McWilliams calls for referendum on bank debt

Euroland

McWilliams calls for referendum on bank debt

http://www.breakingnews.ie/election/news/mcwilliams-calls-for-referendum-on-bank-debt-493555.html

Poll: Would you support a referendum on the private bank debt?

1) Yes

2) No

Cookie_Monster

If it means we can get rid of it then yes I would, it needs to be separated from Sovereign debt and dumped.

Let the bondholders, investors and risk takers take their hit, and let the banks go to the wall apart from BOI, who are the closest to being able to survive with minimal funding.

KerranJast

What the people want in this situation is irrelevant. What's relevant is whats achievable and realistic.

If you had a referendum on show we cut taxes and increase public spending then that would pass.

There's a reason we elect politicians. It's to engage in diplomacy and negotiations with our International partners on economic problems.

jimmycrackcorm

I cannot understand why we need a referendum on whether or not we want to separate our sovereign debt and the bank debt. Isn't the answer obvious?

In actual fact, what DMW means by calling for a referendum is: do the people want to accept the consequences of effectively what would be a default

Euroland

KerranJast wrote: »

What the people want in this situation is irrelevant. What's relevant is whats achievable and realistic.

If you had a referendum on show we cut taxes and increase public spending then that would pass.

There's a reason we elect politicians. It's to engage in diplomacy and negotiations with our International partners on economic problems.

It is achievable and realistic. People in Iceland voted against private to public debt conversion. And we can do the same. It’s simple.

As regards to the politicians, most of them would have less knowledge on the matter than us.

KerranJast

Euroland wrote: »

It is achievable and realistic. People in Iceland voted against private to public debt conversion. And we can do the same. It’s simple.

As regards to the politicians, most of them would have less knowledge on the matter than ourselves.

Iceland weren't in the ECB and didn't owe the ECB a ****ton of money either in Sovereign or Bank debts. Because we are in the ECB we cannot unilaterally decide to repudiate the guaranteed bank debts. It has to be done in agreement with our European partners.

Its obvious that if we continue as we are that we'll default on our Sovereign debt. The Germans know that too which is why they're arranging the March discussions on a better Euro bailout mechanism. What'll probably happen is there'll be a consolidated Euro bond that we'll be able to borrow off at lower rates and once the bank debts are isolated we can return to borrowing on the International markets.

Euroland

KerranJast wrote: »

Iceland weren't in the ECB and didn't owe the ECB a ****ton of money either in Sovereign or Bank debts. Because we are in the ECB we cannot unilaterally decide to repudiate the guaranteed bank debts. It has to be done in agreement with our European partners.

Its obvious that if we continue as we are that we'll default on our Sovereign debt. The Germans know that too which is why they're arranging the March discussions on a better Euro bailout mechanism. What'll probably happen is there'll be a consolidated Euro bond that we'll be able to borrow off at lower rates and once the bank debts are isolated we can return to borrowing on the International markets.

1) At the end, only we, ourselves, decide what to do next and whether to default or not and ECB would have to accept it.
2) Moreover, now I’m taking only about private bank debt, not about our sovereign (public) debt.
3) We can easily either default on the bank debt or demand unilateral restructuring with deep haircuts (let say 95% haircut on all bank debt except the senior secured debt, and 70% haircut on the senior secured debt).
4) By achieving this we can borrow for our internal needs (budget deficit) at lower rates as the borrowers would perceive us much stronger than before.
5) In case if ECB doesn’t want to borrow we can borrow either directly from IMF or from China, Russia, etc
6) In case of disagreement with ECB we can consider pulling out of the Euro zone and re-establish the Punt. It is not a secret that all our problems begun to appear from joining the Euro zone. So, now is the right time to abandon it. Backed by one of the strongest export sectors in the world and enormous trade surplus we cam maintain our own currency at reasonable level of stability and revive our economy.

whatstherush

Euroland wrote: »

1) At the end, only we, ourselves, decide what to do next and whether to default or not and ECB would have to accept it.

What would happen with the 100bn plus that the ECB has lent to Irish banks? I don't really understand the mechanics of it. Is that 100Bn short term and if so can the ECB pull it out of the Banks, leading to a "no money at the atm's" scenario.

RichardAnd

Euroland wrote: »

It is achievable and realistic. People in Iceland voted against private to public debt conversion. And we can do the same. It’s simple.

As regards to the politicians, most of them would have less knowledge on the matter than us.

Change the bolded word to "could have" and then it's true. We could have prevented the bank bail out at one point but that was before we gave out billions to the banks. The money was borrowed by the state and regardless of how it was used, it will have to be paid back as it is national debt.

Dannyboy83

I would prefer if we could reach a mutual agreement in the Eurozone, but if we cannot, I don't see what choice we have.

Nody

Euroland wrote: »

1) At the end, only we, ourselves, decide what to do next and whether to default or not and ECB would have to accept it.
2) Moreover, now I’m taking only about private bank debt, not about our sovereign (public) debt.

Which is now sovereign debt since the state borrowed the money and lent it to the banks directly.

3) We can easily either default on the bank debt or demand unilateral restructuring with deep haircuts (let say 95% haircut on all bank debt except the senior secured debt, and 70% haircut on the senior secured debt).

That would include 70% haircut on all peoples saving as well since senior bond holders are before the people depositing savings in the legal structure for debt.

4) By achieving this we can borrow for our internal needs (budget deficit) at lower rates as the borrowers would perceive us much stronger than before.

No, doing this the rates would go mid to high teens in percentage since it is now seen that Ireland is not only most likely going to renegade on debt but is doing so. Feel free to look up Argentina and how long it took them to start borrowing again and at what percentages. This also means you need a plan to cut the borrowing down to zero from the moment you hint at this option.

5) In case if ECB doesn’t want to borrow we can borrow either directly from IMF or from China, Russia, etc

IMF will not borrow as Ireland renegaded on the deal, China, Russia etc. don't really care because Ireland is to small market and EU is far more important as an over all market (which is why they sweet talk with Greece etc.).

6) In case of disagreement with ECB we can consider pulling out of the Euro zone and re-establish the Punt.

And cause the biggest flow of money out of Ireland ever seen and the devaluation of all savings by at least 30% excluding of course the flight of foreign companies who want to be in the euro zone. Once again, looking back at Argentina people literally speaking would travel accross the bay to Uruguay with cash on hand to get it out of the country at the time. The moment you start even hinting at something like this (and lets be honest, the chance it being kept a secret including exchange rates, rules, printing etc. is nill) means everyone will move cash out one way or another.

It is not a secret that all our problems begun to appear from joining the Euro zone. So, now is the right time to abandon it. Backed by one of the strongest export sectors in the world and enormous trade surplus we cam maintain our own currency at reasonable level of stability and revive our economy.

You're right; that 90s crash was also euro based; so was the previous AIB crashes etc. nothing to do with ignorant politicans and lax controls at all.

KerranJast

Euroland wrote: »

1) At the end, only we, ourselves, decide what to do next and whether to default or not and ECB would have to accept it.
2) Moreover, now I’m taking only about private bank debt, not about our sovereign (public) debt.
3) We can easily either default on the bank debt or demand unilateral restructuring with deep haircuts (let say 95% haircut on all bank debt except the senior secured debt, and 70% haircut on the senior secured debt).
4) By achieving this we can borrow for our internal needs (budget deficit) at lower rates as the borrowers would perceive us much stronger than before.
5) In case if ECB doesn’t want to borrow we can borrow either directly from IMF or from China, Russia, etc
6) In case of disagreement with ECB we can consider pulling out of the Euro zone and re-establish the Punt. It is not a secret that all our problems begun to appear from joining the Euro zone. So, now is the right time to abandon it. Backed by one of the strongest export sectors in the world and enormous trade surplus we cam maintain our own currency at reasonable level of stability and revive our economy.

