Joe Higgins v. Jose Manuel Barroso. Who do you support?

Dionysus

Earlier last week Higgins launched an attack on the European Commission, specifically the current president of the European Commission, Barroso.

I agree with Higgins, but I also agree with Barroso. Higgins is correct: it is obscene to transfer the debts of private firms upon the shoulders of Irish people. Barroso is also correct: "the problems of Ireland were created by irresponsible financial behaviour of some Irish institutions and by the lack of supervision in the Irish market." 100% agree with that, although it should be noted that the ECB was supplying cheap credit throughout the Celtic Tiger years and thus fuelling the boom so it wasn't exactly white-as-white.

On the other hand, a large part of the reason why the ECB is "helping" Ireland is because German, British, French and other banks are the losers if we don't repay these private debts. At the very least, EU leaders from countries whose bank losses we are covering have a clash of interest. The high interest/profit which the ECB is charging Ireland reinforces this cynical interpretation of the ECB's role.

MrMatisse

The european banks regulated by other european governments lent recklessly also and we are bailing them out.

Go Joe

wolfpawnat

Europe is only interested in one thing here. Money. If they really wanted to help Ireland the interest rates would not be so high and we would not have as many conditions on the loans they and the IMF have given us!

Yes the Irish Government and the banks were wreckless, but as a Socialist Higgins is interested in the little people and not these banks.

Europe always had a certain control on the money in our banks but why is it only now that things went tits up they have comments to make?

AckwelFoley

a rock - plankton - gerry adams - that brown goo that sticks to a toilet - joe higgins - small animals - monkeys - us - your god.

So no, i don't support Joe

sensibleken

Much as I am loath to admit it, im on Joe's side on this one

My name is URL

I don't see how Higgins is wrong.. what he said is that billions of euro worth of debt is been placed on the shoulders of the Irish people to help alleviate the problems of a failed financial system. Barosso is correct in saying that Europe did not cause our financial institutions to act irresponsibly.. but hey, neither did the majority of Irish people.

Then Barosso says that it's important to know where the responsibility lies.. yeah, it lies with the same banks which are now a drain on the entire country. The ones which cannot be allowed to go under for the sake of the wider Europe. I'm struggling to see which part of the responsibity lies with me tbh

whoopdedoo

Barosso is in the wrong and he flippin well knows it!!

he's under no illusion where the money came from that was placing he noose around this countries neck!!

a PIG of a man!!!

Sanjuro

Well, the situation is a hell of a lot more complicated than 'Higgins thinks this, Baroso thinks this.' But if you were to sum up the whole mess into two sentences, both men are right. But they're not conflicting ideas. Baroso stated a fact, Higgins stated an opinion. And Higgins is right. It's incredibly unfair, and ethically wrong for the ECB and IMF to expect the Irish people to pay for the gamble of institutions.

Badgermonkey

Higgins the man is likeable, honest and principled. I've a lot of respect for him.

His political ideology however is nonsensical daydreaming.

Ali Babba

Whoever was involved should be made pay, especially those who borrowed recklessly in the first place, seize their assets and their transferred assets too, no exceptions. But to expect everyone else to pay for others mistakes is not acceptable in any shape of form. Fcuk the banks though, i've no sympathies for them, if they go broke so be it, there'll be fitter leaner banks in soon enough to replace them if they did go broke.

lugha

Sanjuro wrote: »

It's incredibly unfair, and ethically wrong for the ECB and IMF to expect the Irish people to pay for the gamble of institutions.

I think we should distinguish between the ECB and the IMF. It would seem the latter were more receptive to making the big boys share some pain.
And fair or unfair I don't know if there is much we can do about it given our dependency on the ECB.

big b

Irish mortgage defaulter - it's the banks' fault for lending me the money.

Irish state(-owned banks) - It's Europe's fault for lending us the money.

Responsibility for our actions ain't one of our strong points

Son Of A Vidic

My name is URL wrote: »

Barosso is correct in saying that Europe did not cause our financial institutions to act irresponsibly.. but hey, neither did the majority of Irish people.

But of course Barrosso conveniently ignores the reckless lending by the big German and French banks, to the incompetent Irish banks which caused this. He must at all times protect these big boys and indeed he has achieved this. If the gobshytes running the Irish banks weren't getting the credit from the European big boys, then we wouldn't be paying for all their 'risks' today.

Now Ireland is a relatively immature economy when compared to the likes of Germany and France. So when the Irish banks were out of control, why didn't our european 'partners' say "Hey lads, you need to calm down and reign it in a bit." Because now they own us, or is this what they wanted? The loss of national sovereignty and a nations financial enslavement, without a shot being fired. Clever bast@rds they are.

Dyr

snyper wrote: »

a rock - plankton - gerry adams - that brown goo that sticks to a toilet - joe higgins - small animals - monkeys - us - your god.

So no, i don't support Joe

culchies who vote Fianna Fail - a rock - plankton - gerry adams - that brown goo that sticks to a toilet - joe higgins - small animals - monkeys - us - your god Is the correct order

Stinicker

I have good respect for Joe Higgins, he often made that crook Bertie Ahern squirm in the Dail and was one of the few people in there at the time to stick it to him. His social policies however..... :rolleyes:

Zebra3

big b wrote: »

Irish mortgage defaulter - it's the banks' fault for lending me the money.

Irish state(-owned banks) - It's Europe's fault for lending us the money.
Responsibility for our actions ain't one of our strong points

Except I'm not responsible and therefore should not be paying for f*ck ups by banks. Cop yourself on. :rolleyes:

Higgins is 100% correct and Barroso is simply doing a Pilate.

The EU is loaning us money at something like 6% that they are getting at 3%.

Friends like that.... :mad:

FlutterinBantam

Higgins is an idiot who is the epitome of a single issue campaigner.


In Higgins' team there is only one player.. the 'working man'.


He conveniently forgets /ignores/ brushes over the fact that society is far more complicated than the straight line scenario he is so trenchant in promulgating.

He totally ignores the fact that for there to be a 'working man' there has to be someone to work for, something to produce, profit to be made and an economy to support.

His rhetoric is pervasive till you drill down into his stupid and foolish ideals and I'm sure there are plenty of uninformed idiots out there who will think he is the saviour this country needs.


God help us!!

panda100

Stinicker wrote: »

I have good respect for Joe Higgins, he often made that crook Bertie Ahern squirm in the Dail and was one of the few people in there at the time to stick it to him. His social policies however.....

........Are what this country needs?

I am 100% on Joe's side. I really don't like the neoliberal agenda of the European Union. Its corrupt, greedy and puts money above all else.

At least Joe is an elected politician, which can't be said for Barrosso.

big b

Zebra3 wrote: »

Except I'm not responsible and therefore should not be paying for f*ck ups by banks. Cop yourself on. :rolleyes:

Higgins is 100% correct and Barroso is simply doing a Pilate.

The EU is loaning us money at something like 6% that they are getting at 3%.

Friends like that.... :mad:

Yeah, and I'm not responsible for the baby boom, but my taxes still pay child allowance. I didn't use the health service, but my taxes go there too. I didn't avail of section 23 or 50 tax allowances, but I pay for them too, and so on....

Cop yourself on.

whoopdedoo

panda100 wrote: »

........Are what this country needs?

I am 100% on Joe's side. I really don't like the neoliberal agenda of the European Union. Its corrupt, greedy and puts money above all else.

At least Joe is an elected politician, which can't be said for Barrosso.

well said!!

I love watching Nigel Farage ripping into him and van rumpuy!

Badgermonkey

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Higgins is an idiot who is the epitome of a single issue campaigner.


In Higgins' team there is only one player.. the 'working man'.


He conveniently forgets /ignores/ brushes over the fact that society is far more complicated than the straight line scenario he is so trenchant in promulgating.

He totally ignores the fact that for there to be a 'working man' there has to be someone to work for, something to produce, profit to be made and an economy to support.

His rhetoric is pervasive till you drill down into his stupid and foolish ideals and I'm sure there are plenty of uninformed idiots out there who will think he is the saviour this country needs.


God help us!!

You forgot Boyd Barrett.

I think they're genuine, principled, well intentioned and deluded, though I wouldn't label them idiots.

K-9

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

But of course Barrosso conveniently ignores the reckless lending by the big German and French banks, to the incompetent Irish banks which caused this. He must at all times protect these big boys and indeed he has achieved this. If the gobshytes running the Irish banks weren't getting the credit from the European big boys, then we wouldn't be paying for all their 'risks' today.

Now Ireland is a relatively immature economy when compared to the likes of Germany and France. So when the Irish banks were out of control, why didn't our european 'partners' say "Hey lads, you need to calm down and reign it in a bit." Because now they own us, or is this what they wanted? The loss of national sovereignty and a nations financial enslavement, without a shot being fired. Clever bast@rds they are.

True about the French and German banks, thing is, regulation of our own banks is Irelands business and we didn't do it properly. Banks lend money to make profits, that is what they do. It is up to each country to regulate its own banks.

French and German banks shouldn't have lent the likes of Anglo the billions they did but they had a certain reliance and trust that we had a proper banking system which is Irelands business.

If the situation was reversed and we were bailing out Germany, I wouldn't expect Irish banks to take the hit for lack of regulation in Germany.

Unpossible

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

So when the Irish banks were out of control, why didn't our european 'partners' say "Hey lads, you need to calm down and reign it in a bit."

Charlie McCreevy was warned by the other finance ministers of europe back in 2001/2002 that his policies were going to create a construction bubble, not only did he scoff at them, but then tried to go around telling the rest of europe how they should do things our way.

The reason we are getting our current loan at such a high rate is to make it a deterrent to others. If it was an easy loan then everyone in trouble would just latch onto it instead of taking the necessary pain.

FlutterinBantam

Badgermonkey wrote: »

You forgot Boyd Barrett.

I think they're genuine, principled, well intentioned and deluded, though I wouldn't label them idiots.

You are right, I was wrong there.

Deluded is the word I would use from now on.

squod

Unpossible wrote: »

The reason we are getting our current loan at such a high rate is to make it a deterrent to others.

The reason we are getting our current loan at such a high rate is because they can. You'd hardly expect these criminals to perpetrate such a high value fraud without making a few bob do you?

Unpossible

squod wrote: »

The reason we are getting our current loan at such a high rate is because they can. You'd hardly expect these criminals to perpetrate such a high value fraud without making a few bob do you?

Ok, lets do it your way, say 3% ? Now spain, portugal and a bunch of others have looked at that 3% and then at the rates they are being offered from the markets, which do you think they will choose? Bonus question: where will the money come from?


Personally when all of this crisis is over I think all countries should be borrowing at a flat EU rate. This could be done by the ECB providing funds to countries within the EU and the rate being set by what the ECB can get on the open market.

squod

We've 80 billion euro in the bank in the form of a pension reserve fund. If we weren't volunteering to pay back the debts of gamblers and career criminlas the figure we'd need to borrow could be easily afforded by dipping into this fund (as we are already doing).

Let me quote Mr Rehn's admirably frank reminder: "We need to recall that sovereign debt has not been at the origin of the crisis. Rather, private debt has become public debt. The financial sector has misallocated resources in the economy and then stopped working."

The bank bailout was meant to be a temporary stop gap to allow banks renegotiate their debts, not provide a bottomless pit of cash at the expense of the taxpayer.

Unpossible

squod wrote: »

We've 80 billion euro in the bank in the form of a pension reserve fund. If we weren't volunteering to pay back the debts of gamblers and career criminlas the figure we'd need to borrow could be easily afforded by dipping into this fund (as we are already doing).
The bank bailout was meant to be a temporary stop gap to allow banks renegotiate their debts, not provide a bottomless pit of cash at the expense of the taxpayer.

Yep and I think we would have been better off with Richard Bruton as Finance minister when this crisis started, unfortunatly FF have managed to scupper any chance we had of getting out of this mess quickly. Just make sure everyone remembers this in 4/8/12 years time when FF are back trying to worm their way into power.

squod

I take Sen. Shane Ross' viewpoint on all of this. Crony-ism was/is such a factor in Irish politics & civil service.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH9mpUn_VHs

AskMyChocolate

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Higgins is an idiot who is the epitome of a single issue campaigner.


In Higgins' team there is only one player.. the 'working man'.


He conveniently forgets /ignores/ brushes over the fact that society is far more complicated than the straight line scenario he is so trenchant in promulgating.

He totally ignores the fact that for there to be a 'working man' there has to be someone to work for, something to produce, profit to be made and an economy to support.

His rhetoric is pervasive till you drill down into his stupid and foolish ideals and I'm sure there are plenty of uninformed idiots out there who will think he is the saviour this country needs.


God help us!!

And no doubt you consider the socialists running Norway and the "uninformed idiots" running Statoil to be far inferior to your right wing conservative mates in Anglo/AIB/BoI?

Give me an uninformed person over a smug valueless fool incapable of rational thought any day of the week.

God help us indeed!

FlutterinBantam

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

And no doubt you consider the socialists running Norway and the "uninformed idiots" running Statoil to be far inferior to your right wing conservative mates in Anglo/AIB/BoI?

Give me an uninformed person over a smug valueless fool incapable of rational thought any day of the week.

God help us indeed!

You might enlighten us as to what the point of that post is pal, in the context of this thread.

AskMyChocolate

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You might enlighten us as to what the point of that post is pal, in the context of this thread.

I would have thought it was self-explanatory. You seem to believe,given your posts, that socialists are in some way intellectually,economically and industrially inferior to capitalists. As you have already ceded the point that they are ethically, morally and judicially more mature than capitalists it hardly needed to be addressed. Although perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to how a nine year old Irish child should be held responsible for looking after the private capital of a fifty year old German.

FlutterinBantam

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I would have thought it was self-explanatory. You seem to believe,given your posts, that socialists are in some way intellectually,economically and industrially inferior to capitalists. As you have already ceded the point that they are ethically, morally and judicially more mature than capitalists it hardly needed to be addressed. Although perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to how a nine year old Irish child should be held responsible for looking after the private capital of a fifty year old German.

Who is this nine year old child and who is this fifty year old German?

Anyone I know?

Buceph

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You might enlighten us as to what the point of that post is pal, in the context of this thread.

I believe what he is saying is that when we discover hundreds of billions of oil and gas reserves we can try going socialist for a few years.

FlutterinBantam

Buceph wrote: »

I believe what he is saying is that when we discover hundreds of billions of oil and gas reserves we can try going socialist for a few years.

If that happens we can try going mad, everything is good in that scenario:cool:

Unpossible

Buceph wrote: »

I believe what he is saying is that when we discover hundreds of billions of oil and gas reserves we can try going socialist for a few years.

To be fair Sweden and Finland are also more socialist than us and they aren't doing too badly. Granted I think it might be a different flavour to Higgins'.

panda100

Unpossible wrote: »

To be fair Sweden and Finland are also more socialist than us and they aren't doing too badly. Granted I think it might be a different flavour to Higgins'.

Ya, I think Joe would be a revolutionary socialist rather than a democratic socialist. Still I would much rather see Ireland ran in the Swedish model than the shoddy capitalism it is now.

AskMyChocolate

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Who is this nine year old child and who is this fifty year old German?

Anyone I know?

Judging by this reply the nine-year old Irish child is yourself. Man up and defend your argument or have the maturity to accept that it was poorly thought out.
By what concepts of justice do you believe that any Irish citizen is responsible for DeutscheBank/BNP/Anglo/AIB etc.'s inability to conduct due dilligence in their capacity as a private lender of private capital?

FlutterinBantam

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Judging by this reply the nine-year old Irish child is yourself. Man up and defend your argument or have the maturity to accept that it was poorly thought out.
By what concepts of justice do you believe that any Irish citizen is responsible for DeutscheBank/BNP/Anglo/AIB etc.'s inability to conduct due dilligence in their capacity as a private lender of private capital?

Now supply me with the details of all that rhetoric you have there friend, facts and figures and I will work on a reply.

The short answer is there is no justice in it, anymore than there is justice in my taxs being used to defend criminals, compensate victims of uninsured drivers , compensate victims of abuse in state run institutions.

Ok my friend;)

AskMyChocolate

Buceph wrote: »

I believe what he is saying is that when we discover hundreds of billions of oil and gas reserves we can try going socialist for a few years.

I don't know whether you're agreeing with me or being sarcastic. We have discovered hundreds of billions of oil and gas reserves. Unfortunately they now belong to the Norwegian people, as will our forests and bogs in a few years.

hmmm

It's all someone elses fault.

Would you ever listen to yourselves, no wonder the rest of the world are laughing at the thick Paddies and their persecution complex.

AskMyChocolate

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Now supply me with the details of all that rhetoric you have there friend, facts and figures and I will work on a reply.

The short answer is there is no justice in it, anymore than there is justice in my taxs being used to defend criminals, compensate victims of uninsured drivers , compensate victims of abuse in state run institutions.

Ok my friend;)

Rhetoric?

As for facts and figures, did I imagine the bank bailout and the EU-IMF loan taken out to protect private banking institutions that are owned by international shareholders and operate in a global market? Or perhaps you believe organised child abuse is of far less import than the protection of the privilege of secretive valueless institutions?

Dead Kennedys

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Now supply me with the details of all that rhetoric you have there friend, facts and figures and I will work on a reply.

The short answer is there is no justice in it, anymore than there is justice in my taxs being used to defend criminals, compensate victims of uninsured drivers , compensate victims of abuse in state run institutions.

Ok my friend;)

So why not default and let our European friends pick up the tab, the cash trail goes back to German, French and English banks, they loaned the money to AIB, BoI, Anglo etc, their risk! We should lower our corporation tax too while we're at it, just to rub it in.

Haven't seen Barroso that animated before, think Joe Higgins hit a nerve.

Buceph

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Rhetoric?

As for facts and figures, did I imagine the bank bailout and the EU-IMF loan taken out to protect private banking institutions that are owned by international shareholders and operate in a global market? Or perhaps you believe organised child abuse is of far less import than the protection of the privilege of secretive valueless institutions?

Yes. Ensuring the economic soundness of a nation is far more important than compensating people who have been abused. I don't know how you could suggest anything else. If the state is bankrupt then there won't be state run institutions to let kids get abused.

My name is URL

hmmm wrote: »

It's all someone elses fault.

Would you ever listen to yourselves, no wonder the rest of the world are laughing at the thick Paddies and their persecution complex.

Who's laughing? Come off it will you.. persecution complex?

From what I've seen, quite a few commentators around the world feel the same way as many of Irish people do.. that we're being screwed by a system which allows bondholders to evade losses on risks which they themselves decided to take. It's not just an Irish issue you know.

K-9

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Judging by this reply the nine-year old Irish child is yourself. Man up and defend your argument or have the maturity to accept that it was poorly thought out.
By what concepts of justice do you believe that any Irish citizen is responsible for DeutscheBank/BNP/Anglo/AIB etc.'s inability to conduct due dilligence in their capacity as a private lender of private capital?

I doubt many could defend it, problem is our Government caused the mess in the first place here and then royally f*cked up the crisis by choosing to guarantee them. Ideally the banks here would have been let fail but politicians fear economic meltdown, something they all share, whether they be Irish, German or whatever.

Phill Ewinn

hmmm wrote: »

It's all someone elses fault.

Would you ever listen to yourselves, no wonder the rest of the world are laughing at the thick Paddies and their persecution complex.

It is someone elses fault! Politicians are playimg pass the parcel with private debts of banksters. Why the fvck would we want to get stuck with it. If you,re gamble on world markets, at some stage your gonna loose. Why would the taxpayers of this country piick up the tab. Why aren't these fvckers in jail FFS.

AskMyChocolate

Buceph wrote: »

Yes. Ensuring the economic soundness of a nation is far more important than compensating people who have been abused. I don't know how you could suggest anything else. If the state is bankrupt then there won't be state run institutions to let kids get abused.

I honestly don't know if you're being serious or not. How is the economic soundness of our nation served by nationalising massive amounts of private debt?

Buceph

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I honestly don't know if you're being serious or not. How is the economic soundness of our nation served by nationalising massive amounts of private debt?

I can do smilies as well.

But I see your point. A country with no banks, and every multi-national scrambling to desert the country would do really well. We'd just have to get the army to take over the Corrib Gas Fields and we'd do fine with the 25 to 40 billion worth of Gas that we wouldn't have access to or the expertise to get at.


There were other options. I think we should have gone to the EU for negotiations on what would happen to the debt before a bank guarantee was ever even considered. But simply letting the banks collapse, which would happen when they have zero access to funds, was not an option. Bank failures have happened, but never banks with such a huge importance to the economy as the Irish situation.

Phill Ewinn

squod wrote: »

The bank bailout was meant to be a temporary stop gap to allow banks renegotiate their debts, not provide a bottomless pit of cash at the expense of the taxpayer.

Can someone phone RTE and tell them this. Can't believe the bias and contrived coverage of events so far.

K-9

Nobody forced the Government to guarantee bondholders either, AFAIK we were the only country to offer such a massive guarantee.
Lenihan offered it despite Department of Finance advice.

Apparently he liked the sound of it because David McWilliams was a proponent of it:

Sunday Business Post | Irish Business News

Once it was adopted it was always going to be difficult to step back from.

That often happens when politicians go off trying to make names for themselves adopting radical proposals and ignoring prudent civil service advice.