Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Constitutionality of the bailout

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    But we'll have to deal with the deficit anyway, K9. It doesn't go away just because you borrow to bail out the banks.

    In fact, if you borrow that sort of money, you're in way deeper sh!t. Let's imagine you're 3 months behind on your credit card. Do you sign a mortgage agreement to pay for someone else's house? How does that fix your credit card debt?


  • Options
    #33
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    But we'll have to deal with the deficit anyway, K9. It doesn't go away just because you borrow to bail out the banks.

    In fact, if you borrow that sort of money, you're in way deeper sh!t. Let's imagine you're 3 months behind on your credit card. Do you sign a mortgage agreement to pay for someone else's house? How does that fix your credit card debt?

    I do understand your point. Remember cutting say €17 Billion, means tax revenues will be substantially reduced on the other side, so you'd probably have to bring in another budget shortly after to address that with more cuts of a few billion.

    Anyway, that is going OT. The Govt. don't have to take the money. They aren't being forced. Like any Govt. borrowing they'll have to come up with proposals to repay it in a budget.

    If they wanted to borrow at 9/10% next year and avoid the IMF, same thing, though it seems borrowing at that level is unwise.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #34
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    K-9 wrote: »
    I do understand your point. Remember cutting say €17 Billion, means tax revenues will be substantially reduced on the other side, so you'd probably have to bring in another budget shortly after to address that with more cuts of a few billion.

    Anyway, that is going OT. The Govt. don't have to take the money. They aren't being forced. Like any Govt. borrowing they'll have to come up with proposals to repay it in a budget.

    If they wanted to borrow at 9/10% next year and avoid the IMF, same thing, though it seems borrowing at that level is unwise.

    Let's say we don't take the bailout. We renege on the bank debts instead. Now we have to deal with our deficit. And a domino effect swings across Europe. First the Irish banks fail, then other European banks who leant to them. The ECB is rocked and demands money from EU countries they don't have. A crisis looms. This is worst-possible-scenario stuff, but let's say it happens.

    Then all bets are off. The EU could even go under. Certainly a good few banks will. We'll still have to fund our deficit and repay depositors of the Irish banks. That's going to be tens of billions. It's a shed load of money. But now our sovereign debt risk looks a lot better. Better than Portugal, or Greece, or New Zealand, or Spain.

    If we go to the markets at some time in the future, firstly you must remember there's a ton of money out there in hiding, with nowhere to go. Investors can't trust dollars or yen. They can't trust stocks. But it's got to go somewhere.

    And markets have short memories. Spain has repeatedly defaulted throughout its history and been back borrowing more soon afterwards. In the last century, Turkey and Uruguay defaulted four times each, I think.

    So we'd get money and we'd only need money to cover our deficit and the indigenous depositors of two banks. In the current circumstances, I'd consider that a bargain. And that's the worst possible scenario.


  • Options
    #35
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Let's say we don't take the bailout. We renege on the bank debts instead. Now we have to deal with our deficit. And a domino effect swings across Europe. First the Irish banks fail, then other European banks who leant to them. The ECB is rocked and demands money from EU countries they don't have. A crisis looms. This is worst-possible-scenario stuff, but let's say it happens.

    Then all bets are off. The EU could even go under. Certainly a good few banks will. We'll still have to fund our deficit and repay depositors of the Irish banks. That's going to be tens of billions. It's a shed load of money. But now our sovereign debt risk looks a lot better. Better than Portugal, or Greece, or New Zealand, or Spain.

    If we go to the markets at some time in the future, firstly you must remember there's a ton of money out there in hiding, with nowhere to go. Investors can't trust dollars or yen. They can't trust stocks. But it's got to go somewhere.

    And markets have short memories. Spain has repeatedly defaulted throughout its history and been back borrowing more soon afterwards. In the last century, Turkey and Uruguay defaulted four times each, I think.

    So we'd get money and we'd only need money to cover our deficit and the indigenous depositors of two banks. In the current circumstances, I'd consider that a bargain. And that's the worst possible scenario.

    So you think you can use the Constitution to force the government to default?


  • Options
    #36
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    evercloserunion wrote: »
    So you think you can use the Constitution to force the government to default?

    We can look at it in terms of the legality of taking the bailout and see if that at least can be refused or ruled illegal. That alone would spare the Irish people close on a 100 billion of debt that is not theirs to bear.

    If we take on the bank debts, it seems to me a default is inevitable. Every talented young person I know is leaving this country. I can't say I blame them. But there are plenty of skivers, junkies, ne'erdowells and so-called asylum seekers hanging on. They aren't leaving, and they'll be sucking on the state for a long time to come. In other words, we're driving the very people who will help resolve the problem out, and holding on to those who will exacerbate it.

    Now, we might, just might be able to sort the deficit out with some really hard work and some difficult times. But there is NO WAY we can pay off the Irish banks' debts.

    If we renege on the guarantee, we may not have to default. Because we'd have 80 odd billion less to pay back. We could try to balance our budget, incentivise our talented youngsters to stay and seek to avoid a default. But with an additional 80 billion to pay, we're defaulting, no doubt.

    It just becomes a matter of when.

    That's what I want us to avoid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Cavehill, to take on your analogy of treating lawyers like doctors if I might; if you went to a GP and he told you that you had influenza and then another 3 GP's all told you the same thing, free of charge, would you then insist on seeing a specialist to confirm the diagnosis?

    For a man who seems so insistent that money should not be wasted that is a wasteful position to take.

    It's a truism of law that everyone thinks they know their rights and that whatever particular injustice they feel they have suffered is definitely illegal and probably unconstitutional.


  • Options
    #38
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Generally I treat lawyers like doctors. You don't go to a gynaecologist for a cardiac arrest, and similarly I use different solicitors depending on what I need done. In other words, seek out a specialist.

    Now, it seems to me that since the government intends to indebt me to the tune of tens of thousands of euro without my permission, that it might be worth combining resources with some likeminded people and pursuing legal action to prevent this from occurring.

    A couple of grand each would be a decent punt in my opinion if it were to result in the tens of thousands of debt that the government wishes to put on my shoulders with this bailout vanishing.

    All I wanted to ascertain from this forum was where to begin. I'm no constitutional expert, but I cannot see that there would be no provision in the constitution that wouldn't at least make the involuntary indebting of the nation to pay off private debt at least arguable.

    A couple of sections of the constitution have been mentioned and I thank that poster profusely. That's the sort of information I was looking for - somewhere to begin. Something to take to a constitutional legal expert and have them consider.

    We'll be meeting this week to explore how to best pursue this and to consider who might best represent us.
    The point you're missing is straight forward though.

    What provision of the Constitution does this loan violate?

    Also, whether you like it or not your question was also answered in the sovereignty answer. Constitutionally, the people are the sovereign - we elect Dáil Éireann to act on our behalf, so we are not losing any sovereignty by allowing Dáil Éireann to take a loan on our behalf.

    We take loans as a country all the time (as well as give loans in the old days), this is no different.


    If you can explain how exactly we are "ceding any sovereignty" and what provision of the constitution you believe needs to be changed via referendum in order to do this then you can get a specific answer to your question. But claiming posts are off topic (which are not) and asking the same vague question will not get you answers here.

    If you want to waste your money hiring a "specialist" Constitutional Law Solicitor who will have to get an opinion of Junior and Senior Counsel by the sounds of your request then by all means go for it.
    But as Judge O'Hagen said last week "the only people that take these types of cases are those with more money than sense or not much of either."


  • Options
    #39
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    We can look at it in terms of the legality of taking the bailout and see if that at least can be refused or ruled illegal. That alone would spare the Irish people close on a 100 billion of debt that is not theirs to bear.

    I think you need to read the Constitution first. There really isn't anything in there that specific.


  • Options
    #40
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Now, it seems to me that since the government intends to indebt me to the tune of tens of thousands of euro without my permission, that it might be worth combining resources with some likeminded people and pursuing legal action to prevent this from occurring.

    In that case, you would be better off challenging the bank guarantee, the nationalisation of Anglo and the NAMA legislation.

    You would IMO be on stronger grounds challenging these than challenging the IMF bailout, and the result of your challenge to these acts would be better for our national debt than the bailout would be. However, it would still be a hard challenge to succeed on and one practical difficulty is that even a successful outcome will not return the money already spent on them.


  • Options
    #41
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    ...

    Now, it seems to me that since the government intends to indebt me to the tune of tens of thousands of euro without my permission, that it might be worth combining resources with some likeminded people and pursuing legal action to prevent this from occurring.

    A couple of grand each would be a decent punt in my opinion if it were to result in the tens of thousands of debt that the government wishes to put on my shoulders with this bailout vanishing.
    ...

    Not really when you think that on failure you all would be jointly and severally liable to the tune of the several hundreds of thousands of legal costs a challenge of the sort you appear to wish to contemplate would rack up. You could get your answer for much cheaper.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    The Engineer
    Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭The Engineer


    evercloserunion wrote: »
    You remind me of the farmer who took that case challenging Lisbon II. I wonder how much it cost him just to be laughed out of the High Court.

    There was also the case of Crotty v. An Taoiseach in 1987 - we need more men and women like the OP to put their heads above the parapet and take peaceful action against the treasonous politicians that seem hell-bent on making us, and our future generations, IMF debt slaves on behalf of the international banking cartels.

    I would suggest that, in the spirit that the original post was intended, we try to assist the OP with finding grounds to fight this, if even only to give the country time to investigate other avenues (e.g. look for royalties on oil and gas found in Irish waters, etc.). Does anyone else find it worrisome that the Government and Olli Rehn & Co. have an unwavering focus on passing the Budget and the 4-year plan as soon as possible?


  • Options
    #43
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    We can look at it in terms of the legality of taking the bailout and see if that at least can be refused or ruled illegal. That alone would spare the Irish people close on a 100 billion of debt that is not theirs to bear.

    If we take on the bank debts, it seems to me a default is inevitable. Every talented young person I know is leaving this country. I can't say I blame them. But there are plenty of skivers, junkies, ne'erdowells and so-called asylum seekers hanging on. They aren't leaving, and they'll be sucking on the state for a long time to come. In other words, we're driving the very people who will help resolve the problem out, and holding on to those who will exacerbate it.

    Now, we might, just might be able to sort the deficit out with some really hard work and some difficult times. But there is NO WAY we can pay off the Irish banks' debts.

    If we renege on the guarantee, we may not have to default. Because we'd have 80 odd billion less to pay back. We could try to balance our budget, incentivise our talented youngsters to stay and seek to avoid a default. But with an additional 80 billion to pay, we're defaulting, no doubt.

    It just becomes a matter of when.

    That's what I want us to avoid.

    If we do not bail out the banks they will collapse and we will basically have no financial sector left. Who is going to lend money to a country in that kind of trouble?


  • Options
    #44
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    The Engineer wrote: »
    There was also the case of Crotty v. An Taoiseach in 1987 - we need more men and women like the OP to put their heads above the parapet and take peaceful action against the treasonous politicians that seem hell-bent on making us, and our future generations, IMF debt slaves on behalf of the international banking cartels.

    I would suggest that, in the spirit that the original post was intended, we try to assist the OP with finding grounds to fight this, if even only to give the country time to investigate other avenues (e.g. look for royalties on oil and gas found in Irish waters, etc.). Does anyone else find it worrisome that the Government and Olli Rehn & Co. have an unwavering focus on passing the Budget and the 4-year plan as soon as possible?
    This looks suspiciously like a "TPTB" style post that belongs in Conspiracy Theories.


  • Options
    #45
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    The Engineer wrote: »
    I would suggest that, in the spirit that the original post was intended, we try to assist the OP with finding grounds to fight this...

    I would absolutely without hesitation agree that the best thing for the country and all of us would be for anyone who is of the view that there is merit and sense to what the OP proposes to spend as much time as possible thinking of reasons (complicated ones too) why this is so and posting them here, at length and in detail.


  • Options
    #46
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    I have instructed my solicitor to sound out constitutional experts in this matter with a view to exploring taking an action.

    But many hands make light work. The more potential grounds for action that can be identified, the better.

    I would very much welcome any input anyone may have in relation to how to move this along.


  • Options
    #47
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Wait a "Constitutional Expert" Solicitor has agreed to take this on already?


  • Options
    #48
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    I have instructed my solicitor to sound out constitutional experts in this matter with a view to exploring taking an action.

    But many hands make light work. The more potential grounds for action that can be identified, the better.

    I would very much welcome any input anyone may have in relation to how to move this along.

    I think perhaps if you have engaged a solicitor it might be best to end this thread because there could be complications if you are receiving professional advice and free information at the same time and any difference between the two arises.

    A solicitor will have a much better grasp of your case than can be put on the internet.

    Best of luck with it, by the way.


  • Options
    #49
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    I'd rather the thread stayed open for the receipt of any possible arguments that people may come up with.

    There is no conflict of interest here, and I'm not here seeking legal advice.

    Consider it a brainstorming session. If people have any ideas, I'm open to hearing them, and interested to see them discussed and debated here.

    My own actions are my own issue, and any action I may or may not take will be done solely in conjunction with my own legal advisors.


  • Options
    #50
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    I have instructed my solicitor to sound out constitutional experts in this matter with a view to exploring taking an action.

    But many hands make light work. The more potential grounds for action that can be identified, the better.

    I would very much welcome any input anyone may have in relation to how to move this along.

    Good luck with it and I mean that sincerely.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #51
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    Reloc8 wrote: »
    I would absolutely without hesitation agree that the best thing for the country and all of us would be for anyone who is of the view that there is merit and sense to what the OP proposes to spend as much time as possible thinking of reasons (complicated ones too) why this is so and posting them here, at length and in detail.

    Hmmm...I sort of meant it would keep them busy and give them something to do myself. As I said, the answer to the question posed can be procured for an awful lot less money than kicking off this kind of case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭paky


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    As far as I can tell, any act of government (such as an EU treaty) that involves ceding any sovereignty to an outside agency requires a referendum approval by the people of Ireland, according to our constitution.

    So my questions to you fine legal minds are these:

    Does the bailout not constitutionally require referendum approval?

    Might it be possible to challenge the constitutionality of any bailout agreement not approved by referendum in the Supreme Court?

    no it doesnt require any approval. the people elected morons, if they dont like the decissions they make they can just elect some other morons.
    there is no breach in the constitution


  • Options
    #53
    Jarndyce
    Registered Users Posts: 217 ✭✭Jarndyce


    OisinT wrote: »
    Wait a "Constitutional Expert" Solicitor has agreed to take this on already?

    The OP did not say that.

    I should add that your derisive tone only further illustrates your lack of knowledge on the subject. Your responses thus far have come across as petulant and uninformed. Seeing as you are a moderator, I would expect to see less of the former.


  • Options
    #54
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Jarndyce wrote: »
    The OP did not say that.
    You probably haven't read the whole thread so I'll go ahead and post the relevant post:
    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Can I ask if any of you answering have a tertiary level specialty in Irish constitutional law or have ever been involved in a case involving constitutional law in the courts?

    I can't make myself too clear here - I really only want to hear the opinions of constitutional lawyers on this.

    I've even taking the liberty to highlight the relevant part in bold for you.

    Jarndyce wrote: »
    I should add that your derisive tone only further illustrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.
    Where was my tone derisive? I merely asked whether OP hired a "Constitutional Expert" Solicitor already (less than 24 hours) after saying he was going to.

    Furthermore, how does that in any way illustrate my lack of knowledge on the subject?
    Jarndyce wrote: »
    Your responses thus far have come across as petulant and uninformed. Seeing as you are a moderator, I would expect to see less of the former.
    Please show me what posts are petulant and uninformed? OP has gotten nothing but informed responses and has been the petulant one.


  • Options
    #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This thread has annoyed me from the start really. What does OP want? Judge Hogan to come online and bang out a quick opinion? Michael Forde to take some time out and give him an extensive reply?

    What will satisfy you?


  • Options
    #56
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Would the fact that 3 seperate bilateral loan agreements are included in the ESFS package have any bearing on this should it go to court?


  • Options
    #57
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Would the fact that 3 seperate bilateral loan agreements are included in the ESFS package have any bearing on this should it go to court?

    Well, why do you think they would?


  • Options
    #58
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,067 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    evercloserunion wrote: »
    Well, why do you think they would?

    I don't, necessarily. I just keep hearing how the deal does not constitute an international agreement
    2° The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

    I was only wondering whether the deals made bilaterally between 'ourselves' & Sweden, Britain and Denmark would be deemed as non-international just because they were included in the overall package or would their inclusion in it be a basis for challenging the entire bailout.


  • Options
    #59
    Price11
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭Price11


    85 Billion Euro Bailout


    .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage p { padding: 0px; }.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage { font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma;This bailout is a sellout of our country. It is not a simple loan. It is a "rape of the Irish people" according to Gonzalo Lira , Global Economic Expert. In an interview on Max Keiser 100 rt, Lira says Ireland is cursed with terrible political decisions which guaranteed huge bank debt, far too big for the country to carry.
    AIB falsified its books to get bailout money. What did the banks do with the bailout money? Awarded themselves huge bonuses, a practice that continues to go on. Ireland was solvent and meeting its payments until politicians guaranteed the bank debt in 2008, on the shoulders of the Irish taxpayer, a millstone around their necks. Is Ireland really bankrupt? Lira says no, not if we let the banks fail. Are Irish politicians corrupt? Maybe, says Lira, but they are certainly stupid, incompetent and running amuck with short term thinking.
    Over 50,000 people marched in Dublin on Nov. 27 protesting. Many see the bailout as sinking the ship. Why is Ireland in so much trouble, all of a sudden? Thank Germany's Angela Merkel. Three week ago she talked about senior bond holders taking a haircut. The entire bond market panicked and refused to lend to Ireland at affordable rates. What was Merkl talking about? Senior bond holders who hold Ireland's debt are Germany and the UK. "Taking a haircut" means they don't want to lose a penny. Olli Rehn, EU Commissioner for Monetary Affairs also says "no haircuts for senior bondholders" .
    What's so bad about the 85 billion euro bailout? Fist, its at a high interest rate, average 5.8%, a repayment of 5 billion euro a year on interest rate alone, 20 % of tax revenue. Right off the top before any other bills are paid. Second, 35 billion earmarked for the banks. Money down a black hole. But, wait a minute, Olli Rehn say its self financing, what does he mean? Ireland must find 17.5 billion from its pension funds and reserves for bailout. Ireland has one major asset, its pension fund, and that's going down a black hole too. Goodbye pensions. Lira says the piranha banks want to loot it, before moving on to Portugal, Spain and Italy to strip their assets. Divide and Conquer.
    Who will gain from this besides the banks? Germany, of course, who started the panic. Keiser and Stacey Herbert a political analyst, say Germany will gain in two ways. The cheap euro will increase their export markets while their competition is crippled with debt. Why are they pushing the bailout through, when Ireland is fully funded until Summer 2011? Good question. What's the rush? My father always told me "Follow the Money". Huge interest payments out of Ireland, the Pension fund gone, 35 billion to the banks. You do the math.
    Max Keiser warns " Wake up Ireland, 'you're being sold down the river by your own government in bed with the bankers, pushing debt ridden junk loans on Ireland. You'll become a vassal corporate state of the international banking cartel". Lira advises " Default on the debt and restructure the Irish banks. Start off with a clean slate. Take the hit now" instead of mortgaging the future of your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Later will be a lot worse." Iceland didn't take on bank debt. They let banks fail, took the hit and are now rebuilding."
    Nigel Farage, UKIP MEP, blasted the European Parliament for taking away Ireland's democracy, on 24 Nov, 2010. In an emotional speech, he asked "who the hell do you think you people are?" Why did Olli Rehn tell Ireland they have to agree their budget, before they are allowed to have an election? "If you rob people of their identity and democracy all they are left with is nationalism and violence. You are very very dangerous people indeed." Now, Olli Rehn is warning the opposition that if they get voted in they better not renege on the IMF-ECB bailout.
    John Wolfe, the founder of Seniors Solidarity Party, has legally challenged the government's constitutional right to accept a bailout from the EU and IMF, on the grounds that Irish people did not vote for taking on a massive debt of 85 billion euro or taking money out of the Pension Fund. Sinn Fein is taking a different tack, on the basis of whether politicians can sign an international agreement without putting it to a vote before the Dail.
    I ask: What is the big rush to get the bailout through? Why can we not have an election and time to weigh our options, when we are funded until next summer? Who are we rescuing? Ireland or the banks?
    Although the bailout was approved by EU Finance Ministers on Nov 29 it still has to pass the Dail on Dec 7. A key date for Ireland. We are standing at the Rubicon of our national sovereignty.

    References:
    Nigel Farage "Who the Hell do you think you are" YouTube
    Max Keiser 100 rt video


  • Options
    #60
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Price11 wrote: »
    85 Billion Euro Bailout...

    Almost positive this is spam, but I'm giving the poster an opportunity to correct this as (if he is a legitimate poster) it is his first post :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Any news on this or was the OP just blowing smoke?


Advertisement