Shane Ross: Reduce Corporation Tax to 9.9%

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

The point I was making was that parts of the actual bill are alleged to have originated with the Civil Service - whether it was social policy or an attempt to pass on maintenance costs to fathers is immaterial here.

I certainly remember reading it and it struck me as odd that policy originated with the CS rather than the Government or an amendment from the opposition or an oireachtas member.

The significance being their seemed to be no pretence about the amendments origan. It made me wonder as to the authority of the government and John Brutons Jan 6th speech - well sort of blew me away with the lack of authority governments have had for maybe 30 years.

Not sure why that comes as any surprise, though. The CS draft all legislation - they're given an overall target by the Minister, but it's up to the SC to try to cover the various implications, discrepancies and eventualities that arise. As K-9 says, if there's a disagreement on detail, the Minister will generally win, but Ministers are not expected to have the competence to draft legislation themselves by any stretch.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not sure why that comes as any surprise, though. The CS draft all legislation - they're given an overall target by the Minister, but it's up to the SC to try to cover the various implications, discrepancies and eventualities that arise. As K-9 says, if there's a disagreement on detail, the Minister will generally win, but Ministers are not expected to have the competence to draft legislation themselves by any stretch.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We are getting into Yes Minister territory now!

Love the show but I don't think it takes account of Irish Parish Pump politics, though not far away!

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

Again, I don't see any quotes etc. Ivan Yates eg. has often said on his show how politicians do usurp the CS. If they don't like something, the politician generally wins. Now it's only an ex Ministers words but about as much credence as your argument.

Thats ok.

So anyway, trying to move on, you seem to be suggesting politicians should usurp the CS?

Exert authority over them and accept no shenanigans.

A policician gets elected and is responsible to the people the CS are not.The Social Partners are not either.

As for the Euro dollar, well that's the dilemana. Do we move back from the Euro or go with it?

It is and I am miles too rusty on these things to have a view.

I was very anti the Euro before it was adopted.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

Exert authority over them and accept no shenanigans.

A policician gets elected and is responsible to the people the CS are not.

This is the current system, sure Lenihan accepted no shenanigans either. If it had worked out some posters would be lauding him for getting one over the CS!

Now, this should cause you to pause and think!

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

This is the current system, sure Lenihan accepted no shenanigans either. If it had worked out some posters would be lauding him for getting one over the CS!

Now, this should cause you to pause and think!

Thats not how it should be.

jmayo

K-9 wrote: »

It should have benefited us, I suppose it's just easier to blame the Germans, the banks and the ECB than take responsibility for it ourselves.

The Germans are not to blame for our banks, regulators and government been inept and creating a huge bubble that subsequently burst.

But they are to blame for lumping on us a so called bailout that everyone admits is unpayable bar us achiveing huge growth rates.
Added to that their premier keeps shouting her mouth off about forcing a change in corporation tax rates which has a destabilising influence on our huge FDI and MNCs that this country's economy relies upon.

They are also to blame for having the ECB refuse to contenance quantative easing as a means of getting the Eurozone and more particularly the PIIGS out of the quagmire they find themselves in.

Yes they helped create a common currency that had interest rates that suited them and not us.
But we chose the join that and we then went off like kids in a sweet shop.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that the euro wouldn't have folded if we hadn't had a bailout. We certainly would have done, but as long as there's political will to keep the euro going, then a political way to keep the euro going will always be found.

We're not systemic - we're more like Anglo.

Care to take out a bet on that ?
Do you really believe what you have just posted ?
I seem to recall you were one of the prime posters claiming that Anglo had to be saved as it would have led to run on all banks and eventually downfall of the economy.
Yet you now claim we as the Anglo of Europe would not have the same affect on Eurozone.
Interesting. :rolleyes:

If we default, watch the interest rates of fellow PIIGS rise, watch the Euro drop in value and watch runs on major European banks.
FFS biffo made one lose comment in Japan or in the Far East and the Euro dropped so imagine if Kenny announced we are defaulting.
The Germans would be withdrawing their Euros and heading in droves to good old Switzerland where they have always welcomed their looth.

Can I ask the major pro Euro pro European posters here if they actually think the Euro has been a success ?
And can they not see a major problem with the "one size fits all" currency approach to such diverse economies ?

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote: »

Care to take out a bet on that ?

I have no real choice but to - well, either that or emigrate!

jmayo wrote: »

Do you really believe what you have just posted ?
I seem to recall you were one of the prime posters claiming that Anglo had to be saved as it would have led to run on all banks and eventually downfall of the economy.
Yet you now claim we as the Anglo of Europe would not have the same affect on Eurozone.
Interesting. :rolleyes:

They're somewhat different cases - still, at the time, I held the view that had the Irish government allowed Anglo to go down, there is a good chance it could have taken the other banks with it, since no action on Anglo would have meant that the government wouldn't be standing behind the other banks.

Since then, though, it has become clear that those weren't the options, and that instead the inclusion of Anglo in the Guarantee was contrary to advice, that other other options were available for Anglo - and as time has gone by, it's become increasingly clear that the action in respect of Anglo was wrong.

Of course, I could have simply and immediately held the opinion that it was all bad, without bothering to wait for facts - I don't feel that's necessary, though, because the only real justification for making your mind up before the facts come in is that you're being called on to make a decision immediately, which none of us here are.

jmayo wrote: »

If we default, watch the interest rates of fellow PIIGS rise, watch the Euro drop in value and watch runs on major European banks.
FFS biffo made one lose comment in Japan or in the Far East and the Euro dropped so imagine if Kenny announced we are defaulting.
The Germans would be withdrawing their Euros and heading in droves to good old Switzerland where they have always welcomed their looth.

Again, something of a misrepresentation of my position. I have said we're not systemic - and we're not. We are in the Anglo position, in that we are trying very hard to persuade ourselves and others that we're systemic, but the amounts involved aren't systemic.

In that sense, you're agreeing with what I actually said, while taking issue with your own misrepresentation of my position.

jmayo wrote: »

Can I ask the major pro Euro pro European posters here if they actually think the Euro has been a success ?

Sure. I don't think Ireland has handled it well, and the same goes for a couple of other fiscally ill-disciplined countries. Can I ask you whether you think Ireland's fiscal mismanagement is somehow irrelevant to how we've done in the euro?

jmayo wrote: »

And can they not see a major problem with the "one size fits all" currency approach to such diverse economies ?

The major problem is a very simple one - the country has to behave as is appropriate for our position in the overall economy, rather than either as a child in a sweet shop or as if the currency will forgive our national excesses through automatic depreciation. I think the euro-system gave us a lot of leeway, and we used that leeway very badly. We're still availing of that leeway, of course, in order to continue propping up the banks - and that's something the euro-system attracts a lot of blame for, although it's again the result of Irish decisions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have no real choice but to - well, either that or emigrate!

They're somewhat different cases - still, at the time, I held the view that had the Irish government allowed Anglo to go down, there is a good chance it could have taken the other banks with it, since no action on Anglo would have meant that the government wouldn't be standing behind the other banks.

I think you will find some of us you would previously have lambasted for our idea of letting Anglo and INBS (just remember they have added a good 10 billion to this problem) should have been let sink, were also of the opinion that the government whilst letting them sink would have immediately moved to inject cash into the other really systemic institutions to try and allay fears they would also go.
It is the old naval attitude of picking which ships are worth trying to save rather than trying to save them all.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since then, though, it has become clear that those weren't the options, and that instead the inclusion of Anglo in the Guarantee was contrary to advice, that other other options were available for Anglo - and as time has gone by, it's become increasingly clear that the action in respect of Anglo was wrong.

Boy it has taken sometime for you to admit that.
I can't wait for the day you admit that NAMA is a crock of sh**e.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Of course, I could have simply and immediately held the opinion that it was all bad, without bothering to wait for facts - I don't feel that's necessary, though, because the only real justification for making your mind up before the facts come in is that you're being called on to make a decision immediately, which none of us here are.

Ahh now stop trying to justify backing one of the two brians many hair brained schemes to get us to turn yet another corner.
Just admit you were wrong.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, something of a misrepresentation of my position. I have said we're not systemic - and we're not. We are in the Anglo position, in that we are trying very hard to persuade ourselves and others that we're systemic, but the amounts involved aren't systemic.

We are systemic not in how much we owe, but in the precedent we can set by defaulting.
We are part of the house of cards the Euro now sits upon.
If we fold the whole house can come tumbling down.
In that sense we do have real power.
Normally we would be such a small part of the Eurozone, but by the very fact we are part of the PIIGS group and that the makets are so jittery, we have huge influence.
And we have huge influence over the UK as well as Eurozone.
The UK has massive exposure to Ireland.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In that sense, you're agreeing with what I actually said, while taking issue with your own misrepresentation of my position.

????
If you mean, I think that Ireland can do what you thought Anglo would do, then yes.
I think ?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure. I don't think Ireland has handled it well, and the same goes for a couple of other fiscally ill-disciplined countries. Can I ask you whether you think Ireland's fiscal mismanagement is somehow irrelevant to how we've done in the euro?

No Ireland's mismanagement of our economy is our own fault, but that doesn't mean that others are not also at fault for their decisions.
Not blaming European and indeed world banks for loaning to Ireland is like not blaming our banks for loaning to developers.
What really gets my goat is the fact that our so called friends in Europe have offered us a so called "bailout" that to all intends and purposes is an anchor that is guranteed to bring us down.
And I wish people would stop referring to it as a bailout, it is a loan, not a gift, not a digout.
We got better terms from the dreaded IMF.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The major problem is a very simple one - the country has to behave as is appropriate for our position in the overall economy, rather than either as a child in a sweet shop or as if the currency will forgive our national excesses through automatic depreciation. I think the euro-system gave us a lot of leeway, and we used that leeway very badly. We're still availing of that leeway, of course, in order to continue propping up the banks - and that's something the euro-system attracts a lot of blame for, although it's again the result of Irish decisions.

Yes Ireland and alot of Irish need to grow up.
We need as a people need to stop this sh**e of trying to get one over on "the system".
We need to stop dodgy regulation and back handed deals that have always been with us and that led us to the bubble and bust.
Hell how may dodgy banks have we had fold in the last 40 years ?
I can think of three at least before Anglo and most of the fault lied with our regulators and governments.

I believe the Euro system is not workable because we are not anywhere near as coehesive an entity as the US.
The one size does not fit all.
Peripheral states such as Ireland, Portugal and Greece cannot prosper long term under the same interest rates that are suitable for Germany and France.

How would we have managed if we had not been in the Euro?
Well we would have no ECB to go to, but then again we might not have as big a bubble to burst.
And yes then we can look at Iceland which wasn't in the Euro, so we might have had a bubble anyway but we had control over our own interest rates.

The big thing to come out of the whole world mess post 2007 is that banks can not be allowed to become so large.
It has reached a stage where it now appears banks must not be let go bust, but they have become so big that even nation states can not save them.

They have been debating capital reserves for years in Basel and yet AFAIK the limits they last set are below what Lehmans had at the time it went under. :rolleyes:

We have not seen the end of the global financial fallout by a long shot I believe.

CDfm

jmayo wrote: »

No Ireland's mismanagement of our economy is our own fault, but that doesn't mean that others are not also at fault for their decisions.
Not blaming European and indeed world banks for loaning to Ireland is like not blaming our banks for loaning to developers.

+1

I believe the Euro system is not workable because we are not anywhere near as coehesive an entity as the US.
The one size does not fit all.
Peripheral states such as Ireland, Portugal and Greece cannot prosper long term under the same interest rates that are suitable for Germany and France.

.

+1

And rather than giving excuses to Europe we should be prepared to do and think the unthinkable.

View

jmayo wrote: »

No Ireland's mismanagement of our economy is our own fault, but that doesn't mean that others are not also at fault for their decisions.
Not blaming European and indeed world banks for loaning to Ireland is like not blaming our banks for loaning to developers.

This is akin to blaming Guinness for the number of alcoholics in the country. Debt is a bit like drink - ultimately, it is down to you if you use it or abuse it. Getting upset at the drinks company because you went on an all night drinking session is just a sad attempt at dodging responsibility.

jmayo wrote: »

What really gets my goat is the fact that our so called friends in Europe have offered us a so called "bailout" that to all intends and purposes is an anchor that is guranteed to bring us down.
And I wish people would stop referring to it as a bailout, it is a loan, not a gift, not a digout.
We got better terms from the dreaded IMF.

We got different terms from the IMF as the term of its loan is different to those from the other EU states. The IMF loan is a short term loan - which we need to pay back sooner - and hence has a lower interest rate attached as there is less risk associated with it as a result of the shorter timescale.

jmayo wrote: »

I believe the Euro system is not workable because we are not anywhere near as coehesive an entity as the US.
The one size does not fit all.
Peripheral states such as Ireland, Portugal and Greece cannot prosper long term under the same interest rates that are suitable for Germany and France.

This largely appears to be an article of faith. We could just as easily assert:

Rural counties such as Westmeath, Roscommon and Offaly cannot prosper long term under the same interest rates that are suitable for Dublin City and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown.

Or, if you prefer, make similar statements for the states of the USA, Brazil, India etc. It doesn't amount to a very convincing case since it is largely based on belief.

jmayo wrote: »

How would we have managed if we had not been in the Euro?
Well we would have no ECB to go to, but then again we might not have as big a bubble to burst.
And yes then we can look at Iceland which wasn't in the Euro, so we might have had a bubble anyway but we had control over our own interest rates.

Well, Iceland did have control over their own interest rates, so it is hard to see why we should set this up on a pedestal. This is akin to saying it is inherently better to crash into the second tree on the side of a road rather than the third tree when the end result is the same (as both trees are to all intents and purposes identical in size and texture).

CDfm

View wrote: »

This is akin to blaming Guinness for the number of alcoholics in the country. Debt is a bit like drink - ultimately, it is down to you if you use it or abuse it. Getting upset at the drinks company because you went on an all night drinking session is just a sad attempt at dodging responsibility.

We did not do anything and we didnt borrow and lend.

The merging of the bank and sovereign debt is a bad thing and the bondholders need to take their pain.

They would not be making us gifts of shares of their profits so why gift us their losses.

This largely appears to be an article of faith. We could just as easily assert:

Rural counties such as Westmeath, Roscommon and Offaly cannot prosper long term under the same interest rates that are suitable for Dublin City and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown.

But Westmeath is not a sovereign nation but part of the country and is fully integrated in the rest of the irish economy.

The EU is not a fully integrated economic and political entity.

And , the Euro as a currency is slapdash at best.

I am ignoring the Iceland comment.

hmmm

CDfm wrote: »

We did not do anything and we didnt borrow and lend.

Ireland didn't do anything? We are blameless in this? It's all the fault of other people is that it?

The merging of the bank and sovereign debt is a bad thing and the bondholders need to take their pain.

They would not be making us gifts of shares of their profits so why gift us their losses.

Talk about stating the obvious. Yet again however you refuse to acknowledge that the mess we are in is because the previous elected government of Ireland has turned bank debt into sovereign debt. Going on and on about how bank debt should not have been government debt is utterly irrelevant, the problem now is how we get out of the contract our own government signed.

I am ignoring the Iceland comment.

Yeah do that, because it makes pieces of your argument that if Ireland had been in charge of our own currency none of this would have happened. Don't let reality interfere.

CDfm

hmmm wrote: »

Ireland didn't do anything? We are blameless in this? It's all the fault of other people is that it?

not totally blameless but not the charlatans people make us out to be either and its not just us but we are being made examples of to whip other eu peripherals into place

Talk about stating the obvious. Yet again however you refuse to acknowledge that the mess we are in is because the previous elected government of Ireland has turned bank debt into sovereign debt. Going on and on about how bank debt should not have been government debt is utterly irrelevant, the problem now is how we get out of the contract our own government signed.

we need to unravel that deal - national pride may be hurt

Yeah do that, because it makes pieces of your argument that if Ireland had been in charge of our own currency none of this would have happened. Don't let reality interfere.

iceland is as irrelevant as zimbabwe or haiti is except for its geographical proximity

it is a fine recent happening but ............

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

We did not do anything and we didnt borrow and lend.

A majority in Ireland voted for the governments that gave us the conditions where another majority government decided that...

