I would be grateful if you would delete my last post (August 31st, 2009 at 5:11 pm). Having slept on it, I am not happy to get into a discussion as to whether or not economists should have put their name to an article. I am not an academic and I use a pseudonym on this website. Given that this issue is serious for the people involved, I don’t think my input is appropriate on issues of academic ethics.

You might just replace the comment with “deleted at user’s request”.

Thanks

It’s no surprise that this is happening: any half-awake PR firm or media advisor would suggest it, but caution is required in response.”

I have only recently started posting on any sites but I am a long time reader and I completely agree with the above. There are responsible pro-Government Nama posters but the percentage of more recent pro-Government Nama people who are trolls is astounding. The best solution is to ignore them when possible and be brief with them when necessary. Do not let them get under your skin and please don’t let them stop you from giving the public your views.

Thanks for your comments.

1. The Headline: Misleading, yes, though I personally noted this on the day of the publication. Brian and I have discussed gettting a clarification published in the IT. I think perhaps Brian has requested one.

2. You wrote about “two other statements whose inclusion are extremely questionable in a letter which purports to be a balanced offering in a very contentious debate.” I’ve written here about the issue of “balance” quite often. It is often used against people when they put forward a particular opinion. The piece is critical of the government’s current approach. In that sense, it is not a “balanced offering.”

As for the statements themselves:
a. thus, by overpaying, the State will wind up transferring to private individuals a sum close to the entire tax take across all tax heads;

b. so the Government is in a strong position, if it chooses, to negotiate with bondholders to engage in some debt for equity swaps.

I genuinely don’t see what is “emotive” about these statements.

3. You have decided that the two 30bn figures are “sloppy.” Well, perhaps you might read this http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/08/31/garret-fitzgerald-and-the-budget-deficit/
and decide if you still think the deficit figure is sloppy. On valuations, I can tell you that Anglo Irish bank have stated that Irish property development loans are down 70% from peak. The Liam Carroll case has also given an insight into the terrible financial state of developers. Based on (admittedly imperfect) sources of information like this, the 30bn valuation number doesn’t look so far off to me.

4. You raise an important point with — “looked the profiles of the UCD signatories plus a number of others. I looked up their areas of expertise, their research interests and their publication records. I realise that this is very subjective but some, at least, would have great difficulty establishing a claim to be expert witnesses on the relevant issues.”

A couple of points on this. First, UCD research profiles are pretty limited at telling you what people know about issues like this. Look at mine and you’ll see that my research is not in banking. But I worked for the Federal Reserve and the Central Bank here for a combined 11 years, so I actually know quite a lot about banking.

Still, it is definitely the case that many of those who didn’t sign choose not to because it was outside their area of expertise. The widely cited implication that those who didn’t sign must be experts who support NAMA is misleading.

That said, many of the points made in the article are ones that economists of many stripes can understand and I know many studied the issue carefully before putting their names on this. A number approached me with questions about various issues before deciding to sign or not. I think for Brian to have turned down a smart university academic who wanted to sign on the grounds that their research is in, say, labour economics, would have been a mistake.

And by the way, Richard Tol did not “refuse to sign” the petition as he was not asked because Brian did not ask ESRI economists.

5. As for your concerns that the whole exercise is political, I can assure you that the people who signed come from all over the political spectrum. It is only political in the sense that it criticises the government’s draft proposals. But Myles, if economists refrained from discussing government economic proposals because to do so would be “political”, then we really would be the crowd of useless ivory tower fools that we are often portrayed as.

Karl Whelan was at pains to dissociate himself and the other economists from the headline when he referenced the article on this website.
http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/08/26/irish-times-nama-piece-signed-by-46-economists/

I think your point that the issue is highly political is valid.

@BL
As a matter of interest, did you first seek the signatures of those economists with relevant expertise?

Maybe you could clarify how many economists with relevant expertise
were offered the opportunity to endorse the article and how many of those with relevant expertise signed?

I know this may sound petty but it is clear that the article has traction because of the fact it was endorsed by 46 signatories and it seems clear (without wanting to put words in your mouth) that such was your intention.

“Guidelines” would be valuable to most people - except obviously to those who know it all –and I do mean guidelines only. I am impressed by the 43 years bit but you may not know that I do not hold the “authorities” of most institutions in very high regard. “The emperor has no clothes” is one of my favourite metaphors. However, I found that it seems to be equally true when applied horizontally as well as vertically – but we probably should modify it to state that the emperor has a very limited wardrobe.

I do not suggest you are motivated by party politics. Personally, I have long held that the Ahern/McCreevy/Harney nexus was a disaster from a socio-economic perspective – I suspect that Cowen was somewhat inert for most of it. But what you are engaged in is highly political and you cannot ignore its impact or how it is used or abused. Incidentally did I miss any high profile disclaimer about how the 46 signatories repudiated the headline about wealth transfer to developers.

Finally, the title heading was NOT chosen by us but by some subeditor in the Times.

I agree with you. Do the economists here have some thoughts on this?

Ireland has decided no firesale. Therefore the overhang in property will take longer to clear. In fact with Nama presumably no sales until the market turns up again.

How does the market turn back up when supply far outstrips demand and no one will sell till market prices get back to “normal”?

Won’t this leave construction in the doldrums as who in their right mind will start building again when this overhand exists?

Surely recessions must result in firesales before recovery can begin?

Perhaps someone has studied this.

Firstly, the letter is written in overtly political terms rather than in dispassionate objective language. It appeared under the banner headline “Nama set to shift wealth to lenders and developers”. The inclusion of developers is dishonest in the extreme. There are two other statements whose inclusion are extremely questionable in a letter which purports to be a balanced offering in a very contentious debate – (1) thus, by overpaying, the State will wind up transferring to private individuals a sum close to the entire tax take across all tax heads; and (2) so the Government is in a strong position, if it chooses, to negotiate with bondholders to engage in some debt for equity swaps. The choice of language is highly emotive and political.

Secondly, the suggestions in the letter that we are heading for a Government deficit of 30 billion euro and that the “true value” of the loans which Nama will acquire is close to 30 billion euro have been addressed in detail elsewhere. The use of both amounts would appear to be very sloppy and their inclusion would hardly be justified in an expert statement.

Thirdly, in this age of information overload one of the first things you must do is check the credibility and reliability of your sources. I looked the profiles of the UCD signatories plus a number of others. I looked up their areas of expertise, their research interests and their publication records. I realise that this is very subjective but some, at least, would have great difficulty establishing a claim to be expert witnesses on the relevant issues. I may be accused of unfairly playing the man rather than the ball here but politics is a rough business and if you cannot stand the heat you should not go into the kitchen.

As a retired academic I believe it was wrong for a number of those who signed the letter to do so, especially as members of named departments in named universities. I realise that this is a rather grey area with very few guidelines. However, when you invoke the name of your department and institution “in support” of any statement you should only do so when you have real expertise in the area under discussion. This is especially important when the topic is controversial or political. If you are engaging in political activity it should be done as a private individual, under your private address. I would point out that when such noted economists as Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz write op-ed pieces they usually do so without citing of their titles or their institutions. In the current discussion I noted that Richard Tol, one of you regular contributors, explained that he refused to sign the letter because of his lack of expertise on the topic. I suggest that the universities and relevant schools/departments should address this issue and develop guidelines for their staff. I noted that one of the signatories, Colm Harmon, decried the fact that the expertise of academic economists is seldom called on by government departments. I broadly agree with him but if academics wish to be taken seriously they need to be careful about the when they invoke their expertise in areas of political controversy.

PS Your absence on p.ie has been remarked upon.

You really shouldn’t have mentioned this website on p.ie though!

I love the expression that NAMA is too important to be left to the economists. It gives the impression that policy for the last 12 years has driven be economists (would that it were true) and now that it is time for them to move over and stop hogging the levers of power.

The supporters of NAMA enagage in classic tactics.

Firstly, they try to suck us into the premise that There Is No Alternative so all we are allowed to discuss is NAMA and possible amendments that will keep the GP party sweet.

Secondly, any substantive criticism of NAMA is deflected by saying that it is only draft legislation and hinting that they will incorporate.

Thirdly, opponents are berated for not costing their alteratives while the NAMA acolytes present no costs themselves.

Fourthly, when people use the market available information and statements of the Minister to infer both true value and the intended payment, they are told that they dont have access to the detail, detail that under the guise of commercial sensitivity will never ever see the light of day.

Fifthly, while suggesting s degree of approval of NAMA by the IMF/ECB/EU Commission that bears no relationship with reality, proponents of NAMA castigate opponents for not having these agencies already signed up behind their proposal.

The key thread in all of this is that there is no real engagement on the issues.

We have a lady here with legal training, Sally Anne, claiming that 30 sections in the draft legislation deal with the transparency issues. I am sure she believes what she is saying, and she does have legal training, but no one with even a modicum of common sense would believe that we will ever know anything of value about the operations of NAMA. Commercial sensitivity and client confidentiality will rule and she and her colleagues will be the first to ensure that we are kept in the dark.

So to one and all on this forum.
Even if your viewpoint does not prevail, you are participating in the deabte for the most important decisiion in our lifetime.
I don’t think anyone should feel that constructive time spent here is wasted as I believe that this website has become preferred reading for present and future key decision makers.

Keep up the good work.

On the subject of economic policy & its lack of engagement with academia from the politcal sphere;

would it be an idea that a forum or independent think tank type of group of economists get together and produce a report (annual or otherwise)on how they see the economy developing. Have this forum open to all political parties for independent advice.

Also perhaps a major public lecture or debate could be organised on NAMA? This site appears to have very high level followers and contributers perhaps it could sponsor such a debate. I am sure one of the TV or radio companies could be persuaded to broadcast such a lecture or debate. It would make a difference from reporting the latest PR report from whichever party verbatum.

As someone who emigrated a few years ago when i saw rediculious prices and cost of living relative to where i now live, I have a sence of sadness & outrage that political incompetence has possibly put an end to my returning home for the short to medium term at least.
I feel such a contribution to policymaking from academia might help make Ireland compeditive again. After all we have seen what a mess the politicians make of it…

Hey sally why dont you set up your own pro NAMA blog. Link to it from here so everyone can learn the truth about this wonderful Fianna Fail proposal. We can also see how balanced you are from all the nasty comments about NAMA you will publish and rebut.

You could even write the blog in Latin, I’m sure that wouldn’t diminish it’s appeal

I am still wryly amused that a FF Taoiseach (Bertie Ahern) set up a Taskforce and Office on Active Citizenship group when there was a strong sense of Una Duce, Una Voce in that party not many years previously. For the record, the McCarthy group proposed that any further public expenditure on this be discontinued, as “activity levels are low” (Vol 2. p.205)

Being active citizens is exactly what the founders of this and other blogs are, as well as those who draft petitions/letters for signature.

re. Draft legislation.
A Government appointed Commission on Bankruptcy reported in 1972 and drew up a full text of a new Bill to lay before the Oireachtas, as part of the final report. It took at least 10 years for that bill to reach the floor of the Dáil.

To ask for a draft of legislation, in whole or in part, in order to be taken seriously is a step too far. Some people will have time, skill and appetite for this - even if they lack experience. It may work, but that should not be the only criteria used to assess comments on public matters.

Others prefer to spend their spare time doing things in which they feel competent/skilled by virtue of their education, training and experience eg. analyses of economic activity, publishing the results and arguing their case publicly in whatever fora are available.

IMO, it is enough for people to analyse NAMA is in terms of the substantial issues, teasing out the implications of of the legislation, developing options, in whole or in part and presenting these results in fora accessible to the public - which includes the decision-makers and their advisers. The legal formulation can follow.

A lot of new commentators have popped up around the Irish blogosphere in the last few weeks, all spinning pro-government lines and using classic troll tactics to tempt opponents into discrediting themselves.

It’s no surprise that this is happening: any half-awake PR firm or media advisor would suggest it, but caution is required in response.

The usual response to public consultation documents consists of plain language, discussing the ideas behind proposals and suggesting an alternative approach to same, not setting out detailed alternative drafts of sections. More like what happens at the second state of a parliamentary debate on a Bill than the committee stage, if that helps?

Incidentally, I don’t agree with Noel Whelan’s specific comments in his article. The only ground that we would share, I imagine, is some knowledge of how the political system here works and the political media nexus and therefore a common approach to handling issues.

Look, maybe you’re right, who knows?

But I am not “a group” and I’m not running “a campaign”. I am an academic offering my personal opinion on a matter of great public importance. I’m not a lawyer nor are my objections to the bill of a sort that are well captured by the type of legalistic approach that you and Noel Whelan seem to think is appropriate. Moreover, DoF is well aware of my opinions on these matters, so a formal submission will simply consist of me repeating views they already know I hold.

And since I’m not a campaign — I’m not Greenpeace — I don’t have a personal legal department. So I won’t be spending the next few weeks drafting alternative detailed legislation, particularly as the academic term starts again and I have, you know, other stuff to do. If you want to use this to criticise me, then off you go.

Q. “Your position that the government would only have expected criticism to “take the form of statements and submissions that suggest amendment or clarification of particular sections” is, frankly, hilarious. You really think that the government was not expecting op-ed columns, blog posts, or discussions on radio and TV? ”

A. No, I don’t; as is obvious from the sentences immediately preceding and following the one which you selected to try to make me look stupid.

In thirty years experience of professionally working on a wide variety of public affairs and political campaigns - including campaigns that involved a public consultation process, both here and in the UK - this is the first time I have ever come across a group that passed up the opportunity to formally respond to a public consultation invitation as part of their campaign armoury. Greenpeace, whose lobbying genius I greatly admired and respected, even when they were on the opposite side of an issue, never let such an opportunity pass and frequently mobilised the public to engage as individuals in the public consultation process. The reason is simple: media campaigns may exercise the public, and cause them to put pressure on governments; but at the end of the day it’s governments that make the decisions. So what campaigners are advised to do is to cover all their bases and never leave themselves open to the charge that they’re not prepared to directly engage with the decision makers on the issues and are simply engaged in media rabble-rousing or whatever.

My post, and previous related posts, were written in the spirit of being helpful, but one lives and learns, I suppose!

I suppose clean up can mean anything from:
-calling in the loans and for those who can’t pay it means that underlying securities are seized, for some it might lead to liqiudation and the lender will not be paid back the loan in full.
or
-it can mean that the loans are not called in, the interest is rolled up and the borrower is allowed time for the investment to become profitable hopefully leading to the loan being paid back in full with interest.

The decision of how to deal with the impaired loans is currently being taken by the banks as they own the loans. NAMA or nationalisation will result in the government owning the loans through either NAMA or the owned banks.

The governments approach is to trust an economic model consisting of 300 factors to calculate long term value. The models accuracy will depend on the accuracy of the estimations of at least the same (300) amount of coeffiecients. I believe that it is very unlikely that the model will give correct valuations.

There is no transparency regarding how the government will deal with the impaired loans.

The business idea of developers is to sell the developed property. The expected profit were probably based on prices that are now unlikely to happen anytime soon. The developers are saying that the reason for the inactivity in the property sector is due to the banks. Others are saying that the lack of activity is due to oversupply in the Irish market and the corresponding price correction has not yet happened.

I believe oversupply is the reason for lack of activity and that the prices will fall further. Therefore I believe a large number of property developers and investors will not be able to pay back their loans in full with interest.

NAMA is as it stands not in compliance with EU rules as there is no clawback mechanism included in the current legislation for the event that overpayments might be made.

The slowness in the governments tackling of the banking crisis is correct. Yet, NAMA will not resolve any uncertainty as nobody outside of NAMA will have any chance of knowing what they will do to clean up the impaired loans. True with NAMA the banks will get money for nothing (I can’t see payment of more than market price any other way) and will have stronger balance sheets. Maybe they’ll put some of that free money into the Irish economy, maybe they’ll buy NAMA bonds. The only certainty is that the banks will use the free money where they can get the best profits.

Getting liquidity into the market is important. So is the price paid to achieve it. Nationalisation is cheaper than NAMA. If cost is one of the decisionmaking criteria, then nationalise. Modify NAMA to be nationalisation.

On reading this thread, thank f*ck I didn’t study law.

NO TO NAMA

If NAMA was to be operated transparently, it should

* Have a whistle blowers charter
* Publish audited accounts
* Publish valuations
* Publish transactions at as granular a level as possible, if necessary to an independent organization charged with protecting taxpayers interests.

Instead NAMA as currently drafted

* Indemnifies its officials and agents. Forbids its executives from commenting on policy when answering to the Dail.
* Does not pay VAT, taxes or even produce audited accounts.
* Has not published any valuations except it is directed to buy using the higher price of current value or some long term makey uppy BS value. And not directed on selling…. This 2 prices is a receipt for fraud.
* Will not provide any transaction details even to other state organizations or independent regulation to guard against fraud.

There is another question; that of basic competence…

1/ NAMA legislation does not address how to enforce what it is allegedly set up to do… restore credit….
2/ Or how to get its money back when the banks sell them loans with incomplete documentation, incomplete or not as described…. e.g. security changed, access lands now in wifes name and so on…. or other legal wheezes…

NAMA as a basic principle may have some merit; but as it is set up, the legislation needs to be rewritten, not amended.

As is, It is a bailout for corrupt developers and banksters.

Very good contribution and it is the way I would favour . We have moved to the NAMA stage of this exercise to clean up the Banks and therefore specific amendments are the order of the day not a general critique which leaves the Public thinking well maybe we do not need to sort out the Banks and this will save us a taxpayers from anymore pain and all of the other rubbish about bailing out the devolopers and the Banks because they are allied to FF. The Government needs to sort out the Banks to save the livelihood of everyone on this Island.

A further point in relation to Nationalisation of the Banks is that I recall that a letter was sent in april 2009 to the Irish Times signed by 20 Academics who said they favoured Nationalisation of the Banks and a number of those Academics are also on the list of 46 signatories in the IT last week. So really which policy on the Banks is being supported by some of the 46 signatories. For me as a person in business I need to have certainty as to what is being promoted just as I would when I make decisions about my business.

The slowness of the Government in dealing with this issue of the Banks solvency which has been around since late 2007 is clearly unacceptable and I do wish Academics would point this out more and more and also the urgency to implement the Mc Carthy Report recommendations to save this economy from potential ruin. Our National Debt stands today at more than 69 Billion euro - see Finance Magazine Debt Clock.

No offense taken this time but, like Michael, I’m not sure we’re getting anywhere here.

You started your comments with “If you go only to the newspapers …”

Well, I can’t speak for the rest of the 46, but you know that I don’t “go only to the newspapers”. I have backed up my position on NAMA in a detailed fashion time and again on this blog. I have appeared on radio and TV to explain the issues as clearly as I can. I have also spoken with many politicians about the issue, including members who will be at the Oireachtas meeting on Monday. I have given a formal presentation to the Green Party and have agreed to do so again. And I appeared before that Commitee in March. Newspaper articles have only been a relatively small part of the effort that I have put in (and this last one a very small part, since all I did was add my name.)

Your position that the government would only have expected criticism to “take the form of statements and submissions that suggest amendment or clarification of particular sections” is, frankly, hilarious. You really think that the government was not expecting op-ed columns, blog posts, or discussions on radio and TV?

As for the idea that an article critical of NAMA would not have been criticised if it had been accompanied by a draft bill, my opinion is that the dogs of war would have been set on the economists no matter what.

Ultimately, I have a more positive view of media debates than you do. Yes there is disagreement, spin, and name-calling but that happens on all sorts of important issues and the public is used to it. In my opinion, the media debate has convinced many people that the government’s current approach, as represented by this draft bill, is flawed. And, to my mind, this is a good thing.

Legislators, or rather civil servants, draft legislation. Most commentators are not jurists. By asking for people to suggest amendments, you are asking for people to make juristic change suggestion. Does that mean that only jurists should comment?

The points of debate of the NAMA bill are, to my mind:
- is it a good idea in toto?
- are particular sections of it good ideas? (for example, to absolve NAMA officers from legal obligations relating to fraud)
- if there is a price to be paid for the loans, how much should be paid?
- is it transparent enough? Do we want to give the minister of finance and the DoF (of any party) such unfettered power with no oversight?
- what alternatives are there in principle?
- should there be a clawback and what mechanism should it take? (clawback or profit share).

Few of these questions are amenable to legislative amendment. They are all worthy subjects of debate. It is no exaggeration to say that NAMA is the single most important piece of financial legislation the state will enact. As currently proposed, it will increase the national debt by 33% of GDP. It is the equivalent of 30 years of budget increases (assuming a sustainable 3% growth in government income in a 2% inflation environment). I think we all have the right to add our tuppence.

This discussion on process is a waste of time.

The Minister and most of the Cabinet, went on holidays for about a month after the publication of the Bill.

In the interval, before this week’s letter, Karl Whelan and Patrick Honohan made proposals on the key issue of the controversy i.e the concept of long term value and protection of taxpayers’ interest.

It’s important to raise the issues in the media as it’s the main channel to getting policy makers to change their minds.

There is nothing stopping anyone from writing to the Dept or TDs.

On a general point, it’s interesting that people who are critical of using the media, can also assume because an individual who did not publicise views via the media, on the reckless mismanagement during the boom, was a cheerleader of it!

In the media, the issue is immediately personalised, and transformed into a ‘Clash of the Titans’ (Please note, Karl, I’m staying away from any schoolboy analogies, for fear of causing offence, which was never intended anyway in any of my previous posts!) and the debate proceeds on this level. It ends up, as with several of the comments made on this thread, in labelling and namecalling and people misunderstanding one another, which really doesn’t advance the substance of any issue very far.

It’s practically unprecedented for any government in this country to publish a Bill and put it out for public consultation. But once that happened with the Nama draft Bill – and to this extent only am I on the same page as Noel Whelan, since our policy stances on most issues would be diametrically opposed – there was an expectation at government level that opposition to or comments on the proposed policy would, in the first instance, take the form of statements and submissions that suggest amendment or clarification of particular sections. Or put forward an argument as to why the entire Bill should be scrapped in favour of an alternative policy. Once that has been done, it’s fair enough for any group or individual to promote the core points of their submission in op-eds in every outlet that will take them. For example, if I recall correctly, in Richard Bruton’s article on FG’s ‘good bank’ proposal in last week’s Irish Times, he mentioned that FG have made a submission to government on their preferred solution?

Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the Minister for a moment : advice was sought from an economist on a technical solution to the banks’ toxic assets; a proposal was made, accepted by the government, and a policy based on that proposal was developed, published and put out for public consultation, in the form of draft legislation, with a commitment to take on board ideas and suggestions that will make the thing work.

The expectation clearly is that experts and others with appropriate expertise would respond to the public consultation and make their views known through that process. The ultimate decision on the policy to be pursued is the Minister’s responsibility - that’s his job after all - but the very fact of putting the legislation out for public consultation obliges him to evaluate any responses that are received through that process.

Unfortunately, the same does not apply to concerns aired primarily through newspaper columns. And since, like the rest of us, the Minister is only human, irritation and dismissal of those concerns, however well-founded the concerns themselves may be, is the most likely reaction of someone who feels their offer of consultation through formal channels has been spurned. That’s my charitable interpreation anyway - groupthink is the curse of every government and political organisation!

Nama is not a popular solution as it’s too easily represented as a bailout for banks and developers at the expense of the taxpayer. As Matt Cooper has persuasively argued in his Sunday Times column today, nationalisation of the banks is a far more attractive option from FF’s political perspective. No politician in his right mind would touch Nama with a bargepole if he felt there was a more workable alternative available. In fairness, the Minister has never ruled out nationalisation of the main banks either; but for a number of reasons, many of which have been also aired by other posters on this site, has taken the view that nationalisation should be a last option.

That is why, once the legislation was published in the way that it was, I advocated that amendments and policy alternatives should be put forward in a formal response to the draft Bill with the op-ed as a follow up, not leading the charge; a twin track strategy if you like. I know, Karl , that you don’t agree with me that this is the best strategy for you and your colleagues to advance your argument in the public domain and that’s fair enough. But I do think that there would have been less opportunity out there for anyone to question the motives or credibility of the arguments advanced in Professor Lucey’s letter if the cart hadn’t been put before the horse. And less scope for personalisation of what are, after all, largely technical issues about how the banks toxic assets can best be managed in the interests of the economy, society and minimising the costs to taxpayers.

My professional advice to anyone seeking it would be to make a submission to the Department of Finance on the legislation as published, setting out objections to the concept and preferred alternatives, and perhaps also to copy this to the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, in a letter addressed to the Chairman and copied to all members. After that, go at it hammer and tongs in the mainstream media, if that’s likely to advance acceptance of an alternative view.

The Finance Committee are meeting with the Minister next week and the better informed its members are of all the arguments and options, the more fruitful the exchange is likely to be. Further, the Committee might be persuaded to broaden their hearings to include other expert opinion before the Bill comes before the Oireachtas, which would be all to the greater good, in my opinion.

I make these points with the best of itnentions, no criticism should be inferred and, I hope, no offence taken.

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/economists-you-missed-the-bus-1873228.html