Nigel Farage MEP

LincolnsBeard

I agree with everything Lazy Gun said. Superb posting.

McDave

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

The British don't have an inferiority complex about a country we beat twice in 30 years for our country's freedom and democracy, despite the best attempts of the Germans yet again to change all that.

By any objective analysis, in WW1 the Allied powers [not Britain] defeated the Central European powers [including Germany].

In WW2, the Russians were far and away the party most responsible for the defeat of the Nazis. Britain was hardly at the races [although they manfully defended their own territory].

No cigar, LLG.

McDave

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Yet Germany will be in recession in 2013 - unlike Britain.

You mean the 'Britain' that has already been in recession *twice* during the current crisis?

McDave

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Well, I can't see where this "political and economic dividend" is going to come from. The Euro had been a complete and utter disaster so far and I cannot see how that is going to change.

Once firmly established, I think the Euro will be rapidly perceived globally as a sustainable economic arrangement - with policies of balancing budgets, controlling inflation, maintaining international competitiveness and regulating finance.

Countries that stick with old ways of doing business like budget deficiting, inflating out of debt and slashing public spending will quickly fall behind the EZ both economically and socially.

mlumley

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

I agree with everything Lazy Gun said. Superb posting.

+1 with that.

Now back to topic?

Nigel for PM. He's a great man.

walrusgumble

shanered wrote: »

What are everybodies views on this guy?
I've been watching his videos on youtube and I do have to say I'm very impressed by him.
I know I might be opening a can of worms here by mentioning him as he quite a character but I'd like to here all views on him and them being discussed.

The guy can't even get a seat in Westminister. If the Brits reject him, why should we admire him?

bob50

walrusgumble wrote: »

The guy can't even get a seat in Westminister. If the Brits reject him, why should we admire him?

I do think at a bye election or at the next general election he will win a seat for ukip

HowsAboutThis

Nigel says how it is.

Similarly, Daniel Hannan.

McDave

HowsAboutThis wrote: »

Nigel says how it is.

Similarly, Daniel Hannan.

Farage says what some people want to hear.

Similarly, Hannan.

NAP123

walrusgumble wrote: »

The guy can't even get a seat in Westminister. If the Brits reject him, why should we admire him?

Surely you don,t just admire people who are elected to Westminister.

Murderers, paedophiles, fraudsters, spies, as well as heroes and patriots have sat in Westminister.

Of course we are blessed to have a Mannequin as Taoiseach.

WanabeOlympian

He simply makes speeches to get a reaction but as far as i can see the other MEPs simply ignore his bait, which drives him mad altogether.
He's entertaining, as in Ian Paisley was entertaining back in the day, kind of stuff. Little substance to his speeches though, when you take away the clever puns. Does he get any actual work done when not drafting comical speeches? ;-)

BlitzKrieg

WanabeOlympian wrote: »

He simply makes speeches to get a reaction but as far as i can see the other MEPs simply ignore his bait, which drives him mad altogether.
He's entertaining, as in Ian Paisley was entertaining back in the day, kind of stuff. Little substance to his speeches though, when you take away the clever puns. Does he get any actual work done when not drafting comical speeches? ;-)

He asks questions about Bees and missing Belgian porn

All info on our MEP actions are available publicly: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/4525/NIGEL_FARAGE.html


You'll find though that he is lacking in actual motions for resolutions and overflowing in speeches.

NAP123

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

He asks questions about Bees and missing Belgian porn

All info on our MEP actions are available publicly: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/4525/NIGEL_FARAGE.html


You'll find though that he is lacking in actual motions for resolutions and overflowing in speeches.

Why would he put forward motions and resolutions to an entity that he does not believe in?

meglome

NAP123 wrote: »

Why would he put forward motions and resolutions to an entity that he does not believe in?

Why be there at all at that rate?

NAP123

meglome wrote: »

Why be there at all at that rate?

If you need help with the answer to that question, you need help.

Eric Cartman

Nigel is a very smart man, hes anti EU control , has stood up for the Irish many times in Brussels , isnt afraid to look at multiculturalism and immigration as a negative for britain , hes a low tax low spend libertarian. I would vote for him if I could.

getz

WanabeOlympian wrote: »

He simply makes speeches to get a reaction but as far as i can see the other MEPs simply ignore his bait, which drives him mad altogether.
He's entertaining, as in Ian Paisley was entertaining back in the day, kind of stuff. Little substance to his speeches though, when you take away the clever puns. Does he get any actual work done when not drafting comical speeches? ;-)

he is the only politician in the EU who has a proper day job

Lemming

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nigel is a very smart man, hes anti EU control , has stood up for the Irish many times in Brussels , isnt afraid to look at multiculturalism and immigration as a negative for britain , hes a low tax low spend libertarian. I would vote for him if I could.

This would be the same guy that during the Nice Referendum fiasco showed his party's "support for Ireland" kick-by-proxy against the EU by draping an Irish tricolour over a pub table before covering it in pint glasses, beer stains, and cigarette ashes whilst wearing stupid, twee leprechaun hats or some such? Respect & support indeed ...

Make no mistake, he wasn't standing up for Ireland, he was using that tired old expression " the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and would have applied it to anyone against the EU. I believe the correct description for what he did was "opportunistic, political expediency", not "support".

shanered

Maybe you have a point that it was purely oppertuinistic of him to back Ireland after the Lisbon Treaty, but whether it was or not I have to say he made a good point about the fact that the democratic way of the EU when it comes to these matters is extremely lacking, and he had a justified go at Herman Van Rompuy, the unelected head of the EU state.
I just think even if he has his own agenda which is constantly being pointed out here, he brings to attention some issues that we simply aren't hearing anywhere else from people in the European parliment even though there is a huge amount of citizens in the EU that would have support for his points such as the lack of democratic proceedure when electing the head of the EU, the blatent disregard for the democratic results of Irish referenda.

I think he is an amazing orator and has got serious balls to get up and say it how he thinks it to be.
I would like to see more politicians like hime rather than the ones that get elected and take their seat and don't follow through with anything they ever said to get elected, and you don't hear them ever stand up and make statements regarding their concerns at how the EU in general needs to be reformed.
Most just sit there and collect their paychecks and be "good" boys and girls and toe the line.
I think he is a breath of fresh air to be honest, even though I am not familiar of his domestic record in politics.

BlitzKrieg

and he had a justified go at Herman Van Rompuy, the unelected head of the EU state.

*sigh* he's PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL


There is no head of the EU state.

and you don't hear them ever stand up and make statements regarding their concerns at how the EU in general needs to be reformed.

So you actively go to the european parliament website and watch the videos of all the politicians, or is this because Nigel Farage tends to put his speeches up on youtube and they get spread around by euroskeptics.

There are many more speechmakers in the european parliament. Some just as critical of the european union, some just as powerful speaking. Some are more productive and most are not some opportunist speaking for his youtube channel when he should be speaking to the parliament.

View

getz wrote: »

he is the only politician in the EU who has a proper day job

His "proper day job" is full time MEP. If he is doing another job as well then he can't do the job he was elected to do - namely represent his constituents' point of view - properly.

Were it a case that he is a part-time politican collecting a full-time politican's salary (plus expenses) some might even denounce it as example of someone "ripping off the tax-payer" and engage in theatrics about it in the European Parliament.

Just as well, we can check his voting & attendance record on votewatch.eu and see how often he turns up and votes against those nasty EU laws like his constituents elect him to, right?

The Corinthian

View wrote: »

Just as well, we can check his voting & attendance record on votewatch.eu and see how often he turns up and votes against those nasty EU laws like his constituents elect him to, right?

About Votes about 50% of the time, which is 742nd place out of 778 and his attendance is around 70% which is a slightly better 707th place out of the same 778.

View

The Corinthian wrote: »

About Votes about 50% of the time, which is 742nd place out of 778 and his attendance is around 70% which is a slightly better 707th place out of the same 778.

A Eurosceptic might even say: "For evil to triumph, it merely suffices for good men to do nothing".

Federalists would never, ever dream of taking advantage of the good man's absence due to: "Fog in Channel - Continent cut off", right?

Rascasse

The Corinthian wrote: »

About Votes about 50% of the time, which is 742nd place out of 778 and his attendance is around 70% which is a slightly better 707th place out of the same 778.

In his defence he is also party leader so clearly won't be able to be there all the time. Also, Nessa Childers is there 94% of the time and comes only 234th which suggests to me that the chamber is filled with those that rarely spend any time in their constituencies.

Anyone have any excuses for this waster? http://www.votewatch.eu/en/brian-crowley.html

swimming in a sea

If I lived in the UK I'd vote for UKIP, they are very lucky to have a leader who really is a great speaker.

I don't know if he would do as well if he was a leader of an irish party, simply for the reason that in general Irish people are suspicious of great speaking politicians. Ahern, Kenny etc

The Corinthian

Rascasse wrote: »

In his defence he is also party leader so clearly won't be able to be there all the time.

He doesn't need to; the Parliament meets for four days per month (except August) in Strasbourg and six times per year for two days in Brussels.

That's 56 days per year. Hardly going to take up all that much time.

Rascasse

The Corinthian wrote: »

He doesn't need to; the Parliament meets for four days per month (except August) in Strasbourg and six times per year for two days in Brussels.

That's 56 days per year. Hardly going to take up all that much time.

Well the 71% stat is based on 191 sitting days. No idea how that squares with the 56 days you claim.

The Corinthian

Rascasse wrote: »

Well the 71% stat is based on 191 sitting days. No idea how that squares with the 56 days you claim.

I did a quick tot-up from Wikipedia, so obviously I was wrong. If the correct figure is 191 sitting days, then that's seriously not that much of a burden.

Rascasse

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did a quick tot-up from Wikipedia, so obviously I was wrong. If the correct figure is 191 sitting days, then that's seriously not that much of a burden.

If he had 100% attendance, then add 104 days for weekends, then give him a meagre 20 days holidays, that would leave him just 4 days per month for constituency work. Obviously he has other responsibilities as a party leader so I think his attendance is acceptable. It would be interesting to see how it compares to party leaders in the Dail or Commons.

McDave

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nigel is a very smart man, hes anti EU control , has stood up for the Irish many times in Brussels , isnt afraid to look at multiculturalism and immigration as a negative for britain , hes a low tax low spend libertarian. I would vote for him if I could.

:pac:

You mean like the UKIP 'Respect the Ahrish No' stunt in the EP where their MEPs practically dressed up as leprechauns. Like they give a toss...

johndownes1961

McDave wrote: »

:pac:

You mean like the UKIP 'Respect the Ahrish No' stunt in the EP where their MEPs practically dressed up as leprechauns. Like they give a toss...

I agree with you to an extent and that's because you have a good point. However I will not take you seriously, I have gone through the forum and some your comments have been insightful but comes across as agenda based with no critical analysis. In your opinion the EU is near perfect and the UK are the rabble rousers that should be put in their place. Some of your analyses while well written are quite simplistic and lack any depth.

I am not here to castigate or act as some form of evaluator but I think it is highly disingenuous to consistently pontificate on how bad it would be for a sovereign country to dare seek a referendum from their own citizens on their future relationship with a voluntary regional body while you never -in most cases anyway - acknowledge the dysfunctionality of the EU as a body.

McDave

johndownes1961 wrote: »

I agree with you to an extent and that's because you have a good point. However I will not take you seriously, I have gone through the forum and some your comments have been insightful but comes across as agenda based with no critical analysis. In your opinion the EU is near perfect and the UK are the rabble rousers that should be put in their place. Some of your analyses while well written are quite simplistic and lack any depth.

I am not here to castigate or act as some form of evaluator but I think it is highly disingenuous to consistently pontificate on how bad it would be for a sovereign country to dare seek a referendum from their own citizens on their future relationship with a voluntary regional body while you never -in most cases anyway - acknowledge the dysfunctionality of the EU as a body.

The UK is more than welcome to have any referendum it desires. In principle, it's a purely internal matter. There's nothing 'bad' about it.

Regardless of that, I cannot take Farage and his pseudo-iconoclastic populism seriously. Nor those who promote him and his party in an Irish context. Neither can I take seriously the pervasively negative tone of most of the UK media on the EU.

Your characterisation of the 'dysfunctionality' of the EU is a red herring and a complete value judgement in its own right. When it comes to Poms whining about the way the EU works, I'm afraid I can only conclude that it's because it's not a set-up fundamentally influenced by the UK. And they feel frozen out of the Franco-German compact - something practically every Prime Minister in recent times has done nothing to defrost. And it's not like many British people actually want the EU to become the kind of 'super-state' entity which could support a higher degree of democracy, or whatever idealised condition one thinks it might become.

Scofflaw

johndownes1961 wrote: »

I agree with you to an extent and that's because you have a good point. However I will not take you seriously, I have gone through the forum and some your comments have been insightful but comes across as agenda based with no critical analysis. In your opinion the EU is near perfect and the UK are the rabble rousers that should be put in their place. Some of your analyses while well written are quite simplistic and lack any depth.

I am not here to castigate or act as some form of evaluator but I think it is highly disingenuous to consistently pontificate on how bad it would be for a sovereign country to dare seek a referendum from their own citizens on their future relationship with a voluntary regional body while you never -in most cases anyway - acknowledge the dysfunctionality of the EU as a body.

To be fair, a lot of the analyses of the EU's "dysfunctionality" that are presented turn out to be based on a variety of misconceptions, from confusion of the ECHR with the EU to the belief that EU legislation is somehow produced without any democratic input from Member State governments to the belief that the EU can't get its accounts audited to a standard level because it aims for a level that far exceeds most government audits.

The EU is, of course, dysfunctional in variety of ways, but the point about the ways in which it is dysfunctional are that they are almost invariably because the governments of the Member States have designed it so, usually by retaining in their own hands powers that turn out later to be necessary for the proper functioning of some piece of European integration they also created. The classic example is the euro, which was designed without any crisis planning whatsoever, and without the regulatory powers that were required to ensure the common currency members weren't effectively filling their part of the shared ship with a combination of powder kegs and non-safety matches.

There are therefore two main options open to those who find the various halfway houses the EU consists of repugnant - to go forward, or backwards (that is, either increased or decreased integration, depending on what you think of as 'forward'). Neither is in itself a more democratic or more correct option - they're a matter of preference. It's even possible to prefer the series of halfway houses on the basis that they reflect the preferences of the Member States' governments, and by proxy, the preferences of the majority of the people in them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Rascasse wrote: »

Well the 71% stat is based on 191 sitting days. No idea how that squares with the 56 days you claim.

The 191 days are the number of days the European Parliament has had plenary (i.e. formal) sessions since the European Elections in Summer '09.

Most of MEP's activities revolve around Committee sessions not plenary sessions.

The EP's 2013 calendar pretty much shows that.

Any MEP serious about making any effort in influencing legislation has to devote a lot of time to committee work.

And, given the very high attendance stats for most MEPs in the plenary sessions, I'd guess they have little respect for any MEP who operates on a part-time basis.

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

The classic example is the euro, which was designed without any crisis planning whatsoever, and without the regulatory powers

Followed by the flawed Lisbon Treaty with almost all of the same structural flaws. Reinforced dominance of the core european powers with no long term strategy to retain the periphery. The euro has been challenged and the adhesion almost broke but under pressure they printed money which can't last forever, when the injustice of the Lisbon treaty becomes apparent it will be interesting to see what happens.

Yet no criticism was permitted by government and all !!

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are therefore two main options open to those who find the various halfway houses the EU consists of repugnant - to go forward, or backwards

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would consider this framing a debate when they are of course many options. Preferably, a step backwards to achieve a unified direction forward rather than what is the current perceived modus operandi by a now significant and growing number of people, that of coercion.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

I would consider this framing a debate when they are of course many options. Preferably, a step backwards to achieve a unified direction forward rather than what is the current perceived modus operandi by a now significant and growing number of people, that of coercion.

We could undoubtedly go sideways as well. Sideways and a bit forwards, backwards and a bit sideways, all of those options are there. It seemed excessively exhaustive to cover all 360 degrees.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

We could undoubtedly go sideways as well. Sideways and a bit forwards, backwards and a bit sideways, all of those options are there. It seemed excessively exhaustive to cover all 360 degrees.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Frivolously entertaining.

McDave

rumour wrote: »

Followed by the flawed Lisbon Treaty with almost all of the same structural flaws. Reinforced dominance of the core european powers with no long term strategy to retain the periphery. The euro has been challenged and the adhesion almost broke but under pressure they printed money which can't last forever, when the injustice of the Lisbon treaty becomes apparent it will be interesting to see what happens.

Yet no criticism was permitted by government and all !!

There were obvious flaws in the Maastricht Treaty. But I suppose that's the best that could have been negotiated at the time.

Lisbon is an interesting treaty. It allows for differing constellations of countries to integrate on different policies. I think that will give the EU the flexibility to advance asymmetrically. Lisbon could be seen to be a smart development in a couple of decades. I certainly don't see any issues of injustice with it. Care to elaborate?

On the 'printing' issue, the ECB issued LTROs which are temporary in nature and being redeemed as we speak. The result is an injection of cash into the banking system to help the EZ over a funding hump. Now that international investors are snapping up GIPS bonds and the Euro itself, funds are flowing back into the EZ and the LTROs are being progressively destroyed.

So the 'printing' was temporary and specifically designed to avoid inflation. Thus complying with the laws constraining the ECB. It seems to have worked.

NAP123

McDave wrote: »

There were obvious flaws in the Maastricht Treaty. But I suppose that's the best that could have been negotiated at the time.

Lisbon is an interesting treaty. It allows for differing constellations of countries to integrate on different policies. I think that will give the EU the flexibility to advance asymmetrically. Lisbon could be seen to be a smart development in a couple of decades. I certainly don't see any issues of injustice with it. Care to elaborate?

On the 'printing' issue, the ECB issued LTROs which are temporary in nature and being redeemed as we speak. The result is an injection of cash into the banking system to help the EZ over a funding hump. Now that international investors are snapping up GIPS bonds and the Euro itself, funds are flowing back into the EZ and the LTROs are being progressively destroyed.

So the 'printing' was temporary and specifically designed to avoid inflation. Thus complying with the laws constraining the ECB. It seems to have worked.

The last time I heard the phrase " the banks have a funding problem " was in Sept 2009.

Most of the banks in the EU are insolvent and only survive on the free money the ECB is giving with the aid of the Federal Reserve.

The ECB might not be allowed print but is allowed borrow low interest money from a Central Bank that is allowed print.

The current crisis was always a banking crisis, not a sovereign debt crisis.

The reason it became a sovereign debt crisis was because of the decision by the ECB, to save every bank in the EU with tax payers money, rather than printed money.

The banks were, are and will continue to be the problem.

Until the tax payers of the EU are extricated from the problems, faults and criminality of the banking system, there will be no EU recovery.

Basically, until the ECB is held to account for it's failings and the power of resolution is taken away from this wholly responsible for the current crisis, vested interest, nothing can be resolved.

I can understand how bought politicians refuse to acknowledge this very obvious fact, but I cannot understand how interested and informed individuals cannot see the blatantly obvious.

McDave

NAP123 wrote: »

Most of the banks in the EU are insolvent and only survive on the free money the ECB is giving with the aid of the Federal Reserve.

What makes you think the ECB money is 'free'?

McDave

NAP123 wrote: »

The current crisis was always a banking crisis, not a sovereign debt crisis.

The reason it became a sovereign debt crisis was because of the decision by the ECB, to save every bank in the EU with tax payers money, rather than printed money.

The banks were, are and will continue to be the problem.

No. The crisis is both a banking and a sovereign debt problem, with different combinations in different countries.

For instance, in Ireland we have three main problems:

1. The sovereign problem caused by the collapse of a bubble which hid the fact of our structural budget deficit, which was high before the C****c T***r and has returned with a vengeance. At the core of our sovereign debt problem is the construction of a massive public sector apparatus which has become impossible to feed. Not to mention social welfare and future pension commitments.

2. The financial problems in our systemic banks. These are banks that should service the needs of our real economy. But they became so compromised by their poor practices and lack of parliamentary/regulatory oversight that they had to be saved at huge costs to the public purse.

3. The financial problems in our pirate banks - Anglo etc. - which took on debt of unimaginable proportions and which our idiot government chose to privatise.

Spain has a mostly financial crisis. But also it's economy rested on a bubble as well. People overcommitted to property purchases on the basis of unreal earnings expectations. At least they don't seem to have an Anglo-style problem.

Italy's main problem is an outsized and still growing *sovereign* national debt, double the Maastricht recommendation.

Greece's problem is a *sovereign* one resting mainly on its inability to collect taxes. On top of this there was a banking crisis. But the worst of Greece's problems is its failure as a sovereign state.

What EZ policy hopes to achieve is to get members to bring their sovereign debt down to really low levels, and to introduce EZ-wide regulation of the financial sector. I think policy-makers fundamentally understand the complexity of the problem, and that it can't be blamed entirely on banking and finance.

Scofflaw

McDave wrote:

Greece's problem is a *sovereign* one resting mainly on its inability to collect taxes. On top of this there was a banking crisis. But the worst of Greece's problems is its failure as a sovereign state.

To be fair, the Greek banks' problem was that they had bought Greek sovereign debt.

cordially,
Scofflaw

NAP123

McDave wrote: »

No. The crisis is both a banking and a sovereign debt problem, with different combinations in different countries.

For instance, in Ireland we have three main problems:

1. The sovereign problem caused by the collapse of a bubble which hid the fact of our structural budget deficit, which was high before the C****c T***r and has returned with a vengeance. At the core of our sovereign debt problem is the construction of a massive public sector apparatus which has become impossible to feed. Not to mention social welfare and future pension commitments.

2. The financial problems in our systemic banks. These are banks that should service the needs of our real economy. But they became so compromised by their poor practices and lack of parliamentary/regulatory oversight that they had to be saved at huge costs to the public purse.

3. The financial problems in our pirate banks - Anglo etc. - which took on debt of unimaginable proportions and which our idiot government chose to privatise.

Spain has a mostly financial crisis. But also it's economy rested on a bubble as well. People overcommitted to property purchases on the basis of unreal earnings expectations. At least they don't seem to have an Anglo-style problem.

Italy's main problem is an outsized and still growing *sovereign* national debt, double the Maastricht recommendation.

Greece's problem is a *sovereign* one resting mainly on its inability to collect taxes. On top of this there was a banking crisis. But the worst of Greece's problems is its failure as a sovereign state.

What EZ policy hopes to achieve is to get members to bring their sovereign debt down to really low levels, and to introduce EZ-wide regulation of the financial sector. I think policy-makers fundamentally understand the complexity of the problem, and that it can't be blamed entirely on banking and finance.

It is a banking crisis.

Any sovereign crisis was because of the policy of the banking system.

McDave

NAP123 wrote: »

It is a banking crisis.

Any sovereign crisis was because of the policy of the banking system.

I'm afraid you're wrong to assert the crisis is simply a banking one. It's obviously a major component. But it's not the sole factor. Depending on the country, it is a combination.

It's obvious that some countries have encountered problems rolling over existing bonds and paying for new borrowing because investors have had doubts about their ability to pay.

Ireland has a clear and obvious sovereign debt problem based on the gap between its revenues and its expenditures, even leaving the promissory note repayments out of the equation.

shanered

Ireland's debt is more or less created with the banking debt we encountered, to claim that we are anywhere in the region of 80-90 billion in debt because of the our expenditure to income ratio is purely madness.
We are broke because we bailed out the banks.
We may have been running slightly over budget in day to day terms, but the debt that we have been laden with is because of the banks.
To say that our problem is because of your so called gap between expenditure and income is to a certain extent true but clearly distorts the fact that the majority of Ireland debt at the moment is because we are bailing out the banks.

Scofflaw

shanered wrote: »

Ireland's debt is more or less created with the banking debt we encountered, to claim that we are anywhere in the region of 80-90 billion in debt because of the our expenditure to income ratio is purely madness.
We are broke because we bailed out the banks.
We may have been running slightly over budget in day to day terms, but the debt that we have been laden with is because of the banks.
To say that our problem is because of your so called gap between expenditure and income is to a certain extent true but clearly distorts the fact that the majority of Ireland debt at the moment is because we are bailing out the banks.

Er, no:



and



http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/01/debt-and-deficits-decomposed.html

To put it another ay, by 2015, we're expecting to have a General Government Debt of €210bn. Of that, we inherited €47bn from 2007 (well, from the 80s, really), we spent €41bn or so on the banks, and the remaining €122bn is government deficits. That's in debt terms.

If we assume that the money spent on the banks which didn't generate debt directly generated debt elsewhere, you could break those figures down as:

Inherited: €47bn
Banks: €62.5bn
Deficit: €100bn

The question of the real impact of that on day to day spending is rather different, because some of it has been paid directly, so it doesn't generate interest costs, while some of it has not actually been either paid or borrowed, so it doesn't really cost. I can come back to that, it's probably worth doing as an exercise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

NAP123

McDave wrote: »

I'm afraid you're wrong to assert the crisis is simply a banking one. It's obviously a major component. But it's not the sole factor. Depending on the country, it is a combination.

It's obvious that some countries have encountered problems rolling over existing bonds and paying for new borrowing because investors have had doubts about their ability to pay.

Ireland has a clear and obvious sovereign debt problem based on the gap between its revenues and its expenditures, even leaving the promissory note repayments out of the equation.

Ireland has a sovereign debt crisis because of a private banking crisis.

The EU has a banking crisis. The world has a banking crisis.

The penney will drop eventually, but most likely after all the banks have been remunerated with taxpayers money.

KyussBishop

One thing to note about our public debt (and this is distinctly 'controversial', so bear with me...), is that if we had access to money creation (agreed at an EU level or whatnot), then we can both fund government spending, and pay interest on our debt, as well as pay down debts when they fall due, so long as we budget it so that we stay within an inflation target of say 2-4% (maybe even more wriggle room there, but set it at 4% for now).

That, combined with getting interest rates on the debt down to a sustainable level (also with EU help), would mean we would still carry the debt around for a very long time, but it would not be the monstrous burden/impediment it currently is; the main harm from the debt, would be the inflation caused by paying the (then greatly reduced) interest rates on it, which would have to be factored into government spending for hitting the inflation target (the debts would eventually be extinguished altogether, after a very long time).


If you start thinking of government spending in terms of hitting an inflation target (with that being the ceiling for spending, not the availability of money), there are a pretty wide range of options available for solving the entire crisis.

View

NAP123 wrote: »

Ireland has a sovereign debt crisis because of a private banking crisis.

Grand, we'll just ignore that the IMF reckoned we needed a 50 billion bailout to cover our government expenditure deficit and a "mere" 17.5 billion bailout (in addition to the NPRF monies) for the banks.

Sure, what do they know about debt crises?