Legal Action re: Nama

littlesthobo

First off I have read the charter and am not looking for legal advise as such rather looking for opinions as to whether an Irish citizen take any sort of legal action or an injunction against the government to prevent them having the Irish taxpayer pay for the losses of a private company, Anglo for example without getting a mandate from the people.

Considering the catastrophic effect that the whole Nama operation will have on the countries finances for generations to come I cant help but feel that surely they cant go ahead with it without getting the consent of the people who will be picking up the tab.

My apologies if the post is a little incoherent, i thought of putting this in the politics forum but put it here if the hope of getting a better informed legal opinion.

Any and all thoughts welcome

Max Power1

to be fair, they do have the mandate of the people (thanks to the idiots that voted them in) until the next GE, probably 2012

littlesthobo

Max Power1 wrote: »

to be fair, they do have the mandate of the people (thanks to the idiots that voted them in) until the next GE, probably 2012

I had a feeling someone would reply with that.

But we had a referndum on lisbon twice!!. Surely this is as important if not more important. I have a feeling people would reject it if there was a referendum which is probably why we'll never have one.

drkpower

littlesthobo wrote: »

I had a feeling someone would reply with that.

But we had a referndum on lisbon twice!!. Surely this is as important if not more important. I have a feeling people would reject it if there was a referendum which is probably why we'll never have one.

People might reject lots of things given a referendum. It doesnt mean that they have to hold one on any and every subject. They are the elected Government. The elected parliament voted for NAMA. Unless it is unconstitutional or against EU law, they have every right to do it.

If you are just venting, take it to another forum:rolleyes:. The legal answer on this is fairly straightforward, unless someone has a novel constitutional angle that noone in the state has thus far raised.

The expenditure of monies and the allocation of resources is wholly within the purview of the Government and the Oireachtas and the courts will not and cannot interfere with that power.

I cannot think of a single constitutional reason why the courts would grant an injunction or give any order whatsoever along the lines that you suggest.

There is also an implication in the OP that the people have a direct say in decision making. That is in a strict democracy. What we have is a Republic, where we choose people to make our decisions for us.

The country cannot be governed by opinion poll.

seamus

littlesthobo wrote: »

I had a feeling someone would reply with that.

But we had a referndum on lisbon twice!!. Surely this is as important if not more important. I have a feeling people would reject it if there was a referendum which is probably why we'll never have one.

Irish Governments don't hold referenda for important issues.

They only hold referenda when required to do so by the Irish constitution.

The rest of the time, they just go ahead and do what they want because that's what they're allowed to do.

Even when Governments do hold referenda, the result is often ignored or irrelevant unless it's legally binding - just look at the recent Icelandic poll.

littlesthobo

drkpower wrote: »

People might reject lots of things given a referendum. It doesnt mean that they have to hold one on any and every subject. They are the elected Government. The elected parliament voted for NAMA. Unless it is unconstitutional or against EU law, they have every right to do it.

If you are just venting, take it to another forum:rolleyes:. The legal answer on this is fairly straightforward, unless someone has a novel constitutional angle that noone in the state has thus far raised.

Im sorry but where did can you point out in what part of my post was I
venting??

Was only looking for opinions on he subject and you've made yours clear, thank you very much

Also I never suggested a referendum in my original post, if i was going to talk referendums id have brought myself off to the politics forum.

littlesthobo

Deleted User wrote: »

The expenditure of monies and the allocation of resources is wholly within the purview of the Government and the Oireachtas and the courts will not and cannot interfere with that power.

I cannot think of a single constitutional reason why the courts would grant an injunction or give any order whatsoever along the lines that you suggest.

I suppose If it could be done I imagine someone would probably have done it already.

Tom Young

Deleted User wrote: »

The country cannot be governed by opinion poll.

True, Dan Boyle is making a fair stab over Twitter though. I never saw that in the Greens election manifesto, who is he and why should we tolerate this!? I am all for technological innovation and open communications, I am not all for maverick moves designed to topple or influence party and collective decisions.

For the record, I not a FF'er or a Green.

Tom Young

My own view on NAMA is that the vehicle as it is designed may not have the effect of what you say OP. The legislation is very, very tight and the only legal action will more than likely be NAMA against others e.g., Banks and developers who have failed to achieve proper title or where a disfunction arises.

I now view NAMA in a differing light, as do some of the global rating agencies. Let's give it a chance.

In re. Anglo, David McWilliams made some very interesting points in the Business Post at the weekend. I think he is right that Anglo should be shut down sooner rather than later and viable elements kept on.

Tom

drkpower

littlesthobo wrote: »

Also I never suggested a referendum in my original post, if i was going to talk referendums id have brought myself off to the politics forum.

Yeah; I dont know where I got the idea that you were suggesting a referendum as a possible option.... I must be mad....:rolleyes:

littlesthobo wrote: »

I cant help but feel that surely they cant go ahead with it without getting the consent of the people who will be picking up the tab..

littlesthobo wrote: »

But we had a referndum on lisbon twice!!. Surely this is as important if not more important. I have a feeling people would reject it if there was a referendum which is probably why we'll never have one..

Max Power1

littlesthobo wrote: »

I had a feeling someone would reply with that.

But we had a referndum on lisbon twice!!. Surely this is as important if not more important. I have a feeling people would reject it if there was a referendum which is probably why we'll never have one.

as previously mentioned, the referendum on lisbon was constitutionally required.

I do think, had NAMA been put to referendum it wouldnt have stood a chance in hell of passing.