Deal on bank debt likely in next 18months?

valor rorghulis

Was just thinking after the council and MEP elections that Sinn Fein may do very well in the next GE

They're the only party who would consider default on some or all of the bank debt, and could be argued justifiably so. Promising to do so would be pretty much the only thing they could do to get me to vote for them.

This is obviously a nightmare situation for Europe.

In addition to this I really don't think Europe would like Sinn Fein in power. Whilst they're not eurosceptic now they've historically always been the most anti-Europe major party in Ireland. Fine Gael are exactly the kind of good-roomers they want running the show.

Therefore I'm thinking Europe may announce a minor write off in late 2015 to boost Fine Gael credibility

20Cent

Would agree with you. There will be the results of the banking enquiry, rigged to make ff look as bad as possible. (Not that they weren't v bad). There will also be some easing or even writing off of some of the bank debt. All done for political reasons.

tomwaterford

20Cent wrote: »

Would agree with you. There will be the results of the banking enquiry, rigged to make ff look as bad as possible. (Not that they weren't v bad). There will also be some easing or even writing off of some of the bank debt. All done for political reasons.

there is also a strong possibility that Europe will string Ireland along and use every new crisis/event as a reason to postpone the bank debt deal (I doubt SF will be in power in 2016...FG will be too strong in the mix not to get power)

short of immediate and serious risk of default Ireland will never get a deal...why would Europe...they have nothing to gain

hmmm

There is a strong possibility that "Europe" doesn't care which party promising things they can't deliver are in power in Ireland, and if we want to leave a club that provides massive benefits to us they'll be happy to fetch our coat for us.

The_Captain

There's a big difference between defaulting/threatening to default and leaving the EU

If Sinn Fein are given a mandate on the back of Irish taxpayers feeling like they're being used to reimburse international property speculators failed gambles, is there any reason they shouldn't move towards defaulting?

jimeryan22

Iceland model... Arrest the guilty and lock them up.. Like you and me would be for fraud... Put back in the legislation that stopped the banks doing it in the first place.. And write off the debt that is not mine or my children's or my children's children's...

oscarBravo

The_Captain wrote: »

...is there any reason they shouldn't move towards defaulting?

You ask the question as if defaulting on our sovereign debt is a consequence-free exercise.

20Cent

oscarBravo wrote: »

You ask the question as if defaulting on our sovereign debt is a consequence-free exercise.

The promissory note bonds could be cancelled or amended without costing anyone a penny or defaulting.

Sand

@20 cent

The promissory note bonds could be cancelled or amended without costing anyone a penny or defaulting.

There is no such thing as promissory note bonds. There is notes. And there is bonds. You're right - the notes could have been cancelled or amended with only *some* drama as it was essentially a deal between a failed bank and the central bank of Ireland: there was walls to limit the backblast.

That is exactly why the Dail was kept late to rush through the conversion of the promissory notes into Irish sovereign bonds. To ensure the locks around our necks couldn't be unpicked.

The debt and the losses have been socialised. Mission accomplished for the Green Jersey/TINA brigade that have been cheerleading policy for the past few years. There is no point crying about what could have been now - its done. Just remember to thank the architects in the elections.

@valor rorghulis

They're the only party who would consider default on some or all of the bank debt, and could be argued justifiably so. Promising to do so would be pretty much the only thing they could do to get me to vote for them.

This is obviously a nightmare situation for Europe

As per above, the time for bold action was a couple of years ago. Europe has absolutely no interest in any debt deal for Ireland. We would have to give them a cause to do so and I don't seem SF, who are best uncertain in economic matters, having the credibility to default on Irish sovereign debt whilst also no doubt wishing to fund a vote buying spending extravaganza which requires easy access to funds at cheap interest rates and generous terms.

The_Captain

oscarBravo wrote: »

You ask the question as if defaulting on our sovereign debt is a consequence-free exercise.

No, I'm saying that if a party promises to default on debt and gets elected on the back of that promise, the mandate given to them by voters would require them to honour the promise.

Admittedly most election promises aren't kept, but if the majority of people in this country want a default, then democratically the government should default

oscarBravo

The_Captain wrote: »

No, I'm saying that if a party promises to default on debt and gets elected on the back of that promise, the mandate given to them by voters would require them to honour the promise.

Admittedly most election promises aren't kept, but if the majority of people in this country want a default, then democratically the government should default

Let's suppose you're an election candidate. You promise something seriously stupid in order to get elected, like oh I dunno, utterly destroying the country's ability to borrow the money it needs to pay the bills.

You get elected on the basis of this promise. Now you're the minister for finance, and you get to sit down with the senior officials in the department of finance, your fellow finance ministers from the other EU member states, the head of the ECB... all of whom explain patiently that defaulting on your sovereign debt would be a catastrophically stupid thing to do.

You're saying that it is your duty to ignore the consequences of which you're now aware and destroy the country financially, just because you were given a mandate to do so by people who, let's face it, didn't have a clue what they were voting for?

As far as I'm concerned, the job of the government is to run the country, not to pander to the ridiculous whims of an under-informed electorate. If you believe that the government's job is to drive the country off a cliff just because they think that's what the electorate wanted them to do... we'll have to agree to differ.

Scofflaw

In government, Sinn Fein would be no more likely to default on public debt than the next party. I imagine they would do something that might look a bit like it, but it seems highly unlikely to me that they would actually default. It seems more likely to me that the outcome of oscar's proposed conversation would be the traditional discovery that governments have a lot less room to carry out promises than the opposition have to make them.

Only one way to find out, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CrookedJack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's suppose you're an election candidate. You promise something seriously stupid in order to get elected, like oh I dunno, utterly destroying the country's ability to borrow the money it needs to pay the bills.

You get elected on the basis of this promise. Now you're the minister for finance, and you get to sit down with the senior officials in the department of finance, your fellow finance ministers from the other EU member states, the head of the ECB... all of whom explain patiently that defaulting on your sovereign debt would be a catastrophically stupid thing to do.

You're saying that it is your duty to ignore the consequences of which you're now aware and destroy the country financially, just because you were given a mandate to do so by people who, let's face it, didn't have a clue what they were voting for?

As far as I'm concerned, the job of the government is to run the country, not to pander to the ridiculous whims of an under-informed electorate. If you believe that the government's job is to drive the country off a cliff just because they think that's what the electorate wanted them to do... we'll have to agree to differ.

This. I can't believe that people think they are informed enough to make decisions about things like this. The average person has no clue what the ramifications of all SFs ridiculous policies are.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's suppose you're an election candidate. You promise something seriously stupid in order to get elected, like oh I dunno, utterly destroying the country's ability to borrow the money it needs to pay the bills.

You get elected on the basis of this promise. Now you're the minister for finance, and you get to sit down with the senior officials in the department of finance, your fellow finance ministers from the other EU member states, the head of the ECB... all of whom explain patiently that defaulting on your sovereign debt would be a catastrophically stupid thing to do.

You're saying that it is your duty to ignore the consequences of which you're now aware and destroy the country financially, just because you were given a mandate to do so by people who, let's face it, didn't have a clue what they were voting for?

As far as I'm concerned, the job of the government is to run the country, not to pander to the ridiculous whims of an under-informed electorate. If you believe that the government's job is to drive the country off a cliff just because they think that's what the electorate wanted them to do... we'll have to agree to differ.

That's a whole other argument. What is the governments job in a democracy?

If the majority of the people say "all people should wear a blue pointy hat by law", the government should put that through into law.

The government should be the voice of the people. They are our representatives, not a cabal who "knows better".

It is up to all the other parties to explain why blue hats by law is a silly idea to the people who support it. (think of the colour clashes!)

Much like the defaulting argument. If it is the will of the people, so be it. If you think that's the wrong move, explain why and don't just say, "people are too stupid to get it". Use short words. People like short words. And analogies.

The will of the people has to come first. Even if that means educating them.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

If the majority of the people say "all people should wear a blue pointy hat by law", the government should put that through into law.

If the majority of the people say "all Jewish people should wear a yellow star by law", would you accept that?

The will of the people has to come first. Even if that means educating them.

Even if it means destroying their lives?

This is my problem with democracy: it assumes that what the people say they want is what they actually want. The problem is, people say "default!" because they think it means "piss someone else off with zero consequences for us!" - but if they thought it meant "crash our economy so hard it would make the last few years of austerity look like a summer picnic" - do you think they'd vote for it then?

The government's job is to run the country. The idea that the government's job is to do whatever stupid thing they think will pander to an under-informed electorate is precisely why I think democracy is like medicine - necessary in carefully-controlled doses.

20Cent

Interesting article in the Irish Times today about this.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/berlin-mps-to-play-down-irish-chances-of-debt-relief-1.1833317

Members of the Bundestag finance committee, visiting until Wednesday, have suggested that naming the investors who benefited from EU-IMF bailouts in Ireland and elsewhere would boost the chances of further European debt relief.
Would like the above to happen but think the answers might cause a revolution!

Uncomfortable with some German officials coming over here to tell us what to do and questioning gov officials but he who pays the piper etc.

The_Captain

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's suppose you're an election candidate. You promise something seriously stupid in order to get elected, like oh I dunno, utterly destroying the country's ability to borrow the money it needs to pay the bills.

You get elected on the basis of this promise. Now you're the minister for finance, and you get to sit down with the senior officials in the department of finance, your fellow finance ministers from the other EU member states, the head of the ECB... all of whom explain patiently that defaulting on your sovereign debt would be a catastrophically stupid thing to do.

You're saying that it is your duty to ignore the consequences of which you're now aware and destroy the country financially, just because you were given a mandate to do so by people who, let's face it, didn't have a clue what they were voting for?

As far as I'm concerned, the job of the government is to run the country, not to pander to the ridiculous whims of an under-informed electorate. If you believe that the government's job is to drive the country off a cliff just because they think that's what the electorate wanted them to do... we'll have to agree to differ.

My point is that if the majority of people in this country democratically decide to destroy the country financially, then we have to respect that decision.
If the French elect a load of dirty racists, you can look down on them and say how disgusting it is, but unfortunately that's the government the French people want.

You can't suspend democracy because you don't like the outcome of an election. The people who want to destroy the economy have just as much right to have their opinion heard and respected as much as yours is.

oscarBravo

The_Captain wrote: »

You can't suspend democracy because you don't like the outcome of an election. The people who want to destroy the economy have just as much right to have their opinion heard and respected as much as yours is.

Just like the vandal who knocks down a newly-planted tree in a public park deserves as much respect for his actions as the gardener who planted it?

The idea that every opinion is equally deserving of respect is farcical. Sure, I could spend days carefully researching candidates and/or issues in the lead-up to an election or a referendum; and sure, my vote counts for exactly the same as my neighbour who unthinkingly votes for the same side of the civil war as his grandfather did.

You see this as a positive aspect of democracy; I see it as its biggest failing.

I'll ask again: if the majority want Jews to be forced to wear yellow stars on their clothes, is that something you'd be happy to see happen?

jimeryan22

Destroy the country..? That's propaganda put out by the owned press... Switzerland has referendums for nearly everything and the "people" there have managed to make it one of the richest country's in the world with the highest std of living... All this nonscence that defaulting will wreck the country..? Pretty sure it's already wrecked thanks to banks and their owned politicians.. Plus like most country's our economy should not be borrowing our own money back off the banks to run our own country in the first place... At interest .. Pure scam
We do not need to depend on anyone else.. We're a rural land that grows plenty enough food to be feeding our population instead of shipping out to others... And look after ourselves first

comongethappy

jimeryan22 wrote: »

We're a rural land that grows plenty enough food to be feeding our population instead of shipping out to others... And look after ourselves first

Exporting food isn't a bad thing.

Depending on other nations wouldn't be needed, however the Irish people demand big state & low taxes..... We need to borrow to meet the shortfall.

The bailout was unavoidable.
Its a leverage over Ireland, that I think makes a bank debt deal unlikely.

jimeryan22

comongethappy wrote: »

Exporting food isn't a bad thing.
Depending on other nations wouldn't be needed, however the Irish people demand big state & low taxes..... We need to borrow to meet the shortfall.

Will that secure a bank bailout deal?

Borrow my arse.. That's why we're in this problem.. Bank bailout..? Let them fail.. Capitalism says make bad bet..? You lose... Not the country's population bails out your mistakes... That's fascism..
I don't owe the money, nor do you or the rest of joe soaps of Ireland.. The crooked bankers owe it

So sorry we'll have to beg to differ that the bailout was unavoidable

jimeryan22

comongethappy wrote: »

Exporting food isn't a bad thing.

Depending on other nations wouldn't be needed, however the Irish people demand big state & low taxes..... We need to borrow to meet the shortfall.

The bailout was unavoidable.
Its a leverage over Ireland, that I think makes a bank debt deal unlikely.

Oh and who are these Irish demanding a big state..? I've never met any..
Any here who want a bigger state..?
Don't think so.. Smaller would be better
And where they don't try and run my life

comongethappy

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Borrow my arse.. That's why we're in this problem.. Bank bailout..? Let them fail.. Capitalism says make bad bet..? You lose... Not the country's population bails out your mistakes... That's fascism..
I don't owe the money, nor do you or the rest of joe soaps of Ireland.. The crooked bankers owe it

So sorry we'll have to beg to differ that the bailout was unavoidable

Well, remembering 2010.......

The government were facing a day-to-day shortfall of €12bn for the year, €20 bn including sovereign debt.

Attempts to raise money to were costing 14%.
Unaffordable.

Default was imminent.

Bailout was necessary.
Thanks to FF tripling spending in the previous decade.

Its that same necessity that backed the FF government over the bailout.
Quid pro quo.
The troika keeps the lights on if the Irish people save the Euro.

The_Captain

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just like the vandal who knocks down a newly-planted tree in a public park deserves as much respect for his actions as the gardener who planted it?

That's a moronic analogy.
The man who votes to cut down a tree has his vote counted the exact same as the man who votes to plant more trees.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll ask again: if the majority want Jews to be forced to wear yellow stars on their clothes, is that something you'd be happy to see happen

I'd never be happy to see it happen, I'm not a racist. Besides, it tends only to pop up in places where one man or a small ruling elite decide that their opinion is more important than that of the majority, thankfully we don't live in that kind of society

View

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a whole other argument. What is the governments job in a democracy?

If the majority of the people say "all people should wear a blue pointy hat by law", the government should put that through into law.

The government should be the voice of the people. They are our representatives, not a cabal who "knows better".

In a representative democracy, elected representatives are there to make decisions based on THEIR opinions of what is needed or best (the two frequently differing).

You as a voter get to choose which representative of those on offer is most likely to make decisions you would usually regard as being "sound", nothing more.

As Edmund Burke put it:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

oscarBravo

The_Captain wrote: »

That's a moronic analogy.

You would think so.

The man who votes to cut down a tree has his vote counted the exact same as the man who votes to plant more trees.

So if I destroy something, I'm a bad person, but if I vote for someone else to destroy something, my desire for destruction is suddenly sacred?

I'd never be happy to see it happen, I'm not a racist.

But you think it should happen if a majority vote for it?

Try not to worm out of answering the question this time.

tomwaterford

The_Captain wrote: »

There's a big difference between defaulting/threatening to default and leaving the EU

If Sinn Fein are given a mandate on the back of Irish taxpayers feeling like they're being used to reimburse international property speculators failed gambles, is there any reason they shouldn't move towards defaulting?

is there any reason why...there has never been a mature reasoned put out of what would happen in default....instead of the usual childish response....oh god no you cant do that the sky will fall in:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


for those like me (and a great amount of my neighbours/relatives) with no savings/and little to no debts (no messing in the boom)...how would it be bad for us....why should we pay higher taxes to bail out people richer than us???

oscarBravo

tomwaterford wrote: »

is there any reason why...there has never been a mature reasoned put out of what would happen in default...

Do you even know what default means? It means you refuse to pay your debts.

This country is running on borrowed money. If we refuse to pay our debts, nobody will lend us the money we need to pay public servants, run hospitals, provide unemployment benefit...

So if you're all in favour of a default, what's your alternative plan for paying for the running of the country?

knipex

tomwaterford wrote: »

is there any reason why...there has never been a mature reasoned put out of what would happen in default....instead of the usual childish response....oh god no you cant do that the sky will fall in:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


for those like me (and a great amount of my neighbours/relatives) with no savings/and little to no debts (no messing in the boom)...how would it be bad for us....why should we pay higher taxes to bail out people richer than us???

There is the simple matter of cost of running the country V's amount of taxes taken in. Plus the cost of capital investment which is typically borrowed and paid off over time.

You default no one will lend you money so overnight spending has to match or be less than tax take and no more capital investment by the state or semi state organisations. .

tomwaterford

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you even know what default means? It means you refuse to pay your debts.

This country is running on borrowed money. If we refuse to pay our debts, nobody will lend us the money we need to pay public servants, run hospitals, provide unemployment benefit...

So if you're all in favour of a default, what's your alternative plan for paying for the running of the country?

well for one its not Irelands debt....(bank debt)...why would irland pay for it....its all irrelelevant as it'll not be paid anyway
if you are that afraid to default....Europe will never give a deal...a default by a euro country would be much worse for all of Europe....it would be Irelands strongest card....why total refusal to contemplate it....how much is Irelands budget defeceipt for 2013? ??
to continue to [ay imterest on unsustainable debts in the hope that Europe might thow a few crumbs...it wont happen (why do people think it would??)..it would take drastic action to focus attention

oscarBravo

tomwaterford wrote: »

well for one its not Irelands debt....(bank debt)...why would irland pay for it...

I was waiting for that non-argument.

If I sign my name to a loan, whether or not I feel I should have, it's my debt. Despite how popular it is to jump up and down and stamp our little feet and say it's not our debt, it is our debt, and we don't get to unilaterally decide not to pay it.

if you are that afraid to default....Europe will never give a deal...a default by a euro country would be much worse for all of Europe....it would be Irelands strongest card...

You're continuing to miss the point.

If we refuse to pay our debts, nobody will lend us money. All the posturing and chest-puffing about how we can bully the EU into letting us welch on our debts doesn't change the core point: we need to be able to borrow money. If you think we should default, you must explain either (a) who would lend us money after we had demonstrated a willingness not to pay it back, or (b) how we'd run the country without borrowing.

flutered

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's suppose you're an election candidate. You promise something seriously stupid in order to get elected, like oh I dunno, utterly destroying the country's ability to borrow the money it needs to pay the bills.

You get elected on the basis of this promise. Now you're the minister for finance, and you get to sit down with the senior officials in the department of finance, your fellow finance ministers from the other EU member states, the head of the ECB... all of whom explain patiently that defaulting on your sovereign debt would be a catastrophically stupid thing to do.

You're saying that it is your duty to ignore the consequences of which you're now aware and destroy the country financially, just because you were given a mandate to do so by people who, let's face it, didn't have a clue what they were voting for?

As far as I'm concerned, the job of the government is to run the country, not to pander to the ridiculous whims of an under-informed electorate. If you believe that the government's job is to drive the country off a cliff just because they think that's what the electorate wanted them to do... we'll have to agree to differ.

i have to disagree with you on the under-informed electorate, the goverment has not driven the country over a cliff, but they have tightened a noose around the people of this country, as well as a few unborn generations to come, this noose will get tighter and tighter.

comongethappy

flutered wrote: »

i have to disagree with you on the under-informed electorate, the goverment has not driven the country over a cliff, but they have tightened a noose around the people of this country, as well as a few unborn generations to come, this noose will get tighter and tighter.

And your solution is?

flutered

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was waiting for that non-argument.

If I sign my name to a loan, whether or not I feel I should have, it's my debt. Despite how popular it is to jump up and down and stamp our little feet and say it's not our debt, it is our debt, and we don't get to unilaterally decide not to pay it. You're continuing to miss the point.

If we refuse to pay our debts, nobody will lend us money. All the posturing and chest-puffing about how we can bully the EU into letting us welch on our debts doesn't change the core point: we need to be able to borrow money. If you think we should default, you must explain either (a) who would lend us money after we had demonstrated a willingness not to pay it back, or (b) how we'd run the country without borrowing.

the elephant in the room is that the dail bar stayed open all night to make it soverign debt, the courts would have put it in law that it was not soverign debt, the ecb would find it rather hard to overturn national law.

oscarBravo

flutered wrote: »

the elephant in the room is that the dail bar stayed open all night to make it soverign debt, the courts would have put it in law that it was not soverign debt, the ecb would find it rather hard to overturn national law.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how we fund the country when no-one will lend to us.

hmmm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how we fund the country when no-one will lend to us.

We'll increase taxes on the rich of course! After we've finished getting rid of the property tax and water charges. We should also increase the dole for long term recipients by 50% to compensate the most vulnerable for the suffering we've caused them.

Godge

flutered wrote: »

the elephant in the room is that the dail bar stayed open all night to make it soverign debt, the courts would have put it in law that it was not soverign debt, the ecb would find it rather hard to overturn national law.

Can you explain this using some legal principles and some precedents from previous case?

Otherwise it sounds like a load of horse****. The courts never overturn laws unless there is a good reason to do so. The possibility that some TDs were drunk is not a good reason. It also lacks proof as there were was no breathalysing or blood tests. A very silly straw to cling to.

Finally, EU law overrules domestic law and has done so for 40 years - plenty of legal precedent to back that up.

Godge

The_Captain wrote: »

My point is that if the majority of people in this country democratically decide to destroy the country financially, then we have to respect that decision.
If the French elect a load of dirty racists, you can look down on them and say how disgusting it is, but unfortunately that's the government the French people want.

You can't suspend democracy because you don't like the outcome of an election. The people who want to destroy the economy have just as much right to have their opinion heard and respected as much as yours is.

That would be true if we had a direct democracy, say like the Swiss.

However, we have a representative democracy, where we elect representatives to think for themselves and decide what is in the best interest of the country. Sure, we elect them based on what they say they will do, but we are supposed to be mature enough to accept that people may change their mind if it is in the best interests of the country - that is what a representative democracy is.

flutered

we publish the list of people who ireland owes debt to, we tell them that we cannot and will not keep going as we are so we hit them with a 30% write off, then we tell them that we are going to cut back on the amount that we are paying back each year, by extending the debt repayment by another twenty years, then in an effort to show them that we mean buisness, we cut the vat rate to 20%,on all items up to €20000 in an effort to get retail moving, cut salarys of all goverment officials by 25%, we cap the number of advisors the goverment has, as well as their perks, we make sure that tds and senetors backroom staff are appointed by interview,for civil servents there is to be no moving upstairs to put out of the way, either sideways or out, cut the salarys pensions and perks of higher civil servents, the dail bar is shut, let them have a carvery room, with a choice like what all eating houses have, then if we have more serious choices to be made then the public will see that an effort is being made across the board, plus the fact that the goverment is at least starting to use lube.

flutered

Godge wrote: »

Can you explain this using some legal principles and some precedents from previous case?

Otherwise it sounds like a load of horse****. The courts never overturn laws unless there is a good reason to do so. The possibility that some TDs were drunk is not a good reason. It also lacks proof as there were was no breathalysing or blood tests. A very silly straw to cling to.

Finally, EU law overrules domestic law and has done so for 40 years - plenty of legal precedent to back that up.

the goverment was able to keep the dail bar open all night to change a law when it suited.

flutered

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how we fund the country when no-one will lend to us.

were not the islandic people able to get funding, our problem may be that the people who supply us with funding see how we look after the elite, not the cannon fodder, ps off to the wide out doors, sammy sunshine becons.

oscarBravo

flutered wrote: »

were not the islandic people able to get funding...

Iceland didn't default on its sovereign debt.

hmmm

flutered wrote: »

we publish the list of people who ireland owes debt to, we tell them that we cannot and will not keep going as we are so we hit them with a 30% write off

They say "no" and Ireland is now unable to borrow anything. How do you propose to find an immediate 8 billion euros to keep the hospitals going, pay pensions and other services. Which hospitals would you like to close? Maybe we could go back to the 30s and close our secondary schools?

There follows an immediate crisis in Irish banks, as international funders rush to pull money out of the country. There is probably a bank run in the days and weeks that follows. Queues of angry people line up to try and get their money out of the banks. Savings are decimated. Businesses grind to a halt as they have no access to banking services.

International investors pull any plans to invest in Ireland as the Irish government cannot be trusted. IFSC companies begin to close. Multinationals begin to draw up plans to move elsewhere in the EU.

Irish exporters find themselves unable to get credit, and unable to source bank loans. Mass layoffs of public servants as the government runs out of money to pay them. Riots on the street, and unpaid guards are sent out to try and contain them. Massive increases in crimes such as burglary and muggings.

The rich become no better off than middle class. The middle class become poor. The poorest become utterly destitute.

You think I'm joking? This is what happened in Argentina 10 years ago when they defaulted.

we cut the vat rate to 20%,on all items up to €20000 in an effort to get retail moving, cut salarys of all goverment officials by 25%, we cap the number of advisors the goverment has, as well as their perks

Cutting back on the Dail stuff saves us about 10 million, the VAT decrease costs us 200 million, so now we're looking for 8.2 billion to close the deficit.

K-9

As hmmm points out our economy is built on being a tax haven, something that the majority of the electorate seem to value highly plus a financial services sector that has light regulation compared to other countries. I don't think defaulting was a realistic option due to that. The best we'l get is an interest rate cut if that becomes unaffordable.

jimeryan22

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was waiting for that non-argument.

If I sign my name to a loan, whether or not I feel I should have, it's my debt. Despite how popular it is to jump up and down and stamp our little feet and say it's not our debt, it is our debt, and we don't get to unilaterally decide not to pay it. You're continuing to miss the point.

If we refuse to pay our debts, nobody will lend us money. All the posturing and chest-puffing about how we can bully the EU into letting us welch on our debts doesn't change the core point: we need to be able to borrow money. If you think we should default, you must explain either (a) who would lend us money after we had demonstrated a willingness not to pay it back, or (b) how we'd run the country without borrowing.

Fact is and point is... Like the rest of the country's of the world.. We shouldn't be "borrowing" as you's put it off no central bank, ecb, IMF... We should be generating money internally..
No doubt there would be some form of tax system for paying for the services to run the country.. Like a certain other place, we have a constitution.. And nowhere in it does it mention banks.. Fiat currency's..? Borrowing off banks..?
Don't think that's the way it's supposed to be somehow.. And as someone else said before, and try and deny it.. It is not my debt.. Nor my children's, nor my grand kids job to pay off bad bank debts for crooks... Sorry.
Default. Iceland most certainly did not collapse when they dealt with their so called debt... In fact the relevant people went to jail and they told the banks to stick it... I believe they now, 2-3 years later are the second fastest growing economy..?

jimeryan22

oscarBravo wrote: »

Iceland didn't default on its sovereign debt.

I'm afraid they DID

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-the-world-can-learn-from-icelands-default-model-2011-8?op=1

oscarBravo

jimeryan22 wrote: »

We shouldn't be "borrowing" as you's put it off no central bank, ecb, IMF... We should be generating money internally..

Yes, we should. In the meantime, given that the cost of running the country far outstrips our tax revenue, what do you suggest we do instead of borrowing?

I'll sit here and wait for you to not answer the question yet again.

jimeryan22 wrote: »

I'm afraid they DID

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-the-world-can-learn-from-icelands-default-model-2011-8?op=1

They didn't, and nowhere in that article does it say that they did.

As an aside, and referring back to my earlier point in this thread: this is the sort of head-in-the-sand misinformed thinking that some people think the government should slavishly obey without question - which is why true democracy is a horrible prospect.

jimeryan22

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, we should. In the meantime, given that the cost of running the country far outstrips our tax revenue, what do you suggest we do instead of borrowing?

I'll sit here and wait for you to not answer the question yet again.

They didn't, and nowhere in that article does it say that they did.

As an aside, and referring back to my earlier point in this thread: this is the sort of head-in-the-sand misinformed thinking that some people think the government should slavishly obey without question - which is why true democracy is a horrible prospect.

Again... Yes they did..
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-20/icelandic-anger-brings-record-debt-relief-in-best-crisis-recovery-story.html

jimeryan22

Also... What's costing so much to run the country..? Where's it going..? And on what..? Show me..
We of course could have an internal economy where we generate enough to feed our population, keep the place running... Not borrowing off some PRIVATE bank

oscarBravo

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Again... Yes they did..
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-20/icelandic-anger-brings-record-debt-relief-in-best-crisis-recovery-story.html

Again, they didn't; again, the article you linked doesn't say they did; and again, you've refused to answer the question of how the country finances itself without borrowing.

jimeryan22

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, we should. In the meantime, given that the cost of running the country far outstrips our tax revenue, what do you suggest we do instead of borrowing?

I'll sit here and wait for you to not answer the question yet again.

They didn't, and nowhere in that article does it say that they did.

As an aside, and referring back to my earlier point in this thread: this is the sort of head-in-the-sand misinformed thinking that some people think the government should slavishly obey without question - which is why true democracy is a horrible prospect.

And you didn't obviously read the first article too well.. It's says in the very first paragraph they let their bank default..