Make your voice heard: Response needed from ECB on Anglo Irish Debt Burden

makeorbrake

At last weeks Troika press conference, Vincent Browne tried on numerous attempts (despite the best efforts of an irish official to block him) to get an answer out of the ECB representative - as to why ordinary irish people were being forced by the ECB to pay for unsecured debt related to Anglo Irish Bank - for the benefit of French and German banks. He got NO answer.

The Ray Darcy Show on Today FM picked up on it this morning. They have set up a standard mail - that will go out to Klaus Masuch - demanding him to provide the people of Ireland with an answer to the question that Vincent Browne put to him a number of times at last weeks press conference - but flat out refused to answer.

Here is the link to the standard email that they will send out to him - all you have to do is input your email address and click on 'send' ...simples

LINK.

It will take all of 20 seconds of your time - and I think we have a right to an answer to that question!

Crazy Horse 6

It wont work pal. Most Irish dont care about the nation or whats going on. Sad but true.

dahamsta

I do. Do you? If so, what's to be lost by filling the form, a minute of your time?

tayto lover

I beg your pardon but I care and will also fill the form.

RO 06

done

Iamhere

done

quaalude

Done

makeorbrake

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

It wont work pal. Most Irish dont care about the nation or whats going on. Sad but true.

I understand the frustration - but it's only an investment of 20 seconds - I wasn't exaggerating on that one...in fact, I'd go so far as to say it could probably be done in 5 seconds!

Now - even with NO EXPECTATIONS - there isn't anyone who can't afford 5 seconds of their time!

Cork boy 55

Done in 4.5807 seconds :P;):o

Jenroche

Done!

droicead

done

irishh_bob

done

Pope John 11

done

johnnyskeleton

The question makes no sense. Either it was for the benefit of the French and german banks and he therefore answered his own question or else it wasn't and the premise of the question is flawed.

As to why the Irish people should pay, it's because our government committed us to pay and then blamed Europe and the lazy electorate agreed with this. It is a bit like a doctor arriving to treat a self inflcted wound being asked by the patient why the doctor let him do that to himself. No wonder the ecb rep was baffled.

RichardAnd

It may do nothing at all but for what it's worth, I'd rather let it be said that we tried.

Email sent from me.

makeorbrake

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The question makes no sense. Either it was for the benefit of the French and german banks and he therefore answered his own question or else it wasn't and the premise of the question is flawed

We ALL know this - but we need him to admit to this.
And in that sense, the question makes perfect sense. Furthermore, VB had a follow up question which he intended to ask - but having got no answer to the first question, that never transpired!

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

As to why the Irish people should pay, it's because our government committed us to pay and then blamed Europe and the lazy electorate agreed with this.

Running the risk of taking this off topic - but they were elected with a clear mandate NOT to pay out to bondholders - and they have done the opposite. In their defence, the comments by Leo Varadkar at the weekend - where he explained away that he/they were threatened by the ECB that they could burn bondholders if they wanted - but if they did so, it would be the financial equivalent of dropping a bomb on Dublin (i.e. they(ECB) would make sure it had serious consequences for Ireland).

makeorbrake

RichardAnd wrote: »

It may do nothing at all but for what it's worth, I'd rather let it be said that we tried.

Email sent from me.

It cost you nothing except for 5 seconds of your time...;-) ....so well done.

Dannyboy83

Sent one and shared it on facebook.

Anything we can do to make life uncomfortable for them is a bonus really.

gerryo777

Done, twice.

force eleven

Done. Why the hell are we paying this back?? A gambling debt that went wrong, and now Varadkar trying to justify the unjustifiable with threats of doom and armageddon. Iceland told the bondholders to get lost and guess what? They are recovering, getting back on their feet. People need to wake up at the complete and utter immorality of this.:mad:

bbam

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Done in 4.5807 seconds :P;):o

Your missus must be so happy :P

makeorbrake

force eleven wrote: »

Iceland told the bondholders to get lost and guess what? They are recovering, getting back on their feet. People need to wake up at the complete and utter immorality of this.:mad:

+1

Icepick

We have to pay because too many people voted for FF, who made the criminal decision to pay it.
We have to pay because Ireland has a huge deficit that cannot be covered by gvt revenue.

But hey, let's all blame ze Germans and pretend that sending spam email will help.

And BTW, those evil bondholders you want to burn may turn out to be your pension fund or credit union.

makeorbrake

Icepick wrote: »

We have to pay because too many people voted for FF, who made the criminal decision to pay it.

Although they ARE very much related, you are nevertheless confusing two things. i.e. the bank guarantee and the decision whether to burn or not to burn bondholders.

Icepick wrote: »

We have to pay because Ireland has a huge deficit that cannot be covered by gvt revenue.

A real problem (in fact, a much bigger problem) - but unrelated to this subject.

Icepick wrote: »

But hey, let's all blame ze Germans and pretend that sending spam email will help.

Lets get a bit more specific. Should he or should he not have answered the question that was put to him? I believe he should. Clearly, judging by the other posts on this thread, others are of a similar mind.

Icepick wrote: »

And BTW, those evil bondholders you want to burn may turn out to be your pension fund or credit union.

Why shure....they might.....when we are NOT allowed to know EXACTLY who they are!!

Scofflaw

Since the ECB's answer seems to be relevant to the discussion, but doesn't seem to get discussed:

Masuch: “… and I answered it. I can understand that this is a difficult decision to be made by the government and there’s no doubt about it but there are different aspects of the problem to be, to be balanced against each other and I can understand that the government came to, came to the view that, all in all, the costs for the, for Irish people, for the, for the stability of the banking system, for the confidence in the banking system of taking a certain action in this respect which you are mentioning could likely have been much bigger than the benefits for the taxpayer which of course would have been there. So the financial sector would have been affected; the confidence of the financial sector would have been negatively affected, and I can understand that there were, that there was a difficult decision but that the decision was taken in this direction.”

Bankerese, certainly, but perhaps worth mentioning.

cordially,
Scofflaw

makeorbrake

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since the ECB's answer seems to be relevant to the discussion, but doesn't seem to get discussed................Bankerese, certainly, but perhaps worth mentioning.

Absolutely - it is relevant. However, I think it should be considered within the context of that segment of the press conference. So people, please check this out HERE - and see if you feel that the question was answered to your satisfaction (as a taxpayer).

draward

DONE

Bannasidhe

Done.

skafish

Done. Twice, but it took a bit longer than 5 seconds.

But, hey, my missus is delerious:):):):eek:

Godge

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

.

As to why the Irish people should pay, it's because our government committed us to pay and then blamed Europe and the lazy electorate agreed with this. It is a bit like a doctor arriving to treat a self inflcted wound being asked by the patient why the doctor let him do that to himself. No wonder the ecb rep was baffled.

You are right. How do people keep missing this? The FF government made its "cheapest bailout in the world" decision on 30 September 2008 on behalf of all of us against the advice of everyone else but now we want everyone else to pay. It is a bit like the drunk driver saying it wasn't my fault because they gave me free drink but I insisted on driving even though my sober friend told me not to but because he didn't drink and then drive, he should share my punishment because I gave him a lift home.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since the ECB's answer seems to be relevant to the discussion, but doesn't seem to get discussed:



Bankerese, certainly, but perhaps worth mentioning.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That answer makes perfect sense to me but won't satisfy the crazy mob.

View

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The question makes no sense. Either it was for the benefit of the French and german banks and he therefore answered his own question or else it wasn't and the premise of the question is flawed.

With the most obvious explanation being that the question was flawed but VB wasn't going to let a small issue like that stop himself...

Debtocracy

Godge wrote: »

You are right. How do people keep missing this? The FF government made its "cheapest bailout in the world" decision on 30 September 2008 on behalf of all of us against the advice of everyone else but now we want everyone else to pay. It is a bit like the drunk driver saying it wasn't my fault because they gave me free drink but I insisted on driving even though my sober friend told me not to but because he didn't drink and then drive, he should share my punishment because I gave him a lift home.

Guys goes to bar, gets excessively drunk due to own stupidity and encouragement from barman while inebriated. Guy runs up large tab but also runs up a tab for friends who took advantage of his drunken kindness. Next day barman comes to guy’s house demanding payment of the full tab. Guy agrees to pay his own tab but suggests to the barman that his friends should be responsible for paying half of the value of their own drinks. Barman disagrees and suggests that the reputation of his business would be irrevocably lost if he demanded payments from those people. Guy goes to sink to vomit.

Good loser

View wrote: »

With the most obvious explanation being that the question was flawed but VB wasn't going to let a small issue like that stop himself...

Agreed. As are many of his questions. Biased and simplistic. Egging on the mob.

Remember our banks were under the supervision of OUR regulator - a public servant. If he had done his job properly Anglo Irish would never have got to the state it did.

puffdragon

Done!

makeorbrake

Good loser wrote: »

Remember our banks were under the supervision of OUR regulator - a public servant. If he had done his job properly Anglo Irish would never have got to the state it did.

Agreed.
And by the same token, who was carrying out the 'checks and balances' of the ECB's lending exactly?.....or did they know exactly what they were doing..

Godge wrote:

You are right. How do people keep missing this? The FF government made its "cheapest bailout in the world" decision on 30 September 2008 on behalf of all of us against the advice of everyone else but now we want everyone else to pay.

No - your missing the point. The basis of the question revolves around the ECB pressurising the current Irish Government into NOT burning bondholders.

yellowlabrador

done

meglome

makeorbrake wrote: »

Agreed.
No - your missing the point. The basis of the question revolves around the ECB pressurising the current Irish Government into NOT burning bondholders.

I don't think he is. Our government agreed to certain things and signed up to that on our behalf. Many of us disagree with some of these things but we as a nation voted for that government three times in a row. The were corrupt and inept all along but we didn't seem to care until they dropped us in the shít.

Dannyboy83

http://www.financedublin.com/pdfs/GG_debt_NTMA_note_May_2011.pdf
According to this, by 2015 we are on track to owe €203.6 billion, best case scenario.

I think it's been shown on this forum several times that the adjustments specified cannot actually be met, as they rely on creating 100,000 phantom jobs and stuff.

The talk of Bailout 2 has started.

We have political paralysis at EU level (Eurobonds) and domestically (OverSpending)

I guess we are on the road to ECB-directed bankruptcy?

Scofflaw

makeorbrake wrote: »

Absolutely - it is relevant. However, I think it should be considered within the context of that segment of the press conference. So people, please check this out HERE - and see if you feel that the question was answered to your satisfaction (as a taxpayer).

It would be better to really see the thing in context of the whole press conference: http://www.imf.org/external/mmedia/view.aspx?vid=1402374718001

makeorbrake wrote:

No - your missing the point. The basis of the question revolves around the ECB pressurising the current Irish Government into NOT burning bondholders.

Sure - that's why Masuch's answer is important, because he basically says that it's an Irish government decision. The ECB have in effect said that several times now - and Varadkar repeated it yesterday. Not sure why it doesn't take hold - perhaps the government aren't a scary enough boogeyman?

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

On that subject, there's an interesting snippet in the 4th troika review:

The political determination required to implement the medium-term fiscal consolidation plan could be tested. Ireland’s net public debt was low before the crisis, at 11 percent of GDP in 2007, but only four years later is projected to reach 97 percent of GDP. Supporting the privately-owned banks accounts for 40 percentage points of this increase.

Much of this support was necessary to preserve a functioning banking system, and the fiscal cost was mitigated by burden sharing with subordinated debt holders. However, even for banks with losses greatly exceeding their capital and subordinated debt, senior debt is being repaid in full. In particular, debt securities on issue by banks now in wind-down (Anglo and INBS) stood at some €21.1 billion in late 2008 (13½ percent of GDP in 2011), excluding covered bonds and subordinated liabilities.

Domestically, the lack of burden sharing with unguaranteed senior debt holders is perceived as being required to protect the European banking system, and is recognized as contributing to Ireland’s debt sustainability challenge and fiscal adjustment needs.

Why "perceived"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

tayto lover

Godge wrote: »

You are right. How do people keep missing this? The FF government made its "cheapest bailout in the world" decision on 30 September 2008 on behalf of all of us against the advice of everyone else but now we want everyone else to pay. It is a bit like the drunk driver saying it wasn't my fault because they gave me free drink but I insisted on driving even though my sober friend told me not to but because he didn't drink and then drive, he should share my punishment because I gave him a lift home.




That answer makes perfect sense to me but won't satisfy the crazy mob.

I would say its a bit like the guy who walked home getting the blame for drunk driving. Its not his fault and not our debts.

GowlBag

I'd like to do this but the link just gives me "This page cannot be found". Did I miss a deadline?

Scofflaw

tayto lover wrote: »

I would say its a bit like the guy who walked home getting the blame for drunk driving. Its not his fault and not our debts.

Unfortunately, they are our debts, in exactly the same way the deficit is our debt. The government of the day - who the Irish people elected - took on those debts as a policy decision, or as a policy screw-up, rather, since they didn't intend really taking them on, but took the risk. Exactly the same process produces the deficit - our elected government makes policy decisions that commit our tax money.

That's Godge's point - the bank debt was taken on by our government as the result of a policy decision to prop up the Irish banking sector, just as the PS wage bill is what it is as a result of policy decisions to expand the PS and benchmark it to avoid discontent, and the SW bill is the result of policy decisions to provide large transfers to the vulnerable in Irish terms, and the Irish aid bill is the result of policy decisions to help the really vulnerable in world terms...and so on.

There are people who object to each of those, and/or who don't benefit from them, but they're all taken on in exactly the same way - policy decisions by our elected government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, they are our debts, in exactly the same way the deficit is our debt. The government of the day - who the Irish people elected - took on those debts as a policy decision, or as a policy screw-up, rather, since they didn't intend really taking them on, but took the risk. Exactly the same process produces the deficit - our elected government makes policy decisions that commit our tax money.

That's Godge's point - the bank debt was taken on by our government as the result of a policy decision to prop up the Irish banking sector, just as the PS wage bill is what it is as a result of policy decisions to expand the PS and benchmark it to avoid discontent, and the SW bill is the result of policy decisions to provide large transfers to the vulnerable in Irish terms, and the Irish aid bill is the result of policy decisions to help the really vulnerable in world terms...and so on.

There are people who object to each of those, and/or who don't benefit from them, but they're all taken on in exactly the same way - policy decisions by our elected government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And, it should be remembered that during the "success years" of the Celtic Tiger, when the government was handing out largese not many people were saying "I didn't contribute to our success so give the tax-breaks to others". There was no sign of anyone trying to opt out of those policy decisions...

bbsrs

GowlBag wrote: »

I'd like to do this but the link just gives me "This page cannot be found". Did I miss a deadline?

+1 , was the link removed?

IHateMondays

Hi there,
I wasn't near a radio yesterday so missed the link on Today FM. They've now taken it down - I've searched online but can't find it. Would anyone have a copy of it? We shouldn't loose momentum on this and I'm sure a lot of other people would like a chance to send this email as well.

Thanks.

makeorbrake

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - that's why Masuch's answer is important, because he basically says that it's an Irish government decision.

Yes, they say it's an irish government decision BUT they say that IF they go down that road, it will have consequences. And those 'consequences' will be the actions of who exactly???

makeorbrake

IHateMondays wrote: »

Hi there,
I wasn't near a radio yesterday so missed the link on Today FM. They've now taken it down - I've searched online but can't find it. Would anyone have a copy of it? We shouldn't loose momentum on this and I'm sure a lot of other people would like a chance to send this email as well.

Thanks.

Was listening to Today FM earlier. They said that between 9-5pm yesterday, they had registered in excess of 9,000 mails sent. They followed up with a query to the ECB Press Office for comment - they have said they would come back - but still waiting. Link has been taken down now.

Scofflaw

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yes, they say it's an irish government decision BUT they say that IF they go down that road, it will have consequences. And those 'consequences' will be the actions of who exactly???

Of the markets - that's what the bits about "confidence about Ireland" and "spillovers into the Irish financial sector in general" are about in Masuch's reply.

There isn't anything the ECB can threaten to do to Ireland that doesn't hurt the ECB and the rest of the eurozone much much worse than it hurts Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

makeorbrake

Scofflaw wrote: »

Of the markets - that's what the bits about "confidence about Ireland" and "spillovers into the Irish financial sector in general" are about in Masuch's reply.

Ok ...so when McWilliams says that new investors will come in - is he just playing to the gallery?

What of Iceland as a case study?

Lastly, why can we not be privy to the knowledge of precisely who these bondholders are?

IHateMondays

Yep, heard that earlier on Today FM. I couldn't log on yesterday and was just wondering if anyone out there has a copy of the email that Today FM put together to send to the Troika?
Thanks