"We voted Yes to Lisbon, now where are the jobs Fianna Fail?"

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

We are now borrowing from the ECB as a last resort unless we want to go to the open market where the rate is fast becoming in excess of 5%,which we can't afford.

You must remember to tell that to the NTMA, who seem to still be buying on the open market:

The National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) has covered in excess of 80 per cent of its €20 billion borrowing programme for 2010 with the sale of €1.5 billion bonds in today’s bond auction. Total long term funding of €16.4 billion has been raised to date this year, €15 billion through bond sales and €1.4 billion in the domestic retail savings market.

rumour wrote: »

We have to roll over 78 billion of debt later this year , at what rate of interest? 5,6,7% and thats if they will give it to us. Does anyone realise the enormity of the situation we are in.

And you think they just want to look at the assumptions and warn us of the dangers. I think there will be consequences, otherwise the whole exercise is futile. Additionally if you are in control of the assumptions you are in control of the budget.

You seem to be under another misunderstanding here. The assumptions the Irish government makes will be being checked against the reality of the Irish data. Therefore, reality will be in control of the Irish budget, according to you, but I'm not quite sure why you apparently view that as a bad thing.

rumour wrote: »

I just don't get why the connection between the review and the supply of money is not discussed. Some day we have to pay this money back, we are being fed money now not because of love for little old ireland and our place at the heart of europe but to stabilise the euro. That was clear well in advance of Lisbon.

I don't think anyone thinks we're being lent money by the ECB out of charity. When you're being lent money, though, you're in hock to the people who lend it to you, and the international money markets are, if anything, rather a lot less inclined to take Ireland's good into account than the ECB is. The ECB cannot make money out of bankrupting the Irish State, whereas the money markets can.

regards,
Scofflaw

View

rumour wrote: »

We are now borrowing from the ECB as a last resort unless we want to go to the open market where the rate is fast becoming in excess of 5%,which we can't afford. We have to roll over 78 billion of debt later this year , at what rate of interest? 5,6,7% and thats if they will give it to us. Does anyone realise the enormity of the situation we are in.

You go to the lender of last resort when no one else will lend to you. You borrow from them because the alternative is immediate default. Default means no one will loan you money (at least in the short to medium term). Given that the state is borrowing 2 Euro out of every 5 it is spending, it doesn't take much imagination to see what happens when all public spending has to be immediately cut by 40% (To set that in context, the state (very roughly) spends 25% of its monies on each of health, social welfare, education and "everything else" - try figuring out how to cut that by 40% by this time next week).

View

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I think it's true that a lot of poeple voted Yes to Lisbon the second time around because of their fears over the economy. I don't think voting Yes has made much of a difference to our economy though and I think if Ireland had voted No we would still be in the same postion that we are in now.

The Greeks if you recall have been having a spot of bother with their finances. To help them out, the rest of the EU organised an emergency loan package (commonly referred to as a bail-out). The legal basis that this was done on was a clause introduced by the Lisbon Treaty - that clause authorised member states to help others "in the event of unforeseen circumstances" (if I remember the phrasing of it correctly). Hence, if you will Lisbon saved the Greeks from default.

Given that amount of money that the Greeks owe to everyone else in the EU, had they defaulted, the financial consequences would have been huge. We would probably have needed another set of bank bailouts to stop banks from going under all over Europe. That would have had a major impact on economies throughout Europe and hence on exports from Ireland. That would, of course, have impacted jobs negatively in Ireland. Thankfully though, we haven't had to face that scenario, as - with Lisbon in place - the clause was there to help the Greeks out.

Hence, I wouldn't assume that "had voted No we would still be in the same postion that we are in now". Voting Yes has meant a potential serious risk to the economies of the EU states has been contained and with it the negative consequences that would have adversely impacted jobs in Ireland.

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

You must remember to tell that to the NTMA, who seem to still be buying on the open market:

So you think they have 80% of what they need????? What is the base line, based on what forecast?, also check the interest rate and check out who's buying the bonds (ECB?).

Scofflaw wrote: »

You seem to be under another misunderstanding here. The assumptions the Irish government makes will be being checked against the reality of the Irish data. Therefore, reality will be in control of the Irish budget, according to you, but I'm not quite sure why you apparently view that as a bad thing.

Either I have misunderstood you or you are talking baloney. Assumptions checked against some alternate reality that is different to the reality confronting the irish government???? So not only are the assumptions being checked but reality is also getting a going over??? Nonsense, are you in the pub?

