Is FG/Labour calls for an immediate election really in Irelands best interest?

T runner

It seems to me that it is essential that the Finance Bill must be passed by the current Dail. If it isnt, there are fundamental differences between Labour and FG (approx 2 billion) to mean the likely next government will have to renegotaite it. This will result in more uncertainty about our future and problems with the next IMF review.


There is nothing that can fundamentally change in the next 7 weeks with a new government. The IMF are here, the markets have other fish to fry. The only thing of any significance that can seriously go wrong is that the Finance Bill is not passed.

The only reason being seriously proposed for an election is that: were the laughing stock of Europe.

I believe that FG/Labour while accusing FF of self interest before country seem to be doing plenty of it themselves.

It just seems to me to be pandering to an outraged and angry public near election time with no thought for what is best for the country.

What is best now is that the Finance bill is passed, not taht we have an immediate election. Well have that in a few weeks. The IMF will look after things till then.

In posting on this thread, could we keep it civilised and refrain from personal abuse against politicians or their supporters and whataboutery. This is about the integrity of the oppositions call for an immediate election.

Im not a FF supporter so dont go there.

gandalf

They have offered to fast track it so it is completed by Friday evening. And then the dail is dissolved and the election brought forward.

m.rte.ie/news/2011/0122/politics.html

Ball is back in FFs court.

Dirk Gently

its not in our interest and FG/LAB don't want it if they were honest and not playing at pretending to be in opposition. They want nothing more than for FF to pass this bill and only then to have an election. They must be confident the government will win the confidence vote next week. If FG/LAB are not confident of losing the vote then expect it to be quietly taken off the agenda.

Cavehill Red

T runner wrote: »

It seems to me that it is essential that the Finance Bill must be passed by the current Dail.

Actually, it's essential we don't. If we do, we're on the hook for all those bank debts that the state has no liability for. We need to renege the guarantee, burn the bondholders and talk to the IMF alone, without EU interference in the process.

T runner wrote: »

If it isnt, there are fundamental differences between Labour and FG (approx 2 billion) to mean the likely next government will have to renegotaite it. This will result in more uncertainty about our future and problems with the next IMF review.

We need to reinitiate the process with the IMF, not fiddle with the details of the current treacherous deal cut by Fianna Fail at gunpoint.

T runner wrote: »

There is nothing that can fundamentally change in the next 7 weeks with a new government. The IMF are here, the markets have other fish to fry. The only thing of any significance that can seriously go wrong is that the Finance Bill is not passed.

On the contrary, passing that Finance Bill would be the single most destructive act ever carried out by this state upon its people.

T runner wrote: »

The only reason being seriously proposed for an election is that: were the laughing stock of Europe.

That, and the fact that the government has no mandate from the people for anything that it is doing or has done for many months.

T runner wrote: »

I believe that FG/Labour while accusing FF of self interest before country seem to be doing plenty of it themselves.
It just seems to me to be pandering to an outraged and angry public near election time with no thought for what is best for the country.

I think Fianna Fail have demonstrated today that for them it's always party before country. Cowen, not good enough for them but good enough for us? Exactly.

T runner wrote: »

What is best now is that the Finance bill is passed, not taht we have an immediate election.

Again, I believe you have this the wrong way around. What we need is an election. What we definitely don't need is this Finance bill.

T runner wrote: »

In posting on this thread, could we keep it civilised and refrain from personal abuse against politicians or their supporters and whataboutery. This is about the integrity of the oppositions call for an immediate election.
Im not a FF supporter so dont go there.

The Opposition, in my opinion, are acting way too late on this. The government has no mandate. It pretty much has no ministers or support in Dail Eireann either at this point. There is no reason for this government to stay a minute longer in office.

hobochris

As far as I'm concerned the current government had no mandate to draft the current budget in the first place, looking back on support figures they should have been dissolved a long time ago as per the will of the people.. as apposed to the **** you country as long as I'm getting looked after effort we currently see.

Min

hobochris wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the current government had no mandate to draft the current budget in the first place, looking back on support figures they should have been dissolved a long time ago as per the will of the people.. as apposed to the **** you country as long as I'm getting looked after effort we currently see.

The government of the day depends on whom the electorate voted for on election day, what an opinion poll says doesn't matter, the only poll that mattered was in 2007, just like the next poll that will matter will be the general election poll.

The crisis in FF was caused by an opinion poll because they are worried by what the only opinion poll that matters will serve up.

The government has a mandate once it has the numbers to stay in power.

Cavehill Red

Min wrote: »

The government has a mandate once it has the numbers to stay in power.

A legal mandate is not a moral mandate.
Where is the public endorsement of the bank bailout scheme? The cuts in education and social welfare? When did the public approve the closure of hospitals and the A+E trolley crisis? Or the massive pay increases and pensions for parliamentarians?
The answer is the public didn't endorse any of these or indeed a hundred other activities of the government that went unmentioned in their 07 manifesto. So no, they don't have a mandate.

Min

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A legal mandate is not a moral mandate.
Where is the public endorsement of the bank bailout scheme? The cuts in education and social welfare? When did the public approve the closure of hospitals and the A+E trolley crisis? Or the massive pay increases and pensions for parliamentarians?
The answer is the public didn't endorse any of these or indeed a hundred other activities of the government that went unmentioned in their 07 manifesto. So no, they don't have a mandate.

Our country is governed by a constitution and we will have our say on whether we should or should not re-new the mandate of the current government.
The public endorsed the politicians to make decisions, to legislate, we may not be happy with the colossal mess they made of things but they had a mandate to make decisions, they had no mandate to change the constitution without the people voting on it, on the rest they had a mandate to make those decisions.

Cavehill Red

Min wrote: »

Our country is governed by a constitution and we will have our say on whether we should or should not re-new the mandate of the current government.
The public endorsed the politicians to make decisions, to legislate, we may not be happy with the colossal mess they made of things but they had a mandate to make decisions, they had no mandate to change the constitution without the people voting on it, on the rest they had a mandate to make those decisions.

As you say, merely a legal mandate and not an actual mandate from the people for any of the seismic decisions they made relating to the economy, none of which were promised in their manifesto, which was the mandate that FF actually sought.
If I promise in my election manifesto not to introduce education fees in government, and then once elected I do exactly the opposite, did I in your opinion have a mandate from the people or had in fact the people mandated me not to do what I just did?
(You could call this the Clegg mandate conundrum.)

Shea O'Meara

Firstly, FG/Labour are not one party. Are we already dismissing them as one entity joined at the hip before they leave the starting gate?

T runner wrote: »

The only reason being seriously proposed for an election is that: were the laughing stock of Europe.

Wasn't that one of the reasons we had to take the bailout? How we were viewed?

T runner wrote: »

It just seems to me to be pandering to an outraged and angry public near election time with no thought for what is best for the country.

That's very cynical, but after decades of FFail I can see why someone might assume that. However as public representatives it is the job of elected officials to react to public opinion in a way that their party feels it can be best handled.
The people want rid of FFail and want an election.
If FFail or the greens had any class they'd bow out.

T runner wrote: »

In posting on this thread, could we keep it civilised and refrain from personal abuse against politicians or their supporters and whataboutery. This is about the integrity of the oppositions call for an immediate election.

Im not a FF supporter so dont go there.

I demand an election now. I'm pretty cool with any party who wants to call an election now.

Min

Cavehill Red wrote: »

As you say, merely a legal mandate and not an actual mandate from the people for any of the seismic decisions they made relating to the economy, none of which were promised in their manifesto, which was the mandate that FF actually sought.
If I promise in my election manifesto not to introduce education fees in government, and then once elected I do exactly the opposite, did I in your opinion have a mandate from the people or had in fact the people mandated me not to do what I just did?
(You could call this the Clegg mandate conundrum.)

It is the same for most governments, they say they will do this and that but when they get power things can change, a government cannot keep running to the country every five minutes as things change.

During the last election campaign the main opposition parties were the same, they had all their plans based on an average economic growth rate of over 4%, if FG and Labour had got in they would want to be showing leadership and governing rather than running to the electorate saying 'we ran for election based on these figures and we were wrong, please vote for us again based on these new figures' we would have elections every other year.

Cavehill Red

Min wrote: »

It is the same for most governments, they say they will do this and that but when they get power things can change, a government cannot keep running to the country every five minutes as things change.

Please allow me to introduce you to Switzerland, a country with few natural resources, landlocked, confused by multiple regional governments and four national languages, with no military might, which has been at peace for centuries and has become the most affluent country on the planet.
You might wonder what it is that the Swiss have that makes them uniquely successful against all the odds? It's called Direct Democracy.
They do indeed 'run to the country' for major decisions. The people decide matters, not the government, who are basically responsible for overseeing the smooth running of the state.

Min wrote: »

During the last election campaign the main opposition parties were the same, they had all their plans based on an average economic growth rate of over 4%, if FG and Labour had got in they would want to be showing leadership and governing rather than running to the electorate saying 'we ran for election based on these figures and we were wrong, please vote for us again based on these new figures' we would have elections every other year.

Which happened in Italy during their period of greatest economic growth, oddly enough.

I don't know what it is about allowing the people a voice in their own rule that scares you, but all evidence suggests that it works.

ArtSmart

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Please allow me to introduce you to Switzerland, a country with few natural resources, landlocked, confused by multiple regional governments and four national languages, with no military might, which has been at peace for centuries and has become the most affluent country on the planet.
You might wonder what it is that the Swiss have that makes them uniquely successful against all the odds? It's called Direct Democracy.
They do indeed 'run to the country' for major decisions. The people decide matters, not the government, who are basically responsible for overseeing the smooth running of the state.

well that, the banking sector and being the world's most competitive country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Competitiveness_Report)

Cavehill Red

ArtSmart wrote: »

well that, the banking sector and being the world's most competitive country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Competitiveness_Report)

Which came first, do you think? (Clue: Swiss direct democracy dates back as far as 1291 ad.)
The Swiss attach such a great premium to self-determination that you could argue their inate competitive edge stems from the same place as their desire to oversee their own affairs.
Here's a bit more on their system and how it works: http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

later12

Cavehill Red wrote: »

AWe need to renege the guarantee, burn the bondholders and talk to the IMF alone, without EU interference in the process.

There are lots of points in your post worth countering, but this is the one that tops the list. the IMF have an agreed procedure in place with the EU Commission, which says that they will co-operate on European bailouts. Rather than throw that agreement out, the IMF would simply (and quite fairly) insist that we engage with the EU's mechanism and with the EFSF before we get a red cent from them.

What then?

Cavehill Red

later10 wrote: »

There are lots of points in your post worth countering, but this is the one that tops the list. the IMF have an agreed procedure in place with the EU Commission, which says that they will co-operate on European bailouts. Rather than throw that agreement out, the IMF would simply (and quite fairly) insist that we engage with the EU's mechanism and with the EFSF before we get a red cent from them.

What then?

Given that under my proposed timetable we would already have burnt the bondholders under national legislation and reneged on the bank guarantee, we likely wouldn't need any money from the IMF as we can cover our exchequer for some months to come.
As I understand it, the EU/IMF agreement is that the IMF would assist the EU with bailouts that the EU were making, not that the IMF were required to involve the EU in their own dealings.

later12

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Given that under my proposed timetable we would already have burnt the bondholders under national legislation and reneged on the bank guarantee, we likely wouldn't need any money from the IMF as we can cover our exchequer for some months to come.

And who would fund the country thereafter?

As I understand it, the EU/IMF agreement is that the IMF would assist the EU with bailouts that the EU were making, not that the IMF were required to involve the EU in their own dealings.

Neither are required, legally, to avail of the other's facility. But it is in their interest to do so. Why would the IMF want to foot all of the bill, when they already agreed with the Commission that the EU and the EFSF would share the contribution proportionally?

Cavehill Red

later10 wrote: »

And who would fund the country thereafter?

We are responsible to balance our own exchequer. Or do you envisage a nation forever dependant on handouts? Personally speaking, I'd rather not be Ethiopia, thanks.
Oh, and there are these things called bonds. We sell them to raise funds now and pay them back at interest later. Because Fianna Fail corruptly stupidly underwrote hundreds of billions of bank debt, that interest rate went through the roof. If we didn't have those liabilities on our books, we'd be in Iceland's position. What are their bond rates currently compared to ours?

later10 wrote: »

Neither are required, legally, to avail of the other's facility. But it is in their interest to do so. Why would the IMF want to foot all of the bill, when they already agreed with the Commission that the EU and the EFSF would share the contribution proportionally?

It's an issue of seeking EU help first or IMF help first. If the IMF sought to involve the EU in a loan to Ireland, then we could consider whether we wished that or not. Obviously there are vested interests across the EU not to see THEIR banks on the hook for money lent to Irish banks, because it is possible that they might have to then bail out their own banks as a result.
They'd rather we bailed out their banks for them, which is why they came knocking on our door last Autumn, pointing a gun at our heads and demanding that we 'take' a bailout.

andrewdeerpark

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Which came first, do you think? (Clue: Swiss direct democracy dates back as far as 1291 ad.)
The Swiss attach such a great premium to self-determination that you could argue their inate competitive edge stems from the same place as their desire to oversee their own affairs.
Here's a bit more on their system and how it works: http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

The SWISS a role model!

The country that will take dirty money from anybody and jail whistle blowers; the wikileaks data, all those Jewish dormant holocost accounts plus the melted down gold teeth from the concentration camps in the Swiss vaults.

They may be a successful nation however they are a morally bankrupt breed.

I do feel with Brian Cowen the opposition and the media is starting to dance on his political grave. Yes he made mistakes however most of them where during his tenure in finance not as taoiseach. The last 3 years has been constant firefighting.

ENOUGH the election date is settled for 11th March and lets get on with it and stop this disrespectful hacking away at the office of Taoiseach.

I am sick of the Joe Duffy handout brigade moaning on and on, we keep this up we will end up like Haiti.

Those who say things cannot get any worse are obviously not well travelled. The country is fixable lets get on with it ....

Min

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Please allow me to introduce you to Switzerland, a country with few natural resources, landlocked, confused by multiple regional governments and four national languages, with no military might, which has been at peace for centuries and has become the most affluent country on the planet.
You might wonder what it is that the Swiss have that makes them uniquely successful against all the odds? It's called Direct Democracy.
They do indeed 'run to the country' for major decisions. The people decide matters, not the government, who are basically responsible for overseeing the smooth running of the state.



Which happened in Italy during their period of greatest economic growth, oddly enough.

I don't know what it is about allowing the people a voice in their own rule that scares you, but all evidence suggests that it works.

I think wikileaks plans on exposing some of Switzerland's under the carpet secrets soon.

Cavehill Red

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

The SWISS a role model!

Another person who'd rather politicians ruled than governed. Are you really so afraid of overseeing your own destiny and affairs?

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

The country that will take dirty money from anybody and jail whistle blowers; the wikileaks data, all those Jewish dormant holocost accounts plus the melted down gold teeth from the concentration camps in the Swiss vaults.

That would be Swiss bankers, not the Swiss state or the Swiss people in general. I think recent years have demonstrated that bankers the world over are an immoral breed. But you are wrong to malign the Swiss for the sins of their bankers, just as you would be wrong to call the Irish people a race of child abusers for the sins of their priests.

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

I do feel with Brian Cowen the opposition and the media is starting to dance on his political grave. Yes he made mistakes however most of them where during his tenure in finance not as taoiseach. The last 3 years has been constant firefighting.

And who set the fires?
Cowen may well be taking bullets that rightfully belong to McCreevy and Ahern, but he's also due many of his own too. The Fianna Fail cabal have once again bankrupted the country to line their own pockets. The people and the opposition have every right to be outraged at them.
If anyone has demeaned the position of Taoiseach, it is crooks like Haughey and Ahern, and gombeens like Reynolds and Cowen.

Cavehill Red

Min wrote: »

I think wikileaks plans on exposing some of Switzerland's under the carpet secrets soon.

I suspect what you'll actually find is them exposing the under the carpet secrets of people from other nations. As I understand it, the leaks relate to Swiss bank account holders avoiding tax in other countries, including many non-Swiss politicians.
If so, it's more likely that the leaks will shame the political class of everywhere else in Europe apart from Switzerland.

Min

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suspect what you'll actually find is them exposing the under the carpet secrets of people from other nations. As I understand it, the leaks relate to Swiss bank account holders avoiding tax in other countries, including many non-Swiss politicians.
If so, it's more likely that the leaks will shame the political class of everywhere else in Europe apart from Switzerland.

Yeah, the Swiss facilitate tax evasion.

Cavehill Red

Min wrote: »

Yeah, the Swiss facilitate tax evasion.

Like her, do you mean? Or them?

Min

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Like her, do you mean? Or them?

Your point being that the Swiss are wrong like the above and it (Switzerland) isn't some utopia...?

andrewdeerpark

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Another person who'd rather politicians ruled than governed. Are you really so afraid of overseeing your own destiny and affairs?



That would be Swiss bankers, not the Swiss state or the Swiss people in general. I think recent years have demonstrated that bankers the world over are an immoral breed. But you are wrong to malign the Swiss for the sins of their bankers, just as you would be wrong to call the Irish people a race of child abusers for the sins of their priests.



And who set the fires?
Cowen may well be taking bullets that rightfully belong to McCreevy and Ahern, but he's also due many of his own too. The Fianna Fail cabal have once again bankrupted the country to line their own pockets. The people and the opposition have every right to be outraged at them.
If anyone has demeaned the position of Taoiseach, it is crooks like Haughey and Ahern, and gombeens like Reynolds and Cowen.

The Swiss bankers are the professional bankers of choice worldwide: all Swiss nationals. In the Swiss state the Italians do the manual labour building, the Turks take out the bins, the Swiss nationals are the white coat men, bankers or public servants exclusively.

Its unfair to tarnish Cowen with the legacy of Haughey, maybe Bertie!

Remember what made us successful was our welcoming manner and hard work, this mean cut throat streak is not to our good. Diligent hard work and having a bit of craic is our recipe for success. Remember Albert Reynolds getting all that EU money for free in the 90's.

We need to stop this constant bickering and get back to our strenghts and we never as a nation engaged in this current spiteful lets tear Cowen limbs apart and toss them to the 4 corners of the country even though he is politically dead, leave him serve out him time and lets not disrespect ourselves with this current spectacle we are Irish not English remember. I address this to the opposition and Eamon Gilmore in particular; since he called Cowen a treasonous Irishman.

However I see a change in society that saddens me, a meaness that is not very Irish.

Cavehill Red

Min wrote: »

Your point being that the Swiss are wrong like the above and it (Switzerland) isn't some utopia...?

My point being that in Switzerland, the concept of privacy in banking was abused by nationals from outside their nation, while in Ireland members of the government were actively encouraging tax evasion.

T runner

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Actually, it's essential we don't. If we do, we're on the hook for all those bank debts that the state has no liability for. We need to renege the guarantee, burn the bondholders and talk to the IMF alone, without EU interference in the process.


We need to reinitiate the process with the IMF, not fiddle with the details of the current treacherous deal cut by Fianna Fail at gunpoint.



On the contrary, passing that Finance Bill would be the single most destructive act ever carried out by this state upon its people.



That, and the fact that the government has no mandate from the people for anything that it is doing or has done for many months.



I think Fianna Fail have demonstrated today that for them it's always party before country. Cowen, not good enough for them but good enough for us? Exactly.



Again, I believe you have this the wrong way around. What we need is an election. What we definitely don't need is this Finance bill.



The Opposition, in my opinion, are acting way too late on this. The government has no mandate. It pretty much has no ministers or support in Dail Eireann either at this point. There is no reason for this government to stay a minute longer in office.

Its too late for that.

Were still at gunpoint. If our banks dont have credit from the ECB/IMF they run out of credit in a couple of days and the country is bust. Thats real bust: no one gets paid anymore bust. What exactly will be your bargaining chip with the IMF? What is it? If you dont have one you cant negotiate: thay say-weve made our deal, take it or leave it?


There may be a time for a haircut in the future. Now is not it.

Min

Cavehill Red wrote: »

My point being that in Switzerland, the concept of privacy in banking was abused by nationals from outside their nation, while in Ireland members of the government were actively encouraging tax evasion.

Are you saying the Swiss have no control over their banks?

T runner

hobochris wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the current government had no mandate to draft the current budget in the first place, looking back on support figures they should have been dissolved a long time ago as per the will of the people.. as apposed to the **** you country as long as I'm getting looked after effort we currently see.

Looking at the support figures they had enough seats to form a government after the last election which gives them a mandate to draft budgets during the lifetime of the government end of. If you dont agree with it, then lobby your party to empower a periodic redsea poll to be the form of election in this Republic.


Forget this "no mandate" nonsense pedalled out by Opposition/media. This is a democracy not a media circus.

Cavehill Red

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

The Swiss bankers are the professional bankers of choice worldwide: all Swiss nationals. In the Swiss state the Italians do the manual labour building, the Turks take out the bins, the Swiss nationals are the white coat men, bankers or public servants exclusively.

What's your point? That Swiss people do well in Switzerland? The Swiss also farm too, by the way. Probably not in white coats, though.

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Its unfair to tarnish Cowen with the legacy of Haughey, maybe Bertie!

He IS the legacy of Haughey and Bertie. Became a TD in 84, backbencher in Haughey's government in the following general election, elevated to greatness by Ahern.

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Remember what made us successful was our welcoming manner and hard work, this mean cut throat streak is not to our good. Diligent hard work and having a bit of craic is our recipe for success. Remember Albert Reynolds getting all that EU money for free in the 90's.

Hold on, you just lost me. We should work hard, or we should beg for money from the EU?

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

We need to stop this constant bickering and get back to our strenghts and we never as a nation engaged in this current spiteful lets tear Cowen limbs apart and toss them to the 4 corners of the country even though he is politically dead, leave him serve out him time and lets not disrespect ourselves with this current spectacle we are Irish not English remember. I address this to the opposition and Eamon Gilmore in particular; since he called Cowen a treasonous Irishman.

And he was quite right to do so too. I notice Cowen's mudguards the Greens were proposing an Economic Treason bill recently. I wonder who they had in mind when they came up with that?

Cavehill Red

T runner wrote: »

Its too late for that.

Were still at gunpoint. If our banks dont have credit from the ECB/IMF they run out of credit in a couple of days and the country is bust. Thats real bust: no one gets paid anymore bust.

You're confusing the banks for the country. A mistake Lenihan made too, to our collective cost. We NEED to let the banks go bust. The longer they limp along, the more cash they're sucking out of the state. They are zombie banks, gangrenous infections that are now risking the survival of the state. They MUST be exposed to capitalism, and allowed go to the wall.

T runner

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A legal mandate is not a moral mandate.
Where is the public endorsement of the bank bailout scheme? The cuts in education and social welfare? When did the public approve the closure of hospitals and the A+E trolley crisis? Or the massive pay increases and pensions for parliamentarians?
The answer is the public didn't endorse any of these or indeed a hundred other activities of the government that went unmentioned in their 07 manifesto. So no, they don't have a mandate.

These type of cuts are mandated by the public through their elected government. Can we stop just regurgitating media rubbish please and try to engage in intelligent debate?

Cavehill Red

Min wrote: »

Are you saying the Swiss have no control over their banks?

Not at all. They have amended their privacy laws repeatedly in recent years, most recently handing over details of Swiss account to US authorities.
It is not the fault of the Swiss, nor even their banks, that foreigners sought to evade tax by placing funds there. The Swiss are a private people by nature, and their banking system was created with them in mind, not others.
In my opinion, the Swiss authorities have acted with honour in overturning their centuries-old adherence to the right to privacy in order to out some of those foreign shysters who abused their system to evade tax elsewhere.
If you have a problem with tax evasion countries, look to the Caymans, or even closer to home.

Cavehill Red

T runner wrote: »

These type of cuts are mandated by the public through their elected government. Can we stop just regurgitating media rubbish please and try to engage in intelligent debate?

Show me the mandate from the 07 manifesto then. Or from any of their recent local, European, or by-election campaigns. Show me anywhere that Fianna Fail sought a mandate for the bank bailout.
You can't because they have no mandate. All they have is a legal fiction of one.

T runner

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You're confusing the banks for the country. A mistake Lenihan made too, to our collective cost. We NEED to let the banks go bust. The longer they limp along, the more cash they're sucking out of the state. They are zombie banks, gangrenous infections that are now risking the survival of the state. They MUST be exposed to capitalism, and allowed go to the wall.

Do you understand what will happen if these banks go to the wall. Will we use barter to trade from now on? How will business' get money to operate? How will people get paid?


Or just loot shops while our government begs the IMF to refinance banks that no longer exist.

You are correct Lenihan made a mistrake. The time to undo it is passed. There may be oppurtunity in the next year, for now we need to keep our banks financed. Otherwise, its loot for your food time.

Cavehill Red

T runner wrote: »

Do you understand what will happen if these banks go to the wall. Will we use barter to trade from now on? How will business' get money to operate? How will people get paid?

The banks go bust. The banks get bought by foreign banks for a euro. The banking system in Ireland is better run in future. See Barings for the model.

This adherence to having Irish banks is actually hurting the nation. It's driven out better banks like Halifax and prevented true competition in the market. Frankly, we should have enforcibly folded BoI and AIB years ago for defrauding their customers repeatedly. It's like the Sixties idea that a country should have its own national airline, own national car manufacturer. Such ideas are in the dark ages, economically. We need these banks to go bust before they destroy what little sovereignty and capital we have left.

T runner wrote: »

You are correct Lenihan made a mistrake. The time to undo it is passed. There may be oppurtunity in the next year, for now we need to keep our banks financed. Otherwise, its loot for your food time.

Hysterical nonsense.

Min

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not at all. They have amended their privacy laws repeatedly in recent years, most recently handing over details of Swiss account to US authorities.
It is not the fault of the Swiss, nor even their banks, that foreigners sought to evade tax by placing funds there. The Swiss are a private people by nature, and their banking system was created with them in mind, not others.
In my opinion, the Swiss authorities have acted with honour in overturning their centuries-old adherence to the right to privacy in order to out some of those foreign shysters who abused their system to evade tax elsewhere.
If you have a problem with tax evasion countries, look to the Caymans, or even closer to home.

The Swiss could easily regulate their banks better, they only co-operate when it means they will pay for it if they don't.
It is not about tax havens, it is some were making out that Switzerland was some sort of utopia that we should be striving to be.

Cavehill Red

Min wrote: »

The Swiss could easily regulate their banks better, they only co-operate when it means they will pay for it if they don't.
It is not about tax havens, it is some were making out that Switzerland was some sort of utopia that we should be striving to be.

The Swiss, with little resources, have as another poster revealed, made themselves the most prosperous nation on Earth. They didn't do that by invading other nations, or by seeking handouts from other nations. They did it by letting the people decide how they wished to be governed.
It's not a Utopia, but nowhere is. And I have never yet come up against a coherent argument against the idea of letting the people decide matters that affect their lives.
Seriously, do you consider yourself some sort of serf or helot who requires a ruling elite to oversee you?

andrewdeerpark

Live in or visit Switzerland and you will understand. The Swiss are a controlling society that know exactly what goes on but are prepared to sell their morals for the massive wealth it generates.

He was never in Haugheys club like Bertie hence cannot be tarred with that brush.

Our most successful Economic period was the 90’s. When we were all working hard having a bit of craic and talking the Europeans and Americans into investing in Ireland. They invested because of our cheap educated labour pool, low cost, English speaking and welcoming nature. The 00’s turned us into the greedy prats we are now, where we got this world beating attitude and cocky manner that was our ruination.

Its far easier to blame Cowen for our failings instead of looking at ourselves. No one forced us to buy 3 houses, jeeps, couple of holidays a year all on cheap money. Its called the market economy and freedom of choice.

Hence the Cowen witch hunt or lynching will achieve little.

Fitzerb

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Actually, it's essential we don't. If we do, we're on the hook for all those bank debts that the state has no liability for. We need to renege the guarantee, burn the bondholders and talk to the IMF alone, without EU interference in the process.



We need to reinitiate the process with the IMF, not fiddle with the details of the current treacherous deal cut by Fianna Fail at gunpoint.



On the contrary, passing that Finance Bill would be the single most destructive act ever carried out by this state upon its people.



That, and the fact that the government has no mandate from the people for anything that it is doing or has done for many months.



I think Fianna Fail have demonstrated today that for them it's always party before country. Cowen, not good enough for them but good enough for us? Exactly.



Again, I believe you have this the wrong way around. What we need is an election. What we definitely don't need is this Finance bill.



The Opposition, in my opinion, are acting way too late on this. The government has no mandate. It pretty much has no ministers or support in Dail Eireann either at this point. There is no reason for this government to stay a minute longer in office.

I think you are getting you wires crossed. The Finance Act has nothing to do the IMF deal or the banks. It is for legislating into law the January budget just gone.

T runner

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Firstly, FG/Labour are not one party. Are we already dismissing them as one entity joined at the hip before they leave the starting gate?

I realise that they are one party, this the seperation with a slash. They are both motioning confidence so i put them together. I did not think economising this way would mean taht people assumed i thought they were actually one party.

Wasn't that one of the reasons we had to take the bailout? How we were viewed?

No. We had to take the bailout because the interest rates on our bonds effectively shut us out of other sopurces of money. The current political upheaval makes sod all difference to the markets perception of Ireland outside of the worry taht the Finnance bill may not be passed.

That's very cynical, but after decades of FFail I can see why someone might assume that.

More whatabotery

However as public representatives it is the job of elected officials to react to public opinion in a way that their party feels it can be best handled.

What the hell does that mean? It is their job to do their best for tyhe electorate, even if the right thing goes against public opinion.

The people want rid of FFail and want an election.

But the right thing to happen is for the Finance Bill to be passed first for clear reasons stated in this thread. The opposition are putting their public perception before teh good of the country.

If FFail or the greens had any class they'd bow out.

Id say theyd love to call it a day. However they cant, they must pass the Finance Bill.

I demand an election now. I'm pretty cool with any party who wants to call an election now.

It is not up to you to demand an election now. The only way you can successfully have people obey you is to organise a coup d'etat. Otherwise you must obey the laws of the land: ie the government calls an election when their term is over or before it.

Min

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The Swiss, with little resources, have as another poster revealed, made themselves the most prosperous nation on Earth. They didn't do that by invading other nations, or by seeking handouts from other nations. They did it by letting the people decide how they wished to be governed.
It's not a Utopia, but nowhere is. And I have never yet come up against a coherent argument against the idea of letting the people decide matters that affect their lives.
Seriously, do you consider yourself some sort of serf or helot who requires a ruling elite to oversee you?

Yeah, just don't be a muslim as the people have a problem with minarets. These are the life changing issues that the Swiss have to vote on - should a mosque be allowed to have a minaret...

I think the Swiss vote too much when it comes to things like this.

Cavehill Red

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Live in or visit Switzerland and you will understand. The Swiss are a controlling society that know exactly what goes on but are prepared to sell their morals for the massive wealth it generates.

I've been there a good few times, and have friends living there. The Swiss are a private bunch and respect the idea of minding one's own business. That has been abused by others, and they have taken the flak for it, unfairly in my opinion.

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

He was never in Haugheys club like Bertie hence cannot be tarred with that brush.

His running mate has been in court facing fraud charges. He was in government with Haughey and cabinet with Bertie. He is a FF fundamentalist, and isn't so much tarred with the brush as born holding it.

andrewdeerpark wrote: »

Our most successful Economic period was the 90’s. When we were all working hard having a bit of craic and talking the Europeans and Americans into investing in Ireland. They invested because of our cheap educated labour pool, low cost, English speaking and welcoming nature. The 00’s turned us into the greedy prats we are now, where we got this world beating attitude and cocky manner that was our ruination.Its far easier to blame Cowen for our failings instead of looking at ourselves. No one forced us to buy 3 houses, jeeps, couple of holidays a year all on cheap money. Its called the market economy and freedom of choice.

I'd agree with all of that, except none of that actually caused the problems we're in now. FF economic policies under McCreevy and Cowen caused the problems, as did a nod-and-wink attitude to banking fraud, which some members of government were actually making a living by recommending to consumers.

Fitzerb

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You're confusing the banks for the country. A mistake Lenihan made too, to our collective cost. We NEED to let the banks go bust. The longer they limp along, the more cash they're sucking out of the state. They are zombie banks, gangrenous infections that are now risking the survival of the state. They MUST be exposed to capitalism, and allowed go to the wall.

Just a few minor problems with your strategyy.

Some Irish Pension funds for our elderly are managed by the Banks and held on deposit in Irish Banks. I take you have no problem with our old folk not having access to their pension.

People over 55 have 10 billion + in savings in Irish Banks. For some this is their life savings, I tkae it that you have no problem with all the Irish people losing their deposits.

How Irish Companies have money on deposit on in current accounts with Irish banks. If the banks go bust they go bust. I guess you have no problem seeing another 400,000 on the dole

"Let the banks go bust" Very populace but a bit daft.

Cavehill Red

Min wrote: »

Yeah, just don't be a muslim as the people have a problem with minarets. These are the life changing issues that the Swiss have to vote on - should a mosque be allowed to have a minaret...
I think the Swiss vote too much when it comes to things like this.

That's democracy. If the Swiss don't want to hear the call to prayer, then they get to choose on the matter. They don't have it enforced on them by a ruling elite which has its own interests in mind when creating law.
You might think the Swiss vote too much, but you are a person allowed at best a vote on government every few years. No doubt people might find it onerous to move from that to a system where they were required to take an interest in how their country was run on more regular basis than that. Some people are lazy that way.
The Swiss obviously like their system because it's been in place in some form or another for nearly 800 years.

T runner

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The banks go bust. The banks get bought by foreign banks for a euro.

What kind of insane bank would buy a bank with debts of several 10s of billions of euro for one Euro??? Name tehse banks please?

Will they make these insane acquisitions and have cash flow ready within 2 days when Irish buisiness cash flow starts to dry up. Do you understand? Do you care?

They are trying to restructure the banks with the IMF. It will take months, maybe years.

This adherence to having Irish banks is actually hurting the nation. It's driven out better banks like Halifax and prevented true competition in the market.

The lack of lucrativeness in this market for the next 10 years has driven out Halifax and others.

Frankly, we should have enforcibly folded BoI and AIB years ago for defrauding their customers repeatedly. It's like the Sixties idea that a country should have its own national airline, own national car manufacturer. Such ideas are in the dark ages, economically. We need these banks to go bust before they destroy what little sovereignty and capital we have left.

If the banks go bust, all Irish business goes bust. Nobody gets paid. You see this as an increase in sovereignty?

Hysterical nonsense

Saves you having to argue the point ofcourse.

Cavehill Red

Fitzerb wrote: »

Just a few minor problems with your strategyy.
Some Irish Pension funds for our elderly are managed by the Banks and held on deposit in Irish Banks. I take you have no problem with our old folk not having access to their pension.

Those pensions have already been eroded severely by mismanagement within those same banks.

Fitzerb wrote: »

People over 55 have 10 billion + in savings in Irish Banks. For some this is their life savings, I tkae it that you have no problem with all the Irish people losing their deposits.

Deposits up to some six figures are already guaranteed under Irish law.

Fitzerb wrote: »

How Irish Companies have money on deposit on in current accounts with Irish banks. If the banks go bust they go bust. I guess you have no problem seeing another 400,000 on the dole
"Let the banks go bust" Very populace but a bit daft.

More hysteria. Check out the bank bankruptcies in the US, or as I said, Barings. In most cases the banks didn't even close their doors. They were open for business under new owners the following day.

Min

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's democracy. If the Swiss don't want to hear the call to prayer, then they get to choose on the matter. They don't have it enforced on them by a ruling elite which has its own interests in mind when creating law.
You might think the Swiss vote too much, but you are a person allowed at best a vote on government every few years. No doubt people might find it onerous to move from that to a system where they were required to take an interest in how their country was run on more regular basis than that. Some people are lazy that way.
The Swiss obviously like their system because it's been in place in some form or another for nearly 800 years.

I always vote, never missed a vote.

I don't believe Switzerland was overflowing with mosques with minarets.

tweedledee

If FF want something to go through it smells.They have already left out some really important points,Property tax and Bonus tax.Both have disappeared.Why do you think that is????FF will lie and cheat their way to protect the Cashier.These guys are looking 10 years down the road for themselves,long after they have left the public eye.They will cover their arses with money for as long as possible.they know very well that the Irish voter has a very,VERY short memory and long after Cowan is gone he will continue to reap the rewards of kissing the banks behinds.What will the Irish public do about it?????NOTHING.Sit in the pub,moan and complain all night long BUT do absolutely nothing about it.The sad thing is,even though the country has become the laughing stock of Europe,totally bankrupt,massive unemployment,1000 people leaving every week,minimal growth,one of the highest crime rates in Europe,endless supply of cash for banks that are busted,thousands of people will still vote for Fianna Fail in the next election...................................Says alot about us really.

Fitzerb

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Show me the mandate from the 07 manifesto then. Or from any of their recent local, European, or by-election campaigns. Show me anywhere that Fianna Fail sought a mandate for the bank bailout.
You can't because they have no mandate. All they have is a legal fiction of one.

You elect a Government to Govern. You cant have a mandate for every decision regardless of how or small the decision is.

This time seek a mandate for the bank bail out whats it next time...... changing the drink driving laws. We would spend our life in pooling booths.........

If they dont govern to the standard you wish then you vote them out.