Britain "may audit country's financial posistion"

darkman2

Ireland to pay 'commitment' fee over €3.5bn loan from UK

Charge will kick in if Government fails to draw down full amounts


By Emmet Oliver and Donal O Donovan
Wednesday July 06 2011
Ireland must pay an annual fee to the British Treasury if it doesn't draw down the full amounts allowed under its bailout loans each year, the legal agreement between the two countries reveals.

The British government has also covered itself against the chance that Ireland leaves the euro or even the European Union. If this happened, UK loans would have to be paid back immediately, and in sterling, not in euro or any new Irish currency, the legal agreement states.

The £3.2bn (€3.5bn) of loans are the British government contribution to the €85bn bailout package. Unlike the European Union element of the deal, loans from the UK, Sweden and Denmark are bilateral transactions -- loaned directly from government to government.

Under a legal agreement drawn up by international law firm Allen & Overy, Ireland must pay the UK a "commitment fee'' annually on any funds it doesn't draw under the agreement. In effect Ireland will pay charges for having the loan in place. It's the equivalent of a consumer paying a fee for their credit card facility as distinct from paying interest on cash actually borrowed.

Borrow

The fee is set at 0.5pc of the amount due to be drawn down each year. If the Irish Government decided not to make use of the funds, it would cost €9m under the schedule to borrow €1.8bn in the first year.

The UK authorities have provided a schedule of disbursements to Ireland and if these remain undrawn at year end the fee is applied.

The first year such a fee applies begins when the IMF does its third review of Ireland's programme, which is this week. No money has been drawn down from Britain yet but to avoid the charge, £800m must be borrowed this year, followed by £1.6bn next year and £800m in 2013.

Also disclosed in the legal agreement, which has been lodged in the House of Commons and put on the Department of Finance website, is that the UK may send representatives to Ireland to audit the country's financial position.

That level of oversight 90 years after Independence is sure to prove controversial, despite the fact that the UK was actually far more willing to lend to Ireland and with fewer strings attached than most of our European partners.

According to the loan agreement, the UK is also indemnified if Ireland attempted to pay back the loans in a currency other than sterling.

The agreement ties Ireland into waiving all its rights to use another currency to repay the loans, and if Ireland should leave the euro it would effectively be treated as a default.

- Emmet Oliver and Donal O Donovan

Irish Independent

I think I speak for most when I say we don't quite mind the EU digging in (id say most welcome it) but this would be a step too far. There are limits to how much our dignity is destroyed and having the British in particular examining our finances for a mere 3.5bn of our so-called bailout loans - that to me is just a step too far. And an awful lot of people would be very angry if British officials were walking into Government buildings in a Chopra like manner. Do they think we don't know their exposure to our banking system? You would almost think this was all charity from the goodness of their hearts.

who the fug

darkman2 wrote: »

I think I speak for most when I say we don't quite mind the EU digging in (id say most welcome it) but this would be a step too far. There are limits to how much our dignity is destroyed and having the British in particular examining our finances for a mere 3.5bn of our so-called bailout loans - that to me is just a step too far. And an awful lot of people would be very angry if British officials were walking into Government buildings in a Chopra like manner. Do they think we don't know their exposure to our banking system? You would almost think this was all charity from the goodness of their hearts.

Dignity after 10 years of Bertie as leader , you be having a giraffe


As a UK taxpayer glad to see the British Treasury is looking after things

mike65

Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend.

As the UK have loaned Ireland the money they have every right to see its being correctly managed.

Fratton Fred

One of the problems Ireland has, is that our previous government lied/tried to ignore/was not capable of establishing the actual debt the country was in, so I doubt very much any of the EU/IMF leaders had any faith in them, so the right to audit was probably put in as a "If we think you are still trying to pull the wool over our eyes we will take a look for ourselves" type measure.

The rest of it, currency indemnities etc are just standard stuff to protect the UK's money.

Manach

Perhaps the British might send in the bailifs to get any moneys owed.

nesf

There's nothing in that that either surprises me or bothers me really. The UK is entitled to some oversight given it's directly loaning us cash. No one forced us to accept the loan remember.

anymore

As an Irishman, I must certainly do not trust irish politicians, so it is hard to see why England should trust us !

sensibleken

so is this whole 'loss of sovereignty' thing sinking in yet for people?

serfboard

nesf wrote: »

There's nothing in that that either surprises me or bothers me really. The UK is entitled to some oversight given it's directly loaning us cash. No one forced us to accept the loan remember.

100% agree. If you were getting a loan from a bank, they'd want to see your paperwork regarding income, spending etc. Ireland is getting a loan from the UK for 3.5 billion - a not insubstantial amount of money, and even though it's in their own interest, they have plenty of other things they could spend it on rather than loaning it to us. So it's no surprise that they want to look at our books as well. After what the sneaky Greeks did, no-one is to be trusted.

I think this article is hoping to get us annoyed that our former colonial master is back in the house. Well, we have no-one else to blame for that but ourselves.

I don't have a problem with the commitment fee either. I'd much rather spend 9M than (need to) borrow 1.8B.

ninjasurfer1

I don't have any major objections to the british ensuring that their loans are safe. If this takes the form of an audit, so be it.

I do have a problem with them charging a commitment fee (administration fee if you like) on money that we might not borrow. They'll get their money plus interest back. That should be enough for them.

If anything, money not borrowed would reduce their exposure, so they should be happy, not penalising us for it.

nesf

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

I don't have any major objections to the british ensuring that their loans are safe. If this takes the form of an audit, so be it.

I do have a problem with them charging a commitment fee (administration fee if you like) on money that we might not borrow. They'll get their money plus interest back. That should be enough for them.

If anything, money not borrowed would reduce their exposure, so they should be happy, not penalising us for it.

Think of it this way. 1 billion put aside for us to borrow incurs a cost to the British Government in that it's 1 billion that can't be spent that year in case the Irish Government draws down on it. The fee is a means of us compensating the British Government for this opportunity cost which is reasonable.

Fratton Fred

nesf wrote: »

Think of it this way. 1 billion put aside for us to borrow incurs a cost to the British Government in that it's 1 billion that can't be spent that year in case the Irish Government draws down on it. The fee is a means of us compensating the British Government for this opportunity cost which is reasonable.

That's how I read it. The uk has to borrow as it is, so putting money aside means money borrowed replace it. There will be some form of financing charge for this which the Irish government is picking up.

Sand

Theres a way we can quickly prevent this national indignity...stop borrowing and get our house in order which is entirely within our own power.

I'd also echo Anymores comments - given no one in Ireland trusts the competence of the Irish civil service or the honesty of our politicians, why should anyone else?

Its also true that the Bank of England has deep doubts on the competence of ECB and its policy solutions to the crisis: "Providing liquidity can only be used to buy time. Right through this crisis, from the very beginning, an awful lot of people wanted to believe that it was a crisis of liquidity. It wasn't, and it isn't. And until we accept that, we will never find an answer to it. It was a crisis based on solvency ... initially financial institutions and now sovereigns.” Very true, Mr King, very true.

AlekSmart

sensibleken wrote: »

so is this whole 'loss of sovereignty' thing sinking in yet for people?

Sensibleken,I reckon that sunk in a long long time ago,most likely around the commencement of the "Premiership" and other assorted Mass Media campaigns to eradicate "sovereignity" as a concept.

This is about where our "Sovereign" State,Éire,can manage to secure enough funds to keep itself going.....we are simply not in a place where we can afford "Mouse that Roared" notions any longer.

later12

Sand wrote: »

Theres a way we can quickly prevent this national indignity...stop borrowing and get our house in order which is entirely within our own power.

Yeah sure, in an economy that exists in a vacuum that might work. Unfortunately, the option of living in a vacuum is not a viable one.

How can you be so sure that cutting the spending immediately would "prevent this national indignity"? Rapid fiscal tightening always reduces economic activity where confidence is low or falling.

What we need to do is to wean the economy off the public purse over a reasonable time frame whilst not pulling the rug out from under consumer and corporate confidence.

To that end, we need to try to replicate the economic policies of Canada, Sweden and Denmark in the early-mid 1990s when they increased their real GDP growth y-o-y, and simultaneously lowered respective public expenditures to close their fiscal deficits over a period of about 4 years. .

Of course it would be misleading to ignore the fact that their monetary policy helped them along significantly. Along with not living in a vacuum, being in control of our own monetary policy is another luxury (???) that is not available to us.

Godge

darkman2 wrote: »

I think I speak for most when I say we don't quite mind the EU digging in (id say most welcome it) but this would be a step too far. There are limits to how much our dignity is destroyed and having the British in particular examining our finances for a mere 3.5bn of our so-called bailout loans - that to me is just a step too far. And an awful lot of people would be very angry if British officials were walking into Government buildings in a Chopra like manner. Do they think we don't know their exposure to our banking system? You would almost think this was all charity from the goodness of their hearts.

Yes, I would be angry but not at Britain. I would be angry at Fianna Fail, the regulators and the bankers who have brought us to that sorry state as unfortunately beggars can't be choosers. We need the money and the Brits can charge us what they like and put what conditions they like. In the same position, we would do the same.

Sand

@Later10

Yeah sure, in an economy that exists in a vacuum that might work. Unfortunately, the option of living in a vacuum is not a viable one.

How can you be so sure that cutting the spending immediately would "prevent this national indignity"? Rapid fiscal tightening always reduces economic activity where confidence is low or falling.

What we need to do is to wean the economy off the public purse over a reasonable time frame whilst not pulling the rug out from under consumer and corporate confidence.

To that end, we need to try to replicate the economic policies of Canada, Sweden and Denmark in the early-mid 1990s when they increased their real GDP growth y-o-y, and simultaneously lowered respective public expenditures to close their fiscal deficits over a period of about 4 years. .

Of course it would be misleading to ignore the fact that their monetary policy helped them along significantly. Along with not living in a vacuum, being in control of our own monetary policy is another luxury (???) that is not available to us.

Youre talking about our options as if we had some. We dont - we need to regain control over our destiny and that means eliminating the deficit ASAP. The need to reduce the deficit isnt an academic point, or an attempt to sabotage national growth. Its the overriding national concern - regaining control over our own finances, our own government and our own future. Until we eliminate the deficit, regardless of who is elected they will have to take orders from the ECB, the EU, and the IMF and Ireland will have to endure repeated lecturing from others.

As for the slow and steady gradualist progression, not undermining consumer confidence...I really, really dont know where to start. Its exactly because of the glacial progress in addressing the deficit and the kicking so many problems into the long grass to deal with tommorrow that confidence is so low. People are too worried about what bad news the next budget, or the next NAMA review or the next banking investigation will bring and weve got another at least another 10 years of fears to go.

Already, theres dark mutterings over the scale of the cutbacks in next years budget. And the year after that. And the year after that. And the year after that. Thats the effects of "slow and steady" when it comes to confidence in the economy. How can there be any consumer confidence in an enviroment where the future holds as yet undetermined tax hikes, wage cuts, spending cuts and ever increasing interest on debt? Lets not forget that it was the "slow and steady" approach to the banks that led us from a couple of minor bank failure to an inevitable sovereign default. Sometimes decisive and rapid action is the safest course - look at Iceland.

later12

Sand wrote: »

Youre talking about our options as if we had some. We dont - we need to regain control over our destiny and that means eliminating the deficit ASAP.

Well before some posters break out into The Hebrew Slaves' Chorus in agreement with you, I'd like to disagree there actually. We have plenty of options, some of them more appropriate than others. The troika have been pretty receptive to any changes that have been made to the MOUs as long as they were done quid pro quo.
Also, I'm afraid you credit the European authorities with far too much dominion. If you think I'm wrong, take a look at Greece and the latitude that they have been afforded. The country is sitting on a gold mine with a €300bn privatisation potential, and the Europeans are too scared to insist that the Greeks make any real use of it.
I don't believe for a moment that Europe is wearing trousers, let alone dressing itself. I think Ireland has far greater scope than is presently admitted.

The Europeans, in theory, only have one stick up their sleeve, and that is the threat of ending their funding for the Irish banks via the ECS facilities. It is not a credible threat. Do you believe it is?

The need to reduce the deficit isnt an academic point, or an attempt to sabotage national growth. Its the overriding national concern - regaining control over our own finances, our own government and our own future.

Nobody is denying the need to reduce the deficit, but the question is how quickly it is done. I don't see any compelling argument why it needs to be done overnight when doing so would harm both Ireland and exacerbate the European crisis, whose resolution is certainly in our best interests, no matter what position one might take.

Until we eliminate the deficit, regardless of who is elected they will have to take orders from the ECB, the EU, and the IMF and Ireland will have to endure repeated lecturing from others.

Who cares? I would be quite happy for the oversight of the IMF and the European authorities to be a permanent arrangement. There have been perhaps two administrations in the 90 year history of the state worthy of even a vaguely praiseworthy economic history essay.
As for 'taking orders' as a matter of sovereignty, it has always been so. For as long as Ireland has been accessing credit, it has had to meet certain targets in order to maintain confidence of its sovereign investors - if not, we would find ourselves cut off from the markets. Ireland didn't make the decision, in the late 1980s, to tackle our debt problem, that was a decision the markets made for us. The only difference with the troika is that they have formalised the arrangement in writing.

Already, theres dark mutterings over the scale of the cutbacks in next years budget. And the year after that. And the year after that. And the year after that. Thats the effects of "slow and steady" when it comes to confidence in the economy. How can there be any consumer confidence in an enviroment where the future holds as yet undetermined tax hikes, wage cuts, spending cuts and ever increasing interest on debt?

Oh yes, because nothing says consumer confidence like destroying a banking system, defaulting on public debt, and possibly leaving a monetary union as casually as one might walk from one hostelry to the other on a Friday afternoon.

We don't actually need to guess this, because consumer sentiment - taking into account both current perceptions and future expectations over the next 12 months - did actually rise since the crisis hit and the banks were rescued. If economic activity behaves as is predicted, then it would be reasonable to expect further improvements in consumer sentiment.

Dannyboy83

later10 wrote: »

What we need to do is to wean the economy off the public purse over a reasonable time frame whilst not pulling the rug out from under consumer and corporate confidence.

To that end, we need to try to replicate the economic policies of Canada, Sweden and Denmark in the early-mid 1990s when they increased their real GDP growth y-o-y, and simultaneously lowered respective public expenditures to close their fiscal deficits over a period of about 4 years. .

How did they achieve this?

I'm very skeptical that we will able to close even half the required gap, given that we plan to increase taxes by €10 billion, by 2015.

I do think there is merit in what you say, just I honestly can't see how it is applicable to us, when we have the ratio of Cuts:Tax increases so badly out of sync.

I'm concerned that I'm still reading about substantial jobs losses in the papers every week. If we are not attractive enough for businesses who are here to stay, how are we going to attract new businesses (or encourage indigenous business)?

The current plan is to keep net expenditure fairly consistent at around €48 billion until 2015, while net tax income needs to increase by 33% to €44 billion. Surely this means that the state is going to consume even more resources, so rather than switching revenue streams, we are actually going even farther in the wrong direction?

later12

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

How did they achieve this?

I'm very skeptical that we will able to close even half the required gap, given that we plan to increase taxes by €10 billion, by 2015.

The decision to increase taxes and leave expenditure reasonably quite intact is a worrying development, in my opinion. A significant feature of those countries who brought about economic growth after running serious deficits was that they cut public expenditure, and did not enforce any significant tax increases.

Here is how the situation developed in Canada, Sweden and New Zealand



On Canada, I think it would be fair to sum up the adjustment by describing it as a dramatic cut (beginning in 1995) in social welfare transfer spending, the duration of social welfare programs, increasing pension contributions, and cuts to the regions' allowances. There were no tax increases, or certainly none that were of any significance. In fact, when the fiscal situation started to improve, taxes were cut.

In the case of Sweden (below) reforms again included cuts to social welfare programs, they also massively overhauled the pension system, which had been a significant problem in Sweden. There were more tax increases than there had been in Canada, but again the main focus was on cuts to public expenditure.



There are other examples too where public expenditure was cut and the deficit was closed, and the economy in question grew.

There are simply too many examples for us to ignore.

I do think there is merit in what you say, just I honestly can't see how it is applicable to us, when we have the ratio of Cuts:Tax increases so badly out of sync.

I agree. The Government's policy is not in line with what has been observed to work internationally. The following is a Harvard paper on how cuts to public expenditure are more likely to be of benefit to reducing the deficit and bringing about growth of GDP than increases in taxation would be.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/Large%2Bchanges%2Bin%2Bfiscal%2Bpolicy_October_2009.pdf

And yet, as you have pointed out, the government intends to keep net expenditure around the €48bn mark while increasing income from taxes.

I do believe that we will see a small increase in GDP, I think it is an inevitability. But I am not defending the present plan by any means. Neither cutting spending overnight, nor maintaining spending at present levels is reasonable, nor does it reflect what a lot of people might consider 'best practice' in terms of how fiscal adjustments were executed in the likes of Canada and Scandanavia in the 1990s.

