So we dont have to pay back German Bondholders

For Forks Sake

liammur wrote: »

Fianna Fail’s Michael McGrath has called for the letter to be released, but Mr Noonan said his party had their own opportunity to do it while in power.

If Mr McGrath wants to know the contents of the letter, why not turn to his right and ask deputy Martin who was a cabinet minister at the time. This is quite frankly pathetic revisionism by FF.

later12

antoobrien wrote: »

Lets try to stop this fallacy one and for all. We were not paying back German (or French) bondholders. The Euro area bonds were a small percentage of the overall bonds held. While the overall levels have dropped they have not gone down nearly as much as the RoW bonds. The Euro area bonds held by Irish banks have dropped by €8bn since 2007. The RoW bonds have dropped by €61bn.

Here's a summary of the information in the above link wrt bonds held by the banks with Irish operations between 2007 & 2011 (amounts in €bn at Eoy):

Year | Irish |Euro Area | RoW
2007 | 29 | 15 | 77
2008 | 27 | 16 | 57
2009 | 39 | 12 | 47
2010 | 33 | 10 | 21
2011 | 30 | 8 | 14
'12 H1 | 25 | 7 |8


The corresponding information for the covered institutions (i.e. Irish banks)
Year | Irish |Euro Area | RoW
2007 | 28 | 13 | 75
2008 | 26 | 14 | 54
2009 | 38 | 11 | 46
2010 | 33 | 10 | 20
2011 | 29 | 8 | 13
'12 H1| 25 | 7 | 8


To be very clear about this, there have been about €6bn in bonds paid to Euro area institutions since 2008 from the Irish banks, so we are NOT propping up German or French institutions.

I must have missed this earlier.

As acceptable as it is to say that there is no evidence of any consequential holdings of French and German funds in the Irish domestic covered institutions, it is quite a valid argument that due to the nature of the IFSC & the amount of treasury operations there, it is possible that very much non-irish ownership (or beneficial ownership) appears as Irish ownership on paper. Indeed, that's part of the raison d'etre of the IFSC.

This is not evidence of French and German banking interests, but it is something bear in mind when employing a crude implement like the CBI's aggregate balance sheet for the covered institutions.

Sponge Bob

later12 wrote: »

As acceptable as it is to say that there is no evidence of any consequential holdings of French and German funds in the Irish domestic covered institutions, it is quite a valid argument that due to the nature of the IFSC & the amount of treasury operations there, it is possible that very much non-irish ownership (or beneficial ownership) appears as Irish ownership on paper. Indeed, that's part of the raison d'etre of the IFSC.

Also true. these 'bondholders' may have been Irish Domiciled entities controlled by German Banks.

However the bondholders HAVE been paid back, and were largely in 2009 and 2010.

We must differentiate between 2008 era threats from the ECB...ie save Europes Banks...and the 2010 era threat that Ireland had to seek a bailout to prevent contagion on sovereign bond markets. Two separate issues.

Threats in 2008 would have arisen AFTER 2 matters came to light.

1. The state of 'our banks'
2. The antics of German companies in the IFSC ( a la Unicredit ( Italian) in the news today) . Have we forgotten Depfa, West LB,and Sachsen LB...all German and indeed Cologne re/Gen Re ( US/German) as well as others.

The amount of turd polishing going on in Dublin in 2007 and 2008 was unreal.

Godge

paddy147 wrote: »

Oh sweet lord jesus....does anyone watch and listen these days???

Look and Listen carefully to what Mr McCarthy says and states and then listen to what Mr Rabbit then says and admits to aswell.

Its not rocket science.

Thanks, if it is not rocket science and as you seem to have a clear understanding of the issue, for those of us unable to view the VB show on our computer, maybe you would summarise the legal basis in a couple of paragraphs with references and links to EU and Irish legislation and relevant case history.

From my limited understanding of the issue, based on what I have read (unfortunately have not been able to see that unbiased factually-based VB show, but ah well), it would seem that the argument being made is that in late 2010 we were forced into the bailout by a threatening letter sent from the ECB which was acting outside its powers.

It would seem to me that it would not be possible to prove that this was the single most important reason for the bailout (i.e. our gross overspending had nothing to do with it). However, if it was possible to prove it and if it was also to be proven that the ECB had technically gone beyond its mandate, this could have very serious implications for Ireland.

In saying it could have very serious implications for us, I am not thinking about the €6 bn or so (which seems to be the maximum figure being thrown about here which is about three or four months of our deficit) that we might get back. No, I am thinking back further to the time of the Two Brians (think Three Stooges with less brainpower) when we guaranteed the banks in September 2008. Arguably this was done outside the powers of the state and was done without consideration of the effect on other member states. Therefore, it is arguable that the Germans, the French, even the Greeks could sue little old Ireland for the cost of the actions of the two Brians and the consequential knock-on effects on the rest of the European economy.

Remember, if you open a can of worms, you may the one who ends up as worm-feed.

later12

Godge wrote: »

In saying it could have very serious implications for us, I am not thinking about the €6 bn or so (which seems to be the maximum figure being thrown about here which is about three or four months of our deficit) that we might get back. No, I am thinking back further to the time of the Two Brians (think Three Stooges with less brainpower) when we guaranteed the banks in September 2008. Arguably this was done outside the powers of the state and was done without consideration of the effect on other member states. Therefore, it is arguable that the Germans, the French, even the Greeks could sue little old Ireland for the cost of the actions of the two Brians and the consequential knock-on effects on the rest of the European economy.

Remember, if you open a can of worms, you may the one who ends up as worm-feed.

What a bizarre reply.

There is nothing in European law or the Treaties which procluded MSs from saving their banking systems. Can you elaborate on that scope for litigation with reference to European legislation and/or the Treaties?

The basis for the case suggested by Mccarthy under article 340 & the ECB statutes has already been mentioned.

Godge

later12 wrote: »

What a bizarre reply.

There is nothing in European law or the Treaties which procluded MSs from saving their banking systems. Can you elaborate on that scope for litigation with reference to European legislation and/or the Treaties?

The basis for the case suggested by Mccarthy under article 340 & the ECB statutes has already been mentioned.

I accept that my reply is bizarre but when responding to a bizarre OP what better way?

P.S. There are articles in the Treaty about Member States acting in concert etc and not disrupting etc. Can't be bothered reading through it again but the point is if one person is going to construct a bizarre legal case based on a bizarre interpretation of an obscure provision of the Treaty, aren't we all entitled to do so.

later12

Godge wrote: »

I accept that my reply is bizarre but when responding to a bizarre OP what better way?

P.S. There are articles in the Treaty about Member States acting in concert etc and not disrupting etc. Can't be bothered reading through it again but the point is if one person is going to construct a bizarre legal case based on a bizarre interpretation of an obscure provision of the Treaty, aren't we all entitled to do so.

What do you think is bizarre, in a legal sense, about taking a case under article 340 and the ECB statutes as set out by Colm McCarthy if the allegations made by Lenihan & Ahern & Ajay Chopra & even Jorg Asmussen are correct?

I would suggest answering that question is far more effective than initiating a bizzare counter-scenario, which I'm sure we'd still all love to hear elaborated.

ncdadam

paddy147 wrote: »

.....anyone want to comment on this and how the ECB have threatened us and forced us to pay billions that we never had to pay...

Colm McCarthy digs up the truth about the ECB,and Pat Rabbit finally admits to a few interesting things too.

Ireland have a case to take against the ECB in the European Courts of Justice to get back the billions of euros we should never have paid in the 1st place.

Makes for very interesting viewing.;)




http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/52207/1/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne



PS-I wonder will Kenny and Noonan now finally stand up to the ECB and Germany,or will they still suck up to them both.

If your waiting for Kenny or Noonan to stand up for the ordinary people of Ireland, you'll have a long wait.

liammur

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Also true. these 'bondholders' may have been Irish Domiciled entities controlled by German Banks.

However the bondholders HAVE been paid back, and were largely in 2009 and 2010.

We must differentiate between 2008 era threats from the ECB...ie save Europes Banks...and the 2010 era threat that Ireland had to seek a bailout to prevent contagion on sovereign bond markets. Two separate issues.

Threats in 2008 would have arisen AFTER 2 matters came to light.

1. The state of 'our banks'
2. The antics of German companies in the IFSC ( a la Unicredit ( Italian) in the news today) . Have we forgotten Depfa, West LB,and Sachsen LB...all German and indeed Cologne re/Gen Re ( US/German) as well as others.

The amount of turd polishing going on in Dublin in 2007 and 2008 was unreal.

That was an Irish bank, which operated in a most reckless manner. Fortunately for the Irish taxpayer, and unfortunately for the German taxpayer, Germans took them over just before the crash and got hit to the tune of over €100bln. The Germans warned us about it & other reckless behaviour in the IFSC, but Micheal Martin told them regulation should be 'light'.

Sponge Bob

liammur wrote: »

That was an Irish bank, which operated in a most reckless manner.

Depfa was a german bank that moved HQ to Dublin in 2002 because they could do what they liked. When they collapsed they brought down their THEN parent Hypo leading to the biggest single bailout in Eurozone History ...then or since.

Had Hypo NOT bought Depfa it could have created a bigger mess than all the covered banks together.

liammur

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Depfa was a german bank that moved HQ to Dublin in 2002 because they could do what they liked. When they collapsed they brought down their THEN parent Hypo leading to the biggest single bailout in Eurozone History ...then or since.

Had Hypo NOT bought Depfa it could have created a bigger mess than all the covered banks together.

And the Germans warned us about this, and we did nought. Just a lucky, lucky escape.

FreudianSlippers

later12 wrote: »

What do you think is bizarre, in a legal sense, about taking a case under article 340 and the ECB statutes as set out by Colm McCarthy if the allegations made by Lenihan & Ahern & Ajay Chopra & even Jorg Asmussen are correct?

I would suggest answering that question is far more effective than initiating a bizzare counter-scenario, which I'm sure we'd still all love to hear elaborated.

What the armchair lawyers of boards.ie have failed to establish are the factual basis for bringing a claim against the ECB pursuant to Art. 340.

What is the wrongful act - is threatening to remove liquidity support a wrongful act? Or is it well within the powers of the ECB to do so?
I'm sure we can show damage to the tune of €6bn or whatever... the issue is that it must be quantifiable as well as occurring outside the possible loss that would have arisen had they not done their action. I think this will be a tough one, there is no way Ireland could prove that they would have lost less money had the ECB not done this act.
Finally, and possibly the most important part is causation. We are going to have a steep hill to climb in relation to causation.

Nobody has addressed the fundamental legal principles that are a major hurdle to actually taking a case against the ECB - now I don't know all of the facts here and none of us do. But I say it again, you can be damn sure there are a significant portion of our own politicians that do not want this aired in the ECB.

later12

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What the armchair lawyers of boards.ie have failed to establish are the factual basis for bringing a claim against the ECB pursuant to Art. 340.

What is the wrongful act - is threatening to remove liquidity support a wrongful act? Or is it well within the powers of the ECB to do so?

Not really interested in the armchair lawyers bit; either a point is valid or it is not. Plenty of people put forward opinions of an economic nature on here, which I would have thought are to be examined on the basis of their merit, nothing else..

I presume McCarthy's point is that any wrongful act, which he feels may be implied by the accounts of Brian Lenihan, Jorg Asmussen and others suggesting that the ECB acted beyond its remit in 2010 , ought to become apparent when the letter is discovered or published.

Until then, it is impossible to describe the nature of the wrongdoing, if any.

However, I would have thought that a significant victory would have been the publication of this elusive communication (and perhaps similar communications) in the first place. That in itself might be something of considerable value to our understanding of this crisis & its development.

FreudianSlippers

later12 wrote: »

Not really interested in the armchair lawyers bit; either a point is valid or it is not. Plenty of people put forward opinions of an economic nature on here, which I would have thought are to be examined on the basis of their merit, nothing else..

I presume McCarthy's point is that any wrongful act, which he feels may be implied by the accounts of Brian Lenihan, Jorg Asmussen and others suggesting that the ECB acted beyond its remit in 2010 , ought to become apparent when the letter is discovered or published.

Until then, it is impossible to describe the nature of the wrongdoing, if any.

However, I would have thought that a significant victory would have been the publication of this elusive communication (and perhaps similar communications) in the first place. That in itself might be something of considerable value to our understanding of this crisis & its development.

I'm not trying to defend the ECB here. If they committed a wrong then they should rectify it. The first half of this thread is nonsense based on no legal reality (which the VB interview seems to perpetuate). I would love to see some recourse if the ECB committed a wrong, all I'm saying is that people shouldn't be holding their breath and spouting on about suing the ECB when they have relatively little knowledge about the process or the ability to do so.

I didn't actually mean to limit my "armchair lawyers" to boards - the guests on VB's programme in question seem to be guilty as well.
The fact is that the point is not valid unless it is validated. We don't know anything about the grounds for suit against the ECB or if there are any. My point earlier remains that we have no clear legally valid cause of action against the ECB that I can see and nobody has indicated one that would sway me to believe the opposite.

The so-called "merit" of the points on this thread so far (at least the first half certainly) are not strong persuasively - I don't think you can disagree with that?

Sand

Its all fairly irrelevant at this point. The time to represent Ireland was between 2008 and 2010.The wise and moderate course of action was to postphone any effort to represent Ireland in favour of representing the ECB and EU interest. McCarthy was at that time supportive of the "wise and moderate" strategy of wait and see - he indeed had a fairly :rolleyes: reaction to supposedly wild ideas that diverged from the "Official Ireland" strategy. His recent recognition that Ireland was getting bent over a barrel by the inheritors of Bismark and Richelieu between 2008 and 2010 is interesting, but its far too late.

Now Ireland simply has no options - The NPRF is expended, the private bondholders have escaped, and our debt has rocketed and stupid policies like Croke Park and the already pointless fiscal treaty have been pursued. We have to do whatever we are told and we have to accept any terms the ECB wants to dictate to us. Legal or illegal. And we have to smile and call it ice-cream. All of this was quite predictable. Buckle up and enjoy the ride.

P.S: I hope that we'll hear the last of those hilarious analogies which painted Trichet and the ECB as a fire brigade arriving to save Ireland from a burning building. If anything they boarded up the windows and doors with Ireland still inside.

paddy147

Well when Phil Hogan is threatening people over not paying a 100 euro charge and now trying to have people in court for 100 euro...I think thats its about fcuking time that Kenny and Noonan got up off their lazy ar5es and went back over there and demanded the 20 odd billion euro that we should be due back.

Its OUR MONEY and not the bondholders.

thomasj

paddy147 wrote: »

liammur wrote: »

I don't rate C McCarthy. We went on a solo run in 08, now we're paying the price for that.

And what about Pat Rabbits admissions then (seen as he is a front bench minister)???

The late brian lenihan was a front bencher as was brian Cowen.

Just because you're a front bencher doesn't mean you're always right......

FreudianSlippers

paddy147 wrote: »

Well when Phil Hogan is threatening people over not paying a 100 euro charge and now trying to have people in court for 100 euro...I think thats its about fcuking time that Kenny and Noonan got up off their lazy ar5es and went back over there and demanded the 20 odd billion euro that we should be due back.

Its OUR MONEY and not the bondholders.

What is our legal recourse for demanding the money back? Prosecution for the money under the household charge is clear; it's right here in section 15 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011. Now if you can show me where the ECB committed a wrongful act ultra vires their powers which caused quantifiable damages outside the loss that would have been caused by not initiating the bailout (and I don't think we have anyone that has seen down that fork-in-the-parallel-universe to give substantial evidence to quantify this) and then prove causation between the wrong and the damage - then yes, 100% yes... let's sue the ECB and grab our pitchforks.

Until then, tone down the hyperbole and the rabble-rousing nonsense.

liammur

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not trying to defend the ECB here. If they committed a wrong then they should rectify it. The first half of this thread is nonsense based on no legal reality (which the VB interview seems to perpetuate). I would love to see some recourse if the ECB committed a wrong, all I'm saying is that people shouldn't be holding their breath and spouting on about suing the ECB when they have relatively little knowledge about the process or the ability to do so.

I didn't actually mean to limit my "armchair lawyers" to boards - the guests on VB's programme in question seem to be guilty as well.
The fact is that the point is not valid unless it is validated. We don't know anything about the grounds for suit against the ECB or if there are any. My point earlier remains that we have no clear legally valid cause of action against the ECB that I can see and nobody has indicated one that would sway me to believe the opposite.

The so-called "merit" of the points on this thread so far (at least the first half certainly) are not strong persuasively - I don't think you can disagree with that?

Now, of course you are right. Some will argue for the sake of argument. I have no doubt the ECB bullied Ireland, but we were so clueless and rudderless at that time, it probably was the option they had. It must also be remembered that Geithner was heaping the pressure on to have us in the bailout programme because America stood to lose a lot.

paddy147

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What is our legal recourse for demanding the money back? Prosecution for the money under the household charge is clear; it's right here in section 15 of the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011. Now if you can show me where the ECB committed a wrongful act ultra vires their powers which caused quantifiable damages outside the loss that would have been caused by not initiating the bailout (and I don't think we have anyone that has seen down that fork-in-the-parallel-universe to give substantial evidence to quantify this) and then prove causation between the wrong and the damage - then yes, 100% yes... let's sue the ECB and grab our pitchforks.

Until then, tone down the hyperbole and the rabble-rousing nonsense.

I dont think you have any right to tell me to tone down at all.

1-Im not rabble rousing at all.
2-I have every right to post here,just as much as anyone else does have the right to post.
3-It was clearly stated and accepted that we have a case against the ECB and why we have a case.


Now if Phil Hogan is going to threaten and demand that everyone has to pay a 100 euro HHC charge and then take non payers to court,then Kenny and Noonan can act in the same tough aggressive manner towards the ECB.


20 odd billion euro is something that you do not let go.

20 odd billion euro can do alot for the "irish domestic economy".

Sand

liammur wrote: »

Now, of course you are right. Some will argue for the sake of argument. I have no doubt the ECB bullied Ireland, but we were so clueless and rudderless at that time, it probably was the option they had.

Liammur - that statement says a hell of a lot.

liammur

Sand wrote: »

Liammur - that statement says a hell of a lot.

And unfortunately, the galling thing is, it's 100% true.

FreudianSlippers

paddy147 wrote: »

I dont think you have any right to tell me to tone down at all.

I merely suggested you tone down the hyperbole. It doesn't particularly assist your argument at all. In fact, if anything it distracts from any validity your post may contain.

1-Im not rabble rousing at all.

Your posts look very rousing of the rabble as far as I can see... lots of emotive fluff with little to no substance. I recall something along the lines of "Its [sic] OUR MONEY and not the bondholders [sic]."

A complete failure to represent a coherent reason for it other than linking to videos and refusing to discuss the contents.

2-I have every right to post here,just as much as anyone else does have the right to post.

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise?

3-It was clearly stated and accepted that we have a case against the ECB and why we have a case.

It was not clearly stated by anyone on this thread and it certainly not accepted by anyone with their feet firmly planted on the Earth that there is a case against the ECB and/or why we have a case.
I've now called upon you to explain this three times; you are unable and/or unwilling to do so for whatever reason.

Now if Phil Hogan is going to threaten and demand that everyone has to pay a 100 euro HHC charge and then take non payers to court,then Kenny and Noonan can act in the same tough aggressive manner towards the ECB.

You realise that makes absolutely no sense, right? I explained already why there is a clear provision in law to bring people who do not pay the household charge to court. You have not shown the clear provision to sue the ECB; and while I accept that there is such a clear provision (not brought up by you), I suggest that we do not have a solid case pursuant to that provision based on the evidence at hand.

20 odd billion euro is something that you do not let go.

20 odd billion euro can do alot for the "irish domestic economy".

While I'm sure that €20bn would do a lot for the "irish domestic economy" (), there is literally no logical evidence provided here or elsewhere to quantify this amount, state the legal basis for demanding it back (let alone suing for it) or stating that we could recover it even IF we won.

paddy147

One more time....(god give me strength)......what did Colm McCarthy clearly say and what did Mr Pat Rabbit clearly say in response and admit to aswell

Are they wrong then?????

20 odd billion euro back (through the European Courts of Justice) could not be used to kick start the domestic economy...couldnt be used to create some of these 100,000 jobs??

My referal to Phil Hogan was and is in the fact that the goverment will act tough with us and blatantly bully and threaten us here at home,but they wont act tough with the ECB or Europe in General.


They suddenly develop "stage fright" and the inability to speak up and out and threaten/demand things from the ECB.


But it seems like people dont want to see how the politicians here can railroad us all here back home,but dont have the collective balls to do it when they go over to Europe.They go all shy and quiet.



PS-Im signing off now and heading to bed.

Regards and Goodnight.

FreudianSlippers

paddy147 wrote: »

One more time....(god give me strength)......what did Colm McCarthy clearly say and what did Mr Pat Rabbit clearly say in response and admit to aswell

I have no idea. But I think the thread you're looking for is here

Are they wrong then?????

Colm McCarthy, who if memory serves me is an economist and not a lawyer, suggested in the Sunday Independent that Ireland refer the issue to the ECJ to consider legality of "strong arming" Ireland into the bailout by threatening to withdraw liquidity support. I see no evidence to support the allegation or conclusion he draws therefrom that it is outside of the powers of the ECB to threaten to withdraw this liquidity support.

It then follows that we could not prove causation of our damages arising from this (likely lawful) threat.

20 odd billion euro back (through the European Courts of Justice) could not be used to kick start the domestic economy...couldnt be used to create some of these 100,000 jobs??

All well and good, but you have yet to state how we get the €20bn in any coherent manner. What's our claim, who do we get it from, how do we collect?

My referal to Phil Hogan was and is in the fact that the goverment will act tough with us and blatantly bully and threaten us here at home,but they wont act tough with the ECB or Europe in General.

It's not bullying or threatening. It's the law. I showed you the legislation and the provision for non-payment. Is it acceptable for me to stop paying income tax and motor tax now because the ECB wrote a threatening letter 6 years ago?

Even if... and this is a big if... EVEN IF the ECB erred in making this threat and EVEN IF this forced us to make a move in initiating the bailout and EVEN IF we could prove this and EVEN IF we could then establish quantifiable damages and EVEN IF this amounted to €20bn; I see absolutely no correlation to not paying the household charge.

They suddenly develop "stage fright" and the inability to speak up and out and threaten/demand things from the ECB.

If you think it's "stage fright" they have, you are kidding yourself. I've said it four times already; these guys do not want their dirty laundry and personal reasons for going ahead with the bailout coming to light. The ECB is the scapegoat of the minute - a bright flash for them all to draw the attention away from themselves. When nothing comes of this, they'll have successfully drawn the fire from themselves to cook up the next distraction.

But it seems like people dont want to see how the politicians here can railroad us all here back home,but dont have the collective balls to do it when they go over to Europe.They go all shy and quiet.

I think if you thought about this point objectively, you'd see that I'm correct. You've sadly bought into a dream of a magic fix that is just not going to happen. There is no winning in this for anyone but the people trying to promote their agenda - it has feck all to do with the household charge or "balls" (as you seem to be super fixated on).

Godge

paddy147 wrote: »

One more time....(god give me strength)......what did Colm McCarthy clearly say and what did Mr Pat Rabbit clearly say in response and admit to aswell

.



.

I don't know what they said, I can't watch the video links. But you can watch videos of people saying anything. I can remember a bunch of economists about two to three years ago sitting on Vincent Browne's show telling us that Ireland would default by the end of the week (still waiting by the way).

I have asked you before and I will ask you again to explain how, why and under what piece of legislation and on what basis (giving legal precedents) are we in a position to sue whoever (the ECB or the EU?).

You keep saying that it is as clear as day but I cannot find it substantiated in any of your posts.

ncdadam

Godge wrote: »

I don't know what they said, I can't watch the video links. But you can watch videos of people saying anything. I can remember a bunch of economists about two to three years ago sitting on Vincent Browne's show telling us that Ireland would default by the end of the week (still waiting by the way).

I have asked you before and I will ask you again to explain how, why and under what piece of legislation and on what basis (giving legal precedents) are we in a position to sue whoever (the ECB or the EU?).

You keep saying that it is as clear as day but I cannot find it substantiated in any of your posts.

Maybe it's not 'clear as day'.

Maybe some of our 'special advisors' could do a bit of work and find out if we do have a case to be heard.

More lightly though is that we'll continue to take what's thrown at us, accept the few crumbs from the table that are dropped on the floor for us to pick up and not cause any trouble.

Nobody in power in this little country is willing or able to stand up for the ordinary people who elected them.

I was watching the Michael Collins film last night on the TV and my God, he must be spinning in his grave.

Nody

ncdadam wrote: »

Maybe it's not 'clear as day'.

Maybe some of our 'special advisors' could do a bit of work and find out if we do have a case to be heard.

More lightly though is that we'll continue to take what's thrown at us, accept the few crumbs from the table that are dropped on the floor for us to pick up and not cause any trouble.

Nobody in power in this little country is willing or able to stand up for the ordinary people who elected them.

I was watching the Michael Collins film last night on the TV and my God, he must be spinning in his grave.

And yet the "ordinary people" keep on electing them in as long as they keep on promising that they are not going to feel the pain (even when it's clearly a lie). You know what they say, in a democracy people get the leaders they deserve...

paddy147

People who have not watched and listened to what was stated and admitted to,should go and watch it and listen to it CAREFULLY too...then you might understand what I am talking about and what was said and admitted to on the programme,with rregards gettng 20 odd billion euro back via the Courts of Justice

Im bowing out now,as Im now in trouble with a mod via PM.

Sorry to the mod in question..all I was and am doing is highlighting this very serious matter here.

Thanks and Regards.

ncdadam

Nody wrote: »

And yet the "ordinary people" keep on electing them in as long as they keep on promising that they are not going to feel the pain (even when it's clearly a lie). You know what they say, in a democracy people get the leaders they deserve...

It's a sad situation.

I have high hopes for Peter Matthews, although I can see him walking away from FG and from politics altogether.

A brilliant mind but he will be hamstrung by the political 'elite' and the party whip.

That will be a great pity.

View

paddy147 wrote: »

People who have not watched and listened to what was stated and admitted to,should go and watch it and listen to it CAREFULLY too...then you might understand what I am talking about and what was said and admitted to on the programme,with rregards gettng 20 odd billion euro back via the Courts of Justice

The whole discussion starts off with "Well, the powers of the ECB haven't been tested in court" and then proceeds off to build legal castles in the air.

That isn't a good basis for a court case to put it mildly.

ncdadam

We should, at the very least, be using the threat of legal action about this when we're trying to negotiate a deal for our country.

I have no faith in this government even trying, after all we never have and never will ask for a write down of our debts.

That's the position of the 'leader' of the country.

Pathetic.

Sand

Critics of McCarthy do not appear to understand his view - hes not claiming that the ECBs actions were definitely illegal. Hes noting that they might be - that the rules regarding the ECB have never been interpreted and that it could be in Irelands interests to call for a judicial review by the ECJ to examine the ECBs actions to determine *if* the ECBs actions to force the costs of a anti-contagion policy benefiting the entire EU onto a single member-state were illegal in the opinion of the ECJ.

So the learned gentlemen of the amateur internet lawyer society can relax.

What I found depressingly predictable about the TV3 debate was Pat Rabbitte ( a fairly respectable Minister with a decent track record) was completely unaware of any examination of any options Ireland might have had in this regard. It was apparently never discussed or evaluated by cabinet. It wasn't identified, reviewed, considered and ultimately discounted as being a bad idea - it was simply never thought of at all.

It must be fairly shocking for those who presume the government is pursuing an objective, considered strategy.

ncdadam

Sand wrote: »

Critics of McCarthy do not appear to understand his view - hes not claiming that the ECBs actions were definitely illegal. Hes noting that they might be - that the rules regarding the ECB have never been interpreted and that it could be in Irelands interests to call for a judicial review by the ECJ to examine the ECBs actions to determine *if* the ECBs actions to force the costs of a anti-contagion policy benefiting the entire EU onto a single member-state were illegal in the opinion of the ECJ.

So the learned gentlemen of the amateur internet lawyer society can relax.

What I found depressingly predictable about the TV3 debate was Pat Rabbitte ( a fairly respectable Minister with a decent track record) was completely unaware of any examination of any options Ireland might have had in this regard. It was apparently never discussed or evaluated by cabinet. It wasn't identified, reviewed, considered and ultimately discounted as being a bad idea - it was simply never thought of at all.

It must be fairly shocking for those who presume the government is pursuing an objective, considered strategy.

We would like to think that our government have even looked into this, wouldn't we?

the_syco

paddy147 wrote: »

3-It was clearly stated and accepted that we have a case against the ECB and why we have a case.

Where? By some yahoo on the TV?

paddy147 wrote: »

20 odd billion euro back (through the European Courts of Justice) could not be used to kick start the domestic economy...couldnt be used to create some of these 100,000 jobs??

No. I really doubt we'd see a single cent if we won any case. Why? Because it'll just be deducted off what we're paying back.

ncdadam

the_syco wrote: »

Where? By some yahoo on the TV?

I didn't think Colm McCarthy was regarded as 'some yahoo' by the government considering they're implementing a lot of his ideas from the 'an snip nua' report he did.

Cardinal Richelieu

Godge wrote: »

I have asked you before and I will ask you again to explain how, why and under what piece of legislation and on what basis (giving legal precedents) are we in a position to sue whoever (the ECB or the EU?).

You keep saying that it is as clear as day but I cannot find it substantiated in any of your posts.

Your not going to get a coherent fact based reply, a similar issue popped up with the GM debate when Paddy147 mentioned a report, when asked for a link to the report he never provided it no matter the countless times asked for it. You get everything else but not the actually answer to your question dragging the thread into an even more ridiculous area.

Back on topic, Sounds more like the speculative musings of an economist rather than a concrete legal case. Have any legal experts backed up McCarthy theory yet?

ncdadam

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Your not going to get a coherent fact based reply, a similar issue popped up with the GM debate when Paddy147 mentioned a report, when asked for a link to the report he never provided it no matter the countless times asked for it. You get everything else but not the actually answer to your question dragging the thread into an even more ridiculous area.

Back on topic, Sounds more like the speculative musings of an economist rather than a concrete legal case. Have any legal experts backed up McCarthy theory yet?

As far as I know the letter isn't in the public domain so it's hard to get a handle on it.

Good loser

Sand wrote: »

Critics of McCarthy do not appear to understand his view - hes not claiming that the ECBs actions were definitely illegal. Hes noting that they might be - that the rules regarding the ECB have never been interpreted and that it could be in Irelands interests to call for a judicial review by the ECJ to examine the ECBs actions to determine *if* the ECBs actions to force the costs of a anti-contagion policy benefiting the entire EU onto a single member-state were illegal in the opinion of the ECJ.

So the learned gentlemen of the amateur internet lawyer society can relax.

What I found depressingly predictable about the TV3 debate was Pat Rabbitte ( a fairly respectable Minister with a decent track record) was completely unaware of any examination of any options Ireland might have had in this regard. It was apparently never discussed or evaluated by cabinet. It wasn't identified, reviewed, considered and ultimately discounted as being a bad idea - it was simply never thought of at all.

It must be fairly shocking for those who presume the government is pursuing an objective, considered strategy.

Don't you remember Pat Rabbitte said he was not aware of the letter?

Did you ever hear of throwing good money after bad - or flushing money down the toilet?

Any court action of the type suggested would be an utter waste.

As for identifying, reviewing, considering and discounting I would consign the idea of any such action to the dustbin in ten seconds.

For once the cabinet has not been depressingly predictable.

Sand

Good loser wrote: »

Don't you remember Pat Rabbitte said he was not aware of the letter?

Yes, that's part of my point. Cabinet is deciding strategy without even considering options - not choosing to discount those options, but not even being aware of them.

Did you ever hear of throwing good money after bad - or flushing money down the toilet?

Any court action of the type suggested would be an utter waste.

As for identifying, reviewing, considering and discounting I would consign the idea of any such action to the dustbin in ten seconds.

For once the cabinet has not been depressingly predictable.

So a bit if bullheaded presumption about a course of action without knowing the facts would be your viewpoint.

Have you ever considered a career in politics?

paddy147

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Your not going to get a coherent fact based reply, a similar issue popped up with the GM debate when Paddy147 mentioned a report, when asked for a link to the report he never provided it no matter the countless times asked for it. ?

I see you ran off and avoided both threads (afterhours and also gardening),when you were asked some straight forward questions Mr Cardinal.
You claimed that any links were to do with the green party and a political minister.You were asked various questions by myself and also by other members too,but you ran off and never bothered to respond....such a shame really.

Good loser

Sand wrote: »

Yes, that's part of my point. Cabinet is deciding strategy without even considering options - not choosing to discount those options, but not even being aware of them.



So a bit if bullheaded presumption about a course of action without knowing the facts would be your viewpoint.

Have you ever considered a career in politics?

Court actions can be well based. Some deserve careful consideration - on whether to proceed to action.

This one comes in at the extreme edge of absurdity, merging into lunacy.

To be dismissed forthwith quam celerrime.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

Critics of McCarthy do not appear to understand his view - hes not claiming that the ECBs actions were definitely illegal. Hes noting that they might be - that the rules regarding the ECB have never been interpreted and that it could be in Irelands interests to call for a judicial review by the ECJ to examine the ECBs actions to determine *if* the ECBs actions to force the costs of a anti-contagion policy benefiting the entire EU onto a single member-state were illegal in the opinion of the ECJ.

...where the contagion risk in question arose from the grave failures in regulation in that state.

If someone puts a group to which they have responsibility in danger through their own reckless actions, and the group makes them bear the costs of reducing some of the danger the other members thereby bear, do you really think that person has a leg to stand on in claiming compensation for those costs?

I don't see that really working out, I admit, although if it actually stands a good chance in the eyes of the State, they should obviously go for it - although I, like others, can see that they might not wish to wash that particular dirty laundry in court. Nor can I see it generating that much - again, people act as if the ECB's views somehow dictated the whole cost of our bank bailout, rather than the tag end of bond holdings still at large in November 2010. The savings we could have made had the ECB not intervened have been reasonably estimated at about €6bn by Seamus Coffey - and the ECB could easily make a case that the costs to Ireland would have been higher had Ireland haircut the bondholders - contagion is a two way street, and the backwash from our actions rebounding from other European banks could easily have been larger than the direct savings made.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

I think this is a significant development. Most of the story is un-remarkable, except for this.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0901/1224323462647.html

On November 4th, Mr Trichet wrote another letter to Mr Lenihan. He repeated many of the points made in the earlier letter about the massive exposure of the ECB to Irish bank debt.

He focused again on the concerns of the governing council of the ECB about its exposure to the Irish banking system for such enormous sums, and he repeated many of the points made in the earlier letter.

This time, however, he pointedly said that the ECB was monitoring the Irish government’s commitment to its four-year plan, still in preparation, and said that continuing ECB support was contingent on the plan being implemented.

On the same day, Mr Lenihan announced a targeted adjustment of €15 billion over four years, with €6 billion of that coming in 2011. The full detail of the four-year plan was to follow at the end of the month.

The decisive conversation with Mr Trichet followed on November 12th, and it is possible that this arose following a fax or email reinforcing the points made on November 4th.

Whether or not this is contrary to the ECB's statutes, it nevertheless seems like a gross violation of the ECB's supposedly apolitical and non fiscal role, a position which it has doggedly insisted upon with references to the TFEU when it comes to assisting sovereigns caught up in the Eurozone crisis.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

I think this is a significant development. Most of the story is un-remarkable, except for this.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0901/1224323462647.html


Whether or not this is contrary to the ECB's statutes, it nevertheless seems like a gross violation of the ECB's supposedly apolitical and non fiscal role, a position which it has doggedly insisted upon with references to the TFEU when it comes to assisting sovereigns caught up in the Eurozone crisis.

That seems to assume the ECB was playing politics (what politics, exactly?) rather than being honest - but the ECB's line continues to be, rightly or wrongly, that they will support sovereigns (and sovereign-supported banks) only with programme commitments. The most recent high-profile ECB announcement set forth exactly the same principle - how is this not simply the same policy in a rawer form?

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

That seems to assume the ECB was playing politics (what politics, exactly?)

The ECB was making support of the banking system dependent upon fiscal policy decisions prior to any troika programme agreement.

Whether you like it or not, that is beyond their remit.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

The ECB was making support of the banking system dependent upon fiscal policy decisions prior to any troika programme agreement.

