Psycho Punk
Active Member
And economists do it so well. Look at how the establishment ones predicted the crisis so well.
Yeah.
-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
Referendum 2012: It's On (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rettucs
- Start date
- Replies 241
- Views 16K
- Watchers 5
And economists do it so well. Look at how the establishment ones predicted the crisis so well.
Yeah.
So you're comfortable with an oligarchy?
Well yeah there were plenty of economists predicting the downturn. The elected officials didn't want to hear it. There's a short list here but there were articles in the Irish press as far back as 2002 or 3 saying watch out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/...-econ_n_276973.html?slidenumber=0#slide_image
I'm comfortable with anything that gets us going in the right direction. I don't see the same boogie men that seemingly everyone else does and I sure as fuck don't see how the same bunch of half wits who got us into this mess are going to get us out of it.
тхеодоре кацзынски
Well-Known Member
It could be argued that what we now have is an oligarchy.
There is a lot to be said for a technocratic system in that the people in charge will actually know what they're doing as opposed to our current 'jobs for the boys' system.
Exactly you said that way better than I did.
furthermore this :
Seriously.
furthermore this :
Seriously.
- Joined
- May 16, 2012
- Messages
- 5,529
ann post said:
Youre out of your mind.
Everyone's a moron and can't see past the name of the thing?
There was enough debate for anyone that cared to know what was in it.
Should they just call it a colour or give it a dogs name or something?
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2002
- Messages
- 38,377
- Solutions
- 3
well, not everyone
I've no doubt there are entrenched interests in the Irish political system, it's riven with issues, however the ultimate issue is we keep electing cunts. It's a flawed democracy.
As regards a technocratic approach, it seems on the face of it reasonable. It's creating such a system while preserving democracy that's the tricky part. These experts are not accountable to the Irish people. Those lousers we voted for are, more or less. I'm also slightly dubious as to how much these people do actually know what they're doing. Ask two economists any question on any economic issue and you'll find two (often wildly) differing answers. There's also the huge issue that what's good for the European business and finance elite might not be good for the average person in the street.
The Simpsons long ago satirised the technocratic ideal to great comic effect in teh episode They Saved Lisa's Brain.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2002
- Messages
- 38,377
- Solutions
- 3
The term 'lousers' is used far too little these days. Let's bring it back
Can anyone who actually read the thing cover to cover 'like' this post, and if you didnt, dislike it.
тхеодоре кацзынски
Well-Known Member
I don't think a technocracy need be inherently anti-democratic though,we just need candidates running for election that have the relevant experience in the field they wish to administer.
It would involve change in our electoral system but that would surely be a small price to pay for far greater gains.
On the point of big business V the man on the street-that's an argument that will probably never go away regardless of the form of government.
Bollox. Who has been held accountable for this fucking mess ?
Psycho Punk
Active Member
Well at least all of those FF tds who lost their seats were held accountable.
Would a technocrat government increase taxes on the rich or cut spending on health?
At least now we can organise to fight cutbacks and let Lab tds know they will lose their seats if they continue with this war against ordinary people.
Which is it to be?
A wealth tax or cut services to the disabled?
A higher rate of tax for those earning > €100,000 pa or close hospital wards?
Psycho Punk
Active Member
The reasons which lead us to believe that the ESM Treaty as it stands is illegal under EU law and therefore unconstitutional in Ireland
The proposal to ratify the European Stability Mechanism Treaty as it stands and to approve the Article 136 TFEU amendment to the EU Treaties as authorizing the Stability Mechanism envisaged in the ESM Treaty, are unlawful under the EU Treaties and are therefore unconstitutional in Ireland and the other EU Member States.
There are constitutional challenges to the ESM Treaty and the Article 136 TFEU amendment in Germany, in Estonia and in Ireland. In this country independent Dáil Deputy for Donegal Mr. Thomas Pringle has launched a constitutional challenge on these matters which opens in the Irish High Court on 19 June.
Deputy Pringle's lawyers are seeking a constitutional referendum in Ireland on the ESM Treaty. They are also claiming that the EU Treaties should be amended under a different provision of the Art. 48 TEU treaty revision procedure than that currently used of the ESM Treaty as it stands is to be lawfully ratified under EU law.
Deputy Pringle's legal action is seeking to defend the principle that the EU is an entity governed by the rule of law in face of a political attempt to change the EU treaties by subterfuge and to open a way to transforming the present EMU into a fiscal-political union for the Eurozone.
While my colleagues and I are not involved in Deputy Pringle's action, we and many other Irish people share his concerns that the integrity of the existing EU Treaties and the Irish Constitution be upheld in face of the attempt by some Eurozone Governments effectively to take the Eurozone captive for their own ends and to organize the Economic and Monetary Union on quite different principles from heretofore by means of this ESM Treaty. We have respectfully requested several ambassadors therefore, to urge their Governments not to proceed with their country's ratification of the ESM Treaty or approval of the Article 136 TFEU authorisation, until the Irish Courts have ruled on the issues raised by this constitutional action.
The reasons which lead us to believe that the ESM Treaty as it stands is illegal under EU law and unconstitutional in Ireland are the following:-
1. Article 3 TFEU of the EU Treaties which have been agreed by all 27 EU Member States provides that monetary policy for the countries using the euro is a matter of "exclusive competence" of the EU as a whole.
It is not therefore open to the 17 Member States of the Eurozone to attempt effectively to diminish the competence of the Union and to establish among themselves a Stability Mechanism entailing a €700 billion permanent bailout fund to lend to Eurozone governments as envisaged in the ESM Treaty. This ESM fund, to which Ireland would have to make significant contributions for the indefinite future, would trench profoundly on monetary policy for the euro area.
The Stability Mechanism envisaged in the ESM Treaty is effectively an attempt to find a way round the "no bailouts" provision of Article 125 TFEU, whereby it is forbidden for the EU to take on the debt of Member States or for Member States to take on the debt of other Member States.
It also breaches other EU Treaty articles. The ESM Treaty if ratified as it stands would effectively amount to an attempt to open a legal-political path to what France's President Nicolas Sarkozy called for last November, namely "A Federation for the Eurozone and a Confederation for the rest of the EU".
A radical step of this kind, which would transform the Economic and Monetary Union from what it has been up to now, may only lawfully be taken by means of the "ordinary" treaty amendment procedure of Art. 48.2 TEU. It cannot lawfully be done by means of a mere Decision of the European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents under the "simplified" treaty amendment procedure of Art. 48.6 TEU. The latter procedure is meant to deal with minor technical amendments to the treaties, but is currently being used by the governments of the 17 Eurozone countries in an attempt to alter radically the character of the EMU by ratifying this ESM Treaty as it stands.
2. How can it be lawful for the ESM Treaty to permit a permanent ESM loan fund to be established for the 17 Eurozone countries when the express terms of the Article 136 TFEU amendment, agreed by all 27 EU Governments, authorises a Stability Mechanism only if that is established unanimously by the Eurozone States, as the general provisions of EU law require, viz:
"The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole" (emphasis added).
The Art. 136 amendment to the EU Treaties does not say that "Member States", meaning some of them, may establish a Stability Mechanism, but rather "The Member States" , namely all of them (In French "Les" Membres rather than "Des" Membres).
Yet the ESM Treaty which has been concluded among the 17 provides that the Stability Mechanism it envisages may come into being once States contributing 90% of the capital of the proposed fund have ratified the treaty.
The eight largest Eurozone States, a minority of the 17, can therefore establish this Stability Mechanism, while other Eurozone States that may need assistance from it badly are excluded.
How then can this be a Stability Mechanism "for the euro area as a whole", as article 136 TFEU, which still has to be constitutionally approved by all 27 EU Member States, requires?
Likewise the so-called Fiscal Treaty - the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU - on which Irish voters have just voted and which cross-refers to the ESM Treaty, provides that it can come into force when it is ratified by 12 Eurozone Members.
Does not this treaty also require unanimous ratification by all 17 Eurozone Members before it can be lawfully binding on them under EU law?
3. How can the ESM Treaty be lawfully ratified by July 2012, as is the stated intention of the 17 Eurozone governments concerned, when the Article 136 TFEU amendment to the EU Treaties authorising a Stability Mechanism does not have legal effect, once if has been constitutionally approved by all 27 EU Member States, until 1 January 2013?
Does not this mean that any treaty purporting to establish an ESM before 2013 must be legally void? ESM Treaty No. 1 which was signed by Eurozone Finance Ministers in July 2011 but was never sent round for ratification, conformed to the 2013 time-frame set by the Art. 136 TFEU authorisation, whereas ESM Treaty No. 2 which was signed by EU Ambassadors on 2 February 2012 does not.
This shows again how the exigencies of a political response to the financial crisis by some Eurozone States puts them in breach of EU law and therefore of the Irish Constitution.
4. EU Member States may only sign international treaties that are compatible with EU law. The EU Court of Justice has made clear that intergovernmental agreements cannot affect the allocation of responsibilities defined in the EU Treaties.
The provisions of the ESM Treaty and the Fiscal Treaty which involve the EU Commission and Court of Justice in the implementation of the proposed ESM go well beyond what is permissible under the current EU treaties and are therefore unlawful.
Copies of this article are being released to the Irish and international media for their information regarding the concerns which are widely shared in this country that the proposed ESM Treaty is in violation of EU law and in breach of the Irish Constitution.
Anthony Coughlan
Director
http://www.nationalplatform.org
The proposal to ratify the European Stability Mechanism Treaty as it stands and to approve the Article 136 TFEU amendment to the EU Treaties as authorizing the Stability Mechanism envisaged in the ESM Treaty, are unlawful under the EU Treaties and are therefore unconstitutional in Ireland and the other EU Member States.
There are constitutional challenges to the ESM Treaty and the Article 136 TFEU amendment in Germany, in Estonia and in Ireland. In this country independent Dáil Deputy for Donegal Mr. Thomas Pringle has launched a constitutional challenge on these matters which opens in the Irish High Court on 19 June.
Deputy Pringle's lawyers are seeking a constitutional referendum in Ireland on the ESM Treaty. They are also claiming that the EU Treaties should be amended under a different provision of the Art. 48 TEU treaty revision procedure than that currently used of the ESM Treaty as it stands is to be lawfully ratified under EU law.
Deputy Pringle's legal action is seeking to defend the principle that the EU is an entity governed by the rule of law in face of a political attempt to change the EU treaties by subterfuge and to open a way to transforming the present EMU into a fiscal-political union for the Eurozone.
While my colleagues and I are not involved in Deputy Pringle's action, we and many other Irish people share his concerns that the integrity of the existing EU Treaties and the Irish Constitution be upheld in face of the attempt by some Eurozone Governments effectively to take the Eurozone captive for their own ends and to organize the Economic and Monetary Union on quite different principles from heretofore by means of this ESM Treaty. We have respectfully requested several ambassadors therefore, to urge their Governments not to proceed with their country's ratification of the ESM Treaty or approval of the Article 136 TFEU authorisation, until the Irish Courts have ruled on the issues raised by this constitutional action.
The reasons which lead us to believe that the ESM Treaty as it stands is illegal under EU law and unconstitutional in Ireland are the following:-
1. Article 3 TFEU of the EU Treaties which have been agreed by all 27 EU Member States provides that monetary policy for the countries using the euro is a matter of "exclusive competence" of the EU as a whole.
It is not therefore open to the 17 Member States of the Eurozone to attempt effectively to diminish the competence of the Union and to establish among themselves a Stability Mechanism entailing a €700 billion permanent bailout fund to lend to Eurozone governments as envisaged in the ESM Treaty. This ESM fund, to which Ireland would have to make significant contributions for the indefinite future, would trench profoundly on monetary policy for the euro area.
The Stability Mechanism envisaged in the ESM Treaty is effectively an attempt to find a way round the "no bailouts" provision of Article 125 TFEU, whereby it is forbidden for the EU to take on the debt of Member States or for Member States to take on the debt of other Member States.
It also breaches other EU Treaty articles. The ESM Treaty if ratified as it stands would effectively amount to an attempt to open a legal-political path to what France's President Nicolas Sarkozy called for last November, namely "A Federation for the Eurozone and a Confederation for the rest of the EU".
A radical step of this kind, which would transform the Economic and Monetary Union from what it has been up to now, may only lawfully be taken by means of the "ordinary" treaty amendment procedure of Art. 48.2 TEU. It cannot lawfully be done by means of a mere Decision of the European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents under the "simplified" treaty amendment procedure of Art. 48.6 TEU. The latter procedure is meant to deal with minor technical amendments to the treaties, but is currently being used by the governments of the 17 Eurozone countries in an attempt to alter radically the character of the EMU by ratifying this ESM Treaty as it stands.
2. How can it be lawful for the ESM Treaty to permit a permanent ESM loan fund to be established for the 17 Eurozone countries when the express terms of the Article 136 TFEU amendment, agreed by all 27 EU Governments, authorises a Stability Mechanism only if that is established unanimously by the Eurozone States, as the general provisions of EU law require, viz:
"The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole" (emphasis added).
The Art. 136 amendment to the EU Treaties does not say that "Member States", meaning some of them, may establish a Stability Mechanism, but rather "The Member States" , namely all of them (In French "Les" Membres rather than "Des" Membres).
Yet the ESM Treaty which has been concluded among the 17 provides that the Stability Mechanism it envisages may come into being once States contributing 90% of the capital of the proposed fund have ratified the treaty.
The eight largest Eurozone States, a minority of the 17, can therefore establish this Stability Mechanism, while other Eurozone States that may need assistance from it badly are excluded.
How then can this be a Stability Mechanism "for the euro area as a whole", as article 136 TFEU, which still has to be constitutionally approved by all 27 EU Member States, requires?
Likewise the so-called Fiscal Treaty - the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU - on which Irish voters have just voted and which cross-refers to the ESM Treaty, provides that it can come into force when it is ratified by 12 Eurozone Members.
Does not this treaty also require unanimous ratification by all 17 Eurozone Members before it can be lawfully binding on them under EU law?
3. How can the ESM Treaty be lawfully ratified by July 2012, as is the stated intention of the 17 Eurozone governments concerned, when the Article 136 TFEU amendment to the EU Treaties authorising a Stability Mechanism does not have legal effect, once if has been constitutionally approved by all 27 EU Member States, until 1 January 2013?
Does not this mean that any treaty purporting to establish an ESM before 2013 must be legally void? ESM Treaty No. 1 which was signed by Eurozone Finance Ministers in July 2011 but was never sent round for ratification, conformed to the 2013 time-frame set by the Art. 136 TFEU authorisation, whereas ESM Treaty No. 2 which was signed by EU Ambassadors on 2 February 2012 does not.
This shows again how the exigencies of a political response to the financial crisis by some Eurozone States puts them in breach of EU law and therefore of the Irish Constitution.
4. EU Member States may only sign international treaties that are compatible with EU law. The EU Court of Justice has made clear that intergovernmental agreements cannot affect the allocation of responsibilities defined in the EU Treaties.
The provisions of the ESM Treaty and the Fiscal Treaty which involve the EU Commission and Court of Justice in the implementation of the proposed ESM go well beyond what is permissible under the current EU treaties and are therefore unlawful.
Copies of this article are being released to the Irish and international media for their information regarding the concerns which are widely shared in this country that the proposed ESM Treaty is in violation of EU law and in breach of the Irish Constitution.
Anthony Coughlan
Director
http://www.nationalplatform.org
- Joined
- May 16, 2012
- Messages
- 5,529
I can't remember the last time I heard such crybabyism.
The name of the treaty was biased?
Even happier About the result when I read hogwash like this.
Yeah, that's right. Hogwash!
The name of the treaty was biased?
Even happier About the result when I read hogwash like this.
Yeah, that's right. Hogwash!
shower another shower
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 5,740
anybody that thinks they've any control over anything except their own brains is delusional.
shower another shower
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2003
- Messages
- 5,740
and stoopid.
Psycho Punk
Active Member
Wow! You demolish his entire argument with a one liner!
You are some guy!
Have you any opinion on the ESM or do you even realise that its separate from what we just voted on?
You are a moron grade one.
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
Similar threads
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade now