Share |

Rosie C: Fiscal Treaty -Why we should vote No

IRISH REFERENDUM ON FISCAL TREATY

31 MAY 2012

WHY WE SHOULD VOTE NO

Preface

Despite attempts by powerful outside interests - and even our own government! 

 to by-pass the Irish electorate and prevent this referendum, the decision by the Attorney General has given us a chance to protect ourselves from further  permanent erosion of our constitutional rights and national 

sovereignty.   It also gives us a breathing space to increase our 

understanding of how the impoverishment of our country and other countries has come about.  (See shocking documentary on the history of banking and usury - link below**)

No taxation without Information:-.  We, the Irish people, have a right to see a published list of all bondholders, secured and unsecured,  that are being bailed out by us.  In view of the vast sums involved, we should not have to rely on a whistleblower on the Internet to establish who they are.  We also have a right to know whether any representatives of bondholder banks are, or have been, in receipt of taxpayer revenues to advise the Irish government on 

the bailout and related issues.    It appears from the list we have that most 

of the Anglo bondholders are wealthy asset managers and banks, including Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and Barclays, whose very business it was to know what was going on at the bank.  We need to know how many of them are shareholders of the ECB and the nature of their relationship with the IMF.

DEMOCRATIC PROBLEMS WITH THE PACT

" Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws "  

A.M. Rothschild

The fiscal pact will dictate balanced budget rules through provisions of binding force and permanent character, preferably constitutional. (Article 3.2). to  sovereign countries.  It is clearly part of a pre-planned fully federal Europe agenda.

 

Unless there is a write-down of bondholder debt, it will force us to default on non-negotiable democratic priorities - education, hospitals, care of our elderly etc.

 

The European Court of Justice will be able to penalise us if, as seems very likely,, we are unable to comply with the terms of the pact.  Punishments will be financial, leading to further loss of state assets, and probably political as well.

Consider the following points

1. Loans are very expensive.  We do not need this pact to convince us of the necessity to close our own real national deficit as quickly as possible.  We cannot do this, with or without the pact, while we are saddled with unsustainable bondholder debt.

2. We should do everything to withstand the \fear and (possibly weak) threat of withdrawal of future ESM loans, in the interests of longer-term economic benefit.  This will require clear public education on the choice between short-term voluntary austerity to close the real deficit or long term, much greater forced austerity under the banker debt and fiscal pact.

3. Britain had strong reason to stay out of the euro currency and pact.  9 other nations in the EU have had the sense to keep their own currencies. 

Iceland ditched the bankers' attempt to foist their debts on the Icelandic taxpayer and their economy is growing.

4. Investors want an efficient workforce, a favourable corporate tax rate and a host country that is politically and financially stable.  We don't need to sign up to this pact to offer this. If we vote No, we will remain in the EU 

and can still offer non-EU investors an intro into the European market.  

Enshrining ridiculous and destabilising debt burdens into our Constitution is what will compromise our attractiveness to inward and internal investment

PROBLEMS WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING SYSTEM THAT A YES VOTE WOULD STRENGHEN

No morality, no integrity, and no future - Greg Smith, ex Goldman Sachs Executive, speaking of the bank

Debt, or the promise to pay, with interest, is a prime bank asset.

Booms and busts would not be possible without the calculated manipulation of the availability of credit by private and democratically unaccountable banking consortia.  They manipulate in order to concentrate their wealth at the excessive expense of debtors and taxpayers.  Opportunistic developers and corrupt politicians here and elsewhere stepped right into the greed traps. 

Ballooning of credit and indebtedness is achieved partly by the pernicious practice of fractional reserve banking, i.e. lending c. 10 times the amount on deposit, creating "virtual money loans and bonds that have to be repaid with interest by means of national resources, solid assets and real, hard-earned taxpayer revenues meant for the benefit of society in general.

The owners and shareholders of the ECB are the central banks of the 27 member states of the EU. They are mostly privately owned institutions (exception = Bank of England, nationalised in 1946).  The ECB issues the currency at will, lends it to the other banks (over a trillion euro injected since last

December) at a low rate, currently 1%. Government bonds are then issued at much higher yields depending on credit ratings of the particular countries but always with a big and wholly unearned cut for the middlemen bankers.

One of the main functions of the ECB is to prevent inflation, but its priority is to serve the interests of its shareholders, the private banks.

It would benefit the economies of the EU states if the shareholding central banks were to  become fully government-owned, eliminating the taxpayers debt to private middlemen bankers.  If that were the case, the ECB would be a bit more democratically accountable and its sole right to authorize/issue the currency would have greater justification.  As this is not the case, we should now seriously consider leaving the euro zone and taking back the right of the Irish people to issue our currency. It will require courage and careful planning but will allow us economic flexibility, independence and more prosperity in the long run.  (See note ***below)

The near equivalent to the ECB in the USA is the deceptively named "Federal" 

Reserve, also in fact a privately owned consortium appropriating the interest on Treasury bonds, i.e the US govt/people have to pay a dividend to access the national currency.  Lincoln, Kennedy and others tried to change this but 

were prevented.   The USA is now controlled by  banks and corporations and 

its democracy is illusory.  Do we want the same for Europe?

THE REFERENDUM.

This is not a general election.  The duty of government is limited to providing all relevant information. When TDs vote on the Fiscal Pact in the Dail, or if they campaign to influence the vote, they should be free to do so without the rigid and dictatorial constraints of party political whips .

It is time for a fundamental reform of the banking  and indeed of our political system - in order to relieve taxpayers of unjust and unnecessary 

burdens.  That is the real way to create jobs and stimulate local economies.  

We may be offered sweeteners, payment deferrals or other concessions to encourage us to comply with this treaty. A strong "no" vote by Ireland would be a brave first step in the reform process, providing leadership and precedent to other nations and new hope for the future of Ireland and of Europe.

Rosie Cargin

** May I refer you to a comprehensive and shocking documentary on the history of banking and usury entitled "The Money Masters".  There is a shorter cartoon film on the subject called "The American Dream" and both are in the resources section of the website of People for Peace and Prosperity at www.itsyestoppp.org

 

*** View of Paul Krugman, winner of Nobel Prize for Economics

  "The prescription coming from Berlin and Frankfurt is ...even more fiscal austerity. This is, just insane. .such programs push depressed economies even deeper into depression. What is the alternative? Well, in the 1930s  an era that modern Europe is starting to replicate in ever more faithful detail  the essential condition for recovery was exit from the gold standard. The equivalent move now would be exit from the euro and restoration of national currencies. You may say that this is inconceivable, and it would indeed be a hugely disruptive event both economically and politically. But continuing on the present course, imposing ever-harsher austerity on countries that are already suffering Depression-era unemployment, is whats truly inconceivable"


Google Video

Loading...
Loading...