Head over to our T
Taoiseach announces Referendum on European Fiscal Treaty
Read more about: Uncategorized 
This afternoon, Taoiseach Enda Kenny announced to the Dail that a referendum to ratify the European Stability Treaty will take place. This follows advice from the Attorney General to Government that a referendum is necessary.
“At this morning’s Cabinet meeting, the AG conveyed her advice that, as this
treaty is a unique instrument, outside the European Union treaty
architecture, on balance, a referendum is required to ratify it,” Mr Kenny told the Dail.
“In this referendum, the Irish people can confirm our commitment to
responsible budgeting and, in doing so, ensure that the reckless economic
mismanagement that drove our country to the brink of bankruptcy will not be
repeated by any future Government,” he said.
In a follow up statement in the Dail, the Tanaiste, Eamon Gilmore, said: “Endorsing the Treaty will be another important milestone for Ireland in our road to recovery. In the weeks ahead, as the Government puts in place the necessary measures for a Referendum, that is the case we will make to the people, and I am confident that the people will respond by saying Yes to the Treaty.”
The referendum, he said, would be a “Vote for Economic Stability and Economic Recovery.”
No date was mentioned as to when the referendum is likely to be held. From the statements by the Coalition leaders, it is clear that the Government case for a ‘Yes’ vote will be based on Ireland’s economic recovery. Of the Dail parties, it is anticipated that Fianna Fail will support a ‘Yes’ vote, whilst the Treaty will be opposed by Sinn Fein as a ‘vote for austerity policies’ and by Socialist parties.
For the record, both statements are reproduced beneath the fold.
Statement by the Taoiseach, Mr. Enda Kenny T.D. to Dáil Éireann
Tuesday, 28th February 2012
I am pleased to have this opportunity to inform the House that the Irish people will be asked for their authorisation, in a referendum, to ratify
the European Stability Treaty.
I strongly believe that is very much in Ireland’s national interest that
this treaty be approved, as doing so will build on the steady progress the
country has made in the past year.
That progress has seen international and investor confidence in Ireland
rising, leading to many new investments in our country – investments that
are creating new jobs for our people.
I want that flow of investment to continue and expand.
Ratification of this Treaty will be another important step in the
rebuilding of both Ireland’s economy, and our international reputation.
It gives the Irish people the opportunity to reaffirm Ireland’s commitment
to membership of the Euro, which remains a fundamental pillar of our
economic and jobs strategy.
More binding and enforceable fiscal rules as a result of ratification will
be good for both Ireland and the wider eurozone, and will cement growing
international confidence in Ireland’s recovery.
Long before any discussions of a new set of fiscal rules for the eurozone,
the new Government had committed itself to legislate for equally
challenging domestic deficit and debt rules.
In this referendum, the Irish people can confirm our commitment to
responsible budgeting and, in doing so, ensure that the reckless economic
mismanagement that drove our country to the brink of bankruptcy will not be
repeated by any future Government.
Putting in place this credible commitment to responsible budgeting will be
key to keeping interest rates low and unlocking credit availability for
investment and job creation. Lower interest rates also mean more resources
for the provision essential public services.
The creation of stronger fiscal rules is an essential element of the steps
that are needed to ensure stability, confidence and growth here in Ireland,
and in the Eurozone.
Throughout the process leading to this new Treaty, the Government has
consistently said that the final text would be referred to the Attorney
General for her advice as to whether a referendum was required to ratify it
in Ireland.
At this morning’s Cabinet meeting, the AG conveyed her advice that, as this
treaty is a unique instrument, outside the European Union treaty
architecture, on balance, a referendum is required to ratify it.
On foot of this advice, the Government has decided to hold a referendum on
this issue in which the people of Ireland will be asked to give their
authorisation for the ratification of this treaty.
On Friday, along with other heads of government, I intend to sign this
treaty in Brussels.
