Bailout, Lisbon sentiment & future European voting

iMax

Anyone else think the result of this bailout with a highly disgruntled population is going to result in us voting no on every European proposal from now on (seeing as the promises of Lisbon haven't materialised) ?

Cavehill Red

Too late now.

As Merkel and recent events have revealed, Lisbon was the last stand. Future developments in the EU will be dealt with via the 'treaty creep' self-amending facility within Lisbon.

But hey, we voted yes for jobs, didn't we? Bring em on.

mike65

The "European project" is now stalled, there is no chance of another treaty being passed in any country that requires a referendum. Even those with parlimentary votes will far from certain to pass a vote. Good news for those who want Turkey kept outside. Possibly good news generally.

One suspects the broad sentiment is "this far and no further"

View

iMax wrote: »

Anyone else think the result of this bailout with a highly disgruntled population is going to result in us voting no on every European proposal from now on (seeing as the promises of Lisbon haven't materialised) ?

No - most people aren't stupid. The reason we are at the bailout stage is because we can't do budget math. With the bailout money we can keep public services going while we try to sort the mess out, without we need to shut down some of those services overnight...

In case anyone has forgotten, we are borrowing the equivalent of 2.2 million an hour to keep the budget going (and that figure ignores the bank bailout costs in case you are wondering).

Cavehill Red

View wrote: »

No - most people aren't stupid. The reason we are at the bailout stage is because we can't do budget math. With the bailout money we can keep public services going while we try to sort the mess out, without we need to shut down some of those services overnight...

In case anyone has forgotten, we are borrowing the equivalent of 2.2 million an hour to keep the budget going (and that figure ignores the bank bailout costs in case you are wondering).

The exchequer is fully funded well into next year. Furthermore, we have the pension reserve fund to draw on. There is absolutely NO urgency on the Irish exchequer, and we are dealing with bringing down the deficit.

The bailout is because the banks are going bust, not Ireland.

And if you accept that Ireland's borrowings are too high, then kindly explain to me how borrowing MORE to pay bank debts we did not accrue is going to fix that, especially given that a clause in the 'bailout' requires us to raid our own pension reserve wealth to recapitalise the gangrenous banks for billionaire benefit?

nesf

It all depends on the interest rate charged. If we're charged nearly 7% which is almost 2% more than Greece was charged then you'll see a lot of anti-EU sentiment brewing in the general populace I think, as well as more of the major parties.

Sticky_Fingers

nesf wrote: »

It all depends on the interest rate charged. If we're charged nearly 7% which is almost 2% more than Greece was charged then you'll see a lot of anti-EU sentiment brewing in the general populace I think, as well as more of the major parties.

If its anywhere close to 6 - 7% anti EU sentiment will be the least of our concerns. It will be a wholesale betrayal of the Irish people by our EU partners and many people will see it as Brussels giving the two fingers to this islands citizens. If we are screwed then I will personally never ever vote yes to any EU referendum because they will have made it clear that they hold its smaller member states and its citizens in disdain. It may be childish to be so spiteful but I really don't care, why help those who are actively crushing our throats under their heel.

Southsider1

View wrote: »

No - most people aren't stupid. The reason we are at the bailout stage is because we can't do budget math. With the bailout money we can keep public services going while we try to sort the mess out, without we need to shut down some of those services overnight...

In case anyone has forgotten, we are borrowing the equivalent of 2.2 million an hour to keep the budget going (and that figure ignores the bank bailout costs in case you are wondering).

I think Mike65 has hit the nail firmly and accurately on te head. The whole EU project is at a cross roads and could ultimately fail. Germany and the UK are bound to re-assess their situation and rightly so.

Let's get one thing straight here though in relation to the borrowing etc. We as a nation do not have any liability for the debts of Anglo Irish Bank and the others. The people did not borrow the money and did not sanction the Government to make undertakings of repayment on our behalf. There was no referendum for such. Until we and the Government and, indeed the EU/ECB/IMF wake up to this then there can be no progress. The decision to needlessly take on the debts of failed banks was taken the The Fianna Fáil/Green Party Government with absolutely no mandate from the people. As such it is up to them, now, to either A. take the correct decision to default or B. Leave their positions immediately without assuming any further responsibility for any debt on our behalf.

The reason we are at the bailout stage is because we can't do budget math.

View, you are incorrect there. Use of the word "we" is not correct. There are many thousands of people in this country that can do budget maths. It is the people in the Department of Finance that have problems with budgeting and basic mathematics as they have shown consistently over the past three years.

namloc1980

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Too late now.

As Merkel and recent events have revealed, Lisbon was the last stand. Future developments in the EU will be dealt with via the 'treaty creep' self-amending facility within Lisbon.

But hey, we voted yes for jobs, didn't we? Bring em on.

It seems this red herring is still doing the rounds. Let's be clear exactly what the so called 'self-amending' clause in Lisbon Treaty can actually do, as opposed to what some people think it can do:

Lisbon Treaty wrote:

Simplified revision procedures

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

So let's be 100% clear the so-called 'self-amending' clause only applies to Part 3 of the treaty dealing with things like CAP, CFP, energy, common market, internal market controls etc (i.e. areas where the EU already has significant input). The clause cannot confer additional power to the EU, it can only tweak existing powers. It also can only come into effect when approved by the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements. Basically for us anything that required a referendum before Lisbon will still require a referendum now.

amacachi

I've always been pro-EU but not so much now. The current "deal" has nothing to do with Lisbon, it has to do with the Germans wanting to save face and screwing us over. I shan't be voting in favour of the EU for a while barring big changes.

Sand

We need to make any decisions regarding future EU treaties on the merits of those treaties rather than as some sort of revenge against the EU for not bailing us out ( 6.7% is not a bailout).

bmaxi

Sand wrote: »

We need to make any decisions regarding future EU treaties on the merits of those treaties rather than as some sort of revenge against the EU for not bailing us out ( 6.7% is not a bailout).

The way I see it all the treaties have been sold as being beneficial to the whole community, "a partnership of equals, all friends together, for the common good" etc.
This bail out, for want of a better word, if as it seems is at a penal interest rate, is hardly the work of "friends" or for the common good.
As the saying goes "With friends like these....."

KindOfIrish

iMax wrote: »

Anyone else think the result of this bailout with a highly disgruntled population is going to result in us voting no on every European proposal from now on (seeing as the promises of Lisbon haven't materialised) ?

And miserable Europe will be finished without support of people of the greatest country call Rep. of Ireland

Noreen1

KindOfIrish wrote: »

And miserable Europe will be finished without support of people of the greatest country call Rep. of Ireland

Miserable Europe may not be finished without our support - but our future Economic prospects are pretty royally screwed with the "support" of our European "friends".:mad:

Noreen

Cavehill Red

Yes, let's be 100% clear here. Angela Merkel has proposed using exactly this mechanism to introduce and enforce automatic sanctions for failing to meet deficit targets.
You need to read the treaty again, especially article 48. It is self-amending, and it can apply to whatever the f uck they want it to apply to.

namloc1980 wrote: »

It seems this red herring is still doing the rounds. Let's be clear exactly what the so called 'self-amending' clause in Lisbon Treaty can actually do, as opposed to what some people think it can do:



So let's be 100% clear the so-called 'self-amending' clause only applies to Part 3 of the treaty dealing with things like CAP, CFP, energy, common market, internal market controls etc (i.e. areas where the EU already has significant input). The clause cannot confer additional power to the EU, it can only tweak existing powers. It also can only come into effect when approved by the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements. Basically for us anything that required a referendum before Lisbon will still require a referendum now.

Amtmann

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It is self-amending, and it can apply to whatever the f uck they want it to apply to.

The Lisbon Treaty isn't SkyNet from the Terminator movies, and it cannot 'self-amend'. Any amendment must be proposed and passed in the manner clearly described in the quotation highlighted by namloc1980.

