It is time that the essential facts of Nama were set out starkly and simply.

Nama is based on a fiction – a necessary ruse, which ministers cannot publicly divulge. Since the government pledged to support the banks and the ECB committed to support both, the fiction arose in order to bridge a gap in the mutual objective of government and the ECB.

The ECB cannot lend funds to the banks without getting "acceptable" collateral, nor can it lend funds directly to the government to pass on to the banks – so a ruse had to be found. The government (Nama) would take ownership of colossal toxic bank assets in return for guaranteed bonds. These in turn become "acceptable" collateral for the ginormous­ ECB loans to banks. But, at discounted market prices (fire sale), or even at current market prices, the bonds would not provide adequate collateral to obtain the ginormous ECB funds required.

That's why a stroke had to be grafted onto the ruse whereby the government would pay well in excess of current market price, and the ECB would accept the dodge with only a mild warning.

So the Nama bill is effectively set in stone: the Irish financial system must be saved; only the ECB is willing to provide the ginormous funds needed; ergo, it is "treasonous" to obstruct.

But it was "treasonous" bank behaviour over many years that put the state in jeopardy in the first instance and no one has been impeached. "Treason" therefore cannot be unthinkable. Why not leave the banks to the mercy of the markets? The truth is that there was an earlier ruse: the government gave the banks a midnight guarantee for all bank funds for two years.

This ruse ensured the banks, which were already protected by limited liability in case of bankruptcy, were now protected for two years from even the threat of bankruptcy. To copperfasten this protection, Nama and the ECB collaboration were concocted and, for good measure, the worst bank was nationalised and borrowed billions given by government to the banks.

This stroke ensured that, if "treasonous" parties were to block Nama, the state would be so deeply indebted that bankruptcy would bring instant disaster for banks and taxpayer, alike. The pattern in all of this is breathtaking: the interplay of fact with fiction, of ruse with dodge, of dodge with stroke, is masterful. The best minds that money can buy are evident throughout.

Where does all of that leave the pubic at large? Most immediately, where does it leave the middle-ground taxpayers? Clearly fundamental re-appraisal is warranted. Equally clearly, options are restricted between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". But there is a way between.

There is a principled way through. It is this: that in a democratic republic the welfare of the citizen, both as individuals and collectively, is paramount. Where that welfare is knowingly put in fundamental jeopardy by any group or interest – whether commercial or political or both – it behoves all citizens and parties to resist it.

The most relevant principle at risk here is that private-sector debts must never be foisted onto the public sector, especially ginormous recklessness onto already over-burdened taxpayers. If this principle is pursued there will be a banner under which to fight, an objective which is achievable, a call which is clear and several pragmatic solutions on which to draw.

Edward Moran (by email)