Bankers warn of No vote risk as EU treaty date set

ART6

Irish Times today. Given that the current situation was caused by the bankers, how can they have the gall to offer advice now? They all are a devalued currency.

However, upon the principle that successive Irish governments have clearly demonstrated that they are unable to manage our economy, I personally lean towards a "Yes" vote. Let us hasten to the formation of a federal Europe and be rid of Fine Fail, Fine Gael, and Labour.

coylemj

FFS, next thing Ray Burke or Padraig Flynn will come out and tell us to vote 'Yes' which will totally put the kibosh on it!

golfwallah

There’s an old adage that, at the end of the day, we get the government we deserve and deserve the government we get.

God help us, but we elect ‘em, or have the choice of going forward ourselves – so whether they come from European Parties or our own, I guess the same adage still holds.

We only seem to want to hang them out to dry, when the economy goes belly up and, even then, it ain’t easy.

Another pertinent adage is “those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber" (Plato).

later12

Do you have a link, OP? Creighton's contribution was at least consistent:

“We have to look at this from a national perspective as a starting point and say from the Irish recovery standpoint, what’s in our own best interests and the interests of small businesses around the country and potential investors in Ireland – the people who can create employment and contribute to our economic recovery.”

Yes To Jobs!

meglome

ART6 wrote: »

Irish Times today. Given that the current situation was caused by the bankers, how can they have the gall to offer advice now? They all are a devalued currency.
.

It's not the topic but we voted in FF and their policies repeatedly so we caused the current situation. It's like trying to hold a gun responsible for shooting someone. I'm not absolving the bankers just saying that there should have been a layer above them making sure.

On topic... just because they were reckless then doesn't mean they are wrong now.

Skopzz

This treaty does not require all member states to ratify it (unlike the former Lisbon treaty). If a state opts out (like Britain and the Czech Rep), it simply doesn't apply to them. Kenny already mentioned this referendum will be a "once off".

This doesn't mean Ireland would be cut off from market funding because Ireland could burn the €30 billion of Anglo bonds. This would actually lower our debt and thus instill market confidence to enable us return quicker to the markets. we would still be able to borrow solely from the IMF. We can also tap the Ireland-America fund or other bilateral loans as our economy grows. The promissory note to unguaranteed bondholders could be burned by the Irish Authorities (since it's not yet part of our sovereign debt). At the end of the day, we hold the cards.

Voting yes would only add an additional 2 years of austerity to the 8 year austerity cycle we're presently in.

later12

Skopzz wrote: »

This doesn't mean Ireland would be cut off from market funding because Ireland could burn the €30 billion of Anglo bonds.

No I think it's been repeated at length (and accepted by pretty much everyone except a small number of academic economists peddling books to accompany their deliciously outrageous opinions) that this is not a serious possibility.

There are good legal reasons as to why this is such an unpalatable option, not least amongst them that tearing up the PNs would necessitate Anglo collapsing. There appear to be some additional legal obstacles.

It also has nothing to do with the Fiscal Treaty. There is nothing in the Fiscal Treaty about settling the promissory notes nor about bank recapitalisations.

we would still be able to borrow solely from the IMF.

Afraid not. We've reached (over-reached, rather) our maxiumum lending capacity with the iMF according to their own guidelines.

Although I do think it is ridiculously unlikely that the country would not be extended a (probably rather stern) EU/ EA bailout if push came to shove.

Skopzz

later12 wrote: »

No I think it's been repeated at length (and accepted by pretty much everyone except a small number of academic economists peddling books to accompany their deliciously outrageous opinions) that this is not a serious possibility.

There are good legal reasons as to why this is such an unpalatable option, not least amongst them that tearing up the PNs would necessitate Anglo collapsing. There appear to be some additional legal obstacles.

It also has nothing to do with the Fiscal Treaty. There is nothing in the Fiscal Treaty about settling the promissory notes nor about bank recapitalisations.

Afraid not. We've reached (over-reached, rather) our maxiumum lending capacity with the iMF according to their own guidelines.

Although I do think it is ridiculously unlikely that the country would not be extended a (probably rather stern) EU/ EA bailout if push came to shove.

IMO anyone who invests in Anglo's debt is reckless.
I DO NOT care what Wall Street says. They collect fees to market this stuff and I do not mind. You are shilling this stuff and talking your book. I have never taken this blackmail so have no sour grapes because I do NOT listen to people like you. There is no way 45 million Irish-Americans will stand by and watch their motherland burn. And if that wasn't enough, Ireland would also be able to avail of bi-lateral loans from Canada, Australia, NZ etc.


The interesting facts about this austerity treaty are:

1.If the goal is to preserve the crony capitalism of FF's legacy, then Mr Kenny did the right thing: offload toxic Anglo's bonds to the Irish taxpayers. You seem to be in that camp. If the goal would have been to face the reality that huge societal and structural impediments cannot sustain that current level of debt, then the alternative approach would be to let it fail while making sure the role of the banks as financial intermediaries is being supported - a la TARP with forced re-capitalization, partial government control, and eventual re-payment of the government money (TARP like program).

2. There is nothing exaggerated about Anglo bondholders - all of them are speculators with worthless paper, weak institutions, a dysfunctional administration, mafia-controlled business world, etc. The private wealth of these investors is in stark contrast to the Irish taxpayers.

3. The economics are daunting, but easy to explain: on the current trajectory, none of the restructures will manage to get debt to a manageable level. You can either change the trajectory, which means more austerity, for which Ireland has already fully stomached. Or you expect the shrinking number of relatively healthy figures to transfer large parts of their life savings to the toxic dump in Anglo Irish Bank.

The guarantees that Ireland had given for the Banks (€200 billion if you add the bad loans) match the order of magnitude of 37% of GDP. If you believe this will not affect Irish investment, competitiveness, and standard of living for the Irish people, you are dreaming.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

No I think it's been repeated at length (and accepted by pretty much everyone except a small number of academic economists peddling books to accompany their deliciously outrageous opinions) that this is not a serious possibility.

There are good legal reasons as to why this is such an unpalatable option, not least amongst them that tearing up the PNs would necessitate Anglo collapsing. There appear to be some additional legal obstacles.

It also has nothing to do with the Fiscal Treaty. There is nothing in the Fiscal Treaty about settling the promissory notes nor about bank recapitalisations.

Afraid not. We've reached (over-reached, rather) our maxiumum lending capacity with the iMF according to their own guidelines.

Although I do think it is ridiculously unlikely that the country would not be extended a (probably rather stern) EU/ EA bailout if push came to shove.

He has had most of this explained to him repeatedly and he just ignores it. Not to mention he's just putting the same text backed up by his own opinion on multiple threads.