TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 13 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Government should not include fiscal rules in constitution – advisory council

The Fiscal Advisory Council has said that the proposed fiscal compact should not be enshrined in the constitution.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny will attend an EU summit in Brussels next week.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny will attend an EU summit in Brussels next week.
Image: Geert Vanden Wijngaert/AP/Press Association Images

THE GOVERNMENT HAS been advised to not seek to include the proposed new fiscal rules in the Constitution by the Fiscal Advisory Council.

The Council was established last year to offer independent analysis on whether or not the government is meeting its budgetary targets. It has recommended that the Fiscal Compact Treaty – to be finalised by EU leaders next week – should not be enshrined in the constitution.

The issue of whether or not it is required that the treaty be included in the Constitution is currently being examined by the Attorney General. A change in the Constitution requires a referendum.

In a report published today entitled Strengthening Ireland’s Fiscal Integration, the Council examines the Fiscal Compact Treaty which is currently in draft stage but which will be finalised in Brussels by EU leaders next week.

The treaty is intended to enshrine budget discipline by imposing rules on the amount of debt a country can hold and penalising those who break the rules. In present form it allows member states to choose whether or not to incorporate a debt reduction mechanism either constitutionally or through national legislation.

The Council says that the proposed fiscal rules would lack “the necessary flexibility and operability” if included in the constitution. It recommends that the enforcement mechanisms be strengthened while still allowing “ultimate democratic control”.

It said the rules would be more effectively achieved if enshrined in national legislation as has been the case in countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

The chair of the Fiscal Advisory Council, John McHale of NUI Galway, told RTÉ’s Morning Ireland that any laws enshrining sound fiscal management should include “little bit more than ordinary legislation” which would sufficiently satisfy EU partners that the laws would not easily be reversed.

The Council also recommends: “Each new Government  should  set out explicit  targets for the  debt-to-GDP ratio over a five-year period  as well as an indicative ten-year target. This would form part of a Fiscal Statement for Government.”

Enda Kenny: New EU treaty is ‘absolutely in Ireland’s interest’

Noonan: Referendum won’t be held just to ‘test public opinion’

Read next:

Comments (19 Comments)

  • Every politician should be investigated past and present, to insure that all their assets they’ve acquired are legitimate.
    Its been clear to people for years now, that most if not all have or had some sort of scam at one stage seems to be the norm.

    Reply
  • Message to the Attorney General……………Please listen to the people of Ireland and rule for a referendum on this……….

    Reply
  • Simon 26/01/12 #

    Personally I believe that this treaty will have such far reaching effects, that it is likely to affect the fundamental human rights enshrined in our Constitution for the vast majority of the population.
    To deny a referendum on this is disgraceful and anti-democratic as it will mean not only will Austerity be a policy, but it will be the only policy to be answered to in the future. It’s a treaty to continue to protect banks and bankers, and the Irish people know it.

    Reply
    • well said. Would love to know who have you red thumb and why….

      Reply
    • We only have referenda if a change in our Constitution is required.

      If the treaty requires such a change, then we will have one, if it doesn’t then we won’t.

      As regards anti-democratic – we have elections. We elect the Government to make decisions on our behalf.

      Reply
    • ‘On our behalf’ is the operative term there Donal, not ‘to our determent’.

      Reply
    • John, the Government often make decisions that if it were put to a public there and then vote would not pass.

      To me that is one of the chief functions of Government, to do the unpopular but necessary things that in the long run the majority agree with.

      Reply
    • I get you now Donal. So you believe the majority of the people may be deluded in their opinions on government financial policy including fiscal union, payment to unsecured anglo bondholders, inequitable taxes and charges etc. etc. etc. and will in time come to realize that Hey! This government knew what it was doing all along and weren’t we the ungrateful, deluded bunnies to be at all that protesting and kicking up lark.
      We are not a bunch of kids lining up for our annual dose of cod liver oil in some dickensian hellhole. We are a sovereign nation. Well, almost!

      Reply
    • The Government parties didn’t run for election on a ‘we will burn all bondholder’ platform or a ‘we will leave the Eurozone if we don’t get what we want’ platform.

      They ran on a ‘we will implement the program and we will do what we can about those bonds’ platform.

      And they got a very large majority.

      Now, you may not have voted for either of the parties in Government but a lot of people did and they are only doing what they said they would do.

      Reply
    • Like, for instance, keeping certain army barracks open. Like A&E services at Roscommon Hospital. Like increase in mortgage interest relief to those in negative equity. Like the salary cap on advisers pay. Like the protection of child benefit from cuts. Like the ‘Labour’s way rather than Frankfurt’s way’ remark on dealing with bondholders. Like abolishing FAS.
      I could sit hear all day at this but I’ve a a few hungry urchins to medicate and the gruel pot is getting low.

      Reply
    • I think you’ll find they did run on a burn the bond holders platform
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LTCT7QIeP8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

      Reply
    • You know well that Leo’s solo run was clarified to ‘with the agreement of our partners’.

      Reply
    • He a bit passionate about the ‘not one more cent’ to be adding the tag line ‘with the agreement of our partners’, was that bit under his breath

      Reply
  • Grey men in Grey Suits decide our Future.

    It is quiet apt that a far reaching treaty like this should not be put to the people anywhere in Europe. The EU are firm believers of “start as you mean to go on” and at this stage it must be very clear to all but the most deluded EU Fanatics that democracy, accountability and the idea of Europe being about differing states working together is well gone and are not coming back.

    Instead they are going to insist on decades of austerity for some, and the maintaining of a currency union that stifles growth and potential for about countries, it gives a boost to the rest by making them artificially competitive.

    They might view themselves as benevolent masters but European history suggests that in the long term the desire to be free and in control of one’s own future will prove too strong.

    Reply
  • by hook or by crook, enda and the gang will do what ever it takes in order to make sure we keep his euro chums happy so he’ll be the president of the European council next year and will be able to swan around and shake hands! you can be damn sure enda will do every thing possible to avoid a referendum just in case the people were stupid enough to vote no.

    Reply
  • Respondents calling for a referendum do so on the assumption that if one were called the Government would lose. However, they should considered the consequences of such a referendum succeeding. The effect would be to write the proposed fiscal treaty into our constitution. This would prevent any future goverment from breaching the fiscal limits under any circumstances without first holding a fresh referendum. No one can predict what lays ahead for the economy and to tie the hands of future governments is less than wise. By dealing with this treaty or pact by legislation we at least create the ability to undo it immediately through emergency legislation should that necessity

    On the democratic issue, if you don’t like it mobilise support for your view at TD level.

    Reply
  • Every government in Ireland jumps on the advice of ‘independent’ experts to rubber stamp positions that have been in the political ether prior. If future generations are to be obliged to moderate national budgets to satisfy international obligations, a referendum does not seem unreasonable. It is a lot bigger issue than judges’ pay.

    Reply
  • Wonder could Michael D Higgins be a hero and become the first president ever(to my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong please, I couldn’t find the information so had the de facto assumption) to use the clause that he can get a referendum by asking the supreme court. Lets see is he brave enough for it! A strong challenge to you MHD.

    Reply
    • I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one Karl. Michael D Higgins is a Labour man, so he’ll do what he’s told to keep his cushty job. Didn’t see him much of him over the Household tax, whether for or against it, just keeps his head low and doesn’t make waves.

      Reply

Add New Comment