Vatican still hasn't approved Charity pull out from maternity hospital site

Balf wrote: »

Tbh, you are not following the thread of discussion.

Yes, it would be a change requiring a constitutional amendment. Yes, it would require checks and balances. Yes, it would mean some folk would not get the speculative gains they want.

Yes, it would chiefly appeal to people who don't currently own assets. Yes, the vested interests who would lose can be expected to attempt to frighten the Widow Murphy into thinking this means she'll be evicted from her home.

Would it impact on FDI? Hardly, as they're not here to make a living from speculative land gambles. We're talking about changing the balance of rights so they cannot continue to be abused, and not suggesting that we seize Intel's IP.

All that's said on this thread, if you only read and comprehended it.

Lol dude. What is the St Vincent's site currently being used for? Are they planting spuds in it maybe or is it sheep farming or perhaps even a dairy?


Multinationals will not invest in a jurisdiction that does not have strong property rights. Why is that? - and seeing as how you mention Intel - suppose the government just goes around seizing property and paying 25k an acre for it. Grand, it happens today for St. Vincents. Maybe tomorrow they will seize the Intel campus at Leixlip. Maybe the pencil pusher who can decide on his whim to do so gets a nice little backhander from AMD for procuring them a nice site for the "Irish" company they just set up


Out of curiosity - what was your position on Thomas Reid case which I mentioned in passing earlier. What with your talk about checks and balances.

TheValeyard wrote: »

Shouldn't be on Vincent's site in the first place. Plenty of room in Blanch hospital with easy access to M50/M4 and M3

That site must be the size of Dublin Airport with all the facilities that could allegedly be located there! The decision has been made so any speculation is moot. Vincent's makes sense given where the three maternity hospitals are based.

is_that_so wrote: »

That site must be the size of Dublin Airport with all the facilities that could allegedly be located there! The decision has been made so any speculation is moot. Vincent's makes sense given where the three maternity hospitals are based.

I know that decision had been made so speculation is moot. But I shall anyway. Still believe shenanigans were involved in agreement for that site. Blanch was much better, and yes huge amount of land out there.

Balf wrote: »

Again, you miss the point.No-one is suggesting weak property rights. We're suggesting sensible property rights, not open to abuse,I can't see any reason why the State should CPO land from one private enterprise to give to another.

But, bear in mind, we had legislation to do just that precisely because of a desire to facilitate FDI. So I think you need to reflect on the case a little, because you aren't being entirely coherent.

Look I'm fed up talking to you. You still apparently think that the government should be allowed to seize the Vincents site and pay compensation of 25k an acre.

Then you go on about having strong property rights. Load of waffle.

Thomas Reid won his case because the state body would not admit why they were trying to steal his land. Would Intel be bothered that the state was trying to appropriate the land of a small farmer by intimidating him - no, of course not. They would be confident that they would have the resources to fight any such attempt on their own property. Weaken the property rights in the constitution and then that falls away.


Give us your vision of how these new property rights would appear in the constitution? Because we already have a mechanism (CPO) to seize land when it can be shown to be necessary and for the greater good. So you must want something more than that.

Balf wrote: »

Seeing as how the lands were being acquired by IDA for Intel, I think you need to reflect on the coherence of what you are saying.

You need a deeper appreciation of the issues in play, because you're not really grasping whats at issue.

No dude. It is you that do not understand what you are proposing or the implications of same. You're waffling and rambling. Do you still really think that the government should be able to seize property in Dublin City and pay 25k an acre for it? Is that still your position? Is that the conclusion that you came to as a result of your own "deeper appreciation of the issues in play"?

FYI, and your own education, the main issue at hand with the Thomas Reid case was that the IDA tried to CPO his land without ever admitting it was for Intel. Now they were following your argument that you said that you were not talking about taking property from one private entity to give to another. They were ostensibly taking private land into public ownership. They thought that they could bully the little fella.
Could they bully Intel in the same manner - no - because of the constitutional protections on property rights meant that any challenge would likely ultimately succeed. Intel would have the means to fight them to bring it that far. The fact that the IDA tried (and failed) to bully Reid would not make Intel run to the hills because they know the state could not try to pull a fast one on them in the same manner. Do you understand the concept that some people might not have the contacts/experience/resources/will to fight something like that and be bullied into accepting something they should not be able to be forced into?

Here's an extreme example - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/venezuela-asset-seizures-raise-concerns-for-other-sectors-gm.html. Maybe if you were around you could have explained to GM why they shouldn't pull out because "shure the government will be fair".
Could the Irish government seize assets like that? No, because of constitutional property protections. The very things you want to dilute. You still haven't given a good reason for wanting that, or how you would define it other than implying that you don't think "The Pope" should be allowed the same property rights as anyone else.

Look, I'm not wasting any more time replying to you. Your arguments are simplistic and short-sighted and amount to little more than "wah wah, it's not fair that they have something. We should be allowed to take it from them. But not my stuff. You can't touch my stuff". Laws have to be made that apply to all equally. If you want protections of your rights, you have to allow those protections to others too.

Balf wrote: »

ILike I said, you are not being coherent. You are saying the law doesn't equally protect all, and that Intel would only invest here if it did equally protect all.

I don't know where you got that from. Where did I say anything about the law not equally protecting all? It currently does. Unequal access to the legal system is a separate issue to whether the underlying laws protect anyone. Thomas Reid went to the Supreme Court at huge financial risk to himself.

You're talking about "controls and checks" as if these instruments would never be abused. In the case of Thomas Reid they were. They were trying to seize his land to hand it over to Intel. But they could not admit to doing that. So they had to pretend that a state body needed the land (which happened to be located right beside the Intel campus...coincidentally like). Reid risked millions of his own money to fight the case. How many millions would you yourself be prepared to risk in the Supreme Court if the local Council decided to take a strip off the bottom of your garden so that they could add a parking space and you didn't want to sell it.....they say it's needed for the public good but the dogs on the street know that the County Manager's brother's shop is next door and he's losing customers because there is no parking outside his shop.......

Balf wrote: »

And, behind it all, there's no absolute right to private property. The existing balance of rights could do with a change. In particular, there's no need to protect the scope to speculate and no need to facilitate continuing religious control in health and education.

Ah, so the mask is slipping. And if we think that "The Jews" are controlling the media maybe we should be allowed to seize their businesses too? Or is it just Catholic properties you want to seize. You want to go back to the Penal laws maybe? Would that make you happy?

Balf wrote: »

But the same as saying they don't protect everyone - which is where your position lacks coherence.

You've essentially said Intel are happy with a two-tier legal system, and then say no-one could be happy with a two-tier system. Incoherent.No, in fact you'd benefit from acquainting yourself with this book:

Please do point out where I stated any of the above. Unless you can take a screenshot of the inside of your head and link it here, I doubt we'll be seeing it.
The fact that people might not access financially to challenge infringements on their rights does not mean they do not exist. Thoma Reid took a chance. Many could not or would not. Is that too difficult a concept to understand? Really? Or are you under the impression that all Courts are free to access for everyone? Win or lose you will never have to pay a penny? Is that what you think?


Did you support or agree with Thomas Reid's challenge to fight against his land being seized by a public body (IDA). Yes or no? Because I definitely did.

You do understand that it was the constitution that saved him? You know that thing that you want to dilute (without having the cop-on to realise what you are proposing)

Dude, you think things are incoherent because you cannot understand them. There's not much I can do.

You still haven't given us your proposed constitutional amendment. Or even any indication of what exactly you want in it other than it would reduce the rights of Catholic organisations.

Balf wrote: »

Sure, I've already done that. Several posts ago. You just haven't digested the implications of what you said.I already did.Where's the ambiguity there?

Are you actually reading the thread before posting?

Lol dude. You are all over the place. You say that a public body should be able to seize assets on their whim yet you (correctly IMO) support Thomas Reid. Which is it? The IDA wanted his land. THEY NEVER ADMITTED WHY THEY WANTED IT. They just said they needed it. Not that they wanted to give it to anyone else. If they had said "we want this for Intel" then they would have never gotten the CPO. So they could not admit to that.

Now, Thomas Reid fought them on the basis of the State's constitutional obligation to protect his property rights. As you say, those rights are not absolute but the conditions under which they can be extinguished could be heuristically explained as being for something that is absolutely necessary for the greater good and with no alternatives. He won. But he risked millions to do so. Many would not. Could he have lost - yes, the IDA position that they absolutely needed that specific land for the greater public good could have been believed. Then in 5-10 years they "realize" they don't need it and quietly sell it to Intel - or else lease it to them on a very long lease at favourable terms.

If you weaken the constitution then Thomas Reid doesn't get to appeal. Well he can appeal but he will have nothing to base it on. We understand you don't like the church. Call it whatever you will - intolerance/hatred/bigotry/whatever. But we cannot change the constitution based on that bigotry. The constitution is very important and any changes can have effects that you might not consider now. Think of the amendment that was made in the 1990's for the GFA. It wrote into the constitution that anyone born on the Ireland of Ireland was entitled to claim citizenship. Which meant visa trips for pregnant ladies to give birth here for a few years. That needed another referendum to remove it and relegate it back to the legislative level.