Two 'Big Lies' so far from the Yes side in Treaty Debate

[Ah Well]

Don't worry. There's be plenty of other fibs flying around for the next four weeks.
The trick is to shoot them down as quick as possible to make way for the next ones...

Indeed

[Baron von Biffo]

Why were Labour not represented? Why let FG speak for them?

It's not a matter of Lab letting FG speak for them, rather it's FG not letting Lab speak for themselves.

[Sam Lord]

The Government is failing to sell the Treaty per se. It is all about consequences....

Correct. But they are not failing, they are not even trying to sell the treaty. As a result of the gun to the head clause they inserted in the other treaty they have successfully managed to move the discussion away from the actual content of fiscal compact.

They should be explaining to the Irish people exactly how a structural deficit is calculated.

[PaddyJoe]

On the question of an ESM veto:

Asked by journalists whether Ireland can still veto the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism in the event of a No vote, Judge Feeney said the opportunity for a veto is gone as Ireland has already agreed to the establishment of the ESM.
He said however this agreement has not yet been ratified by the Dáil and Seanad and that must be done before it becomes law.
He said it is theoretically possible the Dáil and the Seanad could refuse it still, but reiterated the opportunity for a veto is gone.

That doesn't change the fact that the ESM can't come into force until the Dail and Seanad ratify it:

The amendment to Article 136 can only enter into force
when notifications of ratification have been received from all
EU Member States.

[C. Flower]

On the question of an ESM veto:


That doesn't change the fact that the ESM can't come into force until the Dail and Seanad ratify it:

It doesn't. But it was immediately interpreted by an RTE journo to mean that that it couldn't be stopped.

[PaddyJoe]

I heard Micheal Martin spoofing away again today on Newstalk with Jonathan Healy about getting loans from the ESM at 'cost price'
It still isn't true.
This is what Article 20 of the up to date ESM treaty says:

ARTICLE 20
Pricing policy


1. When granting stability support, the ESM shall aim to fully cover its financing and operating
costs and shall include an appropriate margin.

2. For all financial assistance instruments, pricing shall be detailed in a pricing guideline, which
shall be adopted by the Board of Governors.

3. The pricing policy may be reviewed by the Board of Governors.

http://www.european-council.europa.e...tesm2.en12.pdf

That's twice he has gotten away with it without being challenged

[PaddyJoe]

Paul Murphy MEP(a member here, incidentally) has complained to the Referendum Commission over its interpretation of the ESM veto:

In a letter to Commission chairman Kevin Feeney this lunchtime, Dublin MEP Murphy disputes this, saying the booklet implies that the ESM treaty has already been enacted, when this is not the case.
“This is inaccurate and represents a prejudging of political decisions that have yet to be taken,” Murphy wrote.
“By just stating that 17 states have signed the ESM without explaining that this does not equate to ratification, the text of the booklet also gives the impression that the ESM is already in place. This is not the case

http://www.thejournal.ie/murphy-disp...e=twitter_self

[Dr. FIVE]

Good rebuttal here of Gavin Barrett's piece in today's IT

1. Having told us in advance that a Treaty vote would be necessary, Barrett conveniently forgets the reasons why in order to equate the legal obligations and mechanisms of the Sixpack (which didn't require a referendum) and the Treaty (which certainly does). That is a bit weak.

2. Barrett casts doubt on Ireland's ability to veto the establishment of the ESM. But this claim rests on the novel suggestion that the ESM can anyhow be established some other way outside of an amendment to article 136. Barrett doesn't suggest how, and presents only the truism that the ECJ has not been asked either way.

3. Barrett has authored an extensive guide to the ESM, probably the most extensive guide published in Ireland:
http://iiea.com/documents/european-stability-mechanism [5 meg PDF downloand]

In that, he wrote at length not only on the actual Treaty amending mechanism being used to introduce the ESM, but also on some other new amending procedures not chosen for the task. He barely addressed the possibility, brought to the fore in his IT article today, the ESM could be introduced in a way outside of Treaty amendment and an Irish veto. Which makes his new suggestion all the more surprising.

4. Barrett claims to see into the heart of Francois Hollande, to the extent of diagnosing his insincere election pledges and predicting his future behaviour in office. This is a remarkable talent for a UCD professor of law.

5. It is quite cute how he frames the doom-mongering at the finish as merely answering the question "What happens if Ireland votes No...?" Unfortunately, in writing darkly of borrowing costs and bank runs, this also causes him to trip over the distinction he promised us at the beginning between law/politics and macroeconomics.

6. In the ESM guide, I mentioned above, Barrett lamented how the treaty based change marked a German driven lurch away from the Community method, and how this was a Bad Thing for smaller member states (page 20):
A second point of interest in this regard is the express stipulation in the December European
Council conclusions that the arrangement setting up the European Stability Mechanism
should be "intergovernmental". This is one aspect of a clear and worrying more general
drift away from the tried-and-tested 'Community' method. In particular, it reflects apparent
German disenchantment with this system, a phenomenon which has to give rise to some
concern for the future, not only for small member states whose input is better ensured under
the 'Community' system, but for the Union as a whole, which has tended to work more
efficiently and transparently in areas integrated using the Community method than in areas
using more intergovernmental processes.

Yet now Barrett insists we must vote Yes to a Treaty that very much drives Europe in that direction. Curious.

[fluffybiscuits]

Paul Murphy MEP(a member here, incidentally) has complained to the Referendum Commission over its interpretation of the ESM veto:

http://www.thejournal.ie/murphy-disp...e=twitter_self

Its good minds like yours Paddy that ensure we catch the politicians out on the lies. ...

[PaddyJoe]

More from the very strange place that is the ESM:

Ireland will pay 1.27 billion in cash to the ESM if voters approve the Fiscal Treaty referendum on May 21st

Ireland's first cash payment of 254 million is due in July. Following payment is a further 254 million in October and then 508 million in two tranches next year.
Francois Head, an official with the European Council, confirmed that Ireland is liable for these payments even if a No vote bars us from using the ESM
That's Mark Paul in the ST following up on last week's IMF story.

[C. Flower]

Paul Murphy MEP(a member here, incidentally) has complained to the Referendum Commission over its interpretation of the ESM veto:

http://www.thejournal.ie/murphy-disp...e=twitter_self

The amount of jesuitical distortion being presented as "facts" is unreal.

I hope that Paul Murphy follows through on this complaint.