Preparing for European treaty vote

A chara, – The publicity gimmick that was the occasion of certain TDs and an MEP seeking a postponement of the referendum on…

A chara, – The publicity gimmick that was the occasion of certain TDs and an MEP seeking a postponement of the referendum on the stability treaty does not surprise me given the record of some of them.

It was nothing more than a populist and opportunistic expression of wanting to have it both ways and for certain of the participants another chance to display their usual bombastic and hyperbolic outpourings full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

Yesterday’s stunt has demonstrated that Tadhg an da thaobh is still alive and well among some politicians. – Is mise,

BRENDAN KEARNEY,

READ MORE

Meadow Close,

Blackrock, Co Dublin.

Sir, – It is wholly inaccurate to state that passing the referendum would amount to a “constitutional ban” on Keynesian economics, as claimed by Eoin Dillon (May 15th).

The proposed amendment to the Constitution would allow the State to ratify the stability treaty – no more, no less. An additional sentence simply protects from constitutional challenge any laws enacted, acts done, or measures adopted which are necessitated as a consequence of the treaty.

There is to be no constitutional ban on anything.

If the referendum is passed, legislation (the General Scheme of which has already been published) would be introduced in the Oireachtas to give legal effect to the fiscal rules. They are not being placed in the Constitution.

As to whether these statutory rules amount to a ban on Keynesian economics, there can be legitimate debate. Personally, I do not believe that fiscal rules by definition prohibit future State investment in the economy. A State could decide to re-allocate resources from current to capital expenditure, for example. Or it could tax more. Either course could be adopted whilst remaining within the fiscal rules.

That said, it is true that there needs to be a vigorous strategy for growth and investment – a strategy that can only succeed if it is anchored in a broader European-led initiative of the kind now being advanced by President Hollande. – Yours, etc,

ALEX WHITE TD,

Dáil Éireann,

Leinster House, Dublin 2.

Sir, – Anthony Leavy (May 10th) suggests that members of the No campaign are a privileged elite who will be “cushioned from the worst consequences of their advice,” as he sees it the possibility that we could be “shut out from some sources of international funding”.

The same might be said of proponents of a Yes vote, that a proselytising privileged elite will not have to face its consequences, but with a different but validly projected aftermath of course. Mr Leavy and others insist on concentrating on “getting money”. Few people in this debate mention the fact that we will have to contribute to the Authorised Capital Stock, “on a timely basis” , and that we will be fined if we fail to meet the deadlines enforced. Indeed, even if we are receiving financial assistance we must still meet the obligations we will embrace if we vote Yes.

Are those who want us to agree to this treaty aware that they may be leading us towards further and increasingly entrenched debt? – Yours, etc,

MARIE MACSWEENEY,

Dublin Road,

Drogheda, Co Louth.

Sir, – Brendan Cafferty (May 15th) quite rightly deplores the interference of UKIP MEP Nigel Farage in the referendum campaign, on the grounds that no one in this State can vote for Mr Farage, that Mr Farage does not pay taxes here, that Mr Cafferty has never met Mr Farage, and does not feel that said MEP can be said to represent him.

Mr Farage’s interventions are probably of little consequence, but it is unfortunate that quite so many of the forces interfering in national affairs these days (the European Commission, the IMF, the ECB, the ratings agencies) are similarly unelected (by Irish citizens, at any rate), unaccountable, distant and unrepresentative. – Yours, etc,

GUY WOODWARD,

Ossory Road,

North Strand,

Dublin 3.

Sir, – Brian Ahern (May 15th) correctly notes that the No side is doing its utmost to make the title “austerity treaty” stick. What he misses is that the Yes side has beaten his “prosperity treaty” suggestion to the punch.

Mr Ahern refers to the “stability treaty” as does most of the Yes campaign; even the Referendum Commission refers to the “Fiscal Stability Treaty”. The Irish Times and other sources, such as RTÉ, cling to neutral labels like “European treaty vote” and “fiscal treaty”, no doubt cognisant that the word “stability” is every bit as loaded with bias as the word “austerity”.

Meanwhile, the Government has managed to shell out millions in public funds on the StabilityTreaty.ieinformation campaign.

Subliminal indeed. – Yours, etc,

JOHN SUGRUE,

Glenbeigh, Co Kerry.

Sir, – On Monday morning I received The Independent Guide to the Fiscal Treaty through the post. Enfolded within it was a similar-sized and colour-coded document from the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group advocating a No Vote and quoting Colm McCarthy in support of its argument. How independent is that and will someone tell me what is going on? – Yours, etc,

LOUIS O’FLAHERTY,

Lorcan Drive, Santry, Dublin 9.

Sir, – Perhaps the green lights appearing on taxis are a show of support for a Yes vote in the upcoming referendum, showing the drivers’ support for further co-operation and integration between the nations of Europe? – Yours, etc,

DES DORIS,

Trafalgar Lane,

Monkstown,

Co Dublin.