Ireland Goes Bust

[Jan Klimkowski]

Decades of treating developing countries like shit has provided the IMF with lovely manners:

Property tax on way within year

Friday April 01 2011

THE (Irish) Government has been ordered by the EU/IMF to impose a property tax on all homeowners within a year.

The controversial annual tax is expected to be announced in December's Budget -- even though it was not in the Programme for Government.

The imposition of the tax and the precise timeline for its roll-out are key requirements for Ireland to avail of the EU/IMF €85bn bailout package.

And the Department of the Environment confirmed that the tax will rise within a year of being introduced.

Details of how and when the so-called 'site-valuation tax' will be introduced and increased are in a briefing note prepared by civil servants for Environment Minister Phil Hogan. The document has been obtained by the Irish Independent.

Under the heading "EU/IMF requirements", the document states that Ireland must "adopt a property tax by end Q4 (quarter 4) 2011", adding that this tax must then be increased by the end of 2012.

The Fine Gael/Labour Programme for Government said only that such a tax would be "considered".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/...03975.html

Market Ticker's Denninger's response is typically concise:

EU/IMF Declares War On Ireland

Yes, I meant it:

THE Government has been ordered by the EU/IMF to impose a property tax on all homeowners within a year.

To the Irish: How do you respond when someone declares war on you?

You've had war declared upon you. The only determination left is whether that war is an invasion of your sovereign land by a foreign power or whether your own government has declared war on you as a consequence of bribery and extortion by a foreign power.

Either way, it's war. You are a sovereign people and a sovereign nation.

You have an inalienable right of self-defense.

You now must either exercise that right or lose it forever.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=183436

As predicted, Chicago School economic Shock Therapy has now been transported from the Third World to the First.

And yet ordinary working people are still largely buying the bullshit of "we're all in this together"...

[Magda Hassan]

[URL="http://order-order.com/2012/04/15/irish-taxpayer-sacrificed-to-prop-up-eurozone-banks-german-ecb-board-member-speaks-truth-ecb-press-office-erases-remarks-from-transcript/"]Irish Taxpayer Sacrificed to Prop Up Eurozone Banks
German ECB Board Member Speaks Truth
ECB Press Office Erases Remarks from Transcript[/URL]

On Thursday Dublin hosted a speech by Jörg Asmussen, a member of the Executive Board of the ECB, which in monetary and fiscal terms is now effectively the ruling neo-colonial power in Ireland, with German financial advisers' having been present in the Irish treasury for four years. Herr Asmussen was until January the advisers' boss as State Secretary at the German Finance Ministry, responsible for Fiscal and Macroeconomic Affairs, Financial Markets and European Policy.When he speaks the Irish political and financial elite listen.
What they heard him tell them in a speech to the IIEA think-tank was a technocratic "steady as she goes". Praising first the painful in the short-term reductions in state spending (10% cut in 2011) and the consequent expansionary fiscal contraction which has seen economic growth return and the trade deficit closed. Asmussen then spent a lot of time justifying why Irish taxpayers will have to bailout Anglo-Irish Bank bondholders for decades. The need for that long-term pain is not credible.
Guido has long argued that the bailout of Anglo-Irish Bank was done to protect the investments of German banks (see Is the ECB Forcing Ireland to Protect German Investments? October 2010, Feck Off Euro-Socialists November 2010).
In a crucial section of his speech (audio at 27 mins 30 secs) Herr Asmussen says:

"The decisions concerning the repayment of bondholders in the former Anglo Irish Bank have been a source of controversy, decisions taken by the Irish authorities such as these are not lightly taken and the consequences of subsequent actions are weighted carefully, it is true that the ECB viewed it as the least damaging cost to fully honour the outstanding senior debt of Anglo however unpopular that may now seem, the assessment was made at a time of extraordinary stress in financial markets and great uncertainty, and protecting the hard won gains and credibility from the early successes in 2011 was also a key consideration and the main reasoning was to ensure that no negative spillover effects would be created to other Irish banks or to banks in other European Countries."

Note that last line emphasised in bold. In October 2010, days after the then Irish finance minister refused in parliament to name Anglo-Irish bondholders, Guido revealed the bondholders list in a story that wasfollowed up worldwide. German institutions figured prominently.
It is, as Herr Asmussen says, a matter of great controversy in Ireland that future generations of taxpayers have been sacrificed on the altar of the Euro to protect German banks. Could that be why the official transcript of the speech erases his candid admission?

"… Protecting the hard-won gains and credibility from the early successes in 2011 was also a key consideration, to ensure no negative effects spilled-over to other Irish banks."

The shameful truth is that Irish politicians of all parties have gone along with the Bundesbank / ECB's efforts to prop up their banks and the Euro project at the expense of their own people's interests. Another small nation on Europe's periphery Iceland let its banks default and has undergone an awesome recovery. Ireland got it from the horse's mouth on Thursday, the ongoing bailout pain is for the greater good of other banks in Europe.
Hat-tip: SpreadBetting.com via [URL="https://twitter.com/#%21/declanganley/status/191559648975921154"]Declan Ganley
[/URL]http://order-order.com/2012/04/15/irish-...ranscript/[URL="https://twitter.com/#%21/declanganley/status/191559648975921154"]
[/URL]

[Magda Hassan]

Ireland is soon to go to a referendum on another round of servitude to the EU. The present government and the water carriers of the European banks are pushing for a 'Yes' vote. Looks like they are not playing fair in promoting the referendum. Unsurprisingly.

Objection to the 'Stability' Treaty information leaflet

national | eu | opinion/analysis Friday May 11, 2012 10:01 by Sonya Oldham - The People's Association Watchdog[email=irelandpaw%20at%20gmail%20dot%20com]irelandpaw at gmail dot com[/email]

Formal objection to the governments 'information' leaflet which we believe contravenes the mcKenna judgement. The introduction clearly shows a bias towards a Yes vote and contains many disputable claims which are not facts.

The People's Association Watchdog would like to formally object to the government's 'information' website and leaflet in regard to the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. We would further protest the use of any public funds for this document.
We believe this contravenes the mcKenna judgement and clearly shows a bias towards a Yes vote.

The proper informal term for the treaty is the 'Fiscal Compact' Treaty, referring to it as the 'Stability' Treaty is misleading, yes the term is included in the full name, however so is co-ordination and governance. This infers the treaty will bring 'stability', that point is well disputed and many leading economists would disagree. If an informal name is to be given it should be the 'Fiscal Compact'.

The front page of the leaflet only refers to the term 'Stability' treaty when it should have been given its full title.

The wording of the first page is biased towards a yes vote. Disputable claims are not facts and should not be included in an unbiased 'information' leaflet.

The introduction seems to presume that it was our deficit that caused the crisis and not the financial sector. This we know is untrue.

First Claim: It's a Treaty aiming to support growth and employment, especially for euro area countries including Ireland

Counterclaim: Where are the provisions/articles within the treaty that specify terms to foster growth and employment? There are no terms within this treaty that specifically deal with these issues, merely mentioning them without any substance does not constitute 'fact'.

Claim 2:The Stability Treaty is an international agreement among twenty-five European countries including all countries who, like Ireland, use the euro. The Treaty states that its purpose is to support "sustainable growth, employment, competitiveness and social cohesion".

Counterclaim: The treaty may state this but there is no evidence to support that the treaty will, in fact, make good those aims. Leading economists would dispute the assertion that the treaty will support growth or employment.

The German Institute for Macroeconomic and Economic Research estimates that the effect of this will be to drive down Eurozone growth to a mere ½ percent average annual growth up to 2016, depending on the timing of the fiscal consolidation. Depressing economic growth during a period of stagnation will undermine confidence in an economy's ability to generate the future revenue needed to repay its debts. The Government's recovery strategy is based on an expanding export base. However, if European countries are simultaneously driving down their demand, our markets for exports will be contracting.

"Social cohesion is the capacity of a society to ensure the well-being of all its members, minimising disparities and avoiding marginalisation."
This is a treaty that by its very nature and original purpose will be enacted to save the 'euro' not and not look to the well being of any nation/member.

Claim 3: The Treaty requires every country to have its own law to protect the public's money in terms of how much is borrowed, raised in taxes and spent.

Counterclaim: Where in the Treaty does it specify this law 'to protect the public's money'?
If this were true rather than placing an automatic debt brake into our law, we would instead have a treaty on regulation and supervision in the financial sector. This would do more to 'protect the public's money' from the moral hazards of the banks and bondholders.

What is undisputed is that it was the financial sector that caused this crisis, not our deficit.

Claim 4: To do this, it requires countries to apply discipline to their national budgets through stronger rules to help get debts under control and through a rule which balanced out in good times and bad taken together ensures that your government doesn't spend more than it can raise in taxes over time.

Counterclaim: Again, the deficit was not caused by overspending. If the Fiscal Compact had been in place it would not have prevented this crisis.

In 2007, Ireland's debt to GDP ratio was 24.8%, far less than the 60% dictated in the Fiscal Treaty; our general budget was in surplus of 0.1% compared to a target of a deficit of 3%; and our structural balance was estimated by the EU Commission in spring 2008 to be in surplus of 0.2% compared to a target of a maximum deficit of 0.5%. Later on, the structural balance was revised downwards, with the Commission in 2011 saying that Ireland had a structural deficit of 1.4%. So having the strictures of the Fiscal Treaty in place would not have meant we could have avoided the economic crisis. In fact, the government would have been congratulated on having met the targets so effectively and with such high growth rates!

'Ensures that your government doesn't spend more than it can raise in taxes'; this implies that it was overspending that caused the crisis. As we can see from the figures above this was not the case. However bailing out the banks and bondholders did adversely affect our deficit.

How Much is the Bailout Costing? Bond payments September 2008 to April 2012 were €103.7bn, Bond payments from April 2012 onwards: €40.6bn.

So far, according to Mr Noonan, the bank recapitalisation is €62.8bn (Anglo/INBS €34.7bn; AIB/EBS €20.7bn; BoI €4.7bn; IL&P €2.7bn). Given that according to Mr Noonan these banks still have over €40bn to pay, there is a good possibility we may have to recapitalise again. Also, this figure does NOT include interest lost on the money taken from the National Pension Reserve Fund, nor does it include the interest we'll have to pay on the borrowings needed to fund all that recapitalisation.

Claim 5: The Treaty is part of a toolkit to help avoid another economic crisis.

Counterclaim: If this is true, where's the rest of the kit?

The crisis was caused by the financial sector, how does this treaty prevent such a reoccurrence?

According to Constantin Gurdgiev Economist: "There is nothing within the Pact that would facilitate either Portuguese or Irish economic stabilization and recovery. When it comes to dealing with the current crisis, the new Pact contains no tools for achieving structural reforms required to arrive at sustainable public finances. No country has been successful in restoring fiscal and external balances after a decade of twin deficits."

According to Paul De Grauwe (Centre for European Policy Studies Brussels): "Will the establishment of the ESM shield the Eurozone from future crises? My answer is unambiguous. It will not. In fact it is worse than that. Some of the features that have been introduced in the functioning of the ESM will make it more difficult for a number of countries, in particular Ireland, to attract funds in private markets. These features will have the effect of increasing rather than reducing volatility in the financial markets."

Claim 6: It is part of a group of plans and rules aimed at helping economic recovery and to prevent a repeat of the economic and financial crisis we've had in Ireland and Europe in recent years.

Counterclaim: 'Helping economic recovery', 'prevent a repeat', again the leading economists say that this would not have prevented the crisis and will not prevent reoccurrence but will indeed lead to a worsening of the recession. To prevent a reoccurrence, the financial sector needs to be overhauled, regulated and supervised.

Another option would be for the ECB to lend directly to the banks and not to the governments.

'Helping economic recovery': According to the Economist: The pact's rigidity would make recessions worse, and the new fiscal rule would not have kept Ireland or Spain out of trouble.

According to the Davy Report (Bloomberg: Conall Mac Coille, Chief economist); The fiscal compact would have had no bearing on the collapse in Ireland's public finances had it been adopted at the inception of the euro.

The cause of the crisis that we should be working on so as to avoid a repeat of the economic and financial crisis.

According to the Banking Enquiry: Financial integration in the euro area allowed banks in Ireland unprecedented access to cross-border funding. As in many smaller EU economies the entry of foreign banks intensified competition in lending. The banks' ability to borrow cheaply in international wholesale markets created a capital flow bonanza' which has been observed to markedly increase the likelihood of a banking crisis within the receiving country. This clearly happened in Ireland.

According to the Assistant Director General, Financial Institutions Supervision, Central Bank of Ireland: In the 2000s, it is clear that the low ECB policy rate facilitated the growth of property prices in Ireland. There was also no direct regulation of credit limits, for example through restrictions on LTV ratios. This meant that Irish households were able to accumulate liabilities more easily than consumers in countries where there was stricter regulation. A contributing cause of the crisis was that bank governance and risk management were weak in some cases disastrously so.

According to the Banking Enquiry: These supervisory problems must be seen in conjunction with the absence of forceful warnings from the central bank. However, the IMF's major Financial System Stability Assessment of 2006 also did not sound the alarm.

According to the Assistant Director General, Financial Institutions Supervision, Central Bank of Ireland: A striking lesson of the global banking crisis is the danger of allowing banks to operate to free market principles within free market economies.

Clemens Fuest (German economist); "without a fundamental reform of the European banking sector, the euro is in jeopardy." is the financial industry, he argues, that repeatedly endangers the monetary union. Ireland's budgetary problems are the result not the cause of the crisis.

Claim 7: This Treaty does not change how decisions on taxing and spending are made.

Claim 8: The rules in the Treaty, many of which are already in place under other European laws, do not affect the role of Governments and national parliaments in decision-making on tax and spending.

Counterclaim: According to Article 5 of the Treaty,
1. A Contracting Party that is subject to an excessive deficit procedure under the Treaties on which the European Union is founded shall put in place a budgetary and economic partnership programme including a detailed description of the structural reforms which must be put in place and implemented to ensure an effective and durable correction of its excessive deficit. The content and format of such programmes shall be defined in European Union law. Their submission to the Council of the European Union and to the European Commission for endorsement and their monitoring will take place within the context of the existing surveillance procedures under the Stability and Growth Pact.

Article 3: (e) in the event of significant observed deviations from the medium-term objective or the adjustment path towards it, a correction mechanism shall be triggered automatically. The mechanism shall include the obligation of the Contracting Party concerned to implement measures to correct the deviations over a defined period of time.

Decisions on taxing and spending will be influenced if not implemented from the EU and shows a significant divergence from past procedure.

Page 2 of the leaflet

Claim: The Stability Treaty is a significant element of the joint efforts being made in Ireland and the EU to tackle the economic crisis and to restore international investor confidence. This is particularly important for a small open economy like Ireland, which depends very heavily on inward investment by multi-nationals and on exports to create jobs.

Counterclaim: This is a matter of opinion and not fact. Please refer to the many economists who say this will do nothing to solve this crisis and that it is unlikely to restore investor confidence. In fact they say that because Ireland depends so heavily on the EU for exports that the impact will be to depress growth and external demand.

The Treaty is particularly relevant to Ireland's economy and to investor confidence in the following ways:

Claim: 1. RENEWED CONFIDENCE IN A STABLE EURO
The Treaty refers to the importance of safeguarding and stabilising the euro area. Its rules are intended to contribute to stronger economic growth and investment in the European Union.

Counterclaim: Again, this is a matter of opinion and not fact. Please refer to the many economists who say this will do nothing to solve this crisis and that it is unlikely to restore investor confidence. In fact they say that because Ireland depends so heavily on the EU for exports that the impact will be to depress growth and external demand.

Claim: 2. ACCESS TO EU ASSISTANCE FUNDS
The Treaty will allow Ireland access to the EU's new assistance fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), should it ever be needed. It is important that Ireland be eligible to receive this funding in the event of any future economic problems, and to reassure those who wish to invest in Ireland. It is necessary to ratify the Treaty to continue to be able to access the ESM fund.

Counterclaim: This claim is also disputed. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM): The ESM Treaty refers to new' financing. This reference to new' means that the current programme can be extended and financed under the ESM itself because it would not be regarded as new'. It is merely a continuation of support support that the EU leaders have already guaranteed.

