This is not clear.
Nobody seems to know because the government says it doesn’t have a plan
B. Actually, they proudly state that there is no plan B (Pascal Donoghue
on VB, 17/05/2012). They say a no vote is a vote for “uncertainty”.
They claim to have no idea where the funding will come from. They say
the onus is on the no side to come up with alternative funding. I
disagree.
These politicians were elected by the Irish people to represent their best interests. Labour and Fine Gael on the yes side are the government. They are the ones who can officially approach the IMF, China or any other country to establish if we could get a loan and at what rate (in the event we need one). Instead, it appears they have obstructed the public receiving information on whether we can get a loan from the IMF.
Only six months ago the government stated that another bailout would not be needed and just recently, our Minister for Finance said Ireland was in a much better position than 12 months ago. So why would we need another bailout from the ESM in the coming years?
At the moment, the Irish YES side are pinning all their hopes for future bailouts on the ESM and are portraying the IMF as a loan shark. However, during the first bailout in 2010, it was our European ‘partners’ who forced €40-60 billion of unguaranteed, unsecured bondholder debt onto Irish taxpayers. They insisted we could not burn these bondholders and have never answered our questions as to why this was a requirement.
It was actually the IMF who said they have “no objection to Ireland enforcing losses on the senior unsecured bondholders of its banks.” So, if the loan had come from the IMF alone, and our European partners were not involved, Irish taxpayers would be at least €40 billion better off. We also would not have to pay the high rate of interest on any of this “bailout” (Our European partners are generously charging us interest for the privilege of rescuing the entire European banking system).
If I were in charge of a large corporation and told shareholders that we needed a loan by informing them; “We won’t be shopping around to get the best deal, we’ll just go with the bank that ripped us off the last time.” I’m pretty sure I’d be fired, and rightly so. So why haven’t our politicians shopped around for the best deal and informed us of what’s on offer?
If the government really believes in this treaty, but also believes in the democratic will of the Irish people, they should be seeking figures from other lending bodies to establish where we can obtain funding in the event of a no vote – and at what rate. Then we could vote on the actual contents of the treaty, freely and without fearing where we could get future funding (if needed).
There is also the argument put forward by the Nevin Economic Research Institute that:
‘There appears to be a strong case for continuing support under the Economic Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) until Ireland regains access to capital markets based on a statement of the Heads of Government in July 2011:
“We are determined to continue to provide support to countries under programmes until they have regained market access, provided they successfully implement those programmes. We welcome Ireland and Portugal's resolve to strictly implement their programmes and reiterate our strong commitment to the success of these programmes.”
A second assurance was issued on 30th January 2012 after the Fiscal Compact was agreed and after the ESM clause was inserted into the Preamble of same:
“We welcome the latest positive reviews of the Irish and Portuguese programmes which concluded that quantitative performance criteria and structural benchmarks have been met. We will continue to provide support to countries under a programme until they have regained market access, provided they successfully implement their programmes.”
This could be interpreted to mean that the current funding programme can be extended and financed under the ESM itself – because it would not be regarded as ‘new’. It is merely a continuation of support – support that the EU leaders have already guaranteed.
Also, if we vote no, it is entirely possible that we could get a second vote – as declared by Minister Richard Bruton. This second vote may include better terms and conditions for Ireland. Everybody’s talking about growth but the real necessity for Irish people is debt forgiveness. Yes, we need growth, but debt forgiveness (it’s strange to say forgiveness when it was never our debt to begin with) would free up money to invest in infrastructure development and jobs, helping to create growth.
The ICTU has called for a growth package of about €15 billion to create jobs. Imagine what we could have done with another €40-60 billion in the public purse. Greece received a massive debt forgiveness package of about 50%, so why can’t the Irish?
The government has already said that a second vote is definitely not a possibility, but just how credible is that. Lets look at previous statements by a member of this government in relation to the Lisbon referendum:
“I don't think there's any question of this Treaty being put a second time to the people” - Eamon Gilmore, RTE Six One News on 13/6/08 in relation to the Lisbon Treaty.
“People have made a decision. The Lisbon Treaty cannot now be ratified. And I think that the decision that has been made by the Irish people has got to be respected by everybody. Got to be respected by the Taoiseach, by the Government, by the other Member States, by the political leadership in Brussels” - Eamon Gilmore RTE SixOne News.
Then Wikileaks told us the following:
Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore privately told US diplomats he would support the holding of a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty -- despite publicly saying the opposite, a leaked embassy cable reveals.
"Gilmore, who has led calls against a second referendum, has told the embassy separately that he fully expects, and would support, holding a second referendum in 2009. He explained his public posture of opposition to a second referendum as 'politically necessary' for the time being," the Ambassador said in a 'confidential' dispatch sent to his colleagues in Washington and across the EU.
So how can we expect the leaders of our country to tell us the truth when the second most powerful man in the country has this track record on EU treaties?
Either way, even if we vote no and do not get a second vote, and if we cannot obtain funding from other avenues, it is highly unlikely that the EU, ECB and the IMF would not give us the funding for a possible future bailout. Particularly when they are so complimentary of Ireland achieving the targets they have laid down for us.
Vincent Brown describes the chances of this eventuality as ‘minimal’. They cannot risk us defaulting on our banking debts – particularly while they are already under so much pressure from the Greek situation. After all, we’re borrowing money off them to pay back their banks.
These politicians were elected by the Irish people to represent their best interests. Labour and Fine Gael on the yes side are the government. They are the ones who can officially approach the IMF, China or any other country to establish if we could get a loan and at what rate (in the event we need one). Instead, it appears they have obstructed the public receiving information on whether we can get a loan from the IMF.
Only six months ago the government stated that another bailout would not be needed and just recently, our Minister for Finance said Ireland was in a much better position than 12 months ago. So why would we need another bailout from the ESM in the coming years?
At the moment, the Irish YES side are pinning all their hopes for future bailouts on the ESM and are portraying the IMF as a loan shark. However, during the first bailout in 2010, it was our European ‘partners’ who forced €40-60 billion of unguaranteed, unsecured bondholder debt onto Irish taxpayers. They insisted we could not burn these bondholders and have never answered our questions as to why this was a requirement.
It was actually the IMF who said they have “no objection to Ireland enforcing losses on the senior unsecured bondholders of its banks.” So, if the loan had come from the IMF alone, and our European partners were not involved, Irish taxpayers would be at least €40 billion better off. We also would not have to pay the high rate of interest on any of this “bailout” (Our European partners are generously charging us interest for the privilege of rescuing the entire European banking system).
If I were in charge of a large corporation and told shareholders that we needed a loan by informing them; “We won’t be shopping around to get the best deal, we’ll just go with the bank that ripped us off the last time.” I’m pretty sure I’d be fired, and rightly so. So why haven’t our politicians shopped around for the best deal and informed us of what’s on offer?
If the government really believes in this treaty, but also believes in the democratic will of the Irish people, they should be seeking figures from other lending bodies to establish where we can obtain funding in the event of a no vote – and at what rate. Then we could vote on the actual contents of the treaty, freely and without fearing where we could get future funding (if needed).
There is also the argument put forward by the Nevin Economic Research Institute that:
‘There appears to be a strong case for continuing support under the Economic Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) until Ireland regains access to capital markets based on a statement of the Heads of Government in July 2011:
“We are determined to continue to provide support to countries under programmes until they have regained market access, provided they successfully implement those programmes. We welcome Ireland and Portugal's resolve to strictly implement their programmes and reiterate our strong commitment to the success of these programmes.”
A second assurance was issued on 30th January 2012 after the Fiscal Compact was agreed and after the ESM clause was inserted into the Preamble of same:
“We welcome the latest positive reviews of the Irish and Portuguese programmes which concluded that quantitative performance criteria and structural benchmarks have been met. We will continue to provide support to countries under a programme until they have regained market access, provided they successfully implement their programmes.”
This could be interpreted to mean that the current funding programme can be extended and financed under the ESM itself – because it would not be regarded as ‘new’. It is merely a continuation of support – support that the EU leaders have already guaranteed.
Also, if we vote no, it is entirely possible that we could get a second vote – as declared by Minister Richard Bruton. This second vote may include better terms and conditions for Ireland. Everybody’s talking about growth but the real necessity for Irish people is debt forgiveness. Yes, we need growth, but debt forgiveness (it’s strange to say forgiveness when it was never our debt to begin with) would free up money to invest in infrastructure development and jobs, helping to create growth.
The ICTU has called for a growth package of about €15 billion to create jobs. Imagine what we could have done with another €40-60 billion in the public purse. Greece received a massive debt forgiveness package of about 50%, so why can’t the Irish?
The government has already said that a second vote is definitely not a possibility, but just how credible is that. Lets look at previous statements by a member of this government in relation to the Lisbon referendum:
“I don't think there's any question of this Treaty being put a second time to the people” - Eamon Gilmore, RTE Six One News on 13/6/08 in relation to the Lisbon Treaty.
“People have made a decision. The Lisbon Treaty cannot now be ratified. And I think that the decision that has been made by the Irish people has got to be respected by everybody. Got to be respected by the Taoiseach, by the Government, by the other Member States, by the political leadership in Brussels” - Eamon Gilmore RTE SixOne News.
Then Wikileaks told us the following:
Tanaiste Eamon Gilmore privately told US diplomats he would support the holding of a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty -- despite publicly saying the opposite, a leaked embassy cable reveals.
"Gilmore, who has led calls against a second referendum, has told the embassy separately that he fully expects, and would support, holding a second referendum in 2009. He explained his public posture of opposition to a second referendum as 'politically necessary' for the time being," the Ambassador said in a 'confidential' dispatch sent to his colleagues in Washington and across the EU.
So how can we expect the leaders of our country to tell us the truth when the second most powerful man in the country has this track record on EU treaties?
Either way, even if we vote no and do not get a second vote, and if we cannot obtain funding from other avenues, it is highly unlikely that the EU, ECB and the IMF would not give us the funding for a possible future bailout. Particularly when they are so complimentary of Ireland achieving the targets they have laid down for us.
Vincent Brown describes the chances of this eventuality as ‘minimal’. They cannot risk us defaulting on our banking debts – particularly while they are already under so much pressure from the Greek situation. After all, we’re borrowing money off them to pay back their banks.
No comments:
Post a Comment