Former Taoiseach Brian Cowen seriously ill in hospital

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
Well they certainly are a hell of a lot worse than they were before Fine Gael . But of course thats all part of your partys agenda isn't it ,.
It's funny, I don't remember anyone from those parties shouting loudest about the housing crisis now saying that FG's policies to create jobs and get the economy growing would be so successful that we'd now have a housing crisis. In fact they were saying the opposite.
 


hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
Of course, but the exceptional situation required out of the box thinking.

They had all they needed right there. Does make you wonder what they actually do know.
No, you can't just do stuff because you feel like it. Unilateral printing of money is not compatible with Euro membership.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
Oh Christ almighty. Way to down okay some very very serious issues for many people which FG have simply exacerbated. You're something else.
What does that post even mean?
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
You're assuming that I'd allow Cowen's disaster to partially happen. Had I been in charge just before all hell broke loose, I'd already know the real health status of all the banks by ensuring that my minister for finance was aware of it and that he was responsible for ensuring the highest standards in the office of the Financial Regulator. God knows money is the biggest concern in Ireland and ensuring that all of ours doesn't disappear suddenly is close to being the highest priority of the government if it's not the highest. I would have known a year before, when Jonathan Sugarman began to blow the whistle with regard to massive liquidity breeches in a bank he was the risk manager for. My minister for finance would have been primed to ensure that any such report made to the Financial Regulator also made its way to the minister for finance's office, whose job would depend on receiving such a copy in the event of someone like Sugarman reporting to the Financial regulator. There'd be accountability in my government.

Next I'd have the financial regulator investigate each and every bank in the country to ascertain the liquidity of each and to learn of their operating practices with regard to liquidity. Id ensure that every person that the Financial Regulator came into contact with, who worked in a bank, was sworn to secrecy about the investigation upon pain of a lengthy prison sentence or death once the degree of our exposure became known.

I reckon Cowen would have come into power a month or two after this investigation had concluded. In that period, Id have secretly suspend the constitution. Over a period of about two weeks, I'd have each and every bank manager secretly arrested and detained for a few hours. They'd be sworn to secrecy in regard to their arrests and the instructions they'd been given. The Financial Regulator would have analysed the general breakdown of bad money and bad investments. This would then have been broken down into data that amongst other things, described the original country of origin and a percentage of the bad risk it was responsible for. Each bank would be instructed to sell small amounts of bad risk over a period of time to financial institutions abroad to approach making those countries responsible for whatever percentage of bad money their institutions and citizens were responsible for producing. I'd ensure that no Irish institution sold any bad money back to whatever institution or person it came from in the first place. This way, the countries affected would be kept in the dark about the state of things. This would be progressed until the dam burst.

If all of this had not been in place, by the time Cowen took office, the policy regarding the minister for finance and the Financial Regulator. And the plan would have been expedited from from the point upon the Financial Regulator's discovery that there might be a massive liquidity problem with the banks. The plan regarding the making of each country responsible for its own debts, would be initiated at a much greater rate of payback, as the Financial Regulator's investigation in bank liquidity provided data. I'd have drafted in both the gardaí and Army intelligence at this point and have ordered them to aid in the Financial Regulator's investigation, under his direction.

In parallel, with the above I have various entities, begin to buy on credit, essentials: oil, medicine, food and whatever, up to whatever percentage of risk that country was responsible for in bad money. Screw them. If they cannot keep criminality at bay in their country, why should we pay the price for it? Let this be a lesson to them. We take their recklessness with regard to the state of our economy very seriously. Let this be a lesson they'll not forget.

When the crap actually hit the fan, I'd have agreed to begin to reimburse creditors who supplied essentials as soon as whatever percentage of bad money the creditor's country of origin was still responsible for had been cleared.

Id ensure that anyone from the banks who'd committed crimes was investigated and sorted by the Justice system. I'd ensure that international arrest warrants were issued for anyone abroad who facilitated liquidity breeches and other crimes.

Of course there'd be loads of developers and other traditional political friends, sitting on mountains of bad risk. As soon as the Financial Regulator knew there was problem, this lot would have been rounded up and ordered to divest themselves of whatever risk they had accrued, abroad, up to the percentage value we've calculated that they've damaged us.

All accounts of any direct foreign investment businesses who are from any of the countries of origin, would have, at whatever strategic time suited us, have all of their assets frozen and seized. After or intelligence services had ensured that they were ripe for the picking. And their employees would continue to work being supplied and in return supplying whatever markets acted in competition with them or who didn't do business with them previously.

When the Dam burst, I'd have told Merkel and others, "na na na, na na, na!"

I'd have told the EU and everyone else to get stuffed.

From there, I'd play it by ear regarding whatever position we were at the time that the strategy stops being effective.

If any country felt like ceasing its relationship with us, well, they could kiss our colons. And any such relationship would be initiated elsewhere with that country's competition or enemy, to the financial value of the lost relationship.

It wasn't rocket science. And both previous and successive governments, Cowen's government being the epitomy, have failed in their primary duties.

Each and every action taken by Cowen, in the crucial period, was taken in response to a surprise that Cowen received. He was prepared for nothing and because he didn't try to get to the bottom of things, he operated in ignorance for a truly extended period of time. That's unforgivable. That he initiated policies designed to shaft the innocent while limiting the exposure of those who shouldn't have been protected, equaled an act of treason in my view. I'd not have gone that way. I'd have gone the very opposite route, freezing and seizing assets as I went.

Any bank ready to go belly up, including Irish ones, I'd have provided funeral services for them and ensured that those responsible, were arrested.

I'd restart the constitution at this point and deal with whatever needed to be dealt with. I think that predicting where we would be at this point in relation to where we were due to Cowen's actions, would be difficult, we'd have been in a place vastly different to where Cowen took us, and I think we'd have been in a better place. But I think the chaos that would have influenced things would make it impossible to predict how much better off we'd have been. Regardless, we'd currently have significantly less debt right now and we'd have established our sovereignty and exercised it vigorously.
I read as far as this line:

Id have secretly suspend the constitution.
At that point I stopped. Delusional bullsh*t. I thought you might give an answer at least vaguely grounded in reality.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
I never ever intimated that it would reduce debt. You know in your heart it wasn't even considered.
Prosecutions were considered. It is also irrefutable that prosecutions would not have had any impact on the debt.

You are relentless in your defence of FG to the point of absurdity. I agree with you a lot but there are times you are just plain tribal. This is one such time.
Very few nations are good on financial crime but that doesn't mean we have to be among the majority who look the other way
We didn't look the other way. And you're still saying nothing about the deficit.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
Any chance you'd point out something that I've suggested that woluld have been impossible to impliment. Or is your lack of any such ability evidenced by your hyperbole and fear of someone having walked through a door you opened affecting your confidence in fighting your ever so tenuous corner.

Maybe it's too much work for you. In which case I could add a lack of ability, hypocrisy and point out that you're an agent of ad hominem to the blatant retardation I've already established and described, to your diagnosis.
Well there was this:

Id have secretly suspend the constitution.
As I said, not worth reading after that.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
NAMA was not set up for Anglo. That it turned out most of the rotten loans came out of it is incidental but its purpose was to take loans over a certain limit out of the banking system and manage them. Had the antics of Anglo been known in advance rather than uncovered layer by layer I reckon there would have been some form of action. I doubt it would have saved us but it might have saved on some of wasted cost of Anglo.
People also seem to think that NAMA was a bailout for developers. It was nothing of the sort. The loans were bought at a discounted rate, but the developers were still liable for the book value.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
if you take a look at the politically exposed persons (PEPs) or high-profile persons (HPPs) lists compiled by IBRC for Anglo Irish Bank and INBS you will have to ask yourself why the taxpayer had to be bailout these people. RTE stars, judges, the sports and rugby elite, business owners, politicians, celebrities, bankers, billionaires, well to do people of all sorts. Why?
The taxpayer didn't bail them out. That's why.
 

reg11

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
3,182
This thread is way off topic. Brian Cowan is a human. Is he OK?
I agree. Offline I've heard a rumour that unfortunately he isn't. I too have noticed that the FF'ers priority is to debate away and defend their own little squalid turf, the plight of BC not really mattering that much to them.
 

Seán E. Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
806
I read as far as this line:



At that point I stopped. Delusional bullsh*t. I thought you might give an answer at least vaguely grounded in reality.
It was vaguely grounded in reality. Especially so coming up to the point you stopped.

I said that the minister for finance should have had a relationship with the Financial Regulator, such that his job depended on him having a copy of any report that the regulator had generated or been given that showed a threat to the economy, like Jonathan Sugarman's report to the regulator and indeed in knowing how the regulator followed up on it.

Do you consider this delusional?

You can break my narrative into two parts. The Reality and The Fantasy.

The reality has to do with the ability to look around, gather information and from it to figure out how to get more. Like a minister for finance being aware of the financial health of the country and ensuring that the regulator was doing his job. It had to do also with the fact that the public had a reasonable expectation that the minister for finance would do his job and that the taoiseach would ensure it.

The fantasy is what I'd have done in the event, of being in charge myself at the crucial period. Essentially, it's how I'd have reacted to the information I'd accumulated. You may well dislike my fantasy, you may disagree with it from a plethora of perspectives. You may dislike me for having written it. You may think me an eejit. All your prerogative. But it doesn't change one iota, what happened and it doesn't become any more of a vehicle to demonstrate or deny Cowen's treason. It was something you'd been asking for repeatedly (as well as others).

Nobody has yet expressed an idea concerning what I had to say about the regulator. Each, including yourself skipped to the fantasy portion, to indulge in your own fantasies. Fantasies that suggest that it's okay to add products of the imagination to a list of facts to come to a determination and call it factual. Delusional you say?

Metaphorically speaking, the taoiseach climbed up a tall building, ran to the edge and executed a perfect swan dive and his wreckage remained in charge until he exited government. And your answer to my disgust is to ask what I'd have done differently. What difference does it make?

If I had been Cowen, I'd have resigned and called an election the moment things became clear. I'd have known immediately that I'd messed up when I was the minister for finance. I'd have known there and then that my competency hadn't suddenly increased and that the cabinet I'd picked would be seen as an historical insult to any sane person's idea of functional. I'd have resigned and prayed that there was a way to form and operate a functional government. I'd have respected myself for that, even if I was doing it at a pretty bad time. Because it would have been the best that Brian Cowen could have done.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,559
I would think that Haughey his successes would be only a small hill comparing to the mountain of bad things, controversiess against him the arms trial, the 77 GE manifesto, his goverments of the 80's, his speech of having to cut the cloth to the nation in the 80's, GUBU, the tribunals, the ELLis affairs, phone tapping, ringing the Aras trying to get the then president not to dissolve the dail etc, etc, etc.
i'm afraid that you don't know your history as well as you think.
mr Haughy had little or no influence on the 1977 FF Manifesto.
he was persona non grata in FF at that time.
Jack Lynch was Party Leader, O'Malley, Gibbons & Co. had the influence.
Martin Donoghue is credited as the author of the 1977 Manifesto.
those most closely associated with the manifesto were those most instrumental in setting up the late, unlamented PDs a few years later.

of course the 1977 GE is best remembered for the attempt by FG/Lab at gerrymandering the constituencies.
happily, their attempt rebounded spectacularly on them.
& a new English language term was coined, namely 'TULLYMANDER'
Tully was the Labour Minister credited with the gerrymander.
 

stanley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
9,676
i'm afraid that you don't know your history as well as you think.
mr Haughy had little or no influence on the 1977 FF Manifesto.
he was persona non grata in FF at that time.
Jack Lynch was Party Leader, O'Malley, Gibbons & Co. had the influence.
Martin Donoghue is credited as the author of the 1977 Manifesto.
those most closely associated with the manifesto were those most instrumental in setting up the late, unlamented PDs a few years later.

of course the 1977 GE is best remembered for the attempt by FG/Lab at gerrymandering the constituencies.
happily, their attempt rebounded spectacularly on them.
& a new English language term was coined, namely 'TULLYMANDER'
Tully was the Labour Minister credited with the gerrymander.
Haughey too busy making money which was his real goal, would adopt anyone and their ideas to achieve that goal.
 

Roman Emperor

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
10,003
I would think that Haughey his successes would be only a small hill comparing to the mountain of bad things, controversiess against him the arms trial, the 77 GE manifesto, his goverments of the 80's, his speech of having to cut the cloth to the nation in the 80's, GUBU, the tribunals, the ELLis affairs, phone tapping, ringing the Aras trying to get the then president not to dissolve the dail etc, etc, etc.
Interesting you should consider Haughey's attempt (it was Brian Lenihan actually) to frustrate a dissolution of the Dáil as a black mark against him.

Some genius on this thread has suggested that Brian Cowen should have suspended the Constitution
 

Roman Emperor

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
10,003
It was vaguely grounded in reality. Especially so coming up to the point you stopped.

I said that the minister for finance should have had a relationship with the Financial Regulator, such that his job depended on him having a copy of any report that the regulator had generated or been given that showed a threat to the economy, like Jonathan Sugarman's report to the regulator and indeed in knowing how the regulator followed up on it.

Do you consider this delusional?

You can break my narrative into two parts. The Reality and The Fantasy.

The reality has to do with the ability to look around, gather information and from it to figure out how to get more. Like a minister for finance being aware of the financial health of the country and ensuring that the regulator was doing his job. It had to do also with the fact that the public had a reasonable expectation that the minister for finance would do his job and that the taoiseach would ensure it.

The fantasy is what I'd have done in the event, of being in charge myself at the crucial period. Essentially, it's how I'd have reacted to the information I'd accumulated. You may well dislike my fantasy, you may disagree with it from a plethora of perspectives. You may dislike me for having written it. You may think me an eejit. All your prerogative. But it doesn't change one iota, what happened and it doesn't become any more of a vehicle to demonstrate or deny Cowen's treason. It was something you'd been asking for repeatedly (as well as others).

Nobody has yet expressed an idea concerning what I had to say about the regulator. Each, including yourself skipped to the fantasy portion, to indulge in your own fantasies. Fantasies that suggest that it's okay to add products of the imagination to a list of facts to come to a determination and call it factual. Delusional you say?

Metaphorically speaking, the taoiseach climbed up a tall building, ran to the edge and executed a perfect swan dive and his wreckage remained in charge until he exited government. And your answer to my disgust is to ask what I'd have done differently. What difference does it make?

If I had been Cowen, I'd have resigned and called an election the moment things became clear. I'd have known immediately that I'd messed up when I was the minister for finance. I'd have known there and then that my competency hadn't suddenly increased and that the cabinet I'd picked would be seen as an historical insult to any sane person's idea of functional. I'd have resigned and prayed that there was a way to form and operate a functional government. I'd have respected myself for that, even if I was doing it at a pretty bad time. Because it would have been the best that Brian Cowen could have done.
More drivel.
 

Seán E. Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
806
Interesting you should consider Haughey's attempt (it was Brian Lenihan actually) to frustrate a dissolution of the Dáil as a black mark against him.

Some genius on this thread has suggested that Brian Cowen should have suspended the Constitution
I suggested no such thing. No wonder you see drivel when you read, your ability to accurately retain information is more like a disability.
 

YouKnowWhatIMeanLike

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
7,170

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,403
Twitter
No
No, you can't just do stuff because you feel like it. Unilateral printing of money is not compatible with Euro membership.

We know how very badly the ECB handled the recession, so rules made in fair weather times don't apply in a disaster.

Ask germany, who bent the rules in 2002-04. Nobody minded. Ask greece, that fibbed endlessly.

Compared to these - and others - ensuring that insolvent banks are closed down, and the staff punished is essential. But, most families needed to eat, and so some cash dispensing by fiat was the best route. And cheapest!

Sorry but if we are to stay in the export with trade finance games, we have to punish villains very publicly.

Take the Madoff scandal, costing "clients" 60 billion, about the same as our bank crash bill, where he got 150 years in the slammer. None of our bankers got even 15 years. Why? Because Public money is seen as cheap.

However the knock on effect has cost us hundreds of lives, which is more important imho compared to an inadequate rule book.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top