Sir, – In 1997, the EU adopted the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), under which member states pledged not to exceed 3 per cent of GDP in annual budget deficits, and 60 per cent of GDP in national debt.
The then President of the EU Council, Romano Prodi, publicly described the pact as “stupid” because it was inflexible, and forecast that it would fail.
France and Germany were its strongest proponents, and insisted that sanctions be initiated against Portugal (in 2002) and Greece (in 2005) for failures in its observance.
However, in response to domestic pressures, France and Germany themselves exceeded its limits, and, in 2005, demanded that its terms be made flexible to accommodate those pressures. The pact was elasticated accordingly. Pacta sunt servanda? Are we now being asked to vote for SGP, mark 2? – Yours, etc,
A chara, – This treaty needs a proper name like Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon.
How about Split or Stalingrad, or even that infamous village in Austria? – Is mise,
A chara, – In response to Mark O’Hagan (April 27th), I must say that I would be genuinely surprised if any trade union said anything that was not in its members’ interests. Why should a trade union ever bite the hand that feeds it even if it is in the national interest? – Is mise,
Sir, – I note those on the Yes side keeping asking those on the No side: “Where is the money going to come from” when the bailout ends and we need more funding. What I’d like to know from the Yes side, is where did all the bail-out money go, because not all of was spent on nurses and teachers. From what I can see it seems that nearly half of the money, some €35 billion, went into the banking system with no corresponding increase in lending or debt relief, so what did the banks do with that money?
Also, on what exactly did the Government spend the rest of the money? – Your, etc,
Sir, – The decision of the CPSU to call for a No vote in the upcoming referendum is a brave one indeed. Such an outcome will leave the Government with little option but to bin the Croke Park Agreement and slash social welfare and old age pension benefits in order to balance the national finances. Those adversely impacted will naturally want CPSU members to be first in line for the cuts. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The treaty would command much greater support if its sanctions were applied to those at fault. As I read it, where a government borrows too much an extra cost falls on its people. If the relevant ministers, advisers and officials were gaoled for 15 years each the problem would never arise.
Governments borrow money to buy votes, and are usually the main beneficiaries of over-borrowing– Yours, etc,