- May 9, 2010
Two men speaking sense in a World of delusion. Refreshing.
The main opposition don't realise this either.The government does not seem to realise that it holds its finger over a nuclear button when it comes to negotiating with the EU/IMF we merely have to mention the words default and withdrawal from the euro to get a much more favorable intrest rate, take a leaf out of North Koreas playbook, but then mabey I just have a too simpistic view
This isn't quite right either. There were two votes, two weeks apart. The first was on legislation to allow the Government come up with a bank guarantee scheme. This legislation did not include the terms of the scheme - that would be done by a later motion to be brought to the house. SF supported the legislation on foot of assurances given by the Minister as to what those terms would include. When the motion was actually brought to the house two weeks later, it turned out that those terms were not included, so SF voted no.Getting tired of explaining this but here goes.
Government calls in all the political parties, tells them we need to give the banks a guarantee or the ATM's will be empty in the morning.
SF agree that we need to do it to protect the deposit holders.
FF draft the legislation and present it to the Chamber. SF study it and say "Hang on a sec, this is not what we were willing to go along with, protecting the deposits are one thing, giving a guarantee to the bondholders is a whole different ball game."
FF push the legislation to a vote and SF & Lab vote against it. That vote is on record as well. They did not vote to guarantee bondholders.
I suggest you have another look at last nights primetime.On the issue of burning Ango bond holders Karl Whelan stated a very strong case could be made for it while agreeing with Pearse that the 17 billion saved there would be better used recapitalising AIB and BOI,taking them on a case by case basis.It was also very telling that he stated he would be taking a close look at SF economic policy ,as vewers could clearly see early in the interview that he was taken aback by the plainness and sense in what Pearse was proposing. Its refreshing to see SF spokepeople breaking down old barriers,no longer shouting from the margins and being ignored. Another very important point to take from Karl Whelan last night was his statement that every time a government minister trots out Patrick Honohans name in defense of the guarantee scheme they are in his opinion telling untruths.I would rather follow the suggestions of Karl Whelan on Prime Time tonight than that of Pearse Doherty or David McWilliams.
SF, like all of the opposition parties who voted in favour, did so on the information that they were given by the government i.e. the banks had a liquidity problem. It turned out to have been much worse, a solvency problem. You cannot fault SF for trying to act responsibily based on what they believed was the issue at the time.Why did Sinn Fein support the bank-bailout by voting for its approval if they wanted to burn the bondholders? I thought Labour were the only party in Dail Eireann to vote against the guarantee.
shouldn't SF (and all the opposition parties) who were asked to vote in favour of the scheme have demanded access to cabinet briefing sessions and to all external advice provided before voting in favourSF, like all of the opposition parties who voted in favour, did so on the information that they were given by the government i.e. the banks had a liquidity problem. It turned out to have been much worse, a solvency problem. You cannot fault SF for trying to act responsibily based on what they believed was the issue at the time.
The Irish government has just passed its fourth budget in two years. But the drastic savings measures it contains will not help the country's massive debt problem. Some economists are now predicting it is only a matter of time before Ireland defaults.
Yet this huge national sacrifice will not significantly improve the country's massive debt problem. The sometimes severe cuts to social welfare payments, public sector pay and state investment pale into insignificance when compared to the massive gaps in the Irish banks' accounts. That is why investors are continuing, undeterred, to speculate on Ireland's eventual insolvency.
The bailout loan of 85 billion that the EU, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund agreed to extend to Ireland just over a week ago had failed to calm market jitters. And why would it? After all, it actually exacerbates the country's financial problems.
Drastic Cuts and Punitive Interest Rates: The EU Is Pushing Ireland to the Brink of Ruin - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - InternationalThe EU has failed to make the foreign bondholders take a hit on the losses from toxic real estate loans. In particular, the ECB insisted that the interests of the German, British and French banks would continue to be protected. Instead, Irish taxpayers are being asked to pay the bill: at a hefty interest rate of 5.8 percent, to ensure the foreign creditors will get their money back rather than face any losses.
Yeah so lets just kick the can down the road, better than facing up to reality.It would appear that the ECB, ECOFIN, the Bank of England are in on the game too.
(Or maybe, just maybe, triggering another credit crisis in the financial system isn't such a good idea.)
Drastic Cuts and Punitive Interest Rates: The EU Is Pushing Ireland to the Brink of Ruin - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
This article in Spiegel today shows that it was the ECB that insisted on the protection of the bondholders. It goes on to state that Ireland will default. It is not going to be possible for us to come out of this.
Yes, they should have.shouldn't SF (and all the opposition parties) who were asked to vote in favour of the scheme have demanded access to cabinet briefing sessions and to all external advice provided before voting in favour
When it comes to finance and ACTUAL policies, /burton and Labour are clueless. end of.Joan Burton patting the newbie Doherty on the hand and trying to get him to see the realpolitik---and also putting clear blue water between Labour and the Shinners, who every interviewer is insisting are closer in policy than Labour and Fine Gael
Doherty: "Burn the bondholders"
Burton: "Oh, I would not use such an INCENDIARY (ouch!) term as "burn", Pearse. Lets NEGOTIATE..."
Taking the word of a cunning liar shows poor judgment.The least they opposition parties could have expected from the minister when the country was in such dire financial trouble was honesty, They did not get it, They did not get it since, Thats why our country is in disgrace.
why? a policy of 'non-policies' is hardly worth voting for. non-policy is what Labour stand for. A shower back seat drivers like labour who don't even know how to drive being let at the wheel will only EVER have one outcome. RTA.This is scary. It is sobering to realize that Sinn Féin believed it was a good idea to bail out Anglo Irish. Shame on them.
I guess this leaves us with only Labour to support in the coming election.
The article states that it will be the interest on the 85 billion loan & the 15 billion adjustment that will cause ultimate default and sees the solution in a default on bank senior bondholders. That makes as much sense as adding an apple to an orange and maintaining the answer will be a banana.It doesn't matter who you roll out to support your argument that a default is inevitable be it spiegel, the FT, McWilliams or the head of Pimco, goosebump tonic etc will dismiss them as lunatics.
The article also cites the next block that is going to fall. That is, Irish mortgage holders defaulting on their home mortgages. This is obviously going to adversely effect the banking sector and the economy as a whole.It doesn't matter who you roll out to support your argument that a default is inevitable be it spiegel, the FT, McWilliams or the head of Pimco, goosebump tonic etc will dismiss them as lunatics.