15 February 2001 Edition
Where was the EU when?
BY ROBBIE MacGABHANN
So the EU this week got round to isolating the Dublin Government and delivering the diplomatic equivalent of an hour in the corner and a note home to the parents.
This was interesting in itself, as the EU has been found wanting in the past on a range of other much more important issues, where it was silent or just prevaricated until the problem either went away or time simply moved on.
For example, where was the EU censure when Germany unilaterally recognised Croatia and Slovenia in 1991? The EU foreign ministers had been attempting to agree a ``recognise one, recognise all'' policy for the then splintering Yugoslavia. The German action precipitated war in the Balkans and a huge loss of life, but the EU never censured the newly unified Germany.
In 1990, the EU sanctioned a £2.8 billion low cost loan to British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) to build the THORP reprocessing plant. The then Dublin Government Finance minister Albert Reynolds signed the loan, as the 26 Counties held the EU presidency at the time. In 1998 it was disclosed that the economic rationale for building THORP had never been completed and the money had been given on dubious grounds. Again, no attempt was made to censure the British Government or BNFL.
In fact, the EU has been very slow in highlighting the negative effects that the British nuclear industry, particularly the Sellafield site, is having on the environment of the EU. Radioactivity levels in the Irish Seas doubled in the 1990s, yet once again the EU was strangely silent.
Even in terms of other ` economic performance, it has been clear that the EU imposes a double standard. In the run up to deciding which states have passed the convergence criteria for entry into the euro, the Germans were allowed break their own budgetary rules and sell off masses of gold reserves in order to meet the requirement of having relatively low debts. Again, the EU allowed this sleight of hand.
Finally, when the EMU was collapsing during the 1993 currency crisis, the EU Commission rewrote elements of the euro entry criteria to allow a range of states hit by collapsing exchange rates to still enter the new currency.
So the actual message coming from the EU is that their ticking off of Ireland was only a PR exercise; the real transgressors of EU law and policy will continue to go unchecked and will still be unaccountable.
EU's twisted logic
``If they lower taxes, one does wonder who is actually paying for it... Germany is a net contributor to the EU''. This jump in logic came from Germany's deputy finance minister Caio Koch-Weser.
Germany was just one of the 14 other EU states who at the instigation of the EU Commission officially censured the Dublin Government budgetary policy this week.
So what drawbacks did the EU find in Charlie McCreevy's budget strategy. It must be childcare. The EU Commission recognised the inequities in childcare provision and the need for substantial funds to be set aside to tackle this important issue. Its obvious, isn't it.
If it wasn't childcare, it must be health. The EU censured us for having an inequitable healthcare system with thousands not even on waiting lists but waiting to get an appointment with a specialist. They want more money spent on healthcare, don't they?
Well then it must be education, public sector housing, homelessness, poverty, social welfare pyments, public transport, environmental clean up etc. These are the important issues that were overlooked by the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat coalition last December.
But no, the EU Council of Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) and the EU Commission are worried about tax cuts and increases in current and capital expenditure. Current expenditure is the amount of money the government spends on day-to-day services. It is this money that would for example help reduce hospital waiting lists.
Capital expenditure is the funds invested in long term projects such as telecommunications infrastructure and roads as well as building new houses, schools, hospitals and other vital social projects.
The EU wants the Dublin Government to spend less money on all of these things. This is even more strange as the Dublin Government finally has the money to invest in many of these projects without borrowing and with little EU funding.
The EU doesn't seem to recognise the long term need to address both glaring social inequalities in the 26-County economy and to plan for the much needed long term infrastructural developments that could end some of the critical problems suffered in the economy today such as lack of housing and traffic gridlock.
The 26 Counties has a relatively high inflation rate, which they admit is fuelled partially by matters outside the control of the Dublin Government, and which could have been tackled at an EU level, but now we have to cut our spending because the EU is unwilling to act.
The EU has not behaved well this week. They have shown themselves to be more concerned with percentages than creating social justice in their member states.
No to Nice Treaty
While there may be outrage in Ireland at the double standard in the EU when it comes to criticising economic policy here, there is still a need to also point the finger at the Dublin Government and ask why did they let this mess happen. Even more important is the question of what other things have they screwed up in the EU arena?
The point overlooked in a lot of the Irish media and particularly in the coalition cabinet is that it was they who signed up to the stability pact and it was they who obviously didn't fully understand the ramifications of that pact.
It could be argued then that as the stability pact shows how much Irish economic sovereignty has been lost to the unelected officials who have been tut tutting this week that the Dublin Government obviously didn't understand the implications of the Maastricht or Amsterdam treaties.
So where does it leave us with the Nice Treaty, due to be voted on in a referendum later this year. Does the Dublin Government have an understanding of this Treaty?
Ahern and McCreevy came back from Nice proclaiming victory. They had managed to ring fence EU interference in our fiscal policy. Not so lads. The EU Commission censure clearly shows that the EU and the other 14 states believe they do have a role to play in deciding what sort of tax cuts and spending plans are formulated by the Dublin Government.
We have as yet to see the actual text of the Nice Treaty. Maybe the Dublin Government has not seen it either? The lesson flowing from this week's events is that we need to say No to Nice.
So the EU this week got round to isolating the Dublin Government and delivering the diplomatic equivalent of an hour in the corner and a note home to the parents.
This was interesting in itself, as the EU has been found wanting in the past on a range of other much more important issues, where it was silent or just prevaricated until the problem either went away or time simply moved on.
For example, where was the EU censure when Germany unilaterally recognised Croatia and Slovenia in 1991? The EU foreign ministers had been attempting to agree a ``recognise one, recognise all'' policy for the then splintering Yugoslavia. The German action precipitated war in the Balkans and a huge loss of life, but the EU never censured the newly unified Germany.
In 1990, the EU sanctioned a £2.8 billion low cost loan to British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) to build the THORP reprocessing plant. The then Dublin Government Finance minister Albert Reynolds signed the loan, as the 26 Counties held the EU presidency at the time. In 1998 it was disclosed that the economic rationale for building THORP had never been completed and the money had been given on dubious grounds. Again, no attempt was made to censure the British Government or BNFL.
In fact, the EU has been very slow in highlighting the negative effects that the British nuclear industry, particularly the Sellafield site, is having on the environment of the EU. Radioactivity levels in the Irish Seas doubled in the 1990s, yet once again the EU was strangely silent.
Even in terms of other ` economic performance, it has been clear that the EU imposes a double standard. In the run up to deciding which states have passed the convergence criteria for entry into the euro, the Germans were allowed break their own budgetary rules and sell off masses of gold reserves in order to meet the requirement of having relatively low debts. Again, the EU allowed this sleight of hand.
Finally, when the EMU was collapsing during the 1993 currency crisis, the EU Commission rewrote elements of the euro entry criteria to allow a range of states hit by collapsing exchange rates to still enter the new currency.
So the actual message coming from the EU is that their ticking off of Ireland was only a PR exercise; the real transgressors of EU law and policy will continue to go unchecked and will still be unaccountable.
EU's twisted logic
``If they lower taxes, one does wonder who is actually paying for it... Germany is a net contributor to the EU''. This jump in logic came from Germany's deputy finance minister Caio Koch-Weser.
Germany was just one of the 14 other EU states who at the instigation of the EU Commission officially censured the Dublin Government budgetary policy this week.
So what drawbacks did the EU find in Charlie McCreevy's budget strategy. It must be childcare. The EU Commission recognised the inequities in childcare provision and the need for substantial funds to be set aside to tackle this important issue. Its obvious, isn't it.
If it wasn't childcare, it must be health. The EU censured us for having an inequitable healthcare system with thousands not even on waiting lists but waiting to get an appointment with a specialist. They want more money spent on healthcare, don't they?
Well then it must be education, public sector housing, homelessness, poverty, social welfare pyments, public transport, environmental clean up etc. These are the important issues that were overlooked by the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat coalition last December.
But no, the EU Council of Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) and the EU Commission are worried about tax cuts and increases in current and capital expenditure. Current expenditure is the amount of money the government spends on day-to-day services. It is this money that would for example help reduce hospital waiting lists.
Capital expenditure is the funds invested in long term projects such as telecommunications infrastructure and roads as well as building new houses, schools, hospitals and other vital social projects.
The EU wants the Dublin Government to spend less money on all of these things. This is even more strange as the Dublin Government finally has the money to invest in many of these projects without borrowing and with little EU funding.
The EU doesn't seem to recognise the long term need to address both glaring social inequalities in the 26-County economy and to plan for the much needed long term infrastructural developments that could end some of the critical problems suffered in the economy today such as lack of housing and traffic gridlock.
The 26 Counties has a relatively high inflation rate, which they admit is fuelled partially by matters outside the control of the Dublin Government, and which could have been tackled at an EU level, but now we have to cut our spending because the EU is unwilling to act.
The EU has not behaved well this week. They have shown themselves to be more concerned with percentages than creating social justice in their member states.
No to Nice Treaty
While there may be outrage in Ireland at the double standard in the EU when it comes to criticising economic policy here, there is still a need to also point the finger at the Dublin Government and ask why did they let this mess happen. Even more important is the question of what other things have they screwed up in the EU arena?
The point overlooked in a lot of the Irish media and particularly in the coalition cabinet is that it was they who signed up to the stability pact and it was they who obviously didn't fully understand the ramifications of that pact.
It could be argued then that as the stability pact shows how much Irish economic sovereignty has been lost to the unelected officials who have been tut tutting this week that the Dublin Government obviously didn't understand the implications of the Maastricht or Amsterdam treaties.
So where does it leave us with the Nice Treaty, due to be voted on in a referendum later this year. Does the Dublin Government have an understanding of this Treaty?
Ahern and McCreevy came back from Nice proclaiming victory. They had managed to ring fence EU interference in our fiscal policy. Not so lads. The EU Commission censure clearly shows that the EU and the other 14 states believe they do have a role to play in deciding what sort of tax cuts and spending plans are formulated by the Dublin Government.
We have as yet to see the actual text of the Nice Treaty. Maybe the Dublin Government has not seen it either? The lesson flowing from this week's events is that we need to say No to Nice.