EU Referendum Needed - Taoiseach admits

Atilathehun

So, according to our own Dear Leader, we may have to hold another referendum on the EU:D
So what does it mean?
1. We get a chance to tell the lot of them in Brussels to go fcuk off:D

2. We get the chance to put one BIG, BIG, BIG, begging bowl on the table, and get them to fill it to overflowing, with tax payers euros from Fritz.

Pity Albert Reynolds isnt around to organise the whiparound in Brussels:P

http://www.independent.ie/business/european/kenny-admits-we-may-have-to-hold-another-eu-referendum-2917791.html

Kenny admits we may have to hold another EU referendum
Thursday October 27 2011
IRELAND was praised by Germany last night as Taoiseach Enda Kenny conceded that he may have to hold another referendum to approve new changes to European treaties.
The rare praise for Ireland from Chancellor Angela Merkel in a speech in the Berlin parliament came as she sought to persuade her own followers that helping European countries could work. It appeared to show that relations between Berlin and Dublin are thawing further.
"Ireland -- more than anywhere -- is once again on a good course," Ms Merkel said during an epic battle in the Bundestag, where she won backing to negotiate changes to the European bailout funds.
Her comments will be music to Mr Kenny's ears as he seeks to separate Ireland and Greece in the minds of investors, other European leaders and the voters here.
Earlier, the Taoiseach had been forced to admit to the Dail that he now believed some of the changes agreed over the past few days could require another referendum here -- something that could prove a headache for the Government as the electorate struggles with further austerity.
He said: "In regard to the discussions I heard on Sunday and in which I participated, 90pc (of the proposed measures) can be dealt with without any treaty change," he told TDs.
Mr Kenny said it had been agreed that the eurozone would look at the governance of the way it does its business and would report back in December about the possibility of limited treaty change.
"I stress limited treaty change," he added.
Bailout
Just a few days ago, he had told the Dail he did not see the need for a fresh referendum.
When the Taoiseach arrived in Brussels yesterday, he dampened down hopes that a fully fleshed-out scheme would emerge, promising instead a clear road map.
He said he hoped the talks would conclude with "a clear intent" on how leaders would tackle the euro debt crisis. There had been "some progress" since Sunday, he said.
In pragmatic language, Mr Kenny spelled out the line-by-line negotiations that are currently under way.
He added: "Clearly, leaders will have their own points of view, but the important thing is that the full flexibility of the facilities already approved will bring certainty and certainty of intent for everybody."
Ahead of the talks, the Government softened its attitude on issues dear to the German chancellor and her Dutch counterpart, including enhanced scrutiny of national budgets by the European Commission and other countries.
Ireland is believed to have backed a deal that will see EU President Herman Von Rompouy review the German wish list, with a view to changing the Lisbon Treaty if other leaders accept the conclusion.
For its part, Germany appears to have conceded that European Central Bank will be needed to battle the debt crisis for some time to come.
The Taoiseach's main objective is to secure backing for a deal that lets Ireland make use of a souped-up bailout as the country moves out of the current bailout programme.
Progress on making the bailout fund more flexible, including by guaranteeing the bonds of governments, is seen as crucial.
Brendan Keenan
- Donal O'Donovan in Brussels
Irish Independent

ArmaniJeanss

Fairly sure there won't be another referendum - sure weren't we told by the No campaign that if we passed Lisbon II that we were signing away our rights to have any future referendums, giving full power to Europe to decide things without needing to go back to the people.

On a serious note, hopefully rather than your 1,2 options we'll pick option 3...reach a consensus decision after mature discussion of the facts.

_Kaiser_

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

On a serious note, hopefully rather than your 1,2 options we'll pick option 3...reach a consensus decision after mature discussion of the facts.

Does it matter? After all if we give them the "wrong" decision (very likely given the mood in the country at the moment), they'll just ask us to do it again till we get it "right" - like the schoolteachers most of them are!

andrew

Atilathehun wrote: »

So, according to our own Dear Leader, we may have to hold another referendum on the EU:D
So what does it mean?
1. We get a chance to tell the lot of them in Brussels to go fcuk off:D

2. We get the chance to put one BIG, BIG, BIG, begging bowl on the table, and get them to fill it to overflowing, with tax payers euros from Fritz.