"We welcome the latest positive reviews of the Irish and Portuguese programmes which concluded that quantitative performance criteria and structural benchmarks have been met. We will continue to provide support to countries under a programme until they have regained market access, provided they successfully implement their programmes."

This was issued after the Fiscal Treaty and the ESM clause was approved at EU level. It has not been contradicted in any subsequent EU statements.

In short, the Irish Government is the only the government in the EU to claim that Ireland will be isolated.

Also, there are other alternatives and to insinuate otherwise would be misleading.

The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), is accepting applications for new money up to the middle of 2013 and will stay open to administer this money in subsequent years so that new, extended or rolled-over' financing can come from the EFSF up to July 2013. This further underscores the EU leaders' guarantee to Ireland. The argument that the current programme runs out after the deadline for EFSF funding doesn't stand up.

International Monetary Fund (IMF): Bill Murray director of external relations of the IMF has said there is no reason' why Ireland could not ask it for another loan when the current bailout programme ends in 2013. "Any IMF member country can make an application to us for a loan." Asked if there was anything to stop Ireland from doing so, he said "no . . . The only countries from which we would not accept an application are non-members or those not in good standing of the previous IMF loans." Murray said it did not matter to the agency whether the country had access to the European Stability Mechanism.

Claim: GOOD HOUSEKEEPING
For the moment, we still spend a lot more than we raise in taxes. This cannot last, because debt will grow further and your taxes will go more and more to paying for that debt rather than for public services and jobs incentives. We have to manage our debt and budgets. This is at the heart of this Treaty and these budgeting rules will apply to all countries which ratify the Treaty.

Counterclaim: 'Good Housekeeping' insinuates that we are overspending, when in fact we are under-spending on essential services. This wording insinuates our problems are down to 'bad housekeeping', this is untrue.

The deficit is caused by bailing out the banks and bondholders.

The Treaty fines countries already in trouble, only 4 countries are within deficit, the only country that is in crisis because of 'housekeeping' is Greece. To infer that the crisis is down to 'bad housekeeping' is incredibly misleading.

To infer that this Treaty in any way deals with any of the causes of the crisis is not factual.

Yours sincerely,
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101830

This is what is at stake:


And there is this from the Independent.

Bruce Arnold: This referendum is illegal and voting 'Yes' is madness

By Bruce Arnold

Monday April 09 2012

The legality of what the State proposes in the referendum on May 31 has always been an argument and must now become an issue. In expectation of this being recognised, I attended the meeting in Dublin last Thursday of the National Forum. The four high-profile speakers were Michael McDowell, Eamon O Cuiv, Brian Hayes and Declan Ganley. All gave spirited addresses. None referred to the constitutionality and legal correctness of what is being proposed.
The most significant silence was that of Michael McDowell, a former attorney general who made clear that he would vote 'Yes'. He rejected any federal prospects for Europe and argued that a 'No' vote would put us "in a weaker position" when it will do precisely the opposite. He said nothing about the legal questions.
The State will shortly be putting before us for approval the proposed European Stability Mechanism Treaty, which will be dispatched in the Dail after the less important fiscal compact (TSCG) treaty, to be decided by referendum.
In my view, both treaties are illegal under EU law and are therefore unconstitutional in Ireland. Since the primacy of EU law was agreed in 1972, the Irish Constitution must uphold EU law. We are now proposing the opposite.

Also, we have not yet approved the Article 136 amendment of the main EU treaties, which permits this European Stability Mechanism setting up the permanent €500bn bailout fund for the eurozone. It is therefore not yet part of EU law and the EU treaties and cannot come within the aegis of the EU Court of Justice. Yet they are, ironically, within the competence of the Irish Supreme Court to rule on.
Surprisingly, perhaps, the Irish Supreme Court has not had a chance to look at EU developments for nearly 30 years, nor to lay down lines of division in respect of what limits, if any, there are to further EU integration. The Supreme Court cannot carry out such a review without being asked to do so.
One option would be for President Michael D Higgins to refer the matter to the Supreme Court (when a bill to license our €11bn contribution to the proposed ESM fund comes before him).
Failing this, some public-spirited citizen could bring the matter to the Supreme Court, thus enabling (if such a case succeeded) a constitutional referendum to be held not just on the marginal fiscal compact treaty, but on the existing EU treaties that are being manipulated through the proposed European Stability Mechanism. As we all know, this is in order to bring eurozone finances under the effective control of the German chancellor and the French president.
The eventuality of such a challenge would put the State in a powerful bargaining position, enabling relief on our debts. In effect, Irish voters would hold the rest of the eurozone captive in respect of its permanent €500bn bailout fund. It might even provide an opportunity for Ireland to chart a better way for the eurozone as a whole out of the sovereign debt crisis.
The German and French leaders are running a coach and horses through EU law and the existing EU treaties. They are doing this by misusing the Article 136 authorisation of the ESM to hijack us all. Mr Sarkozy wants a federation for the eurozone (remember, Mr McDowell wants no such federation), and a confederation for the rest of the EU. We don't know what we want and don't care. We just want to be 'good' in the eyes of the French and Germans.
All we see is them making demands on us. We don't know where it will lead. Nor do other countries. Like us, they bow to Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy.
Whatever we want, we must work together, not acting either unilaterally or with a selection of other states. Nor should independent states or groups influence or change areas within the competence of the union or directly affect its interests.
This is particularly so as regards the stability of the euro. Member states are not free to act other than in accordance with the terms of the existing treaties and these contain no basis for an initiative to ensure the stability of the euro by means of fiscal assistance to countries with deficit problems. Indeed, there is an express treaty article (Article 125 TFEU), against states taking on the debts of other states.
We therefore need the amendment to Article 136 authorising member states to establish a stability mechanism and then to impose conditions on the granting of assistance. Because of the way the amendment has been introduced, it cannot be taken to modify any existing rule in the treaties Ireland is constitutionally bound to uphold. This leaves Ireland incomparably strong in dictating terms to the eurozone, in particular in respect of the 'no bailout' rule and the constitutional requirement of eurozone unanimity for both the ESM and the fiscal compact rules.
Eurozone states must act unanimously on the ESM and fiscal compact treaties. Yet the opposite is being proposed. The former can come into force if only the eight largest of the 17 eurozone states ratify it. The latter when only 12 of them do so.
Both situations are wrong and put at issue EU integrity in both EU law and EU treaties.
Back to the other speakers, and in particular Eamon O Cuiv, who laid down essential conditions before the referendum. Failing this, vote 'No'. When Declan Ganley rose to speak, he said that Mr O Cuiv had given his speech for him.
Neither of the two men -- the shrewdest politicians in the debate -- were 'No' voters. Yet. But they held out firmly against a 'Yes' vote in the present circumstances, viewing the eurozone terms as feeble because we have placated eurozone authorities endlessly, doing whatever we were told.
We can create an atom bomb of power over the EU, which, adroitly used, could settle the demands laid out by Mr Ganley and Mr O Cuiv and reinforced by Marc Coleman.
They called for the EU to regulate banking, replace non-elected governments such as Italy by elected ones, forget tax harmonisation, adopt an employment-and-growth strategy instead of Berlin-dictated austerity and give the ECB the powers of a normal central bank.
They want democracy, starting with universal suffrage to elect a president (with the commission as the executive arm). The corrupt lobbying system needs reform. Fiscal discipline by governments should not be a strait-jacket but an aid to economic growth. Insolvent financial institutions should be allowed to fail.
Without such targets, and trust and immediacy in their achievement, voting anything but a resounding 'No' is suicidal for Ireland. We also need a referendum on the ESM Treaty. No one said this last Thursday. It was nevertheless, for me, the launch of the referendum campaign in which we face perhaps the most important debate in our history.
- Bruce Arnold

The place is getting impossible to live in and any one who can is leaving.

Irish emigration at highest point since Famine -- 3,000 leaving per month

New figures show Irish-born leaving in very high numbers as recession bites

Published Tuesday, May 8, 2012, 7:30 AM

Updated Tuesday, May 8, 2012, 1:31 PM

By JAMES O'SHEA,
IrishCentral Staff Writer


The latest figures from the Central Statistics office show that more than 3,000 Irish people are leaving the country each month, the highest number since the Famine.Up to 76,000 people left Ireland in the 12 months leading up to April, including an estimated 40,000 Irish nationals. Despite the alarming numbers leaving Irish shores, CSO statisticians say that many who are leaving are not necessarily Irish citizens.CSO figures show that 42,300 people moved to Ireland over the last twelve months, with almost half of these returning to Irish soil after their year long visas expired in Australia and other countries. Some 8,400 moved to Ireland from the UK and the old EU member countries. A further 7,900 came from other countries throughout the world.
According to an Irish Independent report, the number of people leaving Ireland has more than doubled over the last two years. New figures show that on average, 111 Irish people are now departing Ireland each day."You'd have to go back to the 1800s to get levels like that," CSO's Deirdre Cullen told the newspaper.The vast majority of Irish emigrants are heading to English speaking countries such as Britain, Canada, Australia, US and New Zealand.Based in Co. Kilkenny, Visafirst.com spokesman Declan Clune told the Irish Independent that more than 30,000 people have emigrated to Australia in the twelve months leading up to June 30."All of these people are people who have the right to work -- permanent residency, sponsorships and working holiday makers -- not tourists," Clune saidAccording to the CSO, Dublin residents are least likely to move abroad while people living in the Leinster region are more likely to emigrate.The Unions of Students in Ireland president Gary Redmond said that soaring unemployment and emigration were hampering the Government's ambition of creating a smart economy."Masses of highly skilled graduates are leaving for distant shores, taking with them the future prosperity of this island," he told the newspaper.Commenting on the figures, the CSO said it was difficult to capture the true extent of the immigration crisis.​

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-e...z1uYZRzCDZ

[Lauren Johnson]

From #82

The shameful truth is that Irish politicians of all parties have gone along with the Bundesbank / ECB's efforts to prop up their banks and the Euro project at the expense of their own people's interests. Another small nation on Europe's periphery Iceland let its banks default and has undergone an awesome recovery. Ireland got it from the horse's mouth on Thursday, the ongoing bailout pain is for the greater good of other banks in Europe.

I have and continue to wonder how it is that local politicians continue to roll over for this shit. I would venture to guess that the economic hit men are hard at work. Remember that when they fail, they call in the jackals. Once again, my guess is that these are not just stupid politicians. They are threatened, coerced, bribed, seduced, etc.

[Danny Jarman]

If someone doesn't tow the line they can easily be replaced.

And where will an Irish ex politician get a new job in this climate?

Sadly it's best for them they keep doing as they're told.

:banghead:

[Magda Hassan]

The former Chief Executive and Chairman of Anglo Irish Bank has appeared in court in Dublin charged in connection with financial irregularities at the bank.
Seán FitzPatrick was charged with 16 offences under Section 60 of the Companies Act.
He is accused of permitting Anglo Irish Bank to give financial assistance to Patricia Quinn, her five children and ten senior clients of the bank who became known as the 'Maple 10', to enable the 16 to buy shares in the bank.
He was granted bail to appear in court again on 8 October for service of the book of evidence.
Mr FitzPatrick was arrested by arrangement at 5.37am this morning after getting off a flight at Dublin Airport.
The 64-year-old was then taken to the Bridewell Garda Station where at 8.08am he was charged with the 16 offences.
Mr FitzPatrick did not speak during a brief hearing at the Dublin District Court this morning.
Detective Sergeant Brian Mahon of the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation, on secondment to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, told the court that when he arrested Mr FitzPatrick he cautioned him and asked him if he understood. Mr FitzPatrick replied "I do".
The detective told the court that Mr FitzPatrick replied "no comment" to each of the 16 charges.
His solicitor Michael Staines told the court that when Mr FitzPatrick became aware the gardaí were looking for him, he contacted his solicitor and organised to meet them this morning.
There was no objection to bail and Mr FitzPatrick was remanded to appear before the court again on the same day as two other former senior Anglo executives, Willie McAteer and Patrick Whelan, who were charged yesterday.
As in their cases, the court also heard the Director of Public Prosecutions has directed that Mr FitzPatrick be tried on indictment, which means his case will also be sent forward to the Circuit Criminal Court.