Varadkar to Irish Electorate: Vote Yes or else...

mikom

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Eh no. The EU and IMF are paying for it. They are the ones keep Gardai on the streets, teachers in the class room, doctors and nurses in the hospital, paying the pensioners, child benefits and the unemployed.

Eh no. We and our children are paying for it.
The EU and IMF are not Santa Claus, as they will want every "red cent" back.

I thought Noonan said we would not need another bailout.............. but of course that is probably bull**** as well.

Chucky the tree

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Irish people.

You are aware that the so-called "bailout" is a loan and not a gift? :rolleyes:

The politicans are worried becuae bankruptcy means goodbye to their massive pensions pots and the big paydays for their buddies thay give handy overpaid semi-state sectors jobs.

Head of the ESB is a prime example.

Bankruptcy means not paying paying for any of this aswell.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Eh no. The EU and IMF are paying for it. They are the ones keep Gardai on the streets, teachers in the class room, doctors and nurses in the hospital, paying the pensioners, child benefits and the unemployed.

GombeanMan wrote: »

By taking the money from your pocket. These Institutions don't create wealth, they merely steal it from people in the form of taxation. If these Institutions were forced to operate like a standard company, they would have gone out of business a long, long time ago.

Good point, it's disgusting how the Gardai, teachers, doctors, nurses and penioners aren't forced to create wealth. :rolleyes:

mikom wrote: »

Eh no. We and our children are paying for it.
The EU and IMF are not Santa Claus, as they will want every "red cent" back.

They are paying for it. If they stopped giving us money today we'd not be able to afford any of that tomorrow.

dvpower

GombeanMan wrote: »

Yes, we do. The Deficits we have incurred are largely as a result of European Loans. Write these loans off, the deficit is minimal. This does not account for the fact the country would be effectively bankrupt for a short period of time, but that is an entirely different matter.

The 2012 Estimates have our deficit at €21,466m* with debt servicing at €7,488m.
The deficit is not minimal.

What €14bn + of cuts are you going to make next year?


* Exchequer Balance is -€21,466m, Current Ac Deficit is -€13,142m, Capital AC Deficit is -€8,424m

Son Of A Vidic

Mark200 wrote: »

In terms of whether or not we need a second bailout... I guess its like walking a high-rise tightrope and saying "well I probably won't fall" yet strongly objecting to anyone who insists on removing your safety net.

Safety net you say? We are the safety net! Who else is paying for risky, reckless and cheap credit lending orgy that German and French 'senior' bondholders indulged in? Why it is us of course. Just don't lose sight of who imposed the burden upon us.

Monty Burnz

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Safety net you say? We are the safety net! Who else is paying for risky, reckless and cheap credit lending orgy that German and French 'senior' bondholders indulged in? Why it is us of course. Just don't lose sight of who imposed the burden upon us.

I think you will find that was Fianna Failure and the Greens, the duly elected representatives of the Irish people. Who do we blame for electing them?

GombeanMan

dvpower wrote: »

What €14bn + of cuts are you going to make next year?

Sack 80% of the public sector and their Unions, remove insane wages and bonuses at the top for people who do little more than push paper. If EU Law supercedes most of our own, why do we need such a bloated public sector? Exit the European Union. Refuse to pay any of those debts. That would do the trick.

dvpower

GombeanMan wrote: »

Sack 80% of the public sector

And to think, I was actually reading your posts for a while there.

Next.

BunShopVoyeur

If this treaty is rejected, just how likely is it that we will be asked to vote again ala Nice?

Monty Burnz

GombeanMan wrote: »

Sack 90% of the public sector and their Unions, remove insane wages and bonuses at the top for people who do little more than push paper. If EU Law supercedes most of our own, why do we need such a bloated public sector? Exit the European Union. Refuse to pay any of those debts. That would do the trick.

I think cutting 20% of the PS and cutting their pay by 30% across the board (perhaps slightly less at the bottom, and substantially more for those earning 80k plus) would be more realistic. But that's what we are looking at.

The odds of Labour agreeing to that sort of thing though...they will bankrupt us again first. :rolleyes:

daltonmd

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

If this treaty is rejected, just how likely is it that we will be asked to vote again ala Nice?

I don't think so - 12 out of 27 states needed to push it through.

GombeanMan

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

If this treaty is rejected, just how likely is it that we will be asked to vote again ala Nice?

As soon as the EU commissioners/Dictators say so. If we had any balls, we would tell them to stick their treaty up their arse, and respect the laws of this nation. But no, the EU propoganda machine has clouded the judgement of this nation from the real issues.

daltonmd

dvpower wrote: »

The 2012 Estimates have our deficit at €21,466m* with debt servicing at €7,488m.
The deficit is not minimal.

What €14bn + of cuts are you going to make next year?


* Exchequer Balance is -€21,466m, Current Ac Deficit is -€13,142m, Capital AC Deficit is -€8,424m

Have you a link - that's worse than I thought - all the austerity budgets and not a cent off the deficit - worrying.

Monty Burnz

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

If this treaty is rejected, just how likely is it that we will be asked to vote again ala Nice?

Quite high, I would say, given the consequences of voting no. But I don't expect the population to have any clue what these consequences are given the disinformation campaign that will be waged by the Shinners and the ULA.

Even Declan Ganly (who is anti-everything European) said that he may campaign in favour of this if there is a deal on the Anglo debt.

dvpower

daltonmd wrote: »

Have you a link - that's worse than I thought - all the austerity budgets and not a cent off the deficit - worrying.

http://finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/2011/whitepaper2011.pdf

BunShopVoyeur

daltonmd wrote: »

I don't think so - 12 out of 27 states needed to push it through.

GombeanMan wrote: »

As soon as the EU commissioners/Dictators say so. If we had any balls, we would tell them to stick their treaty up their arse, and respect the laws of this nation. But no, the EU propoganda machine has clouded the judgement of this nation from the real issues.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Quite high, I would say, given the consequences of voting no. But I don't expect the population to have any clue what these consequences are given the disinformation campaign that will be waged by the Shinners and the ULA.

Even Declan Ganly (who is anti-everything European) said that he may campaign in favour of this if there is a deal on the Anglo debt.

Thanks for the replies.

rossie1977

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Please, please vote 'no'. Please have a sovereign default. Then at least the constant whining about household charges and septic tank charges and whatever will be replaced by merited whining about lack of basic medicines and food.

yeah just like happened in iceland, it turned into a third world country overnight.........

Monty Burnz

rossie1977 wrote: »

yeah just like happened in iceland, it turned into a third world country overnight.........

Hey, I'm all for that gamble - I don't live in Ireland anymore, so I've nothing to lose. Like I said, it will be interesting to watch from outside.

Incidentally, I take it that you are arguing for an Irish Euro exit? Being able to devalue the currency was a key plank for Iceland's actions. The Krona nearly halved in value against both Sterling and the Euro.

Zebra3

Chucky the tree wrote: »

They are paying for it. If they stopped giving us money today we'd not be able to afford any of that tomorrow.

Will you ever cop yourself on.

They (the IMF + ECB) are not paying for anything nor are they giving us anything.

They are loaning us money to pay back private gambling losses.

And where do they get the ECB/IMF get the money from? The very banks that that we are giving free money to.

So think about it. British, German and French banks made huge gambling losses. Not only is the Irish taxpayer repaying those losses, but those same banks are actually charging us interest (via the IMF + ECB) for allowing us the privilege of repaying them their losses.

It is beyond belief how stupid some Irish people are that they don't understand all this after everything that has gone on. :rolleyes:

And the media have a lot to answer for in describing it as a bailout for Ireland, but then again the wasters in RTE won't be getting their nice salaries and pensions so they go along with the party line as they are on the gravy train too.

GombeanMan

lividduck wrote: »

Wheres the "or else"?
All he seems to be saying is the obvious, if we choose not to join the club we won't get the benifits of club membership.
Title of the thread is misleading to say the least!

I take it Inference isn't your strong point.

Nothingbetter2d

so when do we default?

Monty Burnz

Zebra3 wrote: »

And the media have a lot to answer for in describing it as a bailout for Ireland, but then again the wasters in RTE won't be getting their nice salaries and pensions so they go along with the party line as they are on the gravy train too.

What do you see happening when we default? We'll go properly bust next time: PS employees not getting paid etc. - what is your solution? Do you, like me, accept that these things are inevitable if we default, and possibly better for us in the long run? (same as we should have let the Irish banks go bust back when FFailure guaranteed them)

mikom

Chucky the tree wrote: »

They are paying for it. If they stopped giving us money today we'd not be able to afford any of that tomorrow.

Ourselves and our children are paying for it......... and will do manyfold.
It's in their own interest to give us this loan.

If they stopped giving us money today then the Eurozone would collapse within a few months.
It's in their own interest to give us this loan (not imf of course).

Imagine that, doing something in your own interest and getting paid back manyfold.

Doc Ruby

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Incidentally, I take it that you are arguing for an Irish Euro exit? Being able to devalue the currency was a key plank for Iceland's actions. The Krona nearly halved in value against both Sterling and the Euro.

Yes, and they imposed capital controls as well so people couldn't take their money out of the banks and leave the country, along with a few other heavy handed measures we couldn't take within the EU. All is not rosy in Iceland. But with that said its better than bouncing along the bottom for the next four decades trying to repay the deals made by political hacks scuttling between the unions and the eurocrats.

mloc

Can't frickin' wait to emigrate!

Chucky the tree

Zebra3 wrote: »

Will you ever cop yourself on.

They (the IMF + ECB) are not paying for anything nor are they giving us anything.

They are loaning us money to pay back private gambling losses.

And where do they get the ECB/IMF get the money from? The very banks that that we are giving free money to.

So think about it. British, German and French banks made huge gambling losses. Not only is the Irish taxpayer repaying those losses, but those same banks are actually charging us interest (via the IMF + ECB) for allowing us the privilege of repaying them their losses.

It is beyond belief how stupid some Irish people are that they don't understand all this after everything that has gone on. :rolleyes:

And the media have a lot to answer for in describing it as a bailout for Ireland, but then again the wasters in RTE won't be getting their nice salaries and pensions so they go along with the party line as they are on the gravy train too.

lol, look what are deficit was. Although first you should look up what the word means as you clearly have no idea.

Son Of A Vidic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think you will find that was Fianna Failure and the Greens, the duly elected representatives of the Irish people. Who do we blame for electing them?

If you bothered you arse to read my earlier post, you might actually see how stupid and totally irrelevant your post is.

Monty Burnz

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

If you bothered you arse to read my earlier post, you might actually see how stupid and totally irrelevant your post is.

Well that is one way to dodge the question. I think people might notice though, it lacks subtlety.

JoeGil

GombeanMan wrote: »

Seems to be alot of scaremongering going on here. This guy comes across as a complete arse with this nonsense. Varadkar is for the Elite, not the ordinary joe soap.

http://www.thejournal.ie/varadkar-warns-of-access-to-bailout-funds-if-ireland-votes-no-373522-Mar2012/

Panic off. Thread title misleading. The interview was factual.

Zebra3

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What do you see happening when we default? We'll go properly bust next time: PS employees not getting paid etc. - what is your solution? Do you, like me, accept that these things are inevitable if we default, and possibly better for us in the long run? (same as we should have let the Irish banks go bust back when FFailure guaranteed them)

Well, the reality is that there is no alternative to default. So much private debt has been put on the taxpayer, it can simply not be repaid.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

lol, look what are deficit was. Although first you should look up what the word means as you clearly have no idea.

I fully understand what it means. You seem to have problems grasping what certain other words mean as you are under the impression that the IMF and ECB are giving us money. :rolleyes:

reprazant

rossie1977 wrote: »

yeah just like happened in iceland, it turned into a third world country overnight.........

Or what happened in Argentina..... you know, the case that people ignore because its not as nice as Iceland.

Monty Burnz

Zebra3 wrote: »

Well, the reality is that there is no alternative to default. So much private debt has been put on the taxpayer, it can simply not be repaid.

Ok, so how do you see us managing the default? How do we balance the budget overnight? Who takes the big hits? How much do we slash pensions and the dole?

Any suggestions? Again, I reckon that the dole and pensions should be cut by 40% or so.

Son Of A Vidic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well that is one way to dodge the question. I think people might notice though, it lacks subtlety.

Dodge? Seriously, don't. Unsurprisingly, I have to repeat myself again for you. I already directed you to my earlier post, which highlighted my anti-Lisbon/anti-government stance. This surely should have been an indication to you, that I was not of the former governments ilk? So your question to me was at best irrelevant.

However, I suggest you direct your question RE: Who do we blame for electing them? to people who actually voted for the last government. Perhaps they might be able to enlighten you further on their misguided motives for doing so. Moreover, I know you have previous so I really don't have the time nor the patience to waste my time any further.

daltonmd

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, so how do you see us managing the default? How do we balance the budget overnight? Who takes the big hits? How much do we slash pensions and the dole?

Any suggestions? Again, I reckon that the dole and pensions should be cut by 40% or so.

I think it's going to come to that anyway - I am still undecided about which way to vote but it concerns me that we may need yet another bailout - I really think that we could solve the problems ourselves rather than get ourselves into deeper **** than we already are. Which each bailout comes more restrictions, more loss of control - do we really want that?

I'd vote yes to the treaty to stop what happened from happening again, but no for another bailout.

We have to cut PS pay/pensions and reform this too btw, there is no pension fund it comes out of current spending. Cut SW and all the bits attached, introduce a mortgage debt write off (essential for recovery) and try to get out of debt instead of getting into more debt.

The biggest problem with Ireland is that it wants an easy way out - while there have been "austerity" budgets - very few Irish have really experienced true austerity and while I don't want to wish it on them/us - it is an essential part of recovery.

Anyone who thinks that we are going to be allowed to borrow to pay PS/Pensions/SW rates/RA/CA and the likes, at the outrageous rates we are paying now is frankly deluding themselves.

It's not going to be easy which ever way you cut it and this government need to be explaining that to people.

Monty Burnz

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Dodge? Seriously, don't. Unsurprisingly, I have to repeat myself again for you. I already directed you to my earlier post, which highlighted my anti-Lisbon/anti-government stance. This surely should have been an indication to you, that I was not of the former governments ilk? So your question to me was at best irrelevant.

What?

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

However, I suggest you direct your question RE: Who do we blame for electing them? to people who actually voted for the last government. Perhaps they might be able to enlighten you further on their misguided motives for doing so. Moreover, I know you have previous so I really don't have the time nor the patience to waste my time any further.

Um...I think even if you didn't vote for them, you could still answer the question.

And get off your high horse man, you look ridiculous.

Doc Ruby

Doc Ruby wrote: »

By the way what is this: "increasingly it looks like we won’t need a second bailout, because we’re meeting our targets".

Leo the markets aren't public sector bean counters, they aren't under any obligation to lend to us if we "meet our targets" if you do your homework and chores. They'll continue to do what they've been doing all along, which is to tell successive Irish governments to get knotted if said governments continue to take on other peoples' debts.

And the very next day...

In its weekly credit outlook, Moody’s yesterday predicted the Government would have to rely on the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) – the EU’s planned permanent bailout fund – for additional funding after the existing bailout programme ends.

Separately, Citigroup economist Michael Saunders said investors face a 50 per cent chance of sharing in losses in Irish Government debt.

Speaking to The Irish Times ahead of his speech in Cork, Mr Hayes said the ESM would “effectively act as backstop if things don’t go well” when it comes into being in March of next year, assuming the fiscal treaty is ratified. “It’s a prudent strategy to be able to access this fund into the future, and the best way to have absolute certainty about that is to be part and parcel of the EU’s fiscal treaty.”

On Moody’s forecast of a second bailout for Ireland, Mr Hayes said that “making predictions about 2013 is fanciful, given the extraordinary volatility we’re witnessing from one quarter to the next and given the crisis that the country and euro zone have come through”.

Moody’s said yesterday: “We expect Ireland to face challenges regaining market access in 2013 and it will likely need to rely on the ESM, at least partially, when the current support programme expires.”

It must be very frustrating for the mandarins in the civil service that they can't just legislate those pesky private investors into giving us money.

GombeanMan

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And the very next day...

It must be very frustrating for the mandarins in the civil service that they can't just legislate those pesky private investors into giving us money.

Noonan and that guff about not needing a second bailout:rolleyes: The public sector has lied to the citizens of this country, again. A foreign entity is more honest about our future then our own Government. Says it all really.

Monty Burnz

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And the very next day...

It must be very frustrating for the mandarins in the civil service that they can't just legislate those pesky private investors into giving us money.

The problem here is that the government are having to play both sides: on the one hand, publicly talk up the economy for the benefit of citizens and the markets, and on the other hand deal with our economic situation (which they know well will probably entail a second bailout). If they admit that the second bailout may be required, then it certainly will be. If they try to bluff it out, there's a chance we won't need the second bailout but if (and likely, when) we do, they look like fools or liars.

GombeanMan

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The problem here is that the government are having to play both sides: on the one hand, publicly talk up the economy for the benefit of citizens and the markets, and on the other hand deal with our economic situation (which they know well will probably entail a second bailout). If they admit that the second bailout may be required, then it certainly will be. If they try to bluff it out, there's a chance we won't need the second bailout but if (and likely, when) we do, they look like fools or liars.

Still, I don't entertain being lied to kindly. I would call that deception/Fraud. If they aren't frank and to the point with the public, they should be fcuked out minus any bonus or other crap they gave the FG and FF clowns we had in office. Some of em should be hung. What kind of precedent is that setting? It's ok for the Government to lie to the people, but everybody else isn't allowed lie to the Government under threat of force?

Monty Burnz

GombeanMan wrote: »

Still, I don't entertain being lied to kindly. I would call that deception/Fraud.

It's a dubious area. I'd agree on principle that the government should always be straight up with the people; here, we have an odd situation where pretending that things will be alright might actually result in that happening.

Look at it like this: a doctor should tell the patient the truth. But if you had a disease with a 15% chance of survival if the doctor told you you'd be fine and a 0% chance if he told you you're in big trouble, what would you want to hear?

GombeanMan

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's a dubious area. I'd agree on principle that the government should always be straight up with the people; here, we have an odd situation where pretending that things will be alright might actually result in that happening.

Look at it like this: a doctor should tell the patient the truth. But if you had a disease with a 15% chance of survival if the doctor told you you'd be fine and a 0% chance if he told you you're in big trouble, what would you want to hear?

I read the Indo recently where a civil service worker said the public "right to know" was a load "of hogwash". Unless something is classified, the Government should always be straight up. I would regard anything less to be deception. But yeah, I understand where you are coming from. The Cancer thing is tricky. I would respect the patient first and foremost. Maybe I am idealistic, but I value cold hard truth over everything else:cool:

mikom

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Look at it like this: a doctor should tell the patient the truth. But if you had a disease with a 15% chance of survival if the doctor told you you'd be fine and a 0% chance if he told you you're in big trouble, what would you want to hear?

The truth.
It allows me make preparations and select the best course of action.

Case in point, all the money being hoarded in the banks as people currently don't know which way is up, or who to believe.

Monty Burnz

If you'd want to hear the truth, then that's fine - I think I'd say the same. But I'm just trying to explain why the government is bullsh!tting in public - it's to try to avoid a second (more painful) bailout. Once they admit it might be needed, it will definitely be needed.

daltonmd

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's a dubious area. I'd agree on principle that the government should always be straight up with the people; here, we have an odd situation where pretending that things will be alright might actually result in that happening.

Look at it like this: a doctor should tell the patient the truth. But if you had a disease with a 15% chance of survival if the doctor told you you'd be fine and a 0% chance if he told you you're in big trouble, what would you want to hear?

There's the difference - it's not about telling people what they want to hear - shure isn't that how we got here?

They should tell us the truth.

Saying something out loud doesn't make it happen - it's going to happen and was flagged at the first bailout - we were told by the same faces that it wouldn't be enough - and it wasn't/isn't.

Doc Ruby

Thats the thing though, its going to take a lot more than not talking down your own team to convince any private investors to put their money back into Ireland.

Monty Burnz

daltonmd wrote: »

Saying something out loud doesn't make it happen - it's going to happen and was flagged at the first bailout - we were told by the same faces that it wouldn't be enough - and it wasn't/isn't.

In some cases, it does. For example, mentioning that we might default on some bonds to save money to avoid a second bailout would send our bond yields soaring, meaning that we couldn't borrow on the markets to avoid a second bailout.

That type of thing.

GombeanMan

The Government should not lie to it's people. You can moralise and discuss it further, but the fact remains intact: They should not be lying to the people who pay their wages. They should serve us, not the other way around.

Monty Burnz

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Thats the thing though, its going to take a lot more than not talking down your own team to convince any private investors to put their money back into Ireland.

Dead right. That's only one part of it - we'd need to see signs of recovery here and across the Eurozone to have any hope, which is why I put the odds so low.

Monty Burnz

GombeanMan wrote: »

The Government should not lie to it's people. You can moralise and discuss it further, but the fact remains intact: They should not be lying to the people who pay their wages. They should serve us, not the other way around.

I'm not going to disagree, I'm just pointing out that sometimes it's genuinely not in your own interests to be told the truth.

hooradiation

So - the gist of this seems to be

Leo Varadkar: Choices have consequences
OP: HOW BLOODY DARE YOU, STOP THREATENING ME!

well, I can see we are well on track to another one of our shining examples of rational discourse before a referendum.

daltonmd

Monty Burnz wrote: »

In some cases, it does. For example, mentioning that we might default on some bonds to save money to avoid a second bailout would send our bond yields soaring, meaning that we couldn't borrow on the markets to avoid a second bailout.

That type of thing.

I'll concede the point :-) But I think that FG spooked the markets all by themselves in this case.

The first thing they said when the Enda said there was to be a vote was : "If we vote no then we won't be able to access the ESM. "