Here is what you can expect as a reply from your local government Party TD, if you sent a letter/mail asking them to support the Technical Group Private Member's Motion of Nov 27th, the reply I got from Fine Gael TD Michael Creed's office:
Diarmuid,
Thank you for contacting me in relation to next week’s Private Members’ Motion.
As you know, in February of this year the Promissory Note deal saw the successful conclusion of lengthy discussions with the European Central Bank and the replacement of the IBRC (Anglo) Promissory Notes with more sustainable, longer term debt.
The State no longer has to pay €3.1bn every 31st March, the NTMA will have to borrow €20 billion less over the next 10 years and an improvement in our general government deficit is helping us get the deficit to below 3% by 2015. It is clear that the deal went a long way towards addressing the systemic liquidity issue in the Irish banking system, substantially improving the debt position of the State, while materially improving our ability to regain access to the bond markets and exit the Troika programme successfully.
I think it would simply be impossible for the Government to take the course of action proposed in this Private Members’ Motion—to “destroy” €25 billion of sovereign bonds and cancel interest payments and debt in their entirety. Blanket debt relief in relation to the Promissory Notes was never on the table and it is simply unrealistic to claim otherwise. Not repaying the promissory notes (or their replacement) would equate to monetary financing, which the ECB is constitutionally obligated to prohibit. The Government achieved the best it could have achieved at the time and the vast majority of commentators and most importantly, the markets, agree.
In any case, if Ireland took the PMB’s proposed course of action and decided not to repay these bonds, what message would that send out to the markets on whom we are depending to finance ourselves post-bailout? I imagine it would jeopardise the entire exit bailout strategy and force us into a second bailout.
It is important to note that the Promissory Notes arrangement is not in lieu of the EU leaders’ commitment given on 29th June 2012 to break the vicious cycle between banks and sovereign states. The Government is continuing to seek a comprehensive solution to the remaining structural and funding issues in our banking sector. In a letter to his EU counterparts last month, the Taoiseach stated that “It remains imperative, as we all agreed in June 2012, to break the “vicious circle” between bank and sovereign debts that forced Ireland into a Programme in 2010, at a time when there was a different consensus in Europe on the merits of “bailing in” creditors of failed banks.”
Yours sincerely
Michael Creed T.D.
Thank you for contacting me in relation to next week’s Private Members’ Motion.
As you know, in February of this year the Promissory Note deal saw the successful conclusion of lengthy discussions with the European Central Bank and the replacement of the IBRC (Anglo) Promissory Notes with more sustainable, longer term debt.
The State no longer has to pay €3.1bn every 31st March, the NTMA will have to borrow €20 billion less over the next 10 years and an improvement in our general government deficit is helping us get the deficit to below 3% by 2015. It is clear that the deal went a long way towards addressing the systemic liquidity issue in the Irish banking system, substantially improving the debt position of the State, while materially improving our ability to regain access to the bond markets and exit the Troika programme successfully.
I think it would simply be impossible for the Government to take the course of action proposed in this Private Members’ Motion—to “destroy” €25 billion of sovereign bonds and cancel interest payments and debt in their entirety. Blanket debt relief in relation to the Promissory Notes was never on the table and it is simply unrealistic to claim otherwise. Not repaying the promissory notes (or their replacement) would equate to monetary financing, which the ECB is constitutionally obligated to prohibit. The Government achieved the best it could have achieved at the time and the vast majority of commentators and most importantly, the markets, agree.
In any case, if Ireland took the PMB’s proposed course of action and decided not to repay these bonds, what message would that send out to the markets on whom we are depending to finance ourselves post-bailout? I imagine it would jeopardise the entire exit bailout strategy and force us into a second bailout.
It is important to note that the Promissory Notes arrangement is not in lieu of the EU leaders’ commitment given on 29th June 2012 to break the vicious cycle between banks and sovereign states. The Government is continuing to seek a comprehensive solution to the remaining structural and funding issues in our banking sector. In a letter to his EU counterparts last month, the Taoiseach stated that “It remains imperative, as we all agreed in June 2012, to break the “vicious circle” between bank and sovereign debts that forced Ireland into a Programme in 2010, at a time when there was a different consensus in Europe on the merits of “bailing in” creditors of failed banks.”
Yours sincerely
Michael Creed T.D.
HERE IS MY REPLY TO THAT REPLY:
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your reply to the mail I addressed to Michael.
‘As you know, in February of this year…’: As you
well know (or should, if you were in the least familiar with the Ballyhea
campaign), I know nothing of the sort, in fact I consider that deal to be as
foul a deed as has been done by any Irish politician since the foundation of
this State, the transposition of disputed debt to sovereign debt, then the
transference of that debt to future generations;
‘The State no longer has to pay €3.1bn every 31st March, the
NTMA will have to borrow €20 billion less over the next 10 years…’: You and your
party have gotten away with peddling this half-truth to everyone else – not
here. What of the full truth Jonathan? The State (which is us) eases things for
itself over those ten years but the burden then falls on the next generation,
and on the generation after, interest and principal which the economist Karl
Whelan estimates will eventually add up to €72bn. Inter-generational debt is
normal, I accept, but debt for loans taken out to benefit the people, not loans
taken out to bail out zombie banks and their failed investors.
‘I think it would simply be impossible for the Government to
take the course of action proposed in this Private Members’ Motion—to “destroy”
€25 billion of sovereign bonds and cancel interest payments and debt in their
entirety…’: That, Jonathan, is NOT the Motion, nor is there any suggestion
of such unilateral action; the Motion is to ask the ECB to allow that
destruction – a quantum difference.
‘Not repaying the promissory notes (or their replacement) would
equate to monetary financing, which the ECB is constitutionally obligated to
prohibit…’: Odd how you now run to cite the law when defending the
right of the ECB to demand payment on those Promissory Notes; would you also
cite the legal/constitutional obligations of the same ECB and its EU parent
when those Promissory Notes were used to print that 31bn, the use of the
Emergency Liquidity Assistance Fund, which is specifically prohibited from
being used to bail out insolvent banks? In your eyes Jonathan, do the people
have NO legal protection from having odious debt of this kind and of this size
imposed on them?
The Government achieved the best it could have achieved at the
time and the vast majority of commentators and most importantly, the markets,
agree.’: This, to me, is the most telling point in this entire sorry
reply – ‘and most importantly, the markets, agree…’. Yes Jonathan, to
you and all those like you ‘the markets’ dictate, they are the new Gods,
they are the ones who need to be appeased and we – the people – are the human
sacrifices. The fact that it was those same market forces who got not just
Ireland, not just Europe, but the whole world into this sorry mess is
irrelevant. They must be appeased, they must not be challenged under any
circumstances, they must not be called to account for the destruction caused by
their greed, by their regular flouting of law and regulation.
‘…if Ireland took the PMB’s proposed course of action and
decided not to repay these bonds, what message would that send out to the
markets on whom we are depending to finance ourselves post-bailout?’: Jonathan,
have you heard of Iceland? Burned those same bondholders, now back in those
same markets of which you are so terrified. Money has neither memory nor
conscience; the vampires will feed wherever they smell blood. By the way, when
the Troika leaves we will be close, very close, to funding ourselves; the
borrowings at that stage will be to pay debt and debt interest, including on
the odious bank debt.
Jonathan, I knew I was wasting my time writing to Michael, I know
I'm wasting my time again on this reply. You, your TD, his Party, have all
chosen to side with the sharks as nation after nation across the globe is
forced into debt slavery.
Sleep well but know this; the people are awakening,
and they don’t like what they’re seeing.
Regards,
Diarmuid O’Flynn
Apologies that the whole thing is so long but I have a suggestion; if they're going to send us stock replies, let's reply in kind - feel free to copy any of the above!