Are you saying that it'd be possible to do both of these things at the same time?

meglome

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Does it matter? After all if we give them the "wrong" decision (very likely given the mood in the country at the moment), they'll just ask us to do it again till we get it "right" - like the schoolteachers most of them are!

It would be a refreshing change if we just voted on the things that would be actually in any proposed treaty. But no doubt Coir will be out with their usual bull.

I'm hoping that some time in the next 50 years the crying about the Lisbon treaty will stop.

Richard tea

im so looking forward to option 1 but it really depends on option 2. There will have to be a major incentive to get my vote:D

Sleepy

andrew wrote: »

Are you saying that it'd be possible to do both of these things at the same time?

Option 1 will most likely be promoted by the No campaign as the means to get Option 2.

meglome

Richard tea wrote: »

im so looking forward to option 1 but it really depends on option 2. There will have to be a major incentive to get my vote:D

If only they would pay for our infrastructure and bail us out if we ****ed up financially. Oh wait...

Richard tea

meglome wrote: »

If only they would pay for our infrastructure and bail us out if we ****ed up financially. Oh wait...

Oh megy megy meg meg. What you must realise is that I and alot of Irish people are running out of KY jelly very fast. If the all mighty and powerful EU wants another treaty passed, it had better supply a very big incentive ( along with all the great jobs we were supposed to get after lisbon 2 );)

sensibleken

AAAAAAGHHHH!

no no no not again. please not again!

View

Atilathehun wrote: »

So, according to our own Dear Leader, we may have to hold another referendum on the EU:D
So what does it mean?

It means we may need to hold a referendum depending on what changes are formally proposed for the EU Treaties depending on any constitutional impact - if any - those proposed changes could have. The "if any" being the really important bit as an EU Treaty change does not automatically have domestic constitutional impact.

View

sensibleken wrote: »

AAAAAAGHHHH!

no no no not again. please not again!

Well it is Halloween, so even if we vote Yes the first time, the government will hold six different referenda on it - that way when the referendum on the treaty after this next one comes around, you'll just beg for mercy at the prospect of having to vote on it.

ei.sdraob

But perhaps most significant was eurozone leaders' announcement that there will be tougher controls in future on the budgets of member countries, integration of taxation, and a whole new framework for running the eurozone, including a new leadership structure which will rival the decision-making mechanism of the wider European Union.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15474298

thats probably why there is now a need for referendum, the bit in bold is disturbing

Sand

IRELAND was praised by Germany last night as Taoiseach Enda Kenny conceded that he may have to hold another referendum to approve new changes to European treaties.
The rare praise for Ireland from Chancellor Angela Merkel in a speech in the Berlin parliament came as she sought to persuade her own followers that helping European countries could work. It appeared to show that relations between Berlin and Dublin are thawing further.
"Ireland -- more than anywhere -- is once again on a good course," Ms Merkel said

:rolleyes:

You can almost hear the tail thumping against the floor with excitement. They'll have us doing tricks next...

As for any referendum - a very straightforward decision needs to be made as to what is in Irelands interests and what is not in Irelands interests. If the last three years have taught us anything its that the interests of the ECB and core do not align with our interests hand in glove and they do not care about Irelands interests in any shape or form. They are very good at representing their own interests, we need to start representing our own.

djpbarry

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

On a serious note, hopefully rather than your 1,2 options we'll pick option 3...reach a consensus decision after mature discussion of the facts.

Does it matter?

Nice try, ArmaniJeanss. The opportunity to tell the EU to go **** itself is always going to trump mature decision-making at the moment.

Sand wrote: »

If the last three years have taught us anything its that the interests of the ECB and core do not align with our interests hand in glove and they do not care about Irelands interests in any shape or form. They are very good at representing their own interests, we need to start representing our own.

Well that would explain why Ireland were unable to renegotiate the terms of their bailout from the EU/IMF. Oh, wait now....

Here’s a novel idea. How about Ireland stops blaming the ECB for flooding the country with lots of cheap credit and instead accepts that the population (not the entire population, obviously) pissed all that money away instead of investing it wisely?

Ireland had an unprecedented opportunity to develop itself into whatever the hell it wanted. But Ireland ****ed it up. Spectacularly. Ain’t nobody’s fault but Ireland’s.

jmayo

Richard tea wrote: »

im so looking forward to option 1 but it really depends on option 2. There will have to be a major incentive to get my vote:D

That is going to be it.
Will a government agree to committ suicide by asking people to vote for a EU referendum unless they have some goodies to offer in exchange.

