How will a No vote prevent austerity?

Eliot Rosewater

It's been the primary argument put forward by the No side: vote No because austerity isn't working.



I'm not voting in the referendum as I'll be in Germany, so my interest in the campaign is purely academic. How does the primary No argument work? From what I see, if we vote No then a source of cheaper credit will be cut off to us and the cost of running the government will increase, perhaps significantly. All other things being even, this will surely require more austerity (that is, more spending cuts).

On the other hand, if you believe in ending the cuts and imposing more taxes, then voting No doesn't make sense either. For such a policy approach we'd still need credit, and by voting No we risk increasing the amount we spend on borrowing.

So I'm a bit bemused. Can anyone explain how the vote No to austerity argument works?

Or, is it merely a cheap political tactic that, despite a seemingly inherent contradiction, has gained a ton of support? I'm currently reading The Myth of the Rational Voter and so have come around to the idea that it might be rational for individual voters to believe incorrect things, but the blatant nature of this one surprises me - assuming, of course, voting No in protest at austerity doesn't make sense. Does it?

hatrickpatrick

I think the primary reason for that argument is because the treaty includes a 0.5% deficit limit and proposes penalties for anyone who breaches it.

Those who argue against austerity are saying that sometimes, it makes more economic sense to run a deficit in the short term, and/or that sometimes in a shock or crisis, such a deficit is completely unavoidable without horrific austerity, AND thirdly that sometimes, prioritizing a deficit target above getting the economy back to growth causes an endless cycle of further negative growth and therefore an ever growing deficit to try and close. The original EU (or perhaps it's just the Eurozone, can someone clarify?) deficit limit was 3%, which is the original limit we breached and the limit we're currently aiming to satisfy.

Supposedly the treaty contains provisions for suspending these strict rules in the case of a shock or emergency, but in my view these are far to vaguely worded. Dangerously so, in fact.

Ozymandius2011

It is possible that if we vote no, we could use possible renegotiations of the Fiscal Compact (today a French govt minister Pierre Moscovici said France will not ratify unless the Treaty is amended) to press for a write-down/write-off of Irish debt. If that succeeds it could reduce austerity.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think the primary reason for that argument is because the treaty includes a 0.5% deficit limit and proposes penalties for anyone who breaches it.

Those who argue against austerity are saying that sometimes, it makes more economic sense to run a deficit in the short term, and/or that sometimes in a shock or crisis, such a deficit is completely unavoidable without horrific austerity, AND thirdly that sometimes, prioritizing a deficit target above getting the economy back to growth causes an endless cycle of further negative growth and therefore an ever growing deficit to try and close. The original EU (or perhaps it's just the Eurozone, can someone clarify?) deficit limit was 3%, which is the original limit we breached and the limit we're currently aiming to satisfy.

Supposedly the treaty contains provisions for suspending these strict rules in the case of a shock or emergency, but in my view these are far to vaguely worded. Dangerously so, in fact.

You keep peddling this misinformation.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/debt-and-deficits-in-eu-fiscal-rules.html

The 0.5% rule has been in place since 2005.

Godge

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It is possible that if we vote no, we could use possible renegotiations of the Fiscal Compact (today a French govt minister Pierre Moscovici said France will not ratify unless the Treaty is amended) to press for a write-down/write-off of Irish debt. If that succeeds it could reduce austerity.

sorry, do you mean that if we vote no, we could somehow force taxpayers in the rest of Europe to pay for the debts that we have run up? Are you having a laugh? Seriously, who would pay for the write-down? The Germans? The Greeks? Somebody would have to pay and ultimately that is the failure of the "No" campaign on this sort of thing, they have absolutely no clue as to who would pay up for our budget deficits if we voted no.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

You keep peddling this misinformation.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/debt-and-deficits-in-eu-fiscal-rules.html

The 0.5% rule has been in place since 2005.

In that case, what new things does the treaty actually do which aren't already in previous agreements?

If there's nothing new in it, there's no need for a further treaty at all, if it's giving enforcement to hitherto unenforced rules, than to all practical intents it still counts as a 'new rule'.

Gurgle

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It is possible that if we vote no, we could use possible renegotiations of the Fiscal Compact (today a French govt minister Pierre Moscovici said France will not ratify unless the Treaty is amended) to press for a write-down/write-off of Irish debt. If that succeeds it could reduce austerity.

If I understand this case: Vote no, not because of what's in the treaty but because Germany wants it and we want something else (unrelated) from Germany.

That sounds like a bad reason to me.

christmas2012

iceland let the banks burn and their growth is doing alright now,maybe we did the wrong thing

Gurgle

christmas2012 wrote: »

did

The word that makes the difference between a better plan and great hindsight.
Its just a pity we didn't get to vote on implementing the bank guarantee scheme rather than see it rolled out on a wave of lies and propaganda.

bladespin

christmas2012 wrote: »

iceland let the banks burn and their growth is doing alright now,maybe we did the wrong thing

Their budget was/is better balanced.

Ozymandius2011

Gurgle wrote: »

If I understand this case: Vote no, not because of what's in the treaty but because Germany wants it and we want something else (unrelated) from Germany.

That sounds like a bad reason to me.

I call it haggling, GFA style.

Godge wrote:

sorry, do you mean that if we vote no, we could somehow force taxpayers in the rest of Europe to pay for the debts that we have run up? Are you having a laugh? Seriously, who would pay for the write-down? The Germans? The Greeks? Somebody would have to pay and ultimately that is the failure of the "No" campaign on this sort of thing, they have absolutely no clue as to who would pay up for our budget deficits if we voted no.

Well the Spaniards and the Greeks recently got concessions on their debts by outright refusing to cooperate so why not? Our trumpt card is the risk of contagion if Ireland goes down. The media today are reporting warnings by an economist of "Armageddon" if Greece leaves the Euro - including the elimination of the capital of the ECB. It is in the interests of the ECB that Ireland pay bak some of the debt rather than none. In that context a write-down of debt is preferable.

caff

christmas2012 wrote: »

iceland let the banks burn and their growth is doing alright now,maybe we did the wrong thing

Iceland has a population of 320,000, 200,000 of which live in or near the captial city. Its governemnt budget is about 3billion euro. 81% of energy is Iceland is produced domestically. The costs of imports have soared since Iceland has devalued is currency and the country is only now unwinding capital flight controls while trying to battle inflation. Comparing Iceland burning the banks and Ireland is not like for like.

meglome

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So I'm a bit bemused. Can anyone explain how the vote No to austerity argument works?

I can't help but notice that no one has explained this yet.

sliabh

christmas2012 wrote: »

iceland let the banks burn and their growth is doing alright now,maybe we did the wrong thing

Iceland is still on the hook for the bank debts that their state guaranteed. The people voted down the specific deal on offer in a referendum, but that didn't erase their obligation to the British and Dutch governments (amongst others).

The Icelandic government is still trying to come to an arrangement with their creditors that they can sell at home. One way or another they will have to pay. What is up for debate is how much, how fast.

antoobrien

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In that case, what new things does the treaty actually do which aren't already in previous agreements?

It prevents us from accessing the ESM (which didn't exist at the time of the previous agreements) if we don't ratify it.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In that case, what new things does the treaty actually do which aren't already in previous agreements?

If there's nothing new in it, there's no need for a further treaty at all, if it's giving enforcement to hitherto unenforced rules, than to all practical intents it still counts as a 'new rule'.

That is like saying that it was all right to drink and drive before they intoduced breathalyzers. That is was all right to disregard speed limits before the introduction of speed cameras.

The question you should ask yourself is where were Cuddly Uncle Joe and the Boy Wonder when the rules were introduced in 2005?

Anyway, are you ever going to answer the OP's question?

I will. The "No" vote campaign people are right. Vote "Yes" for austerity but they have left out the other bit. Vote "No" for even more austerity. You see austerity or balancing the books which is the less emotive way of putting it is the only way to get the country out of this mess. If we vote "Yes", we get time, space and money to do it gradually without wrecking the country. If we vote "No" we have to do it much more quickly and in a scenario where no investers will have confidence in the country and no sane bank, bondholder or person will lend to us which means a lot more austerity. That is the reality.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In that case, what new things does the treaty actually do which aren't already in previous agreements?

If there's nothing new in it, there's no need for a further treaty at all, if it's giving enforcement to hitherto unenforced rules, than to all practical intents it still counts as a 'new rule'.

What's not new:

1. the 3% deficit rule
2. the 60% debt rule
3. the structural balance rule
4. the penalties and procedures attached to breaches of the rules

What's new:

1. transposing the fiscal rules into national law
2. creating a national 'correction mechanism'
3. making 1 and 2 subject to a ruling of the CJEU
4. the voting mechanism for determining whether the rules have been breached, which moves from requiring majority to support to requiring a majority to block

That's more or less it, plus the ESM conditionality. After all, it's only 11 pages.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It is possible that if we vote no, we could use possible renegotiations of the Fiscal Compact (today a French govt minister Pierre Moscovici said France will not ratify unless the Treaty is amended) to press for a write-down/write-off of Irish debt. If that succeeds it could reduce austerity.

We're not in a position to use our No in order to extort anything from the other countries, because our No doesn't prevent the Treaty coming into operation. It affects only us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

We're not in a position to use our No in order to extort anything from the other countries, because our No doesn't prevent the Treaty coming into operation. It affects only us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've been repeatedly explaining this to people for several weeks and it's still not getting through. It's a pretty simple concept as well, I really start to despair sometimes.

nicholasn7322

Vote no...and stop paying back the speculators who bet on anglo and the other banks that should have been left go. The IMF will fund anyone with a credible plan to pay it back...if we weren't paying off debts that we shouldn't have taken on we could come up with a reasonable plan. The interest rates will be higher than the ESMs rates alright so there's Austerity either way (we do have to get our house in order) but at least we wouldnt be borrowing money from an organization who are above all laws and cannot be prosecuted and who can demand any amount of money when ever they see fit.

Ozymandius2011

Scofflaw wrote: »

We're not in a position to use our No in order to extort anything from the other countries, because our No doesn't prevent the Treaty coming into operation. It affects only us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It needs 12 countries to ratify to come into force and that is looking less and less likely to happen - at least in its present form. I think a no vote from Ireland would strengthen the political momentum against ratification in Europe, and kill it that way. Also the situation with the ESM is in some doubt regarding Article 125. I find the RC's statements on it contradictory. On the one hand they say the time for vetoing it is past. On the other hand they say the Oireachtas has yet to ratify it. That is contradictory because changing Article 125 requires a Treaty change and that requires unanimity. Even Shane Coleman said on Newstalk this afternoon he was surprised at the RC's stance on the question of a referendum delay.

beeftotheheels

nicholasn7322 wrote: »

Vote no...and stop paying back the speculators who bet on anglo and the other banks that should have been left go.

Except that for the most part they're already paid and the debt assumed by the sovereign. The vast majority of Anglo funding was deposits per Alan Ahearne 70% if I recall correctly.

The deposits fled, Anglo borrowed made up money off the Central Bank of Ireland (who we own by the way and thus we're responsible for any losses it makes) to replace those deposits and the Gov guaranteed the CBI via the promissory notes. This has already happened. We're already on the hook for this. Money going out of the gov to fill a hole in one entity we own (IBRC) to avoid creating a hole in another entity we own (CBI). Holes which we have to fill one way or another as owners of those entites.

So to summarise "Vote no to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted"

nicholasn7322 wrote: »

The IMF will fund anyone with a credible plan to pay it back...if we weren't paying off debts that we shouldn't have taken on we could come up with a reasonable plan.

Except that we've already take on those debts, they are now debts of Ireland owed to our EU partners and we cannot default on them without being prepared to risk our EU Membership.

Horse. Stable. Bolt. Door.

nicholasn7322 wrote: »

The interest rates will be higher than the ESMs rates alright so there's Austerity either way (we do have to get our house in order) but at least we wouldnt be borrowing money from an organization who are above all laws and cannot be prosecuted and who can demand any amount of money when ever they see fit.

Total, unadulterated rubbish.

The ESM is not above the law. It is a construct of the law. Yes the ESM treaty grants it immunity from certain spurious litigation. But it is an EU Institution and it is not above the core EU laws in the TEU and TFEU, nor is the jurisdiction of the CJEU excluded (read Article 37 on dispute resolution).

ARTICLE 37

Interpretation and dispute settlement

1. Any question of interpretation or application of the provisions of this Treaty and the by-laws of the ESM arising between any ESM Member and the ESM, or between ESM Members, shall be submitted to the Board of Directors for its decision.

2. The Board of Governors shall decide on any dispute arising between an ESM Member and the ESM, or between ESM Members, in connection with the interpretation and application of this Treaty, including any dispute about the compatibility of the decisions adopted by the ESM with this
Treaty. The votes of the member(s) of the Board of Governors of the ESM Member(s) concerned shall be suspended when the Board of Governors votes on such decision and the voting threshold needed for the adoption of that decision shall be recalculated accordingly.

3. If an ESM Member contests the decision referred to in paragraph 2, the dispute shall be submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be binding on the parties in the procedure, which shall take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment within a period to be decided by said Court.

So if the ESM tomorrow decided to lend Ireland additional money it would be immune from litigation by a German taxpayer as breaching German laws.

If the ESM tomorrow made it a condition of lending to Ireland that it got to control our corporate tax rate for example, it would not be immune from an action in the CJEU that it had breached the principles of proportionality, subsidiarity, conferral etc etc. Ireland would first off make a complaint to the board, but if we weren't happy with their conclusion the case would go before the CJEU.

If we're not in a position to pony up the cash for a capital call made on us (by virtue of being in programme) the ESM treaty provides that a revised capital call can be made on other members to make up our short fall although it would make little sense for us to go down this road and more sense to borrow from the ESM to fund the ESM. I don't know why they didn't have a step out clause as with the EFSF, perhaps the issue was Italy and Spain.

But either way it strikes me as rich that Irish people can criticize the ESM both for imposing conditionality on our borrowing from it through ratification of the TCSG, and from the other side of their mouth criticize the possibility that we might have to put cash into the ESM for them to lend to anyone else.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

What's not new:

1. the 3% deficit rule
2. the 60% debt rule
3. the structural balance rule
4. the penalties and procedures attached to breaches of the rules

What's new:

1. transposing the fiscal rules into national law
2. creating a national 'correction mechanism'
3. making 1 and 2 subject to a ruling of the CJEU
4. the voting mechanism for determining whether the rules have been breached, which moves from requiring majority to support to requiring a majority to block

That's more or less it, plus the ESM conditionality. After all, it's only 11 pages.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sorry but where does the 0.5% limit come into any of that?
A "structural deficit" applies to a deficit when a country is performing to its full economic potential rather than being in the middle of a bust, but who defines "normality"? I doubt the Irish high point in 05/06 counts as normal either...

As I say, it just seems far too vague and open to many interpretations.

beeftotheheels

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry but where does the 0.5% limit come into any of that?
A "structural deficit" applies to a deficit when a country is performing to its full economic potential rather than being in the middle of a bust, but who defines "normality"? I doubt the Irish high point in 05/06 counts as normal either...

As I say, it just seems far too vague and open to many interpretations.

In the current rules there must be a structural balance or surplus. In the treaty a structural deficit of 0.5% is allowed.

So whether you think the definition is vague or otherwise, the treaty relaxes rather than tightens this rule.

05/06 clearly wasn't a structural balance since at the very least the treaty requires cyclical tax take be excluded from the calculation and in 05/06 we were buoyant with pro-cyclical property taxes which should have been excluded.

nua domhan

caff wrote: »

Iceland has a population of 320,000, 200,000 of which live in or near the captial city. Its governemnt budget is about 3billion euro. 81% of energy is Iceland is produced domestically. The costs of imports have soared since Iceland has devalued is currency and the country is only now unwinding capital flight controls while trying to battle inflation. Comparing Iceland burning the banks and Ireland is not like for like.

What about comparing Argentina and Ireland?

beeftotheheels

nua domhan wrote: »

What about comparing Argentina and Ireland?

Equally spurious. We're not in any where near as bad a position as Argentina was in pre default, and I hope to god we don't visit the position of Argentina post default.

Although I would advocate setting up a little test camp in the Curragh where food had to be foraged by middle class journalists out of rubbish bins in order to give them a better sense of what they're actually advocating.

We could film them 24 hours a day as they try to feed their families, but they can't get voted out until they've actually endured that level of pain for a similar time scale to that suffered by the people of Argentina.

It could simultaneously amuse and inform any Irish people tempted by the analogy.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It needs 12 countries to ratify to come into force and that is looking less and less likely to happen - at least in its present form. I think a no vote from Ireland would strengthen the political momentum against ratification in Europe, and kill it that way. Also the situation with the ESM is in some doubt regarding Article 125. I find the RC's statements on it contradictory. On the one hand they say the time for vetoing it is past. On the other hand they say the Oireachtas has yet to ratify it. That is contradictory because changing Article 125 requires a Treaty change and that requires unanimity. Even Shane Coleman said on Newstalk this afternoon he was surprised at the RC's stance on the question of a referendum delay.

That's Article 136, not 125, I think - the amendment in question is desirable to provide a solid legal base for ESM in the Treaties, but it's not regarded as necessary. So vetoing the change is not guaranteed to stop ESM going ahead, even were the government contemplating doing so, which they've made clear they're not. To be honest, I can't imagine an action more calculated to lose allies than trying to veto ESM right now - not ratifying it would be one thing, but trying to veto it would probably push at least Spain right into bailout territory.

On the question of delaying the referendum - it's not legally possible, nor can the wording be changed. So on May 31st you get to say Yes or No to the Treaty as it now stands - and not any other version.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stringed theory

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

It's been the primary argument put forward by the No side: vote No because austerity isn't working......

voting No in protest at austerity doesn't make sense. Does it?

No. Except maybe in the long term you could make a case for borrowing more money on the markets, once you ignore the probable short term catastrophic increase in austerity.
Except you can't ignore it. But you can't pin these guys down. Straightaway they'll argue that we'll be able to access EU funds anyway, while simultaneously arguing that we don't need it anyway, and this is the only way to cut fat cat salaries...

I think that for many the basic problem is a deep seated unease with Ireland's place in the world, and a willingness to smash something. Sinn Fein, leftists, and assorted British malcontents can then conjure up their intellectual fig leaves for these emotions.

karlth

sliabh wrote: »

Iceland is still on the hook for the bank debts that their state guaranteed. The people voted down the specific deal on offer in a referendum, but that didn't erase their obligation to the British and Dutch governments (amongst others).

Just to clarify: The British and Dutch governments paid deposit holders in their country when an Icelandic bank went bankrupt. They then told the Icelandic government it was a loan. Icelanders said it wasn't (after a ballot).

The case is now before the EFTA court and as the total amount will be paid out anyhow by the failed bank it is unlikely that Iceland will have to pay anything.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry but where does the 0.5% limit come into any of that?
A "structural deficit" applies to a deficit when a country is performing to its full economic potential rather than being in the middle of a bust, but who defines "normality"? I doubt the Irish high point in 05/06 counts as normal either...

As I say, it just seems far too vague and open to many interpretations.

Wow, are you a politician in disguise?

(1) How will a no vote prevent austerity? That was the OP, any chance of answering it?

(2) Most of the rules are already there, how will voting no change that?

(3) What is wrong with the changes as already outlined by Scofflaw?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry but where does the 0.5% limit come into any of that?

"Structural balance" rule - sorry, may not have been obvious. Something worth noting, though, is that the 0.5% structural balance rule isn't a limit in quite the same way as the 3% and 60% - it cannot trigger an excessive deficit procedure.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A "structural deficit" applies to a deficit when a country is performing to its full economic potential rather than being in the middle of a bust, but who defines "normality"? I doubt the Irish high point in 05/06 counts as normal either...

As I say, it just seems far too vague and open to many interpretations.

Then you should probably read the implementation decisions: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/pdf/coc/2012-01-24.pdf

The Stability & Growth Pact is 20 years old - the implementation, and the factors to be taken into consideration, seem vague to you because they're not explicit in the Treaty, but the reason they're not in the Treaty is because they already exist, and the Treaty just refers to them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Structural balance" rule - sorry, may not have been obvious. Something worth noting, though, is that the 0.5% structural balance rule isn't a limit in quite the same way as the 3% and 60% - it cannot trigger an excessive deficit procedure.



Then you should probably read the implementation decisions: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/pdf/coc/2012-01-24.pdf

The Stability & Growth Pact is 20 years old - the implementation, and the factors to be taken into consideration, seem vague to you because they're not explicit in the Treaty, but the reason they're not in the Treaty is because they already exist, and the Treaty just refers to them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But once again I must ask, if that's the case, then what new things does the treaty actually do, apart from setting up the ESM?
If all of those measures are old, what's actually in the treaty that's never been in it before, and how are those old provisions at all relevant? Does the treaty give them new teeth or something?

There must be some substantial new elements in this treaty apart from just restating existing rules, otherwise (a) it wouldn't be such a huge issue, and (b) it wouldn't be important enough to require a referendum.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But once again I must ask, if that's the case, then what new things does the treaty actually do, apart from setting up the ESM?

The Fiscal Treaty doesn't set up the ESM - the ESM Treaty does that.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If all of those measures are old, what's actually in the treaty that's never been in it before, and how are those old provisions at all relevant? Does the treaty give them new teeth or something?

Excuse the copy and paste of my earlier answer. What's changing is:

1. transposing the fiscal rules into national law
2. creating a national 'correction mechanism'
3. making 1 and 2 subject to a ruling of the CJEU
4. the voting mechanism for determining whether the rules have been breached, which moves from requiring majority to support to requiring a majority to block

Now those are all to do with ensuring countries stick to the rules. The simple one is (4), which just makes it harder for big countries to block excessive deficit procedures, something they were doing with the Stability & Growth Pact.

(1) and (2) are actually rather a bit more subtle and far-reaching than they first appear. They require the transposition of the fiscal rules into national legislation and they require the creation of a national "correction mechanism" which is triggered if we breach the structural balance rule, and they also require us to have the necessary independent institutions to ensure the observance of the rules and the triggering and implementation of the correction mechanism.

We've already done some of this - that's what the Fiscal Advisory Council is for, in part.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There must be some substantial new elements in this treaty apart from just restating existing rules, otherwise (a) it wouldn't be such a huge issue, and (b) it wouldn't be important enough to require a referendum.

In some logical counterpart of Ireland, I'm sure that would be the case, but not in this Ireland. The rules for triggering referendums are frankly arcane - two people can read the Crotty judgement and come away with entirely different impressions of what the issue was - and nobody, bar the AG and the government, knows why we're actually having this referendum at all. Certainly the rules have nothing to do with whether something is important - ESM is arguably more important than the Fiscal Treaty, but it hasn't pulled the referendum trigger, while the Fiscal Treaty has.

And as for it not being a huge issue if it didn't contain "substantial new elements"...hah. Sure. Absolutely. No, seriously though, of course it's a huge issue (in Ireland). It's an opportunity for protest in a country that feels let down by national and European leadership, it's a chance to poke Europe in the eye for bailing us out, it's a chance for eurosceptics both foreign and domestic to try and stick a spoke in Europe's wheels, it's an opportunity for publicity equal to the government for all the opposition parties no matter how small, it's an opportunity for every tin foil hat wearing loon to strike a blow against the NWO, it's an opportunity for political rejects to stage a comeback, it's an opportunity to air any and every grievance against the government...the list is endless. Only the relatively jaded state of the electorate prevents this being as big as VAT on children's shoes or the appointment of an AG.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

In some logical counterpart of Ireland, I'm sure that would be the case, but not in this Ireland. The rules for triggering referendums are frankly arcane - two people can read the Crotty judgement and come away with entirely different impressions of what the issue was - and nobody, bar the AG and the government, knows why we're actually having this referendum at all. Certainly the rules have nothing to do with whether something is important - ESM is arguably more important than the Fiscal Treaty, but it hasn't pulled the referendum trigger, while the Fiscal Treaty has.

And as for it not being a huge issue if it didn't contain "substantial new elements"...hah. Sure. Absolutely. No, seriously though, of course it's a huge issue (in Ireland). It's an opportunity for protest in a country that feels let down by national and European leadership, it's a chance to poke Europe in the eye for bailing us out, it's a chance for eurosceptics both foreign and domestic to try and stick a spoke in Europe's wheels, it's an opportunity for publicity equal to the government for all the opposition parties no matter how small, it's an opportunity for every tin foil hat wearing loon to strike a blow against the NWO, it's an opportunity for political rejects to stage a comeback, it's an opportunity to air any and every grievance against the government...the list is endless. Only the relatively jaded state of the electorate prevents this being as big as VAT on children's shoes or the appointment of an AG.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thank you Scofflaw. You are as always the voice of reason.

paddydu

I don't know about you lot especially the Irish among us, but I have not so distant past relatives who fought and died for the right to live in an independent Ireland. I am myself centre to right wing in my views and have been that way since a young man, but there is no way I can understand any sense in voting yes!! If you choose to vote yes you will be giving the complete control of our beautiful little country over to Germany and in doing so we will suffer a lot of pain but stretched out over a complete generation maybe a lot longer. I believe it is better that we say no to selling our country and children out and suffer what is coming anyway in one go! If this leads to us leaving the Euro (which may happen anyway) then very quickly we would see growth and Jobs because immediately we would have a devaluation of our currency it would be cheaper straight away for foreign investors to come here ie labour would cost them less selling back out of this country would be extremely competitive and we would have control to print money when needed in a crisis which is needed right now but Germany won't do it! Who we vote for would actually be able to implement their policies which can not be done now as we have seen with Fine Gael and Labour just look at the promises from the last election most have been put on the back burner or ignored all together at the orders of Europe. Argentina and Iceland have gone through similar recent crisis's and now they are among the few countries with growth. So come on get educated and don't listen to fear tactics. I am voting no to this Fiscal Compact for the right to self determination and an Independent Ireland just this time round no one has to give their life to do so!! To think I voted Fine Gael in the last election I am ashamed and feel severely let down, I won't make that mistake again!!
Reply

meglome

paddydu wrote: »

I don't know about you lot especially the Irish among us, but I have not so distant past relatives who fought and died for the right to live in an independent Ireland. I am myself centre to right wing in my views and have been that way since a young man, but there is no way I can understand any sense in voting yes!! If you choose to vote yes you will be giving the complete control of our beautiful little country over to Germany and in doing so we will suffer a lot of pain but stretched out over a complete generation maybe a lot longer. I believe it is better that we say no to selling our country and children out and suffer what is coming anyway in one go! If this leads to us leaving the Euro (which may happen anyway) then very quickly we would see growth and Jobs because immediately we would have a devaluation of our currency it would be cheaper straight away for foreign investors to come here ie labour would cost them less selling back out of this country would be extremely competitive and we would have control to print money when needed in a crisis which is needed right now but Germany won't do it! Who we vote for would actually be able to implement their policies which can not be done now as we have seen with Fine Gael and Labour just look at the promises from the last election most have been put on the back burner or ignored all together at the orders of Europe. Argentina and Iceland have gone through similar recent crisis's and now they are among the few countries with growth. So come on get educated and don't listen to fear tactics. I am voting no to this Fiscal Compact for the right to self determination and an Independent Ireland just this time round no one has to give their life to do so!! To think I voted Fine Gael in the last election I am ashamed and feel severely let down, I won't make that mistake again!!
Reply

Congratulations you've listed off a load of reasons for things that are not in the treaty or have nothing to do with the treaty. Oh and things that are not remotely factual.

