Sir, – Minister for Finance Michael Noonan (Home News, May 1st) warns us that “While [we] may be able to apply to the IMF, [we] don’t know what they are going to provide . . . and on what terms . So it would be a very risky prospect to reject the treaty and cut off the possibility of access to the ESM”. But isn’t it true that the IMF favoured less draconian terms but were vetoed by the EU/ECB? Mr Noonan also said: “The IMF was not in a position to give unilateral assistance to EU countries, outside the current troika arrangement . . .”. But is that true? He has already said the reverse (above)! The fact that the IMF became involved only when Europe took the lead is neither here nor there.
Then Taoiseach Enda Kenny said: “The treaty . . . says that countries that ratify the treaty will have access to the European Stability Mechanism.”
But does it say those who don’t won’t? I think it’s time the Government stopped skewing the facts and set out the options not only clearly and concisely but also honestly, openly and in a balanced way.
Surely it must know that scare tactics can easily backfire, especially when accompanied by “facts” that are less than the full truth. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I will be voting No in the forthcoming treaty referendum. When I see 10 white-collar criminals in this Republic (?) brought to account, I will re-consider. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I am somewhat surprised at the argument produced in recent days from some of those opposed to the fiscal treaty that Ireland doesn’t need to pass the upcoming referendum in order to avail of future bailout funds.
It is exceedingly strange in the first instance given that Sinn Fein and other left-wing groups vigorously campaigned against the need to acquire bailout funding. Their dubious premise seems to hinge on the prospect of future IMF funding, without outlining that the IMF can reject applications for support and would be far more reluctant to grant a future Irish submission for funds with the advent of greater uncertainty that would arise out of a No vote.
In addition, even in the unlikely scenario that the IMF would alone provide funds without co-support from EU institutions, the impact in relation to budgetary cuts imposed as a result would likely be very harsh indeed.
It is thus contradictory for those opposed to the treaty on the rationale of opposing austerity in general to highlight a possible scenario arising out of a No vote that would present the prospect of extremely severe austerity measures. Their argument makes no sense whatsoever from that perspective. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In the event of a Yes vote, the Government would be entitled to proceed with ratification of the ESM treaty as this would reflect the democratic will of the majority of voters.
However, in the event of a No result, Ireland would be cut off from ESM funding because of a condition within the fiscal compact. While Ireland doesn’t have a veto on the fiscal compact, the Government could easily defer ratification of the critical ESM treaty over which Ireland would have a blocking vote if supported by other States who together contribute at least 8.5 per cent of the ESM’s capital. This would force the EU and ECB to offer meaningful proposals to ease Ireland’s unfair and unsustainable bank debt burden which, to date, has been effectively ignored by them.
Arguably, this could lead to a second referendum on the fiscal compact which might also lead to ratification of the ESM treaty. – Yours, etc,