CDfm wrote: »

The merging of the bank and sovereign debt is a bad thing and the bondholders need to take their pain.

They would not be making us gifts of shares of their profits so why gift us their losses.

...we should prop up the banks. Mind you, it remains the case that governments always do choose to prop up banks if they can do so.

CDfm wrote: »

But Westmeath is not a sovereign nation but part of the country and is fully integrated in the rest of the irish economy.

The EU is not a fully integrated economic and political entity.

And , the Euro as a currency is slapdash at best.

But what exactly does it mean that Westmeath is "part of the country and is fully integrated in the rest of the irish economy"? Because without justification that's simply a circular argument based on nationalism - national currencies are OK because the various regions are part of the nation.

We need a bit more than that. In what way is Cavan or Mayo's economy so similar to Dublin's that a common currency, interest rates etc are fine for them all? Are you saying that Ireland's regions are always all on exactly the same part of the economic cycle?

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

A majority in Ireland voted for the governments that gave us the conditions where another majority government decided that...



...we should prop up the banks. Mind you, it remains the case that governments always do choose to prop up banks if they can do so.

We probably differ on this greatly - i worked in investment companies and I would like to know whether the ECB & other Euro member regulators knew the extent of our problems.

Our crowd believed the value if the banks assets was 500 billion.

If this had happened with our own currency the currency would have collapsed in value if even it had gotten that far

Pre-euro -any investments into ireland would have had an exchange rate risk attatched to them.

I just wonder who knew and didn't know -I mean I left working in investments a long time ago and what happened in the Irish economy but Ireland defied economic gravity .

if it had been a plc its officers would have been guilty of false accounting on a massive scale

But what exactly does it mean that Westmeath is "part of the country and is fully integrated in the rest of the irish economy"? Because without justification that's simply a circular argument based on nationalism - national currencies are OK because the various regions are part of the nation.

it is a question of fact

We need a bit more than that. In what way is Cavan or Mayo's economy so similar to Dublin's that a common currency, interest rates etc are fine for them all? Are you saying that Ireland's regions are always all on exactly the same part of the economic cycle?

again its factual and we need to be grounded

i happen to agree with Enda Kenny on the need to know who knew what and who ,if anyone, had insider knowledge as it were.

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

We probably differ on this greatly - i worked in investment companies and I would like to know whether the ECB & other Euro member regulators knew the extent of our problems.

Our crowd believed the value if the banks assets was 500 billion.

If this had happened with our own currency the currency would have collapsed in value if even it had gotten that far

Would it? Why would it? If the markets' view was that the banks were sound - and that was the markets' view - then there's no more reason we should have had exchange rate movements than bond rate movements. The problem here is not that the markets lacked the power to correct bad policy, as you keep asserting, but that they didn't see the policies as bad. That's why Irish banks and Ireland had very good investment ratings - the markets thought we were doing well.

CDfm wrote: »

Pre-euro -any investments into ireland would have had an exchange rate risk attatched to them.

I just wonder who knew and didn't know -I mean I left working in investments a long time ago and what happened in the Irish economy but Ireland defied economic gravity .

if it had been a plc its officers would have been guilty of false accounting on a massive scale

And just as with Enron, the confidence trick worked until external shocks revealed the gap.

CDfm wrote: »

it is a question of fact

again its factual and we need to be grounded

I'm delighted to hear it - can you please provide the facts in question?

cordially,
Scofflaw

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would it? Why would it? If the markets' view was that the banks were sound - and that was the markets' view - then there's no more reason we should have had exchange rate movements than bond rate movements. The problem here is not that the markets lacked the power to correct bad policy, as you keep asserting, but that they didn't see the policies as bad. That's why Irish banks and Ireland had very good investment ratings - the markets thought we were doing well.

Pre-euro things worked

And just as with Enron, the confidence trick worked until external shocks revealed the gap.

Post-euro - OOOPS- could it be that the common denominator for the PIGS countries was the Euro and the german drive for a trade surplus.

I'm delighted to hear it - can you please provide the facts in question?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tut tut - it must be hard to be a Europhile these days

View

CDfm wrote: »

We did not do anything

Amm, that's the point. We did not do anything - when we should have and could have. We were not obliged to pursue the course we did and we certainly could have opted for counter-cyclical measures to counteract the "attractiveness" of property investments. We did not do so - therefore, we made a choice to continue on the path we choose.

CDfm wrote: »

and we didnt borrow and lend.

We certainly did both as a society. If we had all paid cash it wouldn't be as big a problem as it is now.

CDfm wrote: »

The merging of the bank and sovereign debt is a bad thing and the bondholders need to take their pain.

They would not be making us gifts of shares of their profits so why gift us their losses.

Choices such as this are examples of us "exercising our sovereignty" - apparently, doing so causes all known problems to disappear...

CDfm wrote: »

But Westmeath is not a sovereign nation but part of the country and is fully integrated in the rest of the irish economy.

Either "One size fits all" is a bad idea or it is not. If it is, then the "One size fits all" interest rate set to suit DLR is unfair to Westmeath. If not, then you are basically ignoring the presences of MNCs in Westmeath - which as they export to to the rest of the EU - integrate it with the wider EU economy. DLR likewise, is probably as likely to get its food from the rest of the EU as it is from Westmeath (Think Dutch & Spanish vegetables for instance).

We are a small part of the wider EU economy. Ignoring this - during our "Boston not Berlin" years - meant we let our cost bases get totally out of control (particularly in the public sector). Continuing to ignore it would be foolish in the extreme...

View

CDfm wrote: »

Pre-euro things worked

When did they work exactly? Was it the 30's, the 50's, the 70's or even the 80's? None of those decades can be counted as brilliant examples of things working well for us...

You could, of course try the 90's but that was the decade when we took managing the economy seriously as we were intent on meeting the Maastricht criteria so we could adopt the Euro straightaway. Unfortunately, once we got the okay for that we went off into "Property always increases in value" la-la land.

CDfm wrote: »

Post-euro - OOOPS- could it be that the common denominator for the PIGS countries was the Euro and the german drive for a trade surplus.

And that would, of course, explain why the UK is also facing the harsh reality of having to make major cuts in public services, raise taxes etc. The Euro is to blame for their economic problems also, no doubt...

Scofflaw

CDfm wrote: »

Pre-euro things worked

That's a useless assertion. What does "worked" mean? When did things "work"?

CDfm wrote: »

Post-euro - OOOPS- could it be that the common denominator for the PIGS countries was the Euro and the german drive for a trade surplus.

And that's another useless assertion. No wonder you want to ignore Iceland...so, equally, could it be that they're all countries? Or that they all have borders? Or that they all have central banks? Or that they all speak languages? Or that they eat food?

There's no end to the things it might be as long as one is prepared just to throw questions out. That's why other people use facts and logic, because they constrain the infinite realm of possibilities. If one is unwilling to do that, one posts in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

CDfm wrote: »

Tut tut - it must be hard to be a Europhile these days

That'll be a no, then - you can't actually provide the facts you claim exist. Presumably they're self-evident?

You're really just waving your arms around here, chucking stuff out more or less at random, and...and what, actually? I'm not sure, other than expressing your various opinions and demonstrating your complete lack of factual evidence for them?

bon nuit,
Scofflaw

jmayo

View wrote: »

This is akin to blaming Guinness for the number of alcoholics in the country. Debt is a bit like drink - ultimately, it is down to you if you use it or abuse it. Getting upset at the drinks company because you went on an all night drinking session is just a sad attempt at dodging responsibility.

No I am getting upset that some of us non drinkers are been asked to pay for the pis* up that was had by some.
And yes the drinks company kept pouring the booze so they do have some of the blame.
Sooner of later it should have dawned on them they were pouring way too much.

Anyway we can all agree we as a state royally fooked up and we are where we are.


Thus I am going to ask this of Scofflaw, hmmmm, View, K-9 (who 99% of the time thanks Scofflaw's post for some reason??) and all the other Europhiles:

Do you think that we should just accept any deal that Europe offers because our banks, our regulators, our government and some of our "businesses" royally screwed up ?

As far as I can see you are basically saying we deserve anything that is thrown at us, am I correct on this ?

We do deserve a kick in the ars*, but what will that achieve.

To me this is now an issue of the very survival of this state as a functioning economic entity.
It is the survival of families and communities that make up this state.
And in my mind when it comes to survival you do whatever is necessary.

If that means we "burn" someone then so be it.
And I am only talking about bank debt, not soverign debt.
It may not be the honourable thing to do, but to paraphrase someone, there is no honour in defeat.

We will not be thanked for being good little Europeans when we finally default in 2 or 3 years time.
They will be those that will just say that we deserve it.

It may be ethical and honourable to meekily accept whatever is offered, but that will not put food on the table, that will not prevent our kids emigrating after years of toiling to put them through what's left of our education system.

Someone should remind some of our fellow Europeans that they have inflicted far worse harm on this continent than we and they were given a hand to help rebuild.

It gauls me to use george bush's parlance, but in this battle you are either pro Ireland or pro Europe.
Looking at the current situation it is inconceivable that one can be both.

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote: »

No I am getting upset that some of us non drinkers are been asked to pay for the pis* up that was had by some.
And yes the drinks company kept pouring the booze so they do have some of the blame.
Sooner of later it should have dawned on them they were pouring way too much.

Anyway we can all agree we as a state royally fooked up and we are where we are.

Thus I am going to ask this of Scofflaw, hmmmm, View, K-9 (who 99% of the time thanks Scofflaw's post for some reason??) and all the other Europhiles:

Do you think that we should just accept any deal that Europe offers because our banks, our regulators, our government and some of our "businesses" royally screwed up ?

As far as I can see you are basically saying we deserve anything that is thrown at us, am I correct on this ?

No, you're not correct in that.

jmayo wrote: »

We do deserve a kick in the ars*, but what will that achieve.

To me this is now an issue of the very survival of this state as a functioning economic entity.
It is the survival of families and communities that make up this state.
And in my mind when it comes to survival you do whatever is necessary.

If that means we "burn" someone then so be it.
It may not be the honourable thing to do, but to paraphrase someone, there is no honour in defeat.

We will not be thanked for being good little Europeans when we finally default in 2 or 3 years time.
They will be those that will just say that we deserve it.

It may be the ethical and honourable to meekily accept whatever is offered, but that will not put food on the table, that will not prevent our kids emigrating after years of toiling to put them through what's left of our education system.

Someone should remind some of our fellow Europeans that they have inflicted far worse harm on this continent than we and they were given a hand to help rebuild.

It gauls me to use george bush's parlance, but in this battle you are either pro Ireland or pro Europe.
Looking at the current situation it is inconceivable that one can be both.

Inconceivable to you, perhaps, as it was inconceivable to GW likewise - but the idea of a joint win tends to be inconceivable to the eurosceptical at all times.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

We could just renege on the deal or go in shouting the odds to Europe I suppose.

People had the chance to vote SF if they wanted default, maybe some should have withheld petty grievances and voted for the party that advocated default.

ei.sdraob

K-9 wrote: »

We could just renege on the deal or go in shouting the odds to Europe I suppose.

People had the chance to vote SF if they wanted default, maybe some should have withheld petty grievances and voted for the party that advocated default.

People mainly voted for FG whose main promise was renegotiation of the bailout rate.

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

People mainly voted for FG whose main promise was renegotiation of the bailout rate.

They left that one vague enough!

It's going to take time to renegotiate it. Rabbitte has mentioned bond holders taking a hit.

I suppose we could threaten to walk away, leave the Euro and default, they might take us seriously though!

ei.sdraob

Time for what exactly?

run up more high interest debt?? pay of more (un-guaranteed) bondholders as they head for the escape???

They EU finds time to waste corporation taxation which has nothing to do with this recession yet has no time to notice the Irish and European financial crisis elephants in the room?

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Time for what exactly?

run up more high interest debt?? pay of more (un-guaranteed) bondholders as they head for the escape???

They EU finds time to waste corporation taxation which has nothing to do with this recession yet has no time to notice the Irish and European financial crisis elephants in the room?

You should have voted SF then, because it's closer to your view than FG.

If default was such a big issue there was only one choice. Everybody knew their spending plans was crap so people should have left aside petty personal qualms and voted for the party advocating default.

I suppose moaning about the troubles and leftists is more important though.

CDfm

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a useless assertion. What does "worked" mean? When did things "work"?

What was the ECB's role as regulator.

What guidance or controls did it exercise over the Central Banks and what transactions existed which may have by passed deliberately or otherwise Central Bank controls.

There's no end to the things it might be as long as one is prepared just to throw questions out. That's why other people use facts and logic, because they constrain the infinite realm of possibilities. If one is unwilling to do that, one posts in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

What I am saying Scofflaw - is this is something that should make logical sense to me but it does not because the Euro made huge leaps in the dark into uncharted territory.

It does not have to controls the dollar has to make it failsafe.

It works in theory.

Lots of things work in theory except for human fallability.

That'll be a no, then - you can't actually provide the facts you claim exist. Presumably they're self-evident?

You're really just waving your arms around here, chucking stuff out more or less at random, and...and what, actually? I'm not sure, other than expressing your various opinions and demonstrating your complete lack of factual evidence for them?

Politicians are not economists .

Thats why you need the controls.

Like I said previousley if the Germans and the French are operating like an internal bloc within Europe and contantly want to run trade surpluses on their traded products we were always in for a hiding.

The PIGS had growth from non traded products i.e. building and construction.

If the funding to run the "bubbles" and purchase the traded products i.e. the mercs and bmw's so beloved by our tiger cubs and which came from the German banks to our banks then there was a loop.

We also do not know if for example they- the foreign and irish banks - engaged in off balance sheet lending practices etc or if our banks used digging deep into derivatives to manage bank debt and whether there was lender collusion in doing so.

I am not saying that did happen -but there is plenty of reason to believe that practices were sharp and probably illegal.

The theory has not worked.

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, you're not correct in that.

So if Europe says No renegotiation, then where do you stand ?
If Europe says fine we cut interest by one percent, but every debt must be paid, then where do you stand ?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Inconceivable to you, perhaps, as it was inconceivable to GW likewise - but the idea of a joint win tends to be inconceivable to the eurosceptical at all times.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have not been a eurosceptic at all times, but over the last couple of years I have gone that direction.
The days are long gone when the EU was a happy trading group.
It has been coopted by those who want to turn it into a power block to rival the US.

And the Euro has been a failure.
Sure it has meant I did not have to change currency when going to some of the more popular European countries, but I still did when I went to Sweden, Norway, Estonia and Latvia.
It took foriegn exchange transacitons out of th mix for business which was great, but look at the mess it has left.
Countries or regions (southern Europe, Iberia) no longer have the flexibility to set their own interest rates.

As has been said the "one size fits all" aproach is not suitable for such a wide desparate group of countries and economies.
To add insult the entry terms or criteria measurement were shown to be a shambles by the Greek debacle.
Added to that how was Bulgaria and Romania ever considered for membership ?

The only way the one size fits all is if there is more central control of fiscal policy thoughout the Eurozone and eventually the EU.
Well that is what Frankfurt is currently achieving by dictating fiscal policy in Ireland and Greece.
Down the road from that lies a standardised tax regimes across all countries.

I may not be rabid republican, but I do want to preserve some of our independence, even if our governments of late were pretty substandard I live in hope that we can eventually get things right.

At the moment I don't see how one can be pro the very entity that is being led by people (the two premiers of the two largest member nations) who are demanding we scupper one of the planks upon which what is left of our economy sits or pro the same entity that is demanding we stick to the "so called bailout" terms as they currently stand ?

Please tell me why I should be pro Europe when Europe is currently adopting a very hostile attitude towards my country ?

K-9 wrote: »

We could just renege on the deal or go in shouting the odds to Europe I suppose.

People had the chance to vote SF if they wanted default, maybe some should have withheld petty grievances and voted for the party that advocated default.

You see you are jumping to conclusions.
Just because someone advocates strong negogiation and not subservient cowtowing, one does not automatically become an advocate of anything proferred by SF.

K-9

jmayo wrote: »

Just because someone advocates strong negogiation and not subservient cowtowing, one does not automatically become an advocate of anything proferred by SF.

You aren't going to get strong negotiation from FG, hence your posts.