LETTER FROM A YOUNG IRISH CITIZEN TO PRESIDENT MICHAEL D HIGGINS

Here is a letter from a young Irish citizen to our President, Michael D Higgins, imploring him not to sign into law the IRBC emergency Bill as presented to him in the early hours of Thursday, February 7^th 2013. It is one of a number of letters from those who have marched with the Ballyhea Says No protest over the past 103 weeks to our various politicians asking them to vote against the continuing bailout of banks at the expense of the people.

The letter was titled 'A nation's plea regarding IBRC Corporation Bill 2013'.

Dear President Higgins,

I hope this finds you well.
I am writing this email to you imploring you not to sign the IBRC Resolution Corporation Bill 2013 into law. In a week when another of Ireland's awful ghosts has been revealed in the form of the Magdalene laundries, I am genuinely asking you to consider the People of Ireland; to put them first above bondholders, above party politics, above the recklessness of the financial markets and to ensure our next generations are not asking how this came to be as we are asking likewise of the McAleese report.

Tonight, I felt sick to the pit of my stomach when the news started to break about this emergency legislation and what it would entail. The last time I felt that disillusionment and anger was when both Brian Lenihan and Brian Cowen continually lied to us regarding the IMF/EU bailout rumours. On the back of this bewilderment, I drove from Meath into Kildare St where I met with a handful of others: all stunned as to how this could be happening again. How this scene of hurriedly passing legislation has been allowed to repeat itself. Nobody has had a chance to fully digest this legislation and all it entails. I then drove through the park and looked in at the candle in the window and I made a wish. Silly? Possibly. Desperate? Without doubt!

The underlying debt of Anglo and Irish Nationwide is not the Irish People's to repay. It is an odious debt, foisted upon us by people we have never met, people who will never answer to us or our children at the voting polls. You, President Higgins, of all people will know that this is not democracy. It is not what our forefathers envisioned for their people when they fought to secure their country for future generations. You have a real chance to change our direction, to change the fate of not only this current generation of Irish but future generations also. We may well hope this enormous debt will fade away with inflation over the years but the underlying principle is clear cut. It is wrong what Europe and, in particular, what the ECB has made the Irish nation take on. I believe it speaks volumes as to where their loyalties lie as an organisation of minds and policies. People are not the priority here. If we were, capitalism would have been allowed to play out as it was meant to. Private banks would have closed, market players would have taken their losses and the Irish people would have retained some chance of a fair future.

Instead, cuts are getting deeper, the cost of living is increasing; small businesses are closing up as rents remain stubbornly high amongst other costs and the Irish people are being robbed of the opportunity to pay down their own personal debts. So many people want to pay their mortgage but the option has been taken from them. We didn't party. The Sean Fitzpatricks of this country did but not those in middle Ireland. And those in Poor Ireland never got a look in. It is all wrong President Higgins- from start to finish-from the bailout of 2008 to this frightening episode tonight. And everybody from Wall St to Sheriff St knows it. Please stop it on behalf of the people. We will take the consequences- they have to be better than a never ending spiral of debt. The Government have lost their mandate. They made many promises they simply haven't kept. The People are awakening to this. Please follow the lead taken by Iceland. President Grímsson made many enemies when he stood up for the people but they respected his strength and honesty so much they petitioned for him to run for a fourth term in office. What a magical scenario. So it can be done, has been done and really should be done. For the people who voted you to be the guardian of our rights. You are our final hope.

I hope this letter or another or a thousand others somehow helps to convince you to do the right thing. For the People of Ireland. It is not about short term gains but long term achievements such as justice and fairness. This is all we can ask for.


Wishing you the best of luck in your decision,

***** Farrelly (does not wish to have her full name revealed).

President Higgins signed the legislation; his office sent a standard reply to Ms Farrelly.

BALLYHEA & CHARLEVILLE BANK BAILOUT PROTEST – THE NOONAN DEAL

Many times in the last few days I've been asked if the recently announced deal with the ECB means the end of the Ballyhea protest. The short answer is no, absolutely not - quite the contrary, it means we'll simply have to ramp up our protest, try to get the Irish people to see the truth of what has just happened.

Oh, this deal will suit many. 

If you're one of those who believes it's an acceptable gambit to have an opening negotiation position where you concede without discussion the major point (we never even asked for a debt write-down), then yes, this is a deal for you.

If you're one of those who believes it's an acceptable tactic to negotiate a deal whereby the odious bank debt burden is partially lifted from your shoulders and passed on to your children, and their children, then yes, this is a deal for you.

If you're one of those who believes it's acceptable for 0.9% of the EU population to pay 55% of the total European bank bailout (using the actual €69.7bn figure as opposed to Eurostat's €41bn), then yes, this is a deal for you.

If you're one of those who believes it's okay to be blackmailed into accepting a debt that isn't ours, private bank debt transposed under threat to sovereign debt, then yes, this is a deal for you.

None of us in the Ballyhea/Charleville protest are of that mind. While we have no problem accepting that this is the best deal our weak, inept, incapable negotiators were able to get from the ECB, we do NOT accept that this was - or IS - the best deal possible.

You don’t accept they were weak, inept? If you’re one of those who believe that because the ECB has never conceded debt write-down to any country then we shouldn’t even ask for it, then yes, this is a deal for you. Using that cowardly, defeatist logic, however, two years ago, because Kenny Egan was going for 11 Elite national titles in succession 17-yr-old Joe Ward had no business even stepping into the ring with this boxing giant. Over the next few weekends the Elite national boxing championships take place; young Joe will be seeking his third title in a row.

That the ECB has never given debt write-down to any national government to date is irrelevant; our case - as has been admitted time and again by Europe itself - was special, unique. We were first in line in this European banking crisis, we were forced to take a massive hit, as a result of which we now have this crushing €69.7bn legacy debt. Make no mistake about it, we have a strong case and even still, we have every chance of succeeding. If we take them on.

That’s what we’re doing in Ballyhea and in Charleville, that’s what we’ve done for the last 102 weeks. The only acceptable deal to us in this protest is a write-down of that debt.

Contrary to the way Noonan and Kenny conducted their negotiations, we do NOT believe in conceding the key point, which is that this is not our debt, and most certainly not without even introducing the topic.

Contrary to the thinking of Noonan, Kenny, Gilmore and Rabbitte and the rest of the FG/Lab/FF conglomerate, we do NOT believe it's acceptable to ease our burden by passing it on to our kids and their kids, a debt which we argue is not ours, but which everyone can surely agree is most certainly not theirs.

Contrary to the thinking of our political masters, we do NOT believe it's acceptable for 0.9% of Europe's population to pay 55% of the bank bailout debt.

Contrary to the thinking of those same political masters, we do NOT believe it's okay to be blackmailed/bullied/strong-armed into taking on debt that's not ours. If a loan-shark foisted your neighbour’s failed €60,000 loan on your household of four, would you accept it? If that loan shark said, ‘Here, I've listened to your protests and I've decided that to ease your burden I’ll extend the terms so your children and grandchildren can share the load with you’, would you then accept that odious debt? Because if you have a household of four, that is exactly what has happened here.

What we have is short-term gain for long-term pain, a sugar-coated cyanide pill. It's not just that we've played totally into the ECB's hands; our own government, just like the government of November 2010, has again delivered us lock, stock and barrel into the greedy arms of the ECB, and its web of blackmail and deceit. 

In summary, what has just happened is this: the ECB, having imposed a debt on Ireland, having heeded our cries of protest, hasn't reduced that debt by a single cent but HAS extended the term so that the debt can now be shared by future generations. In my house, that is not acceptable; in this group, that is not acceptable. Our protest doesn't just continue, it escalates.

Week 102 this Sunday, in Charleville, meet at the Library Plaza 11.30am. Meanwhile we start building for a) the 2nd anniversary protest, March 3rd in Ballyhea and b) a visit to Brussels to put our case over there.

Regards, Diarmuid O'Flynn.

Letter sent by young man to RTE Prime Time

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is the first time I have ever felt compelled to register a complaint about the programming on RTÉ. As a young person in my final year of college, the level of national debt in Ireland will affect my life, the lives of my friends and the lives of my generation for many years to come. It is therefore right that RTÉ cover developments at EU level that could potentially alter our debt situation for the better. I do not feel however that your broadcast of Prime Time on January 22nd provided adequate coverage of domestic developments around this issue and I wish to formally register this complaint.

I believe as a public service broadcaster you have done the public a disservice in how this programme's segment presented the EU-level negotiations on banking debt. This disservice arises from the conspicuous absence of a significant and highly relevant legal case that was initiated in the High Court that same day. Businessman David Hall, with former Labour Attorney General John Rogers acting as his senior counsel, have mounted a constitutional challenge against the promissory note payments. The outcome of this case, which proceeds for the remainder of this week, could have profound implications for the government if, say, the court upheld Mr Hall's case. Given the enormous size of the debt incurred from the promissory notes, this legal case could end up being one of the most significant in Irish history.

But there wasn't so much as a passing reference to this case on the programme. I find this very odd. The segment was devoted purely to assessing Ireland's levels of national debt, before proceeding to a debate between Brian Hayes TD and Michael McGrath TD, moderated by Miriam O'Callaghan. No mention at all of the legal challenge launched by David Hall. I believe that by omitting such a reference, this programme did not conform to Section 39 (1) (b) of the Broadcasting Act 2009, in that it was not "fair to all interests concerned".

The segment did not adequately reflect the range of issues at stake nor the range of views available on the promissory note issue. Whilst Deputies Hayes & McGrath both discussed the impact of EU negotiations around the promissory note debt, they only discussed details such as the timeframe and interest rate by which the promissory notes were paid. They did not address the view held by large numbers of the public, as well as many reputable commentators, that the promissory note payments should be cancelled, or at least written down. I share such views and I feel as a stakeholder in this issue, that Prime Time should have made a greater effort to have as broad a range of views reflected as possible.

Having two politicians from two political parties with similar policy positions on this issue, did not provide sufficient scope for an informed and wide-ranging debate on this issue. It should have been possible for Ms O'Callaghan to present them a question relating to the possibility of a write-down to the cost of the promissory notes. What's even more striking by its absence is how O'Callaghan made no reference to the legal challenge against the promissory notes. Surely the potential implications of that development would have been a topical, interesting question for O'Callaghan to ask of these public representatives? Do the public not have a right to be informed of that development when it is so relevant to the issue being discussed? Is a sure-footed challenge to the legal basis of this controversial fiscal policy not central to these developments? Isn't this newsworthy? Or am I missing something?

I am humbly aware of the pressure the production team behind Prime Time must be under. They only have so much time to devote to each segment in a programme. They must find a cogent way to frame their coverage of a news story; this requires precision and sometimes, omission of wider issues. I understand and appreciate this. But given how this segment was based on information they'd only received that day, there would have been sufficient time to also prepare a report on the High Court challenge. Given that representatives of political parties were present it would have been possible and diligent to seek their response to such a challenge.

Are there perhaps regulations that forbid or discourage the discussion of ongoing court cases? If so, I was unaware of this and would appreciate clarity on the matter. But surely it would have been relevant and possible to simply inform viewers that in tandem with these EU-level negotiations, there was also a legal challenge at home? Would that not have been more compelling as well as more informative?

By not reflecting the range of developments (on the very day of broadcast) or viewpoints on this issue, the coverage was not fair to all interests involved. The citizens of this country have been shut out from all these hugely influential financial decisions. Since we are the ones who live with the consequences, are we not at the least entitled to accurate information and probing journalism about how these decisions are made?

Prime Time could rectify this shortcoming in my view by devoting a future episode to the legal challenge. They could also commit to airing a wider range of views on this issue to more adequately reflect public & expert opinion. To represent the case against the promissory notes they could invite onto the air a reputable commentator who believes in this case, or someone involved in the legal challenge, or someone from the campaign group "Anglo: Not Our Debt" who campaign specifically on this issue: http://www.notourdebt.ie

Public service broadcasters have an obligation to foster a well-informed citizenry. The broader and fundamental issues around this central issue in current affairs must be more thoroughly explored in the future.

Regards,
Jonathan Victory

BALLYHEA & CHARLEVILLE BANK BAILOUT PROTEST WEEK 100

On January 27th 2013 we will mark a milestone we never wished to see, week 100 of the Ballyhea & Charleville bank bailout protest. Every week since March 6th 2011, sometimes several times a week (with the exception of Christmas week 2011, when we gave ourselves a well-earned rest), we have marched in protest against the immoral and unjust imposition of private bank debt on the shoulders of the Irish people. 

The figures are huge, highlighted lately in an illuminating article by UNITE economist Michael Taft in thejournal.ie. According to Eurostat, the EU Commission’s data agency, the cost of the bank bailout so far from Ireland’s general government budget has been €41bn. We have 0.9% of the EU population, our economy is 1.2% of the EU GDP, yet according to the official Eurostat figures we’ve paid 42% of the total cost (so far) of the European banking crisis. 

It’s critical to remember here also that Eurostat does NOT include the €21bn taken from our National Pension Reserve Fund nor the potential remaining exposure to €27bn of NAMA bonds which are guaranteed by the State, nor yet the interest lost on the Pension funds, nor the interest being paid on the borrowings, nor the ‘coupons’ being paid on the bank bonds which are all still being paid in full; when all that is taken into account, we’re off the charts. 

It’s not just about the numbers, however, eye-watering as they are; it’s about the principle. As a nation we’re being robbed, we’re being beggared, we’re being enslaved to pay debts that are not ours, were never ours, will never rightfully be ours. As Lincoln said, that which is morally wrong can never be made politically right. By the same token, that which is legal isn't always legitimate.

Private Irish banks issued bonds to private banks in other jurisdictions, for-profit deals made between consenting adults. Blinded by greed, those foreign banks and financial institutions didn’t see the bubble their hundreds of billions were creating in this tiny economy, they abdicated the most basic responsibility of any for-profit lender – they didn’t do a proper check to see where the money was going, whether it could be repaid. Inevitably, the bubble burst. In the early years of the boom those foreign banks and financial institutions were more than happy to take their profits; they must also take their losses. 

At the end of February 2011 we elected a new government, one which promised to tackle head-on this problem, one which promised burden-sharing. We know now what they meant. Their stated intention is that the bank debt burden will be shared NOT with the banks, but with future generations of the people of this country. There will not be one cent of debt writedown, just an extension of term, maybe an improvement in conditions.

Unless we stand and fight now, that will be our legacy to our children, our legacy even to our children’s children if this government succeeds in extending the payment to several decades, again as is their stated aim. This is our problem but rather than face it, this government plans to take out loans to be repaid by future generations. Are you happy with this? 

To mark week 100 of our protest we are trying to build a national coalition, a coming together of every strand of Irish society – left, right, centre, new Irish and established, male and female, young and old – to resist this enslavement. 

On Saturday January 26th, 8pm at the Charleville Park Hotel, we have an open free meeting at which will speak Michael Taft (referenced above), Constantin Gurdgiev, Luke Ming Flanagan, Declan Ganley, many others too numerous to mention. 

On Sunday January 27th, starting in Ballyhea at 11.30am, the week 100 protest march, continued at 12.30pm in Charleville. Join us. It is the Troika’s ambition that when they finally leave here they will leave behind this legacy of bank debt, reparations to be paid for decades by us, the people, for a war we never fought. In the ‘Ballyhea Says No’ campaign it is our ambition that they will leave with what they came with – nothing. 

The final few lines from Pearse’s ‘The Rebel’:

And I say to my people’s masters: Beware,

Beware of the thing that is coming, beware of the risen people,

Who shall take what ye would not give.

Did ye think to conquer the people,

Or that Law is stronger than life and than men’s desire to be free?

We will try it out with you, ye that have harried and held,

Ye that have bullied and bribed,

Tyrants, hypocrites, liars!

Regards, Diarmuid O'Flynn.