42% of entire Euro zone crisis paid for by Ireland according to Eurostat

_Kaiser_ · 23-01-2013 10:48PM

twinytwo wrote: »

It will achieve nothing, remember our beloved bertie ahern once told us to go stick our heads in a gas oven???... this country was born by the bullet, it will take the same to save it.

The problem with that idea (and I must admit, for a country with such a bloody history of violence, guns and bombs, I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened), is what would be left in the aftermath?

Do you think the Intel's, Microsoft's, Pharma company's and others that our economy (what's left of it) completely and utterly depends on would still be here by that stage?

Violence isn't the answer. Some posters may consider this trite, but you just need to look at Gandhi's example - a man who toppled an empire and never raised a hand in anger to do it.

squod · 23-01-2013 10:57PM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Do you think the Intel's, Microsoft's, Pharma company's and others that our economy (what's left of it) completely and utterly depends on would still be here by that stage?

Ireland is not just a league-leader, it is off the chart. MNCs here make more than four times the profit per employee than the average of the other EU-15 countries reporting (no data for Belgium or Greece). No wonder more and more multi-nationals are making Ireland their home

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened), is what would be left in the aftermath?
Violence isn't the answer.

Intel were building huge factories in Isreal when Isreal was a hot spot for unrest. No case to answer here.

twinytwo · 23-01-2013 10:59PM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The problem with that idea (and I must admit, for a country with such a bloody history of violence, guns and bombs, I'm actually surprised it hasn't happened), is what would be left in the aftermath?

Do you think the Intel's, Microsoft's, Pharma company's and others that our economy (what's left of it) completely and utterly depends on would still be here by that stage?

Violence isn't the answer. Some posters say consider this trite, but you just need to look at Gandhi's example - a man who toppled an empire and never raised a hand in anger to do it.

With the way the country is currently will it make much of a difference if they stay or go?, unless something is done to stem the corruption nothing will ever change. Politicans dont fear the people they havent since Haughey thats where it all went wrong.

We could go the Ghandi route

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

I would prefer it, but people in this country are too lazy to do anything. The government could come out with a statement like "the world is actually flat" and you woud still get huge proportions of people that would take it as gospel.

Poster Boy · 23-01-2013 11:02PM

noodler wrote: »

The Irish Banking Crisis would be more appropriate imo.

Our banks were the worst and we have to take a huge portion of the blame.

Talks are underway at European level to get the Europeans (ESM) to take part of our bank debt but we will be stuck with paying half of the 64bn bill at the very very least.

Once we made the decision to take on their debts (partly due to ECB pressure) there was never a choice of just letting them go. The Horse has bolted in terms of simply not paying - the majority of bondholders and depositors have been paid.

We currently have stakes in AIB/PTSB/BoI that we spent over 33bn on. Our best bet is for the ESM to take some of this.

We also currently owe 31bn (actually 25bn by my accounts now) to IBRC (but they owe to our Central Bank). The limit of our ambitions here seems to be a longer repayment schedule.

With due respect, whose this 'We' people you talk about?

I am not aware of any action was mandated by citizens. Yet what I am aware of is the constitution, in which Article 15.4.1 states “The Oireachtas shall not enact any law which is in any respect repugnant to this Constitution” .

However, at the seeming behest of ECB, the unaccountable weak administration pushed through legislation guaranteeing all private bank debts - as well savings - even though it was very possible the state wouldn’t have the resources to cover such positions, as there had been no credible audit on the banks’ debt exposures.

Therefore by enacting that legislation, it was a distinct possibility the sovereign state could be sunk with unsustainable debt - as indeed occurred.

To my eye, these actions appear to be completely unconstitutional, and having been let go unchecked, along with my fellow citizens, I am now also having my property rights also suppressed. (€9,000 per person).

There was no 'We' in any of the decision making process of this...

squod · 23-01-2013 11:08PM

noodler wrote: »

Once we made the decision to take on their debts (partly due to ECB pressure)

.

