No refund for families who have paid water charges

FreudianSlippers · 29-03-2016 01:33PM

1) Calling not paying water bills "civil disobedience" is probably one of the most immature things I've ever seen written on a "serious" politics website.

2) If one actually reads the WFD, it's highly unlikely that once water charges are implemented it would be possible to abolish them without showing exactly where the money is coming from to replace same (which seems unlikely at best).

3) No party other than AAA/PBP (who I remind you believe that all profit is immoral and advocate effective communism) and SF (who I remind you have zero stated and factual economic policy) have stated that they will (a) abolish water charges or (b) require people not to pay sums owed to Irish Water to date.

Phoebas · 29-03-2016 01:43PM

If abolishing water charges ever becomes a serious proposal, we're bound to get a legal opinion from the AG on this.

We don't need (and can't get) anything definite. It the AG advises that we would be in breach of EU law, then abolishing water charges will be out.

Suryavarman · 29-03-2016 02:02PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

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

The actual law suggests very strongly that it would need to be amended for any country in the EU to get rid of water charges.

FreudianSlippers · 29-03-2016 02:04PM

IMO on any reading of the WFD, we can no longer avail of the now ironically named “Irish Exemption”. However, I believe most opining on same in discussions on this thread as to the legality of reversing water charges have probably not read the WFD.

Godge · 29-03-2016 03:01PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

The actual law suggests very strongly that it would need to be amended for any country in the EU to get rid of water charges.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMO on any reading of the WFD, we can no longer avail of the now ironically named “Irish Exemption”. However, I believe most opining on same in discussions on this thread as to the legality of reversing water charges have probably not read the WFD.

A lot of the "pros" on these boards have been saying the same thing for months - the Directive doesn't allow you to reverse water charges once introduced.

Yes, before introducing them (or promising to introduce them, which we did in 2010), there was the possibility (but only a possibility) of an exemption if we could demonstrate that the alternative helped us reach the objectives of the Directive. Nobody anywhere (either here or outside these boards) has credibly put forward an explanation of how this might be achieved.

The legal opinion, as reported today in the Irish Times, is not in the least surprising to me. It accords with any reasonable reading of the provisions of the Directive.

What would make this interesting if, (instead of desperately attacking those who procured the legal opinion or those who post it here), those who believe the legal opinion to be wrong could produce a different legal opinion. By that, I mean something from a reputable legal source (as the two named SC are) and makes a coherent reasoned argument, rather than the normal freeman-type nonsense seen on anti-water charges Facebook pages.

Jack Killian · 29-03-2016 03:03PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

The actual law suggests very strongly that it would need to be amended for any country in the EU to get rid of water charges.

As I said, no proof.

Evidence could "suggest" that I murdered someone, but because I haven't I have nothing to worry about.

Jack Killian · 29-03-2016 03:06PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMO on any reading of the WFD, we can no longer avail of the now ironically named “Irish Exemption”. However, I believe most opining on same in discussions on this thread as to the legality of reversing water charges have probably not read the WFD.

IMO = "in your opinion", right ?

Not sure how your opinion overarches "any" reading of it, unless you're the legal counsel for absolutely everyone reading it ?

FreudianSlippers · 29-03-2016 03:13PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

As I said, no proof.

Evidence could "suggest" that I murdered someone, but because I haven't I have nothing to worry about.

You're looking for people to prove a negative. Very poor debating standard.

Jack Killian wrote: »

IMO = "in your opinion", right ?

Not sure how your opinion overarches "any" reading of it, unless you're the legal counsel for absolutely everyone reading it ?

Yeah, in my opinion... with a bunch of law degrees and experience as a practising lawyer (and not the mom-and-pop corner wills and probate type either - although there is nothing wrong with that!). Oh, and having actually read the WFD. Oh, and that you haven't offered a single example or suggestion as to how said opinion isn't correct (other than, as I said, requesting people prove a negative).

Suryavarman · 29-03-2016 03:14PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

As I said, no proof.

Evidence could "suggest" that I murdered someone, but because I haven't I have nothing to worry about.

Have you even read the law? Or have you read an opinion of the law that finds that abolition of the water charges would be legal? If so, could you provide a link to that opinion please?

Godge · 29-03-2016 03:17PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Have you even read the law? Or have you read an opinion of the law that finds that abolition of the water charges would be legal? If so, could you provide a link to that opinion please?

There isn't a legal position out there that supports the anti-water charges position on the Directive, hence you are unlikely to get such a response to your post.

I predicted only a few short posts ago that the general reaction from the antis to this legal opinion would be to desperately attack those who procured the legal opinion or those who post it here. Sadly, it seems like another prediction that I am getting right.

Jack Killian · 29-03-2016 03:27PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're looking for people to prove a negative. Very poor debating standard.

Yeah, in my opinion... with a bunch of law degrees and experience as a practising lawyer (and not the mom-and-pop corner wills and probate type either - although there is nothing wrong with that!). Oh, and having actually read the WFD. Oh, and that you haven't offered a single example or suggestion as to how said opinion isn't correct (other than, as I said, requesting people prove a negative).

I'm no expert, but would I be right in asserting that both sides in every law case have "law degrees and experience", and yet one of them is proven wrong by the end of the case ?

I'm not "looking for anyone to prove a negative"; I'm looking for them to prove that it requires a change in law, as was asserted earlier; in response I got a wishy-washy "suggestion". It's fairly bad going for a practising lawyer to falsely claim that I'm doing so, albeit only in an online forum that has no relevance in the real world.

It is up to those asserting that it requires a change in law to prove it.

Zubeneschamali · 29-03-2016 03:38PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

I'm no expert, but would be right in asserting that both sides in every law case have "law degrees and experience", and yet one of them is proven wrong by the end of the case ?

Yes, that's what Godge is pointing out is unusual in this case. Usually, we see legal opinions for and against in high-profile cases. But here only one side has offered a legal opinion, which (upthread) says there is no going back.

Your side has nothing so far, except "I am not an expert, but" opinion.

FreudianSlippers · 29-03-2016 03:47PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

I'm no expert, but would be right in asserting that both sides in every law case have "law degrees and experience", and yet one of them is proven wrong by the end of the case ?

No, you'd be very wrong if you thought that litigation was about proving anyone wrong.

In fact, this is so cut-and-dry that:

1) There isn't a case;
2) Nobody has made a coherent counter-argument.

Your argument never gets near a courtroom.

I'm not "looking for anyone to prove a negative"; I'm looking for them to prove that it requires a change in law, as was asserted earlier; in response I got a wishy-washy "suggestion".

You are in effect. It's a Russell's teapot situation.

We can tell you with certainty that the law says 3 distinct things:

1) Recovery of costs must be in accordance with ‘established principles’;
2) The decision vis-a-vis recovery must not be contrary to the scope of the directive;
3) A decision not to apply recovery provisions must be reported in river basin management plans.

Not one of those conditions is fulfilled by Ireland.

It's fairly bad going for a practising lawyer to falsely claim that I'm doing so, albeit only in an online forum that has no relevance in the real world.

It is up to those asserting that it requires a change in law to prove it.

No, it isn't actually. The non-compliance with the WFD looks clear and obvious and you have not provided any evidence or argument to suggest otherwise.

Jack Killian · 29-03-2016 03:47PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, that's what Godge is pointing out is unusual in this case. Usually, we see legal opinions for and against in high-profile cases. But here only one side has offered a legal opinion, which (upthread) says there is no going back.

Your side has nothing so far, except "I am not an expert, but" opinion.

Firstly, I think calling it "your side" is horrendously blinkered and dismissive as it conveniently links me to the likes of Murphy and deliberately hides a preference I would have for charging for wastage.

Secondly, the news today said that IW were asked to release the full report, rather than a convenient press release; given their penchant for twisting facts to make themselves look good, I reckon that it would be prudent for anyone objective to wait for the full release rather than the spin.

Thirdly, my point was in response to someone who claimed that it would require a change in the law; that too is merely an opinion, as is the one in the report, as is anyone's opinion of the article / summary of the report or the WFD itself.

There is enough caveat in the WFD re other factors, and enough vague phrasing too, to justify a discussion about it, rather than an "I'm a lawyer so let's pretend that lawyers don't get things wrong and lose and take my word for it" attempt to shut down discussion.

All posts here are opinions. Some more considered and less biased than others.

Jack Killian · 29-03-2016 03:49PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, you'd be very wrong if you thought that litigation was about proving anyone wrong.

So justice doesn't come into it in any shape or form ? Good to know.

In fact, this is so cut-and-dry that:

1) There isn't a case;
2) Nobody has made a coherent counter-argument.

Your argument never gets near a courtroom.

You are in effect. It's a Russell's teapot situation.

We can tell you with certainty that the law says 3 distinct things:

1) Recovery of costs must be in accordance with ‘established principles’;
2) The decision vis-a-vis recovery must not be contrary to the scope of the directive;
3) A decision not to apply recovery provisions must be reported in river basin management plans.

Not one of those conditions is fulfilled by Ireland.

No, it isn't actually. The non-compliance with the WFD looks clear and obvious and you have not provided any evidence or argument to suggest otherwise.

Not "is clear and obvious", then ?

FreudianSlippers · 29-03-2016 03:49PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

There is enough caveat in the WFD re other factors, and enough vague phrasing too, to justify a discussion about it,

That's the whole argument isn't it? If such factors exist, then why haven't you raised any of them?

Jack Killian · 29-03-2016 03:52PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's the whole argument isn't it? If such factors exist, then why haven't you raised any of them?

Because they've been repeatedly raised and no-one has showed where anything has changed.

All that has happened is that some legal advisors paid by a particular outfit have issued a self-serving press release.

Some lawyers for DOB tried that stunt a few months back and were exposed.

FreudianSlippers · 29-03-2016 03:52PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

Because they've been repeatedly raised and no-one has showed where anything has changed.

Where? Once - show me one example of this.

Jack Killian · 29-03-2016 03:55PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Where? Once - show me one example of this.

Are you new to boards ? Because apparently there's been multiple threads on the multiple issues, including this one.

FreudianSlippers · 29-03-2016 03:57PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

Are you new to boards ? Because apparently there's been multiple threads on the multiple issues, including this one.

So you can't. Fair enough.

Jack Killian · 29-03-2016 03:59PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you can't. Fair enough.

I thought you were a lawyer ? Jumping to an incorrect, pre-prejudiced conclusion is surely at odds with your experience and law degrees ?

Godge · 29-03-2016 04:01PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Where? Once - show me one example of this.

There hasn't been an argument like that put forward in this particular forum.

Bob24 · 29-03-2016 04:03PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

I thought you were a lawyer ? Jumping to an incorrect, pre-prejudiced conclusion is surely at odds with your experience and law degrees ?

Well you haven't quoted any sample factors yet - so until now you are proving his assertion to be right. If you can quote examples, very easy or you to prove him wrong.

Jack Killian · 29-03-2016 04:09PM

Godge wrote: »

There hasn't been an argument like that put forward in this particular forum.

Nice caveat.

http://nessachilders.ie/2014/12/09/childers-welcomes-clarification-from-european-commission-that-ireland-does-not-need-to-apply-domestic-water-charges-under-eu-law/

http://www.iiea.com/ftp/environmentnexus_faqs/panels-Water-FAQ.html

Ireland has eight River Basin Districts – three cross border (Shannon, Neagh Bann and North Western), four within the Republic of Ireland (Eastern, South Eastern, South Western and Western) and one wholly within Northern Ireland (North Eastern). To date, management plans have been prepared for all River Basin Districts.

Currently, 54% of rivers and canals have reached good or high status. The aim is to improve this to 68% by 2015. Similarly, Ireland aims to reach good or high status in 84% of its lakes by 2015 from current levels of 65%.

