Will the Yes side follow through on its claims?

Noreen1

me_right_one wrote: »

I have indeed, every last bit of it. So have most of my family, friends, and colleauges. I'd say most people have. The ones that havent, and anyone who believes a scrap of what any campaigners say, are bottom of the barrell fools. Have you?

What a truly amazing statement!
Since Brian Cowen admitted to not reading the treaty before Lisbon 1, as did a number of other politicians, I wonder on what basis people were expected to respect their advice?

So, those of the electorate for whom time constraints/ lack of detailed study of previous treaties, or general unfamiliarity with EU processes, prevented their reading, or understanding the Lisbon Treaty, for whatever reason, are "bottom of the barrell fools"?

I would respectfully suggest that your attitude is extremely arrogant.
You may very well be condemning the majority of the Irish electorate!

It does, however, pose an interesting question. If it were ever proven that the majority of people who voted in the Liisbon 2 referendum hadn't read it, and were, according to your logic, "bottom of the barrel fools", would that invalidate their vote?

I doubt it!

wicklowlad

kryogen wrote: »

come off it, you know as well as i do that the treaty is not meant to be easily readable for the average person, its was written in a complicated manner, by design. i just do not accept your point there. alot of people in this country unfortunatly look to the politicians for guidance and listen to what they say rather then go and look into things themselves, this of course is disappointing but undeniably true. the assumption behind it i would venture was that people would see the yes to recovery and yes to jobs and we are better together (even though we couldnt be evicted!) signs and since "all the major parties agree" it must be right thing to do

Comments about the treaty being worded so that people could not understand was carted out by Ganley and McKenna on every single occasion at the first referendum and they made a point every time that they were quoting Valerie Gistard d'Estang. Lara Marlowe of the Irish Times interviewed d'stang shortly after the referendum was over and he said he was "dishonestly misquoted" because his actual words were 'that the treaty should not be written in a language that makes it difficult to understand' - in addition Mckenna added another sentence of her own to the quote. Just check the back editions of The Irish Times for the interview!. You may have noticed that neither Ganley or McKenna used the same ''quote'' this time!! Legal jargon is difficult at the best of time but say the treaty was written like that by design is rubbish.

But remember as we Irish are like Zambabwe and Afghanistan - according to ukip's Farrage last night - then we supposed to be stupid and would not understand such matters anyway and oh we are easy bullied!

Liam Byrne

me_right_one wrote: »

No, but it did legislate for them to be legalised. Completely different kettle of fish.

And this referendum legislated for the EU Treaty to be legalised; which Lenihan & Co equated to (the possibility of ) new jobs.

So no, it's not a "completely different kettle of fish", because of their posters.

I wasn't stupid enough to equate the two (I don't trust FF enough to even remotely believe them that the earth is round at this stage) but Lenihan & Co did, so we're entitled to ask WTF ?

Ironically, if the Dail were confident enough that the "clarifications & reassurances" DID deal with the concerns of the Irish people, they wouldn't have resorted to the lies and bull****.

But they did. So I want to see the end-result of THEIR "Yes to Jobs" bull****. THEY chose (ill-advisedly) to put it on THEIR posters, so THEY should back it up.

EDIT : Could well be a storm in a tea-cup anyways, because they got elected by promising a "ZERO TOLERANCE TO CRIME" and "THE ECONOMY IN SAFE HANDS" and they reneged on both of those two, the scumbags. So we shouldn't be surprised, really.

Stark

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But I've just thought of previous referenda; "Yes to Abortion", and "Yes to Divorce"; voting yes in either of those didn't "promise" or "guarantee" that there would actually be abortions or divorce (no-one might have availed of the possibility); it just made those more "likely".

For the record, the last time we got to have a vote on "abortion yes/no" was 1983. All the subsequent referendums were either attempts on improving the mess we made of the resulting amendment (like allowing the right to travel outside the State) or attempts to make the constitutional ban even more extreme by constitutionally enshrining a disregard for a woman's physical and mental health (thankfully those latter two failed). The majority of people of childbearing age have never had a say on this issue which affects them.

me_right_one

Noreen1 wrote: »

What a truly amazing statement!

Since Brian Cowen admitted to not reading the treaty before Lisbon 1, as did a number of other politicians, I wonder on what basis people were expected to respect their advice?

So, those of the electorate for whom time constraints/ lack of detailed study of previous treaties, or general unfamiliarity with EU processes, prevented their reading, or understanding the Lisbon Treaty, for whatever reason, are "bottom of the barrell fools"?

I would respectfully suggest that your attitude is extremely arrogant.
You may very well be condemning the majority of the Irish electorate!

It does, however, pose an interesting question. If it were ever proven that the majority of people who voted in the Liisbon 2 referendum hadn't read it, and were, according to your logic, "bottom of the barrel fools", would that invalidate their vote?

I doubt it!

• Cowen did indeed admit to not reading it. He's a - FOOL
• If you believe any canvassers, esp. knowing the point above - FOOL
• We're in Europe since the 1970's. If there was a genuine reason for not finding out the facts for yourself, and reading the treaty, eg blind, deaf, and dumb, fair enough. If, however, you voted without fully knowing what you were changing / voting for, and had the audacity to affect MY life because of your actions, no whimpering excuse will suffice - FOOL
• As for not understanding it, get it clarified, then vote. If you didnt - FOOL
• You call me arrogant?? No wait, you respectfully suggest that I have an arrogant attitude?? I think you have some neck. Are there no mirrors in your house? Probably not.
• I am not a dictator, and cannot invalidate votes. I take your point though, you mean IF I somehow could, would I? Yes. I think there should be a disclaimer box to tick on all voting cards, something along the lines of; " Do you fully understand the changes you are voting on, have you fully researched what you are voting on, are you voting of your own free will, and do you acknowledge your decision is not based on any propoganda from any canvassers or vested interests?". No box ticked, no vote counted.

All I'll say is its a good thing it passed.
This is all basic, basic stuff.
How can you make up your own mind without reading it? How dare you be so irresponsible. We might aswell let 3 year olds do the voting!
Whats amazing is YOUR attitude.

wicklowlad

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And this referendum legislated for the EU Treaty to be legalised; which Lenihan & Co equated to (the possibility of ) new jobs.

So no, it's not a "completely different kettle of fish", because of their posters.

I wasn't stupid enough to equate the two (I don't trust FF enough to even remotely believe them that the earth is round at this stage) but Lenihan & Co did, so we're entitled to ask WTF ?

Ironically, if the Dail were confident enough that the "clarifications & reassurances" DID deal with the concerns of the Irish people, they
wouldn't have resorted to the lies and bull****.


But they did. So I want to see the end-result of THEIR "Yes to Jobs" bull****. THEY chose (ill-advisedly) to put it on THEIR posters, so THEY should back it up.

EDIT : Could well be a storm in a tea-cup anyways, because they got elected by promising a "ZERO TOLERANCE TO CRIME" and "THE ECONOMY IN SAFE HANDS" and they reneged on both of those two, the scumbags. So we shouldn't be surprised, really.

Assume you are also awaiting the start of Conscription, Abortions, Tax increases from EU, Fighter Jets, for the Aircorp and €1.84 min wages - all promised was going to happen by the NO side???

The problem really is that the government AND THE opposition are afraid to sort out the Public Service, the Quango's and the Unions. It looks more and more like we will need an outside source to make the hard decisions for us ie IMF & World Bank!!

Should also add reduction in number of TDs and Senators plus a 25% cut in their wages plus no expenses unless approved by an all party committee.

My name is URL

me_right_one wrote: »

All I'll say is its a good thing it passed.
This is all basic, basic stuff.
How can you make up your own mind without reading it? How dare you be so irresponsible. We might aswell let 3 year olds do the voting!
Whats amazing is YOUR attitude.

The Treaty itself is far from 'basic, basic stuff'.. where do you get off talking to people like that.?

Believe it or not, the entire population of Ireland are not qualified law experts so your above claim is dubious at best.

me_right_one

My name is URL wrote: »

The Treaty itself is far from 'basic, basic stuff'.. where do you get off talking to people like that.?

Believe it or not, the entire population of Ireland are not qualified law experts so your above claim is dubious at best.

I meant the whole principle of "how to use your vote". Not the treaty itself, which, by the way, is perfectly readable, you dont need anything more than leaving cert english to understand it.

Oh sorry, did I hurt your feelings? Well, voting on constitutional changes of a nation is serious stuff; it tends to separate the men from the boys. If you cant take a simple debate, then we know what side you're on.

Jev/N

kryogen wrote: »

EDIT: i reckon i should clarify a couple of things so here is exactly what i want

1. Do you think the yes side will follow through on claims such as speedy economic recovery and jobs being created in a speedy fashion as was implied
2. If they fail in these areas what should happen then

These questions necessitate comparison to what would have happened in the instance that the NO vote prevailed but we don't have that luxury so how do you propose to compare?

My name is URL

me_right_one wrote: »

Oh sorry, did I hurt your feelings? Well, voting on constitutional changes of a nation is serious stuff; it tends to separate the men from the boys. If you cant take a simple debate, then we know what side you're on.

You're the one throwing your toys out of the pram because you simply cannot accept that not everyone shares your own views and ideals

You can insult people all you want but it really only detracts from the good points of your own arguement, and shows you for what you really are...

Liam Byrne

wicklowlad wrote: »

Assume you are also awaiting the start of Conscription, Abortions, Tax increases from EU, Fighter Jets, for the Aircorp and €1.84 min wages - all promised was going to happen by the NO side???

No. Because those were lies and they were exposed by the fact that people voted against it.

They lied and they were found out and they didn't get their way; they got their answer once found out.

But Lenihan's lie about jobs is different; they got their way (maybe partly because of their lies) and to come out on the same day and renege on it is arrogant and typical of the shower of **** that we currently have in the Dail.

And I know this is a European thread, but add in the lies about Rody Molloy and Anglo Irish and NAMA and all the other bull**** we've been fed, and I'm sorry; I cannot believe that this idiot / conniving scheister (delete as appropriate) isn't beyond conning his way into and out of anything - saying anything to get his way, only to renege on it afterwards - so this whole NAMA fiasco is looking even more suspect every time FF open their weasel mouths.

Mac daddy

I think this is a nice read for some of the yes voting sheeple

http://www.nationalplatform.org/

cooperguy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And I know this is a European thread, but add in the lies about Rody Molloy and Anglo Irish and NAMA and all the other bull**** we've been fed, and I'm sorry; I cannot believe that this idiot / conniving scheister (delete as appropriate) isn't beyond conning his way into and out of anything - saying anything to get his way, only to renege on it afterwards - so this whole NAMA fiasco is looking even more suspect every time FF open their weasel mouths.

The main problem I see with NAMA is that there is no credible alternative to it. Until the time one is found there really isnt much we can do about it!

marco_polo

the national platform website is never good reading for anybody. Full stop.

Taxipete29

Mac daddy wrote: »

I think this is a nice read for some of the yes voting sheeple

http://www.nationalplatform.org/

This means nothing. The No side broke some of those rules the last time around and probably did again this time.

People voted No last time based on the lies of Libertas, Coir etc.

They voted Yes this time based on the fact that almost anyone of any standing or influence in the country from politics or from business was advocating a Yes vote.

The public arent as stupid as you think and Ganley et al arent as smart.

Liam Byrne

Taxipete29 wrote: »

They voted Yes this time based on the fact that almost anyone of any standing or influence in the country from politics or from business was advocating a Yes vote.

Show me someone from politics that has any standing or influence at this stage....

FF - 'nuff said
Greens - in bed with FF - 'nuff said
Labour & FG - ostensibly worth a shot on their own policies and ethos, except that they've refused to scream for the resignation of JO'D and Mary C, have forgotten about Bertie's shennanigans and dodgy deals, and don't raise enough of a stink about crap like FAS and Financial "Regulator" abuse and payoffs and pensions, or ensuring bankers and developers get fined, fired and possibly jailed for landing us in the ****.

So - at the moment - there's ABSOLUTELY NO politician who has any standing or influence with me.

Some of the business folk, maybe, but politicians ? Not a hope!

kerchow

me_right_one wrote: »

Well it isnt. Its an election jingle. The assumption behind it is that you have read the treaty, are confident enough in your own intelligence to decipher what a yes or a no outcome may deliver, and are able to put together in your head that with Europe, it is more likely that our economy will be looked favourably upon by foreign investors, as opposed to without Europe. Common sense lads.

UMMMM yes I am intellegent enough to decipher this for myself. That is why I voted no. And I would do it again tomorrow if we were to vote again. I voted No because I do NOT trust the majority out there running various countries to have the interests of the common person truly at the heart of the matter. I can put the whole pretty picture together in my head very nicely thank you very much. And speaking of foreign investment where was that when Dell up and left to go to Poland for a nice little handshake of the 54 mill region?????? Looked on favourably, yeah think I will hold out on that judgement, that is if I can put the whole thing together in my little head. Maybe I should ask the goverment for guidance on that one. Oh wait they have sent us up a creek and whats that? Oh yeah the paddle back on the dock.
Common sense. Uh huh.....

turgon

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Really ? So what was the whole point of Lisbon requiring "unanimous" approval in order to proceed ?

Well thats the whole point. For the whole EU to evolve at once everyone has to agree/ratify. The problem arises when 26 other people will continue on their own, enhancing co-operation and creating what everyone terms the "two-tied EU". They may create a Treaty amongst themselves and intentionally leave out Ireland.

I think trying to argue that Ireland failing to ratify Lisbon would have had no effect on Ireland being apart of further EU integration is untenable.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The phrase trotted out was "Yes to Europe"; it was actually "Yes to a particular vision of Europe, that you may or may not agree with"..

What I discussed above is only half of it. Not only would we have been excluded from further integration, our standing and influence in Europe would have been severely dampened. Given that institutions like the council of minsters work on consensus, this could actually have been very negative.

So when they say "Yes to Europe" they may mean either Yes to keeping our influence by showing that we want to be part of Europe, or Yes to being part of further integration or Yes to both.

I personally dont put much stock in slogans.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Anyway, that was an aside. The issue is the phrasing "Yes to Jobs", and the fact that it promises jobs in return for voting yes.
Lenihan claims that isn't the case.

Once again, its a 3 word slogan that is open to interpretation.

The Yes to Jobs reasoning is clear. Foreign corporations, when deciding where to base themselves in Europe, must make a judgment call. This is based on a number of factors such as tax rates, but also on how that corporation perceives the countries stance on important issues. Membership of the EU and continued dedication to it are very important to corporations as they want to set up somewhere that is a the heart of Europe. If we said No to Lisbon, companies would see that as us distancing ourselves from Europe, as above. They would be less inclined to come here.

So its not so much "Yes to Jobs" as so much "dont say No to Jobs."

I dont really care what Lenihan thinks as regards Lisbon. I didnt vote for Jobs and I didnt vote for any of the reasons the mainstream parties put forward. I voted for Treaty related reasons.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

However the implication of the three similarly-worded campaigns is completely at odds with what Lenihan is now saying.

Well whose fault is that, Lenihins or the all-too-gullible voters who are idiotic enough to fall for three word slogans?

Noreen1

me_right_one wrote: »

• Cowen did indeed admit to not reading it. He's a - FOOL
• If you believe any canvassers, esp. knowing the point above - FOOL
• We're in Europe since the 1970's. If there was a genuine reason for not finding out the facts for yourself, and reading the treaty, eg blind, deaf, and dumb, fair enough. If, however, you voted without fully knowing what you were changing / voting for, and had the audacity to affect MY life because of your actions, no whimpering excuse will suffice - FOOL
• As for not understanding it, get it clarified, then vote. If you didnt - FOOL
• You call me arrogant?? No wait, you respectfully suggest that I have an arrogant attitude?? I think you have some neck. Are there no mirrors in your house? Probably not.
• I am not a dictator, and cannot invalidate votes. I take your point though, you mean IF I somehow could, would I? Yes. I think there should be a disclaimer box to tick on all voting cards, something along the lines of; " Do you fully understand the changes you are voting on, have you fully researched what you are voting on, are you voting of your own free will, and do you acknowledge your decision is not based on any propoganda from any canvassers or vested interests?". No box ticked, no vote counted.

All I'll say is its a good thing it passed.
This is all basic, basic stuff.
How can you make up your own mind without reading it? How dare you be so irresponsible. We might aswell let 3 year olds do the voting!
Whats amazing is YOUR attitude.

Precisely where did I say that I didn't read (or understand) it? I read and understood it!
I would not, however, presume that those who did not read or understand it are fools. The reality is, that a legal expert, for example, may know nothing about engineering, or vice versa.
It doesn't make either of them fools.
By the same token, people who, for whatever reason, not necessarily related to their intelligence, chose to take advice from people they felt they could trust, are not necessarily fools.

With your attitude, why bother to give people a vote at all?
It should be reserved for the political elite. Or those who consider themselves to be so!

I find your lack of respect for your fellow countrymen disturbing.


Noreen

Stark

kerchow wrote:

And speaking of foreign investment where was that when Dell up and left to go to Poland for a nice little handshake of the 54 mill region??????

You mean when Poland put forward the 54 million to help Dell invest and the EU decided not to interfere in Poland's affairs? Just as it doesn't interfere in our affairs when the IDA puts forward money to help companies invest here?

Liam Byrne

turgon wrote: »

Well whose fault is that, Lenihins or the all-too-gullible voters who are idiotic enough to fall for three word slogans?

So you're saying that those slogans should have had no effect ? Personally, I'd agree, but if the only people who'd "fall for them" were "idiotic, gullible voters", why did Lenihan & Co bother wasting even more of our money posting them around the country ?

turgon

Stark wrote: »

You mean when Poland put forward the 54 million to help Dell invest and the EU decided not to interfere in Poland's affairs? Just as it doesn't interfere in our affairs when the IDA puts forward money to help companies invest here?

Well thats just a concrete example of the attitude some people have towards the EU. In their eyes its certainly Ok for the EU to force member states to do stuff, once they agree with whats being forced. Such as forcing states to ratify international treaties by means of referenda. Once they dont agree, they then demand the EU not be allowed to force member states to do stuff.

A classic case of this emerged 2 weeks ago. A guy was voting No for two reasons; firstly that he didnt want the EU to force Ireland to legalize euthanasia and 2 that he wanted the EU to force the Netherlands to outlaw euthanasia.

wicklowlad

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No. Because those were lies and they were exposed by the fact that people voted against it.

They lied and they were found out and they didn't get their way; they got their answer once found out.

But Lenihan's lie about jobs is different; they got their way (maybe partly because of their lies) and to come out on the same day and renege on it is arrogant and typical of the shower of **** that we currently have in the Dail.

And I know this is a European thread, but add in the lies about Rody Molloy and Anglo Irish and NAMA and all the other bull**** we've been fed, and I'm sorry; I cannot believe that this idiot / conniving scheister (delete as appropriate) isn't beyond conning his way into and out of anything - saying anything to get his way, only to renege on it afterwards - so this whole NAMA fiasco is looking even more suspect every time FF open their weasel mouths.

That's interesting!!! You are awaiting the fulfilment of the 'promises' of the yes side now that the treaty has been passed but choose to ignore what was being said by the no side. Remember the no argument was that if the treaty was passed then we were going to have Conscription etc etc. You should be equally concerned to see if the events that the no side based their campaign on will come to haunt us.

It is not a lie to say that jobs will flow from the passing of the treaty. If you read the section dealing with the environment and energy you will see that the treaty sets an agenda to promote development it that area and Eamon Ryan has emphasis that point time and time again. Green economy!!!!

With regards to Nama where are the proposals for a better solution!! Maybe we should ask the 42 economists out of 260 what is the better option. The 42 and you knock it but no concrete proposals forthcoming!!!

I am no fan of this government but to start calling people liars etc I say put up or shut up Your comments indicates to me you are not prepared to put up solid points! - just able to resort to name calling and generalisations.

rumour

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I personally think that those posters where the symptoms of a logical fallacy. Technically, logic would suggest that our chances of recovering from the recession are higher if we are at the centre of Europe rather than on the cusp of it.

However, there are no guarantees here, and no length of time can be applied to exactly when we come out of the recession. But you just know that when we do eventually come out of the recession, voting Yes to the Lisbon Treaty will get the props from your fickle average joe, even if it is years away.

Personally I think anyone who was influenced by any posters on either side were terribly misguided, because they are nothing more than tools in a spin campaign with little or no substance.




As I said, I think that we will eventually come out of this recession, before the next general election in 2012. It will of course have no direct relation to voting Yes to Lisbon, however Fianna Fail will undoubtedly launch the mother of all PR campaigns giving itself and Lisbon credit for the economic recovery. And you know what? The public will fall for it. :rolleyes:

That is one of two outcomes I consider at the minute. Here's another, Europe is going to struggle under the G20. The effects of this will take 2/3 years to become evident. That will mean European Economic policy driven by Germans and French as they will bear the brunt of this problem. Nothing wrong with that currently unless you examine the slow swing to the right which may result in protectionism. (see last weeks NYT, re: socialist europe where they explain that the old socialist order are now the conservatives). Add to that the ECB's need to do something about printing money for the last year which generally leads to inflation. Rise Interest rates (bad for Ireland) but the EURO would then grow stronger (bad for european exports) but only if international markets believe Europe is not in trouble in relation to inflation. There is also the uncompetitive nature of French and German manufacturing which will inevitably have to be redressed eg. Renault have opened operations in Moscow.

In this scenario it will be very difficult to predict what the economic outcome will be for Ireland, needless to say our politicians will claim competent management of the event either way and we'll believe them.

wicklowlad

Taxipete29 wrote: »

This means nothing. The No side broke some of those rules the last time around and probably did again this time.

People voted No last time based on the lies of Libertas, Coir etc.

They voted Yes this time based on the fact that almost anyone of any standing or influence in the country from politics or from business was advocating a Yes vote.

The public arent as stupid as you think and Ganley et al arent as smart.

Do you not think its remarkable that Coughlan in his statement sets himself as judge and jury - perhaps he would like to see kangaroo courts set up!! Won't go into the business of the pot calling the kettle black!!

Liam Byrne

wicklowlad wrote: »

You should be equally concerned to see if the events that the no side based their campaign on will come to haunt us.

No, because as I've already said, the fact that most of those were lies was self-explanatory.

wicklowlad wrote: »

It is not a lie to say that jobs will flow from the passing of the treaty.

Ah FFS; no-one's saying that; the lie is what Lenihan is saying now; that they didn't promise it as part of the campaign!

IF the no side had won, and they immediately came out and said "well, we never said that", then I'd certainly take them to task on the EXACT SAME GROUNDS.

wicklowlad wrote: »

With regards to Nama where are the proposals for a better solution!! Maybe we should ask the 42 economists out of 260 what is the better option. The 42 and you knock it but no concrete proposals forthcoming!!!

Whatever about the thrust of NAMA, or the fact that it's required in some form, the biggest issues are :

1) Paying over the odds for the loans
2) Not reading the reports before flushing €54,000,000,000 of OUR money down the drain
3) Bailing out gamblers without ANY guarantees having given banks OUR money (e.g. sackings of those responsible, no interest rate increases to further screw people who are already bailing the ****ers out, guarantees as to how the money will be loaned out, etc)

wicklowlad wrote: »

Your comments indicates to me you are not prepared to put up solid points! - just able to resort to name calling and generalisations.

I've put up solid points and reasons for my stance; it's not my fault if you've chosen to ignore them.

Mac daddy

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The No side broke some of those rules the last time around and probably did again this time.

The reason why people voted No last time was because 90% of them didn't have a clue what it was all about in the first place!

I didn't vote no because of what those morons in COIR said or that plank ganley I voted against for other reasons.
Abortion & euthanasia & Minimum and the pile of others are not the reason why I voted NO

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Lenihan & Co bother wasting even more of our money posting them around the country ?

Wrong they used the money provided by the EU to run the propaganda fear mongering campaign.

These bunch of knobs have been spitting out garbage for the past couple of years and yet the Irish people still believe and do what they say and ask of them.

Are we going to have another Referendum next year of course not why would that happen the Irish people voted yes this time, but last year that was unacceptable in the eyes of the EU overlords and the Government and they pushed and bullied this country into another referendum.

This is country has no balls

wicklowlad

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, because as I've already said, the fact that most of those were lies was self-explanatory.



Ah FFS; no-one's saying that; the lie is what Lenihan is saying now; that they didn't promise it as part of the campaign!

IF the no side had won, and they immediately came out and said "well, we never said that", then I'd certainly take them to task on the EXACT SAME GROUNDS.



Whatever about the thrust of NAMA, or the fact that it's required in some form, the biggest issues are :

1) Paying over the odds for the loans
2) Not reading the reports before flushing €54,000,000,000 of OUR money down the drain
3) Bailing out gamblers without ANY guarantees having given banks OUR money (e.g. sackings of those responsible, no interest rate increases to further screw people who are already bailing the ****ers out, guarantees as to how the money will be loaned out, etc)



I've put up solid points and reasons for my stance; it's not my fault if you've chosen to ignore them.

1) So you know exactly what is being paid. My understanding is that each loan will be looked at and valued at the time of take over - so how can you say we will pay over the odds when you don't know what will be paid??? Also some of these loans will not be taken over for maybe 6 or 9 months.

2) There is no Irish Money going down the drain as the Nama will issue notes and the banks can go to the ECB and convert into cash for use as capital - ECB money backed by the Irish Government!

3) Who is being bailed out? The loans are still due and Nama will persue the builders/developers through the courts to secure any difference between what Nama sells the property for and the outstanding amount??

The banks have been given funding and received preference shares in exchange and those shares have already seen a 1.5B increase in value. You are also forgetting that the government gets an 8% PA return on their shares in the bank - even before any other shareholder gets a cent!! You should also remember that some of these loans continue to be repaid while others are not and therefore Nama will have a revenue stream when it takes over some of the loans - also 33% of the loans refer to property outside Ireland in places such as London, New York etc where some signs of recovery are to be seen.

Finally Nama will levy the banks if the sale/disposal of the property loans does not cover what was paid by Nama.

Liam Byrne

wicklowlad wrote: »

....

You're going WAY off-topic, and it's odd that you ignored the most relevant and on-topic part of my post.

To answer you very briefly so as to not drag the thread way off, we're already paying some ridiculous notional future value which may never be realised.

So yes, we're paying over the odds. If the banks need stuff off their books, we can do that - at CURRENT ESTIMATED PRICES - NO GREATER; in fact, commercial approaches dictate that in order to get rid of stuff they don't want, commercial operations usually sell them at a COST or even at a LOSS.

You also chose to ignore the relevant sections in brackets, which would see some justice done and make NAMA more palatable.

But lets take NAMA to another thread if you want to discuss it further; the only reason I mentioned it was because it's relevant to comments about Lenihan & Co doing what they supposedly think is best for the country, and following through on promises, etc.

kryogen

Jev/N wrote: »

These questions necessitate comparison to what would have happened in the instance that the NO vote prevailed but we don't have that luxury so how do you propose to compare?

they dont actually neccesarily necessitate a comparison to the no side, but if people would like to discuss wether the minimum wage will go to 1.84 or wether we will get conscripted or whatever then they are free to do so

if you look back i just asked for peoples thoughts on this specific issue, no comaprisons. i am writing a piece and looking for what a (small) sample size group come up with

ill admit it hasnt been that productive but i didnt hold out too much hope it would with the big divide here on boards just wanted to give it a shot