Month: December 2011

A new referendum likely, says IT

The IT has answered Karl’s question in the affirmative:

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has publicly opposed the need for treaty changes and that remains the Government’s official position in advance of the summit.

However, there is a realisation among senior Ministers in Dublin that Dr Merkel’s commitment to treaty change and the backing she has received from French president Nicolas Sarkozy may have made that process unstoppable.

So, in a Union of 27, if Merkozy wants a new Treaty requiring an Irish referendum then, the IT assumes, this is what will happen. They are quite possibly right.

This should remind us that there are political objectives which the 25 should have in any new Treaty negotiations as well as economic ones. (If we are going to have a referendum, this will take time, and create uncertainty, anyway: so why not get it right?) Economically speaking, if you want EMU to survive in more than the immediate short run, you should logically want a new mandate for the ECB, and some method to provide counter-cyclical adjustment in depressed regions. (I guess we are not going to get this, and indeed we are probably going to get the opposite of this.) Politically speaking, we need moves to reaffirm the primacy of the Community method, or it will be more than EMU that is endangered in the long run. I guess we’re not going to get that either. Of course I would love to be proved wrong.

Bad arguments

We’ve gotten used to disingenuous arguments by István Székely regarding the EC/ECB stance on burning bondholders, but (given that the original interest rates they insisted on were a disgrace) this one really takes the biscuit:

Separately, the top European Commission official on the Irish bailout said critics of the decision not to impose losses on senior bank bondholders should recognise the benefit from the interest cut on Ireland’s rescue loans.

István Székely said the cut would yield €12 billion while moves to “burn” Anglo Irish Bank bondholders might have realised €3 billion.

Also, €3 billion?

Karl is right: it is too late to do anything meaningful about this, and the game has moved on. But that doesn’t mean that we should let these guys rewrite history.

A New Referendum?

My presumption has been that any set of “fiscal union” measures of the type mentioned here will require a referendum. Far more trivial international agreeements have required them, so surely this would too. Eoin reckons it can be avoided via some Lisbon-related maneuver.

I’m not a constitutional expert but some of our readers must be. What do people think? Can we get some concrete cites to the relevant articles or protocols.

Time for a Deal on ELA

Whatever happens, there’s going to be a lot of Euro summitry in the coming months. It seems clear that Germany is pushing for a swift Treaty change to introduce all sorts of legal limits on debt and deficits as the solution to the debt crisis. (You could argue it’s a bit like a flood defense plan that relies on banning rain.) In return for this, the ECB will agree to provide funds to bail out Italy and others, perhaps via turning EFSF into a bank.

Personally, I still think the economics and politics of the “Debt Treaty” approach are terrible. But it’s probably going to happen.

Given that, what should Ireland’s government do? Most likely, with the EU threatening to pull fiscal and bank funding if they don’t co-operate, our leaders will just agree to sign the dotted line at the relevant EU Council meeting and then see if they can get away with not having a referendum. (Unlikely — an Irish referendum will be one of many banana skins the process could encounter).

So here’s one thing that I think they can do. If the ECB is going to move into uncharted territory, then it’s time to ask for a small favour that will barely register as relevant when compared with a huge sovereign bond purchase scheme: Delaying repayment of the IBRC’s ELA debts. While unimportant in the European scheme of things, it would give Enda Kenny a big political win if he could announce the cancellation of the €3.1 billion March 31 promissory note payment.

If you want to read more about this, here‘s a column I’ve written for Business and Finance.

The Irish Debate on the Single Currency

I was asked by an Irish Times journalist recently if anyone had written up a review of the Irish debate on joining the single currency.  This paper of mine from 1997 came close, though it doesn’t for the most part name or ascribe  positions to the participants.  Rereading it now though, it strikes me that a lot of it remains relevant.

The Bayoumi and Eichengreen material makes clear that central control of national fiscal deficits across the eurozone – the suggestion du jour – will not remove the vulnerability of Ireland and the Mediterranean economies to asymmetric (country-specific) shocks.  This is what I was referring to in my post of a few months ago entitled:  Jean-Claude Trichet, 2004: ‘no design flaw in the euro project’.

Colm McCarthy and I agreed recently that the Irish debates (in which both of us were anti) did not identify the precise fault lines that would ultimately emerge.  Centralised eurozone banking regulation and resolution regimes – the absence of which we all now recognise as design flaws – will not address the problem of asymmetries however.

The article makes the point that “those worried about the rigidity of the single currency system argue instead for policy co-ordination alongside floating rates.  In that way the destabilising element associated with ‘maverick’ macro policies would be removed but the exchange rate would still be free to adjust to counter country-specific shocks.”

Alternatively, within the single currency, “fiscal federalism” could go some way towards correcting the problem.  The Federal Budget absorbs about one-third of  the average region-specific shock in the US; the figure for Canada is around one-fifth.  We have nothing similar in Europe.  But think of the pork-barrel politics this would (will?) entail.

And have a wry smile at footnote 11, which I had forgotten about, concerning an aspect of the debate between Patrick Honohan on the one hand and Peter Neary and Rodney Thom on the other.  (The ‘foreign currency’ refers to the euro).  How times can change!