Ireland, sold down the Swanee

Going Forward

With the IMF calling for countries to cede more soveirignty, what exactly is in it for the IMF?

Does anyone have any idea of how much soveirignty it would like to control, as its beginning to look as we really dont need a government in situ here at all, (at least until we pay back the few bob we got a lend of) what with Enda now saying that his previous promises regarding a freeze on taxes etc will now have to be signed off by the troika?

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

With the IMF calling for countries to cede more soveirignty, what exactly is in it for the IMF?

Does anyone have any idea of how much soveirignty it would like to control...?

Whoah, back up. The implication here is that the IMF is calling for countries to cede sovereignty to the IMF. Before there's any further discussion on the topic, I think that one calls for a great big [citation needed].

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

Whoah, back up. The implication here is that the IMF is calling for countries to cede sovereignty to the IMF. Before there's any further discussion on the topic, I think that one calls for a great big [citation needed].

"The IMF told euro zone countries they must be prepared to give up some sovereignty over economic and financial affairs as part of a drive to solve the euro area debt crisis.

The IMF said "countries must stand ready to sacrifice some policy autonomy for the common European good", and must push ahead with greater integration of economic and budgetary policies."
-RTE NEWS

and

"By becoming members of the Fund, they have accepted these obligations and, to that extent,
limited their monetary sovereignty. In exchange they have received certain benefits. One of
them is that other members too have agreed to limit their sovereignty for the sake of
international cooperation and for the common good of all. Another benefit is that in times of
crisis they will have access to financial assistance from the Fund if they meet the required
conditions.
As most countries are now members of the Fund, it may be said that full monetary
sovereignty exists only in those few countries that are not members of the Fund." - IMF

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

"The IMF told euro zone countries they must be prepared to give up some sovereignty over economic and financial affairs as part of a drive to solve the euro area debt crisis.

The IMF said "countries must stand ready to sacrifice some policy autonomy for the common European good", and must push ahead with greater integration of economic and budgetary policies."
-RTE NEWS

That's the IMF telling Eurozone countries that they can't expect to reap the benefits of a common currency without ceding some sovereignty over fiscal issues to the EU. Which is pretty much a truism, as much as some people like to think that it's possible to be a member of something that only confers benefits but that carries no obligations.

It doesn't make any reference to ceding more sovereignty to the IMF.

"By becoming members of the Fund, they have accepted these obligations and, to that extent,
limited their monetary sovereignty. In exchange they have received certain benefits. One of
them is that other members too have agreed to limit their sovereignty for the sake of
international cooperation and for the common good of all. Another benefit is that in times of
crisis they will have access to financial assistance from the Fund if they meet the required
conditions.
As most countries are now members of the Fund, it may be said that full monetary
sovereignty exists only in those few countries that are not members of the Fund." - IMF

That's the IMF pointing out something similar in terms of IMF membership - you can't expect to only reap benefits without having any obligations.

It doesn't make any reference to ceding more sovereignty to the IMF.

So you still haven't supported the thesis that the IMF wants more sovereignty ceded to it. Perhaps that's not your problem, though? Perhaps you have an issue with any sovereignty ever being yielded, ever - in which case you presumably have an issue with our government signing up to any international treaties of any kind?

V_Moth

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the IMF telling Eurozone countries that they can't expect to reap the benefits of a common currency without ceding some sovereignty over fiscal issues to the EU. Which is pretty much....

Very true all of dat. Unfortunately the politicians in Ireland never consulted their electorate whether they wanted to cede any sovereignty and have quietly done so behind their backs.

oscarBravo

V_Moth wrote: »

Very true all of dat. Unfortunately the politicians in Ireland never consulted their electorate whether they wanted to cede any sovereignty and have quietly done so behind their backs.

Sneaky of them, holding all those referendums behind our backs.

steelcityblues

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sneaky of them, holding all those referendums behind our backs.

You are one of these people that if, say, George W Bush or Barack Obama, held a press conference in front of the whole media, and admitted to pre-planning 9/11 or a similar large scale attack, you would still be here demanding 'evidence' for an argument.

There are none more blind than those who don't want to notice the obvious.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sneaky of them, holding all those referendums behind our backs.

I thought so, particularly the one which resulted in every man, woman and child in this banana republic ended up owing the IMF E33,000 each.

V_Moth

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sneaky of them, holding all those referendums behind our backs.

I specifically did not mention Lisbon I and II as all of the main political parties focused on side issues and fear. Unfortunately at the time, none had the balls to stand up and explain in simple terms how exactly it would change Ireland's status within Europe.

The latter is also one of the main reasons why the EU is in the mess that it is at the moment. Neither Merkel, Sarkozy or AN Other have stood up and engaged with their electorate on the future of the Euro (either for or against). At the moment, all we are getting is waffle and crisis...

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the IMF telling Eurozone countries that they can't expect to reap the benefits of a common currency without ceding some sovereignty over fiscal issues to the EU. Which is pretty much a truism, as much as some people like to think that it's possible to be a member of something that only confers benefits but that carries no obligations.

It doesn't make any reference to ceding more sovereignty to the IMF. That's the IMF pointing out something similar in terms of IMF membership - you can't expect to only reap benefits without having any obligations.

It doesn't make any reference to ceding more sovereignty to the IMF.

So you still haven't supported the thesis that the IMF wants more sovereignty ceded to it. Perhaps that's not your problem, though? Perhaps you have an issue with any sovereignty ever being yielded, ever - in which case you presumably have an issue with our government signing up to any international treaties of any kind?

Its funny, in your first reply to this thread you jumped in and queried the IMF's requirements for ANY sovereignty: "Whoah, back up. The implication here is that the IMF is calling for countries to cede sovereignty to the IMF. Before there's any further discussion on the topic, I think that one calls for a great big [citation needed]."

When you get it you nit-pick further.

The IMF's statement was stating the already known, so why did the bother?
Was it just a gentle reminder of their terms and conditions or a precursor for more austerity and direct control? Obviously the second.

When do the conditions of a bank loan ever entail a new externally controlled way of life, bringing with it a new moral code?

When the filthy money comes from the International Monetary Fund, the lender of last resort, who can call the shots as it sees fit.

The puppet government in situ, content with lumbering each man, woman and child in this country with a debt of e33,000 each have already ceded so much control that little can be left now anyway, other than to have an official from the IMF sit in on each county and city council meeting.

And just in case there is any confusion, I have not yet heard an explanation (or an apology for that matter) for how I am now responsible for the speculative debts of a handful of greedy capitalist incompetents in this country, turning private debt into communal debt at will whenever it suits.

oscarBravo

steelcityblues wrote: »

You are one of these people that if, say, George W Bush or Barack Obama, held a press conference in front of the whole media, and admitted to pre-planning 9/11 or a similar large scale attack, you would still be here demanding 'evidence' for an argument.

Did you have anything to contribute to the discussion beyond a rather childish ad hominem dig?

Going Forward wrote: »

I thought so, particularly the one which resulted in every man, woman and child in this banana republic ended up owing the IMF E33,000 each.

You should write political speeches for the SWP. Snappy little soundbytes, zero content.

We owe the IMF money because we built an economy on a property ponzi scheme. That economy was built by an elected government who told the people that they could have a high-service, low-tax economy forever by selling each other houses at ridiculously inflated prices; the people chose to believe that and rewarded the idiot government with repeated re-election.

So, what's the problem? The fact that we were lent the money to prop up our bankrupt economy, or the fact that it was the IMF that lent it to us? Because it couldn't be the fact that we were too stupid as a nation to elect a government that would build a real economy, could it? No, it's easier to carp about loss of sovereignty and the evil IMF and blah blah friggin blah all day long.

V_Moth wrote: »

I specifically did not mention Lisbon I and II as all of the main political parties focused on side issues and fear. Unfortunately at the time, none had the balls to stand up and explain in simple terms how exactly it would change Ireland's status within Europe.

The latter is also one of the main reasons why the EU is in the mess that it is at the moment. Neither Merkel, Sarkozy or AN Other have stood up and engaged with their electorate on the future of the Euro (either for or against). At the moment, all we are getting is waffle and crisis...