RealJohn · 29-03-2016 04:10PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

You're right and they wouldn't do it without giving a good reason for doing so or three would be widespread protest to that too as there is a good reason that it is currently prohibited.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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. Charging for water was in Fine Gael's election manifesto. 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?

Once again, you're making out that I'm saying something I'm not. That seems to be your standard tactic. Not very honest of you.
It is unjust in Ireland because we were already paying for our water through general taxation. There was no reduction in taxation in line with the introduction of water charges. That is why it's unjust.
I'm not opposed to water charges. I think I've already said that in this thread. I'm opposed to paying twice - once through general taxation and once directly - and I'm opposed to being lied to about how and why I'm being charged.

RealJohn · 29-03-2016 04:15PM

Godge wrote: »

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.

I've explained above why it's an unjust law.
The rest of what I said is irrelevant because none of it applied to Ireland when the law was introduced. I agree that it might be illegal to repeal the law now (although is it not Irish Water themselves who have made that claim - they're not exactly unbiased, are they?) but it should be challenged on whether it should have been introduced in the first place, not to mention the fact that such widespread non-compliance raises the question of whether it has actually been instituted at all in reality.

Godge · 29-03-2016 04:20PM

RealJohn wrote: »

Once again, you're making out that I'm saying something I'm not. That seems to be your standard tactic. Not very honest of you.
It is unjust in Ireland because we were already paying for our water through general taxation. There was no reduction in taxation in line with the introduction of water charges. That is why it's unjust.
I'm not opposed to water charges. I think I've already said that in this thread. I'm opposed to paying twice - once through general taxation and once directly - and I'm opposed to being lied to about how and why I'm being charged.

That is a moral argument, not a legal argument. I thought you were arguing that water charges were illegal.

You are also factually wrong about the reduction in taxation. Budget 2015 saw a reduction in €642m in income tax and USC, far outweighing the contribution from water charges.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2015/2015.aspx

The document, Summary of 2015 Budget Tax Measures will explain all.

29-03-2016 04:27PM

RealJohn wrote: »

You're right and they wouldn't do it without giving a good reason for doing so or three would be widespread protest to that too as there is a good reason that it is currently prohibited.

Once again, you're making out that I'm saying something I'm not. That seems to be your standard tactic. Not very honest of you.
It is unjust in Ireland because we were already paying for our water through general taxation. There was no reduction in taxation in line with the introduction of water charges. That is why it's unjust.
I'm not opposed to water charges. I think I've already said that in this thread. I'm opposed to paying twice - once through general taxation and once directly - and I'm opposed to being lied to about how and why I'm being charged.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/budget-2015-top-income-tax-rate-cut-usc-rates-changed-1.1962809?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fbudget-2015-top-income-tax-rate-cut-usc-rates-changed-1.1962809

well....

Suryavarman · 29-03-2016 04:36PM

RealJohn wrote: »

You're right and they wouldn't do it without giving a good reason for doing so or three would be widespread protest to that too as there is a good reason that it is currently prohibited.

Once again, you're making out that I'm saying something I'm not. That seems to be your standard tactic. Not very honest of you.
It is unjust in Ireland because we were already paying for our water through general taxation. There was no reduction in taxation in line with the introduction of water charges. That is why it's unjust.
I'm not opposed to water charges. I think I've already said that in this thread. I'm opposed to paying twice - once through general taxation and once directly - and I'm opposed to being lied to about how and why I'm being charged.

You are only paying for water once. There was no reduction in taxation because there is a budget deficit. Also, most of the country are opposed to tax cuts judging by the result of the recent election.

Jack Killian · 29-03-2016 04:39PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

You are only paying for water once. There was no reduction in taxation because there is a budget deficit. Also, most of the country are opposed to tax cuts judging by the result of the recent election.

Untrue. The claim for the setup of IW was "pay for what you use", and the LGF / LPT was given to Irish Water in addition to the bills.

Not only that, but those of us with our own systems had contributed to that fund.

So I'd be paying at least twice (not including motor tax/LPT which makes it almost 3 times) what they claimed would be the "most any household will have to pay".

No refund for families who have paid water charges

Comments