Ireland has better options

The South East Region of People's Movement, which is a non party political organisation will be campaigning for a No vote in the referendum on 31st May next.

The grandly titled "Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union" is supposedly about "stability" in the Eurozone. Yet the treaty warns us that money from the new permanent European Stability Mechanism bailout fiund will only be given to States that have ratified it.  

The Economic and Monetary Union which Ireland signed up to under the 1992 Maastricht and 2009 Lisbon Treaties assumed that the 3% and 60% of GDP deficit rules for every Eurozone State would be abided by and enforced by means of the sanctions - warnings, special deposits, fines etc. - which are set out in those treaties.

If they had been and if the rules of the EU treaties had been enforced for all, there would have been no sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone and no need for any Eurozone bailout fund. When Germany and France broke the rules of the EMU by running big government deficits in 2003, the EU treaty sanctions to enforce the 3% and 60% deficit rules were not applied against them, and they were thereafter effectively dropped for everyone else.

Ireland did not break these excessive deficit rules, yet now is being threatened that unless it votes to permanently hands over virtually the whole area of budgetary policy to the Eurozone we will not be able to access funding from the European Stability Mechanism should we require it in 2013. We have a gun to our head or so the supporters of the treaty would want us to believe.

In fact Ireland would have a number of options in this event: -

• regardless of the Treaty vote, Ireland is guaranteed funding under the current programme as long as it meets its targets. A No vote will not change this;
• there is no legal basis for punishing a state that doesn’t ratify, and to try to do so would damage the very Euro that the pact is supposed to defend;
• if we adhere to the existing Treaties we cannot be excluded from their benefits. As Mr. Michael Noonan, Minister of Finance said after the last EU Summit, 'There is a commitment that if countries continue to fulfil the conditions of their programme the European authorities will continue to supply them with money even when the programme is concluded . . . The commitment is now written in that if we are not back in the markets the European authorities will give us money until we get back in the markets.”;
• Ireland, if it should need a second bailout, could have access to funding sources such as the IMF, as well as our existing rights with Europe. This is the same insurance or back-stop that all EU countries are entitled to as members of the IMF. More EU countries have accessed IMF support than EU support in the last decade. These include Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Estonia.
  

Most economists regard a permanent balanced budget rule as absurdly inflexible. Governments need to run deficits on occasion to stimulate their economies and expand economic demand when that slumps heavily in their domestic or foreign markets.

In considering the possible implications of all this it is worth bearing in mind that in 2014, just two years time, under the Lisbon Treaty Germany's vote in making EU laws will double from its present 8% of total Council votes to 16%, while France's and Italy's vote will go from their present 8% each to 12% each, and Ireland's vote will halve to 1 %.This would be the context in which we had surrendered much of the stuff of national decision making and normal party politics from the arena of democratic consideration and debate.

For verification contact and further comment;

Kevin McCorry

086 3150301

For  information on People's Movement check out:
http://www.irishreferendum.org
http://www.people.ie
http://www.austeritytreaty.com

People’s Movement patron begins legal challenge on treaties

Thomas Pringle TD explains why he felt compelled to take a court case
on the proposed amendment to article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union and the ESM Treaty.

As an Irish public representative and citizen I keep asking myself if it would not be absurd if Irish voters were to vote on 31 May in the referendum on the Fiscal Compact Treaty in favour of imposing austerity rules on ourselves in order to get access to a proposed permanent euro-zone loan fund when the separate but “complementary” treaty establishing that fund is arguably illegal under EU law, unconstitutional in Ireland, has not yet come into force, and indeed may never do so.

On 9 March last I wrote to the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Affairs explaining some of these very serious concerns. I have received no reply to this correspondence beyond the usual standard acknowledgement of receipt of the communication.

I have now been left with no other option but to initiate legal proceedings, challenging the Government on fundamental aspects of both the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) Treaty and the Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (Fiscal Compact) Treaty.

I believe that both treaties raise serious legal difficulties, at the level both of EU treaty law and of Irish constitutional law. My primary democratic concern as both a citizen and an elected public representative is the integrity of the Constitution of Ireland and the EU treaties, which now form such an important part of our constitutional framework. I believe that the matters on which I seek the clarification and assistance of the court are of crucial importance not only for the citizens of this country but for the future of the EU.

My contention is that the particular stability mechanism being set up under the ESM Treaty is in breach of article 29.4.4 of the Constitution of Ireland, under which “Ireland affirms its commitment to the European Union within which the member states of that Union work together to promote peace, shared values and the well being of their peoples.”

The proposed stability mechanism seems on the face of it to permit member-states to work not in solidarity and togetherness but rather towards separation and exclusiveness. This is because it allows only some member-states, and indeed only some members of the euro zone rather than all of them, to participate in an arrangement that will clearly have implications for all.

I am asking the court to examine the legality of the amendment to article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union before any further action is taken by the Government to approve that amendment. That amendment permits the establishment of a “stability mechanism” that would be able to grant financial assistance, “subject to strict conditionality.”

This amendment is being adopted under the so-called “simplified revision procedure,” which I believe is legally wrong. My argument is that the changes being proposed are so fundamental that they should go through the ordinary revision procedure to ensure proper democratic scrutiny. They also require the approval of the Irish people in a referendum.

I am also asking the court to consider whether the ESM Treaty is in breach of existing EU treaty principles that have been approved by the Irish people in previous referendums and that are now therefore part of our law.

In addition, I am asking the court to decide whether the state can ratify the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism without first having the approval of the people in a referendum.

The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, signed on 2 March 2012, is intertwined with the ESM Treaty. Each one depends on the other. Therefore, if I am right in my belief that the ESM Treaty is unlawful, there is a serious question over the validity of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

And the implications for Ireland are vast, given its present economic situation. Under the ESM Treaty, Ireland would be obliged to make capital contributions of up to €11,145,400,000 in various forms of capital to the new permanent €500 billion bail-out fund that is to be set up. For Ireland this is the equivalent of approximately a third of Government tax revenue for 2011.

I believe that my application to the courts is just one more manifestation of a growing concern within the EU about developments towards a political union for the euro zone along the lines of what President Sarkozy has termed “a federation for the euro zone and a confederation for the EU as a whole.” It is not a direction that I want the EU to take, and I am sure that I am not alone.

‘Ah, but where will we get the money if we vote NO?’

1. Even if we don't ratify the EU Permanent Austerity Treaty on My 31st and we can't access the ESM, we are small but important for the EU financial system and so funds will be found elsewhere outside the ESM structures to lend to us. This would certainly be the case if such assistance was in the words of the ESM; indispensable to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as a whole. Remember ‘contagion!’

2. If the EU doesn't come up with the money, we are entitled to apply to the IMF and their interest rates and conditions were more favourable than those of the EU/ECB! This is the same back-stop that all EU countries are entitled to as members of the IMF. After all, more EU countries have accessed IMF support than EU support in the last decade: Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Estonia.  
 
3. Sweden and Britain both advanced loans at a favourable rate to supplement our first bail-out. Norway has a pension reserve fund of over €500bn and might be similarly inclined. When Argentina defaulted, it was kept afloat by a number of countries until it re-entered the markets.  

4. In the unlikely event that we get no loans and have to close the deficit we can do so through instituting a progressive taxation system, including a wealth tax - we have over 20,000 declared millionaires - to fund social services.
 
5. The remaining money can be found through renegotiating (partially defaulting on) foreign debt.  This would take courage and resolve but would ultimately be successful.  The debt will have to be renegotiated a few years hence anyway.

6. Regardless of the Treaty vote, Ireland is guaranteed funding under the current programme as long as it meets its targets. Michael Noonan, said recently, 'There is a commitment that if countries continue to fulfil the conditions of their programme the European authorities will continue to supply them with money even when the programme is concluded . . . The commitment is now written in that if we are not back in the markets the European authorities will give us money until we get back in the markets.

www.people.ie
Peoples Movement campaigns against any measures that further develop the EU into a federal state and to defend and enhance popular sovereignty, democracy and social justice in Ireland.
25 Shanowen Cres., Dublin 9.   087- 230 8330.  post@people.ie

First published online @ http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101689

EU austerity régime beginning to hurt German Economy

Germany is continuing to impose disastrous economic austerity measures all over Europe.


Senior German politicians and officials relentlessly plead for the continuation of the austerity policy, undeterred by the erupting recession in areas of the eurozone.


The policy became binding for almost all EU member-countries through the signing of the Fiscal Pact on 2 March. As the German Minister of Finance, Wolfgang Schäuble, declared on 6 March, by signing the pact Europe is on the “right path.” On 13 March the president of the Federal Bank, Jens Weidman, called for the southern euro countries, which are now slipping into recession, to apply “stiffer reforms” and additional austerity measures.


The austerity diktat is driving nearly all indebted southern European countries deeper into the recession, as shown by new data on the economic developments of Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece. 


According to this data, Portugal’s economy, for example, declined by 1.3 percent in the last quarter of 2011 and could shrink by up to 6 percent this year. Industrial production in Italy registered a sharp decline. In Spain, retail sales—an indicator of private consumption—declined by almost a quarter in comparison with 2007. Greece is approaching the economic level of countries in Latin America or south-east Asia, which up to now had clearly lagged behind European standards.


In the longer run the recession could have a backlash on Germany, because the massive slump is also affecting German exports. This could have serious repercussions. 


Where this austerity policy, imposed by the German government on Europe, will lead can be seen in Greece’s dramatic crash, which can simply be characterised as Greece saving itself to death. 


According to all predictions, in 2012 the country will remain in its fourth year of recession and continue to approach the economic level of the “Third World.”


The German business press predicts that if Greece’s economic contraction continues it will be bypassed by such countries as VietNam or Peru. A deeper recession could even saddle Greece with a GNP, in terms of buying power, lower than that of Bangladesh.


The German edition of the Financial Times speaks of a “historically exceptional” economic collapse.

"Some experts fear that the GNP for 2012 will again decline up to 8 percent, after an approximately 6 1⁄2 percent drop in 2011.”

This is “the worst recession that a western country has encountered since the war,” explains Barry Eichengreen, an economic historian at the University of Berkeley in California. 


In the end, Germany’s export industry will not escape the downward trend in the eurozone, despite its growing exports to so-called threshold countries. Orders from EU countries coming into German industry are dramatically diminishing. The business press reports, 

“Already since the middle of the year the quantity of new orders from countries of the monetary union has declined consistently, since the debt crisis resurged in the summer.” 

In other countries “a demand for German products has decreased also, because of their austerity measures.”


Berlin’s austerity diktat is ultimately threatening to push Germany’s export-dependent economy into a recession. Like the populations in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy today, the German population will most probably have to confront drastic austerity schemes. 

Promissory Notes: Negotiating or Play-Acting?

What other country in Europe is sticking 20 percent of its GDP on its national debt to support a completely bust bank? And how did we get into this position?

In a move clearly aimed at trying to upstage and divert attention from an extremely embarasing Sinn Féin private members’ motion on the ESM Treaty, the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, told the Dáil on 21 March that the Government is

“now negotiating with the EU authorities, and principaly with the ECB, on the basis that the €3.06 bilion cash instalment due from the Minister to IBRC [Irish Bank Resolution Corporation] on 31 March 2012 under the terms of the IBRC promisory note could be settled by the delivery of a long-term Irish government bond. The details of the arrangement have still to be worked out.”

What other country in Europe is sticking 20 percent of its GDP on its national debt to support a completely bust bank? And how did we get into this position?

The loan losses in the Irish banks following the financial collapse in 2008 were calculated in March 2011 at €75 billion. In the twelve months since then it has become increasingly apparent that mortgage loan losses will get progressively worse. Evidence is mounting that the total loan losses in Ireland could rise towards €10 billion.

The guarantee in September 2008 to six Irish financial institutions, and the subsequent €31 billion in IOUs given to Anglo-Irish Bank, were the starting-point on this road to modern financial servitude.

Anglo-Irish took these promissory notes, or IOUs, and lodged them with the Central Bank of Ireland. The Central Bank effectively created €31 billion, which was given to Anglo-Irish by a procces known as “exceptional liquidity assistance.”

The money given to Anglo-Irish was not borowed from the European Central Bank, nor was it created by the European Central Bank. It was created by the Central Bank of Ireland, as the creation of money is decentralised in the eurozone.

The Irish Nationwide Building Society later came into the scheme when, from 1 July 2011, its assets and liabilities were transfered to Anglo-Irish in a merger ordered by the courts that created the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation.

So as a one-off, money was created and pumped into the Irish banks to keep them solvent. Normally when banks collapse, their investors do not get all their money back. After 2008, as payments to bond- holders fell due, neither the banks nor the state had the resources to pay them. That is where the ECB stepped in. It lent approximately €135 billion to Irish banks to enable them to repay the bond-holders, with interest, and also to replace lost deposits.

That repayment schedule for this ECB-dictated madness is punishing:

€3.1billion every year until 2023, with smaller annual outlays due until 2031. 

€3.1 billion is about three times the size of Ireland’s austerity measures this year and represents about 2 percent of GDP. To do this it must borrow the money, and pay interest on it, raise taxes, and cut spending. This will destroy any hope of economic recovery.

The Government is afraid to rock the boat too vigorously in these negotiations, because of a belief that the billions of “unprecedented” lending to Irish banks will be placed at risk if the promissory notes are not repaid and that they cannot be reneged on, or indeed disowned by a country that has already shouldered such debt to bail out banks and non-Irish financial institutions.

The country is fighting for its very survival, and the Government needs to negotiate accordingly. The terms of the deal should have more to do with asserting national sovereign rights than trying to look good for the forthcoming referendum.

First published online @ http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101646

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

The Irish Veto: Why a referendum on one treaty and not on the other?

The Government wants the Dáil and Seanad in the very near future to approve a hugely important amendment to the EU treaties without any referendum, even though this amendment and its legal and political consequences would mark a qualitative change in the direction of the EU and in the character, scope and objectives of the Economic and Monetary Union.

The EU authorities are seeking to change the whole basis of the Economic and Monetary Union.

They are doing this by establishing a permanent ESM bail-out fund of €500 billion, which is to be surrounded by an apparatus of strict controls over national budgetary policy, including the permanent balanced-budget rule (0.5 per cent deficit rule).

This fund, which the euro-zone states want to set up from next July, would oblige Ireland to make a contribution of €11 billion, in various forms of capital, towards a permanent bail-out fund, called the European Stability Mechanism. This fund is to be set up by means of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) Treaty for the seventeen euro-zone countries once all twenty-seven EU countries have amended article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The amendment to article 136 would extend the scope of the existing EU treaties significantly and bears a huge weight of legal and political consequences.

It reads:

“The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality.”

It is widely recognised among economists that the proposed ESM Treaty, the permanent eurozone funding mechanism it would establish and the apparatus of control of national budgets goes nowhere near solving the present financial crisis of the euro area.

What is needed is more emphasis on stimulating economic growth and demand throughout the area, to the benefit of the common good of Ireland and the other euro-zone countries.

An Irish veto

The European Council of twenty-seven prime ministers and presidents decided in March 2011 to set up a permanent bail-out fund for the euro zone.

Ireland has a veto, for before the “decision” can come into force it must be approved by all twenty seven EU member-states “in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements,” which means that in Ireland it requires approval by the people in a referendum.

The proposed amendment in effect entails a surrender of state sovereignty, which goes beyond the original “licence” that the Irish people gave the state in earlier referendums to join a “developing” European Community and widens the scope and objectives of the present EU treaties by significantly increasing the powers of the EU.

 But there’s more . . .

The amendment is to be made under the so-called “self-amending” article 48 (6) of the Treaty on European Union, which was inserted in the EU treaties by the Treaty of Lisbon. By using this procedure, the 27-member European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents can take decisions to amend most provisions in the policy areas of the EU treaties, as long as such amendment does not increase the Union’s powers or competence.

For the European Council to claim the authority under EU law to set up a permanent bail-out fund for a sub-group of EU states is an assertion of significantly increased powers for the EU as a whole, because up to now the EU treaties provided for no such fund or mechanism in the Monetary Union. The treaties provided rather for an EU monetary union that would not require or permit cross-national “bail-outs” under any circumstances and would be run on quite different principles from what is being now proposed.

The ESM Treaty sets up the European Stability Mechanism, and sets out the institutional structure and the rights and privileges of this “mechanism.”

The mechanism will include a permanent bail-out fund of €500 billion, to which each of the seventeen members of the euro zone must make a contribution in accordance with a “contribution key.” The treaty provides that the fund may be increased later by agreement—and there is already talk of increasing it.

Ireland must contribute €11 billion “irrevocably and unconditionally” to the fund in various forms of capital.

The ESM Treaty was signed by EU ambassadors on 2 February 2012—replacing an earlier ESM Treaty that was signed by Michael Noonan and other euro-zone Finance ministers in July last year but that was never sent around for ratification. The seventeen euro-zone states have agreed that ESM Treaty No. 2 will be ratified so that it can to come into force by July this year.

This is to happen once it is ratified by signatories representing 90 per cent of the initial capital of the fund, so that Ireland has no veto on it. Not only that, but the treaty could come into force when the eight largest euro-zone member-states, which together hold 90 per cent of the fund‘s capital, ratify the treaty.

The preamble to the treaty states (recital 5) that it is agreed that money from the permanent ESM fund will be given only to euro-zone states that have ratified the later Fiscal Compact Treaty (“Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union”) and its permanent balanced budget rule or “debt brake,” and that the two treaties are complementary.

The Fiscal Compact Treaty was insisted on by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, over the winter of 2011, essentially as a gesture towards German public opinion.

When the Deutschmark was being abolished in 1999, the German people were not told that they would be committed to an EU monetary union with a huge permanent bail-out fund to which they would be expected to be the principal net contributors.

Instead they were told that the “no bail-out clause” of the EU treaties, article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, guaranteed that there would be no bail-outs by the others for any member-state using the single currency that did not abide by the excessive-deficit rules.

Most economists regard a “permanent balanced budget” rule as absurdly inflexible, for governments do need to run deficits on occasion in order to stimulate their economies and expand economic demand when that slumps heavily in their domestic or foreign markets.

Approving the European Council’s decision to insert the article 136 amendment into the EU treaties, ratifying the subsequent ESM Treaty, with its strict budgetary rules, and ratifying what is stated to be the “complementary” Fiscal Compact Treaty towards the end of this year, will have the effect of removing virtually the whole area of budgetary policy from the national level to the supranational level of the euro zone—without a referendum in Ireland or even a Government white paper on the implications of that

The provisions of the Fiscal Compact Treaty were agreed at the EU summit meeting on 30 January and need not be ratified until the end of this year. This treaty provides for a rule requiring a permanent balanced budget, or “debt brake” of 0.5 per cent of GDP in any one year, to be inserted in the constitution (or equivalent) of euro-zone states.

All seventeen euro-zone states must ratify this treaty, but it comes into force once it is ratified by twelve of of them, so Ireland has no veto on it.

The preamble to the Fiscal Compact Treaty refers to the fact that money from the new permanent bail-out fund (the ESM) will be given only to states that have ratified it. Most of the provisions of the treaty overlap with the so-called “Six Pack” of EU regulations and a directive that constitutes the “Reinforced Stability and Growth Pact” and which were put into EU law last December.

It is important to note that the ESM Treaty and the Fiscal Compact Treaty are not EU treaties, binding in EU law, but are rather “intergovernmental treaties” among the seventeen member-states of the euro zone, although they provide for the full involvement of the EU Commission and the European Court of Justice in their day-to-day implementation.

These are clear moves towards a fiscal union for the euro zone, and the Oireachtas is being invited to approve them in the next couple of weeks, without any significant public discussion, at least to judge by the virtual total silence on them so far.

These developments would remove much of the stuff of national decision-making and normal party politics from the arena of democratic consideration and debate in this country.

At a minimum, the Irish public deserves a white paper on these hugely important developments before Ireland’s last EU veto of significance is abandoned and it becomes too late to save further large areas of our national democracy.



First published online @ http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101627

Peter Mathews: “tear up” our obligation

The last government agreed that the State should pay €31bn to IBRC (formerly Anglo and Irish Nationwide) over a 13-year schedule ending in 2025. The first payment of €3.1bn was made in March 2011. The next payment is due on March 31.

If the European Union and the European Central Bank force us to make this payment, it would amount to increasing the totally unjustified, odious debt burden on the people of Ireland.

How is it unjustified? How is it odious?

Loan losses that occurred in the Irish banks following the financial collapse in 2008 were calculated in March 2011 at €75bn. In the 12 months since then it is becoming increasingly apparent that mortgage loan losses will get progressively worse.

Evidence is mounting that the total loan losses in Ireland could rise towards €100bn.

Throughout 2008 and 2009 there was a slow motion run and controlled implosion of the Irish banking system. In response, the ECB advanced massive loans to the Irish banks and in turn the Central Bank of Ireland responded by providing Exceptional Liquidity Assistance (ELA) to the Irish banks.

Professors Karl Whelan, Brian Lucey and Dr Stephen Kinsella recently made excellent presentations to the Oireachtas Committee on the issue of the promissory notes and ELA. They showed how the Central Bank of Ireland effectively created €45bn ELA money “out of thin air.”

The Central Bank of Ireland doesn’t owe any of this money to the ECB, they said. On a once-off basis, money was created and pumped into the Irish banks to keep them solvent. When the Irish banks repay these ELA loans, the Central Bank of Ireland simply retires them. The money literally disappears.

Therefore, the €31bn ELA money created by the Central Bank of Ireland, and advanced to IBRC to cover promissory notes, can and should be written off.

Specifically, on March 31 next, the write-off by the Central Bank of Ireland of €3.1bn ELA would mean that the Government wouldn’t have to borrow that money to pay the €3.1bn promissory note.
That promissory note could literally be torn up.

The same applies to all the remaining €25bn ELA loans to IBRC and the remaining €25bn promissory notes on IBRC’s balance sheet.

There is nothing dubious or wrong about doing this. Losses which should have been borne by bondholders have, wrongly, been dumped on the people of Ireland.

Normally, when banks collapse, their funders do not get all their money back.

In Ireland, bondholders were redeemed all their money with interest at the insistence of the ECB. Since the end of 2008, as payments to bondholders fell due, neither the banks nor the State had the resources to pay them.

That is where the ECB stepped in. It lent approximately €135bn to our banks to enable them to repay the bondholders and also to replace lost deposits.

The ECB became fully complicit in dumping this bill onto the people of Ireland.

Under normal capitalist principles, the ECB would not have shielded bondholders from the consequences of their investments. They would have to accept that Ireland is “taking one for the team.” Taking all this into account, again under normal capitalist principles, the ECB could not object to writing off up to €75bn of the loans it advanced to the Irish banks.

If the ECB is unwilling to do this, then the Central Bank of Ireland should top up its Exceptional Liquidity Assistance loans to the Irish banks to €75bn (in the case of AIB and Bank of Ireland substituting ELA for ECB loans) and then write it off.

The ECB has a limited ability to prevent the Central Bank of Ireland from doing this. It can only veto a proposal by the Irish Central Bank with a two thirds majority of its governing council. There are 23 members of the governing council, including Ireland’s representative, Governor Patrick Honohan.

So, if he and seven other members of the governing council support the proposal to write off the ELA money there is nothing Ms Merkel, Mr Sarkozy, Mr Draghi or anybody else can do about it.
But has Mr Honohan held discussions with ECB President Mario Draghi regarding writing off the ELA money?

Has he lobbied other Central Bank governors?

Has he lobbied the other eurozone countries in trouble so we can take a joint approach towards debt restructuring? Writing off that €75bn would have a massive positive impact on Ireland.

Firstly, this would allow AIB and Bank of Ireland to pass on these write-downs to mortgage holders and struggling businesses, providing a much needed stimulus to the Irish economy.

Secondly, it would allow us to “tear up” our obligation to redeem the €31bn promissory notes.
Overnight, our national debt would fall towards the Eurozone average and substantially improve our prospects of leaving the EU-IMF bailout programme.

We have been damned with faint praise from the troika. But the current EU policy of “kicking the can down the road” just prolongs the crisis. Our Government has shown willingness and fortitude in taking tough, necessary and often deeply unpopular decisions.

It’s now time for the ECB to establish fairness within the eurozone. If the European political establishment really believes we’re doing such a good job, the best way to show it is to agree to lighten the debt load on the people of Ireland by €75bn.

Peter Mathews is a chartered accountant and Fine Gael TD for Dublin South.

New budget rules up for agreement

EU Observer reports that EU finance ministers are to sign a first agreement on laws that would strongly increase the power of the EU to instruct euro-zone countries on how to spend their national budgets.

Applying to the seventeen members of the single currency only, the two laws require that all national budgets be presented to the Commission for “assessment” at the same time—by 15 October at the latest, according to a draft of the agreement.

The Commission would have the power to ask for a revision of the budget if it considered it likely to lead to a breach of the rules underpinning the euro, which bind member-states to keeping minimal budget deficits.

The seventeen would be required to establish independent bodies and to base their national budgets on independent forecasts—a move designed to depoliticise the process of drawing up the budget in member-states by subjecting it to technocratic eyes. Countries already breaching the budget deficit rules will have to issue regular reports to Brussels and agree a “partnership programme” on how to get back on the right fiscal track.

Those either experiencing or at risk of “severe” difficulties with their finances, or those already in a bail-out scheme, will be subject to far more invasive monitoring. Essentially they would lose the authority for any kind of discretionary spending.

The draft rules would entitle the Commission to grill them on the “content and direction” of fiscal policy, while Brussels would be entitled to see sensitive information, such as information on the financial health of individual banks. Bailed-out euro members would remain under this hyper-surveillance regime until they have paid back at least three-quarters of the money lent to them.

Much of the draft, proposed by the Commission last November, is to be approved by finance ministers, but a clause that would have essentially forced a country to undergo a bail-out has been removed, said a contact close to the negotiations.

The laws come on top of six other budgetary surveillance laws applying to all twenty-seven member-states that came into force in December.

They form part of the EU’s attempt to make sure the present sovereign debt crisis will never happen again, although critics say the laws infringe on national democracy.

Following the ministers’ green light the draft will go to the EU Parliament, with real negotiations between the two sides expected to come in April, after the proposal has made its way through committee.

One of the sticky issues will be how much these laws should encompass what is in the fiscal discipline treaty, an intergovernmental document covering much of the same area, due to be signed by EU leaders in March. If the scope of these laws is too wide it would raise the awkward question—already to be heard sotto voce in Brussels—about the point of having the fiscal treaty at all.

SIPTU stops short of calling for rejection

SIPTU has described the EU Permanent Austerity Treaty as the worst possible response to the economic crisis. In a grim warning the general president, Jack O’Connor, claimed it amounted to a contraction in the face of the “most serious recession since the 1930s.”

The treaty’s twin-pronged approach of cutting public spending and raising taxes, he predicted, would have a far-reaching effect on people’s lives. “It is hard to imagine a worse response to the challenge of recession and stagnation. It’s not about stimulating job creation through investment: it’s actually the reverse.”

O’Connor claimed that EU leaders’ talk of “restructuring” was code for the most savage assault on gains made by working people since the Second World War. “It’s about reducing pension provision, cutting public services, eroding people’s rights at work, and driving down the cost of labour.”

Trade unions have organised a wave of protests throughout Europe about the new Permanent Austerity Treaty over the past month. The day of action on 28 February publicised the “anti-social and anti-democratic” aspects of the treaty—part of a series of centrally driven austerity agreements endorsed by EU leaders.

The pressure increases for co-ordinated corporate tax

France and Germany have moved a step closer to a full fiscal union by announcing a harmonisation of their corporate tax rates by 2013. The proposals are “a first step towards more European coherence” and support the “Euro-Plus Pact,” setting out rules for economic and fiscal co-ordination, which not all member-states signed.

The move will join France and Germany in a single “aligned” rate of business tax, known as a common consolidated corporate tax base, as a prelude to its introduction throughout the EU—a development that Enda Kenny has described as hugely damaging for Ireland’s low-tax regime.

But it won’t be long now until his mettle is tested, as the “own resources” provisions of the Lisbon Treaty come home to roost. Just to remind readers, he promised “constructive engagement".

Austerity Bites: The poor get poorer - 115 million Europeans; 23 per cent of EU population

Recently released figures for 2010 show that 115 million Europeans, or 23 per cent of the EU population, live in households with less than the poverty threshold disposable income, in households where there is severe material deprivation (such as a lack of heating), or where the adults worked less than 20 per cent of their total work potential.

While 13 of the 25 member-states that provided information recorded an increase in the numbers affected when compared with 2009, Spain (23.4 per cent to 25.5 per cent) and Lithuania (29.5 per cent to 33.4 per cent) recorded the greatest leap from one year to the next.

The figures for deprivation were even higher among those under the age of seventeen, with 27 per cent of young people throughout the EU falling below the threshold.

In all, twenty countries recorded a higher rate of poverty and risk of social exclusion among young people than among the general population.

The poverty statistics come on top of unemployment statistics showing a record unemployment rate in the EU, with some 23 million people out of work.