I really wish I knew what "standing up and engaging with the electorate" meant outside of SWP-esque soundbyteology, I really do.

Going Forward wrote: »

Its funny, in your first reply to this thread you jumped in and queried the IMF's requirements for ANY sovereignty

No, I didn't. Membership of an international organisation implies concession of sovereignty - that's a truism. Maybe you didn't know that and were arguing from ignorance to start with, but assuming you did, then your opening post could only be construed as claiming that the IMF is asking its members to concede more sovereignty, which is the idea that I challenged.

So, which is it? Are you naive enough to believe that you can join an international organisation with no implications whatsoever for sovereignty, or were you claiming that the IMF is asking its members to cede further sovereignty to it?

The IMF's statement was stating the already known, so why did the bother?
Was it just a gentle reminder of their terms and conditions or a precursor for more austerity and direct control? Obviously the second.

What's obvious to someone who has fully made up his mind about an issue isn't necessarily obvious to someone who keeps an open mind.

When the filthy money comes from the International Monetary Fund, the lender of last resort, who can call the shots as it sees fit.

Ah, "filthy money" - a phrase that speaks volumes about the open-mindedness of the person who uses it.

Tell me: would you have preferred if the IMF had kept its filthy money to itself, and the Irish government had retained the sovereignty to let the banking system collapse, lay off all the teachers and gardai, stop paying social welfare?

I mean, sovereignty (whatever it is you mean by that exactly) beats the hell out of putting food on the table, doesn't it?

The puppet government...

...another infallible indicator of an open mind...

...in situ, content with lumbering each man, woman and child in this country with a debt of e33,000 each have already ceded so much control that little can be left now anyway, other than to have an official from the IMF sit in on each county and city council meeting.

Woo, hyperbole as well! Never mind writing speeches for the SWP, you should be standing for election! You'd be a shoo-in.

And just in case there is any confusion, I have not yet heard an explanation (or an apology for that matter) for how I am now responsible for the speculative debts of a handful of greedy capitalist incompetents in this country, turning private debt into communal debt at will whenever it suits.

I'm guessing you missed the bit where the vast, vast majority of the debt this country has incurred was incurred the good old-fashioned way: spending money that we're not taking in.

But there I go, introducing facts into a rant. How stupid of me.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did you have anything to contribute to the discussion beyond a rather childish ad hominem dig?

You should write political speeches for the SWP. Snappy little soundbytes, zero content.

We owe the IMF money because we built an economy on a property ponzi scheme. That economy was built by an elected government who told the people that they could have a high-service, low-tax economy forever by selling each other houses at ridiculously inflated prices; the people chose to believe that and rewarded the idiot government with repeated re-election.

So, what's the problem? The fact that we were lent the money to prop up our bankrupt economy, or the fact that it was the IMF that lent it to us? Because it couldn't be the fact that we were too stupid as a nation to elect a government that would build a real economy, could it? No, it's easier to carp about loss of sovereignty and the evil IMF and blah blah friggin blah all day long.

I really wish I knew what "standing up and engaging with the electorate" meant outside of SWP-esque soundbyteology, I really do.

No, I didn't. Membership of an international organisation implies concession of sovereignty - that's a truism. Maybe you didn't know that and were arguing from ignorance to start with, but assuming you did, then your opening post could only be construed as claiming that the IMF is asking its members to concede more sovereignty, which is the idea that I challenged.

So, which is it? Are you naive enough to believe that you can join an international organisation with no implications whatsoever for sovereignty, or were you claiming that the IMF is asking its members to cede further sovereignty to it? What's obvious to someone who has fully made up his mind about an issue isn't necessarily obvious to someone who keeps an open mind. Ah, "filthy money" - a phrase that speaks volumes about the open-mindedness of the person who uses it.

Tell me: would you have preferred if the IMF had kept its filthy money to itself, and the Irish government had retained the sovereignty to let the banking system collapse, lay off all the teachers and gardai, stop paying social welfare?

I mean, sovereignty (whatever it is you mean by that exactly) beats the hell out of putting food on the table, doesn't it? ...another infallible indicator of an open mind... Woo, hyperbole as well! Never mind writing speeches for the SWP, you should be standing for election! You'd be a shoo-in. I'm guessing you missed the bit where the vast, vast majority of the debt this country has incurred was incurred the good old-fashioned way: spending money that we're not taking in.

But there I go, introducing facts into a rant. How stupid of me.

The history lesson is not required.

I, nor the majority of people I know did not screw up this economy, it was done by those who should have known better- the trained, qualified ones, people who were on bonuses, whether they were the teller in the local bank competing with their colleague in the next booth to sign up more loans today to earn more commission; people with an insatiable greed for "filthy money" -Quinn for example, those who took out multiple mortgages, and those so-called professionals who were in a position to actually see what was happening but failed to intervene- Neary and his office.

As I have written before, if the banks (who were the professionals in every one of their transactions "the qualified ones" ) were stupid enough to throw multiples of people's incomes at them for mortgages surely someone at the helm in these banks knew from a very very early stage that this would end badly.

Whether you like it or not the figures I quoted are correct and are not sensationalist. You might be happy with your e33,ooo recently bestowed personal debt, I'm not.

The IMF/EU bailout loan is from one set of elite bankers to sort out another set of elite bankers.

Gambled and ill-won money in my opinion is "filthy money" particularly when it is gambled by Quinn and others or won by someone in a bookies shop.

But I havent been asked to cough up for the guy in the bookies shop.

So again, apart from the profit on the bailout whats in it for the IMF?

Why did they come out with the reminder of their terms and conditions if its accepted that countries have to forfeit some sovereignity anyway to avail of their generosity?

Its just to de-sensitize us for further austerity measures and to get us to go easy on the puppet government and to stop us from rioting in the streets.

Or is it an attempt to get desperate European governments an excuse to start toying with the idea of central budgetary control?

johnners2981

oscarBravo wrote: »

We owe the IMF money because we built an economy on a property ponzi scheme. That economy was built by an elected government who told the people that they could have a high-service, low-tax economy forever by selling each other houses at ridiculously inflated prices; the people chose to believe that and rewarded the idiot government with repeated re-election.

So, what's the problem? The fact that we were lent the money to prop up our bankrupt economy, or the fact that it was the IMF that lent it to us? Because it couldn't be the fact that we were too stupid as a nation to elect a government that would build a real economy, could it? No, it's easier to carp about loss of sovereignty and the evil IMF and blah blah friggin blah all day long.

Why are you saying we? I know I'm innocent of those charges. But here I am stuck in this mess along with everyone else.
So what can the ordinary person do to resolve all this?

View

Going Forward wrote: »

I thought so, particularly the one which resulted in every man, woman and child in this banana republic ended up owing the IMF E33,000 each.

This wasn't as a result of any referendum decision.

Rather, we have this debt as a result of the decisions made by our democratically elected governments (both by their actions and inactions) - in other words as a result of our sovereignty being exercised by us.

The fact that you or I may personally disagree from time to time with how our democratically elected governments exercised our sovereignty doesn't alter how they did so.

Scofflaw

V_Moth wrote: »

I specifically did not mention Lisbon I and II as all of the main political parties focused on side issues and fear. Unfortunately at the time, none had the balls to stand up and explain in simple terms how exactly it would change Ireland's status within Europe.

While the 'official' Yes side hardly contributed much of value to the Lisbon debate, it can hardly be said that they were doing anything other than copying the successful use of side issues and fear by the 'official' No side.

V_Moth wrote: »

The latter is also one of the main reasons why the EU is in the mess that it is at the moment. Neither Merkel, Sarkozy or AN Other have stood up and engaged with their electorate on the future of the Euro (either for or against). At the moment, all we are getting is waffle and crisis...

I'd agree with that, up to a point, limited only because I think one could say that there's probably more engagement on the question in Germany, even if there's no particular vision there. To be fair to our government, they seem to have a fair amount of vision in respect of where Ireland fits (very much inside the euro, whatever happens to Greece or the others), but they're not exactly strong on engagement with the public about it. Presumably they're taking it as read that their election gives them the mandate to act on their pro-euro views, which, again being fair, it does, even if it doesn't excuse them from engagement.

cordially,
Scofflaw