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think anyone thinks we're being lent money by the ECB out of charity. When you're being lent money, though, you're in hock to the people who lend it to you, and the international money markets are, if anything, rather a lot less inclined to take Ireland's good into account than the ECB is. The ECB cannot make money out of bankrupting the Irish State, whereas the money markets can.

You are dancing around the issue here, we need to beg from europe to put food on the table for all the unemployed and all the public sector as we can't afford it now. Our budgets will be set by the people who give us the money, that is a loss of sovereignty masking it in checking the assumptions and or reality is dodging the issue. There will come a time when things stabilise in europe, we will then be told we are only giving you so much money the rest find yourself (i.e. tax). Its only a matter of time before we are coerced into raising our corporation tax into line with the rest of europe, much the same way we got into line for lisbon. Again you can't expect much else from beggars.

View

rumour wrote: »

Either I have misunderstood you or you are talking baloney. Assumptions checked against some alternate reality that is different to the reality confronting the irish government???? So not only are the assumptions being checked but reality is also getting a going over???

I think what Scofflaw is referring relates to the Greeks. There, the previous Government actually did falsify their economic data to make Greece look better than it was in reality. When the current Government corrected this false information, all hell broke lose for the Greeks as no one really wants to lend money to people out-and-out lie to them.

Needless to say, the other member states do not want to lend to Greece (or anyone else) unless they can be sure they are getting "true data" on the potential borrower's finances. Hence, the desire for the "reality check"

rumour wrote: »

You are dancing around the issue here, we need to beg from europe to put food on the table for all the unemployed and all the public sector as we can't afford it now. Our budgets will be set by the people who give us the money, that is a loss of sovereignty masking it in checking the assumptions and or reality is dodging the issue.

There is no loss of sovereignity here. Borrowing from the other EU member states is not mandatory. Ireland, like every other EU state, is free to borrow on the international financial markets. Equally well, we have the sovereign right to screw up our economy even more or even default.

If the argument is "Our budgets will be set by the people who give us the money", then you should be aware that we have borrowed for just about every year since 1922 - presumably that means we have never actually set our budget...

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

So you think they have 80% of what they need????? What is the base line, based on what forecast?, also check the interest rate and check out who's buying the bonds (ECB?).

The ECB is one party buying bonds, not the only one. Rates are in the document I linked to:

The 2016 bond was sold at an average yield of 4.521% while the 2018 bond was sold at an average yield of 5.088%.

rumour wrote: »

Either I have misunderstood you or you are talking baloney. Assumptions checked against some alternate reality that is different to the reality confronting the irish government???? So not only are the assumptions being checked but reality is also getting a going over??? Nonsense, are you in the pub?

You have misunderstood me, to put it as mildly as possible. The Irish government's assumptions for its 2007 budget, for example, were unrealistic. That is not to say that the Irish government had no idea what the figures said (although the Greek example is also instructive), but made unrealistic predictions from those figures - that Irish property was not over-valued, in particular.

rumour wrote: »

You are dancing around the issue here, we need to beg from europe to put food on the table for all the unemployed and all the public sector as we can't afford it now. Our budgets will be set by the people who give us the money, that is a loss of sovereignty masking it in checking the assumptions and or reality is dodging the issue. There will come a time when things stabilise in europe, we will then be told we are only giving you so much money the rest find yourself (i.e. tax). Its only a matter of time before we are coerced into raising our corporation tax into line with the rest of europe, much the same way we got into line for lisbon. Again you can't expect much else from beggars.

1. The review process does not review Budgets. It reviews the assumptions going into the Budgets before the Budgets are made.

2. the recommendations offered by the other Member States are just that - recommendations.

I admire the drama of your presentation of the situation, but I have to point out, first, that there is an alternative lender of last resort - the IMF. Their budget recommendations are not merely suggestions, though, and the tender mercies of our fellow Member States and the EU Commission are far far tenderer than the IMF would be.

Second, and more importantly, we didn't have to get ourselves into this position in the first place. That our government chose to overspend, and we let them, puts us in the position we're in, nothing else. We chose to row up the creek, and we happily let our government throw away the paddle by balancing our tax base on top of a property bubble that was quite foreseeable, because it saved us paying income taxes.

I can't stop you panicking over this very logical and relatively minor if unprecedented step, but you seem to be doing it on the basis of very poor understanding of what's actually happening, and with a rooted belief that it must all be someone else's fault. You appear also to be upset by the idea that the people lending us money (because they have it and we need it) will be advising us on fiscal prudence. What can I say - life is so unfair sometimes.

regards,
Scofflaw

ChocolateSauce

I've seen those signs too....all I can really say on my own behalf if asked that question is that jobs was one of the last reasons I voted yes.

K-9

So basically we signed up to these rules years ago. Now we are moaning because the rules are actually being enforced?

pitkan

Sleepy wrote: »

Being at the "heart" of the EU is one of the selling points Ireland has to offer FDI. Voting No to Lisbon could have left us out in the cold and lost us that selling point at a time when FDI is hugely important to us as our domestic "industry" (i.e. selling houses to each other) has died it's inevitable death.

Hi Sleepy. Cop on to yourself will you.You were sold a lie by the biggest .shower of liars this State has ever had. If you had voted no nothing would have changed. You were lied into believing that we would be the bad boy of Europe by the biggest shower of gangsters in Europe who know how insignificant we really are in Europe but who don`t want to lose the chance of rubbing shoulders with those who do matter. And by the way Sleepy, that includes the two main opposition parties who, for their own greedy reasons sold us the same pup. Put it this way Sleepy, Say you voted no originally as I did, the Government thought that this is not what we want you to do so vote again and do it our way or the way we want you to or do what you are told you sniveling little piece of sh*t. I voted no the second time as well. I should not have had to do so as the majority vote was NO. So now you want the liars to honour their commitment. Dream on Sleepy. Look around you . This shower are still buddy buddy with their construction buddies bailing out their greed with our taxes and giving them enough stalling time for them to transfer their ill gained wealth to their spouses. And to rub salt into our wounds-Do you remember the headlines a few years ago when parents were refusing to sent their children to those rat infested porta cabins they call classrooms? Well, last year and again this year there seems to be no end to the bottomless pit of money available to builders to refurbish schools-yes Sleepy, this is a good thing- but where was all this refurbishment when the pocket lining shower were awash with money? Sleepy? I think not. In a coma more likely.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

So basically we signed up to these rules years ago. Now we are moaning because the rules are actually being enforced?

More or less, although I appreciate the point that has been made that this is an unprecedented step. A logical one, but nevertheless unprecedented - independent nations voluntarily sitting down to look over each other's budgetary assumptions is an extraordinary step, particularly given that many of the same nations were at war in our parent's lifetimes.

For some people, it seems that's not a good thing, or something that shows the extraordinary degree of trust the EU has engendered between sovereign nations during its lifetime, but a bad thing, and one that demonstrates the appalling hold the EU has gained over so-called 'sovereign nations' in its lifetime.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jacaranda

No one knows what the next few months or years will mean to both the Euro or to the EU.

What appears reasonably certain is that the EU is not universally popular across the EU. If the Euro, as predicted, falls asunder with a sort of "Deutsche-Euro" or similar, then the political ramifications could be fatal for the EU.

It seems that, with every decision, from banning turf cutting, to fisheries policy and so on, the EU alienates more and more people. I have a hunch they next few years will be politically turbulent and hope one result of that is to hand back power to the people and a return to a proper form of democracy.

View

jacaranda wrote: »

It seems that, with every decision, from banning turf cutting, to fisheries policy and so on, the EU alienates more and more people. I have a hunch they next few years will be politically turbulent and hope one result of that is to hand back power to the people and a return to a proper form of democracy.

Well, our own government has been alienating loads of people with a lot of its decisions over that last year or two - that doesn't mean people are there going "Should we have an Ireland?". Likewise, I suspect that, apart from the usual Eurosceptic crowd, most people are not going "Should we have an EU?".

djpbarry

jacaranda wrote: »

If the Euro, as predicted, falls asunder with a sort of "Deutsche-Euro" or similar...

Predicted by who?

jacaranda wrote: »

It seems that, with every decision, from banning turf cutting, to fisheries policy and so on, the EU alienates more and more people.

Eurobarometer surveys suggest otherwise - opposition to and support for EU membership have remained relatively stable for a number of years across the EU:

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb72/eb72_first_en.pdf

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

Predicted by who?
Eurobarometer surveys suggest otherwise - opposition to and support for EU membership have remained relatively stable for a number of years across the EU:

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb72/eb72_first_en.pdf

Indeed - it actually looks more like the specific decision in any given case annoys some and different people, but doesn't make them ask "why should we have an EU?". The people who ask "why should we have an EU?" for any given decision, on the other hand, tend to be the same people every time.

To put it more succinctly, the EU annoys most of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. The numbers of the latter across the EU have been relatively steady for years.

cordially,
Scofflaw