ESM Stroke politics = New National Disaster

national | eu | opinion/analysis

Wednesday April 04, 2012 01:10

by O.O´C. - People´s Movement

post at people dot ie

25 Shanowen Crescent, Dublin 9

087230830

The Government hopes to pull a stroke within the next few weeks that could be as disastrous politically for this country as the blanket bank guarantee of 2008 has been socially and economically.

The stroke? Sign up, virtually ‘on the q.t.,’ to a new permanent euro-zone bail-out fund, the European Stability Mechanism, to which Ireland will be “irrevocably and unconditionally” obliged to the tune of €11 billion, while all the time making great palaver about holding a referendum on the Fiscal Compact Treaty.

Quelle stroke!

Yet together the European Stability Mechanism and the Fiscal Compact Treaty represent quite fundamental moves in the direction of a qualitatively different euro zone from the one established under the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

Under the new regime virtually the whole area of budgetary policy will be removed from the national level to the supranational level of the euro zone, without a referendum.

The ESM treaty describes the two treaties as being “complementary.” So why not a referendum on both treaties? Legal advice from none other than the Attorney-General.

The present incumbent of that position, Marie Whelan SC? No. Her predecessor, Paul Gallagher SC, advised the previous Government that there was no constitutional problem in not holding a referendum.

It will be recalled that Gallagher also advised that Government on the night of the blanket guarantee for the Irish banks in September 2008.

So a change of Government did not result in a new, more independent approach to a developing euro-zone fiscal union, any more than it meant any real and significant loosening of the financial servitude imposed on the country by the previous Government. All done for the good of Irish banking interests and the German and French banks from whom they had borrowed.

Even at this late stage it is not too late to demand that the Attorney-General advises on the constitutionality of what the Government is trying to do—particularly in the light of the fact that there are significant differences between the earlier ESM Treaty that the previous Attorney-General advised on and the second version.

Under the ESM Treaty mark 2, any money from the permanent bail-out fund would be given only to states that had inserted the so-called permanent budget rule or “debt brake” in their constitutions or equivalent.

save preference

Comments (3 of 3)

Thanks for commenting

by O.O´C.

Thu Apr 05, 2012 19:43

Mike: you are of course correct in a long-term and generational sense. Also in the sense of not generating passive fatalism even if we lose a battle. But since we only have one life to live, and most of these bad things are happening to us right now, it´s also important to be motivated to try and prevent these things from developing here and now - so that we don´t have a bigger mountain to leave the next generation to climb.

Opus: speaking in a personal capacity, I also think Labour are the most vulnerable - and therefore perhaps the most susceptible to present and future pressure to change. Not being nice towards them, you understand, just Machiavellian!

and i think..

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party

Wed Apr 04, 2012 15:27

..the way to bring that election day forward is to hammer Labour at every turn for their class treason...the other quislings are just being true to character and form..Labour are the ones claiming to know the meaning of solidarity with the people rather than the moolah.

Galway, April 14th.

irrevocably and unconditionally?

by Mike Novack

Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:47

It is a fundamental principle of democracy that to do this lies outside the power of a democratic system.

Not even if enshrined in a constitution unless that constitution provides no way of ammendment (which would be very unusual). And in any case, a constitution IS a limitation of democracy. Possibly a good and desirable limitation but a limitation nevertheless.

Not even if by referendum.

The point here is that voters of this time have no way to bind the voters of some future generation EXCEPT by voting to end democracy.

In which case that means "can't change by democratic means" since those no longer exist. Still doesn't mean "can't change".

Understand? Whatever the b*stards decide today. no matter how irrevocable they say that decision is, you can vote them to h*ll tomorrow. By which I mean next election.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

ESM Stroke politics = New National Disaster

Comments (3 of 3)