Nailing their colours firmly to the right of centre… the Irish Times editorial January 24, 2011
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics.trackback
It would probably be unfair to say that today’s IT editorial takes some satisfaction in outlining the events of the past week or so, and in particular the events of the weekend, but…
What’s more interesting, to me, is the following:
Good and decent man he may very well be, but his short tenure as Taoiseach will be characterised by the greatest ignominy of all: the abnegation of our economic sovereignty which will have untold consequences into the future. It is a shameful legacy for any leader but particularly for a Fianna Fáil leader. The chaotic manner of Mr Cowen’s resignation will pass but the rise in unemployment, the increase in taxes and the loss of national self-esteem will last for a long time.
Er… even by their own lights what about the cuts in public expenditure which surely are the most dismal aspect of government policy in the past two and a half years (given that the centre right now resiles from the very notion of the state doing anything much about directly intervening on job creation)?
And what of this for an example of confusion at or close to the top of the IT, coming only a week after another piece on the opinion page argued the Finance Bill could be put aside for the new government to take it up?
Today’s controversy will surround the enactment of the Finance Bill. Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan claims that it would be logistically impossible for him to get the Bill through the Dáil by Friday. The normal timetable for the passage of the Bill would be the end of March. The main Opposition parties, now including the Greens, want it done by Friday so that the election can be called. It is worth remembering that this is no normal Finance Bill. Rather, it is the domestic requirement to satisfy the terms of the bailout by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. There is little wriggle room in this Bill for any party, including Sinn Féin. All of the hours of debate in the world won’t turn back the clock on our loss of sovereignty.
The problem with that is not merely that inconsistency between the centrality of the FB to all that is happening, and the varying degrees of importance afforded to its passage prior to or subsequent upon an election, but as importantly the point about ‘little wriggle room’. Given that EU representatives have already opened a structural element of that bailout – the interest rates – independent of the passage of the FB, the authoritative tone of the editorial seems a little premature.
So perhaps some debate on this matter and matters contingent might be entirely appropriate.
I don’t agree that there’s an inconsistency in the IT’s pieces on the finance bill. They have been saying that the bill could be seen through by the new government, given that the terms of the bill are essentially agreed by the potential governing parties. So – while it may be a critical/central piece of legislation, the shade of Dail or government that sees it through really doesn’t matter. They’re surely not shifting their position at all?
And will the bill really touch on specific interest rates to that degree? I’d have thought the scope for re-negotiation would never have been hard-wired into the bill. The prevailing wisdom is that new terms would derive from a broader EU re-assessment of how to handle broader EU problems.
Up to Christmas the IT line was Bill first, Election second. Indeed it painted this in starkly existential terms not unlike those uswd by FF and the GP. Then in the last fortnight it switched to Election first, Bill second as it became apparent FF was openly seeking to delay it’s departure. Now that FF is back on the ropes with a clear last date set for its departure it appears to be arguing Bill first (without debate) and Election second again.
Re the Bill itself, the Bill is predicated on the Bailout which came in November, not the other way around – the IR editorial implicitly makes that point – therefore any reworking of the former will have impacts on the substance of the latter.
Actually latter and former should be switched in the paragraph above. Darn it.
Sure the bill is predicated by the bail-out, but how specifically does the bill delve into interest rates etc? I’d be surprised if any rate is referenced with an actual figure.
I said in the OP that the interest rates on the loans provided in the bailout were ‘a structural element of the loan’. Not that they were a part of or ‘referenced in’ the Finance Bil..
The point is pretty clear I think to anyone reading this, that I’m talking about the context in which the Budget and subsequently the Finance Bill implementing that Budget were drafted up.
Consequent on that the weight of servicing the loans and their now widely agreed too-high interest rates (even within the orthodox approach to such matters) would have an impact in the drafting of the Budget and FB and that with any potential or actual change in the nature of the bailout the FB should be debated in the light of that.
the increase in taxes and the loss of national self-esteem will last for a long time.
Madam is indeed correct. Her paying a smidge more in taxes, and her embarrassment at no longer being able to lecture Europeans and lefties as a flag-bearer of Anglo capitalism, are certainly on a par with massive unemployment.
IT: “I don’t care who wins the election, as long as the Finance Bill is passed by someone soon. Let them eat property supplements”!
And that’s it precisely.