Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

So we dont have to pay back German Bondholders

1356

Comments

  • #62
    liammur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭liammur


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Depfa was a german bank that moved HQ to Dublin in 2002 because they could do what they liked. When they collapsed they brought down their THEN parent Hypo leading to the biggest single bailout in Eurozone History ...then or since.

    Had Hypo NOT bought Depfa it could have created a bigger mess than all the covered banks together.

    And the Germans warned us about this, and we did nought. Just a lucky, lucky escape.


  • #63
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    later12 wrote: »
    What do you think is bizarre, in a legal sense, about taking a case under article 340 and the ECB statutes as set out by Colm McCarthy if the allegations made by Lenihan & Ahern & Ajay Chopra & even Jorg Asmussen are correct?

    I would suggest answering that question is far more effective than initiating a bizzare counter-scenario, which I'm sure we'd still all love to hear elaborated.
    What the armchair lawyers of boards.ie have failed to establish are the factual basis for bringing a claim against the ECB pursuant to Art. 340.

    What is the wrongful act - is threatening to remove liquidity support a wrongful act? Or is it well within the powers of the ECB to do so?
    I'm sure we can show damage to the tune of €6bn or whatever... the issue is that it must be quantifiable as well as occurring outside the possible loss that would have arisen had they not done their action. I think this will be a tough one, there is no way Ireland could prove that they would have lost less money had the ECB not done this act.
    Finally, and possibly the most important part is causation. We are going to have a steep hill to climb in relation to causation.

    Nobody has addressed the fundamental legal principles that are a major hurdle to actually taking a case against the ECB - now I don't know all of the facts here and none of us do. But I say it again, you can be damn sure there are a significant portion of our own politicians that do not want this aired in the ECB.


  • #64
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    What the armchair lawyers of boards.ie have failed to establish are the factual basis for bringing a claim against the ECB pursuant to Art. 340.

    What is the wrongful act - is threatening to remove liquidity support a wrongful act? Or is it well within the powers of the ECB to do so?
    Not really interested in the armchair lawyers bit; either a point is valid or it is not. Plenty of people put forward opinions of an economic nature on here, which I would have thought are to be examined on the basis of their merit, nothing else..

    I presume McCarthy's point is that any wrongful act, which he feels may be implied by the accounts of Brian Lenihan, Jorg Asmussen and others suggesting that the ECB acted beyond its remit in 2010 , ought to become apparent when the letter is discovered or published.

    Until then, it is impossible to describe the nature of the wrongdoing, if any.

    However, I would have thought that a significant victory would have been the publication of this elusive communication (and perhaps similar communications) in the first place. That in itself might be something of considerable value to our understanding of this crisis & its development.


  • #65
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    later12 wrote: »
    Not really interested in the armchair lawyers bit; either a point is valid or it is not. Plenty of people put forward opinions of an economic nature on here, which I would have thought are to be examined on the basis of their merit, nothing else..

    I presume McCarthy's point is that any wrongful act, which he feels may be implied by the accounts of Brian Lenihan, Jorg Asmussen and others suggesting that the ECB acted beyond its remit in 2010 , ought to become apparent when the letter is discovered or published.

    Until then, it is impossible to describe the nature of the wrongdoing, if any.

    However, I would have thought that a significant victory would have been the publication of this elusive communication (and perhaps similar communications) in the first place. That in itself might be something of considerable value to our understanding of this crisis & its development.
    I'm not trying to defend the ECB here. If they committed a wrong then they should rectify it. The first half of this thread is nonsense based on no legal reality (which the VB interview seems to perpetuate). I would love to see some recourse if the ECB committed a wrong, all I'm saying is that people shouldn't be holding their breath and spouting on about suing the ECB when they have relatively little knowledge about the process or the ability to do so.

    I didn't actually mean to limit my "armchair lawyers" to boards - the guests on VB's programme in question seem to be guilty as well.
    The fact is that the point is not valid unless it is validated. We don't know anything about the grounds for suit against the ECB or if there are any. My point earlier remains that we have no clear legally valid cause of action against the ECB that I can see and nobody has indicated one that would sway me to believe the opposite.

    The so-called "merit" of the points on this thread so far (at least the first half certainly) are not strong persuasively - I don't think you can disagree with that?


  • #66
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Its all fairly irrelevant at this point. The time to represent Ireland was between 2008 and 2010.The wise and moderate course of action was to postphone any effort to represent Ireland in favour of representing the ECB and EU interest. McCarthy was at that time supportive of the "wise and moderate" strategy of wait and see - he indeed had a fairly :rolleyes: reaction to supposedly wild ideas that diverged from the "Official Ireland" strategy. His recent recognition that Ireland was getting bent over a barrel by the inheritors of Bismark and Richelieu between 2008 and 2010 is interesting, but its far too late.

    Now Ireland simply has no options - The NPRF is expended, the private bondholders have escaped, and our debt has rocketed and stupid policies like Croke Park and the already pointless fiscal treaty have been pursued. We have to do whatever we are told and we have to accept any terms the ECB wants to dictate to us. Legal or illegal. And we have to smile and call it ice-cream. All of this was quite predictable. Buckle up and enjoy the ride.

    P.S: I hope that we'll hear the last of those hilarious analogies which painted Trichet and the ECB as a fire brigade arriving to save Ireland from a burning building. If anything they boarded up the windows and doors with Ireland still inside.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    paddy147
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 15,824 ✭✭✭✭paddy147


    Well when Phil Hogan is threatening people over not paying a 100 euro charge and now trying to have people in court for 100 euro...I think thats its about fcuking time that Kenny and Noonan got up off their lazy ar5es and went back over there and demanded the 20 odd billion euro that we should be due back.

    Its OUR MONEY and not the bondholders.


  • #68
    thomasj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,053 ✭✭✭thomasj


    paddy147 wrote: »
    liammur wrote: »
    I don't rate C McCarthy. We went on a solo run in 08, now we're paying the price for that.


    And what about Pat Rabbits admissions then (seen as he is a front bench minister)???

    The late brian lenihan was a front bencher as was brian Cowen.

    Just because you're a front bencher doesn't mean you're always right......


  • #69
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    paddy147 wrote: »
    Well when Phil Hogan is threatening people over not paying a 100 euro charge and now trying to have people in court for 100 euro...I think thats its about fcuking time that Kenny and Noonan got up off their lazy ar5es and went back over there and demanded the 20 odd billion euro that we should be due back.

    Its OUR MONEY and not the bondholders.
    What is our legal recourse for demanding the money back? Prosecution for the money under the household charge is clear; it's right here in section 15 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011. Now if you can show me where the ECB committed a wrongful act ultra vires their powers which caused quantifiable damages outside the loss that would have been caused by not initiating the bailout (and I don't think we have anyone that has seen down that fork-in-the-parallel-universe to give substantial evidence to quantify this) and then prove causation between the wrong and the damage - then yes, 100% yes... let's sue the ECB and grab our pitchforks.

    Until then, tone down the hyperbole and the rabble-rousing nonsense.


  • #70
    liammur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭liammur


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I'm not trying to defend the ECB here. If they committed a wrong then they should rectify it. The first half of this thread is nonsense based on no legal reality (which the VB interview seems to perpetuate). I would love to see some recourse if the ECB committed a wrong, all I'm saying is that people shouldn't be holding their breath and spouting on about suing the ECB when they have relatively little knowledge about the process or the ability to do so.

    I didn't actually mean to limit my "armchair lawyers" to boards - the guests on VB's programme in question seem to be guilty as well.
    The fact is that the point is not valid unless it is validated. We don't know anything about the grounds for suit against the ECB or if there are any. My point earlier remains that we have no clear legally valid cause of action against the ECB that I can see and nobody has indicated one that would sway me to believe the opposite.

    The so-called "merit" of the points on this thread so far (at least the first half certainly) are not strong persuasively - I don't think you can disagree with that?

    Now, of course you are right. Some will argue for the sake of argument. I have no doubt the ECB bullied Ireland, but we were so clueless and rudderless at that time, it probably was the option they had. It must also be remembered that Geithner was heaping the pressure on to have us in the bailout programme because America stood to lose a lot.


  • #71
    paddy147
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 15,824 ✭✭✭✭paddy147


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    What is our legal recourse for demanding the money back? Prosecution for the money under the household charge is clear; it's right here in section 15 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011. Now if you can show me where the ECB committed a wrongful act ultra vires their powers which caused quantifiable damages outside the loss that would have been caused by not initiating the bailout (and I don't think we have anyone that has seen down that fork-in-the-parallel-universe to give substantial evidence to quantify this) and then prove causation between the wrong and the damage - then yes, 100% yes... let's sue the ECB and grab our pitchforks.

    Until then, tone down the hyperbole and the rabble-rousing nonsense.



    I dont think you have any right to tell me to tone down at all.

    1-Im not rabble rousing at all.
    2-I have every right to post here,just as much as anyone else does have the right to post.
    3-It was clearly stated and accepted that we have a case against the ECB and why we have a case.


    Now if Phil Hogan is going to threaten and demand that everyone has to pay a 100 euro HHC charge and then take non payers to court,then Kenny and Noonan can act in the same tough aggressive manner towards the ECB.


    20 odd billion euro is something that you do not let go.

    20 odd billion euro can do alot for the "irish domestic economy".


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    liammur wrote: »
    Now, of course you are right. Some will argue for the sake of argument. I have no doubt the ECB bullied Ireland, but we were so clueless and rudderless at that time, it probably was the option they had.

    Liammur - that statement says a hell of a lot.


  • #73
    liammur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭liammur


    Sand wrote: »
    Liammur - that statement says a hell of a lot.

    And unfortunately, the galling thing is, it's 100% true.


  • #74
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    paddy147 wrote: »
    I dont think you have any right to tell me to tone down at all.
    I merely suggested you tone down the hyperbole. It doesn't particularly assist your argument at all. In fact, if anything it distracts from any validity your post may contain.
    1-Im not rabble rousing at all.
    Your posts look very rousing of the rabble as far as I can see... lots of emotive fluff with little to no substance. I recall something along the lines of "Its [sic] OUR MONEY and not the bondholders [sic]."

    A complete failure to represent a coherent reason for it other than linking to videos and refusing to discuss the contents.
    2-I have every right to post here,just as much as anyone else does have the right to post.
    I don't recall anyone saying otherwise?
    3-It was clearly stated and accepted that we have a case against the ECB and why we have a case.
    It was not clearly stated by anyone on this thread and it certainly not accepted by anyone with their feet firmly planted on the Earth that there is a case against the ECB and/or why we have a case.
    I've now called upon you to explain this three times; you are unable and/or unwilling to do so for whatever reason.
    Now if Phil Hogan is going to threaten and demand that everyone has to pay a 100 euro HHC charge and then take non payers to court,then Kenny and Noonan can act in the same tough aggressive manner towards the ECB.
    You realise that makes absolutely no sense, right? I explained already why there is a clear provision in law to bring people who do not pay the household charge to court. You have not shown the clear provision to sue the ECB; and while I accept that there is such a clear provision (not brought up by you), I suggest that we do not have a solid case pursuant to that provision based on the evidence at hand.
    20 odd billion euro is something that you do not let go.

    20 odd billion euro can do alot for the "irish domestic economy".
    While I'm sure that €20bn would do a lot for the "irish domestic economy" (:confused:), there is literally no logical evidence provided here or elsewhere to quantify this amount, state the legal basis for demanding it back (let alone suing for it) or stating that we could recover it even IF we won.


  • #75
    paddy147
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 15,824 ✭✭✭✭paddy147


    One more time....(god give me strength)......what did Colm McCarthy clearly say and what did Mr Pat Rabbit clearly say in response and admit to aswell

    Are they wrong then?????

    20 odd billion euro back (through the European Courts of Justice) could not be used to kick start the domestic economy...couldnt be used to create some of these 100,000 jobs??

    My referal to Phil Hogan was and is in the fact that the goverment will act tough with us and blatantly bully and threaten us here at home,but they wont act tough with the ECB or Europe in General.


    They suddenly develop "stage fright" and the inability to speak up and out and threaten/demand things from the ECB.


    But it seems like people dont want to see how the politicians here can railroad us all here back home,but dont have the collective balls to do it when they go over to Europe.They go all shy and quiet.



    PS-Im signing off now and heading to bed.

    Regards and Goodnight.


  • #76
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    paddy147 wrote: »
    One more time....(god give me strength)......what did Colm McCarthy clearly say and what did Mr Pat Rabbit clearly say in response and admit to aswell
    I have no idea. But I think the thread you're looking for is here
    Are they wrong then?????
    Colm McCarthy, who if memory serves me is an economist and not a lawyer, suggested in the Sunday Independent that Ireland refer the issue to the ECJ to consider legality of "strong arming" Ireland into the bailout by threatening to withdraw liquidity support. I see no evidence to support the allegation or conclusion he draws therefrom that it is outside of the powers of the ECB to threaten to withdraw this liquidity support.

    It then follows that we could not prove causation of our damages arising from this (likely lawful) threat.
    20 odd billion euro back (through the European Courts of Justice) could not be used to kick start the domestic economy...couldnt be used to create some of these 100,000 jobs??
    All well and good, but you have yet to state how we get the €20bn in any coherent manner. What's our claim, who do we get it from, how do we collect?
    My referal to Phil Hogan was and is in the fact that the goverment will act tough with us and blatantly bully and threaten us here at home,but they wont act tough with the ECB or Europe in General.
    It's not bullying or threatening. It's the law. I showed you the legislation and the provision for non-payment. Is it acceptable for me to stop paying income tax and motor tax now because the ECB wrote a threatening letter 6 years ago?

    Even if... and this is a big if... EVEN IF the ECB erred in making this threat and EVEN IF this forced us to make a move in initiating the bailout and EVEN IF we could prove this and EVEN IF we could then establish quantifiable damages and EVEN IF this amounted to €20bn; I see absolutely no correlation to not paying the household charge.
    They suddenly develop "stage fright" and the inability to speak up and out and threaten/demand things from the ECB.
    If you think it's "stage fright" they have, you are kidding yourself. I've said it four times already; these guys do not want their dirty laundry and personal reasons for going ahead with the bailout coming to light. The ECB is the scapegoat of the minute - a bright flash for them all to draw the attention away from themselves. When nothing comes of this, they'll have successfully drawn the fire from themselves to cook up the next distraction.
    But it seems like people dont want to see how the politicians here can railroad us all here back home,but dont have the collective balls to do it when they go over to Europe.They go all shy and quiet.
    I think if you thought about this point objectively, you'd see that I'm correct. You've sadly bought into a dream of a magic fix that is just not going to happen. There is no winning in this for anyone but the people trying to promote their agenda - it has feck all to do with the household charge or "balls" (as you seem to be super fixated on).


  • #77
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    paddy147 wrote: »
    One more time....(god give me strength)......what did Colm McCarthy clearly say and what did Mr Pat Rabbit clearly say in response and admit to aswell

    .



    .


    I don't know what they said, I can't watch the video links. But you can watch videos of people saying anything. I can remember a bunch of economists about two to three years ago sitting on Vincent Browne's show telling us that Ireland would default by the end of the week (still waiting by the way).

    I have asked you before and I will ask you again to explain how, why and under what piece of legislation and on what basis (giving legal precedents) are we in a position to sue whoever (the ECB or the EU?).

    You keep saying that it is as clear as day but I cannot find it substantiated in any of your posts.


  • #78
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    Godge wrote: »
    I don't know what they said, I can't watch the video links. But you can watch videos of people saying anything. I can remember a bunch of economists about two to three years ago sitting on Vincent Browne's show telling us that Ireland would default by the end of the week (still waiting by the way).

    I have asked you before and I will ask you again to explain how, why and under what piece of legislation and on what basis (giving legal precedents) are we in a position to sue whoever (the ECB or the EU?).

    You keep saying that it is as clear as day but I cannot find it substantiated in any of your posts.

    Maybe it's not 'clear as day'.

    Maybe some of our 'special advisors' could do a bit of work and find out if we do have a case to be heard.

    More lightly though is that we'll continue to take what's thrown at us, accept the few crumbs from the table that are dropped on the floor for us to pick up and not cause any trouble.

    Nobody in power in this little country is willing or able to stand up for the ordinary people who elected them.

    I was watching the Michael Collins film last night on the TV and my God, he must be spinning in his grave.


  • #79
    Nody
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,548 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    ncdadam wrote: »
    Maybe it's not 'clear as day'.

    Maybe some of our 'special advisors' could do a bit of work and find out if we do have a case to be heard.

    More lightly though is that we'll continue to take what's thrown at us, accept the few crumbs from the table that are dropped on the floor for us to pick up and not cause any trouble.

    Nobody in power in this little country is willing or able to stand up for the ordinary people who elected them.

    I was watching the Michael Collins film last night on the TV and my God, he must be spinning in his grave.
    And yet the "ordinary people" keep on electing them in as long as they keep on promising that they are not going to feel the pain (even when it's clearly a lie). You know what they say, in a democracy people get the leaders they deserve...


  • #80
    paddy147
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 15,824 ✭✭✭✭paddy147


    People who have not watched and listened to what was stated and admitted to,should go and watch it and listen to it CAREFULLY too...then you might understand what I am talking about and what was said and admitted to on the programme,with rregards gettng 20 odd billion euro back via the Courts of Justice

    Im bowing out now,as Im now in trouble with a mod via PM.

    Sorry to the mod in question..all I was and am doing is highlighting this very serious matter here.

    Thanks and Regards.


  • #81
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    Nody wrote: »
    And yet the "ordinary people" keep on electing them in as long as they keep on promising that they are not going to feel the pain (even when it's clearly a lie). You know what they say, in a democracy people get the leaders they deserve...

    It's a sad situation.

    I have high hopes for Peter Matthews, although I can see him walking away from FG and from politics altogether.

    A brilliant mind but he will be hamstrung by the political 'elite' and the party whip.

    That will be a great pity.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    paddy147 wrote: »
    People who have not watched and listened to what was stated and admitted to,should go and watch it and listen to it CAREFULLY too...then you might understand what I am talking about and what was said and admitted to on the programme,with rregards gettng 20 odd billion euro back via the Courts of Justice

    The whole discussion starts off with "Well, the powers of the ECB haven't been tested in court" and then proceeds off to build legal castles in the air.

    That isn't a good basis for a court case to put it mildly.


  • #83
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    We should, at the very least, be using the threat of legal action about this when we're trying to negotiate a deal for our country.

    I have no faith in this government even trying, after all we never have and never will ask for a write down of our debts.

    That's the position of the 'leader' of the country.

    Pathetic.


  • #84
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Critics of McCarthy do not appear to understand his view - hes not claiming that the ECBs actions were definitely illegal. Hes noting that they might be - that the rules regarding the ECB have never been interpreted and that it could be in Irelands interests to call for a judicial review by the ECJ to examine the ECBs actions to determine *if* the ECBs actions to force the costs of a anti-contagion policy benefiting the entire EU onto a single member-state were illegal in the opinion of the ECJ.

    So the learned gentlemen of the amateur internet lawyer society can relax.

    What I found depressingly predictable about the TV3 debate was Pat Rabbitte ( a fairly respectable Minister with a decent track record) was completely unaware of any examination of any options Ireland might have had in this regard. It was apparently never discussed or evaluated by cabinet. It wasn't identified, reviewed, considered and ultimately discounted as being a bad idea - it was simply never thought of at all.

    It must be fairly shocking for those who presume the government is pursuing an objective, considered strategy.


  • #85
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    Sand wrote: »
    Critics of McCarthy do not appear to understand his view - hes not claiming that the ECBs actions were definitely illegal. Hes noting that they might be - that the rules regarding the ECB have never been interpreted and that it could be in Irelands interests to call for a judicial review by the ECJ to examine the ECBs actions to determine *if* the ECBs actions to force the costs of a anti-contagion policy benefiting the entire EU onto a single member-state were illegal in the opinion of the ECJ.

    So the learned gentlemen of the amateur internet lawyer society can relax.

    What I found depressingly predictable about the TV3 debate was Pat Rabbitte ( a fairly respectable Minister with a decent track record) was completely unaware of any examination of any options Ireland might have had in this regard. It was apparently never discussed or evaluated by cabinet. It wasn't identified, reviewed, considered and ultimately discounted as being a bad idea - it was simply never thought of at all.

    It must be fairly shocking for those who presume the government is pursuing an objective, considered strategy.

    We would like to think that our government have even looked into this, wouldn't we?


  • #86
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,308 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    paddy147 wrote: »
    3-It was clearly stated and accepted that we have a case against the ECB and why we have a case.
    Where? By some yahoo on the TV?
    paddy147 wrote: »
    20 odd billion euro back (through the European Courts of Justice) could not be used to kick start the domestic economy...couldnt be used to create some of these 100,000 jobs??
    No. I really doubt we'd see a single cent if we won any case. Why? Because it'll just be deducted off what we're paying back.


  • #87
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    the_syco wrote: »
    Where? By some yahoo on the TV?


    I didn't think Colm McCarthy was regarded as 'some yahoo' by the government considering they're implementing a lot of his ideas from the 'an snip nua' report he did.


  • #88
    Cardinal Richelieu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,407 ✭✭✭Cardinal Richelieu


    Godge wrote: »

    I have asked you before and I will ask you again to explain how, why and under what piece of legislation and on what basis (giving legal precedents) are we in a position to sue whoever (the ECB or the EU?).

    You keep saying that it is as clear as day but I cannot find it substantiated in any of your posts.

    Your not going to get a coherent fact based reply, a similar issue popped up with the GM debate when Paddy147 mentioned a report, when asked for a link to the report he never provided it no matter the countless times asked for it. You get everything else but not the actually answer to your question dragging the thread into an even more ridiculous area.

    Back on topic, Sounds more like the speculative musings of an economist rather than a concrete legal case. Have any legal experts backed up McCarthy theory yet?


  • #89
    ncdadam
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 598 ✭✭✭ncdadam


    Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »
    Your not going to get a coherent fact based reply, a similar issue popped up with the GM debate when Paddy147 mentioned a report, when asked for a link to the report he never provided it no matter the countless times asked for it. You get everything else but not the actually answer to your question dragging the thread into an even more ridiculous area.

    Back on topic, Sounds more like the speculative musings of an economist rather than a concrete legal case. Have any legal experts backed up McCarthy theory yet?

    As far as I know the letter isn't in the public domain so it's hard to get a handle on it.


  • #90
    Good loser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,273 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Sand wrote: »
    Critics of McCarthy do not appear to understand his view - hes not claiming that the ECBs actions were definitely illegal. Hes noting that they might be - that the rules regarding the ECB have never been interpreted and that it could be in Irelands interests to call for a judicial review by the ECJ to examine the ECBs actions to determine *if* the ECBs actions to force the costs of a anti-contagion policy benefiting the entire EU onto a single member-state were illegal in the opinion of the ECJ.

    So the learned gentlemen of the amateur internet lawyer society can relax.

    What I found depressingly predictable about the TV3 debate was Pat Rabbitte ( a fairly respectable Minister with a decent track record) was completely unaware of any examination of any options Ireland might have had in this regard. It was apparently never discussed or evaluated by cabinet. It wasn't identified, reviewed, considered and ultimately discounted as being a bad idea - it was simply never thought of at all.

    It must be fairly shocking for those who presume the government is pursuing an objective, considered strategy.

    Don't you remember Pat Rabbitte said he was not aware of the letter?

    Did you ever hear of throwing good money after bad - or flushing money down the toilet?

    Any court action of the type suggested would be an utter waste.

    As for identifying, reviewing, considering and discounting I would consign the idea of any such action to the dustbin in ten seconds.

    For once the cabinet has not been depressingly predictable.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Good loser wrote: »
    Don't you remember Pat Rabbitte said he was not aware of the letter?

    Yes, that's part of my point. Cabinet is deciding strategy without even considering options - not choosing to discount those options, but not even being aware of them.
    Did you ever hear of throwing good money after bad - or flushing money down the toilet?

    Any court action of the type suggested would be an utter waste.

    As for identifying, reviewing, considering and discounting I would consign the idea of any such action to the dustbin in ten seconds.

    For once the cabinet has not been depressingly predictable.

    So a bit if bullheaded presumption about a course of action without knowing the facts would be your viewpoint.

    Have you ever considered a career in politics?


Advertisement