President Michael D. Higgins

bcmf

Was at a garden party in An Aras today.
President Higgins made a speech which was predominantly about the events of the last week re: The Anglo Tapes.
You could hear the anger in his voice as he spoke it.
He spoke with the passion and belief that is sadly missing in Leinster House.
Hr recieved a standing ovation for it ( I am not a member of any political party and the event was not a political event).
I wonder is this the last bastion passion in Irish Politics.

View

bcmf wrote: »

Was at a garden party in An Aras today.
President Higgins made a speech which was predominantly about the events of the last week re: The Anglo Tapes.
You could hear the anger in his voice as he spoke it.
He spoke with the passion and belief that is sadly missing in Leinster House.
Hr recieved a standing ovation for it ( I am not a member of any political party and the event was not a political event).
I wonder is this the last bastion passion in Irish Politics.

I don't recall Michael D making a big deal about the bank guarantee at the time.

Maybe he just left it to Joan Bruton at the time as Labour was opposing it but she seemed to be almost on her own at times.

wretcheddomain

View wrote: »

I don't recall Michael D making a big deal about the bank guarantee at the time.

The different between the two is that he's not a politician any more.

touts

His "greed is bad" mantra would carry more weight if he had not spent decades as one of the highest paid parliamentatians in the world with the odd stint as one of the highest paid Ministers in the world. Not to forget his brief "retirement" when he was one of the highest paid pensioners in the world. And most importantly he is now one of the highest paid heads of state in the world.

It's a pity he didn't have this opposition to greed as he gleefully skipped through the lobbies with his mates to vote themselves massive pay rises.

hyperborean

touts wrote: »

His "greed is bad" mantra would carry more weight if he had not spent decades as one of the highest paid parliamentatians in the world with the odd stint as one of the highest paid Ministers in the world. Not to forget his brief "retirement" when he was one of the highest paid pensioners in the world. And most importantly he is now one of the highest paid heads of state in the world.

It's a pity he didn't have this opposition to greed as he gleefully skipped through the lobbies with his mates to vote themselves massive pay rises.

What a foolish and naive point, the fact that he was paid the going rate for his job in the past has no relevance on his ability to shine a light on injustice or greed!

The difference between his rant and say for example Enda Kenny is that ihe is honest and heartfelt in his criticism of the elite and the rape of the country, Kenny is exactly the same as the bankers in one respect, he doesnt strike anyone as honest. And it doesnt help when he pretends to cry and talks from both sides of his mouth.

touts

hyperborean wrote: »

What a foolish and naive point, the fact that he was paid the going rate for his job in the past has no relevance on his ability to shine a light on injustice or greed!

The difference between his rant and say for example Enda Kenny is that ihe is honest and heartfelt in his criticism of the elite and the rape of the country, Kenny is exactly the same as the bankers in one respect, he doesnt strike anyone as honest. And it doesnt help when he pretends to cry and talks from both sides of his mouth.

Rubbish. Drumm and the Anglo guys would no doubt say they were paid the going rate for their jobs. TDs like Higgins set the tone for greed through the boom it's just that Higgins covered his grasping in flowery language and poetry.

Jawgap

So someone, albeit our First Citizen, who is paid a lot of money for not doing a whole lot while living in the former Vice Regal Lodge at the taxpayers' expense got a bit cranky at a garden party?

My initial reaction is 'so what?'

He's hardly leading the charge to the barricades or even daring to criticise the Government for their inaction......

He'd be more relevant as President if he actually did something rather than simply talked about the topic.

DublinWriter

He still might be a hurler, but he's playing on a gilded ditch.

hyperborean

touts wrote: »

Rubbish. Drumm and the Anglo guys would no doubt say they were paid the going rate for their jobs. TDs like Higgins set the tone for greed through the boom it's just that Higgins covered his grasping in flowery language and poetry.

So being a poet and speaking flowery sets the tone for greed? I would more inclined to blame idiotic people who make ridiculous statements like that for the state of the country, if the education system spits out this type of critical thinkers the country is lost.

GSF

Its an easy speech for Higgins to make, attacking people he has never liked - bankers.

A more difficult speech to make would be one attacking the laziness of the governing class and civil servants in allowing this mess to fester. That might involve criticising some people that he knows and likes.

Manach

The President does have some powers. One of these is to power to refer a bill to the Supreme court if it is potentially unconstitutional. On one matter, with supporting proofs etc, I did email to ask the office intention to such. An acknowledgement email received. Afterwards, when the bill was signed I again emailed, politely asking as a follow up to the reasoning. No response.
So while President Higgins can of course lament the mistakes of the past, it would be perhaps a tad more in keeping with the office to utilise the powers it has.

touts

hyperborean wrote: »

So being a poet and speaking flowery sets the tone for greed? I would more inclined to blame idiotic people who make ridiculous statements like that for the state of the country, if the education system spits out this type of critical thinkers the country is lost.

No my argument clearly is that he was/is as grasping and greedy as the rest of the TDs (and elite) but because he wraps himself in flowery language and poetry people seemed to see him as some sort of cuddly old intellectual. Beyond that I'm not going to rise to your bait and engage in the name calling and insulting you seem to consider passes for critical thinking.

View

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The different between the two is that he's not a politician any more.

Of course, the President is a politician. His comments on the Anglo tapes were political for pity's sake. They weren't exactly "Ah sure, the tapes were lovely" and "Keep up the good work", were they?

Jawgap

Nothing to stop him getting on the government jet and going to Germany or Brussels for a cultural event and making a speech there to begin the process of getting the other countries back on side.........


I know he needs the government's permission to leave the country, but why would they withold it?

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

I don't recall Michael D making a big deal about the bank guarantee at the time.

If you don't remember Higgins's contribution, it's not because he didn't make any.

September 30th 2008
2nd stage
Dail Eireann

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. I listened with interest to those who suggested the Bill is necessary to re-establish trust in the lending and credit relations, particularly between banks.

There are those of us who have made reference to this in terms of “whether”. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, asked whether, if there is a blizzard in the United States, we can be far behind. It is important that the Irish public, who are watching this, will require of us that we make a proper analysis. The reality of the United States, for example, was that there was a liquidity crisis and the reason the legislation was not passed in Congress was that many representing their constituents felt that the way in which the United States problem was being approached should not require the purchase of €700 billion worth of toxic debt, the equivalent of approximately $2,200 per taxpayer in the United States. There were several other ways in which one could have addressed the liquidity crisis. The IMF, in a conservative document looking at 42 banking crises internationally, showed that few — I think ten, including Paraguay and Pakistan — had got involved in purchasing toxic debt. That is a reality.

It is not about “whether”. Neither is it about, unfortunately, some sort of Lego approach to the economy about which the Tánaiste is talking about — tools in the toolkit. It is about giving a guarantee and people will reasonably ask what we are guaranteeing. One turns then to the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach.

... For example, the six institutions mentioned in the legislation differ entirely in their exposure to risk. Some are heavily exposed, as has already been established in the financial accounts, in relation to commercial property liabilities; others are not. It is nonsense to be using phases such as “the banks” because they differ...

Dail Eireann
1st October 2008
Committee Stage

...it would be assumed that the charge that will eventually be made on the banks would somehow or another be related, if one believes in market principles, to the degree of the risk being undertaken. The risk is different in a cautious, conservative bank than it is in a highly speculative bank but the Minister is asking us to blindly wave them on as they were and continue to trust those who have been guilty of a massive breach of trust, be it in terms of the Central Bank or the Financial Regulator.

Members will have heard that representatives of both gave assurances to Oireachtas committees that everything was fine. Everything was fine when it was not disclosed. Those of us who believe in democracy in many cases now ask for a minimum of transparency in regard to the banks.

The question has been asked: what exactly are the public being exposed to by way of guarantee? If the Minister answers the question posed by Deputy Noonan as to whether it is a liquidity or a solvency crisis to the effect that it is the latter, how then will the Minister decide what should be the taxpayers’ exposure? Does that mean that in the unlikely event, we all hope, of any aspect of insolvency, the taxpayer takes responsibility for the speculative bad debts of a bad bank that engaged in bad banking practices, that was rewarded with millions of euro and where people awarded themselves, sometimes at a slight remove by having a remuneration committee, hundreds of thousands of euro for speculative risk taking to people who in turn fed into the economy destructive principles in regard to the cost of building land, property and housing? The Minister may say that gentlemen or bankers do not talk about this and that it can all be taken for granted, but that is not good enough in terms of answering people’s questions on the nature of the guarantee and its general or specific effect.

Another question will be asked of the Government, namely, if there was to be more discipline, transparency, responsibility to the Oireachtas and so forth, would it not look for pre-conditions before people were allowed to participate? This is an extraordinary club where one does not need any kind of character in terms of banking to belong. Membership is open. The only qualification for membership is perceived distress or having been caught out in one’s irresponsible banking.

[289]On the question of participation, if a bank, for example, was not willing to disclose the degree of its exposure to assets that are highly speculative or unreal, a Minister could say it cannot participate. I read the Bill and I do not see evidence of that in terms of it being a pre-condition...

The Minister, for the sake of the economy, may not want to be specific in his disclosure but everyone on the street wants to know which banks are exposed to highly risky speculative loans and to what extent. We are familiar with the notion that this is about the blood of the economy. It has been suggested the economy is about to freeze up. That follows on from the notion in the United States that people will be unable to get a student loan or buy a car. None of us wants the economy to grind to a halt in such a manner. There is no comparison between a person who wants some money to stock the shelves of his or her shop — a person who needs some liquidity to start a small business, to keep such a business going, or to pay his or her staff — and a person who has borrowed €500 million or €1 billion for a highly speculative development, much of which may not be in this State at all.

I wish to speak about the Minister’s general approach to these matters. I assume he will reflect on the reorganisation of banking philosophy and practice during his considerations in advance of the budget etc. He will have to do so in the context of the national development plan. Is there the slightest indication that the banking system will adopt a new credit policy to assist employment-rich social projects? Is there any suggestion that there will be any shift of lending or credit into what have been described as “green technology” projects? The banking sector has not given a whit of commitment to doing anything differently. Those at the very top of the sector seem prepared to stay at the trough. It appears they are prepared to continue with the mad speculation in which they have previously engaged. Perhaps they made some kind of confession when they were in Government Buildings. Did they get down on their knees to say “we are very sorry we let the Government and the construction industry down”? Did they admit they have been caught out? I do not think they have offered a jot of admission that they brought us to this point, or suggested they will ever change.

It is entirely reasonable to ask the Minister to outline the circumstances in which he was forced to introduce emergency legislation to deal with this crisis. With respect, the Bill is rushed and sloppily drafted...

It is terribly important to point out that people need to get real when they reflect on what happens during banking transactions. I am sure the Minister, Deputy Ryan, remembers the campaigns which his party and my party ran in respect of the Tobin tax. I wish to remind him that just 2% of all international capital transactions involve goods. If one includes foreign direct investment, that figure increases to 4%. Therefore, 95% of international transactions are highly speculative. I agree with the suggestion made by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, that it is time for international regulation. When Lord Keynes suggested that in the 1940s, the institution was agreed but never came into existence...


The reality is that we have an international financial crisis for certain reasons. I agree with the Green Party that new initiatives are required at UN level, for example. At home, the Government has produced an emergency Bill and is asking us to wave it on. It wants us to keep things as they are, with no additional increment of transparency. Deputies on all sides have spoken about the appearances of representatives of the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank before committees of this House. Where are the Minister’s proposals for giving additional disciplinary powers to such bodies? Is it the case that the Minister’s proposed scheme does not follow any principle of disclosure? Does the Minister intend to give additional power to the Financial Regulator or the Central Bank to require compliance with the scheme?

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Yes. I am about to conclude. I wish to set out the fundamental principle in this regard. We are not talking about amending section 6 of the Bill. We are talking about the fundamental obligation on the Minister to come in at the beginning of the debate on the legislation to set out what he is proposing and the basis for it. In our amendments, we are seeking a guarantee that this is not more of the same. We need to be assured that things will be different. We are willing to listen to the Minister’s proposals. We are being asked to place trust where it has previously been abused. I refer to institutions where certain practices took place in the absence of control or accountability on the part of the Financial Regulator or the Central Bank. That is simply not on.

We need to consider these matters before we move on to section 2 of the Bill, which invokes the public interest. I suggest that clarity and transparency are required in the public interest. We need a different kind of banking. The banking practices I demand will help this country to protect employment. We need to acknowledge that wild and mad speculation, which has been a destructive principle within the economy, must end. The suggestion that we must fumble on the way we were, bad and all as it was, is irresponsible and destructive of the economy. It will have social consequences. As the public discusses what we did last night, it is raising the questions I have asked. They want to know if the status quo will continue...

..and so on, there are pages and pages of Michael D Higgins's response to the bank guarantee.

and also on the guarantee, some weeks later

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dqw4XNGIks

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If you don't remember Higgins's contribution, it's not because he didn't make any.

Fair enough. The media may have just emphasised Joan Burton's contribution more and his got pushed into the background at the time.

In which case he is, of course, entitled to say "I told you so" to us all. Alas though we still have all had to face the consequence of the Oireachtas' decision at the time.

bcmf

I was merely making the point that at least he is standing up and saying what people are feeling on the ground. As AFAIK he is still a member of a governing party.
I will also refer to the speech in the Euro Parliment where he called it as it is ie Austerity does not work.
I for one am glad that someone ,and that happens to be our president, is standing up and calling it as it is.

Fr Tod Umptious

bcmf wrote: »

I was merely making the point that at least he is standing up and saying what people are feeling on the ground. As AFAIK he is still a member of a governing party.
I will also refer to the speech in the Euro Parliment where he called it as it is ie Austerity does not work.
I for one am glad that someone ,and that happens to be our president, is standing up and it as it is.

But during the boom most had the same greedy attitude as the bankers, buying multiple properties, speculating on lands, etc etc, only they lost out in the end, I think he is talking complete and utter rubbish.

Godge

He now needs to follow his words with action and declare to the nation that he is giving back his salary and pension and will only take 80k while working and 50k while retired as a gesture to the State.

That will then put the spotlight on the Cowens, O'Rourkes, McCreevys, John Brutons of this world who are still creaming it off the State in the same way that Michael D. is still creaming it.

Seanchai

touts wrote: »

His "greed is bad" mantra would carry more weight if he had not spent decades as one of the highest paid parliamentatians in the world with the odd stint as one of the highest paid Ministers in the world. Not to forget his brief "retirement" when he was one of the highest paid pensioners in the world. And most importantly he is now one of the highest paid heads of state in the world.

It's a pity he didn't have this opposition to greed as he gleefully skipped through the lobbies with his mates to vote themselves massive pay rises.

Well said. And let us all not forget that Michael D. Higgins receives the obscene salary of €250,000 per annum, without paying a cent in rent, petrol or other expenses.

When it comes to his own personal financial sacrifice, Michael D. Higgins is certainly no President Jose Mujica of Uruguay who gives away most of his salary

I voted for Higgins, largely because he established the culturally refreshing and different TG4 and has always stood up for the underdog. However, I just think he's a complete hypocrite on the issue of his salary. I can't abide this unspoken policy where this should not be mentioned. €100,000 would be more than enough for Higgins, given that his expenses are sorted.

Busted Flat.

bcmf wrote: »

Was at a garden party in An Aras today.
President Higgins made a speech which was predominantly about the events of the last week re: The Anglo Tapes.
You could hear the anger in his voice as he spoke it.
He spoke with the passion and belief that is sadly missing in Leinster House.
Hr recieved a standing ovation for it ( I am not a member of any political party and the event was not a political event).
I wonder is this the last bastion passion in Irish Politics.

Oh sweet Jaysus we have been saved, where was he when we needed him.
A member of the LP: did he see no wrong before this. What a creep, trying to rescue his past, and to make a distance between himself and the years past.
Liam Cosgrave appointed him to the senate in 1973. What comment did he ever make about the mass murder in this country about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The case was closed by the government within 5 weeks, what comment did he make about that.
Scurrilous, little runt. How dare he speak about corruption.

Seanchai

GSF wrote: »

Its an easy speech for Higgins to make, attacking people he has never liked - bankers.

A more difficult speech to make would be one attacking the laziness of the governing class and civil servants in allowing this mess to fester. That might involve criticising some people that he knows and likes.

And, for that matter, Higgins could criticise the artists/poets/writers/intellectuals of Ireland whose silence was bought with grants go leor during the boom. I can think of a single "artist" who spoke out and that was Brendan Gleeson in 2006 when he was on the Late Late Show promoting his film, The Tiger's Tail, which itself was a condemnation of the "boom". It was refreshing to listen to somebody speak against the consensus.

It was Sarte who once said that intellectuals had a critical role to play in the betterment of society. Not in Ireland.

bcmf

Haters keep on hateing. lol

Seanchai

bcmf wrote: »

Haters keep on hateing. lol

Profound. Hating.