The Government parties’ campaign centres around words like ‘certainty’, ‘stability’ and ‘investor confidence’ as well as tormenting their ‘No’ vote opponents with questions about where they will get the money, at a reasonable rate of interest, if Ireland shuts itself off from access to ESM funding in the wake of a ‘No’ result?

The ‘No’ campaign has been dominated by Sinn Fein. The array of socialist groups such as the ULA, independents like Luke Ming Flanagan and Shane Ross,( who has yet to declare if he’s ‘Yes’ or ‘No’,) play occasional bit parts. The Socialist Workers Party’s Kieran Allen appears to spend much of his waking hours in TV and radio studios mostly saying the same thing – cancel bank debt, default as Greece has, tax the rich – as well as needling Government Ministers about where they propose to get the 11bn euro that Ireland will be obliged to contribute to the ESM if this referendum is passed?

 Needless to say, each side claims that a vote for the other side is a vote for more’austerity’. As DCU lecturer, Kevin Rafter, observed on the Pat Kenny Show earlier this week, amid all the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ rhetoric there are many “unknowns and uncertainties on both sides” of this referendum debate.

Meanwhile, within Fianna Fail, the revolt by former deputy leader, Eamon O’Cuiv, against the Treaty ended last weekend. O’Cuiv has imposed a vow of silence on himself for the remainder of the campaign, because there is no party other than Fianna Fail who can represent his political philosophy and he can’t bear to leave it, and words to that effect. The Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, has declined an invitation from TV3 to take part in a referendum debate with Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams, moderated by Vincent Brown. This morning, the Taoiseach also emphatically rejected calls from the ‘No’ side to cancel the referendum, or at least delay Oireacthas ratification, as ICTU’s David Begg has urged. As far as Enda Kenny is concerned, the government has a ‘legal’ obligation to continue with the referendum process it has initiated. This is arguable. Even though it might cause them trouble, the Government could postpone the Treaty vote if they wanted to.

Thus the Irish campaign takes on elements of the surreal. It becomes ever more apparent that whenever they get the chance, electorates across Europe reject the policies of austerity that, quite simply, are not working for them and just creating ever –increasing debt spirals in their respective countries. Spain is on the brink of needing a bailout, despite three years of austerity policies. Greece has been plunged into a fresh political crisis following a general election that laid waste to the two main parties that have governed the country since the fall of the generals. The recent collapse of the Dutch government, the victory of Francois Hollande in the French Presidency, and his election promise that France will not ratify the Treaty in its present form, and the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel’s announcement that the Bundestag will postpone its own vote on ratification until July because the parliamentary numbers aren’t there to carry the vote, all fuel growing uncertainty about whether the Treaty, as we vote on it on 31 May next, will be worth the paper it’s written on a month later.

Of itself, this dreary Treaty, with its recitation of fiscal rules to stop profligate politicians behaving according to their nature, is not all that earth-shaking, even if it is flawed in is definitions, or lack of them, as to what constitutes a ‘structural deficit’, for example. It’s what it means that is important. It’s about a clash of ideas of how society should be ordered. What principles of fairness, justice and social equality should underpin fiscal governance? What are the alternatives, if any?

If you’re waiting for an answer to such questions, don’t hold your breath. The debate on the referendum hasn’t even begun to reach this level. The arguments advanced by the Government parties, by Fianna Fail and others on the ‘Yes’ side, boil down to a recognition that Ireland is in a weak position; a weak state with no powers of influence or persuasion that leave us with no choice but to go along with the flow. And then we must hope for the best, as far as those parties are concerned. The ‘No’ side’s arguments don’t bear much scrutiny. Many of their assertions about ‘permanent austerity’ or ‘more austerity’ simply don’t stack up. Whether ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ is the final result on 31 May, further austerity is inevitable because the old problem of an 18m euro budget deficit remains a problem.

What people all over Europe recognise by now, however, is that they’re being asked to pay for the failure of the system that provided living standards and social benefits way beyond what was actually being produced to pay for them. Tha enriched the few, leaving a few crumbs for the many. That basically relied on gigantic ponzi schemes and speculations by the banking system, and the markets, to fund illusions of general prosperity. That the formula, thus far, adopted by European Leaders has failed to face up to the reality of that failure and instead, persist with policies that compound the problem and risk social and economic collapse across Europe. Whatever way we vote on 31 May, that reality will remain.

It would be no bad thing if both sides adopted a broader framework for the debate over the remaining three weeks before the vote. Point scoring by both sides may be an inevitable part of political debate on any referendum issue, but a wider context about what this type of fiscal treaty measure means for the kind of society we want to build in the future wouldn’t go amiss.

[]
In other words, we have already agreed to be outvoted in the Eurogroup regarding budgets, economic policy, and common positions at international institutions like, er, the IMF! If we do a solo run to the IMF without the approval of a qualified majority of the Eurozone countries, we’ve broken the Lisbon treaty.

This is a fundamental distinction that must be stressed. In the early years of the State the Catholic Church had its power because we granted it to them. Noel Browne was kicked to touch because the Government feared the backlash that the Church could generate amongst the electorate, not fire and brimstone. That power was conferred by the people to the Church. We gave them control and shipped kids to the industrial schools and Magdalen Laundries. It was in the people’s power at all times to destroy the Church’s hold on society but we as a collective did not, instead granting it ever greater power post-independence.

Take also the current financial state of the country. Where does the blame lie? Many would trace the troubles back to the Maastricht Treaty. Blaming the EU for the low interest rates in the Eurozone. Others would blame Seanie Fitzpatrick and German bankers for amassing large debts that now are being paid back by the Irish state. But we used that cheap credit, made possible by the Euro, to bankrupt ourselves. The Germans may have been irresponsible to lend to the Irish property market but we were irresponsible for taking it. The level of owner occupiers in Ireland is around 83%. To many this probably is low. They look at this figure and say 17% of the population are unable to own their own home, probably taking this as a sign of the massive amounts of inequality that exists in Irish society. But would people be surprised to know that this is amongst the highest rate in the Eurozone? That it is almost double the rate in Germany  where under 50% of people own their own home? In the rest of Europe the mania for owning ones home does not exist. What would you think of a couple living in rented accommodation in their 40s in Ireland? Failures? Poor? This social stigma is certainly one of the causes of the building boom in Ireland. A Bull McCabe desire to own “my field”. This desire made people spend more on housing then they were able to afford. We live in one of the least densely populated countries in Europe, houses prices should never have been high, land for housing is not a commodity in short supply. Prices are dictated by what the buyers are willing to pay. By being willing to pay anything, Irish properties matched this. If you are willing to buy something for €300,000 why would I offer it to you for  €100,000? We not the Germans, not the bond holders are responsible for this. In our insatiable appetite for housing and the fact that rental reform is of little political interest.

It maybe be a cliche but democracy is people power. Short term incidents can indeed be out of the control of the population but in the long term, it is people power that determines the governing cultures in society. And it is often the case that the short term incidents are determined by the long term based cultures. Ask the average person in the street to describe the average Irish politician and one of the words that will be used would be dishonest. Corruption and broken promises have permanently tainted the profession of politics in this country to a point where few believe that someone in politics can be in the job out of a genuine sense of public service. However, from a politician’s point of view dishonesty is a practical political tool, as it is popular. No one wants to hear the truth that their local area doesn’t need a hospital, or a by-pass or a lottery machine. We don’t want to hear the truth from politicians, we don’t want to hear of wide ranging tax rises and spending cuts. We want “efficiency savings” to magically give us Swedish services with American taxation. We punish the truthful and reward the deceitful and we, as an electorate, rarely punish corruption.

When Enda Kenny said in Davos that we all went mad borrowing it should have been greeted with indifference as it was hardly news. One needs only to look at the levels of personal debt in Ireland to see this. From 2000 to 2008 in real terms, 1 year loans increased by 148%, term loans 261% and credit card debt 161% . As for Mortgages 273% and non residential mortgages, 222%. The rises in mortgages were well matched by rises in other financial products. This compares to a rise of GDP per capita of 33% in the same period. This was not the fault of the Germans this was us. Yet Enda Kenny was hammered for suggesting it.

