Not our debt

Dave!

Hi there,

I come here in search of knowledge. Can someone please explain the "not our debt" argument that the AAA/PBP and so on have been putting forth for the last 7 or 8 years? I've never really understood it, and I see it is coming up again now in relation to Greece – commentators are saying that the bailout Greece received actually went to Italian(?) and French banks. Are these banks that are operating in Greece, or the money went abroad for some reason? Did the Greeks (and Ireland) not get loans to save their (domestic) banking system, and thus their economy?

I gather this has a lot to do with the European banks being so connected, and everything being dictated by the ECB. But it's very complicated stuff, I'm fairly out of my depth, even though I follow it closely every day.

Anyone able to explain it like you're explaining to an infant? And any good articles to read would be good too.

Thanks!

edit: Ideally someone who is not completely blinded by ideology would be able to help a brother out..

20Cent

Private German bank lends money to a private Irish or Greek bank which subsequently goes bust. With capitalism that's a bad investment and tough luck money is gone. The ECB has forced governments to take in this debt run up by private banks and made it sovereign.
Hence "not our debt".

howamidifferent

The shareholders of the banks would have lost their investments and we'd not be €64 billion more in debt.

Dave!

howamidifferent wrote: »

The shareholders of the banks would have lost their investments and we'd not be €64 billion more in debt.

Sounds like it would have been all wrapped up pretty nicely!

Presumably the ECB and others were concerned that there would have been other/worse consequences if the banks were allowed to fail? Is that not the case?

20Cent

Dave! wrote: »

Sounds like it would have been all wrapped up pretty nicely!

Presumably the ECB and others were concerned that there would have been other/worse consequences if the banks were allowed to fail? Is that not the case?

ECB were fine with Anglo and Irish nationwide to go bust until they realised how much they owed German and French banks then "capitalism" went out the window.

oscarBravo

Dave! wrote: »

edit: Ideally someone who is not completely blinded by ideology would be able to help a brother out..

Good luck with that.

edanto

I'm no expert on this, but one guy I trust is Stephen Donnelly and I remember him explaining this scam in the Dail before and asking the president of the European Parliament for our €64bn back.

Stephen Donnelly wrote:

Ireland never received a bailout and is not looking for one. However, we do need our €64 billion returned to ensure our recovery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGTnpCE4do

(Video from 2012)

Stephen Donnelly wrote:

'If the ECB wants to cover the losses of professional investors, then let it do so with its own money...'

I know it's not the whole story that you're looking for, and I'll be hoping that others put in some links that explain how these French and German banks got into the precarious loans with the Irish/Greece banks, and how in the hell it made any sense at all to convert those private loans into National Debt.

A Stephen Kinsella article from February this year gives a some background on the Greek debt; how much it is and which companies/countries it is owed to.
http://www.stephenkinsella.net/2015/02/24/greek-crisis-redux/

And then of course, qui bono?

http://stephendonnelly.ie/stephen-donnelly-follow-the-money-to-the-real-culprits/ (Feb 2013 article)

Stephen Donnelly wrote:

The truth is, we’ve all been robbed by a financial elite which has convinced Europe’s political leadership that should investors be forced to accept losses, the continent would collapse. And none has been robbed more than the Germans and the Irish, who between them have contributed about 85 per cent of the total funding to the eurozone bank rescue.

ThisRegard

If banks were let go bust then people who support the argument that they should be let, presumably have no problems with losing their money in those banks, or the business they work for shutting down as they too lose all their money?

edanto

I believe that in a functioning capitalist society, like the one I want to live in, that insolvent businesses should go to the wall. In the normal course of events, their creditors should have a call on their assets. The deposits should have had a higher priority than any investors.

The government at the time said that their legal advice was that bondholders were equal to investors. I asked to see that legal advice under FOI (just curious to know what law it was based on) but was refused. Maybe a new law could have given depositors preference over investors, but of course that would have had an impact on banks getting investors, so caution would have been needed.

I'm not trying to propose a perfect solution here, simply trying to put forward some reasons for why this debt we are now carrying is odious, and 'not our debt'.

Ireland (and others) borrowed heavily to pay off gambling debts owed from one set of companies to another set of companies. It's the greatest victory for corporatism in history.

Dohnjoe

ThisRegard wrote: »

If banks were let go bust then people who support the argument that they should be let, presumably have no problems with losing their money in those banks, or the business they work for shutting down as they too lose all their money?

Some are too concerned with the "fairness" and "justice" aspect, indignant that the arsonists be punished. They overlooked or didn't understand the risk in doing so

The US version was even more apocalyptic, in the first vote the majority stood against the bailout.. it's only when it became clear the country was navigating toward Great Depression territory did they realise it there was no option but to deal with reality and secure the stability of the country and financial system

Berserker

20Cent wrote: »

Private German bank lends money to a private Irish or Greek bank which subsequently goes bust. With capitalism that's a bad investment and tough luck money is gone. The ECB has forced governments to take in this debt run up by private banks and made it sovereign.
Hence "not our debt".

Let's not forgot that the AAA and PBP are anti-capitalism.

Amirani

edanto wrote: »

I believe that in a functioning capitalist society, like the one I want to live in, that insolvent businesses should go to the wall. In the normal course of events, their creditors should have a call on their assets. The deposits should have had a higher priority than any investors.

The government at the time said that their legal advice was that bondholders were equal to investors. I asked to see that legal advice under FOI (just curious to know what law it was based on) but was refused. Maybe a new law could have given depositors preference over investors, but of course that would have had an impact on banks getting investors, so caution would have been needed.

Eh - depositors already have higher seniority than regular bondholders, who in turn have higher seniority than equity holders.

Your use of "investors" is very misleading, as it means all three of the above things.

Amirani

OP, as far as I can see, the "not our debt" argument stems from 2 factors.

1. The debt was originally the debt of private institutions - i.e. the insolvent banks.

2. Most of this debt was owed to German/British lenders.

On the first point, morally that might be the case. However the Irish parliament in effect nationalised that debt through the bank guarantee. This was a legal guarantee that very much made the debt our sovereign debt. And arguments to the contrary aren't based on facts, just ideology.

On the second, people feel that being in a currency union, creditors should share responsibility for debts that are created. Perhaps they should, but again, our parliament nationalised the debt prior to any sort of burden sharing agreement. The debt legally, was our debt.

People suggesting that the banks were let fail en masse don't really tend to understand the ramifications of such an action. The economy would collapse. An argument could be made for letting Anglo and Irish Nationwide fail, which may have been manageable. Even in hindsight though it's difficult to know how that would've worked out.

Aka Ishur

Moot point, the fact is that the bondholders etc have been paid at this stage, the disastrous Fianna Fail government took the debt on so it's ours. Unless you can convince the bondholders to give the cash back 7 years after the fact, not our debt is just a catchy rallying cry. Add to that a lot of the debt tranches have actually been paid back (using lower cost loans) the process of negotiating which debts go where would be painful. All we could maybe possibly do now is ask for a haircut on the remainder of what the government borrowed and with Ireland having one of the fastest growing economies in Europe at the moment there is precious little incentive for our creditors to do that.

On the brighter side the BOI bailout has already been paid back plus a nice profit, AIB looks like it "may" do the same. The NTMA has also done a nice job in cutting the cost of borrowing which in the long term will save billions.

Personnally I think the bailout should have been more limited, with all depositors as of a certain date protected. I can see what the FF government were trying to do in attacting deposits but in the end it simply was too high a mountain to climb.

No one can tell you what would have happened if the bailout didn't take place. There is no question there would have been pain. Serious pain as people lost deposits, pensions, everything.

Would the recovery have been quicker? Again no one can tell you. I think not as I think the cost of recovery would be higher coming from a lower base. I think the elections would swing to Sinn Fein/AAA and the cost of government, social welfare would go up in an effort to cement their base. this would lead to a higher deficit, higher cost of borrowing, higher cost overall.

edanto

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Eh - depositors already have higher seniority than regular bondholders, who in turn have higher seniority than equity holders.

Your use of "investors" is very misleading, as it means all three of the above things.

I believe you're wrong on the first point.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/paying-bond-holders-saved-deposits-313393.html

Mario Draghi wrote:

Ireland did not have legislation that would protect depositors and so they were on an equal footing with senior bank bondholders under Irish law and would have to suffer the same.

That said, Draghi probably has some difficulty knowing where his allegiances lie given the fact that he worked at the Vampire Squid while they were busy helping Greece with the "accounting measures" to conceal debt and join the Euro.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/just-what-mario-draghi-hiding-ecb-declines-respond-bloomberg-foia-request-greek-goldman-swaps

Aka Ishur, it is a moot point, you're right. The government did take on the debt. The OP was simply asking for reasons why the government might have been wrong to take on the debt.

Aka Ishur

edanto wrote: »

Aka Ishur, it is a moot point, you're right. The government did take on the debt. The OP was simply asking for reasons why the government might have been wrong to take on the debt.

Um... no the OP didn't. He/She asked for the reasoning behind the 'Not our Debt' rallying call - answer being "its catchy."

Baggy Trousers

Great thread. Not enough is made of the private banking debt forced onto the people of Ireland. I believe we pay €3 billion interest per year on this nationalised private banking debt. Criminal.

Aka Ishur

You are a little off. in 2014, interest payments on the bailout funds was approx €2.2 billion. That contrasts with the 5.5 billion in interest paid on what is continuously borrowed just to keep the country running.

Hope you dont reply in the meantime but how can you say not enough is made of the debt? The country has been through a huge austerity program over the last 6-7 year with massive marches and entire political parties springing up around the consequences of the debt. Sinn Fein rallied around Syriza because they were going to repudiate the debt and Sinn fein were going to follow suit if elected. Assets have been sold. New utility agencies created. We have had banking enquiries (finally) and tribunals surrounding the issue. Water charge protests have often tagged the austerity agenda as a primary reason not to pay.

The entire political and economic landscape of this country has been defined by this debt for the last 6 years. Have you been asleep?

For Reals

I can see great justification in bailing out a company to keep them ticking along and their staff employed to get them through a rough patch and then have any bailout money returned maintaining that company/industry and the jobs associated with it in the mean time. That's good for the economy in a practical keep jobs sense.
No losers.

Private concerns who gamble private money and lose private money being bailed out by public money? I see no benefit other than keeping the current financial/capitalist system that fails constantly afloat.
It's like austerity. The books look like we're are heading in the right direction, but the most important people, the general public suffer so the same private concerns can get back to playing dice on our coin. And no, there is no trickle down effect. Nobody got rich working 5/6 days a week in a factory/shop/warehouse for 30/40 years.

edanto

You're dead right For Reals.

Imagine if the govt had let the toxic banks go to the wall and then had a fund of even 10 billion to invest in real businesses that were affected by a loss of their large deposits.

Dave!, have you gotten what you were looking for from the thread?

Eugene Norman

Diego Simeone wrote: »

OP, as far as I can see, the "not our debt" argument stems from 2 factors.

1. The debt was originally the debt of private institutions - i.e. the insolvent banks.

2. Most of this debt was owed to German/British lenders.

On the first point, morally that might be the case. However the Irish parliament in effect nationalised that debt through the bank guarantee. This was a legal guarantee that very much made the debt our sovereign debt. And arguments to the contrary aren't based on facts, just ideology.

On the second, people feel that being in a currency union, creditors should share responsibility for debts that are created. Perhaps they should, but again, our parliament nationalised the debt prior to any sort of burden sharing agreement. The debt legally, was our debt.

People suggesting that the banks were let fail en masse don't really tend to understand the ramifications of such an action. The economy would collapse. An argument could be made for letting Anglo and Irish Nationwide fail, which may have been manageable. Even in hindsight though it's difficult to know how that would've worked out.

Not ever letting banks fail means that there is no real financial capitalism, just a state backed oligarchy. If banks can't fail because they would bring down the economy the sane thing to do is regulate them to the extent they can't ever fail, or nationalise them for good. Either way capitalism has failed.

I'm pretty sure the Irish guarantee was of deposits and wouldn't have been seen to apply to bonds.

ressem

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Not ever letting banks fail means that there is no real financial capitalism, just a state backed oligarchy. If banks can't fail because they would bring down the economy the sane thing to do is regulate them to the extent they can't ever fail, or nationalise them for good. Either way capitalism has failed.

I'm pretty sure the Irish guarantee was of deposits and wouldn't have been seen to apply to bonds.

But the banks did fail and shareholders in these banks lost 99% of their investment.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-the-losers-in-aib-share-wipeout-26694051.html

It's their lenders, customers and some employees that were preserved.

Should small investors be steered away from shareholdings and towards bonds? Probably loads of small speculators will get burned in AIB when the government starts offloading it's shares.
Should Irish-only share baskets be diversified across Europe as the ISEQ will always be dominated by financial, property, insurance.

If the bondholders are put at a lower level than depositors, then the small borrowers will have to pay a higher rate of interest; assuming the bondholders are acting with an iota of prudence, and not just awash with zero interest money that they have to put someplace. (As they are these days?)

So should banks be broken up according to market divisions (dedicated commercial property, financial transactions, insurance, retail, mortgage)? Or should there be a maximum limit on the size of a bank, beyond which there is a procedure to split it up?

Contrast that to the run-up to the burst, there was newspaper commentary that AIB and Anglo were too small apart and should merge, to compete with Santander.

Icepick

howamidifferent wrote: »

The shareholders of the banks would have lost their investments and we'd not be €64 billion more in debt.

That happened when they were nationalized.

Amirani

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Not ever letting banks fail means that there is no real financial capitalism, just a state backed oligarchy. If banks can't fail because they would bring down the economy the sane thing to do is regulate them to the extent they can't ever fail, or nationalise them for good.

Post-crisis has seen an attempt at the former, much larger capital requirements against risky assets. No more proprietary trading. Ringfencing of retail banking activities in certain jurisdictions. Formation of holding companies with bail-inable debt. If they're gonna fail they should fail in a way that doesn't have extensive systemic impacts.

Whether all that will be enough remains to be seen really.

frankbrett

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Great thread. Not enough is made of the private banking debt forced onto the people of Ireland. I believe we pay €3 billion interest per year on this nationalised private banking debt. Criminal.

Well the banking rescue was predominantly paid for by cash reserves, the NPRF and the promissory note/floating rate bonds where the interest is paid to our own central bank.

Regarding the bondholders argument, an alternative viewpoint is that the bailout was one of depositors as much as bondholders. Depositors in this case are as much speculators as bondholders

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.ie/2013/01/why-bondholders-are-not-problem.html?m=1

Sam Russell

The Gov should have declared a series of bank holidays (as Britain did in their crisis) to give them time. New legislation could have been rushed through to allow the depositors to be transferred to NTMA, while bondholders be allowed to transfer their bonds to new bonds with NTMA with (much) longer maturity dates, and lower coupons. After, say 7 days, the bank (Anglo) would be liquidated, with those bondholders that did not transfer would lose all (or some) of their value.

It is equivalent to what happened later.

Aka Ishur

Your scenario is equivalent cost wise but in my opinion much more damaging to consumer and investor confidence.

Sam Russell

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Your scenario is equivalent cost wise but in my opinion much more damaging to consumer and investor confidence.

Perhaps, but the sovereign would have taken on much less debt, and on better terms. No bank guarantee.

Aka Ishur

The terms issue was only for a short time (in terms of sovereign debt) and one could say that damage to investor confidence could have cost more in the long run in terms of the recovery. Unlikely but we could say it. I would say the best approach would have been a mixture. Guarantees for BoI, AIB etc, transfers for Anglo. Hindsight 20/20 and all that. Of course we are going off the assumption of perfect information. The absolutely criminal behaviour by Anglo and Irish Nationwide put paid to that.

Sam Russell

Aka Ishur wrote: »

The terms issue was only for a short time (in terms of sovereign debt) and one could say that damage to investor confidence could have cost more in the long run in terms of the recovery. Unlikely but we could say it. I would say the best approach would have been a mixture. Guarantees for BoI, AIB etc, transfers for Anglo. Hindsight 20/20 and all that. Of course we are going off the assumption of perfect information. The absolutely criminal behaviour by Anglo and Irish Permanent put paid to that.

I think you mean Irish Nationwide.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Private German bank lends money to a private Irish or Greek bank which subsequently goes bust. With capitalism that's a bad investment and tough luck money is gone. The ECB has forced governments to take in this debt run up by private banks and made it sovereign.
Hence "not our debt".

Maybe you would explain to me in simple short sentences where this occurred in Greece. A list of Greek banks that failed and whose debt was taken over, perhaps? Even better if you could outline how much was involved.

As this is a serious forum, we can't just be expected to take the word of Paul Murphy's Facebook page that this happened in Greece.

Godge

howamidifferent wrote: »

The shareholders of the banks would have lost their investments and we'd not be €64 billion more in debt.

The shareholders did lose their investments. Completely wiped out they were.

Depositers were the biggest beneficiary of the bank bailout - you know, pension funds, old peoples' savings etc. Bondholders, again pension funds and credit unions were also beneficiaries.

It is hard to believe that this level of ignorance of what happens still exists seven years on.

Aka Ishur

Godge wrote: »

The shareholders did lose their investments. Completely wiped out they were.

Depositers were the biggest beneficiary of the bank bailout - you know, pension funds, old peoples' savings etc. Bondholders, again pension funds and credit unions were also beneficiaries.

It is hard to believe that this level of ignorance of what happens still exists seven years on.

Very true, so little understanding that the mysterious bondholders are often the average joe's pensions bundled into group schemes and funds.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

Maybe you would explain to me in simple short sentences where this occurred in Greece. A list of Greek banks that failed and whose debt was taken over, perhaps? Even better if you could outline how much was involved.

As this is a serious forum, we can't just be expected to take the word of Paul Murphy's Facebook page that this happened in Greece.

Thought it was common knowledge that 90 odd percent of the bailout money Greece received went into Greek financial institutions then straight back to the banks that lent it to them.
Since it isn't and the media line is the "everyone partied" it is understandable that some find it confusing.

FreudianSlippers

Godge wrote: »

Maybe you would explain to me in simple short sentences where this occurred in Greece. A list of Greek banks that failed and whose debt was taken over, perhaps? Even better if you could outline how much was involved.

As this is a serious forum, we can't just be expected to take the word of Paul Murphy's Facebook page that this happened in Greece.

I totally agree. Paul Murphy is barely a serious politician and the talking points on his facebook page are nothing more than that.

BoJack Horseman

- 'Country 1'borrows hundreds of billions to finance state.
- 'country 1' needs other countries to help roll this debt over.
- "but its not our debt" bleats 'country 1'

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Thought it was common knowledge that 90 odd percent of the bailout money Greece received went into Greek financial institutions then straight back to the banks that lent it to them.
Since it isn't and the media line is the "everyone partied" it is understandable that some find it confusing.

What a load of rubbish. You really have no understanding of what happened.

The 90% was to refinance Greece's then existing debts, apply a 65% haircut to those debts leaving the foreign banks and private sector creditors to swing for their money and at the same time to re-capitalise the Greek banks that suffered because of the haircut.

Therefore that 90% ultimately paid for the decades of free-living that the Greeks had already had. The other 10% went directly into the Greek public's pocket (who had just been let off around 65% of what they owed to foreign and private sector creditors) and whose democratically elected leaders had lied for years about the size of GDP.

It is absolutely incredible that because the bailout money went to pay off the debts (at a steep discount) that the Greek people had run up while they parties that somebody can idiotically claim that the money only went to the banks!!

20Cent

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

- 'Country 1'borrows hundreds of billions to finance state.
- 'country 1' needs other countries to help roll this debt over.
- "but its not our debt" bleats 'country 1'

But it didn't go to finance the state. It's estimated that only 10% was used by the state. Private banks lent to other private banks yet the state picked up the bill.

BoJack Horseman

20Cent wrote: »

But it didn't go to finance the state. It's estimated that only 10% was used by the state. Private banks lent to other private banks yet the state picked up the bill.

You are deliberately missing the point.

A country doesn't have to repay a loan it didn't take out!

Eugene Norman

Aka Ishur wrote: »

Very true, so little understanding that the mysterious bondholders are often the average joe's pensions bundled into group schemes and funds.

Well that's the nature of private pensions. The private pensioners ( often foreign, richer than average) or the Irish or Greek tax payer.

Eugene Norman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You are deliberately missing the point.

A country doesn't have to repay a loan it didn't take out!

Ireland is definitely repaying loans the sovereign didn't take out.

20Cent

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You are deliberately missing the point.

A country doesn't have to repay a loan it didn't take out!

It does when it's threatened with a "financial bomb" going off if they don't.
Read a bit about Brian Cowans testimony today see how it works.
Right wingers celebrating private debt being made public is absurd they should be as annoyed about it as the lefties.

BoJack Horseman

20Cent wrote: »

It does when it's threatened with a "financial bomb" going off if they don't.

Prove that government debts accrued by Greece year on year for the past 40 years & financed by selling bonds didn't get spent on the running if the state/social welfare etc....

Should be easy for you.

K-9

Mod:

Cut out the load of rubbish and amount of ignorance stuff please, there's no need for it and will be seen as attempting to wind up others to reply in kind or worse.

Also who posts in the journal is of no relevance to boards.ie, post deleted, any reoccurrence will get a ban. Boards users are anonymous posters and privacy is taken seriously.

20Cent

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Prove that government debts accrued by Greece year on year for the past 40 years & financed by selling bonds didn't get spent on the running if the state/social welfare etc....

Should be easy for you.

Didn't say that.

Point is the vast majority of the bailout money went straight back to private banks very little went to the Greek state about 10%.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

But it didn't go to finance the state. It's estimated that only 10% was used by the state. Private banks lent to other private banks yet the state picked up the bill.

Not true. I have already explained to you the sequence of events.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Didn't say that.

Point is the vast majority of the bailout money went straight back to private banks very little went to the Greek state about 10%.

It went to pay back the private banks some of what the Greek state owed them. The banks had to swallow the loss of the rest of what the Greek state owed them.

Seth Brundle

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I totally agree. Paul Murphy is barely a serious politician and the talking points on his facebook page are nothing more than that.

I disagree with your use of the word "barely" as this implies that he is somewhat of a serious politician.

Dave!

Dave! wrote: »

Hi there,

I come here in search of knowledge. Can someone please explain the "not our debt" argument that the AAA/PBP and so on have been putting forth for the last 7 or 8 years? I've never really understood it, and I see it is coming up again now in relation to Greece – commentators are saying that the bailout Greece received actually went to Italian(?) and French banks.

There are two distinct arguments there.

Illegitimate or odious debt is a doctrine which is today associated with post-conflict African and Latin American banana republics. However, it comes from very capitalist origins. The idea was first properly developed by the bould Aleksandr Sak, an up-and-coming Minister in the Russian Empire, who fled the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks declared all Tsarist debts illegitimate, which rightly annoyed Sak, who saw the need for clear rules on odious debts. He promptly fled to Paris and developed his famous doctrine.

The idea is that debt can only be considered odious and illegal if it (1) was imposed without the consent of the people and (2) it was not to their benefit, but to the benefit of some corrupt regime.

The doctrine was actually pro-capitalism at the time, but nevertheless it fell out of favour, and is now almost obsolete. It briefly returned around the Millenium, with the Millenium Development Goals ... perhaps you recall Bono sauntering down the Corridors of Power asking a lot of bemused politicians to make poverty history. Well, that's one of it's pillars.

Well it's difficult to see how the doctrine of Odious Debt applies to Greece, where a legitimate, democratic government has contracted a huge debt which it considered to be in the interests of the Greek financial system and presumably, the wider economy.

However, there is a different, less formal, pragmatic reason why ownership of some Eurozone bank debt should be reassessed.

In some countries, sovereign governments were provided with loans that were largely designed to refinance obligations to benefit bank creditors in other Eurozone countries, particularly Germany.

The argument goes that this refinancing was mostly a bailout for German and other wealthy creditors, with some or little public benefit for the local taxpayer. For example, German exposure to Greek banks was around 30 billion euros in 2010; these have been repaid to German banks at the expense of Greek taxpayers, with money that Greece borrowed, mostly from ... guess who ... Germany.



You can see some sense in the argument that Germany should share some of the burden of the benefit that its banks derived. At the very least, it seems wrong that Germany and its banks make a profit on it.

The situation with Ireland is more contentious, but there's a similar argument being advanced in Ireland too.

noodler

20Cent wrote: »

ECB were fine with Anglo and Irish nationwide to go bust until they realised how much they owed German and French banks then "capitalism" went out the window.

Well that's a lie anyway.

We guaranteed the banks.

The ecb didn't think us coming to our sense when it was too late (and burn the last 5bn) of senior bondholders was worth the risk.

Shouldn't be forgotten that we had already committed the 64bn by this time.

20Cent

noodler wrote: »

Well that's a lie anyway.

We guaranteed the banks.

The ecb didn't think us coming to our sense when it was too late (and burn the last 5bn) of senior bondholders was worth the risk.

Shouldn't be forgotten that we had already committed the 64bn by this time.

The testimony from the banking inquiry confirms that the troika were originally in favour of burning some bondholders but this was quashed when they realised it was German and French banks.