NAMA, the whole 9 yards.

DeVore

There are so many questions to be asked on this topic, so many points that have been debated that I think it best if I relinquish the floor to you so you can explain your point of view on it...

DeV.

PaulGogartyTD

Well, let's start off by saying that I think NAMA was entirely necessary. If you accept that the banks needed to bailed out/recapitalised (and some people don't), then NAMA is simply a way of getting loans at a very low interest rate to take debt off the books, along with associated "performing" assets. There is a possibility that NAMA will make a profit over a ten year period. But even if it doesn't, it will still work out cheaper than nationalisation and safer than letting the system collapse in the first place.

Nijmegen

Do you think it is right that NAMA be a largely secretive organisation, given that it is spending taxpayer money in the commercial world to bail out wealthy and formerly wealthy individuals?

What details would you like to see published that are currently not? For example, would you like to see NAMA publish comprehensive lists of all people involved, their companies, interests and so forth?

I've seen lists cobbled together from media reports that link TD's to companies being bailed out by NAMA... What is your reaction to that?

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/the-developers/ is one such source.

deelite

Will there be a NAMA for the people who are struggling to pay their mortgages?

DeVore

What do you say to the people who say

1. "We wouldnt have seen any of the profit, why are we taking the loss?"

2. "Anglo should have been let collapse".

DeV.

DeVore

deelite wrote: »

Will there be a NAMA for the people who are struggling to pay their mortgages?

Dee, who will pay for this Nama-for-householders? The people (like me) who didnt take huge mortgages they couldnt be sure to repay?

Thats no better than the bankers dumping their losses on the populace!

DeV.

gandalf

I think the majority of us who have worked in the real world saw the need to create a mechanism to keep the major retail banks afloat but most of us cannot see the logic in keeping a specialist developers bank going like Anglo and a minor player like Irish Nationwide. Can you understand the absolute frustration and anger among the Irish people especially now that the true cost of standing behind these two failed institutions appears to be on the horizon?

Also one of the core arguments that with the NAMA mechanism in place that credit will flow into Enterprises in this country is not true. I have seen it first hand with viable companies going to the wall because of cash flow problems directly connected to the credit famine that grips this country because of our diseased banking sector.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deelite

DeVore wrote: »

Dee, who will pay for this Nama-for-householders? The people (like me) who didnt take huge mortgages they couldnt be sure to repay?

Thats no better than the bankers dumping their losses on the populace!

DeV.

Hi DeV,

The reason why I posted the question was I was under the impression that there was some "talk" of a NAMA type situation for home owners which has not come through.

Like you I don't have a huge mortgage but there are people out there who do and might find Paul's answer interesting.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bijapos

my question to the deputy based on his reply

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGogartyTD
In a nutshell, we have limited economic sovereignty remaining. If we go to the markets in January for more loans to pay for wages, social welfare and service without having put a credible four year plan in place, along with another tough budget

Why has it taken 2 years while the country continues to go backwards (while other countries are out of the recession and growing) to realise that we need a credible plan?
We had other "credible" plans before such as NAMA (promised to get lending again and so on) and this has already proven to be a failure (As predicted by many independent economists). So what will make this plan any more "credible" in front of the people of this country and the world at large from who we need investment.

And thank you deputy for taking time to interact with the people here on boards now if only more TDs embraced the tools of the "knowledge economy" they like to speak so fondly of .

Edit: the above is post nr 105 in questions thread by ei.sdraob

johnnyskeleton

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

Well, let's start off by saying that I think NAMA was entirely necessary. If you accept that the banks needed to bailed out/recapitalised (and some people don't),

You accept that they needed to be bailed out/recapitalised. Why do you believe that?

My concern is that all too many people have blindly accepted Minister Lenihan's word for it that it "had to be done". As a public representative, you might explain to us why it had to be done. There were many alternatives. Were these explored? We have been told that expert advice told the government that it had to be done, and this subsequently turned out to be false. But where were the expert opinions on the other options?

My view is that the insolvent banks should have been put into an administration scheme i.e. a system of legal protection where they cannot be sued or wound up. During this time, they set out all of their assets and liabilities, and based on that, we decide whether it would be better to let them fail or bail them out.

Brian Lenihan said at the time that "We are not rushing into the banks without knowing precisely what the position is in those banks" yet that is exactly what they did with NAMA.

Given that it is clear that no government should rush blindly in to guarantee or bailout a bank, and that it is also clear that the extend of the liabilities was much greater than the banks and Minister Lenihan let on at the time (whether Minister Lenihan knew or was reckless as to the full extent of the liability remains to be seen), I ask you:

QUESTION 1: Do you accept that the blanket guarantee and NAMA system was decided upon without looking at the alternatives, and the government were negligent in doing so?

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

then NAMA is simply a way of getting loans at a very low interest rate to take debt off the books,

NAMA takes loans off the banks and gives them NAMA bonds i.e. NAMA pays c. 4% interest to the banks for each euro of a loan they have taken.

The banks may be able to use these as collateral with the ECB at 1%, so the banks can get 4% off the government and pay the ECB 1%. In effect, the government is paying a premium of 3% to NAMA for nothing.

The money for NAMA has to be raised just as any other government spending has to be. That means that at a minimum, the government will be paying whatever rate they normally pay to finance this project e.g. 6.5% 10 year loans. Because NAMA is riskier than other government debt, it will likely be higher.

Therefore, we are paying 6.5% or more interest to fund loss making loans and at the same time paying 4% to the banks for these loans which the banks make a profit of 3% on due to ECB financing.

QUESTION 2: How exactly are we "getting loans at a very low interest rate"?

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

There is a possibility that NAMA will make a profit over a ten year period.

QUESTION 3: While anything is possible, do you think that NAMA making a profit is in any way realistic?

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

But even if it doesn't, it will still work out cheaper than nationalisation

It looks increasingly like they will be nationalised anyway, but this long drawn out process of nationalisation with NAMA taking attention away from the banks themselves, a lot of deals can be done in the background which will cost the taxpayer money when the final account is presented.

QUESTION 4: Would you accept that it would in fact work out cheaper if there was a short sharp nationalisation, as such would allow the loans to be dealt with in a transparent and open manner rather than sweetheart deals being done behind the scenes?

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

and safer than letting the system collapse in the first place.

QUESTION 5 (THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL): Safer for whom?

PaulGogartyTD

Nijmegen wrote: »

Do you think it is right that NAMA be a largely secretive organisation, given that it is spending taxpayer money in the commercial world to bail out wealthy and formerly wealthy individuals?

What details would you like to see published that are currently not? For example, would you like to see NAMA publish comprehensive lists of all people involved, their companies, interests and so forth?

I've seen lists cobbled together from media reports that link TD's to companies being bailed out by NAMA... What is your reaction to that?

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/the-developers/ is one such source.

I think NAMA needs to be secretive to carry out its work free of political interference. It's a model the Residential Tenancies Board has pioneered. What has been released shows that NAMA is not bailing out developers and is seeking to maximise the return for the taxpayer down the line.

PaulGogartyTD

deelite wrote: »

Will there be a NAMA for the people who are struggling to pay their mortgages?

As per our party website: At the Green Party’s insistence, an expert group was established in February 2010 to look at how state-supported banks could help the tens of thousands of people with difficulty paying their mortgages. The Group recommended that no penalty interest or arrears charges should apply; you should not lose your tracker mortgage if you agree a deal with your bank (longer maturity, interest only, payment holiday, etc); and that all lenders develop a specialist unit to deal with those in arrears.

These and other recommendations are being implemented, but the urgency seems to have gone out of the process, perhaps because the voluntary arrangement with the banks largely seems to be working. The main problem relates to the "sub-prime" mortgages, where companies gave mortgages to people at penal rates of interest that is now cripping them.

PaulGogartyTD

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You accept that they needed to be bailed out/recapitalised. Why do you believe that?

My concern is that all too many people have blindly accepted Minister Lenihan's word for it that it "had to be done". As a public representative, you might explain to us why it had to be done. There were many alternatives. Were these explored? We have been told that expert advice told the government that it had to be done, and this subsequently turned out to be false. But where were the expert opinions on the other options?

My view is that the insolvent banks should have been put into an administration scheme i.e. a system of legal protection where they cannot be sued or wound up. During this time, they set out all of their assets and liabilities, and based on that, we decide whether it would be better to let them fail or bail them out.

Brian Lenihan said at the time that "We are not rushing into the banks without knowing precisely what the position is in those banks" yet that is exactly what they did with NAMA.

Given that it is clear that no government should rush blindly in to guarantee or bailout a bank, and that it is also clear that the extend of the liabilities was much greater than the banks and Minister Lenihan let on at the time (whether Minister Lenihan knew or was reckless as to the full extent of the liability remains to be seen), I ask you:

QUESTION 1: Do you accept that the blanket guarantee and NAMA system was decided upon without looking at the alternatives, and the government were negligent in doing so?

NAMA takes loans off the banks and gives them NAMA bonds i.e. NAMA pays c. 4% interest to the banks for each euro of a loan they have taken.

The banks may be able to use these as collateral with the ECB at 1%, so the banks can get 4% off the government and pay the ECB 1%. In effect, the government is paying a premium of 3% to NAMA for nothing.

The money for NAMA has to be raised just as any other government spending has to be. That means that at a minimum, the government will be paying whatever rate they normally pay to finance this project e.g. 6.5% 10 year loans. Because NAMA is riskier than other government debt, it will likely be higher.

Therefore, we are paying 6.5% or more interest to fund loss making loans and at the same time paying 4% to the banks for these loans which the banks make a profit of 3% on due to ECB financing.

QUESTION 2: How exactly are we "getting loans at a very low interest rate"?

QUESTION 3: While anything is possible, do you think that NAMA making a profit is in any way realistic?

It looks increasingly like they will be nationalised anyway, but this long drawn out process of nationalisation with NAMA taking attention away from the banks themselves, a lot of deals can be done in the background which will cost the taxpayer money when the final account is presented.

QUESTION 4: Would you accept that it would in fact work out cheaper if there was a short sharp nationalisation, as such would allow the loans to be dealt with in a transparent and open manner rather than sweetheart deals being done behind the scenes?

QUESTION 5 (THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL): Safer for whom?

Again I posted a reply which went dead after I posted it, meaning that 20 minutes of typing was lost. I apologise and will have to synopsise my post again.

It was going to be short anyhow because there are other questions to answer and time is limited. A NAMA debate in itself might take weeks!

1. No, I think they made a quick decision, but would have looked at the options. Dismissing other options quickly because they were deemed too risky is not to ignore them. If there was a 20% risk that Anglo was systemic, and that other banks would fall, then that risk could not be taken.

2. The banks are getting the benefit of the special ECB rate. The money spent by the State through NAMA in taking over both toxic and some performing assets at a realistic discount does of course cost the State at a higher rate. But if the banks themselves were to go looking for money they would either be charged at a far higher rate than the State, or would not get the money in the first place. If you accept that bailing out the banks is necessary, this makes sense; if you don't, then it won't make sense.

3. I think NAMA making a profit is possible, but I can only go on what NAMA and the Minister says. If it makes a small loss, that can be attributed as part of the cost of detoxifying the banks. Again if you agree this is necessary it makes sense; if you don't it is a different argument.

As for the nationalised any argument, I am on the Dail record a good while back as saying that at least one major Irish bank would have to be taken into majority State ownership. But full nationalisation is unlikely. And the State will benefit if there is any upturn in the banking sector through higher share prices on the open market.

5. Safer for the Irish people is the short answer to 5, because of 4.

4. A short, sharp nationalisation would have cost us more as we would have had to pay all the money owed upfront (borrowed) and the nationalised bank once operational would probably have had to borrow at a higher rate.

(I am not going to go into the argument about defaulting on monies owed, because these have been made consistently by the Minister)

The other risk was that in transitioning to a short, sharp nationalisation, there would have been a run on deposits, even with a guarantee scheme. Even a few weeks of no wages, food shortages and uncertainty would have led to potentially massive civil unrest. We might be in a marginally better position after all that, but the pain would have been almost unbearable. Again, a potential risk, not absolute, but not a risk any sovereign government would take.

DeVore

The technical problem is probably either you internet connection dying in the mean time and reconnecting, or perhaps our cookie timing out due to excessively long time between page requests.

Dav (our community manager) has sent you a message detailing how best to avoid this but in synopsis I guess its: Use Notepad and copy and paste, to make sure you dont lose work.

Thanks for sticking at this, there is no urgency in a sense... the internet isnt going anywhere so go be with your family; these questions will wait.


DeV.

johnnyskeleton

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

1. No, I think they made a quick decision, but would have looked at the options. Dismissing other options quickly because they were deemed too risky is not to ignore them. If there was a 20% risk that Anglo was systemic, and that other banks would fall, then that risk could not be taken.

On what basis did you (for you are part of this government) deem the other options too risky?

Did you carry out a cost benefit analysis though? Because in retrospect that quick decision has cost us billions. Surely you could have bought some more time to come to a reasoned decisions rather than the shoot first ask questions later manner that you set out above? If nothing else, your government is judged by its actions, and it is clear that the decision in this case was taken without a detailed consideration of the other options.

I put it to you that you dismissed the other options quickly without carrying out the due dilligence necessary for good governance, and in so doing the government was negligent if not reckless with taxpayer's money? Irrespective of whether it was the right outcome in the end, the decision making process was deeply flawed, no?

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

2. The banks are getting the benefit of the special ECB rate. The money spent by the State through NAMA in taking over both toxic and some performing assets at a realistic discount does of course cost the State at a higher rate. But if the banks themselves were to go looking for money they would either be charged at a far higher rate than the State, or would not get the money in the first place. If you accept that bailing out the banks is necessary, this makes sense; if you don't, then it won't make sense.

What you are saying is that by the government taking a massive gamble on the property market with our money they have benefitte because the banks can borrow money easily from the ECB? I put it to you that this argument is deeply flawed and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

If they had, instead of using NAMA, sold the assets at their market value (whatever that might be) they would be given cash which would go directly to paying down their balance sheet and thus reducing their need for recapitalisation. The NAMA bonds system is just a bit of artful trickery, whereby the banks get a 3% premium for free from the government. This does not help their balance sheets one whit, because it is a zero sum transaction, asset/liability wise.

So your argument is, I suggest, based on a misunderstanding of banking and finance. Would you care to respond to that?

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

3. I think NAMA making a profit is possible, but I can only go on what NAMA and the Minister says. If it makes a small loss, that can be attributed as part of the cost of detoxifying the banks. Again if you agree this is necessary it makes sense; if you don't it is a different argument.

I'll leave this one as it really will take too much time, but I would ask you this - do you always accept what the Minister says at face value? In that regard, would your trust in the Minister be different if you were not a member of a government party?

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

As for the nationalised any argument, I am on the Dail record a good while back as saying that at least one major Irish bank would have to be taken into majority State ownership. But full nationalisation is unlikely. And the State will benefit if there is any upturn in the banking sector through higher share prices on the open market.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here:

Earlier you said that "But even if it doesn't, it will still work out cheaper than nationalisation".

Now you are saying that there are benefits to nationalisation (or at least majority state ownership) if the economy recovers.

So which is it? Either there are clear benefits to nationalisation or majority state ownership that should have been explored at the time, or else there are not and therefore the government should not take any further steps nationalising any banks. It can't be both.

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

5. Safer for the Irish people is the short answer to 5, because of 4.

But that's just plain untrue. The safest thing for the Irish people would clearly have been not to expose them to billions of euro worth of toxic debt to be paid back through the taxes of generations to come. If the Irish people were the top priority, the banks would have been allowed to fail. It is only when you get into issues such as the broader economy, Ireland's reputation and all that illusory guff that bailing out the banks makes sense. But from the point of view of the Irish people, undertaking to pay up to half of GDP to get nothing in return but to cover the debts of a select few private citizens is clearly not in their interest.

PaulGogartyTD wrote:

4. A short, sharp nationalisation would have cost us more as we would have had to pay all the money owed upfront (borrowed) and the nationalised bank once operational would probably have had to borrow at a higher rate.

(I am not going to go into the argument about defaulting on monies owed, because these have been made consistently by the Minister)

Not true. Firstly, you really can't ignore the arguments about defaulting on some bondholder debt and equity capital just because the Minister has already argued about it. His arguments are:

a) that it would look bad for us as a country which is nonsense, given how bad we are currently seen (plus in the USA and UK, banks were allowed to fail with lesser consequences that Ireland has suffered); and
b) it would be illegal for us to default on this. However, it only became illegal because the Minister made it so which is the greatest tautology - "I have made us legally liable for all debts, therefore we can't default on debts as we are legally liable for them, and as we can't default on them , sure we may as well make us legally liable for them, etc"

About paying all the money upfront, again this makes little sense because the monies only become due when called upon and in any event, that the money is due upfront or in a years time makes little to no difference because at the end of the day, we will still end up owing an unfathomable amount of money because of the bailout.

But you're missing the wood for the trees. We have to have a banking system, but we don't have to have this banking system. Crucially, we don't have to have Anglo Irish Bank. The fact remains that a nationalisation could have taken place with the other banks while Anglo and Irish Nationwide were let fail. Such (while I don't agree with such a view personally) would have cost less.

If you think about it logically, at the end of the day there will be €Xbn losses from the fallout of the Irish credit bubble. There might be a few million more or less depending on whether we nationalise now or wait, or whether the properties are sold now or later etc. But the bottom line is that there are undeniable losses in the region of tens of billions of euro.

The question therefore is who has to take these lossess? The bondholders (i.e. investors) the depositors (i.e. a more personal level of investor), borrowers (i.e. customers) or the taxpayer. Different methods of a nationalisation/administration scheme would result in a different distribution of the losses, but the government's plan has ensured that all of the loss is going to the taxpayer.

We are, in effect, the mark in this three card trick that you (the government) have played on us the people.

I accuse you of intentionally or recklessly foisting all these losses on us when you did not have to do so. How do you respond?

PaulGogartyTD wrote:

The other risk was that in transitioning to a short, sharp nationalisation, there would have been a run on deposits, even with a guarantee scheme. Even a few weeks of no wages, food shortages and uncertainty would have led to potentially massive civil unrest. We might be in a marginally better position after all that, but the pain would have been almost unbearable. Again, a potential risk, not absolute, but not a risk any sovereign government would take.

You admit that we would have been in a better position after such a purge of the system, but there would be civil unrest?

Unbelievable. You are quite openly stating that, for the sake of a few extra votes and no protests outside the dail, your government has condemned the country to destitution. The pain would only have been unbearable for those trying to get reelected. For the rest of us, it would be a way to adjust and get on.

Scofflaw

You admit that we would have been in a better position after such a purge of the system, but there would be civil unrest?

Unbelievable. You are quite openly stating that, for the sake of a few extra votes and no protests outside the dail, your government has condemned the country to destitution. The pain would only have been unbearable for those trying to get reelected. For the rest of us, it would be a way to adjust and get on.

I think, to be fair, that the Deputy is talking about genuine civil unrest - the kind you get when there has been a run on the banks, businesses are unable to pay wages, and the shops have run out of food. That's not the same as a couple of eirigi lads making fools out of themselves in Kildare Street.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think, to be fair, that the Deputy is talking about genuine civil unrest - the kind you get when there has been a run on the banks, businesses are unable to pay wages, and the shops have run out of food. That's not the same as a couple of eirigi lads making fools out of themselves in Kildare Street - it means mass riots and looting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's just fear tactics Scofflaw. The idea that any alternative other than exactly what the government did would result in anarchy is preposterous.

Plus, if such would be the logical result of not bailing out the banks, then all bailing out the banks will have done is postpone that mess for a later goverment to deal with.

Either way, it is pure politics and no thought is given to the Irish people.

Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's just fear tactics Scofflaw. The idea that any alternative other than exactly what the government did would result in anarchy is preposterous.

It would be the result of a bank collapse brought about by allowing Anglo to collapse - which is what the Deputy said. The statement that it's preposterous is only your opinion.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Plus, if such would be the logical result of not bailing out the banks, then all bailing out the banks will have done is postpone that mess for a later goverment to deal with.

That sentence has a very large logical hole in the middle of it, which would be the bit where you show that preventing a run on the banks has the same effects as allowing one...

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Either way, it is pure politics and no thought is given to the Irish people.

You don't think the government has any duty to avoid civil unrest and people being unable to eat? That's an unusual stance.

If you read back over the media at the time, there was a widespread view that the bank guarantee and other actions were what prevented a complete collapse of confidence in the banking sector, a run on the banks, and the subsequent civil unrest and cessation of ordinary economic activity. When I say a widespread view, I mean that you'll find it in the media at the time, in the statements of pundits - indeed, you'll find it in the statements of David McWilliams, a fan of sharp treatment now that the danger is safely passed:

Ten years ago, while working in Moscow, I witnessed the collapse of the Russian banking system. I saw desperate people queuing outside main street banks. I witnessed investors losing all their wealth and I experienced what it was like to live in a society that was on the verge of psychological, as well as financial, collapse. We were a whisker away from that last week.

Make no mistake about it: last week, Ireland almost repeated the Russian experience of 1998.Had Brian Lenihan not intervened courageously to guarantee all deposits last Monday night, then at least one, if not two, Irish banks would have collapsed last Tuesday. By Thursday, we would have seen another bank fall and by Friday, the stock of the two big banks – Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank – would have fallen to zero, rendering them effectively bankrupt.

There simply was no other choice. Over the past few days, commentators have queried the wisdom of Lenihan’s move, as if we had the luxury of a suite of options to pick from at our leisure. This was not the case. Ireland had run out of time, and only the most brazen and unexpected move could have prevailed.

We didn’t have time to consult our European neighbours, nor with whingeing Britain – which, incidentally, is not even in the same currency as us, let alone the same jurisdiction. The last time I checked, Gordon Brown was not the Taoiseach.

The choice was simple: either we wanted a banking system or we did not. Now that he has saved the system, the minister has to fix it. There are indeed risks, but they can be minimised. Last week, we saw phase one of this operation. Next week we will, hopefully, see the beginning of phase two.

Source

The government, whatever its other faults may be, can only make decisions based on the evidence they have at the time. At the time, the danger of a collapse of the Irish banking system was regarded as imminent, and the measures taken to avoid it were greeted with relief, because the consequences of such a collapse are as grave as McWilliams outlines in the passage quoted above.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PaulGogartyTD

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's just fear tactics Scofflaw. The idea that any alternative other than exactly what the government did would result in anarchy is preposterous.

Plus, if such would be the logical result of not bailing out the banks, then all bailing out the banks will have done is postpone that mess for a later goverment to deal with.

Either way, it is pure politics and no thought is given to the Irish people.

I have to thank Scofflaw for intervening because I am flagging now and have more stuff to do tomorrow along with trying to wrap up the debate.

Yes, I was talking about civil unrest and food shortages, not an attempt to shore up votes and block democracy. Your questioning belies your prejudice or at least your suspicion. You are entitled to take this perspective and I am entitled to disagree.

Regarding NAMA, the whole idea was to NOT sell the assets at market value, ie to assist the banks through creative trickery as you said, to give them a leg up or a digout in Bertie-speak. But NAMA is clearly driven by a desire to maximise the return for the Irish taxpayer and minimise losses. It has gone gung ho after developers. It is not their friend, but rather the friend of the taxpayer.

Your disagreement with this process seems to stem from your disagreement with the idea of bailing out the banks in the first place. The Green Party, like the Minister, believed this to be necessary, knew that quick decisions had to be made, perhaps not entirely correct decisions (not that I know this one way or the other), but the best decisions made on the basis of the best information available at the time, a process subsequently vindicated by reports by Klaus Regling/Max Watson and Patrick Honohan.

I will repeat, a Government cannot gamble with potentially catastrophic consequences. You might call the debt we shoulder unnecessary and perhaps even catastrophic, but it is a fair and internationally regarded argument that you have to pay your debts, even if some can be renegotiated and that you cannot seek more money from someone you already own money to.

The Government needed to act to avoid absolute and immediate devestation. It was a judgement call and I for one do not believe Lenihan to be protecting any buddies or putting any interests above the country's in this case.

Yes, there is a case for reforming the corrupt globalised financial system, but lil 'ol export driven open market Ireland can't do it on her own. It makes sense to work towards self sufficiency in terms of energy security and food production, but we are a trading nation and work within a system.

Unless we want to emulate North Korea we must play by the rules. And not be so damned stupid next time.