There is a collective desire in Ireland to play the victim. Be it the Thierry Henry handball and Brian Cowen embarrassingly bringing it up at inter-governmental meetings. The issue of the handball was used as an excuse for losing, instead of the main issue which was that we failed to beat an average team despite having plenty of opportunities to do so.  For decades after independence we blamed the British for all our woes when the reality was the British had left us relatively rich in a poor world (page23) , at a similar level to Scandinavian countries, and wealthier than the rest of the PIGS.   Sure we were not well off, poverty was rife. But we were far from being the worst in the world or indeed in Europe. We had a better starting point at independence then many nations who’s standard of living and economies far out perform our own today.  Much of our problems we generated ourselves.

My greatest fear is that we do not learn the lessons from the celtic tiger and subsequent crash. There is no denying that German bankers, Anglo Irish, Fianna Fail, Catholic church and ECB all played a part in where we are today.  But we will be ill served by an attitude that we are not also somewhat to blame. That we are not responsible for the relation that these parties, banks and Churches had with the State.  We need to behave like adults and stand up and take responsibility for our actions not constantly look for scapegoats. Let us proclaim that yes, we did go mad borrowing, yes we allowed the Catholic church to have the power, yes Michael Lowry tops the poll every time.  For every reckless lender, be they Irish or German, there were reckless borrowers. Trying to divorce the average Joe and Mary’s wiliness to meet any price for a home and house prices rises will gain us nothing.  If we keep externalising the blame we are doomed to repeat the mistake that have characterised our history.

According to the latest national opinion poll in the Sunday Times, up to half the electorate doesn’t understand what the Stability Treaty, on which we are being asked to vote in a few weeks time , is about.  The opinion polls suggest that about 30 % of the electorate are committed to a ‘Yes’ vote,  slightly ahead of the number who will definitely vote ‘No’, with up to 40% still undecided as to which way they will cast their ballot when it comes to it. The committed ‘Yes’ vote should sound alarm bells for the government and pro-treaty activists: at this pre-campaign stage it would need to be a lot higher to guarantee a positive result. The government parties thus have a lot to do to convince a majority of the electorate that a ‘Yes’ to this Treaty, now positively renamed the ‘Stability Treaty’, is in the national interest and our own personal interests as well.

It doesn’t help, of course, that junior Minister for Europe, Lucinda Creighton, on RTE’s ‘This Week’ programme on Sunday is apparently the only person in the country who is unaware that Ireland is in recession. However, Fine Gael’s appointment of Simon Coveney, Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, as its Director of Elections for the referendum looks inspired. A born conciliator, Coveney is justifiably well regarded. He has shown himself  competent in his own portfolio. He is invariably courteous, genial and level- headed in his contributions to public debate. Most particularly, he can mobilise the all important farm vote to stick with the ‘Yes’ side.

Labour’s choice to lead the campaign, Joan Burton, Minister for Social Protection, brings many positive attributes to the task as well. Joan is a doughty and relentless campaigner, who doesn’t give up. She has fashioned herself as a celebrity figure in her own right. She is well respected and liked by women voters  - another crucial constituency in the campaign – and universally feted by the female press, in circumstances in which such media support for the Treaty is vital. Recently, she has been lionised by the Sunday Independent – another important media constituency in this referendum –  most likely due to her advice to her government colleagues to effectively shun any contact with personalities, such as Denis O’Brien, whose received unfavourable mention in the Moriarty and Mahon Tribunal reports.  That she has previously also come across as having little interest in the EU and, if anything, harbouring euro-sceptic inclinations, may also prove all to the good, since it only adds to her authenticity.  But within government, she has shown herself as divisive, more a ‘Minister for the Opposition’ than a collegiate member of the executive, which undoubtedly goes down well with Labour’s newbie backbenchers even if it occasionally causes consternation among her Ministerial colleagues and public confusion elsewhere.

Fianna Fail is also in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote, and is the only party that, thus far, has suffered a political casualty with the sacking of Deputy Leader Eamon O’Cuiv and his demotion to the back benches for raising doubts about the wisdom of his party’s stance. But if the referendum is lost, it will be the Government that will be badly wounded, possibly fatally in the medium term.

So what is it, exactly, we’re being asked to vote on? And why are so many members of the public confused about what’s involved in the Stablity Treaty?

There’s plenty of information available about the facts of the Treaty itself and interpretations as to its meaning. The Oireachtas Committee on EU Affairs has played host to economic  experts, members of the government, and a variety of interest groups and social commentators over the past three months. Anyone interested in reading submissions to the Committee should follow this link: http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/oireachtasbusiness/committees_list/eu-affairs/presentations/

The specific contents of the Stability Treaty have been variously summarised as ‘much ado about nothing’. The Fiscal Compact, Fiscal Treaty, now Stability Treaty, is basically an add on to the ‘Six Pack’ of measures to which all EU member states are already signed up. The Stability Treaty simply seeks to ensure that governments will enshrine in their basic law the revised rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, restricting their debt/GDP ratio to 60% and structural government deficit  to 0.5%. The carrot is if all eurozone governments sign up to this formula, then stability within the eurozone will be assured over the long term. The stick is that if individual governments fall by the wayside, they will be subject to penalties and will cede control of their national finances to the European Court of Justice and the EU Commission.

Twenty five of the 27 member states have indicated they will sign up to this formula – Britain and the Czech government being the exceptions. This is an intergovernmental treaty, not an EU treaty. It only needs twelve member states to become operational in January next year. So a succession of ‘no’ votes by a number of member states, including Ireland, makes no difference and cannot stop it going ahead.

That’s in theory anyway. In practice, the cracks are already beginning to appear. If the Treaty causes trouble in the remaining triple ‘A’ rated EU states, on which the beleageured member states, like Ireland, rely for export markets and continuing financial support, the Treaty itself may contain the seeds of further eurozone crises in the not too distant future.

The trouble with the formula for structural deficit and debt /GDP ratios as defined in the Treaty is that, as TCD economist Brian Lucey explained to the Oireachtas Committee, even well- run states like Holland and Austria, will be forced into fiscal contraction policy measures. This has already generated a political crisis in Holland. If Francois Hollande is elected French President in two weeks time he has promised he will seek to renegotiate this Treaty. The fact that Spain is generally believed to be on a knife edge of needing a bailout, others argue, with all that implies, make this inadequate and one-sided austerity package obsolete even before it comes into effect.

And that appears to be the problem as far as most international commentators, especially economists, are concerned: this Treaty is all about enforcing austerity but without any complementary plan to build growth in the eurozone. Professor Terence McDonough of NUIG labels the Treaty as a “dangerous experiment”, which will “undermine confidence” in Ireland as opposed to rebuilding the confidence that will be needed for Ireland to re-enter the bond markets at the end of the current ‘bailout’. UNITE economist, Michael Taft, points out that the whole notion of a structural deficit is hypothetical and the Treaty is “absurd”. Ask ten economists how to calculate the structural deficit, he says, and you will get twenty different methodologies and forty different answers.

UCD Law Professor, Gerry Whyte, regards the wording of the referendum that we are being asked to put into our Constitution as flawed. In his view, it is too general and should be accompanied by a Bill, so that legislation related to it would be impervious to any further constitutional challenge.

Those in favour of a ‘Yes’- such as the Chambers of Commerce – lay particular emphasis on Ireland’s reputation abroad and maintaining good relationships with the EU as key reasons for supporting the Treaty. For TCD economics professor and perhaps the foremost authority in this area, Philip Lane, the Treaty is just one step in an overall package of fiscal reforms within the EU which must come about in the fullness of time. In short, on balance, we’re better off agreeing to it than rejecting it.

Worst of all, there’s a gun to our head. The pro side point out that Ireland will not have access to  European Stability Mechanism (ESM) funding, in the event we cannot return to the markets when Ireland emerges from the current IMF/EU programme,  if we vote ‘No’. The clause in the Treaty that cuts off access to ESM funding to any country not signed up to the Stability Treaty is thus the strongest argument in favour of a ‘Yes’ vote.  It’s a negative arguments, but it plainly implies that Ireland has no other viable choice except to vote ‘Yes’.

Meanwhile, MANDATE trade union is advising its 45,000 members , mainly in the badly hit retail and catering sectors, to vote “No”. UNITE similarly, and the biggest trade union, SIPTU, makes its support conditional on the government  committing to a 10bn euro growth and investment programme rather than the ersatz jobs stimulus  programme on which the Government recently awarded itself a ‘96%’ approval mark and which increasingly feels like a bad joke.

So to its opponents, this Stability Treaty will simply enshrine the politics of austerity within our constitution. It creates an austerity trap from which generations to come will struggle to escape. To its proponents, it’s about a sensible and logical step towards stabilising the euro currency. It’s about not locking ourselves out of  access to further support funding from Europe should we need it (as appears increasingly likely despite government rhetoric to the contrary) after 2015. It’s about our ‘place in Europe’ and preserving good relations with the EU, which has, after all, bailed us out once already.

Almost universally, Irish and international economists, whether advocating a pragmatic ‘yes’ or a definite ‘no’, are agreed on one point: this is a badly constructed Treaty with loads of inherent flaws and contradictions that on its own, either does nothing much for, or may even damage, future economic growth in the eurozone.

To my mind, that raises a further issue that hasn’t attracted much commentary thus far. We have ‘previous’ on  inserting flawed clauses into our Constitution. Invariably, it turns out that it’s not a clever idea that causes no end of trouble down the line. If, as so many experts suggest, this Stability Treaty is inherently flawed and practically defunct even before the ink has properly dried on it, then should we really copperfasten it in Irish Constitutional law?

Now that all may be, but is a little Googling too much to expect? Here’s Davy’s summary of the deal, and they should know as they were involved in it:

Under the terms of the disposal, IBRC  [Anglo Irish Bank] has agreed to accept payment of an amount which is less than the total debt owed by the group in full and final discharge of its indebtedness. This agreement was critical to the proposed acquisition by Millington. [DOB vehicle]

In other words, the firm has a huge debt to pay and it can’t pay it. So to quote from one firm’s version of the e-mails that it sent with an offer price for the equity is meaningless. The Irish Times needs to explain what the French firm’s bid — which somehow missed the window where the company and IBRC were discussing what to do — would have done with the firm’s debt. You’d think by now in Ireland there’d be an understanding that legacy debt is a dealbreaker. Apparently not.

At 14:46 Japanese standard time on the 11th of March 2011 a magnitude 9 earthquake struck off the coast at Tōhoku. The earthquake and the ensuing Tsunami took the lives of 15,850 people. Television pictures flew around the world, showing utter devastation, with flood waters racing through the countryside, effortlessly sweeping aside cars and buildings in its path. It was, a relentless tide of destruction. Yet Tohoku is not a name that will live in infamy, instead, one year on, the name we associate most with this disaster is Fukushima.

With the 1st anniversary of the catastrophe approaching, media attention has once again returned to Fukushima with numerous pieces television and newspaper, assessing how the people of the region have recovered from the meltdown. Television News Networks seem to be falling over themselves to get journalist to don Hazmat suits and venture into the disaster area, accompanied of course by the ominous clicking of the Geiger counter.

The cause of the Fukushima disaster was the combined effect of the 5th largest recorded earthquake of all time and an ensuing tsunami. The earthquake caused the reactors to shutdown. As the reactors are used to provide power to the plant, this meant that the energy needed to keep the reactors cool had to come from somewhere else. The plant was equipped with emergency diesel generators for such an eventuality and these kicked in immediately. However once the tsunami hit, the diesel generators were flooded and ceased to function.  Without these, the temperatures in the reactor rose and a meltdown eventually occurred. The Fukushima plant was designed to withstand either event but not both.

Before Fukushima there was Chernobyl, a name that lives in infamy and is probably the most famous place in the Ukraine due entirely to the events of April 6th 1986 when, during a safety test, reactor 4 exploded sending radioactive material into the atmosphere.  Even though alot of time has passed since then, the number of deaths is still unclear.  A 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people. Greenpeace estimate a figure of around 200,000. This of course does not include the multitude of birth defects and other terrible consequences of the disaster.

It may surprise you to learn that at the time of writing, no one has officially died due to the meltdown at Fukushima. Of course, the long term effects of radiation exposure are difficult to accurately predict, and it will take some years until we have a clearer picture of the impact of Fukishima. The only reliable data we have about cancer rates due to dosages of radiation are  from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so the rate that cancer will rise in Japan due to Fukushina remains to be seen.

When ever Nuclear is debated in Ireland, much is made of incidents such as these. Radiation is a word that strikes fear in people, even though there is many forms of radiation including light. People look at what these plants emit and feel generally scared of what could happen their children if a nuclear plant was built near them. When a nuclear power plant was proposed for Ireland in the 70s at Carnsore Point, mass protests ensued and the plans were eventually dropped, leading to an eventual ban on nuclear power in Ireland.

However this debate is doing a disservice to our children’s safety. For decades now, people have been discussing and worrying about the discharge of Nuclear power, but wholly forgetting the discharge of others. Greenpeace claim that every year in the USA, coal fired power plants account for around 30,000 deaths per year mainly lung cancers from emission.  If you extrapolate  that to the 25 years since Chernobyl that is 750,000 deaths due to coal power stations. And looking at images of smog over Chinese cities it is easy to imagine these numbers are far higher for worldwide deaths. While is possible that Greenpeace would exaggerate their claims, comparing their Chernobyl figures and coal is telling. Again these figures need to be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt and treated like indicators rather then definitive numbers, due to these being statistical studies looking for effects above the normal background death rates.

When Fukushima happened many countries shut down their reactors fearing similar incidents. But what would have happened if Fukushima had been a hydro-electric dam? In 1975 a Typhoon caused the Banqiao dam in China to collapse. Flooding the area down stream, claiming the lives of 171,000 people. While it is likely Banqiao claimed as many, if not more lives than Chernobyl, it is a little known incident.

Research has been carried out on the clinical but morbid value of deaths per TWh (Terawatt hour)  of electricity produced these numbers suggest the death tolls shown in the table. (Europe Numbers from here). In addition to these I have included what would happen if you extrapolate  from these figures Ireland’s death rate from electricity production per year. Ireland produces roughly 25 TWh a year from various sources.

“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 28^th 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.

Many things have happened in Europe in the last year and a half. You have different countries that have different initial conditions–high debt, low growth countries and countries with low debt and high growth–and they pose the fundamental question of how do we go on without being a fiscal union. We can’t have a system where you spend as you want, and then you ask to issue (debt) together. You can’t have a system where you spend and I pay for that. Before we move to a fiscal union we have to have in place a system where countries can show that they can stand on their own. And this is the prerequisite for countries to trust each other. This so-called fiscal compact treaty is actually a major political achievement because it’s the first step towards a fiscal union. It’s a treaty whereby countries release national sovereignty in order to accept common fiscal rules that are especially binding, and accept monitoring and accept to have these rules in their primary legislation so they are not easy to change. So that’s the beginning.

Release of sovereignty, rules that are especially binding, rules in their primary legislation. Mario Draghi says that we need a referendum on the fiscal compact.

Right now there is a different ritual underway. The same civil servants from the Attorney General’s office who, according to Europe Minister Lucinda Creighton, were part of Ireland’s  negotiating team in Brussels on the Treaty, will be putting in their tuppence worth of advice to the Attorney General, to whom the Cabinet has now referred the question as to whether or not a referendum is required. The AG will be under ‘no pressure’ in coming to her decision, according to the Taosieach. It’s also a fact that the most the AG can do is advise the government of the day. It is ultimately their decision as to what happens, in light of any advice that is offered.

Then again, on the face of it, the Government has done as much as it can to ensure that the wording of the Treaty will not trigger a legal requirement for a referendum.

According to a scoop in the Irish Times, the Irish officials negotiating the final Treaty text were mandated to ensure that the Treaty wording would not necessitate a referendum in Ireland. The paper quoted an unnamed official. The Taoiseach told the Dail the following morning that he does not deal with comments in newspapers made by  unnamed officials, which is a bit rich considering the number of inspired leaks from within the government regularly attributed to ‘sources close to the government’,  or to some minister or other that the rest of the world is supposed to take seriously.

The Government does not want a referendum. Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore said as much at a meeting of the Dail Foreign Affairs Committee a couple of weeks ago. Transport Minister, Leo Varadkar, added fuel to the fire when he declared earlier this week that referendums are not necessarily the best way to make complex decisions (true); are not even especially democratic  within a system of representative politics ( arguable);  and that any referendum on this Treaty would be as much about  septic tanks and/or rivalries between the main opposition factions (definite) than the subject matter of the Treaty itself.  Both of these esteemed members of our Government were speaking well before any final text had been agreed in Brussels, never mind signed off by 25 of the 27 Eu Governments.

The Government has every right, too,  to be concerned that a referendum will not deliver a positive result. Last Sunday’s Red C opinion poll for the Sunday Business Post records 72%  in favour of a referendum but only a marginal majority in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. It’s a general rule of thumb that in any referendum on a contentious issue, a two thirds majority in favour is required at the outset of the campaign if there is to be any chance of the measure being carried. On the Red C figures, the referendum would not have a prayer.

The Treaty is contentious. Fianna Fail has come out in favour of a referendum as well as advocating a vigorous public information campaign by the Government on what the Treaty means for this country and what it will mean to our democracy, and control of our own economic destiny, over the long term.  It is taken as read that Sinn Fein will oppose ratification of this Treaty, whether the Government proceed through the parliamentary route of legislation or via a referendum of the people.  And, no doubt, there will be all sorts tripping over one another down in the Four Courts to launch constitutional actions to force a referendum should the Government stick with the legislative option.

But there is even more fun in store for us this time around. The Independents in the Dail are reported to be looking at using Article 27 of the Constitution to force a referendum on any Government sponsored legislation to ratify this Treaty. To do that, they will need  one third of Dail  members. As it stands, the opposition has 52 deputies against the Coalition’s 109, leaving aside the one Fine Gael TD, Denis Naughten, and two Labour, Tommy Broughan and Patrick Nulty, who have lost the parliamentary party whip.  There’s no guarantee that Broughan, Nulty or Neachtain  would line up with the rest of the Opposition to make up the numbers for an Article 27 plea. Even at that, one or more further defections from the government ranks would be required.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that the one third barrier is crossed. The initiative then passes to the Seanad where a majority of all Senators must agree or it’s a lost cause.  Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein have 17 Senators between them. There are 13 ‘Independents’, not all of whom could be relied upon to vote against the Government. But theoretically, with 30 votes, only one defection would be needed from the Govenment ranks  to deliver the required Senate majority.

More fun lies in store when the matter gets to Aras an Uachtarain, as the whole thing stops dead in its tracks unless President Michael D. Higgins accepts the motion of the Dail and Seanad.  Even after all that, this would not be an ‘ordinary’ referendum as we know and love them. A further constitutional provision kicks in, a subsection of Article 47, requiring that one third of all the electorate must vote ‘No’ for the Government’s proposed legislation to be defeated.  On a high overall turnout of about 70%, this suggests a 60% ‘No’ vote would be the least required to meet that threshold.

And hold on; it’s not even finished at that stage.  The Government could then dissolve the Dail and call a general election. Assuming the same parties won that election, they could settle the matter finally with a majority Dail vote.

Hardly surprising, then, that Article 27 has never been utilised since the 1937 Constitution came into effect. 

From the Government’s perspective, the easiest thing would be to bow to the inevitable and concede to a referendum long before any such process gathers political momentum. For Senators, there’s the chance  to demonstrate that the Seanad retains relevance within our democracy and should not be abolished as Enda Kenny has pledged.  Our new President, Michael D Higgins, would be faced with a lonely decision, though based on his track record of personal and political integrity and his commitment to act in the best interests of the people, it should not be a difficult decision for him.

The real losers here may be the Government, whatever way they turn.  They might do better to go for a referendum option and fight their corner than politically brazening it out and hiding behind the Attorney General’s legal advice.  The issue is not whether a referendum is legally required to ratify this instrument;  a referendum on the Treaty is now a political demand. Tough it out against all challenges, including the Article 27 process, and they just  might get away with it, given the strength of their parliamentary majority, the lack of any half-way attractive alternative government on offer and the propensity of the electorate to forget what happened last week never mind  within a timeframe of three years ago which is the old territory of the distant past where this Treaty would belong by the time the next general election comes into view.  Or so they may reckon.

Except that this Treaty is not about some fluffy broken election promises. It goes to the heart of Ireland democratic future. People need to be informed about what it means and what are its implications for the future. The public want to debate what’s in the best interests, of what may be the least bad option in respect of the decisions that have to be made and which we, as citizens, want to have a say. It’s a simple equation in political terms: no referendum = loss of credibility. Probably fatal too, over the long haul.