Remember that second bailout we weren't going to need? Alan Dukes isn't so sure.

Bullrush

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Second+bailout+likely+for+Ireland+says+Dukes/id/19410615-5218-4fc7-4008-834875381525

How soon before we hear the same noises from government?

beeftotheheels

Bullrush wrote: »

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Second+bailout+likely+for+Ireland+says+Dukes/id/19410615-5218-4fc7-4008-834875381525

How soon before we hear the same noises from government?

God damn that Government for not being able to predict the future!

trooney

beeftotheheels wrote: »

God damn that Government for not being able to predict the future!

They seemed to think they could predict the future when they were telling us when we'd be back in the markets and wouldn't be needing any future bailouts. Wonder if they can predict their own future at say, hmmm, the next GE?

beeftotheheels

trooney wrote: »

They seemed to think they could predict the future when they were telling us when we'd be back in the markets and wouldn't be needing any future bailouts. Wonder if they can predict their own future at say, hmmm, the next GE?

If things outside our Government's control - such as the Spanish and Greek crisis - cause the position for Ireland's return to the bond market to deteriorate, as has happened, that does not constitute the Government lying to the people.

They never said that we would return to the market, they said we hoped to return (as we did, and as looked possible at that time but as is looking less likely now).

Bullrush

IMO, we were always going to need a second bailout. I can't think of any period where rates were favourable enough for us to go back and start borrowing again.

ardmacha

Paul Samuelson, the Nobel laureate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recalled that John Maynard Keynes once was challenged for altering his position on some economic issue. “When my information changes,” he remembered that Keynes had said, “I change my mind. What do you do?”

beeftotheheels

Bullrush wrote: »

IMO, we were always going to need a second bailout. I can't think of any period where rates were favourable enough for us to go back and start borrowing again.

Not necessarily. The post LTRO rollover of €3.5bn of the 2014 bonds into 2015s back in January was done in and around 5% which would have been manageable.

Godge

In the last year or so, I have tended to believe that we wouldn't need a second bailout but that a second bailout could be useful mainly because if we can borrow at 3% from a second bailout, why would we pay 5-6% on the markets?

Bullrush

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Not necessarily. The post LTRO rollover of €3.5bn of the 2014 bonds into 2015s back in January was done in and around 5% which would have been manageable.

Pity the LTRO wasn't around for us earlier. Was there any chance of us borrowing more when we were still living on borrowed money though?

later12

Bullrush wrote: »

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Second+bailout+likely+for+Ireland+says+Dukes/id/19410615-5218-4fc7-4008-834875381525

How soon before we hear the same noises from government?

We've already had it a few days ago. It's quite welcome. The sooner they face up to this and avoid the farces that have tended to lead up to the European bailouts so far, the better for our reputation and possibly for the terms of that bailout as well.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0522/breaking19.html

Minister of State for Europe Lucinda Creighton has said there is "quite a strong possibility" Ireland will not be able to access international funding markets next year, and "may very well" need access to the European Stability Mechanism (ESM).

Ms Creighton said it was the Government’s intention and aspiration to not rely on "any form of bailout" and be able to return to borrowing on the international capital markets.

"But as every day goes by, and let’s be honest about this, the situation in Greece, the situation in Spain, with all of the uncertainties throughout the euro zone, it makes it much more difficult for that to become a reality," she said.

"So there is a possibility that we would not be able to access the markets in 2013 and we would face a funding cliff in 2014. That’s quite a strong possibility."

Of course, I wouldn't underestimate Creighton's motivation for frankness in light of the Treaty Referendum; nevertheless, I think it's more of a case of pressure driving her sincerity as opposed to this being some sort of scare mongering tactic.

kennyb3

beeftotheheels wrote: »

If things outside our Government's control - such as the Spanish and Greek crisis - cause the position for Ireland's return to the bond market to deteriorate, as has happened, that does not constitute the Government lying to the people.

They never said that we would return to the market, they said we hoped to return (as we did, and as looked possible at that time but as is looking less likely now).

Yeah it's all to do with that, nothing at all to do with our horrific debt to GDP ratio.

Why the feck did we need the first bail out again?

Icepick

Of course. The economic figures (high GDP&GNP growth) were just wishful thinking.

_Kaiser_

beeftotheheels wrote: »

God damn that Government for not being able to predict the future!

beeftotheheels wrote: »

If things outside our Government's control - such as the Spanish and Greek crisis - cause the position for Ireland's return to the bond market to deteriorate, as has happened, that does not constitute the Government lying to the people.

They never said that we would return to the market, they said we hoped to return (as we did, and as looked possible at that time but as is looking less likely now).

Oh come on! It's been blatantly obvious for the last several years that the situation was only getting worse as the can continued to be kicked down the road as a result of no real effective measures being taken, while unemployment continued to rise and people's personal situations continued to deteriorate

Or to put it another way "property crash?! Sure who could have seen that coming!" :rolleyes:

ardmacha

Of course. The economic figures (high GDP&GNP growth) were just wishful thinking.

These figures were based on a functioning international economy, which does not exist. Ireland will grow at twice the Eurozone growth rate, as predicted, the problem is that this is twice nothing.

jimmycrackcorm

Godge wrote: »

In the last year or so, I have tended to believe that we wouldn't need a second bailout but that a second bailout could be useful mainly because if we can borrow at 3% from a second bailout, why would we pay 5-6% on the markets?

A little tidbit missed by most. Wouldn't a second bailout actually be advantageous.

paddy0090

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

A little tidbit missed by most. Wouldn't a second bailout actually be advantageous.

No. They'll just keep borrowing until all our creditors are super secured(Eu/IMF/ECB).

We worked harder at our finances and were more disciplined when credit was more expensive in the run up to the launch of the euro. Getting cheaper credit is great if you use it properly. I don't think they will. I think they'll p*ss it all away on ministerial vanity projects and pointless make work initiatives e.g The RPA is changing it's remit and planning specialized bus only bus lanes - who exactly is on these buses. They haven't exactly kept up the promise to keep a cap on their advisors pay -"Ah Enda man, this guy is like totes l'oreal".

Whatever you consider the reason the current strategy is failing. Collectively they've tried to fence off too much and if they get a whiff of a second bailout they'll leave the fences in place and individually fence of more of there own departments.

In theory you might be right, but in the practice of Irish politics your wrong.

Dannyboy83

I don't think they seriously believed that we could avoid a second bailout (or a third for that matter), but it's just one of those things governments have to lie about.

Paarthurnax

trooney wrote: »

Wonder if they can predict their own future at say, hmmm, the next GE?

That FG/FF coalition will be interesting :rolleyes:

the groutch

Paarthurnax wrote: »

That FG/FF coalition will be interesting :rolleyes:

A FF/FG coalition would turn us into a 3rd world country

Boskowski

trooney wrote: »

They seemed to think they could predict the future when they were telling us when we'd be back in the markets and wouldn't be needing any future bailouts. Wonder if they can predict their own future at say, hmmm, the next GE?

And who are you going to vote for then, just out of interest? The old crowd back in?

_Kaiser_

Boskowski wrote: »

And who are you going to vote for then, just out of interest? The old crowd back in?

And therein lies the biggest problem in Irish politics - the lack of real choice.

FF/FG are just 2 sides of the same coin, and with our system setup the way it is, anything new or different hasn't a chance. Those who COULD change this are of course the biggest benefactors of the current system so that's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas!

Then again, after today's decision by the cowed fearful people of Ireland it probably won't matter anymore who's in government here. They'll just be caretakers who implement whatever they're told.

Again, well done Ireland!

Sand

Boskowski wrote: »

And who are you going to vote for then, just out of interest? The old crowd back in?

Does it make much difference? Honestly?

Good loser

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

And therein lies the biggest problem in Irish politics - the lack of real choice.

FF/FG are just 2 sides of the same coin, and with our system setup the way it is, anything new or different hasn't a chance. Those who COULD change this are of course the biggest benefactors of the current system so that's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas!

Then again, after today's decision by the cowed fearful people of Ireland it probably won't matter anymore who's in government here. They'll just be caretakers who implement whatever they're told.

Again, well done Ireland!

IMO it didn't need anything more than basic open-ness to logic and commonsense to vote yes.

coolshannagh28

IMO it didn't need anything more than basic open-ness to logic and commonsense to vote yes.[/Quote]
The only issue I had with the referendum was that I couldn't decide which vote was going to force us to miss a second bailout and face the music .
A no could possibly have left us without access to the ESM and forced to cut our spending ,however a yes vote theoreticaly ties us into a regime where the rest of europe will also force us to cut spending ,in the end I didn't bother as its a nil equation