ECB 0% Interest Rates - Our National Debt Quandry

ECB cuts main interest rate to 0% in surprise move

The European Central Bank has cut its main interest rate from 0.05% to 0% - the first cut since September 2014.

The cut came as a surprise amid the bank's efforts to boost sagging euro zone economy.

With interest rates this low, with our bond yields so low, is it time to consider some serious infrastructure projects?

Yes, it will add to the National Debt. I am aware.

But I believe we are mature enough to understand that adding to debt for capital expenditure is far more useful and reasonable than adding debt for operational expenditure.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/features/oecd-calls-on-countries-to-borrow-and-increase-public-capital-spending-386145.html

Are we allowed? (Legally, EU Growth and Stability?)
If not, can we get some exemptions on the grounds that capital and infrastructural upgrades are investments into our ability to repay the debts?

Metro North. Social Housing. Rail Links. LUAS extensions. DART regenerations. Commuter Train Upgrades. Quality Bus Corridors. Hospitals.

A lot of these are becoming far more attractive (and necessary) projects given the costs of finance imo.

Can we maturely approach this subject as a nation? Ensure that the additional capital borrowing is only spent on capital investment. Not used to inflate the state.

Thoughts?

ongarite

We should be but the problem for politicians is that they are nearly all Dublin based infrastructure projects.
They are badly needed but are poison politically as the urban-rural divide grows ever larger.
The recent elections have only highlighted this with the resurgence of vote in FF from rural voters saying they will look after them.

FG/Lab had the opportunity to go ahead with Metro North rather than use it an election ploy but put it on the long finger again.

BoJack Horseman

Absolutely.

From what I understand, demand for Irish bonds exceeds those being sold every 2-3 months.

I think the NTMA should stretch this a bit & see how much can be borrowed without stretching the return.

If a much larger sum can be borrowed without exceeding 2% I think it should at least be considered.

Ideally though there would be some inflation to help this endeavor.
Perhaps the lack of inflation is holding back the NTMA?

FreudianSlippers

- tax breaks for residential construction / refurbishment inside the canals in Dublin;
- nothing below 50m for Docklands/IFSC;
- mandated minimum percentage of all new projects to be dedicated "affordable" (i.e. in a building or estate, not stand-alone or separate);
- increased and efficient health infrastructure outside of the M50

Rightwing

Simple answer = No.

Our debt is high and we have no concept of value for money. I'd prefer to see further cuts to services and taxes.

Geuze

The EU fiscal compact requires us to reduce our deficit, not increase it.

Sand

Geuze wrote: »

The EU fiscal compact requires us to reduce our deficit, not increase it.

Agreed, the concept of the government elected by the Irish people debating the value taking on debt to boost the long term growth of the Irish economy was conclusively rejected when the the Merkel Fiscal Compact was imposed.

Ireland must operate within the poorly thought out solution to an irrelevant problem. Interest rates and economic conditions or strategy must be subservient to the fiscal straitjacket thought out on the back of fag packet in Berlin.

rhoa

Borrow Billions, Trillions if they will let us, the end game looks increasing like a world wide debt jubilee.
Dollar, Euro, Pound, Yen, Yuan all major currencies are in trouble, get all the infrastructure built now so Ireland can be in a good position to recover post global reset.

The old saying you owe the bank thousands you are in trouble, you owe the bank millions, the bank is in trouble.
Borrow more and more from the ECB, pile up debt on top of debt, keep going ,push for more and more money, the ECB will have to give in to Irish money requests or the Irish default and the the whole system will crash sooner, we can all see a crash is coming, get ahead of it and get building for a post crash world.
80 Billion a month on QE currently, borrow 10 billion a month, hell go for 20 billion, let the ECB create 100 billion out of thin air each and every month, get in there now while the going is good.
In a few years Europe will be like the Weimar Republic and a few billion Euros will only be good for burning.

BoJack Horseman

rhoa wrote: »

Borrow more and more from the ECB, pile up debt on top of debt, keep going ,push for more and more money, the ECB will have to give in to Irish money requests or the Irish default and the the whole system will crash sooner

This adds nothing....

The AAA/PBP principle of "f*ck it, lets default" is stupid.
In order to borrow, someone has to buy your bonds....
So, the ECB are buying bonds across all EZ members, but as Ireland is a tiny part of the EZ, that proportion of Irish bonds purchased would also be modest.
Getting the NTMA to email the ECB asking to 'please buy loads of bonds coz we wanna default later'... well, what is the point?

Your 'Syriza gambit' would only weaken Ireland.

FreudianSlippers

Geuze wrote: »

The EU fiscal compact requires us to reduce our deficit, not increase it.

Sand wrote: »

Agreed, the concept of the government elected by the Irish people debating the value taking on debt to boost the long term growth of the Irish economy was conclusively rejected when the the Merkel Fiscal Compact was imposed.

Ireland must operate within the poorly thought out solution to an irrelevant problem. Interest rates and economic conditions or strategy must be subservient to the fiscal straitjacket thought out on the back of fag packet in Berlin.

I would argue that

1) We are likely to have some space this year;
2) So long as our structural deficit remains in line with the objectives of the MTO then we're in the clear.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

The EU fiscal compact requires us to reduce our deficit, not increase it.

Deleted User wrote:

Yes, it will add to the National Debt. I am aware.

But I believe we are mature enough to understand that adding to debt for capital expenditure is far more useful and reasonable than adding debt for operational expenditure.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/busines...ng-386145.html

Are we allowed? (Legally, EU Growth and Stability?)
If not, can we get some exemptions on the grounds that capital and infrastructural upgrades are investments into our ability to repay the debts?

As per the OP.

BoJack Horseman

Geuze wrote: »

The EU fiscal compact requires us to reduce our deficit, not increase it.

And it has been.

But with Ireland's debt-to-GDP ratio tumbling & well below many other EZ states, (92% by year end 2016) there is room to consider building a 'war chest' while rates are so low.

What Ireland borrows today at around 1% would very little impact on the overall deficit.

LeinsterDub

Rightwing wrote: »

Simple answer = No.

Our debt is high and we have no concept of value for money. I'd prefer to see further cuts to services and taxes.

Does money from the eu infrastructure bank count?
Even if it does the roi is through the roof.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/ireland-accused-of-being-slow-to-tap-315bn-eu-infrastructure-fund-386515.html

BoJack Horseman

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Does money from the eu infrastructure bank count?

It would count as national debt.

Interestingly, the EIB does not have a declared interest rate, their FAQ states:

The EIB can only make a specific quote for lending following a thorough appraisal of the project. Loan rates will also vary according to specific aspects such as currencies borrowed, amount, duration and timing of disbursement.

As well as fixed interest rates, the EIB can offer revisable and convertible rates, allowing for a change of interest rate formula during the life of the loan at predetermined dates or during predefined periods.

That article expresses criticism at not taking up EIB loans... but it seems unclear.
If the NTMA can raise finance cheaper & easier than the EIB & without having to jump through rings for the EIB, then all the better.

But we don't know enough to say for sure.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It would count as national debt.

Interestingly, the EIB does not have a declared interest rate, their FAQ states:


That article expresses criticism at not taking up EIB loans... but it seems unclear.
If the NTMA can raise finance cheaper & easier than the EIB & without having to jump through rings for the EIB, then all the better.

But we don't know enough to say for sure.

I was having this argument with someone on the infrastructure forum who clearly didn't know about or have experience with the EIB in relation to DART Underground. They (under their current mandate/policy) consider the ability of the Member State to source the monies from elsewhere including repayment of debt vis-a-vis fares, taxes, etc. when considering whether projects should get funding and at what rate.

It makes sense, they want to prioritise cheap money for countries that (i) can't afford to borrow (ii) can't afford to spend taxpayer money (iii) don't have a solid user base to pay for the project from fares/tolls.

screamer

Yeh, great idea so long as you live in DUBLIN......
There's need for infrastructure and capital spending outside of it, and there's a whole country outside of the M50......... :rolleyes:

BoJack Horseman

screamer wrote: »

Yeh, great idea so long as you live in DUBLIN......
There's need for infrastructure and capital spending outside of it

Indeed... Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford.

After that though there is little merit in prioritising scarce funding.
Dublin suffers from poor infrastructure, while paying for the rest of the nation.

The Bertienomic days of 'a bypass for every village' are probably over...

And of course, let's not forget that government expenditure, per-capita is the lowest for Dubliners.

screamer

screamer wrote: »

Yeh, great idea so long as you live in DUBLIN......
There's need for infrastructure and capital spending outside of it, and there's a whole country outside of the M50......... :rolleyes:

What infrastructure projects should be undertaken outside of the capital?

Instead of complaining that there are necessary tasks in Dublin, and we're not considering Not Dublin, why not tell us what projects outside of the capital are worth pursuing?

I claim ignorance, and offer you the opportunity to 'sell us' the projects.

oscarBravo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Dublin suffers from poor infrastructure, while paying for the rest of the nation.

There's a self-fulfilling prophecy in there. If all (or even most) infrastructure spending is confined to Dublin, then only Dublin will be an attractive place to set up business or industry. This will increase the gravitational pull of Dublin as the most likely place to get work, which leads to an increasing population, which causes strain on the infrastructure, which requires an even greater proportion of infrastructure spending to go to Dublin...

It would be nice if the conversation didn't go down the false dichotomy route of either "only invest inside the M50" or "a bypass for every village". I'm simply suggesting that if we want Dublin's infrastructure to catch up with its requirements someday, it might be a help to take the pressure off Dublin by allowing other parts of the country to become more attractive for industry.

Mehapoy

screamer wrote: »

Yeh, great idea so long as you live in DUBLIN......
There's need for infrastructure and capital spending outside of it, and there's a whole country outside of the M50......... :rolleyes:

That's why no government can spend money on decent projects for Dublin that would also benefit the country as a whole, there's the whole country lobby, and I live in Limerick myself, that demands their own bypass too...

Captain Chaos

screamer wrote: »

Yeh, great idea so long as you live in DUBLIN......
There's need for infrastructure and capital spending outside of it, and there's a whole country outside of the M50......... :rolleyes:

There's 1.4 million people inside the M50.

The population of Dublin bankrolls the rest of the country.

If Dublin grinds to a hault the rest of the country suffers, simple as. No other county can support it's self financially.

BoJack Horseman

oscarBravo wrote: »

it might be a help to take the pressure off Dublin by allowing other parts of the country to become more attractive for industry.

That would be great, but we have to ask questions as to why this has not been done.

Ireland has spent the last century disincentivising (sp) urbanisation.

Its much more than infrastructure.... it's about the principle of creating larger, viable, sustainable cities.

Cities by their density are cheaper to run & more effective to invest in.

We fail as a nation to recognise this, preferring the bungalow blitz.
And we all pay the cost for that.

TL,DR: The nation needs to be honest about capital investment & urbanisation.... the two must go together more.

screamer

I agree with Oscar Bravo. Sure the whole country should just up sticks and move to Dublin, and watch the Dubs cry because of the lack of schools, hospitals, roads, yada, yada (oh wait, they already are) so just multiply the whinging a few times.......... There are plenty of things down the country that need to be upgraded and sorted out but of course, typical all for Dublin attitudes..........

BoJack Horseman

screamer wrote: »

There are plenty of things down the country that need to be upgraded.

No one is arguing that.

But expenditure is always going to have to be governed by cost/benefit.

And in that context, urbanisation is essential to enhance that.

No one needs to move to Dublin.
Every county has a town & the bigger these get, the more viable investment becomes.

oscarBravo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Every county has a town & the bigger these get, the more viable investment becomes.

...and how are those towns going to get bigger without investment in infrastructure?

I'm not arguing against urbanisation. I'm pointing out that if you want urbanisation, but don't want Dublin to eventually have two-thirds of the population of the country, investment in infrastructure outside of Dublin will be required.

Yes, it requires a cost-benefit analysis, but when you're talking about planning the long-term future of the country, that CBA should be looking at least fifty years ahead.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and how are those towns going to get bigger without investment in infrastructure?

I'm not arguing against urbanisation. I'm pointing out that if you want urbanisation, but don't want Dublin to eventually have two-thirds of the population of the country, investment in infrastructure outside of Dublin will be required.

Yes, it requires a cost-benefit analysis, but when you're talking about planning the long-term future of the country, that CBA should be looking at least fifty years ahead.

Agreed. So what's the plan? What "Not Dublin" infrastructure projects should we partaking in with a degree of pace? Which make sense?

oscarBravo

Captain Chaos wrote: »

There's 1.4 million people inside the M50.

The population of Dublin bankrolls the rest of the country.

If Dublin grinds to a hault the rest of the country suffers, simple as. No other county can support it's self financially.

It's a nice, simplistic, one-dimensional analysis. How well would Dublin cope if its entire working population had to live inside the M50? How much of its water comes from reservoirs inside the M50? How much of its food is grown within the M50?


We really need to stop with the nonsense that Dublin is completely self-sufficient, and the rest of the country is a parasitic leech draining the life from an otherwise vibrant city. Yes, a huge proportion of the population lives is a small area. Yes, the economic activity of the country is disproportionately concentrated in one place. The bigger question is: is that how it should be?

BoJack Horseman

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and how are those towns going to get bigger without investment in infrastructure?

By local authorities heavily restricting rural planning applications.

An example is my home county of Wicklow.
No one-off, rural housing built unless you have a very established connection to the immediate vicinity... not just the county, but the vicinity.

Much fewer houses are built, but what is is usually urban.....

There just needs to be an intentional (if seemingly harsh) bias towards urbanisation, but it is done.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed. So what's the plan? What "Not Dublin" infrastructure projects should we partaking in with a degree of pace? Which make sense?

I honestly don't know.

I'm not arguing in favour of any specific infrastructure projects, just suggesting that a balanced regional approach is in everyone's long-term interest, including Dublin's.

I agree that we've historically been catastrophically bad at planning, and that regional urban centres are the way to go. The national spatial strategy was actually a really good plan - it's just a shame that every government has vehemently ignored it since it was published.

oscarBravo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

By local authorities heavily restricting rural planning applications.

An example is my home county of Wicklow.
No one-off, rural housing built unless you have a very established connection to the immediate vicinity... not just the county, but the vicinity.

Much fewer houses are built, but what is is usually urban.....

There just needs to be an intentional (if seemingly harsh) bias towards urbanisation, but it is done.

Absolutely. That, and an investment in infrastructure.

BoJack Horseman

oscarBravo wrote: »

and an investment in infrastructure.

Which people are more likely to get if we do the unthinkable and live closer to each other!

And because the capital budget has been cut to hell, Wicklow is not enjoying any extra capital investment...
But if it were, it would be better spent & yield more benefit considering the LA have tried to disencentivise scattered populations.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I honestly don't know.

I'm not arguing in favour of any specific infrastructure projects, just suggesting that a balanced regional approach is in everyone's long-term interest, including Dublin's.

I agree that we've historically been catastrophically bad at planning, and that regional urban centres are the way to go. The national spatial strategy was actually a really good plan - it's just a shame that every government has vehemently ignored it since it was published.

For Ireland.Inc, a balanced approach is absolutely essential. Infrastructure across the nation needs to be improved.

However, I'd say that it's quite likely that in terms of priorities for Ireland.Inc, the vast majority of projects that require priority are (from a cost/benefit perspective, short & long term) Dublin based investment.

That is not to say that there are no projects outside of Dublin that would be worth pursuing, it is just that the projects that offer best return for us as a nation are Dublin centric.

The crux of the matter should be that the most beneficial projects (for the nation) should be prioritised first.

Politically, that is a difficult truth for some. (And an absolute ballache for the County Councillors* in the Dáil)

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

For Ireland.Inc, a balanced approach is absolutely essential. Infrastructure across the nation needs to be improved.

However, I'd say that it's quite likely that in terms of priorities for Ireland.Inc, the vast majority of projects that require priority are (from a cost/benefit perspective, short & long term) Dublin based investment.

That is not to say that there are no projects outside of Dublin that would be worth pursuing, it is just that the projects that offer best return for us as a nation are Dublin centric.

The crux of the matter should be that the most beneficial projects (for the nation) should be prioritised first.

Politically, that is a difficult truth for some. (And an absolute ballache for the County Councillors* in the Dáil)

All of the above is true, on the face of it, as long as you omit from your calculations the consequences of continued centralisation.

You can take any given Dublin-centric project and say, on balance, this project is good for Dublin and ergo good for Ireland. But when you've allowed Dublin to grow to the point where you're seriously considering building a pipeline from the Shannon in order to provide enough water... it's hard not to conclude that decentralisation - not in the McCreevy sense, but actual decentralisation - is becoming desperately needed.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

All of the above is true, on the face of it, as long as you omit from your calculations the consequences of continued centralisation.

I explicitly said otherwise. I specifically mentioned long term planning.

The truth is that we don't even have a dream of "Non Dublin" planning to toss into the cauldron here, let alone a feasible project. While there are many examples above of worthwhile and achievable 'Dublin Centric' projects that are warranted.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can take any given Dublin-centric project and say, on balance, this project is good for Dublin and ergo good for Ireland. But when you've allowed Dublin to grow to the point where you're seriously considering building a *pipeline from the Shannon in order to provide enough water... it's hard not to conclude that decentralisation - not in the McCreevy sense, but actual decentralisation - is becoming desperately needed.

Agreed. So lets come up with a plan that is worth pursuing. *Pipe dream even? :pac:

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed. So lets come up with a plan that is worth pursuing.

http://nss.ie/pdfs/Completea.pdf

Godge

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://nss.ie/pdfs/Completea.pdf

Outdated, 2002 thinking, before the massive wave of urbanisation hit the world.

Cities are the way forward. The Buchannan Report in the 1970s, which focussed on Cork and Limerick, and was never implemented, is where we should have gone then and arguable should go now.

Fr Tod Umptious

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://nss.ie/pdfs/Completea.pdf

The National Spacial Strategy was made worthless about a year after it was published with the announcement of 'Decentralization' as a carrot in an otherwise uneventful budget.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a self-fulfilling prophecy in there. If all (or even most) infrastructure spending is confined to Dublin, then only Dublin will be an attractive place to set up business or industry. This will increase the gravitational pull of Dublin as the most likely place to get work, which leads to an increasing population, which causes strain on the infrastructure, which requires an even greater proportion of infrastructure spending to go to Dublin...

It would be nice if the conversation didn't go down the false dichotomy route of either "only invest inside the M50" or "a bypass for every village". I'm simply suggesting that if we want Dublin's infrastructure to catch up with its requirements someday, it might be a help to take the pressure off Dublin by allowing other parts of the country to become more attractive for industry.

Nobody is suggesting we only invest inside the M50, but unfortunately in the last boom we miserably failed investing inside the M50 and now we're paying the price.

We need to build up inside the M50 and then start looking out. With good transport links to the other major cities on this Island, the investment elsewhere will occur naturally when businesses look elsewhere to locate.

oscarBravo

Godge wrote: »

Outdated, 2002 thinking, before the massive wave of urbanisation hit the world.

Cities are the way forward.

Not everyone wants to live in a city. I'm guessing you live in a city, and are happy to live in a city. Very few people who live in villages wish they lived in cities.

Have you ever flown into Frankfurt at night? It's a fascinating sight.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The National Spacial Strategy was made worthless about a year after it was published with the announcement of 'Decentralization' as a carrot in an otherwise uneventful budget.

The fact that successive governments failed miserably to implement something doesn't make it a bad idea.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We need to build up inside the M50 and then start looking out. With good transport links to the other major cities on this Island, the investment elsewhere will occur naturally when businesses look elsewhere to locate.

Sure - but if we wait to build those transport links until we've solved all of Dublin's infrastructural problems, we'll have created more infrastructural problems in the process.

Cork, Limerick and Galway are easily accessible from Dublin. Letterkenny, Sligo and Castlebar, not so much. But worst of all is trying to get from one part of the country to another if one of those parts isn't Dublin.

Again: I'm not saying we need to neglect Dublin and build up the rest of the country. I'm saying we need a balanced regional development program, with heavy emphasis on Dublin, but not at the expense of the regions, which is ultimately at Dublin's expense anyway.

Fr Tod Umptious

oscarBravo wrote: »

.......

The fact that successive governments failed miserably to implement something doesn't make it a bad idea....

I'm not saying that the spatial strategy was a bad idea, I'm just saying that a year or so later the government came out with a Decentralisation plan that was at odds with what the spatial strategy said.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure - but if we wait to build those transport links until we've solved all of Dublin's infrastructural problems, we'll have created more infrastructural problems in the process.

Cork, Limerick and Galway are easily accessible from Dublin. Letterkenny, Sligo and Castlebar, not so much. But worst of all is trying to get from one part of the country to another if one of those parts isn't Dublin.

Again: I'm not saying we need to neglect Dublin and build up the rest of the country. I'm saying we need a balanced regional development program, with heavy emphasis on Dublin, but not at the expense of the regions, which is ultimately at Dublin's expense anyway.

But that's the thing - we actually have served most of the country quite well for road/rail links.

Focusing on getting Dublin into the 21st century will only benefit the rest of the country vis-a-vis tax intake (etc.)

Mr. teddywinkles

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

- tax breaks for residential construction / refurbishment inside the canals in Dublin;
- nothing below 50m for Docklands/IFSC;
- mandated minimum percentage of all new projects to be dedicated "affordable" (i.e. in a building or estate, not stand-alone or separate);
- increased and efficient health infrastructure outside of the M50

All in the pale again. Did I miss the memo or is budlin a country now on its own

Mr. teddywinkles

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But that's the thing - we actually have served most of the country quite well for road/rail links.

Focusing on getting Dublin into the 21st century will only benefit the rest of the country vis-a-vis tax intake (etc.)

This happened during the boom too. All ya got was satellite towns building loads of estates that's are now empty due to commuting. Sorry I call total bollix here.

oscarBravo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But that's the thing - we actually have served most of the country quite well for road/rail links.

...to Dublin.

Focusing on getting Dublin into the 21st century will only benefit the rest of the country vis-a-vis tax intake (etc.)

Yes. I've already agreed with this. I'm simply pointing out the caveats.

keane2097

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But that's the thing - we actually have served most of the country quite well for road/rail links.

Focusing on getting Dublin into the 21st century will only benefit the rest of the country vis-a-vis tax intake (etc.)

A real stretch - the road linking our second and third biggest cities is an absolute embarrassment an it's only a 100km distance between them.

If you're going to Dublin great, if you're going anywhere else best of luck

oscarBravo

keane2097 wrote: »

If you're going to Dublin great, if you're going anywhere else best of luck

Absolutely. I live in Westport, and regularly have to attend meetings in Portlaoise. That's a long, painful, cross-country slog. Ironically, it was chosen because it's relatively "central".

Sam Russell

oscarBravo wrote: »

Absolutely. I live in Westport, and regularly have to attend meetings in Portlaoise. That's a long, painful, cross-country slog. Ironically, it was chosen because it's relatively "central".

According to Google, Westport to Portlaoise is 2hrs 55min while Westport to Dublin is 3hrs 5mins. Only saying ....

oscarBravo

Sam Russell wrote: »

According to Google, Westport to Portlaoise is 2hrs 55min while Westport to Dublin is 3hrs 5mins. Only saying ....

Well, yes. It's 30km shorter, but takes almost as long. It's also a cross-country slog, whereas driving to Dublin I at least have the last third or so of the journey on a motorway - or I can take a train.

listermint

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, yes. It's 30km shorter, but takes almost as long. It's also a cross-country slog, whereas driving to Dublin I at least have the last third or so of the journey on a motorway - or I can take a train.

So a motorway to Westport ??

oscarBravo

listermint wrote: »

So a motorway to Westport ??

A dual carriageway from Westport to Castlebar is at CPO stage at the moment. A decent road from Castlebar to Mullingar would be nice.

Why, you don't think there should be a decent road to Westport? Maybe you should explain that to the general manager of Allergan, recently acquired by Pfizer, who employ more than 800 people in Westport. While you're at it, you could explain to Baxter in Castlebar, and Coca-cola and Hollister in Ballina that they don't need a proper road either.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

...to Dublin.

Where else would you be going!? :pac: