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

No refund for families who have paid water charges

1…1617192122…27

Comments

  • #542
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,506 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Clampdown wrote: »
    Why do you have this weird concept of bailiffs chasing people around like Dog the Bounty Hunter 'til you die'? It might make you feel better to think that this would happen, but it won't ever happen over the small amounts people owe.

    You allowed yourself to get scammed. Blame the government and yourself, not those of us who saw through the scam and had the backbone to resist. IMO anyone who paid showed either a lack of brains or a lack of balls or both. It was plain as day to anyone who bothered to look that this was a crony quango, set up by an arrogant shower who think all us ordinary Joe Soaps are there to be ripped off and exploited and they would have got away with all of it if not for the people who stood up and kept fighting against it and didn't give up. This company was not set up to do anything other than extract money from Irish people, water was just a convenient way to do it because we didn't have a water tax already and people need it to live so many would be frightened of being cut off for non payment.

    They took your money and wasted it and nothing is gonna happen to non-payers so instead of entertaining these fantasies of bailiffs chasing people, maybe you should think a bit harder nexf time before letting the government fleece you of your hard earned without a fight. I will admit I get a bit of satisfaction that people who bent over and paid are not being refunded, but I would absolutely be demanding a refund if I were you.

    Why should the consultants of a company that failed due to it's incompetence and corruption being exposed still be walking around with your money, getting free lunches you paid for? Why should IW employees be going to laughing yoga classes you paid for? Because that's where your money went, it was not taken in exchange for providing you with clean water. You should be sending bailiffs after IW to get your cash back! Or maybe they could give you a voucher for some bottled water at least then you could get what you paid for.


    wow, so people correctly following the law of the land " allowed themselves to be scammed"

    well I think the the USC is a scam , I suggest you not pay that

    in fact why do you pay any taxes , sure they are all scams


    really mate, your logic is simply another word for anarchy


  • #543
    gladrags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    BoatMad wrote: »
    wow, so people correctly following the law of the land " allowed themselves to be scammed"

    well I think the the USC is a scam , I suggest you not pay that

    in fact why do you pay any taxes , sure they are all scams


    really mate, your logic is simply another word for anarchy

    He has a point.

    You could argue that mortgages to some point are scams,and that the banks are hoodwinkers and chancers.

    Scammers or so to speak.

    Tax evaders are another example,be they corporate or individual.

    You could argue that our government harbours tax scammers.


  • #544
    RealJohn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Your point makes it clear that you don't understand how legislation works. If there's a law preventing something, and the government wants that thing to be allowed, then the government introduces a new law repealing the old one. It happens all the time.

    Were you under the illusion that laws are permanent and immutable?
    No, I was under the impression that if a law expressly forbids something then there's probably a good reason for that so overturning it by simply saying "well we've changed our minds on this one - it's the opposite now" isn't good enough.


  • #545
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RealJohn wrote: »
    No, I was under the impression that if a law expressly forbids something then there's probably a good reason for that so overturning it by simply saying "well we've changed our minds on this one - it's the opposite now" isn't good enough.

    So you think that laws should be immutable, and that it should never be possible for a government to repeal a law passed by a previous government?

    That would be an interesting society.


  • #546
    RealJohn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So you think that laws should be immutable, and that it should never be possible for a government to repeal a law passed by a previous government?

    That would be an interesting society.
    Are you actually that stupid or are you doing it intentionally so as to imply I am? Point out to me where I said that please?


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    RealJohn wrote: »
    No, I was under the impression that if a law expressly forbids something then there's probably a good reason for that so overturning it by simply saying "well we've changed our minds on this one - it's the opposite now" isn't good enough.

    This, and not pot-holes, parish pumps and protests, is what the Dáil is actually for. It is a legislature - it is there precisely to change existing laws and make new ones.


  • #548
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RealJohn wrote: »
    Are you actually that stupid or are you doing it intentionally so as to imply I am? Point out to me where I said that please?

    You're objecting to a government being able to repeal a law. If there's another interpretation of what you said, please explain it to me.


  • #549
    RealJohn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're objecting to a government being able to repeal a law. If there's another interpretation of what you said, please explain it to me.
    No I'm not. Please point out where I have objected to a government being able to repeal a law please or where I said that governments should never be able to change laws.


  • #550
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RealJohn wrote: »
    No I'm not. Please point out where I have objected to a government being able to repeal a law please or where I said that governments should never be able to change laws.
    OK, I'll have one more stab at it: you don't think government should be able to repeal laws unless they have reasons for doing so that you personally approve of.

    If I'm wrong again, you're just going to have to lower yourself to explaining what it is you actually mean.


  • #551
    RealJohn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, I'll have one more stab at it: you don't think government should be able to repeal laws unless they have reasons for doing so that you personally approve of.

    If I'm wrong again, you're just going to have to lower yourself to explaining what it is you actually mean.
    Well at least you're getting closer to it, except that we're not talking about me personally. They wanted to bring in a law that the vast majority of the country didn't want and was already forbidden by the existing law. They knew that the change to the law wasn't wanted and not only did they do it but, rather than giving a good, legitimate reason for changing it, they lied repeatedly about it. That is the issue. It's not exactly rocket science.


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RealJohn wrote: »
    They wanted to bring in a law that the vast majority of the country didn't want and was already forbidden by the existing law.

    You're still betraying a misunderstanding of the core principle that no government can be bound by decisions of its predecessors. A law can't be forbidden by an existing law if the new law explicitly repeals the old law.

    As for what the public want, that's not how our system of government works. The people elect the government, and the government make the laws. If the public don't like the laws the government makes, then the public elects a different government.

    The idea that it's somehow "unlawful" for a government to enact an unpopular law is rooted in a complete lack of understanding of how the system works.


  • #553
    RealJohn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,099 ✭✭✭RealJohn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're still betraying a misunderstanding of the core principle that no government can be bound by decisions of its predecessors. A law can't be forbidden by an existing law if the new law explicitly repeals the old law.

    As for what the public want, that's not how our system of government works. The people elect the government, and the government make the laws. If the public don't like the laws the government makes, then the public elects a different government.

    The idea that it's somehow "unlawful" for a government to enact an unpopular law is rooted in a complete lack of understanding of how the system works.
    I might have phrased myself poorly in my last post but I think you knew what I meant (and you were very quick to 'interpret' what I said in previous posts so I'm not sure why you were so unwilling to read between the lines there). What I meant was that what the new law brought in was explicitly forbidden by the law it was replacing, not that the law itself was forbidden.

    And again, you're right in that we elect the government and then the government enact laws but that doesn't mean that they should enact laws that they know are opposed by the majority of the country. I also never said that it was unlawful to do so but it's clearly overstepping their mandate to do so and it was clearly an unjust law from the start so it was completely justified to 'break' it, in the same way it would be justified to 'break' any other unjust law.


  • #554
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RealJohn wrote: »
    What I meant was that what the new law brought in was explicitly forbidden by the law it was replacing, not that the law itself was forbidden.
    Well, yes. That's a pretty standard thing for laws to do: to allow things that previous laws prohibited.

    Let's say, for argument's sake, that the government wanted to legalise cannabis. They'd have to introduce a law that would allow something that was explicitly forbidden by (for example) the 1984 Misuse of Drugs Act.

    In the same way, because the government wanted to allow direct billing for water, they had to repeal the law that said that couldn't be done. This isn't some esoteric loophole they've exploited - almost every Act of the Oireachtas amends previous Acts.
    And again, you're right in that we elect the government and then the government enact laws but that doesn't mean that they should enact laws that they know are opposed by the majority of the country. I also never said that it was unlawful to do so but it's clearly overstepping their mandate to do so...
    Charging for water was in Fine Gael's election manifesto.
    ...and it was clearly an unjust law from the start so it was completely justified to 'break' it, in the same way it would be justified to 'break' any other unjust law.
    Why is this the only country in the developed world where charging for water is unjust? Or is it unjust everywhere, but only the Irish have noticed?


