Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

1246763

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    andrew wrote: »
    I would've thought that at worst, that'd make people indifferent toward it, as opposed to actively opposing it. And anyway, you can't fix those problems with a single treaty. A treaty to solve the problems you could fix with a single treaty (a lack of fiscal centralisation for example) probably wouldn't pass anyway.
    Suppose we had a water shortage, and govt. or EU proposed a national rain dance. I would oppose it as stupid and something that diverted time and energy from addressing the actual problem. Only by opposing such "solutions" can we make them go back to the drawing board and then come back with something better.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And their unemployment is normally a quarter of ours (1% to our 4%), so relative to their normal unemployment, their current unemployment rate is double. To reach the same relative rates as during the height of Iceland's bust, we would have had to have 40% unemployment.

    The dangers, as already said, of facile comparisons.
    You can't seriously suggest that 10% unemployment in Iceland has the same societal effects on them as 40% would have in Ireland.
    Also what period of time are you referring to as the "height of Iceland's bust"?
    10% unemployment for a few months in Iceland, or 15% possibly lingering on for decades in Ireland, which is worse?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    karlth wrote: »
    Also what is helping us here up north is that we are pretty close to Norway (in distance and culture) and a lot of Icelanders are moving there temporarily for work.
    And we are close to Australia and Canada; that's why our unemployment rate is only 15% and not 40%.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    They say 50,000 people a year are leaving Ireland, mostly the younger generation. That's 1.1% of the population. The equivalent for Iceland would be just over 3500 people leaving per year. It would be interesting to know what the actual figure for Iceland is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭karlth


    recedite wrote: »
    They say 50,000 people a year are leaving Ireland, mostly the younger generation. That's 1.1% of the population. The equivalent for Iceland would be just over 3500 people leaving per year. It would be interesting to know what the actual figure for Iceland is.

    1300. (net emigration)


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    karlth wrote: »
    Average unemployment was before the bust 3.3%, so it has about doubled. The difference between Ireland and Iceland is that we are taking the hit in a devalued currency rather than unemployment. (Neither is pleasant).

    Also what is helping us here up north is that we are pretty close to Norway (in distance and culture) and a lot of Icelanders are moving there temporarily for work.

    Actually, I don't think either of us are quite correct, although you're closer than I am: http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:is&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&dl=en&hl=en&q=iceland+unemployment+rate
    recedite wrote:
    You can't seriously suggest that 10% unemployment in Iceland has the same societal effects on them as 40% would have in Ireland.

    When for every person who was previously unemployed there are now two unemployed, how is it different?
    Also what period of time are you referring to as the "height of Iceland's bust"?
    10% unemployment for a few months in Iceland, or 15% possibly lingering on for decades in Ireland, which is worse?

    Their unemployment rose very rapidly in 2008, and has been there since. The profile of their recent unemployment history looks identical to ours - lower base, similar multiple, same time period: http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country:is:ie&ifdim=country_group&tstart=412387200000&tend=1330214400000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=iceland+unemployment+rate

    People's capacity to pretend the grass is greener elsewhere seems to be endless.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭minotour


    Ive not read the treaty yet, nor am i looking forward to it. My only knowledge of it is from the plethora of agruments pouring out of the usual lot.

    My observations so far>

    The YES lot are being very elitist about it i.e. if you (the people) had the necessary brainpower you would see it is a "must do" for Ireland.

    The NO lot have not sufficeintly answered the question of "where else do we get money from at the same low rates"

    I see mention of ESSF Vs ESM as a possible answer to the NO lots issue but then why arent they jumpin on it?

    John Bruton used the analogy of a NO vote is us telling the credit union to F off while strutting down to the docks to borrow from loan sharks. He;s noramlly an astute guy, can it be that cut and dry?

    Personally i want to do the right thing for the right reasons on this one (not like lisbon2) but i fear they may be right, i dont have the necessary brainpower but then thats why i elected officials, to do the right thing in my place.

    I hate this country more and more every day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭karlth


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    Probably depends on what period we are discussing. From 1991 to 2007 it was on average 3.3% (http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mynd:Unemploymenticeland91-07.png)

    This graph is quite telling. You can say that unemployment tripled in both countries or you could say that unemployment increased by 10 percent point in Ireland compared to 5 percent point in Iceland. It all just depends on how you look at it. :)
    People's capacity to pretend the grass is greener elsewhere seems to be endless.

    Living here in Iceland I'd like to say that travelling abroad with a highly devalued currency and currency restrictions is no fun at all, so purely on that account I'd say be thankful for the Euro. :D

    But the question whether the Euro is sustainable is a more complex issue altogether.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    minotour wrote: »
    Ive not read the treaty yet, nor am i looking forward to it. My only knowledge of it is from the plethora of agruments pouring out of the usual lot.

    My observations so far>

    The YES lot are being very elitist about it i.e. if you (the people) had the necessary brainpower you would see it is a "must do" for Ireland.

    The NO lot have not sufficeintly answered the question of "where else do we get money from at the same low rates"

    I see mention of ESSF Vs ESM as a possible answer to the NO lots issue but then why arent they jumpin on it?

    John Bruton used the analogy of a NO vote is us telling the credit union to F off while strutting down to the docks to borrow from loan sharks. He;s noramlly an astute guy, can it be that cut and dry?

    Personally i want to do the right thing for the right reasons on this one (not like lisbon2) but i fear they may be right, i dont have the necessary brainpower but then thats why i elected officials, to do the right thing in my place.

    I hate this country more and more every day.

    The No side is jumping on the argument that there would almost certainly be another bailout option if we don't have ESM access, but it's not a great argument, because the minute you look at the detail it starts to break down:

    1. we're already way over normal IMF borrowing limits: 1350% of quota, rising to 1550% of quota by the end of the programme, where the usual maximum is 600%. And the IMF won't get involved if Europe doesn't.

    2. the EFSF is being wound up, and will not engage in new programmes

    3. bilateral loans are something we have already, from all those who offered them. The rates on those loans are worse than our other bailout loans, they add up to very little, and they are also contingent on our troika programme being met.

    4. we will probably be able to negotiate a European bailout if we don't have ESM access, but it will come from the same countries as are providing the money for ESM. They will not be able to offer us a better deal than ESM, because doing so would undermine ESM.

    So, yes, rejecting ESM access really is quite like priding ourselves on flipping the finger to the credit union because we can borrow from the loan sharks.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    karlth wrote: »
    Probably depends on what period we are discussing. From 1991 to 2007 it was on average 3.3% (http://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mynd:Unemploymenticeland91-07.png)

    This graph is quite telling. You can say that unemployment tripled in both countries or you could say that unemployment increased by 10 percent point in Ireland compared to 5 percent point in Iceland. It all just depends on how you look at it. :)

    Always the case with statistics! I would argue that the relative rise is more important when it comes to cross-country comparisons. And our average rate for 1991-2007 is 8.66%.
    karlth wrote: »
    Living here in Iceland I'd like to say that travelling abroad with a highly devalued currency and currency restrictions is no fun at all, so purely on that account I'd say be thankful for the Euro. :D

    But the question whether the Euro is sustainable is a more complex issue altogether.

    My main issue with the euro, from a design perspective, is that it completely lacked any hint of crisis arrangements, whereas the crisis arrangements for national currencies are fairly well established. Part of the unseemly scrambling that's been going on the last few years is the negotiation of those crisis arrangements during the crisis, a process which shows all the calm and rationality of arranging one's evacuation plan during a fire.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 36 SuperMacs


    I will vote yes.

    I trust Markozy to get the economics right then any shower in Dublin.

    Anyways, have not had the usual No-Camp abortion, and Militarisation, arguments to change my mind yet.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    karlth wrote: »
    Living here in Iceland I'd like to say that travelling abroad with a highly devalued currency and currency restrictions is no fun at all, so purely on that account I'd say be thankful for the Euro. :D

    But the question whether the Euro is sustainable is a more complex issue altogether.


    Another advantage of having the euro that's often overlooked here is that during our crisis, the ECB interest rate actually dropped from 4% to 1% and just recently went up to 1.5%. This has saved a lot of homeowners from experiencing the double whammy of lower income and increasing home loan repayments.
    In Iceland by contrast, as the krona experienced difficulties the CB interest rate soared to 18% for a brief period. Fortunately it has now dropped back to about 4% but there must have been some worrying times in and around the peak.


  • Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭karlth


    Vita nova wrote: »
    Another advantage of having the euro that's often overlooked here is that during our crisis, the ECB interest rate actually dropped from 4% to 1% and just recently went up to 1.5%. This has saved a lot of homeowners from experiencing the double whammy of lower income and increasing home loan repayments.
    In Iceland by contrast, as the krona experienced difficulties the CB interest rate soared to 18% for a brief period. Fortunately it has now dropped back to about 4% but there must have been some worrying times in and around the peak.

    Yes, that is true. The currency devalued sharply, interest rates shot up, the financial sector was wiped out and we are still living with currency controls. We took a big hit no question about it.

    On the other hand of course Iceland's external debt, which was in 2008 around the same as Ireland's now (10x GDP), was almost completely flushed down the toilet when the government refused to help the private banks.

    Shock therapy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    karlth wrote: »
    Yes, that is true. The currency devalued sharply, interest rates shot up, the financial sector was wiped out and we are still living with currency controls. We took a big hit no question about it.

    On the other hand of course Iceland's external debt, which was in 2008 around the same as Ireland's now (10x GDP), was almost completely flushed down the toilet when the government refused to help the private banks.

    Shock therapy.

    10xGDP? I can't help but think what you mean there is the balance sheets of the Icelandic banks. Irish debt is currently a bit north of 100% of GDP, not 1000%!

    Ireland's banks had balance sheets 3.5 times GDP, which meant that Ireland could in theory, if it was lucky, if the gambles paid off, etc, stand over its banks, whereas Iceland couldn't under any circumstances do so and had to face that fact immediately.

    Unfortunately, our political class are gamblers - I mean that in the quite literal sense, in that many of them do it for recreation - and I think when the chips were down they decided to stake the State's finances on the gamble that guaranteeing the banks rather than immediate nationalisation of the worst cases would be less costly 'going forward'.

    How little any of this had to do with the euro is illustrated by the recent call by the Deputy Governor of the Central Bank for the institution of "macro-prudential controls" in Ireland:
    Given the devastating consequences housing bubbles can have, policy makers have good reasons to attempt to prevent them. But, while some housing bubbles are followed by a crisis, not all are. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know in advance which bubbles are followed by a crisis.[20] This uncertainty can bias policy makers in favour of inaction. One particular problem is that the boom phase is associated with rapid growth of real income, falling unemployment, rising tax revenues, increasing asset prices and high bank profitability. With households, government and banks all doing well, there is little political support for policies intended to prevent the bubble from growing further, even when policy makers believe them necessary. To avoid such a scenario, the policy makers responsible for the overall health of the financial system – the macro prudential authority – must have a clear mandate and be independent.

    Following the crisis, there has been much work on the development of macro-prudential tools that reduce the likelihood of property-driven financial crises, and that reduce or limit their consequences if they do occur. As the Central Bank is the macro-prudential authority in Ireland,[21] the bank is following this debate closely.

    What are macro-prudential tools? The IMF (2011c) proposes two criteria. First, they explicitly and specifically target the build-up of risk across the financial system – systemic risk – as the bubble grows. Second, they are controlled by the macro-prudential authority.[22] However, few macro-prudential tools have been used systematically and there is little practical experience for policy makers to rely on.[23] Nonetheless, several tools that target real estate lending have been adopted in a small number of economies.[24] They can be grouped in three broad categories.[25]

    The first category relates to capital requirements on property lending. For instance, capital requirements for mortgages for buy-to-let properties could be increased relative to those for primary dwellings. This would tend to reduce this type of lending, which appears to be associated with greater credit risk, and ensure that banks’ resilience is bolstered by the additional capital buffer.[26]

    Second, dynamic provisioning requires banks to hold provisions against expected losses due to credit risks. This tool has been implemented in Spain, where banks are required to build up buffers against performing loans in an upturn, which can then be drawn down in a recession.[27] This naturally slows bank lending in the boom phase and leaves banks in a better position to withstand loan losses in a crash.

    Third, limits on loan-to-value (LTV) and loan-to-income (LTI) ratios target the creditworthiness of borrowers more explicitly. While LTV limits help ensure that the underlying collateral – the property – is sufficient to cover the loan, were the borrower to default, LTI limits enhance the creditworthiness of borrowers by limiting their repayment burden. Tightening these ratios in the as the boom gets underway raises the ability of the financial system to cope if the bubble bursts. Their potential use in Ireland warrants further reflection.[28]

    It is sometimes argued that tighter monetary policy – higher interest rates – is the appropriate way to deal with property bubbles. However, monetary policy is a blunt tool that affects all lending, risky and less risky. In contrast, macro prudential tools can be targeted narrowly on the most risky borrowers. Such a sharp focus may lower the overall cost of preventive action.

    There is not a single measure in there that could not have been instituted a decade ago.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    recedite wrote: »
    Suppose we had a water shortage, and govt. or EU proposed a national rain dance. I would oppose it as stupid and something that diverted time and energy from addressing the actual problem. Only by opposing such "solutions" can we make them go back to the drawing board and then come back with something better.

    I said at worse that the treaty does nothing. I actually think it does do something, in that it's a step toward fiscal union. If it was clear what people wanted instead of this treaty (like, if everyone was in support of fiscal union, or deposit insurance) then I might support the 'go back to the drawing board' view, but as it stands it seems like there's no reason to actively oppose it. At worse supporting it brings no benefits, while saying no brings unambiguous harms in terms of funding (as Scofflaw has pointed out) and yet more uncertainty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭karlth


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    10xGDP? I can't help but think what you mean there is the balance sheets of the Icelandic banks. Irish debt is currently a bit north of 100% of GDP, not 1000%!

    Well you are number one here.

    Ireland's banks had balance sheets 3.5 times GDP, which meant that Ireland could in theory, if it was lucky, if the gambles paid off, etc, stand over its banks, whereas Iceland couldn't under any circumstances do so and had to face that fact immediately. [/QUOTE]

    The main problem we faced was that the banks debts was in foreign currency. We could have handled a lot if the banks had borrowed in icelandic kronas, unfortunately they didn't. So, as you said, we had to cut the rope.

    Ireland's debt is/was mostly in its own currency but alas not one you can print your way out of with unlike the US and Japan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    andrew wrote: »
    I said at worse that the treaty does nothing. I actually think it does do something, in that it's a step toward fiscal union. If it was clear what people wanted instead of this treaty (like, if everyone was in support of fiscal union, or deposit insurance) then I might support the 'go back to the drawing board' view, but as it stands it seems like there's no reason to actively oppose it. At worse supporting it brings no benefits, while saying no brings unambiguous harms in terms of funding (as Scofflaw has pointed out) and yet more uncertainty.

    The choice in this referendum keeps being summarised as "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It's really more like "meh if you do, bleh if you don't".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    karlth wrote: »
    Well you are number one here.

    Um, yes. That's the entirety of all debt in Ireland, though, not public debt, and doesn't tell you what assets correspond to the debt. Debt figures by themselves are kind of meaningless, particularly the ones used by journalists in a "top 10" list.

    Having said that, we do have huge net household and business debt problems as well as public debt.
    karlth wrote: »
    The main problem we faced was that the banks debts was in foreign currency. We could have handled a lot if the banks had borrowed in icelandic kronas, unfortunately they didn't. So, as you said, we had to cut the rope.

    Ireland's debt is/was mostly in its own currency but alas not one you can print your way out of with unlike the US and Japan.

    On balance, you were probably lucky it was obvious it couldn't be done.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭karlth


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Um, yes. That's the entirety of all debt in Ireland, though, not public debt, and doesn't tell you what assets correspond to the debt. Debt figures by themselves are kind of meaningless, particularly the ones used by journalists in a "top 10" list.

    I'm wondering whether the high external debt number is due to the many international companies that have their headquarters in Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭karlth


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    On balance, you were probably lucky it was obvious it couldn't be done.

    Trust me, it was far from obvious at the time. The IMF reps almost had a heart-attack.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    karlth wrote: »
    I'm wondering whether the high external debt number is due to the many international companies that have their headquarters in Ireland.

    Basically, yes:
    Ireland had a Net International Investment Position liability of €134 billion at end-June 2011

    Ireland’s stocks of foreign financial assets stood at €2,544bn at the end of June 2011 - down €15bn from the end-March level. The corresponding stocks of foreign financial liabilities (€2,679bn) decreased by €35bn in the same period. As a result Irish residents had an overall net foreign liability of €134bn at 30th June 2011 (see table 1a).

    Monetary financial institutions (MFIs), which consist of credit institutions and money market funds, had foreign assets of €839bn at the end of June 2011 - down €29bn from the end of the previous quarter. Over the same period their foreign liabilities decreased by €27bn to €785bn (see table 2).

    Other financial intermediaries (OFIs) which largely consist of investment funds, insurance companies and pension funds, asset finance companies and treasuries, had assets and liabilities of €1,439bn and €1,362bn, respectively at the end of Q2 2011. The corresponding net asset position of €77bn was up €26bn on the previous quarter. This increase was driven largely by a re-classification of certain Investment fund liabilities from non-domestic to domestic.

    The foreign assets of General Government (which includes the NPRF) fell from €10.2bn to €4.6bn in the quarter while liabilities increased from €95.1bn to €98.3bn in the same period.

    IFSC enterprises accounted for a very high proportion of the overall foreign assets and liabilities within the commercial financial sector (i.e. MFIs and OFIs). At the end of June 2011, IFSC assets abroad amounted to €2,039bn or 89 per cent of the commercial financial sector’s foreign assets (and over 80 per cent of Ireland’s total foreign assets); IFSC liabilities at €2,008bn represented almost 94 per cent of the commercial financial sector aggregate (and almost 75 per cent of Ireland’s total foreign liabilities). IFSC enterprises therefore showed a net asset position at the end of June 2011 of €32bn.

    Non-IFSC commercial financial enterprises accounted for €239bn or 9% of total foreign assets; corresponding liabilities amounted to €139bn or 5% of total foreign liabilities - see table 2.

    http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/economy/2011/Quarterly%20International%20Investment%20Position%20and%20External%20Debt%2030%20June%202011.pdf

    IFSC enterprises accounted for 75% of Ireland's total foreign liabilities. So figures like the one in the Top 10 list, claiming debt per person in Ireland is c. €440k, really are entirely meaningless.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    karlth wrote: »
    Living here in Iceland I'd like to say that travelling abroad with a highly devalued currency and currency restrictions is no fun at all, so purely on that account I'd say be thankful for the Euro.
    Wage cuts are no fun either. At least a devaluation is fair, ie everyone including the politicians and civil servants get to share in it.
    When you suffer wage cuts you tend to rule out the foreign holidays, so the strong euro is little consolation.

    Fair play to Icelanders for putting the ex Prime Minister on trial BTW :pac:
    Even though he was let go, it shows they are not untouchable. Nobody here has been brought to account of course.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    How little any of this had to do with the euro is illustrated by the recent call by the Deputy Governor of the Central Bank for the institution of "macro-prudential controls" in Ireland.................
    There is not a single measure in there that could not have been instituted a decade ago.
    The Irish central bank is little more than a local branch of the ECB, and when the chips are down it takes its orders from Frankfurt, not Dublin.
    You seem to be trying to distance the bank from the euro, but you might as well say the euro is nothing to do with the ECB.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    recedite wrote: »
    The Irish central bank is little more than a local branch of the ECB, and when the chips are down it takes its orders from Frankfurt, not Dublin.
    You seem to be trying to distance the bank from the euro, but you might as well say the euro is nothing to do with the ECB.

    As far as I'm aware, the Irish Financial Regulator (at the time, now it's combined with the Central Bank) had and has plenty of scope to regulate the financial sector. They just didn't. It's not that the ECB were saying not to because of the euro, the Financial Regulator just completely failed to do it's job properly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    andrew wrote: »
    As far as I'm aware, the Irish Financial Regulator (at the time, now it's combined with the Central Bank) had and has plenty of scope to regulate the financial sector. They just didn't. It's not that the ECB were saying not to because of the euro, the Financial Regulator just completely failed to do it's job properly.

    Remind me again. Who appointed the Financial Regulator?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    andrew wrote: »
    the Financial Regulator just completely failed to do it's job properly.

    People keep saying this. The regulator done exactly the job he was appointed to do (keep out of the way and don't interfere.) If the regulator regulated they would have removed him and appointed another one who didn't regulate. Regulation didn't suit the ideology of the times. The position was an on paper only position.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,368 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    Remind me again. Who appointed the Financial Regulator?

    What do you mean; given it was an entire organisation, it wasn't a single person who was appointed. As in, it was and is a subset of the central bank, but between 2003 and 2010 there was so little interaction between the two bodies that they can't really have been considered a single entity.

    Either way, while the ECB have taken control of monetary policy,my point is that the ECB doesn't (to my knowledge) get involved in financial regulation, and so if the Financial regulator didn't regulate, it's our fault and not the ECB's or Europe's.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The Irish Central Bank regularly gave warnings to banks about lending criteria, I can remember a warning about people getting deposits for houses from Credit Unions as far back as 1998 or so. The regulator didn't check out or enforce these warnings.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    andrew wrote: »
    What do you mean; given it was an entire organisation, it wasn't a single person who was appointed. As in, it was and is a subset of the central bank, but between 2003 and 2010 there was so little interaction between the two bodies that they can't really have been considered a single entity.

    Either way, while the ECB have taken control of monetary policy,my point is that the ECB doesn't (to my knowledge) get involved in financial regulation, and so if the Financial regulator didn't regulate, it's our fault and not the ECB's or Europe's.

    Sorry. You took an ironic rhetorical question too seriously.

    Correct answer is the FF led Government of the day who we elected.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    recedite wrote: »
    The Irish central bank is little more than a local branch of the ECB, and when the chips are down it takes its orders from Frankfurt, not Dublin.
    You seem to be trying to distance the bank from the euro, but you might as well say the euro is nothing to do with the ECB.

    Er, no. Or, rather, what? I don't see what those comments have to do with anything I said.

    Surely if the Irish Central Bank "takes its orders from Frankfurt, not Dublin", the the Deputy Governor calling for macro-prudential controls is something that is attributable to Frankfurt - in which case a bit more of Frankfurt's way is something we could have done with a decade ago.

    I don't think that's something you mean, though I'm not sure what you do mean, of course.

    Are you arguing that despite the identified failures of the Irish Financial Regulator, nothing that happened was anything to do with anybody here really? That does seem to be a belief in some quarters, or at least something that gets claimed, and it might be what you're claiming here?

    slightly baffled,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,750 ✭✭✭Panrich


    I'm unsure how to vote on this at the moment. I see that we are backed into a corner but the fact that we are being treated as fools in all this is nauseating.
    The promissory notes fiasco was the main one for me. The way that we were thrown a few crumbs to defer this years payment was designed purely for the purpose of getting more yes votes on the table. The fact that we have no prospect of acheiving anything worthwhile long term has not been given equal column inches.
    This latest news on selling our state assets and being allowed to keep up to half is another kick in the gonads and yet is being reported as a triumph. This is at the same time that the Troika is reporting that we are comfortably meeting our targets without any firesales.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Panrich wrote: »
    The promissory notes fiasco was the main one for me. The way that we were thrown a few crumbs to defer this years payment was designed purely for the purpose of getting more yes votes on the table.

    1. Do you realize that the PN's are actually our cheapest source of funding at the moment? Cheaper than the EFSF/ IMF loans. Probably not, most people don't, they just harp on about the excessive interest rate on those notes and miss the point that that "interest", in so far as it is excessive, ends up in an entity we own and so comes back to us.

    2. The ECB didn't move on the PNs. The Irish Government did that all on their own, nothing to do with the ECB throwing us a crumb. No crumbs were thrown.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement