# Dáil to vote on Bailout



## DerKaiser (9 Dec 2010)

The Dáil is to vote next Wednesday on the agreement between the Government and the EU and IMF.

The motion was proposed by backbenchers Michael McGrath and Thomas Byrne, and was supported by the Taoiseach Brian Cowen.

In a statement after the meeting, Mr Cowen said he looked forward to the debate, which he said would 'once again give the opposition the opportunity to either come clean and recognise that this deal is essential and in the best interest of the country, or spell out their alternative'.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1209/imf-business.html


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Dec 2010)

Labour has said that they will vote against the deal. 

I don't really understand this. I had planned to vote for Labour in the next General Election as the least worst of an unpleasant set of choices, but I think that rules them out. There is nothing to be gained by voting against it and there is a small risk that they are putting the deal at risk. They are also forcing the government to negotiate with independents which is very bad for the country.

brendan


----------



## Shawady (9 Dec 2010)

In the unlikely event it was voted down, what would happen?
Would be relying on borrowing on the markets, which I assume still have high rates?


----------



## mmclo (9 Dec 2010)

The vote is more poliitcal or symbolic. It is deliberately not an international treaty so it does not need dail ratification. The budget stuff is passed as normal and the change to the NPRF has already been passed to let them shovel more billions down the banking black hole


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2010)

According to the Shinners it's all down to them that the vote is taking place.
I watched their guy on Prime Time debating against Moan Burton. They are even more populist than Labour (I didn’t think that was possible). I found myself rooting for Moan.  That's how much I dislike the Shinners.


----------



## kaplan (10 Dec 2010)

One opinion is the debate is all about pre-election politics - just like the budget. Think of FF spin in recent days "we are only going back to 2006 etc." 

The inevitable fiscal consequence of socialising private banks debts is some form of organised trip to the barbers for bank seniors some time soon. In the meantime the output gap -capacity for growth will have shrunk to a level that may mean even with a no 2 on bank bonds we still won't be able to grow our way our from underneath the residual bank and public debt burden.


----------



## Westie123 (10 Dec 2010)

kaplan;1116059
 The inevitable fiscal consequence of socialising private banks debts is some form of organised trip to the barbers for bank seniors some time soon. In the meantime the output gap -capacity for growth will have shrunk to a level that may mean even with a no 2 on bank bonds we still won't be able to grow our way our from underneath the residual bank and public debt burden.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> That just about sums up where we are. The bank debt will bleed us dry if we don't cut it loose soon. First our pension reserve will disappear down the plughole, followed by what remaining assets we have left, just to try to pay an impossible debt, a lot or most of which is not ours anyway.


----------



## Shawady (10 Dec 2010)

If it is rejected we still have enough money until next year. If it was impossible to raise money on the bond markets couldn't we just re-negoiate a better deal on the basis that we don't believe this one could ever be paid back?
What about if we just dealt with the IMF?
From what I gather, they gave a better interest rate, thought the bondholders should take some hit and were not too bothered about our Corporation tax.
Would an IMF deal be better than an IMF/EU one?


----------



## Yorrick (10 Dec 2010)

Ireland has to stand up and not be so nice to everyone. Perhaps if we entered into negotiations with Russia to have some military bases in Ireland or access to the Ports for their navy we would get a bit of respect.
If we offered Putin the use of  Cork harbour for a few nuclear subs the Yanks and EU would be quick to call off the IMF dogs.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2010)

Yorrick said:


> Yanks and EU would be quick to call off the IMF dogs.


The IMF is not screwing us, our “friends” in the EU are doing that.


----------



## Shawady (10 Dec 2010)

Thats the point I was making. If we do need a deal, is it possible to go with the IMF exclusively?


----------



## DerKaiser (10 Dec 2010)

One glimmer of hope is that irish bonds have rallied significantly.  

If we managed to get the yields below the bailout interest rate within the next two years we'll be making very good progress and can accelerate a recovery by reducing our funding costs.

If we still cannot source money at a lower rate at any point in the next couple of years, we're probably screwed regardless.


----------



## Bronte (10 Dec 2010)

Purple said:


> The IMF is not screwing us, our “friends” in the EU are doing that.


 
No don't think so, it was our own that s.....d us.


----------



## frankmac (10 Dec 2010)

IMF have deferred approval of the bailout until after the Dáil vote


----------



## Ceist Beag (10 Dec 2010)

Purple said:


> I watched their guy on Prime Time debating against Moan Burton. They are even more populist than Labour (I didn’t think that was possible). I found myself rooting for Moan.  That's how much I dislike the Shinners.



I know Pearse and whilst I admire where he has got to in his young political career, the thoughts that Sinn Fein deem him suitable as a spokesman on the economy sends shivers down my back. I think Karl Whelan was a bit bemused that someone so out of his depth was on the panel of such an important debate!


----------



## Complainer (10 Dec 2010)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Labour has said that they will vote against the deal.
> 
> I don't really understand this. I had planned to vote for Labour in the next General Election as the least worst of an unpleasant set of choices, but I think that rules them out. There is nothing to be gained by voting against it and there is a small risk that they are putting the deal at risk. They are also forcing the government to negotiate with independents which is very bad for the country.


If they oppose the deal, they have to vote against it. This is about having principles. It is not Labour's job to support this floundering Govt.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Dec 2010)

I think it might be worth attending this meeting to ask/encourage  Lucinda Creighton to support the 4 year plan and the IMF deal as she is  reported to have been prepared to break ranks and [broken link removed]f necessary. Given that Enda Kenny will be speaking, I think it's worth attending. 

Brendan

 	Quote:
* When: Tuesday, 14th December 2010 at 7.30pm 
Where: The Hampton Hotel, Donnybrook, Dublin 4 (Formerly Sachs) 
Who: Enda Kenny T.D., Leader of Fine Gael and Lucinda Creighton T.D. 

Fine Gael Leader Enda Kenny T.D. will join Lucinda Creighton T.D. in   addressing a public meeting in the Dublin South East constituency about   what a new Fine Gael Government can achieve and how we will restore   certainty, hope and opportunity to this country. 

We want to hear your ideas and opinions as well as sharing our ideas   about what a new Fine Gael Government can do to rebuild our economy and   fix our broken political system.  

All are most welcome.*


----------



## elcato (15 Dec 2010)

> This is about having principles.


... and if you dont like them we have others ? (Groucho Marx)


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Dec 2010)

The Dail has approved the the measure approving the EU-IMF deal for Ireland by 81 votes to 75.

Mr Gilmore described the vote as a cynical exercise in Fianna Fáil tribalism and another example of the political posturing that could be expected during the election.

Am I reading this correctly, were labour not the ones who wanted the vote in the first place?  Who's really playing politics here.


----------



## Complainer (15 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Am I reading this correctly, were labour not the ones who wanted the vote in the first place?  Who's really playing politics here.


Perhaps you missed the point. Labour wanted to see it voted DOWN, not voted through.


----------



## Purple (15 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> Perhaps you missed the point. Labour wanted to see it voted DOWN, not voted through.



So they called for a vote knowing that they would lose and then said that the vote was cynical? Good to see Happy Gilmore up to his usual populist tricks.


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Dec 2010)

Wow one minute response time, you really are on an election footing Complainer!

Sorry, didn't realise they had lost interest once they realised they weren't going to win the vote. 

But what's with the criticism of holding the vote?


----------



## Complainer (15 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> But what's with the criticism of holding the vote?


The criticism isn't on holding the vote. The criticism is on passing the vote.

There was a fair-to-middling chance that the vote would have failed, given the Govt's dependance on independents, and given the state of things within FF. There is also the trifling matter of the constitution. They were the good reasons for having the vote.


----------



## DerKaiser (15 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> There is also the trifling matter of the constitution. They were the good reasons for having the vote.


 
OK, so the political posturing was not a reference to holding the vote then?

Do I take it that the political posturing referred to was the winning of the vote? 

If that's the case, you have to admit they're some shower alright with their 13 straight years winning dail votes. 

Anyone would think they were running the country or something. 

Imagine forming a government from TDs in the dail and ensuring you had enough votes to to pass whatever legislation you thought was needed. 

Oh yeah, some pack of chancers with their dail majorities....


----------



## Complainer (15 Dec 2010)

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. They don't have a Dail majority. They are dependant on the votes of independent TDs to get these votes through. But I'm sure you'll find yet something more to complain about, so I reckon I'll just leave you to get on with it now.


----------



## DerKaiser (16 Dec 2010)

Thanks for your input, it's 100% clear now


----------



## shanegl (17 Dec 2010)

Not sure if you noticed this, but Labour don't have a majority either. They can't even get independents to support them. That's why they're not in government by the way.


----------



## onq (17 Dec 2010)

Poor Eamonn.

Perhaps he's starting to realise that merely being a good public speaker cannot convince the electorate of Labour's competence.

[broken link removed]

Governments shouldn't come and go on the basis of opinion polls.

They're put in to do a job and sometimes the job is difficult and unpopular.

My concern is that none of the opposition look like they'd do a better job than FF.

We should have exams for politicians on important matters of governance, as opposed to whether they know the law [Barristers], serve papers [solicitors]  or pull a pint [Publicans].

None of these abilities matter a damn when you're steering the ship of state through stormy seas.

They might get you some respect on your local resident's association [though even THAT is doubtful], but put them in power and you can expect a continuation of the backslapping croneyism they thrive on to suport their businesses and political advancement.

ONQ.


----------



## Complainer (17 Dec 2010)

shanegl said:


> Not sure if you noticed this, but Labour don't have a majority either. They can't even get independents to support them.


Congratulations on your 20/20 hindsight. It is a great skill to be able predict the outcome of a vote after it has happened. Unfortunately, those who actually do the politics don't have the luxury of waiting till afterwards to know the result. 

There was a a fair-to-middling chance that some of the independents and/or FF backbenchers would vote against the deal. It didn't happen this time round. That doesn't mean the decision to push the Govt to put this to a vote was wrong.


onq said:


> Poor Eamonn.
> 
> Perhaps he's starting to realise that merely being a good public speaker cannot convince the electorate of Labour's competence.
> 
> [broken link removed]


Not a great poll for Labour all right. However, it is worth pointing out that Gilmore still has the highest satisfaction ration of all the party leaders, and Labour's numbers are still way, way up on previous elections.


onq said:


> Governments shouldn't come and go on the basis of opinion polls.
> 
> They're put in to do a job and sometimes the job is difficult and unpopular.



Fully agree. And if you think the current Govt is unpopular, just wait and see what happens when the next Govt gets a year or two into its term and has full visibility of all the messes left behind by FF.


onq said:


> My concern is that none of the opposition look like they'd do a better job than FF.


One of the opposition parties wouldn't have signed us up for the unlimited bank guarantee that has cost us about €50 billion.



onq said:


> We should have exams for politicians on important matters of governance, as opposed to whether they know the law [Barristers], serve papers [solicitors]  or pull a pint [Publicans].


Not so sure about this. These folk do their exams in public view with every meeja interview. They do their job interviews in front of a panel of 100,000 decision makers every five years. If the voters can't make the right decision with all the information that is available, I'm not sure that we should be blaming the politicians.


----------



## DerKaiser (18 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> One of the opposition parties wouldn't have signed us up for the unlimited bank guarantee that has cost us about €50 billion.



Just to add the usual balance.  

That €50bn was lost to us by the events prior to 29th September 2008.  Loose credit and lax regulation that went unchecked throughout the boom left us in a position that there was no maneuvering out of on that night.


----------



## Complainer (18 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> left us in a position that there was no maneuvering out of on that night.


That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. There are plenty of experts who have pointed out alternative options for that night, that would not have cost the taxpayer €50 billion.


----------



## Purple (19 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. There are plenty of experts who have pointed out alternative options for that night, that would not have cost the taxpayer €50 billion.



Can you point out the alternative that the Labour Party proposed and how they costed it?


----------



## DerKaiser (19 Dec 2010)

Complainer said:


> That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. There are plenty of experts who have pointed out alternative options for that night, that would not have cost the taxpayer €50 billion.



Yeah, me saying that the cost of the banking crisis was largely irreversible by September 2008 is an opinion, as much as your belief is an opinion (i.e. that a Labour solution, presumably involving letting Anglo collapse with depositors, bondholders and the ECB taking the hit and all the collateral damage along with that course of action, would have saved the state €50bn).  

Or am I wrong and everything you state is fact (including your hypotheses on things that have never happened)? In which case I humbly apologise for expressing opinions in the ignorance that everything being said here was fact.

Just as an aside, I don't like you referring to the €50bn cost as being to the taxpayer.  It is to the state.  They're not the same thing.


----------



## Complainer (19 Dec 2010)

DerKaiser said:


> Yeah, me saying that the cost of the banking crisis was largely irreversible by September 2008 is an opinion, as much as your belief is an opinion (i.e. that a Labour solution, presumably involving letting Anglo collapse with depositors, bondholders and the ECB taking the hit and all the collateral damage along with that course of action, would have saved the state €50bn).


I'd pretty much concur with your view that the damage overseen by the Govt was irreversible by Sept 2008. The Labour solution would have ensured some degree of sharing of the cost amongst those who bought the risk, instead of putting the entire cost onto the State.


DerKaiser said:


> Or am I wrong and everything you state is fact (including your hypotheses on things that have never happened)? In which case I humbly apologise for expressing opinions in the ignorance that everything being said here was fact.


In fairness, I don't think I've ever claimed infallibility, but perhaps you'll prove me wrong on that. You're right in that I am talking about a hypothetical situation. The fact remains that FF did sign up to an unlimited guarantee, so no-one can speak with absolute certainty about what would have happened if other options were chosen. Still, €50billion worth of damage leaves a fair bit of wiggle room.


DerKaiser said:


> Just as an aside, I don't like you referring to the €50bn cost as being to the taxpayer.  It is to the state.  They're not the same thing.



True enough. It is a cost to all citizens of the state, not just to taxpayers. Though I'd guess that pretty much every citizen in the State, with the exception of young children are taxpayers of one form or another. Even if they're only buying a packet of Smarties, they are paying tax.


----------

