Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Kenny to push for debt deal after Yes vote
Options
Comments
-
mac_iomhair wrote: »The ESM would have went on ahead without an Irish vote regardless.
Nobody on the yes side claimed otherwise, since it requires the ratification of countries supplying 90% of the capital for it come come into force (we have about 2% iirc).
What it was claimed was that we wouldn't have access to ESM funding.0 -
antoobrien wrote: »Nobody on the yes side claimed otherwise, since it requires the ratification of countries supplying 90% of the capital for it come come into force (we have about 2% iirc).
What it was claimed was that we wouldn't have access to ESM funding.
That's not really the point of my post anto. My point is how powerless we are in Europe.
The way things are developing though I believe that the 'yes' vote will help in the coming months.0 -
Try reading it again said nothing of the sort.
mmm I see................
Well explain by what you mean by the "most patriotic areas"?
What does that even mean and do you have proof of areas that are more patriotic than others.
Of course to do all this you have to define patriotic.
So off you go....0 -
mac_iomhair wrote: »They may say 'Good dog', 'Good boy' and we will feel very good about ourselves.
I find it very hard to get the image of Kenny being patted on the head by Sarkosy out of my head .. speaks volumes really.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
I don't think I would have considered where we are as "a ridiculously pessimistic prediction" in 2008.
Yeah, you would have tbh. For example I remember you getting quite grumpy about all the NAMA doom mongers who didnt understand how NAMA couldnt lose money because of its loss clawback mechanism.
Heres a typical post from a few years ago fighting the good fight against the doom mongers/realists.Not only that, but if NAMA loses money, there is a clawback mechanism to take the loss out of the banks' profits, because after all, this is their mess that's being cleaned up.
Tell me, do you still think the Irish state will avoid any loss on NAMA by charging the state owned banks under the risk sharing clause?
And then from the same post you on the Irish property market prospects:Over a decade - not in the next year or two. That's a 2.5% annual rise per decade (yes, it actually is!) - or, if we assume prices continue to drop until 2013, then we need a 6.5% annual rise in property prices for the next 6 years.
Those are not in any way bizarre figures. They do assume an Irish economic recovery, as opposed to Japan-style years of deflation, that's all.
Are you still presuming Japan-style years of deflation in the Irish property market is so bizarre?
I'll grant that you always presented yourself as a moderate bystander puzzled and dismayed by the supposedly irrational pessimism of other posters, so you may never have seen yourself as an optimist. But I have never noticed you taking irrational optimists to task in the same way as you tackle merchants of doom and gloom.
And I'm not having a go at you in particular - I checked the posts back in Q4 2008 in the Politics forum: The Politics forum at the time was obsessed with the Lisbon 2 screaming and shouting. The implications of the banking guarantee weren't widely understood, and predictions of doom and gloom weren't rife.
And that's the point. Government policy to date has led to an outcome which would have been incomprehensible back in Q4 2008 - back when it was still widely believed we had some sovereignty left to surrender. The Lisbon 2 debate was all the more heated because of that. Since then we have become the dependent wards of the "core" goodwill.
We were in a bad place, and the government policy of "extend and pretend" and "good boy" behavior has made our position much worse in ways that we could barely imagine back then. The architects of Ireland's strategy - or lack thereof- cannot excuse themselves by saying things were bad - if you find a drowning man and throw him an anchor you cant excuse yourself by shrugging and say "Meh, he was already drowning so I didn't do any harm".Much of it is a pretty predictable outcome of the bursting of the property bubble, and some of it is very standard recession fare - the official "reasons" banks don't lend in a recession may vary, but that they don't is invariable.
Predictable sure, but you took ei.sdraob to task for predicting it in that post.The unemployment I consider surprisingly low, although much of that will be the emigration valve releasing some of the pressure.
Thanks - Id forgotten to highlight the return of mass emigration as something which would have been incomprehensibly pessimistic back in 2008. 14-15% unemployment is not low. I recall Morgan Kelly being denounced as a loon for predicting up to 20% unemployment.Government growth predictions not being met is also extremely predictable, but to be honest that there is growth at this stage I also find fairly surprising.
Unfortunate that the sustainability of our debt is based on those growth predictions being met - a debt sustainability which I recall you strongly believing to be reasonable. As I have noted before, any amount of debt can be considered sustainable if you merely predict enough growth to support it. That growth is not materializing. Are you still convinced that Ireland debt is sustainable?
I also find it surprising that there is growth at this stage - per the latest statistics Ireland is back in recession due to GDP declines in the second half of 2011. Only growth in the first half of 2011 allowed a minor GDP growth for the year to be recorded.I would say that compared to my personal "worst case" scenarios, this is - to put a number on it - about a quarter or a third as bad.
Compared to my personal "worst case" scenario its paradise. We could be out there engaging in cannibalism, gang warfare and the breakdown of civilization. A bit like the Road. A fate that I recall being predicted for Iceland back in the day because a small, tiny, isolated nation dared to represent their own interests first and foremost. Their unemployment rate is about half ours and they're issuing debt now, aren't they?
That we haven't reached the point of economic meltdown cant be recorded as a success, Im afraid, as it has to be weighted by probability.And, to be honest, while I can see some relatively small ways in which things might be better, the only way things could be a lot better is if the rest of Europe had simply taken on chunks of our debt themselves. Unfortunately, there has never been any reason for them to do so - and the idea is frankly bizarre, or would be, were it not for the experience of the past fourty years.
I think the idea of Europe taking on our debts has always been the dream tbh - as such, the dreamers have never placed proper weight on running up that debt to unsustainable levels. Its always better to delay closing the deficit if you believe someone else will pay the final bill. The "doom and gloom" and "overnight cuts" brigades have had a more realistic idea of whose going to pay the final bill.
I recall you arguing that the Treaty was a stepping stone to securing Europes agreement to taking on our debts only a few weeks ago. Of course, you weren't able to advance any statement from Germany to support that dream, and I'm glad your realistic appraisal has reasserted itself now that the Yes vote is secured.
Again - As I noted previously, Germany and Co couldn't care less if we devolve into Albania-on-the-Atlantic. And you're right there has never been any reason for them to care, because we have refused to even dare to offer them one. The belief has always been that throwing away any negotiating cards will win us more goodwill, versus the benefit that might be won by playing them. Our entire policy has been based on a childish belief that a suitable act of contrition will elicit forgiveness and rescue from the parent "core". The recent expressions of polite German incredulity at ideas of debt relief might be surprising to the optimists, but not to the doom and gloom brigade.
TL;DR
A brief parable of Irelands negotiating stance, and why it doesn't work.
0 -
Yeah, you would have tbh. For example I remember you getting quite grumpy about all the NAMA doom mongers who didnt understand how NAMA couldnt lose money because of its loss clawback mechanism.
Heres a typical post from a few years ago fighting the good fight against the doom mongers/realists.
Tell me, do you still think the Irish state will avoid any loss on NAMA by charging the state owned banks under the risk sharing clause?
No, but then I didn't then either. My argument was with those who were claiming that NAMA would lose the entirety of the money put into it. Hence:Scofflaw wrote:I'm not a fan of NAMA - it would certainly have been better not to be in a position where such a thing was in any sense required. Nor am I particularly optimistic about NAMA. I'm only involved in the debate because, as so often with anything complex, the sheer level of misunderstanding and misinformation about NAMA is horrific.
The contention of the doom-mongers was not that NAMA just wouldn't make money, it was that the scale of losses in NAMA would be horrific - calculations of the national debt regularly tacked on the whole NAMA balance sheet. I didn't think that was realistic then, and I still don't think it's realistic.And then from the same post you on the Irish property market prospects:Over a decade - not in the next year or two. That's a 2.5% annual rise per decade (yes, it actually is!) - or, if we assume prices continue to drop until 2013, then we need a 6.5% annual rise in property prices for the next 6 years.
Those are not in any way bizarre figures. They do assume an Irish economic recovery, as opposed to Japan-style years of deflation, that's all.
Are you still presuming Japan-style years of deflation in the Irish property market is so bizarre?
I still think the idea of growth in the Irish property market is not bizarre, which is what I said, and what you've actually quoted but then misread. A decade of deflation is certainly something I'm privately hopeful of, but pessimistically don't believe is very likely.I'll grant that you always presented yourself as a moderate bystander puzzled and dismayed by the supposedly irrational pessimism of other posters, so you may never have seen yourself as an optimist. But I have never noticed you taking irrational optimists to task in the same way as you tackle merchants of doom and gloom.
Sure - I used to do that back in the days when it was popular to be irrationally bubbly. We needed rational pessimists back then, we need rational optimists now.And I'm not having a go at you in particular - I checked the posts back in Q4 2008 in the Politics forum: The Politics forum at the time was obsessed with the Lisbon 2 screaming and shouting. The implications of the banking guarantee weren't widely understood, and predictions of doom and gloom weren't rife.
And that's the point. Government policy to date has led to an outcome which would have been incomprehensible back in Q4 2008 - back when it was still widely believed we had some sovereignty left to surrender. The Lisbon 2 debate was all the more heated because of that. Since then we have become the dependent wards of the "core" goodwill.
We were in a bad place, and the government policy of "extend and pretend" and "good boy" behavior has made our position much worse in ways that we could barely imagine back then. The architects of Ireland's strategy - or lack thereof- cannot excuse themselves by saying things were bad - if you find a drowning man and throw him an anchor you cant excuse yourself by shrugging and say "Meh, he was already drowning so I didn't do any harm".
Again, I'm not particularly a fan of government policy, but haven't really seen better alternatives being presented. Much of the belief that we could get somewhere better by stamping our feet and throwing wobblers seems to me to be wishful thinking without any clear aim or strategy.Predictable sure, but you took ei.sdraob to task for predicting it in that post.
Eh, that's more to do with the way ei.sdraob tended to reach his conclusions.Thanks - Id forgotten to highlight the return of mass emigration as something which would have been incomprehensibly pessimistic back in 2008. 14-15% unemployment is not low. I recall Morgan Kelly being denounced as a loon for predicting up to 20% unemployment.
Perhaps, but I consider 14% as a low outcome. I don't consider the return of emigration particularly surprising either.Unfortunate that the sustainability of our debt is based on those growth predictions being met - a debt sustainability which I recall you strongly believing to be reasonable. As I have noted before, any amount of debt can be considered sustainable if you merely predict enough growth to support it. That growth is not materializing. Are you still convinced that Ireland debt is sustainable?
I also find it surprising that there is growth at this stage - per the latest statistics Ireland is back in recession due to GDP declines in the second half of 2011. Only growth in the first half of 2011 allowed a minor GDP growth for the year to be recorded.
The sustainability of the debt isn't based on the Irish government's inevitably rosy growth predictions, though, but on the IMF's predictions, which I do consider reasonable. And yes, there has been growth.
Having said that, it would be a complete misrepresentation of my views to pretend I think that growth will inevitably be realised. While it's fun to paint me as some kind of mad Pollyanna, I'm acutely aware that there's a high downside risk to any growth predictions, and the Irish economy remains extremely fragile.
So it may well be that there comes a point where the debt is seen to be unsustainable - but claiming that point is now requires more faith in one's own predictive powers than I could muster.Compared to my personal "worst case" scenario its paradise. We could be out there engaging in cannibalism, gang warfare and the breakdown of civilization. A bit like the Road. A fate that I recall being predicted for Iceland back in the day because a small, tiny, isolated nation dared to represent their own interests first and foremost. Their unemployment rate is about half ours and they're issuing debt now, aren't they?
I don't recall anyone predicting Iceland would be reduced to a colder Mad Max as a result of their treatment of bank debt - to be honest, I think you're simply making that up, which is silly. As to their unemployment levels - half ours is 7 times their previous rate, where ours is 3.5 times, so it depends on how you want to view the stats. Certainly the Icelanders haven't regarded it as fun - they have in fact regarded it much as Irish people have viewed the Irish crisis.That we haven't reached the point of economic meltdown cant be recorded as a success, Im afraid, as it has to be weighted by probability.
Sure - but then economic meltdown has now been a week away for even longer than the recovery.I think the idea of Europe taking on our debts has always been the dream tbh - as such, the dreamers have never placed proper weight on running up that debt to unsustainable levels. Its always better to delay closing the deficit if you believe someone else will pay the final bill. The "doom and gloom" and "overnight cuts" brigades have had a more realistic idea of whose going to pay the final bill.
Not really - they've just had an entirely unrealistic view of what's possible.I recall you arguing that the Treaty was a stepping stone to securing Europes agreement to taking on our debts only a few weeks ago. Of course, you weren't able to advance any statement from Germany to support that dream, and I'm glad your realistic appraisal has reasserted itself now that the Yes vote is secured.
Actually, I said that the Treaty was regarded by Germany as a sine qua non for any further movement on their part. I didn't suggest it had anything to do with a debt deal for Ireland. You quite correctly pointed out at the time that there was no evidence of anything concrete in the way of such a commitment from Germany, which I had to accept. It's a pity your memory of the exchange suffers from your too common misrepresentation of other people's positions.Again - As I noted previously, Germany and Co couldn't care less if we devolve into Albania-on-the-Atlantic. And you're right there has never been any reason for them to care, because we have refused to even dare to offer them one. The belief has always been that throwing away any negotiating cards will win us more goodwill, versus the benefit that might be won by playing them. Our entire policy has been based on a childish belief that a suitable act of contrition will elicit forgiveness and rescue from the parent "core". The recent expressions of polite German incredulity at ideas of debt relief might be surprising to the optimists, but not to the doom and gloom brigade.
TL;DR
A brief parable of Irelands negotiating stance, and why it doesn't work.
Eh, hard chaw talk. Fun, but the belief we can get something by table-banging is only a belief. It comes up again and again, and each time it has little to back it except a serious over-estimation of the cards in Ireland's hands. And if we don't have good cards, it's a bluff, and I find the idea it wouldn't be called immediately slightly comical.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
@ScofflawThe contention of the doom-mongers was not that NAMA just wouldn't make money, it was that the scale of losses in NAMA would be horrific
I'm not going to reopen the NAMA case because its done and all that's left is the scale of the bill that's going to be presented in a few years time.
But the idea that NAMA will fail to make money, and will instead record horrific losses is not doom and gloom. Its realistic. Not recognizing that is relatively optimistic.Sure - I used to do that back in the days when it was popular to be irrationally bubbly. We needed rational pessimists back then, we need rational optimists now.
Id say we needed and need rational realists - not contrarians. Taking up a optimistic position simply because others are pessimistic is not rational.Again, I'm not particularly a fan of government policy, but haven't really seen better alternatives being presented. Much of the belief that we could get somewhere better by stamping our feet and throwing wobblers seems to me to be wishful thinking without any clear aim or strategy.
Many alternatives and suggestions have been made over the past 5 years (Like dont do NAMA, revoke the guarantee, let the banks fail and only step in to relaunch them, accelerate the cutting of the deficit, dont do Croke Park, reform the government...) they have been drowned out and ignored by chants of "There is no alternative". As such, its not surprising that you've not seen any better alternatives being presented.
Advocates of the strategy pursued seem to believe that one of the unique selling points of their strategy is that no other alternative exists.
The stamping of feet and throwing wobblers comment is telling. I'll deal with it later.So it may well be that there comes a point where the debt is seen to be unsustainable - but claiming that point is now requires more faith in one's own predictive powers than I could muster.
But hasn't this been your view all along? That for the sake of argument you'll allow that things might get worse, but making projections for things getting bad is mildly ridiculous? And when they do get worse, well, you *did* make an allowance that they might
From October 2008, in response to a poster noting Iceland would have got into just as much trouble inside the EU, noting that Ireland got itself in a similar right mess:Hmm. If you're trying to say that Ireland is in as much of a mess as Iceland, you are leaving out rather a lot - 15% inflation, collapsing banks and a collapsing currency.
regards,
Scofflaw
And thats the point. Everyone, including yourself, thought it mildly ridiculous that Ireland and Iceland could be in comparable amounts of trouble back in 2008: we were safe and warm inside the EU with only mild banking problems, they were cast adrift to drown alone under the huge waves of immense powers thanks to their collapsing banks. But government policy has taken us from that time, to the present, where Iceland is well ahead of us in terms of recovery - both economic and national. But that's not ever recognized.
Its often noted that madness is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. Now, we know the policy we pursued. We know the result achieved was poor, yet we have no way improving our policy-making in future because its presumed the policy was perfect, flawless, without significant error or misjudgement. There is no alternative, afterall.Actually, I said that the Treaty was regarded by Germany as a sine qua non for any further movement on their part. I didn't suggest it had anything to do with a debt deal for Ireland. You quite correctly pointed out at the time that there was no evidence of anything concrete in the way of such a commitment from Germany, which I had to accept. It's a pity your memory of the exchange suffers from your too common misrepresentation of other people's positions.
Oh right, I misrepresented your position that the Germans would consider any further movement (movement to what exactly? Not debt relief or aid of any sort clearly - why does Ireland care then?) conditional on us passing the Treaty. A trade-off you might say. Glad that's cleared up.
Scofflaw - the Treaty isnt viewed as anything of the sort by Germany. Its viewed as the solution for a crisis caused by reckless peripheral governments spending themselves into trouble.
Once the solution is put in place, no further movement is required from Germany. We're seeing this now with puzzled Germans lining up to laugh politely at the idea of further movement being raised by pathetic figures like Kenny and Gilmore.
We have endorsed the German narrative by voting Yes to the treaty. Voting No might not have made any difference to the Germans, but there was the slight chance puzzled Germans might have asked Merkel why the Irish weren't accepting the solution to their problems - which didn't mention banks once. That slight chance is now removed.
There is a continued delusion where we convince ourselves that institutions, for example the ECB, are in some way grateful to us for making the bailout work as an example. How did that work out on the promissory notes?Eh, hard chaw talk. Fun, but the belief we can get something by table-banging is only a belief. It comes up again and again, and each time it has little to back it except a serious over-estimation of the cards in Ireland's hands. And if we don't have good cards, it's a bluff, and I find the idea it wouldn't be called immediately slightly comical.
Why is it that calls for the government to represent Ireland's interests in negotiations are characterized as "table banging" or "stamping feet" or "throwing wobblers"?
Have these people never been able to have an honest discussion with people with differing objectives and problems without banging the table, stamping their feet and throwing a wobbler? Most adult human beings tend to develop these skills - either by aptitude or experience. No one is calling for Irelands negotiating team to run into the room, bawl like bullocks, push over the table and then throw themselves on the floor screaming like children. That people have been programmed to think that representing Ireland's interests is akin to that sort of behavior is both interesting and troubling.
There's a couple of things Ireland could do without having to shout:
1) They could stop telling everyone that Ireland has no options. The Germans have TV and internet too, so messages designed for domestic consumption will be picked up by the people we will be negotiating with. It doesn't really matter if Ireland has or hasn't options - telling your opposition that you have no choice but to accept any terms offered is crap negotiating.
2) Stop telling everyone that Ireland will not be bribed. Yes we will be bribed, thanks very much.
3) They could stop endorsing the incorrect German narrative of our problems. At every point, Ireland should politely but firmly note that it was the banks that broke the sovereign and that a solution to the Irish problem needs to be focused on the banks. Ireland should not send its leader to tell the assembled world that it was all Ireland's fault. If its all Ireland's fault, what exactly is the moral case for debt relief?
4) They could politely but firmly note that the November 2010 bailout is not working, and could never work and that it was a mistake for Ireland to enter into it. They could also note that Ireland has done everything asked of it by the Troika - as endorsed by the Troika - so the failure is not due to a lack of co-operation. They could also note that the Trichet/ECB incorrect and reckless policy of "no bondholder left behind" has done great damage to the Irish sovereign's own ability to issue debt.
5) They could note that Ireland has hung its hopes on a European wide solution being developed over time, and that now almost 4 years in Irelands ability to maintain the "extend and pretend" facade is greatly reduced. That Ireland wants to co-operate and play its part, but that with no European solution being developed and with no serious movements on EU banking and with the failure of bailout increasingly likely that Ireland will have to begin to weigh up what exactly is the worst case scenario before it accepts further conditional support as it cannot in good faith enter into a second bailout which is also doomed to fail from the outset.
No table banging required. Just an honest appraisal of our situation, accentuating that the current plan which is not in Ireland's interests is not working, rather than the current "Yeah, we're grand so we are. No troubles here. Worry about dem Greeks - they're the ones with problems."
Isn't it slightly ludicrous that its headline news that Kenny and Gilmore are going to ask Merkel for a deal on Irish debt in June 2012? Surely they and previous Irish government should have been pushing that particular case for at least several years already? Instead, they've been busy painting themselves into a corner, keeping quiet whenever anyone asks if Ireland needs help and nodding frantically when anyone asks if the deal is working.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's pretty obvious now that Ireland has no cards left to play ,the spotlight has moved on we are old news . We had a window of opportunity for a couple of years when we had leverage ,that passed last week ,we now have to make the reforms required of us 5 years ago .
We may get some relief as Spain and Italy succumb but not anything like that once
expected .
We are bound now by the fiscal compact ,it will be used to ensure real structural reforms are carried out in our public service and general spending . This will be painful but necessary ,expect strikes ,strife, a change of government and ultimately default .0 -
coolshannagh28 wrote: »It's pretty obvious now that Ireland has no cards left to play ,the spotlight has moved on we are old news . We had a window of opportunity for a couple of years when we had leverage ,that passed last week ,we now have to make the reforms required of us 5 years ago .
We may get some relief as Spain and Italy succumb but not anything like that once
expected .
We are bound now by the fiscal compact ,it will be used to ensure real structural reforms are carried out in our public service and general spending . This will be painful but necessary ,expect strikes ,strife, a change of government and ultimately default .
I would say possibly rather than ultimately.
Re Sands post I think the ECB through lending €100m at 1% plus the cut in the rescue interest has been a major benefit to us by Germany.
The rest is up to ourselves.0
Advertisement