Pearse Doherty and David McWilliams "Burn the bondholders"

Mister men

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
2,886
Two men speaking sense in a World of delusion. Refreshing.
 


TimBuckII

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
2,488
Twitter
Yes I am
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
The main opposition don't realise this either.
 

Wednesday

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
354
Website
ceadaoin.blogspot.com
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.
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.

So yes, SF voted to authorise a bank guarantee scheme. No, they did not vote for the bank guarantee scheme that we got.

And while Labour's position on this was better than SF's, I've pointed out elsewhere that they did not oppose it on principle from the outset either - they allowed the initial legislation to pass Second Stage without calling a vote on it, which is something that opposition parties simply do not do when they outright oppose a bill. They only voted against it after Lenihan refused to accept their amendments at Report Stage.
 

Murph

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,197
I'd like to reverse the question -If Labour voted against the Bank Bailout -why are they now (excluding all the spin) effectively agreeing to take up where Fianna Fail is leaving off?

Are they saying circumstances have changed and so they have changed their minds too?
Are they saying Fianna Fail has boxed them into a straight jacket -the damge is done etc?

Yes much has changed and changed for the worse -but to throw in the towel and say we have to keep going as FF did and pour more tax payers money into the blackhole, while people are literly starving and deprived of services is criminal.

Sinn Fein while it initally supported the first bailout when they and the Dail and the people were lied to, quickly rowed back. But atleast now, it is saying burn the foreign bond gamblers and instead save its own people.

The thing is- we are going to have to default somewhere down the line anyway (ON Labour/FG's Watch) so we might as well do it now and spare our people on this unecessary pain.

Remove all the spin and party predjedices -I think Doherty was the one to teach Burton a lesson last night. And if the lab folk on here think her sarcastic remarks to Doherty won her the substantial argument -then god help us all!
 

pjoz

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
468
I would rather follow the suggestions of Karl Whelan on Prime Time tonight than that of Pearse Doherty or David McWilliams.
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.

Perhaps ppcoyle those are a number of suggestions from Karl Whelan last night you may care to follow?
 

wee slabber

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
876
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.
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.
 

goosebump

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
4,940
Make no mistake, the political classes have closed ranks against the people.
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.)
 

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,252
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.
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
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,989
The EU Is Pushing Ireland to the Brink of Ruin

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.
The 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.
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.
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
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.)
Yeah so lets just kick the can down the road, better than facing up to reality.
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410
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.

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.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
18
All this talk about what would happen if Ireland went down the default road is pointless.

The truth is we ARE going to default. In the next 3 years probably.

Fianna Fail have set us up nicely for default. They will be in the perfect position to capitalise when we do!
 

Wednesday

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
354
Website
ceadaoin.blogspot.com
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
Yes, they should have.

Unfortunately the way it was presented was WE NEED TO PASS THIS BILL NOW OR THE WHOLE COUNTRY WILL COLLAPSE!!!!!!!!! so SF took the decision to vote yes on the day, knowing that the actual terms of the scheme would be brought back to the Dáil for another vote later.

Not the best decision, but rushed decisions seldom are.
 

EUrJokingMeRight

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
11,664
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..."
When it comes to finance and ACTUAL policies, /burton and Labour are clueless. end of.
 

turdsl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
26,002
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.
 

Winalot

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
912
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.
Taking the word of a cunning liar shows poor judgment.
 

EUrJokingMeRight

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
11,664
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.
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.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
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 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 is not planned that any of the 85 billion will generate interest cost related to the banks, the 50 billion that will generate interest over the next 3/4 years has to be borrowed anyway to fund our budget deficit and that is the reason for the 15 billion adjustment, it has nothing to do with the banks or their senior bondholders and we would have to make that adjustment if we had no banks left at all.
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,989
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.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top