Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should Ireland Leave the EU?
Options
Comments
-
Nonsense. I'm on the continent and I had a pint of beer last night. Actually, I had quite a few pints of beer last night and am presently paying the price for that excess...questiontime2 wrote: »You can't drink a pint of beer on the continent.0 -
As we look around Europe we see people more than discontented with the EU, from riots in Greece to unemployment in Spain. The main thrust of this discontent is that there is a general feeling that the people are alienated from those who rule over us, that they are out of touch, without any real opposition and no longer responsive to any democratic control.
The EU, once perceived as remote and unresponsive, is now viewed with suspicion after leading us to the current disasterous situation.
Where this will lead is uncertain, but as we have seen already across the EU, examples such as in France with many people voting for Marie Le Pen and in the UK George Galloway garnering a huge vote recently overturning a previous large Labour majority.
Previously, across Europe revolution was the result of out of touch rulers. Wouldn't it be interesting to see some of our politicians answering for themselves to the people with the prospect of a guillotine glinting in the background.0 -
I don't think this is really an EU spawned issue, but more a crisis in the direction of Western democracy and is increasingly felt in non-EU countries too.As we look around Europe we see people more than discontented with the EU, from riots in Greece to unemployment in Spain. The main thrust of this discontent is that there is a general feeling that the people are alienated from those who rule over us, that they are out of touch, without any real opposition and no longer responsive to any democratic control.
That our system of democracy has become increasingly disconnected to, or even at odds with, popular support has been building up since the 1990's. 9-11 highlighted this, in that increasingly draconian laws were introduced that went in opposition to personal democratic freedoms, as did the support for the Iraq war that many Western democracies gave, despite strong domestic opposition. And with the bank bailouts following the 2008 financial crisis, further fuel was added to the sensation that our leaders were increasingly out of step or simply indifferent to the will of the electorate.
But this is not really an EU issue. It's actually much bigger than that.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I don't think this is really an EU spawned issue, but more a crisis in the direction of Western democracy and is increasingly felt in non-EU countries too.
That our system of democracy has become increasingly disconnected to, or even at odds with, popular support has been building up since the 1990's. 9-11 highlighted this, in that increasingly draconian laws were introduced that went in opposition to personal democratic freedoms, as did the support for the Iraq war that many Western democracies gave, despite strong domestic opposition. And with the bank bailouts following the 2008 financial crisis, further fuel was added to the sensation that our leaders were increasingly out of step or simply indifferent to the will of the electorate.
But this is not really an EU issue. It's actually much bigger than that.
It's not exclusive to the people's connection to the EU, but there is nevertheless a significant connection.
Ultimately people care little about their own power, or the form of their government, if they are getting what they want anyway. It's generally when times get rough that people rail against existing structures (quite often not taking enough cognisence of what god-awful regime will replace that which they are fighting against!)0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I don't think this is really an EU spawned issue, but more a crisis in the direction of Western democracy and is increasingly felt in non-EU countries too.
That our system of democracy has become increasingly disconnected to, or even at odds with, popular support has been building up since the 1990's. 9-11 highlighted this, in that increasingly draconian laws were introduced that went in opposition to personal democratic freedoms, as did the support for the Iraq war that many Western democracies gave, despite strong domestic opposition. And with the bank bailouts following the 2008 financial crisis, further fuel was added to the sensation that our leaders were increasingly out of step or simply indifferent to the will of the electorate.
But this is not really an EU issue. It's actually much bigger than that.
It does tie in with the EU, though. The lack of control of governments by their electorates is made particularly visible by our lack of control, or even knowledge, of what they do at the European level.
And as the Member States have chosen to do more through Europe, and their evasion of domestic accountability has become clearer, they've started to move the European institutions and mechanisms away from what was a trend towards transparency and accountability and back towards the old "smoke-filled rooms" methods of traditional power politics. In that sense, we're lucky Lisbon passed, because it gave the Parliament more powers - but national media don't pay it much attention, and the Member States manage to keep the Parliament starved of cash to prevent it from publicising the results of its oversight of their actions.
In my view, the EU project is not endangering the Member States - on the contrary, the Member States are endangering the EU project.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I never suggested it doesn't tie in with the EU - of course it does. All I have said is that this is not specifically an EU thing, but part of a larger crisis in Western democracy.It does tie in with the EU, though. The lack of control of governments by their electorates is made particularly visible by our lack of control, or even knowledge, of what they do at the European level.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »I never suggested it doesn't tie in with the EU - of course it does. All I have said is that this is not specifically an EU thing, but part of a larger crisis in Western democracy.
I agree with you there. I'd also say that there isn't a eurozone crisis as such - there's a general crisis, and the eurozone is acting a particular way in that crisis.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Straight away I have a problem with the terminology. People don't 'rule over us'. We live in democracies, and we elect people to represent our interests.As we look around Europe we see people more than discontented with the EU, from riots in Greece to unemployment in Spain. The main thrust of this discontent is that there is a general feeling that the people are alienated from those who rule over us, that they are out of touch, without any real opposition and no longer responsive to any democratic control.
The EU, once perceived as remote and unresponsive, is now viewed with suspicion after leading us to the current disasterous situation.
Where this will lead is uncertain, but as we have seen already across the EU, examples such as in France with many people voting for Marie Le Pen and in the UK George Galloway garnering a huge vote recently overturning a previous large Labour majority.
Previously, across Europe revolution was the result of out of touch rulers. Wouldn't it be interesting to see some of our politicians answering for themselves to the people with the prospect of a guillotine glinting in the background.
Irish people should be at least as conversant with this notion as any other western nation. After all, we consciously voted for sleazy governments who allowed an economy to rot from the inside on their watch, and when push came to shove, threw us to the wolves with their bank guarantee.
As for riots, they only seem to be commonplace enough in Greece. And I expect most of the rioters are anarchist agitators with nothing better to do with their testosterone. The occasional riot in Italy is down to the same thing. Autonome 'riots' in Berlin are strictly for malcontent amateurs.
The fact of the matter is there are little to no demonstrations, let alone riots, in most EZ countries. Why? Because, despite the global slowdown, they have a sense of perspective and realise that, even in these times of crisis, their material needs are largely provided for.
They realise that the EU isn't in any particularly bad situation. Indeed anyone who remembers the 80s remembers the so-called phenomenon of Eurosclerosis, where growth was anaemic. Growth will probably be anaemic for some time to come. But once we can protect our terms of trade versus other 'emerging' economies, the better position we will be in when those countries have to face up to their own structural problems.
Europeans aren't as pessimistic as you seem to assume.0 -
-
Straight away I have a problem with the terminology. People don't 'rule over us'. We live in democracies, and we elect people to represent our interests.
Irish people should be at least as conversant with this notion as any other western nation. After all, we consciously voted for sleazy governments who allowed an economy to rot from the inside on their watch, and when push came to shove, threw us to the wolves with their bank guarantee.
As for riots, they only seem to be commonplace enough in Greece. And I expect most of the rioters are anarchist agitators with nothing better to do with their testosterone. The occasional riot in Italy is down to the same thing. Autonome 'riots' in Berlin are strictly for malcontent amateurs.
The fact of the matter is there are little to no demonstrations, let alone riots, in most EZ countries. Why? Because, despite the global slowdown, they have a sense of perspective and realise that, even in these times of crisis, their material needs are largely provided for.
They realise that the EU isn't in any particularly bad situation. Indeed anyone who remembers the 80s remembers the so-called phenomenon of Eurosclerosis, where growth was anaemic. Growth will probably be anaemic for some time to come. But once we can protect our terms of trade versus other 'emerging' economies, the better position we will be in when those countries have to face up to their own structural problems.
Europeans aren't as pessimistic as you seem to assume.
Of course, "Europeans" are not all one thing or another. The facts are that George Galloway was elected, and Marie Le Pen has garnered enormous support in France. However, facts become less and less relevant in a Europe which is perceived as out of touch, uncaring, largely responsible for making the predicament to the people of Europe considerably worse than it need be, not accountable democratically and without any real opposition.
I'm sure you will probably consider this situation is temporary and soon it will be back to business as normal and further consider it hysterical nonsense that it is situations like this which can become the tinderbox to light the fires of revolution. And lets hope that is the case, although I know from history that revolutions invariably start because the people feel they have no democratic control or any chance of opposing any other way a ruling elite who are seen as remote and uncaring.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
reading the booklet again,
The Stability Treaty, that came in post this week,
Reading article 15 on page 18 of the booklet, will some one who understand it better explain that to me,
it says, this treaty shall be open to accession by member states of european union other than contracting parties,
then does it mean if no win out, we still have accession to funding0 -
reading the booklet again,
The Stability Treaty, that came in post this week,
Reading article 15 on page 18 of the booklet, will some one who understand it better explain that to me,
it says, this treaty shall be open to accession by member states of european union other than contracting parties,
then does it mean if no win out, we still have accession to funding
What it means is that EU Member States who didn't originally sign it, like the UK for example, can later sign and ratify it.
We've signed it. The referendum decides whether we let our Government ratify it.
If we don't allow them to ratify it at this time then we cannot access the ESM (permanent bail out fund) should we need additional official funding at the end of our program.
There's always the possibility of another referendum, but I really hope that we are mature enough not to go there.0 -
thanks for clearing this up for me,
i will have to sit and study it more, and i will be back to you with the parts i do not quiet understand, and that is nearly the lot of what i have read already0 -
-
thanks for clearing this up for me,
i will have to sit and study it more, and i will be back to you with the parts i do not quiet understand, and that is nearly the lot of what i have read already
And of course it means that countries yet to join the EU (Croatia, Serbia etc) get to sign up in due course. It's not a one-time offer, so to speak. (Not that any EU treaty in Ireland is ever a one-time deal)0 -
all is well in a boom.......and a wise administration will control the economy as the boom cools down.............that was not done..
also.......the administration costs were allowed to go out of all proportion to what the country could actually afford......
on top of that...the cost imposed by the ue....i.e..social and administration....made recession, which could under normal circumstances be coped with....become a disaster....0 -
thanks for clearing this up for me,
i will have to sit and study it more, and i will be back to you with the parts i do not quiet understand, and that is nearly the lot of what i have read already
Fair play to you Goat2, great to see someone making a genuine effort to learn the issues.0 -
page 13, article 5.
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 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 endorsment and their monitering will take place within the context of the existing surveiliance procedures under the stability and growth pact,
please put this (the above paragraphs) in fewer and simpler terms0 -
page 13, article 5.
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 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 endorsment and their monitering will take place within the context of the existing surveiliance procedures under the stability and growth pact,
please put this (the above paragraphs) in fewer and simpler terms
OK...but it's going to involve some definitions. And I'm not sure about "fewer" words.
1."contracting party" - a country that is signed up the Treaty
2. "subject to an excessive deficit procedure under the treaties on which the european union is founded" - a country which is found to have both debt over 60% of GDP and a general government deficit greater than 3%. The way this is done has quite a few steps, with multiple warnings for the country concerned before a formal "excessive deficit procedure" is started.
So:
"A country which is formally found to be running too large a government deficit as well as a large public debt must produce a plan showing how it is going to reduce that deficit, and not just for the next budget or two.
The sort of problems the government is expected to look at, and the way it should describe them, will be standardised. The way they are submitted for approval and monitored are as they currently are in the Stability & Growth Pact."
A bit like saying that if you're found to be unable to pay your mortgage, you draw up a standard agreement with the bank, and that the way that's done, and the form of the agreement you sign, is defined in legislation rather than negotiated between you and the bank.
Don't know if that helps?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
... general government deficit greater than 3%. ...
That's what this treaty says but it is then amended/tightened by the ESM which says "no greater then 0.5%". The ESM starts on January 1st 2013 for the contracting countries given that they also have ratified the treaty Ireland is having a referendum for.
I think one cannot read this treaty without reading the ESM treaty (already ratified by Ireland) because they're inseparable !!!0 -
That's what this treaty says but it is then amended/tightened by the ESM which says "no greater then 0.5%". The ESM starts on January 1st 2013 for the contracting countries given that they also have ratified the treaty Ireland is having a referendum for.
I think one cannot read this treaty without reading the ESM treaty (already ratified by Ireland) because they're inseparable !!!
No offence, but that needs a couple of corrections!
1. ESM hasn't been ratified by Ireland. The government has delayed the Dáil vote on ratification until after the referendum vote.
2. ESM ratification is separate from Fiscal Treaty ratification - it starts when countries representing 90% of the capital input ratify it, no matter who has or hasn't ratified the Fiscal Treaty.
3. the ESM has no fiscal limits in it at all - you're thinking of the 0.5% structural balance requirement in the Fiscal Treaty (Article 3.1(b)).
4. the structural balance rule isn't new either - it was introduced in the 2005 update to the Stability & Growth Pact.
5. the structural balance rule doesn't trigger any external sanctions. It triggers the domestic correction mechanism.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
1. ESM hasn't been ratified by Ireland. The government has delayed the Dáil vote on ratification until after the referendum vote.
You're playing with words here: Ireland is one of the contracting parties of the ESM which is bound to the ratification of the fiscal treaty Ireland is having a referendum for.
Once the referendum has approved the fiscal treaty, there's no need for another referendum on the ESM (correct !?!) and that means that the Dail will pass the related bill without asking anyone's permission in the country.
I stand by my fact: a country cannoty be part of the ESM without having ratified the fiscal treaty. In other words: once the treaty is approved by referendum the ESM will mechanically be ratified (do you see the Dail not passing it ?, they'll just wait for the summer and pass the bill).
On the other hand, if Ireland says no to the treaty then the signature of Ireland to the ESM is void.
All that means is : one cannot read the fiscal treaty without reading the ESM otherwise one gets an incomplete equation.0 -
Actually Ireland is bound to the fiscal treaty subject to a referendum accepting it and the Dail passing it.You're playing with words here: Ireland is one of the contracting parties of the ESM which is bound to the ratification of the fiscal treaty Ireland is having a referendum for.
The Irish government may well have assured that this is what they want or even hinted to the other parties involved that we'll have referenda until it is passed and the Dail may well pass it without breaking a sweat, but legally it cannot bind us to anything until a referendum is passed.
As such Scofflaw is correct and if anyone is attempting to play with words it is you.0 -
You're playing with words here: Ireland is one of the contracting parties of the ESM which is bound to the ratification of the fiscal treaty Ireland is having a referendum for.
Once the referendum has approved the fiscal treaty, there's no need for another referendum on the ESM (correct !?!) and that means that the Dail will pass the related bill without asking anyone's permission in the country.
I stand by my fact: a country cannoty be part of the ESM without having ratified the fiscal treaty. In other words: once the treaty is approved by referendum the ESM will mechanically be ratified (do you see the Dail not passing it ?, they'll just wait for the summer and pass the bill).
On the other hand, if Ireland says no to the treaty then the signature of Ireland to the ESM is void.
All that means is : one cannot read the fiscal treaty without reading the ESM otherwise one gets an incomplete equation.
Er, no, I'm not "playing with words" - I'm correcting your almost entirely factually inaccurate post. I haven't commented on your point about needing to read both treaties, because I agree that one should do so. However, it's a bit silly to say you have to read them together, and then make such a muddle of the facts involved.
ESM ratification is not contingent on, or related to, Fiscal Treaty ratification. The two can be ratified separately, and the Dáil can ratify ESM whether it is able to ratify the Fiscal treaty or not. Your idea that "if Ireland says no to the treaty then the signature of Ireland to the ESM is void" is entirely wrong - a No in the referendum has no such effect.
What is contingent on Fiscal Treaty ratification is access to ESM funding. And access to ESM funding is dependent only on Fiscal Treaty ratification - it is not dependent on ratifying the ESM Treaty.
1. ESM creates a fund, and those who ratify will be members of, and contributors to, the fund.
2. Ireland can ask fro money from the fund if it ratifies the Fiscal Treaty, but ratifying the Fiscal Treaty does not make Ireland a member of, or contributor to, the fund.
3. Ireland only becomes a member of, and contributor to, the fund if Ireland ratifies the ESM Treaty.
4. the ESM Treaty can be ratified by Ireland whether Ireland ratifies the Fiscal Treaty or not.
These are facts. I agree with your conclusion that one should read both treaties, but your various factual claims are wrong.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
ok doc, let's have a look at the ESM then
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Finland (the "euro area Member States" or "ESM Members");
COMMITTED TO ensuring the financial stability of the euro area;
RECALLING the Conclusions of the European Council adopted on 25 March 2011 on the establishment of a European stability mechanism;
WHEREAS:
(5) On 9 December 2011 the Heads of State or Government of the Member States whose currency is the euro agreed to move towards a stronger economic union including a new fiscal compact and strengthened economic policy coordination to be implemented through an international agreement, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union ("TSCG"). The TSCG will help develop a closer coordination within the euro area with a view to ensuring a lasting, sound and robust management of public finances and thus addresses one of the main sources of financial instability. This Treaty and the TSCG are complementary in fostering fiscal responsibility and solidarity within the economic and monetary union. It is acknowledged and agreed that the granting of financial assistance in the framework of new programmes under the ESM will be conditional, as of 1 March 2013, on the ratification of the TSCG by the ESM Member concerned and, upon expiration of the transposition period referred to in Article 3(2) TSCG on compliance with the requirements of that article.
I'll say it again, once Ireland says yes to the fiscal treaty the ESM is virtaully enacted (from the Irish PoV).0 -
Just to clarify this:
1) the Oireachtas has the right under the provisions of BnahE to ratify the ESM Treaty anytime they so wish (i.e. they already have "permission" from the electorate to do so under the terms of the constitution should they choose to),
2) under the terms of the (UN) Vienna convention on international treaties, Ireland - having signed the treaty - has an obligation to either: a) ratify it or b) formally withdraw from it.
3) The second option will not prevent either the ESM treaty or the Stabilty treaty from coming into force once the other signatory states ratify them.
4) Obviously, failure to ratify the ESM Treaty will preclude us from borrowing from the ESM (fund) it will establish.
5) Likewise, failure to ratify the Stability Treaty will preclude us from borrowing from the ESM as the ESM Treaty explicitly requires a signatory state to have ratified the Stability Treaty as one of the conditions of access to the ESM's funds.
My understanding is that the government has already stated it intends to ratify the ESM treaty. That may be because it assumes that the Stabilty Treaty related referendum will pass or it may also be because the Oireachtas will exercise its democratic and constitutional perogative and ratify the ESM Treaty irrepective of the result of the referendum related to the Stability Treaty. Should the latter be the case, we would then be in the position of a person who pays an insurance premium but explicitly forgoes ever claiming from their policy...0 -
1) yes (even though the electorate didn't know about the ESM when they voted ... the mandate is not obvious there especially when you read the ESM and its repercussions on Irish sovereignty)
2) yes
3) yes (but we're talking Ireland here not the fact that the ESM would actually kick in)
4) yes (but can the EU Zone let one of its member default ? other options will be made available before that. My guess is a 2nd grade euro with specific macro economic adjustment policies bound to it ... but that's just a guess ... let see how the Greek crisis unfolds)
5) Yes
Your conclusion is correct but that'd be a very strange move from the government0 -
1) yes (even though the electorate didn't know about the ESM when they voted ... the mandate is not obvious there especially when you read the ESM and its repercussions on Irish sovereignty)
Were the ESM to impact sovereignty, a referendum would be required on it. Presumably, as one hasn't be called, there are no such impacts. Such a judgment is ultimately up to the Supreme Court though...0 -
Advertisement
-
When a country is receiving money from the ESM it is subjected to macro economic adjustments and it doesn't have a real say on what they are and how they will be implemented. The only option is to refuse the MoU but then no money is lent.
ESM/16.2: The conditionality attached to the ESM loans shall be contained in a macro-economic adjustment programme detailed in the MoU, in accordance with Article 13(3).
ESM/13.3
3. If a decision pursuant to paragraph 2 is adopted, the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission – in liaison with the ECB and, wherever possible, together with the IMF – with the task of negotiating, with the ESM Member concerned, a memorandum of understanding (an "MoU") detailing the conditionality attached to the financial assistance facility. The content of the MoU shall reflect the severity of the weaknesses to be addressed and the financial assistance instrument chosen. In parallel, the Managing Director of the ESM shall prepare a proposal for a financial assistance facility agreement, including the financial terms and conditions and the choice of instruments, to be adopted by the Board of Governors.
The MoU shall be fully consistent with the measures of economic policy coordination provided for in the TFEU, in particular with any act of European Union law, including any opinion, warning, recommendation or decision addressed to the ESM Member concerned.
Don't you think there's plenty of room for a loss of sovereignty there ? I won't even talk about the legal status of the ESM.
Anyway, what I was saying before is that voting yes to this referendum means accepting the ESM (you can be sure that in such a case the ratification would be a formality). Voting No to the referendum invalidates the ESM contract unless the government adopts a position that makes absolutely no sense (committing to fund the ESM with the certainty of never benefiting from it whatever the circumstances).
In other words this referendum is not only about the TFEU but it is also about the ESM even if it's not made obvious to everybody.0
Advertisement