EU-IMF Programme Documents & Secret Side Letter on the Banks - Update: Lenihan's Letter of November 9th Released

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

But anyway- back to Transparency in politics and the astonishing arrogance of a clerk in Brussels withholding, in cahoots with the corrupt Irish establishment, a document committing the Irish people to odious debt.

[disability student]

On that subject DS, one tantalising thought that has been revolving around in my mind for some time is that just as with Regulatory Impact Assessments, a tool which is used by legislators increasingly to try to scope out proposals and their likely effect, there should be a system in Ireland and elsewhere where all costs and benefits of a company like Google, Facebook, Pfizer, and Kerry Foods- essentially anything big enough to be called 'systemic' in the Irish economy are listed and rolled forward in a single updateable economic footprint to show whether it is profitable or not to have these companies in the state.

RIA is new to me but that is the way forward here as regards to cost benefits analysis. I understand that RIA have been starting in some govt depts as it had started last year or so. RIA being used to frame policies but would need an expert trained in RIA.

The benefit of that is obvious- firstly we would get away from this nonsensical assumption that because we have a big brand company in the state it is automatically profitable for us. Let's call that the 'De Lorean Clause'

+100

Secondly ministers should be able to face down local TDs banging on about wanting new infrastructure for an employer in their constituency by using that cost/benefit document- if the country is paying for an employer to employ people we should be able to have the figures to hand to fend off expensive 'porkbarrel' businesses in the national interest.

Found some TD's quite useless as they aren't able to make an impact.

I have this horrible feeling that when you look at some foreign Multinationals in Ireland they are actually costing us money to have them in the state.

The benefits are supposedly (a) jobs (b) corporation tax (c) onward economic activity domestically and exports abroad.

If Irish taxpayers are effectively subsidising any of that for a major employer I'd want to know where the line is between national profit and national loss in kowtowing to them.

Lot of subsides offered as a carrot stick as it was in the case of Kerry Group's jobs last week . Strong feeling that MNC came here to take advantage of our tax laws with minimum job creation just in the case of IFSC. There was one member of IFSC in law review consultative group as you only have to look up at Funds association.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Might start a separate thread on Regulatory Impact Assessments and the benefits ... it would be gas in Ireland watching the chancers trying to fill in what is in effect a risk analysis matrix/form calculated to shake out what the impact of a proposal might be.

I have a feeling in Ireland you'd get some civil servant carefully inspecting the document and trying to figure out how to make it look like an authentic analysis while leaving room for the Minister's second cousin to get the Portakabin contract...

RIAs where social legislation is concerned would have the churchers in screaming fits as there would only be a requirement for visible impact on legislation and likely effect of same and no room for the 'holy spirit' in it .... they'd shyte themselves at the notion of actually assessing any social move without taking into account what random passing angels might want.

[disability student]

Might start a seperate thread on Regulatory Impact Assessments and the benefits ... it would be gas in Ireland watching the chancers trying to fill in what is in effect a risk analysis matrix/form calculated to shake out what the impact of a proposal might be.

I have a feeling in Ireland you'd get some civil servant carefully inspecting the document and trying to figure out how to make it look like an authentic analysis while leaving room for the Minister's second cousin to get the Portakabin contract...

RIAs where social legislation is concerned would have the churchers in screaming fits as there would only be a requirement for visible impact on legislation and likely effect of same and no room for the 'holy spirit' in it .... they'd shyte themselves at the notion of actually assessing any social move without taking into account what random passing angels might want.

That would be my take on this as they would want to cover their backsides before they publish for public consumption. Don't give away too much here as they might get some ideas from us. They may read this forum.

[Captain Con O'Sullivan]

Asking the Irish establishment to actually analyse anything with taking into account 'considerations' would be like trying to teach a monkey to drive.

They wouldn't comprehend it. I strongly suspect they'd get upset because no-one was telling them where the 'fix' was. They'd feel left out. Isolated. 'Imprescriptably' so.

[DCon]

moved to new thread

[DCon]

moved to new thread

[disability student]

Facebook too



http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...edium=linkedin

Keep up good work Dcon as it focuses the spotlight on IFSC's activities.

[Dr. FIVE]

I find it hard to imagine what is so awful, that we don't already know ?

Well, and there is no better two you can count on to spin a line for FF, but it was just the way they were able to stand in a room full of people and say look there is more then you all know about this huge in event in your country's history. We know, but are not going to tell you. People who are largely culpable still holding that privilige over everyone and not seeing anything wrong with it.

[Dr. FIVE]

more here

Lenihan letters: What’s been released, and what hasn’t

http://www.thejournal.ie/brian-lenih...urce=shortlink

[C. Flower]

Could we actually remember that, apart from the morality of the bullying, these people allowed themselves to be bullied?

They did. But Lenihan near as dammit asked for public support and got none, for many reasons. Only about half a dozen people went to the Dail to protest.

[ang]

They did. But Lenihan near as dammit asked for public support and got none, for many reasons. Only about half a dozen people went to the Dail to protest.

Never forget Honohan publicly "giving in" to bailout ? What advise did he offer Brian Lenihan on the bullying and the fact that maybe just maybe we should call Trichet bluff on withdrawing Irish bank liquidity bearing in mind of course that this would at that time have undoubtedly have brought down the euro.

Brian is gone now but........

[C. Flower]

Letter released today under FOI to the Sunday Independent and Gavin Sheridan.

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...e-3312127.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/an...e-3312005.html

I have not yet located the full text of the letter of December 9 2010 from Lenihan to Trichet of the ECB.

[C. Flower]

Letter released today under FOI to the Sunday Independent and Gavin Sheridan.

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...e-3312127.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/an...e-3312005.html

I have not yet located the full text of the letter of December 9 2010 from Lenihan to Trichet of the ECB.

Trichet was not for turning. Only five weeks earlier, he had bullied the Finance Minister into the €85bn Troika bailout and he was not about to give an inch on sharing the burden of fixing the broken Irish banking system.

Lenihan's commitment, contained in the letter, that "any additional capital requirements for restructuring Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide must be covered with cash injections by the Government", along with a similar promise for the other "viable banks", ultimately cost the Irish taxpayer €24bn, as revealed by his successor, Michael Noonan, in late March 2011.

An initial reading of the letter would suggest that this was the Irish minister acting off his own steam, affirming commitments to the troika, when, in truth, the penal commitments signed up to by Lenihan had been agreed following intense dialogue over several weeks.

They illustrate how poorly the Irish team performed in those negotiations.

"The Irish authorities agree the following additional clarification regarding the implementation of the measures agreed [with the troika]," Lenihan wrote.

Paranoid about the impact this letter would have on the financial stability of the Irish State, Lenihan said it was not possible to make the contents of the letter public for fear that it would undermine government authority.

The Plan would "threaten financial stability of the State and the markets" if released (this is not a quotation from the letter, which mentions market stability and the costs of the letter being made public).

"These clarifications are being provided in respect of a limited number of specific issues, which it is not possible to disclose publicly on account of legal risks, commercial, market and financial-stability considerations, which would undermine the authorities' ability to implement those measures or render them more costly," he wrote.

The letter formally committed Ireland to a number of key measures, which have been followed rigidly by Lenihan's successor Michael Noonan. They include:

- The creation of the pillar-bank scenario. "Viable banks will undergo significant downsizing and operational restructuring," the letter stated.

- "The Irish authorities shall draw up a schedule of assets to progress early deleveraging by asset disposals and/or credit enhancement, to be achieved by end March 2011," he wrote.

- "Irish authorities will appoint external professional advisers to recommend the best structure that would achieve this timeline." This ultimately saw US consultants Blackrock engaged at huge cost to oversee the latest bailout.

- Under severe pressure from Trichet, Lenihan put the cost of that bailout on the shoulders of the Irish taxpayer. "It has been agreed that any additional capital requirements above the existing restructuring costs for Anglo Irish (€29.3bn) and INBS (€5.4bn) must be covered with cash injections by the Government." He added: "Similarly any additional capital requirements for other credit institutions which may be provided by the government will also be in cash and not as promissory notes."

- Crucially, in a further sign of how weak his position was, Lenihan consented to having to "consult with the ECB, the EC and IMF prior to agreeing on the final nature" of the bank recapitalisation and asset sales.

- Lenihan committed to consigning both Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide, the two most toxic banks left standing in the world after the 2008 crash, to history. He wrote: "Swift and decisive action will be taken to resolve the position of Anglo and INBS in a way that protects depositors and strengthens the banking system.

"Legislation will be introduced by end January 2011 to transfer assets and liabilities to viable institutions. Deposits and Nama bonds of Anglo and INBS will be transferred to other institutions, leaving the remaining loan books to be unwound in an orderly manner."

WHAT THIS LETTER MEANS

The most telling aspect of this letter is that it placed the future burden of bank bailouts on the Irish taxpayer – without any reference to any European institution or bank sharing any of the burden.

This is despite the latter's continued gamble on Ireland during the boom.

Lenihan, on the direct orders of Jean-Claude Trichet – and despite having saved Europe in 2008 by not allowing Anglo or Irish Nationwide to go to the wall – was at this point in 2010 having to accept the full cost of any future bailout. We later found out that this would be €24bn.

We know from Finance Minister Michael Noonan in early September that Lenihan was directly threatened by Trichet by way of letter that unless Ireland went into a bailout emergency funding from the ECB would be cut off.

Noonan said he had seen the "very direct" letter, which left Mr Lenihan with "little or no option" but to admit defeat.

The letter makes it very plain that all the talk in 2010 of a "bailout" of the Irish economy, the real purpose of the agreement was to protect lenders to Ireland, shift the debt burden onto the working population and away from speculators, and to take advantage of Ireland's position as beggar to enforce neo-liberal privatisation of assets.

[C. Flower]

Letter in full via @gavinsblog

http://thestory.ie/2012/12/02/anothe...tter-released/