Sir, – I was disappointed to hear the recent comments of Minster for Finance, Michael Noonan about Greece (Business, May 16th). It may be that there are no substantial commercial links between the two countries, yet if Greece chooses to exit the euro zone the consequences will be felt in Ireland as well.
His comment shows that he has no concept of the current European reality, and it is unfortunate that he chose that statement to show his support for the Yes side of the upcoming fiscal treaty referendum. If the Minister was a man of the world he should have known that nations with rich food culture and cuisine enjoy international respect for their food products due to their exquisite taste and excellent quality. In addition, making fun out of Greece, whose people are suffering at the hands of the international money traders, and whose fate is not far from the fate of other peripheral fellow European nations (including the Irish), is offensive, callous and borders on discrimination.
I would like to remind the Minister that he shares much more in his everyday life with Greece than feta cheese. It may be easy to live without feta cheese, or Guinness for that matter, but one cannot live without philosophy to think and question, democracy and science to prosper, and a language able to express these concepts. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – As someone who is faced with the “long commute” (Galway to London) every week, where is my opportunity to participate in this referendum on fiscal stability?
Why is a Thursday a suitable day for a vote? For whom is it suitable? Why can we not be more like the French and vote on a Sunday?
Perhaps TDs who have the freedom to leave work and head home to vote whenever they like don’t see this as a problem, but I do. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – On page 10 of the Referendum Commission publication it states “The Treaty starts with ‘recitals’ .. .”. I wonder if this could mean that, if passed, we will be singing off the same hymn sheet as all other the euro-zone ensembles? And, if rejected, could we be the solo act beating our own drum? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It is very telling that Lucinda Creighton TD would choose to attack me personally (May 18th) rather than deal with the substance of my argument (Opinion, May 16th) that passing the fiscal treaty would help undermine the Irish corporate tax regime.
As a lawyer and member of the European Parliament’s AFCO (Constitutional Affairs Committee) I submitted amendments to give effective substance to the proposed protocols on Irish taxation. These amendments were defeated, so I then proudly voted against the toothless text that was finally approved by AFCO and the European Parliament in April: “Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any member state, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.”
Of course, the Irish people were promised during the Lisbon II referendum in 2009 that “legally binding guarantees” would be agreed and signed in a protocol by all member states at the time of the next EU accession agreement. Croatian accession has come and gone yet there is no such ratified protocol in place, a full two-and-a-half years after the government promises.
I was busy on the day that the European Parliament voted overwhelming in favour of the Thyssen report for compulsory corporate tax base (CCCTB) and missed this vote. However, the EPP group, of which Fine Gael is part, voted overwhelming to accept this report which would have devastating consequences for the Irish corporate tax income. Pat the Cope Gallagher (Fianna Fáil) also voted for this report while Nessa Childers and Phil Prendergast (Labour) abstained.
It is comical that a Minister of State for Europe would assert that the fiscal treaty has nothing to do with tax – just look at its name. The adviser to François Hollande told listeners to Newstalk on Wednesday that France now wishes to introduce a EU-wide harmonised corporate tax rate across the euro zone, as part of a quid pro quo. As an advocate of a financial transaction tax (hurtful to the IFSC) as well as CCCTB, M Hollande will certainly be no friend of Ireland’s economic health.
So who will defend you? During Lisbon II, Ms Creighton held up “Vote Yes for Jobs” posters yet since that time 119,000 people have lost their jobs.
Now, she is telling the Irish people they can trust a Europhile government which caves in to every EU demand. She was completely wrong telling people at the time of the last Fine Gael ardfheis that the corporate tax issue was not on the EU agenda, when it very much is.
If the Government position on corporate tax rate is that it is non-negotiable then why would you tell EU heads of state in July last year that you were willing to “participate constructively” on discussions about the CCCTB directive.
As my article pointed out, if a green light is given to deeper fiscal union, it does not even matter if your country has a veto on its corporate tax rate. Due to the CCCTB proposal from the Commission, a portion of that corporate tax base will go to other “enhanced co-operation” countries leaving Ireland with the choice to live with less money or voluntarily increase the corporate tax rate itself to get in the same money. I would assert a Yes-side government cannot be trusted and that the people of Ireland must defend their own corporate tax regime themselves by voting No to this treaty and refusing assent to deeper fiscal union. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Obviously Michael Noonan does not shop at Lidl. It has a delicious yogurt which I have purchased regularly for a number of years now and it comes all the way from Greece at a price and texture that would give its Irish counterparts a good run for their money! – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If we vote Yes, we permanently lose one of the most basic democratic tools a country has – the ability to vote-in a government that can make flexible financial policy to suit our needs at any given time.
Let’s not forget that being tied into the euro zone, with no control over our interest rates or currency, is part of what got us into this mess in the first place. Do we really need to tighten the straps of the straightjacket further?
If we vote No, we retain some degree of independent control over our financial policy but the Yes camp tells us we won’t have access to the ESM (money from Europe). Fine Gael is telling us we won’t need a second bailout, so that shouldn’t matter. Anyway, access to this fund is not guaranteed even if we do vote Yes. If Italy and Spain need bailouts – which looks increasingly likely – there simply won’t be enough money to go round. So in return for totally surrendering our economic sovereignty, our access to the ESM would be an empty promise. The Yes camp tells us to vote Yes for “jobs and stability”. I can’t find any guarantee of jobs anywhere in the whole tedious text of the financial treaty document and as for “stability” – who needs the stability of poverty? If we vote Yes, the treaty will oblige us to make much bigger cuts in the budget, and I wonder if it has yet occurred to the Irish voters where these cuts might come from.
It’s no secret that the troika wants us to “do something” about the free medical cards, electricity and TV licences for pensioners, for a start. On the whole, I can’t believe the Irish electorate will be so foolish as to vote Yes on May 31st. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Pearse Doherty TD (Opinion, May 18th) refers to Sinn Féin’s proposed €7 billion “investment package” set out in its pre-budget submission last November being funded by the National Pension Reserve Fund and the European Investment Bank (EIB). In that submission, Sinn Féin called for the Government to draw down €1.7 billion from the European Investment Bank over 2012-2014, to be spent on broadband (€1.1 billion), wind energy (€400 million) and re-generating parts of Dublin and Limerick (€200 million).
It says this €1.7 billion “should be within our [ie Ireland’s] allocation” [for the three years]. Its “detailed” proposals for this EIB spending consisted of three short paragraphs, amounting to just 12 lines in total.
First, Sinn Féin seems to be unaware that Ireland is already drawing down its European Investment Bank allocation, an average of €550 million annually (or €1.7 million over three years!), including for projects now proposed in its “investment package” (eg wind energy). Last November, the European Investment Bank announced loans of €235 million for the ESB network and €90 million for UCD while in December, it agreed a €150 million loan for onward lending to small to medium enterprises by AIB.
Labour’s Minister for Education, Ruairí Quinn, is negotiating a €100 million loan to part-fund a €200 million schools capital investment programme. Is Sinn Féin really suggesting that the well-developed projects already agreed and under negotiation with the European Investment Bank should be abandoned in favour of its “back-of-an-envelope” musings?
Second, Sinn Féin is clearly unaware of other, recent EU initiatives of relevance here. In October 2011, the European Commission issued proposals for a new €50 billion Connecting Europe Facility to help develop Europe’s infrastructure by 2020, including €9 billion to ensure every person in Europe has access to ultra-fast broadband by 2020. Is it not unusual that Sinn Féin’s “investment package”, which highlights broadband, makes no reference to this major new EU initiative on broadband?
In the stability treaty debates, Sinn Féin regularly falls back on the EIB whenever it is asked where Ireland would get funding to pay public servants’ salaries and provide essential public services if we exclude ourselves from the ESM by voting No.
On the basis of its own documents however, Sinn Fein is seeking no increase on the €550 million that Ireland already draws down from the EIB each year.
I do not see how our existing EIB annual allocation of €550 million could cover our annual budget deficit of €14 billion, and help create 100,000 jobs at the same time? For me, the Sinn Féin arguments do not add up, once again. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – One section of the treaty stands out starkly. Article 3 states quite bluntly that participating governments must bring in balanced budgets. If words mean anything this means that governments must not spend more than they take in. But how can Ireland meet that condition?
At present there is a gaping hole of €10 billion, or is it €20 billion, between what the Government takes in and what it spends. How can that gap be spirited away? Of course if we are told that a balanced budget as in the treaty does not mean a balanced budget as the term is generally understood, then can anything in the treaty be taken at face value? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Is it possible to vote in favour of the stability treaty but against the austerity treaty? – Yours, etc,