Don't Know (8.8%)
Not Voting (4.59%)
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.
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.
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".
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.
On balance, you were probably lucky it was obvious it couldn't be done.
I'm wondering whether the high external debt number is due to the many international companies that have their headquarters in Ireland.
Trust me, it was far from obvious at the time. The IMF reps almost had a heart-attack.
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.
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
Even though he was let go, it shows they are not untouchable. Nobody here has been brought to account of course.
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.
Remind me again. Who appointed the Financial Regulator?
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.
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.
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.
Sorry. You took an ironic rhetorical question too seriously.
Correct answer is the FF led Government of the day who we elected.
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?
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.