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

Irish Water must stay on State balance sheet—Eurostat

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Fighting an election in the wake of the 100 year anniversary of the rising would not be helpful to FG imo

    Nor indeed legal.

    Latest date an election can be held is the 02nd April - Anniversary of 1916 rising is 23rd April.


  • Options
    #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Barely There wrote: »
    Nor indeed legal.

    Latest date an election can be held is the 02nd April - Anniversary of 1916 rising is 23rd April.
    Can't the Government run for an extra two years, should they wish?

    Maximum term is seven years AFAIK.

    Our Benevolent Leaders voluntarily limit Their reign to five years.


  • Options
    #64
    Barely There
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Barely There


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Can't the Government run for an extra two years, should they wish?


    Not according to the 1992 Electoral Act.


  • Options
    #65
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    Can't the Government run for an extra two years, should they wish?

    Maximum term is seven years AFAIK.

    Our Benevolent Leaders voluntarily limit Their reign to five years.
    No, I think you're confusing the Constitutional maximum of 7 years with the legislative maximum of 5 years.

    So the Constitution says it must be a maximum of 7 years, but that doesn't prohibit legislation (in this case s10 of the Electoral Act 1963 as amended) from setting a lower amount:
    10.—The same Dáil shall not continue for a longer period than five years from the date of its first meeting.


  • Options
    #66
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Irish people refusing to pay for their own water have effectively damaged their own country now. Government should respond by pulling back on any expansion in the budget which they may have to.

    You can see how irresponsible such figures would be if anywhere near government. Free for alls and magic money trees don't exist.

    I used to take you seriously before I read the above.
    Do you think that if they follow the above path and do as you suggest and tell the people why they are doing it, they will be re-elected?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    No, I think you're confusing the Constitutional maximum of 7 years with the legislative maximum of 5 years.

    So the Constitution says it must be a maximum of 7 years, but that doesn't prohibit legislation (in this case s10 of the Electoral Act 1963 as amended) from setting a lower amount:

    It's effectively a sniff over 5 years - a Dail must dissolve within five years of its first meeting and a poll must held, between the 17th day and 25th day, following the day on which the writs for the election are issued.

    The writs for the election are issued by the Clerk of the Dáil on the day the Dáil is dissolved.

    So if the Dail was to run full term, it must be dissolve no later than Tuesday 9 March 2016, meaning the next general election must take place no later than Saturday 2 April 2016.

    Personally, I reckon they'll go for it in early October - nice giveaway budget then we're all off to the elections!


  • Options
    #68
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Irish people refusing to pay for their own water have effectively damaged their own country now. Government should respond by pulling back on any expansion in the budget which they may have to.

    I agree with your first point but rather than pulling back on expansion in the budget IW should be privatised. That might even see a net contribution to the state coffers which would ideally be used to fund a one or two of the postponed infrastructure projects.


  • Options
    #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    No, I think you're confusing the Constitutional maximum of 7 years with the legislative maximum of 5 years.
    If only someone could change statutory law...

    Who could do that?


  • Options
    #70
    NorthStars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,120 ✭✭✭NorthStars


    the dark phantom wrote: »
    I always knew they would mess it up, Paying for water infrastructure is one thing but paying for another messy money wasting quango just isn't on, Therefore I never signed up.

    I never even got as much as a letter from them anyway.

    We've had 2 bills now, both in my wife's maiden name.:confused:
    Both bills went in the bin, as will any further correspondence from IW.


  • Options
    #71
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,219 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Barely There wrote: »
    Nor indeed legal.

    Latest date an election can be held is the 02nd April - Anniversary of 1916 rising is 23rd April.

    Cheers. I don't believe FG have any interest fighting this coming election so close to an evocative nationalist / equality anniversary.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,219 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    If only someone could change statutory law...

    Who could do that?

    I don't think they'd ever consider that tbf. It would be political suicide surely!


  • Options
    #73
    NorthStars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,120 ✭✭✭NorthStars


    I read in the Irish Times that IW has to stay on the state's balance sheet until at least 2020.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-water-must-stay-on-state-balance-sheet-eu-says-1.2299128

    I predict that it will be on the state's books forevermore, the charges will be dropped and it will be funded from central taxation. (a central water authority being a good idea in my opinion)
    What a waste of time, money and goodwill it will all have been though.


  • Options
    #74
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    NorthStars wrote: »
    I read in the Irish Times that IW has to stay on the state's balance sheet until at least 2020.

    Sell it off now. Straight off the balance sheet, problem solved.


  • Options
    #75
    Uncle Ben
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,843 ✭✭✭Uncle Ben


    Graham wrote: »
    Sell it off now. Straight off the balance sheet, problem solved.
    You could sell it at a loss, like eh, Siteserv....


  • Options
    #76
    Uncle Ben
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,843 ✭✭✭Uncle Ben


    Dail being recalled. I guess it does matter so.


  • Options
    #77
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Uncle Ben wrote: »
    You could sell it at a loss, like eh, Siteserv....

    Looking at the future capital requirements of IW and the positive effect of a disposal on the State balance sheet you could probably give it away and we'd still be better off.


  • Options
    #78
    nice_guy80
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,723 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    Uncle Ben wrote: »
    Dail being recalled. I guess it does matter so.

    where did you see that?


  • Options
    #79
    Uncle Ben
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,843 ✭✭✭Uncle Ben


    nice_guy80 wrote: »
    where did you see that?

    Gavin Reilly twitter. Cannot post links sorry.


  • Options
    #80
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    But they weren't

    €175 for anyone from minimum wage to 25k
    €400 for anyone on the average wage.
    €540 for anyone on €50k

    The January tax cuts will cost between €400m - €600m..... quite a lot.

    A repeat would be reckless & garner no votes.

    Whereas, cancelling the water charge wouldn't cost any more, but lock down reelection.

    We have very different views on what a lot is. If they were monthly reductions then fair enough but over a year....nothing imo.


  • Options
    #81
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    NorthStars wrote: »
    You'd sell the whole water infrastructure in Ireland to private business?

    Yes, especially when the clueless alternative appears to be turn back the clock a few years, give the water away and pretend like there's no requirement for a massive investment to secure the Nations water supply.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭kidneyfan


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Irish people refusing to pay for their own water have effectively damaged their own country now. Government should respond by pulling back on any expansion in the budget which they may have to.

    Yes that is precisely what the government should do. They should do this not out of pique but because it is prudent.


  • Options
    #83
    Niemoj
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭Niemoj


    In 1997 motor tax/VRT and VAT were increased by I believe 2 and 5 per cent respectively to cover water charges.

    Why pay for something twice?

    Don't pay, they can't do anything anyway, they'll soon be gone. Yet another farce/waste of money by our government.


  • Options
    #84
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭kidneyfan


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Either IW is retained in state ownership and becomes another bloated, inefficient state service or it's placed at arms length and made stand on it's own two feet.
    or it's privatised with profit guarantees.
    Or it becomes an efficient and effective state service.
    Or it becomes a public private partnership.
    Or it is run on a cooperative basis.
    Or it is privatised on a fee for service basis.

    etc.
    etc.


  • Options
    #85
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Niemoj wrote: »
    In 1997 motor tax/VRT and VAT were increased by I believe 2 and 5 per cent respectively to cover water charges.

    Why pay for something twice?

    Don't pay, they can't do anything anyway, they'll soon be gone. Yet another farce/waste of money by our government.

    Oh that old chestnut again.

    That money has long been diverted somewhere else, as is often the case with a nations revenue. Indirectly back to the population. If that hadn't been the case we'd have a properly functioning/maintained water supply that didn't require colossal investment.


  • Options
    #86
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,694 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Please bear in mind that a higher standard of discussion is required here than in the Café. There are a fair few posts which fall below this standard.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #87
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »
    If only someone could change statutory law...

    Who could do that?
    You have quite the optimistic view of our legislative system and its efficiency.


  • Options
    #88
    NorthStars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,120 ✭✭✭NorthStars


    Can anyone clarify this for me?
    If IW now remains on the government balance sheet and there is a massive boycott of the bills (say around 50% pay up if they're lucky), will the massive loans, plus interest (said to be around 4.5% while the NTMA can borrow at way lower rates) taken out by IW already have to be paid back through general taxation?
    Will the massive subvention from our LGF continue unabated?

    IW seems doomed to failure from this moment on as it cannot survive on it's own.


  • Options
    #89
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Niemoj wrote: »
    In 1997 motor tax/VRT and VAT were increased by I believe 2 and 5 per cent respectively to cover water charges.

    Why pay for something twice?

    Don't pay, they can't do anything anyway, they'll soon be gone. Yet another farce/waste of money by our government.
    I'm guessing you don't know that 5% of motor tax is not €1.2bn?


  • Options
    #90
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Niemoj wrote: »
    That's a definite misuse of funds then.
    Tell it to FF then
    Public expenditure exploded since then.
    Nothing is ringfenced.
    Ireland%20and%20EU%20Annual%20Spend%20Proportion_thumb%5B2%5D.png?imgmax=800

    ireland-government-spending.png?s=irelandgovspe&d1=19970101&d2=20151231


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Niemoj
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭Niemoj


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I'm guessing you don't know that 5% of motor tax is not €1.2bn?

    This article might be of interest to you, funds from motor tax is definitely NOT what should be used to privatise our water!

    http://www.thejournal.ie/how-much-will-it-cost-to-set-up-irish-water-1921250-Feb2015/


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement