Launched in 1997 to investigate corrupt payments to politicians mainly over planning permissions and land re-zoning issues, the tribunal –

… accused former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern of untruthfulness. It found former European commissioner Pádraig Flynn behaved corruptly, and said another former taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, had abused his power.

The tribunal states that Ahern did not tell the truth over payments worth more than IR£275,000 [€349,177] which passed through bank accounts connected to him. Ahern has always claimed that the cash was not taken for planning favours granted to property developers but “personal loans” from friends to help during a difficult period in his life when he was going through a separation.

The 3,200 page report also found former EU commissioner Padraig Flynn guilty of taking bribes during his time as Irish environment minister from 1987-1993. Flynn had accepted a IR£50,000 [€63,486] “donation” from a property developer who wished to purchase a farm in the west of Ireland. It also condemned the involvement of senior government figures such as ex-Taoiseach Albert Reynolds “in seeking financial contributions from businessmen who were in turn lobbying government to support various commercial projects.”

In a hard-hitting leader entitled “Shameful and sickening: we've had enough”, the Irish Independent notes that the most “insidious effects” of corruption - 

… were felt during the Celtic Tiger boom and immediately after a solemn undertaking by Bertie Ahern, then Taoiseach, in 1997 that he would not tolerate corruption and the perpetrators would be hunted down.

This is the second time a European Commission report about the Irish economy has been released to the Bundestag, raising fears that Ireland’s economic sovereignity has all but vanished following the €85 billion EU/ECB/IMF bailout of 2010. It follows the disclosure last November of the national budget in advance of a formal announcement on the part of the Irish government. The Irish Times notes that the leak –

… came at an awkward moment a day after the decision to hold a referendum on the European Stability Treaty.

I strongly believe that it is very much in Ireland’s national interest that this treaty be approved, as doing so will build on the steady progress the country has made in the past year.

Mindful that Ireland has rejected EU treaties in the past, first the Nice and Lisbon treaties in 2001 and 2008, then approved in 2002 and 2009 respectively, the Irish Times argues that in referendums “the people are wont to answer not the question put before them, but any other one preoccupying them at the time.” However, it applauds the Taoiseach for his “enthusiastic conviction that the people … will do the right thing.” Strongly pro-EU, the Dublin daily argues that -

…rejection would mean opening an appalling vista for this country. Because the treaty does not require all participating states to ratify it before coming into operation, an Irish No would leave this state behind as the rest of the euro zone moved ahead with closer integration. Ireland might remain formally a euro member, but, critically, outside the central decisionmaking core that has in effect already become the EU’s advance guard. Most importantly, a No would deprive Ireland of further access to the bailout mechanisms and cash, the protective shield which is crucial to our standing in the markets and our recovery.

For the Irish Examiner the nation must understand “the consequences of their vote and what their decision means for us and for our children.”

Those who would oppose it, rather than just reject it because they are justifiably angry about so many of the ugly, inequitable consequences of losing economic independence, must present a viable, alternative way of financing this bankrupt state. That must be the litmus test of any proposal other than ratification. This is a dilemma of absolutes — we’re either in or out no matter how unpalatable that limiting reality might be. It is hard to imagine that our European colleagues, so besieged by so many fronts, might demur and make special arrangements for a small member state so utterly dependent on EU financing no matter how draconian the terms attached to those loans.

Predicting that that the government will argue that a “No” vote will lead to a “terrifying outcome”, the Irish Independent notes that -

One small consolation is that the issue is easier to understand than the content and implications of the Maastricht or Lisbon treaties. Governments dishonestly claimed that these treaties did not matter very much. The feeling that the wool was being pulled over the electorate's eyes must have contributed to their defeat -- at least first time around. With a little effort, one can actually understand the fiscal compact. One can make an informed guess as to what might happen if the compact is rejected. […] The other great irony is that there is little in the fiscal compact which is not already in Irish law under last year's tightening of the eurozone rules, except, perhaps, the extra constitutional status.

The new architecture of the euro is threatened by a birth defect. In the end, perhaps only 16 states will be shackled to the austerity drive Germany wants to see.

Of course, Berlin would have preferred to avoid a popular vote on Europe in Ireland, writes Süddeutsche Zeitung –

... but this time around, the outcome will have a much greater impact on Ireland than it will on the euro community. […] The Irish should accept that the [fiscal] pact is in their national interest. If not we will not be able to help them.

That is why this vote will be more about Irish identity than it will be about the "golden rule", affirms Die Zeit.

According to Eurobarometer, the Irish are the most europhile population in the union. But their love of the EU is only equalled by their rejection of England: a way of underlining the fact that they are not British. The country will have to live with a decision that will mark the self image of an entire generation. Either they will become fully fledged Europeans and give up on an exceptional status to the west of the British Isles, or they will opt for an intermediate status like their British neighbours – which will mean that they will have more in common with the Anglo-Saxons, the Scots and the Welsh.

Conceding that the decision to hold a vote could well go to the Irish Supreme Court, the official argued that a referendum has “nothing to do with democracy.” The Irish Times notes that –

While it is not absolutely clear which parts of the treaty were written to suit the Government, Irish officials are known to have sought scope to adopt strict new limits to debt and deficits in legislation rather than through the Constitution.

Nevertheless, Irish opposition parties including Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin are lining up mount a legal challenge to force a vote, writes the Irish Examiner, in a context of increasingly bitter debates in parliament.

Irish Times European correspondent Arthur Beesley notes that while Ireland has been “no stranger” to “intrusive external oversight of its internal affairs” since the €85 billion EU/ECB/IMF bailout of 2010, the new treaty could bind the country to such oversight “forever.”

It is one thing, of course, to submit to the unforgiving writ of the troika in an emergency situation in which the State is shut out of private debt markets. It is quite another to accept the hands of future governments will be tied by Ireland’s expanding obligations to Europe – even when the State can stand on its own two feet again.

Beesley also suggest that if the mooted referendum were rejected, this “would seriously impede Ireland’s return to markets.”

More importantly still is the fact that countries which do not ratify the pact within 13 months will have no further right to aid from the permanent bailout fund of the European Stability Mechanism. Observers may well see something decidedly nasty in that provision, which was a German idea.

The court's verdict, which referred to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, has undermined Dublin II. Noting that in 2010 90% of illegal immigrants entered the EU via Greece, the judges took the view that “Greek authorities are not capable of managing the flow of refugees.” They further pointed out that the UK and Ireland must be aware of the risks in Greece, where refugees find themselves in an unbearable situation and have to contend with interminable delays in the processing of their applications, and should not deport them to the country.

In the wake of the judgement, from now on the state where refugees are located when detained by authorities will have to process their applications, explains TAZ, which notes that Germany is not ready to accept "a general change to the Dublin system."

The announcements come a little over a fortnight after it emerged that the Irish budget was subject to an initial review in the German Bundestag, an indicator of Ireland’s loss of economic sovereignty after it accepted an €85 billion bailout from the EU/EC/ECB troika in November 2010.

On December 4, the Taoiseach Enda Kenny in a televised address announced that “Difficult choices are never easy.” His address has drawn a bitter attack from veteran columnist Fintan O’Toole –

"Difficult choices are never easy.” Savour the phrase. Hold it to the light. Swirl it round the glass. Stick your nose in deep and inhale the rich aromas of full-bodied absurdity. Get the pungent whiff of carmelised cliche and curdled smugness.

[…] The truly difficult decisions are not being made. […] If the pain was being shared fairly, this State would be a more equal society than it was before the crash, because the well-off would be bearing more of the burden. […] Inequality is rising rapidly. In 2009, the top 20 per cent had 4.3 times the income of the bottom 20 per cent. In 2010, the ratio was 5.5.

To date, this same law has already claimed the heads of Ireland’s Brian Cowen, Portugal’s José Sócrates, Greece’s George Papandreou and Spain’s José Luis Zapatero. The Spanish Prime Minister, who has decided not to run for a second term, will remain in power until 20 November elections that his Socialist Party will probably lose. He thereafter plans to leave politics.

As unrelenting as a law of nature, the debt crisis has swept away governments that have been too weak to resist its onset. The governments are weak, because they have been forced to face the crisis alone: we have seen how solidarity between eurozone partners is only triggered when the survival of the single currency – that is to say everyone’s vital interest – is under threat.

They are weak, because they have been forced to adopt virtually non-negotiable budgetary adjustments dictated by international institutions (the IMF and the EU). They are weak, because they have been deprived of the support of populations, which did not elect them to cut back on social services. Finally, they are weak because they have been unable to admit the truth, which is that in response to market attacks the best they can do is attempt to limit the damage.

As a result, these government’s have been deprived of room for manoeuvre; their role in this time of crisis, has been restricted to applying decisions taken elsewhere and managing day-to-day business. Differences and divisions that were significant in “pre-crisis” politics have been wiped away, while politicians appear incapable of proposing – or even imagining – solutions that go beyond standard orthodoxies.

In the meantime, disoriented citizens have become sceptical about the capacity of politics to respond to problems to the point where its legitimacy is continually being eroded, and technocracy appears to be a more effective option.

That said, politicians still benefit from democratic legitimacy. The problem is that the issues they are supposed to address extend beyond the framework of national sovereignty, which is the foundation and the limit of their field of action.

As for supranational organisations like the EU, they could intervene more effectively on these issues, were it not for their lack of democratic legitimacy. Nation states are, not without justification, reluctant to let go of their prerogatives. And were it not for the crisis that Europe is currently experiencing, no one would have even have thought of breaking free of this circle.

Translated from French by Mark McGovern

Or perhaps there is. There’s the European Commission, guardian of the treaties and of the “economic government” of the EU, as its President, Jose Manuel Barroso, recently repeated. But when it comes to the eurozone, it’s the Eurogroup – the Ministers of Economy, i.e. national governments – that has taken over. Again, therefore, Paris and Berlin.

The recent appointment of European Council President Herman Van Rompuy as “Mr. Euro”, with the blessing of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, strengthens the role of member states in the economic governance of “Euroland”, with Germany and France in the lead.

The catch is that this set-up isn’t based on any agreement and that the decisions taken by “Merkozy” seem increasingly to be evading any debate, even within the eurozone itself. Indeed, no other country is able to influence the discussions or to act as counterweight to a steamroller increasingly unencumbered by courtesies when addressing one’s peers, as shown by the angry and hostile tone in which the proposed referendum in Greece was greeted by “Merkozy”.

Among the other “big” countries, Italy, the third-largest economy in the eurozone, finds itself in the hot seat because of the precariousness of its government and its public finances. Meanwhile Spain, in the middle of an election campaign, is not out of the rut yet. 

Hammered by the debt crisis, they are, like Portugal and Ireland, well distant from the “triple A” of the rating agencies that seems to confer supernatural powers on countries that still have it. Which, incidentally, explains why the French president is obsessed with keeping his country in the most prized circle of the moment. In the eurozone, the other members of this triple-A club – Austria, Finland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – either pack a light punch or are aligned with the Franco-German duo.

While Merkel and Sarkozy may be able to avoid the most threatening whirlpools, however, they seem to have no clear idea of where they want to steer the good ship Euro – and they have no mandate for it either. This lack of clarity and legitimacy weighs heavily over the uncharted course of the crisis and gives the impression that they’re navigating by sight. Steering through the storm, we’re not willing to hand the helm over unless those who take it can guide the ship and crew safely to harbour.

Translated from the French by Anton Baer

In the Irish Independent, columnist Brendan Keenan wonders about the awkwardness of this situation: “Now, he will be the people's chosen representative, but muzzled by the constitution he embodies while all kinds of things happen with which he is bound to disagree profoundly. Can anything be done, before he boils over in frustration or, worse, sinks into embittered silence?”

Nonetheless, Keenan concludes that the new president could play valuable role in selling government policy to the people. “The most difficult thing for the Government is to stitch together into something which can be presented as a strategy, the conflicting threads of reducing borrowing, protecting the most vulnerable, promoting exports and investment, and meeting the requirements of our lenders – whether troika or the markets.”

The money released would allow Athens to redeem its obligations to the ECB and to the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF). Its debt/GDP ratio would be cut from 145 to 88 percent. Interest rates on Greek debt would fall by 50 percent and Athens would be able to return to the markets. Such a plan "would wipe out the gains of speculators (...) who bet on a collapse of Greek bond prices as well as those of the Spanish, Italian and Irish governments," the daily explains. But it would have to “count on the opposition of banks and financial markets, the former because they probably have their own ideas on the privatisation of Greek assets, and the latter because the current situation of uncertainty allows multiple games and rewards”. For now, Eureca is not on the table in the discussions among European leaders.

In Lisbon, Público also notes that “the euro zone reduced the interest rate charged to Portugal and does away with the initial ‘penalty’". Portugal, the third country to get a bail-out, will benefit from the same rate of 3.5 percent and a repayment period extended to 15 years for the loan of 78 billion euros agreed in May.

The wider situation has been grasped: Greece is nearing bankruptcy, despite belt-tightening and the money from the EU and the IMF; the Portuguese and Irish sovereign debts have been downgraded to “junk" by the rating agencies; and Italy is being forced, practically with a knife to her throat, to adopt a plan to cut 40 billion euros in spending. In response, the 17 states of the eurozone, as well as the European Central Bank and the Commission, are arguing over the strategy to adopt. “Owing to a lack of political leadership, squabbles over the conditions for the banking sector’s participation in the new aid package to Greece are leading nowhere. However, dear ministers, this is like nursing a cold when it’s cancer that’s the threat," lamented Le Monde after the last unsuccessful meeting of finance ministers.

Our leaders are, however working under mitigating circumstances – but those circumstances give even more reason for concern. The first, as Die Zeit explains, is that they must choose between, on one hand, domestic political pressure not to finance clearly useless bailouts that burden the people without troubling the banks – and, on the other, a financial sector that imposes its own rhythm, undermines states, and yet retains a strong argument: that its money is indispensable for financing state debts.

The second comes from across the Atlantic. On July 14 Standard & Poor's threatened to downgrade the credit rating of the United States. In Washington, Obama has so far failed to end the budget standoff with the Republicans. The financial crisis shaking Europe is thus threatening to undermine America, which would just worsen the situation on our continent further. US officials, however, don’t seem any more up to the task than the Europeans.

Whether indecisive, incompetent or simply paralysed by this challenge and the feeling of no longer being in control of the destiny of their countries, EU leaders must show determination. But it would take a very clever leader to show us the right way forward.