European Union to order changes if they don't like Budget

View

Jumboman wrote: »

The politicians were elected to work in the best interests of the people. Which do you think the general public would prefer give money to the EU or to schools and hospitals ? The "democratic decision" of the electorate was only after we were asked to vote again in two referendums hows that democratic ?

The decision to be bound by rulings of the ECJ was made in a single referendum.

Jumboman wrote: »

I dont care what the EU says about anything the question should be what is good for Ireland.

Fair enough if you consider the rule of law to be unimportant. I fancy the Supreme Court would regard it as highly important and you'd have a tough time persuading them that it was "good for Ireland" that we abandon it and flout a democratic decision of the electorate.

Jumboman wrote: »

That is such a defeatist attitude in order words we should bend over and take it up the arse from the EU.

No, it isn't deafeatist. It just doesn't coincide with your bellicose view of the world.

Jumboman wrote: »

If we went bankrupt it would destabilize the euro currency especially since we are been hailed as one of the only successfully "bailout" countries.

So what? Caving into blackmail would immediately destabilise the Euro since no one - not even us - could trust the political decision making in the EU after that. Not to mention the legal uncertainty that would arise as the decision was immediately challenged in every Supreme Court in the Eurozone.

Jumboman wrote: »

They blackmailed us so why shouldnt we "blackmail" them or play them at their own game ?

That's "blackmail" as in providing us with a loan facility at rates of 1/3 that of the financial markets were charging us at the time (and which they were increasingly unwilling to loan us at all). And, as it was a loan facility, there has never been any obligation on us to draw down those loans unless we chose to do so.

bbam

In fairness the government are running a fine line and are playing a blinder.
They are protecting the high rollers while pilling on more charges and taxes onto the joe soap.
An example of this attitude is the recent blunder in admitting that insolvent doctors and accountants should hold onto their large properties as befits their standing in the community.

They know full well that if they push too hard they will push voters over to SF, but they seem to have the Irish mentality under control. While the main parties remain in power there will be no radical two finger approach to Eu money and EU control of our budgets.

I can't ever see our deficit being balanced, the unions will protect the earnings of the large numbers in the HSE, teaching etc. increasing taxes to the stage to balance the books will drive the voters to SF so that won't happen. Job creation is way down their priority, the jobless numbers will be massaged with CE, TUS and the new Gateway scheme to do council menial work, all funded by DSP. Long term unemployed numbers will fall as people are cycled out into these schemes.

It should be no supprise that the budget is carefully orchestrated between our main parties and EU as they have the most to benifet by maintaining the Status Quo.

View

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Jumboman makes a lot of sense IMO

Like it or not, the EU has shown that it's more than happy to break it's own rules to suit the interests of the larger states and no matter how you try to spin it..

You can take that "argument" to the courts where the judges will be free to agree with it if it is a valid argument. Of course, you won't though, will you?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

asking a country to "go back and do it again" because a referendum didn't produce a wanted result is not democratic is any shape or form.

The EU has never asked us to hold any referenda ever - either first ones or second ones.

And the Supreme Court here is quite clear, second referenda are 100% democratic as the demos get a free vote in each and every case.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You can't claim that we all signed up for it when the only reason we did was because we were forced to under threat of sanctions, hell and brimstone and what not (YES for Jobs anyone? Still waiting on that one...)

You don't even know which referenda we are talking about.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

What about coercing the Irish state into accepting a "bailout" that has proven disastrous for our national economy, youth and sold our children into economic servitude ... while those at the top who are responsible for the mess escape unscathed - anyone who doubts this should have another listen to the Anglo Tapes.

The only reason we need a "bailout" was because our economy was a disaster zone. As it is, we aren't under any obligation to borrow any of the monies avail to us under the "bailout" - we are choosing to do so because we don't want to face the alternative.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Like I said previously, I can only assume that the EU supporters on this forum are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The only other conclusion I can draw is that they're either blind to the consequences of this Austerity-for-Some policy we've been forced to follow, or perhaps just (in typically Irish fashion) unconcerned because it hasn't (yet!) personally affected them to any great degree. I don't have to suffer racism to know that it's wrong, nor do I need to be assaulted to know that's wrong too!

