Green Party decision on NAMA in October- will it be too late?

[mmrebel]

Green Party Chairman, Senator Dan Boyle, has warned that his party's support for the NAMA legislation cannot be taken for granted.

In recent days both the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, and the Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan, have expressed confidence that the Greens will back the legislation, possibly after some amendments.

But today Senator Boyle said the party had an internal process to complete and their members would ultimately make a decision
READ MORE
RTÉ News: NAMA support not a given, warn Greens

[Watcher1]

They cannot let NAMA happen. The Green membership should not let themselves be hood winked by their leadership. For God sake, calling it a "preferendum", I mean, what the hell is that? Is it a new word that Boyle dreamt up or Green terminology not spawned by their impending NAMA debacle?

Most people know that NAMA will only consign the Irish people and generations of Irish to come to lifes of desperate misery. Our national debt is currently running at circa 70bn. Another 4bn or 5bn will be needed before the year is out, and that does not count the NAMA debt.

To bring this into perspective, at the height of the septic tiger the most debt this nation was under was 40bn.

So this year we are looking at about 75bn in debt. NAMA (in its presently proposed form) will about double it. Next year, based on their flawed figures we will need to borrow 16bn (translated into reality is 20bn). So by the end of 2010 (with full NAMA implementation) this nation will owe about €170bn or there abouts. That is more than 4 times what we owed when we considered ourselves the richest people in the world.

That is €42,500 per every man, woman and child in this country. Now, add 42,500 to the amount of debt you owe personally (mortgage, credit card etc) and ask yourself if NAMA should go through.

[SPN]

They cannot let NAMA happen. The Green membership should not let themselves be hood winked by their leadership.

Feck off with your "hoodwinking" nonsense!

There is no issue of not letting NAMA happen. We need to quarantine this toxic waste from the Balance Sheets of the Banks if we want to restart the economy. NAMA is the only half credible option on the table.

The trick now is to make sure amendments are made to make it fully credible.

Concensus seems to be building around putting a ceiling at 30c in the € on the loan books. (Brian Lucey came out in favour of this yesterday).

At that price the taxpayer is protected reasonably well.

For God sake, calling it a "preferendum", I mean, what the hell is that? Is it a new word that Boyle dreamt up or Green terminology not spawned by their impending NAMA debacle?

A Preferendum is like PR-STV only much more accurate.

[droghedasouth]

@SPN

if you wish to quote with approval Brian Lucey, then you will no agree with him that the shareholders and sub-ordinated bondholders should lose all their investment before we have to pay up any money, a policy that Lucky Lenny explicitly opposes and which Senator Boyle now also explicitly opposes.

Otherwise - don't quote Brian Lucey.

[SPN]

@SPN

if you wish to quote with approval Brian Lucey, then you will no agree with him that the shareholders and sub-ordinated bondholders should lose all their investment before we have to pay up any money, a policy that Lucky Lenny explicitly opposes and which Senator Boyle now also explicitly opposes.

Otherwise - don't quote Brian Lucey.

The discussion document was put out to encourage discussion. The potential contents of the final NAMA Bill are still fluid.

As more and more concensus is reached on how we should amend the Bill to best protect the Citizen, I will have no hesitation in making sure this is highlighted.




I read the following on irisheconomy.ie and thought it worth posting here.

The Opposition:

I was happy to hear Richard Bruton say that FG will contribute to the NAMA debate. I was also particularly happy with the two points he picked out:
1. The need for a mechanism for preventing over-payment by NAMA.
2. The need for a mechanism to introduce risk sharing (NAMA 2.0?).

I note that Richard Bruton says that the point of their proposal is to do an opposition’s job of presenting a real alternative. He said that this means that when an election comes around people will know they are not just choosing between people but choosing between real alternatives. To my mind the FG proposal is a political move, and a good one at that, on their part. Bruton did admit though that they had not consulted with Labour on it and any Government would have to take the best ideas from both parties. I am starting to think there is no chance of FG’s plan being implemented even if FG and Labour won an election in the morning. Am I being too dismissive?

If this is where Fine Gael are going in reality - political posturing aside - then I am fully supportive of them and I take back any previous criticism of them on this issue.

They are then very close to my thinking, and very close to the thinking of many Greens (including Senator Boyle).

[Baron von Biffo]

Green Party Chairman, Senator Dan Boyle, has warned that his party's support for the NAMA legislation cannot be taken for granted.

He meant it in the sense that you can't take it for granted that the back of your car will follow the front.

[EamonnZ]

What Olivia Mitchell has to say about NAMA:

[FONT=Arial]Dear Eamonn[/FONT]

[SIZE=2][FONT=sans-serif]Thank you for your email expressing your concern about the NAMA proposals which I certainly share. I am attaching below a letter from our Finance Spokesperson Richard Bruton outlining Fine Gael’s position, which also represents my own very strongly held position.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]In addition to what Richard had to say, I would like to add my own comments. I believe that the genesis of the way the Government is now handling the banking crisis is the fact that they were frogmarched by the banks into giving, not just a guarantee to depositors, but also to the bondholders.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]I further believe that the Government were not even aware at the time that they were giving a guarantee to the bondholders or at least did not understand the implications of that decision—the banks of course understood perfectly. Whatever the Government believed at the time, it is now absolutely certain that everything the Government now does has to be dictated by ensuring that those bondholders never come looking to cash in that guarantee. That is the imperative that overrides all other considerations. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]Albeit that the Government states the whole purpose of NAMA is to get the banks lending again, and this may well be an outcome of NAMA, the reality is that that is not the Government’s overriding concern at the moment. Their concern is solely to impress the international money markets and to assure them of their ‘soundness’ in respect of the current banking system. In short they don’t want to frighten the bondholders with the prospect of nationalisation. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]I see no danger in temporary public ownership of our bankrupt banks. Temporary nationalisation is precisely what the IMF has prescribed in similar situations.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]Of course the result of all this is that the haircut will be minimal. Effectively the taxpayer will pay the present day value of assets, which are priced relative to an assumed ‘normal’ market some time in the future. With this grand gesture the banks will breathe a sigh of relief and the taxpayer will carry all the risk with no gain—either now or in the future—but lots of pain. Recently we saw the 'NAMA banks' acting with true self interest when they supported the Liam Carroll bid for a reprieve. Clearly, they see the taxpayers' price for their assets as infinitely better than the current market price![/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]The final irony is that the benefits of taxpayers' investment in the Irish banks will be realised, not by Irish taxpayers, but by Royal Bank of Canada and others. A 'good buy' for them, at a high price for us![/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]Yours sincerely[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]Olivia[/SIZE][/FONT]

[He3]

He meant it in the sense that you can't take it for granted that the back of your car will follow the front.

superb

[He3]

What Olivia Mitchell has to say about NAMA:

[FONT=Arial]Dear Eamonn[/FONT]

[SIZE=2][FONT=sans-serif]Thank you for your email expressing your concern about the NAMA proposals which I certainly share. I am attaching below a letter from our Finance Spokesperson Richard Bruton outlining Fine Gael’s position, which also represents my own very strongly held position.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]In addition to what Richard had to say, I would like to add my own comments. I believe that the genesis of the way the Government is now handling the banking crisis is the fact that they were frogmarched by the banks into giving, not just a guarantee to depositors, but also to the bondholders.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]I further believe that the Government were not even aware at the time that they were giving a guarantee to the bondholders or at least did not understand the implications of that decision—the banks of course understood perfectly. Whatever the Government believed at the time, it is now absolutely certain that everything the Government now does has to be dictated by ensuring that those bondholders never come looking to cash in that guarantee. That is the imperative that overrides all other considerations. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]Albeit that the Government states the whole purpose of NAMA is to get the banks lending again, and this may well be an outcome of NAMA, the reality is that that is not the Government’s overriding concern at the moment. Their concern is solely to impress the international money markets and to assure them of their ‘soundness’ in respect of the current banking system. In short they don’t want to frighten the bondholders with the prospect of nationalisation. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]I see no danger in temporary public ownership of our bankrupt banks. Temporary nationalisation is precisely what the IMF has prescribed in similar situations.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]Of course the result of all this is that the haircut will be minimal. Effectively the taxpayer will pay the present day value of assets, which are priced relative to an assumed ‘normal’ market some time in the future. With this grand gesture the banks will breathe a sigh of relief and the taxpayer will carry all the risk with no gain—either now or in the future—but lots of pain. Recently we saw the 'NAMA banks' acting with true self interest when they supported the Liam Carroll bid for a reprieve. Clearly, they see the taxpayers' price for their assets as infinitely better than the current market price![/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]The final irony is that the benefits of taxpayers' investment in the Irish banks will be realised, not by Irish taxpayers, but by Royal Bank of Canada and others. A 'good buy' for them, at a high price for us![/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]Yours sincerely[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=2]Olivia[/SIZE][/FONT]

Yep. They should be shouting this from the rooftops.

[droghedasouth]

@SPN

Brian Lucey also says that if we were back at September 29th 2008, the FG proposal would have been the best.

For the second time in as many months, maybe I will have to propose you for membership of FG.

FG is the epitome of constructive opposition.
OK - we have Michael Ring and co. who can be as good as the Beast of Bolsover is in Westminster. But on the banks and NAMA, FG has put considerable effort into putting a workable policy together (unlike the LP which just reached for nationalisation out of their attic).

Especially as though the Duke of Cork South Central might march ye up to the top of the hill, I think he will march ye back down again.

How very Michael McDowell (Re. Bertie's incredible money explanations) of him.