Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE CENTRAL BANK has released a consultation document that suggests credit union members should take savings above a certain level and put them in banks.
In the paper, the Central Bank says that credit unions should limit members’ savings to €100,000.
That means that credit unions would be obliged to tell members move the surplus to other institutions.
There is no reasoning given for the idea in the paper, but it is believed that credit unions have been advised it is designed to limit the exposure of the state in the event of a credit union closing.
The document, which proposes a host of new rules on reserves, liquidity, lending, investments, and borrowings, is under consultation so, officially speaking, all sides are keeping quiet.
The Central Bank says that it will not be commenting while the public is still submitting views.
The Irish League of Credit Unions (ILCU) says they will be involved in the process.
“The ILCU will be engaging in a consultation process with its affiliated credit unions on this wide ranging paper with a view to making a formal response by the end of February 2015. In relation to the proposed saving limits this is something that the ILCU has objected to previously and will continue to oppose during this consultation period.”
The Department of Finance say that they are considering making a submission.
“The Department is currently considering the paper and a decision will be made in due course on whether or not the Department will contribute to the consultation process before the consultation period closes.”
State Aid
Sources within the movement say that concerns have been raised for a number of reasons and that a case may be taken to Europe.
Some in credit unions argue that an arm of the state arguing that one business be directed to send customers to a competitor constitutes state aid.
Under the Department of Jobs and Enterprise guidelines, measures should not give advantages to any entity, should not favour any entity and should not distort competition.
They are also fear that if members are told to take the surplus savings out, it will send a negative message to members about the ability of the credit union to survive.
It would also impinge on a credit union’s ability to lend. Because they lend based on their assets, a removal of large amounts of savings would limit their ability to give out loans.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
great idea I think
Disg#sting idea…Patel has her claws all over this…hopefully it will.never fly.
@Donal O’Carroll: For economic migrants who are crossing the channel, this is a smart policy because it will discourage them.
Australia has a similar policy and numbers have reduced dramatically.
UK could not have done this while they were in the EU.
@Roger Bond: That last point ought to scare the living daylights out of ordinary Brits. Supermax prisons and a new death penalty anyone?
Expensive and cruel…a failed policy..no thanks
@Roger Bond: yes they could. Just like they could take control of their borders all along
He can say what he wants but it trading in humans. It’s a throughly vile system the British have decided on. But hey it keeps the racists happy, getting brexit done etc etc
@Keith Keith: It’s far from being vile.
Ramming people onto rubber dinghies and sending them across one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, having first charged them extortionate sums of money for the priviledge is worse than vile.
Britain has no problem with welcoming migrants or refugees who come through the correct channels. These dinghy folk are illegal immigrants, and mostly come from the African continent to start with.
@Ally Collyer: The Brits condemned Rwanda 9 months ago about their human rights record.
@Tommy Berry: does that make it, good idea-bad location or bad bad.
I think its a ballsy idea to try and stop economic migration
@Garreth mc mahon: It’s horrendous. Racists don’t care though.
@Tommy Berry: It’s nowt to do with race! It’s the fact that they’re illegal migrants.
Look up the word ILLEGAL.
Now tell me here it says anywhere about race.
They’re illegal economic migrants, and the UK has had enough of them.
We haven’t the room for them. Perhaps they’d be better off here in Ireland?
Yes of course the Rwandan gov has a great record of being just. Ask Paul Rusesabagina (see Hotel Rwanda) who was kidnapped from Dubai and is now languishing in a Rwandan jail. I’d say the Brit gov liked their style.
This set up does not look good no matter how they package it.
@andrew: Yes it does not look like an attractive option for would be channel crossers so it will be effective.
Of course it is – stop with the gaslighting
Its pretty poor and would make you wonder if the Brits ever learned from their many times through history sending people to far flung places simply because they didn’t like the look of them.
@Paul Cunningham: What are you blethering on about, man? Britain used to send its convicts to Australia. I wasn’t aware we sent them anywhere else in the world, and it was nothing to do with whether or not we did or not like the look of them!
@Ally Collyer: wonder how comes there are massive South Asian communities in Fiji,Mauritius, South Africa, Kenya,etc
Would you like to enlighten us.Thanks
have your say