Cavehill Red

Furet wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty isn't SkyNet from the Terminator movies, and it cannot 'self-amend'. Any amendment must be proposed and passed in the manner clearly described in the quotation highlighted by namloc1980.

Seriously, go read the damn treaty. It's a terrible pity people in Ireland didn't do so before they were bullied into passing it. It took me four days, with reference to two dictionaries and the texts of all previous treaties alongside.
It's deliberately obscurantist, so there's no way you can tell me that article 48 cannot be used to amend what they want it to, when Angela Merkel is going around suggesting that it can be used to introduce punishments for countries which fail to adhere to deficit targets.

Amtmann

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Seriously, go read the damn treaty. It's a terrible pity people in Ireland didn't do so before they were bullied into passing it. It took me four days, with reference to two dictionaries and the texts of all previous treaties alongside.
It's deliberately obscurantist, so there's no way you can tell me that article 48 cannot be used to amend what they want it to, when Angela Merkel is going around suggesting that it can be used to introduce punishments for countries which fail to adhere to deficit targets.

Quote from it please.

Cavehill Red

Furet wrote: »

Quote from it please.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html

It's all there for you.

K-9

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Seriously, go read the damn treaty. It's a terrible pity people in Ireland didn't do so before they were bullied into passing it. It took me four days, with reference to two dictionaries and the texts of all previous treaties alongside.
It's deliberately obscurantist, so there's no way you can tell me that article 48 cannot be used to amend what they want it to, when Angela Merkel is going around suggesting that it can be used to introduce punishments for countries which fail to adhere to deficit targets.

Hence the whole political drama over there being Lisbon 3?

Long forgotten by the next political drama about the EU and and everybody forgets!

Amtmann

Cavehill Red wrote: »

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/135-article-48.html

It's all there for you.

Yeah, it's all there alright, in perfectly comprehensible English:

That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Cavehill Red

Furet wrote: »

Yeah, it's all there alright, in perfectly comprehensible English:

IE they can't enforce abortion on us, but can self-amend Lisbon to punish countries for failing to hit deficit targets without the requirement of a referendum in Ireland under the Crotty judgement.

TL;DR - if it's not explicitly mentioned in our constitution, we won't get a vote on it ever again.

nesf

Cavehill Red wrote: »

IE they can't enforce abortion on us, but can self-amend Lisbon to punish countries for failing to hit deficit targets without the requirement of a referendum in Ireland under the Crotty judgement.

TL;DR - if it's not explicitly mentioned in our constitution, we won't get a vote on it ever again.

Wrong, utterly wrong. Any change in sovereignty granted to the EU requires a referendum under Crotty. That's what it means by constitutional requirements in that line.

View

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The exchequer is fully funded well into next year. Furthermore, we have the pension reserve fund to draw on. There is absolutely NO urgency on the Irish exchequer, and we are dealing with bringing down the deficit.

The bailout is because the banks are going bust, not Ireland.

And if you accept that Ireland's borrowings are too high, then kindly explain to me how borrowing MORE to pay bank debts we did not accrue is going to fix that, especially given that a clause in the 'bailout' requires us to raid our own pension reserve wealth to recapitalise the gangrenous banks for billionaire benefit?

Most of the "bailout" loans are earmarked to help with the State's budgetary problems - not to deal with the problem of the banks. The banks are the smaller of the two problems that the state faces. Even if the banks were okay, we probably need to consider outside help because of our budget problems.

View

Southsider1 wrote: »

Let's get one thing straight here though in relation to the borrowing etc. We as a nation do not have any liability for the debts of Anglo Irish Bank and the others. The people did not borrow the money and did not sanction the Government to make undertakings of repayment on our behalf.

Unfortunately, we do. We may not have had at the start of the crisis but we most certainly do as a result of the decisions made by the Oireachtas.

kippy

View wrote: »

Most of the "bailout" loans are earmarked to help with the State's budgetary problems - not to deal with the problem of the banks. The banks are the smaller of the two problems that the state faces. Even if the banks were okay, we probably need to consider outside help because of our budget problems.

Ah no,
We wouldnt (in my opinion anyway)
We would be able to handle the fiscal deficit and reduce it over a number of years through the manner in which we are doing so now while continuing to borrow from the markets.
The reason why we are getting this "bailout" is because we CANNOT borrow from the markets anymore. The reasons for this are obvious. Our exposure as a state to the massive black hole that is capital required to shore up the banks balance sheets over the next few years.

Make no mistake THE BANKS ARE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WE FACE and have faced in the past few years.

Obviously our deficit needs to be tackled, wouldnt be such a big issue without the banks being the issue in my opinion.

I'm not sure why people are blaming Lisbon for the current issues but sure its as handy a scapegoat as any.

View

kippy wrote: »

Ah no,
We wouldnt (in my opinion anyway)
We would be able to handle the fiscal deficit and reduce it over a number of years through the manner in which we are doing so now while continuing to borrow from the markets.
The reason why we are getting this "bailout" is because we CANNOT borrow from the markets anymore. The reasons for this are obvious. Our exposure as a state to the massive black hole that is capital required to shore up the banks balance sheets over the next few years.

Make no mistake THE BANKS ARE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WE FACE and have faced in the past few years.

Obviously our deficit needs to be tackled, wouldnt be such a big issue without the banks being the issue in my opinion.

I'm not sure why people are blaming Lisbon for the current issues but sure its as handy a scapegoat as any.

Most of the money in the loans are ear-marked to take care of the state's financial problems not to "bail out the banks".

While it is possible that the lenders have got their figures totally wrong, the "bailout package" ratios are presumably the most accurate indication of the state of our problems.

prinz

bmaxi wrote: »

This bail out, for want of a better word, if as it seems is at a penal interest rate, is hardly the work of "friends" or for the common good. As the saying goes "With friends like these....."

We didn't give a toss about our "friends" when the going was good either. You know, those "friends" who warned, and warned, and warned and warned and were ignored...

jmayo

Sand wrote: »

We need to make any decisions regarding future EU treaties on the merits of those treaties rather than as some sort of revenge against the EU for not bailing us out ( 6.7% is not a bailout).

I voted No first time around to Lisbon mainly because I wanted to send a message to EU that I am not happy with the way it is going.
I did not vote No because of some crackpot theory offered by the No side.
In fact I would actually welcome some of the things the No side were complaining wrongly would be forced upon us.
My big issue is with the way the EU is run and the direction it has been taking over the last 10 years.

This is not a bailout of the Irish economy, the Irish people or indeed the Irish banks, it is really a bailout of the major European banks and the Euro.
And we the Irish people are going to be paying through the nose for it.
Firstly the Irish people were made responsible by the government for the debts of our privately owned banks.
This has been copperfastened by our European neighbours, because our banks owe their banks.
Fair enough they want us to repay their banks, but they have decided to screw us with an interest rate that will leave this country a wasteland.
They are making an example of us and finishing us off.
Thus I will never vote again for any treaty proposed by the EU, unless it is for the breakup of it's political or bureaucratic institutions.

K-9 wrote: »

Hence the whole political drama over there being Lisbon 3?

Long forgotten by the next political drama about the EU and and everybody forgets!

I would not bet on it.
All someone has to do whenever there is another referendum is drag this out and hey presto you will have a willing anti rump vote.
It will be seen as payback time.

LostinBlanch

View wrote: »

Most of the money in the loans are ear-marked to take care of the state's financial problems not to "bail out the banks".

While it is possible that the lenders have got their figures totally wrong, the "bailout package" ratios are presumably the most accurate indication of the state of our problems.

That is absolute b*llocks - we are not barred from the markets for loans because of our fiscal deficit. It is the criminal putting of ever increasing bad bank debts onto the Irish people is the reason for the state's economic problems and will in all likely lead to a default in a year or two. This "bailout" is going to go directly to shore up the banks in Germany, France and the UK that were shovelling money at Anglo, AIB et al.

Will you come back then with more bullsh*t about it's our own fault, we all partied didn't we? And other FF crap.

Or better yet, please tell me why it is now acceptable for any other EU member states that find themselves in the same situations in the future will be able to burn bondholders while Ireland can't?

kippy

View wrote: »

Most of the money in the loans are ear-marked to take care of the state's financial problems not to "bail out the banks".

While it is possible that the lenders have got their figures totally wrong, the "bailout package" ratios are presumably the most accurate indication of the state of our problems.

Ah no.
Without the banks our interest rates wouldnt stop us from hitting the "normal" markets.
Remember we would need to borrow to fund the fiscal deficit for the next few years anyway, whether that be via this fund or via the markets. The reason we cant hit the markets is because of high rates brought on as a result of massive exposure to dodgy banks.
We've already borrowed shed loads of money to prop up the banks via NAMA and indeed have already raided the NPRF to prop up the banks.
Without the banking issues WE WOULD NOT have required this "bail out". -thats my opinion and am sticking to it.

K-9

jmayo wrote: »

I would not bet on it.
All someone has to do whenever there is another referendum is drag this out and hey presto you will have a willing anti rump vote.
It will be seen as payback time.

True. The No side don't have to be accountable for their claims.

View

kippy wrote: »

Ah no.
Without the banks our interest rates wouldnt stop us from hitting the "normal" markets.
Remember we would need to borrow to fund the fiscal deficit for the next few years anyway, whether that be via this fund or via the markets. The reason we cant hit the markets is because of high rates brought on as a result of massive exposure to dodgy banks.
We've already borrowed shed loads of money to prop up the banks via NAMA and indeed have already raided the NPRF to prop up the banks.
Without the banking issues WE WOULD NOT have required this "bail out". -thats my opinion and am sticking to it.

Well, this is a bit of a chicken and egg discussion but the obvious point in response is - were we in the situation that the state had a large budget surplus, it is reasonable to assume that the financial markets wouldn't have a major problem loaning us the money for the banks, as they could be reasonably confident that they would have it repaid in the short/medium term. As it is, we have a lethal combination of borrowing for our day-to-day expenditure and borrowing for the banks. As such, the state's finances would be in bits even if the banks were okay.

Remember the figures of the bailout are (very roughly) 50 billion to cover the state's expenditure, 10 billion or so for the banks and 25 billion or so as a back-up in case that 10 billion proves inadequate. Based on those figures, the presumption must be that the lenders see our major problem as the state's budgetary problem.

kippy

Its not a chicken and egg situation at all.
It is elephant in the room scenario.

Of course the "markets" believe we cant handle the banking crisis. Its not because of our fiscal deficit either, Even if our fiscal deficit were 0, the banks would suck up billions upon billions of cash (an undefined amount of billions)

The states finances WOULD NOT be in bits if the banks were okay - we wouldnt have an undefineable black hole that could come crying for cash at any stage, that of course would be a major positive.

What we would have is a scenario where we have to continue to cut spending/increase taxation over the coming years. We were doing perfectly well with this (dont get me wrong, am not condoning any steps) however because of the above paragraph we could get hung for a few billion from the banks every few months.

It is not Irelands Fiscal deficit that the EU are worried about. The fiscal deficit is a definable amount which can (to a fair degree) be predicited and planned for. The banking figures cannot as we have so blatantly seen over the past few years.

sensibleken

Lisbon has zero, nada, níl aon rud eile to do with whats going on.

That being said the highest interest rates are being charged by our european 'friends' who stand to make a killing and protect their own shoddy investments. Its like betting on the horse that came last and getting your money back + interest

A partnership does not involve shafting your partner. Did roosevelt shaft churchill? did tango shaft cash? did turner shaft hooch?

I was always very Pro - EU but how i feel now, the EU can go fúck itself.

View

LostinBlanch wrote: »

This "bailout" is going to go directly to shore up the banks in Germany, France and the UK that were shovelling money at Anglo, AIB et al.

We are borrowing 20 billion a year at the moment to fund the gap between the state's income and expenditure. 50 billion of the "bailout" is to fund the state's borrowings. That is the major part of the "bailout" loans.

Going on about the banks in other states doesn't alter that.

PS As an aside, France is one of our smaller creditors. It is 5th and we owe it approx a 1/5 of what we owe the UK and Germany and around 2/3 of what we owe the US (Those are pre-bailout figures admittedly).

View

sensibleken wrote: »

That being said the highest interest rates are being charged by our european 'friends'

as opposed to to our "friends" in "the market" who when they lasted quoted were looking for 9%+.

Still the EU/IMF who'll loan us money at 5.8% must be the baddies...

View

kippy wrote: »

The states finances WOULD NOT be in bits if the banks were okay - we wouldnt have an undefineable black hole that could come crying for cash at any stage, that of course would be a major positive.

Read the budgetary figures - the state's finances went off a cliff in Summer 2007. That was over a year before the banks had their crisis. We have borrowed massively ever since.

kippy wrote: »

It is not Irelands Fiscal deficit that the EU are worried about. The fiscal deficit is a definable amount which can (to a fair degree) be predicited and planned for. The banking figures cannot as we have so blatantly seen over the past few years.

In effect what you are saying is that when the lenders say there is 10 billion there for the banks (plus 25 as a back-up) and 50 billion for the state's expenditure problems, the lenders are deliberately throwing away their money by spending it in the wrong areas. It is possible but it presumes they are even more stupid than the government...

kippy

View wrote: »

Read the budgetary figures - the state's finances went off a cliff in Summer 2007. That was over a year before the banks had their crisis. We have borrowed massively ever since.



In effect what you are saying is that when the lenders say there is 10 billion there for the banks (plus 25 as a back-up) and 50 billion for the state's expenditure problems, the lenders are deliberately throwing away their money by spending it in the wrong areas. It is possible but it presumes they are even more stupid than the government...

Look at the figures youself.
The reason we are being given up 50 bill for state funding is BECAUSE WE CANNOT GO TO THE MARKETS AS A RESULT OF OUR EXPOSURE TO THE BANKS.
This should cover us until spending is under control.
We are exposed so badly to the banks because of:
1. NAMA - How much has NAMA already borrowed.
2. State ownership of banks. We've pumped an almost unending amount of Billions (borrowed) into the banks already and have no idea how much more is required.

The IMF/EU stupid? I wouldnt even insinuate that......they are all the smartest mofos on the planet.

sensibleken

View wrote: »

as opposed to to our "friends" in "the market" who when they lasted quoted were looking for 9%+.

Still the EU/IMF who'll loan us money at 5.8% must be the baddies...

I know the markets are cúnts too. but they never claimed to be our partners or 'friends'.

We all know that they will be screwed just as much if the banks folded. but they still want to make money on our difficulty and at our expense.

i reiterate. with all due respect to our colleagues Fúck them!

LostinBlanch

View wrote: »

We are borrowing 20 billion a year at the moment to fund the gap between the state's income and expenditure. 50 billion of the "bailout" is to fund the state's borrowings. That is the major part of the "bailout" loans.

Going on about the banks in other states doesn't alter that.

PS As an aside, France is one of our smaller creditors. It is 5th and we owe it approx a 1/5 of what we owe the UK and Germany and around 2/3 of what we owe the US (Those are pre-bailout figures admittedly).

Again, it is our exposure to private bank debt which is stopping us going to market. You of course don't wish to acknowledge this so you keep on repeating the lie that it is because of our current deficit that the markets won't lend to us, instead of them recognising that taking on the bank debts that we cannot hope to repay that is killing us. This is why the markets aren't lending to us.

Still keep peddling the FF line.

I also note you conveniently ignored my invitation to you to explain why it is acceptable for Irish citizens to be sentenced to this unconscionable debt burden which was none of our own making, while future EU members who may find themselves in the same position will be "allowed" to burn the bondholders?

View

kippy wrote: »

Look at the figures youself.

I have looked at the figures. And by that I mean the actual budget, not the headlines figures from newspapers.

kippy wrote: »

The reason we are being given up 50 bill for state funding is BECAUSE WE CANNOT GO TO THE MARKETS AS A RESULT OF OUR EXPOSURE TO THE BANKS.

You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to resolve the banks of blame. I am not.

As I said, if we had a large budget surplus, rather than a massive deficit, there wouldn't be a major problem in getting loans to sort out the banks and to pay them back. As it is, we have two problems which like the chicken and egg are intertwinned and which preclude that option.

kippy wrote: »

The IMF/EU stupid? I wouldnt even insinuate that......they are all the smartest mofos on the planet.

Well if you consider them to be smart, look at their figures - they consider the budget problems to be immediate (but not sole) problem...

View

sensibleken wrote: »

I know the markets are cúnts too. but they never claimed to be our partners or 'friends'.

Our partners just loaned us money when no else would. They were under no legal or other obligation to do so.

If you prefer the alternative of shutting down the health service, just give them a call and say "No Thanks" to the loan.

If you really want, walk through the door marked "EU Exit" and see how much fun it is with no one willing to loan us money, no means of paying for the public services we expect and no access to the EU for our exports.

sensibleken

View wrote: »

Our partners just loaned us money when no else would. They were under no legal or other obligation to do so.

If you prefer the alternative of shutting down the health service, just give them a call and say "No Thanks" to the loan.

If you really want, walk through the door marked "EU Exit" and see how much fun it is with no one willing to loan us money, no means of paying for the public services we expect and no access to the EU for our exports.

and its that take it or leave it attitude thats brings the hostility. they are saving their own skin aswell as ours but it is us paying the bill because they want to make a few quid.

View

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Again, it is our exposure to private bank debt which is stopping us going to market. You of course don't wish to acknowledge this so you keep on repeating the lie that it is because of our current deficit that the markets won't lend to us, instead of them recognising that taking on the bank debts that we cannot hope to repay that is killing us. This is why the markets aren't lending to us.

As I said, the two problems are intertwined. I realise it is simpler to ignore the large problem wrt to the budget but, unfortunately, it does have to be faced up to.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Still keep peddling the FF line.

You'll find it'll be the line of whoever is in power after FF too.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I also note you conveniently ignored my invitation to you to explain why it is acceptable for Irish citizens to be sentenced to this unconscionable debt burden which was none of our own making, while future EU members who may find themselves in the same position will be "allowed" to burn the bondholders?

The debt burden occurred because we voted for governments who pumped up the property market with massive property tax-breaks and failed to regulate our banks.

You are free to point out when, in the last 13 years, a majority of the electorate voted against those policies. Or, perhaps, when we held mass protest marches against them...

View

sensibleken wrote: »

and its that take it or leave it attitude thats brings the hostility. they are saving their own skin aswell as ours but it is us paying the bill because they want to make a few quid.

It is take it - as in take the loan package - or leave it - and go to the markets and see how "friendly" they'll be to us.

The other member states will have to borrow money on the markets to provide us with those loans. Do you really think they can't think of anything to do domestically with such loans other than to loan it to us?

namloc1980

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yes, let's be 100% clear here. Angela Merkel has proposed using exactly this mechanism to introduce and enforce automatic sanctions for failing to meet deficit targets.
You need to read the treaty again, especially article 48. It is self-amending, and it can apply to whatever the f uck they want it to apply to.

You might please quote the passage from Article 48 that allows 'them' to apply it to "whatever the f uck they want it to apply to".

LostinBlanch

Double post, see below.

LostinBlanch

View wrote: »

A

The debt burden occurred because we voted for governments who pumped up the property market with massive property tax-breaks and failed to regulate our banks.

You are free to point out when, in the last 13 years, a majority of the electorate voted against those policies. Or, perhaps, when we held mass protest marches against them...

Once again you try to sidestep my question why it is acceptable for Irish citizens to be burned to save bondholders while in similar situations in future other EU citizens will be saved by burning bondholders.

PS I don't recall anyone voting to take on the debts of any banks. All I can remember is Bertie telling those who warned against govt economic policies to commit suicide, or be drowned out by Cowen continually yelling The fundamentals of the economy are sound.

So once again please tell me why it is acceptable that Irish citizens are burned to save bondholders, while other EU citizens who may be in similar situations in the future will be protected by burning bondholders?

View

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Once again you try to sidestep my question why it is acceptable for Irish citizens to be burned to save bondholders while in similar situations in future other EU citizens will be saved by burning bondholders.

Take it up with the Government - it was their decision that should be the case.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

PS I don't recall anyone voting to take on the debts of any banks.

Try looking at the voting record of the Oireachtas. From what I remember all the political parties - bar Labour - voted in favour of the bank guarantees, thus setting us off down this path. Labour got little thanks for their stance at the time from the public, if I recall correctly.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

All I can remember is Bertie telling those who warned against govt economic policies to commit suicide, or be drowned out by Cowen continually yelling The fundamentals of the economy are sound.

And the electorate voted for more prudent policies when exactly?

Do you think people missed that property prices were going up at double digit figures evey year? Or that benchmarking was paid out with large pay-rises in the midst of the post dot-com bust? Or that our Hospital Consultants were turning down 250K pay packages and describing them as "insulting" (and the HSE was rolling over in response)? And all that, before you start looking at the economic statistics where our inflation rate - year after year - was way in excess of the Eurozone average?

LostinBlanch wrote: »

So once again please tell me why it is acceptable that Irish citizens are burned to save bondholders, while other EU citizens who may be in similar situations in the future will be protected by burning bondholders?

As I said before, take it up with the government. They have already negotiated write downs with the subordinate bond-holders if I recall correctly. At a guess, they presumably believe that the disadvantages of write downs for senior bond-holders out-weigh the advantages of doing so.

Given that we needed to borrow to fund the state's day-to-day expenses, they might have thought it would be hard to tell the bond-holders to get lost one minute and then ask them for a loan the next minute...

Noreen1

View wrote: »

Take it up with the Government - it was their decision that should be the case.



Try looking at the voting record of the Oireachtas. From what I remember all the political parties - bar Labour - voted in favour of the bank guarantees, thus setting us off down this path. Labour got little thanks for their stance at the time from the public, if I recall correctly.



And the electorate voted for more prudent policies when exactly?

Do you think people missed that property prices were going up at double digit figures evey year? Or that benchmarking was paid out with large pay-rises in the midst of the post dot-com bust? Or that our Hospital Consultants were turning down 250K pay packages and describing them as "insulting" (and the HSE was rolling over in response)? And all that, before you start looking at the economic statistics where our inflation rate - year after year - was way in excess of the Eurozone average?



As I said before, take it up with the government. They have already negotiated write downs with the subordinate bond-holders if I recall correctly. At a guess, they presumably believe that the disadvantages of write downs for senior bond-holders out-weigh the advantages of doing so.

Given that we needed to borrow to fund the state's day-to-day expenses, they might have thought it would be hard to tell the bond-holders to get lost one minute and then ask them for a loan the next minute...

View, I can see your point , to a certain extent.
However, the electorate could not possibly have foreseen that our Finance Minister would guarantee senior bondholders.

Nor is it reasonable to expect the electorate as a whole to understand economics - nor should they have to.
Our TDs and senior civil servants get paid to do that, after all!

Oh, and , this particular member of the public approved very heartily of Labour voting against the general consensus to guarantee the Bondholders - while Lenihan was crowing about "the cheapest bank bailout in history"
As did everyone I spoke to about it.

Don't believe all the media spin about public opinion - the media have their own agenda.

Noreen