Waterford Politics MEGATHREAD

7upfree

Suryavarman wrote: »

No it wasn't.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/motor-tax-cash-used-to-fund-irish-water-30968852.html

Sully

I think forever more a portion of general taxation will go towards Irish Water, as it has always done. I can't see us ever being able to match funding raised through the charge and outside sources being sufficient to address the headache.

robtri

Suryavarman wrote: »

No it wasn't.

i shown you the legal act which says it is....

but believe what you will

robtri

Sully wrote: »

I think forever more a portion of general taxation will go towards Irish Water, as it has always done. I can't see us ever being able to match funding raised through the charge and outside sources being sufficient to address the headache.

I agree this will be the way it is... sort of shows how badly the government has handled this fiasco.

Shame really as i am a fan of a single entity look after the water system as the local councils have made a right cock of it. But IW and government have also made a cock up of what could have been a great system

Suryavarman

7upfree wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/motor-tax-cash-used-to-fund-irish-water-30968852.html

Motor tax being used to fund water =/= being legally required to use motor tax to fund water.

I hope you noticed that only €399 million went towards Irish Water. This does not cover the €1.2 billion annual cost of providing water. I hope this means you won't be spouting that rubbish about already paying for water in future.

robtri wrote: »

i shown you the legal act which says it is....

but believe what you will

Except the act does not say that. I'm pretty sure if the act said that somebody in the Government such as the Attorney General would have spotted it and amended the act.

The anti-water charges crowd really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

7upfree

Suryavarman wrote: »

Motor tax being used to fund water =/= being legally required to use motor tax to fund water.

I hope you noticed that only €399 million went towards Irish Water. This does not cover the €1.2 billion annual cost of providing water. I hope this means you won't be spouting that rubbish about already paying for water in future.



Except the act does not say that. I'm pretty sure if the act said that somebody in the Government such as the Attorney General would have spotted it and amended the act.

The anti-water charges crowd really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You really have posted some nonsense. State of denial doesn't even begin to cover it.

7upfree

Sully wrote: »

I think forever more a portion of general taxation will go towards Irish Water, as it has always done. I can't see us ever being able to match funding raised through the charge and outside sources being sufficient to address the headache.

Some "portion". FG and Labour really excelled themselves on f*****g the country over with this lot.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-water-may-need-euro35bn-more-in-taxes-311039.html

7upfree

Suryavarman wrote: »

I'm pretty sure if the act said that somebody in the Government such as the Attorney General would have spotted it and amended the act.

:D:D:D:D

robtri

Suryavarman wrote: »

Motor tax being used to fund water =/= being legally required to use motor tax to fund water.

I hope you noticed that only €399 million went towards Irish Water. This does not cover the €1.2 billion annual cost of providing water. I hope this means you won't be spouting that rubbish about already paying for water in future.



Except the act does not say that. I'm pretty sure if the act said that somebody in the Government such as the Attorney General would have spotted it and amended the act.

The anti-water charges crowd really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

well its clear as day, if you cant read that.. well what more can i say...

it doesnt matter how much it is ....read the act again and again, till you understand... money is to be used from motor tax and excise duties to ensure the domestic water is safegaurded now and the future and no further charges will be levied....

Suryavarman

robtri wrote: »

well its clear as day, if you cant read that.. well what more can i say...

it doesnt matter how much it is ....read the act again and again, till you understand... money is to be used from motor tax and excise duties to ensure the domestic water is safegaurded now and the future and no further charges will be levied by local councils.

FTFY

S.O

I thought the politics Waterford politics thread would best place to post this.

There is a public meeting to take place in the tower hotel tomorrow night on the political issue regarding the upcoming referendum on same sex marriage at 20.00, details are on the poster.

Hijpo

Why dont we just ban marriage instead of making a big deal about creating new laws for it?

Max Powers

Go along to the above event especially if you like homophobic scarmongering from the Iona institute (the catholic churches' SS).
I have to admit, they are highly skilled at not saying what they really want to say but still managing to sound like normal, not discriminatory bible bashers

'profound implications'...give me a break, Iona had the same line/sentiment with civil partnership and it has hardly any implications for the country.

hardybuck

As often with these referendums, a huge portion of society won't really know what the referendum really means, and you have to be very careful who and what you listen to.

One thing I would be wary of is the extreme groups at either end of the yes and no sides. I think a lot of Irish people will fear voting no or speaking about doing so for fear of being labelled homophobic.

Other people will be appalled by the likes of Iona and vote yes so as not to be associated with their values.

I think this is a really interesting article from an openly gay man and why he'll be voting no in the marriage refendum.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/why-ill-be-voting-no-to-samesex-marriage-even-though-im-gay-30953906.html

S.O

Max Powers wrote: »

Go along to the above event especially if you like homophobic scarmongering from the Iona institute (the catholic churches' SS).
I have to admit, they are highly skilled at not saying what they really want to say but still managing to sound like normal, not discriminatory bible bashers

'profound implications'...give me a break, Iona had the same line/sentiment with civil partnership and it has hardly any implications for the country.

How is it homophobic when a gay man is speaking why he himself is against same sex marriage , unless he is homophobic against himself ?

fuzzy dunlop

S.O wrote: »

How is it homophobic when a gay man is speaking why he himself is against same sex marriage , unless he is homophobic against himself ?

I wonder will Elton John be there to speak for every gay man and woman who ever lived. He seems to be the Eamon de Valera of the gay community. He just has to look into their hearts and be able to speak for them all.

fuzzy dunlop

hardybuck wrote: »

As often with these referendums, a huge portion of society won't really know what the referendum really means, and you have to be very careful who and what you listen to.

One thing I would be wary of is the extreme groups at either end of the yes and no sides. I think a lot of Irish people will fear voting no or speaking about doing so for fear of being labelled homophobic.

Other people will be appalled by the likes of Iona and vote yes so as not to be associated with their values.

I think this is a really interesting article from an openly gay man and why he'll be voting no in the marriage refendum.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/why-ill-be-voting-no-to-samesex-marriage-even-though-im-gay-30953906.html

Good post. But unfortunately I can only see the reasoned debaters being shouted down by those with ultra-liberal and ultra conservative views.

S.O

hardybuck wrote: »

As often with these referendums, a huge portion of society won't really know what the referendum really means, and you have to be very careful who and what you listen to.

One thing I would be wary of is the extreme groups at either end of the yes and no sides. I think a lot of Irish people will fear voting no or speaking about doing so for fear of being labelled homophobic.

Other people will be appalled by the likes of Iona and vote yes so as not to be associated with their values.

I think this is a really interesting article from an openly gay man and why he'll be voting no in the marriage refendum.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/why-ill-be-voting-no-to-samesex-marriage-even-though-im-gay-30953906.html

I think with this referendum some people mightn,t openly state what way they really intend on voting, but will vote what they real views are in the privacy of the polling booth, Ronan Mullins spoke recently expressed a similar point of view that a lot of tds won,t openly admit if they plan to vote no- but will privately vote no on referendum day .

hardybuck

I totally agree that people will keep their views private on this one, but the problem is that I feel that many key influencers, particularly political leaders, will be afraid of communicating their real views on the subject.

I think that it'll be a lot closer than the polls will currently suggest.

I would consider myself as fairly engaged politically. However, I've tried to get my head around the issues and haven't been madly impressed with the info available.

From the Yes side all I can see is that we need to get this because through because until we do we're not all equal in the eyes of the constitution. In a nutshell. However, given that we're supposed to be promoting and celebrating diversity, why are we all supposed to be the same?

Status Offline

He's obviously lying through his teeth.Any one who's even slightly touched a book on body language can see that. Probably trying to make people think that they'll be in the minority if they vote for gay marriage. I never understand how a bunch of people can make excuses for a bunch of pedophiles and sex offenders, but yet when people in love want to express that love in a pure manner, they're shouted down for it and told it's unlawful.
Can't wait to see this get voted through and then finally maybe it'll start hitting home with all the holy Joe's that this country isn't theirs any more and their bull****e primitive laws have no place in modern Ireland.

hardybuck

Status Offline wrote: »

He's obviously lying through his teeth.Any one who's even slightly touched a book on body language can see that. Probably trying to make people think that they'll be in the minority if they vote for gay marriage. I never understand how a bunch of people can make excuses for a bunch of pedophiles and sex offenders, but yet when people in love want to express that love in a pure manner, they're shouted down for it and told it's unlawful.
Can't wait to see this get voted through and then finally maybe it'll start hitting home with all the holy Joe's that this country isn't theirs any more and their bull****e primitive laws have no place in modern Ireland.

I'm not trying to take you on or anything here, but what would the marriage offer that would be different to the Civil Partnership in terms of expressing love in a pure manner? Apparently the Civil Partnerships have been very well recieved and are working very well.

S.O

I will be blunt and honest I intend on voting no next month, not because I want to use my vote to protest against the government or anything like that, but because for the following two reasons.

( 1 ) I am against redefining marriage, I view marriage as between a man and a woman/husband and wife, if marriage gets redefined to include same sex couples, its a slippery slope , what if in the future say someone wanted to redefine marriage where people could marry their cousins/relations; or for a man to have multiple wives as in some societies in the world.

( 2 ) The debate so far is mainly presented as equality for adults to get married, but what about equality for children to have both a mother and a father ? same sex marriage is not just about two adults, it also includes adoption rights for same sex couples, which need to think about the rights of children to also to be taken into consideration , if a child has to miss out on a mother figure or a father figure growing up because of same sex adoptions I can,t in anyway vote yes to this referendum.

Recently two different people have openly talked about their experience about being raised by same sex parents, the first is Heather Barwick here is just some of what she had to say in an open letter.

Growing up, and even into my 20s, I supported and advocated for gay marriage. It’s only with some time and distance from my childhood that I’m able to reflect on my experiences and recognize the long-term consequences that same-sex parenting had on me. And it’s only now, as I watch my children loving and being loved by their father each day, that I can see the beauty and wisdom in traditional marriage and parenting.


Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a
child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same.
But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence
created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s
partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

The other is a 21 yr old woman ( Amy ) spoke openly on radio in Australia recently about being her experience brought up and raised by same sex lesbian parents, to anyone who is voting yes in this upcoming referendum, I would have to ask what would you say to someone like Heather or Amy both after being raised by same sex parents are now against same sex parently/same sex marraige upon reaching adult age ?

fuzzy dunlop

Status Offline wrote: »

He's obviously lying through his teeth.Any one who's even slightly touched a book on body language can see that. Probably trying to make people think that they'll be in the minority if they vote for gay marriage. I never understand how a bunch of people can make excuses for a bunch of pedophiles and sex offenders, but yet when people in love want to express that love in a pure manner, they're shouted down for it and told it's unlawful.
Can't wait to see this get voted through and then finally maybe it'll start hitting home with all the holy Joe's that this country isn't theirs any more and their bull****e primitive laws have no place in modern Ireland.

I doubt Dolce and Gabanna are "holy joes" to be honest. There are plenty of people non affiliated with religeon opposed to it.

Status Offline

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

I doubt Dolce and Gabanna are "holy joes" to be honest. There are plenty of people non affiliated with religeon opposed to it.

I suppose so, just moaning in relation to the Iona stuff, with how they came out defending Priests who molested kids but yet they have a problem with same sex marriage.

@ Hardy, I'm not 100% on it as I've been out of the country for a bit , but I believe that the civil partnership thing doesn't cover inheritances and a few other legal things that are covered with a marriage contract.

S.O

Regarding the meeting in the tower hotel earlier, I attended as an individual to hear out some of the arguments, about 35 to 40 roughly attended, the first speaker Patrick Treacy was ok at first but went on far too long speaking, the other speaker Paddy Manning was a better speaker and more to the point, he said himself IM quoting him .

Im gay myself, and its not homophobic to vote no

What would yes campaigners say to someone whos openly gay and advocating a no vote ?

wellboytoo

I'm a heterosexual married man, non catholic I don't have a huge concern or otherwise on this subject ,I will probably vote yes, but if I was undecided,I would probably not vote rather than vote no, as I don't believe I have the right to stop some one getting married.
I see enough train crash marriages as it is and can't do anything about it!

Max Powers

S.O wrote: »

What would yes campaigners say to someone whos openly gay and advocating a no vote ?

probably brainwashed by iona and catholic church spouted by old men in skirts who still didnt fully give disclosure on the pedaphile rings within their church.

Im openly straight and im openly advocating a yes vote for equality for all people. Iona are great at not saying they are a bunch of homophobes and then painting pictures of people marrying their cousins or whatever other tripe they preach. Talking about marrying cousins is clear example of what Iona do, muddy the water so people dont know what they are voting for or scare tactics.
As for gay parents, time and time again studies have proven that the child being loved is the most important thing, 2 same sex parents has no bearing on whether child will become gay him/herself. Of course, Iona probably think that all gay people need is an intensive weekend course in how to be a good/servile catholic to cure them of their gay tendancies.
They are a dangerous group that would have us back in the land of no divorce and church influencing what we as a nation and our politicians do.

Vote yes if you want to see a progressive Ireland, non discriminatory and put another nail in the backward days where we used to take heed and fear what some old man in Rome and his disciples guidance on sex before marriage, hitting kids, condoms in africa, discrimination to women etc etc

PS,
SO, very blunt and honest of you to come out and say you are voting no, i think we all copped that when you posted your Iona rally poster

hardybuck

Max Powers wrote: »

As for gay parents, time and time again studies have proven that the child being loved is the most important thing, 2 same sex parents has no bearing on whether child will become gay him/herself.

I think it's fairly obvious that a child brought up in a stable home where they are loved and looked after than one where they are not.

I think the issue in relation to parenting is whether a married couple who are a husband and wife get preference when looking to adopt over a LGBT couple with two men or two women or transgender etc.

I think people should consider if they would have any preference on that matter. Consider if you have kids, nieces or nephews etc., if they needed to be adopted in the morning, what sort of home environment would you like to see them grow up.

Max Powers

hardybuck wrote: »

I think it's fairly obvious that a child brought up in a stable home where they are loved and looked after than one where they are not.

I think the issue in relation to parenting is whether a married couple who are a husband and wife get preference when looking to adopt over a LGBT couple with two men or two women or transgender etc.

I think people should consider if they would have any preference on that matter. Consider if you have kids, nieces or nephews etc., if they needed to be adopted in the morning, what sort of home environment would you like to see them grow up.

I think that post has a touch of backhanded insidious scaremongering too hardy buck, im not sure if you meant it that way but that is the way it reads. just a loving one would be my preference. I think Iona have brought adoption into the debate when im pretty sure its a toatally and unrelated separate issue with its own rules and this referendum would have no bearing on who gets adopted by whom.

hardybuck

Max Powers wrote: »

I think that post has a touch of backhanded insidious scaremongering too hardy buck, im not sure if you meant it that way but that is the way it reads. just a loving one would be my preference. I think Iona have brought adoption into the debate when im pretty sure its a toatally and unrelated separate issue with its own rules and this referendum would have no bearing on who gets adopted by whom.

I think scaremongering is a very strong term, but I think it's definitely an outcome which is possible, and one which people must consider.

I think adoption is a huge element of this referendum. The Child and Family Relationship Bill and the Marriage Referendum are being done at the same time. If both are passed they will make changes to the definition of 'marriage' and therefore changes to the definition of the 'family'. We could be in a legal debate about that for ages, but there are huge potential consequences to this. The 'family' is given significant protection in the Constitution.

For example, parents of children who were unmarried could be very exposed. A situation could occur where the biological father of a child enters a same sex marriage with another man. If they go to court looking for custody they may have enhanced rights over the biological mother of the child, who is unmarried. That's an extreme example, but it would be far more likely if the biological mother entered a lesbian same sex marriage with another woman.

Personally, I would question the need for change when the existing Civil Partnerships which are only very new are apparently working really well. As far as I'm aware they have offered equality on pretty much everything bar the right to adopt. We've made huge strides in the last number of years, I wouldn't mind letting things play out a little bit longer before examining if any further changes are warranted. We seem to be making changes to the Constitution very often of late, and that isn't always a good thing.