  • #555
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    Going Forward wrote: »
    The legal position is that the previous water services legislation prohibited water service providers charging for domestic/household water.

    That section of the previous act was just repealed by one line in the current legislation, which also defines customers of Irish Water.

    This gives IW legal authority to at least attempt to charge households for water.


    http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/does-ireland-have-an-exem/

    Which line of the legislation clearly and expressly repealed it ?

    Because after IW was set up a lot of TDs claimed that it was news to them that water was paid for via VAT and Motor Tax.

    If they'd read and debated the legislation properly, and the legislation clearly repealed that, then it couldn't have been unknown to them.

    Which is it ?


  • #556
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    This is interesting. Report in the Irish Times this morning says legal opinion sought by Irish Water concludes the state can't abandon water charges now that they've been implemented.
    The introduction of water charges by the last government means the State can no longer avail of a “very limited” exemption in the EU water directive, they say.

    “The benefit of the derogation has been lost for all time, and cannot be revived by seeking to reverse the decision to introduce charges,” the legal opinion states.

    Of course opinion is just that. Informed opinion, but opinion nonetheless. However this is going to set the cat among the pigeons in terms of the future of Irish Water.

    Signals from FF are that they want Irish Water gone as a condition of support of an FG minority government. Then again, this could be the fig leaf they need to support a government with Irish Water staying in place.


  • #557
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    This is interesting. Report in the Irish Times this morning says legal opinion sought by Irish Water concludes the state can't abandon water charges now that they've been implemented.



    Of course opinion is just that. Informed opinion, but opinion nonetheless. However this is going to set the cat among the pigeons in terms of the future of Irish Water.

    Signals from FF are that they want Irish Water gone as a condition of support of an FG minority government. Then again, this could be the fig leaf they need to support a government with Irish Water staying in place.

    Note that the legal opinion in question was commissioned by Irish Water.


  • #558
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    Which line of the legislation clearly and expressly repealed it ?

    Because after IW was set up a lot of TDs claimed that it was news to them that water was paid for via VAT and Motor Tax.

    If they'd read and debated the legislation properly, and the legislation clearly repealed that, then it couldn't have been unknown to them.

    Which is it ?
    I'll preface this by saying I haven't look at it lately, but IIRC:

    The current legislation didn't repeal anything to do with motor tax or vat, it only repealed a provision in the 2007 act which prevented water suppliers charging for domestic water.

    (Anything about motor tax, vat etc IF it's there at all, would be in older legislation, and again, I could be completely wrong on this particular point, there are better brains than mine here, the policy of using motor tax and vat was just a policy, a habitual practice, rather than something in statute.)


  • #559
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    Note that the legal opinion in question was commissioned by Irish Water.

    And your point is? The Journal did a piece on this same topic a month ago. They also came to the conclusion that abolishing water charges would probably be illegal.


  • #560
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    And your point is? The Journal did a piece on this same topic a month ago. They also came to the conclusion that abolishing water charges would probably be illegal.

    Nothing remotely definite then ?


  • #561
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,717 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    RealJohn wrote: »
    I might have phrased myself poorly in my last post but I think you knew what I meant (and you were very quick to 'interpret' what I said in previous posts so I'm not sure why you were so unwilling to read between the lines there). What I meant was that what the new law brought in was explicitly forbidden by the law it was replacing, not that the law itself was forbidden.

    And again, you're right in that we elect the government and then the government enact laws but that doesn't mean that they should enact laws that they know are opposed by the majority of the country. I also never said that it was unlawful to do so but it's clearly overstepping their mandate to do so and it was clearly an unjust law from the start so it was completely justified to 'break' it, in the same way it would be justified to 'break' any other unjust law.


    Some laws are mandated by outside agencies such as the UN, the EU and other international treaties (or in exceptional economic circumstances, the IMF or the Troika).

    In those cases, the Government has no alternative but to introduce a law no matter whether that law is popular or not. As we have seen today with the legal advice in the Irish Times, it may be illegal to abolish water charges even though the Dail could attempt to pass such legislation.

    Unpopularity is not a reason to break a law. In the case of water, the legislation may be unpopular but it is certainly not "unjust law" in the common understanding of such law.


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    greendom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    And your point is? The Journal did a piece on this same topic a month ago. They also came to the conclusion that abolishing water charges would probably be illegal.

    Is it not possible for the government (when it is finally formed) to change the law ?

    I thought that was their job ?


  • #563
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    Nothing remotely definte then ?

    Things will only become definite when a court of law decides on the matter. Until then all we have are probablys and likelys.
    greendom wrote: »
    Is it not possible for the government (when it is finally formed) to change the law ?

    I thought that was their job ?

    It's an EU law.


  • #564
    greendom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Things will only become definite when a court of law decides on the matter. Until then all we have are probablys and likelys.



    It's an EU law.

    That makes it trickier, but should give whoever's in charge the opportunity to exercise their diplomatic skills.


  • #565
    DavyD_83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭DavyD_83


    So where are we with it all now really?
    I've been paying my Water Charges, as we were told were legally required to.

    Has everybody now cancelled their direct debits on the basis that it will be scrapped eventually, and at that point we may/may not be required to pay any outstanding charges?

    I get that this is not a concern for those who boycotted from the start; but for those of us who have been paying (and continue to pay?), what now?


  • #566
    pc7
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 14,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭pc7


    DavyD_83 wrote: »
    I get that this is not a concern for those who boycotted from the start; but for those of us who have been paying (and continue to pay?), what now?

    Like you I've paid from the start, I won't be paying any further bills now due to all the uncertainty, feel like a right gilly for paying.


  • #567
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    Nothing remotely definite then ?

    There is no way to get a definite ruling on legal matters without having a court rule and then appealing all the way to the highest court possible.

    In this case, you could abolish water charges and wait and see if the Commission would go to the ECJ to try and enforce a directive, then wait for the court to rule, then appeal and see how it goes. The problem with trying this is that it is risky - we could get slapped with serious fines.

    Without going all the way to the last appeal, you'll never have anything definite - just legal opinion like the one cited earlier.


  • #568
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    greendom wrote: »
    That makes it trickier, but should give whoever's in charge the opportunity to exercise their diplomatic skills.

    It would give someone a chance to waste a lot of political capital. There's no way the EU parliament is going to amend that law just to keep a minority of Irish voters happy.


  • #569
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,717 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    There is no way to get a definite ruling on legal matters without having a court rule and then appealing all the way to the highest court possible.

    In this case, you could abolish water charges and wait and see if the Commission would go to the ECJ to try and enforce a directive, then wait for the court to rule, then appeal and see how it goes. The problem with trying this is that it is risky - we could get slapped with serious fines.

    Without going all the way to the last appeal, you'll never have anything definite - just legal opinion like the one cited earlier.


    I think one of the key things to note is the absence of a countervailing legal opinion. We haven't seen anything from a leading lawyer on this suggesting that Ireland could just abolish water charges at the stroke of a pen as people like Paul Murphy suggest.

    Normally, if there is considerable legal doubt on a major public issue (divorce, abortion etc.), you will see different senior lawyers offering different reasoned legal opinions. In this case, there hasn't been a single lawyer come out with a detailed reasoned argument as to how water charges could be legally abolished. That says more than anything.


  • #570
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    There is no way to get a definite ruling on legal matters without having a court rule and then appealing all the way to the highest court possible.

    In this case, you could abolish water charges and wait and see if the Commission would go to the ECJ to try and enforce a directive, then wait for the court to rule, then appeal and see how it goes. The problem with trying this is that it is risky - we could get slapped with serious fines.

    Without going all the way to the last appeal, you'll never have anything definite - just legal opinion like the one cited earlier.

    And yet some pros claim that we definitely would be in breach - strange that.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    It would give someone a chance to waste a lot of political capital. There's no way the EU parliament is going to amend that law just to keep a minority of Irish voters happy.

    There's no proof that they would have to amend it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement