Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Why are the British so anti Europe?
Comments
-
Reading through the posts I have noticed that a lot of the pro europe posters have preponderance for highlighting the positive affect of the common market.
What they seem to ignore is that the EU is more about a federal europe and less about a common trade market, these days.
Highlighting the fact that Ireland has voted yes to all EU treaties is a blatant nonsense as we have not been allowed to say No and have a couple of treaties rammed down our necks.
We have had austerity forced upon us by EU institutions and were railroaded into an extension of the ridiculous bank guarantee by the ECB/EU, which in turn forced us out of the sovereign bondmarkets and further austerity.
Hardly the behaviour of a proper Union.0 -
Reading through the posts I have noticed that a lot of the pro europe posters have preponderance for highlighting the positive affect of the common market.
What they seem to ignore is that the EU is more about a federal europe and less about a common trade market, these days.
Not really - the current actions are all aimed at stabilising and strengthening the single market as opposed to anything else.Highlighting the fact that Ireland has voted yes to all EU treaties is a blatant nonsense as we have not been allowed to say No and have a couple of treaties rammed down our necks.
Heh. People need to get over the fact that the public changed its mind.We have had austerity forced upon us by EU institutions and were railroaded into an extension of the ridiculous bank guarantee by the ECB/EU, which in turn forced us out of the sovereign bondmarkets and further austerity.
Hardly the behaviour of a proper Union.
Eh, austerity has been forced on us by our massive deficit and our decision to bail out our banks. The troika are buying us breathing space to sort it out, as well as hugely cushioning the impact of our disastrous policies during the Tiger years by providing us necessary funding at rates lower than we've ever had from the markets.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
No one's ignored anything; most of the discussion has been on the economic implications of leaving the EU, versus staying, so naturally the common trade market will have been widely discussed. Also you seem to have missed out on the topic of democracy that additionally has been discussed, which addresses the political nature of the EU. Oh, and austerity has been discussed by both sides too.What they seem to ignore is that the EU is more about a federal europe and less about a common trade market, these days.
Maybe you should read the thread again.0 -
What they seem to ignore is that the EU is more about a federal europe
Perhaps you'd provide us with some example of this? Referenced with respect to the (text of the) EU Treaties please rather than so-and-so says the EU will become a federal europe.and less about a common trade market, these days.
Well the "common trade market" still accounts for 80%+ of EU Directives and Regulations. It doesn't account for the balance because we approved it pursuing objectives in 3 other areas so no one should be surprised at that.0 -
With control for the Euro being centralized in Europe, the troika aren't doing us a favour by lending us money though; the EU is capable of centralizing bond issuance at much lower interest rates, and providing that to countries (which should be their responsibility, as there's no reason not to do it, and not doing it puts a lot of countries in a punitive state), and they are significantly failing to leverage that ability (their recent efforts at putting together a program for doing that, has to my understanding, been implemented in a somewhat crippled fashion).Eh, austerity has been forced on us by our massive deficit and our decision to bail out our banks. The troika are buying us breathing space to sort it out, as well as hugely cushioning the impact of our disastrous policies during the Tiger years by providing us necessary funding at rates lower than we've ever had from the markets.
A lot of things that are treated as the responsibility of individual member states, really (in economic terms, not, unfortunately, how it was written legally/politically) became the responsibility of the EU when control over the money supply was centralized, and the EU is quite significantly failing to fulfill those responsibilities.
Beyond debt issuance as well, the EU is the only place where money creation itself can be pursued, without having to simultaneously issue and equal amount of bonds as well; one of the biggest tools that can help Europe out of the current economic trouble.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »With control for the Euro being centralized in Europe, the troika aren't doing us a favour by lending us money though; the EU is capable of centralizing bond issuance at much lower interest rates, and providing that to countries (which should be their responsibility, as there's no reason not to do it, and not doing it puts a lot of countries in a punitive state), and they are significantly failing to leverage that ability (their recent efforts at putting together a program for doing that, has to my understanding, been implemented in a somewhat crippled fashion).
A lot of things that are treated as the responsibility of individual member states, really (in economic terms, not, unfortunately, how it was written legally/politically) became the responsibility of the EU when control over the money supply was centralized, and the EU is quite significantly failing to fulfill those responsibilities.
Beyond debt issuance as well, the EU is the only place where money creation itself can be pursued, without having to simultaneously issue and equal amount of bonds as well; one of the biggest tools that can help Europe out of the current economic trouble.
The problem there is that the EU isn't a federal system, but a hybrid of various bits and pieces that have been handed to it by the Member States, some of which is run in a confederal way, some of it intergovernmentally, and in some cases with sensible bits missing from the package that's handed over.
In the case of something as radical (in comparison to a system which has obtained for centuries) as joint issuance, it's up to the Member States. Some of the Member States are resolutely opposed to joint issuance, and because the EU is not a federal system that simply puts a stop to it happening. Those states don't regard there as being "no reason not to do it", whatever other views might say, and they have the last word.
Unfortunately, as is often the case, what we have is a conflict between what is "constitutional" and what is "obviously necessary", or at least potentially useful, and the correct side to take is the constitutional one, because the capacities of the EU are those and only those that the Member States governments want to give them, and have been given the democratic mandate to give them. It's always dangerous to wave aside constitutional considerations out of 'necessity' - in politics, necessity is often the mother of misgovernment.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
None of which changes the fact that Ireland created its own mess.KyussBishop wrote: »With control for the Euro being centralized in Europe, the troika aren't doing us a favour by lending us money though; the EU is capable of centralizing bond issuance at much lower interest rates, and providing that to countries (which should be their responsibility, as there's no reason not to do it, and not doing it puts a lot of countries in a punitive state), and they are significantly failing to leverage that ability (their recent efforts at putting together a program for doing that, has to my understanding, been implemented in a somewhat crippled fashion).
A lot of things that are treated as the responsibility of individual member states, really (in economic terms, not, unfortunately, how it was written legally/politically) became the responsibility of the EU when control over the money supply was centralized, and the EU is quite significantly failing to fulfill those responsibilities.
Beyond debt issuance as well, the EU is the only place where money creation itself can be pursued, without having to simultaneously issue and equal amount of bonds as well; one of the biggest tools that can help Europe out of the current economic trouble.0 -
It should be pointed out that Federal states issues Federal debt to fund Federal spending - NOT State spending.
It is the responsibility of the States of a Federation to issue State debt for State spending - not of the Federation.
As one NY newspaper put it in the '70's the response of President Ford to a request from NY city for money to stave off imminent bankruptcy:Ford to NYC - "Drop Dead"0 -
Still nobody acknowledgeing the mistakes and flaws in the EU.
The euro for instance is widely acknowledged, now, to have been fundamentally flawed and evolved as a political decision made to appease France after the re unification of Germany.
The fact that every decision regarding the euro and communal interest rates thereafter was made to appease Germanies coffers and ease the financial burden undertaken to facilitate re unification.
The fact that these economic decisions led directly to the easing of financial and banking regulation across the EU.
Ireland was indeed unfortunate to have been governed by a crooked bunch of eejits during the decade after the introduction of the euro, but that does not assuage the fact that the EU is stuffed full of a similar bunch of eejits, most of whom are making decisions directly related to the governing of this country.
An EU can only work if the right type of people are running it and personally I don,t think such people exist.
Which is why I would prefer it was an EEC and not an EU.0 -
The problem though, is with accepting the current constitutional status quo, and limiting political debate within those limits; the general debate should be about what the constitutional setup should be, and how best to change it to that, but the entire EU discussion is always discussed within the limits of the current constitutional setup (meaning the policies that would most help resolve the crisis, are ruled out of debate).The problem there is that the EU isn't a federal system, but a hybrid of various bits and pieces that have been handed to it by the Member States, some of which is run in a confederal way, some of it intergovernmentally, and in some cases with sensible bits missing from the package that's handed over.
In the case of something as radical (in comparison to a system which has obtained for centuries) as joint issuance, it's up to the Member States. Some of the Member States are resolutely opposed to joint issuance, and because the EU is not a federal system that simply puts a stop to it happening. Those states don't regard there as being "no reason not to do it", whatever other views might say, and they have the last word.
Unfortunately, as is often the case, what we have is a conflict between what is "constitutional" and what is "obviously necessary", or at least potentially useful, and the correct side to take is the constitutional one, because the capacities of the EU are those and only those that the Member States governments want to give them, and have been given the democratic mandate to give them. It's always dangerous to wave aside constitutional considerations out of 'necessity' - in politics, necessity is often the mother of misgovernment.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Giving centralized EU control over the money supply means the EU already has de-facto federal and fiscal control over countries, because budget cuts can and are being dictated; so the debate surrounding the EU needs to already be treating it as the (monetarily) federal entity it basically already is.
So with the EU having this incredibly important sovereign power, control over the money supply, it means they need to be held to account regardless of what the constitutional setup says about their responsibilities (and because the EU constitution is a democratic issue); the messed up political setup of the EU shouldn't override the de-facto reality of the EU's real responsibilities.
With the serious human cost of the EU's current policies, leading to deaths, widescale unemployment, negative effects on physical and mental health for enormous numbers of people, and destroyed futures for many of those people etc., that can only itself be judged as monumental misgovernment.0 -
Advertisement
-
KyussBishop wrote: »The problem though, is with accepting the current constitutional status quo, and limiting political debate within those limits; the general debate should be about what the constitutional setup should be, and how best to change it to that, but the entire EU discussion is always discussed within the limits of the current constitutional setup (meaning the policies that would most help resolve the crisis, are ruled out of debate).
Giving centralized EU control over the money supply means the EU already has de-facto federal and fiscal control over countries, because budget cuts can and are being dictated; so the debate surrounding the EU needs to already be treating it as the (monetarily) federal entity it basically already is.
So with the EU having this incredibly important sovereign power, control over the money supply, it means they need to be held to account regardless of what the constitutional setup says about their responsibilities (and because the EU constitution is a democratic issue); the messed up political setup of the EU shouldn't override the de-facto reality of the EU's real responsibilities.
With the serious human cost of the EU's current policies, leading to deaths, widescale unemployment, negative effects on physical and mental health for enormous numbers of people, and destroyed futures for many of those people etc., that can only itself be judged as monumental misgovernment.
That's an fair point, that the discussions regarding what to do seem mostly to be limited to what can be done with the existing constitutional arrangements. However, not all of them have been - solutions have been suggested (forms of joint issuance amongst them) that would require treaty changes.
Treaty changes, though, must be first negotiated and then ratified, which means that pretty much any state can block the process, either by refusing to accept the necessary amendments in the first place, or by some kind of failure to ratify, whether in a parliament or through a referendum. And the general assumption is that neither parliaments nor people in Europe have much appetite for further treaty changes so soon after Lisbon (and the Fiscal Treaty).
Nor is the suggestion that we should simply go ahead, ignoring the constitutional legalities, really a runner - if the legalities are not observed, what is done is illegal, and will be judged so by any court, which means it can only be maintained illegally. And once one has made the rule of law an à la carte thing, where does that stop exactly?
While the EU may be Heath Robinsonesque, it is both legal and democratically created - the proposed de facto powers would be neither, and are therefore unacceptable. Better dissolution than illegal government, I'm afraid.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I don't think joint issuance really would require any treaty changes though; Yanis Varoufakis and the 'modest proposal' he has maintained, offers a solution that can be done within the current framework (which includes use of centralized EU bond issuance):
https://varoufakis.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/modest-proposal-3-0-may-2012-without-rebalancing-mechanism.pdf
It doesn't contain anything like the money-creation-backed spending I think would be important, but it certainly seems an excellent step in the right direction; something to keep things ticking over until proper reform of the monetary system can be managed (through treaty if need be).0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »I don't think joint issuance really would require any treaty changes though; Yanis Varoufakis and the 'modest proposal' he has maintained, offers a solution that can be done within the current framework (which includes use of centralized EU bond issuance):
https://varoufakis.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/modest-proposal-3-0-may-2012-without-rebalancing-mechanism.pdf
It doesn't contain anything like the money-creation-backed spending I think would be important, but it certainly seems an excellent step in the right direction; something to keep things ticking over until proper reform of the monetary system can be managed (through treaty if need be).
Sure - now it just needs unanimous support and I daresay a lot of legal shepherding through the courts.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Who has said that European monetary union is perfect?
The flaws go a lot further than just mistakes made in the setting up of the euro.
The flaws are in the make up, geographic positions, economic cycles, political differences, cultural and language differences.
Proper Union is impossible as it will only ever lead to Europe being led by Germany and France.
Our political leaders should be looking at a watered down version rather than more integration.
The current path preferred by those on the EU gravy train will jeopardise the peace in Europe that it was set up maintain. Already we can see the rise of extreme right and left groups in a sizeable chunk of the 27 member states and with the austerity measures being forced upon citizens by the mainstream parties in those countries, it will only lessen the popularity of the mainstream and further add to the popularity of the protest parties.
A small point on how ridiculously badly thought out the EU is.
Why can all member states not have General Elections at the same time, so as to take the political grandstanding out of important and more pressing European decision making?0 -
Because dictating the timing of elections in its member states isn't a competence the member states have granted to the EU, and I don't think there are all that many people who think it should be.A small point on how ridiculously badly thought out the EU is.
Why can all member states not have General Elections at the same time, so as to take the political grandstanding out of important and more pressing European decision making?
I'm completely unclear on where you're coming from: on one hand, you're arguing for a dilution of the political Union, and demanding a return to a free trade area (which it never was); on the other, you're talking like a full-blooded federalist.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Because dictating the timing of elections in its member states isn't a competence the member states have granted to the EU, and I don't think there are all that many people who think it should be.
I'm completely unclear on where you're coming from: on one hand, you're arguing for a dilution of the political Union, and demanding a return to a free trade area (which it never was); on the other, you're talking like a full-blooded federalist.
No, I am no federalist and as I have already indicated I feel that the old EEC version of Europe served us a lot better.
My point about elections is to point out the absurdity of calling something a Union when it so obviously is not.
My other point on why attempting to forge a Union is futile and even dangerous, is the more serious point and one desrving of serious debate.0 -
No, I am no federalist and as I have already indicated I feel that the old EEC version of Europe served us a lot better.
My point about elections is to point out the absurdity of calling something a Union when it so obviously is not.
Why not call itself a union though? I don't think the definition of "union" is tight enough to preclude what the EU is, or to imply that it's something it's not.My other point on why attempting to forge a Union is futile and even dangerous, is the more serious point and one desrving of serious debate.
It's dangerous and futile to forge a union (I'm not sure what that means under your definition, but still) because in times of austerity we see the rise of extreme parties in Europe? Even though that's something that happens in every period of austerity, and has in previous periods given rise to warfare between the nations?
I don't see that that follows.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Why not call itself a union though? I don't think the definition of "union" is tight enough to preclude what the EU is, or to imply that it's something it's not.
It's dangerous and futile to forge a union (I'm not sure what that means under your definition, but still) because in times of austerity we see the rise of extreme parties in Europe? Even though that's something that happens in every period of austerity, and has in previous periods given rise to warfare between the nations?
I don't see that that follows.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Using the current crisis to browbeat countries into giving up further sovereignty is a recipe for disaster and especially when the crisis is being described wrongly as a Sovereign debt crisis, instead of the Private and Central Banking crisis that it actually is.
The ECB has already used soverign nations to launder money to needy Privately owned EU banks, while leaving ordinary citizens of Europe to pick up the cost.
Monetary policy is key to solving the crisis caused by Banks and regulators and that leaves the key decision making power in Europe with an unelected body.
A body who were at the heart of the causation of the crisis have now been handed the almost free role in solving it.
The lack of objectivity this will allow, will obviously lead to a concentration on the cover up, rather than a solution.
Right at the minute, we have a puppet Govt, run by a Union in name only ( really just a bunch of self interests ) and with the key decision making powers in the hands of those responsible for the crisis in the first place.
Not really a recipe for success.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do explain how the EU is responsible for the mess that Ireland is in.Right at the minute, we have a puppet Govt, run by a Union in name only ( really just a bunch of self interests ) and with the key decision making powers in the hands of those responsible for the crisis in the first place.0 -
Using the current crisis to browbeat countries into giving up further sovereignty is a recipe for disaster and especially when the crisis is being described wrongly as a Sovereign debt crisis, instead of the Private and Central Banking crisis that it actually is.
The ECB has already used soverign nations to launder money to needy Privately owned EU banks, while leaving ordinary citizens of Europe to pick up the cost.
Monetary policy is key to solving the crisis caused by Banks and regulators and that leaves the key decision making power in Europe with an unelected body.
A body who were at the heart of the causation of the crisis have now been handed the almost free role in solving it.
The lack of objectivity this will allow, will obviously lead to a concentration on the cover up, rather than a solution.
Right at the minute, we have a puppet Govt, run by a Union in name only ( really just a bunch of self interests ) and with the key decision making powers in the hands of those responsible for the crisis in the first place.
Not really a recipe for success.
OK, to come to those conclusions one needs to ignore the fact that the Member States run the EU, and not the other way round. They are the ones deciding that further integration is the solution - the exact degree varies, but with the exception of the UK, they pretty much all feel that way. So there is no EU "using the crisis to browbeat countries into giving up further sovereignty" - on the contrary, the EU has been largely sidelined during the crisis, apart from the ECB.
And the ECB is not the problem with the euro - its role as a stumbling block has arisen by virtue of its unwillingness to go beyond its remit and authority in ways that might be helpful in solving the crisis. Again, that remit is that given it by the agreement of the Member States. Nor has the ECB "laundered money to needy privately owned banks" - the ECB is not the source of any of the various bailout loans given to EU states that need them. Those loans are raised by other Member States, and, again, the idea that money from one Member State should be simply given to another, which you seem to be advocating, is a federal one well beyond the level of union the Member States wish the EU to be at.
Given your claim that "a body who were at the heart of the causation of the crisis have now been handed the almost free role in solving it" rests on these foundations of misinterpretation, it doesn't seem worth addressing separately. The EU has had a variety of failures in its supervisory roles, but by and large these failures have been agreed by the Member States to be deficiencies in the way they chose to allow the EU supervise them, generally by limiting the powers of the EU and making them reliant on national regulators, which is why further integration is the preferred solution to those issues. The powers that the EU is being given in respect of these supervisory roles are, however, once again being watered down to the point where they will be unlikely to prevent further crises - but that is, once again, the choice of the Member States.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Do explain how the EU is responsible for the mess that Ireland is in.
Around 2002 in Lisbon the EU decided to relax Financial Regulations in correspondence to what was happening in the U.S.
Added to the balls up made of monetary Union, this was in large part responsible for the Financial and Banking crisis that occurred in 2008.
In 2010 the already doomed and wholly useless FF Govt were forced by the ECB to extend the ridiculous and in my opinion unlawful bank guarantee, causing our sovereign bond rates to rocket and forcing us to seek loans from a troika who themselves have admitted have subjected us to over the top terms of austerity.
In fact, considering the interest rates first applied to the reparations terms, one could seriously argue that the intention of " our partners " in the EU, was to punish us rather than help us.
And before I get the serial nonsense spouted about our deficit without the banking debt, I refer to ones abilities to deal with a deficit without having access to monetary independence.
Being trapped inside the euro and being under the control of the ECB and at the same time being forced to dance to the tune of the German Bundestag, does not help, when having to deal with our deficit.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »on the other, you're talking like a full-blooded federalist.
He isn't talking like a federalist as the individual states/cantons/lands in a federation usually hold their elections on differing days just like the member states of the EU do.
Rather his vision seems to be some sort of over-centralized vision of how a "Perfect Union" should operate - it is almost like an Imperialistic view of how the EU "should" operate. A straw man created to be knocked down in other words.
Personally, I suspect the member states will muddle on quite happily with an imperfect Union for some time to come - we have never needed a "Perfect Ireland", why should we need a "Perfect Union"?0 -
He isn't talking like a federalist as the individual states/cantons/lands in a federation usually hold their elections on differing days just like the member states of the EU do.
Rather his vision seems to be some sort of over-centralized vision of how a "Perfect Union" should operate - it is almost like an Imperialistic view of how the EU "should" operate. A straw man created to be knocked down in other words.
Personally, I suspect the member states will muddle on quite happily with an imperfect Union for some time to come - we have never needed a "Perfect Ireland", why should we need a "Perfect Union"?
Of course you would prefer that we change our Govt in February 2011, but have to wait for Elections in Germany in September 2013 before we can expect a solution to our woes.
You europhiles are quite amazing really.0 -
It seems the US wants Britain to tone down the anti-EU thing and keep their hand in: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/09/us-warns-uk-european-union
I guess we can expect Cameron will probably allow the anti-EU camp to peak before getting his own campaign going. Dangerous game really. But when British voters become overfamiliar with the likes of Farage and their negative populism, their appeal will start to wane. The settling if the EZ crisis will also put the EU in a better light. So it'll all be about timing in the end.0 -
Advertisement
-
The best way to deal with debt is actually not to run it up in the first place, something we spectacularly messed up during our exercise of our national sovereignty. When we had our hand on the regulatory levers we did nothing. And we used out tax policy to overstimulate the wrong parts of our economy.And before I get the serial nonsense spouted about our deficit without the banking debt, I refer to ones abilities to deal with a deficit without having access to monetary independence.
Being trapped inside the euro and being under the control of the ECB and at the same time being forced to dance to the tune of the German Bundestag, does not help, when having to deal with our deficit.
Being in the Euro had little to do with it. There are countries currently in the Euro which didn't experience our problems. Nope, it was down to us, and we mishandled our own levers of power.0 -
Of course you would prefer that we change our Govt in February 2011, but have to wait for Elections in Germany in September 2013 before we can expect a solution to our woes.
You europhiles are quite amazing really.
Well, while it is certainly true that the SPD have advocated a slightly different approach to the CDU, the results of the election there are unlikely to result in a significant impact on the Oireachtas' decisions.
Angela Merkel doesn't spend her time at European Council meetings insisting that Enda Kenny continues to spend circa €1.4 billion of newly-borrowed money a month on hospitals, schools & social welfare in Mayo and our other counties while he futilely demands to be allowed to close them down and/or halt such spending.
You do realise that, don't you?0 -
The best way to deal with debt is actually not to run it up in the first place, something we spectacularly messed up during our exercise of our national sovereignty. When we had our hand on the regulatory levers we did nothing. And we used out tax policy to overstimulate the wrong parts of our economy.
Being in the Euro had little to do with it. There are countries currently in the Euro which didn't experience our problems. Nope, it was down to us, and we mishandled our own levers of power.
Every country in Europe has a massive banking problem. Our gangster Govt were just foolish enough to guarantee private bank debt.
The ECB have succeeded in laundering money to French, Dutch, German and Austrian Banks, thus far, but it still only hides the fact that most of them are actually insolvent without major cash injections from the ECB and the FED.
Unlike you I believe that Ireland is capable of running its own affairs and I am in no rush to be led by a grouping of states with no actual care, never mind gra for Ireland and its citizens.0 -
Well, while it is certainly true that the SPD have advocated a slightly different approach to the CDU, the results of the election there are unlikely to result in a significant impact on the Oireachtas' decisions.
Angela Merkel doesn't spend her time at European Council meetings insisting that Enda Kenny continues to spend circa €1.4 billion of newly-borrowed money a month on hospitals, schools & social welfare in Mayo and our other counties while he futilely demands to be allowed to close them down and/or halt such spending.
You do realise that, don't you?
So you think we should be closing down hospitals and schools and cutting social welfare, instead of refusing to pump 67 billion into an insolvent banking system?0 -
So you think we should be closing down hospitals and schools and cutting social welfare, instead of refusing to pump 67 billion into an insolvent banking system?
The Oireachtas has already pumped the money into the banking system. It is a done deed however much you may like or not.
The reason we are NOT "closing down hospitals and schools and cutting social welfare" is because we have chosen and are continuing to choose to borrow massive quantities of money instead (or to raise taxes to cover the state's income-expenditure gap), not because we are being forced to do so.
"Running your own affairs" whether as a state of some future European Federation or as an isolationist "We won't ever be a member of the EU" state involves dealing with precisely such problems - not pretending someone is forcing you to overspend your budget more than 5 years after the problem started to first seriously emerge.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The Oireachtas has already pumped the money into the banking system. It is a done deed however much you may like or not.
The reason we are NOT "closing down hospitals and schools and cutting social welfare" is because we have chosen and are continuing to choose to borrow massive quantities of money instead (or to raise taxes to cover the state's income-expenditure gap), not because we are being forced to do so.
"Running your own affairs" whether as a state of some future European Federation or as an isolationist "We won't ever be a member of the EU" state involves dealing with precisely such problems - not pretending someone is forcing you to overspend your budget more than 5 years after the problem started to first seriously emerge.
As I have already stated, the EU/ECB railroaded Ireland into extending the bank guarantee in Sept 2010, forcing sovereign bondholders to abandon Ireland as a safe place to invest and thus forcing us into a bailout on very harsh and severe terms and with painful conditions attached.
This was not the action of a fellow member of a Union but of a vengeful, spiteful, bully.
This might sit well with you, but it does not with me.0 -
It's quite naive to suggest any country should particularly care for another or its citizens. Every country is out for its own benefit. It's taken as a given that we can, and should, look after our own affairs.Unlike you I believe that Ireland is capable of running its own affairs and I am in no rush to be led by a grouping of states with no actual care, never mind gra for Ireland and its citizens.
The EU treaties set contractual limitations for sovereign states to cooperate within. After that it's up to us to do our own thing. I suppose in principle we are capable of running our affairs, and hopefully after we pull through the debacle FF got us into we can make it a reality. But all the evidence to date suggests we're not up to dealing with the government and governance at sufficiently competent levels left to our own devices. And that we're still on a major learning curve.0 -
No country anywhere is without problems of some kind. And for sure many countries have variations on public and private debt. But I think we're in a small enough club when it comes to our own banking and finance problems. Which as you point out were gratuitously worsened by uninformed tinkering.Every country in Europe has a massive banking problem. Our gangster Govt were just foolish enough to guarantee private bank debt.0 -
Because they're thick.
Honestly, most brits are shockingly lacking in education beyond whatever two subject they did at A-Levels and pretty clueless about world affairs.
Ask most of them why they don't like Europe and they'll say: "Because we is paying for Greece, innit?"0 -
When I say 'thick' I don't literally mean lacking in intelligence, I just mean uneducated and broadly unaware of what's happening beyond Britain's borders.
It's just my personal experience having lived there for years.
I got asked the weirdest most ignorant questions about Northern Ireland when I lived there, and that's part of the UK (politics aside). Knowledgable about the EU? No chance.0 -
it must have been .a privilege for those who had the joy of meeting you.somewhere in the UK there will be a plack on a wall ,saying mrscootch lived hereWhen I say 'thick' I don't literally mean lacking in intelligence.
Otherwise it's just my personal experience having lived there for years.0 -
As I have already stated, the EU/ECB railroaded Ireland into extending the bank guarantee in Sept 2010,
You stating something and it being true are in this case two different things.
We chose to extend the bank guarantee because we didn't want to face the alternative.
You can let us show us the evidence for how many EU/ECB officials were present in the Oireachtas chambers when the votes on it were taken, if you want to dispute it.forcing sovereign bondholders to abandon Ireland as a safe place to invest and thus forcing us into a bailout on very harsh and severe terms and with painful conditions attached..
So the EU/ECB were holding guns to the heads of all those bond traders as well, were they? God they were busy.
No doubt they forced those bond traders to try and charge us twice the interest rates that the IMF and EU loan facilities offer us loans at, right?
You do understand the IMF were called in, don't you? They are the financial equivalent of an Examiner (as you can't actually appoint a Receiver for a country) - the IMF don't come in unless they think you haven't a clue what you are doing.This was not the action of a fellow member of a Union but of a vengeful, spiteful, bully.
This might sit well with you, but it does not with me.
No, this is just your delusional fantasy - another straw man created so you can rage at it, while claiming you preferred the EEC - an organisation set up with the explicit purpose of creating "an ever closer union" which is exactly what the member states were pursuing when they subsequently created the EU.0 -
-
As I have already stated, the EU/ECB railroaded Ireland into extending the bank guarantee in Sept 2010, forcing sovereign bondholders to abandon Ireland as a safe place to invest and thus forcing us into a bailout on very harsh and severe terms and with painful conditions attached.
This was not the action of a fellow member of a Union but of a vengeful, spiteful, bully.
This might sit well with you, but it does not with me.
No bank guarantee was extended in September 2010, and thw original CIFS guarantee was never extended.
Does it genuinely not bother you at all that your facts are completely made up?
puzzled,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
No bank guarantee was extended in September 2010, and thw original CIFS guarantee was never extended.
Does it genuinely not bother you at all that your facts are completely made up?
puzzled,
Scofflaw
The guarantee to the bondholders in the Banks ran out in Sept 2010 and was replaced by a guarantee to the 6 Irish Banks.
This new guarantee was forced upon the insipid FF Govt by the ECB. The only means open to the ECB to force a sovereign Govt within the eu to enforce such a guarantee is to threaten that particular sovereign Govt. The threat used was to withdraw the funding to the 6 banks, issued to replace the fleeing deposits in the Irish banking system.
Calling the bluff of an institution that can print its own money to replace any losses, while you have no such methods open to you without leaving the euro, did not seem like a good idea at the time.
It might in the future, however.
Try playing silly beggars with someone else.0 -
-
Whereas the average Irish person is a veritable expert on all matters EU-related?
Maybe not expert but certainly more aware.
All I'm saying is that as a general impression I found the British notably insular.
I think the root of this insularism is that they have very little cultural identity as being 'European'. I think we see ourselves as Irish and European, they see themselves as English and British and that the EU is 'them' not 'us'.0 -
The guarantee to the bondholders in the Banks ran out in Sept 2010 and was replaced by a guarantee to the 6 Irish Banks.
No, that's factually wrong. The CIFS (original guarantee) was supplemented in 2009 by the ELG, which has been renewed every six months since. The two guarantees are quite different - the CIFS guaranteed all existing and acquired debt for a specific period, the ELG guarantees specific newly issued debt until maturity. The government had to apply to the EU to get it vetted by the anti-competition people in the Commission.This new guarantee was forced upon the insipid FF Govt by the ECB. The only means open to the ECB to force a sovereign Govt within the eu to enforce such a guarantee is to threaten that particular sovereign Govt. The threat used was to withdraw the funding to the 6 banks, issued to replace the fleeing deposits in the Irish banking system.
Calling the bluff of an institution that can print its own money to replace any losses, while you have no such methods open to you without leaving the euro, did not seem like a good idea at the time.
It might in the future, however.
Eh, the Irish government created the second guarantee for the same reason it created the first - to stabilise the Irish banking system. That it did it off its own bat, much to the dismay of the EU, is a matter of record.Try playing silly beggars with someone else.
Given your reliance on made-up facts, that's a very tempting straight line, but it seems unkind to use it.
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
No, that's factually wrong. The CIFS (original guarantee) was supplemented in 2009 by the ELG, which has been renewed every six months since. The two guarantees are quite different - the CIFS guaranteed all existing and acquired debt for a specific period, the ELG guarantees specific newly issued debt until maturity. The government had to apply to the EU to get it vetted by the anti-competition people in the Commission.
Eh, the Irish government created the second guarantee for the same reason it created the first - to stabilise the Irish banking system. That it did it off its own bat, much to the dismay of the EU, is a matter of record.
Given your reliance on made-up facts, that's a very tempting straight line, but it seems unkind to use it.
amused,
Scofflaw
I think you might be guilty of believing the guilty when you came up with your "facts"
The FF Govt issued the first bank guarantee on information given by the banks themselves. The Banks said that they had a liquidity problem. We know that they were actually insolvent at the time. Whether the Govt and the Dept of Finance were aware that they were insolvent or not is an unknown as we have never had an inquiry into the events leading up to and on the night of Sept 29th 2008.
From the information that has leaked out since, we know that Anglo had put together what looks like a fraudulent share purchase by a chosen group of preferred investors ( maple 10 ), we know that the PTSB were hiding loans on behalf of Anglo and loaning money overnight to prop up Anglos balance sheet.
We are not aware, if the regulator and the Central Bank were aware of this or complicit in this.
We are not aware if the Dept of Finance and the then MoF ( Brian Cowen ) was aware or complicit, but we do know that he had met Sean Fitzpatrick around the time of the Maple 10 deal.
Until we know the full facts of what happened before and after, we actually know nothing.
We also do not know how much the ECB were aware of what was going on in Anglo and how much they were involved in the original guarantee or the further guarantee in 2010, but we do have circumstantial evidence that they were involved.
You seem to believe what you have been told, I on the other hand, believe that there is far more to this fiasco than meets the eye.
Whether we ever get to the bottom of it or not, I do not know. I doubt if the actual details of what went on will ever be discovered, although since all of the correspondence would have been on an official level and of the utmost importance, records would have been required to have been meticulously kept, but I doubt they were or if they were, they have not been lost or mislaid.
One thing I am absolutely positive about, is that, Ireland should never put its trust in the EU/ECB as it exists again.
Even the IMF have their doubts about the motives of the EU/ECB.0 -
So your evidence for all the firm assertions you have been stating as facts thus far is... you have a hunch something fishy is going on.You seem to believe what you have been told, I on the other hand, believe that there is far more to this fiasco than meets the eye.
You really should have said so at the start, it would have saved a lot of time.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »So your evidence for all the firm assertions you have been stating as facts thus far is... you have a hunch something fishy is going on.
You really should have said so at the start, it would have saved a lot of time.
Do you know something the rest of us do not?
Have you conducted a bank inquiry without our knowledge?
Please, most wise sage do enlighten us.0 -
I think you're doing a fine job of making **** up all by yourself.Do you know something the rest of us do not?
Have you conducted a bank inquiry without our knowledge?
Please, most wise sage do enlighten us.
Unless, of course, you're planning to adduce some actual evidence for some of the bald assertions you've made in this thread...?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I think you're doing a fine job of making **** up all by yourself.
Unless, of course, you're planning to adduce some actual evidence for some of the bald assertions you've made in this thread...?
Go on, give me one assertion I made as fact, that is not true.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you might be guilty of believing the guilty when you came up with your "facts"
Er, no, because what you've asserted as facts and I've pointed out as incorrect are actually just simple provable errors.The FF Govt issued the first bank guarantee on information given by the banks themselves. The Banks said that they had a liquidity problem. We know that they were actually insolvent at the time. Whether the Govt and the Dept of Finance were aware that they were insolvent or not is an unknown as we have never had an inquiry into the events leading up to and on the night of Sept 29th 2008.
OK, although in fact there has been an inquiry by an Oireachtas Committee.From the information that has leaked out since, we know that Anglo had put together what looks like a fraudulent share purchase by a chosen group of preferred investors ( maple 10 ), we know that the PTSB were hiding loans on behalf of Anglo and loaning money overnight to prop up Anglos balance sheet.
We are not aware, if the regulator and the Central Bank were aware of this or complicit in this.
We are not aware if the Dept of Finance and the then MoF ( Brian Cowen ) was aware or complicit, but we do know that he had met Sean Fitzpatrick around the time of the Maple 10 deal.
Until we know the full facts of what happened before and after, we actually know nothing.
Well, except what we know, obviously - and we do know quite a bit.We also do not know how much the ECB were aware of what was going on in Anglo and how much they were involved in the original guarantee or the further guarantee in 2010, but we do have circumstantial evidence that they were involved.
We have good evidence, which came out almost immediately, of the ECB's involvement in the bailout. We likewise have good evidence that the 2008 guarantee was sprung on them as an unpleasant surprise, while on the other hand we have absolutely nothing pointing to a role for them in the guarantee. I'm not sure why they should have been "aware of Anglo".
You continue to refer to a "further guarantee" in September 2010, which doesn't exist.You seem to believe what you have been told, I on the other hand, believe that there is far more to this fiasco than meets the eye.
To be honest, what you've said so far suggests that you believe what you want to believe, whatever the evidence. You're making at least one basic factual error that you couldn't make if you'd got somewhere nearer the bottom of this than I have, which you clearly believe to be the case.Whether we ever get to the bottom of it or not, I do not know. I doubt if the actual details of what went on will ever be discovered, although since all of the correspondence would have been on an official level and of the utmost importance, records would have been required to have been meticulously kept, but I doubt they were or if they were, they have not been lost or mislaid.
"Meticulously kept"...actually I doubt it. The decisions will have been recorded, but most of the interesting information will have been in the verbal discussions, and it's not standard practice to make verbatim records. And as far as I can see you haven't really looked for the bottom of even what's available.One thing I am absolutely positive about, is that, Ireland should never put its trust in the EU/ECB as it exists again.
Even the IMF have their doubts about the motives of the EU/ECB.
Unsurprisingly, since their motives aren't the same as those of the IMF. I'm a little surprised the way people happily swallow the idea that the IMF is "on our side", though. They have a specific set of interests, the ECB have another - the IMF's interests would be better served by a short-term quick fix that gets a first world country off their books, leaving any further instability or resulting long-term issues to be soaked up by the European institutions, while the ECB's primary interest is the long-term stability of the eurozone. Those who would also prefer a quick fix generally see the IMF as the "good guys", but that's a rather one-dimensional view.
cordially,
Scofflaw0
Advertisement