Stephen Donnelly, on how the ECB actually owes Ireland €64 billion!

Dockington

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The minister doesn't work alone in his office. He has mandarins in the department of finance qualified in macroeconomics who will advise him on what decision to take. If he doesn't have the expertise at his direct disposal in the CS he seeks outside guidance form consultants. Ultimately the final decision lies with the minister but I would argue the real power lies with the Civil Servants who frame his options.

The minister and his team also have access to all the information necessary to take such decisions unlike outside commentators. This is what really separates them from the rest of us. They also have to take into account political considerations and how their plans interact with their partners.

The idea that an irish politician is taking a difficult course just to please his partners and not because he has to is laughable. If there was any way Noonan could avoid placing pain on the electorate and lessen damage to his partys re election chances he would do it in less than a heartbeat.

Also the idea that the ECB can write off a €64bn loss without effect to the european taxpayer is simply not true. Firstly if it didn't print the money it would need to be recapitalised by european taxpayers. Secondly if it did it would dilute the value of money already in circulation. However more importantly it would undermine confidence in the currency. If they can do something like this for a small country like Ireland, whats stopping them printing Italy or Spain out of trouble?

Donnellys thesis is fundamentally flawed and is a piece of populist trash.

Donnellys point was regarding the perception by citizens of the creditor countries that Ireland was bailed out by their taxpayers. He has a very valid point.

Regarding your point on the dilution of the currency and damaging the confidence in the Euro. One of the functions of a Central bank is the regulation of the banking sector and acting as lender of last resort. Donnelly is not calling for the ECB to cover the irish sovereign debt caused by the general government deficit. He is calling for the banking related debt to be taken off the sovereign balance sheet.

I would suggest that the effect of such a policy on the reputation of the Euro would be positive if it is accompanied by regulations to ensure reckless lending by european banks cannot reoccur.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

I disagree about the quality of my opposition.
However your entitled to your opinion of my opposition. Fair enough.

That said, at least be it bad or somewhat good, at least I (and others) are at least trying and not accepting to go total complacent like others, when they feel something needs further looking at.

Nah I just realise that apparently noble slight rabble-rousing opposition with little follow-through is exactly the kind of opposition that governments thrive on and that what would actually be needed to effect real change is something that just about no-one would be willing to do or support. I just don't feel the need to tell myself that I'm doing something to make a difference when I'm not. :pac:

Pottler

K-9 wrote: »

Excellent post, the amount of people and politicians who don't know this is staggering. The troika washed their hands of any bailing out bank debt, probably because the ECB was keeping IrishEuropean banks alive.

Thanks, but the reason they wouldn't allow the bailout funds be allocated directly to the banks is because Banks go bust/default/have a brain/whinge a lot afterwards/can't actually afford it... somtimes.
They handed it to the State because it is waaaaay harder for a State to default and much easier to twist a soverigns arm into meeting bullsh1t levels of repayment on a totally bullsh1t "bailout". No Politician can ever be seen to encourage a default as
a.they lack the balls.
b.they would be held accountable by the population for generations to come for "wrecking the economy", which would actually be the opposite of the truth, tbf.
c.just not going to happen as it is not in their own personal financial interest, bit like turkeys voting for christmas.
So the dumb repayments continue.

Iceland V Ireland? there's more c's in Iceland, and you have to be a c... to get through a tough situation. We don't have any tough, hard minded politicians, we just have a load of whipped backslappers.

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah I just realise that apparently noble slight rabble-rousing opposition with little follow-through is exactly the kind of opposition that governments thrive on and that what would actually be needed to effect real change is something that just about no-one would be willing to do or support. I just don't feel the need to tell myself that I'm doing something to make a difference when I'm not. :pac:

Well its up to yourself if you want to try making a difference or not.
I hope you and others do.
Some including I might have different opinion about change but at least any change currently is done right with transparency and honesty, is better than none at all.
So far, we are lacking some of the above very regularly.

Ghandee

Dockington wrote: »

Donnellys point was regarding the perception by citizens of the creditor countries that Ireland was bailed out by their taxpayers. He has a very valid point.

Regarding your point on the dilution of the currency and damaging the confidence in the Euro. One of the functions of a Central bank is the regulation of the banking sector and acting as lender of last resort. Donnelly is not calling for the ECB to cover the irish sovereign debt caused by the general government deficit. He is calling for the banking related debt to be taken off the sovereign balance sheet.

I would suggest that the effect of such a policy on the reputation of the Euro would be positive if it is accompanied by regulations to ensure reckless lending by european banks cannot reoccur.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

It has been, and is a scam from start to finish.

Donnelly, eye firmly on the ball rightly points out that this sum of €64 billion, conveniently enough is showing on our banks balance sheets.

And as luck would have it, the Irish banks still have in excess of €64bn of the ECB's cash on their balance sheets.

Were that amount to be written down by €64bn, the Irish State could then extract the same amount from the banks, leaving the balance sheets of the banks, well, balanced. And, usefully, smaller.

Some folk are blinded by the glaringly obvious though.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Well its up to yourself if you want to try making a difference or not.
I hope you and others do.
Some including I might have different opinion about change but at least any change currently is done right with transparency and honesty, is better than none at all.
So far, we are lacking some of the above very regularly.

What's needed for change would be immediately condemned by you and most people, likely by myself as well.

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

What's needed for change would be immediately condemned by you and most people, likely by myself as well.

I'm honestly open-minded to anything put forward.
Sadly so far (and its only my own opinion here although others might agree), any changes made so far - or in line to come in, a lot of them have questions hanging over them and possibly are not as what they might appear.

Stephen Donnelly, on the ECB at least indicates this partly - even if some do not agree with him fully (which is fair enough).

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

I'm honestly open-minded to anything put forward.
Sadly so far (and its only my own opinion here although others might agree), any changes made so far - or in line to come in, a lot of them have questions hanging over them and possibly are not as what they might appear.

The wheels are in motion and much of the bank debt will end up getting folded into the ESM yoke like it should have in the first place. We took on the bank debt off our own backs (good old representative democracy) which wasn't the fordiners' plan and for their own sakes they can't be seen to be letting us off too easily. Without the bank debt we'd still have the ludicrous spending habits we have and all voting does is change about 2-5% of that spending and who gets it. The unions and their cronies will keep getting paid while the kids will pay for it. To get to where other civilised countries are we need higher taxes on everyone but due to our wonderful habit of inflation it seems unfair to put it on lower earners.

As badly as some people, and it's still only some, have been affected the vast majority of us are still doing fine and the alternative is unpalatable to many despite the pissing and moaning they'll do about the current situation. Is anyone in favour of 20-30% cuts in all government departments instantly? Closing tax loopholes in property and the like would be nice but a bit ineffective with so little happening there. NAMA or whatever it's called these days was set up to prevent the crash being even harsher/quicker and the policy that follows from it will keep the status quo.

The conspiracy that Europe somehow inflated our bubble is just silly. There are methods other than monetary policy to take heat out of an economy and we did none of them. We were running at 5% inflation and still increasing spending and cutting (percentage-wise anyway) taxes. What did the opposition complain about? Not enough spending. What did the unions complain about? Not enough spending.

To get out of the current mess would require starting from the ground up and I doubt anyone has the belly for it because many would be surprised what it would cost them in the short-term.

K-9

I don't know, the ECB was funding Irish banks for over a €100 Billion at that stage. Firstly because of the guarantee, which was an Irish sovereign decision, then Nama. I don't think there was any conspiracy, the Irish Government wasn't monitered enough and the EU bodies trusted them.

Eventually Cowen et al made so many mistakes, sure AH would be a record of just how many mistakes, the Irish Government could not be trusted to be left to their own devices anymore.

Pottler wrote: »

Thanks, but the reason they wouldn't allow the bailout funds be allocated directly to the banks is because Banks go bust/default/have a brain/whinge a lot afterwards/can't actually afford it... somtimes.
They handed it to the State because it is waaaaay harder for a State to default and much easier to twist a soverigns arm into meeting bullsh1t levels of repayment on a totally bullsh1t "bailout". No Politician can ever be seen to encourage a default as
a.they lack the balls.
b.they would be held accountable by the population for generations to come for "wrecking the economy", which would actually be the opposite of the truth, tbf.
c.just not going to happen as it is not in their own personal financial interest, bit like turkeys voting for christmas.
So the dumb repayments continue.

Iceland V Ireland? there's more c's in Iceland, and you have to be a c... to get through a tough situation. We don't have any tough, hard minded politicians, we just have a load of whipped backslappers.

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

...To get out of the current mess would require starting from the ground up and I doubt anyone has the belly for it because many would be surprised what it would cost them in the short-term.

I hear what your saying and its a valid opinion with good rational thinking behind it.
I would add though that we need also to be starting from the top down in some way, if possible besides from the ground up.
The 'ground' (You, me, and others) cannot take much more.
An empty sack cannot stand - and the government in their rush to export billions elsewhere is emptying the so called 'sack'.

The 'sack' in our case being our pockets, our wallets and savings.
If the government continue to empty them the way they are now - there will be nothing, absolutely nothing left to spend - and what will be the knock on effects of that!
We cannot afford to continue down the road we are on.
Some latest economic forecasts last week indicates this.

oppenheimer1

Dockington wrote: »

Donnellys point was regarding the perception by citizens of the creditor countries that Ireland was bailed out by their taxpayers. He has a very valid point.

And this perception is entirely correct. Ireland made a promise to guarantee all of the Irish banks debt. It turned out that it wasn't able to meet that obligation. It had to turn to the troika for help. Ireland was bailed out by the tax payers of Europe and the members of the IMF.

Regarding your point on the dilution of the currency and damaging the confidence in the Euro. One of the functions of a Central bank is the regulation of the banking sector and acting as lender of last resort. Donnelly is not calling for the ECB to cover the irish sovereign debt caused by the general government deficit. He is calling for the banking related debt to be taken off the sovereign balance sheet.

I would suggest that the effect of such a policy on the reputation of the Euro would be positive if it is accompanied by regulations to ensure reckless lending by european banks cannot reoccur.

It was never in the ECB's remit to act as a lender of last resort. Its duty is in fact to protect the value of the currency at a stable level.

I agree that the removal of the bank debt from the Irish sovereign balance sheet could be positive for the euro however the method you and Donnelly are proposing to finance it would not be. If the ECB uses its capital to pay for it well then it will need to be recapitalised like our own banks after the losses. It could of course create currency to pay for it but as I said, this would undermine confidence in the currency and lead to speculation that it would bail out larger economies in a similar fashion. This would destroy the value of the currency and lead to rampant inflation.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

I hear what your saying and its a valid opinion with good rational thinking behind it.
I would add though that we need also to be starting from the top down in some way, if possible besides from the ground up.
The 'ground' (You, me, and others) cannot take much more.
An empty sack cannot stand - and the government in their rush to export billions elsewhere is emptying the so called 'sack'.

Bottom-up is the only way anything can be achieved. It's never happened, it's always the middle that effects "change" that ends up going back to where it started within a decade or so. Well, unless plenty of violence or general despotism is present.

The 'sack' in our case being our pockets, our wallets and savings.
If the government continue to empty them the way they are now - there will be nothing, absolutely nothing left to spend - and what will be the knock on effects of that!
We cannot afford to continue down the road we are on.
Some latest economic forecasts last week indicates this.

Big changes worldwide are due and on principle overdue. There isn't enough for everyone to live half as well as the worst-off in Ireland. Don't believe the political crap behind the Arab Spring, it was due to economics and more of the same is on the way. 100s of thousands protested in Israel over spiralling cost of living increases. American and Europe are the only "old" areas that have the clout to dampen such impacts but it isn't done by magic.

Dockington

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

And this perception is entirely correct. Ireland made a promise to guarantee all of the Irish banks debt. It turned out that it wasn't able to meet that obligation. It had to turn to the troika for help. Ireland was bailed out by the tax payers of Europe and the members of the IMF.



It was never in the ECB's remit to act as a lender of last resort. Its duty is in fact to protect the value of the currency at a stable level.

I agree that the removal of the bank debt from the Irish sovereign balance sheet could be positive for the euro however the method you and Donnelly are proposing to finance it would not be. If the ECB uses its capital to pay for it well then it will need to be recapitalised like our own banks after the losses. It could of course create currency to pay for it but as I said, this would undermine confidence in the currency and lead to speculation that it would bail out larger economies in a similar fashion. This would destroy the value of the currency and lead to rampant inflation.

Firstly I see your point that the initial banking guarantee was entirely Irelands own decision. However, Ireland was instructed by europe to keep paying the bondholders. The "bailout" is a loan which will be paid back with interest and it was in Europes interest to ensure that contagion did not cause a wider banking crisis across europe. As Donnelly pointed out the banks were insolvent and could have easily written down their debt....anyway this has been discussed to death over the past couple of years.

Im for the negotiation route to reduce the burden of the banking bailout on the irish people. I believe we will get a deal of some sort. I had never previously considered that the ECB should be the ones to cover the cost of reducing Irelands bank debt burden, I always assumed it would be the ESM. However having read Donnellys point earlier this evening I thought he made a fair point and its worth considering.

You are wrong about the ECB not being the lender of last resort for the banking system. It certainly is not the lender of last resort for the sovereign but lender of last resort to the banking system is one of the basic functions of a central bank and it has been acting as such since the liquidity in dried up in the interbank market post Lehman in 2008. You are right however that its main remit is to keep inflation around 2%, it has no remit for increasing employment. This is the German system, the Germans are very scared of inlation perhaps due to their history.

However, I think extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures and some thinking outside the box. Donnelly is not proposing the central bank bailing out the sovereign (Draghi has suggested re unlimited buying of sovereign bonds which i would not agree with), he is suggesting it taking responsibility for the banking system. The inflationary pressure of printing new money will somewhat be offset by the contracting european economy. Some might suggest that it would have a stimulatory effect by raising inflation expectations and causing consumers to increase current spending. Anyway this post is going way past the tldr stage and Im more musing over Donnellys suggestion anyway, not saying its definitely the way to go

K-9

Part of the Troika bailout was a contingency fund for banking bail outs. This has never been drawn down as far as I know. We seem to be painting that as some conspiracy, rather than maybe the Troika actually properly went into the banks, and put a proper true and fair estimate on the liability, which turned out too high. We got so used to our lot not getting a handle on the figure, the Troika lot getting some sort of accurate figure is deemed as a conspiracy.

Pottler wrote: »

Thanks, but the reason they wouldn't allow the bailout funds be allocated directly to the banks is because Banks go bust/default/have a brain/whinge a lot afterwards/can't actually afford it... somtimes.
They handed it to the State because it is waaaaay harder for a State to default and much easier to twist a soverigns arm into meeting bullsh1t levels of repayment on a totally bullsh1t "bailout". No Politician can ever be seen to encourage a default as
a.they lack the balls.
b.they would be held accountable by the population for generations to come for "wrecking the economy", which would actually be the opposite of the truth, tbf.
c.just not going to happen as it is not in their own personal financial interest, bit like turkeys voting for christmas.
So the dumb repayments continue.

Iceland V Ireland? there's more c's in Iceland, and you have to be a c... to get through a tough situation. We don't have any tough, hard minded politicians, we just have a load of whipped backslappers.

poeticseraphim

connundrum wrote: »

Speech is on his Facebook page, hopefully this link works.

http://t.co/i3Ln4fPD

not working

Ghandee

poeticseraphim wrote: »

not working

Works fine for me?

AngryHippie

Is there anything that constitutionally requires that deal to have been ratified by a majority vote, as opposed to a majority turnout?
Also how come there is no mechanism for an overseas vote for Irish citizens overseas ? I find that to be rather frustrating. Makes me want to completely abandon any hope of going home...

seamus

AngryHippie wrote: »

Is there anything that constitutionally requires that deal to have been ratified by a majority vote, as opposed to a majority turnout?

No, there is no requirement to have held a vote on the deal, hence they didn't.

Referenda on major issues like this isn't always a good idea because as we've seen from the past few referenda, they're too often hijacked by fringe groups and used as a way of protesting rather than voting on the actual issue.

The point of a referendum is to ask the population, "How do you feel about X". The response shouldn't be, "I hate Y more than I care about X, so I'm going to vote against X in protest".

Also how come there is no mechanism for an overseas vote for Irish citizens overseas ? I find that to be rather frustrating. Makes me want to completely abandon any hope of going home...

Because there's a fair argument which says that if you don't live in a country you shouldn't have any say in how it's run.

Ghandee

seamus wrote: »

No, there is no requirement to have held a vote on the deal, hence they didn't.

Referenda on major issues like this isn't always a good idea because as we've seen from the past few referenda, they're too often hijacked by fringe groups and used as a way of protesting rather than voting on the actual issue.

The point of a referendum is to ask the population, "How do you feel about X". The response shouldn't be, "I hate Y more than I care about X, so I'm going to vote against X in protest".

Because there's a fair argument which says that if you don't live in a country you shouldn't have any say in how it's run.

I agree with you ref the vote while not living in Ireland Seamus, why should some person living in Australia for twenty years, unlikely to ever return to Ireland really have a vote on something that's ever likely to have an impact on their lives?

However, I do think we as a country should have been given an option on the bank bailout via a referendum of some sort.

Its a bit hypocritical holding a referendum on the fiscal treaty, yet pouring all the bank debt onto our sovereignty while giving us no opt in opt out on the matter.

suicide_circus

Can anyone give a compelling argument against Donnelly's assertions ?

Chucky the tree

suicide_circus wrote: »

Can anyone give a compelling argument against Donnelly's assertions ?

Main problem is he draws some very simple conclusion to his ideas.

Had the market been allowed to work, the banks would have been declared insolvent, and a creditors meeting would have been called. At this, an agreement to pay out less than the face value of the bonds would have been reached

That's great. But considering most a likely a large number of those bonds are European banks which would have caused them a fair bit of pain then why would their respective Governments give us money for our deficit? It would be like you walking into the bank and telling them you are only paying half of your car loan back because you can't afford it, leaving and then turning around and walking back in the door and asking them for a loan so you can keep buying nice clothes, good food and a few holidays a year.

It was not used to run the country, to pay for teachers and nurses. And it was not used to keep the banks open, or to keep "money in the ATMs". The Irish banks could have restructured their debts while continuing banking operations for individuals and businesses. In fact, this is exactly what they did with the junior bondholders, and the ATMs worked just fine

I'd love to know what we did use to pay for teachers,d nurses etc because it certainly wasn't covered with our tax revenues.

Dockington

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Main problem is he draws some very simple conclusion to his ideas.




That's great. But considering most a likely a large number of those bonds are European banks which would have caused them a fair bit of pain then why would their respective Governments give us money for our deficit? It would be like you walking into the bank and telling them you are only paying half of your car loan back because you can't afford it, leaving and then turning around and walking back in the door and asking them for a loan so you can keep buying nice clothes, good food and a few holidays a year.


I'd love to know what we did use to pay for teachers,d nurses etc because it certainly wasn't covered with our tax revenues.

I think what Donnelly is trying to get across is that the citizens of the creditor countries should be made aware that us taking the banking debt onto our sovereign balance sheet did save the European banks (and therefore their citizens) "a fair bit of pain" as you put it and recognise that had we not intervened it would have caused a lot of trouble in the eurozone. Remember we could have gone the iceland root and let the banks write down their obligations to nothing.

And yes you are right we would be running a deficit due to a ridiculously narrow tax base and this would have been needed to be closed anyway. However we had a very low debt to GDP ratio without the banking debt and it could be argued that we could have continued to borrow normally from the financial markets avoiding the need for a bailout while in the mean time implementing austerity measures to reduce the bailout.

My points above are really simplified arguments because due to our membership of the eurozone and the interconnectedness of the european banking system we probably could not have "burned the bondholders" without serious ramifications to the banking system but as Donnelly has pointed out the Irish "bailout" was in the self interest of the creditor countries and put an unfair burden on the taxpayers of this country by making them pay back the bad investments of many banks in these same creditor countries and therefore stopping contagion. I believe the Irish people have more than played their part and now it is the turn of the European leadership to play their part and somewhat reduce the burden on the Irish people.

Duggys Housemate

Donnelly 's claim is true. The question is whether we can publicize this. Forget the German media, for now. Forget the British media - Ireland is covered more in the US than the British Media. Get that kinda statement into the WSJ, NYT, Economist etc. It will then spread around the world. Once people understand that the ECB caused the rot, they will be obliged to fix it.

failsafe

Here's the link on YouTube - for anybody looking for it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGTnpCE4do

Ghandee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGTnpCE4do

purplepanda

seamus wrote: »

Because there's a fair argument which says that if you don't live in a country you shouldn't have any say in how it's run.

An argument taken advantage of every Irish government since the '30's to avoid having to answer for policy mistakes. The "get out of jail card" to avoid responsibility.

Yet many European countries give this right to their overseas citizens.

seamus

purplepanda wrote: »

Yet many European countries give this right to their overseas citizens.

I don't understand why. Just because other European countries do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

I don't live in Italy. Therefore I should have no say on how Italy is governed. My country of origin is irrelevant. Providing overseas citizens voting rights is an outdated sentimental nationalist concept.

Dockington

seamus wrote: »

I don't understand why. Just because other European countries do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

I don't live in Italy. Therefore I should have no say on how Italy is governed. My country of origin is irrelevant. Providing overseas citizens voting rights is an outdated sentimental nationalist concept.

I don't have any particularly strong feeling on this however if I had emigrated, rather than waiting in Ireland on the dole, I think I would feel pretty strongly about my right to vote for or against policies or governments that I think will allow me to return and find work in Ireland. The tens of thousands who have emigrated due to the recent crisis should have the right to vote oversees, perhaps registering as an Irish citizen with the local embassy and then attending the embassy to vote.

jmayo

Ghandee wrote: »

...
Who do you trust on serious, economical matters in Ireland, or the world for that matter?

Stephen Donnelly:, a 37 year old graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, having complete a Masters’ degree in Public Administration and International Development in 2008, who spent most of his career as a management consultant with McKinsey & Company (American global management consulting firm that focuses on solving issues of concern to senior management. McKinsey serves as an adviser to many businesses, governments, and institutions. It is recognized as one of the most prestigious consulting firms in the world, has proportionally produced more CEOs in large-scale corporations than any other company, and has been a top employer for new MBA graduates since 1996.)

Or,

Michale Noonan; Minister for finance, a 69 year old former school teacher.

Personally, I'm with Stephen Donnelly.

I'm with neither.
They are both politicans and have alterior motives.

RoundyMooney wrote: »

I think Stephen Donnelly is possibly the brightest political figure that this Dáil has produced. I don't remember him putting a foot wrong once, since he started. And I don't agree with everything he says, but he sure says it well.

A pity we don't have another sixty or so of him.

I used to think the same having met him and talked to him for a while prior to the last election.
Then I hear him claiming mortgage holders in trouble should be bailed out and my opinion quickly changed.

Sorcha16 wrote: »

Stephen Donnelly is a breath of fresh air in a vacuum of bullsh*t

Yeah right.
In that case do you want to help pay for all his homeloan bailouts ?

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Donnelly 's claim is true. The question is whether we can publicize this. Forget the German media, for now. Forget the British media - Ireland is covered more in the US than the British Media. Get that kinda statement into the WSJ, NYT, Economist etc. It will then spread around the world. Once people understand that the ECB caused the rot, they will be obliged to fix it.

There is a lot more at play here than big old bad Brussels or big old bad Frankfurt.
When anyone brings up about bondholders they claim we are paying back German and European banks which is no way the full picture.

What about the assertion by Morgan Kelly that the ones that stopped any bondholder debt writedown during the bailout talks were actually the good old US of A in the form of Timothy Geithner.

Someone had to lay down their future and help stop the rot spreading and we through our government were volunteered.
And when it came time to cover the cost we were volunteered yet again.

Our leaders during the guarantee and bailout talks rolled over and the current crowd are still playing nicely living in the vain hope we get thrown a few scraps.

The Spanish and Italians have the weight to go tell the ECB and the rest to go fook themselves.
Our problem is that we, both as a state and as a people, look for affirmation from foreigners that we are liked, popular and usually do as we are told.
Just look at our contribution to Euro 2012 or our uturns on EU referendums.
We play the happy clappy drunks and we roll over far too easily.

By this stage I think our bargaining position is fook all.
Our only bargaining chip now is that we default on soverign debt.

purplepanda wrote: »

An argument taken advantage of every Irish government since the '30's to avoid having to answer for policy mistakes. The "get out of jail card" to avoid responsibility.

Yet many European countries give this right to their overseas citizens.

How many other European nations would end up with about half the electorate actually residing outside of the country ?
If we gave votes to every Irish born person most of the voters would be in UK or the states.

Ghandee

seamus wrote: »

I don't understand why. Just because other European countries do something, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Which is exactly what lots of people (including myself) have been arguing about with the govts plans to introduce a property tax.

Just because 'they all have one' doesn't mean we need one.