Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Bailout Referendum, what way would you vote?
Options
Comments
-
I'd vote "No".
Not because I think we don't need the Bailout - we very obviously do.
I'd vote "No" because of the terms of the Bailout. Europe has no business insisting that the Irish taxpayer should pay for the Bondholders investments.
We clearly cannot sustain this level of debt, whether certain European Countries want more time to get their own financial institutions in order, or not!
Strange how Iceland was offered a better deal, isn't it?:rolleyes:
Then again, they have a Government willing to represent the interests of its people.
Whether we have, or not, remains to be seen!
Scofflaw nails it for me.
Yes, we shouldn't be held accountable for Banking debt but the problem is our Government chose to guarantee it at ridiculous levels. €50 Billion or whatever it is, has been paid out and is our problem.
We could have stomped our feet some more over the bail out but we need it to pay Public Service wages and welfare, never mind run the country, so beggars couldn't be choosers. All we'd have got was 6 months more prevaricating and probably no election!
As for Iceland, totally different. They didn't guarantee banking debt but still are dependent on the IMF and Scandinavian lender conditions. Ideally we should have went that route, we didn't!
Europe has to come up with some solution, it just has to or the Euro will break up. Better of in it than out.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Scofflaw nails it for me.
Yes, we shouldn't be held accountable for Banking debt but the problem is our Government chose to guarantee it at ridiculous levels. €50 Billion or whatever it is, has been paid out and is our problem.
We could have stomped our feet some more over the bail out but we need it to pay Public Service wages and welfare, never mind run the country, so beggars couldn't be choosers. All we'd have got was 6 months more prevaricating and probably no election!
As for Iceland, totally different. They didn't guarantee banking debt but still are dependent on the IMF and Scandinavian lender conditions. Ideally we should have went that route, we didn't!
Europe has to come up with some solution, it just has to or the Euro will break up. Better of in it than out.
Agreed. Europe has to come up with a solution. However, we have no guarantee that it will do so. Moreover, whether it has either the will, or the ability, to create a solution that allows Ireland to grow its Economy is questionable - and IMO, growth is the only route that will enable us to pay off our Sovereign debt. I don't believe it's possible to pay off the Bank debt that is guaranteed.
To date, Europes "solution" has neither calmed the Bond markets, nor inspired confidence in several International Economists.
Two years into the "austerity" route, and we have unsustainable levels of unemployment, SMEs being forced into liquidation, and those who still have a job find their disposable income reduced. It's a downward spiral,with no end in sight, and the debt keeps racking up.
We still don't know how much money the Banks will require, nor do we have any idea what the eventual cost of mortgage defaults will be.
Yet we're meant to believe that we can continue to service this debt, because it's "The right thing to do".
The right thing to do would have been three bye-elections. The democratic will of the people would have reduced the Government majority sufficiently to enable an election to be called. Then the whole issue of the Bank guarantee could have been publiucly debated, and the will of the people could be implemented.
The right thing to do would have been to restructure the Banks in 2008 - ruthlessly. Anglo should never have been guaranteed. The right thing to do would have been to ascertain the truth about the Banks balance sheets before guaranteeing tham.....
The right thing to do now - is for the new Government to put the whole guarantee issue to a referendum - and present the findings to our European partners.
We had a Government who had no mandate, who claimed they were lied to by our Banks - yet Europes (un)democratic solution is to force the Irish taxpayer to pay?
That is neither Democratic, nor acceptable!0 -
Oh Indeed. There'd be definitely be less than the usual cribbing if Europe forced us to have a referendum!
Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
??.
Why would Europe force us to have a referendum?
The incoming Government should put all available options to the people, in a Referendum.
That would be the Democratic solution.0 -
??.
Why would Europe force us to have a referendum?
The incoming Government should put all available options to the people, in a Referendum.
That would be the Democratic solution.
So it isn't an undemocratic decision by Europe?Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
So it isn't an undemocratic decision by Europe?
When did Europe have the authority to call an Irish referendum?
We have a legal right to a referendum. Where Europe wants a solution that was forced on the Irish people, by a Government without a clear mandate, and based on supposedly incorrect information by the bankers - then a truly Democratic Irish government would put the issue to a referendum - and a Democratic Europe would accept the verdict, without question..........0 -
We had a Government who had no mandate, who claimed they were lied to by our Banks - yet Europes (un)democratic solution is to force the Irish taxpayer to pay?
That is neither Democratic, nor acceptable!
I fail to see why it's Europe's undemocratic solution still.
It has got nothing to do with them.
As for our democracy, FG, Labour and FF all didn't mention a vote AFAIK and got about 75% of the votes.
Shane Ross is the only one I think who made an issue of it.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
I dont want a referendum on this because it doesn't matter what way Ireland goes on this - we are fceked and I want to blame FiannaFail forever for all of Irelands problems and all upcoming problems. I'll be shouting FCUK YOU FIANNA FAIL on my deathbed.0
-
The right thing to do would have been to restructure the Banks in 2008 - ruthlessly. Anglo should never have been guaranteed. The right thing to do would have been to ascertain the truth about the Banks balance sheets before guaranteeing tham.....
That is a bit like someone saying - after we have cracked a couple of eggs and started making scrambled eggs - "We shouldn't have cracked the eggs, we should have boiled them instead". Even if there is now general agreement that this is indeed what we should have done, unfortunately unscrambling and uncracking the eggs so we can boil them instead is extremely difficult, if not impossible. We could perhaps try it, of course, but most likely we'd end up with neither scrambled eggs nor boiled eggs as a result.The right thing to do now - is for the new Government to put the whole guarantee issue to a referendum - and present the findings to our European partners.
We just had a general election - not many people voted for the "burn the bondholders" parties...Europes (un)democratic solution is to force the Irish taxpayer to pay?
Europe hasn't forced the Irish taxpayer to pay anything. We are under no obligation to draw down the loan if we don't want it or can find the money cheaper elsewhere. True, if we decide not to accept the loan, we'll face the consequences of our choices.
Personally, I suspect the government would probably opt to fund the banking system first, public services second, find it doesn't have the money to fund either and both would collapse.0 -
I fail to see why it's Europe's undemocratic solution still.
It has got nothing to do with them.
As for our democracy, FG, Labour and FF all didn't mention a vote AFAIK and got about 75% of the votes.
Shane Ross is the only one I think who made an issue of it.
So, they're quite happy to let Ireland decide whether or not administer "haircuts" to Bondholders? Despite knowing that the majority of the Irish people are unhappy with the Bank guarantee? Despite knowing that both FG and Labour were promising to re-negotiate the terms of the Bailout during their election campaigns? Hmm...That is a bit like someone saying - after we have cracked a couple of eggs and started making scrambled eggs - "We shouldn't have cracked the eggs, we should have boiled them instead". Even if there is now general agreement that this is indeed what we should have done, unfortunately unscrambling and uncracking the eggs so we can boil them instead is extremely difficult, if not impossible. We could perhaps try it, of course, but most likely we'd end up with neither scrambled eggs nor boiled eggs as a result.
Difficult, yes. However, I refuse to believe that a Legal Agreement that was based on falsehoods cannot be overturned.
Does anyone here seriously believe that the Irish people would have accepted this guarantee had they been told the truth about the level of debt?
Even I can't believe that Brian Lenihan would have knowingly guaranteed the current level of debt - and God knows, I'm no fan of his!We just had a general election - not many people voted for the "burn the bondholders" parties...
Europe hasn't forced the Irish taxpayer to pay anything. We are under no obligation to draw down the loan if we don't want it or can find the money cheaper elsewhere. True, if we decide not to accept the loan, we'll face the consequences of our choices.
Personally, I suspect the government would probably opt to fund the banking system first, public services second, find it doesn't have the money to fund either and both would collapse.
We just had a General election where people overwhelmingly voted for re-negotiation of the Bailout deal. A surprising number of the remainder voted to reject the Bailout deal. Either way, the Irish people are not happy with the terms of the Bailout.
Our European partners are well aware of this. Hence, their insistence on ignoring the wishes of the Irish electorate, by using our need for a loan as a means of insisting that their solution is the only game in town - is undemocratic.
A referendum would work in the incoming Governments favour, by emphasising the democratic will of the Irish people.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not mandatory we immediately put 35bn into the banks; the agreed, and I emphasise "agreed", plan (although obviously an FF agreed plan!) was an initial 10bn with a contingency of 25bn. If in, say, 3 years time we've only used 10bn of that contingency then we haven't broken the agreement. Similarly, the agreed plan was 50bn to cover the budget deficit over a period of years, but the agreement does not demand that we spend all that 50bn.SkepticOne wrote: »The bottom line is that in order to obtain the 67.5 billion loan we have to commit 35 billion to the banks. You can say that the the x amount has to come from here and y has to come from there but it all adds up to 35 billion and in reality it doesn't matter where it comes from. 35 billion is the amount those who are lending us the money require us to put into the banks as a condition of the loan. The rest is just spin.
Sorry, are you trying to refute Duke's belief that it will take another 15 billion on top of the 35 we're already commited to? Do you believe it is going to be less? If so shouldn't you be providing some evidence to support your view? It is hard to make out what your point is here.
Dukes says many things and usually I don't listen ... but my understanding of his view is:-
30bn already spent;
35bn under the EU/IMF package for the banks to survive;
15bn extra to put the domestic banking system in good working order;
When in good working order the banks can be privatised, earning the Govt a 20bn return;
i.e. 80bn put in; eventually a 20bn return; net loss 60bn.
It's a question of whether you want to differentiate between money put in to cover definite losses and money put in that may produce a return. My understanding is that Dukes' scenario assumes that the EU/IMF's "look at the books" (before agreeing to the package) turns out to have been reasonably accurate. Many would take a far more pessimistic view, and if, for example, new stress tests for banks show a much worse situation than the previous "look at the books" then the scenario would obviously be different ... in that case the assumptions used in agreeing the EU/IMF package would also be incorrect and the conditions would have to be changed.
And that, I think, summarises my position ,,, if the EU/IMF's "look at the books" assumptions are correct and borrowing 67.5bn will be enough to get us through the budget deficit problem and enable the banks to survive, then that seems to me a reasonable option from a pragmatic cost/benefit approach ... if the EU/IMF's "look at the books" assumptions are incorrect then the conditions of the package are no longer valid. I find it difficult to understand why people take the simplistic view of coming up with horror scenarios by projecting forward the conditions applicable to a 67.5bn package to a situation where the original assumptions on which the package was based turn out to be no longer valid. Stuff doesn't work that way ... but I suppose it makes good political and media soundbites.0 -
id vote no and go back to punt
I would like to know if article 27 which more or less says (the country can vote on anything which effects the
country) would help to give the people a vote and see if they want to bail the bankers out. I want organise a protest
against it? Could you also tell me why the fina Geal are just interested in a reduction in intrest and why they have
to decided to except to pay this as the money was not there in the first place. By law i think this is an invalid load?
Its been said it would take 163 tax payments to pay the debt and why is than not a better option than helping the
bankers ,who are gone bust. Like in any business if they go bust thats there problem. They knew they were trading
recklessly and the law says thats criminal(hard solvincey), yet there helping them to stay in business. Also I cant
understand why Lobour & Fina Geal are in together as in the next election there will be no one with a large vote to
vote for. But about article 27 can you please help me out on some facts to put some form of protest together any if
you have the time any additional information about my concerns would be great, bur mainly just to protest for a
vote by means of article 27. please contant me by my own email as well if your interested in helping logsburn161
at hotmail dot com Thank you, John PS fina gael webs site says each person owes 21 thousand 97bn total.0 -
So, they're quite happy to let Ireland decide whether or not administer "haircuts" to Bondholders? Despite knowing that the majority of the Irish people are unhappy with the Bank guarantee? Despite knowing that both FG and Labour were promising to re-negotiate the terms of the Bailout during their election campaigns? Hmm...
Yes, look we don't have to take the loans and conditions if we don't want to.
FG and Labour wanted a renegotiation but within a European solution. That's the difference with SF and others and tbh most SF voters know their policies aren't that practical either.
I suppose we should have insisted on a Greek referendum and then we could look for one ourselves.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »In case you didnt notice, we had an election last week in which a number of parties were running on the basis that they would reject the bailout.
Unfortunately the biggest one doing so was already objectionable for other reasons.
So the fact that I - and others - didn't vote for them doesn't indicate anything on our opinion on the bailout.0 -
Just read all the posts and they seem to be a clear NO so why wont people actually protest? Really, on the Irish debt clock we owe 97 bn. I'm not up on all the fact but if means there a chance of getting out it I'd be in Dublin protesting tomorrow. Would anyone agree and willing to do the same?0
-
Pete_Cavan wrote: »In case you didnt notice, we had an election last week in which a number of parties were running on the basis that they would reject the bailout. People were given the option of voting for parties who will accept the bailout money or those who will not. 75% of first preference votes went to parties who will keep the bailout money. That is the answer right there.
The problem is those advocating rejecting the bailout have no idea how to fund the country without that money. The EU/IMF are giving us €50bn to fund the budget deficit until 2014, unless you find someone else willing to give us that amount of money at a lower interest rate* we have a take the bailout regardless of what result is from some pointless referendum.
*Bailout has interest rate of 5.8%, bond markets were charging us ~9% before got the bailout.
The parties in favour were the biggest parties and of course as were bound to
be voted in as the country cant afford to trust a new party at this time. So did the people get a say? So is a referendum pointless. It seem pointless for those who are happy with things.0 -
I would be a no shocker
0 -
People will protest for Ireland. They will not protest for the half baked communists who would inevitably attempt to hijack the proceedings.Just read all the posts and they seem to be a clear NO so why wont people actually protest? Really, on the Irish debt clock we owe 97 bn. I'm not up on all the fact but if means there a chance of getting out it I'd be in Dublin protesting tomorrow. Would anyone agree and willing to do the same?0 -
The Irish will NEVER protest.There will never be a referendum.IMF are here to stay.0
-
I would be a no shocker
We might need a second vote on it!
When the Public Service and Welfare recipients see their wage slips, they might want a second chance!
Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
*sigh*
Scoffy I think you're either making a complicated argument out of my simple one, or else you're failing to understand what I'm getting at. I'm making one point, just one.
Investing is gambling. If you invest in something - in anything - you take a risk. That risk is yours, and yours alone.
If your investment turns out to be worthless, YOU are the one who CHOSE to make the investment. Therefore YOU lose YOUR money. It is nobody else's responsibility to pay for YOUR mistakes.
Why are you not applying this to bank bondholders as it has been applied to every other type of investor in this mess? Thousands of people made investments which are now worthless - why should one group of these be protected? Any investment is a gamble by nature. You gamble and lose - your too bad. No one else's, yours.
Now we can get into an argument about whether or not bondholders lost because of government policy but the fact remains that when you invest, the fact that "sh*t happens" is an occupational hazard, and remains your responsibility. If I made an investment in a company and the company only collapsed because of irresponsible behaviour in that company, do you believe I should get a bailout from the government? I'd flatly refuse such an offer if it was made, because I actually hold the moral principle of accepting responsibility for my bad decisions. As a bank bondholder, you made a decision to invest in a company. That decision turned out to be a bad one - it's still your tough luck. This is how a free market is supposed to work, no?
EDIT: Read this: http://ebookcashstreams.com/HotNewsBlog/2011/02/why-are-ordinary-people-bailing-out-banks-and-bondholders/0 -
I assume Scofflaw will have his own response on this ... but my view ...hatrickpatrick wrote: »*sigh*
Scoffy I think you're either making a complicated argument out of my simple one, or else you're failing to understand what I'm getting at. I'm making one point, just one.
Investing is gambling. If you invest in something - in anything - you take a risk. That risk is yours, and yours alone.
If your investment turns out to be worthless, YOU are the one who CHOSE to make the investment. Therefore YOU lose YOUR money. It is nobody else's responsibility to pay for YOUR mistakes.
Why are you not applying this to bank bondholders as it has been applied to every other type of investor in this mess? Thousands of people made investments which are now worthless - why should one group of these be protected? Any investment is a gamble by nature. You gamble and lose - your too bad. No one else's, yours.
Now we can get into an argument about whether or not bondholders lost because of government policy but the fact remains that when you invest, the fact that "sh*t happens" is an occupational hazard, and remains your responsibility. If I made an investment in a company and the company only collapsed because of irresponsible behaviour in that company, do you believe I should get a bailout from the government? I'd flatly refuse such an offer if it was made, because I actually hold the moral principle of accepting responsibility for my bad decisions. As a bank bondholder, you made a decision to invest in a company. That decision turned out to be a bad one - it's still your tough luck. This is how a free market is supposed to work, no?
EDIT: Read this: http://ebookcashstreams.com/HotNewsBlog/2011/02/why-are-ordinary-people-bailing-out-banks-and-bondholders/
In the real world it can't be as simple as saying all investments involve risk; investments are made and managed in accordance with the rule of law and a legal contract between, for example, a bank and a bondholder. In Ireland, if a bank is insolvent it can either be kept going by someone, e.g. Govt, putting money in or legally the bank is put into liquidation ... it would be illegal to just arbitrarily confiscate, for example, the bondholders assets. In liquidation, if the debts are large, the shareholders and junior bondholders legal position is they get nothing; the remaining assets are liquidated and shared between senior bondholders and depositors on an equal basis i.e. under the rule of law both senior bondholders and depositors get burned equally. If that process is gone through then bondholders can have no complaint. They "gambled" and they lost the appropriate amount in accordance with the legal provisions.
However, looking at this in real world terms, the amount of deposits in a bank is usually far larger than the value of senior bonds, say for the sake of argument a ratio of 9:1, therefore simplistically if a bank's losses are 50bn then the depositors lose 45bn and the senior bondholders only 5bn. Theoretically I don't have a problem with burning bondholders but Govt has never had anywhere near enough money to be able to reimburse depositors and therefore, in practical terms, it's never going to happen except perhaps to a very minor extent (the amount of money involved in Anglo is now insignificant that it might as well be put into liquidation to put it out of its misery). In my view the 2008 guarantee was irrelevant ... no Govt in power at that time would have liquidated a bank so the guarantee was just political spin. Even now, the guarantee is irrelevant; no Govt in power will put BOI or AIB into liquidation.
A long-winded way of saying that bondholders are not being burned because the amount of debt reduction achieved would be far smaller than the cost of going through the process.0 -
-
tweedledee wrote: »The Irish will NEVER protest.There will never be a referendum.IMF are here to stay.
Thats funny because tried to organise a protest and starting to think you right basically got no support0 -
if loading the debt of Irish banks onto Irish taxpayers is wrong, how is loading it onto non-Irish taxpayers right?
From everything we've heard about Anglo wasn't it known worldwide as a basketcase.....if the people getting loans knew it then these bondholders knew it as well,
Bondholders should be protected in banks where they are used for consumer lending and hindsight is a great thing but consumer and business banking should be completely seperate.....
we should never be on the line for bank debt for businesses.....especially not when people invested in a loony bank knowing what a state it was in, they knew they would more than likely be protected, I don't really care if the Germans or whoever have to pay some of it back because of such and such a pension fund to be honest with you because those who invested in the bank did so knowing how out of control Anglo was, we the Irish tax payer didn't and yet we're supposed to feel bad and pay up....
I'd vote no all the way!
This whole bailout to me looks like a way to buy the EU time, they don't seem to have a clue what is going on0 -
This post had been deleted.
The idea that allowing banks to carry (or collapse under the weight of) their own debt would mean Ireland wouldn't be able to borrow to cover the budget short commings is a total fallacy.
Nobody is saying we should refuse to repay our national debt.
Iceland refused to bail out banks and in the same year borrowed several billions of euros.
The same could equally as true for Ireland.
The markets governments borrow form to run countries are not the same markets banks loan to each other in.
So long as we continued to repay our national debt we would have no problem borrowing further and to suggest otherwise is nothing more than scare mongering and idiocy.
The markets wouldn't loan us any more money to run the country specifically BECAUSE they knew we couldn't repay them if we took on the bank debt. Remove the bank debt from the state and we would have no problem borrowing the short commings in the budget.
Persisting down a path of accepting debt that isn't ours and a loan we cannot afford is idiocy, we are just going to default on it anyway and if we do we are totally bollocksed.
The bank guarantee expires in june, it should not renewed. The banks should be left to fend for themselves and we would be fine. We'd exit recession within a few years and we wouldn't be burdened for generations with a debt we still do not know the extent of.
To people who say we can't not accept the bail out or we can't not accept the debt I have one very simple question.
If debt exceeds GDP.
If interest on that debt exceeds the rate of economic growth.
How do you propose to even service the interest, never mind actually reduce the debt?
It's not possible.
growth is barely above 1%,
The rate of interest is 5.8%
All accepting the bailout does is insure that ireland is in recession and a broken economy for the next several decades.
We cannot afford the debt, we have no moral or legal obligation, as far as I can tell, beyond june.
Tell them thanks but no thanks.
Allowing the banks to die is in the best interests of the state.
Accepting this forced loan and the debt of private companies is in the worst interest of the state.
Its a no brainer.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »*sigh*
Scoffy I think you're either making a complicated argument out of my simple one, or else you're failing to understand what I'm getting at. I'm making one point, just one.
Investing is gambling. If you invest in something - in anything - you take a risk. That risk is yours, and yours alone.
If your investment turns out to be worthless, YOU are the one who CHOSE to make the investment. Therefore YOU lose YOUR money. It is nobody else's responsibility to pay for YOUR mistakes.
Why are you not applying this to bank bondholders as it has been applied to every other type of investor in this mess? Thousands of people made investments which are now worthless - why should one group of these be protected? Any investment is a gamble by nature. You gamble and lose - your too bad. No one else's, yours.
Now we can get into an argument about whether or not bondholders lost because of government policy but the fact remains that when you invest, the fact that "sh*t happens" is an occupational hazard, and remains your responsibility. If I made an investment in a company and the company only collapsed because of irresponsible behaviour in that company, do you believe I should get a bailout from the government? I'd flatly refuse such an offer if it was made, because I actually hold the moral principle of accepting responsibility for my bad decisions. As a bank bondholder, you made a decision to invest in a company. That decision turned out to be a bad one - it's still your tough luck. This is how a free market is supposed to work, no?
EDIT: Read this: http://ebookcashstreams.com/HotNewsBlog/2011/02/why-are-ordinary-people-bailing-out-banks-and-bondholders/
I don't have any disagreement with that in principle - something I thought I'd made clear enough at this stage. However, as I said earlier, describing the bondholders as "gamblers" is meaningless rhetoric. Yes, they took a risk, but they took it within a particular stated legal framework. What is being called for is not for them to suffer within the legal framework they undertook the risk in - what is being called for is the overturning of that legal framework for the sake of expediency, and I do always have a problem with the idea of overturning established law for the sake of expediency.
So my problems with "burn the bondholders" is not the belief that they deserve some sort of special protection, but that:
(a) at this stage the amounts to be saved are small relative to the potential downside risks
(b) the situation is not one in which burning the bondholders is forced on the banks on any other basis than expediency - the banks are not being liquidated
(c) overturning law for the sake of expediency is something I consider objectionable in and of itself
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
whatstherush wrote: »Can you elaborate a little more on this point. When all the banks are dead where does the perfectly solvent exporting company that I work for pay my wages to?
new banks, new banks that arent crippled with impaired loans, new banks that then have the ability to give loans.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »new banks, new banks that arent crippled with impaired loans, new banks that then have the ability to give loans.
Ah new banks, as Tommy Cooper would say "Just like that" 0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement