Vast majority happy Ireland is in EU, uninterested in further integration

Scofflaw

From today's IT:

On the question of whether or not it was better to be part of the EU, the poll confirmed the long-term trend with a massive 74 per cent saying it was better to be involved, 14 per cent were opposed, and 12 per cent had no opinion.

On the question of further European integration there is a wider range of views. The biggest number of people think the process has gone far enough, but a significant proportion would like to see it continue. Asked how they felt on the issue, 16 per cent felt the integration process had gone too far, 45 per cent said it had gone far enough, 37 per cent said the process should continue, and just 2 per cent had no opinion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1127/1224327144265.html

That's a definite majority in favour of no further integration, it would seem, although I wonder how meaningful the result is - I'd be in the 45% category rather than the 37% as an open-ended general response, but would support, for example, banking union as a specific piece of integration.

cordially,
Scofflaw

poeticseraphim

Scofflaw wrote: »

From today's IT:





http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1127/1224327144265.html

That's a definite majority in favour of no further integration, it would seem, although I wonder how meaningful the result is - I'd be in the 45% category rather than the 37% as an open-ended general response, but would support, for example, banking union as a specific piece of integration.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I imagine the integration question depends on what shape Europe takes.

I myself am not for or against integration in and of itself...I simply do not want it without seeing it first. I want more forethought into the future of these structures if they are to exist.

People are not for or against EU integration...they are for good ideas or against bad ideas.


Whether or not people feel confident about EU integration depends on the feasibility of those plans and the faith people have in the personalities involved.

If there was more openness and accountability in terms of expenses and a will to deal with corruption i think people would favor it more.

On the other hand if people lose faith in national politics as they are in Spain and Italy...then the EU may gain popularity from that.

It really depends on the treaty, idea or structure you are talking about before i could say myself.

Even the idea of a federal EU for me depends on the strength of the proposed structures and ideas.

The problem is the tendency to integrate one aspect of nationhood and assume other factors will behave in unison instead of individually. They deal with these as they come instead of preparing. The Euro was one such instance....not a bad idea....but an unfinished one...eh sort of like the EU....'Cowboys Ted' :-D

Dotsie~tmp

Its coming whether we want it or not.

eire4

Scofflaw wrote: »

From today's IT:





http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1127/1224327144265.html

That's a definite majority in favour of no further integration, it would seem, although I wonder how meaningful the result is - I'd be in the 45% category rather than the 37% as an open-ended general response, but would support, for example, banking union as a specific piece of integration.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tend to agree with you there Scofflaw. In general I like Ireland being in the EU but think overall that we have enough EU as is. Although as you mention a banking union is a good example of a specific piece of more integration which would I think be good.

McDave

Being asked if you are in favour of further integration is asking people to buy a pig in a poke.

If a poll asked if you would prefer more integration to deal with high finance and budget control, the response might be a it more positive. I for one support the notion of 'ever closer union', but only on an evolutionary basis to deal with new problems as they present themselves, and which require solutions at a supranational level. I'm *not* in favour of a federal structure, to be filled in with interstitial powers as the federation's institutions deem fit. I prefer there to be a strong sovereign national element to keep the EU honest, and prevent sovereignty coming from the top down.

I expect a lot of people feel that way. No open-ended integration. But significant new powers agreed by consent on a case-by-case basis. Just like what is happening with the response to the EZ crisis right now.

Scofflaw

McDave wrote: »

Being asked if you are in favour of further integration is asking people to buy a pig in a poke.

If a poll asked if you would prefer more integration to deal with high finance and budget control, the response might be a it more positive. I for one support the notion of 'ever closer union', but only on an evolutionary basis to deal with new problems as they present themselves, and which require solutions at a supranational level. I'm *not* in favour of a federal structure, to be filled in with interstitial powers as the federation's institutions deem fit. I prefer there to be a strong sovereign national element to keep the EU honest, and prevent sovereignty coming from the top down.

I expect a lot of people feel that way. No open-ended integration. But significant new powers agreed by consent on a case-by-case basis. Just like what is happening with the response to the EZ crisis right now.

It's a bit like being asked "do you want more government?". How many people would say yes to that, as it's put? Very few, I would have thought - but the same people will certainly vote for more government when presented with a specific area they feel could do with more government intervention.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum

Polls taken in isolation are usually of not much use, as we all know from mid term polls in Ireland and the UK where the government usually gets a good kicking and then rebounds before a general election.

In a 2011 ARD poll, 46 percent agreed that "Germany should have held onto the deutsche mark.

The EU's Eurobarometer survey in 2010, covering 27,000 throughout the EU, showed only 49% support for the EU.

Right across Europe, the levels of dissatisfaction with the EU are growing. In Italy, for example, the 1972 Eurobarometer study showed 73% of Italians claimed some sort of European Identity. In 2010, the Eurobarometer showed this had fallen to just 60% of Italians and the rise there of anti EU elements are of concern to the government.

My anecdotal experience travelling around Ireland suggests this Irish Times poll is of dubious value. I travel around quite a bit and the visceral anti EU sentiments in Ireland are everywhere, and most articulating that they understand Ireland has effectively been sold down the river by the EU, being forced to take on huge debts to save the banks in the EU, in return for which Ireland will be in servitude into perpetuity to the EU with little hope of every repaying the debt.

The Irish Times poll reminds me of the old soviet leaders announcing a bumper harvest, while the citizens starved.

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Right across Europe, the levels of dissatisfaction with the EU are growing. In Italy, for example, the 1972 Eurobarometer study showed 73% of Italians claimed some sort of European Identity. In 2010, the Eurobarometer showed this had fallen to just 60% of Italians and the rise there of anti EU elements are of concern to the government.

My anecdotal experience travelling around Ireland suggests this Irish Times poll is of dubious value. I travel around quite a bit and the visceral anti EU sentiments in Ireland are everywhere, and most articulating that they understand Ireland has effectively been sold down the river by the EU, being forced to take on huge debts to save the banks in the EU, in return for which Ireland will be in servitude into perpetuity to the EU with little hope of every repaying the debt.

My own anecdotal experience is that Irish people I encounter are looking for stability and realise we're significantly the authors of our own misfortune. My own anecdotal experience is that those in Ireland looking to heap blame and opprobium on the EU are typically FFers looking to deflect blame away from their actions while in government and other opposition parties like SF who would say that anyway wouldn't they.

Anecdotes aside, Irish people are taking the current economic restraint with a pinch of salt and holding their judgement until the picture on the final resolution of the EZ crisis becomes clear - especially as it affects the bank debts generated under our jurisdiction. I think the Irish electorate is also broadly in agreement with the need for a series of tough budgets to get our own public borrowing requirement under control.

There are other countries experiencing varying degrees of difficulty. Naturally there is widespread dissatisfaction. But countries like Italy, Greece and Spain have to bring their own combinations of public and bank debt under control. The amazing thing is that although we're told that this is the worst economic crisis since the Thirties - or even worse, depending on who you are to believe - the Euro is still functioning and the EZ economy writ large is functioning to some level of stability.

But then again, I guess I'm an optimistic kind of guy, open to the possibility that European politicians are getting their game together, and that once they do their electorates will be reasonably content again.

SiegfriedsMum

McDave wrote: »

My own anecdotal experience is that Irish people I encounter are looking for stability and realise we're significantly the authors of our own misfortune. My own anecdotal experience is that those in Ireland looking to heap blame and opprobium on the EU are typically FFers looking to deflect blame away from their actions while in government and other opposition parties like SF who would say that anyway wouldn't they.

Your experience is your experience and I can’t take from it. However, my experience is different and many irish people, in my experience, recognise that while they were badly led by irish politicians, they blame the substantive problem on Ireland being forced by the EU to take on the debts of the banks, to try to prevent a banking crises in the EU which might be triggered because so many EU banks had lent to the Irish banks. They see it as the EU has tried to save itself and is unconcerned at the resulting plight of Ireland.

McDave wrote: »

Anecdotes aside, Irish people are taking the current economic restraint with a pinch of salt and holding their judgement until the picture on the final resolution of the EZ crisis becomes clear - especially as it affects the bank debts generated under our jurisdiction. I think the Irish electorate is also broadly in agreement with the need for a series of tough budgets to get our own public borrowing requirement under control.

Again, our opinions differ. If you think the result of the latest budget is that the irish people are taking it in their stride, then I can only assume you don’t live in Ireland, read Irish newspapers, listen to Irish Radio or TV, and don’t talk to many Irish people.

The reaction to the recent budget has seen protests on the streets, promises of large scale tax default, sheer incomprehension and the very real possibility of civil disobedience and revolt. You may well judge that is the Irish people holding their judgement or taking it all with a pinch of salt.

McDave wrote: »

The amazing thing is that although we're told that this is the worst economic crisis since the Thirties - or even worse, depending on who you are to believe - the Euro is still functioning and the EZ economy writ large is functioning to some level of stability.

.

If your judgement of success is that the Euro is “functioning” then that’s how you judge it. I was IN Zimbabwe not many years ago and, although he Zim dollar was in freefall, I was still able to use Zim dollards to make some purchases. That was hardly a mark of it’s success though.

McDave wrote: »

But then again, I guess I'm an optimistic kind of guy, open to the possibility that European politicians are getting their game together, and that once they do their electorates will be reasonably content again.

I hope I am a realist as opposed to an optimist or a pessimist, and while I hope the EU is able to navigate its way through this minefield (which we have to remember it created despite being warned what was likely to happen), I am concerned that the EU’s record of the last few years, where it has shown itself unable to react either speedily or effectively, will continue.

Economically, the Euro has problems which are structural and which can’t be resolved without structural reforms, and as yet there are few signs of any structural reforms in the offing.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Your experience is your experience and I can’t take from it. However, my experience is different and many irish people, in my experience, recognise that while they were badly led by irish politicians, they blame the substantive problem on Ireland being forced by the EU to take on the debts of the banks, to try to prevent a banking crises in the EU which might be triggered because so many EU banks had lent to the Irish banks. They see it as the EU has tried to save itself and is unconcerned at the resulting plight of Ireland.

I would agree that that's a very popular narrative, despite the almost complete lack of evidence for major parts of it. I'm not sure whether people in general quite believe it to the extent that they could be described as sure of it - I don't think, for example, that they would regard it as anything like a complete explanation for the bank debts, since the original 2008 decision still sticks out as a unilateral action by the then government.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Again, our opinions differ. If you think the result of the latest budget is that the irish people are taking it in their stride, then I can only assume you don’t live in Ireland, read Irish newspapers, listen to Irish Radio or TV, and don’t talk to many Irish people.

The reaction to the recent budget has seen protests on the streets, promises of large scale tax default, sheer incomprehension and the very real possibility of civil disobedience and revolt. You may well judge that is the Irish people holding their judgement or taking it all with a pinch of salt.

The "very real possibility of civil disobedience and revolt"? I don't think so.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If your judgement of success is that the Euro is “functioning” then that’s how you judge it. I was IN Zimbabwe not many years ago and, although he Zim dollar was in freefall, I was still able to use Zim dollards to make some purchases. That was hardly a mark of it’s success though.

On the other hand, I dare say that (a) you only changed money into Z$ when you needed them, to avoid the galloping inflation, and (b) you were well aware that you wouldn't be able to do anything with leftover Z$ when you left the country bar use them for packing material - so the situations are hardly commensurate.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I hope I am a realist as opposed to an optimist or a pessimist, and while I hope the EU is able to navigate its way through this minefield (which we have to remember it created despite being warned what was likely to happen), I am concerned that the EU’s record of the last few years, where it has shown itself unable to react either speedily or effectively, will continue.

Economically, the Euro has problems which are structural and which can’t be resolved without structural reforms, and as yet there are few signs of any structural reforms in the offing.

Yes and no - the euro certainly has a range of structural issues, but not those actually warned of by sceptics at the time as far as I can see (unless you're prepared to accept a lot of shoe-horning), and some of those issues are being addressed, while more are on the table for discussion.

The main structural element missing from the euro was always the complete lack of a crisis plan of any kind, and the unsurprising result of that was that when the crisis hit, a plan had to be cobbled together by countries who were panicky and already in trouble, with the limited fire-fighting equipment available in the hands of specific countries, whose refusal to abandon those practices that led to their position of strength in favour of handing over their money to everyone else is seen as terribly mean and somehow ungrateful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

The main structural element missing from the euro was always the complete lack of a crisis plan of any kind, and the unsurprising result of that was that when the crisis hit, a plan had to be cobbled together by countries who were panicky and already in trouble, with the limited fire-fighting equipment available in the hands of specific countries, whose refusal to abandon those practices that led to their position of strength in favour of handing over their money to everyone else is seen as terribly mean and somehow ungrateful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If you judge that to the the main structural problem, then we disagree.

No matter what plan the EU may have had, or may not have had, it simply isn't possibly to have a plan to fix the unfixable. The structural problem was predicted to be, and so it has turned out to be, the imbalance between the so called northern countries who had good fiscal discipline, balanced their budgets and were economically prudent and responsible, and the so called southern countries in the Euro zone which were reckless, who borrowed money to pay the current account bills at ever increasing rates year on year, ran eye wateringly high deficits, and spent money as if there was never going to be a day or reckoning.

No amount of plans can now change that, and even Ireland, supposed to be the good boy, is now running an annual deficit, this year, of +-€15 billion.

No amount of planning after the Euro was launched can fix that as the structural problem is built into the Euro itself, and the time to plan to fix that was before the Euro was launched.

What there was a plan for was rules regarding fiscal deficits, but these were regularly broken with a nod and a wink from the EU.

We agree that the individual countries acted disgracefully, but they were allowed to do so under the structures of the Euro, and given the wherewithal to do so by the French and German banks, amongst others lending them the cash to do so.

Certainly it was never the policy of the Euro designers or the EU to allow massive deficits for individual countries, but it was their practice.

golden lane

the eu spawned a monster culture of getting something for nothing......


the monster could not then be controlled........

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If you judge that to the the main structural problem, then we disagree.

It does seem to me to be the main structural problem. The claim that there is something intrinsic to the euro that produced the current crisis, as opposed to certain specific features of the crisis, seems to me to rely more on 'narrative' thinking than evidence and analysis.

That being said, I don't entirely disagree, because at least one country did use the euro as a cover for massive borrowing. However, Greece is a serious outlier, and no amount of agreed limits could really control a country which was simply lying about its accounts.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

No matter what plan the EU may have had, or may not have had, it simply isn't possibly to have a plan to fix the unfixable. The structural problem was predicted to be, and so it has turned out to be, the imbalance between the so called northern countries who had good fiscal discipline, balanced their budgets and were economically prudent and responsible, and the so called southern countries in the Euro zone which were reckless, who borrowed money to pay the current account bills at ever increasing rates year on year, ran eye wateringly high deficits, and spent money as if there was never going to be a day or reckoning.

No amount of plans can now change that, and even Ireland, supposed to be the good boy, is now running an annual deficit, this year, of +-€15 billion.

No amount of planning after the Euro was launched can fix that as the structural problem is built into the Euro itself, and the time to plan to fix that was before the Euro was launched.

What there was a plan for was rules regarding fiscal deficits, but these were regularly broken with a nod and a wink from the EU.

In fact, the rules were changed on the initiative of the "fiscally disciplined" northern countries - in particular, Germany.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

We agree that the individual countries acted disgracefully, but they were allowed to do so under the structures of the Euro, and given the wherewithal to do so by the French and German banks, amongst others lending them the cash to do so.

"Amongst others", to the point where there's no particular point in mentioning French and German banks - who are not, after all, eurozone governments.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Certainly it was never the policy of the Euro designers or the EU to allow massive deficits for individual countries, but it was their practice.

Large deficits were run in the early part of the euro by some of the very countries which are now being lauded as fiscally disciplined, and at their behest the rules were relaxed in 2005. As you say, it was clearly not the original intention.

Coming back to this:

No matter what plan the EU may have had, or may not have had, it simply isn't possibly to have a plan to fix the unfixable. The structural problem was predicted to be, and so it has turned out to be, the imbalance between the so called northern countries who had good fiscal discipline, balanced their budgets and were economically prudent and responsible, and the so called southern countries in the Euro zone which were reckless, who borrowed money to pay the current account bills at ever increasing rates year on year, ran eye wateringly high deficits, and spent money as if there was never going to be a day or reckoning.

The problem is that this assertion doesn't fit the evidence. The kind of divide you're talking about isn't there:

Country|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010|2011|2012
Portugal|-2.8|-2.9|-3.4|-6.1|-4.1|-3.1|-3.6|-10.2|-9.8|-4.4
Greece|-4.8|-5.6|-7.5|-5.2|-5.7|-6.5|-9.8|-15.6|-10.7|-9.4
Spain|-0.5|-0.2|-0.3|1|2|1.9|-4.5|-11.2|-9.7|-9.4
Germany|-3.7|-4|-3.8|-3.3|-1.6|0.2|-0.1|-3.1|-4.1|-0.8
Ireland|-0.3|0.4|1.4|1.6|2.9|0.1|-7.4|-13.9|-30.9|-13.4
Netherlands|-2.1|-3.1|-1.7|-0.3|0.5|0.2|0.5|-5.6|-5.1|-4.5
Italy|-2.9|-3.5|-3.5|-4.3|-3.4|-1.5|-2.7|-5.4|-4.5|-3.9

Pre-crisis, if you had to pick 'bad' countries, your list wouldn't fit the pattern that emerged. The 2002-8 summed deficits for countries look like this:

Portugal|-22.4
Greece|-35.3
Spain|3.9
Germany|-16.2
Ireland|6.1
Netherlands|-6.5
Italy|-19.1


Spain and Ireland in budget surplus, followed by the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Greece. France looks like Italy (-18.7).

I don't see how one can support your claim of a structural division between prudent northern and reckless southern economies on that basis. I think what you're doing is simply back-casting the current positions of countries as if their crisis positions were their pre-crisis positions, which isn't the case. It's not a case of there being no truth at all in it, but of it being far too simplistic an explanation to be of any real value, however appealing it is as a narrative.

As far as I can see, the current attempts to coordinate economies won't fix any structural problems with the euro in the sense of avoiding crises - not, however, because the euro is unfixable and destined for crisis by virtue of the economic disparities between the economies involved, but because the crisis is not an outcome of any such problems. What is an outcome of such disparities, and what may be improved by such coordination, is precisely what I regard as the main structural problem with the euro, which is its operation in a crisis.

In other words, the current moves won't prevent another crisis - for capitalist economies, crises are part of life - but are an attempt to ensure that come the next crisis no member country will have put themselves in a structurally weak position and thereby risk dragging the others down, while putting in place some mechanisms for coping with the remaining disparities. Those latter are not exactly overwhelming, on the basis that the one identifiable non-crisis structural problem with the euro in the first place was an element of moral hazard, something which would be replicated, and in spades, were there the kind of cross-country automatic transfers found within national economies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Boskowski

My personal experience is that people mostly believe what they want to believe.

For instance this whole 'the EU makes us pay for their banks and we were forced to do this' thing.

There is about as much evidence for this as there was for WMDs in Iraq, but its something that people want to believe. And while they can't state such a thing publicly it suits our political class, too. So this myth is here to stay no doubt.
I reckon it makes people feel better to feel victimized rather than come and out and say 'ah well we were all a bit muppety and our political landscape is a bit backwards and provides practically no alternatives and the people who led us into this mess are a reflection of the same'.

Also with the pick and choose strategy... Sure banking union sounds great to us now 'cos we're up sh1t creek and we would like to think banking union equals taking debt of our books. I don't think banking union would sound great to the same people if our banking system would outperform the rest of Europe.

I wish people would form opinions in a more informed manner rather than looking for short term gains.

I wish I could live just for one day in a parallel universe where Irelands house was in good order and the Irish tax payer was asked to prop up some other country that got themselves into dire straits. I'd love to know what opinions on forums like this would look like.

McDave

golden lane wrote: »

the eu spawned a monster culture of getting something for nothing......


the monster could not then be controlled........

Care to elaborate?

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Your experience is your experience and I can’t take from it. However, my experience is different and many irish people, in my experience, recognise that while they were badly led by irish politicians, they blame the substantive problem on Ireland being forced by the EU to take on the debts of the banks, to try to prevent a banking crises in the EU which might be triggered because so many EU banks had lent to the Irish banks. They see it as the EU has tried to save itself and is unconcerned at the resulting plight of Ireland.

"Irish people" don't know that the EU forced Ireland to take on bank debts. There was a widespread view at the time that the bank guarantee was the wrong response. And even outright hostility from Gordon Brown. Lenihan and co. even gave the impression it was a smart move which would attract funds into the Irish system.

On the basis of known knowns, it's pretty clear that the Irish government didn't have a clue what was going on when Lehmans hit the wall, had no oversight of Irish banking problems and was bounced into precipitate action by banking suits. By going off on a solo run and disseminating the pretence that we could ride this out, the EU cold only watch as the whole dumb contrivance unravelled.

At a certain point we were bounced into a "bailout", but by that stage our bond yields were looking bad.

All this information was available in the Irish press and widely commented on, so "Irish people" had no problem informing themselves on a fair extent of what was going on.

As to EU banks "lending" to Ireland, you conveniently ignore two other facts:
- Irish banks borrowed from various global sources;
- Other EZ countries with the same resources open to them didn't fall into the goofy trap we fell in to.

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Again, our opinions differ. If you think the result of the latest budget is that the irish people are taking it in their stride, then I can only assume you don’t live in Ireland, read Irish newspapers, listen to Irish Radio or TV, and don’t talk to many Irish people.

The reaction to the recent budget has seen protests on the streets, promises of large scale tax default, sheer incomprehension and the very real possibility of civil disobedience and revolt. You may well judge that is the Irish people holding their judgement or taking it all with a pinch of salt.

Most people realise we're in for a protracted period of retrenchment. They know the bubble era is over. They might not like recent budgets, but most people are realistic enough to accept there's little point in taking it to the street.

Nothing in the Irish media demonstrates that there is any significant degree of protest or revolt. Certain kinds of people want there to be, but that's not the general sentiment of average Irish people. That's clear enough to anyone who's paying attention to the 'street', where very little is actually happening. So yes, the vast majority are taking retrenchment with a pinch of salt. There's little point in trying to play up the protest scenario.

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If your judgement of success is that the Euro is “functioning” then that’s how you judge it. I was IN Zimbabwe not many years ago and, although he Zim dollar was in freefall, I was still able to use Zim dollards to make some purchases. That was hardly a mark of it’s success though.

Comparing the EZ to Zimbabwe is just simply laughable.

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I hope I am a realist as opposed to an optimist or a pessimist, and while I hope the EU is able to navigate its way through this minefield (which we have to remember it created despite being warned what was likely to happen), I am concerned that the EU’s record of the last few years, where it has shown itself unable to react either speedily or effectively, will continue.

Economically, the Euro has problems which are structural and which can’t be resolved without structural reforms, and as yet there are few signs of any structural reforms in the offing.

The EU tends not to react quickly. It tends to come to consensus or agreement. That's an inherent strength. Whether it can act effectively remains to be seen.

As far as the Euro goes, there were limitations in its original construction. But getting it onto the agenda in the first place was difficult enough. Getting treaty provisions in place with enough detail proved impossible, particularly with Britain unwilling to cooperate. Maybe the Euro's architects never really thought it would be tested to the extent it has been.

But despite all the prognostications about this crisis being the worst since the Great Depression - or worse - the EZ has kicked very effectively into action. It's juggling so many variables, but also buying time very effectively. Getting a political compact together to underpin the next phase of the Euro's development is the next challenge, and one that will require time, and importantly the sanction of the electorate of the EU's major paymaster Germany.

So all eyes on September/October, and what emerges in the aftermath of the federal elections.

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

Spain and Ireland in budget surplus, followed by the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Greece. France looks like Italy (-18.7).

The issue here seems to be that you appear to think that a temporary surplus (caused, for example in Spain and Ireland by unsustainable taxes brought in by hyperinflation in their property markets) could be sustained. You seem to mistake a budget balanced by billions brought in by property taxes cause by a temporary property boom as "balanced". AS some warned at the time, this was a temporary fiction, to which the Taoiseach suggestes they might consider, if I recall correctly, suicide, for makeing any such suggestion.

As soon as the cash came in, the governments spent it like drunken sailors, giving rise to the problem that when the property bubbles burst, the governments had commitments which cause enormous deficits.

The real point at issue here is the Euro. Had the Euro not been around, the foreign banks would have been much warier about lending so much money, for the very good reason that they knew that if inflation occurred in, fro example Ireland, that would have the effect of also deflating the Irish currency vis a vis their own currency, and by simply doing nothing they would lose.

Under the Euro, they are guaranteed to get €1 for every €1 they lent, except in the case of a default.

Which is exactly what has happened, with the Irish taxpayers being forced to pay back €1 for every €1 lent to the Irish banks, in addition to the interest on the oustanding debts.

As you will be aware, the result is the national debt per citizen in Ireland now stands at nearly €400 000 each. That means, for a family of 4 where one parent is working, the debt on the working individual is €1.6 million. If the interest is calculated at, say, 5%, that means that individual is responsible to pay €80 000 in interest each year out of their taxes, before any capital is repaid and before the government starts to pay its own bills.

That is the situation Ireland now finds itself in, and had Ireland stuck with the Punt, that debt would be a fraction of where it is today because (i) foreign banks would never have lent any thing like the amount of money theu did (ii) the property bubble would not have been fuelled by seemingly endless amounts of cheap money and (iii) the giovernment would not have been tempted to spend money it didn't have and (iv) the banks would not have been able to get into the scale of trouble they did.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

The issue here seems to be that you appear to think that a temporary surplus (caused, for example in Spain and Ireland by unsustainable taxes brought in by hyperinflation in their property markets) could be sustained. You seem to mistake a budget balanced by billions brought in by property taxes cause by a temporary property boom as "balanced". AS some warned at the time, this was a temporary fiction, to which the Taoiseach suggestes they might consider, if I recall correctly, suicide, for makeing any such suggestion.

As soon as the cash came in, the governments spent it like drunken sailors, giving rise to the problem that when the property bubbles burst, the governments had commitments which cause enormous deficits.

The real point at issue here is the Euro. Had the Euro not been around, the foreign banks would have been much warier about lending so much money, for the very good reason that they knew that if inflation occurred in, fro example Ireland, that would have the effect of also deflating the Irish currency vis a vis their own currency, and by simply doing nothing they would lose.

Under the Euro, they are guaranteed to get €1 for every €1 they lent, except in the case of a default.

Which is exactly what has happened, with the Irish taxpayers being forced to pay back €1 for every €1 lent to the Irish banks, in addition to the interest on the oustanding debts.

As you will be aware, the result is the national debt per citizen in Ireland now stands at nearly €400 000 each. That means, for a family of 4 where one parent is working, the debt on the working individual is €1.6 million. If the interest is calculated at, say, 5%, that means that individual is responsible to pay €80 000 in interest each year out of their taxes, before any capital is repaid and before the government starts to pay its own bills.

That is the situation Ireland now finds itself in, and had Ireland stuck with the Punt, that debt would be a fraction of where it is today because (i) foreign banks would never have lent any thing like the amount of money theu did (ii) the property bubble would not have been fuelled by seemingly endless amounts of cheap money and (iii) the giovernment would not have been tempted to spend money it didn't have and (iv) the banks would not have been able to get into the scale of trouble they did.

I don't, in fact, make any such mistake as to regard balancing tax take on a property bubble as sustainable budgeting, and am on record here repeatedly in that respect. I'm pointing up the issue with your original claim, which made no such distinction of 'sustainable' and 'unsustainable', but asserted that the southern countries ran up budget deficits.

As to the claim that had we stuck with the punt, we would have a fraction of the debt - I'd agree, but the "fraction" in question would be a large fraction, not a small one. There would have been some stabilising effects from the punt - or perhaps could have been, had the government of the day used them in a stabilising way. Unfortunately, I strongly doubt they would have done so, given that every fiscal instrument they did have at their disposal was pressed into service making the bubble bigger, not smaller. Nor can I imagine the FF/PD governments having done anything other than to have balanced the tax take on whatever bubble they had, for exactly the same reasons as they did in the real Tiger - and which would have had exactly the same result of giving government an incentive to encourage the bubble.

And I'm not sure the 'currency barrier' would have been such a barrier, either - Iceland had its own currency, but its banks managed to grow their balance sheets to 10 times the size of their national economy, whereas ours only managed 3.5 times Irish GDP - and they, like us, had a property bubble. Ours was sharper, certainly, but then it was sharper than every other property bubble, including those similarly in the euro. Further, the main sources of bank funding in the covered banks were, from all the available evidence, the US and the UK, which are separate currencies anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't, in fact, make any such mistake as to regard balancing tax take on a property bubble as sustainable budgeting, and am on record here repeatedly in that respect.

I assume you mean in other places and not on this thread, as I can't find that here. I am an occasional visitor to boards and not someone who is au fait with whats happening in other threads or places except the ones I contribute to. In this thread, you did appear to make teh claim that Irelands budget was balanced, implying that the economy was being well managed, and thats the issue I was attempting to address.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And I'm not sure the 'currency barrier' would have been such a barrier, either - Iceland had its own currency, but its banks managed to grow their balance sheets to 10 times the size of their national economy, whereas ours only managed 3.5 times Irish GDP - and they, like us, had a property bubble. Ours was sharper, certainly, but then it was sharper than every other property bubble, including those similarly in the euro. Further, the main sources of bank funding in the covered banks were, from all the available evidence, the US and the UK, which are separate currencies anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The interesting analogy with Iceland is to see how Iceland and Ireland get out of their respective holes.

Iceland decided it would have been wrong to burden future generations with the mistakes of the financial system. According to the IMF decision to push losses on to bondholders instead of taxpayers and the safeguarding of a welfare system that shielded the unemployed from penury helped propel the nation from collapse toward recovery.

Ireland was pressurised to pay back the bondholder and burden the next generations of taxpayers with the enormous debt.

My experience is that not only do many Irish people understand that, but as the debts mount up and the economy goes into more or less permanent recession, the anti EU sentiment in Ireland seems bound to grow.

This story has a long way to go.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I assume you mean in other places and not on this thread, as I can't find that here. I am an occasional visitor to boards and not someone who is au fait with whats happening in other threads or places except the ones I contribute to.

I appreciate that, which is why I mentioned it - I didn't expect you to be aware of it.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

In this thread, you did appear to make teh claim that Irelands budget was balanced, implying that the economy was being well managed, and thats the issue I was attempting to address.

Um, no. I was only responding to your narrative of budgetary ill-discipline by those countries that were hard hit by the crisis. My main point is that these sort of "one size fits all" explanations (generally tagged 'euro') don't work. We had a lending/property boom, so did Iceland and Spain (and the UK and the US), Greece and Italy didn't, we balanced taxes on our bubble, so did Spain, Iceland didn't, neither did Greece, Italy or Portugal. We ran budget surpluses, Greece didn't. And so on, and so on.

By the time one has had to come up with a somewhat different explanation for each of the troubled euro countries, and noted that the explanation in question often also applies to some non-euro countries, one should reach the conclusion that the main drivers of the various problems were national. For some reason, though, that logic is rarely honoured.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

The interesting analogy with Iceland is to see how Iceland and Ireland get out of their respective holes.

Iceland decided it would have been wrong to burden future generations with the mistakes of the financial system. According to the IMF decision to push losses on to bondholders instead of taxpayers and the safeguarding of a welfare system that shielded the unemployed from penury helped propel the nation from collapse toward recovery.

Ireland was pressurised to pay back the bondholder and burden the next generations of taxpayers with the enormous debt.

My experience is that not only do many Irish people understand that, but as the debts mount up and the economy goes into more or less permanent recession, the anti EU sentiment in Ireland seems bound to grow.

Ah, predictions.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

This story has a long way to go.

And it's very much a "story". The Irish government, during the course of the original 2008-2010 guarantee, paid off the overwhelming (80%+) of unsecured senior bondholders with no external pressure - Lenihan gave us explanation after explanation from 'pari passu' with depositors to little old ladies with credit union accounts, with not a whisper of a suggestion that the EU was involved. The whole "the ECB made us do it" applies to the relatively small amount of bonds remaining in late 2010, and as far as I can see the only reason the government even considered burning senior bonds at that point was they thought they might get the ECB to take the blame for it. Once it became clear that the ECB wouldn't do so, the Irish government supported the ECB against the IMF's suggestion that senior bondholders take losses. The potential savings involved were of the order of about €6bn, which, while hardly trivial, is a very small proportion of Ireland's bank debts, let alone our total debt.

I suppose to some extent it's natural for us to be willing to accept our government's arrant incompetence and culpability in a national context, but to prefer to blame external forces in an international context. Unfortunately, the two are not really reconcilable, and the latter is not supported by the evidence, while the former very much is. I only hope that the willingness to blame external forces and factors doesn't mean we miss the lessons for our self-government - but looking at FF's rising popularity, that seems overly optimistic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

I


And it's very much a "story". The Irish government, during the course of the original 2008-2010 guarantee, paid off the overwhelming (80%+) of unsecured senior bondholders with no external pressure - Lenihan gave us explanation after explanation from 'pari passu' with depositors to little old ladies with credit union accounts, with not a whisper of a suggestion that the EU was involved.

This seems to be where we differ. If you think the Irish government at the time did not discuss this with the ECB, other EU heads of state and the EU, and took its decision unilaterally, without discussion, without guidance, and without "encouragement" then thats where we disagree.

Certainly the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance at the time were weak, unprepared and not tempermentally able to stand up to pressure, and I think Lenihan at the time had been diagnosed with cancer. Neither were able to stand up to what was likely to have been a barrage of continuous, orchestrated and concerted attacks from the ECB, EU heads of state and EU institutions.

Certainly, at that point it was Irelands decision, and to think no pressure was brought to bear by others seems naieve.

However, I agree it was Irelands decision and neither Cowan or Lenihan were up to the job.

While I was not myself a fan in any sense of former Taoiseach Charles J Haughey, I can imagine the outcome might have been somewhat different had he been Taoiseach at the time, (or had Mrs Thatcher been in charge), as his style would have been better suited to handle the situation to get a far better outcome for Ireland, rather than be rushed into a bad decision, which is why they weer both unsuited to their jobs.

The lesson is "decide in haste, repent at lesiure" and there is not likely to be a better example, or a mroe expensive one, than this in the lifetime of anyone reading this today.

View

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

This seems to be where we differ. If you think the Irish government at the time did not discuss this with the ECB, other EU heads of state and the EU, and took its decision unilaterally, without discussion, without guidance, and without "encouragement" then thats where we disagree.

Even if you believe all that, at the end of the day, the final decision was our government's decision. Discussion, guidance, encouragement etc are ultimately advisory in nature as the decision maker - our government - got/gets to decide.

The fact they made a decision you disagree with doesn't alter that.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

This seems to be where we differ. If you think the Irish government at the time did not discuss this with the ECB, other EU heads of state and the EU, and took its decision unilaterally, without discussion, without guidance, and without "encouragement" then thats where we disagree.

Certainly the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance at the time were weak, unprepared and not tempermentally able to stand up to pressure, and I think Lenihan at the time had been diagnosed with cancer. Neither were able to stand up to what was likely to have been a barrage of continuous, orchestrated and concerted attacks from the ECB, EU heads of state and EU institutions.

Certainly, at that point it was Irelands decision, and to think no pressure was brought to bear by others seems naieve. []

However, I agree it was Irelands decision and neither Cowan or Lenihan were up to the job.

While I was not myself a fan in any sense of former Taoiseach Charles J Haughey, I can imagine the outcome might have been somewhat different had he been Taoiseach at the time, (or had Mrs Thatcher been in charge), as his style would have been better suited to handle the situation to get a far better outcome for Ireland, rather than be rushed into a bad decision, which is why they weer both unsuited to their jobs.

The lesson is "decide in haste, repent at lesiure" and there is not likely to be a better example, or a mroe expensive one, than this in the lifetime of anyone reading this today.

It's not really a matter of opinion whether the decision was unilateral and taken without consultation, but of record. The documentation surrounding the guarantee decision is extensive (see here), and none of it mentions any such discussions with the ECB, other EU heads of state and the EU. The DoF sought the EU's legal opinion on guarantee schemes in general some way in advance, when guarantee schemes were discussed, but no discussions of the guarantee itself took place in advance.

This is from the ECB's response to the guarantee:

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

Other comments/reading material on the decision, and the respective roles of the Irish government and other entities:

Honohan report: http://www.bankinginquiry.gov.ie/The%20Irish%20Banking%20Crisis%20Regulatory%20and%20Financial%20Stability%20Policy%202003-2008.pdf

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2012/10/11/ireland-guaranteed-shadow-banking-sector/

The Competition Commissioner, Almunia, on the Irish guarantee:

Ireland’s banking crisis – and in particular the first measure taken unilaterally by the Irish authorities when they offered a blanket guarantee to Irish domestic banks – triggered our response.

UK response:

Alistair Darling intervened twice with the Irish government on behalf of UK banks yesterday amid fears that Dublin's blanket guarantee for savers was causing an exodus of funds across the Irish Sea.

As the Irish government sought to rush legislation through the Dail to protect its banks, Treasury sources said last night that the Irish finance minister, Brian Lenihan, was told "in no uncertain terms that the scheme was a problem for the UK".

Lenihan told Darling that the decision to safeguard all deposits at six banks had not been planned, but had been an emergency move to prevent the collapse of one Irish bank leading to the failure of another.

Again, the reaction around Europe was critical, and well covered at the time:

Dublin was unrepentant about the scheme, which has drawn criticism from elsewhere in Europe, hinting that France might follow suit. Paris denied the suggestion.

The fact that the original proposal only included Irish owned banks created a backlash among foreign-owned institutions with a substantial presence in the Irish market. Ulster Bank, owned by RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) and the National Irish Bank (owned by Dansk Bank), were just two of the banks excluded from the scheme. It was pointed out that the legislation would leave one in five Irish customers outside the guarantee scheme. These institutions pressured the government into stating it would be willing to expand the package on a "case by case" basis.

Foreign governments have also criticised the legislation for hampering competition. In particular, the British government has been heavily critical on the basis that many of the Irish banks who will enjoy support from the guarantee have operations on the UK high street. In the days following the guarantee many British depositors have begun moving their money into Irish banks. British Chancellor Alistair Darling reportedly made it clear to Lenihan that he saw the guarantee as a serious problem for Britain. The British Bankers' Association wrote to the Brown government expressing its concern about the distortion in competition which the Irish move will cause. Some are even using the situation to urge Britain to adopt similar measures and guarantee the assets of all UK-based banks, in a move which would cost the taxpayer trillions.

Criticism has also come from other European states, in particular France, which on Wednesday had floated the idea of united action by the EU to tackle the on-going crisis. As the Financial Times noted in a comment on the Irish government's guarantee, "The move is causing ructions in Brussels, where there is concern the Irish move shatters any hope of pan-European regulatory response to the turmoil."

and:

Irish solution is not an answer EU wants - FT.com:

Brian Lenihan, finance minister, said he had notified the European Commission of the plan but “a member state is responsible for the stability of its own banking system and I am responsible for the stability of these particular banks.

“In the absence of a Europe-wide system, there is an onus on the Irish government as the sovereign body with responsibility in this state to take action.”

A few weeks ago, Mr Lenihan described it as his “misfortune” to become finance minister at a time when the domestic housing boom was “coming to a shuddering halt”.

On Tuesday, he conceded that Ireland might be accused of reverting to economic nationalism and ignoring pan-European solutions to the market turmoil.

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

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b514c10a-8f2e-11dd-946c-0000779fd18c.html#axzz2EmwByV3w

The EU Commission were notified after the fact:

1. On the 30th September 2008, the Irish Minister for Finance announced a government decision to guarantee all deposits and debts of six Irish banks and their subsidiaries located abroad.

2. The same day, the Commission sent a letter to the Irish authorities asking further information about this measure, followed on the 1st October by a list of questions concerning the precise features of the guarantee.

3. The Irish authorities replied to the Commission on the 2nd October. On the 3rd October they formally notified the scheme. Further information on the precise features of the guarantee was sent to the Commission between the 8th and 12th October.

There is, of course, no way of preventing you choosing to go on believing that this was all set on foot at the behest of the EU really, and that it was simply done secretly and then the institutional and international outrage of the kind noted above at Ireland's unilateral measure were faked - but I think you should face the fact that your beliefs lack evidence, and fly in the face of the extensive available evidence. Far from being "naive", the view that the move was really unilateral, and not only did not involve EU pressure to do it, but was, on the contrary, highly unpopular, is simply in line with the facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

There is, of course, no way of preventing you choosing to go on believing that this was all set on foot at the behest of the EU really, and that it was simply done secretly and then the institutional and international outrage of the kind noted above at Ireland's unilateral measure were faked - but I think you should face the fact that your beliefs lack evidence, and fly in the face of the extensive available evidence. Far from being "naive", the view that the move was really unilateral, and not only did not involve EU pressure to do it, but was, on the contrary, highly unpopular, is simply in line with the facts.

I assume there is no way of preventing you also choosing to go on believing whatever you choose to believe. However, I hope I would not be so pompous, or supercilious, to tell someone else that

My view is that it seems highly unlikely that the Irish Government were left alone and left to make their own decisions when it came to propping up the banks from the get go. The one thing we know about the night in question is that it is still shrouded in mystery and no one really knows for sure what went on. Of course on the night they were likely to have been bumped into the guarantee by the banks themselves, and its not really that important what happened no the night.

The more important issue is what happened after that night, and if you believe the Irish government did not come under a barrage of continuous, orchestrated and concerted attacks to ensure they would prop up all banks, then that's where we differ.

One has to realise that what politicians say, and what they do, are often not the same thing. They are masters at language and constructing statements which are designed as propaganda, and not designed to give an accurate version of what happened. If one chooses to believe public statements, newspaper articles written by journalists who are usually briefed by the same people making the public statements, and the published statements of the ECB, then that's the choice one has to make.

For example, one can decide that the public announcements published by the ECB about the ECB might be designed with propaganda in mind, or one can simply decide to believe everything they publish about themselves is a true, accurate and impartial account of events.

The extract you reproduce, for example by the ECB, is laced with the beliefs that the ECB should be pulling the strings and controlling events, (they put it in the diplomatic language " it would have been advisable to properly consult other EU authorities on the envisaged legislative plans"), and if your view is that the ECB then shrugged their shoulders, effectively agreed there was nothing they could do to get their way with the Irish government, and let events unfold, then my view is you have a naive view of what is likely to have happened. So we differ.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I assume there is no way of preventing you also choosing to go on believing whatever you choose to believe. However, I hope I would not be so pompous, or supercilious, to tell someone else that

It seems a fair exchange for your assertion that disagreeing with your views makes one naive.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

My view is that it seems highly unlikely that the Irish Government were left alone and left to make their own decisions when it came to propping up the banks from the get go. The one thing we know about the night in question is that it is still shrouded in mystery and no one really knows for sure what went on. Of course on the night they were likely to have been bumped into the guarantee by the banks themselves, and its not really that important what happened no the night.

The more important issue is what happened after that night, and if you believe the Irish government did not come under a barrage of continuous, orchestrated and concerted attacks to ensure they would prop up all banks, then that's where we differ.

One has to realise that what politicians say, and what they do, are often not the same thing. They are masters at language and constructing statements which are designed as propaganda, and not designed to give an accurate version of what happened. If one chooses to believe public statements, newspaper articles written by journalists who are usually briefed by the same people making the public statements, and the published statements of the ECB, then that's the choice one has to make.

For example, one can decide that the public announcements published by the ECB about the ECB might be designed with propaganda in mind, or one can simply decide to believe everything they publish about themselves is a true, accurate and impartial account of events.

The extract you reproduce, for example by the ECB, is laced with the beliefs that the ECB should be pulling the strings and controlling events, (they put it in the diplomatic language " it would have been advisable to properly consult other EU authorities on the envisaged legislative plans"), and if your view is that the ECB then shrugged their shoulders, effectively agreed there was nothing they could do to get their way with the Irish government, and let events unfold, then my view is you have a naive view of what is likely to have happened. So we differ.

We do indeed - personally, I prefer paying attention to the evidence, however naive that may appear to you.

regards,
Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

We do indeed - personally, I prefer paying attention to the evidence, however naive that may appear to you.

The difference appears to be what we both accept as evidence. I simply dont accept as good evidence the statements of politicans, the opinions of newspapers who are usually briefed by politicians, or the statement of government bodies.

In any case what happened after the one night is more interesting than either of our opinions, and it seems pointless to remain in this particular cul de sac.

What is interesting is the understanding many people have in Ireland about the topic of what happened after the one night, and how that opinion is likely to affect the perception of the EU.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

The difference appears to be what we both accept as evidence. I simply dont accept as good evidence the statements of politicans, the opinions of newspapers who are usually briefed by politicians, or the statement of government bodies.

That pretty much rules out any role for evidence in forming your view of this particular matter, I suppose, given it was a decision made by politicians in consultation with civil servants and the only evidence available is therefore records of the doings and words of those people.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

In any case what happened after the one night is more interesting than either of our opinions, and it seems pointless to remain in this particular cul de sac.

What is interesting is the understanding many people have in Ireland about the topic of what happened after the one night, and how that opinion is likely to affect the perception of the EU.

"Misunderstanding" would be rather more accurate in this case. In 2008, nobody was under the impression that the ECB or the EU had a hand in our guarantee, which was presented by FF as what it was - an FF stroke on a monumental scale. Only in 2010, with the intervention of the ECB in the senior debt remaining after the guarantee and in the course of the troika intervention, does the belief suddenly spring up that the ECB were behind the 2008 guarantee - although of course I'm not sure why you believe that, come to think of it, given the evidence for their involvement in 2010 is of exactly the same nature as the evidence against their involvement in the 2008 decision.

I don't disagree, by the way, that many Irish people believe this, it's just that they're incorrect, and are transferring elements of the 2010 decision back to the 2008 decision. As far as I can see, a good number of the people who believe it find it convenient because it allows them to forgive FF, and FF themselves aren't discouraging the belief, even though Lenihan was quite clear at the time about the unilateral nature of his actions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

The difference appears to be what we both accept as evidence. I simply dont accept as good evidence the statements of politicans, the opinions of newspapers who are usually briefed by politicians, or the statement of government bodies.

Well, so far you have yet to provide evidence to back up your opinions hence you would appear to be hold them in the absence of any evidence.

Do you have any (hard evidence) to back your opinions up?
Or is it as it appears that your personal political beliefs is the "evidence" itself?

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

That pretty much rules out any role for evidence in forming your view of this particular matter, I suppose, given it was a decision made by politicians in consultation with civil servants and the only evidence available is therefore records of the doings and words of those people.

You seem to want to stay in this cul de sac. It's quite evident we disagree about what constitutes evidence, and I've already outlined my views on the so called evidence you produced, so to repeat why I dont think they are very good as evidence once again, seems pointless.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't disagree, by the way, that many Irish people believe this, it's just that they're incorrect, and are transferring elements of the 2010 decision back to the 2008 decision. As far as I can see, a good number of the people who believe it find it convenient because it allows them to forgive FF, and FF themselves aren't discouraging the belief, even though Lenihan was quite clear at the time about the unilateral nature of his actions.

Quite a lot happened between 2008 and 2010, and to imply there were no discussions between the EU, ECB and Ireland, and others, over that time, resulting in forcing Ireland to pay the bondholders, is hard to believe.

Some people often think others are wrong, and if you want to judge "a good many" who think that to be FF, then thats your choice. Even if thats true, and not just an attempt at smearing those with whom you disagree, it's doesn't make their views invalid, and in my experience isn't even true and many who I have spoken to about this are not FF.

I have no doubt that there were those, at the time, who tried to prove (correctly in that case for all the good it did them) that Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake". However, as Victor Hugo noted, "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come".

You seem to want to remain in the cul de sac arguing that the evidence you have produced is of top quality, and seem to want to keep arguing that you want me to accept the newspaper articles and statements crafted by PR agencies for clients who have a vested interest, is good quality evidence, and see unable to accept that we jsut aren't going to agree.

I think whats interesting is looking across the EU and seeing less and less enthuaism for any more integration amongst the people, and also seeing how the political systems in many countries are reaching breaking point, as the political classes both domestically and at EU level seem unable to control events or plan and are seen as worse than useless. There is a real danger of a political vacuum into which in Ireland the likes of Sinn Fein will rise, and in other countries their equivalents of Sinn Fein will rise, and lets hope that the worst excessess of that can be avoided.

View

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

You seem to want to stay in this cul de sac. It's quite evident we disagree about what constitutes evidence, and I've already outlined my views on the so called evidence you produced, so to repeat why I dont think they are very good as evidence once again, seems pointless.



Quite a lot happened between 2008 and 2010, and to imply there were no discussions between the EU, ECB and Ireland, and others, over that time, resulting in forcing Ireland to pay the bondholders, is hard to believe.

Some people often think others are wrong, and if you want to judge "a good many" who think that to be FF, then thats your choice. Even if thats true, and not just an attempt at smearing those with whom you disagree, it's doesn't make their views invalid, and in my experience isn't even true and many who I have spoken to about this are not FF.

I have no doubt that there were those, at the time, who tried to prove (correctly in that case for all the good it did them) that Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake". However, as Victor Hugo noted, "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come".

You seem to want to remain in the cul de sac arguing that the evidence you have produced is of top quality, and seem to want to keep arguing that you want me to accept the newspaper articles and statements crafted by PR agencies for clients who have a vested interest, is good quality evidence, and see unable to accept that we jsut aren't going to agree.

I think whats interesting is looking across the EU and seeing less and less enthuaism for any more integration amongst the people, and also seeing how the political systems in many countries are reaching breaking point, as the political classes both domestically and at EU level seem unable to control events or plan and are seen as worse than useless. There is a real danger of a political vacuum into which in Ireland the likes of Sinn Fein will rise, and in other countries their equivalents of Sinn Fein will rise, and lets hope that the worst excessess of that can be avoided.

So. all this boils down to "No, I have no evidence to back up my assertions but I'll hold them anyway since, as they are mine, that ipso facto makes them true".

Such claims belong in a Conspiracies Theory forum not a Politics forum.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

You seem to want to stay in this cul de sac. It's quite evident we disagree about what constitutes evidence, and I've already outlined my views on the so called evidence you produced, so to repeat why I dont think they are very good as evidence once again, seems pointless.

Which leaves you with no evidence for your claims...

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Quite a lot happened between 2008 and 2010, and to imply there were no discussions between the EU, ECB and Ireland, and others, over that time, resulting in forcing Ireland to pay the bondholders, is hard to believe.

Nobody is claiming that, though. Quite the reverse, in fact.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Some people often think others are wrong, and if you want to judge "a good many" who think that to be FF, then thats your choice. Even if thats true, and not just an attempt at smearing those with whom you disagree, it's doesn't make their views invalid, and in my experience isn't even true and many who I have spoken to about this are not FF.

I have no doubt that there were those, at the time, who tried to prove (correctly in that case for all the good it did them) that Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake". However, as Victor Hugo noted, "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come".

You seem to want to remain in the cul de sac arguing that the evidence you have produced is of top quality, and seem to want to keep arguing that you want me to accept the newspaper articles and statements crafted by PR agencies for clients who have a vested interest, is good quality evidence, and see unable to accept that we jsut aren't going to agree.

Er, no, I accept that we aren't going to agree. However, I don't see it as outrageous , or a cul-de-sac, to point out that your disagreement is with both me and the evidence.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I think whats interesting is looking across the EU and seeing less and less enthuaism for any more integration amongst the people, and also seeing how the political systems in many countries are reaching breaking point, as the political classes both domestically and at EU level seem unable to control events or plan and are seen as worse than useless. There is a real danger of a political vacuum into which in Ireland the likes of Sinn Fein will rise, and in other countries their equivalents of Sinn Fein will rise, and lets hope that the worst excessess of that can be avoided.

While I think that's a real danger in other countries, I'm not sure it's really all that clear and present a danger here, because of the aforementioned people who will drift back to supporting FF by way of various apologetics and false narratives such as the "the ECB made us do it all" one you're following, and who, like you, have little or no faith in evidence. The danger, to me, seems more that Ireland will come out of the other end of this crisis with no real changes and no real lessons learned, ready to do it all again - just as we did after the crisis of the Eighties, when similar predictions of the end of mainstream were made (that time, Labour were the beneficiaries).

cordially,
Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum

View wrote: »

So. all this boils down to "No, I have no evidence to back up my assertions but I'll hold them anyway since, as they are mine, that ipso facto makes them true".

Such claims belong in a Conspiracies Theory forum not a Politics forum.

If you think I have said I have no evidence, thats what you think. It's kind of unusual that both Scofflaw and I agree that a substantive number of Irish people hold the views we have been discussing, and part of the "evidence" I have for that is my own anecdotal evidence. Then you come barging in and rather crossly telling us we should be having this discussion in another forum for conspiracy theories. No one compelled you to join in the discussion, or ever to agree with any part of it. I have never seen the discussions you recommend and have no wish to do so.

As a footnote, the rather intemperate nature of your response seems out of place in a forum which is polite and tempered, and seems designed to raise the tempo of the discussion and I, for one, refuse to be drawn into an intemperate discussion.

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

Er, no, I accept that we aren't going to agree. However, I don't see it as outrageous , or a cul-de-sac, to point out that your disagreement is with both me and the evidence.

You consider newspapers articles to be "evidence" and statements crafted by PR companies on behalf of the ECB etc etc to be "evidence". I'm quite happy if you continue to believe thats good evidence, and we simply disagree about that. You can come back again and say that you have evidence, then I can repeat that again as many times as you wish, but no mtter how many different times you say it, or no matter ni how man y different ways you say it, that is unlikely to change.

Scofflaw wrote: »

While I think that's a real danger in other countries, I'm not sure it's really all that clear and present a danger here, because of the aforementioned people who will drift back to supporting FF by way of various apologetics and false narratives such as the "the ECB made us do it all" one you're following, and who, like you, have little or no faith in evidence. The danger, to me, seems more that Ireland will come out of the other end of this crisis with no real changes and no real lessons learned, ready to do it all again - just as we did after the crisis of the Eighties, when similar predictions of the end of mainstream were made (that time, Labour were the beneficiaries).

cordially,
Scofflaw

I suppose we can all try our hand at predicting the future, and you may be right, or not. I guess I am trying to look at the bigger picture across Europe and not just from Ireland's perspective, and also look at the lessons we should try to look at from History. The most obvious example is the 1920's when thre was widespread unemployement, poverty and disaffection across Europe, and we all know where that led, to the rize of facism, communism and Nazism, and to greatest misery inflicted on millions as a result, and lets all hope that that does not happen again.

View

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

If you think I have said I have no evidence, thats what you think.

It is pretty clear that despite being challenged on it you have yet to produce any evidence that validates what you assert "really happened".

You could of course easily prove me wrong by producing such evidence IF you had any but you don't, do you?

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

It's kind of unusual that both Scofflaw and I agree that a substantive number of Irish people hold the views we have been discussing, and part of the "evidence" I have for that is my own anecdotal evidence.

The fact that some others hold your views doesn't validate them. Many people believed the world was flat, yet their views were dead wrong.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

Then you come barging in and rather crossly telling us we should be having this discussion in another forum for conspiracy theories. No one compelled you to join in the discussion, or ever to agree with any part of it. I have never seen the discussions you recommend and have no wish to do so.

As a footnote, the rather intemperate nature of your response seems out of place in a forum which is polite and tempered, and seems designed to raise the tempo of the discussion and I, for one, refuse to be drawn into an intemperate discussion.

Yawn, stop engaging in rhetoric and back up your claims. It seems to be a case that you hold your views despite the evidence available not because of it.

That is not the mark of a reasoned position rather that of people who ignore reality in order to hang on to their political theory.

Scofflaw

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

You consider newspapers articles to be "evidence" and statements crafted by PR companies on behalf of the ECB etc etc to be "evidence". I'm quite happy if you continue to believe thats good evidence, and we simply disagree about that. You can come back again and say that you have evidence, then I can repeat that again as many times as you wish, but no mtter how many different times you say it, or no matter ni how man y different ways you say it, that is unlikely to change.

The opinion of the ECB is not a statement crafted by a PR company - and that you view it in that light suggests we really are on to conspiracy theoretics here, because you're essentially saying that the legal opinion of the ECB is actually designed to mislead, and doesn't mean what it says.

As to newspaper articles - when they're reporting the public statements of the people involved in the decision, I would view those statements as evidence, yes. It takes a a degree more pointless paranoia than I can muster to assume that those public statements are inaccurately reported, for all that the statements themselves are carefully crafted before utterance.

However, again, I can't see why Lenihan would pretend that his actions were unilateral "economic nationalism" when - according to you - they weren't. Unless, that is, we're prepared to dive down yet another few fathoms into the murky waters of conspiracy and claim that "he had to because..." where "because" is some explanation in terms of the way the world "really works".

Lenihan's motivations seems to me to be rather more likely to have been national, party, and self-interest, and none of those give any reason to state that his actions were unilateral if they weren't. As a test, we can refer to the 2010 bailout decision, where the government wasted no time in making it clear they had been compelled by the ECB to honour the remaining senior bonds - what they left out on that occasion, and was revealed later by journalists, was that they had agreed with the ECB.

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

I suppose we can all try our hand at predicting the future, and you may be right, or not. I guess I am trying to look at the bigger picture across Europe and not just from Ireland's perspective, and also look at the lessons we should try to look at from History. The most obvious example is the 1920's when thre was widespread unemployement, poverty and disaffection across Europe, and we all know where that led, to the rize of facism, communism and Nazism, and to greatest misery inflicted on millions as a result, and lets all hope that that does not happen again.

Fair point, but we do have a couple of obvious advantages this time round - the memory of last time, and the EU, which was created in the hopes of preventing a recurrence of it. My predictions for Ireland, though, still stand - they are, after all, in line with Ireland's historical course while ideology and then war last swept the rest of Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

McDave

SiegfriedsMum wrote: »

The most obvious example is the 1920's when thre was widespread unemployement, poverty and disaffection across Europe, and we all know where that led, to the rize of facism, communism and Nazism, and to greatest misery inflicted on millions as a result, and lets all hope that that does not happen again.

Hardly 'obvious'. Although conditions are far from perfect these days, the conditions of the Twenties and Thirties are barely comparable to today's.

However alarmists are happy to big up the worst aspects of the last century and suggest in the process that there's a thin line between the past and the present. And a line likeliest to be breached by the Germans, the perennial ideological badboys for sceptics of the Euro project.

SiegfriedsMum

Scofflaw wrote: »

The opinion of the ECB is not a statement crafted by a PR company - and that you view it in that light suggests we really are on to conspiracy theoretics here, because you're essentially saying that the legal opinion of the ECB is actually designed to mislead, and doesn't mean what it says.

I’m afraid we simply disagree. If your view is that the ECB does no employ Public Relations people whose job is to portray the ECB in a good light, and through whom press statements are released, then that is your view.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As to newspaper articles - when they're reporting the public statements of the people involved in the decision, I would view those statements as evidence, yes. It takes a a degree more pointless paranoia than I can muster to assume that those public statements are inaccurately reported, for all that the statements themselves are carefully crafted before utterance.

Once again we disagree regarding the weight given to what is published in the news papers. Quite apart from the fact that most newspapers now regurgitate press statements uncritically, after the Levinson report it’s curious that someone of your obvious intelligence should claim not only to believe what he reads in the newspapers, but to think that it should constitute evidence.

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, again, I can't see why Lenihan would pretend that his actions were unilateral "economic nationalism" when - according to you - they weren't.

I agree with you here, and agree that it is likely the decision was taken by two weak ministers bumped into it by a concerted and planned attack by the Irish banks.

Scofflaw wrote: »

… we can refer to the 2010 bailout decision, where the government wasted no time in making it clear they had been compelled by the ECB to honour the remaining senior bonds - what they left out on that occasion, and was revealed later by journalists, was that they had agreed with the ECB.

It seems we are in agreement, as it’s what came after the fateful night of the bank guarantee which is where the same weak ministers came under pressure from the ECB and others to move the banks debt onto the balance sheet of the country. It is this action, and the subsequent actions to repay all those debts to foreign banks and others, which is the topic which I find generally well understood around Ireland. Not only is it inexplicable, it only really makes sense if the Irish government was under pressure from others, such as the governments of the French and German banks who, as it happened, were grossly indebted to Irish banks.

The fault is not so much the EU, ECB etc, but in reality that seems to be what a significant number of Irish people seem to think is at fault.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Fair point, but we do have a couple of obvious advantages this time round - the memory of last time, and the EU, which was created in the hopes of preventing a recurrence of it. My predictions for Ireland, though, still stand - they are, after all, in line with Ireland's historical course while ideology and then war last swept the rest of Europe.

It’s the sheer scale of the debt this time which is the worry. The last time the debts were (i) not as large (ii) were being reduced reasonably fast with high inflation (iii) were largely state debts and not personal debts and (iv) Ireland was in net receipt of EU funds. To acknowledge that the annual interest bill per person for the state debts is between €10000 and €20000 per annum is to understand the scale of the problem. For a father of four in Ireland today to come up with between €40000 to €80000 every year just to pay interest on his portion of the debt before any state employee can be paid, shows the scale of the resulting problem.

No problem is insurmountable, although given the calibre of leaders Ireland has traditionally voted for, it seems unlikely Ireland will not be bankrupted. The really inexplicable part of this is that the Government seems to only have a plan for balancing its budget, but seems to have no plan which it has or can explain to the people for growth.
In these circumstances, one can only fear for the future, and anyone who doesn’t recognise the potential for civil unrest, simply is ignoring the lessons of history.