The Irish kick in the face to the EU is disgusting

Icepick · 13-06-2011 09:21PM

Laminations wrote: »

So if they've given us €40 bn, how much have we given them? And how much will we be giving them in interest from this current bailout loan?

How much do you think Ireland would have to pay to other lenders?

Also, EU countries have to borrow money to lend Ireland. So they pay interest (albeit lower) and have other costs.
Why do you think that there is oppositions to bailouts in some EU countries?
Do you think they don't want money if it's such a bargain for them?

Most of budget's deficit is not caused by debt repayment either way.

DublinWriter · 13-06-2011 09:25PM

For EU/IMF 'bail-out' read 'big usury loan with implicit loss of sovereignty'.

Considering that we're hosting a lot of Eastern European workers as part of the bigger EU accession/widening agenda, we've a lot to crow about.

Icepick · 13-06-2011 10:09PM

DublinWriter wrote: »

Considering that we're hosting a lot of Eastern European workers as part of the bigger EU accession/widening agenda, we've a lot to crow about.

You are saying it like it's some kind of charity.

ahal · 13-06-2011 10:17PM

Icepick wrote: »

You are saying it like it's some kind of charity.

Personally I think he makes a good point. I don't think it's some sort of charity on an individual level, but the knee - jerk EU model involving the addition of 10 new member states was something of a no-brainer. Economic benefit? - we might have to wait 30 or 40 years on that score.

Germany of all countries - now lecturing us here and there about our fiscal crises - would have done well to look at what enlargement did to it's own country in 1990: West Germany went into a long recession. Presumably this sudden enlargement of the EU was to prevent a U.S.S.R. type bloc re-forming in Eastern Europe.

That's more political than economic ... familiar that.

end a eknny · 13-06-2011 11:29PM

i wasnt aware that people had no shoes till we joined the e.e.c strange considering the number of soe factories that where in ireland pre joining the e.e.c nobody can tell me that we are better off now than if we never joined the e.e.c because nobody knows what would have happened had we not joined. the question is who got the money that the e.e.c pumped into ireland and what the e.e.c got for their money.

JustinDee · 14-06-2011 08:27AM

end a eknny wrote: »

i wasnt aware that people had no shoes till we joined the e.e.c strange considering the number of soe factories that where in ireland pre joining the e.e.c nobody can tell me that we are better off now than if we never joined the e.e.c because nobody knows what would have happened had we not joined

Ireland was a stunted dump with a reputation of being holy catholics, drunks or terrorists.
We are far better off than before joining. Have you forgotten what it was like? Or were you not of an age enough to realise back then? Ireland was a bloody mess.

end a eknny wrote: »

the question is who got the money that the e.e.c pumped into ireland and what the e.e.c got for their money.

Ireland gained an infrastructure that improved even further still in the late 90s and next decade. For examples, see new roads, rail, bus.
Subsidisation of grant schemes and incentive schemes helped bring foreign industry to Ireland (Intel, Dell etc) at a time when there was bugger all.

meglome · 14-06-2011 10:07AM

DublinWriter wrote: »

For EU/IMF 'bail-out' read 'big usury loan with implicit loss of sovereignty'.

Considering that we're hosting a lot of Eastern European workers as part of the bigger EU accession/widening agenda, we've a lot to crow about.

We imported those workers for the construction boom (bubble) and to do all the crappy jobs that we couldn't be bothered to do. We were happy to have them for the most part. Now after we realise the hole we dug for ourselves we are wondering why they don't leave. I'd imagine something like how many British people felt about the Irish in the 1960's and 70's.

meglome · 14-06-2011 10:16AM

end a eknny wrote: »

i wasnt aware that people had no shoes till we joined the e.e.c strange considering the number of soe factories that where in ireland pre joining the e.e.c

The obvious point is many people had no money whatsoever and the welfare state and hospitals weren't exactly world class.

end a eknny wrote: »

nobody can tell me that we are better off now than if we never joined the e.e.c because nobody knows what would have happened had we not joined. the question is who got the money that the e.e.c pumped into ireland and what the e.e.c got for their money.

Where would all this free money have come from to entice foreign businesses to set-up here? How exactly would we have paid for investments in jobs and infrastructure? The country was a basket case coming into the 1980's. Personally I'm very thankful for all the EU did for us, for basically nothing.

end a eknny wrote: »

the question is who got the money that the e.e.c pumped into ireland and what the e.e.c got for their money.

Since you're so anti-EU maybe you can explain this to me? Because it wasn't the fantasy fish amounts that people talk about and I don't recall us ever having much else in the line of resources. So other than the benefit of trade with a much improved Irish economy I have no idea what they could have got. I'll await your detailed explanation with baited breath.

Yahew · 14-06-2011 10:16AM

meglome wrote: »

We imported those workers for the construction boom (bubble) and to do all the crappy jobs that we couldn't be bothered to do. We were happy to have them for the most part. Now after we realise the hole we dug for ourselves we are wondering why they don't leave. I'd imagine something like how many British people felt about the Irish in the 1960's and 70's.

The point was that Germany and France did not allow those workers in until this year. And who is we? Employers and workers have different interests as regards immigration, or outsourcing etc.

meglome · 14-06-2011 10:27AM

Yahew wrote: »

The point was that Germany and France did not allow those workers in until this year. And who is we? Employers and workers have different interests as regards immigration, or outsourcing etc.

The 'we' would be us the Irish people who repeatedly voted for the policies that have led us directly here. Germany and France chose what they did and we chose to feed our bubble with cheaper labour. But sure it's always someone else's fault.

jmayo · 14-06-2011 10:34AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's see - quantitative easing = inflation. ECB main priority = controlling inflation.

Do you think that the PIIGs will get out of their debts without some form or inflation ?
How can the Euro survive if 3 members are continously looking for "bailouts" ?
Note the elephant in the room is Spain and possibly Italy.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If they provide the facilities for people and businesses to make payments and transact business, which in turn enables operation of the domestic economy, then from the retail banking point of view, they're functioning. From the perspective of extending credit to businesses and individuals, they're impaired, but, again, still functioning.

So are Anglo and INBS providing any of the above ?
Your comment only applies to AIB, BOI, and PTSB, EBS to lesser extent.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The perspective from which they're "zombie banks" is as businesses in themselves. As far as most people are concerned, though, so what? If CIE require regular transfusions of money form the government, are they not, in that sense, a "zombie transport company"? You can still get a bus from here to Kildare, though, so you can equally well describe it as 'a functioning transport company', since it successfully carries out the operations that characterise a transport company - that is, transport. Similarly, the banks still carry out the functions most people want from a bank, and in that sense, they're very much functioning banks. And without ECB support, they wouldn't be.

Lets see how well your comparison stacks up when we look at the two worst offenders...
CIE a state owned entity that provides loss making services for social reasons is given a subsidy.
Billions is poured into formerly private commerical high profit making organisations that never offered any social not for profit services and they have since become totally non functioning.

But good luck with that comparison anyway.

Anyway once again you are only hinting at the semi functioning banks.
You neglect to mention the two banks facing affective wind down, you know the two privately run fiefdoms that have cost us 70 to 80 billion.

Icepick wrote: »

...
Most of budget's deficit is not caused by debt repayment either way.

And once again I will ask would we have needed a "bailout" if we had not taken on board private sector bank debt and in particular those of Anglo and INBS ?
Claiming or hiunting we needed a bailout due to our budget deficit is disengenous.

JustinDee wrote: »

...
Ireland gained an infrastructure that improved even further still in the late 90s and next decade. For examples, see new roads, rail, bus.
Subsidisation of grant schemes and incentive schemes helped bring foreign industry to Ireland (Intel, Dell etc) at a time when there was bugger all.

BTW we had major multinational technology firms in this country long before Dell and Intel.
Ever hear of DEC, Wang, Analog Devices, Hollister, Baxter, Verbatim, Molex, etc.
And most of the later arrivals came because in part due to our EU membership, but also our cheap educated workforce and low tax environment.

Yahew · 14-06-2011 10:35AM

meglome wrote: »

The 'we' would be us the Irish people who repeatedly voted for the policies that have led us directly here. Germany and France chose what they did and we chose to feed our bubble with cheaper labour. But sure it's always someone else's fault.

I am pretty sure nobody voted for the opening up of borders in 2004 specifically, certainly nobody would have voted to do it if thew knew that the German's weren't doing it. Whatever treaty was signed did not make the options clear.

You have a naive view of democracy. We dont get all the information. You also have a naive view of what just happened, the economy collapsed not because of high public pay - though that is an issue now - nor because of the high loans to the retail mortgage sector, but because of massive loans to the non-retail sector: high end developers. It was the collapse of Anglo which caused the problems, our Lehmens. The retail sector is performing, and most of the good loans are there. Which means Paddy twopence is paying back his loan, and the loans of the developers in tax.

At the top the developers - now saved by NAMA, some trying to get their old properties back at a discount - the financial regulators, the bank managers, and the central bank of Ireland and the Euro failed to do their jobs.

This is well documented. "we" are not all equally responsible, and some of "us" are not responsible at all.

beeftotheheels · 14-06-2011 10:51AM

Yahew wrote: »

You also have a naive view of what just happened, the economy collapsed not because of high public pay - though that is an issue now - nor because of the high loans to the retail mortgage sector, but because of massive loans to the non-retail sector: high end developers.

But this is not a "naive view" at all at all?

Would the developers have taken out huge loans to buy sites to develop if "Paddy" could not be banked on to take on a mortgage he could barely afford to buy the resulting two bed apartments? You cannot look at one without the other, you cannot let those who bought over-priced property during the bubble completely off the hook while pointing fingers at the banks and developers. There is enough culpability in this scenario for everyone, and while the politicians, central bank, banks and developers may get a bigger share of blame, there is certainly a share of the blame here for Paddy.

Yahew wrote: »

The retail sector is performing, and most of the good loans are there. Which means Paddy twopence is paying back his loan, and the loans of the developers in tax.

Do you realize what funded our out of control public sector pay bill, our excessive benefits, the wealth we all experienced one way or another from 2002 on? The taxes paid on the development and banking profits of the bubble. So while it is legitimate to complain about taxpayers being landed with private sector debts, one has to acknowledge that every single one of us benefited from the bubble.

You cannot constantly find other people to point fingers at and deny that any of the responsibility for what happened rested with the Irish people. Some of it just did, we benefited so we turned a blind eye to the bubble, so we have to bear some of the costs of fixing it.

Yahew wrote: »

This is well documented. "we" are not all equally responsible, and some of "us" are not responsible at all.

Last November in an op-ed article in The New York Times titled “The Debtor of the Western World”, writer John Banville said there used to be a nice acronym that neatly expressed how the Irish people conceived of themselves: MOPE, that is Most Oppressed People Ever. He wrote: “At first, when the poor beast began to sicken, we Tiger cubs set up a great roaring and ranting. Who is to blame for our sudden travails? We demanded ‑ somebody must be to blame. The bankers? Them, certainly. The politicians? Well, the politicians are always to blame, so nothing new there. The markets, those shadowy entities that seem to operate by whim? Ourselves, perhaps? ‑ now, there was a sobering possibility.”

http://www.drb.ie/more_details/11-06-07/Use_The_Mirror.aspx

meglome · 14-06-2011 10:52AM

Yahew wrote: »

I am pretty sure nobody voted for the opening up of borders in 2004 specifically, certainly nobody would have voted to do it if thew knew that the German's weren't doing it. Whatever treaty was signed did not make the options clear.

But the point is we were mostly happy to have these workers as they were doing our dirty work. But now we want them to leave.

Yahew wrote: »

You have a naive view of democracy. We dont get all the information. You also have a naive view of what just happened, the economy collapsed not because of high public pay - though that is an issue now - nor because of the high loans to the retail mortgage sector, but because of massive loans to the non-retail sector: high end developers. It was the collapse of Anglo which caused the problems, our Lehmens. The retail sector is performing, and most of the good loans are there. Which means Paddy twopence is paying back his loan, and the loans of the developers in tax.

I don't believe I do. We happily kept voting for policies that were unsustainable. The majority were happy to believe what FF and their buddies told them. They didn't ask any difficult questions. They bought houses for mad sums of money. Demand feeds up the chain.

Yahew wrote: »

At the top the developers - now saved by NAMA, some trying to get their old properties back at a discount - the financial regulators, the bank managers, and the central bank of Ireland and the Euro failed to do their jobs.

This is well documented. "we" are not all equally responsible, and some of "us" are not responsible at all.

In 2002 Fine Gael got a kicking at the election, one of their worst performances ever. Mainly because they talked about some financial prudence. This set the stage for the fanning of the bubble flames up to 2007/08. The majority of the electorate voted for those FF polices. Personally I didn't and I didn't in 2002 either. However it doesn't change that we as a nation were happy with our 'wealth' until we realised it was a house of cards.

Yahew · 14-06-2011 10:58AM

I wonder if the two posters above me consider themselves responsible for the boom, or are they exempt.

( I live in England and did during the boom, by the way).

beeftotheheels · 14-06-2011 11:03AM

Yahew wrote: »

I wonder if the two posters above me consider themselves responsible for the boom, or are they exempt.

( I live in England and did during the boom, by the way).

I lived in England during some of the boom, and in Ireland for some of it, but still consider myself partly responsible as an Irish person since that is where an objective analysis of the facts lead.

When I worked in Ireland I was paid a decent salary funded in some way by bubble profits, my parents draw excessively high pensions funded in some way by bubble profits, the roads have improved, funded in some way by bubble profits, I could continue....

Oh, and my salary in London was higher which itself was inflated by global credit boom bubble profits!

Yahew · 14-06-2011 11:03AM

In any case a rebutal on two points made. I made one already.

1) We were all happy to have immigrants doing jobs were didnt want to do.

Nonsense, plenty of people were unhappy as unskilled labour pushes down the cost of labour. Why would working class people be happy with that, it was clear they weren't from forums here and radio shows and letters to papers. A policy imposed on people which benefited an elite is now blamed on "everybody". And Irish people were in construction, just they earned less than they otherwise would have.

2) We all wanted higher house prices.

If you asked people in 2006 whether they would prefer lower house costs the answer from FTB's would be YES, of course. High house prices are not to the benefit of the ordinary guy. He might still buy, as he would believe ( and be told by the media onslaught) that prices would never fall, but that is naivity not greed. Ask a developer and he would support high prices, expect them not to fall, and suggest they were a good thing. As would a bank manager. The buyer sees house prices as a bad thing, the seller as a good thing. Being panicked into buying is not the same as greed.

meglome · 14-06-2011 11:08AM

Yahew wrote: »

I wonder if the two posters above me consider themselves responsible for the boom, or are they exempt.

( I live in England and did during the boom, by the way).

As I said I didn't vote for FF in 2002 or 2007 and I did tell anyone who would listen that we were in a potentially dangerous bubble. However it would be wrong to say I didn't benefit from the bubble. My business did a lot of work with the government, that bubble paid my wages and my nice holidays. I didn't buy property and I lived within my means. But there's no way I did everything I could to speak out about the bubble and I knew things could go horribly wrong. Though the simple fact is most people I spoke to about the bubble didn't believe it would go badly wrong, they wouldn't listen. Many just didn't want to hear it. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't absolve anyone.

Scofflaw · 14-06-2011 01:21PM

jmayo wrote: »

Do you think that the PIIGs will get out of their debts without some form or inflation ?
How can the Euro survive if 3 members are continously looking for "bailouts" ?
Note the elephant in the room is Spain and possibly Italy.

Inflation or economic growth, sure. Mind you, as later10 says, the ECB has already engaged in some QE.

jmayo wrote: »

So are Anglo and INBS providing any of the above ?
Your comment only applies to AIB, BOI, and PTSB, EBS to lesser extent.

Sure.

jmayo wrote: »

Lets see how well your comparison stacks up when we look at the two worst offenders...
CIE a state owned entity that provides loss making services for social reasons is given a subsidy.
Billions is poured into formerly private commerical high profit making organisations that never offered any social not for profit services and they have since become totally non functioning.

But good luck with that comparison anyway.

Anyway once again you are only hinting at the semi functioning banks.
You neglect to mention the two banks facing affective wind down, you know the two privately run fiefdoms that have cost us 70 to 80 billion.

OK - you asked me whether we had functioning banks. We do have functioning banks - even though you don't want to admit it, you've had to describe them as semi-functioning, because 4 of the 6 are rather obviously doing exactly what I said.

So you've turned to concentrate on Anglo and INBS, which aren't functioning. Sure, but I didn't say they were. I said that ECB life-support enabled us to keep functioning banks, which it does. I didn't say every bank being given ELA by the ECB or guaranteed by the State was a functioning bank.

By the way, that's the total cost of the bank bailout you're citing there, not Anglo & INBS. Not sure why you're doing that - Anglo & INBS between them were €35bn last time I looked, which is half the total cost.

jmayo wrote: »

And once again I will ask would we have needed a "bailout" if we had not taken on board private sector bank debt and in particular those of Anglo and INBS ?
Claiming or hiunting we needed a bailout due to our budget deficit is disengenous.

I'm neither claiming nor hinting it - it's open for debate, but the need would be at the least very much reduced, and I'd agree that possibly we wouldn't have had a bailout at all. However, see the point above - €35bn for the functioning part of the banking system is still a lot of money, and still we'd have had a deficit of €108bn to fund.

So we'd have gone from c. €210bn to c. €175bn without Anglo/INBS - a 17% saving. It's not that much when you look at it like that.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW we had major multinational technology firms in this country long before Dell and Intel.
Ever hear of DEC, Wang, Analog Devices, Hollister, Baxter, Verbatim, Molex, etc.
And most of the later arrivals came because in part due to our EU membership, but also our cheap educated workforce and low tax environment.

Plus the fact that we're the only English-speaking country in the euro, and we allow transfer of profits out of the country based on licensing and royalties without withholding tax.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Icepick · 14-06-2011 06:29PM

jmayo wrote: »

And once again I will ask would we have needed a "bailout" if we had not taken on board private sector bank debt and in particular those of Anglo and INBS ?
Claiming or hiunting we needed a bailout due to our budget deficit is disengenous.

First, I disagree with the bank guarantee for everyone and the consequences it has had.

But we would have needed a bailout if the spending continued at the rate it was going.
This year's deficit is €22.45 billion.

Yahew · 14-06-2011 06:45PM

Icepick wrote: »

First, I disagree with the bank guarantee for everyone and the consequences it has had.

But we would have needed a bailout if the spending continued at the rate it was going.
This year's deficit is €22.45 billion.

Which is a deficit of 11% or so. Without the bank payments, manageable.

Icepick · 14-06-2011 08:24PM

Yahew wrote: »

Which is a deficit of 11% or so. Without the bank payments, manageable.

What?
Receipts - 36.71
Expenditure - 59.16

How is this manageable?

Dob74 · 14-06-2011 10:56PM

Icepick wrote: »

What?
Receipts - 36.71
Expenditure - 59.16

How is this manageable?

Yes, it would have been manageable without the bank bail out.
As a percent of GDP our national debt is very manageable excluding the money raked up by the banks.
The same banks the ECB turned a blind eye to.

Scofflaw · 14-06-2011 11:33PM

Dob74 wrote: »

Yes, it would have been manageable without the bank bail out.
As a percent of GDP our national debt is very manageable excluding the money raked up by the banks.

That assumes that we wouldn't have bailed out AIB or BOI, since otherwise the difference just isn't very large. Either way, though, the deficit still puts the bailout in the shade.

Dob74 wrote: »

The same banks the ECB turned a blind eye to.

It's not their job to manage our banks. That's why we had a Central Bank and a Financial Regulator.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 14-06-2011 11:37PM

JokeOFaNation wrote:

ha aha ha yeah rite 25 % of eu debt given to 1 % of eu population, it was a designed assassination of the problem state eire, to bring about a full EU state, but only if you believe in the sham political system kangaroo court system and policy enforcers AKA (garda siochana) that support them..

whats being designed here is a one world government/currency/policy enforcers.. long term but its done through the actions that brought this country to bankruptcy.. BUT there is hope YOUR already free you just have to wake up and exercise your rights.. visit http://tnsradio.com/ to access this freedom... slan...put an end those this madness LEAVE THE EU!!

Please save this kind of rubbish for somewhere else.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ahal · 15-06-2011 12:26AM

meglome wrote: »

Because it wasn't the fantasy fish amounts that people talk about and I don't recall us ever having much else in the line of resources.

What have Shell been up to in the West again? ...

Nevermind_ · 15-06-2011 12:27AM

I have to say the standard of some of the debate on here puts prime time and vincent brown in the shade.
If only our "celebrity economists" and politicians were as clued in as some of the posters in this thread.

Thanks to all who have contributed i have really enjoyed the last half hour of reading this, so many misconceptions I had have been banished.

Offtopic: Scofflaw ever considered going on one of the aforementioned programmes ?

end a eknny · 15-06-2011 09:10AM

JustinDee wrote: »

Ireland was a stunted dump with a reputation of being holy catholics, drunks or terrorists.
We are far better off than before joining. Have you forgotten what it was like? Or were you not of an age enough to realise back then? Ireland was a bloody mess.

Ireland gained an infrastructure that improved even further still in the late 90s and next decade. For examples, see new roads, rail, bus.
Subsidisation of grant schemes and incentive schemes helped bring foreign industry to Ireland (Intel, Dell etc) at a time when there was bugger all.

so ireland is now a dump but has good roads and infrastructure and 200 billion euro debt. so your point is if i had a small house and got a big loan from the eec to build a mansion a loan that will cripple be for the rest of my life then i should be a lot happier now then i was when i was in my small affordable house. as for drunks and terrorists i think you will find their where a lot more drunks during the boom than any other time and if its the ira you a re calling terrorists then i thin you will find that the ira was at its height in the time after we joinned the e.u. but maybe you are too young to remember that. as for being holy catholics how come ireland is the only country that feels the need to apoligise for its religous beliefs. you dont find british people constantly bad mouthing the queen or church of england

bobbysands81 · 15-06-2011 09:53AM

CommuterIE wrote: »

They helped us along the way since the 70's to prosperity... the structural funds given to this country were unreal, hell they bailed us out now... yet you have a lot of inept and dam right stupid people now blaming the EU for our ills...

This is 125% bull****... the Irish got themselves into this mess by electing an incompetent government time and time again....

I think it is about time people in Ireland relise who is paying the ****ing bills right now! And shame on anybody who blames the EU for this mess... we had autonomy and we failed...

CommuterIE wrote: »

We were in control of our destiny, guess what we failed... generations will suffer as a result, and it is not the EU's fault who find themselves in a position to bail us out... morons like Bertie Ahern were allowed to run this country into the ground,,, Brian Lenihan I really liked because he displayed a side to Irish politics that is largely absent... an actual intelligent person! and god bless his soul, may he RIP

How naive of you.

You grumble about how much Ireland has failed... and then you place the biggest failure of all on a pedestal?

JustinDee · 15-06-2011 10:27AM

end a eknny wrote: »

so ireland is now a dump but has good roads and infrastructure and 200 billion euro debt

Its not a dump now compared to before. I guess you were either too young to remember or fast asleep.

end a eknny wrote: »

so your point is if i had a small house and got a big loan from the eec to build a mansion a loan that will cripple be for the rest of my life then i should be a lot happier now then i was when i was in my small affordable house

If you live well beyond your means, thats no-one else's fault. No-one forced you to go that extra mile.

end a eknny wrote: »

as for drunks and terrorists i think you will find their where a lot more drunks during the boom than any other time and if its the ira you a re calling terrorists then i thin you will find that the ira was at its height in the time after we joinned the e.u.

Its a reputation Ireland had and was at the height during the late 60s and early and still has to this day in some corners. The Irish have a reputaiton as being drinkers.

end a eknny wrote: »

and if its the ira you a re calling terrorists then i thin you will find that the ira was at its height in the time after we joinned the e.u.but maybe you are too young to remember that

The late 60s and early 70s was before Ireland joined the Common Market? Methinks not, fella. The country had a woeful reputation in with regards terrorism regardless of what you think.

end a eknny wrote: »

as for being holy catholics how come ireland is the only country that feels the need to apoligise for its religous beliefs. you dont find british people constantly bad mouthing the queen or church of england

Moral relativism aside, I'm not asking 'Ireland' to apologise for anything. With hindsight, I'd say a lot of the criticism on being heavily influenced by the catholic church was quite justified all the same.
Again, thats the reputation the country had.
Don't worry though, its not unusual for people here to suddenly start moaning a sook when the good times go pear-shaped. Harking back to the way it was before though? Oh dear. Self-subsistent Ireland? Laughable.

The Irish kick in the face to the EU is disgusting

Comments