Ivan Yates: "We bailed out the banks..."
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
The lesson to be learend is public funds.
The deal made was for bondholders but also shareholder of named banks.
Mrs. Merkel was not going to use German taxpayer money to help Irish taxpayer cos Irish banks went too far on the lending side.
To apply B Burgess formula the borrower pay the costs but the borrowers public rep had no say in the loan deal. She used Bundestag.
who gave T.D.s any mandate to pass legislation giving ONE PERSON power to pledge public funds for banks, or for ANY OBJECT with NO DAIL APPROVAL and authority to extend that power every two years by ministerial orders. This can only be repealed by legislation.
A Taoiseach can stop a private members bill from being enacted by not sending a message from taoiseachs office endorsing object of the bill . it is how Clare Days bill to extend pyrite scheme got a short shift and the bills for housing seem to be sitting around. A bill from M Martin to repeal the section of the 08 and 10 act can get same treatment if an taoiseach is of same opinion as Kenny/Noonan that the deal between govt and eu commission do not require dail approval. And have we not paid for deal IBRC liquidations ?
M Martin, indeed any TD can go to high court to inquire authority of M Noonan to invite EU Commission to rubberstamp spending from national fund for TWO CHEQUE on for bank and one for public bills without laying the deal in Memo of Understanding between Min for Finance and Commission before dail under art 29 5 2 of constitution for its approval. In short is Ireland bound by the deal without dail approval for money is owed to EU and Irland leaving the EU not easy at all. WHO WILL GIVE MONEY FOR PUBLIC BILLS .
IRELAND BORROWED FORM THE EU AND terms of that deal banks are on public bill.
People talk about the 'bank bailout' but remember it was IRELAND who got the two cheque one for banks and one for public bills. Bnak got no cheque from EU/IMF.
Lenihan and Cowen described it as assistance.
The big difference between role of EU in maintaining fiscal control in other eu state and Ireland is that IRELAND BORROWED.
But Noonan did not present the memorandum of understanding to the dail for its approval under art 29 5 2 or the 08 and 10..
As far as govt is concerned what commission says about public funds is between govt and commission ONLY. M Martin now asserting dail role in the cost of manning border.
.
PS if u read Memo of Understanding to see the role of commission overseeing implementation a rigourous time table of measure affecting public funds.
Last edited:
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,770
Hi MTP
I find your posts very confusing. It would be better if you wrote them in plain English and not some sort of txt spk combined with VERY ANNOYING SHOUTING.
What shareholders? I was a shareholder in AIB and I lost most of the value of my investment. I certainly don't feel bailed out?
I would have had shares in Irish Nationwide had it floated, and that became worthless as well.
The bondholders and the depositors were bailed out. But the depositors were by far the largest part of the bill. These are the ordinary citizens of Ireland and the credit unions and anyone else with deposits in the banks.
Brendan
I find your posts very confusing. It would be better if you wrote them in plain English and not some sort of txt spk combined with VERY ANNOYING SHOUTING.
What shareholders? I was a shareholder in AIB and I lost most of the value of my investment. I certainly don't feel bailed out?
I would have had shares in Irish Nationwide had it floated, and that became worthless as well.
The bondholders and the depositors were bailed out. But the depositors were by far the largest part of the bill. These are the ordinary citizens of Ireland and the credit unions and anyone else with deposits in the banks.
Brendan
This is what annoys me about the likes of Ivan Yates and others. The biggest beneficiaries of the so called “bailout” were depositors, ordinary Irish citizens. Yet Yates ran off to Wales to seek bankruptcy in the UK.
But we still have certain political types referring to banks being bailed out. I wonder would they be happier if the Banks had been let go to the wall and all deposits wiped out. The same political types were quick to take to the streets over water charges, circa €200. What street protests would we have seen if deposit accounts had been wiped out?
But we still have certain political types referring to banks being bailed out. I wonder would they be happier if the Banks had been let go to the wall and all deposits wiped out. The same political types were quick to take to the streets over water charges, circa €200. What street protests would we have seen if deposit accounts had been wiped out?
NoRegretsCoyote
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
In Cyprus they hit depositors (to a certain extent) as in many cases they were foreign residents chasing high yields and these are politically easier to burn.
The deposit base of the Irish banking sector almost entirely votes in Ireland
In 2008 the Irish Banks had considerable deposit books outside Ireland, particularly in the UK.The deposit base of the Irish banking sector almost entirely votes in Ireland
What were that as a proportion of overall deposits?
Since we're talking about voters; In terms of 'retail' deposits, Anglo for example probably had a bigger book in UK than Ireland.
For all the banks their commercial / money market deposits came from all over the world.
Sure, but if we had burned depositors in the same way we burned shareholders what proportion of those depositors would have been Irish and what proportion would have been from the UK?
If we talk about Anglo, which would have been first, just over 50% would have been UK.
It's completely different with the others as every current account would have been caught up if there was no threshold.
If a rule had been run over the books, and anything over say 50k per person burned, then the impact would have been moved more to UK.
NoRegretsCoyote
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
It's a fair point about the UK exposure.
However burning UK depositors could also have prompted tit-for-tat behaviour by the UK government. Ulster Bank (Ireland) was bailed out by RBS which was bailed out by the UK taxpayer.
The UK and Netherlands had a long stand-off with Iceland over the IceSave liquidation which saw about €4bn of UK and Dutch taxpayers' funds being used to rescue depositors.
That kind beggar-my-neighbour policy was avoided in Ireland.
Don't forget Bank of Scotland Ireland where the Scottish bankers lent vast sums of money to a lot of Irish people. This was an UK government problem too.
The same UK that gave us a 3.2 billion GBP bilateral loan at the same time as the EU bail-out package?
Yes, the same one.
I'm not saying it should have been done. I was answering a question that originated from a suggestion that almost all deposits in Irish Banks were from Irish customers.
If we extend your point though, was the loan more than the amount of UK deposits that were bailed out?
By the way, I don't believe it would have been possible to do. How could Anglo have burned their UK deposit holders, but expect their UK borrowers to continue to repay loans? And the political / EU stuff.
No idea. It's my understanding that the main interest here was in providing support to Irish banks to ensure they did not default on debts owed to Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group. On deposits, we must not forget that the UK guaranteed 100% of all deposits including Irish deposits with the Northern Rock in 2007.