******* government

[Tribesman]

The bunch of crooks in the Dail have screwed me .
While they have had dodgy foriegn bank accounts for their suitcases full of cash bribes and bogus Irish non-resident accounts to avoid tax ,they are screwing legitimate foriegn account holders .
Got a pile of letters this morning from several banks listing all the the fees they are debiting from my accounts to pay Irish government stamp duties . The bastards

[Banquo's Ghost]

Should have gone to Liechtenstein...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I agree, it's theft by legalised burglars

[Crazed Rabbit]

The bunch of crooks in the Dail have screwed me .
While they have had dodgy foriegn bank accounts for their suitcases full of cash bribes and bogus Irish non-resident accounts to avoid tax ,they are screwing legitimate foriegn account holders .
Got a pile of letters this morning from several banks listing all the the fees they are debiting from my accounts to pay Irish government stamp duties . The bastards

Hey, it's the law. If you want to use such accounts you should be prepared to pay the associated fees without complaining.

CR

[Strike For The South]

Hey, it's the law. If you want to use such accounts you should be prepared to pay the associated fees without complaining.

CR

and boom goes the dynamite

[Beirut]

A few years back, one of the local talk radio stations here hosted a debate between a consumer's rights organization spokesman and a representative of the banking industry. The consumer's rights guy showed up, but the bank industry spokesman refused at the last minute. He said since he didn't know what every question that might be put to him was in advance, he could not guarantee that he would have 100% factual answers and therefore thought it in the consumer's best interests not to show up as he might give people the wrong information.

totalchicken.org

He knew he was going to get pasted and ran away. The consumer's rights spokesman had a great piece of info; most banks freeze cheques for about seven days before cashing them, however, according to bank stats, 98% of all checks in Canada clear within twelve hours.

I would have loved to hear the bank guy squirm on that one.

[Scurvy]

I would have loved to hear the bank guy squirm on that one.

awful job to have though

[Tribesman]

Hey, it's the law. If you want to use such accounts you should be prepared to pay the associated fees without complaining.

No since all the accounts were set up long before this law was introduced and yet the charges are backdated .

Should have gone to Liechtenstein...

Nah its not the countries , it applies worldwide , the only get out is if you go back to using bank books , so its a matter of consolidating all accounts into only those that deal with over the counter pen and paper transactions which is a bugger if you are only flying in for the weekend .

[Vladimir]

Run for office then. "Change" is quite popular now. I can be your speech writer:





With backroom dealing:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Ice]

The bunch of crooks in the Dail have screwed me .
While they have had dodgy foriegn bank accounts for their suitcases full of cash bribes and bogus Irish non-resident accounts to avoid tax ,they are screwing legitimate foriegn account holders .
Got a pile of letters this morning from several banks listing all the the fees they are debiting from my accounts to pay Irish government stamp duties . The bastards

The government has screwed you?

Nah....

Sucks though

[Husar]

No since all the accounts were set up long before this law was introduced and yet the charges are backdated .

That, I would say is really, really bad, I thought that usually laws apply only to things done or comitted after the law was passed, if they outlaw breathing tomorrow they can't throw you in jail for all the breahing you've done in the past. So yeah, I'd say it's entirely correct to be outraged about this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Are they charging you retroactive fees? If not, I think that this is pretty standard here in the U.S. too.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No since all the accounts were set up long before this law was introduced and yet the charges are backdated .

Well if the law is retroactive, then the fees are proper. Surely you knew of the possibility of such laws in the future when you set up those accounts?

Or is there some constitutional ban on such retroactive laws? If there is no ban, then you have no right to complain. It's the law and you should simply accept that.

CR

[Tribesman]

Well if the law is retroactive, then the fees are proper. Surely you knew of the possibility of such laws in the future when you set up those accounts?

Thats funny Rabbit , each bank I contacted yesterday to change or close accounts had the same response... "can they really do that ? thats outrageous" .

[HoreTore]

No since all the accounts were set up long before this law was introduced and yet the charges are backdated .

Retroactive? That breaks all sorts of rules for a legal system... Somebody ought to try this in the european human rights court.

[HoreTore]

Or is there some constitutional ban on such retroactive laws? If there is no ban, then you have no right to complain. It's the law and you should simply accept that.

Most constitutions outlaw retroactive laws. Not sure about the irish, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't there too.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Right - Retroactive charges are unjust. They could theoretically charge you more money than you have in the bank. If that is not what is happening or there are new rates by law, then it is arguable but already decided.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Thats funny Rabbit , each bank I contacted yesterday to change or close accounts had the same response... "can they really do that ? thats outrageous" .

The same banks that already sent you a list of fees they were charging on your accounts?

You didn't answer the question; is there a prohibition in the Irish constitution against such laws?

If it's legal, then it's legal, simple as that. What a person thinks about the law doesn't matter.

CR

[Myrddraal]

If it's legal, then it's legal, simple as that. What a person thinks about the law doesn't matter.

Apart from when they vote, or legally protest. (Just covering your back for you )

[Tribesman]

You didn't answer the question; is there a prohibition in the Irish constitution against such laws?

If it's legal, then it's legal, simple as that. What a person thinks about the law doesn't matter

Yes there is a prohibition but then no but then yes , retroactive legislation is covered in the constitution and is not allowed , but that only relates to criminal cases , so the answer could be no , however the supreme court has ruled that such civil applications are a violation of constitutional rights under personal property laws .
Any appeal against this law and the way it is set up hinges on the governments designation of what constitutes a taxable luxury , according to them handing a piece of paper over the counter at a bank to access your money is not a luxury and is not chargable , but handing a piece of plastic over the counter to access your money is a luxury and is chargable .

The same banks that already sent you a list of fees they were charging on your accounts?

Yes the same banks , they thought it was a special tax on foriegn investments , they didn't realise it was a "luxury" tax on all domestic and foriegn accounts based solely on if you used a bank card or a bank book .

[Banquo's Ghost]

Apart from when they vote, or legally protest. (Just covering your back for you )

No need, Myrddraal. The rumbling sound you hear is a petard being readied for hoisting. It remains to be seen whose property it turns out to be and how high they get to dance the jig.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it seems that until this law is appealed against in court and the court rejects the government's interpretation of a luxury, that this is the law and that's that.

It's the law until the courts overrule it, if they do so. Have you begun the process of appealing against this law? Or are you just sulking on an internet forum for total war games?

CR

[Tribesman]

Hey Banquo did you get caught out by this ?
when they introduced it I ditched all my Irish bank cards and all but one credit card (for emergencies) , but bloody hell doing it to foriegn accounts too , the sneaky ******** .

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ireland

The imposition of retroactive criminal sanctions is prohibited by Article 15.5.1° of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland. Retroactive changes of the civil law have also been found to violate the constitution when they would have resulted in the loss in a right to damages before the courts, the Irish Supreme Court having found that such a right is a constitutionally protected property right.

Maybe someone can translate this. From wikipedia.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Hey Banquo did you get caught out by this ?

Yes, to an extent. It certainly seems to have caught my accountants by surprise - I not yet sure whether that means I need some new accountants...

Luckily, I have some advantages that you noted in the OP as pertaining to the aforementioned crooks in the Dail.

[English assassin]

Well if the law is retroactive, then the fees are proper. Surely you knew of the possibility of such laws in the future when you set up those accounts?

Or is there some constitutional ban on such retroactive laws? If there is no ban, then you have no right to complain. It's the law and you should simply accept that.

CR

Dude, Tribsey has had money taken out of his accounts by the government. The least you can do is look sorry. What kind of American are you anyway? Why do you hate freedom?

Ireland

The imposition of retroactive criminal sanctions is prohibited by Article 15.5.1° of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland. Retroactive changes of the civil law have also been found to violate the constitution when they would have resulted in the loss in a right to damages before the courts, the Irish Supreme Court having found that such a right is a constitutionally protected property right.

Maybe someone can translate this. From wikipedia

Not exactly, but it sounds like they have written a bit of the case law from protocol 1 art 1 of the ECHR into the constitution (right to enjoyment of property)

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties

There' s a Belgian case establishing that where you have a cause of action, legislation after the event removing your cause of action violates prot 1 art 1. Or did on the facts of that case anyway.