Vote Yes- for the POSSIBILITY of ESM funding

screamer

Did my ears deceive me, or did I hear a politician say, unless we voted yes, we would cut ourselves off from the POSSIBILITY of ESM funding...... why would we vote for the possibility of something, surely we need the certainty of it? i.e. if we need it, it will be there, not may be there. Perhaps he didn't mean it in the context of what he said, but still, these mixed messages are not helping people to decide what to vote..

antoobrien

screamer wrote: »

Did my ears deceive me, or did I hear a politician say, unless we voted yes, we would cut ourselves off from the POSSIBILITY of ESM funding...... why would we vote for the possibility of something, surely we need the certainty of it? i.e. if we need it, it will be there, not may be there. Perhaps he didn't mean it in the context of what he said, but still, these mixed messages are not helping people to decide what to vote..

Without this treaty we will not receive ESM funding - no matter what.

Bearing that in mind, what is the ESM - it's a bailout loan fund.

I'd imagine that (s)he said possible because it's possible that we won't need ESM funding - i.e. a second set of bailout loans. Until Greece blew up again it was likely that we would be able to avoid a second bailout.

The Waltzing Consumer

screamer wrote: »

Did my ears deceive me, or did I hear a politician say, unless we voted yes, we would cut ourselves off from the POSSIBILITY of ESM funding...... why would we vote for the possibility of something, surely we need the certainty of it? i.e. if we need it, it will be there, not may be there. Perhaps he didn't mean it in the context of what he said, but still, these mixed messages are not helping people to decide what to vote..

I don't think it is a mixed message. Vote yes and you will have access to the ESM funding if a country may need it. Also, who, when, where, can you give us a little more info about the quote? Was it is an interview, who was it, what was the full sentence?

Sounds like you want to be confused to be honest.

Jolly Red Giant

antoobrien wrote: »

Without this treaty we will not receive ESM funding - no matter what.

Not true - read the treaty

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd imagine that (s)he said possible because it's possible that we won't need ESM funding - i.e. a second set of bailout loans. Until Greece blew up again it was likely that we would be able to avoid a second bailout.

No - (s)he said it because even if we vote Yes and even if we need money from the fund there is no guarantee we will get it - the 'Austerity Club' of France and German can refuse to provide funds.

Again - read the treaty about who is entitled to get the funds and who makes the decision on who gets the funds.

The Waltzing Consumer

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Not true - read the treaty


No - (s)he said it because even if we vote Yes and even if we need money from the fund there is no guarantee we will get it - the 'Austerity Club' of France and German can refuse to provide funds.

Again - read the treaty about who is entitled to get the funds and who makes the decision on who gets the funds.

"However another recital states that, from March 1st 2013, any future bail-out involving the use of funds from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), will be given only to countries which have ratified and implemented this Treaty. (The ESM is the permanent EU bail-out mechanism which is expected to be established by July 2012.) So, any future bail-out could not involve access to this particular source of funding."

A Fact from the referendum commission http://www.referendum2012.ie/useful-facts/

Why is the No side not taking the referendum commission to court if it sincerely believes we can access this fund if we vote No? That would be such a huge victory for the No side and easily done if it is in the treaty, so why don't they?

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

antoobrien wrote: »

Without this treaty we will not receive ESM funding - no matter what.

Not true - read the treaty

OK, let's do that:

...the granting of financial assistance in the framework of new programmes under the European Stability Mechanism will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of this Treaty by the Contracting Party concerned...

Scofflaw

There is of course no guarantee we'll get ESM funds if we vote Yes. However, if we have ratified the Treaty, and need the funds, then we are as qualified as any country can be to receive such funds, and we'll be looking for funds for exactly the reason the ESM is being set up.

Voting No, on the other hand, means that we cannot access the ESM when our funding runs out at the end of 2013, and our only real hope of funds is to go cap in hand to the same ESM countries and say that we'd like something over and above what they have agreed to put into the ESM for situations like ours.

The No side has said all along that there's no way Europe will leave us without funds even if we vote No - it's a little late in the day for them suddenly to be claiming that even if we vote Yes we could still be left without funds.

You can still be refused entry to a gig even if you've got your ticket - but let's not pretend that the possibility of refusal is the same as if you're trying to get in without a ticket (and are shouting loudly about how tickets are a fascist imposition and a gun to your head).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011

It is posasible the denial of ESM funds would be struck down. Noonan accepted this morning that there is precedence for the ECJ ruling that pre-armbles are not legally-binding.

later12

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It is posasible the denial of ESM funds would be struck down. Noonan accepted this morning that there is precedence for the ECJ ruling that pre-armbles are not legally-binding.

Well the issue of ECJ accepting jurisdiction is in itself an issue that has yet to be resolved, if you look at the Rhine River case where the ECJ declined to participate.

I missed the interview; where is that precedent on the preamble to a Treaty?

Ozymandius2011

later12 wrote: »

Well the issue of ECJ accepting jurisdiction is in itself an issue that has yet to be resolved, if you look at the Rhine River case where the ECJ declined to participate.

I missed the interview; where is that precedent on the preamble to a Treaty?

Michael Noonan said such precedents existed this morning on Radio1 on Today with PK when asked by PK.

oscarBravo

screamer wrote: »

... why would we vote for the possibility of something, surely we need the certainty of it?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It is posasible the denial of ESM funds would be struck down.

I guess a possibility (even when it approaches probability) isn't a good enough reason to vote 'yes', but a different possibility (which seems at this point to be a complete hypothetical) is a good enough reason to vote 'no'.

It would be funny if it wasn't predictable and depressing.

later12

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Michael Noonan said such precedents existed this morning on Radio1 on Today with PK when asked by PK.

Indeed, I'm just curious as to whether he's correct. If there are examples of preambles which have found not to carry the same legal weight as the body of a Treaty, they should be quite easy to identify.

Rather, as far as I am aware, there is an extensive legal history of preambles being used with success in constitutional challenges both in this country and abroad.

Godge

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It is posasible the denial of ESM funds would be struck down. Noonan accepted this morning that there is precedence for the ECJ ruling that pre-armbles are not legally-binding.

So what you are saying is that if we vote no, and our partners follow through on the Treaty and deny us funding from the ESM that the ECJ will strike down their refusal. Let us for one minute waste our time and accept that this wholly fanciful and imaginary situation comes to pass. Can you answer me a couple of questions?

(1) referral to the ECJ takes what up to 3-5 years, what do we do for money in between the refusal by our partners and the ECJ judgment?

(2) So the ECJ strikes down the refusal, do you expect our partners just to hand over their money? Or under pressure from their own taxpayers, would they not take the route of saying, well that is not what we meant by the Treaty so we are pulling out of the Treaty and therefore there is no ECM to pay us. Would we then have to go the whole ECJ route again to get them to actually pay us the money?

View

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It is posasible the denial of ESM funds would be struck down. Noonan accepted this morning that there is precedence for the ECJ ruling that pre-armbles are not legally-binding.

Nope, the ECJ can strike down the clause. They can't however force a state to make a political decision in a particular direction (i.e. dispense money to a state when they don't want to because that state has rejected the "balanced budget" idea contained in the Stability Treaty).

Jolly Red Giant

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's do that:

...the granting of financial assistance in the framework of new programmes under the European Stability Mechanism will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of this Treaty by the Contracting Party concerned...

But here is the the issue - this will only apply IF we vote yes.

At the moment the Dail has yet to ratify signing up to the ESM and amending the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Beacuse the establishment of the ESM requires a change to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - it requires unanimity. Ireland can veto the establishment of the ESM until this 'balckmail' clause is removed. If the Irish government follows this route then it can continue to access funding from the ESM. The amendment establishing the ESM is based in EU Treaties while the Austerity Treaty is an inter-governmental agreement. In terms of the ESM then the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union takes legal precedent in an EU context. By voting NO Ireland can still access funding from the ESM on the same basis which it could of the Austerity Treaty was passed.

In any case Ireland could apply for a second bailout from the EFSF under the current situation before July 2013 - and Ireland could very well need a bailout before then. However, if we vote YES then the rules for the second bailout would be under the new Austerity Treaty rules rather than the current position.

However, there is a further sting in the tail if we vote YES. Voting Yes does not guarantee Ireland funding from the ESM. Article 7 outlines that funding will only occur if a qualified majority support it - but that qualifies majority is limited to countries who have not had sanctions imposed for breaches of the terms of the Austerity Treaty. This means in effect that Germany will decide if Ireland gets funding or not - ONLY if we vote yes. If we vote NO then EU rules will apply to any application for funding.

Furthermore - despite spending the past year telling us we will NOT need a second bailout (which would make the goverment's sole argument for voting yes redundant) Creighton came out yesterday saing that a second bailout was a 'strong possibility'. A second bailout would be an absolute disaster for the Irish economy and would result in an economic collapse on the scale of what is happening in Greece.

Any need for a second bailout would be a complete indictment of the failure of the current austerity policies being imposed by the government. If would demonstrate the abject failure of austerity and show that all the pain imposed on ordinary working class people in this country has been for nothing and is a precursor for even greater economic hardship that will wreck the economy further.

This Treaty is about enshrining neo-liberal economic policies into the constitution. These are the exact same neo-liberal economic policies that caused the economic crash in the first place. The people who claim WE now need to act in a 'responsible' fashion are the very same people who are responsible for getting us into the current mess (they just want us to pay for it).

K-9

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Furthermore - despite spending the past year telling us we will NOT need a second bailout (which would make the goverment's sole argument for voting yes redundant) Creighton came out yesterday saing that a second bailout was a 'strong possibility'. A second bailout would be an absolute disaster for the Irish economy and would result in an economic collapse on the scale of what is happening in Greece.

Any need for a second bailout would be a complete indictment of the failure of the current austerity policies being imposed by the government. If would demonstrate the abject failure of austerity and show that all the pain imposed on ordinary working class people in this country has been for nothing and is a precursor for even greater economic hardship that will wreck the economy further.

This Treaty is about enshrining neo-liberal economic policies into the constitution. These are the exact same neo-liberal economic policies that caused the economic crash in the first place. The people who claim WE now need to act in a 'responsible' fashion are the very same people who are responsible for getting us into the current mess (they just want us to pay for it).

A second bailout isn't necessarily an indictment of the Government or austerity if it achieves its targets. The second bailout would be for a much smaller sum so there'd be less need for austerity. The main factor will be the interest rate we'll be charged on the markets and that has decreased significantly over the last year to under 7%, so some people do have faith in the programme. What put it back up was Euro uncertainty, not anything directly related to Ireland.

Jolly Red Giant

K-9 wrote: »

A second bailout isn't necessarily an indictment of the Government or austerity if it achieves its targets.

If the government achieved its targets then a second bailout wouldn't be necessary. The problem for the government is that it won't come within an ass's roar of metting any of the targets. Austerity is destroying the Irish economy - just like Greece - and Portugal - and Spain - and Austria - and Belgium and everyone of the 13 eurozone countries that currently have no hope of reaching the Austerity Treaty targets.

K-9 wrote: »

The second bailout would be for a much smaller sum so there'd be less need for austerity.

A second bailout will inevitably result in increased and more vicious austerity. It will result in an increase in the debt, increased interets payments and as a result of a YES vote increased committments to principle repayments and fines and penalties for breaching the Austerity Treaty rules. And I would put money on it now that top of the IMF's demand list would be privatisation of the water supply in this country.

K-9 wrote: »

The main factor will be the interest rate we'll be charged on the markets and that has decreased significantly over the last year to under 7%, so some people do have faith in the programme. What put it back up was Euro uncertainty, not anything directly related to Ireland.

The interest rates are pretty much irrelevent as the bailout rates are supposed (according to Noonan) to be rock-bottom. The main difficulty is the level of debt - private debt that has been foisted onto the backs of working class people. Without a major write-down or complete elimination of the debt - both (what is now) sovereign and mortgage - the Irish economy will continue to deteriorate further compounding all the difficulties created by the current austerity.

Godge

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If the government achieved its targets then a second bailout wouldn't be necessary. The problem for the government is that it won't come within an ass's roar of metting any of the targets. Austerity is destroying the Irish economy - just like Greece - and Portugal - and Spain - and Austria - and Belgium and everyone of the 13 eurozone countries that currently have no hope of reaching the Austerity Treaty targets.


A second bailout will inevitably result in increased and more vicious austerity. It will result in an increase in the debt, increased interets payments and as a result of a YES vote increased committments to principle repayments and fines and penalties for breaching the Austerity Treaty rules. And I would put money on it now that top of the IMF's demand list would be privatisation of the water supply in this country.


The interest rates are pretty much irrelevent as the bailout rates are supposed (according to Noonan) to be rock-bottom. The main difficulty is the level of debt - private debt that has been foisted onto the backs of working class people. Without a major write-down or complete elimination of the debt - both (what is now) sovereign and mortgage - the Irish economy will continue to deteriorate further compounding all the difficulties created by the current austerity.

If it comes to 2014 and we have achieved our targets, we will still need to borrow. It maybe we need to borrow for the much smaller budget deficit, it may be we need to borrow to roll-over existing debt.

Now, we may have a choice, go back to the markets (let us say Italy is in trouble) and borrow at the 9-10% that the PIIGS are getting as interest rates or take another bailout at 3%. Which makes sense for the Irish people? If you guessed "take the bailout", you were right!

So we meet targets and it all is about the interest rate.

K-9

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If the government achieved its targets then a second bailout wouldn't be necessary.

If the market rate is low enough we'll borrow from there, which you acknowledge later on.

The interest rates are pretty much irrelevent as the bailout rates are supposed (according to Noonan) to be rock-bottom.

If there is a big difference we will seek another bailout, if the market rate resumes the drop it had for over a year we probably will go back to the markets.

Austerity is bringing the deficit down and that has to be done, it's the initial step on getting budgets under control. Thankfully people are finally seeing that it isn't enough on its own. That doesn't mean cuts to the budget aren't needed, something even Hollande agrees on.