Economics and morality are like mustard and ketchup- regardless of how exquisite the dish is they just DON’T go together.
Yet, whilst listening to the Business Daily podcast on my way to work the other day, I was, frankly, bamboozled by a BBC prime- time journalist trying to have some Irish beef with a spoonful of Dijon and some Heinz on top.
The topic, of course, was the economic crisis and how it had affected Irish people. It was all quite bland at the beginning- a brief talk about ‘ghost towns’, mounting debts and rising unemployment garnished with a sprinkle of despair and a pinch of woe.
It was indeed a long and winding dark tunnel that continuously reminded you that the only one who could find a way out was Chuck Norris. Because Chuck Norris IS the light at the end of the tunnel.
Leaving the depressing bit aside, however, the discussion did take a very intriguing turn out of the tunnel and into the light of day, which was Chuck Norris.
The BBC reporter started talking about a ‘scheme’ by which a person could temporarily move from Ireland to England, live there for a certain period of time and declare bankruptcy in England rather than in Ireland. This, in turn, meant that the said person could once more be trading in twelve MONTHS’ time (rather than twelve years, as the case would have been, had he declared bankruptcy under Irish law).
An idea of a solicitor from Leicester , at first glance, the above mentioned does sound a bit farfetched and somewhat ‘dodgy’.
The procedure, however, is quite legal. I shan’t delve into detail or legal niceties but I will summarise how it all works.
Under EU law, you can declare bankruptcy in an EU country in which you are ‘habitually residing’. Put simply, Irish people move to England , find a job there and remain there for a period of six to nine months after which they can declare bankruptcy in England and write off all of their debt in Ireland
I was quite exhilarated to hear about that arrangement; after all, a fellow legal practitioner had found a way in which to help people get back on their feet.
After all, is that not what lawyers are supposed to do? (Do NOT answer that)
The journalist’s next question to the solicitor, however, was that so very unnecessary portion of ketchup, and I had always detested ketchup (complete and utter waste of tomatoes!)
‘But do you think that what you are doing is moral? After all, should those people not be punished for not thinking ahead?’
To which I shall only say two things:
A) Dura lex, sed lex
Regardless of how tough law is, it is the law, id est
Everything which is not illegal is legal.
B) Punished? Please…
- Banks were not thinking ahead; they got saved by the taxpayer.
- Banks were playing around with LIBOR rates; the whole episode was forgotten in a week.
- Banks were accused of laundering money in 2000; that one was forgotten in a day.
Morality works both ways; double- standards are unacceptable.
So, in the end, we saved the banks but our own governments did not want to save us, the taxpayers.
Ergo, we looked for a loophole and we found a legally sound one.
And if you don’t like it, you can go
To Hell With It!
P.S. For more on the topic, please go to
No comments:
Post a Comment