FF/FG/Green Next Government

James Brown

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Is that really your answer to that?

Says it all really

Get use to it. It's all they have.
Thankfully the public are jaded listening to it. When people have it hard a good aul' 'RA reference beats a credible and competent government

BonnieSituation

Bowie wrote: »

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Was the Northern Bank at that meeting.?

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Is that really your answer to that?

Says it all really

Get use to it. It's all they have.
Thankfully the public are jaded listening to it. When people have it hard a good aul' 'RA reference beats a credible and competent government

I think we might have reached peak "whatabouteRAy".

I always knew this day would come...

Truthvader

RandomViewer wrote: »

Dead soldiers mean nothing to them, look how many they lost in Helmond. The north was a handy training ground for an expected European war, crowd control, infiltration, testing new weapons on the population. Then after the first Iraq war it became clear that the next big war would be in the desert It's usefulness waned

Hope you are wrong about the British establishments attitude to their own people but even assuming you are right they are done with NI now - save the belief that some have regarding the Scotland argument

The real problem is Brexit as we were all slowly inching along a road to a European identity based on a free range cosmopolitan lifestyle where all the mad English yob nationalism and the pure Gaelic people bullcrap could all be binned once and for all and everyone could grow up. The Brexit nonsense has set all that back and we are now back to the primitive nationalism trope which just creates division and stupidity

dundalkfc10

No defence from the usual FFG crowd.

Let the banks do what they want, sure what do the people matter

maccored

Truthvader wrote: »

Hope you are wrong about the British establishments attitude to their own people but even assuming you are right they are done with NI now - save the belief that some have regarding the Scotland argument

The real problem is Brexit as we were all slowly inching along a road to a European identity based on a free range cosmopolitan lifestyle where all the mad English yob nationalism and the pure Gaelic people bullcrap could all be binned once and for all and everyone could grow up. The Brexit nonsense has set all that back and we are now back to the primitive nationalism trope which just creates division and stupidity

I agree with you in that the british government wants shot of the north now. The unionists dont though so it'll be interesting to see where that ends up.

efanton

maccored wrote: »

I agree with you in that the british government wants shot of the north now. The unionists dont though so it'll be interesting to see where that ends up.

The British government and the Unionists are well aware that it will not be long before the nationalist population exceeds the Unionist population.
I think the British government is quite happy to wait for that to happen, but given a legitimate chance to divest themselves of the six counties they would do so in a heart beat.

I would not be at all surprised to find out that the British government has already drawn up plans for such an eventuality. No doubt they would pump a load of money into the North to make it a little less bitter pill for the Unionists to swallow.
Think of it this way. The British government could easily put ten years subvention up front knowing that it will save them a fortune in the decades to come. That's an awful lot of sugar, and show me a Unionist that doesnt have a sweet tooth when it comes down to money. When it comes down to brass tacks I think the Unionists will happily take that sweetener rather than face the inevitability of their population becoming a minority in the North.

The other thing that I think would swing it is that the Unionists now realise they have little or no say in Westminster, but in a United Ireland they would without doubt be the fourth biggest party in Ireland, and probably in government as a coalition partner within ten years. FG will be looking for a new coalition partner once this FF/FG government collapses, and it is unlikely that they will ever get a majority to form a government on their own again.

Truthvader

efanton wrote: »

The British government and the Unionists are well aware that it will not be long before the nationalist population exceeds the Unionist population.
I think the British government is quite happy to wait for that to happen, but given a legitimate chance to divest themselves of the six counties they would do so in a heart beat.

I would not be at all surprised to find out that the British government has already drawn up plans for such an eventuality. No doubt they would pump a load of money into the North to make it a little less bitter pill for the Unionists to swallow.
Think of it this way. The British government could easily put ten years subvention up front knowing that it will save them a fortune in the decades to come. That's an awful lot of sugar, and show me a Unionist that doesnt have a sweet tooth when it comes down to money. When it comes down to brass tacks I think the Unionists will happily take that sweetener rather than face the inevitability of their population becoming a minority in the North.

The other thing that I think would swing it is that the Unionists now realise they have little or no say in Westminster, but in a United Ireland they would without doubt be the fourth biggest party in Ireland, and probably in government as a coalition partner within ten years. FG will be looking for a new coalition partner once this FF/FG government collapses, and it is unlikely that they will ever get a majority to form a government on their own again.

Even without a sweetner if Boris got a decent majority in the next election he would be just the man to say "bye and thank you". Far less cumbersome and hassle than reversing out of Europe

James Brown

Varadkar giving different versions of what banks said about charging interest in the breather period given to borrowers during Covid.

Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment Leo Varadkar has said he does not fully trust the banks not to try to make a profit during the Covid-19 crisis.

Speaking on RTÉ's Business programme, Mr Varadkar said he had met the banks in May when they said they could not waive interest on mortgages that were paused due to Covid-19 because there was a regulatory barrier.

The Sinn Fein TD said: "In response to questions from me in the Dáil on Thursday, the Tánaiste said 'Banks never claimed that they couldn't waive interest [in respect of Covid-19 mortgage breaks]… They did say it would be possible to waive interest for that period.'

"This account contradicted the minutes of a meeting with senior bankers the former Taoiseach had on 11 May.

"Today on RTÉ radio, the Tánaiste has now given a different version of events; saying that he was told by bankers that they had to charge interest on Covid-19 mortgage breaks."

Mr Doherty said if this was the case, the Tánaiste "needs to correct the Dáil record".https://www.rte.ie/amp/1152708/

Varadkar is playing it old school saying all the right things but trusting and hoping the banks don't do what they do. No point in talking the talk if you've no intention of taking a ramble.
It's like the early days of the homeless crisis before it became a farce with hand wringing and saying 'that's terrible but doing little.
Surely there are many things government can do to make life difficult for banks should they continue the practice?
Charge AIB tax on profits?

Edgware

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I think we might have reached peak "whatabouteRAy".

I always knew this day would come...

Ta ar La taghta

Brendan Bendar

Edgware wrote: »

Ta ar La taghta

Go fíor, Edge, go h-an fíor ar fad.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

Varadkar giving different versions of what banks said about charging interest in the breather period given to borrowers during Covid.



Varadkar is playing it old school saying all the right things but trusting and hoping the banks don't do what they do. No point in talking the talk if you've no intention of taking a ramble.
It's like the early days of the homeless crisis before it became a farce with hand wringing and saying 'that's terrible but doing little.
Surely there are many things government can do to make life difficult for banks should they continue the practice?
Charge AIB tax on profits?

What profits, did you not hear him say they won’t make profits for the next two years.

namloc1980

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

No defence from the usual FFG crowd.

Let the banks do what they want, sure what do the people matter

If banks cease charging interest on these loans even for a period of time, the loans are considered non-performing exposures under EBA and ECB rules. NPEs on the banks balance sheet is not good (we know that from recent history) and certainly not good for the mortgage holders whose credit history will be seriously impacted. Be careful what you wish for.

xl500

namloc1980 wrote: »

If banks cease charging interest on these loans even for a period of time, the loans are considered non-performing exposures under EBA and ECB rules. NPEs on the banks balance sheet is not good (we know that from recent history) and certainly not good for the mortgage holders whose credit history will be seriously impacted. Be careful what you wish for.

If thats the case how are other EU countries allowing breaks without charges

namloc1980

xl500 wrote: »

If thats the case how are other EU countries allowing breaks without charges

They classify them as NPEs. Italian banking industry have asked the EBA for leeway to declassify some of these as NPEs but not sure they've made progress on that front yet.

efanton

namloc1980 wrote: »

If banks cease charging interest on these loans even for a period of time, the loans are considered non-performing exposures under EBA and ECB rules. NPEs on the banks balance sheet is not good (we know that from recent history) and certainly not good for the mortgage holders whose credit history will be seriously impacted. Be careful what you wish for.

I find that difficult to believe for two reasons.

First a bank can alter the interest rate it wants to charge at any time and that rate is not set by the ECB. If rates were set by the ECB why are Irish mortgage payer paying double, and sometime more, the rates charged to mortgage holders in Europe?
It would simply be a case of the Irish banks stating that they are reducing the interest rate on their mortgages, and then setting the rate back again once the covid crisis is over.

Secondly, when asked by a TD, or indeed a Taoiseach, knowing this issues will be raised in the Dail, providing that document would have killed all debate and further questions in the Dail, so it would be reasonable to assume no such document exists.
Why did they not produce a printed copy of the alleged regulation. Simply providing that document when a mortgage repayment pause was first suggested would have put this issue to bed months ago.

Either the banks are lying, totally incompetent, or both. Take your pick.

Bannasidhe

The Heather Humphry's letter isn't going away.

Now what could it be that the Dept. of Ag wants to hide so much that it drops the prosecution of a 3 times convicted animal abuser who was already banned for life from farming?
Seems to me it would be a cut and dried prosecution as Wright just owning livestock would be an offence.

A letter delivered by the social welfare minister Heather Humphreys to the Department of Agriculture, which led to the withdrawal of animal cruelty charges against a farmer, contained a veiled threat to disclose information the department would not wish to see in the public domain.

The department withdrew serious charges against Brian Wright, a farmer from Killygorman, Co Monaghan, after Humphreys delivered the letter to Brendan Gleeson, the secretary-general of the department. The letter was written by one of Wright’s associates.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-heather-humphreys-passed-on-threat-to-department-of-agriculture-officials-v2m3nqch9

Humphrey's has so far refused to make a statement in the Dáil despite calls from the Soc Dems, SF, and Rise.

Edgware

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Heather Humphry's letter isn't going away.

Now what could it be that the Dept. of Ag wants to hide so much that it drops the prosecution of a 3 times convicted animal abuser who was already banned for life from farming?
Seems to me it would be a cut and dried prosecution as Wright just owning livestock would be an offence.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-heather-humphreys-passed-on-threat-to-department-of-agriculture-officials-v2m3nqch9

Humphrey's has so far refused to make a statement in the Dáil despite calls from the Soc Dems, SF, and Rise.

I think that you will find that this government has enough of a majority not to be a bit concerned about the fencesitters of S.F. Soc Dems and in particular RISE

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Heather Humphry's letter isn't going away.

Now what could it be that the Dept. of Ag wants to hide so much that it drops the prosecution of a 3 times convicted animal abuser who was already banned for life from farming?
Seems to me it would be a cut and dried prosecution as Wright just owning livestock would be an offence.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-heather-humphreys-passed-on-threat-to-department-of-agriculture-officials-v2m3nqch9

Humphrey's has so far refused to make a statement in the Dáil despite calls from the Soc Dems, SF, and Rise.

This one is done, like the Cowen and Storey stuff.

Time to move on.

namloc1980

efanton wrote: »

I find that difficult to believe for two reasons.

First a bank can alter the interest rate it wants to charge at any time and that rate is not set by the ECB. If rates were set by the ECB why are Irish mortgage payer paying double, and sometime more, the rates charged to mortgage holders in Europe?
It would simply be a case of the Irish banks stating that they are reducing the interest rate on their mortgages, and then setting the rate back again once the covid crisis is over.

Secondly, when asked by a TD, or indeed a Taoiseach, knowing this issues will be raised in the Dail, providing that document would have killed all debate and further questions in the Dail, so it would be reasonable to assume no such document exists.
Why did they not produce a printed copy of the alleged regulation. Simply providing that document when a mortgage repayment pause was first suggested would have put this issue to bed months ago.

Either the banks are lying, totally incompetent, or both. Take your pick.

Reducing the rate to 0% for those customers is considered granting forbearance or a concession under EBA rules to customers who are having financial difficulty. That isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Those docs are free to access on the web. Visit the European Banking Authority website and knock yourself out.

It was agreed with the Central Bank that the Covid payment breaks would NOT be considered a forbearance event on the basis the only amendment was the customer taking a 3 or 6 month payment break but that there'd be no other contractual amendments. The only other option would be to reduce the interest rate for ALL customers to 0% regardless of their arrears status or ability to repay. That isn't a realistic option. The options are either the EBA clarify that these aren't forbearance or NPE triggers even where zero interest is charged (bearing in mind these rules were brought in after the last financial crisis with the specific purpose of ensuring banks recognised in a timely manner weaknesses in their loan book) or customers sign up to the payment break being a forbearance event with possible credit rating impacts on them etc.

Bannasidhe

Edgware wrote: »

I think that you will this government has enough of a majority not to be a bit concerned about the fencesitters of S.F. Soc Dems and in particular RISE

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

This one is done, like the Cowen and Storey stuff.

Time to move on.

We'll see.

Personally I think a protected disclosure that says a govt minister and the dept of Ag acted to drop charges against a convicted animal abuser, and another govt minister calling members of AGS liars has a bit longer to run no matter how much people want it all to go away.

Edgware

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We'll see.

Personally I think a protected disclosure that says a govt minister and the dept of Ag acted to drop charges against a convicted animal abuser, and another govt minister calling members of AGS liars has a bit longer to run no matter how much people want it all to go away.

Personally I would prefer a proper investigation be made into the approach of the H.S.E. to Nursing Homes at the beginning of the Covid 19 crisis. Ideally before we start canonising individuals.

LawBoy2018

Edgware wrote: »

Personally I would prefer a proper investigation be made into the approach of the H.S.E. to Nursing Homes at the beginning of the Covid 19 crisis. Ideally before we start canonising individuals.

Those issues aren't mutually exclusive and should both be investigated thoroughly.

Bannasidhe

Edgware wrote: »

Personally I would prefer a proper investigation be made into the approach of the H.S.E. to Nursing Homes at the beginning of the Covid 19 crisis. Ideally before we start canonising individuals.

Interesting but ineffective rebuttal.

I would like a proper investigation of the HSE handling of CV19 in all residential facilities not just Nursing homes.
I would also like Minister Humphreys to explain why she delivered a letter on behalf of a thrice convicted animal abuser to the Dept of Agriculture.
I would like to know why the current minister for Agriculture is calling members of AGS liars.

Being grown up we can do all of these things.

No idea what you mean by 'canonising' - unless it's that we are precluded from asking questions about certain people's activities and I'm fairly sure I haven't been doing that.

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We'll see.

Personally I think a protected disclosure that says a govt minister and the dept of Ag acted to drop charges against a convicted animal abuser, and another govt minister calling members of AGS liars has a bit longer to run no matter how much people want it all to go away.

People with agendas are very anxious to keep this stuff ‘live’ as much as possible.

However if I could refer to ‘Cowengate’ there is an investigation on re disclusure and how information was got .

Are there people with agendas using nefarious means to pursue this agenda one would have to wonder ?

The truth is fine but I would have concerns with the law being broken to push agendas.

Bannasidhe

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

People with agendas are very anxious to keep this stuff ‘live’ as much as possible.

However if I could refer to ‘Cowengate’ there is an investigation on re disclusure and how information was got .

Are there people with agendas using nefarious means to pursue this agenda one would have to wonder ?

The truth is fine but I would have concerns with the law being broken to push agendas.

If you think that is people with agenda keeping stuff alive than I think that says more about you than the people you are accusing.

If a Minister passed on a letter to a Govt dept that contained an implied thread to expose information that govt dept wants to keep hidden, and that dept subsequently dropped cruelty charges against a farmer who was already banned from keeping animals there are a hell of a lot of questions to be answered by a hell of a lot of people.

There was an investigation into how the info was leaked about Claire Daly as well - oh no..wait... there kinda wasn't...Where was the political will to deal with Gardaí leaking to the press then?
Can't have it both ways - can't sit there and allow political opponents to be the subject of AGS leaks and do nowt then complain when the AGS leak about you.

The Cowen story keeps running because there hasn't been full disclosure. Cowen had the opportunity to do so - many times - and as it goes on and more info comes into the public domain the more it looks like FF have learned nothing. It's not going away.

efanton

namloc1980 wrote: »

Reducing the rate to 0% for those customers is considered granting forbearance or a concession under EBA rules to customers who are having financial difficulty. That isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Those docs are free to access on the web. Visit the European Banking Authority website and knock yourself out.

It was agreed with the Central Bank that the Covid payment breaks would NOT be considered a forbearance event on the basis the only amendment was the customer taking a 3 or 6 month payment break but that there'd be no other contractual amendments. The only other option would be to reduce the interest rate for ALL customers to 0% regardless of their arrears status or ability to repay. That isn't a realistic option. The options are either the EBA clarify that these aren't forbearance or NPE triggers even where zero interest is charged (bearing in mind these rules were brought in after the last financial crisis with the specific purpose of ensuring banks recognised in a timely manner weaknesses in their loan book) or customers sign up to the payment break being a forbearance event with possible credit rating impacts on them etc.

Well, I did go to the European Banking Authority website as suggested. Its appears you do not follow your own advice

Guidelines on moratoria:
implementation and monitoring
https://eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/document_library/Publications/Reports/2020/888311/Report%20on%20implementation%20of%20selected%20COVID-19%20policies%20.pdf

The GL on moratoria allow institutions to grant payment holidays for a pre-defined set of obligors, for which there need not be an automatic regulatory reclassification, due to the unprecedented situation, which customers and institutions face today with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The EBA published the GL on moratoria on 2 April 2020. In these guidelines, the core issue is the clarification that the payment moratoria do not automatically trigger forbearance classification, under Article 47b of the CRR, and similarly do not automatically trigger the assessment of distressed
restructuring under the definition of default (i.e. not requiring the application of the 1% threshold for the NPV decrease in the case of moratoria) for obligors under legislative or non-legislative moratorium. The GL on moratoria set out in detail the criteria that legislative and non-legislative moratoria must fulfil for the treatment to apply.

Do these GL allow the application of the moratorium to a sub-exposure class that is defined as clients whose income has decreased or whose financial situation has deteriorated due to COVID-19?

(Paragraph 10(b) of these GL)

A sub-exposure class is understood as a specific sub-category of an exposure class as defined in the CRR (e.g. specialised lending exposures within corporate exposure class or exposures secured by immovable property within retail exposure class under the IRB approach, or SMEs within either corporate or retail exposure class). Sub-exposure class is an example of a possible criterion for delineating broad groups of obligors without reference to their creditworthiness, but other criteria may be used instead. While the proposed criterion based on decreased financial situation would not be considered a subexposure class, it would meet the requirements set out in paragraph 10(b) of the GL. As further specified in paragraph 22 of the background and rationale, the moratorium may be addressed specifically to clients affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, in this context, deterioration of financial situation should not be understood as differentiating between customers according to their individual rating or its decrease and institutions can select customers only on the basis of whether they have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

So basically, the answer is yes the banks can implement a moratorium for some of their customer whose income has been affected by the covid crisis. They are NOT obliged to give a moratorium to ALL customers as you claimed. They also state that the credit rating of anyone availing of these moratoriums need not be affected.

Brendan Bendar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think that is people with agenda keeping stuff alive than I think that says more about you than the people you are accusing.

If a Minister passed on a letter to a Govt dept that contained an implied thread to expose information that govt dept wants to keep hidden, and that dept subsequently dropped cruelty charges against a farmer who was already banned from keeping animals there are a hell of a lot of questions to be answered by a hell of a lot of people.

There was an investigation into how the info was leaked about Claire Daly as well - oh no..wait... there kinda wasn't...Where was the political will to deal with Gardaí leaking to the press then?
Can't have it both ways - can't sit there and allow political opponents to be the subject of AGS leaks and do nowt then complain when the AGS leak about you.

The Cowen story keeps running because there hasn't been full disclosure. Cowen had the opportunity to do so - many times - and as it goes on and more info comes into the public domain the more it looks like FF have learned nothing. It's not going away.

Of course I’m not accusing anyone of anything, I’m merely stating the facts.

And of course there is an inquiry into reportage now and other stuff which has been out in the public realm.

There is interest in how this ‘information’ came to light and whether it is valid or not.

In my opinion Cowen should have been removed by MM, I posted that, of course that’s conveniently ignored.

I think it would do some folk some good to let the law take its course rather than trying to flog an issue for political flak.

Let’s see all this pan out and try not break the law trying to pull people down.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What profits, did you not hear him say they won’t make profits for the next two years.

I'm putting it up as an idea/suggestion of how to stop the practice. I'm referring to AIB not having to pay tax on profits for the next 30 years.
Where do you stand on the actual topic ny comment is about?

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

I'm putting it up as an idea/suggestion of how to stop the practice. I'm referring to AIB not having to pay tax on profits for the next 30 years.
Where do you stand on the actual topic ny comment is about?

Is this the gobbledygook Leo was talking about......?

Muahahaha

Edgware wrote: »

Personally I would prefer a proper investigation be made into the approach of the H.S.E. to Nursing Homes at the beginning of the Covid 19 crisis. Ideally before we start canonising individuals.

Prime Time program on the cock up in nursing homes will be broadcast 9.30 on Tuesday night.

Meanwhile Humphreys has been caught delivering threatening letters to a government department which then mysteriously dropped a criminal prosecution.She certainly does have questions to answer here.