Well keep ignoring the obvious conclusion - namely, that the majority of the electorate won't support your view point. You can feel really virtuous at being "right" but it won't persuade a majority to your point of view.

djpbarry

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

What about coercing the Irish state into accepting a "bailout" that has proven disastrous for our national economy, youth and sold our children into economic servitude ... while those at the top who are responsible for the mess escape unscathed...

Overlooking the Anglo directors who are due to appear in court, are we?

Jumboman

View wrote: »

The decision to be bound by rulings of the ECJ was made in a single referendum.

People just voted Yes on the basis of what we "could get" out of the EU. I doubt 99% of the electorate have any clue about the ins and outs of the ECJ. People are however concerned about if they have enough money in their pockets to pay the bills.

Fair enough if you consider the rule of law to be unimportant. I fancy the Supreme Court would regard it as highly important and you'd have a tough time persuading them that it was "good for Ireland" that we abandon it and flout a democratic decision of the electorate.

So how is germany and france able to break EU law whenever it suits them ?

No, it isn't deafeatist. It just doesn't coincide with your bellicose view of the world.

It is deafeatist. Do you really think someone like enda kenny is providing Ireland with its best possible representation when negotiating with the EU ?

So what? Caving into blackmail would immediately destabilise the Euro

So was been forced to guarantee unsecured bondholders not blackmail ?

decision was immediately challenged in every Supreme Court in the Eurozone.

Foreign courts should not concern us. We need to get of the eurozone but before we do we should get back the billions they took from us.

That's "blackmail" as in providing us with a loan facility at rates of 1/3 that of the financial markets were charging us at the time (and which they were increasingly unwilling to loan us at all). And, as it was a loan facility, there has never been any obligation on us to draw down those loans unless we chose to do so.

They create money of out of thin air then charge us interest on it. And we are meant to be grateful for that ?

I doubt their was no obligation for us to take the loans. Do you really believe the EU didnt order/threaten the irish government.

Jumboman

View wrote: »

The EU has never asked us to hold any referenda ever - either first ones or second ones.

Not officially. But that doesnt mean they didnt threaten the Irish government behind the scenes.

And the Supreme Court here is quite clear, second referenda are 100% democratic as the demos get a free vote in each and every case.

Its by no means democratic when they just keep running the referenda untill they get the "right" result.

ardmacha

the unions will protect the earnings of the large numbers in the HSE, teaching etc

When, exactly, are the unions going to start doing this?

Its by no means democratic when they just keep running the referenda untill they get the "right" result.

I take it that you think there should be no divorce, then?

Jumboman

ardmacha wrote: »

I take it that you think there should be no divorce, then?

Bit off the topic but how has divorce benefited society ?

spank_inferno

Jumboman wrote: »

Bit off the topic but how has divorce benefited society ?

I agree Jumboan.
People should always stay in unhappy relationships.

Back on topic.

View

Jumboman wrote: »

People just voted Yes on the basis of what we "could get" out of the EU.

That's an extraordinary statement to make. You know why others voted the way they did, do you?

Jumboman wrote: »

So how is germany and france able to break EU law whenever it suits them ?

If you have complaints about EU law being breeched make formal complaints about such breeches.

Germany & France are subject to the same EU rules as everyone else, no more and no less.

Jumboman wrote: »

It is deafeatist. Do you really think someone like enda kenny is providing Ireland with its best possible representation when negotiating with the EU ?

Okay, so you don't like "Inda", but so what? He is the democratically elected Taoiseach and until you are elected to the Oireachtas and can vote for someone else, tough.

Jumboman wrote: »

So was been forced to guarantee unsecured bondholders not blackmail ?

And how were we "forced" exactly? Were there gunmen in the Oireachtas when the votes were taken?

Jumboman wrote: »

Foreign courts should not concern us. We need to get of the eurozone but before we do we should get back the billions they took from us.

So, the "cunning plan" is to force other EU member states to accede to our demands but we shouldn't be concerned that their Supreme Courts will prohibit them from doing so?

Jumboman wrote: »

They create money of out of thin air then charge us interest on it. And we are meant to be grateful for that ?

No money came "from thin air".

The monies we borrowed from the EU funds were borrowed on the international bond markets by the other governments and the EU funds. They are paying interest on those loans which were incurred so they could loan us money at rates we couldn't hope to get on the financial markets at the time.

Other governments don't sit around with tens of billions sitting in a bottom drawer on the off-chance we might need to borrow from them.

Jumboman wrote: »

I doubt their was no obligation for us to take the loans. Do you really believe the EU didnt order/threaten the irish government.

And what do you think they'd have done if we had decided to reduce our government's massive over-expenditure and not borrow?

Do you really think Angela Merkel is insisting Enda Kenny borrow money to keep Castlebar Hosiptal open and he is there insisting that he'd prefer to close it instead? Or the schools? Or to pay Social Welfare?

View

Jumboman wrote: »

Not officially. But that doesnt mean they didnt threaten the Irish government behind the scenes.

Wouldn't it have made more sense for them to threaten us to NOT hold a referendum in the first place?

Jumboman wrote: »

Its by no means democratic when they just keep running the referenda untill they get the "right" result.

Take that up with the Supreme Court. They are the ones who get to decide what "democratic" is just as they are the ones who handed down the Crotty judgment without which you probably wouldn't be complaining about the EU referenda at all as we'd be unlikely to be having them as often as we do.

Geuze

bbam wrote: »

I can't ever see our deficit being balanced, the unions will protect the earnings of the large numbers in the HSE, teaching etc. increasing taxes to the stage to balance the books will drive the voters to SF so that won't happen.

They haven't been doing a great job so, (the unions), as PS pay has been cut three times.

bbam

ardmacha wrote: »

When, exactly, are the unions going to start doing this?

I don't want this to descend into a PS bashing exercise.. these comments relate to how the unions will use the sheer numbers in the PS to force agreements which are not helpful to balancing the books of income/expenditure

But look at the notion of "efficiencies" as a cost saving exercise..

Employees of the state work maybe 2 hours extra per week or some other similar notion, and yes the individual will have a lower income/hour, but the drain on the state is unchanged.. This enables the salaries to remain and so there is no saving in financial terms to the state...

Teachers would be an example... what benefit or saving is there in teachers remaining on after pupils going home, I see this as the implementation of the efficiencies in a number of schools..

Personally people being made stay on in their workplace for more time is of no benifet to the state nor its finances, balancing of the deficit will require either more money to be taken in or less to be given out, or a combination of the two.. Pretending that somehow paying out the same amount will somehow help balance the books - its just absurd.

This is a deal struck by the unions in protection of their members with the biggest strength in numbers.. Its what unions do, they serve no other purpose other than to get the best deal for their members. But it does nothing to help cut expenditure which is one of the few direct means of balancing the budget.

Enough about PS pay, there have been enough threads on the topic..

BKtje

Mods: Apologies if this post isn't acceptable here but I'm curious as to what people think would happen if we followed the course outlined below.

So I couldn't sleep last night and my mind started thinking about Jumboman's and Kaiser2000's wish that Ireland would just give the ol two fingers to the EU and I came up with a hypothetical timeline. I realise this isn't based on any sort of fact and possibly too extreme but this is what I came up with more or less. Point 4 and 5 being the most unlikely scenario but 1-3 seem fairly likely consequences.

1) The people of Ireland decide to fully back the proposal of giving the ol two fingers to the EU and tell them to get stuffed. Refusing to repay loans and interest causes the EU to cut off any funding. Ireland survives a while on the 50 billion that was (somehow) printed but that money soon runs out. The EU enters crisis talks. Ireland becomes locked out of the money markets forcing the government to balance the books immediately. Services and welfare are cut and many public sector employees join the dole queues (whose weekly payments are halved). Unemployment jumps to 20% and the standard of living falls.

2) The EU fines Ireland and is ignored leaving them no choice but to kick Ireland out of the Euro. Punt Nua floated and immediately crashes, peoples savings become a quarter of their initial value. Ireland experiences a slight rise in exports to the EU due to being a low cost economy, however many Europeans refuse to buy Irish products. Exports to the rest of the world experience a massive jump due to the low cost. In Ireland the standard of living falls further and unemployment stays steady at around 22%.

3) Ireland kicked out of the EU and thus loses access to the European market. Large companies who moved to Ireland for access to the EU are forced to move meaning unemployment rises again to over 30%. All Irish work permits in the EU are revoked and people deported back to Ireland causing unemployment to rise to 33%. EU allows trade with Ireland but all imports are heavily taxed, nullifying any cost advantage Ireland may have (even if Europeans are willing to buy Irish produce). Services are cut further, crime rampant, people afraid and starting to get hungry. Petrol too expensive to mass import, cars become a true sign of wealth but most of the wealthy have already fled the country long ago.

4)Large gangs form and take control as the government pretty much collapses. Social welfare non existent and people begin to starve. Farmers employ people to defend their land in exchange for food becoming a sort of feudal lord. Criminal gangs are everywhere and most people either part of a gang (criminal or farmer) or they are living in constant fear of violence and starvation. Food is air lifted into the country by aid organisations helping to
stave off mass starvation but many die.

5) Ireland becomes the first western first world country to return to third world country status.

Ya know, this might make a decent fiction novel if I create some sort of love story in the middle of all this. I honestly can't see a good world for Ireland outside of the EU and giving the ol two fingers to Europe wouldn't get us anywhere in the long term.

fly_agaric

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Like I said previously, I can only assume that the EU supporters on this forum are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The only other conclusion I can draw is that they're either blind to the consequences of this Austerity-for-Some policy we've been forced to follow, ...

EU has been the origin of alot of legislation in that enhances the rights of ordinary people imo [afair our shower often want to opt out of part of it that improve employment rights etc]. Our own politicians are the ones who've always been very quick with austerity-for-some policy options as you call them to temporarily dig the Irish economy out of a hole - "we can't all live on a small island", or "we must live within our means" etc; much slower with reforms to try and stop the ship hitting the rocks again.
Without any bailouts, the professional and political "elite" here would naturally have to squeeze the rest of us a lot more tightly to keep the "show on the road" (and themselves in a fitting manner)!

jmayo

shanered wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/european-commission-could-demand-changes-to-ireland-s-budget-next-month-1.1527329

Seems like our Government doesn't have any power any more over our situation, its a bit scary that our economic future is at the mercy of Brussels, no amount of complaining outside the Dail will affect the lads n lasses in Brussels.

Looks like Austerity is here to stay if I'm to make an educated guess, anybody else have any interesting views or comments on this story?

On the contrary I think it is a good thing that our economic future is not decided by people like joan burton, brendan howlin and james reilly.

I am no fan of EU (as can be atested by anyone looking at my old posts), but we cannot be trusted to govern ourselves.
The vested interests (public sector unions, pensioners, social welfare proponents, IBEC, mortgage defaulters, beleivers in magic money trees i.e people before profit, etc) win out and we need to get our financial house in order.

And please let no one start bringing in bank bailouts etc into this.
The simple fact is we ramped up public spending based on transactional taxes and taxes on a non sustainable pyramid of construction fueled by cheap credit.
We are not making enough in reveneue to service our day to day costs never mind service our borrowing.

Now we need to cut our cloth to suit our measure and as long as our politicans think short term and reelection they will not make the very hard decisions necessary.

Likewise with other members of the PIIGS.
The Greeks simply can't be trusted to sort out the mess they created.
Insetad of ordinary Greeks being angry with Germans maybe they should look to their own political and professional classes.

BTW everyone talks about austerity, but to me if I ran a home and had to balance a budget in the same manner I wouldn't call it austerity but "living within my means".

MRnotlob606

merkel has germany prospering, unemployment is at its lowest in 20 years in germany

woodoo

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

merkel has germany prospering, unemployment is at its lowest in 20 years in germany

She may be happy with the way thing are the EU now. She seems in no rush to solve the mess.

dissed doc

shanered wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/european-commission-could-demand-changes-to-ireland-s-budget-next-month-1.1527329

Seems like our Government doesn't have any power any more over our situation, its a bit scary that our economic future is at the mercy of Brussels, no amount of complaining outside the Dail will affect the lads n lasses in Brussels.

Looks like Austerity is here to stay if I'm to make an educated guess, anybody else have any interesting views or comments on this story?

In times of yore, before the euro, the currency would have been massively devalued by now, we would all be tightening our belts, and convinced it was somebody else's fault.

This way, our parliamentary government cannot hide it's actions. A pity their response is to attempt to polarise the political system into a left vs right two-party system to avoid having to reform the political system.

Still breaking the law on doctor's working hours...still issuing property development contracts to builders for health centres and clinics that never get used....

View

jmayo wrote: »

On the contrary I think it is a good thing that our economic future is not decided by people like joan burton, brendan howlin and james reilly.

I am no fan of EU (as can be atested by anyone looking at my old posts), but we cannot be trusted to govern ourselves.

Loath as I am to upset you, I am afraid that the EU is not there to "save us from ourselves" (or our choice of politicians).

It IS up to us to govern ourselves and the rest of the EU will trust us to do so (even if all evidence points to the contrary).

jmayo wrote: »

The vested interests (public sector unions, pensioners, social welfare proponents, IBEC, mortgage defaulters, beleivers in magic money trees i.e people before profit, etc) win out and we need to get our financial house in order.

Well that is what vested interests are there for - to advance their members' interests. If we - by being too lazy to counter their efforts - do nothing, then we get what we deserve.

View

woodoo wrote: »

She may be happy with the way thing are the EU now. She seems in no rush to solve the mess.

It is up to each member state to get their house in order. Merkel hasn't a magic wand to wave away our problems - that is up to us. She does appear to be largely unflappable which isn't a bad thing in a crisis of the severity of the global 2008 financial melt-down.

BlatentCheek

jmayo wrote: »

On the contrary I think it is a good thing that our economic future is not decided by people like joan burton, brendan howlin and james reilly.

I am no fan of EU (as can be atested by anyone looking at my old posts), but we cannot be trusted to govern ourselves.

Opponents of austerity wouldn't want their economic future decided by the ministers of an austerity government either so you're making a strawman argument. Regardless of your Irish self-loathing the fact remains that austerity has done very little for the peripheral EU economies it's been forced upon; in fact there's a growing consensus that it has completely stymied growth.

jmayo wrote: »

And please let no one start bringing in bank bailouts etc into this.
The simple fact is we ramped up public spending based on transactional taxes and taxes on a non sustainable pyramid of construction fueled by cheap credit.
We are not making enough in reveneue to service our day to day costs never mind service our borrowing.

It was the immense and unprecedented expansion of our national debt caused by the bank bailouts that made it impossible for us to raise money on the bond markets; and forced us into EU bailouts that came with the abrogation of our economic sovereignty and compulsory austerity attached.

You can't just dismiss the bank bailout as if it's an irrelevance just because we would have run a budget deficit anyway, it's the scale of the deficit that counts. The US ran a counter cyclical deficit, including a stimulus scheme that's widely credited with the US recovery.

View

BlatentCheek wrote: »

Opponents of austerity wouldn't want their economic future decided by the ministers of an austerity government either so you're making a strawman argument. Regardless of your Irish self-loathing the fact remains that austerity has done very little for the peripheral EU economies it's been forced upon; in fact there's a growing consensus that it has completely stymied growth.

That's "growth" as in the sort you get with no money in the kitty and no one willing to loan you the money, right?

BlatentCheek

View wrote: »

That's "growth" as in the sort you get with no money in the kitty and no one willing to loan you the money, right?

Well thanks for reading half of my post.

View

BlatentCheek wrote: »

Well thanks for reading half of my post.

If you start presenting half an argument - the bank debt - what do you expect?

(And, the other part of the argument is the debt due to public over-spending. Which means it was a case of "When" we called in the Troika, not "if")

jmayo

BlatentCheek wrote: »

Opponents of austerity wouldn't want their economic future decided by the ministers of an austerity government either so you're making a strawman argument. Regardless of your Irish self-loathing the fact remains that austerity has done very little for the peripheral EU economies it's been forced upon; in fact there's a growing consensus that it has completely stymied growth.

Why the fook is it seen as Irish self loathing if you point out the fact we are a failed state who was incapable of governing ourselves.
We created one of the biggest property bubbles in the world, diverted most of the economy and the funding of our ever increasing public sector bill to construction industry and subsequently lost our entire indigenous banking system.
We now have one of the highest levels of personal debt in the world and probably one of the highest levels of mortgage defaults.
And before you blame politicans, bankers, developers and regulators ask who elected those polictians, who bought all the crud property and who borrowed all the money ?

I suppose you think it is better to act like we are great, try find someone else to blame like the Germans, Lehmans or even the Brits and that everyone loves us.
It is time to grow up and face reality.

EDIT: I am not saying every citizen of this state are responsible, but a hell of a lot are.
And by WE, I mean us as a collective people.

BTW what is your alternative to austerity ?
Continue an economic system that can only function with massive continous borrowing ?
Where do these countries continue to get the borrowing ?

Could you run a household, a small company or even a big company in the same fashion as most fo the PIIGS states have been run ?

BlatentCheek wrote: »

It was the immense and unprecedented expansion of our national debt caused by the bank bailouts that made it impossible for us to raise money on the bond markets; and forced us into EU bailouts that came with the abrogation of our economic sovereignty and compulsory austerity attached.

You can't just dismiss the bank bailout as if it's an irrelevance just because we would have run a budget deficit anyway, it's the scale of the deficit that counts.

That expansion of our national debt did ndeed precipitate the toika bailout.
But did I ever say otherwise ?
Ehhh No

What I did say is that even without a bank bailout this country would have to seriously cut public spending.
That is what you call austerity.
I call it living within our means.

You actually mentioned the scale of the deficit ?
Don't you think that the scale of the deficit would have to be cut which would imply what you call austerity ?

BlatentCheek wrote: »

The US ran a counter cyclical deficit, including a stimulus scheme that's widely credited with the US recovery.

FFS we are not the US, we are not Japan, we are not the UK.
We are a little country of 4 odd million on an island on the periphery of Europe with no natural resources, no big indigenous multinationals, no big internal market and more importantly not the master of our own currency.
Grnate dI do agree that the EU should have indulged in some fiscal or quantitative easing, but the Germans have a long running fear of that policy.

srsly78

jmayo wrote: »

Grnate dI do agree that the EU should have indulged in some fiscal or quantitative easing, but the Germans have a long running fear of that policy.

The ecb effectively did use some QE: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/feb/28/european-central-bank-euro-eurozone

BlatentCheek

jmayo wrote: »

I suppose you think it is better to act like we are great, try find someone else to blame like the Germans, Lehmans or even the Brits and that everyone loves us.
It is time to grow up and face reality.

There you go again with those strawman arguments; I said none of those things.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW what is your alternative to austerity ?
Continue an economic system that can only function with massive continous borrowing ?
Where do these countries continue to get the borrowing ?

"Austerity" has become a catch all term for the actions we took: take on all bank debt as national debt, get bailed out, give control of finances to the troika, stay in debt for decades, prolong recession with cuts and taxes, exit bailout in 20??. I, along with I suspect most people opposed to "austerity", aren't instinctively and vehemently opposed to any cut and tax rise, provided it forms part of a sane economic policy rather than the madness of supporting zombie banks based on inaccurate data.

jmayo wrote: »

Could you run a household, a small company or even a big company in the same fashion as most fo the PIIGS states have been run ?

It's fairly widely acknowledged that the household analogy for the finances of vastly more complex nation states is simplistic and inaccurate. Companies are different too but as far as they go there are numerous examples of highly successful company's not always balancing the books; Amazon is the largest retailer in the world and didn't turn a profit for over 5 years. With countries running counter-cyclical deficits to fund stimulus has form in tackling recessions.

jmayo wrote: »

That expansion of our national debt did ndeed precipitate the toika bailout.
But did I ever say otherwise ?
Ehhh No

You said "let no one start bringing in bank bailouts into this" as if it wasn't the single largest driver of our immense national debt.

jmayo wrote: »

What I did say is that even without a bank bailout this country would have to seriously cut public spending.
That is what you call austerity.
I call it living within our means.

You actually mentioned the scale of the deficit ?
Don't you think that the scale of the deficit would have to be cut which would imply what you call austerity ?

See my points above about "austerity" and your household analogy.

jmayo wrote: »

FFS we are not the US, we are not Japan, we are not the UK.
We are a little country of 4 odd million on an island on the periphery of Europe with no natural resources, no big indigenous multinationals, no big internal market and more importantly not the master of our own currency.

I think what you're saying there is that we can't determine our own economic policy, in fact we could have before the Banks guarantee, and even afterwards, though with greater difficulty. Not guaranteeing the banks, or even leaving the Euro if we had to, wouldn't have gotten us kicked out of the EU so our access to the single market wouldn't have changed.

jmayo wrote: »

Grnate dI do agree that the EU should have indulged in some fiscal or quantitative easing, but the Germans have a long running fear of that policy.

So as a result of German folk-memories of 1920s hyper inflation we were forced to follow economic policies that have crucified Ireland.

jmayo wrote: »

And before you blame politicans, bankers, developers and regulators ask who elected those polictians, who bought all the crud property and who borrowed all the money ?

I'd blame all the people you listed and I'd throw in the media. People's opinions are, and were, formed by what they read, see and hear. Pretty much every Irish mainstream newspaper was a happy cheerleader for the property boom and all the madness of the Bertie years. Radio and TV are heavily dominated by an RTE with a poor record of independence from Govt. (certainly compared to the BBC) and you can hardly describe TV3 as a consensus challenging channel. Most Irish people trusted that the media were telling the truth, that their politicians had their best interests at heart, that their bankers were prudent and that their regulators were effective. Naive perhaps but I don't lump all the blame on them. We need immense reform in this country and just saying "Irish people are gob****es" means nothing will ever change.

djpbarry

BlatentCheek wrote: »

I, along with I suspect most people opposed to "austerity", aren't instinctively and vehemently opposed to any cut and tax rise, provided it forms part of a sane economic policy rather than the madness of supporting zombie banks based on inaccurate data.

And there was me thinking the aim of austerity was to balance public expenditure against income.

BlatentCheek wrote: »

You said "let no one start bringing in bank bailouts into this" as if it wasn't the single largest driver of our immense national debt.

It wasn’t.

BlatentCheek wrote: »

I'd blame all the people you listed and I'd throw in the media. People's opinions are, and were, formed by what they read, see and hear. Pretty much every Irish mainstream newspaper was a happy cheerleader for the property boom and all the madness of the Bertie years. Radio and TV are heavily dominated by an RTE with a poor record of independence from Govt. (certainly compared to the BBC) and you can hardly describe TV3 as a consensus challenging channel. Most Irish people trusted that the media were telling the truth, that their politicians had their best interests at heart, that their bankers were prudent and that their regulators were effective. Naive perhaps but I don't lump all the blame on them. We need immense reform in this country and just saying "Irish people are gob****es" means nothing will ever change.

Eh, surely you’re the one saying “Irish people are gob****es”? Apparently they believe everything they see and hear?

Absolving the electorate of responsibility means nothing will ever change, because nothing will be learned from the mistakes that were made.

jmayo

BlatentCheek wrote: »

"Austerity" has become a catch all term for the actions we took: take on all bank debt as national debt, get bailed out, give control of finances to the troika, stay in debt for decades, prolong recession with cuts and taxes, exit bailout in 20??. I, along with I suspect most people opposed to "austerity", aren't instinctively and vehemently opposed to any cut and tax rise, provided it forms part of a sane economic policy rather than the madness of supporting zombie banks based on inaccurate data.

Look up current budget deficit.
Or in more simplistic terms just think spending versus income.

Try and forget about our zombie banks for one minute.
We had and still have a little problem in this country where we spend more day to day (healthcare, education, civil service, social welfare, Gardaí, defense forces, Oireachtas, County Councils, RTE, CIE, all the quangoes etc) than we earn from revenue (income taxes, VAT, corporation tax, capital gains taxes, import duties, TV licenses, motor tax, etc)

Now to meet that day to day spending we need to borrow.
That borrowing was too high once the ar** fell out of construction and needed to be cut.

BlatentCheek wrote: »

It's fairly widely acknowledged that the household analogy for the finances of vastly more complex nation states is simplistic and inaccurate. Companies are different too but as far as they go there are numerous examples of highly successful company's not always balancing the books; Amazon is the largest retailer in the world and didn't turn a profit for over 5 years. With countries running counter-cyclical deficits to fund stimulus has form in tackling recessions.

Trust me that can only go on for so long in a company.
They have to balance the books eventually and that is done by cutting spending.
And it can only go on for so long with a country as well, unless of course you are big enough like US where the Japanese, Chinese, etc are willing to buy your debt.

BlatentCheek wrote: »

You said "let no one start bringing in bank bailouts into this" as if it wasn't the single largest driver of our immense national debt.

Yeah it is all the banks fault. :rolleyes:
Shure if it wasn't for them we could still be running a 20 odd billion overspend we had in the current budget.

The things that could have happened if we didn't have the banks either not bailed out or not in trouble in the first place is that we could have continued massive overspending for a while longer and we may have been able to use the likes of the national pension reserve fund to try and kick start the economy.

And yes I do know that the bank debt has pushed us into a bailout and added significantly to our national debt which is a big problem coming down the road.

BlatentCheek wrote: »

...
So as a result of German folk-memories of 1920s hyper inflation we were forced to follow economic policies that have crucified Ireland.

In a word yes we do have to follow German policies since they have been helping to keep the lights on for us.

Has Ireland been crucified ?
I don't think so.
We still have massive spending in healthcare and education, the vast majority on salaries.
We still have massive numbers employed in our public sector.
We still have pretty good social welfare in comparison to even Germany.
We still have massive numbers of mortgage defaulters, thanks to the taxpayers, sitting sometimes rent free in properties that should have been repossessed.

Granted end user public services have been cut, salaries have been cut and taxes increased, but in comparison to others we have in not been been crucified.
The next few billion coming out of the budget will hurt a lot more since a lot of the low hanging fruit has already been picked.

But if you want to see crucified then look at Greece or what happened in Argentina.

BlatentCheek wrote: »

I'd blame all the people you listed and I'd throw in the media. People's opinions are, and were, formed by what they read, see and hear. Pretty much every Irish mainstream newspaper was a happy cheerleader for the property boom and all the madness of the Bertie years. Radio and TV are heavily dominated by an RTE with a poor record of independence from Govt. (certainly compared to the BBC) and you can hardly describe TV3 as a consensus challenging channel. Most Irish people trusted that the media were telling the truth, that their politicians had their best interests at heart, that their bankers were prudent and that their regulators were effective. Naive perhaps but I don't lump all the blame on them. We need immense reform in this country and just saying "Irish people are gob****es" means nothing will ever change.

Sorry I forgot that shower of w****ers and special mention goes to twats like brendan o'connor and the rest if the indo crew.

A lot of Irish people were often not naive, but greedy.
A lot of people saw others getting rich (on paper at least) and decided they wanted a slice of the action.
And I am not lumping all the blame on them as the ones at the bottom have limited or no power to set the policies.
All they can so is buy into those policies.
And buy they did.