Sand

@Later10

Well before some posters break out into The Hebrew Slaves' Chorus in agreement with you..

We have plenty of options, some of them more appropriate than others. The troika have been pretty receptive to any changes that have been made to the MOUs as long as they were done quid pro quo.

Yes, yes - so long as we pay them their money they couldnt care less what cuts or tax hikes we make to do so. We are not talking about how fiscal tightening is achieved, we are talking about how rapidly it is achieved.

If you think I'm wrong, take a look at Greece and the latitude that they have been afforded. The country is sitting on a gold mine with a €300bn privatisation potential, and the Europeans are too scared to insist that the Greeks make any real use of it.

Yes, yes - as I've pointed out numberous times we, and the Greeks, have a far stronger negotiating positions than others - including yourself - presume. The Europeans are scared ****less of any default, and its a testment to the incompetence and forelock tugging deference of our political masters that they havent even been able to negotiate a less than stupid interest rate on our "bailout", let alone a bailout worth dropping the " " for when you consider how many cards we have to play.

I don't believe for a moment that Europe is wearing trousers, let alone dressing itself. I think Ireland has far greater scope than is presently admitted.

Right - what have you done with Later10? How did you get his login details? I'm going to need proof of life or I'm calling the Gardai. Post something like: "Anglo-Irish was a well run bank with a strong risk management culture."

The Europeans, in theory, only have one stick up their sleeve, and that is the threat of ending their funding for the Irish banks via the ECS facilities. It is not a credible threat. Do you believe it is?

I dont - but you do. You've always been all too ready to presume Ireland has no cards and the ECB/EU are doing us a favour by even talking to us.

Despite your sudden and amusing conversion to realism regarding our potential negotiating strength, its worth noting it doesnt change reality - our only option is to cut the deficit ASAP. Regardless of default being inevitable (and it is) or not , we have to cut the deficit.

I don't see any compelling argument why it needs to be done overnight when doing so would harm both Ireland

How does it harm Ireland to reduce our dependance on unsustainable borrowing, restore confidence in the wider economy and to regain national sovereignty?

The only people harmed are unsustainable sectors of the economy which are currently being sustained by strangling the actually productive economy.

This "slow and steady" Keynsian-lite narrative, in a tiny open economy, is just self serving crap from insiders who know the gravy train is coming to an end and who are trying to keep the party going whilst wrapping the flag around themselves.

Who cares? I would be quite happy for the oversight of the IMF and the European authorities to be a permanent arrangement.

I care - I live in Ireland, not Trichetland. Maybe you wake up in the morning and think you live in the European Union, but when it comes to paying the bills Mr Trichet will be quick to remind you that you live in Ireland, and theres no such thing as the European Union.

The IMF might be a realistic and helpful influence on achieving fiscal stability in Ireland but the ECB is definitely a malign influence - awful polices, poorly executed. Theres no value to exchanging awful national government for appaling supranational government - at least we have more chance of reforming national government.

Though its nice of you to confirm what team youre playing for.

Oh yes, because nothing says consumer confidence like destroying a banking system, defaulting on public debt, and possibly leaving a monetary union as casually as one might walk from one hostelry to the other on a Friday afternoon.

Wake up - the banking system is destroyed, and the stubborn refusal to accept that is destroying the country, and threatening to destroy the EU. Wake up.

And I dont argue for leaving the monetary union. That would be a stupid policy, and unworkable.

We don't actually need to guess this, because consumer sentiment - taking into account both current perceptions and future expectations over the next 12 months - did actually rise since the crisis hit and the banks were rescued. If economic activity behaves as is predicted, then it would be reasonable to expect further improvements in consumer sentiment.

Have you, mayhap, seen the quotes in my sig? Correlate the date in the Brian Cowen (remember him?) quote with your graph.

later12

Sand wrote: »

Yes, yes - so long as we pay them their money they couldnt care less what cuts or tax hikes we make to do so. We are not talking about how fiscal tightening is achieved, we are talking about how rapidly it is achieved.

Ah, so you do agree then that we do have options. Remember the quote I am responding to is this one

Originally Posted by Sand
Youre talking about our options as if we had some. We dont - we need to regain control over our destiny and that means eliminating the deficit ASAP.

So presuming we both agree that the country does have options when it comes to how it approaches closing its deficit, we can get to the question of the time frame. The question of how rapidly we achieve our cuts is also an option, since as you will recall we were given an extra year to pull in the deficit last November.
I have no doubt that if we now wanted to accelerate that and quicken the pace of closing the deficit (should it be economically viable to do so) then the European authorities would have no business telling us not to, really.

The European authorities can inhibit our spending in the same way that the markets can, but they have no mechanism to make the exchequer spend. So we do have options, certainly, we are as much in control of our 'sovereignty' as we were when we were going to market.

Yes, yes - as I've pointed out numberous times we, and the Greeks, have a far stronger negotiating positions than others - including yourself - presume.

Well I wouldn't overstate our negotiating hand, but yes, it is a strong one. Again this calls into question your own curious suggestion that Ireland has no options.

If Ireland has a stick, then why are you implying that the Europeans can't be struck?

I dont - but you do. You've always been all too ready to presume Ireland has no cards and the ECB/EU are doing us a favour by even talking to us.

No, I can remember being critical of the interest rates achieved on the Irish bailout, for example. Also, as the crisis deepens in Europe, Ireland's ability to leverage its influence increases. I wouldn't say my opinion has changed dramatically, but Ireland's bargaining position has certainly improved.

However, I don't believe that anybody is impressed by testosterone. Not the markets, and not European governments. The Eurozone itself is one massive monument to the fact that economic decisions are not always made in accordance with best economic principles; politics frequently exhibits an unfortunate tendency to meddle with economics, and politicians tend to dislike displays of testosterone.

So regardless of the economic strength of of the Irish argument, clearly politics can trump economics. Therefore, I think being overly aggressive is not always in our interest.

Despite your sudden and amusing conversion to realism regarding our potential negotiating strength, its worth noting it doesnt change reality - our only option is to cut the deficit ASAP. Regardless of default being inevitable (and it is) or not , we have to cut the deficit.

We do, but I'm not really seeing any evidence that doing so overnight would help us to a greater degree than cutting public expenditure gradually over a 4 year period while accelerating growth elsewhere in the productive economy.

I'm not really sure what it is that leads you to believe in an overnight cut?

How does it harm Ireland to reduce our dependance on unsustainable borrowing, restore confidence in the wider economy and to regain national sovereignty?

First of all, that's a pretty dodgy suggestion that national sovereignty is correlated with an improved economic landscape.

Second of all, I don't see a reason to believe that consumer confidence would improve. The idea that we could cut billions out of the economy on a Friday evening, and shoppers would be out in greater numbers on Monday morning is a startling suggestion.

The awkward moment when you go to use the ATM after an Irish default.

The only people harmed are unsustainable sectors of the economy which are currently being sustained by strangling the actually productive economy.

But you appear to think that the productive economy would survive as is. No job, and no industry, is inherently productive. It is productive because of its relations with other productive and non-productive economic actors who consume. The whole point about cutting expenditure over a slightly extended period is to get more productive actors trading amongst one another in order that one might either minimise the hit on the economy, or actually cause the productive economy to grow.

The IMF might be a realistic and helpful influence on achieving fiscal stability in Ireland but the ECB is definitely a malign influence - awful polices, poorly executed.

Oh no, the ECB has the most wonderful policies for a central bank. I am convinced there is not one central bank in the entire world who can feel its efficiency is superior to that of the Deutsche Bundesbank ECB.

But the ECB is not supposed to care about Ireland. Neither is it supposed to care about Greece, nor France, nor Italy, nor Germany - nor does it, evidently. The only thing the ECB really cares about is price stability on an aggregate level. That's what it was established for. That was all it has ever been told to do. When it comes to achieving its aims, as laid out in the Treaties, the ECB has the most perfectly correct policies.

The bad guy, in that respect, is not the ECB; it is the member states who put it there.

HellFireClub

who the fug wrote: »

Dignity after 10 years of Bertie as leader , you be having a giraffe


As a UK taxpayer glad to see the British Treasury is looking after things

In fairness, if you come to me for a loan of 10K and you want 5k of that immediately and you want an option on the remaining 5K (as in an option to borrow that as well if you so wish), then I have to keep that 5K reserved there for you, as opposed to doing something else there with it.

And why wouldn't I charge you for that, especially when I know that nobody else will lend you the 10K?!? I'd consider it generous of me to give you access to the money at all, when I know you haven't got your house in order and have been blatently píssing your money around all over the place for the last 15 years or so?!?!?!?

:D