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.
AN INCREDIBLE RESULT: 61% No after an unprecedented co-ordinated campaign of scaremongering and terror. That campaign stretched from the European Commission, through the European Central Bank, European governments, including the Irish, to the right-wing politicians in Greece and the private media.
They voted No, despite it all, because they have experienced what signing up to more austerity means. It has already meant a contraction of the economy by 25%. It has meant an increase in the debt from around 110% of GDP to close to 180%. It has meant humanitarian catastrophe, with a massive increase in rates of suicide, homelessness, poverty and deprivation. More of the same ‘medicine’ would lead to more of the same results. The Greeks knew it and the Troika knew it too – illustrated by the IMF’s paper which concluded that even with 4% economic growth, the debt would still be unsustainable.
A mobilisation of the working class
The outcome is potentially the most important political event since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Depending on what happens next, it can represent a turning point towards a challenge to the rule of the 1% in Europe and the dominance of Thatcherite neo-liberalism.
The vote was a mobilisation of the working class, which voted over 70% No, and young people, with the overwhelming majority of under 34s voting No. The result was that every county in Greece voted No, although rich suburbs in cities voted Yes. These were the same groups present at the mass rally in Athens on Friday night and across the country.
Committees were formed in local areas at short notice, bringing together activists from Syriza and other parts of the left to campaign for a No. After Tsipras announced last Wednesday night that the referendum would definitely go ahead, momentum and energy developed behind the No side, the fears were pushed back and people felt confident to take the brave stance they did.
The next days will be crucial. The clock that is ticking in the background to the negotiations is the money emptying out of the Greek banks. Essentially, without a change, they will run out of money in the coming days. This is a result of the European Central Bank’s decision to cap emergency funding last week in order to blackmail people into voting Yes.
What happens next?
Three outcomes are possible. The first is that the Troika feels pressured by the scale of the No victory, wants to avoid a Greek exit from the eurozone and offers significant new concessions, including debt write-down or restructuring and allows the Greek government to tax the super-wealthy and corporations. In that case, a deal may be done.
The second is that the Troika does not make significant concessions, but that the government, feeling the need to stay in the euro at any cost, does a deal which includes significant austerity and no reduction of the debt. That would not be welcomed by the Greek people. Those who mobilised for a No were not for a very slightly better deal, they were against austerity. A deal like that would likely split Syriza, demoralize a section of people, and push others to protest.
The third option is that there is no deal. The statements coming from the German and EU establishments today indicate that they have not shifted their position one iota after yesterday’s vote. The German Minister for Economic Affairs has said negotiations for a new programme are “hard to imagine.”
A parallel national currency
They may continue to insist on lots more austerity, with no debt relief. The resignation of Varoufakis may not be enough for them – they may want Tsipras himself gone. In that case, the financial terrorism against Greece will escalate in the coming days, with no further funding for the Greek banks pointing to a banking collapse. That would leave the government with effectively no choice (other than sign a humiliating deal) but to begin printing some form of parallel national currency in order to re-open the banks.
Would that spell the disaster that the European elites predict? Not necessarily. Remember that the euro has not been a friend to Greek workers – it trapped them in a race to the bottom, which German capitalism won, at the expense of German workers.
Greece had a balance of payments surplus last year (exports exceeded imports) and has a primary balance (government revenue exceeds expenditure, apart from debt repayments). This gives a potential basis of stability to a new currency, after an initial period of turbulence and decline. If a new currency was combined with the old politics of austerity, then economic dislocation would follow. However, if combined with socialist policies which challenge the domination of the Greek oligarchs, exit could be successfully managed.
Redeveloping the economy on a sustainable basis
Non-reliance on the ECB would allow the government to impose a total moratorium (freeze) on all debt repayments (with close to €20 billion still to be paid this year), while completing its debt audit and then refusing to pay odious debt. The banks would have to be fully nationalised, with the burning of the ECB and bondholders and then taken into democratic public ownership and used as an instrument for the development of the economy. This could be combined with public investment and democratic public ownership of key sectors of the economy to counter-act the collapse of private sector investment. This would allow the construction of a plan to redevelop the economy on a sustainable basis.
Of course, this would just be the start. Yesterday’s result will have inspired millions across Europe that the forces of the 1% can be taken on. A rupture in Greece from the domination of the Troika and austerity would inspire further resistance. It can open the way for other countries to take that path, a step towards building the kind of Europe that we need – a truly democratic, socialist Europe that works for the millions, instead of the millionaires.
Paul Murphy is the Anti-Austerity Alliance TD for Dublin South West. He is currently in Athens, where he participated in the campaign for a No vote.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I thought they were going to publish all your details if you were stupid enough to go for it!!! For the love of god people keep away from the parasites there are much better options
Plus 1. This is about shame not about a second chance.
They only publish if you enter an arrangement, not at application stage. The only other option for debt write-off is bankruptcy which can still be up to 7 years here. You could move to the UK and be out quicker but that means leaving/uprooting your family. Better??? Not necessarily …
I wouldn’t be so sure about that Dusty.
Have you met any of these PIP’s?
The PIP’s themselves will confirm that this “new insolvency legislation” is only designed to cater for people who have money and are basically solvent.
They will also confirm that there is nothing in this “new insolvency legislation” for people who are insolvent/broke (namely the people that this “new insolvency legislation” was really supposed to help)
You will also find that most of theses PIP’s are also working as receivers for the banks, and that they are not obliged to tell you this unless asked.
I spoke to a heartbroken woman in long term financial distress recently, who had spent her last few hundred Euro on an appointment with a PIP,
only to be told near the end of the consultation that the PIP acted as a receiver for the same bank that was going to repossess her home,
and that the PIP could do nothing for her because she had no money/was insolvent.
She has been strung along by Shatter and the likes for the last 5 years,
being told that “we are bringing in”
“new insolvency legislation”
“to help people in your situation”
The poor woman wishes that she went for U.K. bankruptcy 5 years ago,
when she still had a little savings,
she has nothing now.
Tell me mister Shatter
Who exactly is this “new insolvency legislation” designed for,
as is it definitely not designed for insolvent/broke people?
Ah now there are lots more options
@gathering If she is broke and cannot afford the fees of a PIP, how could she afford to uproot and relocate to the UK to apply for UK insolvency? By the way PIPs do have to disclose conflicts of interest. If that one didn’t he’s potentially in trouble if what you say is true.
I call shenanigans – conflict of interest would have to be disclosed. It is without doubt a middle class debt settlement. – I don’t believe I said anything different, if you don’t have enough to offer the lender, they’ll simply veto your offer.
@ Solbank I am only quoting what the PIS’s themselves have said.
@ Truth Patrol & Dusty
5 years ago in the early days of her financial distress, the woman did have a small amount of savings left, after being strung along by Shatter and the likes for 5 years she now has nothing,
she is currently in a very bad way, after 5 years of torment at the hands of untrained bullyboy bank staff,
I can understand why.
The woman is only in her only 40′s and has been basically rendered a financial leper by the banks and our fine leaders and protectors.
As I have said above, the PIP did not disclose that they acted as receivers for the banks until after she had committed the money and only when asked this by the woman.
I have heard of this happening in another case however no fees had been charged.
Is this just a sneaky way for Receivers masquerading as PIPs gleaning sensitive inside information from distressed borrowers and getting paid for the privilege the only cost being couple of grand spent on a PIP course??
Just to ask what experience have you had with PIP’s?
I’ve had quite a bit of experience with PIP’s, the ISI, receivers and the Arrears Support Units of the banks. The legislation has big gaps no doubt. It is for those earning 50k plus – no doubt. It will not help those with low incomes – no doubt. Solicitors & accountants acting as pips will be expecting to charge solicitors & accounts rates no doubt. So whilst you raise some valid points, they are undermined by a very dubious anecdote and an unhelpful dash of conspiracy theory.
@ Dusty You confirm the holes in this Legislation.
Yet you label a physical practical example of these holes as a “conspiracy theory”.
So you are trying to say that the legislation is flawed in certain areas by design, but not in practice??
Are you a PIP Dusty?
No disrespect meant
However
Is Kenny waiting for another Fiachra Kelly incident before he will act?
Please remember it was a letter from a bank (KBC, “the bank of you”) that was the last straw for Fiachra.
RIP Fiachra
Fiachra Daly, not kelly.
No, not a PIP gladly, the conspiracy theory I was referring to was receivers masquerading as PIPs to glean sensitive information for their overlords … a tad incentive I reckon.
Yes I meant to say Fiachra Daly.
Sorry for any confusion caused.
The facts Dusty are
(1)That the majority of the Personal Insolvency Practitioners (PIPs) also work for the banks as receivers.
(2)These receivers/PIPs have access to confidential, delicate information from the distressed borrowers whom have mortgages with the very same banks.
(3)These receivers/PIPs take fees and in many cases upfront fees from their distressed borrower clients.
A couple of question for you Dusty.
(1) Do you really think that PIP’s will not use the personal, delicate information that they glean from their financially distressed customers for their own personal gain or the for the gain of their powerful wealthy banker clients?
and
(2) What assurances/guarantees does a distressed borrower have that the above will not happen?
(3) can you show me the part in the legislation where it states that the PIP must declare his/her conflict of interest to the distressed borrower
and the part in the legislation where it states that in what stage of the PIP meeting must the PIP declare his/her conflict of interest to the distressed borrower?
Members of the endemically corrupt financial industry don’t exactly have any sort of Seal of Confession
do they?
This is a perfect example of Poacher turned Gamekeeper come Poacher.
In relation to point(1) – could you name me one of the 52 PIPs currently licensed in the country who also acts as receiver for a bank. If you do, I would happily fully address all your other points … I could make a hefty bet that you won’t name one. In that case, we may draw our on conclusions I guess ..
Grant Thornton
Friel Stafford
Did you read the list of PIPs Dusty?
http://www.isi.gov.ie/en/ISI/webPIPAuthNum?OpenView&Count=-1
CORPORATE receivers, PERSONAL insolvency – they will not be handling receivership of property owned by individuals. The latter is almost exclusively the work of estate agents and chartered surveyors.
Don’t forget the PIP world’s for the debtor and is required to submit a proposal which will make the debtor solvent within 5 years.
Can’t see how they can do this if they are secretly working for the banks.
So Individuals have no involvement in the Corporate world Dusty?
Please do not try to deviate from the facts
These PIP’s have worked and still work for the bank’s as receivers.
This is a fact that has to date been omitted from media articles on PIPs.
C’mon spit it out Dusty
Tell us what dog you have in this fight?
Why defend this not fit for purpose legislation, that has been practically penned by the banks and rubber stamped by their penny boys in our government?
Please don’t try to defend the indefensible Dusty.
Yes better. My court case is in Manchester in a matter of days. If it’s successful I’m willing to help anyone that wants to do the same.
The facts arev simple enough really. Corporate receivers are Court mandated and supervised from start to finish as such, their actions are closely monitored. They deal solely with the assets and liabilities of bodies corporate. To this end, they receive information relating to the company in receivership only. They act on behalf of the creditor who called for their appointment.
Personal insolvency Practioners are licensed by the ISI and act on behalf of the debtor. They are only privvy to the information provided to them by the debtor and, on request to the creditors, to pertinent information relating to any loans due by the debtor. Their job is to make the debtor solvent in 5 years.
In the case of Grant Thornton, for example, their PIA department is fully separate from their corporate insolvency dept. As the latter does not deal with personal assets, any information gleaned by the PIA department would be of no use whatsoever to the insolvency department. It is also protected by Chinese walls etc.
You seem to be suggesting that the likes of Grant Thornton would put their entire business at risk to pass details of Johnny O’Briens current account to their CORPORATE INSOLVENCY dept!!!
At some stage, even someone with your sceptical mind has to admit that this is preposterous.
As for having a dog … I have none, I voluntarily help mortgage holders negotiate with lenders. You’d be shocked how many people take bad advice from poorly informed conspiracy theorists.
Statutory instrument 209 of 2013 – personal insolvency act 2012 (Authorisation & Supervision of personal insolvency practitioners) regulations 2013.
Section 9 covers disclosure of conflict of interest.
Fair play to you Mjhint.
Best of luck to you.
I wish every distressed borrower in Ireland had the money to avail of England’s solution to yet another of Ireland’s problems.
Chinese walls Dusty?
What about the sole PIP’s on the list who also act as receivers for our banks?
Do they have interchangeable heads?
If I needed someone to negotiate with a bank Dusty.
I’m afraid I wouldn’t be using your “voluntary” services.
Most people who are in mortgage distress have been there 3-4-5-6 years now,
is it really necessary for them to serve another 3-5-7 years under this banker penned “New Insolvency Legislation” that (based on your comments) you willingly accept and defend??
Whilst under government approval the real villains/culprits in this travesty are being rewarded from the pockets of their victims?
This legislation does nothing but vilify and punish the victims as it rewards their abusers.
These dirty bankers seem very happy to force decent, innocent, hardworking people take the Fiachra Daly option on a daily basis.
Being in mortgage arrears does not give a corrupt banker the right to torment you into a noose with their dirty tricks, ignorance, amateurism, and vile shenanigans.
Sole PIPs don’t act as receivers I pointed that out to you earlier. You’re referring to fixed price receivers/rent receivers who, in Ireland are estate agents or chartered surveyors. PIPs on the other hand are accountants, solicitors and financial advisors.
You’ve moved away from debate and towards populist waffle now I’m afraid. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the fact remains that, you are fully liable for the full balance of your mortgage and will continue to be even after the property is sold, surrendered or repossessed. You can rage against the machine all you like but if you don’t work within the system you will remain indebted forever (not saying I agree, just the reality). For the record, I help people for free and, I would refuse your case of it came to me as nothing can be accomplished without a degree of realism. Pps – rent receivers can only be appointed over investment properties. A receiver CANNOT BE APPOINTED OVER A FAMILY HOME IN IRELAND.
Moved away from the debate Dusty O’Brien?
You have said above
“In relation to point(1) – could you name me one of the 52 PIPs currently licensed in the country who also acts as receiver for a bank. If you do, I would happily fully address all your other points … I could make a hefty bet that you won’t name one. In that case, we may draw our on conclusions I guess”
I have named them.
God help the people that you “help”.
With your vague toothless words.
The facts are that PIP’s work as receivers for the banks, they do not disclose this fact to their customers until asked.
This is from first hand experience and not from quoting this act and that.
I think that you should ring around a few of your PIP buddies before you go defending them so blindly.
This “New Insolvency legislation” was basically penned by the banks and rubber stamped by their hand maidens in government.
Are you a mortgage broker or “financial adviser” whose business is a tad bit quiet at the moment, Dusty?
“Sole PIPs don’t act as receivers I pointed that out to you earlier. You’re referring to fixed price receivers/rent receivers who, in Ireland are estate agents or chartered surveyors. PIPs on the other hand are accountants, solicitors and financial advisors”.???
Seriously, what’s that?
Please take this travesty a little more seriously Dusty.
“A receiver CANNOT BE APPOINTED OVER A FAMILY HOME IN IRELAND”????
Please point out where I stated that they could be Dusty?
Genuinely, God help the unfortunate people who you “help” for “free”.
God bless them.
Very basically, you are suggesting that PIPs are not interested in helping debtors at all. That the government, banks, solicitors and accountants of Ireland have conspired to enact legislation, develop a training & licensing system, run examinations & set up a board just to gather information about people struggling with their mortgages so they can pass this to the banks.
You really need to grow up.
I am just stating some facts about this “New Insolvency Legislation” and the PIPs Dusty.
Easy on there.
Don’t get carried away lad.
Next thing you’ll be on the “Illuminati” and Lizard people.
Stay with us Dusty.
Typo
Next thing you’ll be on about the “Illuminati” and Lizard people.
The PIPs are out to make as much money as they can regardless of oversight. The rules look like they are there to restrict entering this business to certain people
An Irish solution to an Irish problem. The good times just keep on Rollin for the brass necks!
Hiding behind the old confidentially thingy
As there are not providing details of the numbers I take it fewer then expected are availing of this “generous” offer? Not surprising considering reports say most who might need this service can not afford it.
No protective notices have yet been issued to the best of my knowledge so take up would seem very slow. I think it will definitely pick up into the future but for now, no-one has a bog what they’re at.
Well said Kerry.
Spot on.
There seems to be no economy class on Sharter’s “all new insolvency legislation service”
only champagne quaffing first class.
have your say