The Dail no longer has power

Slideshowbob · 12-12-2011 6:07am #1

It has struck me over the last week that tha Dail is now as relevant as the Seanad was 5 years ago.

I listened to Lucinda Creighton trying to explain things poorly as she eh'd and ah'd about us pauping in Europe and she tried to assimilate the unchartered predicament Europe is now in.

We now need about 30% of the TDs we have. They will be reps for us in Europe, the rest of those needed can fulfill ministerial positions.

TDs with their hard got Arts degrees bleat about things they have feck all influence over now put there on pothole and medical card mandates.

Ta na politict nua ag teacht.....

daithimacgroin · 12-12-2011 6:20am

the country needs to demand a referendum on radical constitutional change

Slideshowbob · 12-12-2011 6:21am

What in the constitution needs to change do you think?

daithimacgroin · 12-12-2011 7:09am

pretty much all of it

We've ran this country into the ground for the last 90 years

femur61 · 12-12-2011 8:29am

Parish pump politics needs to be erradicated. I am not familiar with the ins and outs of the constitution, but it seems to be outdated and the stumbling block for a lot decisions for us. 1937 is a long way from 2011.

Dr Galen · 12-12-2011 9:03am

daithimacgroin wrote: »

pretty much all of it

We've ran this country into the ground for the last 90 years

femur61 wrote: »

Parish pump politics needs to be erradicated. I am not familiar with the ins and outs of the constitution, but it seems to be outdated and the stumbling block for a lot decisions for us. 1937 is a long way from 2011.

I dont totally disagree that some sort of constitutional review needs to take place, but how can anyone suggest that the whole thing needs to be rewritten within making any reference to specifics? I'd also be interested to know what you think holds us back as a nation or what parts are outdated?

daithimacgroin · 12-12-2011 11:43am

well, the OP meant this to be about the Dail,
and i do think there is no need for a Dail at all.

as for constitutional reform, i'd like to see a move towards direct democracy,

Teletext Democracy is what I call it.

No representatives. The decisions and votes that would usually be put to the dail or executive should be put directly to the people.

We've had the technology for years, and education levels are high enough

so why keep using this antiquated imperfect corrupt form of indirect democracy?

It's not like the people in the Dail are anymore knowledgeable or wise than the ordinary man in the street.

bmaxi · 12-12-2011 11:52am

FFS, we can't even get the Government to live up to it's commitment to abolish Quangoes. Good luck with getting them to get rid of their buddies in the Dáil.

daithimacgroin · 12-12-2011 11:56am

if more people got behind these guys then?

http://www.2nd-republic.ie/

edanto · 12-12-2011 1:12pm

For me, there is too much power concentrated in the Cabinet/Executive and the 140 or so TDs that are not part of that inner circle are totally sidelined because of the whip system.

As far as I know there's no mention in the consitution of the whip system and I would like to see legislation along the lines of what the technical group proposed earlier in the year.

FG are far too right-wing to support this type of reform though.

http://www.stephendonnelly.ie/from-the-chamber/motion-dail-reform/

Manach · 12-12-2011 1:58pm

The issue is how we change our own Bunreacht.
The US constitution is a lot older than ours. It has fewer changes and is much more revered by their public society. Instead of carefully crafting relevant legislation to met current events, the State uses a quick fix of altering the constitution which robs it of its coherent whole philosophy and it dissolves into a patchwork of various dos/don'ts - leaving case law derived from it in shreds.
The next change to make to the constitution should be making it more difficult to change and reduce the power of politicians to do so.

bedrock#1 · 12-12-2011 4:48pm

daithimacgroin wrote: »

well, the OP meant this to be about the Dail,
and i do think there is no need for a Dail at all.

as for constitutional reform, i'd like to see a move towards direct democracy,

Teletext Democracy is what I call it.

No representatives. The decisions and votes that would usually be put to the dail or executive should be put directly to the people.

We've had the technology for years, and education levels are high enough

so why keep using this antiquated imperfect corrupt form of indirect democracy?

It's not like the people in the Dail are anymore knowledgeable or wise than the ordinary man in the street.

I think a form of democracy where the public are involved in the decision making process is what we should strive for, however it is a lot more complex than what you are suggesting. Direct democracy is a nice idea but it doesn't tackle the very different views people hold and the fact that a lot of collective decision making descends into bickering.

If we are to have a truly citizen oriented democracy the first thing we need to do is to comprehensively reform the education system. One of the main problems I see with transitioning to this type of democracy is that-

A) We collectively lack the required knowledge of the political system (electoral systems, institutional design etc.) -

We lack the skills to be able to make deliberation possible

C) Our current political system is too centralized to make collective decision making efficient and effective

D) This would require constitutional overhaul in terms of who is allowed make legislation, the powers of the dail, the electoral system, the fact that our constitution sets out the rules of a representative democracy etc.

It is a massive undertaking to change or democracy. Personally I would favour a deliberative form of democracy with direct democracy coming in the form of referendum voting procedures for any decisions made.

Son Of A Vidic · 12-12-2011 9:14pm

Personally I view the Dáil as being populated by a large majority of gormless, inept, intellectually impaired morons. So regardless of the sovereignty issue and how much power they actually have. They’re not capable of doing much with it anyway.

GSF · 12-12-2011 9:15pm

daithimacgroin wrote: »

the country needs to demand a referendum on radical constitutional change

Its on its way in March - well maybe, when the lawyers get back from their Christmas break.

Pete_Cavan · 12-12-2011 9:39pm

daithimacgroin wrote: »

well, the OP meant this to be about the Dail,
and i do think there is no need for a Dail at all.

as for constitutional reform, i'd like to see a move towards direct democracy,

Teletext Democracy is what I call it.

No representatives. The decisions and votes that would usually be put to the dail or executive should be put directly to the people.

Right, and who produces the legislation to be put to the people? Does any loud mouth with a vested interest get to bring legislation before the people? Most people do not have the time to educate themselves on all the various issues which would be put in front of them and pretty soon the number of people participating plummet as they get sick of being asked to vote on issue the do not concern them.

usernamegoes · 12-12-2011 10:18pm

GSF wrote: »

Its on its way in March - well maybe, when the lawyers get back from their Christmas break.

We'll be very lucky if the Convention's terms of reference include anything that will allow real political or rights reform. It'll be small stuff like the changing the term of the president or maybe reducing the number of TDs a very small amount, and the Senate abolition.

It'll then look at some good ideas like gay marriage and it won't go anywhere near abortion. But I really think it needs a complete overhaul with a number of proposals in sections that allow people to vote on bits they like and dislike in order to compile a complete Constitution.

I'd like to see the president become a fully fledged executive position with an appointed government. The legislature elected from non-geographical constituencies in at least one house.

limklad · 13-12-2011 4:36pm

Slideshowbob wrote: »

What in the constitution needs to change do you think?

You should read the Irish Constitution to be filmise yourself on this.

Irish Constitution wrote:

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf
Article 16
2. 2° The number of members shall from time to time be fixed by law, but the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population.

Right now there needs to be a TD for every 20,000/30,000 of the population.
This needs to be change to % of population so less revisions needs to be made in future.

FreudianSlippers · 13-12-2011 4:53pm

limklad wrote: »

You should read the Irish Constitution to be filmise yourself on this.

What?

Right now there needs to be a TD for every 20,000/30,000 of the population.
This needs to be change to % of population so less revisions needs to be made in future.

That's it?

thebman · 13-12-2011 11:56pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What?

That's it?

Well there is also these bits which seem controversial partly because of the big sign above them saying controversy :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ireland#Issues_of_controversy

Slideshowbob · 14-12-2011 12:27am

Constitution talk is a diversion from the orginal topic IMHO

Keep it simple guys!!

Offy · 14-12-2011 12:31am

Dr Galen wrote: »

I dont totally disagree that some sort of constitutional review needs to take place, but how can anyone suggest that the whole thing needs to be rewritten within making any reference to specifics? I'd also be interested to know what you think holds us back as a nation or what parts are outdated?

I think what holds us back is the lack of accountability, politicians, medical professionals, legal professionals, etc. People should be held accountable and at present they are not.

mlumley · 14-12-2011 3:34am

And whom may I ask would write up this new constitution, Ah let me think, ,,,,,,,yes the crap crowd we now have with their snouts in the troth:eek:. They'd only make it better for themselves to get what they want and sideline the people. They would sell us down the river faster than a speed boat for their own greedy selves. Not broken, dont fix it.

daithimacgroin · 14-12-2011 3:56am

get an independent body from the united states to do a few alternatives and then debate the pros and cons...

not broken?
things are fairly f**kin brokin mate

FreudianSlippers · 14-12-2011 9:47am

daithimacgroin wrote: »

get an independent body from the united states to do a few alternatives and then debate the pros and cons...

not broken?
things are fairly f**kin brokin mate

The Constitution isn't broken. Certainly there are areas which need refreshing, but a complete re-write is wholly unnecessary.

LordSutch · 15-12-2011 11:53pm

Slideshowbob wrote: »

The Dail no longer has power‏

Slideshowbob wrote: »

It has struck me over the last week that tha Dail is now as relevant as the Seanad was 5 years ago.

Exactly, and this is precisely why Mr Cameron & the Euro skeptic wing of the Tory party in Westminster have their collective knickers in such a twist. Hand over too much power to Brussels at your peril, and you will be owned, financed & governed by European bureaucrats, while Dublin & London will become increasingly irrelevant as European centralised control takes over

RMD · 15-12-2011 11:58pm

The constitution isn't at fault here. It's that we have a shower of fools running the country, I can't count on one hand how many politicians in this country I deem worthy of running.

What we need is better politicians, problem is that's something that can't just be created. You need people who want to be politicians, competent people at that.

Overheal · 16-12-2011 1:25am

Reading thread and chuckling.

It sounds to me based on the responses here that what you want isn't constitutional reform, you just want the people that are in, out. It would be like saying that Congress is broken because in the current session the Senate has the votes to overturn any action taken by the congress, or some such shyte. But really that's the fupping point.

Theres plenty of frustration that leaders are being too slow to act but you think a constitutional reform could be performed any faster? Hah.

Amirani · 16-12-2011 1:50am

The Daíl in it's present guise is wasteful and inefficient though unsurprising. Constituents look to their TDs for any minor issues that arise in their area though this should really be a process reserved for Local Government. I think that reducing the number of constituencies (thus making them larger) to something more like the European constituencies would be a favourable alternative. This would allow TDs to divert their attention to national issues, where they're supposed to be.

This would also allow a reduction in the number of TDs. Without doubt we have far too many at present, most of which who have little or no influence. Had a technical group not been formed some of our most promising independent representatives would have little or no speaking time.

The Seanad at present is a waste. It's membership is undemocratic and is always going to follow the will of the present Government, thus rendering it useless. A reformed Seanad or an expanded Presidential executive branch would be welcomed.

In terms of the Constitution, I don't feel it simply has to be ripped up and replaced. There are undoubtedly issues with it at present, both because of age and the sheer number of alterations that have been made since its inception.

Scofflaw · 16-12-2011 3:27am

Offy wrote: »

I think what holds us back is the lack of accountability, politicians, medical professionals, legal professionals, etc. People should be held accountable and at present they are not.

One of the problems with the Irish system is that the government - the Cabinet - is not accountable to the Dáil, which it is supposed to be. The non-Constitutional Whip system and our Constitutional requirement that Ministers should be elected constituency representatives means that the Cabinet is effectively just appointed by the party bosses of the coalition parties.

That's what leads to ludicrous situations where incompetent Ministers who make major blunders but who are important within the party are retained - at best they're moved to another Ministry - while potentially competent people aren't even considered.

Seriously, a system which makes Mary Coughlan a Minister in the first place is not fit for purpose. One that then retains her is clearly badly broken.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers · 16-12-2011 2:05pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

One of the problems with the Irish system is that the government - the Cabinet - is not accountable to the Dáil, which it is supposed to be. The non-Constitutional Whip system and our Constitutional requirement that Ministers should be elected constituency representatives means that the Cabinet is effectively just appointed by the party bosses of the coalition parties.

That's what leads to ludicrous situations where incompetent Ministers who make major blunders but who are important within the party are retained - at best they're moved to another Ministry - while potentially competent people aren't even considered.

Seriously, a system which makes Mary Coughlan a Minister in the first place is not fit for purpose. One that then retains her is clearly badly broken.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We also need a Seanad with actual powers to "check and balance" the Dáil.

daithimacgroin · 16-12-2011 3:08pm

result - the executive are all powerful

Surely following that logic, Ireland is basically a non-democratic banana republic controlled by a posse of self-interested individuals

AlekSmart · 16-12-2011 3:46pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

One of the problems with the Irish system is that the government - the Cabinet - is not accountable to the Dáil, which it is supposed to be. The non-Constitutional Whip system and our Constitutional requirement that Ministers should be elected constituency representatives means that the Cabinet is effectively just appointed by the party bosses of the coalition parties.

That's what leads to ludicrous situations where incompetent Ministers who make major blunders but who are important within the party are retained - at best they're moved to another Ministry - while potentially competent people aren't even considered.

Seriously, a system which makes Mary Coughlan a Minister in the first place is not fit for purpose. One that then retains her is clearly badly broken.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The real shame being that Ms Coughlan represented only the most recent in a long and proud line of such functionaries.

Taking Scofflaw's point regarding the Non-Constitutionality of the Whip system and qualifications for Ministerial appointments,is there a process whereby this can be realistically challenged ?

Oddly enough,I believe that one of the most significant issues surrounding how Ireland is to emerge from the current malaise is the nature of it's Governing Principles...currently we don't appear to have any....:o

Scofflaw · 16-12-2011 4:10pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

The real shame being that Ms Coughlan represented only the most recent in a long and proud line of such functionaries.

Taking Scofflaw's point regarding the Non-Constitutionality of the Whip system and qualifications for Ministerial appointments,is there a process whereby this can be realistically challenged ?

Oddly enough,I believe that one of the most significant issues surrounding how Ireland is to emerge from the current malaise is the nature of it's Governing Principles...currently we don't appear to have any....:o

The Germans - that currently despised and dratted people - have a clause in their constitution which says:

(1) Members of the German Bundestag shall be elected in general, direct, free, equal, and secret elections. They shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience.

On that basis the Whip system would be unconstitutional.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edanto · 16-12-2011 4:21pm

Wow - that would be a great clause to have in our constituion.

edanto · 16-12-2011 5:22pm

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Constitution talk is a diversion from the orginal topic IMHO

Keep it simple guys!!

Slideshow, it is simple. The powers of the Dail are in the main derived from the constitution. Discussion of constitutional reform couldn't be more on topic with your OP.

For example - the number of TDs. That comes directly from the constitution. That stuff is reasonably complex for a good reason - it needs to be precise and cover a lot of ground. Embrace it!

bette · 16-12-2011 7:01pm

edanto wrote: »

Slideshow, it is simple. The powers of the Dail are in the main derived from the constitution. Discussion of constitutional reform couldn't be more on topic with your OP.

For example - the number of TDs. That comes directly from the constitution. That stuff is reasonably complex for a good reason - it needs to be precise and cover a lot of ground. Embrace it!

Why should we embrace this constitution? It is old and outmoded. Perhaps you might get some inspiration from post #33, last paragraph!

It well nigh time to look at the issues of:

The Whip system
The number of TDs
The number of senators
The Presidency
Salaries of elected reps
Perks, expenses and allowances
Appointments

As matters stand the Oireachtas is a great big gravy train and it seems that once elected, a politician loses his/her soul to the money god! Promises are made at election time which are never honoured and that is flagrant with the current lot of inept gravy train passengers!

edanto · 16-12-2011 7:06pm

I meant 'embrace the complexity' of constitutional politics and law. I didn't mean that the consitution is perfect as is. You're taking me up wrong.

It seems like we agree on the need for change, and even on what to change. The hard bit is how to convince the guys in the comfy TD seats to make those changes, especially the lot that are in power now.

bette · 16-12-2011 7:14pm

edanto wrote: »

I meant 'embrace the complexity' of constitutional politics and law. I didn't mean that the consitution is perfect as is. You're taking me up wrong.

It seems like we agree on the need for change, and even on what to change. The hard bit is how to convince the guys in the comfy TD seats to make those changes, especially the lot that are in power now.

Mea culpa! It's going to be difficult to make the present shower take heed.

FreudianSlippers · 16-12-2011 7:52pm

daithimacgroin wrote: »

result - the executive are all powerful

Surely following that logic, Ireland is basically a non-democratic banana republic controlled by a posse of self-interested individuals

You think the Legislative branches in the USA and most other bicameral democracies are "all powerful"?

I would argue we need a proper Executive branch and more separation of powers between the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative.

edanto · 29-03-2012 6:52pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

(1) Members of the German Bundestag shall be elected in general, direct, free, equal, and secret elections. They shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience.

Scofflaw, do you know how that clause works in practise in Germany? Are party members bound by a quasi-whip, or are most votes in the parliament actually conscience based?

Scofflaw · 29-03-2012 11:32pm

edanto wrote: »

Scofflaw, do you know how that clause works in practise in Germany? Are party members bound by a quasi-whip, or are most votes in the parliament actually conscience based?

They certainly seem to take it seriously enough to repeat it at every opportunity:

The delegates are representatives of the whole people, they are not bound at orders or instructions and only responsible to their conscience (Article 38 I S 2 GG) (independent or free mandate).

A free mandate is extracted from each access. A delegate cannot be forced and/or recalled therefore to a resignation of his mandate. Also he cannot be forced to a certain behavior (whip). A voluntary determination to a certain however behaviour is allowed (party discipline).

While they do have 'party whips', their function is more that of the official functions of the party whips in our system - arranging speaking time, making inter-party arrangements, etc.

Without a full analysis of the recorded voting patterns of German representatives, I can't be sure, but as far as I can see from the literature, the conscience rule is meaningfully observed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

the culture of deference · 29-03-2012 11:39pm

We need a revolution.

We need a new justice system, constitution, education overhaul, banking overhaul, a reassessment of our natural resource contracts, internment laws, and a new health and social welfare system.

As is it our country and our children have no future, unless this government cuts waste immediately.

MadsL · 30-03-2012 12:11am

the culture of deference wrote: »

We need a revolution.

Yes, a revolution to undertake to change the rotten corruption at the heart of Irish politics.

However unfortunately that will involve changing the rotten corruption at the heart of Irish society. It will mean stopping the nixers, the being let off because you played GAA in the Garda's hometown, the turning a blind eye, the 'fair play to ya', the getting of 'the planning' by glad-handing the Councillor. It will mean the end of cash-in-hand, padding bills, fiddling expenses. It will mean the end of false insurance claims, quiet words in ears and no more "I knew your father".

We could have a just, fair and largely law-abiding society in Ireland, but I'm not sure Ireland has grown up enough to 'get' how to get there.

Overheal · 30-03-2012 3:20am

the culture of deference wrote: »

We need a revolution.

We need a new justice system, constitution, education overhaul, banking overhaul, a reassessment of our natural resource contracts, internment laws, and a new health and social welfare system.

As is it our country and our children have no future, unless this government cuts waste immediately.

With respect, thats not in any way practical. It's been said many times but courteously, rewriting all of the code with which a country functions is not an overnight process, it is not inexpensive and it does not generate a quick recovery. Look at any country from the Arab Spring. You think any of them have had an easy time of it?

At most you can hope to look at one section of the system at a time and aim to revise it, like healthcare law or the taxation system. But "revolutions" are in no way practical, if one actually were to sit down and cognitively predict the consequences over even a window of just 5 years. Healthcare alone has been in the process of reform in the US for about 3 years now. And will not be 'reformed' for years to come. And when I say reformed, I mean settled law, im not even talking about in a condition that will satisfy everyone.

K-9 · 30-03-2012 4:51am

Overheal wrote: »

With respect, thats not in any way practical. It's been said many times but courteously, rewriting all of the code with which a country functions is not an overnight process, it is not inexpensive and it does not generate a quick recovery. Look at any country from the Arab Spring. You think any of them have had an easy time of it?

At most you can hope to look at one section of the system at a time and aim to revise it, like healthcare law or the taxation system. But "revolutions" are in no way practical, if one actually were to sit down and cognitively predict the consequences over even a window of just 5 years. Healthcare alone has been in the process of reform in the US for about 3 years now. And will not be 'reformed' for years to come. And when I say reformed, I mean settled law, im not even talking about in a condition that will satisfy everyone.

And you never can satisfy everyone, which is the danger of politicians like Bertie and Blair trying to please everybody, you're promising them an impossibility. Though that is probably something shared by all political philosophies, left, right or centre!

FreudianSlippers · 30-03-2012 11:47am

Most people don't actually want revolution either. Sure, most don't want reform. They may say it, but when it comes down to it Ireland has a serious problem.

Take the broad "reform of the justice system" bit for example. This gets mentioned a lot, but what needs to be fixed?

More space in prisons or better conditions for prisoners is a big one IMO. But the problem is that we can't agree on where to build a new prison, what type is best (I.e. American supermax style, etc) how much to spend, what facilities it has... The list goes on. What do we do with the prisoners? I was speaking about this last night and as it stands we do nothing for male prisoners but make them better (or worse) criminals and thugs. What is meant to deter crime does the opposite.

Is the problem the courts? More judges? Harsher sentence? We can't even agree on that. People would be complaining about how much we spend on judges and telling us that it's all the legal professions fault bla bla bla.

Oh, just blame solicitors and barristers! The amount individual barristers and solicitors get from doing state legal aid work is shockingly low. Sure, there are the exceptions who somehow make hundreds of thousands (and I mean somehow, I have no fecking clue- do tell!) but they're few and far between.
Then there is the odd notion that the state should regulate the actual private fees charged for legal services which is frankly mental!

But we do nothing. We won't spend the money or come to an agreement. We just sit and moan and moan and moan and nothing changes. But sure, it keeps good ol' Joe Duffy in a high paying job employed by the semi-state radio that we love to moan about.

the culture of deference · 30-03-2012 2:12pm

Overheal wrote: »

With respect, thats not in any way practical. It's been said many times but courteously, rewriting all of the code with which a country functions is not an overnight process, it is not inexpensive and it does not generate a quick recovery. Look at any country from the Arab Spring. You think any of them have had an easy time of it?

At most you can hope to look at one section of the system at a time and aim to revise it, like healthcare law or the taxation system. But "revolutions" are in no way practical, if one actually were to sit down and cognitively predict the consequences over even a window of just 5 years. Healthcare alone has been in the process of reform in the US for about 3 years now. And will not be 'reformed' for years to come. And when I say reformed, I mean settled law, im not even talking about in a condition that will satisfy everyone.

We are in year 4 of a recession and nothing has changed. Virtually all the people who made this mess are still in their positions.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Most people don't actually want revolution either. Sure, most don't want reform. They may say it, but when it comes down to it Ireland has a serious problem.

Take the broad "reform of the justice system" bit for example. This gets mentioned a lot, but what needs to be fixed?

More space in prisons or better conditions for prisoners is a big one IMO. But the problem is that we can't agree on where to build a new prison, what type is best (I.e. American supermax style, etc) how much to spend, what facilities it has... The list goes on. What do we do with the prisoners? I was speaking about this last night and as it stands we do nothing for male prisoners but make them better (or worse) criminals and thugs. What is meant to deter crime does the opposite.

Is the problem the courts? More judges? Harsher sentence? We can't even agree on that. People would be complaining about how much we spend on judges and telling us that it's all the legal professions fault bla bla bla.

Oh, just blame solicitors and barristers! The amount individual barristers and solicitors get from doing state legal aid work is shockingly low. Sure, there are the exceptions who somehow make hundreds of thousands (and I mean somehow, I have no fecking clue- do tell!) but they're few and far between.
Then there is the odd notion that the state should regulate the actual private fees charged for legal services which is frankly mental!

But we do nothing. We won't spend the money or come to an agreement. We just sit and moan and moan and moan and nothing changes. But sure, it keeps good ol' Joe Duffy in a high paying job employed by the semi-state radio that we love to moan about.

It costs 100 grand a year to keep a prisoner, and 250 grand a year to keep a minor. That money could be spent more productively by actively targeting the families of children who will offend in the future.

The Dail no longer has power

Comments