Backhander for the bull**** tactics that swung the Lisbon Treaty ?

Liam Byrne

I heard an EU Commissioner on-air this morning suggesting that the sooner NAMA started up the better ? :eek:

Couldn't help wondering if his timing, etc, is a "thank you" to FF for swinging the original Treaty vote around in his favour.

Whatever about the pros and cons of the Treaty itself, and the fact that maybe it should have been passed (a) originally, if the Government had negotiated and clarified it properly, or (b) without the pathetic (already disappeared from lamp-posts) lies and unrelated issues, this Commissioner guy should butt out of national politics, especially on the eve of a vote by the Greens for which the entire country has its fingers crossed.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I heard an EU Commissioner on-air this morning suggesting that the sooner NAMA started up the better ? :eek:

Couldn't help wondering if his timing, etc, is a "thank you" to FF for swinging the original Treaty vote around in his favour.

Whatever about the pros and cons of the Treaty itself, and the fact that maybe it should have been passed (a) originally, if the Government had negotiated and clarified it properly, or (b) without the pathetic (already disappeared from lamp-posts) lies and unrelated issues, this Commissioner guy should butt out of national politics, especially on the eve of a vote by the Greens for which the entire country has its fingers crossed.

Ireland is in the euro, which means that NAMA is of European concern. The amounts involved are non-trivial, and affect the stability of the currency used by Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, etc etc...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Agreed.

But in my mind it shows a blatant disregard for any social aspect and fairness.

Yes, with some significant adjustments, NAMA might become fair; but it needs a hell of a lot of safeguards, etc - all of which could have been added if the "crisis" was viewed correctly and our employees had worked through the summer; they didn't, and now they're claiming it's "the only show in town".

So - mirroring the scenario of Cowen & Co in the original Treaty - has he even READ the NAMA proposal, and does he know what the details (paying too much, not enough safeguards, zero transparency, zero obligations on the banks to lend, etc) are in there ?

Rb

I hear reach arounds are more popular than backhanders these days.

View

The sub-text of the Commissioner's comments are really "We welcome a solution to the mess you are in". I wouldn't say the Commissioner cares that we have opted for NAMA rather than, say, Fine Gael's "Good bank" or Labour's "Swedish style nationalisation".

You can imagine what the reaction would have been if he'd say "Oh my God, how could you be so stupid as to opt for the NAMA solution?"

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

The sub-text of the Commissioner's comments are really "We welcome a solution to the mess you are in". I wouldn't say the Commissioner cares that we have opted for NAMA rather than, say, Fine Gael's "Good bank" or Labour's "Swedish style nationalisation".

You can imagine what the reaction would have been if he'd say "Oh my God, how could you be so stupid as to opt for the NAMA solution?"

I don't really need to imagine the reaction, since I can recall the reaction to the Commission's censure of Charlie McCreevy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman

I think it should read:

For the love of god do something!!!!!!! We don't care what it is but please do something!!!!!!!

Just my take on it. They don't care what the solution is, they assume we are not so stupid and that we have actually evaluated whether this will bankrupt us or not and they don't really care about the favors to a few developers that maybe in there as they have bigger problems to worry about. They just want the Irish government to do something since they have been sitting on their arses on this for so long.

Hydrosylator

thebman wrote: »

They don't care what the solution is, they assume we are not so stupid and that we have actually evaluated whether this will bankrupt us or not

Ah, that's very nice of them. I wish I could share in their confidence.

I don't know who the commissioner is, or what their motives may be.
Based on EU policy, and my view of them, I'd say the powers that be would rather see us lose money on a bailout than make money on a successful nationalisation.

Daftendirekt

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Ah, that's very nice of them. I wish I could share in their confidence.

I don't know who the commissioner is, or what their motives may be.
Based on EU policy, and my view of them, I'd say the powers that be would rather see us lose money on a bailout than make money on a successful nationalisation.

Since we're members of the Eurozone, why would they want to see us lose money?

thebman

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Ah, that's very nice of them. I wish I could share in their confidence.

I don't know who the commissioner is, or what their motives may be.
Based on EU policy, and my view of them, I'd say the powers that be would rather see us lose money on a bailout than make money on a successful nationalisation.

lol they want as little involvement in what the Irish have done to themselves as they can get away with I would think.

Less we blame them for our banks and government being wreckless.