Also I'm amused you've done this while telling us all to "get educated and don't listen to fear tactics".

Fussgangerzone

I'm voting no in the referendum.

How will a No Vote prevent austerity?
It won't, nobody is saying it is, that looks like a straw man to me.
We are already in austerity.

The "No to Austerity" argument is this: A Yes Vote will lead to more austerity.

There, simple. Answered your question.

The hows, whys, rights and wrongs of that argument and it's counterpart are already covered elsewhere on these boards.

Craven99

Not that I think an actual Yes vote will actually change that much in anycase - I think its more our arcane way of dealing with these sort of things through referendi more than any substantial changes (Scofflaw verbilises this MUCH better than I ever could)
BUT I would vote Yes anyway - and mostly because I do not believe that this Irish government, the last, any any future one I can see in the short term simply do not have the skills to manage the counrty properly.

beeftotheheels

Fussgangerzone wrote: »

The "No to Austerity" argument is this: A Yes Vote will lead to more austerity.

There, simple. Answered your question.

How so? "A Yes vote will lead to more austerity" is about as much an answer as "A Yes vote will see the end of the toothfairy".

Please explain how a yes vote will lead to more austerity.

Godge

Fussgangerzone wrote: »

I'm voting no in the referendum.

How will a No Vote prevent austerity?
It won't, nobody is saying it is, that looks like a straw man to me.
We are already in austerity.

The "No to Austerity" argument is this: A Yes Vote will lead to more austerity.

There, simple. Answered your question.

The hows, whys, rights and wrongs of that argument and it's counterpart are already covered elsewhere on these boards.

Here is my view. There is more austerity coming. Fact.

A "Yes" vote will therefore lead to more austerity.
Equally, a "No" vote will also lead to more austerity.

However, I believe that a "No" vote will lead to more austerity than a "Yes" vote because of investor confidence. Both real investors (multi-national companies) and bond investors (financiers) will lack confidence in Ireland's ability to manage itself outside the confines of Stability Pact and probably outside of the Euro. This is with good reason based on how we have managed ourselves in the past. As a result, there will be little or no investment in Ireland leading to another recession and borrowing on the markets will require paying interest rates above 10%. As a result, draconican measures on tax, social welfare and public services (including pay) would then be needed.

A bit of me is so annoyed by the ignorance of the "No" side around the issue of what will happen if we vote "No" that it is wishing for a "No" vote even though it could create events that would wreck the country for generations.

Fussgangerzone

beeftotheheels wrote: »

How so? "A Yes vote will lead to more austerity" is about as much an answer as "A Yes vote will see the end of the toothfairy".

Please explain how a yes vote will lead to more austerity.

I'm just explaining what the argument actually is, and pointing out what I see as the deliberately misleading OP.

My 2 personal reasons for agreeing with the argument are:

1. Under the ESM, we would have automatically triggered mechanisms in the even of a too-great structural deficit. In practice, and based on current form, I read this as "cut like a motherhubbard"
2. More generally, I believe the ESM fits fully with the momentum of current EU policy regarding debt. That is to say, it will be a failure. As such, we as Europeans need to do what we can to halt this momentum of cut-only economic reform, and move for policies which prioritise growth.

Fussgangerzone

Godge wrote: »

However, I believe that a "No" vote will lead to more austerity than a "Yes" vote because of investor confidence. Both real investors (multi-national companies) and bond investors (financiers) will lack confidence in Ireland's ability to manage itself outside the confines of Stability Pact and probably outside of the Euro. This is with good reason based on how we have managed ourselves in the past. As a result, there will be little or no investment in Ireland leading to another recession and borrowing on the markets will require paying interest rates above 10%. As a result, draconican measures on tax, social welfare and public services (including pay) would then be needed.

A bit of me is so annoyed by the ignorance of the "No" side around the issue of what will happen if we vote "No" that it is wishing for a "No" vote even though it could create events that would wreck the country for generations.

Have you any evidence that that will happen? Have you a quote by anyone outside Ireland saying that not ratifying would put us in a place where we wouldn't get help if we really needed it?

antoobrien

Fussgangerzone wrote: »

I'm voting no in the referendum.

How will a No Vote prevent austerity?
It won't, nobody is saying it is, that looks like a straw man to me.
We are already in austerity.

Going by this statement from SF, they are.

