Print
E-mailIreland seems to be "fixated" on a "who-done-it style debate" in relation to banking, instead of studying what other countries have done in similar crises, finance minister Brian Lenihan has said.
In an interview with the Sunday Tribune, Lenihan said we need to look at countries such as Sweden to see what we can learn from them.
"In the Nama debate, the option of doing nothing was not an option. When Sweden had the banking crisis, there was all-party agreement that this banking crisis would have to be parked and managed on an all-party basis."
In contrast, he said, opposition parties here were "briefed by the officials in my Department throughout 2009 about different initiatives that were taken and they went into the house and took up positions which were indefensible in market terms. And they did it again and again. And that's not good for the country."
The minister claimed comments made on the eve of the Nama debate, when "Fine Gael introduced a major ambiguity about whether senior bondholders, senior debt should be honoured", were "irresponsible" and did have an effect on international markets.
He also said the government would be in a position to announce a final figure on the cost of Anglo-Irish Bank by the end of this month, although other analysts believe it could be as soon as this week.
del.icio.us
digg
Facebook
Google
We got the standard Fianna Fail tactics of bluster, spin and shooting the messenger in response to Brian Cowen's abysmal interview, his colleagues tried to tell each and every one of us that we shouldn't actually believe evidence we'd heard with our own ears.
So it's clear that these tactics will also be employed in the promised banking enquiry.
With the economic collapse being the greatest ever threat to Ireland's sovereignty and the urgent need to know exactly what took place without the usual expense, lack of co-operation and time-wasting - I propose that the opposition promise as part of their election campaign - that they will suspend the thirty year rule in relation to all aspects of the banking scandal.
How does it benefit the public to have to wait thirty years to hear the truth about how their country has been brought to the brink of collapse? And in the meantime be expected to pick up the tab for enquiries we already know will be nothing more than expensive whitewashes.
The thirty year rule only exists to protect our sovereignty - but if our sovereignty has already been threatened and suspending the thirty year rule can help find out why - suspending it in this instance will actually provide the state more protection than the rule was originally designed for.