Ireland - where did we get 7bn from?
 

Just been announced that the UK is to lend 7 billion pounds to Ireland to help bail them out.

I know it isn't as simple as it seems, but it sure sticks in the throat given Cameron and Osborne tleling us how hard things are just a few weeks ago and implemenaing cuts right, left and centre.

We got it from the future. We're taking money away from our kids. :mad:

Yeah - but Ireland owe the UK a lot of money.
If they go down, then the UK's going to be even more fcuked than it is now.

Ireland is the UK's 'special friend' apparently. I am yet to fathom how a country with existing debts running into Billions and having to pay 44bn just to service the interest can afford to spend another 7bn.

The money 'we' are lending is on top of the 70bn being given by Europe so why or why is the additional 7bn not part of the European commitment - when have just had out 'fees' put up by Brussels with little protest or defiance by that spineless, gutless and two-faced cnut Camoron !

I do not see how we can lend money we do not have and likely will borrow

Hopefully it will come from the Overseas Development Fund instead of giving it to the Chinese!

LMAO, I know you don't think that will happen! :thumb:

This Govt is immensely proud of the money we give to these foreign, 3rd world, countries. :rolleyes:

Can we not just cut the ties and let them float away ? :D

The UK Government is much more 'credit worthy' than the Irish and is effectively acting as an Investment Bank on the Irish's behalf.

We are borrowing it from the market at 2% and we are lending it to the Irish for 5%. So we are making 300bs profit! Or £210m a year - nice little earner :)

Not sure of the broader terms of the loan - but we will profit from this as long as the Irish pay it back!

China could buy Ireland with its small change......

But what it would do with it is another matter :D

dl

They would make the pesky gits OBEY!

Or else :D

Pay for a wedding or two :thumb:

dl

We gotta lend it them so as they have a chance of paying back what they owe us anyway

- as close to gambling as you can get

So lending money to a country (in this case) with a **** credit rating is good business sense - isn't this sort of irresponsible lending that got us where we are today???

I am guessing the argument is that we have more leverage than the market; and more of a vested interest, due to our close ties.

'kin 'ell, Paul! What's that based on?

We owe money yeah, but the interest rate is low ish.
The Irish will be paying 5% which is greater than our rate 2%, so assuming Ireland can repay, then we`ll make money as we`ll have more money in than we repay.

Also Ireland is a major player as they transport stuff through us, and through direct and indirect trade, plus being English speaking we do a lot of business together. So if they go down the swanny then they will drag us down.

Don`t believe all the crap from the labour faithful, it was their plan for us to be in the Euro, imagine the world of crap we`d be in if we had!!

Flip-flop on the referendum complete cave-in on our additional payments to Europe - so far his track recorded is less than good - he got into power and has done just what Brown and NL did with regard to Europe - let them pull his pants down and slip him one - fcuking the rest of us in the process!

Yep, like Texas hold 'em, raise and then lend them the stake money so they can call and not fold. Can't milk a folded player wth no chips. The dealer keeps gettng his rake each time, of course.

Its about the saving we are making from public sector cuts.

however, as said, if they sink then RBS which we own goes under so the bill would be more like 40bn. This is a cheap side of the deal.

Just on the news that their coallition has split and that they might be forced into a general election.

Excellent work, as we all know those are an inexpensive thing to hold.

5t.

How could he have played it different? What could he have actually done differently? Not trying to be clever, I'm just wondering if I've missed something.

I geuss our current bank balance and level of debt should have spurred comoron on to say "No we simply cannot afford to pay in more!" and stick by it after all the EU is there help and support surely.

as for the referendum - simple - Have one and be done with it!

All a bit simplistic i know but you get my drift, given our current level of debts and problems

It is all very well taxing the hell out of the shrinking workforce but to then keep giving away money money we do not have and telling us "we are all in it together" - pull the other one:)

IIRC RBS alone has £60bn in Ireland... which is now part of the UK govt (RBS) so if they go bump we stand to be a lot worse off then £7bn...

Thanks guys :thumb:

We'll pay you back I promise :thumb: :D

That'll be £1,555 each then.

Can you pay that back over three years or four years?


So Ireland has gone from have a debt mountain of 700% to a debt mountain of 800% to make things better!

Been speaking to Carol voderman and put all they payments into one easily managable lump sum....

5t.

i want a chunk of dingle bay instead

:razz:

What mechanisms does the PM have at his disposal to actually put that into practice? I understand he lobbied tirelessly for essentially this outcome. Some commentators have said that this lobbying actually brought the expected contributions down. As far as I can see, beyond that he's bound by legislation, rather than being a "two-faced cvnt". Perhaps I'm missing the point.

Politicians are always "bound by legislation" when it allows them to do something they WANT to do, or NOT do something they DON'T want to. :mad:

Lying Labour were past masters, frequently throwing up their metaphorical arms and bleating, "Well, what can weeeeeeeeeeeeee do?" Spinelss cnuts :rolleyes:

They are the GOVERNMENT, and if legislation gets in the way, they can change it. Retrospectively, if necessary.

Just like Lying Labour did, twice.

I understand each of the EU member states would be involved in this process, Alcazar. Cameron genuinely wanted reduced contributions not just for economic reasons but also synical domestic political advantage. It was widely reported.

So why didn't he then???

How difficult would it have been to say '"No!" i suppose well never know will we. However it was not as if he was pulling out of the existing level of commitment or asking to reduce the amount. If he felt so strongly and indeed you feel that he does then why did he not just say "no, no more until the situation eases off".

Defend him all you want if you want to but two flip-flops on Europe already is a poor sign of things to come from a party who promised so much and to put Great Britain first over Europe and their 'legislation'.

At a time when we are reducing public spending affecting schools, police public services etc we should not be giving the EU more and yet money.

So IMHO him saying one thing then doing the opposite and then trying to justify it by spinning does actually well qualify him as a two faced cnut:)