deficit will have to be endorsed and monitored by the Euorpean Council and the Commission, it's not quite clear how exactly you are claiming these "are irish". Surely if the process is subject to any form of veto by European institutions, they at least lose some autonomy?

This is why voters are getting disillusioned, why not just call a spade a spade? Why try to better the No side at clearly misleading terms like "the correction mechanism will be Irish". Do you not understand that if you people were more honest about this, voters would probably find that honesty easier to accept than this poor attempt at bending language in the hope that someone swallows it whole ?

Scofflaw

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

This may be a very simplistic view of it all but trying to condense this in my head all I see is a treaty that we must pass to give us access to the damn bailout that has us more screwed than we were beforehand.

The argument the government is spinning stating if we dont ratify it, we'll definitely need it, but if we do, we may not makes 0 sense to me. That is 100% scaremongering.

It's certainly arguable, but their reasoning isn't instantly dismissable:

1. the reason we have high market rates - and therefore need a bailout - is because the markets are concerned we may not be able to pay back our debts

2. if we have access to the ESM, then the ESM can supply the necessary money to pay back market debts if we can't

3. if not, not - hence higher market rates.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

While in a way I do agree that a treaty like this certainly is needed, I feel the power we hand over to have ourselves 'austerised' for the foreseeable future just isn't worth it in my opinion.

And before anyone jumps in with 'we'll have austerity for the time being anyway' I fully understand that - but at least without this treaty we would have the option to make up the shortfall using other avenues than cutting public spending, like ratifying the treaty basically forces us to do.

There's no requirement in the Treaty to cut public spending. All that has to be done is to reduce the debt to GDP ratio - and that's a ratio. The Treaty doesn't care a jot whether you make progress by paying down the debt or growing your GDP - and if you do the figures, you'll find that we can easily hit the targets with 1.5% growth and a little under 2% inflation, without cutting spending - indeed, while running a deficit.

The deficit limit is also a deficit/GDP ratio, so the same applies there.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't on this one IMO so I'm sticking with a firm NO - which if helps get a no vote at least leaves ourselves as masters of our own destiny... or downfall as the case might be.

EDIT

Scoflaw, does this quote from article 3(2)

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,

Not completely contradict what you say below?

Hmm. I could just say "no", of course! But what do you think it contradicts and how does it contradict it?

The principles will be standard, is all that says, much as the current format for "stability & convergence programmes" are - unsurprisingly, since they're basically the same thing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

The correction mechanism has nothing to do with the Commission?

Only, the Commission set the medium term objective, they then monitor it, and they are then responsible for seeing to it that the contracting party in question is correcting its deviation.

Granted, I was talking about the EDP previously, but on what planet does the above have nothing to do with the Commission?

That I couldn't tell you, since that's not what I said. I said that when people referred to having to support the "proposals or recommendations of the Commission" they were mixing this up with the correction mechanism. They are, in fact, to do with the EDP, not the correction mechanism.

later12 wrote: »

I think you're reading something into my post that I hadn't written. Article 5 already makes the process quite clear in terms of how the EU Commission monitors and approves of a budgetary plan for a party in excessive deficit. I'm not sure why you chose to read something extra into that post.

Given how Article 5 clarifies how responses to the excessive deficit will have to be endorsed and monitored by the Euorpean Council and the Commission, it's not quite clear how exactly you are claiming these "are irish". Surely if the process is subject to any form of veto by European institutions, they at least lose some autonomy?

And now you're mixing them up the other way. Let's try to clarify. There are two separate things here:

1. a correction mechanism

2. an excessive deficit procedure

People are taking bits of text applying to one and applying it to the other.

later12 wrote:

This is why voters are getting disillusioned, why not just call a spade a spade? Why try to better the No side at clearly misleading terms like "the correction mechanism will be Irish". Do you not understand that if you people were more honest about this, voters would probably find that honesty easier to accept than this poor attempt at bending language in the hope that someone swallows it whole ?

You're confusing two separate procedures. You remain confused because you assume that rather than trying to clarify the confusion, I am instead, trying to bend language to pretend something that I'm not.

