[REFERENDUM] Paying into the esm?

Quiggers

So i've been doing some reading and it seems the ESM is being setup regardless of democratic opinion or even veto's.

My question is this,

IF we do not ratify the treaty that allows us to draw on ESM funds, are we as a nation still obliged to pay into the fund?

At the moment I am a no voter as i do not like the idea of faceless, blameless and immune from prosecution types being able to do a mafia style extortion on exchequers all around europe, but if the no vote only stops us borrowing from the ESM, what then.

Quiggers

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=7254&UserLang=GA&StartDate=1+January+2012

this document makes me think that we will pay for it either way, as its factored into the future spending plan for the country

Ireland’scontribution as set out in the ESM treaty published on 2nd of February 2012 will be 1.59% of the total €80 billion, amounting to a total of €1.27 billion over 3 years. This contribution will be made in five equal tranches commencing in July and October 2012.

This capital contribution to the fund is fully factored into the latest budgetary forecasts as set out in the Stability Programme Update published by Department of Finance on the 27th of April and the contribution will not impact on our General Government Deficit target of 8.6% in 2012.”

if that is already law, why were we not consulted on this considerable extra spend?

Or have i got it all wrong?

carveone

Quiggers wrote: »

So i've been doing some reading and it seems the ESM is being setup regardless of democratic opinion or even veto's.

Well, we voted for our government and they and the other governments set up the ESM so... We do not have a Veto to prevent the ESM going ahead - the donors of 90% of ESM funding agree to its establishment, and it will be established. For some absolutely bizarre reason, SF wanted to exercise a veto we didn't have to block the establishment of the ESM.

I believe Prime Time was going to talk about this again for some reason. Maybe in regards to article 136 TFEU, which aims to provide a clear legal basis for ESM. Vetoing that amendment probably wouldn't prevent ESM going ahead anyway and would make us look rather foolish. I haven't seen the program...

IF we do not ratify the treaty that allows us to draw on ESM funds, are we as a nation still obliged to pay into the fund?

No and Yes. In theory we could fail to ratify the ESM here (we haven't ratified it yet) but Lucinda Creigton (who'll be grey by the time this is over) said there was no way they wouldn't ratify it even if the FSC failed to pass. Here's the quote I found:

Will I commit to not ratifying the ESM? Certainly not. The Government is committed to ratification and implementation of the ESM. It would be akin to national treason to suggest otherwise."

but if the no vote only stops us borrowing from the ESM, what then.

We'll have shot ourselves in the foot in my humble opinion.

Scofflaw

Quiggers wrote: »

http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=7254&UserLang=GA&StartDate=1+January+2012

this document makes me think that we will pay for it either way, as its factored into the future spending plan for the country


if that is already law, why were we not consulted on this considerable extra spend?

Or have i got it all wrong?

It's not law already - the government has delayed ratification of the ESM Treaty until after the referendum vote. However, ESM is not something that requires a referendum vote itself, and the government certainly intends ratifying it.

Referendums here are triggered by sovereignty changes, which the ESM doesn't involve (a case in Germany attempted to show that the amounts involved amounted to a de facto loss of sovereignty, but was unsuccessful). What the ESM does involve is a "charge on public funds", which means that ratification requires a Dáil vote - given the government's majority, and the support of the main parties for the ESM, that's likely to go only one way.

The maximum current commitment Ireland would have to the ESM is €11.15bn including the initial payment. While that's a large amount, as anything in billions is, it's only about 6-9 months deficit, so I don't think it can realistically be called the kind of game-changing amount that would suggest a referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Quiggers wrote: »

So i've been doing some reading and it seems the ESM is being setup regardless of democratic opinion or even veto's.

My question is this,

IF we do not ratify the treaty that allows us to draw on ESM funds, are we as a nation still obliged to pay into the fund?

No, but as carveone says, the government are committed to ratification, and there's no obligation on them to change that decision even if the referendum vote on the Fiscal treaty is a No.

Quiggers wrote: »

At the moment I am a no voter as i do not like the idea of faceless, blameless and immune from prosecution types being able to do a mafia style extortion on exchequers all around europe, but if the no vote only stops us borrowing from the ESM, what then.

I presume that's a reference to the ESM setup, with the usual functional immunity for ESM money and staff. If you're concerned that the ESM, once set up, has some kind of ability to tell whoever they like to pay whatever they want whenever they want it, you should look at who the Board of the ESM will be.

The ESM is not independent like the ECB. The Board consists of appointees from the countries that are involved, and decisions to call in money, or to raise the total amount of money in the fund, are by unanimity only. Any country can veto the calling of capital or the raising of the fund ceiling. Board members have no discretion in the matter, and are not in any sense independent - they act solely at the behest of their government, and hold their positions only by will of their government. So there is no power of "extortion".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Quiggers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcWHBPYOSU&sns=fb

This would indicate that we can be extorted and if we cant veto the creation of the ESM, why would we be allowed to veto its operation.

I listened to the muarian finucan sunday morning sho on the rte player, it was sggested on this board and i'm more of the opinion that a no vote would buy us time to properly understand the treaty. Once its in we're stuck with it, but if we reject it now we can always change our mind in a year like lisbon

Scofflaw

Quiggers wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPcWHBPYOSU&sns=fb

This would indicate that we can be extorted and if we cant veto the creation of the ESM, why would we be allowed to veto its operation.

I listened to the muarian finucan sunday morning sho on the rte player, it was sggested on this board and i'm more of the opinion that a no vote would buy us time to properly understand the treaty. Once its in we're stuck with it, but if we reject it now we can always change our mind in a year like lisbon

A Youtube video is not an adequate substitute for reading the Treaty text itself. If you want references to the specific articles which show that unanimity is required to call on capital or raise the capital ceiling of the ESM, here they are:

Step 1: Article 4.2, 4.3 ESM:

2. The decisions of the Board of Governors and the Board of Directors shall be taken by mutual agreement, qualified majority or simple majority as specified in this Treaty. In respect of all decisions, a quorum of 2/3 of the members with voting rights representing at least 2/3 of the voting rights must be present.
3. The adoption of a decision by mutual agreement requires the unanimity of the members participating in the vote. Abstentions do not prevent the adoption of a decision by mutual agreement.

"Mutual agreement" = unanimity.

Step 2: Article 5.1

1. Each ESM Member shall appoint a Governor and an alternate Governor. Such appointments are revocable at any time. The Governor shall be a member of the government of that ESM Member who has responsibility for finance. The alternate Governor shall have full power to act on behalf of the Governor when the latter is not present.

Board members are government appointees only, their appointment revocable at any time.

Step 3: Article 5.6

6. The Board of Governors shall take the following decisions by mutual agreement:

These are the decisions requiring unanimity.

Step 4: Article 5.6 (c) and (d)

(c) to make the capital calls, in accordance with Article 9(1);

Capital calls require unanimity, except where capital has been depleted below an agreed level by losses (9.2) or to avoid the ESM failing to honour a repayment to lenders (9.3).

(d) to change the authorised capital stock and adapt the maximum lending volume of the ESM, in accordance with Article 10(1);

Changing the ESM ceiling requires unanimity.

Step 5: there is therefore no ability for the ESM to "extort" money from its contributing countries. The idea is frankly daft, because those are the same countries that wrote the ESM Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SeanW

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not law already - the government has delayed ratification of the ESM Treaty until after the referendum vote. However, ESM is not something that requires a referendum vote itself, and the government certainly intends ratifying it.

Referendums here are triggered by sovereignty changes, which the ESM doesn't involve (a case in Germany attempted to show that the amounts involved amounted to a de facto loss of sovereignty, but was unsuccessful). What the ESM does involve is a "charge on public funds", which means that ratification requires a Dáil vote - given the government's majority, and the support of the main parties for the ESM, that's likely to go only one way.