“The extra €6 billion of cuts and tax increases arising from the Austerity Treaty will further damage the domestic economy. This will hurt the small and medium sized sector particularly hard leading to more job losses.

“At the same time the Austerity Treaty will lead to a Eurozone wide contraction as all 17 member states will seek to meet its harsh deficit targets. This will hurt our exports, already experiencing a decline.

There is no call in the treaty for cuts that have not already been agreed with the troika. Due to the situation we have been in since 2008, under this treaty we get until 2019 to meet the targets that the no side believe will happen in 2015.

To achieve this it is planned that there will be a further €8.6 billion of expenditure cuts and tax increases spread over the next three budgets. The ‘No’ campaign has focused on the post-2015 period and claimed that adhering to the debt brake rule will force further cuts of up to €5 billion a year. This is not true.

When a country leaves the Excessive Deficit Procedure, they will enter a three-year transition period before the debt brake rule applies. Ireland will be in this three-year phase from 2016 to 2018 so it will actually be 2019 before the debt brake applies to us. Even if the rule did not exist we would need to bring the debt ratio down as a country cannot persist in having a debt ratio above 100pc of GDP.

oscarBravo

Fussgangerzone wrote: »

Have you a quote by anyone outside Ireland saying that not ratifying would put us in a place where we wouldn't get help if we really needed it?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0428/1224315295778.html

IRELAND COULD see its cost of borrowing soar once more if the referendum on the fiscal treaty is defeated, rating agency Standard Poor’s warned...

Fussgangerzone

antoobrien wrote: »

Going by this statement from SF, they are.

Fair enough, but as far I'm concerned, SF are one big straw man in any fight they join. Not going to bother defending them.

Amtmann

This thread is unintentionally hilarious. It's pretty clear that everyone who intends to vote no is either uninformed, or speculating that the unknown consequences won't be that unpleasant, or are otherwise going off on a tangent that's unrelated to the treaty.

Fussgangerzone

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0428/1224315295778.html

IRELAND COULD see its cost of borrowing soar once more if the referendum on the fiscal treaty is defeated, rating agency Standard Poor’s warned...

It also says that they think there's a one-in-three chance. Meaning it probably won't happen, by their calculations.

RandomName2

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So I'm a bit bemused. Can anyone explain how the vote No to austerity argument works?

Isn't the argument that a yes vote would institutionalise austerity as it would limit things like public spending (public debt to gpa ratio)? I can't imagine that they are arguing that austerity would disappear if we votes no...

SeanW

beeftotheheels wrote: »

The ESM is not above the law. It is a construct of the law. Yes the ESM treaty grants it immunity from certain spurious litigation. But it is an EU Institution and it is not above the core EU laws in the TEU and TFEU, nor is the jurisdiction of the CJEU excluded (read Article 37 on dispute resolution).

The ESM may have a few precious safeguards like the one you mentioned but by and large it and its senior officers are totally above the law.

It cannot be sued by anyone, it cannot be audited by anyone and officers of the organisation are granted absolute legal immunity from any crimes committed in an official capacity.

But on the other side of the coin it can sue anyone, anytime, for any reason and can demand as much money as it likes, from any government at any time.

That's a pretty powerful organisation!

View

SeanW wrote: »

The ESM may have a few precious safeguards like the one you mentioned but by and large it and its senior officers are totally above the law.

It cannot be sued by anyone, it cannot be audited by anyone and officers of the organisation are granted absolute legal immunity from any crimes committed in an official capacity.

But on the other side of the coin it can sue anyone, anytime, for any reason and can demand as much money as it likes, from any government at any time.

That's a pretty powerful organisation!

You appear not to have read the ESM Treaty.

Articles 28, 29 & 30 allow for auditing the ESM.

Article 37 deals with legal disputes/interpretation issues (and article 37.3 explicitly allows for disputes to be referred to the ECJ for binding judgments).

And the immunity articles are similar to those that the EU (and other international) bodies have when carrying out their assigned tasks. You do realise this isn't some sort of new legal innovation just thought up for the ESM, don't you?

Scofflaw

Fussgangerzone wrote: »

I'm just explaining what the argument actually is, and pointing out what I see as the deliberately misleading OP.

My 2 personal reasons for agreeing with the argument are:

1. Under the ESM, we would have automatically triggered mechanisms in the even of a too-great structural deficit. In practice, and based on current form, I read this as "cut like a motherhubbard"
2. More generally, I believe the ESM fits fully with the momentum of current EU policy regarding debt. That is to say, it will be a failure. As such, we as Europeans need to do what we can to halt this momentum of cut-only economic reform, and move for policies which prioritise growth.

That should be "Fiscal Treaty", not ESM in both those.

cordially,
Scofflaw