‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

However the increasing mechanisation of the Industrial Revolution merely changed which minority group accumulated wealth from the landowners to the factory owners. It certainly did not improve the lives of the rural poor, including children, who flocked en masse to urban centres to work and live in appalling conditions for a pittance. The working condition experiences by children in factories, collieries etc cannot be classified as anything but systematic exploitation. How can over 13 hours a day working at mechanised looms or pushing pit carts, living in foetid tenements, thrown on the mercy of the workhouse if unable to work be an improvement?

Dickens may have tugged the heart strings of the sentimentalist Victorian public - that does not mean the conditions he wrote of did not exist and it is disingenuous of you to dismiss his concerns - concerns shared by many of his contemporaries - as 'the usual Dickensian script'.

No - I do not assume we would be transported back to Manchester in the 1830s - I fear it.

Do you want to tell us what the logical conclusion is here? Western workers retain their "rights" to high wages and make extortionate demands via their unions — while jobs disappear to other nations? Because that's what is happening.

The 'logical conclusion' from a free market perspective is in order to 'compete' Western worker's rights are eroded to the level 'enjoyed' by those currently being exploited in developing countries - for what exactly? For increased profits for multi-nationals?

Do you seriously advocate the repeal of some (all?) employment laws and deterioration of working conditions so Apple, Dell, GAP, Nike, Pfizer etc can pay bigger dividends to their shareholders and larger bonuses to their CEOs?

What is happening is business people are continuing to demonstrate their priority is the accumulation of wealth regardless of the cost in human misery. That they have no qualms about using child labour, slave labour, convict labour to make a buck. It was immoral 400 years ago when Hawkins perfected the Triangular Trade ( goods to Africa for slaves/slaves to the Americas for raw materials/raw materials to England), it was immoral in the factories of Manchester, Sheffield, Belfast etc 200 years ago and it is still immoral in China, India, Indonesia etc today.

We are human beings - not drones.

You may be content to spend your life as a worker bee whose whole existence is to service the economy. I, for one, do not happen to believe that is why we were born.

davoxx

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing that you don't need to be a judge to make laws, but clearly if the laws are badly drafted or ill-conceived it leaves the judiciary scratching their heads a bit. Then when laws are badly "interpreted" the people blame the judges, the solicitors and the barristers.

well then we agree on the fact that one does not need to be a judge to make laws, and that more public participation is possible.
i think more pubic participation would be good.

my point (in which you are kinda jumping into) is that we should also have a set of judges to overlook the law being drafted, with the view to proposing changes, though those changes could be accepted or ignored when put to the vote. it was just an idea of a fail safe ...

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

For example, pick a "bad interpretation" or "bad decision" and go read the actual law in that area. Or even give me an example and I will break it down for you.

i could and would in another thread, it's not relevant here.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think it would be a useful exercise to show my point.

your point is moot here, though i do understand what you are saying, there are 100% circumstances where people think a judge made a bad call, and it is not true (i'm reminded of the warrant case with the pedo judge) though the fact that this was interpreted differently before (i'm sure i read/heard from some solicitors) proves that judges can also be wrong.

laws are based on words, the words used is open to interpretation.

Scofflaw

davoxx wrote: »

okay, seriously, i have no idea what are you saying here ... did you have your coffee yet?

are you saying that the hysterical snap judgements were right and were not actually hysterical snap judgements?

or that just because they knew it was a bad idea but did not specifically state exactly what would happen and when and how with who, they were wrong?

what kind of logic is that?

Basically, if someone decides something is a bad thing based on virtually no evidence bar their own prejudices, then if it does turn out to be a bad thing they usually see themselves as vindicated, and their 'analysis' as robust. In fact, they're not vindicated - they were, instead, 'lucky', and their analysis has about as much value as a coin toss.

hope that helps,
Scofflaw

davoxx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Basically, if someone decides something is a bad thing based on virtually no evidence bar their own prejudices, then if it does turn out to be a bad thing they usually see themselves as vindicated, and their 'analysis' as robust. In fact, they're not vindicated - they were, instead, 'lucky', and their analysis has about as much value as a coin toss.

hope that helps,
Scofflaw

ahh, thanks i think i get ya.

but how do you know they were just lucky?
maybe they just understood more than others did?
you know like people who saw they property crash before it happened?

and those who decide something based on their "analysis" which turns out to be wrong, were they just unlucky or wrong?

antoobrien

I laughed when I read this a few minutes ago.

Report: Govt debt €3.6bn less after 'accounting error'

Government debt is some €3.6bn less than was previously thought owing to an "accounting error", it was reported today.

The sum, which would represent some 2% of GDP, was "double counted" by two government agencies, TV3 News reported.

The error was discovered on Friday last during an examination of the classification of the state’s assets and liabilities, the broadcaster said.

"The €3.6bn had been advanced by the National Treasury Management Agency last year to another, unnamed state agency and was debited by both agencies in their financial reconciliations," a TV3 statement said.

"Sources at the Department of Finance have verified and confirmed the TV3 story."

Contacted for comment today a Department of Finance spokesperson declined to confirm the details of story but said "there will be an adjustment" in the medium-term fiscal statement set to be issued on Friday.

I have to say: this is what we get for hiring arts grads to run the country

Bannasidhe

antoobrien wrote: »

I laughed when I read this a few minutes ago.

Report: Govt debt €3.6bn less after 'accounting error'



I have to say: this is what we get for hiring arts grads to run the country

Are there many arts grads in the dept of Finance then? Maybe there should be as it seems the accountancy, economic and business grads can't do the job...:D

Bannasidhe

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/report-govt-debt-36bn-less-after-accounting-error-526658.html

Just wondering - was it resting in another account?:p

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are there many arts grads in the dept of Finance then? Maybe there should be as it seems the accountancy, economic and business grads can't do the job...:D

As far as I recall, they mostly don't use graduates at all. Last time I looked, the Department of Finance tended to prefer people with just an LC.

No, I don't know why.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are there many arts grads in the dept of Finance then? Maybe there should be as it seems the accountancy, economic and business grads can't do the job...:D

I'll see if I can dig up an article but I remember hearing it was as much as 1/3.

Scofflaw

davoxx wrote: »

ahh, thanks i think i get ya.

but how do you know they were just lucky?
maybe they just understood more than others did?
you know like people who saw they property crash before it happened?

and those who decide something based on their "analysis" which turns out to be wrong, were they just unlucky or wrong?

People who saw the property crash coming (and I include myself) had a lot of data to work with, and plenty of historical parallels to draw on. People who were convinced NAMA was a scam before the details were even available rather clearly weren't making up their minds on the facts, but had to operating on the basis of prejudice. And no matter how many times a prejudice is confirmed it remains a prejudice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I recall, they mostly don't use graduates at all. Last time I looked, the Department of Finance tended to prefer people with just an LC.

No, I don't know why.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It saves on ink as they don't have to print all those 'spensive letters after their names.

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

People who saw the property crash coming (and I include myself) had a lot of data to work with, and plenty of historical parallels to draw on. People who were convinced NAMA was a scam before the details were even available rather clearly weren't making up their minds on the facts, but had to operating on the basis of prejudice. And no matter how many times a prejudice is confirmed it remains a prejudice.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I always thought of NAMA as a good idea in theory which was "ballsed" up to an extent by the people in charge. I still stand behind the theory of NAMA, but the execution has been fairly pathetic.

I do note, that there appears to be some sort of movement on the former Anglo HQ development in the IFSC. If that sale goes through, I think it represents a significant boost to the NAMA credibility.

EDIT: I'll include the caveat that I haven't researched the sale, just briefly read about it; it clearly depends on how much they purchased it for and how much they're selling it for

antoobrien

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

EDIT: I'll include the caveat that I haven't researched the sale, just briefly read about it; it clearly depends on how much they purchased it for and how much they're selling it for

If they get anything like they got out of Google for the Montevetro building they'll make a killing (€99.9m).

FreudianSlippers

antoobrien wrote: »

If they get anything like they got out of Google for the Montevetro building they'll make a killing (€99.9m).

We know that the NAMA purchase price was less than the sale price, but not by how much... at least we made a bit of a profit, even if a small one!

I think it should also be credited to NAMA that they sold the Updown Court home in the UK for €40m after they acquired it for €23m!

antoobrien

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I recall, they mostly don't use graduates at all. Last time I looked, the Department of Finance tended to prefer people with just an LC.

No, I don't know why.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien wrote: »

I'll see if I can dig up an article but I remember hearing it was as much as 1/3.

Here's the article I was thinking of. It's not that they're all arts grads it's that there are f**k all reasonably qualified (Masters/doctorate) people in the department. Mea culpa.

At the time of writng (and probably still true due to recruitment bans etc) there were 3 economics PhDs out of 19,000 civil servants (those working working in government departments).

Finance Minister Brian Lenihan also claimed that outside of the current two PhD graduates, 44 of his department's 606 staff have a master's degree in economics.

davoxx

antoobrien wrote: »

Here's the article I was thinking of. It's not that they're all arts grads it's that there are f**k all reasonably qualified (Masters/doctorate) people in the department. Mea culpa.

At the time of writng (and probably still true due to recruitment bans etc) there were 3 economics PhDs out of 19,000 civil servants (those working working in government departments).

tbh i don't think that would have made a difference ... anyone who spoke out was told to commit suicide by bertie (well not personally otherwise they would have to pay him a speaker fee, in cash, in a brown envelope)

Anita M.

Occupy Dame street is not left wing at all. They do not like any of the politics inside that camp. There are right wing, left wing, tailwing all sorts of birds with different feathers in there.
What it has to do with children someone asked? Well did you know children are big business these days. In Europe 1% of the children are taken from their parents these days. A HUGE increase. And shame shame shame, 60% of the children in care under HSE, when they leave the HSE, are either pregnant or have one or more children. And people still blame the priests? Those were just oppertunists because everyone else was doing it. And to top it all off, 10% of the children in care of the HSE simply vanish. No questions asked. Snuf movies of 80000 children were found in Europe and those were mainly children in care at the time of abduction. Only the rich can pay for a snuf movie. Bankers, government, high officials etc.
In the midst of all that you manage to start quibbling over futilities.
What about a poll: should the bankers be arrested?

Blowfish

Anita M. wrote: »

Occupy Dame street is not left wing at all. They do not like any of the politics inside that camp. There are right wing, left wing, tailwing all sorts of birds with different feathers in there.

This is one of their stated goals:

Our demand is that the oil and gas reserves off our coast that were criminally handed away to private corporations be returned to sovereign control.

That sounds pretty left wing to me...

FreudianSlippers

How were they "criminally" handed away?

Suryavarman

Anita M. wrote: »

What about a poll: should the bankers be arrested?

Which bankers and what crimes did they commit?

Bannasidhe

Blowfish wrote: »

This is one of their stated goals:
That sounds pretty left wing to me...

As Anita made clear - the occupy movement welcomes input from both right and left. It's called consensus building. A good idea is a good idea regardless of if it comes from the Left or Right...

BTW - what is the problem with an idea being from the Left? It's not as if the Right has covered itself in glory or proven itself extra wonderful at governing

Blowfish

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As Anita made clear - the occupy movement welcomes input from both right and left. It's called consensus building. A good idea is a good idea regardless of if it comes from the Left or Right...

Who says it's a good idea? Personally I'd much rather it was the corporations risking their own money, rather than using the taxpayers.

Bannasidhe

Suryavarman wrote: »

Which bankers and what crimes did they commit?

Well according to this blog: http://irish-law.blogspot.com/2010/02/anglo-irish-bank-fraud-deception-and.html there is the possibility that a great many offences were committed at Anglo alone

Sean Fitzpatrick's brazen assertion that he had broken no laws and done nothing wrong could hardly be more laughable. Unfortunately he seems to have inveigled much of the senior management and Board of both Anglo Irish Bank, Irish Life and Permanent (ILP), and possibly Irish Nationwide in a web of activity that could be deemed criminal in at least three different jurisdictions.

Let us look at some of the material facts

Concealing loans for eight years

Sean FitzPatrick, the former Chairman of Anglo Irish, spent eight years concealing from shareholders €122 million in personal loans from the bank. This was facilitated by way of a series of short term loans from Irish Nationwide.

FitzPatrick had simply transferred his loans at the end of each financial year for the last eight years to the books of Irish Nationwide so that they wouldn't appear on Anglo Irish's annual accounts but none of the Irish regulatory bodies, the Financial Regulator, the Central Bank, nor the Department of Finance took any action. The head of the Financial Regulator Patrick Neary retired last month with a 600k package after disclosing that officials in his department had been told a full year previously about FitzPatrick's hidden loans.

Maple 10 investment scheme

In July 2008 FitzPatrick and Current CEO David Drum arranged for 10 unnamed longstanding customers known as the “Maple 10”to buy 451million euro of shares that in effect Anglo Irish loaned them the money for.

This was to prevent the unwinding of Sean Quinn's CFD positions from dumping 25 percent of the shares on to the market and causing a collapse. 83million euro has been repaid to date.

As the collateral was the shares themselves and the Bank has been nationalised, the shares are now virtually worthless. The Bank estimates at least €300m will be lost and the Government has now refused to reveal the identity of the ten investors in July 2008 under a rather spurious 1949 Central Bank Act.

Circular transactions totalling some €7 billion

In September 2008 a circular transaction took place involving loans from Anglo Irish to Irish Life and Permanent ( ILP) of some €7 billion plus in return for a deposit of same made to Anglo's account from a subsidiary of ILP Irish Life Investment Managers .

Unlike most “bed and Breakfast” transactions at these type of short term injections of liquidity are known, this was classed as a corporate and commercial deposit rather than an inter-bank loan. This loan was then transferred back ten days later, however it was in the customer accounts when the auditors, Ernest and Young took a “snap shot” of the finances for the annual report in December 2008. The customer deposit base looked healthy and expanding, all talk of a run on the bank was dismissed by Anglo Irish's management and the government

This was contra the fact that the bank had lost €4 billion in deposits during the international credit crisis during the month of September. Excluding the €7 billion from ILP, Anglo Irish’s loss of deposits could actually have been €11 billion during September 2008. Anglo Irish effectively presented it's own deposit base as larger and more stable than it was and used these enhanced figures during a "road show" to the U.S. Seeking new institutional investors.

There was also apparently a reciprocal arrangement in place whereby ILP planned to carry out a similar transaction with Anglo Irish prior to the end of its own financial year. Could it have been ILP's intention to use this money from Anglo Irish to hide its reliance on European Central Bank (ECB) funding prior to it's own year end in 2008?

The management of Anglo have now insisted that the financial regulator had encouraged a “green jersey” agenda of encouraging the Banks to make loans to each other to shore up deposits. The Financial Regulator says it did not encourage such transactions in the manner Anglo Irish chose, rather it encouraged the operation of a general scheme of support among the Irish banks.

This circular transfer of money to Anglo Irish from the ILP forced the resignation of ILP CEO Denis Casey, while the Financial Regulator simultaneously launched a probe into these activities.

Anglo Irish was subsequently nationalised due to the further decline of it's financial position, despite continual assertions of it's good financial health

This entire series of dealings has caused an investigation by the Office the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) to be launched. The ODCE has utilised the services of the Garda Bureau of fraud investigation to visit the head office of Anglo Irish bank to gather and secure any evidence pertinent to the investigation.

Let us look at the law

Can we even discuss these issues without prejudicing any parties who may latter be charged with various offences?

The better view is that as no actual case is before the Courts, so no discussion of the issues involved is precluded, and the Courts are increasingly taking the view that Juries in criminal cases are deemed to be rather robust and not influenced unduly by media coverage.

what areas of the law might be involved?

Fraud

Primarily fraud, which involves the notion of detrimentally affecting or risking the property of others, their rights or interests in that property, or an opportunity or advantage to which the law accords them with respect to said property.

The euphemism 'white-collar crime' is often used as an alternative to the word fraud as fraud is perceived by many people as 'criminal and unethical behaviour' . Coarse and inelegant as it sounds this is essentially a question of fraud, fraud on the market, fraud on the auditors, and fraud on the shareholders.

The Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 defines the act of fraud itself and the inducement of another into similar activity as a ancillary or alternative offence :

Sections10.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he or she dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another—a) destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any document made or required for any accounting purpose,(c) in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such document, which to his or her knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular
and 6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.

What other illegal activities might have been taken place?

Company Law and regulatory offences

Apart from Fraud potentially a myriad of company law offences, insider trading, market manipulation, false accounting, conspiracy, concealment of an offence, competition law offences, criminal offences under UK law, under EU law, and possibility offences by officials of the State as well.

And of course any Criminal and or company law offences prosecuted by the State does not preclude the taking of any subsequent civil actions for compensation for by shareholders and other institutions who have suffered a loss due to this course of dealings by Anglo Irish.

false accounting

Under the 1990 Companies Act Section 197.—(1) An officer of a company who knowingly or recklessly makes a statement to which this section applies that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular shall be guilty of an offence.

here is also a duty on any Directors under section 202 of the 1990 Companies Act to ‘‘cause to be kept proper books of account’’, which ‘‘correctly explain the transactions of the company’’, which ‘‘will at any time enable the financial position of the company to be determined with reasonable accuracy’’ and which ‘‘will enable the accounts of the company to be readily and properly audited’’.

Any Director who ‘‘fails to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance by the company with the requirements of this section, or has by his own wilful act been the cause of any default by the company thereunder, shall be guilty of an offence’’.

Other than these specific Companies Act offences, Ireland has signed up to several major international and European conventions and directives which have become law in Ireland.
For example the Market abuse directive now in law under the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005 and subsequent Regulations define two main offences of insider trading and market manipulation.

insider trading

Insider trading occurs when a trade has been influenced by the privileged possession of corporate information that has not yet been made public. Because the information is not available to other investors, a person using such knowledge is seen to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of the market.

Using such nonpublic information for making a trade violates transparency, which is the basis of a capital market. Information in a transparent market is disseminated in a manner by which all the market participants receive it at more or less the same time. Under these conditions, one investor can gain an advantage over another only through acquiring skill in analyzing and interpreting available information. This skill is based on individual merit and awareness. If one person trades with nonpublic information, he or she gains an advantage that is impossible for the rest of the public.

This is not only unfair but disruptive to a properly functioning market: if insider trading were allowed, investors would lose confidence in their disadvantaged position (in comparison to insiders) and would no longer invest.

This is the fundamental rationale behind disallowing such trades.

In Ireland the U S and many other jurisdictions, however, "insiders" are not just limited to corporate officials and major shareholders where illegal insider trading is concerned, but can include any individual who trades shares based on material non-public information in violation of some duty of trust.

This duty may be imputed; for example, in cases of where a corporate insider "tips" a friend about non-public information likely to have an effect on the company's share price, the duty the corporate insider owes the company is now imputed to the friend and the friend violates a duty to the company if he or she trades on the basis of this information.

market manipulation

Market manipulation is any action that causes actual manipulation of the market, for example, where someone (not necessarily an insider) acts to distort the price of a share or other financial instrument by misleading the market or by engaging in artificial transactions or disseminating false and misleading information.

This affects not only directors of listed entities but also senior executives with regular access to inside information, and who have the power to make managerial decisions affecting the company. The Market abuse prohibitions in Irish law are particularly wide and attract severe penalties for the breech thereof.

The 2005 Act and Regulations contain a range of sanctions for breach from criminal penalties of a fine of up to €10 million and or ten years imprisonment to imposition of a civil liability to pay compensation to to all or any parties dealing in shares affected by a breach of the market abuse rules.

Additionally the Financial Regulator may impose a number of what are termed administrative sanctions including monetary penalty up to €2.5 Million, and the disqualification of a person from being concerned in the management of a financial service provider.

General Directors duties and disclosure of loans

There is a number of general common law and statutory duties on the Directors of a company to act in good faith, and to disclose all relevant dealings with the company. For example Sections 41 to 43 of the Companies Act of 1990 require disclosure of all loans made to directors. Section 43 specifically refers to loans made to directors of licensed banks and the requirements concerning this disclosure.

Competition Law offences

Enforcement and administration of the Competition Acts, 2002 and 2006 is the responsibility of the Competition Authority. However Irish Courts can award damages or impose fines for anti-competitive practices. Prohibitions and Penalties for Anti-Competitive Behaviour.
The basic prohibitions on anti-competitive behaviour are contained in sections 4 and 5 of the 2002 Act. Section 4(1) prohibits and renders void ‘all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in any goods or services in the State, or in any part of the State’.
Civil actions

It has been reported in the media that shareholders in Anglo Irish Bank are contemplating litigation. It would obviously open to them to pursue ILP and Irish nationwide as well under various economic torts such as deceit and conspiracy, as well as for colluding in false accounting and financial misstatement. The interesting question would be whether they could also sue the state for negligence or conspiracy for their part in the whole debacle.

UK Jurisdiction

How might FitzPatrick and other commit an offence in the jurisdiction of England and wales? Well the shares of Anglo Irish and ILP are both listed in the London Stock Exchange and the catch all provisions in Section 3 and 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 which lays down the rules for determining the location of events (Archbold 2007, para. 2-40). states that a person may be guilty of an offence whether or not he was in England and Wales at any material time and whether or not he was a British citizen at any such time.

Their Fraud Act of 2006 draws in all such types of fraudulent activity involving false statements and accounting with one particularly broad provision, namely section 3 defining fraud as failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so.

US and EU Jurisdictions

Under the various rules of the US Stock exchange committee (SEC) and the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, the US federal authorities can claim what is known as “universal jurisdiction” in cases of financial fraud. If any US institutional investors bought shares on a basis of such misrepresentations the individuals culpable could well face US charges and possible extradition.

There is a bi-lateral extradition treaty in place between Ireland and the US. The well known case of the “ Nat West Three” exemplifies the long reach of the US courts in these matters.

For any financial fraud affecting the EU, the body responsible OLAF retains the right to independently investigate any acts in any member state. They should be informed for the purpose of being seen to be attempting a bona fide investigation of the actions of Anglo Irish

hatrickpatrick

The bondholder payout today demonstrates exactly why our democracy doesn't work.

Both FG and Labour promised to burn them. Now they're not.
I don't give a rat's ass if they now have new information - they should have kept their mouths shut unless they knew what they were talking about. There is no excuse for lying to the population to trick them into voting for you. Glimore Mk II it seems, first Lisbon and now this.

It's a disgrace.

(Note: Whether or not you think the bondholders should be burned is irrelevant here. I'm discussing a different issue, the fact that both parties directly and blatantly lied to us about it before the election, and there is now nothing we can do to punish them for it until 2016.

Suryavarman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well according to this blog: http://irish-law.blogspot.com/2010/02/anglo-irish-bank-fraud-deception-and.html there is the possibility that a great many offences were committed at Anglo alone

Thanks. I was hoping Anita M might answer that question though. I've found that many requests for bankers to be jailed are purely rhetorical and that people generally don't have a clue what actual laws might have been broken.

Bannasidhe

Blowfish wrote: »

Who says it's a good idea? Personally I'd much rather it was the corporations risking their own money, rather than using the taxpayers.

I was responding to the tone you used when describing it as an idea from the Left - the impression I got was, for you, that alone made it a bad idea. If I am mistaken I apologise, but that was how it came across to me.

All I am asking is why just because an idea has it's genesis in Left wing ideology for some of you does that automatically make it a bad idea? Surely it is just an idea and must be judged on its own merits separate from the political ideology it sprang from. Neither Right or Left have a monopoly on good or bad ideas. But to dismiss an idea out of hand due to what one perceives as the political ideology of the person who proposed it seems to me to be extremely narrow minded and blinkered.

I want to make it clear this is not aimed specifically at you Blowfish, it is my reaction to the countless times I have seen a fair few posters here dismiss everything they perceive as being 'Left Wing' out of hand.

I would be left of centre but that does not mean I agree with every single idea to emerge from the Left ( I vehemently disagree with many of them) or that I will dismiss every single idea to emerge from the Right (some of which I think are bloody good ideas).

IMHO - this knee jerk reaction of dismissing ideas based purely on ones personal political prejudices stifles debate, is disrespectful of others opinions/beliefs and really the sort of behaviour I would expect in AH (which is why I now avoid any 'political' threads there) but in a 'serious' forum such as Politics I would expect a higher level of intelligent engagement with what is being said then 'That's Left Wing/Marxist/ Socialist (*so I will sneer and snipe at it on that basis alone*). It would equally be wrong to sneer at ideas from those of you on the Right and dismiss them as 'Fascist/Nazi/ Felangist'.

Can we please debate the ideas without stooping to childish Right Vs Left sniping?

As for off-shore drilling rights - can anyone give me a reasonable explanation why Ireland could not pursue a similar policy to that adopted by Norway in 1972?

Good potted summary of history of Norwegian oil exploration here: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/oed/Subject/Oil-and-Gas/norways-oil-history-in-5-minutes.html?id=440538

ianuss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for off-shore drilling rights - can anyone give me a reasonable explanation why Ireland could not pursue a similar policy to that adopted by Norway in 1972?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0319/1224292581861.html

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2011/08/18/irelands-atlantic-oil-ga

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2011/03/29/why-dont-we-just-use-irelands-1-trillion-of-oil-and-gas-the-trouble-with-trillions/s/


You should read the comments in the last two links for further reasoning.

Scofflaw

As for off-shore drilling rights - can anyone give me a reasonable explanation why Ireland could not pursue a similar policy to that adopted by Norway in 1972?

Also, in a nutshell - Ekofisk. The largest field in the North Sea was discovered after about 2-3 years exploration in Norwegian waters, which meant that (a) they could dictate virtually any terms to the oil companies; and (b) they could create a national oil company knowing that there was more than enough oil to make that worthwhile.

However, the original Ekofisk license blocks in which Philips made the discovery were under the old terms and conditions until sometime in the early Nineties, as far as I recall.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bannasidhe

ianuss wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0319/1224292581861.html

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2011/08/18/irelands-atlantic-oil-ga

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2011/03/29/why-dont-we-just-use-irelands-1-trillion-of-oil-and-gas-the-trouble-with-trillions/s/


You should read the comments in the last two links for further reasoning.

It seems to me that the main argument is that oil/gas exploration is expensive and the State cannot afford this. Granted - we can't afford SNAs apparently so drilling speculative holes in the seabed is certainly beyond us.

What I am having difficulty accepting is the argument that exploration companies will stay away in droves if the State seeks to impose too great a tax burden on them. Exploration off the coast of Norway didn't stop when the Norwegians imposed a 50% tax.

Why is it not possible for Ireland to impose a 50% tax on profits? - the oil/gas companies may be paying for exploration - but unless they are granted licences they cannot explore and oil/gas prices are increasing as reserves are running out. The oil/gas companies need to find more - placing us in a strong bargaining position. If they don't like it - don't look for licences.

Having read all the links (plus comments :cool:) I am none the wiser as to why we cannot impose a 50% tax rate on profits? I would imagine that the exploration costs could be written off against profits as 'start up costs'...

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It seems to me that the main argument is that oil/gas exploration is expensive and the State cannot afford this. Granted - we can't afford SNAs apparently so drilling speculative holes in the seabed is certainly beyond us.

What I am having difficulty accepting is the argument that exploration companies will stay away in droves if the State seeks to impose too great a tax burden on them. Exploration off the coast of Norway didn't stop when the Norwegians imposed a 50% tax.

Why is it not possible for Ireland to impose a 50% tax on profits? - the oil/gas companies may be paying for exploration - but unless they are granted licences they cannot explore and oil/gas prices are increasing as reserves are running out. The oil/gas companies need to find more - placing us in a strong bargaining position. If they don't like it - don't look for licences.

Having read all the links (plus comments :cool:) I am none the wiser as to why we cannot impose a 50% tax rate on profits? I would imagine that the exploration costs could be written off against profits as 'start up costs'...

The oil companies are already "staying away in droves" though. The people doing the exploration in the Irish offshore are the little speculative companies, not the oil majors.

As for a profit tax, the current profit tax runs from 25% up to 45%, depending on how profitable the field is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

davoxx

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It seems to me that the main argument is that oil/gas exploration is expensive and the State cannot afford this. Granted - we can't afford SNAs apparently so drilling speculative holes in the seabed is certainly beyond us.

What I am having difficulty accepting is the argument that exploration companies will stay away in droves if the State seeks to impose too great a tax burden on them. Exploration off the coast of Norway didn't stop when the Norwegians imposed a 50% tax.

Why is it not possible for Ireland to impose a 50% tax on profits? - the oil/gas companies may be paying for exploration - but unless they are granted licences they cannot explore and oil/gas prices are increasing as reserves are running out. The oil/gas companies need to find more - placing us in a strong bargaining position. If they don't like it - don't look for licences.

Having read all the links (plus comments :cool:) I am none the wiser as to why we cannot impose a 50% tax rate on profits? I would imagine that the exploration costs could be written off against profits as 'start up costs'...

i'm not 100% convinced that the government could not have afforded this. i am 100% they would have fecked it up though.

reminds me of the m50, for some reason the government could not afford to built it, but a private company could and they would only do it if the government guaranteed the profits ...

seems to me that the gas is more of the same, that envelopes were being hand delivered during meetings ...

just my view on the gas deal.

ianuss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why is it not possible for Ireland to impose a 50% tax on profits? - the oil/gas companies may be paying for exploration - but unless they are granted licences they cannot explore and oil/gas prices are increasing as reserves are running out. The oil/gas companies need to find more - placing us in a strong bargaining position. If they don't like it - don't look for licences.

Having read all the links (plus comments :cool:) I am none the wiser as to why we cannot impose a 50% tax rate on profits? I would imagine that the exploration costs could be written off against profits as 'start up costs'...

Because exploration costs are enormous. And in today's economic climate, oil companies will be reducing their spend on exploration. Until we find and actually pinpoint the oil/gas and are able to take it out of the sea we don't really have much of a bargaining chip at all. It boils down to the old maxim of 'what's the point in having 100% (or 50% in this case) of nothing?'.


If/when oil is found, we could increase the tax rate. It's not like all the oil would be sucked up in a short period of time, there's no rush.

dsmythy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It seems to me that the main argument is that oil/gas exploration is expensive and the State cannot afford this. Granted - we can't afford SNAs apparently so drilling speculative holes in the seabed is certainly beyond us.

What I am having difficulty accepting is the argument that exploration companies will stay away in droves if the State seeks to impose too great a tax burden on them. Exploration off the coast of Norway didn't stop when the Norwegians imposed a 50% tax.

Why is it not possible for Ireland to impose a 50% tax on profits? - the oil/gas companies may be paying for exploration - but unless they are granted licences they cannot explore and oil/gas prices are increasing as reserves are running out. The oil/gas companies need to find more - placing us in a strong bargaining position. If they don't like it - don't look for licences.

Having read all the links (plus comments :cool:) I am none the wiser as to why we cannot impose a 50% tax rate on profits? I would imagine that the exploration costs could be written off against profits as 'start up costs'...

Norway has oil coming out of the ground by itself and slapping companies in the face it's so productive. Of course they're willing to pay the extra tax for Norweigan oil.

Bannasidhe

From the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy's website (http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/oed/Subject/Oil-and-Gas/norways-oil-history-in-5-minutes.html?id=440538)

In the late 1950s, very few people believed that the Norwegian continental shelf (NCS) might conceal rich oil and gas deposits. However, the discovery of gas at Groningen in the Netherlands in 1959 caused people to revise their thinking on the petroleum potential of the North Sea. This discovery led to enthusiasm in a part of the world where energy consumption to a large extent was based on coal and imported oil. In the eagerness to find more, attention was drawn to the North Sea. Norway’s geological expertise was negative to oil and gas deposits, but this could not stop the enthusiasm after the gas discovery in the Netherlands.


In October 1962, Philips Petroleum sent an application to the Norwegian authorities, for exploration in the North Sea. The company wanted a licence for the parts of the North Sea that were on Norwegian territory, and that would possibly be included in the Norwegian shelf. The offer was 160,000 dollars per month. The offer was seen as an attempt to get exclusive rights, and for the authorities it was out of the question to hand over the whole shelf to one company. If the areas were to be opened for exploration, more companies had to participate.


In May 1963, Einar Gerhardsen’s government proclaimed sovereignty over the NCS. New regulation determined that the State owns any natural resources on the NCS, and that only the King (government) is authorized to award licences for exploration and production. The same year, companies got the possibility to carry out preparatory exploration. The licenses included rights to perform seismic surveys, but not drilling...

... licensing round was announced on 13 April 1965. 22 production licences for a total of 78 blocks were awarded to oil companies or groups of companies. The production licences gave exclusive rights for exploring, drilling, and production in the licence area. The first well was drilled in the summer of 1966, but it was dry.

...With the Ekofisk discovery in 1969, the Norwegian oil adventure really began. Production from the field started on 15 June 1971, and in the following years a number of major discoveries were made. Exploration in the 1970s was confined to the area south of the 62nd parallel. The shelf was gradually opened, and only a restricted number of blocks were awarded in each licensing round. Foreign companies dominated exploration off Norway in the initial phase, and were responsible for developing the country's first oil and gas fields. Statoil was created in 1972, and the principle of 50 percent state participation in each production licence was established.

ianuss

.........and your point being?

ArmaniJeanss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What I am having difficulty accepting is the argument that exploration companies will stay away in droves if the State seeks to impose too great a tax burden on them. Exploration off the coast of Norway didn't stop when the Norwegians imposed a 50% tax.

Why is it not possible for Ireland to impose a 50% tax on profits? - the oil/gas companies may be paying for exploration - but unless they are granted licences they cannot explore and oil/gas prices are increasing as reserves are running out. The oil/gas companies need to find more - placing us in a strong bargaining position. If they don't like it - don't look for licences.

But why aren't the big boys here in droves already if it is currently such a great deal for them? There is little more than a miniscule drilling industry off the Atlantic coast at the moment.

Bannasidhe

ianuss wrote: »

.........and your point being?

Seems fairly obvious to me -
It took a decade of exploration and drilling for oil to flow in Norway - there was no guarantee of success. The first well was in fact dry. Yet, the exploration continued. That deals with the 'they may not find anything' issue.

Norway issued many licences to small exploration companies rather then allow one big multi-national a monopoly (Hello Shell!) - they also made it clear the natural resources belong to Norway and they will set the licensing conditions.

Because 'foreign' companies dominated - Noway moved swiftly to regain control via Statoil. They could do this as they controlled the terms of the licences.

Bannasidhe

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

But why aren't the big boys here in droves already if it is currently such a great deal for them? There is little more than a miniscule drilling industry off the Atlantic coast at the moment.

How many licences have been issued to small exploration companies or is the government looking to allow more monopolies to the big companies such as Shell has in Corrib?

ArmaniJeanss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How many licences have been issued to small exploration companies or is the government looking to allow more monopolies to the big companies such as Shell has in Corrib?

13 licenses for fields were applied for/issued out of the 996 potentially available in the last round.
They were open to every company from the exploration branches of Shell/BP down to the small operators.

13/996 doesn't exactly imply that 'Ireland are giving it away in a modern day goldrush' does it?

whatstherush

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How many licences have been issued to small exploration companies or is the government looking to allow more monopolies to the big companies such as Shell has in Corrib?

Shell didn't find Corrib, one of your cherished small companies called Enterprise oil did.

ianuss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seems fairly obvious to me -
It took a decade of exploration and drilling for oil to flow in Norway - there was no guarantee of success. The first well was in fact dry. Yet, the exploration continued. That deals with the 'they may not find anything' issue.

Norway issued many licences to small exploration companies rather then allow one big multi-national a monopoly (Hello Shell!) - they also made it clear the natural resources belong to Norway and they will set the licensing conditions.

Because 'foreign' companies dominated - Noway moved swiftly to regain control via Statoil. They could do this as they controlled the terms of the licences.

Well perhaps in 60 years time, if we do ever strike it lucky, the Irish Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will be able to publish an impressive oil/gas manifesto and frame history in a certain manner too. It's unlikely that Norway's strategy from the start in the 1950's has remained unchanged.

But I can't see us setting up an oil company, not until we hit the mother-load anyway. How could you justify such massive capital expenditure at a time like this? On what would be a total gamble.

And what difference does it make if the licenses are sold to small exploration companies or larger entities? Unless we set up our own oil company, the taxes we receive would be the same from any company.

Those who perpetuate the myth that we're throwing away a golden goose are doing people a great disservice. The last thing stupid people need is more misinformation.

Bannasidhe

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

13 licenses for fields were applied for/issued out of the 996 potentially available in the last round.
They were open to every company from the exploration branches of Shell/BP down to the small operators.

13/996 doesn't exactly imply that 'Ireland are giving it away in a modern day goldrush' does it?

Fair enough -

However - I still do not see why we cannot impose a 50% tax on profits from any successful strikes.

Bannasidhe

ianuss wrote: »

The last thing stupid people need is more misinformation.

Stupid people? :rolleyes:

Am I in AH?

What the people need, be they stupid or oh so clever, is accurate, objective information. That is what successive Irish government have failed to deliver.

From Bertie telling his critics to go commit suicide to the storming performances of Howlin and Shatter last week in failing to address people's genuine concerns about the 30th referendum via Cowen's no IMF coming here - no siree bob we have been kept in the dark and treated as if we are stupid.

At least the Occupy movement is generating debate and discussion -it's a shame our government are incapable to providing answers (apart from it's all FF's fault - such a refreshing change from it's all Lehman Bros fault ).

If there is misinformation - address it. But please do not stoop to insulting people's intelligence and name calling.

ArmaniJeanss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Fair enough -

However - I still do not see why we cannot impose a 50% tax on profits from any successful strikes.

So give the explorations companies a worse deal at a time when they aren't exactly climbing over each other to come here.
Do you see the flaw?

Bannasidhe

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So give the explorations companies a worse deal at a time when they aren't exactly climbing over each other to come here.
Do you see the flaw?

I see the flaw in giving away 75% when we are borrowing money just to keep basic services afloat.

Bannasidhe

whatstherush wrote: »

Shell didn't find Corrib, one of your cherished small companies called Enterprise oil did.

My cherished? I couldn't give a flying about any oil company - big or small.
But it does illustrate my point that we should issue licences to small exploration companies to - um - explore and should they be successful then sell 'parcels'. Not give the lot to one big multinational.

So - since ye all are such experts on the economics of Oil exploration, how about helping out a poor old early modernist historian and tell me the details of Shell's monopoly in Corrib (monopoly -not very free market is it? Permabear won't like that!).

Specifically what percentage of tax will they pay?

antoobrien

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see the flaw in giving away 75% when we are borrowing money just to keep basic services afloat.

75% of 0 = 0

ianuss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Stupid people? :rolleyes:

Am I in AH?

What the people need, be they stupid or oh so clever, is accurate, objective information. That is what successive Irish government have failed to deliver.

From Bertie telling his critics to go commit suicide to the storming performances of Howlin and Shatter last week in failing to address people's genuine concerns about the 30th referendum via Cowen's no IMF coming here - no siree bob we have been kept in the dark and treated as if we are stupid.

At least the Occupy movement is generating debate and discussion -it's a shame our government are incapable to providing answers (apart from it's all FF's fault - such a refreshing change from it's all Lehman Bros fault ).

If there is misinformation - address it. But please do not stoop to insulting people's intelligence and name calling.

Sorry, and point taken about AH. I wasn't referring to you with the 'stupid people' comment. It was more directed at people who, having seen the 'myoilandgas.ie youtube clip' start moaning about oil companies and corrupt govt officials needlessly throwing resources away. On the strength of one clip they're outraged without even bothering to find anything out for themselves.

ArmaniJeanss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see the flaw in giving away 75% when we are borrowing money just to keep basic services afloat.

But by looking for 50% you risk them abandoning exploration totally and we get 50% of nothing. Because 13/996 at the current terms implies a sizeable disinterest on their part.
But if a nice amount of those 13 hit (say 2/3 hits from 13) in the next few years then in the next round of licensing we can look for (and definitely get) terms more akin to Norway.

This is basic business, its akin to the new restaurant giving 50% off vouchers or the new niteclub offering €2 pints.

Honest answer, if you had €150,000,000 to spare, and you were offered a 50/50 profit share deal on a random field off Norway or Ireland where would you invest?

whatstherush

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My cherished? I couldn't give a flying about any oil company - big or small.
But it does illustrate my point that we should issue licences to small exploration companies to - um - explore and should they be successful then sell 'parcels'. Not give the lot to one big multinational.

So - since ye all are such experts on the economics of Oil exploration, how about helping out a poor old early modernist historian and tell me the details of Shell's monopoly in Corrib (monopoly -not very free market is it? Permabear won't like that!).

Specifically what percentage of tax will they pay?

Where are you getting a monopoly from? One field was found and shell bought the rights to that field.