So its finally being put to a vote

zig · 09-12-2010 4:16pm #1

I for one am delighted, I may not support FF but im delighted they are forcing FG and Labour to take an official stance on this. I know its going to go through but if FG reject it they will HAVE to try for a renegotiation. If they accept it they will have to keep their mouth shuts about it.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1209/imf-business.html

The Dáil is to vote next Wednesday on the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the EU and International Monetary Fund.
Opposition parties had previously called for such a vote, but the Government had said it was not necessary.
Today's meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, however, passed a motion calling for such a vote 'to add political legitimacy to the agreement and to force the opposition to take a definitive position on the matter'.
The motion was proposed by backbenchers Michael McGrath and Thomas Byrne, and was supported by the Taoiseach Brian Cowen.
In a statement after the meeting, Mr Cowen said he looked forward to the debate, which he said would 'once again give the opposition the opportunity to either come clean and recognise that this deal is essential and in the best interest of the country, or spell out their alternative'.

zig · 09-12-2010 4:45pm

Dorcha · 09-12-2010 9:41pm

This is, to say the least, an amazing way of looking at it. I don’t know where you got the impression that the other parties don’t want it, when they have already asked for it. In fact Sinn Fein was threatening to take the government to court over it.

The only reason why Finnna Fail are now doing this is because they feel confident of winning the vote on it, after seeing how the vote on the budget went. It’s a U-turn, pure and simple

zig · 09-12-2010 9:49pm

Dorcha wrote: »

This is, to say the least, an amazing way of looking at it. I don’t know where you got the impression that the other parties don’t want it, when they have already asked for it. In fact Sinn Fein was threatening to take the government to court over it.

What do you mean? If you read my post, you'll notice I was only referring to FG and Labour, everyone knows Sinn Fein wants it, theyre taking credit for the outcome today ffs.
And yes I know Labour will vote no, and in fairness to them, I think they may have the balls to go back to Europe and look for a better deal, but my main focus is on FG, they will vote no knowing that it will pass, my point is, if they vote no, when they are in power they must attempt a renegotiation.

My other theory on this is that something strange is going on in the FF household, and even some of them may want out for the sake of getting votes come the election.

eoinoleary · 09-12-2010 10:46pm

imf vote on the way..i totally agree...ff just went off and did their own thing without even putting somthing so serious to the house and let them have their say on behalf of the people they represent...thats not the point thought...since the imf landed lab/fg/sf have been roaring its a bad deal for ireland and they all would have brokered a better deal...now lets see whos gona back that talk up..ive no doubt sf will.. seeing as there partly responsible for bringing the vote about..good on em..not so sure about the others though...very easy for them all along to just to sit back and tell ff its a ****e deal..rightly so but none the less i doubt theyll vote it down...

mistermouse · 10-12-2010 6:34am

Perhaps they have got the four year plan and budget in so may not worry as much. This time last week they were unsure they could get the budget through, but now feel more confident of their majority.

I do believe something spooked them to bring in a vote, its a u-turn but its more likely the threat of legal action.

Europe etc will put on the pressure and the big parties will cave in I suspect but FG and labour will either hope it goes through or follow the 'its the only option we have' line.

But they will hope the Govt gets this through.

What exactly happens if it doesn't though. And given it would be turned down in a referendum, shouldn't the parties vote it down.

Europe has been known to come back to us a second time before, are we not entitled to come back to them for a change for an answer WE want

SC024 · 10-12-2010 9:56am

Whats the point of a vote? We've gotten ourselves into a position where we NEED this money from them one way or the other, If we don't take it there'll be no money to pay for social welfare in 6 or 8 months time. This vote is just irish politicians doing what they do best, While the building burning down they argue over who's responsibility it is to put it out. This vote is a waste of time & money and it shows the cluelessness of the oppisition forcing it.

SkepticOne · 10-12-2010 10:02am

zig wrote: »

What do you mean? If you read my post, you'll notice I was only referring to FG and Labour, everyone knows Sinn Fein wants it, theyre taking credit for the outcome today ffs.
And yes I know Labour will vote no, and in fairness to them, I think they may have the balls to go back to Europe and look for a better deal, but my main focus is on FG, they will vote no knowing that it will pass, my point is, if they vote no, when they are in power they must attempt a renegotiation.

My other theory on this is that something strange is going on in the FF household, and even some of them may want out for the sake of getting votes come the election.

I personally think they should renegotiate if they get into power but voting no now and having to renegotiate later after the country has accepted the deal are two different things. You can be against entering into a contract but once entered your options are very much limited insofar as changing it. My own feelings on this is that they will vote no in this vote but will not seek to renegotiate until the public finances and the economy have deteriorated to a much greater extent.

cavedave · 10-12-2010 10:05am

SC024

Whats the point of a vote? We've gotten ourselves into a position where we NEED this money from them one way or the other, If we don't take it there'll be no money to pay for social welfare in 6 or 8 months time. This vote is just irish politicians doing what they do best, While the building burning down they argue over who's responsibility it is to put it out. This vote is a waste of time & money and it shows the cluelessness of the oppisition forcing it.

The money in the pension reserve fund could pay for the social welfare in 6 or 8 months time.

This bailout puts private debt into public hands and is both immoral and prohibitively expensive .

There is a problem with the public finances. But they are not the reason for our high interest rates.

'Rating agency Fitch downgraded Ireland ... citing the higher cost of propping up the banks, weaker economic prospects due to the deepening banking crisis'

Taking on a loan to pay for the bank debts because we need a loan to pay for social welfare etc is like buying a house thats already collapsed because its the only way you can get a a loan to pay the milkman.

SkepticOne · 10-12-2010 10:12am

SC024 wrote: »

Whats the point of a vote? We've gotten ourselves into a position where we NEED this money from them one way or the other, If we don't take it there'll be no money to pay for social welfare in 6 or 8 months time. This vote is just irish politicians doing what they do best, While the building burning down they argue over who's responsibility it is to put it out. This vote is a waste of time & money and it shows the cluelessness of the oppisition forcing it.

There is a fairly respectable body of opinion out there that with the amounts and interest rates involved, we're only buying a bit of time by accepting this deal. We will simply be digging ourselves further in by taking on this debt rather than solving any problems. If you can't pay it back you should not take on the loan.

In my view we should say to the EU consortium that the interest rate is too high and that all we're doing is putting off default. Better therefore to default now and take the consequences than to default on bigger debt later. Take the hit rather than kick the can down the road as we have been doing.

Then watch the EU people panic as the contemplate the consequences for themselves. Remember they came to us; we did not go to them.

SC024 · 10-12-2010 10:48am

Fair enough they came to us, true, but by doing that they saved us going like Oliver please sir can I have some more. We dont have a choice noone else will lend to us

SkepticOne wrote: »

There is a fairly respectable body of opinion out there that with the amounts and interest rates involved, we're only buying a bit of time by accepting this deal. We will simply be digging ourselves further in by taking on this debt rather than solving any problems. If you can't pay it back you should not take on the loan.

In my view we should say to the EU consortium that the interest rate is too high and that all we're doing is putting off default. Better therefore to default now and take the consequences than to default on bigger debt later. Take the hit rather than kick the can down the road as we have been doing.

Then watch the EU people panic as the contemplate the consequences for themselves. Remember they came to us; we did not go to them.

SkepticOne · 10-12-2010 10:57am

SC024 wrote: »

Fair enough they came to us, true, but by doing that they saved us going like Oliver please sir can I have some more. We dont have a choice noone else will lend to us

But unfortunately they didn't save us, imo. All that has happened is that this moment has been put off for a year or two. We'll still have to beg for more but we'll be in even a worse position to do so.

A good article by UCD economist Karl Whelan is here (via the Irish Economy blog).

What about fiscal policy? Here, we have even less reason to feel rescued. The average interest rate of 5.8% offered by our external rescuers is about the same as seen in the bond market in September and, at that time, there were serious concerns about the sustainability of borrowing at such an interest rate. That the rate is lower than what would be on offer now from the bond market is cold comfort.

Inquitus · 10-12-2010 12:02pm

It amazes me how many people think we have a choice in this bailout, they are probably the same people who think Labour and SF have credible economic policies. If we dont take the bailout we have to borrow at 11%+ in Q1/2 (which is pointless), or cut social welfare and the PS Wagebill in half by then, and probably let all the banks go to the wall too paralysing our economy at the same time.

cavedave · 10-12-2010 12:39pm

Inquitus

If we dont take the bailout we have to borrow at 11%+ in Q1/2 (which is pointless), or cut social welfare and the PS Wagebill in half by then, and probably let all the banks go to the wall too paralysing our economy at the same time.

That implies our interests rates are high due to our public spending debts which they are not. Which is why the rating agencies said banking debts were the cause.

The second part implies letting the banks go it will paralyse the economy, did this happen to Iceland who currently have unemployement about half of what Ireland's is?

Scofflaw · 10-12-2010 4:25pm

cavedave wrote: »

That implies our interests rates are high due to our public spending debts which they are not. Which is why the rating agencies said banking debts were the cause.

The second part implies letting the banks go it will paralyse the economy, did this happen to Iceland who currently have unemployement about half of what Ireland's is?

And whose unemployment before their collapse was a quarter of what Ireland's was. Compared to the pre-collapse period, therefore, their rise in unemployment is twice ours.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Have a read of the Iceland thread, and the comparison of the situation for ordinary people:

Scarab80 wrote:

- Iceland: actual inflation has risen by 41%from January 2007 through September 2010 (Ireland: 1.8% Jan 07 to Nov 10)

- Iceland: disposable incomes have dropped by over 20% last year (Ireland: 2.3% from 2008 to 2009)

- Iceland: wages have fallen by over 10% from 2007 to August 2010 (Ireland: 3% from Q1 2008 to Q3 2010)

- Iceland: 63% of Iceland’s mortgages are on the brink of bankruptcy (Ireland: 5.1% in arrears over 90 days)

- Iceland: 40% of homeowners are already ‘technically’ insolvent (Ireland: 13% of Homeowners predicted to be in negative equity by end 2010, 30% of mortgaged households)

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 10-12-2010 4:31pm

The IMF is to delay their vote on the deal until after the Dáil vote:

An International Monetary Fund (IMF) spokesperson issued the following statement today on Ireland:

“The Government of Ireland decided yesterday to table a motion on the EU-IMF Financial Assistance Program for Ireland in the Irish Parliament (Dáil). The vote on this motion is scheduled for Wednesday, December 15, 2010.

“The authorities have informed us that while parliamentary approval of the EU-IMF support package is not legally required, the Irish Government has put the motion before parliament to strengthen political support for the agreement. In deference to Ireland’s parliamentary process, the IMF has decided to postpone consideration by its Board of the proposed loan under the Extended Fund Facility until after the debate. Assuming parliamentary support for the package, the Managing Director could recommend approval by the IMF Executive Board of the proposed €22.5 billion IMF loan as early as December 16.

“We welcome the first implementation measures of the 2011 budget – stipulating the fiscal consolidation path and important reform measures involved in the program – have recently been passed by the Irish Parliament, confirming Ireland's strong commitment to the program and the policies involved.”

cordially,
Scofflaw

zig · 11-12-2010 4:07am

I presume thats just a formality, wouldnt make sense at the moment to have it any other way.

femur61 · 11-12-2010 6:32am

SC024 wrote: »

Whats the point of a vote? We've gotten ourselves into a position where we NEED this money from them one way or the other, If we don't take it there'll be no money to pay for social welfare in 6 or 8 months time. This vote is just irish politicians doing what they do best, While the building burning down they argue over who's responsibility it is to put it out. This vote is a waste of time & money and it shows the cluelessness of the oppisition forcing it.

I totally agree, if we don't get the money whats the alternative. We don't have enough money to pay any of the PS. And they seem to say it is a very unjust idea but the reality is we are incapable of payung the pS and sorting this mess out ourselves. God I'd love to be younger and get out of this country.

Thought it was a done deal, didn't the IMF say it had all been signed off?

hallelujajordan · 11-12-2010 9:36am

Dorcha wrote: »

This is, to say the least, an amazing way of looking at it. I don’t know where you got the impression that the other parties don’t want it, when they have already asked for it. In fact Sinn Fein was threatening to take the government to court over it.

The only reason why Finnna Fail are now doing this is because they feel confident of winning the vote on it, after seeing how the vote on the budget went. It’s a U-turn, pure and simple

That doesn't seem to stop Kenny trying to score a political point for the sake of it..

The Irish Times

"Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny expressed concern that the decision of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party on Thursday to seek the approval of the Dáil for the deal caused the fund to delay its decision."

Presumably after expressing such concerns he will support the government motion in the Dail . . To do otherwise would show weakness and indecision . .

Oh, wait . . . .

ROCKMAN · 11-12-2010 12:53pm

FF are now in election mode , Another PR stunt to try save a few seats ,In two general elections time they rewrite history saying how the dail (FG/LAB) voted it in :rolleyes: , Just like the cutting of their wages a nice PR stunt knowing the cuts aren't going to effect many of them in the near future.
Well its good to know there one department in FF doing their job,
Well done the PR boys and girls :pac:

Noreen1 · 11-12-2010 7:12pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

"Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny expressed concern that the decision of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party on Thursday to seek the approval of the Dáil for the deal caused the fund to delay its decision."

Hmm. It sounds rather as if Mr Kenny is running scared.
That doesn't bode well for Wednesdays vote.
I had hoped that opposition parties would have enough sense to appear to enter possible future EU/IMF negotiations with confidence.

Enda Kenny did us no favours with that attitude. :mad: He just sent a clear message that he is afraid of the consequences of not accepting a Bailout - hardly a good impression for a future Government to give..........especially one who has protested at the terms of the bailout, but seems to lack the courage and confidence so desperately needed in our Politicians right now.

JMO - though I've done some negotiating in my time, so the techniques involved are no mystery to me - and so far, IMHO, our "leaders" give the impression of being little mice faced with roaring lions......

Noreen

Scofflaw · 12-12-2010 7:25pm

femur61 wrote: »

I totally agree, if we don't get the money whats the alternative. We don't have enough money to pay any of the PS. And they seem to say it is a very unjust idea but the reality is we are incapable of payung the pS and sorting this mess out ourselves. God I'd love to be younger and get out of this country.

Thought it was a done deal, didn't the IMF say it had all been signed off?

The IMF board are expected to vote for it, but until they do, it's not a done deal. Nor is it a done deal if idiocy suddenly prevails and the Dáil votes it down.

To be honest, I can't understand the hostility to the IMF deal. It doesn't contain any debt we weren't going to acquire - the provision for putting NPRF money into the banks is in the 4-year plan, the deficit is the size it is - or seem to involve making any cuts we weren't going to make anyway - again, all the cuts seem to be in the 4-year plan. Nor does it involve having to pay the IMF rate if we can get the money more cheaply elsewhere. If the government is right, and we don't need any further money until next June, and the markets have settled down by then, we don't even have to tap any of the bailout money. If we don't have that much money, and/or the markets don't settle down, then what exactly would we have done at that stage?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dan_d · 12-12-2010 11:09pm

The hostility, Scofflaw, seems to arise from the fact that FF signed the deal. Simple as. I see this evening the FG are saying they will vote against the deal...what their exact motive is I'm not sure.I can only assume they are pandering to what they think the electorate wants (with, of course, the general election in their sights).Problem being that they are exposing their severe stupidity here. Those of the electorate who are against the deal are (excuse me for generalising) too stupid/uneducated to see the bigger picture and realise how it all works, and are hung up on the whole 'patriotism' and 'padraig pearse against the UK' thing. And those of the electorate who do understand what's going on probably won't vote for FG if they are the reason this deal doesn't go through.
Either way, they should consider getting someone with half a brain to give them some advice on this one.

Liam Byrne · 13-12-2010 12:04am

dan_d wrote: »

Those of the electorate who are against the deal are (excuse me for generalising) too stupid/uneducated to see the bigger picture and realise how it all works, and are hung up on the whole 'patriotism' and 'padraig pearse against the UK' thing

No, we won't excuse you for generalising with false claims.

Scofflaw · 13-12-2010 1:02am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, we won't excuse you for generalising with false claims.

Then, being articulate and (presumably) against the bailout, perhaps you could explain what the problem is? Not the problem with bailing out the banks, since as far as I can see that was going to happen anyway, but the problem, specifically, with the bailout deal itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 13-12-2010 1:47am

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 13-12-2010 2:59am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Magic money trees off the west coast, as far as I can make out.

gloomily,
Scofflaw

zig · 13-12-2010 3:06am

1.Not everyone opposing the bailout is a leftish extreme/nationalist.

2.A better deal could have been gotten, in terms of letting bondholders take some cuts, lower interest rate.

3.While yes alot of people don't think the public service should be cut, alot do, you're allowed oppose the bailout and still want public spending cuts you know.

4. This isnt just an IMF bailout, its an EU bailout, Iceland burned investors and still got a smal IMF loan. People wouldn't be so annoyed if 100% of our bailout was going to publc spending, because it would be less debt, and better opportunity for the country to grow. But we are clearly being punished for the blanket guarantee and pro bailout posters here seem to turn a blind eye to that.

5. You choose to discredit any economists that say otherwise, and expect people to believe politicians like Lenihan who have been lost in cuckoo land for the past 2 years. I don't think theyre corrupt, I just think they are weak and also don't have a bulls notion what their doing.
Who do honestly expect people to trust more? Seriously!!

6.How do expect people to react when there are taxes being imposed on the lowest earners (which is fair enough), and then you hear in the news reports that some of the higher earners may actually be up some money. Why are you so anti left? Fair enough , im not suggesting screw every rich person for everything they have to the point where they'll leave, im just saying why not , especially in times of crisis, take a bit more off them to help with the '4 year plan',er sorry '5 year plan' now, (probably soon to become the '8 year plan').

edit: one other thing, democracy is important, I am delighted this is being put to the dail, it will probably be voted in , but I will still be happy that it was voted for by the TDs we elected, rather than pushed on us by Brian and Brian. I don't know why, but i guess it just gives relief for the sake of democracy.

Scofflaw · 13-12-2010 3:13am

zig wrote: »

1.Not everyone opposing the bailout is a leftish extreme/nationalist.

2.A better deal could have been gotten, in terms of letting bondholders take some cuts, lower interest rate.

3.While yes alot of people don't think the public service should be cut, alot do, you're allowed oppose the bailout and still want public spending cuts you know.

4. This isnt just an IMF bailout, its an EU bailout, Iceland burned investors and still got a smal IMF loan. People wouldn't be so annoyed if 100% of our bailout was going to publc spending, because it would be less debt, and better opportunity for the country to grow. But we are clearly being punished for the blanket guarantee and pro bailout posters here seem to turn a blind eye to that.

5. You choose to discredit any economists that say otherwise, and expect people to believe politicians like Lenihan who have been lost in cuckoo land for the past 2 years. I don't think theyre corrupt, I just think they are weak and also don't have a bulls notion what their doing.
Who do honestly expect people to trust more? Seriously!!

6.How do expect people to react when there are taxes being imposed on the lowest earners (which is fair enough), and then you hear in the news reports that some of the higher earners may actually be up some money. Why are you so anti left? Fair enough , im not suggesting screw every rich person for everything they have to the point where they'll leave, im just saying why not , especially in times of crisis, take a bit more off them to help with the '4 year plan',er sorry '5 year plan' now, (probably soon to become the '8 year plan').

Let's say we start more simply, with you showing me where there's spending in the bailout that isn't in the 4 year plan. Then we can move on to you demonstrating that if we don't need the money we have to spend it anyway. Finally, you can show me that we have to use the bailout money rather than the markets if the markets can give us a better rate.

Otherwise what I'm seeing is the government spending money on the banks and the deficit it would have spent anyway, and borrowing for the bank bailouts and deficit money it couldn't have borrowed anywhere else more cheaply. I find people being outraged by that a little odd, to say the least.

cordially,
Scofflaw

maninasia · 13-12-2010 4:25am

Inquitus wrote: »

It amazes me how many people think we have a choice in this bailout, they are probably the same people who think Labour and SF have credible economic policies. If we dont take the bailout we have to borrow at 11%+ in Q1/2 (which is pointless), or cut social welfare and the PS Wagebill in half by then, and probably let all the banks go to the wall too paralysing our economy at the same time.

Yes and someday we all have to face up to the truth of a problem. You face it now or you face it later! You take the cure now or you limp along until you take it later.

maninasia · 13-12-2010 4:28am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Then, being articulate and (presumably) against the bailout, perhaps you could explain what the problem is? Not the problem with bailing out the banks, since as far as I can see that was going to happen anyway, but the problem, specifically, with the bailout deal itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The problems have been explained numerous times. It was a bad deal, not negotiating a cut in the nominal amount to be paid back. In addition, it doesn't fix the problem, rather puts it down the line and therefore leaves Ireland stumbling along for years with massive interest payments thus it is not ultimately going to help recovery. The plan should be 'recovery', not sticking bandages on an open wound.

cavedave · 13-12-2010 8:48am

Scofflaw

Otherwise what I'm seeing is the government spending money on the banks and the deficit it would have spent anyway, and borrowing for the bank bailouts and deficit money it couldn't have borrowed anywhere else more cheaply. I find people being outraged by that a little odd, to say the least.

donegalfella

I personally don't understand how people who want to maintain current high levels of public spending, and who oppose taxing low-to-median earners, can also be opposed to the bailout. What is the alternative?

If you broadly supported the public spending cuts in the four year plan but oppose the bank bailout would you vote against the IMF deal? Is the IMF deal is just for the public spending problem or does it further tie the Irish state to capitalist institutions mistakes?

But mainly, putting taxpayers on the hook for 5 percent of GDP is one thing; putting them on the hook for 60 or 70 percent of GDP, something quite different.

hallelujajordan · 13-12-2010 9:19am

I find it bizarre that on Friday Enda Kenny criticises the government for having the vote saying that it puts the deal in jeopardy and then on Monday his party declares that they are against the deal (surely putting the deal in even greater jeopardy ??)

I would prefer if FG would stop playing politics with this and put the country first.

ei.sdraob · 13-12-2010 9:45am

how is raiding the piggy banks and getting loans at high interest from our "friends" good for the country?

if the EU,US,UK,DK etc states want their banking systems from not imploding they give us no interest loans

after all it was the ECB that gave the banks a clean bill oh health, it should be their problem now

whatawaster · 13-12-2010 10:18am

The EU needed this deal as much as Ireland did. They wanted it more than Ireland did. We could and should have negotiated much better terms

There is no way we can pay back all this debt

hallelujajordan · 13-12-2010 10:31am

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how is raiding the piggy banks and getting loans at high interest from our "friends" good for the country?

It is good for the country if the alternative is to borrow the same money at 8.5% + on the bond market.

ei.sdraob wrote:

if the EU,US,UK,DK etc states want their banking systems from not imploding they give us no interest loans

so, we kick and scream then . . what's your plan B for when they tell us to take a running jump ?

ei.sdraob · 13-12-2010 10:42am

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It is good for the country if the alternative is to borrow the same money at 8.5% + on the bond market.

well ive been going on for years about the deficit being reduced fast, its going to be reduced one way or another, kicking the can down the road and taking on more debt hasnt worked out too well in last 2 years did it? whetehr its 8% or 6% or 1% we still need to cut it fast as this money will have to be paid back (assuming no default) and there is still plenty of fat in the system

hallelujajordan wrote: »

so, we kick and scream then . . what's your plan B for when they tell us to take a running jump ?

go kamikaze on the ECB, they where the fools who gave the banks the clean bill of health, they are the ones who destroyed any remaining credibility and led directly to last 2 months events

Karl has a good article here

The trigger mechanism for the bailout talks appears to have worked as follows. Because the original
Irish liability guarantee ran out at the end of September, the Irish banks had a large amount of bond
funding that matured in September as well as many corporate deposits with terms set to run up to
the end of the guarantee. The banks failed to obtain new bond market funding and turned to
borrowing from the ECB, and in some cases where banks had run out of eligible collateral for ECB
loans, to the Irish Central Bank for emergency liquidity loans underwritten by the Irish state.
It appears that during November, the ECB decided that its exposure to the Irish banks had grown to
an unsustainable level (€90 billion to the domestic banking group and about €30 billion in
emergency liquidity assistance from the Irish Central Bank). At this point, the ECB directed the
government to access a bailout in order to fix the Irish banks once and for all.With the banking
system so reliant on ECB support, the government seem to have had little choice but to comply. And
with the ECB still providing large amounts of liquidity to the banks, there has been a reluctance from
the government to publicly complain about the ECB’s role in pushing Ireland towards seeking
external assistance.

add to the timeline the "stress" tests in summer and you would see that we got shafted by the ECB, who are refusing to deal with the problem, apparently all they care about is inflation, i wonder what they would think would happen to inflation/deflation if banks across europe start falling on our default. :rolleyes:

As you are well aware I am very pro EU and support the euro, but the EU/ECB need to get a ****ing grip they either do something fast or the whole thing will unravel.

fliball123 · 13-12-2010 10:44am

I think most people on here arguing about the bailout is the fact that we will not see any benefit...It morally wrong that everyone in this country is liable for such a debt that we had no hand in creating. Dont get me wrong I know there are a load of mortgage defaulters waiting to come down the line...but at present this scenario is not built into the situation.

We should say no to the bailout and see what happens it cannot be any worse than whats happening at present...The IMF and EU will have to give a better deal if we say no

hmmm · 13-12-2010 12:10pm

fliball123 wrote: »

We should say no to the bailout and see what happens it cannot be any worse than whats happening at present

It could be a lot worse, Irish people have no idea what the real world is like. Do you have any idea what it was like in Argentina where many middle class families lost everything overnight?

The IMF and EU will have to give a better deal if we say no

And if they don't?

hmmm · 13-12-2010 12:19pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

go kamikaze on the ECB, they where the fools who gave the banks the clean bill of health, they are the ones who destroyed any remaining credibility and led directly to last 2 months events

This sounds like the same strategy followed by Lehman's management in their final days. They thought they were too big to be allowed fail and called the governments bluff. We can take a similar chance with the ECB, I think it's too big a gamble considering the downsides involved.

ei.sdraob · 13-12-2010 12:35pm

hmmm wrote: »

This sounds like the same strategy followed by Lehman's management in their final days. They thought they were too big to be allowed fail and called the governments bluff. We can take a similar chance with the ECB, I think it's too big a gamble considering the downsides involved.

What are the downsides?
Not being able to borrow on the markets? well news for you we cant do that now
If the country defaults on its debt then then we dont have to pay 5-8 billion a year in interest, that a large chunk saved already
We would have to address the deficit anyways, no time like present
And finally we would need to rely on selling the Semistates and the NTMA cushion and Pensions reserve (both we have to spend with the bailout scenario) to get us thru for about a year until the markets realize

"hey this country here defaulted once in its history, but now has no deficit and is not burdened by past debt, with no debt chocking the economy they are growing again, they look like an ok investment"
new bondholders dont care much if past bondholders get burned, they are more interested in if they can be repaid

the damage would be greater to the countries who have failed to help us and to the ECB which has been exposed to be incompetent and not fit for the purpose or runnig a monetary union.
Thats all of course if they dont fall for the bluff

I hoped the EU would be more competent than our politicians but they have proved to be the same, only caring about the banks, well if they only care about the banks then make them **** their pants

once again i say this as someone who is very pro eu

cavedave · 13-12-2010 12:47pm

The argument seems to be
1. People against the bailout are leftists who don't realise we need to cut public spending.

I am not and I do realise this

2. We have to support the banks or else we will end up like Argentina

There's no question that it is morally outrageous for taxpayers who had nothing to do with the overlending to be saddled with the costs, while bondholders who should have watched where they put their money, walk away scot free.

And yet it seems to me that the practical question remains: is Ireland actually better off if it does this?

This is a reasonable point. Theres no point depending letting banks default would be a giant picnic.

But are they going to fail anyway. Is this debt burden for the Irish people so large that we cannot reasonably be expected to pay it? Many non left wing people think it is
Screen%2Bshot%2B2010-12-05%2Bat%2B21.45.41.png

Screen%2Bshot%2B2010-12-05%2Bat%2B21.45.41.png

Angela Merkel is fiercely resisting expanding Europe's emergency fund. Meanwhile, so are voters in Ireland who don't see why they should have to pay through the nose to bail out foreign banks.

As Herb Stein said, if something can't go on forever, it won't. And this can't go on forever.

zig · 13-12-2010 12:47pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

What are the downsides?
Not being able to borrow on the markets? well news for you we cant do that now
If the country defaults on its debt then then we dont have to pay 5-8 billion a year in interest, that a large chunk saved already
We would have to address the deficit anyways, no time like present
And finally we would need to rely on selling the Semistates and the NTMA cushion and Pensions reserve (both we have to spend with the bailout scenario) to get us thru for about a year until the markets realize

"hey this country here defaulted once in its history, but now has no deficit and is not burdened by past debt, with no debt chocking the economy they are growing again, they look like an ok investment"
new bondholders dont care much if past bondholders get burned, they are more interested in if they can be repaid

tbh, while I agree you overall , I think one year is being far far too optimistic, it could be 5 or 10 years easily before we see any investors coming back.

Dorcha · 13-12-2010 12:51pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

The IMF board are expected to vote for it, but until they do, it's not a done deal. Nor is it a done deal if idiocy suddenly prevails and the Dáil votes it down.

To be honest, I can't understand the hostility to the IMF deal. It doesn't contain any debt we weren't going to acquire - the provision for putting NPRF money into the banks is in the 4-year plan, the deficit is the size it is - or seem to involve making any cuts we weren't going to make anyway - again, all the cuts seem to be in the 4-year plan. Nor does it involve having to pay the IMF rate if we can get the money more cheaply elsewhere. If the government is right, and we don't need any further money until next June, and the markets have settled down by then, we don't even have to tap any of the bailout money. If we don't have that much money, and/or the markets don't settle down, then what exactly would we have done at that stage?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Do you think the government are right, after all the "adjustments" they have already made? It's those constant "adjustments" that are making people nervous; they're wondering where it will stop and certainty will come in. It also generated a lack of trust. If you want to be trusted, you must be constant and fair. The government have been neither.

Dorcha · 13-12-2010 1:01pm

dan_d wrote: »

The hostility, Scofflaw, seems to arise from the fact that FF signed the deal. Simple as. I see this evening the FG are saying they will vote against the deal...what their exact motive is I'm not sure.I can only assume they are pandering to what they think the electorate wants (with, of course, the general election in their sights).Problem being that they are exposing their severe stupidity here. Those of the electorate who are against the deal are (excuse me for generalising) too stupid/uneducated to see the bigger picture and realise how it all works, and are hung up on the whole 'patriotism' and 'padraig pearse against the UK' thing. And those of the electorate who do understand what's going on probably won't vote for FG if they are the reason this deal doesn't go through.
Either way, they should consider getting someone with half a brain to give them some advice on this one.

This is your description of people who don't agree with you? I think you'll find people are a lot more complex that that and have more complex reasons for opposing the agreement.

"Either way, they should consider getting someone with half a brain to give them some advice on this one"

I think this has been happening already (Brian and Brian). Maybe it's time to ask someone with a complete brain that hasn't got a vested interest.

Scofflaw · 13-12-2010 1:13pm

maninasia wrote: »

The problems have been explained numerous times. It was a bad deal, not negotiating a cut in the nominal amount to be paid back. In addition, it doesn't fix the problem, rather puts it down the line and therefore leaves Ireland stumbling along for years with massive interest payments thus it is not ultimately going to help recovery. The plan should be 'recovery', not sticking bandages on an open wound.

None of that seems to have any relevance to the bailout, though, unless you're suggesting that the bailout deal should involve us paying back less than we borrow in the bailout deal - since otherwise, the negotiations weren't being held with the people to whom either the banks or state owes money currently.

As for 'kicking the can down the road' - the bailout is to provide finance while the 4 year plan happens, so presumably, again, that's a criticism of the government's planned cuts and tax increases, and the cuts and increases put in place by the next government.

Again, what, in terms of the bailout facility, is the objection?

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob · 13-12-2010 1:20pm

zig wrote: »

tbh, while I agree you overall , I think one year is being far far too optimistic, it could be 5 or 10 years easily before we see any investors coming back.

Past defaults seem to point to investors coming back rather quickly

I was strongly opposed to any idea of default and devaluation before, but its very obvious now that we got a bad deal, so I am strongly re-evaluating in position now

Neither am I a leftie or anti-EU

Permabear · 13-12-2010 1:32pm

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 13-12-2010 1:49pm

cavedave wrote: »

If you broadly supported the public spending cuts in the four year plan but oppose the bank bailout would you vote against the IMF deal? Is the IMF deal is just for the public spending problem or does it further tie the Irish state to capitalist institutions mistakes?

OK, that's a better point - so one could oppose the bailout on the basis that it allows the government to go on throwing money into the banks. Because, let's be clear here, the bailout isn't why we're throwing money into the banks - we were doing that already, we were going to continue doing it as long as the government could afford to do it (and then some), and even the money being thrown into the banks under the bailout deal is money the government's 4 year plan already planned to throw into the banks.

The answer is that I support the spending cuts/tax increases in general, and don't see any option at this point but to try to finish the job of recapitalising the banks.

I don't see that we could now default our way out of the banking situation with any particular advantage in terms of being able to access the market. It remains a hugely costly exercise, and an exercise that probably shouldn't have been undertaken in the first place - and certainly should never have been necessary in the first place.

The banks may yet fail, but if the recapitalisation process is simply abandoned now, the banks will fail, as far as I can see. I can't see the government allowing that, and forcing the government into a position where it cannot borrow the money for the exchequer in order to force it to abandon the policy of paying for the banks seems a bit like blowing your nose off with dynamite to spite your face.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 13-12-2010 1:50pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Past defaults seem to point to investors coming back rather quickly

I was strongly opposed to any idea of default and devaluation before, but its very obvious now that we got a bad deal, so I am strongly re-evaluating in position now

Neither am I a leftie or anti-EU

Indeed, but on the other hand you really do need to actually demonstrate that "past defaults seem to point to investors coming back rather quickly" rather than just saying it. If it's genuinely so little of a problem, why do governments avoid it where at all possible?

cordially,
Scofflaw

View · 13-12-2010 2:00pm

fliball123 wrote: »

I think most people on here arguing about the bailout is the fact that we will not see any benefit...It morally wrong that everyone in this country is liable for such a debt that we had no hand in creating.

Much and all as I hate to say it, this is not true.

The debt wasn't incurred by the banks acting in isolation from the rest of the economy, it was also incurred by the many thousands of people who took out debt while engaging in property transactions in the last 10-15 years.

Prices go up because the demand for a commodity exceeds the supply of it (A demand which was unquestionable influenced here by the property based tax-breaks which artifically boosted demand at a time of increasing prices).

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, individuals by their actions were basically saying "Yes, we are willing to pay X more for a semi-D than we would have this time last year". And this happened year after year...

As such, we (collectively) did have a hand in creating this debt crisis.

So its finally being put to a vote

Comments