Some Things I'd Like Labour to Promise
This stemmed from a comment that I posted on Eamon Gilmore's Facebook wall, and was developed further having posted the same comment on Colm Keaveney's.
I'd love to think that Labour would re-negotiate the IMF deal, or, better still, reject the IMF and tell them to go F**K themselves (in polite terms, or otherwise), to revisit the Budget (if not the last four Budgets), to tell the bondholders that they took a risk and can now join the IMF F**King themselves, tell the banks that we are no longer in a position to nationalise their debts (go F**K yourselves, banks), and are going to follow our own path to prosperity without outside interference.
These are all very possible things that a new government could do. Once we are that far, then we can talk about meaningless "political reform", etc.
Colm Keaveny replied to say that: "Gilmore more or less said the same thing today in Tuam. Slightly more diplomatic though."
I thought I'd probe this a little further so responded, "What did he say? Did he mention "meaningless political reform" or telling the IMF where to go?
Remember, if elected, your job is to represent the wishes of the people, and the people want to tell the IMF and the banks where the train stops."
And this is where I see a failure of Labour in terms of having the balls to go with a notion that could be genuinely positive and brave. The response was, "We have no choice on both matters.". That, to me, is a far cry from, "Gilmore more or less said the same thing today in Tuam".
What could I do but reply, "Of course we have a choice on both matters. We can simply default on the banks' loans and say they are the banks' debts. It might not seem like that now, but when you are in the position that many are in (being shit poor, and no chance of a job [or in the case of this country, getting out of recession, under the present deal(s)]), you start to realise very quickly that you are a lot freer than you think.
If we (as in, the next government) decided to invoke an inability to pay clause, and a determination to not negotiate without very favourable terms, you'd hear the IMF and the bondholders singing a very different song."
I hate this fatalism - we can't blame what the next government are going to do on the failings of Fianna Fail, if the next government are basically going to go along with Fianna Fail's failings.
Comments
Bonds and Haircuts
Anglo-Irish Bondholders Should Take the Losses
Is the ECB Forcing Ireland to Protect German Investments?
Every child in Ireland is being bequeathed a huge debt at birth to protect the interests of foreign, mainly German, bondholders – why? Guido was once a bond trader, it was always understood that sometimes the bond issuer defaults. That is the risk investors take.
So why is Dublin’s political establishment so keen to protect foreign investors at the expense of future generations? Guido has obtained the list of foreign Anglo-Irish bondholders as at the close of business tonight. These are the people whom Dublin’s politicians really seem to care about:
Between them they hold Anglo-Irish bonds with a face-value of €4,034,756,880. Shouldn’t they take the hit rather than future generations of Irish taxpayers? Capitalism is a system of profit and loss, they took the risk of investing in Anglo-Irish Bank. Is the Irish government under pressure from the European Central Bank in Frankfurt to protect German investors?
Post new comment