Bailout Challenged in Court

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,989
A legal challenge is underway in Germany to block planned bailouts of struggling eurozone nations.
Fifty plaintiffs, including some of the country's most significant business figures, argue that the aid package runs contrary to the German constitution.

If their collective injunction is successful it would stop Germany paying more than 20bn euro to Greece and Ireland.
German Govt Challenged Over Bailout: Campaigners Say EU Aid Package Is Unlawful | Business | Sky News

Interesting development here. If the challenge survives then perhaps we will default sooner rather then later.
 


Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,989
"The banking system across Europe will collapse, including the German banking system because they've got very large assets around the whole of the eurozone, which would suddenly be worthless.

"It would make Lehman look like a tea party, frankly - which is why I don't think it will happen."

Mr Nixon said that as the consequences would be so huge, it was not a likely scenario, but added that it was an outcome that was being considered by the markets.
German Govt Challenged Over Eurozone Bailout - Yahoo! News UK

Possible consequences to this action from Yahoo.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
3,566
And where is the legal challenge on our side?

FG, Labour and SF were all shouting about our beloved consitution the other day and yet we still have no legal challenges.
 

Expatriot

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
4,325
I hope they win, sort this mess out once and for all.
 

DownTheyGo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,294
Much rather see these Germans win the court challenge than pay out to German bondholders.. total spanner in the works, no one saw this coming.. Oli must be on his 3rd prozac already today !
 

Padraigin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
628
And where is the legal challenge on our side?

FG, Labour and SF were all shouting about our beloved consitution the other day and yet we still have no legal challenges.

That's another group that needs to get off their arses and start defending their country - Ireland's lawyers. Instead of waiting for a client to walk through the door to pay them to do it, they need to volunteer their services to their country and start working on a constitutional challenge pro bono.

Ireland's lawyers, this means you.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
I tried to start a thread discussing a constitutional challenge to the bank guarantee, but it was buried by merging with a different thread.

The different thread was some waffle about fighting the IMF on sovereignty grounds, even though no court on earth will concede that the IMF is taking on de jure sovereignty, and courts, by definition, only deal with de jure matters.

The case against the bank guarantee is simple: the citizens' rights clause precludes any government from taking on such disproportionate guarantees and making the citizenry liable for them. No court would deny that the state has the right to guarantee some assets, but the idea that a nation with a GDP of 100bn can guarantee 440bn is an extremely big ask.

Can anyone see how this is a separate issue from the IMF?
 

Evestown2

Active member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
184
Didn't they try this before over the Lisbon treaty. IIRC it got thrown out of court.
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,989
Very True, the law is only for the elites.
Fifty plaintiffs, including some of the country's most significant business figures, argue that the aid package runs contrary to the German constitution.
^^ from the original link

It appears that some of Germany's elites are in on the challenge.
 

Padraigin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
628
I tried to start a thread discussing a constitutional challenge to the bank guarantee, but it was buried by merging with a different thread.

The different thread was some waffle about fighting the IMF on sovereignty grounds, even though no court on earth will concede that the IMF is taking on de jure sovereignty, and courts, by definition, only deal with de jure matters.

The case against the bank guarantee is simple: the citizens' rights clause precludes any government from taking on such disproportionate guarantees and making the citizenry liable for them. No court would deny that the state has the right to guarantee some assets, but the idea that a nation with a GDP of 100bn can guarantee 440bn is an extremely big ask.

Can anyone see how this is a separate issue from the IMF?


The constitutional challenge actually has several possible bases, but one would be that the government has no constitutional authority to spend public monies for the benefit of private parties.

The government can regulate banking - but it cannot use public monies to pay the debts of private parties. That authoritiy does not exist in the Irish Constitution.

The fundamental illegality of the bank guarantee is what also gives Ireland the right to walk away from the bank debt altogether.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
Didn't they try this before over the Lisbon treaty. IIRC it got thrown out of court.
What bank guarantee was involved in the Lisbon Treaty case?

IIRC, the Lisbon case never mentioned any bank guarantee whatsoever. Can you refer me to the part where the Supreme Court gave the official OK to give unlimited guarantees?

I was under the impression that the Supreme Court has never ever ruled that the state has an unlimited discretion to offer guarantees of any size. Do you have contrary information, and could you provide a link to the ruling that allows unlimited guarantees?
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
The constitutional challenge actually has several possible bases, but one would be that the government has no constitutional authority to spend public monies for the benefit of private parties.

The government can regulate banking - but it cannot use public monies to pay the debts of private parties. That authoritiy does not exist in the Irish Constitution.

The fundamental illegality of the bank guarantee is what also gives Ireland the right to walk away from the bank debt altogether.
No such right can be assumed in the absence of a case being taken to the Court and won, surely.
 

Evestown2

Active member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
184
What bank guarantee was involved in the Lisbon Treaty case?

IIRC, the Lisbon case never mentioned any bank guarantee whatsoever. Can you refer me to the part where the Supreme Court gave the official OK to give unlimited guarantees?

I was under the impression that the Supreme Court has never ever ruled that the state has an unlimited discretion to offer guarantees of any size. Do you have contrary information, and could you provide a link to the ruling that allows unlimited guarantees?
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was a challenge to a bank guarantee, rather that there was a constitutional challenge to a European agreement and that it was essentially on similar grounds to this.
 

Padraigin

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
628
No such right can be assumed in the absence of a case being taken to the Court and won, surely.

You don't get it. The Memorandum of Understanding also violates EU law. It is going to get challenged in EU courts as well.

The money guys who created this debt enslavement deal were only focused on saving banks and the euro, while making sure that the Irish tax payers paid for the whole thing and that the lending European banks got all their money back with a nice profit.

Nobody ever even considered the legality of the deal.
 

feargach

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
4,968
You don't get it. The Memorandum of Understanding also violates EU law. It is going to get challenged in EU courts as well.

The money guys who created this debt enslavement deal were only focused on saving banks and the euro, while making sure that the Irish tax payers paid for the whole thing and that the lending European banks got all their money back with a nice profit.

Nobody ever even considered the legality of the deal.
Well, isn't there a statute of limitations on this kind of thing?

If it continues another year unchallenged, isn't it no longer possible to fight it?

In fact, isn't it possible that the window to challenge the Memorandum has already passed?
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top