Sir, – Regarding the suggestion by Fintan O’Toole (Opinion, May 22nd) and others that the Government should push through legislation to postpone the referendum: while no one can be sure, without a court judgment, such legislation in mid referendum-campaign would probably be unconstitutional. And such a court decision would probably not come until after May 31st. And then, where would we be? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Considering that treaty negotiations are still ongoing between the two EU “superpowers”, that neither of their parliaments have ratified this treaty in its current form as of yet and that constitutionally the upcoming referendum cannot be cancelled/postponed barring that an extremely unlikely general election is held before May 31st, I would suggest that a third choice of “Don’t Know Yet” be offered on the ballot paper.
If this gets a majority then Ireland is neither accepting nor rejecting the treaty but asking for more clarity from the EU as to the exact final content so that the Irish people can make an informed choice.
Because we are currently being asked to decide on a very significant national and international issue without knowing the definitive implications of an Irish Yes or No vote, for ourselves or for the rest of the EU, I believe that postponing this decision, until such time as the “I”s have been dotted and the “T”s crossed on the treaty, is a perfectly reasonable and responsible action. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The debate on the fiscal treaty has provided a stark manifestation of how the governance of society in the EU, and the West in general, has become subservient to the desires of corporate interests and specifically those of large financial institutions.
The pursuit of neoliberal economic policy over the last few decades has led to the transformation of the global economy into a huge credit market with a huge dependence of Western economies on cheap credit and cheap labour in the developing world.
Now these interests are demanding that governments introduce restrictive constraints on fiscal policy while at the same time resisting any significant reform in their own governance and the introduction of any transaction tax. Hence the scene is set for the catastrophic impact of the next bubble, where again consumers will be encouraged to borrow to feed it and face the consequences when it bursts.
This treaty would not have prevented the current crisis. While government coffers are dependent on transient income from bubbles inflated by short-term outlooks it will happen again. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – How do you think ISEQ will react to a yes vote? Positively of course. That is why I will be voting Yes. – Is mise,
Sir, – Danish MEP Morten Messerschmidt, who is campaigning for a No vote in the referendum, stated (Letters, May 22nd) that I voted in favour of the introduction of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) when the European Parliament recently adopted a non-binding report on the issue.
This is not the case.
My vote was recorded inaccurately and once I became aware of the mistake, I immediately requested the official record of the European Parliament to show that I voted against CCCTB.
I am vehemently opposed to CCCTB and believe the Government should veto the introduction of the proposal when the matter comes before the EU finance ministers.
It is extremely misleading of the No campaign to raise the issue of corporate tax in the context of the debate surrounding the stability treaty.
This is a deliberate tactic by Mr Messerschmidt, Declan Ganley, Nigel Farage and others to mislead the public on the content of the stability treaty.
The treaty is designed to ensure that countries work towards balancing their budgets, which is good housekeeping.
I believe that a Yes vote will ensure stability in the euro zone, which will help to create a positive economic climate, which is conducive for investment and growth. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If Keith Nolan (May 22nd) reads the label on Lidl’s “Greek” yogurt he will find that it too is produced in Germany. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – So it’s okay now for Ministers to talk about a second bailout? Poor Leo Varadkar’s timing was a little off.
Are Enda Kenny and his crew of the firm belief that should we reject this treaty and require a second bailout in order to repay “our” debts to European banks, that our European “partners” would deny us access to funding? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Fermoy in North Cork has been, for quite a time, a poster-free zone during election and referendum campaigns and it remained so until some time after midnight late on Monday night.
Between then and 9am on Tuesday representatives of Libertas, an unelected and unrepresentative organisation, came and erected posters on virtually every every lamp post in the town. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Recent debate on the referendum has focused much on the question of access to ESM funding post-2013 with the No side maintaining that a No vote would not block access to these funds. It would be only fair to those whom they are seeking to influence if they quantified how failure to access these funds would impact on the country, on the provision of public services and on all dependent on State benefits.
Exchequer figures for 2011 show that our total expenditure, current and capital but exclusive of banking measures, was €54 billion, while receipts amounted to €39 billion. In such a scenario, it is surely better to be certain about being able to access funding than to be hopeful. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In the face of the economic crisis, and doubts over the ongoing existence of the euro, Paul Gillespie (Opinion, May 19th) points out that “the pace of change forces a longer-term agenda into view involving a more active economic role for the European Central Bank, a bigger bailout firewall, greater taxation powers for the EU, more balanced economic flows within the euro zone and mutualisation of risk through eurobonds.”
This may well be true, but this agenda omits a fundamental facet of all properly functioning single currency/monetary unions: a fiscal transfer union. This is where states which are poorly resourced are cross-subsided by those rich in resources – as a consequence of relinquishing, through pooling, of sovereignty. This non-EU treaty will not sort out the economic crisis, but voting Yes will help to consolidate the neo-liberal agenda of market-based solutions to market-based problems.
A No vote, however, could force the Government, allied with other states, to push for a fiscal transfer union; for both equity and stability in the long-run. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In the history of my short life I have voted in the drizzly rain, in the snow and in the windy weather. I have always given my vote. I felt duty bound. I used to think of the 1916 leaders and all who fought for dear ole Ireland. I was patriotic and emotional; I loved ever inch of my country and thought that it was an act of treason not to vote .
This time around, I don’t think at this moment in time I’ll bother at all.
I don’t know whether Yes is the right way to vote and I don’t know if No is the right way to vote. The people of this country have been lied to so much through the years by governments, the truth is hard to come by. Maybe this treaty is all propaganda. Words are cheap to come by.
Yes I do feel somewhat bitter that I have worked and paid taxes all of 46 years and like thousands of others supported all those who were on the dole by doing so year in and year out. Now that it’s my turn to get the miserable dole, I thought I could claim nearly €200 to help me keep the wolf from the door. I was rudely awakened to the fact that I was only to receive a miserable tiny sum for all of my years working and in conscience trying to help others. When the man from social welfare came to means-test me in my home I’m almost positive that he docked me for having a cat and a dog. Probably thinks that they do the housework and prepare the meals for the table.
The stability treaty’s stated aim is to promote conditions for stronger growth in the European Union. It sets agreed rules for government to provide for responsible budgeting. This allows for good housekeeping by governments when using public money with the aim of avoiding future economic and job crises.
Could our own Government help all those in dire straights with their housekeeping budgets by giving them more money through redundancy, social welfare payments including the job-seekers allowance? It’s about time we started looking after our own people, on our own doorstep. With the money spent on these plush leaflets and referendum booklets, a fortune could have been saved and in turn given to social welfare receivers. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It makes no sense holding the referendum given the current state of flux in the euro area and the high probability that the stability treaty will change over the coming months. Postponing the referendum would not send an anti-euro signal.
Germany, the architect and driving force behind the treaty, has delayed its vote. And that was the decision of a very informed pro-euro parliament (which often knows what is happening in Ireland before we do).
Are we not capable of joining the dots? We are told that legislation will not allow us to postpone the vote. We should change the legislation. Wasn’t the bank bailout rushed through the Dáil! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The anger expressed so forcibly in Athlone recently towards the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, only too demonstrably, shows how badly people are hurting in the present economic downturn that was none of their making.
That the situation is none of the current Government’s making either, but rather one inherited by it, does not seem to lessen people’s righteous reaction to the straitened circumstances they find themselves in – lost jobs, devalued property and worst of all, the enforced emigration of their children.
However, it is vitally important at this time in our history that our political leaders, elected and paid by us, share the austerity inflicted on the rest of us by cutting down drastically on ministerial salaries, fat-cat pensions, on the number of advisers (why more than two at most per minister?) and on all the many generous perks enjoyed at our expense. It is an undeniable fact that we can no longer afford the costliest and most over-paid and over-manned Government in the EU.
Immediate action, not promises, is what the country wants. Now. — Yours, etc,