ESM Stroke politics = New National Disaster

The Government hopes to be able 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.

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.

First published online @ http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101640

Kenny, Gilmore, and a referendum

Enda Kenny and his cronies would do well to tell the truth about the EU Permanent Austerity Treaty. The Taoiseach and his mates deny that the pact was crafted to minimise the prospect of a referendum in Ireland. That is exactly what happened, however, and it is no secret at all in Brussels, where the treaty was written.

Parts of the pact were explicitly drafted to give Kenny a chance of avoiding a vote on it. An EU official quoted in the Irish Independent accepted that the matter was likely to go to the Supreme Court but said the EU authorities hoped there would be no referendum, as many voters would relish an opportunity to inflict a bloody nose on the Government and the EU over their austerity and pro-bondholder bail-out policies.

Kenny insisted that Irish negotiators were not told to circumvent the risk of a vote and were given a mandate to maximise Ireland’s interests in the talks. But think about the damage that would be done to Kenny if there was a referendum and it was rejected. He would be hugely diminished—domestically and internationally—and questions would be asked about his ability to plough on with the EU-IMF programme, which Eurocrats hope will deliver a badly needed success for their cruel austerity policy.

So there is every reason to believe that the authorities would tinker with the text of the treaty to make an Irish vote less likely.

And what about the comment made by Éamon Gilmore that the provisions of the treaty had no “appropriate” place in the Constitution of Ireland? If that is a legitimate argument to make before an Oireachtas committee, is it not equally legitimate to make it in an EU negotiating forum?

And was it made? Somehow it echoes Gilmore’s claim that there would not be another referendum following the first rejection of the Lisbon Treaty!

Well, there’s a pair of them in it; but remember what happened to Fianna Fáil! There are big changes ahead, and those who are honest with the electorate, uphold their interests and enhance the sovereignty of the people will be the ones to benefit.

Permanence of debt brake “may not be constitutional"

A “debt brake” that sought to be “permanent and binding,” as envisaged in the proposed EU Permanent Austerity Treaty, could be unconstitutional, according to the professor of constitutional law at TCD, Gerry Whyte.

The Government has referred the proposed treaty to the attorney-general for her opinion on whether it will require a referendum, and has said that if not it will legislate to give effect to it.

Prof. Whyte told the Irish Times that any assumption that ordinary legislation would be sufficient to meet the terms of the proposed treaty should be “stress-tested.” “Legislative provisions do not have a ‘permanent character’,” he said, “inasmuch as it is always open to the Oireachtas to amend legislation and, in my opinion, it is not constitutionally open to the Oireachtas to put any Act beyond amendment.”

He pointed out that article 3 (1) of the proposed treaty required measures to reduce the structural deficit to 0.5 per cent of GDP “through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional, or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes.” However, he said that a majority of the Supreme Court in the Crotty case in 1987 (which found that a referendum was necessary to ratify significant changes to EU treaties) held that an organ of the state cannot agree to circumscribe or restrict any unfettered power conferred on it by the Constitution.

In the judgement Mr Justice Walsh said that the freedom to form economic policy was an aspect of the state’s sovereignty. This meant that article 3 (1) of the treaty would have to be protected by article 29.4 of the Constitution, which ratified the Maastricht Treaty, if it was to be constitutionally valid. However, article 29 refers to treaties of the European Union, whereas the proposed treaty will only be a treaty agreed between 25 of the 27 member-states, so it will not be covered by article 29.

“Given the UK and the Czech Republic have opted out of the proposed treaty, it would seem very difficult to argue that the treaty is ‘necessitated’ by our membership of the EU,” Prof Whyte said.

Dr Gavin Barrett of UCD agreed that the proposed treaty was not protected by article 29, but he pointed out that all legislation, when passed, is “of binding force and permanent character.” If the Government tried to make the proposed treaty more permanent than any other law, it would run into constitutional difficulties, he said.

People’s Movement rejects EU Permanent Austerity Treaty and demands a referendum

At a People’s Movement meeting on the EU Permanent Austerity Treaty held in the Town Hall Theatre, Galway, last week, a capacity audience heard Robert Ballagh, Prof. Terence McDonagh and Cllr Catherine Connolly reject its terms and demand a referendum. A follow-up meeting is planned.

The EU Permanent Austerity Treaty

The Government seems determined to push ahead in the next few months with the ratification of two important treaties: the “Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union” and the revised “Treaty on the European Stability Mechanism.”
The two treaties would make member-states of the euro zone into regimes of economic austerity, involving deeper and deeper cuts in public expenditure, increases in indirect taxes, reductions in wages, sustained liberalisation of markets, and the privatisation of public property.

It would really be more accurate to call the first treaty the EU Permanent Austerity Treaty and the second the Conditional Support Treaty. But whatever they are called, the two treaties represent a seriously dangerous threat, and democrats should be mobilising to resist them.

The cumulative effect of being bound by both treaties would be an obligation to insert a balanced-budget rule “through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes,” to put Irish budgets under permanent and detailed euro-zone supervision, to make the existing subordination of Ireland’s interests to those of the “stability of the euro area as a whole” even more systematic and pronounced, to impose conditions of “strict conditionality,” without limit, for ESM “solidarity” financial bail-outs, and to require Ireland to contribute some €11 billion to the ESM fund when it is established later this year.

The European Commission and the European Central Bank are obsessed with “economic governance,” which would require smaller euro-zone states in particular to make themselves permanently amenable to a regime under which Germany and its allies would regularly and permanently vet members’ fiscal policies and impose punitive fines on those failing to observe deflationary budget rules.

When politicians like Enda Kenny urge us to stomach a particular draconian measure while claiming that it would help us to ultimately “restore economic sovereignty” they conveniently fail to mention that this is the sort of “economic sovereignty” they have in mind. For them, permanent austerity plus the IMF is “national shame”; permanent austerity minus the IMF is “national recovery.” The latter is what is on offer through the EU Permanent Austerity and Conditional Support Treaties.

Of course it is totally irrelevant to this Eurofanatical mindset that the draconian fiscal measures imposed on Greece have only worsened the problems of that country. Also conveniently ignored in this version is that Ireland in the euro zone had to adopt unsuitably low interest rates in the early 2000s, because these suited Germany at the time. In the immortal words of Bertie Ahern, this made our “Celtic Tiger” boom “boomier.” It of course inflated the property bubble.

The former Taoiseach John Bruton and others have contended that the failure of the European Central Bank to supervise adequately the credit policy of the national central banks in relation to the commercial banks in Ireland and various other euro-zone countries was significantly responsible for the emergence of asset bubbles in those countries in the early and middle 2000s, and thereby contributed hugely to the financial crisis they are now in.

And the then head of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, was probably engaging in a variety of “economic governance” when he told Brian Cowen and Brian Lenihan on 29 September 2008, at the time of the criminally irresponsible blanket bank guarantee, that Anglo-Irish Bank must on no account be allowed to go bust and that the foreign creditors and bond-holders must be paid every penny.

When the Irish people ratified the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, setting up economic and monetary union, and when they ratified the Lisbon Treaty, establishing the European Union on a new constitutional basis in 2009, they approved membership of an economic and monetary union whose memberstates would follow rules that would be enforced by a system of Commission surveillance, formal recommendations, and warnings for delinquent states, followed by sanctions in the form of compulsory deposits and fines of an appropriate size in the event of member-states persisting in breaches of these provisions.

The EU member-states adopted the rule regarding 3 per cent and 60 per cent of GDP to ensure that member-states of the euro zone would avoid excessive deficits and consequent borrowing, for that would affect all euro-zone states using the same currency. But the excessive-deficit articles were not enforced once Germany, France and others states broke the excessive-deficit limits in the early 2000s.

Recommendations of measures to repair excessive deficits were made by the Commission to a number of member-states, including Ireland, in the early 2000s, but when in 2003 France and Germany found themselves in violation of the excessive-deficit criteria the Council failed to take any of the other steps set out in the rules to remedy their breaches.

No proposal to impose sanctions for breaking the rules was ever put by the Commission to the Council of Ministers, and no sanctions were adopted against countries violating the rules. As a result, several member-states ran up huge annual government deficits and national public debts that were near to, or in some cases well over, 100 per cent of GDP.

Is debt always a bad thing? Obviously not in the private sector, as corporations regularly borrow money for expenditure they don’t want to meet out of retained earnings, while most households aim to have a long-term mortgage.

Public debt is not a burden passed on from one generation to the next. The stock of public debt is a problem only when its servicing—i.e. the payment of interest—is unaffordable, such as when, in times of recession, growth is nil or negative, or when the interest rates demanded by the financial market are soaring.

The question is, when is the debt sustainable?

Sustainability means keeping the ratio of debt to GDP stable in the longer term. If GDP at the beginning of the year is €1,000 billion and the Government’s total stock of debt is €600 billion, the debt ratio is 60 per cent. The fiscal deficit is the extra borrowing that the Government makes in a year, so it adds to the stock of debt. But although the stock of debt may be rising, as long as GDP is rising proportionately the ratio of debt to GDP can be kept constant, or may even be falling.

The rule is that as long as the real economy is growing by at least as much as the real rate of interest on debt the debt-GDP ratio doesn’t rise. This holds true irrespective of whether the debt ratio is 60 per cent or 600 per cent.

But there’s a catch. In a modern economy the public sector accounts for about half the economy. If a country panics about its debt ratio and cuts back sharply on public-sector spending, this reduces aggregate demand and may lead to stagnation or even recession. When a country stops growing, financial markets decide that its debt ratio may rise and so become more cautious about lending and may demand a higher bond yield, i.e. interest rate.

The gloomy prophecy of growing public indebtedness becomes self-fulfilling. The way out cannot be greater austerity.

What works for a single household or firm doesn’t work for the economy as a whole. A household can tighten its belt by spending less, saving more, and thus “balancing the books”; but an economy cannot. If everybody saves more, national income falls. As no euro-zone country can devalue, to ask each member-state to balance the books by running an export surplus is empirically and logically impossible.

The way out of the “debt trap” is the same as the way out of recession: if the private sector won’t invest, the public sector must become the investor of last resort. It doesn’t matter whether new investment is financed by more government borrowing, quantitative easing, or redistribution (some combination of the three would be optimal). What matters is growth.

Why there must be a referendum

The contracting parties must apply the balanced-budget rule “through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional or otherwise guaranteed to be fully respected and adhered to throughout the national budgetary processes.”

A majority of the Supreme Court in the Crotty case in 1987 (which found that a referendum was necessary to ratify significant changes to EU treaties) held that an organ of the state cannot agree to circumscribe or restrict any unfettered power conferred on it by the Constitution.

In the judgement Mr Justice Walsh said that the freedom to form economic policy was an aspect of the state’s sovereignty. This meant that article 3 (1) would have to be protected by article 29.4 of the Constitution, which ratified the Maastricht Treaty, if it was to be constitutionally valid.

However, article 29 refers to treaties of the European Union, whereas the proposed treaty will only be a treaty agreed between 25 of the 27 member-states, so it will not be covered by article 29.

These rules and policy conditions in turn provide considerable scope for financially hard-pressed member-states to be pressured to take steps against their national interest, including in relation to harmonising corporate taxes. Establishing this permanent enhanced fiscal architecture would be a major step towards an EU fiscal and political union—something that has been recognised in statements by leading EU politicians.

This implies a significant diminution of national state sovereignty, going well beyond the scope of the existing European Union and the monetary union that it embodies, which only the people themselves can agree to.

The absence of limitations on the “strict conditionality” that will mark financial disbursements from the proposed ESM fund—such as might have been set out in an accompanying protocol, for instance—emphasises further the dangers to the state’s interests that could arise from harsh or excessively onerous conditions attaching to financial assistance that might be offered to member-states seeking assistance from the fund.

From PEOPLE’S NEWS
News Digest of the People’s Movement
www.people.ie | post@people.ie
No. 64 18 February 2012

You are entering... tHe EuRo ZoNe...

Seven EU members that joined the European Union between 2004 and 2007 are concerned about an obligation to adopt the euro under the terms of their accession and could stage referendums to change their accession treaties, AFP has reported, quoting diplomatic sources.

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania said the euro zone they thought they were going to join, a monetary union, may very well end up being a very different union, entailing much closer fiscal, economic and political convergence.

The new EU members that joined during the period 2004–07 are all obliged to adopt the euro under the terms of their accession treaties. Of these, Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus, Slovakia and Estonia have already joined the euro zone. Countries from previous enlargement waves are not obliged to adopt the single currency.

“All seven countries agree to state that a change in the euro zone’s legal status could change the conditions of their adhesion treaties,” which “could force them to stage new referenda” on adopting the euro, said a diplomatic source close to the talks.

Before the euro-zone crisis several new members that have been close to fulfilling the Maastricht criteria for joining the euro zone, including Poland and Bulgaria, had set themselves ambitious plans to speedily join the common EU currency. More recently, several Polish officials have stated that the country has shelved its plans for early accession to the euro zone, until it becomes clear what future should be expected for the common EU currency.

Last April, Hungary indicated that it would seek an opt-out from the euro. More recently the Czech president, the Euro-critical Václav Klaus, said that the EU currency club was a “failure” and that his country should get a permanent opt-out from its obligation to adopt the euro.

No European Stability Mechanism Treaty by stealth - Irish electorate should decide

Oireachtas members and MEP call for referendum

Twenty-six members of the Oireachtas and one MEP, have joined in an initiative with the People’s Movement (which campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty in the two referenda) to demand that the Irish electorate have the determining say by way of referendum on the proposals to establish a permanent eurozone fund by Treaty amendments that will be binding on Ireland.

A letter from the Oireachtas members and the MEP, who include members of various parties as well as Independents, says that the Treaty formally subordinates Ireland’s interests to those of the stability of the euro area as a whole yet there has been an almost total media blackout on the implications and consequences of the ESM for the country.

In a statement last night People’s Movement spokesperson, Kevin McCorry, said that the Government should come clean about the European Stability Mechanism Treaty that Finance Minister Noonan signed in July, a Treaty that commits the State to "irrevocably and unconditionally" contribute some €11 billion towards an Eurozone fund from 2013 onwards with the possibility of demands for further sums down the line.

The People’s Movement is also calling on Fianna Fáil to explain why it apparently supports the Government action in amending the EU Treaties by stealth.

It is reasonable, given the state of our economy, Mr McCorry said, for people to know the full details of the cost and implications to the country of borrowing to meet Ireland’s initial €1.27 billion payment and the remainder of the €11,145,400,000 which all concerned seem happy enough to commit us to pay. What guarantee can they give us that the country will get any benefit?

Also if the State were to receive ESM assistance there are no limits to the "strict conditionality" provisions that might be attached in light of the fact that the Treaty formally subordinates Ireland’s interests to those of "the stability of the euro area as a whole" It would mean a regime of unmitigated austerity for decades to come.

And for whose benefit? Certainly not the people of Ireland.



The full text of the letter is as follows:

"The Government in the coming months will seek to push through the Oireachtas an amendment to one of the two Treaties on which the EU is based authorising the establishment of a permanent Eurozone fund, the European Stability mechanism (ESM), and the ratification of the Treaty that actually establishes the fund.

The Treaty which has already been signed but not yet ratified commits the Irish State to irrevocably and unconditionally contribute €11 billion in various forms of capital to the ESM when it is established in 2013 and possibly further sums after that at the behest of Eurozone Finance Ministers when contributions come up for regular review. This will have to be borrowed on the international market.

Weaker economies like Ireland would have to put up cash immediately to cover any short-fall of paid in capital that might arise while triple A rated economies like Germany and France would be put under less financial pressure by being able to fulfil their obligations by way of guarantees.

Assistance from the ESM will only be given on the basis of strict conditionality—these conditions being unspecified and potentially unlimited. If the Irish State were to receive loans or grants or favourable

borrowing facilities from the ESM, these conditions could require the introduction of a balanced budget constitutional amendment or dropping the objection to the harmonization of corporate taxes at EU level.

The Treaty formally subordinates Ireland’s interests to those of the stability of the euro area as a whole yet there has been an almost total media blackout on the implications and consequences of the ESM for the country.

The support of Fianna Fáil for the Government action has further contributed to the managed nature of the whole process. The ESM is part of a package of measures that can only lead to fiscal union in the EU, beginning with stricter controls on budgets and public spending starting with the so-called Euro Plus Pact and soon moving on to a harmonising of taxes.

We believe that the legislation to enable the State to license its establishment and ratify the Treaty setting it up should be put to the Irish people in a constitutional referendum and we urge the Government to let the people decide on this matter of crucial importance for the future of our country"

The signatories are:

Gerry Adams TD, Senator David Cullinane, Clare Daly TD, Dessie Ellis TD, Michael Colreavy TD, Seán Crowe TD, Pearse Doherty TD, Martin Ferris TD, Luke Ming Flanagan TD, Joe Higgins TD, Mary Lou McDonald TD, Finian McGrath TD, Mattie McGrath TD, Sandra McLellan TD, Pádraig Mac Lochlainn TD, Catherine Murphy TD, Paul Murphy MEP, Caoimhghin Ó Caoláin TD, Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh, Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD, Maureen O’Sullivan TD, Thomas Pringle TD, Senator Kathryn Reilly, Brian Stanley TD, Peadar Tóibín TD, Mick Wallace TD.

Related Link: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/100577

For further information, contact Kevin McCorry 086 3150301 info at selisboninfo dot com