A possible answer to the "why??" question ?

Liam Byrne

I've watched in astonishment at some of the decisions that have been made over the last 2 years and I can only come to one conclusion.

Whatever Lenihan & Cowen know is far, far beyond what they are letting on, and they know that the level of investigation and charges, not to mention the cuts required - particularly in their own backyard - is unacceptable to the people who have backed them as vested interests.

Therefore their plan is to GET the IMF in, getting THEM to suggest cuts, so that FF - as they have done with their Lehmans & "nobody warned us" and "it's commentators/Angela Merkel's fault" - can wash their hands of the cuts and say that it was out of their hands.

I'm not trolling with this; I genuinely cannot see any other logical reason for FF (and their green lap-dogs) to have to have taken the decisions which they have foisted on us.

Anyone have any other explanation, or do others think the same ?

mathie

I'd agree.

Neither Cowen nor Lenihan will ever admit that they made a mistake.
I don't expect my leaders to be infallible but I do expect them to realise that they can make mistakes.
With these guys everyone else is to blame.

dan_d

To an extent I agree - there is absolutely no other logical conclusion whatsoever.
But has it backfired?? They've been here this long, and still the IMF haven't come in. They're being faced with having to do the cuts themselves.
I understand that you're not trolling with this, because it's a question that just doesn't seem to have a logical or realistic answer. I'm a half-way thinking being (:D) and I just don't get what their motivation is at all.

ei.sdraob

actually there could be another few variables controlling FF actions:

* denial
* stupidity

Saadyst

ei.sdraob wrote: »

actually there could be another few variables controlling FF actions:

* denial
* stupidity

I'd throw in

* ignorance
* stubbornness
* pride

as well

murphaph

But still 20% of people would vote for them tomorrow because people vote on local issues in Ireland and totally ignore the big picture, which is why we are fcuked now.

We need an overhaul of our entire political system in Ireland. We need shot of fcuking PRSTV. We should also (long term) IMO seek to rid ourselves of English common law. It is archaic and a licence to print money for barristers and the like. We should move to a codified legal system where PARLIAMENT and parliament alone makes the law. The courts should only be there as a check to ensure any legiclation in constitutional (and that's another thing that needs a good rewrite).

Ripping up the legislation and starting again has been done by both Germany and Japan (and probably others). We could do it too as part of an overall total reform of Ireland itself.

tails_naf

murphaph wrote: »

But still 20% of people would vote for them tomorrow because people vote on local issues in Ireland and totally ignore the big picture, which is why we are fcuked now.

Absolutely. The 'I fixed that pot-hole' politics has been doing the country in for generations, but only when the sh*t really hits the fan, do we see how starkly unable to grasp, let alone deal with, the situations our elected elite really are.

A few years back a politician called to my door and was delighted in telling me that 'he was the one who had the street lamp fixed that was blown for 3 months (at the end of the road I lived on)'. I told him if he was any good, he'd fix the system that allowed to to stay broken for 3 months in the first place. He wasn't too pleased with that answer, and moved on. No doubt though, many people are satisfied with that. What hope has that chancer of fixing the economy, or making a decision that would do us any good?

Superlativeman

I hate Fianna Fail for their policies, not so much them as credible politicians. The reason they have failed is because they've let the government become too big and have implemented socialism into the country. With all the overspending and the budget deficit, it was stupid to be sanguine and live in dream land when you have a deficit that big.

When Bertie let Tony O'Reilly and George Soro's away with tax exempt status during Valentia, that was corruption. But they haven't corrupted the people of Ireland, well, they haven't purposely destroyed the country.

Think of your granny or great Aunty who lives in a home paid for by the state and barely pays any bills.

I'm actually looking at how well off we are in this country and I want to ask the people on here a question:

Is it wrong to say that Fianna Fail have given us an affluent society, and that we should just knuckle down and do one or two more hard years?

Their leadership is bad right now, but the alternatives are hopeless. Yes, the IMF is a worrying propisition and they are having insidious influence, but since the populace can't get off their bums and protest or even comprehend anything that is happening, Fianna Fail are left with no alternatives themselves.

If we can't pick the right government and kick it out when it's bad, then we deserve what we're getting.

"The amount of tyranny you live under is the amount you'll put up with."

Put up or shut up!

Zynks

Saadyst wrote: »

I'd throw in

* ignorance
* stubbornness
* pride

as well

Anyone else also entertaining the possibility of hidden agendas? In my view it is either that, or the are seriously short-sighted, to a point of questioning the IQ of those people..

peasant

Zynks wrote: »

Anyone else also entertaining the possibility of hidden agendas? In my view it is either that, or the are seriously short-sighted, to a point of questioning the IQ of those people..

FF have only one agenda and that is by no means hidden ...the survival of FF as the machine in power ...by hook or by crook.

And as hooks and crooks are the only implements they know, this is why this country is so bent.

dan_d

ei.sdraob wrote: »

actually there could be another few variables controlling FF actions:

* denial
* stupidity

I don't understand those concepts.

unit 1

Of course there is always the elephant that was in the room that fateful night in september 08, in the shape of all their cronies (developers and builders)that had to be protected. I doubt if they really knew the full extent of the losses that night, but once they had decided to save their cronies there was no going back. May the lord have mercy on us all.

RonMexico

The answer as to why they made these decisions is absolutely clear:



Corruption.

johnnyskeleton

murphaph wrote: »

We need an overhaul of our entire political system in Ireland. We need shot of fcuking PRSTV. We should also (long term) IMO seek to rid ourselves of English common law. It is archaic and a licence to print money for barristers and the like. We should move to a codified legal system where PARLIAMENT and parliament alone makes the law. The courts should only be there as a check to ensure any legiclation in constitutional (and that's another thing that needs a good rewrite).

What are you basing this on? Neither courts nor barristers makes the law any more. There are elements of clarification of the law (just as occurs in codified legal systems) and there is the jurisdiction to make sure any legislation is constitutional (as you have pointed out), but outside of that lawyers and courts don't make the law.

Also, believe it or not, we have a relatively small judiciary and legal profession, and IIRC in some areas e.g. legal aid, we have one of the lowest per capita spends compared to other EU nations.

oppenheimer1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've watched in astonishment at some of the decisions that have been made over the last 2 years and I can only come to one conclusion.

Whatever Lenihan & Cowen know is far, far beyond what they are letting on, and they know that the level of investigation and charges, not to mention the cuts required - particularly in their own backyard - is unacceptable to the people who have backed them as vested interests.

Therefore their plan is to GET the IMF in, getting THEM to suggest cuts, so that FF - as they have done with their Lehmans & "nobody warned us" and "it's commentators/Angela Merkel's fault" - can wash their hands of the cuts and say that it was out of their hands.

I'm not trolling with this; I genuinely cannot see any other logical reason for FF (and their green lap-dogs) to have to have taken the decisions which they have foisted on us.

Anyone have any other explanation, or do others think the same ?

Seriously? This belongs in the CT forum if you genuinely think the whole process was engineered to lead Ireland into the IMF.

The rational explanations, such as the herd behaviour that exists in the market, is more likely to be the reason than some over riding hidden agenda.

murphaph

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What are you basing this on? Neither courts nor barristers makes the law any more. There are elements of clarification of the law (just as occurs in codified legal systems) and there is the jurisdiction to make sure any legislation is constitutional (as you have pointed out), but outside of that lawyers and courts don't make the law.

Also, believe it or not, we have a relatively small judiciary and legal profession, and IIRC in some areas e.g. legal aid, we have one of the lowest per capita spends compared to other EU nations.

I don't think it's correct to say that laws in Ireland have not been made by courts. I believe a courts "interpretation" of a law then sets a precedent which is effectively making law to me. In codified legal systems this is not at all as relevant as in systems with English common law.

I also question the sense of having laws on the statute books which date back to the Magna Carta. I think a fresh start should have been made with independence and could still be made (as Germany and Japan did after WWII).

As for small spends on legal aid, well legal aid only covers criminal proceedings. I simply can't get legal aid for a civil case against somebody, so if I have a genuine grievance and can't afford a barrister then I'm sort of screwed. In Germany it is quite common to have legal insurance. It is very inexpensive (because all lawyers fees for every type of action are laid down in law so no nasty surprises) and it covers civil actions against you or for you if needs be (used commonly for unfair dismissals etc.).

I have had the displeasure of dealing with Ireland's archaic legal system with laws stretching back to the 1800s throwing a spanner in the works. We had a situation with an overholding tenant. Our barrister told us that the courts "don't really go for the mesne rates claims anymore" (mesne rates for the non-legal eagles out there are supposed to be double rent payable by a tenant who doesn't quit at the end of their lease. The law is still on the statute books. It has never been repealed by parliament. The courts however "just don't award it" to landlords who have had their property effectively squated in. If this isn't a case of the courts making their own laws then I don't know what is. In a codified legal system the courts would have choice but to enforce the law of the land.

Judges have too much discretion. We don't elect them. They cannot (practically) be removed. Judges should simply be there to check if parliament says x is legal or not. Their role should not extend beyond that (except to ask for judicial review if they feel a law is unconstitutional).

These are my personal sentiments having forked out rather a lot of money to the legal profession in Ireland and having not had any degree of satisfaction with it. I genuinely believe the law does not serve the ordinary person very well.

SkepticOne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Therefore their plan is to GET the IMF in, getting THEM to suggest cuts, so that FF - as they have done with their Lehmans & "nobody warned us" and "it's commentators/Angela Merkel's fault" - can wash their hands of the cuts and say that it was out of their hands.

They will no doubt say their being forced by the IMF to make cuts should the time come that the IMF are called in, however I think it is a mistake to assume there's some "plan" behind all this in the first place. Most of the governments activities can be seen in terms of putting off the inevitable for as long as possible and avoiding all difficult decisions until forced by events while protecting the status quo as much as they can.