Occupy Galway, fresh start thread

JerryHispano

A billion is a million million. To put that figure into context, 34.7 billion seconds is 1,099,600 years!

Wrong. 1,000 = 1bn. Thanks for using a nice emotive example to help people understand your figures.

I am also unhappy the bailout happened, but it did and nothing can be done about it now, nor did 7 months of occupying a public space 3 hours away from any decision making achieve anything about it.

The vast majority of our debt has been accrued through years of overspending by successive democratically elected governments. If occupy were protesting this, I would be out with them (not ruining a public space with an encampment though).

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

So far we've put €50b into the banks, I'll agree that's a reasonably accurate figure

It's not, that's closer to an overall figure of what it will probably end up as. I went back and dug up an old post in the original o.g. thread where I laid out what we have currently paid (as opposed to the scaremongering going on about what could be paid).

The amount paid to the banks has to be recorded in the exchequer statements because they are fully government owned (thanks eurostat, it makes it much easier to track). The NAMA bonds don't have to be because the holding company they are at least 51% privately owned (not sure why it makes a difference but it keeps it off the books and the markets don't need to worry about that for about 10 years).

The figures need updating for this year, but since there was no new promissory note issued the figures are still fairly accurate.

All these figures are availabe from the department of finance website, I suggest you take a good long look.

Since 2008 the we've put €15.67 billion into the banks. €10.65 billion of that was done this year (2011).

Deficit in billions
2008 - 12.71
2009 - 24.64
2010 - 14.37
2011 - 22.17 (to 31/10)
That's a total of €73.89 billion in deficits over the past 4 budget years - of which the banks are responsible for the €15.67 billion I've already counted.

The IMF came in October/November 2010 - at 30/09/2010 the deficit was €13.37 billion.

Before the IMF came in we had piled a deficit of €50.72 billion - of which less than €5 billion is due to the banks.

Based on the fact that in less than 3 years we put an amount that nearly equals the entire tax take from 2007 (€47.25 billion - a record) onto the debt in budget deficits, do you really expect me to believe that they were not coming in anyways?

Predalien

In 2010 our deficit was €48.8b, of which 2/3 was bank related debt. Look at it this way, our total public debt stands at about 180b, before the crash our debt was in or around 40b, since then we've had 4 and a half years with deficits (bank debt excluded) of around 12-20b per annum, add your figure of bank debt to date to this and we're nowhere near the total debt burden the public purse is under. You seem to be grossly underestimating how much the bank debt is costing us.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/1022/1224306295560.html

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

In 2010 our deficit was €48.8b, of which 2/3 was bank related debt. Look at it this way, our total public debt stands at about 180b, before the crash our debt was in or around 50b, since then we've had 3 and a half years with deficits (bank debt excluded) of around 15-20b per annum, add your figure of bank debt to date to this and we're nowhere near the total debt burden the public purse is under. You seem to be grossly underestimating how much the bank debt is costing us.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/1022/1224306295560.html

The times - worse the the s*n.

If you want to see how the debt has spiked so much, I suggest you take a look at the masstricht returns (were the times data came from, not that the twit that wrote that article has the wit to actually understand it). We've had to account for all the promissory notes up front in our debt. That doesn't mean that we have to pay for them up front.

The difference between the eurostat figure of €48 billion & the government figure of €18 billion is €30 billion - the cost of the promissory notes. If you look at the exchequer statement for 2010 you'll see that we didn't pay €30 billion in promissory notes in 2010.

We're being mislead as to the immediate scale of the problem by people that are trying to sell newspapers.

Jack_Plumber

JerryHispano,
Thanks for that - you're right… a billion equals a thousand million. I was working off the old European definition. We have now accepted the US definition.

So that bailout to of 34.7 billion to Anglo/Irish Permanent if translated into seconds rather than euro... 34.7 seconds is just over a millennium or 1,099 years.
My point was that we can even start to get our heads around this figures!

JerryHispano wrote: »

Wrong. 1,000 = 1bn. Thanks for using a nice emotive example to help people understand your figures.

Predalien

Is that 30b not the NAMA cost? Which was money that had to be raised somehow.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

Is that 30b not the NAMA cost? Which was money that had to be raised somehow.

Nope - read the document it says, quite clearly, promissory notes.

Since the holding company that owns NAMA is 51% privately owned it doesn't appear on the government books. That's why there's such a problem over the government having to find either a buyer for Irish Life or for their share in the NAMA holding company.

Predalien

Ah, so realistically as it stands, our national debt is around 120b if you exclude the promissory note and NAMA costs, and around 180b if they are included, both have effectively been borrowed by the state to plough into banks disgraceful balance sheets though (and in Anglos's case wind it down with very few people losing money, which I don't agree with). Whatever way you look at it our debt burden has been massively increased by the banks, even with creative bookmaking which can make it look like it's not as bad as it seems.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

Ah, so realistically as it stands, our national debt is around 120b if you exclude the promissory note and NAMA costs, and around 180b if they are included

No, if we include nama it's about 210. Either way the significant majority of the debt is down to spending totally unrelated to the banks.

specialops

Speakin of fresh starts - how are OG gonna achieve that?

They will fade into the background now, back to where they came from,
their 'centre for debate and spread of information' tent was always empty anyway, except for their own delusions .

Would be far more productive if they examined where it all went wrong for them.

Robbo

Back on the topic of OG, I see from today's Advertiser they've run into a couple of classic pitfalls of the the amateur lawyer...

Mr Heffernan has questioned the legality of the removal of the camp, citing Article 40.2 of the Constitution which is the right to assemble in a public space. “That supersedes the public order act the gardaí quoted to us this morning,” he said.

For a start, Article 40.2 prohibits citizens from accepting titles of nobility. Maybe, unbeknownst to us all, Liam Heffernan has been awarded the Order of the British Empire but it's not entirely pertinent to his current situation.

What's he's looking for is Article 40.6.1 (ii) which is the right to assemble peaceably. Which is not an absolute right. In fact, it's directly preceded by it being limited "subject to public order and morality". Oh dear.

specialops

Robbo wrote: »

Back on the topic of OG, I see from today's Advertiser they've run into a couple of classic pitfalls of the the amateur lawyer...

For a start, Article 40.2 prohibits citizens from accepting titles of nobility. Maybe, unbeknownst to us all, Liam Heffernan has been awarded the Order of the British Empire but it's not entirely pertinent to his current situation.

What's he's looking for is Article 40.6.1 (ii) which is the right to assemble peaceably. Which is not an absolute right. In fact, it's directly preceded by it being limited "subject to public order and morality". Oh dear.

:rolleyes:
That and spreading Freeman pseudo law bs as legitimate reason not to pay the Household Charge

Dan_Solo

Redhairedguy wrote: »

It was the collective judgement of the Galway populace that it be removed before the summer of events kicks off.

Did I miss that ballot or have I not been assimilated into the Galway hive-mind?

Predalien

Robbo wrote: »

Back on the topic of OG, I see from today's Advertiser they've run into a couple of classic pitfalls of the the amateur lawyer...

For a start, Article 40.2 prohibits citizens from accepting titles of nobility. Maybe, unbeknownst to us all, Liam Heffernan has been awarded the Order of the British Empire but it's not entirely pertinent to his current situation.

What's he's looking for is Article 40.6.1 (ii) which is the right to assemble peaceably. Which is not an absolute right. In fact, it's directly preceded by it being limited "subject to public order and morality". Oh dear.

Whatever about them getting the article wrong, the public order and morality limitation wouldn't apply as they weren't a threat to public order or the morality of the state. What made the encampment illegal was them residing there, if they wish to assemble on a daily basis in Eyre Square, there is legally nothing wrong with that.

squonk

Predalien wrote: »

Whatever about them getting the article wrong, the public order and morality limitation wouldn't apply as they weren't a threat to public order or the morality of the state. What made the encampment illegal was them residing there, if they wish to assemble on a daily basis in Eyre Square, there is legally nothing wrong with that.

In any case, isn't it time to close this thread now? The camp is gone, they made no difference to anything whatsoever and nothing has changed in the slightest

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

Whatever about them getting the article wrong, the public order and morality limitation wouldn't apply as they weren't a threat to public order or the morality of the state. What made the encampment illegal was them residing there, if they wish to assemble on a daily basis in Eyre Square, there is legally nothing wrong with that.

Way to contradict yourself - if something is illegal it is also defacto immoral. Also if you're doing something illegal your in breach of public order.

By all means, let them assemble every day at the Browne Doorway if they want. Then the can go home or wherever.

Robbo

Predalien wrote: »

Whatever about them getting the article wrong, the public order and morality limitation wouldn't apply as they weren't a threat to public order or the morality of the state. What made the encampment illegal was them residing there, if they wish to assemble on a daily basis in Eyre Square, there is legally nothing wrong with that.

I've already demonstrated how under the Public Order Act as amended, they may have been removed.

My central point is that very few Constitutional rights are absolute, even the ones that appear to be unrestricted. Despite accessed to actual legal advice, OG have come out with this gem. The first week of an undergrad module in Constitutional Law will tell you that the entire blue book may as well be festooned with an asterisk and "Terms and Conditions may apply".

scholar007

The video was really funny. It was interesting how the gardai kept their hands behind their backs as if they were told beforehand so they couldnt be accused by the crustiesprotestors of being aggressive.

What was the lad smoking who was going on about chem trails and monsanto seeds? Whats the jackanory?

Predalien

antoobrien wrote: »

Way to contradict yourself - if something is illegal it is also defacto immoral. Also if you're doing something illegal your in breach of public order.

By all means, let them assemble every day at the Browne Doorway if they want. Then the can go home or wherever.

Sigh, you don't do context do you? The context of the public order and morality limitation which I mentioned was under the freedom of assembly right, morality is this context is ambiguous to say the least, in the 50's for example a protest in favour of legalising abortion would have been considered against the Catholic ethos of the state and therefore immoral.

It is justifiable legally prevent protestors from residing in the square, but if Occupy Galway wish to have a protest 24 hours a day, in that area, that is not against public order or morality, they would simply have to be more careful in their organisation of how the protest would work. If attempts to prevent them doing this were made by the state then the constitutional freedom of assembly right would most likely be infringed upon.

antoobrien

Predalien wrote: »

Sigh, you don't do context do you? The context of the public order and morality limitation which I mentioned was under the freedom of assembly right, morality is this context is ambiguous to say the least, in the 50's for example a protest in favour of legalising abortion would have been considered against the Catholic ethos of the state and therefore immoral.


It is justifiable legally prevent protestors from residing in the square, but if Occupy Galway wish to have a protest 24 hours a day, in that area, that is not against public order or morality, they would simply have to be more careful in their organisation of how the protest would work. If attempts to prevent them doing this were made by the state then the constitutional freedom of assembly right would most likely be infringed upon.

The protest was legal, the assembly was legal - the occupation was not. What right do they have to deny the public this amenity space? I'd love to know why the vagrancy act wasn't applied (especially given the mess they left after them). That's why I believe it was immoral (hence your self contradictions)

The protest imo was immoral because it was spreading lies about the true state of things. It doesn't help that our media are a bunch of lazy sods who couldn't be bothered actually investigating things - 10 minutes on the web will get you more accurate information than anything in the print or broadcast media.

The problem with it is that people don't want to believe that the situation is not as bad as actually is, they want to believe the worst case scenario - whether or not it will come to pass. The media can sell doom and gloom all day long. good news doesn't sell, unless its sports related.

Dan_Solo

antoobrien wrote: »

Way to contradict yourself - if something is illegal it is also defacto immoral.

It is illegal to steal food to feed a baby.:rolleyes:

Dan_Solo

scholar007 wrote: »

The video was really funny. It was interesting how the gardai kept their hands behind their backs as if they were told beforehand so they couldnt be accused by the crustiesprotestors of being aggressive.

Yes, it's almost as if they were ordered not to break the law by beating peaceful protesters. And the only way to ensure that was to clasp their hands tightly behind their backs.

Dan_Solo

antoobrien wrote: »

The protest was legal, the assembly was legal - the occupation was not. What right do they have to deny the public this amenity space? I'd love to know why the vagrancy act wasn't applied (especially given the mess they left after them).

This is what still gets me. If it was illegal from the start, why weren't they moved months back? Why or how does a county county vote enact articles of law?

Rob A. Bank

antoobrien wrote: »

The problem with it is that people don't want to believe that the situation is not as bad as actually is, they want to believe the worst case scenario - whether or not it will come to pass.

Ara shure it'il all be grand !

The Square is empty, all our future governments will effectively be debt collection agencys for the bond marketeers, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, your chances of dying on a hospital trolley have increased, our 10 year bond rate on the way up again, no bankers or developers in jail...



but most importantly the Square is empty... it'il all be grand !

WallyGUFC

Jack_Plumber wrote: »

I want to take my hat off to the various people that had the courage to take a stand against the continual rape of this once proud country by the rich and powerful.

Ironic that the camp was dismantled in preparation for the Volvo Ocean Race.

Courage is a commodity in short supply in this banana republic.

I wonder when the powers that be will take action against the Seanie Fitzpatricks and bankers instead of sticking it to the small guys?

This is absolute nonsense pure and simple. You are praising people for sitting in Eyre Square, surrounded by 300 pallets, taking up a part of a public amenity for 7 months. What's courageous about that? Is the fella in that video courageous? Chemtrails? Please. VOR has nothing to do with this, and btw the week long festival will do an exponential amount more for Galway City and county than this farcical "protest" did in its 7 months. "Rape of this once proud country"? I'll forever be proud to be Irish, no matter how much crap goes on. The guy in that video symbolised the OG camp really. A complete nutjob. A conspiracy theorist, who's ludicrous claims have no basis in fact. No knowledge of anything economics related, which was the basis of the protest and is the basis of the country's problems. Going to be interesting what muppetry they come with in "Phase 2" after the treaty. Once my public amenities aren't affected and they stay out of public view I'm happy. It embarrasses me that these conspiracy theorists are Irish (but as I said I'm still proud of my country.)

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

The [irish] times - worse the the s*n.

antoobrien wrote: »

It doesn't help that our media are a bunch of lazy sods who couldn't be bothered actually investigating things.

10 minutes on the web will get you more accurate information than anything in the print or broadcast media.

Ah, I see.

antoobrien wrote: »

We've had to account for all the promissory notes up front in our debt. That doesn't mean that we have to pay for them up front.

We're being mislead as to the immediate scale of the problem by people that are trying to sell newspapers.

What do you think a promissory note is -- an IOU written on a cigarette packet?

If you use paper notes for daily transactions then you are already using a form of promissory note -- it's real money, and a real financial obligation, whichever way you look at it.

In the context of the Irish taxpayer's bailout of the banks -- and of developers -- this is a financial commitment that must be met, if not today then at some time in the future (cf. Joseph Stiglitz's analysis of the US situation, linked below). One way or another this is real money we are talking about, which if it is not used to repay such outlandish debts could be used for education, healthcare, job creation initiatives, infrastructure, local services and so on. The effects of this economic catastrophe will be felt for a generation at least.

The scale of the problem (e.g. the need for nationalised Irish banks to depend on "lenders of last resort", the citizen footing a bill of c. €30-35 billion to support a single failed bank) is truly enormous and will have major long-term consequences, and it's just facile to suggest that serious concern about this, nationally and internationally, is merely angst stoked up by the likes of the Irish Sun-Times to boost circulation.

The fiscal cost of the Irish bank bailout is the most expensive of any banking crash in a developed economy in the world, ever.

Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has referred to such bank bailouts as privatising profits and socialising losses, a system he calls "ersatz capitalism" or worse, robbery.

Anger is an understandable response to such state-sanctioned immoral (though presumably not illegal) behaviour on a vast scale.

They were only trying to sell copy by any means necessary, of course, but in March 2011 Vanity Fair asked of the Irish "where's the rage?"

WallyGUFC wrote: »

I'll forever be proud to be Irish, no matter how much crap goes on. The guy in that video symbolised the OG camp really. A complete nutjob. A conspiracy theorist, who's ludicrous claims have no basis in fact. No knowledge of anything economics related, which was the basis of the protest and is the basis of the country's problems. Once my public amenities aren't affected and they stay out of public view I'm happy. It embarrasses me that these conspiracy theorists are Irish (but as I said I'm still proud of my country.)

Getting back to OG specifically and the Occupy Movement generally, the reason they were there, IMO, was rage. Incoherent, inarticulate, unhygienic, unaesthetic rage perhaps, but justifiable rage nonetheless.

It was a form of protest, and protest has a long and noble history, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

Here's an example of more articulate rage (with a stronger direct mandate) from 2010, when Fianna Fail was still in power:

We are angry, we have been betrayed and we are disillusioned. But I do not believe it is yet understood just how angry we are. And that anger will find an outlet, the anger that we feel will find its target.

[...]

We are angry that we, our children and our children’s children have been sacrificed by this government to protect the people who bankrolled your party and robbed the Irish People. Men like Fingers and Seanie were held up by government as examples of entrepreneurial skill and business acumen but who were nothing more than ‘gombeen’ men.

We are angry at the arrogance of a government corrupted by years of power has lost touch with the reality of life on a modest salary; if they ever knew it at all. A government whose only agenda is to protect the economic traitors.

[...]

The government of which you are a long serving member has mismanaged the wealth of this country for more than a decade by allowing our assets to be plundered and robbed by bankers and speculators and you are making generations of Irish workers pay the price for this treachery. You did this because bankers and speculators have bought your party, and in return you have sacrificed the greater good and prosperity of the Irish Nation for the benefit of the few – the few who have now taken their ill-gotten gains and secured them in tax haven around the world. Truly, a government of national sabotage.

That's part of a speech written, but ultimately not delivered, by Michael O'Boyce, then President of the Garda Representative Association.

Yes indeed, the GRA. The people who threw OG out of the Square, lawfully, were themselves protesting not too long ago about the same gross immorality in no uncertain terms.

Anger is still finding its target perhaps. C'est la vie.

Wompa1

It was in the nature of real-estate booms to end with crashes—just as it was perhaps in Morgan Kelly’s nature to assume that, if his former students were cast on Irish TV as financial experts, something was amiss. “I just started Googling things,” he says.

That excerpt made me laugh. Was he a bad lecturer or did he not mark hard enough that his students could not become experts? Douche :P I agree with him but only because I think our third level education system is a joke but him pontificating about it is just as absurd as the notion that his students were experts.

Great piece though!

thesandeman

Havn't got around to reading the last couple of pages so sorry if its already been covered:
I live close to the ex-camp and all I can say and see is the arguments/fights/drinking around that area decreased hugely while they were there.
Also on the couple of warm days we had during the last few of months the Occupy people swept up the 'Plaza' when there was nobody from the Corpo to be seen.
I just hope that the elected representives spend as much of their time making sure that this continues in the future.
As I said in the original thread I have absolutly no connection with either the protest or the politicians.

Wompa1

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Gardai previously refuse to do anything but were obliged to when the businesses made a formal request...it was instigated by that P.O.S Conneely but still they did sign it

http://www.galwaynews.ie/25672-businesses-call-action-remove-occupy-galway-camp

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What do you think a promissory note is -- an IOU written on a cigarette packet?

If you use paper notes for daily transactions then you are already using a form of promissory note -- it's real money, and a real financial obligation, whichever way you look at it.

I'm well aware of what a pn is, and I'm also aware of the fact that it failed in its real aim - to keep this debt out of the GGD.

Unlike o.g. and it appears among others you, I'm also well aware of the fact that we haven't handed out €30 billion of them yet.

My objection to calling them part of a deficit figure for 2010 is that it's misleading as it indicates that we've borrowed money for it in 2010. We didn't borrow it, or perhaps more accurately if we did borrow it, it all wasn't borrowed in 2010.

I have an objection to calling it debt as it's something that we may (probably will) end up borrowing money to pay. To quote the little green guy "in motion the future is", so it's worth pointing out that we may also:
end up running a massive surplus
get some or all of it written off
default on it.
In each of these cases, unlikely as I believe them to be, the debt pile would not end up being as large as it is currently being recorded.