Sleepy wrote: »

Option 1 will most likely be promoted by the No campaign as the means to get Option 2.

And what is wrong with that.
It is called using your bargaining position.

The IFA showed how to do things at Lisbon 1.
The government, including that mare coughlan, had refused to stand up for Irish farming at trade talks until the IFA, etc reminded them that unless they got their thumb out of their asses they would advise a NO vote.
Lo and behold the government suddenly decided to stand up for Irish agricultural interests.

meglome wrote: »

If only they would pay for our infrastructure and bail us out if we ****ed up financially. Oh wait...

I love the way some people always potray it as them doing us a big favour rather than we are agreeing to sign away our future to keep their banks from failing.

djpbarry wrote: »

...
Here’s a novel idea. How about Ireland stops blaming the ECB for flooding the country with lots of cheap credit and instead accepts that the population (not the entire population, obviously) pissed all that money away instead of investing it wisely?

Ireland had an unprecedented opportunity to develop itself into whatever the hell it wanted. But Ireland ****ed it up. Spectacularly. Ain’t nobody’s fault but Ireland’s.

Yes there is no argument that a big chunk of the Irish people and the Irish government majorily screwed up, but lets not forget that it looks like we the Irish taxpayers were forced to repay private sector debt to other private sector entities in Europe.
Most of the Greek debts are soverign and were never private AFAIK.

What I will always remember is how the EU/ECB treated us, even offering a worse deal than the IMF and at the same time threatening us about our tax rates.

Come any referendum I will remember the threats from the likes of the little French corporal and the dyed hair git from Portugal.

sensibleken

jesus people. how have you made your mind up already. If this referendum involves a better deal, lower interest rates, better restructuring etc. would you still be against it because of the bailout?

I am against the bailout and am appauled by how the troika is behaving. but lets actually see what the question is first

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote:

Yes there is no argument that a big chunk of the Irish people and the Irish government majorily screwed up, but lets not forget that it looks like we the Irish taxpayers were forced to repay private sector debt to other private sector entities in Europe.

Let's not forget that you choose to believe that despite a complete lack of evidence.

regards,
Scofflaw

jank

Well we voted yes to joining the euro....a massive mistake that is shown now.

djpbarry

jank wrote: »

Well we voted yes to joining the euro....a massive mistake that is shown now.

People keep saying that, but I've yet to see anyone put forward a convincing argument as to why FF would not have encouraged a massive property boom in the absence of the euro.

sensibleken

djpbarry wrote: »

People keep saying that, but I've yet to see anyone put forward a convincing argument as to why FF would not have encouraged a massive property boom in the absence of the euro.

I would (and this is just off the top of my head) think that the tap of capital into irish banks and thus onto developers would not have been so out of control if we were outside the euro.

but who can say, thats an alternative time line. if we werent in the euro we could have been hit by a bus!

the question is, are the sacrifices neccesary to save it, worth it?

hatrickpatrick

andrew wrote: »

Are you saying that it'd be possible to do both of these things at the same time?

They've been blackmailing us for the last three years. Time, perhaps, to turn the tables?

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's not forget that you choose to believe that despite a complete lack of evidence.

regards,
Scofflaw

Are you denying that EU, France in particular, was one of the main parties which objected to burning bank bondholders?

Where are most of those bondholders, again...? :rolleyes:

Slydice

I can't wait to be bombarded with nonsense information from both sides and then even if we vote against what the government wants.

Vote Yes for Jobs!
Vote No or Ireland will magically not be Ireland!

Now, someone dictate how wrong and naive I am...

sensibleken

Slydice wrote: »

I can't wait to be bombarded with nonsense information from both sides and then even if we vote against what the government wants.

Vote Yes for Jobs!
Vote No or Ireland will magically not be Ireland!

Now, someone dictate how wrong and naive I am...

yup, nobody makes our job any easier by lieing to us

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's not forget that you choose to believe that despite a complete lack of evidence.

regards,
Scofflaw

Is it not correct that the Irish taxpayer is now responsible for private sector debts ?
Is it not correct that those private sector debts were run by our banking system when they lent out money, primarily to developers, but also to ordinary property buyers ?
Is it not correct that our banks originally sourced the funds from foreign banks and financial institutions ?
Is it not correct that the Irish taxpayers are now responsible for all the debts of Irish indigenous banking system ?

Did the ECB not state that bonds would have to be repaid and no banks would be allowed to go under ?

Did the IMF not present Ireland with a plan which would have involved a haircut of €30 billion on unguaranteed bonds and was that deal not shot down by US treasury secretary mr timothy getihner, great friend of Goldman Sachs ?
The only one to stand up for Ireland was supposedly UK chancellor George Osborne.

The ECB insisted on full repayment of bank bonds even though the IMF believed Ireland could not balance the books.
Hence we had the more stringent bailout terms from the ECB/EU rather than from the much dreaded IMF.
Some of us believe we were made an example of to get the Spanish and probably others to play ball and get their houses in order.

This position was spelt out by Catherine Day, secretary-general of the European Commission:

Speaking in Dublin yesterday, Ms Day said the commission supported a lowering of the interest rate for Ireland on its bailout loans and believed there were good prospects of this happening soon. It also supported a slower rate of deleveraging through the sale of State assets to raise money.

However, she held out little hope of bondholders sharing the burden of Ireland’s debt. “This is primarily for the ECB to decide. They are providing the liquidity to keep Irish banks going and they have all the means to prevail with their arguments.”

In other words pay the bondholders or else we pull the plug on Irish banks.

Call me cynical, but I don't tend to believe in the goodness of people or institutions like you.

Remember how you refused to believe the IMF were in town ?

But you go right ahead telling the rest of us how Eu/ECB/Europe are our great friends and we should be ever so grateful for getting shafted sans KY jelly.
I should say though, the number of people still listening to you is dwindling.

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote: »

Is it not correct that the Irish taxpayer is now responsible for private sector debts ?
Is it not correct that those private sector debts were run by our banking system when they lent out money, primarily to developers, but also to ordinary property buyers ?
Is it not correct that our banks originally sourced the funds from foreign banks and financial institutions ?
Is it not correct that the Irish taxpayers are now responsible for all the debts of Irish indigenous banking system ?

Did the ECB not state that bonds would have to be repaid and no banks would be allowed to go under ?

Did the IMF not present Ireland with a plan which would have involved a haircut of €30 billion on unguaranteed bonds and was that deal not shot down by US treasury secretary mr timothy getihner, great friend of Goldman Sachs ?
The only one to stand up for Ireland was supposedly UK chancellor George Osborne.

The ECB insisted on full repayment of bank bonds even though the IMF believed Ireland could not balance the books.
Hence we had the more stringent bailout terms from the ECB/EU rather than from the much dreaded IMF.
Some of us believe we were made an example of to get the Spanish and probably others to play ball and get their houses in order.

This position was spelt out by Catherine Day, secretary-general of the European Commission:

In other words pay the bondholders or else we pull the plug on Irish banks.

Call me cynical, but I don't tend to believe in the goodness of people or institutions like you.

And pardon me pointing it out, but absolutely nothing in what you posted there deals with the point I made. Your claim was that our banks were in hock to European private entities, for which you haven't offered any proof - instead what you've posted is a combination of innuendo and pointers to the likely real source of our banks foreign funding in the US and UK.

jmayo wrote: »

Remember how you refused to believe the IMF were in town ?

Er, no. I recall pointing out that speculation was speculation rather than fact, but it seems you still can't grasp that distinction.

jmayo wrote: »

But you go right ahead telling the rest of us how Eu/ECB/Europe are our great friends and we should be ever so grateful for getting shafted sans KY jelly.
I should say though, the number of people still listening to you is dwindling.

Is that you, Dev?

On the contrary, it used to be that I was one of very few people pointing out the complete lack of evidence for the whole "it was German and French banks wot dun it" story, but it seems that's far more widely appreciated now. All the evidence that has come out since I first started saying that the story didn't match the CBI records or the historic activities of the Irish banks - such as the bank stress test disclosures, the news of Geithner's intervention, the Killian report on Irish debt, statements by the German banks - has shown me to be right.

So I think you might mean that you've put your fingers more tightly in your ears and are singing more loudly. But hey, that's your prerogative!

regards,
Scofflaw

jmayo

Dear Scofflaw,

Lets take a little lookie at who are/were the bondholders in Anglo Irish bank.
On Oct 15 2010 these named appeared to hold Anglo-Irish bonds with a face-value of €4,034,756,880.



You will notice the company names with
GmbH/mbH/AG probably German, Austria or Switzerland, SA probably for Spanish, NV for Netherland/Belgium, SpA for Italy, AB for Sweden, etc.
Anyway most of the names like Nordea or EFG are giveaways.

Oh and lookie Goldman Sachs are in there.
Well wonders never ceases.
So yes Irish banks do indeed owe money to US and British insitutions.
BTW did I ever say they didn't ?

Regards,
A peed off Irish taxpayer (not EU lackie)

Sand

@DJPBarry

Well that would explain why Ireland were unable to renegotiate the terms of their bailout from the EU/IMF. Oh, wait now....

If you're referring to the interest rate reduction we have the much maligned Greeks to thank for that. We were the unwitting beneficiaries of their negotiations. So unwitting that Enda Kenny was forced to admit he didnt actually know what had been agreed in terms of Irelands interest rate reduction back in July.

If you want a true measure of Irelands negotiating wizadry, see how we are paying out on unguaranteed debt of a failed, dead bank at tax payer expense based on an unspoken and unwritten threat only.

Here’s a novel idea. How about Ireland stops blaming the ECB for flooding the country with lots of cheap credit and instead accepts that the population (not the entire population, obviously) pissed all that money away instead of investing it wisely?

Ireland had an unprecedented opportunity to develop itself into whatever the hell it wanted. But Ireland ****ed it up. Spectacularly. Ain’t nobody’s fault but Ireland’s.

Whose blaming them? I'm not even saying we should vote No just to spite the ECB, though its tempting.

I am saying that if anyone entertained any naive ideas that the EU institutions gave two ****s about Ireland, the Irish people or our problems its been underlined quite clearly that they do not. The constant message from Europe and the EU and our partners is that its our fault, our problem, our issue, and its up to us to sort it out. No help will be offered unless it can be clearly demonstrated it is in the interests of the people helping us.

Thats fine, its a great adult and mature view by our friends in Europe. I fully agree we shouldnt be emotive and feel sorry for our selves. Equally, we shouldnt be guilt tripped into stupid decisions - youre completely right that bad policies were pursued, entirely within the control of the Irish state. Guilt over that is not an excuse to continue making bad policies.

So when Ireland looks at this deal the question the voters need to ask of Merkel and Sarkozy is "Whats in it for us?" And no - being lent the money to pay off unguaranteed debt of failed, dead banks is not what is in it for Irish taxpayers.

Unless you count selling a suicidal person the rope to hang themselves with as an altruistic, selfless act.

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote: »

Dear Scofflaw,

Lets take a little lookie at who are/were the bondholders in Anglo Irish bank.
On Oct 15 2010 these named appeared to hold Anglo-Irish bonds with a face-value of €4,034,756,880.



You will notice the company names with
GmbH/mbH/AG probably German, Austria or Switzerland, SA probably for Spanish, NV for Netherland/Belgium, SpA for Italy, AB for Sweden, etc.
Anyway most of the names like Nordea or EFG are giveaways.

Oh and lookie Goldman Sachs are in there.
Well wonders never ceases.
So yes Irish banks do indeed owe money to US and British insitutions.
BTW did I ever say they didn't ?

Regards,
A peed off Irish taxpayer (not EU lackie)

Dear jmayo,

you may not have noticed that that list contains no Irish bondholders, and is a mix of senior and junior bondholders whose only distinction is that they're foreign.

In short, that "list of senior bondholders" is complete tosh, leaked for political purposes. It's been outed more than David Norris at this stage, but you're still swallowing it. More fool you for believing other people's propaganda uncritically.

So yes Irish banks do indeed owe money to US and British insitutions.
BTW did I ever say they didn't ?

You're much later to that claim than me, though, laddie.

regards,
Scofflaw

Uuuh Patsy

djpbarry wrote: »

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

On a serious note, hopefully rather than your 1,2 options we'll pick option 3...reach a consensus decision after mature discussion of the facts.

Does it matter?

Nice try, ArmaniJeanss. The opportunity to tell the EU to go **** itself is always going to trump mature decision-making at the moment.

Sand wrote: »

If the last three years have taught us anything its that the interests of the ECB and core do not align with our interests hand in glove and they do not care about Irelands interests in any shape or form. They are very good at representing their own interests, we need to start representing our own.

Well that would explain why Ireland were unable to renegotiate the terms of their bailout from the EU/IMF. Oh, wait now....

Here’s a novel idea. How about Ireland stops blaming the ECB for flooding the country with lots of cheap credit and instead accepts that the population (not the entire population, obviously) pissed all that money away instead of investing it wisely?

Ireland had an unprecedented opportunity to develop itself into whatever the hell it wanted. But Ireland ****ed it up. Spectacularly. Ain’t nobody’s fault but Ireland’s.

You like most of the suckers show a complete lack of understanding of thec debt crisis. The fact is is the vast majority of the debts have nothing to do with running a deficit or negative equity. They were run up behind closed doors in the derivative casino known as the investing banking system. Please do not mislead the average joe into thinking he or she had the slighest influence on these criminal bankers.. They debts were put onto us... as they have been in Greece. If we only had a deficit to worry about we would infintely better off. Iceland took redpinsibilty for their day to day deficit and told the bankers to take a jump..

As for the referendum, I think if you close enough you will find the small unspoken addition of the crestion of a real president of Europe selected my MEPs and pretty much the end of your democratic choice on your real leaders. The crowd in Leinster house will be a facade to make you think you have some influence..

meglome

Uuuh Patsy wrote: »

You like most of the suckers show a complete lack of understanding of thec debt crisis. The fact is is the vast majority of the debts have nothing to do with running a deficit or negative equity.

You really think you that our debt problem is not from our 20 billion a year spending deficit? wow.

We should get something back from the banks in the long run but the money spent on the deficit is just gone.

Uuuh Patsy wrote: »

As for the referendum, I think if you close enough you will find the small unspoken addition of the crestion of a real president of Europe selected my MEPs and pretty much the end of your democratic choice on your real leaders. The crowd in Leinster house will be a facade to make you think you have some influence..

Not a hope of this happening.

Uuuh Patsy

Uuuh Patsy wrote: »

You like most of the suckers show a complete lack of understanding of thec debt crisis. The fact is is the vast majority of the debts have nothing to do with running a deficit or negative equity. They were run up behind closed doors in the derivative casino known as the investing banking system. Please do not mislead the average joe into thinking he or she had the slighest influence on these criminal bankers.. They debts were put onto us... as they have been in Greece. If we only had a deficit to worry about we would infintely better off. Iceland took redpinsibilty for their day to day deficit and told the bankers to take a jump..

As for the referendum, I think if you close enough you will find the small unspoken addition of the crestion of a real president of Europe selected my MEPs and pretty much the end of your democratic choice on your real leaders. The crowd in Leinster house will be a facade to make you think you have some influence..

You are incredibly misinformed.

Duke Leonal Felmet

I'm going to take a punt. It will fail.

jimmycrackcorm

I think that the Paddy Power Odds for carrying another European referendum any time soon will be pretty bad.

I'm not a gambling man but if I see good odds against passing another European referendum, I'll be putting all my spare cash on it.

djpbarry

sensibleken wrote: »

I would (and this is just off the top of my head) think that the tap of capital into irish banks and thus onto developers would not have been so out of control if we were outside the euro.

Probably not, but I see no reason why FF would not have created further tax incentives to make up the difference.

djpbarry

Sand wrote: »

If you're referring to the interest rate reduction we have the much maligned Greeks to thank for that.

The point is that what’s good for Ireland is good for the EU. Obviously the larger members are looking out for themselves, just as Ireland is. But that does not mean that dealings cannot be mutually beneficial.

Sand wrote: »

No help will be offered unless it can be clearly demonstrated it is in the interests of the people helping us.

Well of course it won’t. Why should it be? Ireland has been a net beneficiary from the EU for several decades and yet the country’s finances are in a shocking state – can we really complain that the EU’s assistance now comes with a few strings attached?

Sand wrote: »

So when Ireland looks at this deal the question the voters need to ask of Merkel and Sarkozy is "Whats in it for us?" And no - being lent the money to pay off unguaranteed debt of failed, dead banks is not what is in it for Irish taxpayers.

So Ireland is not being lent money to keep public services ticking over and to keep welfare payments flowing?

djpbarry

Uuuh Patsy wrote: »

The fact is is the vast majority of the debts have nothing to do with running a deficit or negative equity. They were run up behind closed doors in the derivative casino known as the investing banking system.

So if Irish banks had not gotten themselves into such difficulty, the massive differential between tax revenue and public spending that exists in Ireland would just magically disappear? How does that work?

sensibleken

djpbarry wrote: »

So if Irish banks had not gotten themselves into such difficulty, the massive differential between tax revenue and public spending that exists in Ireland would just magically disappear? How does that work?

i think both sides of the arguement can recognise the difference between the national debt in terms of tax receipts and the cost of recapitalisising the banks.

djpbarry

sensibleken wrote: »

i think both sides of the arguement can recognise the difference between the national debt in terms of tax receipts and the cost of recapitalisising the banks.

Sure, but there seems to be a general unwillingness to accept that most of the bailout was earmarked to address the former rather than the latter.

Sand

@djpbarry

Sure, but there seems to be a general unwillingness to accept that most of the bailout was earmarked to address the former rather than the latter.

Ireland would have been much better placed to address its deficit if it hadnt been lumbered with banking bailout costs that are astronomical in per capita terms. Ireland suddenly found itself swimming in rough seas, but it had a vastly better debt to GDP ratio than even Germany. What sunk it was that it had stupidly tied itself to the banks debt and despite repeated calls from anyone and everyone, the government refused to repudiate that debt - even when it was very possible to do so.

We would have always been in difficulty dealing with *our* national deficit. We had no chance when we through on an extra 3-4 years worth of deficits right from the start.

A very useful solution for Ireland would be for our banking recapitalisation costs to be compensated via the EFSF taking on the liability.

The point is that what’s good for Ireland is good for the EU.

Sorry, thats just a naive assumption. So far, the Irish bailout has been very bad for Ireland and very good for the EU. We have taken on all the costs and all the liability. We have paid out all their investment losses. They have taken control of our budget. Ireland represents a very small portion of the Eurozone - so long as we dont cause them any grief (and we seem proud of our compliance and subservience so far) then why would German voters see it in their interest to take on 70 billion of Irish debt? We are now a tributary vassal state of the Eurozone core - with a compliant, native elite already in place to keep order. Thats no longer alarmist - that the straightforward truth.

Obviously the larger members are looking out for themselves, just as Ireland is. But that does not mean that dealings cannot be mutually beneficial.

Ireland is not looking out for itself, and your reaction to my view that we should start looking out for ourself is essentially guilt ridden - That we deserve everything we get and more and we ought to be ashamed for protesting any conditions those wonderfully generous and kind members of the Eurozone ask of us.

So Ireland is not being lent money to keep public services ticking over and to keep welfare payments flowing?

No, its not. Its being lent money to keep insiders ridiculously well paid ( bankrupt developers at NAMA, ESB staff, etc). Thats the compliant, native elite I was referring to.

djpbarry

Sand wrote: »

Ireland would have been much better placed to address its deficit if it hadnt been lumbered with banking bailout costs that are astronomical in per capita terms.

Better placed? Sure, of course it would – that’s stating the obvious. Much better placed – I don’t know about that.

Sand wrote: »

We would have always been in difficulty dealing with *our* national deficit. We had no chance when we through on an extra 3-4 years worth of deficits right from the start.

Ireland has no chance of dealing with its current situation? Because it seems to me things are going ok at the moment.

Sand wrote: »

So far, the Irish bailout has been very bad for Ireland...

No, default would have been very bad for Ireland and it obviously would not have been good for the EU either. The bailout suits everyone.

What’s your alternative?

Sand wrote: »

We have paid out all their investment losses.

Who is “they” in this context? Is this the old chestnut that Ireland is paying for EU losses in the Irish banking system? Because I’ve yet to see any evidence to support such a view.

Sand wrote: »

No, its not. Its being lent money to keep insiders ridiculously well paid ( bankrupt developers at NAMA, ESB staff, etc). Thats the compliant, native elite I was referring to.

I’ve not done the maths on this, but based on 1) the average income in Ireland and 2) the magnitude of public expenditure, I’m fairly confident you could reduce the salary of every politician and senior civil servant in the country to zero and Ireland would still be running a massive deficit.