In the coming weeks, the Government will finalise the arrangements and
process leading to this referendum, including the establishment of a
referendum commission to ensure adequate public information is provided, a
referendum bill which will be debated in the Oireachtas, and draft
legislation to provide for the implementation of the treaty’s provisions
will be published.
I am very confident that, when the importance and merits of this treaty are
communicated to the Irish people, they will endorse it emphatically by
voting Yes to continued economic stability and recovery.
I look forward to that debate – one which I believe will produce a result
that will be seen in the future as an historic milestone in Ireland’s
economic comeback.
Statement by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Eamon Gilmore TD, to Dáil Eireann 28th February 2012
A Ceann Comhairle,
Today, the Attorney General has advised the Government that it is best for Ireland to have a Referendum in order to ratify the European Stability Treaty.
On foot of that advice, and in line with our public commitment, the Government has decided to consult the people by Referendum, and to seek their approval for the Treaty.
In the weeks ahead, there will be ample opportunity for debating the detail of the Treaty provisions. In the end, what this will come down to is a Vote for Economic Stability and Economic Recovery.
When this Government was elected, one year ago, Ireland was in the depths of a political, economic and financial crisis.
In the past twelve months, that situation has been transformed, through the hard work and sacrifice of the Irish people
We have re-established financial and political stability, and we are working all out to achieve economic recovery.
It has been a difficult path for all of us, but, as a country, we have made important progress.
Our cost of borrowing has fallen.
We have substantially re-negotiated the EU/IMF Programme.
Our reputation internationally has been transformed.
Money is coming back into the country, and jobs are coming also.
Once again, we are seeing international companies investing and creating jobs in Ireland. Just yesterday, we saw the benefits of the renewed confidence in this country being translated into 200 more jobs in Cork. That in turn followed on from the announcement of 1000 jobs in Dundalk.
Those announcements were made possible by the turn-around that has been achieved in Ireland’s reputation and in the renewed sense of financial and economic stability.
Ireland has a small and extremely open economy. Our living standards, and our capacity to create jobs, depend on our ability to trade, and to attract investment. For that to happen – for economic recovery to be possible, we need stability – stability in Ireland and stability in Europe. The kind of stability that gives investors and families reasonable certainty about what the future holds.
Until we achieve that certainty at home and in Europe, confidence will not fully return to the domestic Irish economy, and our recovery will be delayed. We need a thriving and prosperous European economy that has moved beyond the present crisis.
That is the purpose of this Treaty. It is part of a package of measures being put in place in Europe, to stabilise the situation in the Eurozone. As I have said before, that is vital to our national interests.
The Treaty is an important part of that package, because it provides assurance that the kinds of problem that have emerged in Greece, cannot happen again.
Ratifying the Treaty will also provide Ireland with access to emergency funds in the future, if we need them, through the new European Stability Mechanism. Our intention is to emerge from the EU/IMF Programme without having to resort to the ESM, but the facility itself is an important backstop that will further enhance international confidence in Ireland.
After years of crisis, and sacrifice, the Irish people now have the basis on which to build a sustainable economic recovery. We now have an opportunity to go beyond the Casino capitalism that brought us to this point, and to build a sustainable prosperity, based on our capacity to sell goods and services abroad, to attract investment, and to re-build confidence in the domestic economy.
What this comes down to is
- What is best to attract investment to this country in order to create the jobs we need?
- What will make existing jobs more secure?
- What will help a young couple today to have the confidence to buy a house?
- What will help a person who has an idea and the drive, to start a business.
- What will help families plan and save for their children’s future?
As I said last December, if we have to have another referendum in this country, then so be it.
If that is what we have to do to save our currency, to restore our economy, to be able as a sovereign nation to borrow again on the financial markets and to ensure that no future government can ever again bring us to such a sorry state, then I am confident that the Irish people will do what is necessary.
Endorsing the Treaty will be another important milestone for Ireland in our road to recovery. In the weeks ahead, as the Government puts in place the necessary measures for a Referendum, that is the case we will make to the people, and I am confident that the people will respond by saying Yes to the Treaty.
“In this referendum, the Irish people can confirm our commitment to
responsible budgeting and, in doing so, ensure that the reckless economic
mismanagement that drove our country to the brink of bankruptcy will not be repeated by any future Government,”
We ensured “reckless economic mismanagement” with our acceptance of the Nice and Lisbon treaties. I am sure the Government has done the figures on the opinion polls and will now insist on a referndum to ensure the consequences of the “mismanagement” are accepted hook line and sinker by a gullible electorate before it becomes obvious that we have already gone well beyond “the brink of bankruptcy”.
Eddie,
Don’t be so hard on them! This isn’t what they wanted at all. The difficulty they will have is in making the economic argument stick over the ‘austerity for eternity’ argument that Sinn Fein, the Socialist Party et al will articulate with ferocity. The real difficulty, though, may come from a different direction, which is the ‘democracy’ argument.
Meanwhile I heard the Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, on RTE’s Drive Time whilst I was driving to the shop. He was asked if he would be out campaigning and assured us all that he would. But if the government are serious about wanting to win this referendum, and no disrespect intended to the man, but a long holiday in some remote corner of the country where there’s no access to the internet, no mobile coverage and, definitely, no media with microphones might be the best option for that particular Minister’s involvement in any campaign.
Veronica: The vote is obviously going to be structured for a “Yes” vote. Otherwise we would not get to vote. The reason for the vote is cynically to make sure that the people have no come-back to the permanent economic slavery we are signing up to. And the reason it is being done now is because we have seen nothing yet of what is in store for us. Look at Greece.
So it is a case of “come into my parlour said the spider to the fly”.
Veronica: I agree with you about Mr Shatter. I have just now heard him on Newstalk say we need to pass this referendum in order to pay our guards, nurses, social security etc and this was not questioned by the interviewer.
But this begs the question why did we never before need a referendum to pay our guards, nurses, social security etc. We are obviously entering the fantasy world of the king’s new clothes.
Ah, the Irish people are being asked to consent to their debt slavery. And they will consent.
I am reminded of the scene in the Life of Brian where the man being crucified, clearly a British working class type, cheerily sings “You’ve Got To Look on the Bright Side of Life.”
John,
I’m not so sure the people will ‘consent’ this time around. The poll figures for the referendum on extra powers for Oireacthas Committees was 74% or thereabouts before public debate kicked off late in the day. That referendum was defeated. Apparently, according to a recent UCD/Red C study, well over 70% of the electorate STILL favour increased Oireacthas powers, though many of them clearly voted against the actual proposal.
According to the latest opinion poll, 72% of the electorate currently would vote in favour of the fiscal treaty. What happens with that support in principle will, I reckon depend on a number of things.
For instance, right now, we have no idea what the precise question is that will be put before the electorate i.e. whether the government is authorised to ratify this treaty or alternatively, whether the individual provisions of said treaty will be enshrined in our constitution, which is a different kettle of fish.
We do know what the main themes of the debate will be – at this stage of it anyway – a ‘yes’ is a vote for condemning Irish citizens to years of austerity imposed with international oversight by EU bureaucrats or a ‘yes’ is a vote of confidence in Ireland’s economic recovery and a means of reining in any tendencies by any future government towards profligate mismanagement of the country’s finances. But both sides are engaging in rhetoric without much factual support for their respective positions; which is no good at all.
(I don’t buy the prevention of profligacy argument, incidentally, since on paper Ireland’s fiancnes looked very healthy indeed right up to the point that the crash exposed the delusions on which they were based. So appearances can be deceptive, especially when it comes to national balance sheets.)
Second, the government’s case would be immeasurably strengthened if, over the coming weeks, and as urged in national media commentary today, it were able to announce a deal with the ECB on the promissory notes issue. If the government has to hand over 3.1bn euro to the Central Bank in March, as it did last year and as it would have to do again next year, then the ‘austerity in perpetuity’ case is made for itself. It’s not known whether the government has been (a) strategically holding back on announcing a breakthrough on the PN issue in anticipation that it would have to hold a referendum on the fiscal treaty and wanted to keep its ace card up its sleeve to that purpose, or (b) despite periodic noises and muffled reports of progress by Ministers and their political sidekicks, no progress of any consequence has been made nor is there a hope in hell of ever getting a deal from the ECB on this issue.
A further major problem is the long term implications of this treaty – will it be followed by other treaties that will ultimately amount to a form of fiscal union in which citizens of a country which runs into trouble get to shoulder all the responsibility for clearing up the banking mess that ensues, whilst the controlling entity on national fiscal policy at the centre of the EU bureaucracy simply dictates the terms on which they must do so? That’s hardly likely to warm any voter’s heart in favour of the proposal.
In addition, there is the not so small issue of democratic legitimacy, in the sense that this fiscal compact is born out of a distortion of the balance that’s supposed to exist between the EU institutions i.e. the Parliament, the Commission and the Council, over which certain member states of the Council have now assumed hegemony, resulting in the spectacle last year of having elected governments in Italy and Greece (irrespective of how bad the incumbents were) removed and replaced by technocratic leadership at the behest of the so-called Merkozy alliance.
For me, personally, this means that the fiscal treaty irrespective of its technical provisions, raises issues about the preservation of democracy within the EU and the direction in which that may be heading.
Finally, there’s that clause which ominously says that any country not signing up to the fiscal treaty will not be eligible to access funding provisions under the new ESM. In Irish terms, this means that if the referendum results in a ‘no’ and it transpires that come 2015 Ireland requires a new bailout package, as many economists anticipate even if the government strongly denies it, then there will be no access to any EU funding mechanism. That’s the fear factor, which may backfire if enoough voters feel resentful about being pressurised in such a way – and we Irish are a stubborn lot when it comes to perceptions of bullying.
So getting back to the numbers, presumably Sinn Fein voters – now at 25% in the opinion polls – will vote ‘no’ or most of them likely will. Traditional Labour Party votes may go in either direction, depending on the strength of local Labour representation and the coherence of constituency organisations and how much, or little, they are prepared to put into a campaign to secure ‘yes’ votes from among their own supporters. There has to be about 15% of the electorate who will vote ‘no’ for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the EU or the fiscal treaty itself or who always vote ‘no’ to EU Treaties anyway. Fianna Fail looks like they’re heading for a split over the issue, so a sizeable chunk of their support may drift to the ‘no’ side. The Socialist Party and left-leaning independents may account for another 5 – 10% or so. Even Fine Gael, whose supporters remained more ‘loyal’ to their party line on the Oireacthas Committees’ referendum than those of any other party, may entertain serious misgivings about this proposal. All of which would add up to a fairly decisive ‘no’.
An analyst in this morning’s Irish Independent suggests that if the government lose this referendum campaign a general election will quickly follow. I’m not certain that this analysis is correct, as they could surely limp on to the December budget; but their credibility would be in tatters and the coalition would rapidly degenerate into a lame duck adminsitration, with huge unanticipated problems to contend with both with the EU and the confidence of the bond markets, as well as instability within their own parliamentary ranks.
Hence, for this referendum to succeed, I think the government needs to target the ‘middle of the road’ concerned voter and come up with reassurances on the long term implications for democracy of this kind of treaty making in the EU and, more crucially, some sort of sweetener on the PN issue if they want a ‘hold your nose and vote ‘yes” response from the likes of boring old conservative ‘yours truly’ and her ilk.
Unfortunately, with Shatter out of the traps and sniping and sneering the political order of the day, the omens are not great.
I believe it a travesty of the truth, and an affront to the dead generations and to many still alive, to use the word ‘austerity’ in relation to contemporary Ireland. Surely to God we’re all in favour of budget discipline – take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.
AHCR: We really have entered the fantasy world of the king’s new clothes if budget discipline can only be achieved through a referndum.
On the other hand if the Government wants popular approval for paying billions we do not owe to people we have not met then what better way to do it than with a referendum similar to where the king’s suit is woven from a web of deceit.
Eddie, the State owns Anglo-Irish Bank – how can we not be liable for its debts?
It seems we DO need a the new treaty to ensure that we will henceforth abide by the previous treaty commitments which we the people have voted for in referendums.
AHCR: 1. “the State owns Anglo-Irish Bank”. Please supply details of what benefits accrue to state ownership in this case? 2. Does this mean that every time “commitments” are foisted on us that we do not commit to in advance there will be no accountability but a new treaty will ensue which will be put in a referendum to the people to legitimise these “commitments”?
Eddie,
1.I take from your two questions that you don’t dispute that the State acquired and owns Anglo Irish Bank.
2. By previous referenda we the people bound the State to observe the conditions of EU treaties. I don’t think the forthcoming referendum is going to be about owning Anglo, but about binding this and future governments more strongly to observe the terms of treaties which already have a constitutional standing in Ireland through previous referenda.
AHCR: 1. I referred above to the King’s new clothes. It is a story of two swindlers who persuaded the king to buy a suit that was supposed to be invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. So everyone pretended they could see the suit. But when the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!” To bring the story up-to-date we have the swindlers (bankers) who made the politicians believe that we should take ownership of a bank (Anglo Irish) which had no assets but billions in liabilities (the invisible bank). We were all persuaded that we would be unfit, stupid and incompetant if we did not take on these liabilities and reimbuse the bankers by taking ownership of this invisible bank. But any child will see that there is no bank to own.
2. If we have an obligation “to observe the terms of treaties which already have a constitutional standing in Ireland through previous referenda” why are we going through the charade of another referendum unless the referendum has some other purpose.
Eddie,
1. Frankly, I’m not up to speed on why Anglo is not let buy back Anglo bonds at a deeply discounted market value – possibly because the only money available to the State is Troika money which has strings attached. I guess it may be to make the point that when a State acquires an entity it becomes liable for the debts of that entity. And most States don’t default on their debts. It’s difficult for the people to repudiate their State.
2. Why we’re impelled into another referendum is to improve collective enforcement on governments and mutual surveillance to observe the terms of our earlier referendums/treaties. We deserve nothing less from our government.
According to the Sunday Business Post on Twitter #@sundaybusiness about an hour ago, their Red C poll tomorrow shows 60% in favour of a ‘yes’ to the fiscal treaty and 40% against, when 26% ‘don’t knows’ are excluded. At this very early stage of debate on the referendum, this level of support for a ‘yes’ doesn’t augur well for the ‘yes’ campaign.
@HCR
On Anglo, technically the IBRC is fully capitalised, so a default on debt would be equivalent to a sovereign default. The intervention by the IMF on the PN issue yesterday, which is far more important, is being hailed by the great and the good as ‘significant’ and ‘promising’ and the Government will be under increased pressure to take the hint and press for some relief – preferably a deal that would allow postponement of the 3.1bn euro which it has to pay by the end of March to the Central Bank – from the ECB board in the coming weeks.
As I understand it, the government was prepared to sign up to, or has already signed up to most of the technical elements of the fiscal treaty. Because this treaty falls outside the scope of normal EU Treaties and is thus a new intragovernmental arrangement to which the state will now become a party and which involves transfer of sovereignty to an external agency, some academic legal experts were predicting several weeks ago that a constitutional referendum was unavoidable. Whether it was a triumph of hope and wishful thinking on the government’s part, various government spokesmen, including the Tanaiste and the Taoiseach, maintained the line that a referendum might not be necessary. Thye were wrong. But int he end, I think it’s no end of a good thing that there will be a public dbate about where Ireland is going and the rationale for present policy and how the options might be tweaked or changed and where the EU is going and whether that EU is the one we want to be signed up to.
Then again, I’m the sort of foolish old optimist who thinks we should be capable of having a collheaded and rational, mature discussion about these important questions.
Hi Veronica,
I agree – the IMF intervention yesterday is probably a bit of choreography and that the end result, possibly already agreed at Troika level, will be a significant alleviation.
On the referendum – I hope we don’t have to be asked twice.
“For instance, right now, we have no idea what the precise question is that will be put before the electorate i.e. whether the government is authorised to ratify this treaty or alternatively, whether the individual provisions of said treaty will be enshrined in our constitution, which is a different kettle of fish. ”
Hm…
Given that the government has decided to have a referendum, I presume that we will be modifying our Constitution ie. adding some new wording someplace.
Can anyone tell me where I can find the proposed wording that will be inserted into our Constitution?
Will any such wording be clearer that the wording which went into our Constitution as a result of the Lisbon Treaty?
What have I missed?
Donal,
According to last night’s news the Cabinet are split on a date for the referendum. So until that is settled, there wont be any Bill/wording published.
There appears to be a strategic game in progress: on the one hand, the Taoiseach, Tanaiste, Ministers Varadkar and Rabbitte, and Lucinda Creighton, have been hammering the message home that the treaty and relief on the bank debt/Promissory Notes are separate matters and should not be conjoined in the way Joan Burton suggested in her interview with the Financial Times the previous week, which went down well with the Sunday Indo but like a lead balloon with her Cabinet colleagues. On the other, Rabbitte and others, speaking from a clearly authorised script, have been hyping up the prospect of a deal on the PNs and, even better, on mortgage debt for the other banks with the latest spin being that Ireland will be able to postpone the 3.1bn euro payment to the CB due at the end of this month. Overall, it’s a case of ‘trust us, we know what we’re doing’. And if the government succeed in pulling off a deal on the debt, or even a first stage objective of postponing the PN payment, then their problems with securing a ‘yes’ to the referendum should be substantially eased and they can claim to have earned public trust. If it turns out to be a ball of smoke, then they’re scuppered.
Hi Donal,
I read somewhere that the Fiscal Compact only needs to be ratified by 12 Euro countries to come into force.
HCR,
That’s the point. This isn’t an EU treaty and the reason a referendum is required, as I understand it, is because of the way in which our Constitution defines sovereignty even though our government has already committed to most of the fiscal reforms set out in this intergovernmental pact. Twenty five countries have indicated they will sign up to these fiscal rules and it stipulates that only twelve countries need ratify for it to come into force. So all this talk of a second referendum is irrelevant. With or without Ireland, the fiscal treaty will come into force.
The rub is that any country that does not ratify will be excluded from recourse to the ESM in the event that they require funding from the EU in the future. So if Ireland doesn’t ratify, the argument is that should the state require funding beyond the current arrangement with the IMF/EU, there will be no access to EU funding. Thus, a ‘no’ vote in the referendum means that the government would have to work towards elimination of the current 14.5 bn euro current deficit more quickly than they plan to do. So a ‘no’ accelerates self-imposed austerity, rather than a reversal of it.Further, that if the EU cannot provide Ireland with ESM funds post 2014, the IMF would have a difficulty in stepping into the breach. The counter argument from the ‘No’ side is that, like Greece, the EU would ignore the stipulations of the fiscal treaty and come to Ireland’s aid if so required.
So if you vote ‘yes’ the fiscal sky will fall in as this intergovernmental treaty ties us and fellow signatories into an austerity framework that many economists regard as unworkable over the longer term. If you vote ‘no’ the fiscal sky will fall in because the current austerity policy of cuts and new taxes will be deepened because the deficit will have to be eliminated quicker than the government regards as either economically desirable or socially feasible. Then again, if I had a penny for every time I’ve heard since 1972 that the sky would fall in if I voted ‘no’ or ‘yes’ in an EU referendum, I’d be a rich woman. Sadly, I’m still poor.
There is no constitutional need for a referendum–we have a referendum because the baying for “democracy”would be of hysterical proportions.I think the NO people are secretly hoping that sufficient people will vote YES to save the day.The treaty IMHO is meaningless but we have to vote YES(very reluctantly)
Hmm!
We’ve all heard of straw polls. But is this referendum possibly going to be the first ‘straw man’ poll? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Betty: I think the reason we are having a referendum is an attempt to give legitimacy to the paymment of billions of exchequer funds to bankers without any legal basis in tendering and precurement procedures or value for money. I would be surprised if such payments did not come back at some time in the future to haunt our politicians personally. Therefore the semblance of legal respectability in a referendum is a smart move but as you say the whole thing is a meaningless charade.
Eddie,
We all have our views on the banking debacle and its aftermath and on this Fiscal Treaty, about which, as you may have guessed, I’m none too happy myself. But the debate hasn’t really started yet so I’ll wait to make up my mind.
What’s important though, I think, is that we stick to the facts and not muddy the waters with incorrect theoretical suppositions. The basic fact is that the bank debt covered by the promissory notes is legitimately owed by this state.
It goes something like this: the Irish state took ownership of the IBRC debts when Anglo was nationalised, and latterly for the INBS debt also. To this end, the government issued promissory notes to the Central Bank in respect of some 30bn euro to get the ECB money for Anglo to cover its liabilities. Add in the interest and the bill rises to about 47bn euro. But the interest portion is ‘circular’ money in that it goes from one agency of the state (the Exchequer) to another (the Central Bank), so it cancels itself out. The principal is real money though, that has been added to our national debt. The IMF/EU/ECB loans package includes money to pay off the 3.1bn euro promissory note payment due at the end of March. Whilst the government may have hoped to have a new deal on how that debt might be alleviated – extensions, postponements of payment until the economic situation improves, or all the other variations that have being doing the rounds in the media and political chit-chat over the past couple of weeks – the EU Commissioner, Olli Rehn, appears to have put the final kibosh yesterday on any prospect of Ireland not paying up at the end of March this year. A deal on that payment would have been nice, but barring the miraculous intervention of St. Jude or a magic dragon, it ain’t happening.
So while the bank debt issue and the fiscal treaty may be intimately connected in our collective mind’s eye, in that we might feel better disposed towards the latter if some concessions were obtained on the former, the fact is that they are totally separate in every other respect. The Fiscal Treaty has to be judged on its own merits, and I think there’s more than enough to be going on with on that score.
Veronica: Unfortunately we will never get away from a few simple questions in relation to monies disbursed by the State in respect of “ownership of the IBRC debts” as follows:
1. Where is the contract?
2. Who were the contracting perties?
3. What goods or services were provided?
4. Were the proper advertising procedures (including EU procedures)followed?
5. Were the proper tendering procedures (including EU procedures)followed?
6. Have any goods or services been delivered?
7. What is the role of the Comtroller and Auditor General?
These questions are not mine but normal procedure in any public expenditure contract. It is wishful thinking therefore to think that the matter will go away. At the very least books will be written!!! But ………
Sorry! I meant to add that bank debt and the fiscal treaty cannot be anything other than intimately connected especially if monies disbursed from exchequer funds are at the common denominator.
procedures)followed?
5. Were the proper tendering procedures (including EU procedures)followed? http://www.ceinturesfr.com/ceinture-dirk-bikkembergs-c-17.html
6. Have any goods or services been delivered?
7. What is the role of the Comtroller and Auditor General?
These questions are not mine but normal procedure in any public expenditure contract. It is wishful thinking therefore to think that the matter will go away. At the very least books will be written!!! But ………