The correction mechanism will be a mechanism in Irish law. We are the ones responsible for creating the correction mechanism that will operate in Ireland, according to principles proposed by the Commission. There will be national institutions responsible for monitoring it. I call that "Irish" because it will not be the same as the correction mechanism in, say, Holland.

We will not be changing the excessive deficit procedure because that is something else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

That the correction mechanism is Irish is rather open and shut, I would have though. The whole point of Article 3(2) is that the correction mechanism (along with the budgetary limits) has to be transposed into national law:

Did we come up with this correction mechanism? No. Where did it originate? We are signing up to a law we didn't build. Article 3(2) contradicts itself.
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,So this constitution changing law of "binding force and permanent character" set out by "common principles to be proposed by the European Commission", doesn't interfere with and indeed "respects" "the prerogatives of national Parliaments"? It basically translates as "here's our plan, sign up(or else) and pretend it's your plan, after all it's in your laws now". It's up there with a bully claiming innocence because he uses your own fist to beat you.

The proposals and recommendations of the Commission aren't anything to do with the correction mechanism, because the correction mechanism is something separate from an excessive deficit procedure.

So what. Different arms of the same body. One sets the rules, the other "corrects" by those rules and can take the nation to court and fine them accordingly.

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Scoflaw, does this quote from article 3(2)


Not completely contradict what you say below?

Of course it does DG, but as usual he'll spin like a dervish to avoid such a conclusion.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think that's pretty much what's implied by "you can't vote your way out of a recession". I'm not suggesting that voting Yes will somehow avoid austerity - just pointing out that voting No doesn't either.

So you're agreeing with me then?

We're actually in an excessive deficit procedure, under the rules of the Stability & Growth Pact. If you think you can point out to me what the Treaty changes about the workings of an excessive deficit procedure, work away.

It puts more pressure legally on us than we are already under and signs us up permanently. If it changes nothing why have the treaty, a vote(luckily we get to have one) and a change in our constitution?

Yes - and that's something separate from an excessive deficit procedure.

Only if you're valiantly trying to spin it again. As Later10 wrote "on what planet does the above have nothing to do with the Commission?"

Or they could read the rest of the article, which you've failed to quote:



Quoting half an article and pretending that this is some kind of choice between abject submission and outright revolt is pretty poor.

Hardly. What addition does it make. Indeed makes it slightly worse. The rest of the paragraph can be summed up with my original comment regarding the article and overturning a EC position which was "good luck with that". It would require outright revolt as you call it. The "Contracting Party concerned" ie the country in question has no say at that point. It's spelled out; the qualified majority of the EU states without taking into account the position of said country make the rules. How likely would that not pass? Like I said good luck with that.

No, all that happens is that the voting weight shifts slightly. The claim that we're "coming closer and closer to having no vote at all" is just rhetoric without any basis in fact.

I didn't say we're coming closer to having no vote at all, though it helps you avoid my point that with every vote we're coming closer to a federal Europe.

Wibbs

Scofflaw wrote: »

The correction mechanism will be a mechanism in Irish law. We are the ones responsible for creating the correction mechanism that will operate in Ireland, according to principles proposed by the Commission. There will be national institutions responsible for monitoring it. I call that "Irish" because it will not be the same as the correction mechanism in, say, Holland.

If one was looking for a great example of pro EU spin, one would be hard pressed to find better. Others have accused you of being an EU shill/PR bod. I never have, but I would say you're well qualified for the role.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're confusing two separate procedures. You remain confused because you assume that rather than trying to clarify the confusion, I am instead, trying to bend language to pretend something that I'm not.

No, i discussed both procedures in my post, the EDP and the Correction Mechanism. Is there actually any point debating this with you?

The correction mechanism will be a mechanism in Irish law. We are the ones responsible for creating the correction mechanism that will operate in Ireland, according to principles proposed by the Commission. There will be national institutions responsible for monitoring it. I call that "Irish" because it will not be the same as the correction mechanism in, say, Holland.

For one thing, the mechanism is something that has to be negotiated with the Commission - who will be proposing its size, nature and time frame. (Article 3, Paragraph 2)

There will obviously be national institutions monitoring the mechanism - one of its main purposes is to independently report back to the Commission.

Either way, while you might reasonably say "the correction mechanism will be Irish", although that is not the whole picture, you are blatantly lying in saying that it will not be an EU process. I am using the word lying instead of making an error, because I have no doubt but that you are fully aware of this.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Did we come up with this correction mechanism? No. Where did it originate? We are signing up to a law we didn't build. Article 3(2) contradicts itself.
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,So this constitution changing law of "binding force and permanent character" set out by "common principles to be proposed by the European Commission", doesn't interfere with and indeed "respects" "the prerogatives of national Parliaments"? It basically translates as "here's our plan, sign up(or else) and pretend it's your plan, after all it's in your laws now". It's up there with a bully claiming innocence because he uses your own fist to beat you.

Aren't we already signed up to these in a way because of Maastricht and other rules brought in around 2005? This is just putting them into Irish law with some changes.

I don't know if we directly came up with them but we would have had some input. So to some extent the people accepted this partly already through the vote in Maastricht and the Irish government and officials would have had some input to the Treaty. Indeed the No side acknowledged this by complaining about the ESM clause being inserted.

I wouldn't call signing up to somethings we've already accepted and others our Government had input on bullying, but people do often play that card in EU referenda, an already misused term just used for dramatic and histrionic effect. Pity really.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

Aren't we already signed up to these in a way because of Maastricht and other rules brought in around 2005? This is just putting them into Irish law with some changes.

Then why is it required if as we're often told we've already signed up to them? Seems a bit of a waste of time to me.

I wouldn't call signing up to somethings we've already accepted and others our Government had input on bullying, but people do often play that card in EU referenda, an already misused term just used for dramatic and histrionic effect. Pity really.

Nothing dramatic or histrionic about questioning being led more and more into a federal Europe. Hardly histrionic to quote Joerg Asmussen when he says "ultimately, a fiscal union as well as a banking union and a democratically legitimate political union are needed to stabilize the euro zone. The answer to the crisis is not less, but more Europe", never mind some of the others who are more direct about this. Hey a federal Europe may work out well for all. Stranger things have happened, I just object to people pissing down my back and telling me it's raining. The Europhile is often just as laden with half truths and avoidance as the Eurosceptic spin.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Then why is it required if as we're often told we've already signed up to them? Seems a bit of a waste of time to me.

Yeah, wouldn't be a million miles from that view. It basically gives teeth to the existing rules that many seemed to ignore anyway which logically means giving more power to the Commission and other Governments. We also get a say over other Governments in return.

Nothing dramatic or histrionic about questioning being led more and more into a federal Europe. Hardly histrionic to quote Joerg Asmussen when he says "ultimately, a fiscal union as well as a banking union and a democratically legitimate political union are needed to stabilize the euro zone. The answer to the crisis is not less, but more Europe", never mind some of the others who are more direct about this. Hey a federal Europe may work out well for all. Stranger things have happened, I just object to people pissing down my back and telling me it's raining. The Europhile is often just as laden with half truths and avoidance as the Eurosceptic spin.

No, you were suggesting that we'd no say in the drafting of the corrective mechanism and "we are signing up to a law we didn't build". Well what did the Governments agree to before Christmas? I think you might put yourself between a Europhile and skeptic but that isn't even a half truth.

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote: »

Then why is it required if as we're often told we've already signed up to them? Seems a bit of a waste of time to me.

Because it changes the voting arrangements, and puts the correction mechanism and the fiscal limits into national law for the first time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

No, i discussed both procedures in my post, the EDP and the Correction Mechanism. Is there actually any point debating this with you?

If you can clarify that you understand which bits of the Treaty apply to which of the two procedures, we don't have a debate here - my original post was about you mixing up what applies to each, not that you were unaware there were two procedures.

later12 wrote: »

For one thing, the mechanism is something that has to be negotiated with the Commission - who will be proposing its size, nature and time frame. (Article 3, Paragraph 2)

Which is a completely different thing from negotiating it with the Commission ad hoc.

later12 wrote: »

There will obviously be national institutions monitoring the mechanism - one of its main purposes is to independently report back to the Commission.

Either way, while you might reasonably say "the correction mechanism will be Irish", although that is not the whole picture, you are blatantly lying in saying that it will not be an EU process. I am using the word lying instead of making an error, because I have no doubt but that you are fully aware of this.

In the context of a European treaty (even one that's not an EU one) I think it goes without saying you can call it an "EU process" as validly as you can call it an Irish one. My point in calling it Irish was to distinguish it from the EDP with which it was being mixed up, because the EDP is clearly not in any sense an Irish procedure.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wibbs wrote: »

If one was looking for a great example of pro EU spin, one would be hard pressed to find better. Others have accused you of being an EU shill/PR bod. I never have, but I would say you're well qualified for the role.

I'm sorry, but both yourself and later12 are acting as if I've been pretending that it's not something originating from the Treaty!

All I'm trying to do here is eliminate a particular confusion, which it appears to me that yourself and later12 are suffering from, between the enforcement/surveillance methodology for the correction mechanism and for the excessive deficit procedure. That is the sole reason I have distinguished the correction mechanism as "Irish", because it will be a mechanism in Irish national law, overseen by Irish institutions (the Fiscal Advisory Council, as far as I know). That there will be a European dimension is certainly the case, but it does not consist of what either yourself or later12 were claiming. To put that point another way in case it's not clear - the Commission will have a role in the correction mechanism, but it will not be the role that yourself and later12 were incorrectly claiming as a result of misreading Article 7.

Now perhaps you are not suffering from that confusion, but it certainly looks like it to me.

Allow me to ask - and hold the accusations - are we straight on the fact that the Commission "proposals or recommendations" in Article 7 of the Treaty do not refer to the correction mechanism? That the correction mechanism is not the subject of Article 7, whether quoted in full or part?

wearily,
Scofflaw

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, wouldn't be a million miles from that view. It basically gives teeth to the existing rules that many seemed to ignore anyway which logically means giving more power to the Commission and other Governments. We also get a say over other Governments in return

Likely to be precious little of a say considering we're one of those looking for money. More than the other PIIGS in fairness as we're seen more as trying to dig our way out and less suspicious of the EU full stop.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Allow me to ask - and hold the accusations - are we straight on the fact that the Commission "proposals or recommendations" in Article 7 of the Treaty do not refer to the correction mechanism? That the correction mechanism is not the subject of Article 7, whether quoted in full or part?

We can nitpick back and forth all day, in ever decreasing circles, which is fine if you want to run with that tactic, but as I see it the overall salient slant behind this treaty/addition to our constitution is that the EU will have more say about how we govern our finances and more recourse to punishment of breaching said law, laid down by the EC and with the ECJ as backup .

Article 5;
" (1) A Contracting Party that is subject to an excessive deficit procedure (us) under the Treaties on which the European Union is founded 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 its excessive deficit. The content and format of such programmes shall be defined in European Union law. Their submission to the Council of the European Union and to the European Commission for endorsement and their monitoring will take place within the context of the existing surveillance procedures under the Stability and Growth Pact.

(2) The implementation of the programme, and the yearly budgetary plans consistent with it, will be monitored by the Commission and by the Council"

It is saying in black and white that our budgets and economic plans will be beholden to EU commision, council and law.

Article 3:
(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.

The last line kinda rings hollow...

TL;DR, for me the treaty will further enshrine restrictions on our economic decisions and is too open to even more leverage down the line.





On top of that is the EU plan itself. Living with in our means and becoming more competitive two facets of the plan. On the latter score Ireland is extremely competitive. It's ranked very well.

"The IMD World Competiveness Yearbook 2011 ranks Ireland 1st in the world for corporate taxes, 1st for business legislation for foreign investors and 1st for the availability of skilled labour. The same report also ranks Ireland 2nd in the world for consumer price inflation, 3rd for direct investment flows inward, 3rd for availability of finance skills, 4th in the world for labour productivity, and 4th for exports of commercial services.

The 2011 IBM Global Location Trends Report highlights that Ireland is ranked 1st in the world for inward investment by quality and value and 2nd globally for the number of inward investment jobs per capita. The World Bank Doing Business Report 2011 ranks Ireland 1st in the Eurozone for ease of doing business.

Ireland is ranked 2nd most attractive country globally for Foreign Direct Investment by the NIB/FDI Intelligence Inward Investment Performance Monitor 2011 while the Ernst and Young Globalisation Index ranks Ireland as the 2nd most globalised economy in the world."

So coals to Newcastle there Monsieur Ted. Indeed I reckon those figures may come as a shock to many. We should be flying.

On the living within our means, we could certainly do more, but I can't see the fiscal pact doing much for it as it stands. Before the crisis bothe Spain and Ireland had (even with daftness from FF) very strong public finances. Both countries main problem wasn't so public debt(though it sooo needs trimming), but vast levels of private debt. Private debt that went apeshít on cheap money on the back of low interest rates in the wake of the euro, with a nice sideorder of FF daftness again. Adding low interest rates into the mix of a buoyant economy was destined to overheat it. So pardon me if I have doubts about economin policies going forward from the same balloonheads who let Greece and Portugal into the euro and ignored the bloody obvious that a one size fits all would not work in healthy economies like Ireland and Spain.

Now before you come up with your(and others) usual retort of "it wasn't the euro! Other countries went tits up without the euro, while others prospered with it" Point out one EU economy around the turn of the century that had full employment, was in economic growth with high employment, whose interest rates fell to the floor on the back of the Euro that isn't suffering today. Answer? You can't. One size doesn't fit all.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Likely to be precious little of a say considering we're one of those looking for money. More than the other PIIGS in fairness as we're seen more as trying to dig our way out and less suspicious of the EU full stop.

Well that is the usual Euroskeptics view alright, not much point debating that opinion.

Now before you come up with your(and others) usual retort of "it wasn't the euro! Other countries went tits up without the euro, while others prospered with it" Point out one EU economy around the turn of the century that had full employment, was in economic growth with high employment, whose interest rates fell to the floor on the back of the Euro that isn't suffering today. Answer? You can't. One size doesn't fit all.

Finland seem to have done okay but no doubt that'll be different in some way, there always is when it comes to Euroskeptics which of course you'll deny being and plead you're in the middle and sure didn't I support the EEC, which basically ended 20 years ago!

Wild Bill

K-9 wrote: »

@Wild Bill, I don't really see the point continuing this as we had this "discussion" on a previous thread.

Fair enough. Just ignore me then; I'll stick to debating with the rest. Obviously I'll be making the central point in this issue several more times:

The debt incurred by the Irish State cannot be repaid under any realistic economic scenario. Fact. End of.

Policies based of the fiction that it can are thus, by definition, crazy :cool:

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

Well that is the usual Euroskeptics view alright, not much point debating that opinion.

Why not? We are seen as more pro European, we are getting our house in order as many EU commentators have commented. This will mean we'll be listened to more than a basketcase like Greece, or the previous Italian government, or Portugal for that matter. I have no clue what you're on about regarding any debate on the matter The "Euroskeptic" dig isn't one BTW. It's just a lazy get out clause of the flag wavers. The same can be seen on the other extreme. Neither side tend to see it of course.

Finland seem to have done okay but no doubt that'll be different in some way, there always is when it comes to Euroskeptics which of course you'll deny being and plead you're in the middle and sure didn't I support the EEC, which basically ended 20 years ago!

Maybe untie the blinkers for a second?

On the first point; Finland in the 90's was in major recession with unemployment running at over 20%, with the Finnish currency hammered by speculation and interest rates through the roof and business going wallop by the day. That's not "different in some way", so you can put down your blue flag and Euroskeptic defence. It's a fundamental difference and one that made the euro a sure thing for them in a really basic economic way. You'd be hard pressed at the time to find two more different economic extremes between us and the Finnish if you tried. In the spirit of the other current pan European event happening; Nil Point. Any more?

On the second point; So what if the EEC ended 20 years ago? IMHO it was a better setup than what has happened in the intervening years, certainly when one considers the Euro and the fallout from that. Just because a little of what you fancy does you good, this does not mean adding more to the pot is any better. Not really an argument.

I am fully behind a European commonwealth of nations, I am not behind the increasing slide to a centralised federalised Europe, that took place over the last 20 years. Actually you're right I am a Euroskeptic, but only if you take the word literally.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you can clarify that you understand which bits of the Treaty apply to which of the two procedures, we don't have a debate here - my original post was about you mixing up what applies to each, not that you were unaware there were two procedures.

Yes, on my first post in this thread I inadvertently mixed up 'correction mechanism' with the EDP, and then clarified that. I'm not particularly concerned about the correction mechanism to the same degree at all; which is why I was returning to the issue of the EDP.

I think the last thing this debate needs, especially in AH, are hacks using vague language or getting into slightly bewildering quarrels. I take full responsibility for being prone to that myself sometimes. Therefore to summarize in as blunt a way as possible:

My point in raising the correction mechanism was to challenge the statement that 'it is an Irish mechanism, not an EU one'.

If you mean that the correction mechanism is a process tailored for Ireland as opposed to an Irish solo run, then yes we agree &I would retract my suggestion of lying completely.

However the 'dual citizenship' of the Correction Mechanism, so to speak, deserves to be acknowledged.

K-9

Wild Bill wrote: »

Fair enough. Just ignore me then; I'll stick to debating with the rest. Obviously I'll be making the central point in this issue several more times:

The debt incurred by the Irish State cannot be repaid under any realistic economic scenario. Fact. End of.

Policies based of the fiction that it can are thus, by definition, crazy :cool:

Because your base is that it has to be repaid, Government debt is generally never fully repaid, even we didn't fully pay down our high debt from the 80's, and we had the option to.

Wibbs wrote: »

Why not? We are seen as more pro European, we are getting our house in order as many EU commentators have commented. This will mean we'll be listened to more than a basketcase like Greece, or the previous Italian government, or Portugal for that matter. I have no clue what you're on about regarding any debate on the matter The "Euroskeptic" dig isn't one BTW. It's just a lazy get out clause of the flag wavers. The same can be seen on the other extreme. Neither side tend to see it of course.

I don't think you'll get it, there maybe differences on certain issues but in general it is about countries coming to an agreement. Governments change, Holland gets elected and now the emphasis is on growth. Do you have a ranking scheme for the importance of countries or something? Oh and Euroskeptic isn't a dig, its the impression I get and the man doth protest a little too much!

Maybe untie the blinkers for a second?

Indeed.

On the first point; Finland in the 90's was in major recession with unemployment running at over 20%, with the Finnish currency hammered by speculation and interest rates through the roof and business going wallop by the day. That's not "different in some way", so you can put down your blue flag and Euroskeptic defence. It's a fundamental difference and one that made the euro a sure thing for them in a really basic economic way. You'd be hard pressed at the time to find two more different economic extremes between us and the Finnish if you tried. In the spirit of the other current pan European event happening; Nil Point. Any more?

Actually I see parallels between us and them, they had their property bubble about 1990 so knew better than us. Our economy was only starting to recover in the early 90's, high unemployment, high interest rates etc. things only really took off about 94/95. I think you are focusing on the differences too much with those blinkers on and don't want to see the similarities, they are there, you just don't want to see them as it disproves your blame game on the Euro. Finlands economy was fine by 2000.

I always find this blame game of the Euro fascinating, I think its a subconscious nationalism thing. If we can blame the Euro well that absolves us of guilt to some degree and makes us feel better!

On the second point; So what if the EEC ended 20 years ago? IMHO it was a better setup than what has happened in the intervening years, certainly when one considers the Euro and the fallout from that. Just because a little of what you fancy does you good, this does not mean adding more to the pot is any better. Not really an argument.

Well if you were opposed to Maastricht say there is no hope in hell you'd be for this! The debate is rather pointless because it isn't really this Treaty you've a problem with, it's one from years ago.

I am fully behind a European commonwealth of nations, I am not behind the increasing slide to a centralised federalised Europe, that took place over the last 20 years. Actually you're right I am a Euroskeptic, but only if you take the word literally.

Exactly, there are very few Euroskeptics as in the British type here, I'd say the actual literal term has far more. The solution to the crisis requires more EU and Commission involvement so naturally you'd be against it. I'm not particularly enamored by the Treaty but I don't see the big deal as our Governments from the early 90's have always sought to or actually fulfilled generally similar criteria. How we went about it from about 02 on was the problem!

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think you'll get it, there maybe differences on certain issues but in general it is about countries coming to an agreement. Governments change, Holland gets elected and now the emphasis is on growth. Do you have a ranking scheme for the importance of countries or something?

I have no idea what you're debating here. I really don't.

Oh and Euroskeptic isn't a dig, its the impression I get and the man doth protest a little too much!

Of course it's a dig, wheeled out whenever there's even the sniff of someone asks "eh wut?" about the EU.

Actually I see parallels between us and them, they had their property bubble about 1990 so knew better than us. Our economy was only starting to recover in the early 90's, high unemployment, high interest rates etc. things only really took off about 94/95. I think you are focusing on the differences too much with those blinkers on and don't want to see the similarities, they are there, you just don't want to see them as it disproves your blame game on the Euro. Finlands economy was fine by 2000.

No it was not. You are incorrect, lest anyone thinks differently and believes the comparison google is your friend and you'll see for yourselves. Finland had just come out of the worst depression in the countries modern history which was peaked in the early 90's. One way forward was they devalued their currency, which we can(or they) no longer do. If similar happened to them today they'd be in a lot more trouble. They weren't even within an asses roar of the growth in the Irish economy from the early to mid 90's and they most certainly weren't close to our growth at the introduction at the introduction of the euro. They were in stable growth, not the strong growth witnessed in Ireland at the time. You quite simply cannot compare the two nations.

I always find this blame game of the Euro fascinating, I think its a subconscious nationalism thing. If we can blame the Euro well that absolves us of guilt to some degree and makes us feel better!

Nope. I find it equally fascinating the twists and turns that the more fervent Europhiles will undertake to avoid even a hint that the Euro was to blame at all. But anyhoo... Not me. I've repeatedly stated that successive government fcukups and the tulip mania of ourselves for housing was a massive cause of the boom and subsequent crash. However if interest rates had remained at the level they were in the late 90's, then cheap credit that fueled the huge private debt would have been significantly harder to get. That came with the Euro. It's economics 101, you do not lower interest rates in a heated economy. There is no real debate around that, unless you want to rewrite economics. If you want to broaden it to Spain where their governments keep a far more beady eye, in ways people now say we should have. They were incredibly frugal and were paying off their debts and never went over the limits(nulike every other EU nation inc Germany). They also suffered from the crash in interest rates. They're really fcuked now and one of the biggest ways they could become competitive is to devalue, but...

Well if you were opposed to Maastricht say there is no hope in hell you'd be for this! The debate is rather pointless because it isn't really this Treaty you've a problem with, it's one from years ago.

It seems for some good reasons. In point of fact I voted Yes to Lisbon 1. My thinking being fcukit there's no real going back, in for a penny, in for a euro and the No side were coming out with drivel for the most part. I voted No in Lisbon 2, because it seemed to me my first vote didn't really count, even though it was the "correct" one and that pissed me off. We've never had such an unseemly rush to the polls on any referendum before.

Exactly, there are very few Euroskeptics as in the British type here, I'd say the actual literal term has far more. The solution to the crisis requires more EU and Commission involvement so naturally you'd be against it. I'm not particularly enamored by the Treaty but I don't see the big deal as our Governments from the early 90's have always sought to or actually fulfilled generally similar criteria.

Indeed. Our governments. For better or worse. Given the stats on competitiveness I referenced above, what the hell are we doing heading for austerity because that may be bettter for the Euro and other countries? We've been here before in another way when the interest rate for the Euro was pegged to other economies who benefited while the same interest rates stood on the pedal and drove us and others into the wall.

How we went about it from about 02 on was the problem!

And one of the things that fueled it from 02 was...

SafeSurfer

The government is getting an extremely easy ride in the fiscal treaty debate.

Michael Martin, the so called leader of the opposition is supporting the government in its call for a yes vote and the resulting €6 billion in additional budget cuts and tax hikes, without asking the government to indicate to the Irish people where these cuts will be made.

The government parties lied to get elected. Remember "Labour's way or
Frankfurt's way" , "Not another cent to the bondholders" "Within 100 days of being elected cancer services will be restored to Sligo General Hospital" , signing pledges on third level fees, promising a reduction in commercial rates, etc etc.

I don not believe them any more. I do not believe in the policies they are pursuing, I do not believe they are acting in the nation's best interests. This treaty as Noonan rightly said would not be passed in any European country only Ireland if put to a popular vote.

Why is that?

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.