It would be rather bizarre though for our political class to ratify the ESM treaty and commit us to paying it €11bn or whatever the figure is, as well as recognising its mind-blowing array of legal immunities, if we were not eligible to recieve support from it.

It would be an issue that forces our political class to say whose side they are really on - that of an ever more burdensome European government, or that of the Irish people.

I would love to see the pro-EU parties explain why they ratified the ESM treaty while we cannot draw from its fund!!!

SeanW

Scofflaw wrote: »

A Youtube video is not an adequate substitute for reading the Treaty text itself.

You're absolutely right: I read the ESM treaty and there's even more frightening stuff in there that the video didn't cover!

Scofflaw

SeanW wrote: »

It would be rather bizarre though for our political class to ratify the ESM treaty and commit us to paying it €11bn or whatever the figure is, as well as recognising its mind-blowing array of legal immunities, if we were not eligible to recieve support from it.

It would be an issue that forces our political class to say whose side they are really on - that of an ever more burdensome European government, or that of the Irish people.

I would love to see the pro-EU parties explain why they ratified the ESM treaty while we cannot draw from its fund!!!

For the same reason we were part of EFSF before we ever needed the bailout - because we're part of the eurozone, its stability benefits us, and "European partners" isn't just a phrase.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SeanW wrote: »

You're absolutely right: I read the ESM treaty and there's even more frightening stuff in there that the video didn't cover!

Let me guess...the capital calls?

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

SeanW wrote: »

It would be rather bizarre though for our political class to ratify the ESM treaty and commit us to paying it €11bn or whatever the figure is, as well as recognising its mind-blowing array of legal immunities, if we were not eligible to recieve support from it.

It would be an issue that forces our political class to say whose side they are really on - that of an ever more burdensome European government, or that of the Irish people.

I would love to see the pro-EU parties explain why they ratified the ESM treaty while we cannot draw from its fund!!!

It's very simple - we are a member of the EU and have signed up to its goals and objectives. A decision to ratify or reject the ESM Treaty would be taken by the Oireachtas in the light of the existing EU Treaties and the political commitments contained therein and arising from them.

A negative vote on the Stability Treaty will not rescind those existing EU Treaties obligations and commitments even if you wish that it should.

SeanW

View wrote: »

A negative vote on the Stability Treaty will not rescind those existing EU Treaties obligations and commitments even if you wish that it should.

I just wand to query this - where exactly is Ireland COMMITTED to ratify the ESM treaty? Where exactly are we OBLIGED to pay up the money it will demand and recognise its legal immunities before even signing the treaty?

Scofflaw

SeanW wrote: »

I just wand to query this - where exactly is Ireland COMMITTED to ratify the ESM treaty? Where exactly are we OBLIGED to pay up the money it will demand and recognise its legal immunities before even signing the treaty?

Ireland is not committed to ratifying the ESM Treaty, but that's not what View said. He said that Ireland has commitments to Europe, which is the case.

It is also the case, however, that the government intends to ratify the ESM Treaty, and that whether they do or not is not in any legal way dependent on the referendum vote.

As to "would love to see the pro-EU parties explain why they ratified the ESM treaty while we cannot draw from its fund!!!" - we ratified the EFSF, and our guaranteed commitment to it was larger than ESM (€12bn to €11bn), at a time when our government had no intention of drawing on the fund.

As View says, this comes down to the fact that we're part of the EU. We are - and it's something that apparently doesn't cross some people's minds - one of everybody else's "European partners".

So we do as we would be done by.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Waltzing Consumer

Scofflaw, off topic I know, but...

You really own the referendum threads here It has been pretty eye-opening to read your contributions to these many threads and how you patiently and politely go through nearly all the questions/allegations/assumptions raised by yes/no/don't know posters with the text, existing laws and facts behind your posts. :pac:

I am not going to argue that both sides have equally been telling untruths (I hate balance for balance's sake), but it is great that many of the more well-known No campaign points have been thoroughly debunked here and rightly so.