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

Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee?

Options
  • 08-08-2014 10:41am
    #1
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭


    Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee? Giving this guarantee was not part of their mandate and was therefore not within their remit. They would probably not be liable to pay the full 450 billion unless all the banks fail completely. As it is they would only be liable to pay about 65 billion. Of course they would have to default but it is their liability not that of the tax payer.

    I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

    That said, Fine Gael and Labour are probably also partly exposed to the debt because they broke election promises not to bail out the bond holders.

    Personally I abhor Sinn Fein but I would sooner vote for them than any of the above.


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Arthur Beesley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,537 ✭✭✭Arthur Beesley


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee? Giving this guarantee was not part of their mandate and was therefore not within their remit. They would probably not be liable to pay the full 450 billion unless all the banks fail completely. As it is they would only be liable to pay about 65 billion. Of course they would have to default but it is their liability not that of the tax payer.

    I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

    That said, Fine Gael and Labour are probably also partly exposed to the debt because they broke election promises not to bail out the bond holders.

    Personally I abhor Sinn Fein but I would sooner vote for them than any of the above.

    Maybe the public sector should also?


  • Options
    #3
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    They'd need a fair sized tent at the Galway Races to raise €450 billion
    realitykeeper wrote: »
    It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

    It has everything to do with the Irish taxpayer. Like it or not, we elected them.


  • Options
    #4
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee? Giving this guarantee was not part of their mandate and was therefore not within their remit. They would probably not be liable to pay the full 450 billion unless all the banks fail completely. As it is they would only be liable to pay about 65 billion. Of course they would have to default but it is their liability not that of the tax payer.

    I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

    That said, Fine Gael and Labour are probably also partly exposed to the debt because they broke election promises not to bail out the bond holders.

    Personally I abhor Sinn Fein but I would sooner vote for them than any of the above.


    Let us keep with the reality that the Irish people elected the Fianna Fail government.

    Let us also keep with the reality that the figure of 450 bn is silly mindless ignorance of the real cost of the guarantee.

    Let us also keep with the reality that the figure of 65 bn is the gross cost of the bailout to the Irish taxpayer and that the net long-term cost will be much less.

    Let us also keep with the reality that the public finance problems, while triggered by the market's dislike of the bank bailout, where mainly caused by other actions of the Fianna Fail government, such as exempting low-paid workers from tax, increasing social welfare rates and creating a disconnect between work and welfare.

    Then we can have a debate.


  • Options
    #5
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    You make some wacky threads Reality!

    The deposit guarantee scheme didn't cost the taxpayer anything.

    The cost of insuring the potential liability was paid for by the participating institutions & administered by the Central bank

    http://www.centralbank.ie/paycurr/paysys/dgs/pages/about.aspx


  • Options
    #6
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Absolutely. We should stick FF with the bill, they claim bankruptcy, rename themselves as New Fianna Fail and continue on as before. Or maybe make Willie O'Dea pay it with the proceeds raised from an auction of his moustache. Then we'll all be debt free.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Jim2007
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

    There must have been an incredible amount of voter impersonation going on at elections in those days then, although I can't remember hearing much about it on the TV...... :confused:


  • Options
    #8
    stevedublin
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭stevedublin


    Oscar Gateaux wrote: »
    It has everything to do with the Irish taxpayer. Like it or not, we elected them.

    I didn't


  • Options
    #9
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    stevedublin wrote: »
    I didn't

    Everyone elected the government, that is what representative democracy is about.

    Where those of us who saw through FF failed, was in not persuading enough others of the stupidity of FF's actions.


  • Options
    #10
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Godge wrote: »
    Let us keep with the reality that the Irish people elected the Fianna Fail government.

    Let us also keep with the reality that the figure of 450 bn is silly mindless ignorance of the real cost of the guarantee.

    Let us also keep with the reality that the figure of 65 bn is the gross cost of the bailout to the Irish taxpayer and that the net long-term cost will be much less.

    Let us also keep with the reality that the public finance problems, while triggered by the market's dislike of the bank bailout, where mainly caused by other actions of the Fianna Fail government, such as exempting low-paid workers from tax, increasing social welfare rates and creating a disconnect between work and welfare.

    Then we can have a debate.
    So you want to keep it real and talk about facts. Great. Here are the real facts:

    Real fact 1: Guaranteeing all the Irish banks was never part of the FF election manifesto. Therefore they did not have the mandate to do that. FF had a mandate to manage the economy, they did not have a mandate to mismanage it.

    Real fact 2: The Irish banks were guaranteed for 450 billion. I agree that was silly but it is also a fact.

    Real fact 3: While it is true that FF were also responsible for other public finance problems that has nothing to do with this topic, this is about the bank guarantee.


  • Options
    #11
    barneystinson
    Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    stevedublin wrote: »
    I didn't

    You remind me of the guy at the end of this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VsOCUFFn4Ug


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    So you want to keep it real and talk about facts. Great. Here are the real facts:

    Real fact 1: Guaranteeing all the Irish banks was never part of the FF election manifesto. Therefore they did not have the mandate to do that. FF had a mandate to manage the economy, they did not have a mandate to mismanage it. .

    General elections are not referenda. It really is quite that simple.

    Election manifestos are not binding on elected governments, every intelligent voter knows that because they are subject to circumstance, whether that be coalition with another party or subsequent events or financial constraints.

    In electing a government, we should therefore elect those who we believe will best manage the country and best implement the policies we favour.

    It is a ridiculous argument to suggest that because the bank guarantee was not part of their manifesto, they are somehow liable for it.


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Real fact 2: The Irish banks were guaranteed for 450 billion. I agree that was silly but it is also a fact. .

    The 450 billion cost assumes that the assets of the banks were worth nothing. While they were worth less than the banks thought they were worth, they were not worth nothing.

    That means 450 billion is a silly irrelevant number just used for sensationalism.

    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Real fact 3: While it is true that FF were also responsible for other public finance problems that has nothing to do with this topic, this is about the bank guarantee.

    If we had been running a significant budget surplus at the time of the bank guarantee (which the economic cycle would suggest we should have been) the markets would not have been spooked as much by the guarantee. If the banks had been more stable and the boom sustainable the guarantee would have caused the markets to yawn, no more.

    The real problems were underneath the guarantee, the unsustainable public finances and the credit and property booms that were out of control. This requires a deeper analysis than superficial rants.

    P.S. I have absolutely no time for FF


  • Options
    #13
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Godge wrote: »
    General elections are not referenda. It really is quite that simple.

    Election manifestos are not binding on elected governments, every intelligent voter knows that because they are subject to circumstance, whether that be coalition with another party or subsequent events or financial constraints.

    In electing a government, we should therefore elect those who we believe will best manage the country and best implement the policies we favour.

    It is a ridiculous argument to suggest that because the bank guarantee was not part of their manifesto, they are somehow liable for.
    Political parties are private companies which tender for a contract to run the country. If a dodgy tradesman ruins your house he is responsible. It is no different with political parties.

    Godge wrote: »


    The 450 billion cost assumes that the assets of the banks were worth nothing. While they were worth less than the banks thought they were worth, they were not worth nothing.

    That means 450 billion is a silly irrelevant number just used for sensationalism.

    Most of this is true but irrelevant. Sensational or not, 450 Billion is the cost of the guarantee. Covering the cost of the guarantee does not mean they have to pay the full 450 billion - I already said that in the opening thread.

    Godge wrote: »

    If we had been running a significant budget surplus at the time of the bank guarantee (which the economic cycle would suggest we should have been) the markets would not have been spooked as much by the guarantee. If the banks had been more stable and the boom sustainable the guarantee would have caused the markets to yawn, no more.

    The real problems were underneath the guarantee, the unsustainable public finances and the credit and property booms that were out of control. This requires a deeper analysis than superficial rants.

    P.S. I have absolutely no time for FF
    All true but again irrelevant. FF were mandated to manage the economy and they were not mandated to mismanage it. Problems should have been foreseen and evaded by buying insurance against them. Giving free insurance to the banks after the event was not mandated by the electorate. FF did that on their own.


  • Options
    #14
    golfwallah
    Registered Users Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    So you want to keep it real and talk about facts. Great. Here are the real facts:

    Real fact 1: Guaranteeing all the Irish banks was never part of the FF election manifesto. Therefore they did not have the mandate to do that. FF had a mandate to manage the economy, they did not have a mandate to mismanage it.

    Real fact 2: The Irish banks were guaranteed for 450 billion. I agree that was silly but it is also a fact.

    Real fact 3: While it is true that FF were also responsible for other public finance problems that has nothing to do with this topic, this is about the bank guarantee.

    The government derives its power from the constitution (as accepted and amended by the Irish Electorate over the years) - not from election manifestos, which vary from election to election.

    Section 28.2
    The executive power of the State shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, be exercised by or on the authority of the Government.

    Everyone knows that manifestos are not legally binding - although there can be election penalties for failing to keep promises or for screwing up, even if every other government in the world is also screwing up. FF are paying that price today and it looks very likely they will continue to pay for a long time to come.

    However about your view of the "facts" - there are no legal grounds for the kind of action you are proposing. You may as well try to sue the electorate for electing the last government!


  • Options
    #15
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Political parties are private companies which tender for a contract to run the country. If a dodgy tradesman ruins your house he is responsible. It is no different with political parties.

    Is this relating to the 'mandatory annual general election' thing you were going on about before?
    450 Billion is the cost of the guarantee.

    No..... no its not.


  • Options
    #16
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Political parties are private companies which tender for a contract to run the country. If a dodgy tradesman ruins your house he is responsible. It is no different with political parties.


    This beats the freeman of the land nonsense hands down. There are no tenders or contracts in elections - that is silly.


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Most of this is true but irrelevant. Sensational or not, 450 Billion is the cost of the guarantee. Covering the cost of the guarantee does not mean they have to pay the full 450 billion - I already said that in the opening thread.

    450 is the value of the guarantee, it is not the cost of the guarantee. A huge difference.

    realitykeeper wrote: »
    All true but again irrelevant. FF were mandated to manage the economy and they were not mandated to mismanage it. Problems should have been foreseen and evaded by buying insurance against them. Giving free insurance to the banks after the event was not mandated by the electorate. FF did that on their own.


    And the way FF should be paid back is in the ballot box. There is no other way than that. Suggesting otherwise is unrealistic.


  • Options
    #17
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Political parties are private companies

    Really, do they pay their members (whom I presume are shareholders) dividends?


  • Options
    #18
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,464 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Political parties are private companies which tender for a contract to run the country.

    No, political parties are political parties. Simple as really. You can't just make a sweeping statement like that and except people to take your analysis seriously.
    realitykeeper wrote: »

    Real fact 1: Guaranteeing all the Irish banks was never part of the FF election manifesto.

    Do do you believe we should have General Election, with a month long campaign, every time an urgent governmental decision needs to be made that was not foreseen in a program for government?

    You would probably need a General Election after every cabinet meeting. Unfortunately it is not easy to govern a country that way.


  • Options
    #19
    quadrifoglio verde
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭quadrifoglio verde


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee? Giving this guarantee was not part of their mandate and was therefore not within their remit. They would probably not be liable to pay the full 450 billion unless all the banks fail completely. As it is they would only be liable to pay about 65 billion. Of course they would have to default but it is their liability not that of the tax payer.

    I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

    That said, Fine Gael and Labour are probably also partly exposed to the debt because they broke election promises not to bail out the bond holders.

    Personally I abhor Sinn Fein but I would sooner vote for them than any of the above.

    You need to do more reading, sinn fein backed the guarantee, labour didn't.
    Thats without getting into what you're suggesting by the way, which is about as ludicrous as joe higgins calling for a pay rise for richie boucher :pac:


  • Options
    #20
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    No, political parties are political parties. Simple as really. You can't just make a sweeping statement like that and except people to take your analysis seriously.

    My view of political parties is not tainted by the rules, privileges, pomp and ceremony the politicians invent to make the gullible see them as something other than what they are. They are business people who run a cartel and share the spoils irrespective of who wins the contract.
    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    Do do you believe we should have General Election, with a month long campaign, every time an urgent governmental decision needs to be made that was not foreseen in a program for government?

    You would probably need a General Election after every cabinet meeting. Unfortunately it is not easy to govern a country that way.

    I assume the urgent government decision you are referring to is the bailout. The problems which gave rise to the crisis were ten years in the making and yet they were not foreseen or safeguarded against by those who paid themselves so handsomely. That is why they are responsible.

    If the rest of the electorate are happy to let the government bail out the banks that is fine - they won`t be doing it with my money :)


  • Options
    #21
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Really, do they pay their members (whom I presume are shareholders) dividends?
    How should I know, go ask them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    barneystinson
    Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    My view of political parties is not tainted by the rules, privileges, pomp and ceremony the politicians invent to make the gullible see them as something other than what they are. They are business people who run a cartel and share the spoils irrespective of who wins the contract.



    I assume the urgent government decision you are referring to is the bailout. The problems which gave rise to the crisis were ten years in the making and yet they were not foreseen or safeguarded against by those who paid themselves so handsomely. That is why they are responsible.

    If the rest of the electorate are happy to let the government bail out the banks that is fine - they won`t be doing it with my money :)

    What money? Do you actually pay any tax in Ireland?

    You're definitely in the running for most ironic username here, based on this thread.

    The constitutional basis for the executive power of the elected Government has been clarified for you already above, your "view" of political parties doesn't come into it. That is reality. You can keep yours.


  • Options
    #23
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Godge wrote: »
    There are no tenders or contracts in elections
    Yet that is precisely what elections are. The ballot paper is the contract and as a voter you are on the board of Ireland Inc. I wish Ryanair would tender for the contract, they would get my vote.
    Godge wrote: »
    450 is the value of the guarantee, it is not the cost of the guarantee. A huge difference.
    We`ve been through this already. Yes I know it won`t actually cost 450 billion unless every bank fails completely and that is not going to happen. Happy now?
    Godge wrote: »
    And the way FF should be paid back is in the ballot box. There is no other way than that. Suggesting otherwise is unrealistic.
    I disagree. I will however concede that most people will agree with you as long as the finances of Ireland and the world remain relatively stable. That will not be for very long.


  • Options
    #24
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    barneystinson wrote: »
    The constitutional basis for the executive power of the elected Government has been clarified for you already above.

    The judiciary adjudicate based on the constitution and their decision would probably support the government decision to bail out the banks. Had the government opted to let the banks fail, the judiciary would probably have stood by that decision also. In other words, it was too big a matter for the judiciary to actually make a decision on it with any confidence. However, history has shown that the judiciary of a given era will invariably be of its time. Should the times change, so will the judicial interpretation of the constitution with regard to the bailout. In any event, given the scale of the debt crisis in this country, it is unlikely there is a judge or a politician in the country who was completely unaffected by it.


  • Options
    #25
    barneystinson
    Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    The judiciary adjudicate based on the constitution and their decision would probably support the government decision to bail out the banks. Had the government opted to let the banks fail, the judiciary would probably have stood by that decision also. In other words, it was too big a matter for the judiciary to actually make a decision on it with any confidence. However, history has shown that the judiciary of a given era will invariably be of its time. Should the times change, so will the judicial interpretation of the constitution with regard to the bailout. In any event, given the scale of the debt crisis in this country, it is unlikely there is a judge or a politician in the country who was completely unaffected by it.

    Why are you bringing the judiciary into it?

    Also, you've chosen to ignore the first part of my previous post...


  • Options
    #26
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    barneystinson wrote: »
    Why are you bringing the judiciary into it?

    Also, you've chosen to ignore the first part of my previous post...

    You referred to the constitution and the point I was making was that the constitution can be interpreted any which way. For example, I would be of the view that guaranteeing the banks is not constitutional because that would not be treating all the children of the state equally. Another person may think it does treat them equally and since the judiciary adjudicate on such matters, I brought the judiciary into it.

    The points you were getting at in the first part of your previous post were unclear.


  • Options
    #27
    barneystinson
    Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    The points you were getting at in the first part of your previous post were unclear.

    You said:
    If the rest of the electorate are happy to let the government bail out the banks that is fine - they won`t be doing it with my money.

    And I asked you, what money? Do you actually pay any tax in Ireland?

    (And for clarity, I'm talking about you personally with your own money that you've earned, not money handed to you by your parents or the state.)


  • Options
    #28
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    barneystinson wrote: »

    You're definitely in the running for most ironic username here, based on this thread.

    .


    Most true statement in the thread.


  • Options
    #29
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Arthur Beesley wrote: »
    Maybe the public sector should also?
    The public sector did not guarantee the banks so they should not be liable to cover the 450 billion. That said, almost all state spending and borrowing goes to prop up the public sector so I would have no issue with a moratorium on public sector pay and spending, pending the full and final repayment of the national debt along with any interest due.


  • Options
    #30
    barneystinson
    Registered Users Posts: 4,683 ✭✭✭barneystinson


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    The public sector did not guarantee the banks so they should not be liable to cover the 450 billion. That said, almost all state spending and borrowing goes to prop up the public sector so I would have no issue with a moratorium on public sector pay and spending, pending the full and final repayment of the national debt along with any interest due.

    What does a moratorium on PS pay and spending mean, in the reality which you keep?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    The public sector did not guarantee the banks

    Was it not publicly elected officials and their appointees that put it together and ran said guarantee?


Advertisement