Court sided against the people in ruling against her, says Collins

Dublin South Central TD Joan Collins has said that the Supreme Court "sided against the Irish people" by rejecting her bid to have the Anglo Irish Bank promissory notes deemed unconstitutional.

"The decision was an affront to the people who have been lumbered with this bill," Ms Collins told The Irish Times.

Asked why she believed the Supreme Court was taking sides rather than applying the law, Ms Collins said: “The reason I used that language is because of the contradictions in the judgment.”

In an earlier statement, Ms Collins said she was “disappointed but not particularly surprised” with the judgment.

Landlords threaten to impose levies in response to 4% rent cap

---

Fine Gael TD calls for vacant house tax to solve homelessness

---

Amendment introducing rent rise cap passed in Dáil

---

How Fine Gael lost the 2016 general election

---

She said she had made a “robust legal case that article 28 of the Constitution forbids borrowing or spending without a Dáil vote”.

The court’s judgment, Ms Collins said, “has weakened our political system, placing fewer checks on the actions of the minister for finance and the government of the day”.

Ms Collins said her opinion promissory note debt was “unchanged by the court’s decision”.

‘Odious debt’

“This is an odious debt. Our Government made a decision that benefitted a handful of well-connected Irish bankers as well as French and German financial institutions which are insulated from the costs of their recklessness by a European framework demanding full repayment of bondholders. The interests of Irish citizens were never a consideration,” she said.

"As the bonds which replaced these promissory notes are sold off huge sums of public money will flow to private interests and €31 billion of debt will be copperfastened to the state for decades. This decision made by the Fianna Fáil, and backed by Fine Gael and Labour in government, will be with us for a long, long time," Ms Collins said.

“People should remember this when we are told we can’t afford to solve urgent crises in housing or healthcare – we can, but our money is going elsewhere.”

Costs in the case will be addressed by the court after Christmas.