Whether you like it or not, that is beyond their remit.

Do the ECB have no right to set conditions on their support, then? Not sure why my likes or dislikes come into it, though...these are legal/policy questions, not the dinner menu. If you feel the ECB acted outside its remit in making its banking support conditional, lay out a case for that, rather than trying to imply that questioning the existence of such a case can only result from bias.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do the ECB have no right to set conditions on their support, then?

Indeed of course they do. In the name of precaution, they are obliged to attach conditions to their support to the banking system. These conditions will fall on the fianancial system, not sovereign governments and taxpayers directly.

I am not in a position to decide what or what is not legally permissible but the ECB's own statute goes into significant detail into the roles and tasks of the ECB.

Whilst there is nothing in the ECB's own statute which permits it to or suggests that it must, can or ought act as a fiscal policeman, it is also true to say there is nothing which procludes it from doing so. Here is where the debate starts.

I think there is a compelling argument that the clear distinction which the founders of EMU drew between monetary and fiscal policy renders directly meddling in sovereigns' fiscal policies inappropriate.

I am not alone in that opinion. It's also appears to be the opinion of the ECB.
https://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/art1_mb201207en_pp51-64en.pdf?2acc7055f95b458f5d7be6b13f3f7a26

In EMU, responsibility for monetary policy is assigned to the ECB, while fiscal policy remains the remit of each individual EU Member State.

Whispering into the ear of Government with such forceful and intimidating threats as to cause certain catastrophe in the state's financial system unless certain economic policies are adhered to not only raises questions of the ECB acting beyond its remit, but of democracy and accountability in Europe.

Sand

Scofflaw wrote: »

...where the contagion risk in question arose from the grave failures in regulation in that state.

If someone puts a group to which they have responsibility in danger through their own reckless actions, and the group makes them bear the costs of reducing some of the danger the other members thereby bear, do you really think that person has a leg to stand on in claiming compensation for those costs?

You surprise me Scofflaw. When someone makes an argument for Ireland's interest based on moral justification, you tend to come down on the side of what is legally and technically correct. But when someone makes an argument for Ireland's interest based on what is legally and technically correct, you come down on the side of what is morally justified.

But regardless, its not a question of what the just policy should be - its a question of if the ECB is legally allowed to set that policy or to use its powers to force a particular policy to be taken. Even if you think Ireland deserved everything it got, its not for the ECB to make fiscal or political policy - something the ECB has cited itself to resist doing more than the minimum. The ECB should set its own policies in its own area of power, it should not use those powers with the objective of influencing democratically elected governments decisions any more than governments should their powers to try and force the ECB to take certain policies.

The savings we could have made had the ECB not intervened have been reasonably estimated at about €6bn by Seamus Coffey - and the ECB could easily make a case that the costs to Ireland would have been higher had Ireland haircut the bondholders - contagion is a two way street, and the backwash from our actions rebounding from other European banks could easily have been larger than the direct savings made.

Again, that's not the ECBs decision to make - if they based a defence on that argument they would be admitting they were making fiscal and economic policy choices about what was Ireland's best interest over the heads of the democratically elected Irish government.

Do the ECB have no right to set conditions on their support, then?

Legally, no they don't have the right to set conditions that differentiate between particular countries or set particular fiscal conditions or to force particular policy options. The conditions they set must be applicable and consistent across all member states.

@Later12

Whispering into the ear of Government with such forceful and intimidating threats as to cause certain catastrophe in the state's financial system unless certain economic policies are adhered to not only raises questions of the ECB acting beyond its remit, but of democracy and accountability in Europe.

Lorenzo Bini Smaghi was doing this quite publicly in the case of Greece, where he proclaimed that the ECB would destroy the Greek banks if the Greek state defaulted on any debt.

Scofflaw

later12 wrote: »

Indeed of course they do. In the name of precaution, they are obliged to attach conditions to their support to the banking system. These conditions will fall on the fianancial system, not sovereign governments and taxpayers directly.

I am not in a position to decide what or what is not legally permissible but the ECB's own statute goes into significant detail into the roles and tasks of the ECB.

Whilst there is nothing in the ECB's own statute which permits it to or suggests that it must, can or ought act as a fiscal policeman, it is also true to say there is nothing which procludes it from doing so. Here is where the debate starts.

I think there is a compelling argument that the clear distinction which the founders of EMU drew between monetary and fiscal policy renders directly meddling in sovereigns' fiscal policies inappropriate.

I am not alone in that opinion. It's also appears to be the opinion of the ECB.
https://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/art1_mb201207en_pp51-64en.pdf?2acc7055f95b458f5d7be6b13f3f7a26


Whispering into the ear of Government with such forceful and intimidating threats as to cause certain catastrophe in the state's financial system unless certain economic policies are adhered to not only raises questions of the ECB acting beyond its remit, but of democracy and accountability in Europe.

But what is being presented is not about whether "certain economic policies are adhered to" by the government, but whether a plan created by the government is adhered to. In other words, what the ECB were looking for looks like what banks usually look for - evidence that there is a recovery plan, and that it will be adhered to, rather than a series of short-term populist decisions. There's nothing in what you've cited that shows the ECB trying to use its support of the banks to require the inclusion of specific policies in that plan as opposed to requiring that the government have a plan and stick to it - and the two are very different ball games in terms of accountability and democracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw