Since the EU are the ones insisting that we bail out banks against our will...

hatrickpatrick

...should they not have the decency to omit such bailouts from our deficit figures?

They want the deficit at 3%, but they also insist on bailing out banks AND including such bailouts in the figures. Apparently they're ok with cutting every other aspect of Ireland's public spending except the bit where we pay for gamblers and their mistakes.

Can you believe the nerve?

Official EU statistics show that Ireland again recorded the biggest budget deficit in the EU last year. Ireland's deficit was 32.4% of economic output, though this was mainly because the EU figures include the cost of injecting more money into Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0426/eurozone-business.html

Just can't win with these people, can you? Unless you're prepared to sacrifice everything in order to prevent gamblers suffering the consequences of taking risks and losing?

View

What's this "against our will" stuff?

Show us the result of the vote(s) in either chamber of the Oireachtas where bailing out the banks was rejected. Show us the result of the last election - for either chamber - where a majority of their electorates voted to support "burn the bondholder" candidates.

If you can't, then stop waffling...

Nody

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...should they not have the decency to omit such bailouts from our deficit figures?

FF decided to include the banks and bail them out; no one else. The numbers also belong in the deficit because the state is now responsible for the bank debt (Thank you Lenihan...)

They want the deficit at 3%, but they also insist on bailing out banks AND including such bailouts in the figures. Apparently they're ok with cutting every other aspect of Ireland's public spending except the bit where we pay for gamblers and their mistakes.

You can thank the previous government for the "cheapest bailout in history" for that one; no one was forcing their hands from outside the country...

Can you believe the nerve?

Yea, how dare they tell the truth like that?!

Just can't win with these people, can you? Unless you're prepared to sacrifice everything in order to prevent gamblers suffering the consequences of taking risks and losing?

Or how about not voting in an incompetent government who keeps on writing bigger and bigger cheques to buy votes over and over again? I know it's a novel concept...

RichardAnd

I've heard alot of talk about bailouts being forced upon us this week, since Brain L came out and told us we were forced. Perhaps we were but the alternative to the bail out was an immediate balancing of the books would would have been far, far more detremental to peoples' daily lives.

Anyway, what I've found quite amazing is how many people seem to think brain is telling the truth because when he was a minister, I seem to recall every statement he made spawning a thread here with claims to the contrary. It's amusing.

Noreen1

Nody wrote: »

FF decided to include the banks and bail them out; no one else. The numbers also belong in the deficit because the state is now responsible for the bank debt (Thank you Lenihan...)

You can thank the previous government for the "cheapest bailout in history" for that one; no one was forcing their hands from outside the country...

Yea, how dare they tell the truth like that?!

Or how about not voting in an incompetent government who keeps on writing bigger and bigger cheques to buy votes over and over again? I know it's a novel concept...

If they're that interested in the truth, why don't they ask for a breakdown of bank debt v. sovereign deficit.

While we're at it - details of which foreign investors are being "repaid" by Irish people for private debt would also be truthful..........

jmayo

Noreen1 wrote: »

If they're that interested in the truth, why don't they ask for a breakdown of bank debt v. sovereign deficit.

While we're at it - details of which foreign investors are being "repaid" by Irish people for private debt would also be truthful..........

Ah Noreen1 stop asking for answers.
Be a good little taxpayer and just cough up.

Don't you know that we should be ever so grateful to our European brethern.
They have come to rescue us.
Shure isn't it all our fault anyway, we are all to blame so stop complaining.

Irish people are at fault for the wrecklessness of Irish banks, because some of the Irish people took the loans and some of the Irish people voted in a bunch of idiots who through policies and lack of policies allowed this to happen.
The European and world banks are not at fault for lending wrecklessly to our banks.
We the Irish people are at fault for that as well.
Thus we must pay everyone back, otherwise we may not be liked. :eek:

Anyway why can't you listen to the ever so persuasive knowledgable Europhiles around here ?
After all they were mostly right about the guarantee of Anglo, NAMA, bank recapitalisation and a host of other things probably way back to White Guinness and Betamax.
As they keep telling us we have a duty to repay all those unfortunates who poured money into our banks.

Anyway don't you know the EU bailout is for our current budget deficit and not to keep the banks afloat ?
Don't you know the bank recapitalisations, NAMA, loss writeoffs have nothing at all at all to do with fact we can't borrow on financial markets ?
Shure some of those debts are not on our balanace sheet.

later12

I have had to correct my understanding on the issue of honouring bank bonds from the covered institutions. Like many others, I had been firmly of the opinion that the Government were enthusiastic about honouring these debts. Now it appears that this may not have the case, and that the ECB may indeed have been applying significant pressure to Ireland in that respect.

Therefore, it is no longer safe to say that we are the ones insisting on bailing out the banks, exactly. It appears that the Government, with all of their many failings, may have had little option awarded to them on this matter.

I still think that any form of a unilateral default is wrong, but it also appears that I, and many others, might have been quite wrong to suggest that the Government were eager to embrace the bank bailout at the time. Unfortunately, one always gets the impression that there is an inevitable and vocal groundswell of support for the European institutions on the politics forum, and this is one case, I think, whereby dissenting voices might have been afforded more credence.

later12

View wrote: »

What's this "against our will" stuff?

Show us the result of the vote(s) in either chamber of the Oireachtas where bailing out the banks was rejected. Show us the result of the last election - for either chamber - where a majority of their electorates voted to support "burn the bondholder" candidates.

If you can't, then stop waffling...

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about. View, "our will", presumably refers to the collective will of the people, is not a reference to our TDs, who are the elected delegates of the people in whom we trust to execute "our will". You will, also, surely, recall this

Any bank coming to us looking for more money is going to have to show how they are going to impose losses on their junior bondholders, on their senior bondholders, and on other creditors before they come looking to us for any more money. Not another cent.

-- Leo Varadkar, February 10, two weeks before the general election

swampgas

later10 wrote: »

I have had to correct my understanding on the issue of honouring bank bonds from the covered institutions. Like many others, I had been firmly of the opinion that the Government were enthusiastic about honouring these debts. Now it appears that this may not have the case, and that the ECB may indeed have been applying significant pressure to Ireland in that respect.

Therefore, it is no longer safe to say that we are the ones insisting on bailing out the banks, exactly. It appears that the Government, with all of their many failings, may have had little option awarded to them on this matter.

That is very interesting - could you elaborate further?
Any sources or links on this, I'd really like to check it out.

later12

Well I'm referring particularly to comments made by Lenihan with respect to the bank bailout, and the suggestion that the ECB were unwilling to contemplate bondholders taking a haircut on losses. You would hear it on the interview he gave to Radio 4, google Radio 4 bailout boys if you haven't heard it yet.

The position on bondholders seems to have been confirmed by Noonan as well

Minister for Finance Michael Noonan insisted last night that Ireland would not engage in any unilateral “burning” of bondholders. “Burden-sharing is not the majority opinion so we’re not going to go there until we go with our European colleagues,” he said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0401/1224293542457.html

Now I still think this is a wise decision, but it can no longer be said to be definite that this is the desire of the Irish Government

For balance, this is what the Commission said in reply
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/lenihans-remarks-on-ecb-bailout-dismissed-as-subjective-2630168.html

There has been no reply from the ECB on this as yet, but several board members have denied the pressure.

View

later10 wrote: »

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about. View, "our will", presumably refers to the collective will of the people, is not a reference to our TDs, who are the elected delegates of the people in whom we trust to execute "our will". You will, also, surely, recall this

We have seen the collective will of the people in the recent election. How big an overall majority did the electorate give the "burn the bondholder" candidates?

In a democracy, parliaments are the expression of the collective will of the people for the obvious practical reason that the people don't want to spend their time making decisions on the acts such as the Road Traffic Act (or worse) every time they needs to be modified.

View

later10 wrote: »

I still think that any form of a unilateral default is wrong, but it also appears that I, and many others, might have been quite wrong to suggest that the Government were eager to embrace the bank bailout at the time.

Talk is cheap. The actions taken by our Governments and our Oireachtas speak for themselves - unless, that is, you are trying to make out that someone was there in the chambers of the Oireachtas holding the members at gun point when they voted.

K-9

later10 wrote: »

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about. View, "our will", presumably refers to the collective will of the people, is not a reference to our TDs, who are the elected delegates of the people in whom we trust to execute "our will". You will, also, surely, recall this


-- Leo Varadkar, February 10, two weeks before the general election

IIRC FG had to clarify their policy afterwards and they conceded it would have to within a European context.

As for the OP, I hate to see the bank figures included as well, more so because it hides what little progress is being made on the deficit.

later12

View wrote: »

We have seen the collective will of the people in the recent election. How big an overall majority did the electorate give the "burn the bondholder" candidates?

Well Varadkar got 8359 first preferences and his party won the election.

In a democracy, parliaments are the expression of the collective will of the people for the obvious practical reason that the people don't want to spend their time making decisions on the acts such as the Road Traffic Act (or worse) every time they needs to be modified.

View, view, view. A parliament is a collection of individuals delegated there by the people who expect them to execute their will - their actions are not an inevitable expression of public will, the latter being what the OP was - quite obviously - talking about.

later12

View wrote: »

Talk is cheap. The actions taken by our Governments and our Oireachtas speak for themselves - unless, that is, you are trying to make out that someone was there in the chambers of the Oireachtas holding the members at gun point when they voted.

This argument is just ridiculous. Are you under the impression that the ECB exerted no pressure on the Government with regard to honouring debts as a matter of policy? On what grounds?

View

later10 wrote: »

View, view, view. A parliament is a collection of individuals delegated there by the people who expect them to execute their will - their actions are not an inevitable expression of public will, the latter being what the OP was - quite obviously - talking about.

You fundamentally misunderstand the role of a member of parliament if you believe that. Members of parliament are not beholden to vote in any given way, rather it is up to them to vote based on how they judge the issues of the day. In a democracy, the choice of a parliament is the legitimate expression of the collective will of the people.

It isn't a case that - as so many people here seem to believe - because you disagree with a choice made that it somehow ceases to be democratic and/or becomes illegitimate.

beeftotheheels

View wrote: »

You fundamentally misunderstand the role of a member of parliament if you believe that. Members of parliament are not beholden to vote in any given way, rather it is up to them to vote based on how they judge the issues of the day. In a democracy, the choice of a parliament is the legitimate expression of the collective will of the people.

It isn't a case that - as so many people here seem to believe - because you disagree with a choice made that it somehow ceases to be democratic and/or becomes illegitimate.

Plenipotentiary - an Irish misunderstanding. Dev and co didn't like the deal that Griffith, Collins and Co signed. We had a civil war.

This time we just have outraged posts on boards.ie - I'd say that is an improvement.

later12

View wrote: »

You fundamentally misunderstand the role of a member of parliament if you believe that. Members of parliament are not beholden to vote in any given way, rather it is up to them to vote based on how they judge the issues of the day. In a democracy, the choice of a parliament is the legitimate expression of the collective will of the people.

Ok look, it is largely a matter of opinion, since the constitution doesn't stipulate the implicit role of a member of the Oireachtas aside from generally referring to each as representing a specific constituency, be that in the Dail or in the Seanad.
However it is wrong to say that the choice of parliament is "the legitimate expression of the collective will of the people". The choice of a parliament's constituents is the legitimate expression of the collective will of the people with regard to those to whom the people wish to delegate governance. The most legitimate expression of the collective will of a people is, actually, manifest through referenda.

The point is that the OP was talking about the will of the people. Even if you wish to persist with the above argument, are you suggesting that it was not this Government's will to engage in write downs of debt issued on bond indentures? How can you claim this?

View

later10 wrote: »

This argument is just ridiculous. Are you under the impression that the ECB exerted no pressure on the Government with regard to honouring debts as a matter of policy? On what grounds?

It doesn't matter whether or even if any group - be it the ECB, the IFA, ICTU or IBEC - seeks to influence any vote in the Oireachtas. The individual members of the Oireachtas are not bound to vote - and, indeed, cannot be bound - to vote in any given way.The casting of votes by each member of the Oireachtas is ultimately a matter of how they choose to do so. As such, the ECB/IFA/ICTU/IBEC can pressure the members to vote in given ways but if the members refuse to do so, the groups concerned have no choice but to accept the vote didn't go their way.

At any stage, the government was, and is, free to say "Right, we are not going to honour the debts. We will burn the bond holders". Both governments have had the majorities necessary to get this through the Oireachtas. This hasn't happened, of course, because neither of them want (or wanted) this to happen.

Since they knew they were heading for an electoral disaster well in advance, the idea that the last government were willing to sacrifice their political careers, at the behest of the ECB, is laughable.

later12

View wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether or even if any group - be it the ECB, the IFA, ICTU or IBEC - seeks to influence any vote in the Oireachtas.

Actually, it does. I'm not quite convinced that it was inside the ECB's remit to do what they are alleged to have been doing.

But that is beside the point. I am simply stating that I have had to correct my understanding of the situation with respect to the Irish position vs the ECB position, and I woiuld suggest that it is appropriate for all of us to do so in light of comments by both the current and the previous Finance Ministers. Do you understand that?

The individual members of the Oireachtas are not bound to vote - and, indeed, cannot be bound - to vote in any given way.The casting of votes by each member of the Oireachtas is ultimately a matter of how they choose to do so.

Nobody is actually arguing this. Who are you arguing with?

At any stage, the government was, and is, free to say "Right, we are not going to honour the debts. We will burn the bond holders".

And how would the state be funded? The point being made is that it is alleged to have been the case that the ECB refused to look into a restructuring programme, that this is alleged to have been a precondition of the bailout. We cannot substantiate this outside of comments made by the current Minister, the previous minister and media reports during the negotiations. However, neither can we dismiss it - can we?

View

later10 wrote: »

Ok look, it is largely a matter of opinion, since the constitution doesn't stipulate the implicit role of a member of the Oireachtas aside from generally referring to each as representing a specific constituency, be that in the Dail or in the Seanad.
However it is wrong to say that the choice of parliament is "the legitimate expression of the collective will of the people". The choice of a parliament's constituents is the legitimate expression of the collective will of the people with regard to those to whom the people wish to delegate governance.

That really appears to be splitting hairs but if it keeps you happy...

later10 wrote: »

The most legitimate expression of the collective will of a people is, actually, manifest through referenda.

Well, that is arguable as the people have: a) through a referendum on BnhE vested that authority in the Oireachtas, and b) it presumes that a referendum is a more legitimate expression of the collective will of a people than an election is. Given that the "debate" in our referenda tends frequently to be only loosely related to the issue being decided on, I am not sure we can claim that they really do constitute an accurate view of people on a topic (e.g. if people vote "Yes" or "No" to a topic on grounds that are not related to the topic itself then their votes cannot be said to be an opinion on the topic itself).

later10 wrote: »

The point is that the OP was talking about the will of the people. Even if you wish to persist with the above argument, are you suggesting that it was not this Government's will to engage in write downs of debt issued on bond indentures? How can you claim this?

Look at the results of the Oireachtas votes. Show us where they actually voted for this. This is more of the back-bench TD stuff where they'll say on the radio, they are fiercely opposed to X or Y, but quietly vote for it in the Dail.

later12

View wrote: »

it presumes that a referendum is a more legitimate expression of the collective will of a people than an election is.

Both are legitimate, but a referendum is a more legitimate poll of popular will on a specific question than is an overall election covering a wide variety of issues to various depths.

You're seriously suggesting that every act of government is reflective of the will of the people? seriously? You don't think divergence can occur?

djpbarry

later10 wrote: »

Both are legitimate, but a referendum is a more legitimate poll of popular will on a specific question than is an overall election covering a wide variety of issues to various depths.

Suppose the electorate have little or no understanding of the issues in question (which is often the case) – how would this impact on comparative legitimacy?

later10 wrote: »

You're seriously suggesting that every act of government is reflective of the will of the people?

Of course it isn’t. If it was, Ireland would presently be in a far worse state.

It’s not the job of politicians to do what the electorate want. It’s their job to do what’s best for the country.

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

Suppose the electorate have little or no understanding of the issues in question (which is often the case) – how would this impact on comparative legitimacy?

Frankly it has nothing to do with it. Public will is public will, a referendum isn't a measure of knowledge, nor is a popular election.

View

later10 wrote: »

Actually, it does. I'm not quite convinced that it was inside the ECB's remit to do what they are alleged to have been doing.

But that is beside the point. I am simply stating that I have had to correct my understanding of the situation with respect to the Irish position vs the ECB position, and I woiuld suggest that it is appropriate for all of us to do so in light of comments by both the current and the previous Finance Ministers. Do you understand that?

I understand what you are saying but, as I said, look at how the individuals concerned vote. That is what counts. There was no indication of BL having a problem until after FF lost the election not it is re-write history time.

later10 wrote: »

Nobody is actually arguing this. Who are you arguing with?

If the members of the Oireachtas are free to vote however they feel, then no amount of pressure matters. It is a free decision - the Oireachtas' decision.

later10 wrote: »

And how would the state be funded?

That is entirely up to the Oireachtas. It is their decision as to how to do this or not to do so as they so choose.

later10 wrote: »

The point being made is that it is alleged to have been the case that the ECB refused to look into a restructuring programme, that this is alleged to have been a precondition of the bailout. We cannot substantiate this outside of comments made by the current Minister, the previous minister and media reports during the negotiations. However, neither can we dismiss it - can we?

The reason for the loan from the EU was we wanted it because we were trying to save the banks (pay the bond-holders) and cover the deficit. Expecting the others to loan us the money anyway if we decide not to do this was/is a fantasy. Then again, we are talking about a government that had the fantasy that we wouldn't need any loan right up to the last minute.

They are a bit like a heroin addict who insisted that "no they didn't need to check in to the drug rehab centre" even though the drug supplier - the international finance markets - were already laughing at the request for "more, more"...

beeftotheheels

later10 wrote: »

Both are legitimate, but a referendum is a more legitimate poll of popular will on a specific question than is an overall election covering a wide variety of issues to various depths.

You're seriously suggesting that every act of government is reflective of the will of the people? seriously? You don't think divergence can occur?

That's not what is being argued. In almost any democracy, in order to create a functioning government, the people empower their elected representatives to act in their name. If you later disagree with how your representative acted you can remove him/ her from power.

If everything had to be put to the people by referendum, you might have something approaching a "pure democracy" but the country would grind to a halt, hence most "democracies" don't take this approach.

Our government acted in our names, whether they were subject to pressure or otherwise.

I have to say I am intrigued by the level of "shock" at the weekend's revelation. Did people really think, at the time, that the ECB was saying "Sure don't rush the decision, take your time and get it right?".

The ECB was, and is, our largest creditor. Of course they want to get themselves off that hook.

hatrickpatrick

View wrote: »

What's this "against our will" stuff?

Show us the result of the vote(s) in either chamber of the Oireachtas where bailing out the banks was rejected. Show us the result of the last election - for either chamber - where a majority of their electorates voted to support "burn the bondholder" candidates.

If you can't, then stop waffling...

FG and LAbour said they would push for burden sharing with bondholders, the EU and ECB forced them to abandon it.

later12

View wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but, as I said, look at how the individuals concerned vote. That is what counts. There was no indication of BL having a problem until after FF lost the election not it is re-write history time.

I don't know how many more times I can repeat myself on the issue. Nobody is arguing this point with you.

If the members of the Oireachtas are free to vote however they feel, then no amount of pressure matters.

That could be contradictory. Of course pressure matters. Are you suggesting that applying pressure to politicians is irrelevant as a rule? Think about this.

You seem to believe that all applied pressure is totally irrelevant and that even with this pressure, politicians are acting in line with the will of the people. How can you seriously believe that? Again, do you not agree that there can be divergence between popular will and Government policy?

If not, this is bizarre, what on earth is your argument?

hatrickpatrick

Furthermore:
http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2010/nov/28/ecb-vetoes-making-bank-bondholders-pay-for-rescue/

later12

beeftotheheels wrote: »

That's not what is being argued.

I think it is. I'm not opposed to how we run our democracy, and I would be quite worried about the result of a bailout referendum, nevertheless, I am contesting the argument that the popular will of the people is the equivalent to the choice of Government. A popular election can never hope to be a broad nor definitive referendum on various policies.

View

later10 wrote: »

Both are legitimate, but a referendum is a more legitimate poll of popular will on a specific question than is an overall election covering a wide variety of issues to various depths.

That doesn't necessarily apply if the people don't vote on the issue concerned. If the Children's Rights referendum is decided on whether or not you like Enda K, it tells us nothing about the merits or not of Children's Rights.

later10 wrote: »

You're seriously suggesting that every act of government is reflective of the will of the people? seriously? You don't think divergence can occur?

That's not the issue. The will of the Oireachtas is the expression of the will of the public (outside elections & referenda). Otherwise, you are down the road where the Road Traffic Act is undemocratic and illegitimate because someone decides they are more representative of the people than the peoples' elected representatives.

later12

Oh for goodness' sake.

View.

Do you agree, in a word, that there may be divergence between popular will and Governing policy?

I mean, do you understand what the OP is saying?

djpbarry

later10 wrote: »

Frankly it has nothing to do with it. Public will is public will, a referendum isn't a measure of knowledge, nor is a popular election.

Will is not based on knowledge (or lack thereof)?

later10 wrote: »

A popular election can never hope to be a broad nor definitive referendum on various policies.

Nor does it aim to be.

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

Will is not based on knowledge (or lack thereof)?

A referendum is a measure of public will insofar as it can be assessed, it is not conditional on nor associated with any degree of cognitive ability, nor the impression of a fact upon a person, in itself.

djpbarry

later10 wrote: »

A referendum is a measure of public will insofar as it can be assessed, it is not conditional on nor associated with any degree of cognitive ability in itself.

Isn’t it? Is there a reason why voting is restricted to those over 18?

later12

Why do you think I put 'in itself' at the end of that sentence?
Humour me.

View

later10 wrote: »

Oh for goodness' sake.

View.

Do you agree, in a word, that there may be divergence between popular will and Governing policy?

As before, it is the will of the Oireachtas that counts. The fact that some self-appointed "real representative" of the people decides that "popular will" doesn't agree with the Oireachtas is irrelevant.

The fact that you or I may disagree with the decision of the Oireachtas from time to time is irrelevant - we don't get to pick and choose as to the legitimacy of any give Oireachtas decision based on whether we agree with it.

View

later10 wrote: »

A referendum is a measure of public will insofar as it can be assessed, it is not conditional on nor associated with any degree of cognitive ability, nor the impression of a fact upon a person, in itself.

A referendum result can only be held to be a measure of public will on a given topic if the ballots cast are done so on reasons largely related to the issue that the referenda is being held on.

If the reasons people cast their ballots - whether consciously or, as a result of deliberate misinformation - on reasons not related to the issue of the referendum, then the result clearly does not measure public will on an issue.

later12

View wrote: »

The fact that you or I may disagree with the decision of the Oireachtas from time to time is irrelevant - we don't get to pick and choose as to the legitimacy of any give Oireachtas decision based on whether we agree with it.

Again with the legitimacy. Why is it any time that the status quo is ever questioned, particularly in relation to Europe, people come out repeating the same old mantra "it's all legitimate!"

Nobody is arguing the official legitimacy of the government making this decision.

What we are saying is that (a) the decision appears contrary to the public will on this issue; that (b) it appears contrary to what many people may have believed was an aspect of the FG pre election commitment; that (c) that a pressure in respect of honouring bond indentures is alleged by Brian Lenihan to have been exerted by the ECB, who may not have had jurisdiction in doing so, on a pre-condition to funding the day to day services of the state; further that pressure is implied to have occured by the current Minister Noonan from unknown European sources.

Feel free to reply with what everybody already knows, again and again. "It's all legitimate". It is. But what is also legitimate is the right to object, and without being accused of waffling.

later12

View wrote: »

A referendum result can only be held to be a measure of public will on a given topic if the ballots cast are done so on reasons largely related to the issue that the referenda is being held on.

I will ask you a similar question put to another poster - why do you think I said ''insofar as it can be assessed''?

Read the post.

Originally Posted by later10
A referendum is a measure of public will insofar as it can be assessed, it is not ...

beeftotheheels

later10 wrote: »

Again with the legitimacy. Why is it any time that the status quo is ever questioned, particularly in relation to Europe, people come out repeating the same old mantra "it's all legitimate!"

Nobody is arguing the official legitimacy of the government making this decision.

What we are saying is that (a) the decision appears contrary to the public will on this issue; that (b) it appears contrary to what many people may have believed was an aspect of the FG pre election commitment; that (c) that a pressure in respect of honouring bond indentures is alleged by Brian Lenihan to have been exerted by the ECB, who may not have had jurisdiction in doing so, on a pre-condition to funding the day to day services of the state; further that pressure is implied to have occured by the current Minister Noonan from unknown European sources.

Feel free to reply with what everybody already knows, again and again. "It's all legitimate". It is. But what is also legitimate is the right to object, and without being accused of waffling.

I'm all for debate on the issue. However, the problem with the public will barometer approach is that the public can have views on something without understanding it. The public may well have wished to avoid bailing out the banks, without understanding the consequences of crossing Trichet.

The public, had they had their way, might with hindsight determine that they were not in favor of our banking system collapsing.

There is no certainty with public will, which is why we temper it in favor of a functioning government.

The public were presented with the opportunity of voting for Sinn Fein who were clear on their burn the bondholders position, yet the public voted in huge numbers for Fine Gael and Labor who were less clear on this, and indeed Fine Gael were clear that there was a European aspect to the decision.

So, I'm not seeing the evidence that the public wish to burn the bondholders come hell or high water, I'm seeing the public giving a new government a full mandate to try their best to get us out of the hole that the previous governments dug us into.

later12

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I'm all for debate on the issue. However, the problem with the public will barometer approach is that the public can have views on something without understanding it. The public may well have wished to avoid bailing out the banks, without understanding the consequences of crossing Trichet.

I would suggest a large part of the problem has been the previous government, and this government, misunderstanding the consequences of crossing Trichet.

The public were presented with the opportunity of voting for Sinn Fein who were clear on their burn the bondholders position, yet the public voted in huge numbers for Fine Gael and Labor who were less clear on this, and indeed Fine Gael were clear that there was a European aspect to the decision.

Again, this is making the mistake of confusing the resolution of one very specific question with the outcome of a general election. It must, surely, be accepted that FG engaged in bondholder combustion rhetoric, and that if anybody was going to lead us down this path, even in a milder fashion than other parties, it was to be FG. The election was not a referendum on bondholders. While many people still support FG:

the Government's treatment of the banks was less well received, with 41 per cent of voters saying they were angry that the Government was not forcing bondholders to share some of the burden. Some 38 per cent of respondents said the bank bailout and restructuring announced last week was not what they had voted for, while 34 per cent disagreed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0410/breaking43.html

I wish to point out again, that I am in favour of honouring Ireland's debt where feasible, and that I'm totally opposed to unilateral action of any variety. However, to say that the public want to see all of the state's and the bank's senior obligations being met, that this is their will, is, I would suggest, wide of the mark.

djpbarry

later10 wrote: »

Why do you think I put 'in itself' at the end of that sentence?

This is fast degrading into an exercise in pedantry.

jmayo

View wrote: »

We have seen the collective will of the people in the recent election. How big an overall majority did the electorate give the "burn the bondholder" candidates?

Yes, but I know I and others voted for FG/Labour in the hope that they would try to to influence the EU/ECB into offering us a better deal.
So far it appears that the ECB/EU are not really budging.
In fact some senior sources have been quiet scathing, basically lecturing us
and we have senior EU politicians demanding we blow what his left of our feet off by upping corporation tax.
With friends like those who needs enemies. :rolleyes:

Most of us know that the SF/ULA idea of just walking away from debts and not cutting expenditure will not work.

View wrote: »

In a democracy, parliaments are the expression of the collective will of the people for the obvious practical reason that the people don't want to spend their time making decisions on the acts such as the Road Traffic Act (or worse) every time they needs to be modified.

I would not have said the last parliament represented the collective will of the people, would you ?

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Plenipotentiary - an Irish misunderstanding. Dev and co didn't like the deal that Griffith, Collins and Co signed. We had a civil war.

This time we just have outraged posts on boards.ie - I'd say that is an improvement.

Well if when we default, our banks may implode totally and we have no cash in circulation I foresee very nasty consequences where very quickly certain EU offices in this country will burn.
We Irish can put up with a lot, but when we do finally revolt we tend to start killing people.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

FG and LAbour said they would push for burden sharing with bondholders, the EU and ECB forced them to abandon it.

I think it does appear so and it was noticable that Kenny was called prior to last summit when Portugal became the latest casulty.

I do beleive lenihan was being pushed by Brussels/Frankfurt.
After all the ECB developed the ethos that no major bank should go under. :rolleyes:
Anyway even if lenihan was presured it still does not excuse his disasterous record. :rolleyes:

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

Most of us know that the SF/ULA idea of just walking away from debts and not cutting expenditure will not work.

Did the people who voted for them know that?

jmayo wrote: »

I would not have said the last parliament represented the collective will of the people, would you ?

In its latter days, probably not. However, these guys were re-elected twice on the promise of perpetual, speculation-driven economic growth – an unpopular cleanup operation at some point was inevitable.

beeftotheheels

later10 wrote: »

I would suggest a large part of the problem has been the previous government, and this government, misunderstanding the consequences of crossing Trichet.

That may well be the case, but having elected them we now have to let them do the job which we elected them to do.

later10 wrote: »

Again, this is making the mistake of confusing the resolution of one very specific question with the outcome of a general election. It must, surely, be accepted that FG engaged in bondholder combustion rhetoric, and that if anybody was going to lead us down this path, even in a milder fashion than other parties, it was to be FG. The election was not a referendum on bondholders.

I am not sure what we are arguing about anymore. If people were unhappy with any "middle ground" or "tempered" solution then they were free to vote SF, and if they didn't like SF because of historical issues etc etc they were free to vote for Richard Boyd-Barrett or whoever the local equivalent was in their constituency. And they did. In huge numbers. But the majority voted for the establishment parties other than the one which had led the last three governments.

No, it was not a referendum, nor should it have been, it was a general election. But the economy was the single biggest issue in all of the election coverage, I don't think many voted Labour because of their manifesto promise on gay marriage (which I support by the way). I think many voted Labor to temper what would be perceived as Fine Gael's cut cut cut approach, I gave my second pref to Labour because 2016 struck me as much more feasible than 2014 for balancing the books.

Are you suggesting that we ought to have had a referendum? We ought to have one now? We should take to the streets?

later10 wrote: »

However, to say that the public want to see all of the state's and the bank's senior obligations being met, that this is their will, is, I would suggest, wide of the mark.

I have not seen this being argued, anywhere. My point is that the public want a way out of this crisis, and gave the new government a mandate to do everything in their power. To try and isolate one issue, e.g. banking debt, and then one person JCT, and to suggest that the public should be allowed an opinion on those two elements, is daft. The mess is a hell of a lot more complex than that, any solution will involve trade offs.

Do I think mistakes are being made? Of course
Is the EU itself part of the problem? Yes
Should we have guaranteed all the bank debt? No
Is there huge public anger about the bank guarantee? Yes

But we are where we are now, we cannot alter the past. We have a new government, with a fresh mandate, to try and find a solution. I'm happy that democracy in Ireland is alive and well.

later12

beeftotheheels wrote: »

That may well be the case, but having elected them we now have to let them do the job which we elected them to do.

Indeed, no argument there.

I am not sure what we are arguing about anymore. If people were unhappy with any "middle ground" or "tempered" solution then they were free to vote SF, and if they didn't like SF because of historical issues etc etc they were free to vote for Richard Boyd-Barrett or whoever the local equivalent was in their constituency.

Many individuals with centrist views would claim to support 'voluntary' restructuring programs - presumably they would have had voted for FG. It's quite unusual to suggest that the mainstream vote was a vote for the status quo given the pre-election commitments that were given or that at least, on the face of it, appear to have been emanating from FG and Labour with respect to 'burning' bondholders; they represented a departure from the established FF policy.

Any bank coming to us looking for more money is going to have to show how they are going to impose losses on their junior bondholders, on their senior bondholders, and on other creditors before they come looking to us for any more money. Not another cent.
-- Leo Varadkar, February 10, two weeks before the general election

Unlike the other parties, Fine Gael will take on the big vested interests that have contributed to the current crisis -- the bankers, the bondholders . . .
-- Fine Gael's five-point election plan

No, it was not a referendum, nor should it have been, it was a general election. But the economy was the single biggest issue in all of the election coverage, I don't think many voted Labour because of their manifesto promise on gay marriage (which I support by the way). I think many voted Labor to temper what would be perceived as Fine Gael's cut cut cut approach, I gave my second pref to Labour because 2016 struck me as much more feasible than 2014 for balancing the books.

Yes indeed, but this does not amount to a referendum. I wasn't actually available for the vote, but I am in favour of gay marriage and I wouldn't vote Labour. I was (ironically enough) opposed to the FG rhetoric on burning bondholders, yet I would have voted FG, were I in the country. So we cannot directly extrapolate specific issues, of whatever importance, from the end result of an election.

Are you suggesting that we ought to have had a referendum? We ought to have one now? We should take to the streets?

The time for a referendum is long since passed, I'm not convinced that it was ever necessary, for very undemocratic reasons on my behalf, I would be uneasy about a referendum, certainly.

I'm not quite sure where the idea that I'm suggesting a referendum has sprung from. I am merely questioning the suggestion, made earlier, that the Parliament's actions or make-up are representative of the will of the people. That is a broadly useless basis upon which we might examine the will of the people in relation to very specific issues. That is my point. Polls seem to suggest that current policy of honouring all relevant obligations on senior debt is not favoured, either by the public, by a large proportion of FG voters, or by leaders in industry.

This doesn't necessarily correspond with my own view, but to dismiss it as waffling is, as per the beginning of the thread, what I find unacceptable.

K-9

jmayo wrote: »

Yes, but I know I and others voted for FG/Labour in the hope that they would try to to influence the EU/ECB into offering us a better deal.
So far it appears that the ECB/EU are not really budging.
In fact some senior sources have been quiet scathing, basically lecturing us
and we have senior EU politicians demanding we blow what his left of our feet off by upping corporation tax.
With friends like those who needs enemies. :rolleyes:

Well Kenny has said they have got a new deal.

jmayo wrote:

Most of us know that the SF/ULA idea of just walking away from debts and not cutting expenditure will not work.

Some of us think delaying the cuts to 2014/2016 will not work or that default is inevitable.

I would not have said the last parliament represented the collective will of the people, would you ?

Considering the vast majority of the electorates voted for pro bailout parties, I'd say broadly they did. Whether they'd have voted for folding Anglo Irish and a bondholder guarantee, hard to know, don't think it would have been practical to hold a referendum that quickly on what was an over night decision.

Well if when we default, our banks may implode totally and we have no cash in circulation I foresee very nasty consequences where very quickly certain EU offices in this country will burn.
We Irish can put up with a lot, but when we do finally revolt we tend to start killing people.

Maybe, suppose some will be glad of that.

I think it does appear so and it was noticable that Kenny was called prior to last summit when Portugal became the latest casulty.

I do beleive lenihan was being pushed by Brussels/Frankfurt.
After all the ECB developed the ethos that no major bank should go under. :rolleyes:
Anyway even if lenihan was presured it still does not excuse his disasterous record. :rolleyes:

Portugal doesn't have near the same problems with bank bondholders so I don't see why it is that relevant.

As far as I can see Anglo and Irish Nationwide could have been wound down ages ago rather than presenting plans to Europe that they were viable entities.

As for pressure, I'd say there was, Lenihan was delaying the inevitable, kicking the can down the road to borrow the much used phrase.

beeftotheheels

later10 wrote: »

I'm not quite sure where the idea that I'm suggesting a referendum has sprung from. I am merely questioning the suggestion, made earlier, that the Parliament's actions or make-up are representative of the will of the people. That is a broadly useless basis upon which we might examine the will of the people in relation to very specific issues. That is my point. Polls seem to suggest that current policy of honouring all relevant obligations on senior debt is not favoured, either by the public, by a large proportion of FG voters, or by leaders in industry.

This doesn't necessarily correspond with my own view, but to dismiss it as waffling is, as per the beginning of the thread, what I find unacceptable.

Ah, so back to the old chestnut of defining democracy which you were not seeking to define.

So yes, I agree that at any point in time a majority of the people can disagree with their democratically elected government's decision.

They can punish that government for making that decision by refusing to return them to power in the next election.

Which does not make the decision undemocratic.

djpbarry

later10 wrote: »

I am merely questioning the suggestion, made earlier, that the Parliament's actions or make-up are representative of the will of the people.

The parliament’s make-up is not representative of the will of the people?

later12

djpbarry wrote: »

The parliament’s make-up is not representative of the will of the people?

perhaps you ought to have read on one sentence

That is a broadly useless basis upon which we might examine the will of the people in relation to very specific issues.

I have to say I am quite taken aback by the reaction to the suggestion that the government may not be acting in line with the popular will. Pedantic attempts to dismiss public attitudes altogether or the even more outlandish attempt to equate the public will on specific issues with parliamentary makeup in general, and questioning whether people sympathetic to this issue want people on the streets rebelling. Come on.

Polls suggest that many people, including FG voters and business leaders are in favour of bondholder haircuts. Statements by Minister Noonan, and the previous governments finance minister, suggest that this is something that they too have favoured, but that their opinion was not shared in Europe. Fair enough, so be it. But for goodness sake at least lets recognise these rather basic aspects of the discussion. Attempts to wash off these concerns with pedantry are un-helpful, and likely to play right into the court of those who advocate unilateral default.