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.
OPPOSITION PARTIES ARE starting to pile pressure on the Government over this week’s €718 million payout to Anglo Irish Bank bondholders.
Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin have spoken out against paying the US$1 billion bond that falls due for repayment on Wednesday.
Fianna Fáil’s spokesman Michael McGrath has called on the Taoiseach to contact the incoming president of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, to make a last ditch effort to stop the repayment.
“There is a fundamental issue of equity in the European Union at stake here,” said McGrath. “Greece has been granted a haircut of 50 per cent of its sovereign debt held by European banks while the ECB is attempting to force Ireland to repay in full unsecured, unguaranteed bonds owed by failed Irish banks currently being wound up.
“Many reputable economists believe the bond should not be redeemed at all,” he continued.
Applying a 50 per cent discount on the bond would save Ireland over €350 million. The Government’s efforts in recent days to claim that Anglo would be repaying the €715m bond out of its own resources were nothing short of insulting to the intelligence of the Irish people,” added McGrath.
Enda Kenny had previously said that the repayment will come from the nationalised bank’s own resources and not the taxpayer.
Anglo Irish Bank, or the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) as it is now called, will be making arrangements for the repayment of the bond tomorrow. It is understood the Government will also sign off on the payment on Tuesday.
Last week, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams said the Government had missed an opportunity to put the Irish banking debt on the agenda while EU leaders were discussing haircuts on Greek debts.
The party has claimed that there is no political, legal or moral obligation on the Government to pay the US$1 billion bond due this week.
Speaking on RTÉ’s Drivetime, McGrath echoed these sentiments, stating there had been no robust negotiation by the Government on the issue.
The bond is being repaid to senior, unsecured Anglo bondholders but the bank and the Government insist that promissory note arrangements mean the obligations must be met in full.
It is not clear who exactly are the beneficiaries of this week’s payments are. The bond was first issued in 2006 but could have been sold on by its original holders.
IBRC has another €1.25 billion payment falling due on 25 January, 2012.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
So what if he served 48 days , and so what if that was the deal made by the prosecutor. He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl ! Why would you want filth like that back in your Country, no matter how good his films are..
@Blarneykite: you’re literally defending a paedophile.
@Blarneykite: you must be deaf if you cannot hear the calls for Blair and Bush to be tried for war crimes, perhaps selectively so. Anyway, back to your defence of an admitted paedophile.
A predator
“Polanski – the only polish wanted in the USA without a valid visa lol”
While I despise him as a person, polish court was right not to extradite him to the us. US made balls of the investigation and charges and wanted to change it after he served what they deemed at first. Only US court fault. Then still interesting why she wanted withdraw her case from the court, being a victim it sounds weird, who knows what was really between them, maybe consensual sex that turned wrong when he said to her bye bye. (Not that’s right anyway to have sex with 13 years old).
@Tomasz Kuchnik: a 13 year old cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse in the US. Anymore vile excuses for Polanski?
@Tomasz Kuchnik: maybe she’s just sick of this following her around and would like closure. She is now living her life and maybe she has recovered and wants it all to go away and I have a lot of sympathy for that. It must be hard for her.
@Paul Fahey: cannot consent legally, but can consent informally… not? and why are you attacking me I said I despise the man, and just thought that’s one possibility…
@Tomasz Kuchnik: what exactly is “informal consent” by a 13 year old child to sexual intercourse? I find that a most disturbing comment, I really do.
@Paul Fahey: Paul ok I need to explain that to you as for some reason you don’t get it, in 90s in the US first sexual intercourse under 13 years of age have been reported by more than 10% of the teenagers. It has been decreasing since then. So in 70s when this happened, that percentage was likely even bigger than 10% although I have no source for it. How do you know she didn’t want to sleep with him as you seem totally rejecting that version? Rape accusation is oldest trick in a book. Now before you go on holy war with me – I’m not saying this is the case. I’m just interested why you don’t let think it could have been consensual from her side then. Himself as a grown up man should have known better and of course shouldn’t touch her either way.
@Tomasz Kuchnik: you are aware how old Polanski was at the time of these crimes aren’t you? He was not a 13 year old boy having “informal consent” sexual penetrative intercourse with a 13 year old girl. No, he was a 40+ year old man committing statutory rape on a 13 year old girl, consent does not come into it, formal or “informal”. If you think all the US 13 year olds you mention are losing their virginity to 40+ year old man, then you need help. You are defending and making excuses for a paedophile, let that sink in. You may think you are being clever with your words, but most normal people will find them quite disturbing.
Good. Horrible man.
He is a dirtbag.
Jesus Barny.. give it a rest.
have your say