Relaxation of Restrictions, Part V - Read OP for Mod Warnings

Quantum Erasure · 01-10-2020 10:32PM

Gael23 wrote: »

Do they have a valid case?

Not at all

Captain_Crash · 01-10-2020 10:34PM

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Not at all

Without knowing any potential case details your in no position to answer

Assetbacked · 01-10-2020 10:35PM

Gael23 wrote: »

Do they have a valid case?

They have legal advice to the effect they do. I think where FBD and other insurers are in trouble are where the respective policies are vague; they won't do well in court trying to argue that policies don't specifically reference a pandemic as a reason to pay out, therefore they don't have to pay. I understand it won't be a blanket "pay the pubs" judgment as the specific wording of each policy is what is relevant. The Central Bank is on the side of the pubs anyway. I'd say they will be successful against FBD.

weldoninhio · 01-10-2020 10:35PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

The Supreme Court adjudged on something similar in 2011 using the proportionality test derived from existing. Without going into nuances of the case/judgement itself (because I can’t for the life of me remember the details) they ruled that government actions in relation to a national emergancy et al must be proportionate!

Surely any legal challenge would use this test! This isn’t the place to debate if the actions are or are not proportionate, but there is atleast precedent in the Irish legal system!

The Irish govt never declared a national emergency. That’s why they couldn’t stop EU flights at the height of the pandemic.

hynesie08 · 01-10-2020 10:35PM

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Not at all

That's for the judge to decide

Captain_Crash · 01-10-2020 10:39PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

The Irish govt never declared a national emergency. That’s why they couldn’t stop EU flights at the height of the pandemic.

This is actually true! I was very surprised to learn that. I have no idea why they didn’t considering the dialogue coming from them at the pressers

growleaves · 01-10-2020 10:44PM

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Is what the judge would say, if it ever got that far

We don't even know what constitutional arguments this group's solicitors intend to make.

So a bit difficult to say what the judge will say.

Tenzor07 · 01-10-2020 10:46PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

This is actually true! I was very surprised to learn that. I have no idea why they didn’t considering the dialogue coming from them at the pressers

Because it's unconstitutional? Can't just suspend the constitution whenever they like...
Besides, the Health Act 2020 gives the Govt. vast powers as it stands.. Part of it is due to Sunset next month... But unsurprisingly the Irish Govt. have a very poor record of abiding by time limits on provisions made to these Acts.

Penfailed · 01-10-2020 10:46PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

Checkpoints have a purpose. They can’t just stop someone or pull someone over without a reason. I know exactly what I’m talking about.

Yeah, I was stopped at a checkpoint.

3xh · 01-10-2020 10:48PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

This is actually true! I was very surprised to learn that. I have no idea why they didn’t considering the dialogue coming from them at the pressers

It’d be political suicide. Closing down all flights but Michael and co can fly to Brussels, EU business or not. It wouldn’t look good.

Ireland is, without stating the obvious, different to many other EU/EEA countries in that those others have road and rail options. We’ve a couple of slow moving ships to U.K. and NW France. There’d be war, people feeling they can’t leave the island and vice Versa.

Plus, there’s the fact so much of our goods are air freighted in. And exports air freighted out. They largely go on passenger flights anyway. Not dedicated cargo flights.

And if the ROI government did still go ahead with the idea, they’d then need to create a border with NI again to stop people flying out of Belfast. Good luck with that.

It was definitely the correct decision.

weldoninhio · 01-10-2020 10:48PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

This is actually true! I was very surprised to learn that. I have no idea why they didn’t considering the dialogue coming from them at the pressers

Couldn’t import cheap labour for Coveneys pals, the Keelings if they had.

weldoninhio · 01-10-2020 10:50PM

3xh wrote: »

It’d be political suicide. Closing down all flights but Michael and co can fly to Brussels, EU business or not. It wouldn’t look good.

Ireland is, without stating the obvious, different to many other EU/EEA countries in that those others have road and rail options. We’ve a couple of slow moving ships to U.K. and NW France. There’d be war, people feeling they can’t leave the island and vice Versa.

Plus, there’s the fact so much of our goods are air freighted in. And exports air freighted out. They largely go on passenger flights anyway. Not dedicated cargo flights.

And if the ROI government did still go ahead with the idea, they’d then need to create a border with NI again to stop people flying out of Belfast. Good luck with that.

It was definitely the correct decision.

It may have been, but it also means the govt can’t use “national emergency” as part of their argument to keep pubs closed.

Captain_Crash · 01-10-2020 10:51PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It may have been, but it also means the govt can’t use “national emergency” as part of their argument to keep pubs closed.

Unless they declare one now

3xh · 01-10-2020 10:54PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It may have been, but it also means the govt can’t use “national emergency” as part of their argument to keep pubs closed.

True. I actually think that pub group would have a good case. Their argument appears similar to Ryanair’s; The government’s language says one thing but means something else.

I actually don’t see what is legally shutting food businesses. It appears the ‘guidelines’ are just an implied threat.

Tenzor07 · 01-10-2020 10:54PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

It may have been, but it also means the govt can’t use “national emergency” as part of their argument to keep pubs closed.

They'll get away with it, especially if Supreme Court Justice "Golfgate" Woulfe is is the Judge that day... They will say they are keeping pubs/restaurants closed due to ‘a permissible constitutional response to an exceptional situation’.

Tenzor07 · 01-10-2020 10:55PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Unless they declare one now

They can't!!

They will instead just bend the constitution..

Captain_Crash · 01-10-2020 10:56PM

3xh wrote: »

I actually don’t see what is legally shutting food businesses. It appears the ‘guidelines’ are just an implied threat.

I think it’s the threat of not having licenses renewed! But the guards objected to Berlin D2 getting it’s licence renewed, but they got it anyway! It’s a theatre licence tho so don’t know if it makes a difference

Captain_Crash · 01-10-2020 10:58PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

They can't!!

They will instead just bend the constitution..

There isn’t anything stopping them! The problem they have is they’ll no doubt be asked why now and not in March, it’ll be clear there is an ulterior motive to declare one now so it may fall flat on its face.... this is all in theory by the way!

CalamariFritti · 01-10-2020 10:58PM

Grant Billions Bifocals wrote: »

Good luck to them, their case will go in the bin. You would have to laugh at the arrogance of them thinking they can take on the state who are taking very necessary steps in the middle of a pandemic.

I wonder how much of the virus they would spread across that many venues?

I wouldnt be so sure about that. Pandemic this pandemic that the problem is that the government has no transparent measurements as to when we go from one level to another. Or what numbers and criteria individual measures are based on at all.
Sometimes it seems they're just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. If you saw your business go under due to one of those trial and error numbers you wouldnt be too happy yourself.

Tenzor07 · 01-10-2020 11:02PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

There isn’t anything stopping them! The problem they have is they’ll no doubt be asked why now and not in March, it’ll be clear there is an ulterior motive to declare one now so it may fall flat on its face.... this is all in theory by the way!

Enacted in 1937, Ireland’s principal constitutional emergency provisions are outlined in Article 28.3.3°; however, a state of emergency can only be declared by the Oireachtas (Ireland’s bicameral legislature consisting of the Dáil—lower house—and Seanad—upper house) ‘in time of war or armed rebellion’.

Captain_Crash · 01-10-2020 11:06PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Enacted in 1937, Ireland’s principal constitutional emergency provisions are outlined in Article 28.3.3°; however, a state of emergency can only be declared by the Oireachtas (Ireland’s bicameral legislature consisting of the Dáil—lower house—and Seanad—upper house) ‘in time of war or armed rebellion’.

Yesss that’s the one... the case law in the 2011 judgement I mentioned, which affirmed the 1937 case that an emergency was basically war! Hence none was declared this time!

Tenzor07 · 01-10-2020 11:08PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Yesss that’s the one... the case law in the 2011 judgement I mentioned, which affirmed the 1937 case that an emergency was basically war! Hence none was declared this time!

Yeap, bending the Constitution... Viktor Orban has taken this to the next level.. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" (to gain and hold onto more power)

01-10-2020 11:13PM

late to the party lads, Belgian beer in hand. what's the craic?? I heard my neighbor saying the off licenses are being closed, elobarate in 100 words or less ???

dubdaymo · 01-10-2020 11:14PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It seems one Dublin restaurant group has had enough anyway

About time. Let's see now how well the Government's/NPHET's "evidence" holds up.

I loved this line:

The group also claims Mr Donnelly has “unlawfully delegated or otherwise abdicated responsibility to third parties in particular members of the National Public Health Emergency Team”.

which is what has actually happened.

hynesie08 · 01-10-2020 11:14PM

rusty cole wrote: »

late to the party lads, Belgian beer in hand. what's the craic?? I heard my neighbor saying the off licenses are being closed, elobarate in 100 words or less ???

No.

Witcher · 01-10-2020 11:19PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

Tell them to F off.

Please do that, handiest charge a guard will ever get.

01-10-2020 11:20PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

No.

Can I have a vowel?? consonant?? compliment? date? children? life?
agenda? education? opinion?:D

aw come on hynesie??

hynesie08 · 01-10-2020 11:25PM

rusty cole wrote: »

Can I have a vowel?? consonant?? compliment? date? children? life?
agenda? education? opinion?:D

aw come on hynesie??

I just answered your off license question.....

Witcher · 01-10-2020 11:27PM

weldoninhio wrote: »

Checkpoints have a purpose. They can’t just stop someone or pull someone over without a reason. I know exactly what I’m talking about.

Yes they can.

This isn't America where you have to have a brake light out to be stopped.

Any vehicle can be stopped in a public place, no reason needed.

there's always someone with the oul myth 'they have to have a reason to stop you'. LOL

Section 109, RTA 1961.

A person driving a vehicle in a public place shall stop the vehicle on being so required by a member of the Garda Síochána.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

01-10-2020 11:31PM

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I think it’s the threat of not having licenses renewed! But the guards objected to Berlin D2 getting it’s licence renewed, but they got it anyway! It’s a theatre licence tho so don’t know if it makes a difference

I agree with you and what happened to the golfgate hotel who flouted the law?? feck all??did jonnie law rock up protesting a hand in the air?? like **** did he. They choose their battles wisely does an garda siochana

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part V - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

Comments

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part V - Read OP for Mod Warnings