No refund for families who have paid water charges

Going Forward

Godge wrote: »

Eh, no it hasn't, unless you subscribe to the Nessa Childers school of nonsense.

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/


I have clarified this before across several threads.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99216387&postcount=613

Here it is again for you:

"the Nessa Childers link. It is absolutely hilarious. Does she think people are stupid? Somehow she is claiming that the EU have said that member states, including Ireland, do not have to apply individualised domestic water charges to comply with the Water Framework Directive.

The full quote from the Commission reads:

"There is no specific requirement in Art 9 of the WFD for cost recovery to rely on individual consumption. However, for the Commission, an adequate implementation of the principle of incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well as of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption. In this context, water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD."

Essentially what the EU are saying is that there is no specific mention in Article 9 of a requirement for individual metering of consumption. That is true, and nobody has said anything different. Childers thinks this answers the question fully. She must be lacking a few brain cells or she didn't read on.

The next bit is telling. The Commission basically says that they see no way other than individualised water metering to ensure compliance with the WFD and the polluter pays principle. Childers seems not to have read this or completely misunderstood it. How much clearer can you get than "water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD"!!?!?!! SF economic policy is mad at the best of times, but if they are interpreting EU pronouncements in this way, they are taking it to a new level.

The full quote from the Commission is completely in line with the legal opinion published this morning in the Irish Times. I am astonished that the antis believe that the Commission response backs up their view of the world."

The amount of contradictory toing and froing in last answer and the latest "legal advice" has made her ask another one about it now:

http://nessachilders.ie/2016/03/29/question-to-the-european-commission-regarding-legal-situation-and-domestic-water-charges-in-ireland/

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

If he wants to see the detailed legal advice obtained by IW it is easy - he just has to ask for it (IW is subject to FOI requests and will have to give it to him). So lets wait and see if he makes that request and we will soon know if he really wishes he could see it or if it is pure rhetoric. We are also waiting for him to publish his.

We'll see. FoI requests by TDs for true payment figures and other information were rejected.

Redbishop

Going Forward wrote: »

The amount of contradictory toing and froing in last answer and the latest "legal advice" has made her ask another one about it now:

http://nessachilders.ie/2016/03/29/question-to-the-european-commission-regarding-legal-situation-and-domestic-water-charges-in-ireland/

How does the FF troika agreement figure here? It seems that FF agreed to charges before the end of the bailout program.
http://irishpoliticsandmedia.blogspot.ie/2013/12/text-of-fianna-fail-agreement-with.html?m=1

Godge

Going Forward wrote: »

The amount of contradictory toing and froing in last answer and the latest "legal advice" has made her ask another one about it now:

http://nessachilders.ie/2016/03/29/question-to-the-european-commission-regarding-legal-situation-and-domestic-water-charges-in-ireland/

I saw that. I don't think she will get a straight answer because the Commission won't stray into domestic politics until a policy decision is actually taken.

Suryavarman

Going Forward wrote: »

Possibly, in theory, but not in practice.

In practice the funding is the same and coming from essentially the same sources, households and businesses.

An interesting point made on the other thread is that if you want to really use the PPP as you define it, the new system only asks 1.5m people to pay for the cleanup costs of 4.5m people.

Or was that part of the paying twice argument.....

Internalising the costs means that the cost is borne specifically by whatever entity creates the cost. Spreading the cost among everyone isn't the same thing.

If there are no water charges then every time a toilet is flushed in one household everyone bears the cost of that flush. When water charges are in place the household bears the cost of it. That is internalising the cost.

Bill payers are allowed to further internalise the costs if they please. There isn't really an appropriate way for the Government to do it though.

Jack Killian

Suryavarman wrote: »

Internalising the costs means that the cost is borne specifically by whatever entity creates the cost. Spreading the cost among everyone isn't the same thing.

If there are no water charges then every time a toilet is flushed in one household everyone bears the cost of that flush. When water charges are in place the household bears the cost of it. That is internalising the cost.

Bill payers are allowed to further internalise the costs if they please. There isn't really an appropriate way for the Government to do it though.

IW was always giving one person a so-called "free" allowance though; that means that IW - if we are to believe the pros - would never have passed the WFD, even before they made it even less fit-for-purpose with the capping.

Going Forward

Suryavarman wrote: »

Internalising the costs means that the cost is borne specifically by whatever entity creates the cost. Spreading the cost among everyone isn't the same thing.

If there are no water charges then every time a toilet is flushed in one household everyone bears the cost of that flush. When water charges are in place the household bears the cost of it. That is internalising the cost.

Bill payers are allowed to further internalise the costs if they please. There isn't really an appropriate way for the Government to do it though.

It's about getting the provision of water "off the books" isn't it?

Redbishop

Going Forward wrote: »

It's about getting the provision of water "off the books" isn't it?

I thought it was about getting borrowings for infrastructure off the books?

Bob24

Godge wrote: »

I saw that. I don't think she will get a straight answer because the Commission won't stray into domestic politics until a policy decision is actually taken.

Plus she is targeting her question to avoid any inconvenient answer. They have said the directive does not specifically require cost recovery to be linked to individual consumption and won't change that. But the other part of their initial answer which she ignored and will keep ignoring will also remain valid: "an adequate implementation of the principle of incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9 [...] requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption. In this context, water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD."

Had she wanted to close the debate, she could have asked clearly whether the EC would consider it a breach of the directive for Ireland to abolish any charge directly related to domestic water consumption and waste water treatement.

She just made the question vague enough so that the answer can be vague as well (as you said the EC will not want to get into Irish politics and will definitely take the chance to be vague), and everybody can make it say whatever they want.

BoatMad

personally all I think you will see is that FF will use the legal position to get itself off the hook , remember its not in favour of abolishing charges , merely delaying them , which is entirely duplicitous

Bob24

BoatMad wrote: »

personally all I think you will see is that FF will use the legal position to get itself off the hook , remember its not in favour of abolishing charges , merely delaying them , which is entirely duplicitous

Surely that's the plan. And any other party/independent which is claiming they will stop the charges can say whatever they want because they know they are realistically not in a position to have significant influence on government policies in the medium term, and therefore they will never have to put their claims into practice.

BoatMad

Bob24 wrote: »

Surely that's the plan. And any other party/independent which is claiming they will stop the charges can say whatever they want because they know they are realistically not in a position to have significant influence on government policies in the medium term, and therefore they will never have to put their claims into practice.

yes , I think whatever happens , water charges in some form or another are here to stay.

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

Surely that's the plan. And any other party/independent which is claiming they will stop the charges can say whatever they want because they know they are realistically not in a position to have significant influence on government policies in the medium term, and therefore they will never have to put their claims into practice.

Surely that wouldn't be the case if there's a minority government relying on that support ?

BoatMad

Jack Killian wrote: »

Surely that wouldn't be the case if there's a minority government relying on that support ?

which isn't going to happen in my view, there will be another election

Jack Killian

BoatMad wrote: »

which isn't going to happen in my view, there will be another election

It's difficult to see how another election would yield a sufficiently different result. To me it would come across as another "ye got it wrong, do it again" similar to one or two referenda.

On the other hand it may give SDs a chance to increase their candidates and seats, which would be welcome in my book; I heard and read a lot of people voicing disappointment that they didn't have candidates in their constituency.

BoatMad

Jack Killian wrote: »

It's difficult to see how another election would yield a sufficiently different result. To me it would come across as another "ye got it wrong, do it again" similar to one or two referenda.

On the other hand it may give SDs a chance to increase their candidates and seats, which would be welcome in my book; I heard and read a lot of people voicing disappointment that they didn't have candidates in their constituency.

Yes but a similar result would utterly undermine FF ability to resist Government with FG . They would have no choice but to enter a coalition

FF need this as cover for that act. its bit like the BORG , the electorate want an end to civil war politics , resistance is futile , you will be assimilated

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

Surely that wouldn't be the case if there's a minority government relying on that support ?

I don't see how FG in there right mind could go for that option without a clear agreement to burry this topic (and a few others) beforehand. It would be a complete lose-lose situation for them.

A new vote would likely be better for them if they can't get that agreement.

Jack Killian wrote: »

It's difficult to see how another election would yield a sufficiently different result. To me it would come across as another "ye got it wrong, do it again" similar to one or two referenda.

I don't think it is the same thing. Asking the same (or similar) yes/no question again can indeed come accross as what you said. But the situation her is different. It is not a matter of "you got it wrong, do it again", but rather the fact that there is not clear majority coming from the vote (which shows that 1) the country is as fragmented as ever and 2) our political system is not very good at handling this fragmentation to produce a governement)

BoatMad

Bob24 wrote: »

I don't see how FG in there right mind could go for that option without a clear agreement to burry this topic (and a few others) beforehand. It would be a complete lose-lose situation for them.

A new vote would likely be better for them if they can't get that agreement.

yes I believe that is the case. FG would be stone nuts to rely on FF support passed on a flimsy Taillight type strategy , FF would simply wait and pull the Gov down at a time of its choosing and incumbents in Ireland tend to loose votes and FF know that

Jack Killian

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes but a similar result would utterly undermine FF ability to resist Government with FG . They would have no choice but to enter a coalition

FF need this as cover for that act. its bit like the BORG , the electorate want an end to civil war politics , resistance is futile , you will be assimilated

That's depressing - the ones who collectively ruined the county and put the nail in the coffin together ?

I reckon I'll cast my vote en-route to the ferry.....

BoatMad

Jack Killian wrote: »

That's depressing - the ones who collectively ruined the county and put the nail in the coffin together ?

I reckon I'll cast my vote en-route to the ferry.....

despite all the nonsense spoken by the left , this election was in fact a testimony to the fact that the irish voter is centrist in nature. in that it has returned as a clear majority of seats two centrist parties and in fact the left and hard left are just swopping seats between themselves , as the independents are where the " dont knows have gone to"

If you dont like democracy that fine , god knows we have a terrible system here, as Winston Churchill said " the arguments against democracy can easily be seen, after a five minute conversation with the average voter "

Jack Killian

BoatMad wrote: »

despite all the nonsense spoken by the left , this election was in fact a testimony to the fact that the irish voter is centrist in nature. in that it has returned as a clear majority of seats two centrist parties and in fact the left and hard left are just swopping seats between themselves , as the independents are where the " dont knows have gone to"

If you dont like democracy that fine , god knows we have a terrible system here, as Winston Churchill said " the arguments against democracy can easily be seen, after a five minute conversation with the average voter "

Centrist is irrelevant if they can't be honest and transparent and honour promises. Competent is nearly an "optional extra / nice to have" at this stage for most parties, if you add SF into the FF/FG pairing, that's the 3 biggest parties ruled out.

Not sure why you're mentioning the "nonsense spoken by the left" as they don't influence me.

SDs and independents are my only option, and even then being "independent" isn't any guarantee (Lowry, etc).

Off-topic though.

BoatMad

Centrist is irrelevant if they can't be honest and transparent and honour promises.

pre election promises are like dust in the wind, They only can be held up to the light if a party gets an overall majority. its a most foolish political system that forces all parties to hold to promises , in all circumstances . taken to its extreme , we would never have any government.

Politics is the art of compromise , dogma is the art of dictatorship.

unless the electorate are prepared to give overall party majorities , which they do not seem to at this point in time, then in order to govern this country compromises must be made.

another word for compromise , is that you may have to break a promise

tell me this, have you ever broken a promise to you kids , to your friends.

Pragmatism is what makes democracies, Rigid political beliefs is what makes wars.

Jack Killian

BoatMad wrote: »

another word for compromise , is that you may have to break a promise

No. You don't make promises you don't intend to keep. You say that you'll try, acknowledging the chance so that expectations are realistic and so that someone can make an fully-informed decision.

tell me this, have you ever broken a promise to you kids , to your friends.

No

Pragmatism is what makes democracies, Rigid political beliefs is what makes wars.

Pragmatism comes before making promises.

BoatMad

Jack Killian wrote: »

No. You don't make promises you don't intend to keep. You say that you'll try, acknowledging the chance so that expectations are realistic and so that someone can make an fully-informed decision.

when a party places a manifesto before its electorate , it is saying that were it elected as a majority government , it would implement these policies

I have argued that these days coalitions should be formed before elections and programmes for Government of such groupings be put to the people , that way promises would not have to be broken and the electorate would send a clear message as to who it wants in gov .

However, this is not what we have today, you cannot expect political parties to pout any forms of compromises , to the electorate based on assumptions of who they might be in government with after an election , they dont know the outcome of.

its simply ridiculous and naive in the extreme,

you have to allow parties to change there policies in the light of events and the impact of real life. this is true the whole world over. Only a stupid childlike electorate expects " mummy too live up to everything she says in all circumstances "

No

I dont expect that is a truthful answer, no one raises kids and keeps every promise , made with all the best intentions , forever .

Pragmatism comes before making promises.

Promises before an election are made in a totally artificial situation , you cannot be pragmatic until you know the facts of the day you are dealing with . thats the definition of pragmatism . You cannot be pragmatic before the fact .

simply demanding honesty from party political manifestos in situations where the reality is different then intended when the manifesto was proposed is just idiotic .

a Government governs , using broad policies that have to be adapted everyday to the reality of current events, promises made to spend money cannot be kept if you have not money , promises that on the day may contravene legislation , cannot be kept, decisions of parliament and the EU create situation where promises cannot be kept. tax revenues may dictate that promises cannot be kept.

you must allow political parties to say , " yes, but this has happened in the meantime ". otherwise you are seeking an elected dictator

Jack Killian

BoatMad wrote: »

I dont expect that is a truthful answer, no one raises kids and keeps every promise , made with all the best intentions , forever .

So you're calling me a liar. Great. You're wrong.

I never mentioned anything about having kids either.

Promises before an election are made in a totally artificial situation , you cannot be pragmatic until you know the facts of the day you are dealing with . thats the definition of pragmatism . You cannot be pragmatic before the fact .

Then don't make promises. Be honest and say what you'll try to do. But don't promise unless you know you can deliver.

simply demanding honesty from party political manifestos in situations where the reality is different then intended when the manifesto was proposed is just idiotic .

You're assuming that something changes. Nothing did. Nothing prevented FG from honouring their promises re open, transparent governance; instead we got cover-ups, guillotined legislation, lies, obfuscation - a complete and utter two-fingers to democracy in many cases.

promises made to spend money cannot be kept if you have not money

If you don't have money, don't promise your kid a bike.

promises that on the day may contravene legislation

Research before promising

you must allow political parties to say , " yes, but this has happened in the meantime ". otherwise you are seeking an elected dictator

If that were relevant then I would, of course. If someone offers me a room for the night and their house burns down, then it's not a "broken promise". We're not talking about stuff like that.

And what I'm seeking is certainly not a dictator.

Anyway, we're off topic so we'll agree to disagree.

FreudianSlippers

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's not how I read this:

"Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle".

If someone other than me is polluting my waste water, I'd like to know about it.



Bertie put a dodge in place in 2000 to avoid it, but it's history now.

+1

The Commission never said that we don't have to implement individual water charges, they simply said that where the Irish Exemption was in place (and almost everyone agrees that once you reject the exemption by implementing charges you cannot simply ask for a do-over) the Member State was simply obliged to "take account" of same when considering water policy so long as the remainder of the Directive was being so to adhered; however, where individual water charges were implemented, the Commission was also clear that individual charges were not required to make up the full amount of the cost (i.e. subsidisation was allowed - as this has nothing to do with Eurostat - and it is acceptable to charge commercial/industrial users disproportionately).

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

IW was always giving one person a so-called "free" allowance though; that means that IW - if we are to believe the pros - would never have passed the WFD, even before they made it even less fit-for-purpose with the capping.

Irish Water were never giving anyone a free allowance; the government was subsidising IW for this allowance (as they are with the cap).

There is also nothing in the WFD that says subsidisation is contrary to same. I think you're confusing the WFD with the Eurostat test to be honest.

FreudianSlippers

Going Forward wrote: »

It's about getting the provision of water "off the books" isn't it?

You're clearly confusing compliance with the WFD with the Eurostat test. Related but entirely separate issues.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Irish Water were never giving anyone a free allowance; the government was subsidising IW for this allowance (as they are with the cap).

There is also nothing in the WFD that says subsidisation is contrary to same. I think you're confusing the WFD with the Eurostat test to be honest.

You think wrongly.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

You think wrongly.

What a well thought out and detailed rebuttal. It appears to me from all your posts on the subject that you seem to think the WFD is relation to on/off book. Would you like me to take the time to go back over that last 24 hours and quote all the posts? Or do you have a substantive rebuttal that shows you have even the faintest notion what you're talking about?

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

Then don't make promises. Be honest and say what you'll try to do. But don't promise unless you know you can deliver.

Here is a link to the Labour manifesto of 2011.

The word "promise" occurs only once, and refers to a FF promise which was not fulfilled by the previous Government.

The entire document is based on the idea that Labour can lead the next Government, and setting out priorities. In other words, it is exactly what you say you want - they don't make promises, they say what they will try to do.

And then, in coalition, they have to compromise. Anyone who gets angry about this stuff simply doesn't understand the system.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What a well thought out and detailed rebuttal.

Well you incorrectly claimed you knew what I thought; so debunking that was pretty easy in fairness.

I didn't even have to "think it out", and if you reckon your talents include mindreading then - as you'd say yourself - it's up to you to prove it and not just guess and make false assertions implying that people are thick or confused.

Sorry that it wasn't couched in lawyer-speak and confusing waffle and up to your standards. But since you were wrong it was better to be concise.

FreudianSlippers

So by that reasoning Jack, if we simply delete the final sentence here, are you in agreement with the post?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Irish Water were never giving anyone a free allowance; the government was subsidising IW for this allowance (as they are with the cap).

There is also nothing in the WFD that says subsidisation is contrary to same. I think you're confusing the WFD with the Eurostat test to be honest.

Or does your 'wrong' still stand?

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Here is a link to the Labour manifesto of 2011.

The word "promise" occurs only once, and refers to a FF promise which was not fulfilled by the previous Government.

The entire document is based on the idea that Labour can lead the next Government, and setting out priorities. In other words, it is exactly what you say you want - they don't make promises, they say what they will try to do.

And then, in coalition, they have to compromise. Anyone who gets angry about this stuff simply doesn't understand the system.

It doesn't have to contain the word "promise" to be a promise. It has to say an unqualified "we will".

Are you saying that the Labour manifesto says "we will try to....." before every item, or contains the "if a and b and c and d....." in it's Ts & Cs ?

gladrags

BoatMad wrote: »

despite all the nonsense spoken by the left , this election was in fact a testimony to the fact that the irish voter is centrist in nature. in that it has returned as a clear majority of seats two centrist parties and in fact the left and hard left are just swopping seats between themselves , as the independents are where the " dont knows have gone to"

If you dont like democracy that fine , god knows we have a terrible system here, as Winston Churchill said " the arguments against democracy can easily be seen, after a five minute conversation with the average voter "

Was it yourself who posted the same WC quote a week or two ago?

It could well have been WC Fields,as the quote is totally anti-democratic.

All the evidence clearly suggests that the electorate are abandoning the old style debunked parties,their vote has declined steadily over the last 5 elections.

However,its your democratic choice,if you wish to keep your head in the sand.

oscarBravo

Jack Killian wrote: »

It doesn't have to contain the word "promise" to be a promise. It has to say an unqualified "we will".

I can just see election manifestos in your ideal world: "We might abolish water charges.¹"


¹ Terms and conditions apply.

Jack Killian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So by that reasoning Jack, if we simply delete the final sentence here, are you in agreement with the post?


Or does your 'wrong' still stand?

No. That sentence was far too patronising and dismissive, but I've already pointed out that there are question marks over the others, and that the interpretation of one lawyer will vary from another.

There is nothing to factually and categorically indicate that FS is correct.

The language is vague, potentially in either direction.

My point is that those who are claiming (rightly or wrongly) that the WFD requires full cost recoup now were saying nothing when IW wasn't full polluter cost recoup, and are merely being opportunist and jumping on the latest of a series of unsubstantiated twists in order to defend their favourite quango.

FS confused "polluter pays" with "self-sustaining", and while one implemented fully implies the other, they're not the same thing and it's disingenuous as dismissive to imply that someone cannot make the distinction.

But I guess people wouldn't need lawyers of these things weren't written vaguely so "legal opinion" could supersede facts and - in many cases - put someone off seeing justice done (a regular DOB tactic)

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can just see election manifestos in your ideal world: "We might abolish water charges.¹"


¹ Terms and conditions apply.

I was thinking more of the bigger and more important promises of honesty, integrity and transparency, to be honest.

gladrags

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Irish Water were never giving anyone a free allowance; the government was subsidising IW for this allowance (as they are with the cap).

Thats a nice way of saying that the government had been propping up their own quango,with bribes and guillotined legislation.

The puppet master,pulling the strings.

Jack Killian

Jack Killian wrote: »

No. That sentence was far too patronising and dismissive, but I've already pointed out that there are question marks over the others, and that the interpretation of one lawyer will vary from another.

There is nothing to factually and categorically indicate that FS is correct.

The language is vague, potentially in either direction.

My point is that those who are claiming (rightly or wrongly) that the WFD requires full cost recoup now were saying nothing when IW wasn't full polluter cost recoup, and are merely being opportunist and jumping on the latest of a series of unsubstantiated twists in order to defend their favourite quango.

FS confused "polluter pays" with "self-sustaining", and while one implemented fully implies the other, they're not the same thing and it's disingenuous as dismissive to imply that someone cannot make the distinction.

But I guess people wouldn't need lawyers of these things weren't written vaguely so "legal opinion" could supersede facts and - in many cases - put someone off seeing justice done (a regular DOB tactic)

Does any of this contradict anything that was written by FreudianSlippers ?
Three points were made;

1. Irish Water were never giving anyone a free allowance;
2. the government was subsidising IW for this allowance (as they are with the cap).
3. There is also nothing in the WFD that says subsidisation is contrary to same.

Are any of these incorrect?

Jack Killian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Does any of this contradict anything that was written by FreudianSlippers ?
Three points were made;

1. Irish Water were never giving anyone a free allowance;
2. the government was subsidising IW for this allowance (as they are with the cap).
3. There is also nothing in the WFD that says subsidisation is contrary to same.

Are any of these incorrect?

1. We know Irish Water weren't giving us "free" anything - we had to pay it via LGF / LPT

2. Is #1 clarified, but it's worth bearing in mind that the money came from ourselves

3. is debatable as the whole argument by the pros is that the WFD requires "pay per use" / "polluter pays". The original pricing model had the first person not paying.

So either

1) the pros are wrong now, or

2) the pros kept their mouths shut back then

One pro has already admitted that they reckoned
IW borderline re WFD to begin with. That's fine.

It's just pathetic that the fan-boys only raise these issues after the fact and when it suits them.

Verbose.

Of FreudianSlippers points, it appears that don't disagree with any of them tbh.

You have not contested any.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

It doesn't have to contain the word "promise" to be a promise. It has to say an unqualified "we will".

Are you saying that the Labour manifesto says "we will try to....." before every item, or contains the "if a and b and c and d....." in it's Ts & Cs ?

You could try, you know, reading it before telling us all what they promised, and what promises they broke. But here, I'll read some of it out to you. This is an example of a thing in the Labour manifesto:

Labour does not favour water charges, which do not address the immediate needs of those who currently receive intermittent or poor water supplies.
If I had to guess, I would say this is because Labour were well aware that the EU directive would come home to roost at some point, and didn't want to be caught out. The fact remains that they did not promise anything here.

Have to love the people of Cobh. They want the service but won't pay for it! Imagine living in houses for 40 years and only now complaining about a problem?

Jack Killian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Have to love the people of Cobh. They want the service but won't pay for it! Imagine living in houses for 40 years and only now complaining about a problem?

So they haven't paid any car tax, VAT or LPT ?

Shocking! Arrest them immediately!

Imagine paying for something for years though taxes and now being asked to pay a separate bill while getting nothing extra.

gladrags

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can just see election manifestos in your ideal world: "We might abolish water charges.¹"


¹ Terms and conditions apply.

Thats not the point he is making,or anywhere near it.

In the FG 2011 manifesto, promises are referred to or made,seven times.

However claims that that "we will" do this or do that,are made 493 times,throughout the document.

gladrags

gladrags wrote: »

Thats not the point he is making,or anyway near it.

In the FG 2011 manifesto, promises are referred to or made,seven times.

However claims that that "we will" do this or do that,are made 493 times

If your son tells you "I will go to school tomorrow", but in between saying it and the following morning he gets a terrible cold, would you force him to go to school or would you keep him home because it was the right thing to do?

Would you forever hold it against him that he was unable to go to school if he did in fact stay at home? Remember, he had told you "I will go to school tomorrow" but he didn't!

Please do actually answer the questions, they're not rhetorical.

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If I had to guess, I would say this is because Labour were well aware that the EU directive would come home to roost at some point, and didn't want to be caught out. The fact remains that they did not promise anything here.

My guess would be something completely different and far less tin-foil-hat.

Mine would be that they were well aware that they wouldn't have a majority or even sufficient influence.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

Well you incorrectly claimed you knew what I thought; so debunking that was pretty easy in fairness.

I didn't even have to "think it out", and if you reckon your talents include mindreading then - as you'd say yourself - it's up to you to prove it and not just guess and make false assertions implying that people are thick or confused.

Sorry that it wasn't couched in lawyer-speak and confusing waffle and up to your standards. But since you were wrong it was better to be concise.

You literally just said that the initial allowances would result in the fees not passing the WFD.

So... what are you talking about exactly?

Jack Killian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If your son tells you "I will go to school tomorrow", but in between saying it and the following morning he gets a terrible cold, would you force him to go to school or would you keep him home because it was the right thing to do?

Would you forever hold it against him that he was unable to go to school if he did in fact stay at home? Remember, he had told you "I will go to school tomorrow" but he didn't!

Please do actually answer the questions, they're not rhetorical.

Does a headcold stop him being "open and transparent" ?

Did a headcold stop negotiations with Europe ?

Did a headcold result in Noonan telling Catherine Murphy to take a running jump ?

Did a headcold get Kenny to appoint someone to IMMA and then lie about it ?

Did a headcold result in Kenny being verbally unable to vocalise an actual apology ?

The main promises I am on about are honesty, transparency and a "new way of doing politics"

Their flip-flops and u-turns re USC and where LPT goes are secondary to the main promise of a reboot of Irish politics and an actual alternative to FF.