Are the Government helping you

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lots of people bought in Dublin as an investment. Lots more are accidental landlords. You're talking about wiping out those people's investment. It's extremely socialist and would be very easy to paint as anti-capitalist. A lot of hard working decent people would be burned. That's why I'm asking if you would actually support the government who did it.

The vast majority of people buy a house to have a home, not an investment. Let's make that clear. Also lots of people are "accidental landlords", because they found out that they couldn't pay their stupidly overpriced mortgage after they lost the job they though they were going have forever.

The situation we - or better put, the government - is creating now is a scenario where a HUGE number of people won't ever own their home and in too many cases have to go through the nightmare of an uncertain domestic existence in our laughable renting "market", to be at the whim of landlords who can and do raise rents at a drop of a hat on ridiculous 12 month leases. When you can't afford a home, the option open to you SHOULD be renting. But in Ireland, that has become a Hobson's choice. That means the renter will never know where they will even be living in 12 months time, thus impacting on their lives in the most terrible way. How can one have a kid, if you don't even know if you'll be in traveling distance of a school in 12 months time?

You talk of "wiping out" the landlord class. Well, they've leaving in droves already, apparently, so one might say so what? A decision to help the people of the state have a home to live in might be considered more important than the needs of a few landlords, whose goal is the profit they can make off of desperate people. I actually know a few landlords who have got out in the last year. They got out because their own kids can't afford to rent or buy their own homes. So their daddy has passed the previously rented property onto them.

You keep mentioning "Socialist", but surely there can be a balance struck, where the housing needs of the people of the country can be catered for as well as the relatively small number of private landlords that exist here. I'd vote for a party who ideas included a sensible approach to the very real (and constantly growing) problem we face regarding homes in Ireland.

As it stands, we have power brokers who seem happy to stand by until the situation goes pop.

K-9

EndaHonesty wrote: »

And yet, despite the majority of the electorate NOT voting for Fine Gael, they form the majority of the government.

Representational democracy is a fine ideal but in reality it is a clever way of allowing slimey politicians to follow their own agenda under the guise of "democracy"!

Well yes, but they were still the largest party and the rest of the Dail was too fragmented to offer an alternative.

We did end up with the FF/FG arrangement so it isn't that unrepresentative.

Tony EH

micosoft wrote: »

So the answer is to hire a "regulator" and they wave a magic want and supply suddenly appears?

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

El_Duderino 09

Tony EH wrote:

The vast majority of people buy a house to have a home, not an investment. Let's make that clear. Also lots of people are "accidental landlords", because they found out that they couldn't pay their stupidly overpriced mortgage after they lost the job they though they were going have forever.

That was all a side point. If you built a load of houses, house purchase and renting prices would drop. That's the point isn't it? House prices drop and it doesn't matter whether they're investment houses or private. People would have a less valuable investment.

I brought it up because it's a very anti capitalist policy. I would support it but I think the general public would turn completely against any government who did that.

Tony EH wrote:

You talk of "wiping out" the landlord class. Well, they've leaving in droves already, apparently, so one might say so what? A decision to help the people of the state have a home to live in might be considered more important than the needs of a few landlords, whose goal is the profit they can make off of desperate people.

I quoted someone else who talked about wiping out landlords. Is it ok to change the rules for landlords and home owners who invested in a house under the current set of laws? Would you support taking the rug from under them by changing the laws and potentially turning their investment into a millstone around their neck? Genuine question.

Tony EH wrote:

You keep mentioning "Socialist", but surely there can be a balance struck, where the housing needs of the people of the country can be catered for as well as the relatively small number of private landlords that exist here. I'd vote for a party who ideas included a sensible approach to the very real (and constantly growing) problem we face regarding homes in Ireland.

The balance you're talking about is a big step to the left. Social housing to drive down the price of privately owned a houses and investment properties, telling people how much they can charge for their product. The balance you're talking about is about introducing a socialist element to the equation.

If you're not willing to call it socialist and commit to supporting it then it will never get the support it needs. No government will touch it if the voter won't back them.

Again I ask, would you back the government who actually implement the policies your proposing?

Tony EH

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That was all a side point. If you built a load of houses, house purchase and renting prices would drop. That's the point isn't it? House prices drop and it doesn't matter whether they're investment houses or private. People would have a less valuable investment.

That's the danger of the market. If prices keep going up and the bubble bursts again, people are still in the same boat. My concern is the ability of people to be able to put a roof over their heads and live in a home. The current direction suggests that that is going to become more and more difficult for people to do and frankly, that's not a direction we should be going in. To me that outweighs the business concerns of a few landlords.

Also, it depends on who is building the homes. I'm suggesting that we look at the housing estate solution that helped a lot of people in the 70's and 80's, where people pay rent to the state and are able to live in a home long term (generational in the majority of cases). As I said, it's not a perfect solution as those estates have their own problems, but it's A solution.

If that hurts some landlords, so be it. The needs of a few landlords shouldn't impact the needs of people who need homes and a stable living situation. The situation now is absolute chaos and in the end will help nobody.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I brought it up because it's a very anti capitalist policy. I would support it but I think the general public would turn completely against any government who did that.

Would it be better to simply let things take its course and have the bubble go pop again? It's like we learned nothing from the previous collapse. And frankly, I don't care about "anti-capitalist" or "socialist". Unlike some on Boards, I'm not here to merely push a political viewpoint or agenda. However, I can recognise when something is seriously out of control and have to question how we got here and what it is that the current people in power are doing to address the problem.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I quoted someone else who talked about wiping out landlords. Is it ok to change the rules for landlords and home owners who invested in a house under the current set of laws? Would you support taking the rug from under them by changing the laws and potentially turning their investment into a millstone around their neck? Genuine question.

Difficult to know, without seeing actual plans. But, as I said, landlords are leaving the game in large numbers. The current situation doesn't benefit them either, or their kids for that matter. Genuine answer - I'd like to see SOMEONE come up with some sort of solution, because at the moment, nobody in power seems to even care.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The balance you're talking about is a big step to the left. Social housing to drive down the price of privately owned a houses and investment properties, telling people how much they can charge for their product. The balance you're talking about is about introducing a socialist element to the equation.

So what if it is a step to the left? I have no fear of left or right, so long as the solutions make sense. Simply sitting back and watching things unfold, which is what seems to be happening now, isn't the course of action. I don't know, maybe the actual plan is to let the whole thing go bust. Who the hell does that help?

If a "socialist" solution helps people in a good way, then so be it. I have no fear of that.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Again I ask, would you back the government who actually implement the policies your proposing?

That very much depends on what their other policies are too. I have no political badge. I'm middle-the-roads, with leanings to either side depending on the situation. However, at present there is really nobody in current political circles that I can bring myself to vote for. That's the sad reality.

Seth Brundle

Tony EH wrote: »

Those in power don't seem to have a clue either and that's what's really scary.

Equally, those in opposition are setting unrealistic expectations.

EndaHonesty wrote: »

And yet, despite the majority of the electorate NOT voting for Fine Gael, they form the majority of the government.

There was no one party that received a majority. Would you have been any happier if SF or independents for example formed the majority of the government?

Similarly, the majority of the electorate voted for a FG led government in 2011 but when they started implementing their policies people complained in the thousands.

Dohnjoe

EndaHonesty wrote: »

We have no need for politicians anymore.
They are an impediment to the advancement of society.
They are all compromised individuals who are beholden to other agendas.

Technology now exists where we can have active direct democracy.
We need to move towards that form of democracy.
Politicians will not move us in that direction.

Explain how this system will work

Geuze

Akrasia wrote: »

T
Did Apple have that 13/19 billion euros set aside on their balance sheet as a future tax liability to the countries that they owed that money to? (and in fact, the 13 billion euro figure would be much much higher if the local corporate tax rates were applied, and not the 12.5% Irish rate of cpt)

If not, then they were blatantly evading tax, and we were facilitating it.

Yes, they have a deferred tax liability in their accounts.

Mentioned here, and any web search will return info:

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2014/04/30/inversions-deferral-and-the-us-tax-code/

Suryavarman

EndaHonesty wrote: »

We have no need for politicians anymore.
They are an impediment to the advancement of society.
They are all compromised individuals who are beholden to other agendas.

Technology now exists where we can have active direct democracy.
We need to move towards that form of democracy.
Politicians will not move us in that direction.

Direct democracy doesn't work. The average voter isn't informed enough for direct democracy to work. That is especially true in Ireland.

Jim2007

Suryavarman wrote: »

That is especially true in Ireland.

It most certainly is not!

You only have to look at referenda on the same day as elections to see their ability to decide what is in their best interests, their twice rejection of first past the post voting, the various surveys that show they are better informed about EU issues than most EU citizens etc... The fact that they many not vote the way you would like them to vote is something else.

I have lived and worked in 5 European countries over the last 30 years and I can say without hesitation that Irish voters are far better informed politically that most European citizens and we won't even mention the Americans.

EndaHonesty

Suryavarman wrote: »

Direct democracy doesn't work. The average voter isn't informed enough for direct democracy to work. That is especially true in Ireland.

1. What are you basing your assertion "Direct democracy doesn't work" on?
2. Are you an "average voter"?
3. What countries, in your opinion, have more informed voters than Ireland?

Godge

micosoft wrote: »

So the answer is to hire a "regulator" and they wave a magic want and supply suddenly appears? It's just that simple eh? Seems to be the battlecry of some people that we need to regulate everything as if thats the solution to all our ills.

As an aside the evidence is that the increased regulation in the Irish Rental market has simply led to one thing - landlords selling up. Reducing the supply of rental properties.

The issue in Dublin is very very very simple. There is a lack of supply of housing. It's that simple. Nothing more, nothing less. The idea that a regulator or anybody else for that matter can wave a wand and wish away the lack of supply is beyond belief.

The solution is to build more housing. But that believe it or not takes time. It's not like going to Ikea.

- You need serviced land. It takes 2-3 years to service large tranches of land to make them suitable for building homes on. But when you starve some of your utilities (IW) and don't give Councils an income then you don't have the capacity to create serviced land in a timely way. I think we can firmly blame the electorate here for refusing and resisting the sensible property and utility charges that every other OECD country has. Of course the fact the councils have no funding leads to no social housing along with the insistence of those who take social housing to keep it as a permanent life subsidy.

- We need developers. But we've just gone through the biggest housing bust the west has seen. So this is unsurprising. It' takes about 5 years (in the best of worlds) from planning to delivery. We can blame an electorate that voted to make money out of selling property to each other and voting in FF three times in a row for this one.

- We need people to be realistic and accept people are not entitled to live where they want just as people can't afford to live where they would like in capital cities around the world. The bizarre idea that housing is too expensive in only Dublin when just next door in London, in Copenhagen etc etc all have much bigger issues around affordability. The solution here is Public transport which expands the area people can commute. Of course this takes decades in Ireland due to extraordinary planning requirements, lack of say by the Cities, and the lack of return for national governments. So we get a silly unused rail line in the west instead of a comprehensive public transport system. That's without getting into the Irish demand of low density housing driving up land use and making public transport uneconomical.

So in short, it takes time (years), adequate local funding (property taxation and utility charges) and city control (avoiding national populism) to ensure an adequate supply of housing. If we wanted to have a supply of housing on tap we needed to have started in 2009/10. For obvious reasons we didn't and TBH I suspect all the posters railing against the state now for not having invested are the same who said the world was over back in 2009 and that we were forever poor. Just look at the posts back then.

This is one of the best posts I have read on here in a long time. It encapsulates all the problems of Ireland in one post.

Suryavarman

Jim2007 wrote: »

It most certainly is not!

You only have to look at referenda on the same day as elections to see their ability to decide what is in their best interests, their twice rejection of first past the post voting, the various surveys that show they are better informed about EU issues than most EU citizens etc... The fact that they many not vote the way you would like them to vote is something else.

I have lived and worked in 5 European countries over the last 30 years and I can say without hesitation that Irish voters are far better informed politically that most European citizens and we won't even mention the Americans.

You seem to be forgetting the Lisbon referenda. When the Irish people were given a somewhat complex issue to vote on they got it wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, we voted on it twice, voting on it different ways each time which means that by anyone's standard we got it wrong once. And it wasn't a small difference in the outcomes. There was a 21 point swing in the result between the two referenda. Just one example of the Irish people f*cking up royally when they have to deal with a complex issue.

EndaHonesty wrote: »

1. What are you basing your assertion "Direct democracy doesn't work" on?
2. Are you an "average voter"?
3. What countries, in your opinion, have more informed voters than Ireland?

I'm basing it on the fact that most issues are too complex for the average voter to have an informed opinion on. Direct democracy might work for a simple issue like divorce or gay marriage but it clearly fails with something more complex such as international treaties. California also makes great use of direct democracy and it is one of, if not the, worst run states in America. Speaking of poorly run, remember Greece's moronic bailout referendum?

No I'm not an average voter. I'm participating on the politics forum which suggests that I'm more informed than the average voter. I also like to read about economics and public policy in my spare time, as well as watching current affairs programming. I wouldn't couldn't myself to be a model citizen but I am much better informed than the average voter.

Irish voters have repeatedly elected Fianna Fail Governments. They also oppose water charges and the property tax in substantial numbers. Their opposition to water charges is generally based on some conspiracy theory that Irish Water is a privately owned company or that we somehow pay for water multiple times. Their opposition to property tax exists despite the fact that it is the least distortionary form of tax and it offers a stable source of revenue during recessions. At a local level they elect politicians that have banned swearing in public parks and drastically limited the height of buildings in our nation's capital at a time there's a serious housing crisis. Are you trying to tell me the Irish people are well informed when it comes to politics?

Jim2007

Suryavarman wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting the Lisbon referenda. When the Irish people were given a somewhat complex issue to vote on they got it wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, we voted on it twice, voting on it different ways each time which means that by anyone's standard we got it wrong once. And it wasn't a small difference in the outcomes. There was a 21 point swing in the result between the two referenda. Just one example of the Irish people f*cking up royally when they have to deal with a complex issue.

Not at all, but you are misrepresenting the facts! Which really does not surprise me.

The Irish constitution allows the government to negotiate a treaty change but reserves the final decision to the people. In any negotiation process there will be offers, counter offers rejections etc... And the constitution acknowledges that in not placing any restrictions on the number of times a proposal can be put to the people.

And that is precisely what happened with the Lisbon treaty, the people were unhappy with the first proposal, the parties sad down and came up with a new proposal which was acceptable to the people. Now you many not be able to distinguish between the two offers, but obviously the majority of the voters did. If you are convinced they were the same document then off you go and prove it. Both documents are available on the web so go ahead and demonstrate your assertions.

We also rejected the first version of the treaty of Nice BTW. So we have a precedence for our approach to the negotiation process.

Furthermore you should fully be prepared for multiple referenda on EU treaty changes going forward. With 24 states and the peoples of 3 nations required to approve it, is very likely that there will be several sets of negotiations needed.

Jim2007

Suryavarman wrote: »

Irish voters have repeatedly elected Fianna Fail Governments. They also oppose water charges and the property tax in substantial numbers. Their opposition to water charges is generally based on some conspiracy theory that Irish Water is a privately owned company or that we somehow pay for water multiple times. Their opposition to property tax exists despite the fact that it is the least distortionary form of tax and it offers a stable source of revenue during recessions. At a local level they elect politicians that have banned swearing in public parks and drastically limited the height of buildings in our nation's capital at a time there's a serious housing crisis. Are you trying to tell me the Irish people are well informed when it comes to politics?

None of what you have said makes them less in formed, it just shows that they don't happen to agree with your version of what is right. You can pick any democracy you like and you will find exactly the same situation. There are always issues you done agree with, issues that have a higher priority with others than with you and so on.

oscarBravo

Jim2007 wrote: »

The Irish constitution allows the government to negotiate a treaty change but reserves the final decision to the people.

Nope. The Constitution vests sole authority for negotiating treaties in the Oireachtas.

There's an argument for requiring Constitutional amendment in some very isolated cases, but the reason we vote on EU treaties now is because we've become accustomed to doing so, to the extent that - as you've demonstrated - people think there's a Constitutional imperative to do so, and would be outraged if the government attempted to ratify a treaty without permission.

EndaHonesty

Suryavarman wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting the Lisbon referenda. When the Irish people were given a somewhat complex issue to vote on they got it wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, we voted on it twice, voting on it different ways each time which means that by anyone's standard we got it wrong once. And it wasn't a small difference in the outcomes. There was a 21 point swing in the result between the two referenda. Just one example of the Irish people f*cking up royally when they have to deal with a complex issue.

Logic fail!
A referendum where the choice is to go one way or the other does not have "Right" or "Wrong" as the outcomes.

The people voted one way which was not the way of the European Federalist Agenda and the slimey Irish politicians who are beholden
to that agenda were sent back to sell the other way to the people.

This is a perfect example of how representational democracy does NOT work.

Politicians and political parties are no longer required or desired for the advancement of society.

Suryavarman wrote: »

I'm basing it on the fact that most issues are too complex for the average voter to have an informed opinion on. Direct democracy might work for a simple issue like divorce or gay marriage but it clearly fails with something more complex such as international treaties. California also makes great use of direct democracy and it is one of, if not the, worst run states in America. Speaking of poorly run, remember Greece's moronic bailout referendum?

Average voters are informed alright, the problem is spin from politicians and political parties which muddies the water.
The politicians are compromised and therefore biased.

Taking advice from them is like taking advice about a car from the salesman who is selling the car, you won't get an honest, objective view.

Suryavarman wrote: »

No I'm not an average voter. I'm participating on the politics forum which suggests that I'm more informed than the average voter. I also like to read about economics and public policy in my spare time, as well as watching current affairs programming. I wouldn't couldn't myself to be a model citizen but I am much better informed than the average voter.

So you think you are above average?! Lol, I wonder would anyone ever admit to being under informed?
It's like how everyone thinks they are a great driver, everyone else is sh1t!

Suryavarman wrote: »

Irish voters have repeatedly elected Fianna Fail Governments. They also oppose water charges and the property tax in substantial numbers. Their opposition to water charges is generally based on some conspiracy theory that Irish Water is a privately owned company or that we somehow pay for water multiple times. Their opposition to property tax exists despite the fact that it is the least distortionary form of tax and it offers a stable source of revenue during recessions. At a local level they elect politicians that have banned swearing in public parks and drastically limited the height of buildings in our nation's capital at a time there's a serious housing crisis. Are you trying to tell me the Irish people are well informed when it comes to politics?

Spare us the lazy generalisations and cliches!
You're obviously not that well informed if you believe the rubbish above.

EndaHonesty

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. The Constitution vests sole authority for negotiating treaties in the Oireachtas.

Any EU treaty which substantially alters the character of the Union must be approved by a constitutional amendment.

The people have final say in any constitutional amendment.

oscarBravo

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Any EU treaty which substantially alters the character of the Union must be approved by a constitutional amendment.

Nope, can't find that anywhere in the Constitution.

The people have final say in any constitutional amendment.

That much is true.

Sand

Suryavarman wrote: »

Direct democracy doesn't work. The average voter isn't informed enough for direct democracy to work. That is especially true in Ireland.

It could be equally said that the average voter isnt informed enough for representational democracy to work. There is a deliberate effort by the stakeholders to conceal and obfuscate governance so that they aren't informed, especially in Ireland.

EndaHonesty

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope, can't find that anywhere in the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution

Article 46 of the Constitution provides that every proposal for amendment must be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill. Having been passed or deemed to have passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Bill is submitted by referendum to the decision, by simple majority, of the people.

https://www.constitution.ie/Constitution.aspx

Godge

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Luckily we're not depending on you finding stuff in the constitution...

Amending the Constitution

Article 46 of the Constitution provides that every proposal for amendment must be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill. Having been passed or deemed to have passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Bill is submitted by referendum to the decision, by simple majority, of the people.

https://www.constitution.ie/Constitution.aspx

That isn't what you said:

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Any EU treaty which substantially alters the character of the Union must be approved by a constitutional amendment.

.

That requirement isn't in the Constitution. In fact, that requirement isn't anywhere.

Instead we have the Crotty and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that state (and I am paraphrasing, so excuse any inaccuracy) that it is where transfers of sovereignty to the EU occur that an EU treaty change must be approved by a constitutional amendment. If there is no sovereignty transfer, there is no requirement for a constitutional amendment.

So, for example, let us say the EU decided to revisit the Fiscal rules, that probably wouldn't require a constitutional amendment even though it would require a new EU Treaty. All that would be changing would be the rules around the sovereignty that had already been transferred to the EU. Similarly, if a new EU Treaty decided to hand back areas of sovereignty to Member States, we probably wouldn't need a new referendum.

micosoft

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Amending the Constitution

Article 46 of the Constitution provides that every proposal for amendment must be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill. Having been passed or deemed to have passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Bill is submitted by referendum to the decision, by simple majority, of the people.

https://www.constitution.ie/Constitution.aspx

That's to amend the constitution itself. Not to ratify a treaty.

micosoft

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Logic fail!
A referendum where the choice is to go one way or the other does not have "Right" or "Wrong" as the outcomes.

The people voted one way which was not the way of the European Federalist Agenda and the slimey Irish politicians who are beholden
to that agenda were sent back to sell the other way to the people.

This is a perfect example of how representational democracy does NOT work.

Politicians and political parties are no longer required or desired for the advancement of society.

I'm at a complete loss here.
If there are no politicians who puts the question to the people? A technocrat?What happens if we don't like the technocrat?
If the Irish People are so easily fooled by slimy Irish Politicians whats to stop them being persuaded by marketers?

Suryavarman

Jim2007 wrote: »

And that is precisely what happened with the Lisbon treaty, the people were unhappy with the first proposal, the parties sad down and came up with a new proposal which was acceptable to the people. Now you many not be able to distinguish between the two offers, but obviously the majority of the voters did. If you are convinced they were the same document then off you go and prove it. Both documents are available on the web so go ahead and demonstrate your assertions.

It was the same document both times. The EU clarified a couple of areas but it was the same document.

Jim2007 wrote: »

None of what you have said makes them less in formed, it just shows that they don't happen to agree with your version of what is right. You can pick any democracy you like and you will find exactly the same situation. There are always issues you done agree with, issues that have a higher priority with others than with you and so on.

It isn't so much that they disagree with me, they disagree with reality. Irish Water isn't a private company and water is only paid for once. Irish voters continuously complain about lack of public spending on a number of areas but complain about measures to raise additional revenue. On what planet should the Government be banning swearing in public parks? Why should the Government limit the height of apartment blocks while there's a homeless crisis? Why would people continue to vote for Fianna Fail despite their long history of irresponsibility in office?

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Logic fail!
A referendum where the choice is to go one way or the other does not have "Right" or "Wrong" as the outcomes.

There was a massive swing between both referenda. By voting a different way the second time the electorate admitted they were wrong the first time.

This is a perfect example of how representational democracy does NOT work.

You sound like a socialist claiming that "it wasn't real socialism". The Lisbon referenda were the perfect example of direct democracy failing in Ireland.

Average voters are informed alright, the problem is spin from politicians and political parties which muddies the water.
The politicians are compromised and therefore biased.

Taking advice from them is like taking advice about a car from the salesman who is selling the car, you won't get an honest, objective view.

You're making contradictory statements here. You can't claim that voters are informed and then claim that they believe the wrong things because of politicians. If they were informed then they would be able to see through the waffle.

So you think you are above average?! Lol, I wonder would anyone ever admit to being under informed?
It's like how everyone thinks they are a great driver, everyone else is sh1t!

I make a much greater effort to be informed than the average voter. I am more informed than the average voter.

Spare us the lazy generalisations and cliches!
You're obviously not that well informed if you believe the rubbish above.

Oh go on, what did I say in that paragraph that was incorrect?

EndaHonesty

Godge wrote: »

That requirement isn't in the Constitution. In fact, that requirement isn't anywhere.

Instead we have the Crotty and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that state (and I am paraphrasing, so excuse any inaccuracy) that it is where transfers of sovereignty to the EU occur that an EU treaty change must be approved by a constitutional amendment. If there is no sovereignty transfer, there is no requirement for a constitutional amendment.

So, for example, let us say the EU decided to revisit the Fiscal rules, that probably wouldn't require a constitutional amendment even though it would require a new EU Treaty. All that would be changing would be the rules around the sovereignty that had already been transferred to the EU. Similarly, if a new EU Treaty decided to hand back areas of sovereignty to Member States, we probably wouldn't need a new referendum.

So you accept that the highest court in the land ruled that "any EU treaty which substantially alters the character of the Union must be approved by a constitutional amendment"?

EndaHonesty

micosoft wrote: »

I'm at a complete loss here.
If there are no politicians who puts the question to the people? A technocrat?What happens if we don't like the technocrat?
If the Irish People are so easily fooled by slimy Irish Politicians whats to stop them being persuaded by marketers?

What qualifies a politician to put the question to the people?

The state employs experts in all areas. In the departments and in the educational institutions.
It could be very easily added to terms of employment when the time comes these experts are required to form a group to put the correct question/s to the people.

I don't have all the answers but I know the current "system" of federalist, globalist, capitalist agendas is not working.

Politicians and party politics does not work anymore.
We need a new way of doing things.

oscarBravo

EndaHonesty wrote: »

So you accept that the highest court in the land ruled that "any EU treaty which substantially alters the character of the Union must be approved by a constitutional amendment"?

Nope. That's not in the Crotty judgement.

Godge

EndaHonesty wrote: »

So you accept that the highest court in the land ruled that "any EU treaty which substantially alters the character of the Union must be approved by a constitutional amendment"?

Who are you quoting? Please provide a reference to the court judgement you are referring to as it doesn't appear to match my recollection or understanding.

As I understand it, a Treaty change must involve a transfer of sovereignty from the Irish people to require a referendum. For example, a change in the Treaty fiscal rules that allowed for massive borrowing for infrastructural projects would be a change which substantially altered the character of the Union by bringing it to the left, but it would not involve any change in sovereignty and would therefore not need to be approved by a constitutional amendment.

Godge

EndaHonesty wrote: »

What qualifies a politician to put the question to the people?

The state employs experts in all areas. In the departments and in the educational institutions.
It could be very easily added to terms of employment when the time comes these experts are required to form a group to put the correct question/s to the people.

I don't have all the answers but I know the current "system" of federalist, globalist, capitalist agendas is not working.

Politicians and party politics does not work anymore.
We need a new way of doing things.

So a hidden elite of unelected academics would control the process?

EndaHonesty

Godge wrote: »

So a hidden elite of unelected academics would control the process?

Who said anything about a "hidden elite"?
It would be relatively easy to select properly qualified experts to form a convention to form the questions posed to the electorate.
Citizens could be selected too, in much the same way as jury duty.

You seem to see elected as an advantage. I do not. I see it as compromising.

micosoft

EndaHonesty wrote: »

What qualifies a politician to put the question to the people?

Their Democratic Mandate.

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The state employs experts in all areas. In the departments and in the educational institutions.
It could be very easily added to terms of employment when the time comes these experts are required to form a group to put the correct question/s to the people.

Who defines who is an "expert". Experts tell us Water should be charged for using meters. Experts tell us we need an expanded over ground high voltage grid network to support renewable s. Experts tell us we don't need a second clinic in Waterford.

EndaHonesty wrote: »

I don't have all the answers but I know the current "system" of federalist, globalist, capitalist agendas is not working.

Politicians and party politics does not work anymore.
We need a new way of doing things.

And yet we are the richest, healthiest, happiest as a people we have ever been by any measure. The evidence is that the last few people who suggested that "We need a new way of doing things" ended very badly for all concerned.

micosoft

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Who said anything about a "hidden elite"?
It would be relatively easy to select properly qualified experts to form a convention to form the questions posed to the electorate.
Citizens could be selected too, in much the same way as jury duty.

You seem to see elected as an advantage. I do not. I see it as compromising.

The last person to come-up with anything remotely like the above was the Tsar of Russia when he formed the Duma. TBH things didn't' go well for him.

Godge

EndaHonesty wrote: »

Who said anything about a "hidden elite"?
It would be relatively easy to select properly qualified experts to form a convention to form the questions posed to the electorate.
Citizens could be selected too, in much the same way as jury duty.

You seem to see elected as an advantage. I do not. I see it as compromising.

How would we select these properly qualified experts? Through an election? Through the despotic government of the day?