Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Breaking news: 'Sinn Féin may take Govt to court over bailout deal'

12467…10

Comments

  • #92
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    iamstop wrote: »
    I hate how so many people complain about how sh1t FF is but are all 'but sure no one else is any better'.

    What a defeatist attitude. I'm WAAAAYYYY on for giving anyone else a chance, if they are sh1t too then we can just get rid of them soon enough and try thr next lot.
    Thats how politics works.

    In this case the mess has already been created and it will be up to who ever takes over to clean it up, it wont be an easy job.

    It is like as if you stripped down the motor in your car and couldn't put it back together again. You then try to get someone else to do it. You would find that most mechanics would not want to touch it with a barge pole.


  • #93
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,305 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    My name is URL wrote: »
    What does that have to do with the constitutionality of the credit agreements though? The things you've mentioned most certainly should not be ignored but showing support to one idea does not tacitly imply that you support every other idea or agenda of the persons expressing it.

    If Gerry Adams said that left was right would you drive on the other side of the road just to uphold your own moral ideals? It shouldn't matter who is espousing this.. it makes sense and historical differences should be set aside in order to do something about the current issue.

    +1. I wouldn't be a fan of SF at all, but that is old FF/FG thinking!
    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    The EU has got us in a right mess now, I blame the EU for a large part of this economic mess on several counts, allowing a flood of immigrants, allowing foreign whole sale banks to lend in this country with ridiculous low interest rates on 95% loans knowing that this was a bubble and not reality. The Government, banks ,developers and financial regulator were equally responsible.

    We were promised job prospects in the Lisbon mandate. How the fcuk can any Government stimulate an economy with its hands tied behind its back for at least the next decade with crippling interest rates and at the same time being kicked on the ground by fellow EU bullies trying to force us to lose our 12% corporation tax?

    The EU should have had more powers over the IFSC and our banks, but, the very people complaining about the EU not interfering enough now, would have been the first to knock the EU for interfering with our serious lack of regulation.

    We still have our beloved 12.5% rate, some EU politicians saying otherwise doesn't make it otherwise.

    There have been plenty of job announcements since Lisbon and FDI is still doing relatively well. Unless you expected the EU to solve the construction bubble that has caused 200,000 unemployed and resultant banking and Govt. deficit crisis, I really don't know what you wanted, barring the impossible.

    The EU can't solve everything. Especially if people keep crying wolf over Lisbon and scare monger.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #94
    phantom_lord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    The Dagda wrote: »
    Well seeing as you have not challenged me on my assertion that the core issue in the ruling was that the High Court found the government's actions were against the "spirit of the constitution", I'll assume you concur with that analysis.

    With that in mind, and seeing that it's generally accepted that there is no clear definition of an "international agreement" in the constitution, it's my assertion that it's not impossible to imagine a member of the justice being of the opinion that this bailout does indeed constitute an "international agreement".

    If it cannot be shown that it is in fact an "international agreement", I believe it's not impossible to imagine a court finding, that despite the lack of an explicit definition of an "international agreement" that the government's actions in regards to this bailout are also against the "spirit of the constitution".

    Seeing as this is the first time the IMF (or exterior bodies that are dictating policy) have been required in Ireland, then similarily to the Donegal case, there is no precident, and as such, it is open to interpretation.

    You see, it's not a huge stretch, I'm surprised you can't see it actually...

    You see you just don't understand the other ruling and why it was "against the spirit of the constitution". Also "Open to interpretation" does not mean what you seem to think it does.

    There's a clear reasoning for the other case. Yes it was not laid out explicitly. But there are a number of articles that relate to that area that led to that ruling. There are a number of rights and other nuances not laid out explicitly in the constitution but that may be inferred from it. There was a logical line of reasoning to follow for why that ruling came about which is very different to what's available in this situation.

    It's very different to the fact that the meaning an "international agreement" is not explicitly laid out. If an objection is raised over the bailout there's a precedent laid out for what that has meant in the past. This lending facility is very different from what has been under the remit of that section of the constitution previously.


  • #95
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    K-9 wrote: »
    +1. I wouldn't be a fan of SF at all, but that is old FF/FG thinking!

    The EU should have had more powers over the IFSC and our banks, but, the very people complaining about the EU not interfering enough now, would have been the first to knock the EU for interfering with our serious lack of regulation.
    I take this whole issue as orchestrated "Problem Reaction and solution".

    In that firstly you creat the problem, then secondly you fan the flames to get a reaction; then thirdly you provide a solution. The solution is what you were wanting to achieve in the first place, but wouldn't have been able to achieve under normal circumstances. The solution in this case is the loss of sovereignty and total submission of nations right across the board.


  • #96
    The Dagda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,344 ✭✭✭The Dagda


    phantom_lord wrote: »
    You see you just don't understand the other ruling and why it was "against the spirit of the constitution". Also "Open to interpretation" does not mean what you seem to think it does.

    There's a clear reasoning for the other case. Yes it was not laid out explicitly. But there are a number of articles that relate to that area that led to that ruling. There are a number of rights and other nuances not laid out explicitly in the constitution but that may be inferred from it. There was a logical line of reasoning to follow for why that ruling came about which is very different to what's available in this situation.

    It's very different to the fact that the meaning an "international agreement" is not explicitly laid out. If an objection is raised over the bailout there's a precedent laid out for what that has meant in the past. This lending facility is very different from what has been under the remit of that section of the constitution previously.

    To be perfectly honest, I find incredibly arrogant, and frankly, bloody cheeky to try and dodge my questions and points by simply saying "you don't understand it" :mad:

    Law is not rocket science, no matter how much elitist practitioners try to make it out to be, it always comes down to simple right and wrong. I've read the judgment in the Donegal case (briefly) and whilst there is loads of legal mumbo-jumbo, or subtle nuances as you call it, it came down to the court finding that the government were dragging their arse over the by election, the time as a proportion of the government's life-span was used as proof of this. The court interpreted this unprecidented delay as against democracy and as such against "the spirit of the constitution".

    It is obvious that a skilled counsel, who is of a mind to and having the means to, could argue that the same basic principle is under encumbrance in this situation. Democracy is being subverted.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    phantom_lord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    The Dagda wrote: »
    To be perfectly honest, I find incredibly arrogant, and frankly, bloody cheeky to try and dodge my questions and points by simply saying "you don't understand it" :mad:

    You did bait me, and it is the reason why you don't get why the two cases are not comparable.
    The Dagda wrote: »
    Law is not rocket science
    There is a method to it that you don't seem to appreciate though.
    The Dagda wrote: »
    it always comes down to simple right and wrong.
    Not quite.

    The Dagda wrote: »
    it came down to the court finding that the government were dragging their arse over the by election, the time as a proportion of the government's life-span was used as proof of this. The court interpreted this unprecidented delay as against democracy and as such against "the spirit of the constitution".
    That's not the reasoning for ruling.

    The Dagda wrote: »
    It is obvious that a skilled counsel, who is of a mind to and having the means to, could argue that the same basic principle is under encumbrance in this situation. Democracy is being subverted.
    They could argue that, but it wouldn't get them very far.


  • #98
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,305 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    I take this whole issue as orchestrated "Problem Reaction and solution".

    In that firstly you creat the problem, then secondly you fan the flames to get a reaction; then thirdly you provide a solution. The solution is what you were wanting to achieve in the first place, but wouldn't have been able to achieve under normal circumstances. The solution in this case is the loss of sovereignty and total submission of nations right across the board.

    So the EU wanted the IMF/EU fund here, from about 1995/95, when the property bubble started?

    Is that what you are saying? If not, what is it?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #99
    The Dagda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,344 ✭✭✭The Dagda


    phantom_lord wrote: »
    You did bait me, and it is the reason why you don't get why the two cases are not comparable.

    There is a method to it that you don't seem to appreciate though.

    Not quite.

    That's not the reasoning for ruling.

    They could argue that, but it wouldn't get them very far.

    bait you? i asked questions which you avoided and then answered vaguely and in some cases, questionably.

    lol, whatever, I'd ask you to give your own analysis of the Donegal ruling and your opinion why it doesn't apply in this case, but no doubt you won't, much easier for you to maintain your own delusions of grandeur by using vague, ambiguous terms.

    Hopefully, there'll be a day in court and a ruling which contradicts your own arrogant assertions...


  • #100
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    K-9 wrote: »
    So the EU wanted the IMF/EU fund here, from about 1995/95, when the property bubble started?

    Is that what you are saying? If not, what is it?
    Precisely, by offering Paddy cheap money the elite bankers knew well that this country would run amuck and inevitably fall into debt along with other nations that have fallen for the same trap.

    .


  • #101
    phantom_lord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    The Dagda wrote: »
    I'd ask you to give your own analysis of the Donegal ruling and your opinion why it doesn't apply in this case

    I really give up! How can you still not get how they're totally different!


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Precisely, by offering Paddy cheap money the elite bankers knew well that this country would run amuck and inevitably fall into debt along with other nations that have fallen for the same trap.

    .
    Paddy didn't get offered anything Heinz, Francois, Juan or George wad offered. The difference is, in most other countries the government acted to present the economy.overheating and creating a bubble. In Ireland the government encouraged it. The trouble is/was that "Paddy" quote like the idea that he was an entrepreneurial property owner and drove a land rover despite economists everywhere warnimg against what was happening.

    You can come up with all the elitist terrors you like, but at the end of the day, Ireland can really only point the fimgerbat itself.


  • #103
    johnmcdnl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,740 ✭✭✭johnmcdnl


    Sinn Féin attelpt to do what we all want but because it's the shinner's lets all laugh and say Sinn Féin are terrorists :rolleyes:

    Typical boards response there - no doubt if it was Labour if FG attempting to bring this issue to court we'd all be out supporting them because their standing up for Irish people and their rights...

    When is this anti Sinn Féin bias ever going to stop - people just seem to want to refuse to accept that Sinn Féin are the only party that seem to be ever out to stand up for Irish people's right as people - Dongegal elections would never have been held without their intervention but like usual because it's the shinners we try to ignore that... (but celebrate FF loosing their seat but we dare not say to the shinners for fear of saying that the shinners actually won something :rolleyes:)

    It's about time someone actually stood up and tried to fight for us the people - fair play to Sinn Féin for this step because without them no other party would





    but when we have to vote let's all forget to vote Sinn Féin because their all terrorists and are nothing but ***** really :rolleyes: voting FG and Labour will just show that we supported this action without saying that it was Sinn Féin that actually made the effort in the first place


  • #104
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    The solution in this case is the loss of sovereignty and total submission of nations right across the board.

    Straight answer required - what loss of sovereignty has occurred? No need to mention Lisbon/Bailout/IMF or anything else. Just a straightforward answer to say our sovereignty has been lost in the areas of x, y and z.
    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    ... despite economists everywhere warnimg against what was happening..

    Don't forget also despite politicians all over the evil empire EU giving the same warnings. They were just trying to steal our sovereignty then too IIRC. ;)


  • #105
    gonedrinking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭gonedrinking


    Fair play to Sinn Fein. It was absolutely cringe worthy listening to the weak-willed timid responses by FG and Labour to the bailout.

    The markets and investment community have already signaled a vote of no confidence in the bailout plans and Irelands future. So what is the point proceding with the bailout at this point.

    Its time to draw a line under this mess we are in and make the bondholders pay for their own losses. Reject the bailout, use the national pension reserve fund to fund the country to the end of 2012, and in that time get our spending in line with our tax take. This will obviously mean pay cuts and redundancies will need to be made in the public sector, but its got to happen eventually so it may as well be now. Let the unions make their members strike, they will eventually realise the next government isn't going to cave in and will go back to work.


  • #106
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,702 ✭✭✭squod




  • #107
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    Dunno if this has been posted before, but there is a thread on this in the Legal Discussion forum: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056097898

    As I said in that thread, I don't think there is any basis to claims that the bailout is unconstitutional. SF are probably just taking this case to boost their profile and win votes. I think taking frivolous lawsuits just to get your name in the papers is an abuse of the system TBH. Just because you disagree with the bailout doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.


  • #108
    gonedrinking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭gonedrinking


    evercloserunion wrote: »
    Dunno if this has been posted before, but there is a thread on this in the Legal Discussion forum: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056097898

    As I said in that thread, I don't think there is any basis to claims that the bailout is unconstitutional. SF are probably just taking this case to boost their profile and win votes. I think taking frivolous lawsuits just to get your name in the papers is an abuse of the system TBH. Just because you disagree with the bailout doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

    There are lots of different interest groups questioning the legality of the agreement, SF have said it won't be clear until the government release more details about the bailout.

    As for your claim SF doing it to boost their profile, most polls show the majority of Ireland is against this bailout and thinks we should reject it, most economists think we should reject it, its hardly surprising that one of our political parties also think we should reject it.


  • #109
    COYW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,927 ✭✭✭COYW


    johnmcdnl wrote: »
    Typical boards response there - no doubt if it was Labour if FG attempting to bring this issue to court we'd all be out supporting them because their standing up for Irish people and their rights...

    Of course we would. I have respect for the likes of FG and Labour. I have far more respect for the Green Party or FF than I do for SF also. I will never forgive them for the acts that their military wing committed in the name of this country. Those acts were far more hurtful to me as a citizen than anything that happened over the past 3 years.

    Anyway, most see this latest release for the publicity stunt that it is. What ever happened to that vote of no-confidence last week? As a matter of interest, where would the money for this latest challenge come from? 2 court challenges in a matter of months cant be cheap. Surely we the tax payers are not funding these challenges, or are we?


  • #110
    dolphin city
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭dolphin city


    good on sin fein.

    its time for the sf bashers to kind of grow up and move with the times now. unless you were in the thick of the troubles, you have no right to judge anybody that was. They are the only party with any balls at the minute and they are doing what people want.


  • #111
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    gonedrinking wrote: »
    As for your claim SF doing it to boost their profile, most polls show the majority of Ireland is against this bailout and thinks we should reject it, most economists think we should reject it, its hardly surprising that one of our political parties also think we should reject it.

    You've missed the point completely. The constitution gives us a parliamentary democracy where we elect our leaders to make policy for us, and it prevents them from acting in violation of our fundamental rights. Sadly, it does not relieve us of the obligation to vote responsibly. If people could use the constitution to invalidate any unpopular decision, Ireland would be impossible to govern.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Sticky_Fingers wrote: »
    Congratulations on graduating from the FF school of its our only option. Perhaps while your busy chearleading the kicking of this can of debt down the road you can explain why we cannot tell the ECB/IMF that the deal is rotten and we want to renegotiate. This thing stinks of a rushed bodge job all to shore up the creaky economies of the rest of the PIIGS and to save the precious Euro.

    It seems that the technocrats in Brussels are more in love with their institutions and rules then the lowly plebs that the structures were supposedly set up to serve in the first place. We're been sold down the river on this deal and we are probably going to default anyway so if its a choice of now or 3 years down the road when we are even further in the hole, I plum for now.

    You want solutions, I don't have any, you want alternative plans to get us out of this mess, again I don't have any but I do know a crappy deal when I see one and this "solution" thats been foisted upon us by the government is IMO the worst possible course of action we can take. We were told that the bank bailout was a necessary evil back in 08 and here we are again been resold the same mouldy **** sandwich just because the powers that be cannot bear to accept that the fundamental system is deeply flawed and may need to be tore down.

    So I've fallen in to the trap of thinking there are no alternatives, but you can't think of any yourself.

    The deal may be crappy and the government may be incompetent, but at the moment Ireland doesn't exactly have a strong negotiating position.


  • #113
    Promac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,407 ✭✭✭Promac


    COYW wrote: »
    I will never forgive them for the acts that their military wing committed in the name of this country. Those acts were far more hurtful to me as a citizen than anything that happened over the past 3 years.

    What country is it you're a citizen of?

    Sounds like typical middle-class apologising to me.


  • #114
    gonedrinking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭gonedrinking


    evercloserunion wrote: »
    If people could use the constitution to invalidate any unpopular decision, Ireland would be impossible to govern.

    Its not about voting against an unpopular decision, its about the government being questioned on a decision, which on the face of it appears to be illegal. Time will tell whether it is or isn't.


  • #115
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    gonedrinking wrote: »
    Its not about voting against an unpopular decision, its about the government being questioned on a decision, which on the face of it appears to be illegal. Time will tell whether it is or isn't.

    On the face of it appears to be illegal? How? This is the thing, it's very easy to claim that a decision you don't like is unconstitutional but if you really believe it you should be able to say what part of the constitution is violated. Actions of the government are presumed to be constitutional unless proven otherwise. Airy fairy arguments like "we're being screwed" don't tend to impress in the High Court or Supreme Court, you need something a little more concrete.


  • #116
    gonedrinking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 810 ✭✭✭gonedrinking


    evercloserunion wrote: »
    On the face of it appears to be illegal? How? This is the thing, it's very easy to claim that a decision you don't like is unconstitutional but if you really believe it you should be able to say what part of the constitution is violated. Actions of the government are presumed to be constitutional unless proven otherwise. Airy fairy arguments like "we're being screwed" don't tend to impress in the High Court or Supreme Court, you need something a little more concrete.

    Post 18 in this thread:
    Dionysus wrote: »
    If the government does not have a vote in the Dáil it would seem that Sinn Féin could be on strong grounds under Article 29 Section 5 & 6 of Bunreacht na hÉireann?

    5. 1° Every international agreement to which the State becomes a party shall be laid before Dáil Éireann.

    2° The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

    3° This section shall not apply to agreements or conventions of a technical and adminstrative character.

    6. No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas.

    Here

    Other than that, I'm not sure what the constitutional basis of their opposition is.

    So evercloserunion are you claiming that a deal with the IMF and EU is not an international agreement?


  • #117
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    COYW wrote: »

    Anyway, most see this latest release for the publicity stunt that it is. What ever happened to that vote of no-confidence last week?

    SF don't have the numbers to introduce bills to the Dail so will either have to form a coalition of sort with the independents who oppose the bail out (tricky) or wait for Labour to sponsor the bill and introduce it. Gilmore is humming and hawing about it atm, although tbh there's no point having a vote of no confidence until you know you have a majority, I would assume that Gilmore and others should be busy courting independents and FF backbenchers now if they seriously plan on having that vote.


  • #118
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    stovelid wrote: »
    Wouldn't it just be easier to lure bring the IMF delegation to an abandoned warehouse and let Dessie Ellis and Martin Ferris negotiate a new deal?


    Been there read that, those jibes are well tired by now. This is the problem with this country, too many people living in the past for too long and not letting it rest. Let bygones be bygones ffs!


  • #119
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    medicman2009 wrote: »
    Been there read that, those jibes are well tired by now. This is the problem with this country, too many people living in the past for too long and not letting it rest. Let bygones be bygones ffs!

    Isn't it ironic...(a) many people never got the chance to let bygones be bygones before they were 'gone'.. and (b) if SF want to be taken seriously and leave the past behind, not meeting garda killers outside one of the country's top prisons would be a good place to start.


  • #120
    jackiebaron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    Notorious97 wrote: »
    Yes they should definitely do this, and yes i think given the chance they would definitely follow through in attempting to re do the deal agreed. Why wouldn’t they, they successfully defeated the Gov in court over Donegal, they have nothing to lose, they are doing the right thing and sticking up for Irish people here.

    People will still drag them back to the troubles, but for once i wish the anti republicans would for a second put aside the fact it is a republican party doing this and recognise they are the only god damn Irish party standing up to the Gov and backing up their words with actions (Donegal being the example so far). FG and Labour are poor excuses for Irish parties, if they want some respect they would take the Gov to court too.

    Fair play to Sinn Fein

    Hear hear. People are always harping on about Sinn Fein being murderous scum and dragging up the Troubles. Well what about Fianna Fail? Not only do they fleece the Exchequer, bankrupt the economy and mortgage the future of the country but they also allow American troops and equipment to stop off at Shannon before continuing on their way to their bloodbath in Iraqistan.

    All political parties have an unsavoury past. It's just that Sinn Fein's is more recent.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    iamstop wrote: »
    Perhaps not directly but is a blatant example of the lies we are continually fed.

    the difference being that in lisbon we the people had a choice to make. It was therefore our responsibility to read up, study and make up our own minds on it as there was bull coming from both sides of the debate.

    This time round we have had no say. so the lies had no effect other than to raise some false hope


Advertisement
Advertisement