Ireland sought Libyan bailout

The Raven.

Ireland sought Libyan bailout

THE Irish government attempted to secure a multi-billion euro bailout for the country's struggling banks from Colonel Moamar Ghadafi's international investment fund in December but failed because Libya dismissed it as a low-level investment.

National Treasury Management Agency representatives went to the North African state in a bid to get cash to prop up the Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Banks or Anglo Irish Bank - the latter two of which were nationalized due to disastrous property loans - by selling an equity stake in one or more of them, according to British newspaper "The Sunday Times".
Bank of Ireland is now seeking to tap investors for STG2 billion ($2.75 billion) to stave off full nationalisation.

But negotiations crumbled after the Libyan Investment Authority, which controls more than $64 billion of assets, said the banks were too small for it to consider.

The amount of money sought by the Irish delegation was unclear, though it was believed that some advisers - who feared public outrage would be triggered by financial links to a country accused of arming the Irish Republican Army during the 1970s and 1980s - thought that any amount would be too high.

http://www.news.com.au/business/ireland-sought-libyan-bailout/story-fn7mjon9-1226013196144

I don't know if there is already a thread on this. I have just become aware of it on Twitter via Brian Lucey.

Apparently the Irish NTMA representatives went to North Africa in December 2010 to try and get a bank bailout from Gaddafi's international investment fund but were turned down.

I find this absolutely shocking! As Constantin Gurdgiev rightly pointed out, if NTMA had gotten this investment from Libya it would now be frozen. Can you imagine the situation that would have landed us in? We have had a very narrow escape. Fianna Fail should never be allowed in government again.

The full story is in The Sunday Times if anyone has a subscription. There is a short article in thejournal.ie.
http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-government-sought-bank-bailout-from-libya-2011-2/

Any thoughts on this, or does anyone have any further information?

Wildlife Actor

My only comment is ....Jaysus!

Well, at least they didn't get it... if SF were in power, Gerry probably would've gotten it.... :rolleyes:

The Raven.

I don't see any mention of this in the Irish media. I wonder who was aware of it. It is so serious that there should be an investigation. Brian Lenihan should be questioned. I suppose he will reply with the usual spin.

chucken1

Love nor Money wrote: »

My only comment is ....Jaysus!

Well, at least they didn't get it... if SF were in power, Gerry probably would've gotten it.... :rolleyes:

Thats it...have a go at the people who didnt ask for it. More SF bashing!

chucken1

The Raven. wrote: »

I don't see any mention of this in the Irish media. I wonder who was aware of it. It is so serious that there should be an investigation. Brian Lenihan should be questioned. I suppose he will reply with the usual spin.

Maybe you should get in touch with the Irish media?..If its true!

CiaranC

Surely this cant be true

hinault

CiaranC wrote: »

Surely this cant be true

Why not?

Libya is an oil rich country and it had (in December 2010) been welcomed back in to the international fold.

Granted groups like Amnesty have highlighted human rights abuse in Libya bit that never stopped us from dealing with other countries who have human rights abuse (such as the USA for example).

The Raven.

There is a short article in the MailOnline

Irish talks on Libya bailout

27th February 2011

Talks were held late last year between Colonel Gaddafi’s international investment fund and the Irish government over a possible cash injection by Libya into the country’s stricken banks.

Ireland’s National Treasury Management Agency declined to comment but it is understood the Libyan Investment Authority sought the meetings and put the possibility of ploughing money into Irish banks on the agenda.

No investment was actually made.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1361242/Irish-talks-Libya-bailout.html

Well the story is out. Perhaps the other media will follow up on it.

The Raven.

hinault wrote: »

Why not?

Libya is an oil rich country and it had (in December 2010) been welcomed back in to the international fold.

Granted groups like Amnesty have highlighted human rights abuse in Libya bit that never stopped us from dealing with other countries who have human rights abuse (such as the USA for example).

It is one thing losing our sovereignty to the EU/IMF, but losing it (in a secret deal) to a dangerous dictator like Gaddafi is another. While Libya has been trying to regain its international reputation over the last decade, it should be obvious to the Irish government that doing deals with a regime that has in the past been the subject of controversy in relation to the supply of Semtex etc. to terrorists, is simply not on.

chucken1

The Raven. wrote: »

It is one thing losing our sovereignty to the EU/IMF, but losing it (in a secret deal) to a dangerous dictator like Gaddafi is another. While Libya has been trying to regain its international reputation over the last decade, it should be obvious to the Irish government that doing deals with a regime that has in the past been the subject of controversy in relation to the supply of Semtex etc. to terrorists, is simply not on.

Ah yes..the IMF bailout was SO transparent.. its only a few months ago!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1117/economy.html

The Raven.

chucken1 wrote: »

Ah yes..the IMF bailout was SO transparent.. its only a few months ago!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1117/economy.html

I never said that the IMF bailout was transparent. Of course it wasn't, but I can see how my post may have given that impression. What I meant was that we haven't been told anything at all about the attempted deal with Libya. The IMF bailout is dreadful but a deal with Libya would have been much worse. If Ireland could find itself in a situation whereby it can't repay the IMF/EU, can you imagine defaulting on a loan to a dictator who bombs his own people?

hinault

The Raven. wrote: »

It is one thing losing our sovereignty to the EU/IMF, but losing it (in a secret deal) to a dangerous dictator like Gaddafi is another. While Libya has been trying to regain its international reputation over the last decade, it should be obvious to the Irish government that doing deals with a regime that has in the past been the subject of controversy in relation to the supply of Semtex etc. to terrorists, is simply not on.

I'm no supporter of Gaddafi and his regime.

The point about Gaddafi's support in the past for terrorism is valid but in mitigation countries like Britain were prepared to allow their companies to do deals with the Libyans after Libya was readmitted to the international community.

Ideally the Irish government should be trying to deal with countries that have a better political record than Libya.

Well done spotting this story by the way. I wonder what the Irish media reaction will be?

chucken1

The Raven. wrote: »

I never said that the IMF bailout was transparent. Of course it wasn't, but I can see how my post may have given that impression. What I meant was that we haven't been told anything at all about the attempted deal with Libya. The IMF bailout is dreadful but a deal with Libya would have been much worse. If Ireland could find itself in a situation whereby it can't repay the IMF/EU, can you imagine defaulting on a loan to a dictator who bombs his own people?

My point was that, a lot more is going to come to light about our previous govt.

You're after bring this to Boards..Fair play to you

I think we're in for more shocks!!

The Raven.

hinault wrote: »

I'm no supporter of Gaddafi and his regime.

The point about Gaddafi's support in the past for terrorism is valid but in mitigation countries like Britain were prepared to allow their companies to do deals with the Libyans after Libya was readmitted to the international community.

Ideally the Irish government should be trying to deal with countries that have a better political record than Libya.

Well done spotting this story by the way. I wonder what the Irish media reaction will be?

I am wondering the same. There is some shocked reaction to it on Twitter but most people are still suffering jet lag after the elections. Maybe a retweet to Enda Kenny might cause a stir when he reawakens to the cold reality of trying to run the country under the shadow of the bailout.

zuroph

The Raven. wrote: »

It is one thing losing our sovereignty to the EU/IMF, but losing it (in a secret deal) to a dangerous dictator like Gaddafi is another. While Libya has been trying to regain its international reputation over the last decade, it should be obvious to the Irish government that doing deals with a regime that has in the past been the subject of controversy in relation to the supply of Semtex etc. to terrorists, is simply not on.

22% of our crude oil comes from libya. highest single reliance by any nation on them. and they teach the Irish curriculum over there in their secondary schools. There's a lot more dealing done here than we know about.

BlaasForRafa

chucken1 wrote: »

Thats it...have a go at the people who didnt ask for it. More SF bashing!

Well he did get 5 tons of arms off Gaddaffi so why not....

chucken1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Well he did get 5 tons of arms off Gaddaffi so why not....

I dont know who this "he" is..but you might read the whole thread, its kind of important.

The Raven.

There is another mention of the Sunday Times article in the Business World.

NTMA sought Libyan cash for banks

Monday, February 28 06:57:16

A bailout of Irish banks with Libyan money was sought by Irish officials late last year, according to a weekend report.

A delegation from the National Treasury Management Agency went to Libya in the first week of December to promote the idea, according to the Sunday Times.

The paper says the delegation attempted to persuade the Libyan Investment Authority, the country's sovereign wealth fund, to invest in Bank of Ireland and AIB.

However, the talks failed because the agency feared it would end up with control of an Irish financial institution, the paper says, potentially opening up regulatory issues and attracting unwanted attention.

A spokesman for the NTMA has declined to comment on the report.

The paper says talks were also held with other sovereign wealth funds in Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, without success.

http://www.businessworld.ie/livenews.htm?a=2739514;s=rollingnews.htm

Worth noting that NTMA are not denying it!

It should have been obvious to the delegates from NTMA, BEFORE entering into talks, that Libya 'would end up with control of an Irish financial institution' - several banks, possibly.

Also worth noting the other foreign places that were approached, in the last paragraph.

OhNoYouDidn't

AT THE TIME there was no restrictions on doing business with Libya.

Lots of Irish companies still do. And do business with worse.

I'm not quite sure what the actual issue is here?

My name is URL

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

AT THE TIME there was no restrictions on doing business with Libya.

Lots of Irish companies still do. And do business with worse.

I'm not quite sure what the actual issue is here?

If they had secured the loan, would it even have been constitutional?

2° The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

Lots of Irish companies may do business with Libya etc, but the Irish government striking deals with them where the costs of which will be passed on to tax-payers is not the same thing surely?

OhNoYouDidn't

My name is URL wrote: »

If they had secured the loan, would it even have been constitutional?


Lots of Irish companies may do business with Libya etc, but the Irish government striking deals with them where the costs of which will be passed on to tax-payers is not the same thing surely?

The Dail does not have to approve borrowings.

Take a look at who owns Irish debt. It might surprise you.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The Dail does not have to approve borrowings.

Take a look at who owns Irish debt. It might surprise you.

Article 17
1. 1° As soon as possible after the presentation to Dáil Éireann under Article 28 of this Constitution of the Estimates of receipts and the Estimates of expenditure of the State for any financial year, Dáil Éireann shall consider such Estimates.
2° Save in so far as may be provided by specific enactment in each case, the legislation required to give effect to the Financial Resolutions of each year shall be enacted within that year.
2. Dáil Éireann shall not pass any vote or resolution, and no law shall be enacted, for the appropriation of revenue or other public moneys unless the purpose of the appropriation shall have been recommended to Dáil Éireann by a message from the Government signed by the Taoiseach.

So who does approve borrowings ? Your left-wing statements about the ownership of debt is irrelevant.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

So who does approve borrowings ? Your left-wing statements about the ownership of debt is irrelevant.

So you are telling me the NTMA require Dail approval for every borrowing they make? Or that the Dail have approved the NTMA, give them paramaters, and they get on with it?

What have any percieved sentiments I have about the ownership of debt have to do with the fact we have employees of the NTMA who routinely meet potential investors?

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So you are telling me the NTMA require Dail approval for every borrowing they make? Or that the Dail have approved the NTMA, give them paramaters, and they get on with it?

What have any percieved sentiments I have about the ownership of debt have to do with the fact we have employees of the NTMA who routinely meet potential investors?

Article 21

1. 1° Money Bills shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann only.

2° Every Money Bill passed by Dáil Éireann shall be sent to Seanad Éireann for its recommendations?

Article 22

1. 1° A Money Bill means a Bill which contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following matters, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on public moneys or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; matters subordinate and incidental to these matters or any of them.

2° In this definition the expressions "taxation", "public money" and "loan" respectively do not include any taxation, money or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.?

In conjunction with the aformentioned constitutional provision, I believe the position is clear.

My name is URL

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The Dail does not have to approve borrowings.

Take a look at who owns Irish debt. It might surprise you.

Even if it was fully constitutional, and a deal had been made between Ireland and the Libyan Investment Authority, in what state would it be at this point in time, with the EU and UN likely to introduce sanctions which could include the freezing of LIA assets?

nishieB

I think every one should make a stand. Why do business with a country that has chaos and not stable? The country and the people should be united with the stand of their leader. If Ireland can't do it, how can they manage to cope if their country could face such chaos? At this time, I think there's no need to think if its still part of the constitution or not. Just think of what is right and appropriate for the many and not for some. The Libyan revolution looked as if it was in serious danger of defeat Tues, regardless of an international freeze on Gadhafi's property. Wall Street was holding $32 billion of Gadhafi's money, which the Obama administration has ordered frozen. The freeze has had little impact, however, because of gigantic amounts in money Gadhafi has stashed away that is getting used to finance a campaign to crush the uprising.