No evidence the original guarantees were ever called for by anyone other than Lenihans mates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVXi-F6vZ-Q

Zebra3 · 23-01-2013 11:08PM

Poster Boy wrote: »

There was no 'We' in any of the decision making process of this...

Just a "Sure we'll still get our fat pensions anyway....".

squod · 23-01-2013 11:58PM

Watching Nigel Farage on BBC2. Can't wait till he gets to shout at Edna ''Beavis'' Kenny accross the floor of the European parliament.

ejmaztec · 24-01-2013 12:01AM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Maybe.

But if a GE had been called and the parties had outlined their positions clearly on whether or not they were going to privatise the gambling debts then regardless of who got in, at least it would have been the decision of the people.

As it stands the vast majority of the parasites who destroyed the country are off living it up with their fat pensions that we are also paying for.

All in this together me hole.....

Didn't FG promise the earth before they got elected, and turn to jelly after they got in?

I've always thought that it was inevitable that Ireland's debt was going to be substantially cut when things stabilised after a few years, and when the ECB/IMF were in a position to start writing down the amount to something that Ireland could actually afford to pay back.

squod · 24-01-2013 12:08AM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Didn't FG promise the earth before they got elected, and turn to jelly after they got in?

I've always thought that it was inevitable that Ireland's debt was going to be substantially cut when things stabilised after a few years, and when the ECB/IMF were in a position to start writing down the amount to something that Ireland could actually afford to pay back.

Refer to Noonan's ''we will pay our way'' speach. The writting was on the wall weeks before the last GE.

FG were going to drive the getaway car for FF. Now they're doing just that.

K-9 · 24-01-2013 04:53AM

twinytwo wrote: »

Unfortunatlely dude there isnt an honest politican in this country, they all lie through their teeth to get elected, all just look after themselves and their buddies, claim nice fat pensions at the end of doing sweet **** all, and the ptfify other Boards of a bit of a single issue poster.eople of ireland can go **** themselves

We witnessed John Hume, we'll never see his like again, at least we'd the pleasure to see him in action. I see so many people scoff at the other side, did it myself, but what an utter gentleman, a peacemaker, a man ahead of his time.

You see so many caught up in the minor details, waiting to score a point. Northern Ireland must be a Zero Sum game, one side not gaining over another. Hell it made Blair and Bertie look good.

You see the other side fighting over stupid flags, "Catholic" sides fighting about percentages taking over N.I.

And then you've John Hume. Just on a different world, gone from politics 10 years now and still 50 years ahead of his time, others stilll too ****ing dumb to see it in 50 years time.

Poster Boy · 24-01-2013 10:39AM

Just wondering if anyone else is interested in going down this weekend to the protest at Ballyhea?
http://news-beacon-ireland.info/?p=10124

noodler · 24-01-2013 10:40AM

Zebra3 wrote: »

The European banks knew exactly how our banks were being run. You don't lend those sums of money without knowing who and what you are lending to.

They'd no problem lending to them when they were getting their fat returns.

Agreed.

Exact same can be said of our banks who lent mortgage after mortgage, commerical property deal after commerical property deal to people to people of inappropriate means, collateral etc etc.

Poster Boy wrote: »

With due respect, whose this 'We' people you talk about?

I mean the Irish State. Calm down - I am not blaming you for guaranteeing the banks.

squod wrote: »

No evidence the original guarantees were ever called for by anyone other than Lenihans mates.

Agreed.

I was unclear, I was referring to the late 2010 (and subsequent push with the new coalition in 2011) to have senior bondholders who were not guaranteed or secured have the value of their investments reduced.

noodler · 24-01-2013 10:42AM

Poster Boy wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone else is interested in going down this weekend to the protest at Ballyhea?
http://news-beacon-ireland.info/?p=10124

Those (admirable) protests have been going on for a couple of years now.

The majority of the bondholders have been paid off by now though - any realistic relief has to come from Europe.

Poster Boy · 24-01-2013 10:54AM

noodler wrote: »

I mean the Irish State. Calm down - I am not blaming you for guaranteeing the banks... The majority of the bondholders have been paid off by now though - any realistic relief has to come from Europe.

As set out, A 15.4.1 was not adhered to, therefore it does not appear to be legal what was done.

Of course you're not blaming 'me' for it, nor I 'you'; however both you and I are now being forced to pay for an illegal agreement which we never sanctioned.

Regarding the bondholders that have been paid off; they have been paid by european money which was loaned to Ireland in order to pay themselves off.

As set out above, I do not believe this was lawful, ipso facto these are not our bills - yet if we allow them to go uncontested, there is the expectation that we are assuming them as our bills.

If that is the case, it seems to me that the faculty is the Irish state has failed to afford to afford me my constitutional rights as a citizen, and therefore is no longer an entity that I should have any confidence in.
Personally, I would rather see it reform than writing it off. However in any event, I am not going to accept an illegal debt be fixed onto my head without a fight. If others feel likewise, I urge them to look into their conscience, and act accordingly.

noodler · 24-01-2013 10:58AM

Okay.

Realistically our best chances of reducing the amount we have already put in rest with further negotiations with the ECB and Europe.

listermint · 24-01-2013 11:10AM

noodler wrote: »

Okay.

Realistically our best chances of reducing the amount we have already put in rest with further negotiations with the ECB and Europe.

Or rob the Swizz, Ive worked it out. We can tunnel through the Alps straight into the vaults.

Its a faultless plan.

Poster Boy · 24-01-2013 11:14AM

noodler wrote: »

Realistically our best chances of reducing the amount we have already put in rest with further negotiations with the ECB and Europe.

I respect that you earnestly believe what you post. However:

1. The longer that the "fix" is allowed stand, the greater the expectation is among our so-called 'EU friends' that it will be paid. Where new national governments come into power, they are likely to say; "well, that was the last lot with whom you agreed a deal, so even though we would of course be much fairer if we were to have done the deal, unfortunately a done deal must stand". The script writes itself - and its bloody obvious what trajectory it is taking.

2. Mark my words, if let continue, so called "negotiations" will continue with no end in sight. Why - because they are not negotiations in any meaningful sense. The ECB and its political wing, the EU, will continue to usher pleasant sounding but meaningless platitudes - as long as Enda is president of council. Then after June, we will hear less and less - and of course no deal will have been done.

It is a sham process, which simply facilitates the greatest getaway in history - partly facilitated by overpaying / systemic bribing of the top tier of the ruling elite who were responsible for much of the mess in the first instance.

I am not a great fan of Eamon de Valera. However, in some instances he showed great insight. He once said, "the most dangerous thing in negotiations is reasonableness".

The Irish have been far too reasonable. The best thing to do now would be to break off what are in effect false "negotiations".

fishy fishy · 24-01-2013 11:23AM

Enzo Acidic Textbook wrote: »

It was our banks, why should anyone else pay for them?

wrong!!!

noodler · 24-01-2013 11:23AM

Poster Boy wrote: »

I respect that you earnestly believe what you post. However:

1. The longer that the "fix" is allowed stand, the greater the expectation is among our so-called 'EU friends' that it will be paid. Where new national governments come into power, they are likely to say; "well, that was the last lot with whom you agreed a deal, so even though we would of course be much fairer if we were to have done the deal, unfortunately a done deal must stand". The script writes itself - and its bloody obvious what trajectory it is taking.

2. Mark my words, if let continue, so called "negotiations" will continue with no end in sight. Why - because they are not negotiations in any meaningful sense. The ECB and its political wing, the EU, will continue to usher pleasant sounding but meaningless platitudes - as long as Enda is president of council. Then after June, we will hear less and less - and of course no deal will have been done.

It is a sham process, which simply facilitates the greatest getaway in history - partly facilitated by overpaying / systemic bribing of the top tier of the ruling elite who were responsible for much of the mess in the first instance.

I am not a great fan of Eamon de Valera. However, in some instances he showed great insight. He once said, "the most dangerous thing in negotiations is reasonableness".

The Irish have been far too reasonable. The best thing to do now would be to break off what are in effect false "negotiations".

I take all that onboard as there are 16 other Euro Zone countries who don't want to see their as a result of our mistakes.

However, I think that debt of 120% (which may go even higher if bank stress tests in the summer say we need more capital or if GDP growth doesn't materialise) is not really sustainable and I reckon, purely out of self-interest, we will have to be given some debt relief if our partners in Euro want us to avoid a messy default.

davet82 · 24-01-2013 11:45AM

noodler wrote: »

we will have to be given some debt relief if our partners in Euro want us to avoid a messy default.

just about enough relief to keep us 'ticking over' so the can milk us for money for the next century...

Poster Boy · 24-01-2013 11:49AM

noodler wrote: »

I take all that onboard as there are 16 other Euro Zone countries who don't want to see their as a result of our mistakes.

However, I think that debt of 120% (which may go even higher if bank stress tests in the summer say we need more capital or if GDP growth doesn't materialise) is not really sustainable and I reckon, purely out of self-interest, we will have to be given some debt relief if our partners in Euro want us to avoid a messy default.

Ah i see, you are at this "We" / "Our" business again. I thought I had helped clarify that already. Please let me further explain:

1. I was not working in Frankfurt or in the ECB when along with others they made and allowed foolish investments into a property based bubble. However in that instance, they - the "we" people - did so out of choice, while many of the "others" were individuals looking to have a home out of necessity, rather than an investment out of choice. In that instance, it is the outside investors who are the "We" people, rather than most Irish people who were buying homes rather than "investments", and are actually the "other" party.

2. I was not a Teachta Dála when the bill was presented, following apparent intensive lobbying by the ECB, to guarantee all debts in Ireland. As already set out, I do not believe that weak administration had the power to enact a Bill contrary to A.15.4.1 which states that it is illegal for representatives to pass legislation "repugnant" to the constitution, which as the Bill had the likelihood of sinking the sovereign and compromising independence, it clearly was.

In each of the above there was no "We" people - but "they".

3. An earlier assertion was made to the effect that there is no evidence of pressure from the ECB. Oh really? I suppose that is why all Irish citizens are being denied full release of all communications between the ECB and the government ahead of the Bill? I am sorry, but I have no confidence in people who refuse to be transparent about their actions. In the absence of such information, it is my belief the matter was pushed through effectively at gun point.

noodler wrote: »

we will have to be given some debt relief

Some in this instance is not better than "none". "Some" accepts the legitimacy of the initial pact to begin with. Obviously I reject the original pact as illegal, and see no reason why I should be obligated by any such odious claim.

The latest mumblings from Noonan and co to the effect of extending the terms are pathetic. The longer the repugnant fix stands, the more seeming credibility it has. At this rate, Ireland's EU presidency will end with a great victory announced - that the ECB are not increasing their theft.

Pathetic. Utterly fupping pathetic.

noodler · 24-01-2013 11:53AM

davet82 wrote: »

just about enough relief to keep us 'ticking over' so the can milk us for money for the next century...

Who is they though?

Poster Boy wrote: »

Ah i see, you are at this "We" / "Our" business again. I thought I had helped clarify that already. Please let me further explain:

The Irish State. Everytime you see me say "we" just think of it as the Irish State.

davet82 · 24-01-2013 11:57AM

noodler wrote: »

Who is they though?

you don't know who you are talking about?

I quoted you

noodler · 24-01-2013 11:58AM

davet82 wrote: »

you don't know who you are talking about?

I quoted you

Europe?

The Eurozone?

Germany?

I need you to be specific so I can reply.

hooradiation · 24-01-2013 11:59AM

Poster Boy wrote: »

Ah i see, you are at this "We" / "Our" business again. I thought I had helped clarify that already. Please let me further explain:

1. I was not working in Frankfurt or in the ECB when along with others they made and allowed foolish investments into a property based bubble. However in that instance, they - the "we" people - did so out of choice, while many of the "others" were individuals looking to have a home out of necessity, rather than an investment out of choice. In that instance, it is the outside investors who are the "We" people, rather than most Irish people who were buying homes rather than "investments", and are actually the "other" party.

2. I was not a Teachta Dála when the bill was presented, following apparent intensive lobbying by the ECB, to guarantee all debts in Ireland. As already set out, I do not believe that weak administration had the power to enact a Bill contrary to A.15.4.1 which states that it is illegal for representatives to pass legislation "repugnant" to the constitution, which as the Bill had the likelihood of sinking the sovereign and compromising independence, it clearly was.

In each of the above there was no "We" people - but "they".

3. An earlier assertion was made to the effect that there is no evidence of pressure from the ECB. Oh really? I suppose that is why all Irish citizens are being denied full release of all communications between the ECB and the government ahead of the Bill? I am sorry, but I have no confidence in people who refuse to be transparent about their actions. In the absence of such information, it is my belief the matter was pushed through effectively at gun point.

Some in this instance is not better than "none". "Some" accepts the legitimacy of the initial pact to begin with. Obviously I reject the original pact as illegal, and see no reason why I should be obligated by any such odious claim.

The latest mumblings from Noonan and co to the effect of extending the terms are pathetic. The longer the repugnant fix stands, the more seeming credibility it has. At this rate, Ireland's EU presidency will end with a great victory announced - that the ECB are not increasing their theft.

Pathetic. Utterly fupping pathetic.

Cry harder, maybe that'll change something.

davet82 · 24-01-2013 12:00PM

noodler wrote: »

Europe?

The Eurozone?

Germany?

I need you to be specific so I can reply.

FFS, I was talking about whoever you were talking about :P

Europe is Germany at the moment, they hold all the cards.

Fratton Fred · 24-01-2013 12:00PM

so who exactly should pay for the mess?

noodler · 24-01-2013 12:01PM

davet82 wrote: »

FFS, I was talking about whoever you were talking about :P

Europe is Germany at the moment, they hold all the cards.

In what respect are Germany bleeding us dry?

Poster Boy · 24-01-2013 12:03PM

noodler wrote: »

Everytime you see me say "we" just think of it as the Irish State.

Well we obviously are not able to agree on who "we" and "they" means, as I reject your assertion that it was willingly carried out by the Irish State.

In any event, even if the critical Act had been willingly instigated by our elected representatives,

1: They had no mandate to do so, as it was never put before the citizens.

2: The elected house acted in a manner that was ultra vires, as they did not have the powers to pass such an Act that had the predictable likelihood of being repugnant to the Irish Constitution.

What is happening is theft and the unlawful suppression of basic constitutional rights - and for what, to facilitate a process of collective guilt being foisted on Irish citizens?

Repugnant and pathetic.

noodler · 24-01-2013 12:05PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so who exactly should pay for the mess?

IMO, we should have saved the important banks (AIB, BoI, EBS, PTSB) and perhaps some depositors in Anglo/INBS up to a reasonable limit.

It would have halved the banking debt.

We didn't do that and now our entire hope/strategy seems to be on convincing European taxpayers to take stakes in the suriving banks which is a tough negotiating position.

Our only card to play is telling the ECB that we won't be paying the promissory notes anymore, IBRC would then default on a CBI loan.
Who is responsible for default on a CBI loan is tricky legally as far as I can tell but the ECB would not be happy and they still provide around 70bn to other Irish banks which they could technically pull in response but that situation is difficult to imagine as it would involve Ireland leaving the Euro and likely put the whole project back on the firing line.

42% of entire Euro zone crisis paid for by Ireland according to Eurostat

Comments