As Axel once said.
This is completely erroneous,as an elected TD,she represents her constituents.....
you really don't understand the subject material atal it seems
Let's try two simple questions for you: What is the biggest party in NI Assembly? Who is its president?
Regards...jmcc
Article 29 (4) of the Constitution:
"4 1° The executive power of the State in or in connection with its external relations shall in accordance with Article 28 of this Constitution be exercised by or on the authority of the Government."
Do I need to dig out the relevant articles of the Constitution to explain what the Government is, and how an opposition TD is not part of the government, and has no representation role for the State?
Except of course,yous claimed she deosnt represent anyone,which is entirely 100% untrue,as an elected representative she represents her constituency and constituent's
If you don't understand the subject matter,would you not simply avoid making broad brush statements,that fall asunder under basic scrutiny?
That is a representation role within the State.
She has no representation role outside the State.
Bit of a fair travel from this:
Still doesn't hold any position representing anyone.
In light of some basic facts,you must surely concede the above statement was entirely erroneous?
As I was clearly talking in the context of representation at an event abroad, it would be fairer to categorise the response to me as nitpicking.
Pointing out entirely erroneous posting,is not nitpicking
But sure needs facts and logic anyway🤷
Slán
No, my point still stands, if attending the Queen's funeral, or any other such commemorative event abroad, MLMD is representing nobody, she has no representative role. Nitpicking that to point out she has a representative role in the Dail for her constituents is just pure nitpicking.
Except it's not....I quoted an post,which in its entirety,stated she represents noone and nothing else?
Quite why you have lost the plot over this is beyond me.....personally I think the whole monarchy is an affront to democracy,which no civilised country should endulge the English in celebrating.....fair enough if she was the last,but they have pressed on with continuence of it,so let em at it imo
You are quoting the post out of context which was clearly as part of the discussion around attendance at the Queen's funeral.
I am not losing the plot over anything, I am a little irritated at what seems to be a low-level flaming attempt to quote me out of context, that is all. Cease and desist, as one might say.
I quoted the entirety of the post,how can you proclaim it out of context?
If you post erroneous posts,perhaps it would time to reconsider your posting style and improve methodology?
If she attends, one would assume it's in response to an invitation. If she's invited, why question on whether she has any representational role in being there? Do you think she should snub any such invitation?
It's plain to see you don't like Sinn Fein or McDonald, but on this, the potential attendance of the queen of Englands funeral, assumedly after an invitation to attend, you are giving out for no other reason than your dislike.
I must admit, I'm shocked at you, I would have thought you'd be a real advocate for the female leader of the largest, most popular political party on the island, to attend the funeral of another female head of state, who was highly influential and admired by millions.
Accusations of trolling are a banable offence....you cannot accuse someone of misrepresenting your post or taking out of context,if they quote the entirety of your post
It's baffling you think people will fall for this
no reason for annyone of them to be there.
SF are an irish party, she was not our queen and he is not our king.
Posts are made in the context of discussions and should be considered so.
We finally have some indication of where SF’s thinking is on where free money should end. €70k income seems to be the threshold above which you’re not worthy of any payment from the free money tree. That’s useful to have in advance of a GE and should focus the minds of a lot of people.
Sailing dangerously on that one.
They believe SF TDs earning 100k should keep cheap social housing, but people paying huge rents on 70k incomes in poorly insulated apartment blocks shouldn't get any relief?
The most concerning thing isn't the specific number in this instance, but rather the regularity with which SF revise down the entry point into what is considered the privileged who shouldn't receive support.
By the time the election rolls around, will it be anyone earning €50k+ shouldn't receive XYZ? Maybe if anyone in the household earning above minimum wage?
Never mind the absolute idiocy of even suggesting capping electricity prices at June '21 rates. I get that economics experts aren't really their target demographic, but is there ANYONE naive enough or unaware enough of global news to buy that sh*te?
Had a further think about the SF proposal.
Four young lads sharing a house in Longford earning 50k each on the sites, eating takeaways and hardly home for more than a few hours a day, will each get a cashback payment from SF, while a family with a single earner on 75k, paying a huge mortgage with spouse and young children at home all day using heating, cooking, lighting etc. will get nothing.
Harebrained scheme from the economic thoughts of Pearse.
Someone earning e70K is likely in top 5% of earners worldwide
something like 65% of population earn under 35K.....we as a state can borrow afaik 4 billion and stay inside budget restriction
But if these record profits aren't capped/taxed out,energy companies will consistently attempt underpin their share price with these level profits I to the future.....
these lump sums given to people for electricity bills,while well-meaning is pointless as long-term don't tackle big issue of excessive profits,and essentially amount to state subsidising electrity companies making record profits
The absolute stupidity that Paul Murphy was talking on the radio today about energy seems to have been picked up by some.
A) then largest companies are semi-state, we get most of the profits anyway
B) lots of energy companies are leaving the market
Leading us to C) the driver of this is the high cost and demand for energy which goes up and down all the time, we must be prepared to subsidise them too when the prices go too low (hell, shouldn't we be subsidising the likes of panda power as well by that reasoning).
People are getting really dumb with simple supply demand curves at the moment.
It will take a year for this to stabilise itself, it would be less for us if we hadn't stopped gas exploration and had put in LNG terminals when they were advised, we could have used the revenue to fund most of our green energy infrastructure instead of continuing to burn even dirtier fuels.
And yes, some of this does apply to current idiotic government policies as well.
100+ properties as well.
People being unable to pay energy bills was flagged. 12 months ago, government advice was to "shop around'
In meantime energy companies have made record profits,and people's spending power has been eroded further
What exactly makes you think it will stabilise itself;in next 12 months,or that energy companies will want to make less profit going forward??
Don't believe this needs calling out:
A) Europe is preparing for this winter on relatively short notice, they have 15 months to winter 2023 to secure energy away from russia.
B) Market competition (e.g. bonkers) forces suppliers to reduce prices, as long as there's a few left to compete (and if there isn't, then it's semi state anyway and we set the prices). Those that actually produce raw energy are enjoying bumper revenue because the good they supply is in high demand, like housing, the answer is to increase supply, not chaotically intervene or prioritise it for one group over another. If you were right, then energy prices have never ever dropped, have they dropped before?
You seem way too young to remember how esb/bord gais/telecom eireann used to carve everything up for themselves to the detriment of all their customers and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into deregulation.
Noone anywhere said otherwise?
But laying blame for high energy prices for a war,when there was near identical problem 12 months ago and government sat on hands and waited for it to get worse
This deregulation hasn't worked,never as much competition,profits never higher,and prices never higher.....you have to accept reality,it (like communism) deosnt work in practice and too many ordinary people suffer trying to make it work......Paul Murphy is deeply flawed individual,but the only person I seen,out telling it like it is,and speaking up for ordinary people,while everyone sits on their hands and want to prick around the edges with subsidising electrity?
Do you honestly think energy companies are going to slash their profits/prices going forward??,at some stage ya must accept reality as it is and it prices should be state set
12-ish months ago it was down to post pandemic demand after record low prices for raw fuels.
It's almost like we live in a dynamically changing world.
Have energy prices ever gone down before? Why did the energy companies "reduce their profits" in those circumstances?
Paul Murphy is an idiot who wants to usher in a new era of communism, everything he does is built on that premise and everything he does falls apart because it's built on a premise that doesn't work.
Luckily, as time has gone on, SF have grown they've moved further and further away from such broken ideology (even they aren't pushing the re-nationalising fantasy that Murphy is).
But yet again, another person on the SF thread who actually has more in common with PBP/Rise/ABC than SF, colour me shocked.
accept reality as it is and it prices should be state set
While reality is a loose concept there, just energy? or is there any other prices that should be state set while we're at it?
Mate your pushing deregulation as a great thing,when it in practice fails to deliver what it promises......
profits have never been higher,and never been as much competition.....this is reality,not a loose concept
quite why you believe in deregulation unquestioned at your own expense is beyond me....the fact someone would agree with someone telling it like it is,on this subject, should not come as a suprise to you....quite why you wish to throw shade at communism (which given one of few whom income producing assets on thread is me) when deregulation failing in front of your eyes is beyond me
When things don't "settle" in next 12 months,will yous simply dream up another excuse for failed policies??,or admit deregulation/privatisation and it's proposed success are nonsense in real world application (same as communism)
Profits have never been higher? Never as much competition?
Four suppliers have left the market. Something doesn't add up, if the profits are huge.
That is the reality.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)