THERE HAS been for many years a treaty obligation on member states to "regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern". The opening lines of the "Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union", agreed in Brussels on Monday, do no more than remind us of that obligation to share or pool our economic sovereignty. The treaty strengthens the administrative and legal means by which it is to be honoured - in the past, unfortunately, often more in the breach.
Let's suppose the doubters are wrong and that the Treaty, with its pompous title "for Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union", is worth something. Well, the text develops only the idea of "stability", of budgetary discipline. The rest of the title is not mentioned in the actual text. It has to be repeated ad nauseam that only Article 9 (of the 16) mandates "promoting economic growth." And it requires that the signatories "take the actions and measures necessary" for that growth. But it specifies none. There is nothing that is actually obligatory. There are no fines for those who don't take those actions and measures for growth. There are no threats to haul off to the Court of Luxembourg those who fall by the wayside. And yet, in contrast to all that, the Treaty sets out very precisely the sanctions to be meted out to all who fail to follow the provisions for cutting deficits. In this asymmetry lies the joke: the package is being sold as a tool to drive the two poles of economic policy, yet only develops one.
It has to be repeated ad nauseam that only Article 9 (of the 16) mandates "promoting economic growth." And it requires that the signatories "take the actions and measures necessary" for that growth. But it specifies none. There is nothing that is actually obligatory. There are no fines for those who don't take those actions and measures for growth. There are no threats to haul off to the Court of Luxembourg those who fall by the wayside.
And yet, in contrast to all that, the Treaty sets out very precisely the sanctions to be meted out to all who fail to follow the provisions for cutting deficits. In this asymmetry lies the joke: the package is being sold as a tool to drive the two poles of economic policy, yet only develops one.
Conceding that the decision to hold a vote could well go to the Irish Supreme Court, the official argued that a referendum has "nothing to do with democracy." The Irish Times notes that -While it is not absolutely clear which parts of the treaty were written to suit the Government, Irish officials are known to have sought scope to adopt strict new limits to debt and deficits in legislation rather than through the Constitution.Nevertheless, Irish opposition parties including Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin are lining up mount a legal challenge to force a vote, writes the Irish Examiner, in a context of increasingly bitter debates in parliament.
While it is not absolutely clear which parts of the treaty were written to suit the Government, Irish officials are known to have sought scope to adopt strict new limits to debt and deficits in legislation rather than through the Constitution.
