Anglo Tapes

Hootanany

Masuch: “I have answered a very similar question of you – I think it was two reviews ago – and can…”

Browne: “[inaudible] the question”

Masuch: “… and I answered it. I can understand that this is a difficult decision to be made by the government and there’s no doubt about it but there are different aspects of the problem to be, to be balanced against each other and I can understand that the government came to, came to the view that, all in all, the costs for the, for Irish people, for the, for the stability of the banking system, for the confidence in the banking system of taking a certain action in this respect which you are mentioning could likely have been much bigger than the benefits for the taxpayer which of course would have been there. So the financial sector would have been affected; the confidence of the financial sector would have been negatively affected, and I can understand that there were, that there was a difficult decision but that the decision was taken in this direction.”




Thats not really an answer now is it.

Prof. Armitage Shanks

Hootanany wrote: »

Masuch: “I have answered a very similar question of you – I think it was two reviews ago – and can…”

Browne: “[inaudible] the question”

Masuch: “… and I answered it. I can understand that this is a difficult decision to be made by the government and there’s no doubt about it but there are different aspects of the problem to be, to be balanced against each other and I can understand that the government came to, came to the view that, all in all, the costs for the, for Irish people, for the, for the stability of the banking system, for the confidence in the banking system of taking a certain action in this respect which you are mentioning could likely have been much bigger than the benefits for the taxpayer which of course would have been there. So the financial sector would have been affected; the confidence of the financial sector would have been negatively affected, and I can understand that there were, that there was a difficult decision but that the decision was taken in this direction.”




Thats not really an answer now is it.

It depends on how you interpret it. I would take the following from it.

"You elected your government, they made a decision on your behalf, Deal with it"

Godge

Prof. Armitage Shanks wrote: »

It depends on how you interpret it. I would take the following from it.

"You elected your government, they made a decision on your behalf, Deal with it"

There is also the unspoken extrapolation which is

"You elected the government that made the decision and you still don't understand and accept that you did it to yourselves, now you see why you need outsiders to run your country for you?"

Scofflaw

Hootanany wrote: »

Masuch: “I have answered a very similar question of you – I think it was two reviews ago – and can…”

Browne: “[inaudible] the question”

Masuch: “… and I answered it. I can understand that this is a difficult decision to be made by the government and there’s no doubt about it but there are different aspects of the problem to be, to be balanced against each other and I can understand that the government came to, came to the view that, all in all, the costs for the, for Irish people, for the, for the stability of the banking system, for the confidence in the banking system of taking a certain action in this respect which you are mentioning could likely have been much bigger than the benefits for the taxpayer which of course would have been there. So the financial sector would have been affected; the confidence of the financial sector would have been negatively affected, and I can understand that there were, that there was a difficult decision but that the decision was taken in this direction.”




Thats not really an answer now is it.

It's as much of answer as can be given - see Godge and the Professor's posts - without criticising the Irish government. EU civil servants (and Irish civil servants) are terrifically careful not to criticise politicians publicly, because politicians are elected, and they are not.

The decision to take on the bank debt was taken by a duly elected Irish government, and it really is not the place of an unelected ECB official to make public criticisms of that decision. The government - even though it criticises the decision itself - would quite rightly be outraged, and make no bones about saying so, which would also then make troika meetings unnecessarily fraught.

That may seem bizarre when you look at the matter very simply - the ECB are part of the troika, the troika are currently steering the country as a result of the disastrous decisions made by the Celtic Tiger governments, how come a troika representative can't say those decisions were disastrous? Well, because they're not elected by the Irish people, and people in these jobs take that stuff seriously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

creedp

Sand wrote: »

@creedp


When you read my post, did you get the sense that I recognize the current civil service is hopelessly corrupt and needs complete reform? I'm not sure because I'm pretty sure that's what I posted, yet your response "Ya, but the civil service is broken!"

I wouldn't rely on the civil servants having a sudden outburst of patriotism and civic spirit. Their current behavior and failure is a response to the system they operate under. The solution is to change the system.

It's as much of answer as can be given - see Godge and the Professor's posts - without criticising the Irish government. EU civil servants (and Irish civil servants) are terrifically careful not to criticise politicians publicly, because politicians are elected, and they are not.

The decision to take on the bank debt was taken by a duly elected Irish government, and it really is not the place of an unelected ECB official (or Irish official - my insert!] to make public criticisms of that decision. The government - even though it criticises the decision itself - would quite rightly be outraged, and make no bones about saying so, which would also then make troika meetings [the running of the civil service - my insert] unnecessarily fraught.

That may seem bizarre when you look at the matter very simply - the ECB are part of the troika, the troika are currently steering the country as a result of the disastrous decisions made by the Celtic Tiger governments, how come a troika representative can't say those decisions were disastrous? Well, because they're not elected by the Irish people, and people in these jobs take that stuff seriously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rather than attempting to answer your Q myself, I'll quote Scofflaw who puts it much more eloguently than I ever could, i.e. I agree the system is broken and its up to the politicians recognise this and do something about it. What are the chances though? The current works pretty OK for them at present.

NORTH1

The problem as I see it, is the government made decision on false and fraudulent information, supplied by unelected representatives. Why should it be honoured?

If the country was a company, would we be taking criminal action against the perpetrators, and seeking the return of money that was payed to unsecured bond holders as part of the scam.

This is the biggest bank robbery ever and no one is looking for the perpetrators?!

NORTH1

Not quite sure what to make of this.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/rehn-dismisses-demand-for-immediate-loan-repayment-29503333.html

EUROPEAN Commissioner Olli Rehn has dismissed a demand for Ireland to repay the bailout loans immediately because of the "lies" exposed in the Anglo Tapes.

"The Irish banking sector lied to public authorities in order to get its bill paid by eurozone creditor countries, including the Netherlands," Dutch MEP Auke Zijlstra said.

He put down a European Parliament question to Mr Rehn on the affair.

Pointing to the Irish Independent's publication of the Anglo Tapes, he said bank executives asked for funding from the Central Bank but "knew full well that they needed far more money, given that bankruptcy was imminent".

Mr Zijlstra also said the Anglo executives laughed at the idea of "exploiting" the bank guarantee issued by the Government by using it to attract deposits from Britain and Germany, and "mocked the latter by singing the opening bars of the former German national anthem, 'Deutschland, Deutschland über alles'".

But Mr Rehn, the European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, said the contents of the Anglo Tapes are solely a matter for the Government.

He said the Commission is aware of the publication of taped conversations between senior executives in the Irish financial sector.

"The mentioned part of the tapes refers to events prior to the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank by the Irish government in early 2009 – almost two years before the start of the Irish programme.

However, Mr Rehn did point out that the loans to Ireland originated from the EFSF and the EFSM – the EU bailout funds.

"The Commission assesses the sustainability of public debt in member states under a macroeconomic adjustment programme regularly, to make sure that the loans under said programmes will be repaid in full," he said.

I know there is fatigue to this story, what a depressing mess.....

Noreen1

"The Irish banking sector lied to public authorities in order to get its bill paid by eurozone creditor countries, including the Netherlands," Dutch MEP Auke Zijlstra said.

I wonder is Mr Zijlstra aware that we are actually repaying the loans?

I've never heard so much bluster and hyperbole coming from any politican!
You could be forgiven for thinking that the Eurozone creditor countries actually gave us the money, instead of giving us a loan!

Disturbingly, though, his attitude does reveal an interesting attitude to European "solidarity" on his behalf!

It runs something like:
"The Irish people and Government were lied to by the banks, and they shouldered huge loans to pay the banks debts for them.
It's all those stupid Irish peoples fault - lets make them pay it all back - twice!"

The man is either an idiot, or engaging in political grandstanding.

creedp

Noreen1 wrote: »

The man is either an idiot, or engaging in political grandstanding.

These options are not mutually exclusive ..

Mr.Micro

Noreen1 wrote: »

I wonder is Mr Zijlstra aware that we are actually repaying the loans?


It runs something like:
"The Irish people and Government were lied to by the banks, and they shouldered huge loans to pay the banks debts for them.
It's all those stupid Irish peoples fault - lets make them pay it all back - twice!"

Its sorta true though Noreen. Yes, we are paying back the loans, but our friends had to pay the bill for us first.

Godge

Noreen1 wrote: »

I wonder is Mr Zijlstra aware that we are actually repaying the loans?

I've never heard so much bluster and hyperbole coming from any politican!
You could be forgiven for thinking that the Eurozone creditor countries actually gave us the money, instead of giving us a loan!

Disturbingly, though, his attitude does reveal an interesting attitude to European "solidarity" on his behalf!

It runs something like:
"The Irish people and Government were lied to by the banks, and they shouldered huge loans to pay the banks debts for them.
It's all those stupid Irish peoples fault - lets make them pay it all back - twice!"

The man is either an idiot, or engaging in political grandstanding.

but we are not paying them at market rates. What he seems to suggest is that we should repay the taxpayers of the Netherlands and elsewhere who are footing the bill for our low interest rates and borrow the money on the open market at a higher interest rate. Fair enough from his point of view given that we made the mess. It was our central bankers and especially politicians who didn't have the cop to see through the Anglo boys.

Noreen1

creedp wrote: »

These options are not mutually exclusive ..

True!:D

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its sorta true though Noreen. Yes, we are paying back the loans, but our friends had to pay the bill for us first.

The same friends who ensured that the previously illegal loans were "legalised" with the windup of IBRC?

The same ones who now choose to add insult to injury by this type of political grandstanding?

Strangely enough, I'm inclined to be a little more selective than that about whom I choose to call "friend" - and this guys not on the list!

Noreen1

Godge wrote: »

but we are not paying them at market rates. What he seems to suggest is that we should repay the taxpayers of the Netherlands and elsewhere who are footing the bill for our low interest rates and borrow the money on the open market at a higher interest rate. Fair enough from his point of view given that we made the mess. It was our central bankers and especially politicians who didn't have the cop to see through the Anglo boys.

I didn't read anything about market rates in what he actually said!
I don't know where you're getting that from?

Sand

The Dutch MEP is clearly playing to the gallery, we have enough of his caliber in the Dail to recognize his type but it doesn't surprise me that we have some of the usual suspects rushing to dress up his parish pump politics as stern statesmanship. As always, the Irish are *uniquely* corrupt and insular in their politics. It's not enough that we were screwed, the underlying Irish conservative catholic/Irish liberal progressive guilt complex demands acknowledgement that we *deserved* to be screwed over. Bad stuff only happens because we sinned folks. Confess, confess!

As it is, we need to be wary of such sentiments. The (very) loudly proclaimed promissory note "deal" is of poor value to the Irish taxpayer, but it is of rapidly declining value if the ECB decides to turn the screws on us. The 1 billion "saving" is largely imaginary as the Troika are reminding the government currently, it could become no saving and indeed a cost if the ECB decide they dont like us arbitrarily imposing a "deal" upon them, don't like the idea of any EU government experimenting with monetary financing of any shape or form, and don't like Anglo Irish bankers taking the piss out of the ECB German anthem.

Scofflaw

NORTH1 wrote: »

The problem as I see it, is the government made decision on false and fraudulent information, supplied by unelected representatives. Why should it be honoured?

If the country was a company, would we be taking criminal action against the perpetrators, and seeking the return of money that was payed to unsecured bond holders as part of the scam.

This is the biggest bank robbery ever and no one is looking for the perpetrators?!

Because even if Anglo lied through its teeth to the government about its position, there would remain a strong possibility that the government would have done the same thing even had it known the true position.

And in terms of general culpability, there's the issue that the banks were supposedly regulated by the state, which means that Anglo really shouldn't have been in a position to lie in the first place, or at least not the spectacular degree it may have done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Noreen1 wrote: »

The same friends who ensured that the previously illegal loans were "legalised" with the windup of IBRC?

As a matter of interest, which court ruled there were illegal loans and which loans did it make this ruling about?

NORTH1

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because even if Anglo lied through its teeth to the government about its position, there would remain a strong possibility that the government would have done the same thing even had it known the true position.

And in terms of general culpability, there's the issue that the banks were supposedly regulated by the state, which means that Anglo really shouldn't have been in a position to lie in the first place, or at least not the spectacular degree it may have done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We are going around in circles here.

Do we agree something illegal was committed?
If so, someone either government or company must be held responsible.

The fact that senior civil servants can be seen trying to cover up information, can only be a bad sign.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Because even if Anglo lied through its teeth to the government about its position, there would remain a strong possibility that the government would have done the same thing even had it known the true position.

I don't think this assumption can be made so lightly. I think the line that the Anglo executives discuss on the tapes - the infamous "plucked a figure out of my hole" statement - was probably a valid read of the situation. They needed to come out with a figure that was too big to ignore (as in clearly too big to expect Anglo to be able to come up with their own financial solution), but not so big that Government would know, up front, that a decision to guarantee Anglo specifically and the banks in general would actually exceed the capacity of the State to raise finance.

Bear in mind, if the Government had known the full implications of the guarantee, up front, they'd have known, without any possible doubt, that they were deciding to make the State insolvent. And that, bear in mind, would be starting from a situation where the level of State debt was actually quite low - with the State having considerable savings in the form of the Pension Reserve Fund.

So, I'd suggest, it is quite hard to make an assumption that the State would have done the same thing, if more facts were available.

Worztron

What an insane state of affairs. How is it that those that helped bankrupt an entire nation are still walking around free?

LostBoy101

I really doubt we get something big out the banking inquiry. All chairpersons on this so called board will be mates of the bankers.

Godge

NORTH1 wrote: »

We are going around in circles here.

Do we agree something illegal was committed?
If so, someone either government or company must be held responsible.

The fact that senior civil servants can be seen trying to cover up information, can only be a bad sign.

What illegality?

The Government did nothing illegal - just something really stupid and short-sighted, a typical FF stroke attempt that went disastorously wrong.

Anglo, in attempting to desperately save itself, played up to the reality that Cowen, Lenihan and the boys (including McWilliams the adviser) didn't have a clue. Nobody has yet to find anything concretely illegal that they did other than the occasional speculation on blogs and internet boards that this or that law might have been broken.

Illegality and political incompetence are not the same thing.

Bits_n_Bobs

It was financial not political incompetence.

By coincidence we have a whole department called 'The Department of Finance'.

I'm pretty sure Colm McCarthy speculated that if the Dept of Finance opened it's records to scrutiny we would know exactly what was known on the night of the guarantee, and how and why decisions were reached.

The continuing deafening silence from the dept and collusion in this silence by Fine Gael is paradoxically a damning incitement of political incompetence.

Cody Pomeray

Godge wrote: »

Anglo, in attempting to desperately save itself, played up to the reality that Cowen, Lenihan and the boys (including McWilliams the adviser) didn't have a clue. Nobody has yet to find anything concretely illegal that they did other than the occasional speculation on blogs and internet boards that this or that law might have been broken.

...says the internet poster, on a message board, denying illegality.

It is impossible for anyone here to make some definitive pronouncement on whether or not an offence was committed by Anglo executives. However, as has been set out at length in this thread, there are substantial grounds for indicating that this may be the case.

Presumably, an ongoing Garda investigation is itself an indication of the the possibility of criminal charges.

donegal_road

the Anglo board of directors took billions of Euro from the Central Bank on the pretense that it was a loan, while behind closed doors conspiring never to pay it back.

Sounds illegal to me

Worztron

The Anglo Irish Tapes - Quotes:
http://thejournal.ie/the-anglo-tapes-9-jaw-dropping-quotes-from-before-the-bailout-964097-Jun2013/
http://thejournal.ie/the-anglo-tapes-drumm-moolah-968476-Jun2013/

foxcoverteddy

Perhaps a stupid post but please tell me what we are achieving, the posts are in the main brilliant and well thought out, but we need some sort of action to go much further, so far it is words and more words.
For a start the then financial regulator should be locked up and his pension revoked, equally Cowan seems to be getting away with any comments on his conduct.
The fact that there are unanswered questions can really not be tolerated much longer.
Also the fact that someone can apply for bankruptcy in another jurisdiction should and must be addressed, if you are a debtor in this country surely Irish law must prevail.
Would appreciate some clarification to what happens next.

Cody Pomeray

Interesting cover on Village magazine at the moment.

It's an open letter to the DPP indicating that if the DPP doesn't prosecute some of the most vilified individuals in Irish society, Village will itself launch the (criminal) proceedings, which of course any private person has the capacity to do.

Of course the proceedings might not get anywhere, but it's a welcome criticism (public shaming?) of a long tradition of Irish prosecutorial lethargy.

Dan_Solo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It's an open letter to the DPP indicating that if the DPP doesn't prosecute some of the most vilified individuals in Irish society, Village will itself launch the (criminal) proceedings, which of course any private person has the capacity to do.

Could they prosecute the useless DPP while they're at it for criminal negligence?

Cody Pomeray

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Could they prosecute the useless DPP while they're at it for criminal negligence?

As things are, the DPP has more court actions taken against her office than any other public body (she is beaten only by the Minister for Justice).

However, these actions relate to reviewing procedures undertaken by the DPP. The DPP is immune from liability in tort - more clearly, the public have no right to sue the DPP for work done (or not done) in good faith.

This is a form of 'immunity' called the 'public policy exception'. It's common internationally... however reassuring that is...

In any case, Village do not intend to institute proceedings against the DPP. Only the named 'baddies'. You could do this yourself; it's a publicity stunt, but as publicity stunts go, it's a worthwhile one.

Worztron

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/anglo-executive-given-immunity-deal-by-the-dpp-1.1521627

:mad: