Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

squod

K-9 wrote: »

I didn't say that at all, that's you putting your slant on what I'm saying, as is your way.

I'm saying we took a unilateral action with the guarantee, you are looking to also blame the ECB and Europe for it, with no evidence. The response to the huge fallout from that guarantee and the Euro crisis is a different thing.




As scofflaw posted the ECB obviously supported bailing out banks, completely different from a stupid blanket guarantee which even went against Department advice. For all the moaning about the civil service its a shame we didn't go with their plan.

I shoulda taped Joan Burtons piece on this on the VB show. Very insightful. She was basically told to f-off by that bloke who's name I'm too angry to mention. Told to leave it up to the bankers, 'cause they know what they're doing.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

The "big bang" in the 1990s allowed banking to have a much freeer hand on how and where to invest, they became about as conservitive as a Roman Orgy!

Heh, banks lending madly is hardly new, and the patterns of international investment didn't change much at all despite the deregulation, because it wasn't regulation that drove it but local expertise and historical involvement. The Spanish banks are involved heavily in Portugal and Latin America, the Swedish banks are heavily involved in the Baltic countries, the UK banks are involved in Ireland and the Irish banks in the UK and US. All of these patterns are long-lasting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

I didn't say that at all, that's you putting your slant on what I'm saying, as is your way.

I'm saying we took a unilateral action with the guarantee, you are looking to also blame the ECB and Europe for it, with no evidence. The response to the huge fallout from that guarantee and the Euro crisis is a different thing.




As scofflaw posted the ECB obviously supported bailing out banks, completely different from a stupid blanket guarantee which even went against Department advice. For all the moaning about the civil service its a shame we didn't go with their plan.

Well, until there is definite proof I suppose we will have to believe what ever we want. (not that it makes much difference) Constantly we see people on here saying that the fiscal set-up was similar before the treaty and that the treaty just tightened the rules, now they are suggesting that we took a major step without the advice or opinion of anyone in the European command. The notion that they didn't run the plan past somebody in the ECB is pretty unbelievable to me considering the alternative that they where weighing up. Do you think they would have run that one by the ECB or would they have gotten the suprise we got the following morning?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heh, banks lending madly is hardly new, and the patterns of international investment didn't change much at all despite the deregulation, because it wasn't regulation that drove it but local expertise and historical involvement. The Spanish banks are involved heavily in Portugal and Latin America, the Swedish banks are heavily involved in the Baltic countries, the UK banks are involved in Ireland and the Irish banks in the UK and US. All of these patterns are long-lasting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The big difference is the fact that the lines between commercial & investment banking were blurred, in the past if an investment bank blew it's wad only the bank and its shareholders were affected, now every section of banking is affected!

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

The big difference is the fact that the lines between commercial & investment banking were blurred, in the past if an investment bank blew it's wad only the bank and its shareholders were affected, now every section of banking is affected!

True enough - relaxation of the various laws separating the two were a feature of the Nineties. But the geographic patterns of bank and business relations change surprisingly little.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Constantly we see people on here saying that the fiscal set-up was similar before the treaty and that the treaty just tightened the rules, now they are suggesting that we took a major step without the advice or opinion of anyone in the European command.

Ireally don't know what you are on about now.

The notion that they didn't run the plan past somebody in the ECB is pretty unbelievable to me considering the alternative that they where weighing up.

Indeed it is unbelievable. GUBU indeed.

Do you think they would have run that one by the ECB or would they have gotten the suprise we got the following morning?

What one?

The Irish banking system was on the verge of collapse. They had to do something, they chose the trailblazer route rather than Departmental prudent advice and what other European countries did previously.

On what grounds do you think the ECB knew of the guarantee?

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well, until there is definite proof I suppose we will have to believe what ever we want. (not that it makes much difference) Constantly we see people on here saying that the fiscal set-up was similar before the treaty and that the treaty just tightened the rules, now they are suggesting that we took a major step without the advice or opinion of anyone in the European command. The notion that they didn't run the plan past somebody in the ECB is pretty unbelievable to me considering the alternative that they where weighing up. Do you think they would have run that one by the ECB or would they have gotten the suprise we got the following morning?

What to do about the banks was a hot topic for quite a while in advance, and I'm sure the likely legal position of the ECB would have been ascertained if nothing else on a "what if" basis of various options or details, but the eventual decision seems to have come as an unpleasant surprise.

Lenihan referred to it, back before Fianna Fáil needed to revise history and shift the blame, as "economic nationalism":

“I accept it is a tendency towards economic nationalism but we’re on our own here in Ireland and the government had to act in the best interests of the Irish people”.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1014861.shtml

Consultation of the ECB on the guarantee took place on the 1st October 2008 - their opinion is here: http://www.ecb.int/ecb/legal/pdf/en_con_2008_44.pdf

Some highlights:

On 1 October 2008 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Irish Minister for Finance for an opinion on a draft Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Bill 2008 (hereinafter the ‘draft law’).

That is, they were consulted for an opinion the day after, which doesn't seem to have impressed them:

As a further general comment, the ECB notes that the Irish authorities have opted for an individual response to the current financial situation and not sought to consult their EU partners. In view of the similarities of the causes and consequences of the current financial distress across EU Member States and the potential interdependencies of policy responses, it would have been advisable to properly consult other EU authorities on the envisaged legislative plans.

And they said it was dangerous:

A further point relates to the risks to the Government’s budgetary position arising from any financial support to Irish credit institutions. While the ECB appreciates that any guarantees provided by the Minister under the draft law would be contingent in nature, given that the financial exposure of the Irish State under such guarantees is potentially very large, the Irish Government could be obliged to make significant payments in case these guarantees are called over the next two years. At a point in time when the Irish budgetary position is deteriorating and may risk exceeding the 3 % of GDP reference value for public deficits, as specified under Community law12, this is a cause for concern, even when the provision of financial support would, under the draft law, as far as possible ultimately have to be recouped from the credit institution or subsidiary in question.

"Significant payments"...who knew? In some ways it's hardly surprising (although unwelcome) that the ECB has something of a "you made your bed, now you must lie in it" attitude to Ireland's bank debt.

Lenihan et al thought they were pulling off the biggest stroke ever, as far as I can see, at the expense both of eurozone stability (contrary to the FF/eurosceptic myth) and the other EU countries, who were less restrained in their criticism than the ECB. Had the Irish banks been as healthy as the Irish government seems to have believed they were, the guarantee would have had a huge payoff, sucking deposits out of the rest of the eurozone to Ireland's profit. Indeed, to start off with, it did exactly that, to the point where Fingleton's son had to be rapped on the knuckles for advertising the "guaranteed" banks as safe havens in the UK.

Unfortunately, of course, they hadn't bothered to regulate the banks properly, didn't know what kind of shape they were in, and the expense landed back on the Irish taxpayer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

squod

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, of course, they hadn't bothered to regulate the banks properly, didn't know what kind of shape they were in, and the expense landed back on the Irish taxpayer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The previous bits are spot on. I take exception to this bit. There's no evidence that he/they didn't know what shape the banks were in.

I can clearly remember the outrage felt by many people after Anglo was included in the guarantee scheme and the subsequent mess that was made with those inter-bank loans. If he/they didn't know he/they must have been epic morons and I really doubt that was the case.

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

What to do about the banks was a hot topic for quite a while in advance, and I'm sure the likely legal position of the ECB would have been ascertained if nothing else on a "what if" basis of various options or details, but the eventual decision seems to have come as an unpleasant surprise.

Lenihan referred to it, back before Fianna Fáil needed to revise history and shift the blame, as "economic nationalism":



http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1014861.shtml

Consultation of the ECB on the guarantee took place on the 1st October 2008 - their opinion is here: http://www.ecb.int/ecb/legal/pdf/en_con_2008_44.pdf

Some highlights:



That is, they were consulted for an opinion the day after, which doesn't seem to have impressed them:



And they said it was dangerous:



"Significant payments"...who knew? In some ways it's hardly surprising (although unwelcome) that the ECB has something of a "you made your bed, now you must lie in it" attitude to Ireland's bank debt.

Lenihan et al thought they were pulling off the biggest stroke ever, as far as I can see, at the expense both of eurozone stability (contrary to the FF/eurosceptic myth) and the other EU countries, who were less restrained in their criticism than the ECB. Had the Irish banks been as healthy as the Irish government seems to have believed they were, the guarantee would have had a huge payoff, sucking deposits out of the rest of the eurozone to Ireland's profit. Indeed, to start off with, it did exactly that, to the point where Fingleton's son had to be rapped on the knuckles for advertising the "guaranteed" banks as safe havens in the UK.

Unfortunately, of course, they hadn't bothered to regulate the banks properly, didn't know what kind of shape they were in, and the expense landed back on the Irish taxpayer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We have all seen that. One the one hand it could be the truth or you could see it as a classic 'cover our ass' statement.

Do you think Scofflaw that had they decided to let the banks fail that they wouldn't have first contacted the ECB for an 'opinion'? What's so strange about them doing it for the route they decided to take, the ECB wouldn't have known the level of indebtedness either and as all agreed something had to be done right then.
I don't buy the notion that they sprung something like that without assessing (by gathering opinion) the view from outside Ireland.
Do you, for example, think that the Taoiseach recieves phone calls from the likes of Angela Merkel that we never get to hear about until state papers are released.
Secret contact happens all the time imo, it's the way things get done. Witness the British-IRA talks prior to Peace Agreement. Had it not paid off we would have heard a different spin until official papers where released as is the case here imo.

Scofflaw

squod wrote: »

The previous bits are spot on. I take exception to this bit. There's no evidence that he/they didn't know what shape the banks were in.

I can clearly remember the outrage felt by many people after Anglo was included in the guarantee scheme and the subsequent mess that was made with those inter-bank loans. If he/they didn't know he/they must have been epic morons and I really doubt that was the case.

I'm not sure - it really does seem to me from everything I've read that the government genuinely thought Anglo was OK, because Anglo thought Anglo was OK, and that's fundamentally all they were going on.

For the previous decade, they'd basically relied on the banks to tell them if anything was wrong - the data came into the Financial Regulator, problems were highlighted occasionally, but nothing was done.

For example, see this note from a meeting on the 25th of September 2008: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/pac/reports/documentsregruarantee/document6.pdf

The FR (Pat Neary) said there is no evidence to suggest Anglo is insolvent on a going concern basis - it is simply unable to continue on the current basis from a liquidity point of view.

The suggested possible exposure in Anglo is "€8bn".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

We have all seen that. One the one hand it could be the truth or you could see it as a classic 'cover our ass' statement.

Do you think Scofflaw that had they decided to let the banks fail that they wouldn't have first contacted the ECB for an 'opinion'?

I imagine they contacted the ECB to get an outline/likely legal position on all the various options under consideration. But it's clear from the ECB's document that they weren't consulted in advance on the option chosen - international institutions don't casually issue obvious rebukes to national governments.

Happyman42 wrote: »

What's so strange about them doing it for the route they decided to take, the ECB wouldn't have known the level of indebtedness either and as all agreed something had to be done right then.
I don't buy the notion that they sprung something like that without assessing (by gathering opinion) the view from outside Ireland.
Do you, for example, think that the Taoiseach recieves phone calls from the likes of Angela Merkel that we never get to hear about until state papers are released.
Secret contact happens all the time imo, it's the way things get done. Witness the British-IRA talks prior to Peace Agreement. Had it not paid off we would have heard a different spin until official papers where released as is the case here imo.

Sure, because conversations with armed and obsessively secretive paramilitaries on possible peace deals against a background of having repeatedly said "no deals with terrorists" are exactly the same as conversations with the European Central Bank on national bank rescues. It's all cloak and dagger stuff.

Or, you know, not. But I can see that it's convenient for you to argue that the complete absence of evidence is merely evidence of a cover-up so deep no official trace of it exists, leaving you free to believe whatever you prefer. Personally, I prefer evidence, and all the available evidence points to a unilateral decision by Lenihan and Cowen, made because they believed they were pulling a huge stroke that would magically get the Irish banks through the crisis with virtually no cost to the taxpayer and the potential upside of sucking deposits out of everyone else's banks.

And that last bit, along with the fact that the guarantee wasn't extended to any other bank operating in Ireland bar the Irish ones, shows that all the talk of "doing it for the euro" and "taking one for the team" is just guff. On the contrary, they did their level best to pull a fast one on everyone else - the last hurrah of a parasitic business model they'd been running for a decade.

cordially,
Scofflaw

squod

Scofflaw wrote: »

The suggested possible exposure in Anglo is "€8bn".

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't believe that. Piece in the Times tells you how fuhked Anglo was in March 2008. Joan Burton said she wouldn't touch it with a barge pole on that night of Sept 2008.

Even if it was €8bn it should have been allowed fail. No skin of anyones nose realistically. 'Cept us and the ECB.......

Scofflaw

squod wrote: »

I don't believe that. Piece in the Times tells you how fuhked Anglo was in March 2008. Joan Burton said she wouldn't touch it with a barge pole on that night of Sept 2008.

Even if it was €8bn it should have been allowed fail. No skin of anyones nose realistically. 'Cept us and the ECB.......

Unfortunately, it's very easy for people in politics to become rather detached from reality. It's easy to think of them as existing in some kind of state of perfect information, but in fact they're just humans like everyone else, and like everyone else they go only on what they hear from the people around them. Inquiries into the civil service, and particularly the Financial Regulator, Central Bank, and Dept Finance suggest a culture in which bad news was highly unwelcome, and where the channels which delivered bad news had atrophied through disapproval.

There's also the very strong evidence of "regulatory capture", where the government's thinking about the banks was largely shaped by the banks.

As I said, one of the positives I saw in the Fiscal Treaty was the treaty-based establishment of an independent body responsible for fiscal monitoring of the government, and with the power (hopefully) to activate a structural deficit 'correction mechanism', which means that it can't simply be ignored, while the treaty basis for it means it can't simply be neutered either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

One thing I don't understand about bailing out/supporting/protecting the banks, how would it have been cheaper any other way? Surely the same amount of cash/liquidity would still have to be put in whatever the name put on it was?

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

One thing I don't understand about bailing out/supporting/protecting the banks, how would it have been cheaper any other way? Surely the same amount of cash/liquidity would still have to be put in whatever the name put on it was?

Assuming the same choice was made - to support all the banks - then basically yes. The money that was put in wasn't to pay debt but was to keep the banks solvent by providing them with capital to replace deposits, which were flooding out - and the point of the guarantee, as well, was to staunch that flow.

The only real alternative was not to support Anglo - to recognise that it wasn't systemic and was beyond repair, and to put it into resolution immediately. That's not quite as straightforward as it sounds, of course - Ireland had (and has) no bank resolution legislation, so it would have had to be created on the spot, and would have been susceptible to all kinds of legal challenges.

Damned if they did, damned if they didn't, basically.

cordially,
Scofflaw

donegal_road

I was reading this last night, and thought it may be of interest.

UCD ECONOMIST COLM McCarthy has said that Ireland’s multi-billion bank debt burden was taken on by the State “under threats” from the European Central Bank.

especially the first comment at the bottom of the article...

squod

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, it's very easy for people in politics to become rather detached from reality. It's easy to think of them as existing in some kind of state of perfect information, but in fact they're just humans like everyone else, and like everyone else they go only on what they hear from the people around them. Inquiries into the civil service, and particularly the Financial Regulator, Central Bank, and Dept Finance suggest a culture in which bad news was highly unwelcome, and where the channels which delivered bad news had atrophied through disapproval.

There's also the very strong evidence of "regulatory capture", where the government's thinking about the banks was largely shaped by the banks.

As I said, one of the positives I saw in the Fiscal Treaty was the treaty-based establishment of an independent body responsible for fiscal monitoring of the government, and with the power (hopefully) to activate a structural deficit 'correction mechanism', which means that it can't simply be ignored, while the treaty basis for it means it can't simply be neutered either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's sounds more like you ''making sense'' of something that doesn't require it. You're over thinking this one IMO. This was a circle of friends who got together to defraud the public, nothing more.


Also if you believe that this fiscal compact will stop them doing this again than you should reconsider your entire reasoning. It feckin' will not!

Scofflaw

donegal_road wrote: »

I was reading this last night, and thought it may be of interest.



especially the first comment at the bottom of the article...

McCarthy isn't talking about the guarantee, though, he's talking about the extra bit of debt acquired by not burning the bondholders after the 2010 bailout. The "summary" at the beginning of the article is very bad, and contradicted not only by what McCarthy has said elsewhere but even in the body of the article:

UCD ECONOMIST COLM McCarthy has said that Ireland’s multi-billion bank debt burden was taken on by the State “under threats” from the European Central Bank.

versus:

He said that part of the Irish debt was incurred “under duress and inappropriately, under threats from the European Central Bank”.

It's true, but it applies only to about €4-6bn (only!).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

squod wrote: »

That's sounds more like you ''making sense'' of something that doesn't require it. You're over thinking this one IMO. This was a circle of friends who got together to defraud the public, nothing more.

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy explanations where incompetence will do, but in this case there isn't a lot of difference between the two - you have it down as a circle of friends actively conspiring to defraud, I have it down as reflexive collusion resulting from established groupthink and a bunker mentality.

squod wrote: »

Also if you believe that this fiscal compact will stop them doing this again than you should reconsider your entire reasoning. It feckin' will not!

Nothing will stop them doing something like this as long as we're prepared to vote for parties that set up the conditions to create it - and the historical revision that's going on to the benefit of FF makes that look ever more likely. Eventually we'll wind up with a narrative where the "boom" was destroyed not by the very incompetence and short-sighted pro-cyclic policies that created it, but by the ECB and Angela Merkel - then we'll have people saying the bubble was "a bit mad but great craic", and we'll "know better next time" - and FF will come slipping back into government.

The advantage to the treaty institutions is the requirement for an independent eye and voice that can't simply be muzzled like the rest of Ireland's "independent watchdogs".

cordially,
Scofflaw

squod

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy explanations where incompetence will do, but in this case there isn't a lot of difference between the two - you have it down as a circle of friends actively conspiring to defraud, I have it down as reflexive collusion resulting from established groupthink and a bunker mentality.

noun (plural conspiracies)
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful:
a conspiracy to destroy the government
[mass noun] the action of plotting or conspiring:
they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

The word fits exactly. If your going down the road of the FF/FG apologist, claiming they're stoopid or were some how ignorant of the facts then you're wrong.

Theses people are criminals. Whether you want to accept that is up to you. History will record them as criminals, liars and God knows what else.

Happyman42

Scofflaw wrote: »

I imagine they contacted the ECB to get an outline/likely legal position on all the various options under consideration. But it's clear from the ECB's document that they weren't consulted in advance on the option chosen - international institutions don't casually issue obvious rebukes to national governments.

Maybe it's impossible to prove. But I can imagine a phone call/contact outlining the options they were faced with and them being told in no uncertain terms, not to allow the banks to fail. So......'what are we gonna do lads?............' That a cabal of people who kowtowed to Europe before suddenly decided to do a solo run is harder to believe imo.
A Green member of government said they had contact, John Bruton certainly believed it and so do others.

Sure, because conversations with armed and obsessively secretive paramilitaries on possible peace deals against a background of having repeatedly said "no deals with terrorists" are exactly the same as conversations with the European Central Bank on national bank rescues. It's all cloak and dagger stuff.

For goodness sake, keep your knickers on.....my point was not to make a comaprision, just to say that contacts are made all the time, behind the scenes. Contacts, that some might not be too quick to own up to for their own political reasons. It's why we don't get a proper overview of events until official papers are released every New Year.
You never answered my question, do you think Enda (for instance), tests the water by discussing policy that will affect Europe with other leaders? Seems pretty normal and responsible to me.

Or, you know, not. But I can see that it's convenient for you to argue that the complete absence of evidence is merely evidence of a cover-up so deep no official trace of it exists, leaving you free to believe whatever you prefer. Personally, I prefer evidence, and all the available evidence points to a unilateral decision by Lenihan and Cowen, made because they believed they were pulling a huge stroke that would magically get the Irish banks through the crisis with virtually no cost to the taxpayer and the potential upside of sucking deposits out of everyone else's banks.

Do you think they considered what the atmosphere in Europe would have been like as our banks filled up with deposits?

And that last bit, along with the fact that the guarantee wasn't extended to any other bank operating in Ireland bar the Irish ones, shows that all the talk of "doing it for the euro" and "taking one for the team" is just guff. On the contrary, they did their level best to pull a fast one on everyone else - the last hurrah of a parasitic business model they'd been running for a decade.

cordially,
Scofflaw

As I said, I don't believe that, why would they effectively conspire against Europe all of a sudden?

Had it worked, what in your opinion would the ECB and other Europeans have done as the funds continued to flow.

Scofflaw

squod wrote: »

The word fits exactly. If your going down the road of the FF/FG apologist, claiming they're stoopid or were some how ignorant of the facts then you're wrong.

Theses people are criminals. Whether you want to accept that is up to you. History will record them as criminals, liars and God knows what else.

Can't argue with belief.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe it's impossible to prove. But I can imagine a phone call/contact outlining the options they were faced with and them being told in no uncertain terms, not to allow the banks to fail. So......'what are we gonna do lads?............' That a cabal of people who kowtowed to Europe before suddenly decided to do a solo run is harder to believe imo.

Alas, there's no more point in me arguing with your imagination than in arguing with squod's beliefs.

Happyman42 wrote: »

A Green member of government said they had contact, John Bruton certainly believed it and so do others.

Bruton, in fact, picked up the idea from the media (qv). I'm not sure what Dan Boyle (presumably?) has claimed, but he's not exactly a neutral source any more than Fianna Fáil.

Happyman42 wrote: »

For goodness sake, keep your knickers on.....my point was not to make a comaprision, just to say that contacts are made all the time, behind the scenes. Contacts, that some might not be too quick to own up to for their own political reasons. It's why we don't get a proper overview of events until official papers are released every New Year.

In this case we already have rather a lot of such documents, though: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/PAC/Reports/document1.htm

I don't doubt that there was contact in the days running up to the guarantee - such contact happens, as you say, all the time. But your claims don't just need such ordinary contact, but an instruction from the ECB that resulted in an enormous policy action against the State's wishes. That's a huge thing - and, don't tell me, the very fact that it's huge is precisely why you believe there's no evidence for it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You never answered my question, do you think Enda (for instance), tests the water by discussing policy that will affect Europe with other leaders? Seems pretty normal and responsible to me.

Indeed it is, which is why the ECB opinion I referred to earlier contains a rebuke for not doing so.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do you think they considered what the atmosphere in Europe would have been like as our banks filled up with deposits?

I'm sure they considered it would be unpopular - again, as quoted earlier, Lenihan referred to it as "economic nationalism". And if they were in any doubt that it would be unpopular, that would have been dispelled over the following week.

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I said, I don't believe that, why would they effectively conspire against Europe all of a sudden?

Because the idea that they constantly do what Europe wants is part of your imagination. Ireland created the "Wild West of finance" and ran it in the teeth of pretty much everyone else in Europe being unhappy about it. Many countries quite famously regard our corporate tax rate as too low. Our record of environmental compliance is appalling. We're not some kind of super-compliant Eurotopia.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Had it worked, what in your opinion would the ECB and other Europeans have done as the funds continued to flow.

It did work, and what the other countries did was create guarantees of their own both nationally and at the EU level to counteract the effect. That was largely why they were annoyed, because Ireland's preemptive solo run meant they either had to counter with their own guarantees whether they wanted to or not, or suffer deposit losses to the Irish banks. Of course, in our narrative that becomes "how can they complain? They all did the same!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fenian Army

The European Central Bank President appears to have ruled out debt relief for Ireland's banking burden because the country approved the Fiscal Treaty.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0605/ecb-may-cut-rates-soon-as-euro-zone-crisis-deepens.html

Good stuff :rolleyes:

Fenian Army

Fenian Army wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0605/ecb-may-cut-rates-soon-as-euro-zone-crisis-deepens.html

Good stuff :rolleyes:

Broken link, try here
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0606/ecb-boss-rules-out-debt-relief-for-ireland.html

Well surprise, Surprise! NOT! :mad:

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Broken link, try here
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0606/ecb-boss-rules-out-debt-relief-for-ireland.html

Well surprise, Surprise! NOT! :mad:

So, that to me sounds like we are in a worse position because we voted Yes.......ENDAAAAAAAAAA!!!

smash

On the radio there a head guy in the ECB said we should be complimented for our yes vote but it in no way entitles us to any write off of debt or negotiations on it.

SEPT 23 1989

Kenny and Gilmore are pathetic:mad:

Happyman42

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Kenny and Gilmore are pathetic:mad:

Is Kenny going to speak about anything important ever again?

ninebeanrows

Whoever wrote the caption to the article is a real crap stirrer.

Read the actual article.

If we had of voted against the treaty we would have moved closer to default, your debt does disappear when you default but you are forever tarnished and would be gently shoved out of the eurozone.