1. True we can decide what to do but the ECB can tell us to get stuffed and remove all funding from the Irish banks, which is the only thing keeping our ATMs working.
2. I stand to be corrected on this but isn't private band debt currently legally Sovereign debt due to NAMA?
3. I would hardly use the word "easy" when it comes to unilaterally restructuring Bank debt. Senior debt is currently legally a higher priority than deposits. Bondholders got a very low interest compared to retail depositors and subordinated bonds in exchange for security of investment. If you burn the senior bondholders without negotiating with them then be prepared for the Mother of all legal battles.
4. Eventually yes the International markets would return to offering us reasonable rates on our own bonds (<5%). The huge issue in the intervening period is whether our entire deposit base is wiped out and if the State would run out of cash to pay PS wages, social welfare etc.
5. True but as (4) above there would be an intervening period of huge instability. Such deals would have to be agreed before any burning of bonds was announced.
6. Our debts are in Euros including our Sovereign debts which I seriously hope you aren't suggesting we default on. A return to the Punt would me serious devaluation in our currency true, but the sovereign debt would remain in Euros and would automatically be much costlier to repay.
Also prices and inflation would go crazy as we import most of our luxury goods and even food from abroad.

Scofflaw

Euroland wrote: »

It is achievable and realistic. People in Iceland voted against private to public debt conversion. And we can do the same. It’s simple.

As regards to the politicians, most of them would have less knowledge on the matter than us.

Not always - Iceland did not have a referendum on private to public debt conversion. They had a referendum on the terms of paying back the UK and Dutch governments for the Icesave deposits that those governments covered on behalf of Iceland.

The terms of the first version of the deal were rejected, and a second deal has been reached instead:

LONDON (AP) 15/02/2011 — Icelandic lawmakers are expected to approve the repayment of $5 billion to Britain and the Netherlands, potentially drawing a line under a long-running saga that caused political as well as financial friction between the three countries.

The so-called Icesave bill is in Iceland's parliament for its third and final reading on Tuesday with a vote likely on Wednesday.

Lawmakers from all parties have indicated they will vote in favor of the deal to repay funds that were lost when Internet bank Icesave collapsed in 2008.

The Netherlands and Britain reimbursed their citizens' deposits in Icesave upfront and have been seeking repayment from Iceland ever since.

The bulk of the repayment is expected to come from assets recovered from the collapsed bank.

That is not to say that the Icelanders wouldn't also vote against this deal - there is a petition against it, but most Icelanders apparently view the new deal positively:

A petition urging Iceland's parliament to vote against a new deal reached with Britain and the Netherlands to repay money lost in the collapse of the Icesave bank had garnered over 12,000 signatures Monday, organisers said.

The online petition also asks Icelandic President Olafur Grimsson to use his veto to block the bill in the event that parliament adopts it.

"The organisation was established to fight for a national vote when it comes to dealing with Iceland's responsibility for the Icesave accounts," Sigurbjorn Svavarsson, a pensioner and member of the Samstada (unity in Icelandic) group, told a news conference.

"Most of us who make up Samstada are opposed to there being an Icesave agreement, but all of us argue the nation should have the final word," he added.

The non-political group, made up of 14 people, launched the www.kjosum.is website last Friday, and by 1430 GMT Monday, some 12,350 of Iceland's nearly 320,000 people had signed the online petition.

The Icelandic parliament is set to vote for the third and final time this week on a new deal reached with British and Dutch negotiators in December.

Even if Icelandic parliamentarians approve the deal, it still needs the green light from President Olafur Grimsson, who early last year vetoed its hugely unpopular predecessor and put it to a referendum.

Some 93.2 percent of the Icelanders who took part in the popular vote last March rejected the initial deal.

The new deal however is viewed far more positively, and a recent poll showed nearly 57 percent of Icelanders want parliament to adopt the bill.

The important point, though, is that the debt doesn't just go away. It does not get voted out of existence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Richard tea

I cant believe what David Mcwilliams said on radio today. Olli Rehn was involved in a banking crisis in finland back in the early 90's, and guess what he done..... HE BURNED THE BOND HOLDERS:eek:


So it was good enough for his home country of Finland but when it comes to Ireland he insists that the Irish tax payer must pay for the filth/scum in the banks:mad:

This financial scandal gets better by the hour

Scofflaw

Richard tea wrote: »

I cant believe what David Mcwilliams said on radio today. Olli Rehn was involved in a banking crisis in finland back in the early 90's, and guess what he done..... HE BURNED THE BOND HOLDERS:eek:


So it was good enough for his home country of Finland but when it comes to Ireland he insists that the Irish tax payer must pay for the filth/scum in the banks:mad:

This financial scandal gets better by the hour

Sigh. The problem is that we chose right back at the start to guarantee the banks' debts. Nobody made us do it, and indeed nobody was consulted about the guarantee - and that was the point at which we last really had the option to burn the bondholders.

The EU's problem is that now we're in receipt of a bailout, it's obvious we can't burn the bondholders without the EU's nod (unless we simultaneously reject the bailout facility and any other EU assistance) - and the problem is that the EU's nod to Ireland means a whole lot more outside Ireland than it does to Ireland.

The EU cannot be seen to accept that Ireland burns its bank debt because that will set off a market tidal wave around Europe, as investors scramble to get out of bank debt all across the EU and banks stop lending to each other or anyone else - because if the EU say it's OK for Ireland to do it, then it's OK for everybody with distressed banks to do it, and everybody in Europe has distressed banks.

From the EU's perspective, the best solution is that Ireland unilaterally defaults on its bank debt, and Europe then withdraws any support from Ireland. That cuts Ireland's costs (ironically at the expense of making the State insolvent) and Europe's costs (at the expense of nothing more than solidarity).

cordially,
Scofflaw

KerranJast

Richard tea wrote: »

I cant believe what David Mcwilliams said on radio today. Olli Rehn was involved in a banking crisis in finland back in the early 90's, and guess what he done..... HE BURNED THE BOND HOLDERS:eek:


So it was good enough for his home country of Finland but when it comes to Ireland he insists that the Irish tax payer must pay for the filth/scum in the banks:mad:

This financial scandal gets better by the hour

1. The Finish banks crisis was no where near as bad as ours is and never threatened the economic security of the entire EU.
2. That just shows he's competent at his job. When he was a Finnish minister he did his best for the Finns. As an EU commissioner he's doing the best for the EU? Wheres the issue there

Im Only 71Kg

YES

Richard tea

Ok, im sorry. What was I thinking posting such rubbish. Thanks for correcting my foolish comment. Now excuse me whilst I go and spread rose petals on my driveway to welcome some FF politicans:rolleyes:

KerranJast

Richard tea wrote: »

Ok, im sorry. What was I thinking posting such rubbish. Thanks for correcting my foolish comment. Now excuse me whilst I go and spread rose petals on my driveway to welcome some FF politicans:rolleyes:

No one here is completely dismissing your opinions its just these are such massive decisions to make that while we should explore all our options, we should be extremely careful about what do next.
Lets see what comes out of the March EU discussions and *then* decide what to do.

jimmycrackcorm

Richard tea wrote: »

I cant believe what David Mcwilliams said on radio today. Olli Rehn was involved in a banking crisis in finland back in the early 90's, and guess what he done..... HE BURNED THE BOND HOLDERS:eek:


So it was good enough for his home country of Finland but when it comes to Ireland he insists that the Irish tax payer must pay for the filth/scum in the banks:mad:

This financial scandal gets better by the hour

Were we been in the same position as Finland (i.e. outside the Euro ) then we could easily do the same but we're not. There would be serious consequences, both good and bad. We would devalue (good for competitiveness) but we'd wouldn't have the money to pay S/W and public services

Richard tea

KerranJast wrote: »

No one here is completely dismissing your opinions its just these are such massive decisions to make that while we should explore all our options, we should be extremely careful about what do next.
Lets see what comes out of the March EU discussions and *then* decide what to do.

I know, im just having a ltitle fun:)

Its just frustrating when the likes of D. McWilliams, Prof B. Lucey,
C.Gurdgiev P. Sommerville and others come out with plans for our financial future and it just seems like its in one ear and out the other.

I would love to see the above sit down and debate with the party leaders on tv. The politicans would be stuck for words me thinks;)

Dyr

KerranJast wrote: »

Iceland weren't in the ECB and didn't owe the ECB a ****ton of money either in Sovereign or Bank debts. Because we are in the ECB we cannot unilaterally decide to repudiate the guaranteed bank debts. It has to be done in agreement with our European partners.

hold on, there was a catch to all those treaties we passed? doh! :pac:

Scofflaw

Bambi wrote: »

hold on, there was a catch to all those treaties we passed? doh! :pac:

More that there was a catch to all that money we borrowed from the ECB to put into our banks - there's no requirement in the Treaties as such.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Richard tea wrote: »

I know, im just having a ltitle fun:)

Its just frustrating when the likes of D. McWilliams, Prof B. Lucey,
C.Gurdgiev P. Sommerville and others come out with plans for our financial future and it just seems like its in one ear and out the other.

I would love to see the above sit down and debate with the party leaders on tv. The politicans would be stuck for words me thinks;)

Not on the basis of "the People's Economy", I think. The problem with the people you mention is that they're standing for election - they're no longer neutral commentators.

cordially,
Scofflaw

femur61

Would the banks then run out of money consequently any savings in them would be lost?

Sand

No, not in favour of a referendum. It would be a horrible way to make a decision on what is a complex matter. We have a legislature and a civil service employed at immense cost to examine these questions carefully and provide the right answer whilst being accountable to the people for their performance. We have them because it leads to better results than asking a yes/no question to an angry mob baying for blood over some topics unrelated to the question being asked.

zig

I wouldnt be so quick to presume Ireland would vote against paying off the bank debt. Seriously, you would have the three main engines campaigning to pay it off. You would have alot of people looking at this/watching the news/listening to local politicians/not listening to Sinn Fein.

Maybe McWilliams is right in that the people of the country should be deciding on such a huge matter, especially the fact that its our tax thats paying for it, but I wouldnt be so sure we would definitely say 'no were not paying'.

rumour

Sand wrote: »

No, not in favour of a referendum. It would be a horrible way to make a decision on what is a complex matter. We have a legislature and a civil service employed at immense cost to examine these questions carefully and provide the right answer whilst being accountable to the people for their performance. We have them because it leads to better results than asking a yes/no question to an angry mob baying for blood over some topics unrelated to the question being asked.

Whats the problem if we get the wrong answer we can just have another one:pac:

rumour

zig wrote: »

I wouldnt be so quick to presume Ireland would vote against paying off the bank debt. Seriously, you would have the three main engines campaigning to pay it off. You would have alot of people looking at this/watching the news/listening to local politicians/not listening to Sinn Fein.

Maybe McWilliams is right in that the people of the country should be deciding on such a huge matter, especially the fact that its our tax thats paying for it, but I wouldnt be so sure we would definitely say 'no were not paying'.

The idea has its merits there are clear consequences either way.
default - isolation followed by poverty
don't default - poverty by a thousand cuts and increased taxes

At least the people can blame no one but themselves.Of course we could always ask for another referendum and give a diffeent answer problem solved!!!

Scofflaw

zig wrote: »

I wouldnt be so quick to presume Ireland would vote against paying off the bank debt. Seriously, you would have the three main engines campaigning to pay it off. You would have alot of people looking at this/watching the news/listening to local politicians/not listening to Sinn Fein.

Maybe McWilliams is right in that the people of the country should be deciding on such a huge matter, especially the fact that its our tax thats paying for it, but I wouldnt be so sure we would definitely say 'no were not paying'.

On the other hand, if we say "yes we'll pay", what exactly would we be agreeing to?

cordially,
Scofflaw

recedite

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I cannot understand why we need a referendum on whether or not we want to separate our sovereign debt and the bank debt. Isn't the answer obvious?

I would imagine that out on the golf course of Druids Heath with the lads, discussions centred on how to convert bank debt into sovereign debt.

I reckon the whole mess is due to use of the fractional reserve system. Debts should all be backed by assets, and the reserve should be 100%.

Dan_Solo

Sand wrote: »

We have a legislature and a civil service employed at immense cost to examine these questions carefully and provide the right answer whilst being accountable to the people for their performance. We have them because it leads to better results than asking a yes/no question to an angry mob baying for blood over some topics unrelated to the question being asked.

Sorry, I'd trust an angry mob with my money before these guys.
Since when are civil servants accountable to the people?

Fussgangerzone

I hate to break it to you, but we're not terribly good at democratic decisions. Hence the mess we're in. Until I see how the elections turn out, I'm saying no.

I'd vote to default. But enough people to make a majority would be bullied and bull****ted into voting the EU way, just like with Lisbon. Ooooooooooh.

th3 s1aught3r

There should not have to be a referendum
Citizens should not pay to bail out private companies

liammur

Calling for a referendum is silly and populist. We made a bad decision, but now we have to try and sort it out.

P. Breathnach

Dan_Solo wrote: »

... Since when are civil servants accountable to the people?

They are not. They are accountable, through their chain of command, to a Minister. All the power vests in the Minister. Ministers, sometimes individually and at other times collectively, are accountable to the Dáil.

There is a second line of accountability. In matters of financial administration, the Secretary-General functions as the Accounting Officer of the Department, and is subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

It's not a convenient arrangement for outrage packaged as soundbites.

sollar

John Gormley said on vincent browne last night that they decided on the "McWilliams option" on the night of the bank guarantee.

He advised them to guarantee all the banks if gormley is correct. Why are we listening to mcwilliams now???

liammur

sollar wrote: »

John Gormley said on vincent browne last night that they decided on the "McWilliams option" on the night of the bank guarantee.

He advised them to guarantee all the banks if gormley is correct. Why are we listening to mcwilliams now???

Yes, Gormley is correct. McWilliams erred badly there.

Sand

It isnt McWilliams role to make policy - its John Gormleys as part of the government and as an elected member of Dail Eireann. The idea the hed try to pass the buck to a celebrity economist just merely confirms that the Greens need to be buried at the next election. Its pathetic.

Dan_Solo

liammur wrote: »

Calling for a referendum is silly and populist. We made a bad decision, but now we have to try and sort it out.

There it is again, seems to be the most popular word on boards.ie.
What's wrong with something being populist? By definition it's something most of the people want, which last time I checked is what's supposed to happen in a democracy.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

It isnt McWilliams role to make policy - its John Gormleys as part of the government and as an elected member of Dail Eireann. The idea the hed try to pass the buck to a celebrity economist just merely confirms that the Greens need to be buried at the next election. Its pathetic.

More inaccurate than pathetic - Gormley just referred to it as the "McWilliams option" to be sure which one they were talking about.

Dan_Solo wrote:

There it is again, seems to be the most popular word on boards.ie.
What's wrong with something being populist? By definition it's something most of the people want, which last time I checked is what's supposed to happen in a democracy.

'Populist' isn't the same as 'popular'. In general, populist is used to mean something along the lines of "appealing to common prejudices rather than facts or reason" The implication is of sounding good rather than being well thought out - that most of the thought has been expended in making the idea sound appealing rather than making it useful or ensuring that the idea doesn't have consequences that render it dangerous or useless.

In this case, for example, the idea of a referendum is pretty meaningless. A No vote cannot change the past, the attitude of the markets, the legal status of government securities, or the government deficit - and a Yes is equally meaningless. The debate itself would almost certainly cause market turmoil - the populist response to which is "who cares!? Let the elites tremble!", the answer to which is "we do", because the whole point is to save us money, not to raise our market rates yet higher.

cordially,
Scofflaw

zig

im starting to think the word populist is populist these days.

Dan_Solo

Scofflaw wrote: »

'Populist' isn't the same as 'popular'. In general, populist is used to mean something along the lines of "appealing to common prejudices rather than facts or reason" The implication is of sounding good rather than being well thought out - that most of the thought has been expended in making the idea sound appealing rather than making it useful or ensuring that the idea doesn't have consequences that render it dangerous or useless.

The problem there is that every time you use the word "populist", you're implying that the electorate are thick or are naturally prejudiced. i.e. if they vote for the policy you don't like they are not doing so for genuine reasons. Whether this is true or not, it's not something we should be saying out loud.:D

Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The problem there is that every time you use the word "populist", you're implying that the electorate are thick or are naturally prejudiced. i.e. if they vote for the policy you don't like they are not doing so for genuine reasons. Whether this is true or not, it's not something we should be saying out loud.:D

It's obviously easy to use 'populist' as a handy term of dismissal, but that the electorate can be motivated by appeals to popular prejudice is hardly news - nothing else explains the existence of the Daily Mail, for example.

There is probably no electorate in history who couldn't be lined up behind a claim that they were being robbed by "the elite". After all, everybody tends to think of themselves as worthy of being a member of the elite personally, and if they aren't then clearly some kind of oppression is at work. The more likely you personally feel you are to actually get to the top of the tree, on the other hand, the less likely you are to be swayed by such calls - which, of course, marks you out as a member or supporter of the elite...

cordially,
Scofflaw

femur61

If we default then won't we have to call in the IMF? That is much worse than the EU terms for the loan. At the moment the IMF loan is only a small portion of the 85bn and they don't have as much say. If we had to get money from them to run the country it would be much worse. Yes, eventually we would clean up our act but they close hospitals, businesses, schools, doesn't bear thinking about. Long and short of it we've no money.

RichardAnd

Dan_Solo wrote: »

There it is again, seems to be the most popular word on boards.ie.
What's wrong with something being populist? By definition it's something most of the people want, which last time I checked is what's supposed to happen in a democracy.

It's giving people what they want that caused the recession, partly at least. FF were elected during the boom by promising tax cuts, wild spending and more fuel for the property market, just what Joe Public wanted. A proper government is like a good parent, it does what is best for those it is responcible for even when those under their auspice are not happy with it.

RichardAnd

femur61 wrote: »

If we default then won't we have to call in the IMF? That is much worse than the EU terms for the loan. At the moment the IMF loan is only a small portion of the 85bn and they don't have as much say. If we had to get money from them to run the country it would be much worse. Yes, eventually we would clean up our act but they close hospitals, businesses, schools, doesn't bear thinking about. Long and short of it we've no money.

The IMF only do what they can to repair the damage a country has forced upon itself. They don't close hospitals and school per say, they make a government swallow their medicine and get rid of things they can't afford which can result in schools and hospitals closing but if we can't afford them, that's not the fault of the IMF but they get blamed for it.

Further, the IMF might be more fair than the EU as they don't want to send a country back to the stone age, rather they want to fix it and have it become productive again.

You see, the IMF are likely to be blamed for every cut and snip that happens here over the next few years. People will blame them and in turn, forget that the real cause of our ills was ourselves. In my opinion, a country like Ireland was bound to monumentally f**k up its affairs eventually. Needing to turn to the ECB/IMF for help is the final culnimation of decades of parish pump politics, who ya know culture and general inability to take things in moderation.

My earnest hope is that this will finally lift Ireland into the real world and make us a responcible and productive society but, it probably won't.

fred252

i've heard a number of economists suggesting we'll be defaulting in about 18 months or so (referendum or not). what can we realistically expect from the EU in march?

recedite

fred252 wrote: »

what can we realistically expect from the EU in march?

We can expect them to offer to extend the period of the loan to 30 years, and also offer a small reduction in interest rates if we agree to insert a debt brake into our constitution.

As the estate agents once said, loans will be more affordable than ever. :pac: