John Rogers SC statement at the ECJ

Read John Rogers statement at the ECJ here

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

• 

3 Comments

1. 

   Chuck

   31st October 2012 at 6:25 pm

   I commend you for sticking to your legal guns, Thomas. It’s clear that legally, the ESM is incompatibile with current treaties, and it should be voided. Germany should have stood up and did it already, except they ruled based on economics, not law. However, economically, an illegal ESM will crash Europe as a whole before a legal ESM can be properly voted through, unless the ‘top ten’ who met on September 17 2012 (which includes ECJ’s home Luxemburg) have a pre-agreed alternative to the EU which they all collectively defect to, simultaneously attaining fiscal control by a gold-based Gulden Euro since gold cannot be ‘printed’ to finance out of control fiscal borrowing by governments out for votes, and which solidly could replace the dollar as the only alternative reserve world currency. That is satisfying the Chinese who are gold hoarders, the Russians who want the end to US dominance, and the GCC who would prefer to follow the Koran and Mohammad’s teaching that gold is money for their oil, not paper. Time tells, but you have done the right thing for all the right reasons, though which may have the unfortunate side effect cause that the productive core of Europe which the rest of Europe and the US relys on via fiat in the dustbin of irrelevance going forward. Personally, I expect chaos to ensue as the ECJ decision is released.
2. 

   m. ward

   3rd November 2012 at 2:28 pm

   I have just read John Rogers comments – terrifying prospect but so true. But the EU is an association of independent nation states and still is.

   What irritaing me about the esm is that I never voted to elect Mrs A Merkel to represent my interest as a citizen and taxpayer. I voted for my own local TDs.

   One of the lessons coming out of this ESM saga for me is that It is not Mrs Merkel how rules the roost but trather the local TDS. The people who elect them

   Which bring me to the purpose of this e mail. That is the role of the executive arm of the govt today.

   Stepehen Collins the local TD was on tha national airwaves recetly complaining about some budgetary proposal that the Government pushed through the dail with out having a deabte on it.

   Under the constitution any money bill must be deabated and passed by the oireachtas. The executive acting ultr viras its constitutional role in trying to bulldoze legislation charging the public funds through the houses by imposing i presume a party whip.

   Thats only one example. Another is this payment of 1.3 billion to Irish Permanet Shareholders again from the public funds under The Credit institutions Stabilisation Act 2010. It does refer to the trasnfer of shares but not purchase of them and certainly nto with taxpayers money.

   Has the technical group or sinn fein ever considered may be u really should for if Germany is going to continu leadin us and Im under no illusiosn that what happening (but will france etc follow) My instinct saying big fat NO) so may eb we should start looking home again – and first port of call – court on the role fo the executive on MONYE BILL.s

   BEST OF LUCK
3. 

   m. ward

   3rd November 2012 at 3:16 pm

   Re The Bank Debt.

   I also refer to the memo of understanding signed by the Minister for Finance in May 2010 with O Rehn and the IMF the pledge by the Government that Ireland would keep the banks capitalised to the standards set out therein. All independnetly. I wrote to Mr Noonan in February 10 with proposal about merger of the two big banks plus INBS who would then devalue home loans taken out between 05 and 09 on sliding scale (no debt forgiveness) applicable to all their customers.

   The idea to increase cash flow of ONE BANK and a carrot to homeowners with other banks eg bank of scotland to transfer their home loan to the nationalised bank. And proposal that money in the pension fund would be used as a float for the nationalised bank to use to redeem the loan with say bank of sctoland to allow the customer to transfer his or her loan to the nationalised bank untill other banks followed suit. More money cash flow to the nationalised bank and more money in the economy. I dont know if it was ever discussed at the eu level but the situation remains that ireland to recapitalise all banks as independent entities.

   This is anor agreement /executive agreement invovling a charge on teh public funds – did the dail ever call for that memo to be debated in the dail.

   Perhap TDs may want to consider whether or not steps shoud be taken to have that memo broguh inot the dail chamber and debated etc.

   MW