nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Zzippy

All things non-rugby related here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bazzo

There's a lot to thank the EU for actually. Things like employment and discrimation laws and healthcare and pharmaceutical regulation have all taken huge strides forward under the EU's mandate. The list of EU legislation that has had a positive impact on member states is fairly extensive.

Erik Shin

Bazzo wrote: »

There's a lot to thank the EU for actually. Things like employment and discrimation laws and healthcare and pharmaceutical regulation have all taken huge strides forward under the EU's mandate. The list of EU legislation that has had a positive impact on member states is fairly extensive.

And water charges

[Deleted User]

Erik Shin wrote: »

And water charges

Which fundamentally are a good thing. That FG has terrible PR and went about it the wrong way doesn't suddenly mean that water conservation becomes a bad thing.

irishbucsfan

The EU is a long long way from being perfect but its a force for good. Unfortunately I don't have much hope in the kinks being ironed out, the people trying to drive change within the system seem to get very very little traction. Don't think anyone reported on the march in Rome recently for example.

Synode

mfceiling wrote: »

The curved bananas harks back years ago...Remember seeing The Sun (rag) running a front page story about it at the time.

I can understand the frustration of the leave crowd. Brussels always seems to be meddling with something and not a lot of people trust them to make things better for "their" country.

It hasn't been sold as a brilliant thing (the EU) and take away the free movement for travel and a common currency and there doesn't seem to be much for people to cheer for.

There's a ring of Monty Python off the last paragraph.

Besides free movement of travel, a common currency, paying for roads, bridges and various other infrastructure projects, creating a single market that facilitates free trade among members, creating regulations in industries that need it...... What have the EU ever done for us!

Erik Shin

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Which fundamentally are a good thing. That FG has terrible PR and went about it the wrong way doesn't suddenly mean that water conservation becomes a bad thing.

Water conservation is a great thing.... But perhaps we should address the 40% approx of wastage and not penalise homeowners and businesses

CatFromHue

the reason for water charges has little to do with conservation. the reason people think this shows just how bad they were brought in.

Stheno

:eek: am I in the rugby forum ? :pac:

mfceiling

Synode wrote: »

There's a ring of Monty Python off the last paragraph.

Besides free movement of travel, a common currency, paying for roads, bridges and various other infrastructure projects, creating a single market that facilitates free trade among members, creating regulations in industries that need it...... What have the EU ever done for us!

For Ireland yes...for Britain? We've got grants from Europe for practically everything here and have definitely got way more out than we've put in. However there has been a savage abuse of grants from Europe. Farmers getting grants for sheds they never needed, lanes they never needed or used and subsidies to beat the band.
I think Britain have the view (rightly or wrongly) that they have contributed more to the EU than they've got back and that the EU has a bigger say in running their own country than they have.

Zzippy

Stheno wrote: »

:eek: am I in the rugby forum ? :pac:

Fancy modding the [politics cafe/rugby off topic] thread?

Zzippy

mfceiling wrote: »

For Ireland yes...for Britain? We've got grants from Europe for practically everything here and have definitely got way more out than we've put in. However there has been a savage abuse of grants from Europe. Farmers getting grants for sheds they never needed, lanes they never needed or used and subsidies to beat the band.
I think Britain have the view (rightly or wrongly) that they have contributed more to the EU than they've got back and that the EU has a bigger say in running their own country than they have.

Some parts of Britain have benefited hugely from EU grants. I think there was some silly stat after the referendum where some town in Wales that had received more EU funding than anywhere else in Britain voted overwhelmingly to leave. Nearly as ludicrous as the ex-pat Brits living in Spain voting en masse to leave...

Stheno

Zzippy wrote: »

Fancy modding the [politics cafe/rugby off topic] thread?

Fancy swopping? I'll mod here, and you can take over in the cafe? :pac:

If you saw yes and the admins agree I'll buy you tickets to the pro12 final

Zzippy

Stheno wrote: »

Fancy swopping? I'll mod here, and you can take over in the cafe? :pac:

If you saw yes and the admins agree I'll buy you tickets to the pro12 final

Ha. Only if they come with dinner, champagne and an overnight stay in the Shelbourne! You can keep the cafe!

Stheno

Zzippy wrote: »

Ha. Only if they come with dinner, champagne and an overnight stay in the Shelbourne!

No chance!

[Deleted User]

CatFromHue wrote: »

the reason for water charges has little to do with conservation. the reason people think this shows just how bad they were brought in.

The general concept behind water charges from a policy perspective is to promote people not to waste. Infrastructure waste is also a problem but that was also part of Irish Waters remit.

The first major problem for me with Irish Water was the "fixed fee" implementation because this sent a message that conservation was no longer the rationale and that is when a lot of people that agreed in principle found themselves siding with the marchers.

Personally I think in the same way that people turn off lights to save the electricity bill, there should be some kind of motivation to not waste water.

dregin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA

Erik Shin

https://www.joe.ie/amp/news/waterford-council-votes-ban-opposing-gaa-jerseys-citys-streets-583209

I think this is possibly the dumbest bylaw in the country ..I mean no Kilkenny jerseys allowed...But i could see there being a huge increase in Hull city footie jerseys being sold in June

pickarooney

Do we have to guess the website?

Erik Shin

pickarooney wrote: »

Do we have to guess the website?

I'm 41 hours without sleep....And crankier than normal

Tried to fix it there

CatFromHue

Deleted User wrote: »

The general concept behind water charges from a policy perspective is to promote people not to waste. Infrastructure waste is also a problem but that was also part of Irish Waters remit.

The first major problem for me with Irish Water was the "fixed fee" implementation because this sent a message that conservation was no longer the rationale and that is when a lot of people that agreed in principle found themselves siding with the marchers.

Personally I think in the same way that people turn off lights to save the electricity bill, there should be some kind of motivation to not waste water.

The real reason they were to brought in was that the way we collect money for public services is shite and our water and waste water network is struggling.

While it's convenient to blame all our woes on the banks there's a good bit of woe that's to do with our massive budget deficits after the construction boom collapsed. That's why when you hear people talk about a narrow tax base it means our govt income is based largely on fluctuating things and doesn't have a constant, or roughly constant, income that a property tax or water charge would bring. There is a good reason why other countries have these things.

but fuck it water's free and the rich should pay for everything, wahey we're all going to heaven lads

Bazzo

I don't actually own property or even live in Ireland any more but unless I'm mistaken there is now a property tax in place?

Teferi

CatFromHue wrote: »

but fuck it water's free and the rich should pay for everything, wahey we're all going to heaven lads

+1. This was the most annoying thing about the water protests for me.

Zzippy

Teferi wrote: »

+1. This was the most annoying thing about the water protests for me.

The most annoying thing for me was that of all the non-issues from the austerity years to throw the toys out of the pram over, this was probably the smallest and least important. The government/EU/troika got away with stiffing us for €70bn or whatever in long-term debt to repay bondholders, increasing tax by 6/7% or whatever the USC is, slashing public services to the most vulnerable in society, ad infinitum, and the only issue the opposition can get any traction on is water charges of what, €160 a year or something like that?

irishbucsfan

Zzippy wrote: »

The most annoying thing for me was that of all the non-issues from the austerity years to throw the toys out of the pram over, this was probably the smallest and least important. The government/EU/troika got away with stiffing us for €70bn or whatever in long-term debt to repay bondholders, increasing tax by 6/7% or whatever the USC is, slashing public services to the most vulnerable in society, ad infinitum, and the only issue the opposition can get any traction on is water charges of what, €160 a year or something like that?

+1

Basically we were landed with bad economics based on a paper that was debunked by a masters student (see excelgate) and we never had so much as the slightest hint of an apology, even worse, people still think its true. Unfortunately the biggest problem with the EU/ECB is that its run by the type of people who will make the exact same mistake the next time.

Erik Shin

I'm afraid some of you miss the major factors with water charges... Firstly 40% of the countries water supply is wasted at source....The people should not be paying for that fiasco.
And secondly...I'm sure quite a few of you have never had to pay commercial rates in Tralee....We were on a par per sq foot with Grafton Street at one stage...It's not as bad now...But we are still top 5 in the country....Small and medium business owners were never going to pay another charge, it was that simple... Nevermind the general public

molloyjh

If "the people" don't pay to fix the water infrastructure then who does? Is there another source of income that the Government can turn to for this?

In essence this is the most frustrating thing about the water charge protests. People want the service without having to pay for it. Whoever thought up the "From the river to the sea, Irish water will be free" slogan must have thought themselves very clever. Sadly they're quite the opposite. It is impossible to provide water for free. Impossible. There are costs associated with it and they need to be covered. And water charges were an eminently sensible idea from a financial and environmental point of view. Sadly it was implemented in an incredibly poor way. But instead of protesting about the manner in which it was set up and the charges defined people just got behind stupid slogans and an "I'm not paying for what you give me" attitude.

Also, the water infrastructure is the way it is because water was being paid for from the general tax take. The push to invest money in the water infrastructure wasn't there when there were other things it could be spent on. And when the tax take goes down, as it does in economic troughs/recessions, the level of investment in water goes down with it. Having income specifically designated to water means it has to go towards all things water and having standard rates means a steady level of investment in water. After all variable income that you have no control over makes investment hard. Steady income that you can control makes investment easy.

sydthebeat

I don't have a strong feeling either way, but it bugs me that the pro water charge group always present it that "they want the water for free" when in fact water has never been free in this country. We have always paid for it out of general taxation. The main gripe from the anti charges group was that this was effectively double taxation, and even triple taxation when it was revealed that part of the motor tax was set aside to create Irish water.
The obvious thing to do was to say ok, we currently spend 500million on average a year on water provision and treatment, therefore we are going to direct that figure per year into a metering project, and then charge people on a basic rate of use commensurate to the figure they currently pay per year ie 500million. That would have been a much easier sell from the conservation point of view than the sham they pushed which was so clearly a revenue generating exercise to widen the tax base. They wanted their cake and eat it too, the set up of Irish water was a complete political disaster and embarrassment, and the people had enough and said no.

thomond2006

I'm not a fan of Ian O'Doherty but he made a good point in an article this week that the TV licence is by far a more egregious 'tax' than water charges. I watch so little television that the €160 I hand over feels like such a waste. It doesn't help of course that general taxation is high in Ireland.

Bazzo

thomond2006 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Ian O'Doherty but he made a good point in an article this week that the TV licence is by far a more egregious 'tax' than water charges. I watch so little television that the €160 I hand over feels like such a waste. It doesn't help of course that general taxation is high in Ireland.

I remember reading an article a while back about this. Taxation in Ireland isn't especially high in comparison to the rest of Europe, the difference is that services are pretty poor for what you pay. A sort of worst of both worlds scenario.

Podge_irl

sydthebeat wrote: »

I don't have a strong feeling either way, but it bugs me that the pro water charge group always present it that "they want the water for free" when in fact water has never been free in this country. We have always paid for it out of general taxation. The main gripe from the anti charges group was that this was effectively double taxation, and even triple taxation when it was revealed that part of the motor tax was set aside to create Irish water.
The obvious thing to do was to say ok, we currently spend 500million on average a year on water provision and treatment, therefore we are going to direct that figure per year into a metering project, and then charge people on a basic rate of use commensurate to the figure they currently pay per year ie 500million. That would have been a much easier sell from the conservation point of view than the sham they pushed which was so clearly a revenue generating exercise to widen the tax base. They wanted their cake and eat it too, the set up of Irish water was a complete political disaster and embarrassment, and the people had enough and said no.

Which is an incredibly stupid way of paying for it. One way or another, investment in water infrastructure was far, far too low because it was financed through general taxation and other spending was consistently prioritized over it. Whatever we were spending on water wasn't enough.

I don't really understand the issue with it being a revenue generating exercise to widen the tax base either to be honest. The tax base in Ireland does seem awfully narrow.

Agree the implementation was ham-fisted though. Though I do find it interesting how this is what finally caused people to crack.