Sean Barrett, the "infallibility" of the Ceann Comhairle and Irish politics

CountyHurler · 03-02-2015 9:06am

Never mind FF, Sean Barrett should apologise to the Irish people for his performances on the radio in recent weeks... Heard him last week and he was his usual ratty, irritable self... He was asked a few reasonable enough questions by the RTE presenter and couldnt have been more rude, abrupt and belligerent. He's the wrong personality type for that job.

That whole Ceann Comhairle thing is a racket anyway... An excuse for the Government to get a slight bias in the debates, and a free seat at the next election.. It's one of those things that I thought Enda was meant to change..

FreudianSlippers · 03-02-2015 9:54am

expectationlost wrote: »

maybe, maybe not, perhaps the Dail could debate it, by people paid to do so.

What exactly are a bunch of school teachers and farmers going to debate in a legal document? Having viewed the terms of reference I feel as though the Ceann Comhairle may have actually been somewhat correct - the only scope for any "debate" outside of those terms would be to prejudice (whether on purpose our out of ignorance like our friend MLMcD) a potential trial on the subject.

IMO anything outside of those terms as drafted are highly likely to be issues sub judice.

maccored · 03-02-2015 2:34pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What exactly are a bunch of school teachers and farmers going to debate in a legal document? Having viewed the terms of reference I feel as though the Ceann Comhairle may have actually been somewhat correct - the only scope for any "debate" outside of those terms would be to prejudice (whether on purpose our out of ignorance like our friend MLMcD) a potential trial on the subject.

IMO anything outside of those terms as drafted are highly likely to be issues sub judice.

those school teachers and farmers were democratically voted into the dail to debate. You'd be better asking those who voted for them why they did.

Arsemageddon · 03-02-2015 2:53pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What exactly are a bunch of school teachers and farmers going to debate in a legal document?

The arrogance of this statement is breath taking. Few people outside of the legal profession hold barristers and solicitors in the same esteem which they hold themselves.

There would have been no need for this inquiry if Shatter had done his job properly and hadn't assumed he was smarter than mere mortal non-legal eagles. FFS he was bested my Mick Wallace of all people.

Off the top of my head the Dail also has such keen legal minds as;

Lucinda (Can't think up a name for her party much less get anyone to join)
Willie Penrose (sets silly ultimatum and has to quit as minister)
Michelle Mullherrin (Cuckoo, Cuckoo!!)

M'learned friends listed above do not exactly inspire confidence in the legal profession.

Our democratically elected parliament should have been afforded the opportunity to debate the terms of reference of this inquiry. The government (or was it just the Taoiseach?) decided not to have a debate after receiving a letter from Shatter's solicitor. As I pointed out in a previous post article 15 10 affords the Dail the right to debate. The constitutional right of the Dail to freely debate should not have been subverted in this way. Rule by diktat is fundamentally repugnant to the constitution.

Having viewed the terms of reference I feel as though the Ceann Comhairle may have actually been somewhat correct - the only scope for any "debate" outside of those terms would be to prejudice (whether on purpose our out of ignorance like our friend MLMcD) a potential trial on the subject.

I'm sure that given the opportunity the 165 members of the Dail and their various legal advisors might have been able to come up with a few proposals. You'll have to forgive my scepticism about accepting the opinion of some fella on the internet that everything is kosher and above board

IMO anything outside of those terms as drafted are highly likely to be issues sub judice.

Opinions are like arses, everybody has one.

_Kaiser_ · 03-02-2015 3:08pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I ask you again then whether you'd prefer if we abolished the Dail altogether and just let the cabinet do everything themselves?

I'd like to propose an addition to the question m'lud

That being if he (and others like him) will still feel the same when FG find themselves back on the opposition benches?

I wonder will he still be as keen to allow the sitting government ram through legislation without discussion then?

The farce that a small cabaal of Senior Ministers can effectively muzzle opposing views from within their own party through the whip system is bad enough - but the nonsense that they can just carry on regardless after the Opposition has walked out in protest is a shocking indictment of our so-called "democracy".

FG need to be put back in their place on the other side of the House at the earliest opportunity - if for no other reason (and there are PLENTY of those too!) than because they are a genuine threat to our Constitutional right as citizens to have our views represented and expressed/debated in our parliament.

hatrickpatrick · 03-02-2015 4:28pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What exactly are a bunch of school teachers and farmers going to debate in a legal document? Having viewed the terms of reference I feel as though the Ceann Comhairle may have actually been somewhat correct - the only scope for any "debate" outside of those terms would be to prejudice (whether on purpose our out of ignorance like our friend MLMcD) a potential trial on the subject.

IMO anything outside of those terms as drafted are highly likely to be issues sub judice.

Aside from the fact that the issue could have been put to one side until after Shatter's legal proceedings, you're missing the wider point here - the Ceann Comhairle's unaccountability. I for one am tired of hearing "The Ceann Comhairle is independent" as a stock response any time he is accused of wrongdoing - if he has questions to answer about his conduct in office, he should be made to answer them.

CountyHurler · 03-02-2015 6:04pm

Embarrassing back down from Sean Barrett... Seems like he's doing anything to hold on the job (and seat for the next dail) at this stage.. He'll have to go pandering to the Shinners now..

For Reals · 03-02-2015 6:52pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What exactly are a bunch of school teachers and farmers going to debate in a legal document? Having viewed the terms of reference I feel as though the Ceann Comhairle may have actually been somewhat correct - the only scope for any "debate" outside of those terms would be to prejudice (whether on purpose our out of ignorance like our friend MLMcD) a potential trial on the subject.

IMO anything outside of those terms as drafted are highly likely to be issues sub judice.

My god, seriously? Should we get in unelected book worms from the judiciary to call the shots on the faith of the nation? And when the rules run awry who will decide to create new ones or abolish antiquated ones?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Having viewed the terms of reference I feel..

With all due respect your honour, it's not your call to make. It may suit you and others who have read a series of law books others haven't to feel you know better, I would suggest do your job and explain it to the decision makers elected by the people, the schoolteachers, the farmers and let them decide.

When it's dictating terms to the Irish people legal experts may be hired to decipher all the legalese, but it's democratically elected representatives from what ever walk, who should be calling the shots. It seems that's an alien concept to you and as it also seems to be to other noted pro-IW posters on this thread.
Everybody knows the Ceann Comharlie is the shill of the government of the day. Maybe we should change that or should we just read books about why it's so?

There'll soon be a google App that can do your job

expectationlost · 03-02-2015 7:40pm

Correspondence to Office of An Taoiseach regarding O'Higgins Commission of Inquiry - See more at: http://www.merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/News/Correspondence_to_Office_of_An_Taoiseach_re_O_Higgins_Commission_of_Investigation.html

expectationlost · 03-02-2015 7:42pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Aside from the fact that the issue could have been put to one side until after Shatter's legal proceedings, you're missing the wider point here - the Ceann Comhairle's unaccountability. I for one am tired of hearing "The Ceann Comhairle is independent" as a stock response any time he is accused of wrongdoing - if he has questions to answer about his conduct in office, he should be made to answer them.

his stock answer is usually, if you have problem bring it to the Committee of Procedures and Privilege, thats the Committee he also Chairs that always has a government majority.

_Kaiser_ · 03-02-2015 8:41pm

So Enda corrects the record this afternoon...

The Taoiseach has corrected the Dáil record and admitted he was in possession of letters between Alan Shatter and the Ceann Comhairle.

Translation for the rest of us: I lied!

However, Enda Kenny has denied that his Fine Gael colleague had any role in shutting down a Dáil debate on alleged Garda malpractice last week.
Deputy Shatter and his lawyers wrote to both the Taoiseach and Ceann Comhairle last month trying to get Deputy Shatter's actions excluded from a Commission of Inquiry.

Riight, because after admitting he lied in the Dail/on the record a minute ago, Kenny thinks he remains at all credible in his next statement - especially when you consider the previous "corrections" and antics during the Callinan/Shatter debacle last year.

How much longer can this go on?

Arsemageddon · 03-02-2015 9:19pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

How much longer can this go on?

The government or this thread?

I think their will be an election in September or October, as for this thread I'd say it's pretty much done.

hatrickpatrick · 03-02-2015 9:32pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The government or this thread?

I think their will be an election in September or October, as for this thread I'd say it's pretty much done.

I think it was the BS in the Dail he was referring to, in which case the unfortunate answer is until there is major overhaul of committees and standing orders.

The whole concept of the Ceann Comhairle chairing the only committee which has the power to reproach him for example, and the government majority on that committee. Absolute farce.

_Kaiser_ · 03-02-2015 9:44pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The government or this thread?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think it was the BS in the Dail he was referring to, in which case the unfortunate answer is until there is major overhaul of committees and standing orders.

Actually I was referring to a situation where the supposed "leader" of the country can lie on the record, be caught out and admit it, and yet somehow face no sanctions - from anyone! This of course is merely the latest in a seemingly never-ending stream of corruption, incompetence and cronyism that has been the hallmark of the current government.

As it stands he and his government are completely unaccountable to ANYONE - and even when an election is called they will be able to freely try again or retire on multiple pensions to the lecture circuit/life of a lobbyist.

The longer FG remain in power, the more damage is done to our democratic process - assuming it's not already beyond salvaging at this point with their performance over the last few years. FF were bad enough, but FG have taken the abuse of our system of government to new lows in my opinion.

expectationlost · 03-02-2015 9:54pm

the problem here is that the Opposition Party Whips had to depend on the Government Chief Whip Paul Kehoe to tell them of the Ceann Comhairle decision, and I still don't know if they actually told them the actual subclause he was citing.
in general why should the opposition have to depend on petty, evasive game playing government to find out whats happening in the House of Representatives

KingBrian2 · 03-02-2015 9:56pm

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Actually I was referring to a situation where the supposed "leader" of the country can lie on the record, be caught out and admit it, and yet somehow face no sanctions - from anyone! This of course is merely the latest in a seemingly never-ending stream of corruption, incompetence and cronyism that has been the hallmark of the current government.

As it stands he and his government are completely unaccountable to ANYONE - and even when an election is called they will be able to freely try again or retire on multiple pensions to the lecture circuit/life of a lobbyist.

The longer FG remain in power, the more damage is done to our democratic process - assuming it's not already beyond salvaging at this point with their performance over the last few years. FF were bad enough, but FG have taken the abuse of our system of government to new lows in my opinion.

I'm sure a more enlightened party will come to power and resolve all the problems. Get real corruption is nowhere as bad as you say but electioneering is still a staple of any parliamentary democracy.

View · 03-02-2015 10:14pm

expectationlost wrote: »

his stock answer is usually, if you have problem bring it to the Committee of Procedures and Privilege, thats the Committee he also Chairs that always has a government majority.

And what was the ruling by the Committee of Procedures and Privelege on the issue? Or, was it a case, after all the hoo-ha, that no one actually lodged a complaint?

expectationlost · 03-02-2015 10:21pm

View wrote: »

And what was the ruling by the Committee of Procedures and Privelege on the issue? Or, was it a case, after all the hoo-ha, that no one actually lodged a complaint?

think meeting is Wednesday

Im no sure, whether they actually want to change the standing orders, as I said think communication is just as big an issue.

expectationlost · 03-02-2015 11:33pm

amendments to terms of reference were going to be made says Catherine Murphy, on RTE Late Debate, http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/op/Jan15/Supple/2sp280115.pdf

flutered · 03-02-2015 11:39pm

Godge wrote: »

I want the TDs to get on with what they were elected to do - legislate.

Fair play to Averil Power and John Crown for bringing forward legislation on e-cigarettes, that is the sort of thing they were elected for.

Posturing in the Dail, the way Mary Lou, Gerry, Mick Wallace, Claire Daly and the rest act doesn't do anything for me. All empty vessels with nothing of substance to say except to be against everything. Tiresome, tedious and pointless.

are not some of the above responsible for the whistle blower case, one of side effect of it was shatter walked the plank, very ungracefully at that

expectationlost · 04-02-2015 12:10am

Godge wrote: »

I want the TDs to get on with what they were elected to do - legislate.

Fair play to Averil Power and John Crown for bringing forward legislation on e-cigarettes, that is the sort of thing they were elected for.

Posturing in the Dail, the way Mary Lou, Gerry, Mick Wallace, Claire Daly and the rest act doesn't do anything for me. All empty vessels with nothing of substance to say except to be against everything. Tiresome, tedious and pointless.

the government already has e-cigarrete legislation,already in train but tbf they are taking their time on it.

I really don't think Godge (or conorjh9) actually expects anyone to believe what he writes here. You really need to try a little harder Godge, I avoid answering you two and others here because I know you are not serious, and are just putting out lazy political stereotypes. We're supposed to accept the idea that terms of reference of a commission of inquiry are somehow not as much Dail business as anything else. Just like the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation debate that was held this week, don't see anyone here saying that was a waste of time, or not Dail business.

You know the opposition rarely ever get their bills passed, a few each term,
you can read the PMB bills that opposition, including the above, put here http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/nav/legislation.htm

its the same arguement that was had over the Seanad Abolition, the Government pointing out the relatively small defined contribution Senators make because the government chooses so rarely to accept the amendments they do put.

We see how well that arguement went over with the public. They want the government challenged in as many ways as possible.

Muahahaha · 04-02-2015 12:40am

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The arrogance of this statement is breath taking. Few people outside of the legal profession hold barristers and solicitors in the same esteem which they hold themselves.

There would have been no need for this inquiry if Shatter had done his job properly and hadn't assumed he was smarter than mere mortal non-legal eagles. FFS he was bested my Mick Wallace of all people.

Off the top of my head the Dail also has such keen legal minds as;
Lucinda (Can't think up a name for her party much less get anyone to join)

Willie Penrose (sets silly ultimatum and has to quit as minister)

Michelle Mullherrin (Cuckoo, Cuckoo!!)

M'learned friends listed above do not exactly inspire confidence in the legal profession.

We can add Brian Leneihan, barrister at law and Brian Cowen, solicitor to that list. The two worst ever Ministers for Finance in the history of the state, two lawyers who sold Ireland into servitude.

Not to mention the high proportion of criminality in the lawyer classes, we even have judges who are criminals in this country.

feargale · 04-02-2015 1:01am

I have nothing to say about the rights and wrongs of this controversy. But I don't believe a T.D. who is a member of a party can easily become overnight an impartial speaker/Ceann Comhairle. A member of the judiciary should do the job.
And before you ridicule the idea - who do you suggest? Let's hear an alternative.

gladrags · 04-02-2015 9:32am

feargale wrote: »

I have nothing to say about the rights and wrongs of this controversy. But I don't believe a T.D. who is a member of a party can easily become overnight an impartial speaker/Ceann Comhairle. A member of the judiciary should do the job.
And before you ridicule the idea - who do you suggest? Let's hear an alternative.

.

gladrags · 04-02-2015 10:06am

The bottom line here is...

In whose interests did Barrett make the decision to block Dail debate?

The public interest or Shatter.

The answer is Shatter.

There are other questions to be answered
here,regarding how much influence Kenny had in this decision.

And why other debates are stifled by FG
,or promoted,depending on political gain rather than public interest.

For example why did Barrett not apply the same criteria to the Mairia Cahill allegations.?

Which have now been effectively prejudiced beyond recall.

Kenny should resign alobg with Barrett.

FreudianSlippers · 04-02-2015 10:23am

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The arrogance of this statement is breath taking. Few people outside of the legal profession hold barristers and solicitors in the same esteem which they hold themselves.

You might have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think?

There would have been no need for this inquiry if Shatter had done his job properly and hadn't assumed he was smarter than mere mortal non-legal eagles. FFS he was bested my Mick Wallace of all people.

Off the top of my head the Dail also has such keen legal minds as;
Lucinda (Can't think up a name for her party much less get anyone to join)

Willie Penrose (sets silly ultimatum and has to quit as minister)

Michelle Mullherrin (Cuckoo, Cuckoo!!)

M'learned friends listed above do not exactly inspire confidence in the legal profession.

To my knowledge (other than Shatter who will get no defence from me outside of his keen knowledge of family law) none of them has worked a day as solicitor or barrister in their careers. You will get no defence from me for the "academic lawyers" in the government.

Our democratically elected parliament should have been afforded the opportunity to debate the terms of reference of this inquiry. The government (or was it just the Taoiseach?) decided not to have a debate after receiving a letter from Shatter's solicitor. As I pointed out in a previous post article 15 10 affords the Dail the right to debate. The constitutional right of the Dail to freely debate should not have been subverted in this way. Rule by diktat is fundamentally repugnant to the constitution.

The typical armchair lawyer idiotic response. Your argument fails on so many levels I actually feel sorry for you:
You fundamentally misinterpret Art15.10 of the constitution which actually states that "Each House [...] shall have power to ensure freedom of debate" not that they have the right to debate everything. You also fundamentally ignore the first part which states that they shall have standing orders - with power to attach penalties for their infringement. That means there must strike a balance Constitutionally between the standing orders and the power to ensure freedom of debate.

Standing Order 57 is quite clear that there are specific rules for discussing matters sub judice.

Now if you had bothered to read the thread before mouthing off your unenlightened "legal" opinion about the Constitution; you will have seen that I already disagreed with the application of Standing Order 57 in this instance. My statement was merely that given the scope of the Terms of Reference as drafted, I can see why the Ceann Comhairle felt as though the debate would breach SO57 - I still don't necessarily agree, but I can see the logic.

Which leads on to your next chestnut:

I'm sure that given the opportunity the 165 members of the Dail and their various legal advisors might have been able to come up with a few proposals. You'll have to forgive my scepticism about accepting the opinion of some fella on the internet that everything is kosher and above board

So basically your answer is you don't know what else they could have added? Dail debates aren't a take-home exam you know.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Aside from the fact that the issue could have been put to one side until after Shatter's legal proceedings, you're missing the wider point here - the Ceann Comhairle's unaccountability. I for one am tired of hearing "The Ceann Comhairle is independent" as a stock response any time he is accused of wrongdoing - if he has questions to answer about his conduct in office, he should be made to answer them.

You aren't seriously calling for the terms of reference to have been put back until after any potential legal case concluded are you?

You also seem to have missed that I believe the CC was incorrect here in principle given SO57. My point was that in viewing the ToR, I can see why the CC would have thought that the only point in debate would be to breach SO57.

FreudianSlippers · 04-02-2015 10:42am

For Reals wrote: »

My god, seriously? Should we get in unelected book worms from the judiciary to call the shots on the faith of the nation? And when the rules run awry who will decide to create new ones or abolish antiquated ones?

Can you show me where I suggested that?

With all due respect your honour, it's not your call to make.

Is it somehow your call to make? Last I checked it was the CC’s call to make actually.

I also don’t see how it is your call to make who gets to express their opinions on this site? I have merely stated that whilst I disagree with the CC’s use of SO57 in this case, I fail to see what a bunch of teachers and farmers could have added to a thorough ToR on the issue (other than potentially prejudicing a legal case).

It may suit you and others who have read a series of law books others haven't to feel you know better, I would suggest do your job and explain it to the decision makers elected by the people, the schoolteachers, the farmers and let them decide.

This sentence makes barely any sense, but if it is trying to say what I think it is, you are fundamentally misunderstanding my position. I am not suggesting the Dail shouldn’t do what it was elected to do; I’m saying that on viewing the ToR, it’s easy to see why the CC would have thought that any debate was simply for the purposes of breaching the principles of SO57.

When it's dictating terms to the Irish people legal experts may be hired to decipher all the legalese,

I think you’re somewhat unclear that this is the point of having lawyers in society…

but it's democratically elected representatives from what ever walk, who should be calling the shots. It seems that's an alien concept to you and as it also seems to be to other noted pro-IW posters on this thread.

I fail to see what this has to do with Irish Water; nor do I see where I have ever suggested that the Oireachtas should not legislate as per its mandate. The alien concept to you seems to be the fact that the CC has a job to do as per the Standing Orders which are mandated by the Constitution. There is certainly (as I have already outlined) a strong argument that the CC was incorrect in his view on this matter, but the fact of the matter is it is still my opinion that there is very little outside of the scope of the ToR (which I am almost certain you have not read) which a bunch of halfwits in the Dail could have added to (including academic lawyers).

Everybody knows the Ceann Comharlie is the shill of the government of the day. Maybe we should change that or should we just read books about why it's so?

So your argument basically boils down to your jealousy of people with “fancy book learnin’”? I’m sure you think doctors just read books about medicine too right?

There'll soon be a google App that can do your job

There will be a Google App that does advocacy? Don’t be jealous because I have a cooler and better paying job than you

Rightwing · 04-02-2015 12:46pm

I'm not surprised Barrett has withdrawn his allegation. I can't think of an easier job on such money. Sure the man only claimed €500K expenses over the last few years

. Let's keep this gravy train rolling at all costs springs to mind.

hatrickpatrick · 04-02-2015 1:51pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You aren't seriously calling for the terms of reference to have been put back until after any potential legal case concluded are you?

If they cannot be debated by the Dail until then, absolutely.

You also seem to have missed that I believe the CC was incorrect here in principle given SO57. My point was that in viewing the ToR, I can see why the CC would have thought that the only point in debate would be to breach SO57.

In which case the vote should have been postponed until such time as they would no longer breach SO57.

The idea of passing a piece of legislation where TDs want to debate it and are not allowed to is simply unacceptable in my view.

K-9 · 04-02-2015 2:06pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You might have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think?

Mod:

There's absolutely no need for that. If you aren't that bothered don't reply then!

Everybody keep it civil please.

FreudianSlippers · 04-02-2015 2:59pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If they cannot be debated by the Dail until then, absolutely.

In which case the vote should have been postponed until such time as they would no longer breach SO57.

The idea of passing a piece of legislation where TDs want to debate it and are not allowed to is simply unacceptable in my view.

It's not legislation though. If it was or id anyone can point out the deficit in the TOR I might be inclined to agree with you but otherwise I just can't.

Muahahaha · 04-02-2015 3:17pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There will be a Google App that does advocacy? Don’t be jealous because I have a cooler and better paying job than you

More arrogance, totally uncalled for. You're the one who said that teachers and farmers have this country in a mess.

Care to address how the two worst finance ministers in the history of the state were both lawyers like yourself ? Perhaps take a look at the rot (and criminality) in your own profession before you go shouting from your ivory tower?

Thought not :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers · 04-02-2015 3:40pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

More arrogance, totally uncalled for. You're the one who said that teachers and farmers have this country in a mess.

Now you're just making things up?

Care to address how the two worst finance ministers in the history of the state were both lawyers like yourself ?

I think Lenihan has been somewhat vindicated by his views on Anglo personally ; I have also said in line with the other that I don't have a positive view on "academic lawyers" .

Perhaps take a look at the rot (and criminality) in your own profession before you go shouting from your ivory tower?

Thought not :rolleyes:

I don't see any criminality unless you're stupidly accusing me of something

Muahahaha · 04-02-2015 3:57pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't see any criminality unless you're stupidly accusing me of something

You must be blind because the last time I checked your profession is up to its eyes in criminality and fraud- you only have to take a trip down to the courts to see the amount of solicitors who have been struck off over the last three years due to being criminals.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you seem to think you're above a bunch of teachers and farmers yet as a profession lawyers have being involved in far more criminality in this country than those two professions combined.

Unless you want to show me where farmers and teachers were stealing money during the Celtic Tiger? I must have missed that with all the coverage of Michael Lynn and Helen Peron :rolleyes:

Need I go on listing the dozens of other cases where solicitors stole money from their client accounts? Or are you at least going to admit there is criminality in the lawyer classes ?

FreudianSlippers · 04-02-2015 4:08pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

You must be blind because the last time I checked your profession is up to its eyes in criminality and fraud- you only have to take a trip down to the courts to see the amount of solicitors who have been struck off over the last three years due to being criminals.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you seem to think you're above a bunch of teachers and farmers yet as a profession lawyers have being involved in far more criminality in this country than those two professions combined.

Unless you want to show me where farmers and teachers were stealing money during the Celtic Tiger? I must have missed that with all the coverage of Michael Lynn and Helen Peron :rolleyes:

Need I go on listing the dozens of other cases where solicitors stole money from their client accounts? Or are you at least going to admit there is criminality in the lawyer classes ?

not that it's relevant to the thread but farmers and teachers in government have been just as much to blame for the crash. I'd also point out that there are "criminals" in many walks of life - it might make you feel better to blame everything on lawyers (I certainly didn't blame anything on teachers and farmers before) but it doesn't mean you're in any way correct

In any event I'm not a solicitor so idc

Muahahaha · 04-02-2015 4:20pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

not that it's relevant to the thread but farmers and teachers in government have been just as much to blame for the crash. I'd also point out that there are "criminals" in many walks of life - it might make you feel better to blame everything on lawyers (I certainly didn't blame anything on teachers and farmers before) but it doesn't mean you're in any way correct

In any event I'm not a solicitor so idc

So do you admit there are criminals in the legal profession, who were members of the legal profession when they commited their crime- yes or no ? Simple question really

Scofflaw · 04-02-2015 5:55pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

So do you admit there are criminals in the legal profession, who were members of the legal profession when they commited their crime- yes or no ? Simple question really

This has veered off into baiting a particular poster and "have you stopped beating your wife" territory.

Pack it in. Nobody here answers for a whole profession, nobody can.

moderately,
Scofflaw

For Reals · 04-02-2015 9:52pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can you show me where I suggested that?

You question the point of having elected officials debate and rather let the legal profession deal with such things.
It's an ego thing really isn't it?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So your argument basically boils down to your jealousy of people with “fancy book learnin’”? I’m sure you think doctors just read books about medicine too right?

No, I'll simplify it

If I read a book you haven't, I have information you don't. That doesn't make me superior to you. If you are elected to debate and broker decisions for the public and the information I have may help, it's up to me to explain it, but as an unelected person of a profession/trade, not may place to decide any policy or action.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There will be a Google App that does advocacy? Don’t be jealous because I have a cooler and better paying job than you

My dear friend, I chose not to study law. It's the last refuse of the snake oil salesman. 'No win, no fee' 'But if they pay my bills and offer you one euro, that's technically a win'

classy....
Or you decipher poorly written legal text.
Either way let democratically elected people carry out their work.

Arsemageddon · 05-02-2015 2:51pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You might have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think?

Your rather vexed response would tend to indicate otherwise.

To my knowledge (other than Shatter who will get no defence from me outside of his keen knowledge of family law) none of them has worked a day as solicitor or barrister in their careers. You will get no defence from me for the "academic lawyers" in the government.

Pretty sure both Penrose and Mulherrin did practice. Also worth noting that there are several other solicitors and barristers in the Dail. The point I was making was that being a solicitor or barrister does not necessarily make one a competent legislator, the corollary of that statement is that having a background in another profession does not make one incompetent.

The typical armchair lawyer idiotic response. Your argument fails on so many levels I actually feel sorry for you

Blah, blah, blah

You fundamentally misinterpret Art15.10 of the constitution which actually states that "Each House [...] shall have power to ensure freedom of debate" not that they have the right to debate everything. You also fundamentally ignore the first part which states that they shall have standing orders - with power to attach penalties for their infringement. That means there must strike a balance Constitutionally between the standing orders and the power to ensure freedom of debate.

If so, then perhaps you can cite a similar instance where the terms of reference for an enquiry have not been debated in the Dail and SO 57.3 has been invoked as the reason? The standard interpretation of SO 57.3 has always been that the Dail has the right to debate matters which are before the superior courts or a tribunal as long as they do so within reason. John Downing cited the instance in 2007 when SO 57.3 was interpreted as giving the Dail the right to discuss Bertie Ahern's financial affairs even though the matter was before the Mahon Tribunal.

Standing Order 57 is quite clear that there are specific rules for discussing matters sub judice.

The only specific rules are in SO57.2 which refer to cases held in front of juries. Shatter has applied for a judicial review of the Guerin report. There is no jury in a judicial review, therefore SO57.2 is irrelevant.

I'm surprised that a keen student of the law such as yourself didn't pick up on that.

Now if you had bothered to read the thread before mouthing off your unenlightened "legal" opinion about the Constitution; you will have seen that I already disagreed with the application of Standing Order 57 in this instance. My statement was merely that given the scope of the Terms of Reference as drafted, I can see why the Ceann Comhairle felt as though the debate would breach SO57 - I still don't necessarily agree, but I can see the logic.

In post #33 of this thread you stated that you believed Barrett's decision was wrong. In post #53 you stated it was the correct decision. In the quote above your claiming it is both correct and incorrect at the same time. Looks to me like your trying to pass off a flip-flop as a nuanced opinion.

The 'logic' behind this decision could potentially be used to stifle any debate in the Dail. Unless the CC happens to have psychic powers how could he predict what members of the house were going to say?

Which leads on to your next chestnut:

So basically your answer is you don't know what else they could have added? Dail debates aren't a take-home exam you know.

Any suggestions I might have regarding the terms of reference would be moot, I am not a T.D. It is the job of our elected representatives to suggest amendments to the Terms of Reference, and it was the duty of the CC to afford them that right in an impartial manner.

In summary, this whole affair was another cack-handed attempt at stroke politics by FG that has backfired spectacularly. If they can't manage a straight-forward matter like this I shudder to think what happens when they negotiate with the big boys and girls in Europe

FreudianSlippers · 05-02-2015 3:12pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Pretty sure both Penrose and Mulherrin did practice. Also worth noting that there are several other solicitors and barristers in the Dail. The point I was making was that being a solicitor or barrister does not necessarily make one a competent legislator, the corollary of that statement is that having a background in another profession does not make one incompetent.

I don't believe either did actually and neither are members of the government.

If so, then perhaps you can cite a similar instance where the terms of reference for an enquiry have not been debated in the Dail and SO 57.3 has been invoked as the reason? The standard interpretation of SO 57.3 has always been that the Dail has the right to debate matters which are before the superior courts or a tribunal as long as they do so within reason. John Downing cited the instance in 2007 when SO 57.3 was interpreted as giving the Dail the right to discuss Bertie Ahern's financial affairs even though the matter was before the Mahon Tribunal.

You're the one who has claimed that Dail has a constitutional right to debate all issues.

Please direct me to where I stated that SO57.3 stated otherwise than you suggest.

The only specific rules are in SO57.2 which refer to cases held in front of juries. Shatter has applied for a judicial review of the Guerin report. There is no jury in a judicial review, therefore SO57.2 is irrelevant.

Either you know that's not correct and you're being misleading (which I believe to be the case considering you literally just mentioned SO57.3 above); or you haven't a bull's notion what you're talking about.

SO57.2 is one absolute bar on discussion, not the only bar.

In post #33 of this thread you stated that you believed Barrett's decision was wrong. In post #53 you stated it was the correct decision. In the quote above your claiming it is both correct and incorrect at the same time. Looks to me like your trying to pass off a flip-flop as a nuanced opinion.

I said no such thing.

What I have said multiple times is that his decision was incorrect on its merits, due to the rules under SO57; however I can understand on viewing the ToR why he made the decision pursuant to SO57.3 - there is very little of merit that could have been added to the ToR which would not have breached the sub judice rule.

The 'logic' behind this decision could potentially be used to stifle any debate in the Dail. Unless the CC happens to have psychic powers how could he predict what members of the house were going to say?

It's not that great of a leap to look at the ToR and determine that the major issues were addressed and anything else would have been potentially damaging or contrary to SO57.

Godge · 05-02-2015 5:33pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't believe either did actually and neither are members of the government.

You're the one who has claimed that Dail has a constitutional right to debate all issues.

Please direct me to where I stated that SO57.3 stated otherwise than you suggest.

Either you know that's not correct and you're being misleading (which I believe to be the case considering you literally just mentioned SO57.3 above); or you haven't a bull's notion what you're talking about.

SO57.2 is one absolute bar on discussion, not the only bar.

I said no such thing.

What I have said multiple times is that his decision was incorrect on its merits, due to the rules under SO57; however I can understand on viewing the ToR why he made the decision pursuant to SO57.3 - there is very little of merit that could have been added to the ToR which would not have breached the sub judice rule.

It's not that great of a leap to look at the ToR and determine that the major issues were addressed and anything else would have been potentially damaging or contrary to SO57.

There is the theoretical argument that the Opposition would have wanted to water down the terms of reference and the Ceann Comhairle prevented that from happening.

hatrickpatrick · 05-02-2015 5:37pm

Godge wrote: »

There is the theoretical argument that the Opposition would have wanted to water down the terms of reference and the Ceann Comhairle prevented that from happening.

How does that change the argument? If the opposition had indeed wanted to attempt that, that would have been their democratic right as representatives. The Ceann Comhairle effectively handed 100% of the control over the Terms of Reference to the cabinet.

Arsemageddon · 05-02-2015 6:21pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't believe either did actually and neither are members of the government.

Evidence for Willie Penrose m'lud http://www.thejournal.ie/7-barristers-paid-over-e200000-for-work-for-chief-state-solicitor-431019-Apr2012/
He also wrote a text book on Agricultural Law

Evidence for Ms Mulherrin http://www.finegael.ie/our-people/tds/michelle-mulherin/

Since when are backbenchers not considered members of government? (Penrose re-joined Labour in 2013)

You're the one who has claimed that Dail has a constitutional right to debate all issues.

No I didn't. Obviously, the Dail should not debate every issue. However, when it is something as fundamentally important as an inquiry into Garda malpractice then of course it should be debated.

Please direct me to where I stated that SO57.3 stated otherwise than you suggest.

Either you know that's not correct and you're being misleading (which I believe to be the case considering you literally just mentioned SO57.3 above); or you haven't a bull's notion what you're talking about.

SO57.2
is one absolute bar on discussion, not the only bar.

What I have said multiple times is that his decision was incorrect on its merits, due to the rules under SO57; however I can understand on viewing the ToR why he made the decision pursuant to SO57.3 - there is very little of merit that could have been added to the ToR which would not have breached the sub judice rule.

It's not that great of a leap to look at the ToR and determine that the major issues were addressed and anything else would have been potentially damaging or contrary to SO57.

I can't think of a single instance where SO57 has been interpreted in the way the CC did last week or the way you have interpreted it in this thread. However, If you can cite precedence or authority to support your argument I'm all ears.

You keep mentioning cases that are potentially sub judice, other than Shatters case please enlighten me as to what relevant cases are pending.

TBH your opinions on the issue seem to be based more on your dislike of those dastardly shinners and other assorted lefties than the law.

Godge · 05-02-2015 6:51pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How does that change the argument? If the opposition had indeed wanted to attempt that, that would have been their democratic right as representatives. The Ceann Comhairle effectively handed 100% of the control over the Terms of Reference to the cabinet.

It was a response to Freudian's point.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not that great of a leap to look at the ToR and determine that the major issues were addressed and anything else would have been potentially damaging or contrary to SO57.

The natural assumption is that the Opposition politicians wanted to add something to the TORs to put Shatter even more under the microscope.

Theoretically, the opposite is possible, just like a snowball in hell.

hatrickpatrick · 05-02-2015 7:15pm

Godge wrote: »

It was a response to Freudian's point.

The natural assumption is that the Opposition politicians wanted to add something to the TORs to put Shatter even more under the microscope.

Theoretically, the opposite is possible, just like a snowball in hell.

Fair enough. Personally for me this is more a matter of principle - as far as I'm concerned, other variables are irrelevant beyond "The Ceann Comhairle blocked a discussion which many TDs wanted, on the basis of a letter on behalf of a party colleague, and the government (a) facilitated this by refusing to postpone debate, and (b) shut down criticism of the decision with stock "independence" garbage.

I'd be making the same argument if this discussion was about enforcing a minimum air pressure in tyres as opposed to the setting up of an enquiry. The specifics, to me, are irrelevant - it's about our public representatives being undermined in what appears to be a highly partisan manner.

expectationlost · 06-02-2015 9:02pm

COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION (CERTAIN MATTERS RELATIVE
TO THE CAVAN/MONAGHAN DIVISION OF THE GARDA
SÍOCHÁNA) ORDER 2015 S.I. No. 38 of 2015 http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/TAOdoclaid05022015_165119.pdf Statutory Instruments = Secondary legislation

conorh91 · 08-02-2015 10:50pm

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Since when are backbenchers not considered members of government? (Penrose re-joined Labour in 2013)

Penrose is no more a member of government than an ordinary Judge of the High Court.

Government almost always refers to the Executive, i.e. the members of Cabinet.

Although the constitution does also recognise a 'small g' government, it only acknowledges this structure the sense that it is a tripartite institution consisting of judicial, executive and legislative branches, i.e. the whole apparatus of the State.

When people refer to members of the governing parties as 'the government' it makes the ghost of Eamon De Valera cry. It is simply wrong.

KingBrian2 · 08-02-2015 11:02pm

conorh91 wrote: »

When people refer to members of the governing parties as 'the government' it makes the ghost of Eamon De Valera cry. It is simply wrong.

Who thinks that? Of course the governing parties are separate to the government. This is obvious once you think about it. The party just represents the government in the parliament and backbenchers vote in line with the government of the day. It is called party politics for a reason nowhere does it mention anything to do with actually governing the country, preparing a budget, enforcing legislation, instructing the institutions of the state to act in certain ways. Politicians don't do these things, they are too busy working in their constituencies or on trying to get elected.

conorh91 · 08-02-2015 11:13pm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Who thinks that?

Presumably, the person I quoted.

The party just represents the government in the parliament

No it doesn't. Fine Gael TDs, who are not members of the Government, are not to 'represent' the Executive. Their office exists to legislate and to hold the Government to account, just like every other TD. If they are failing to properly oversee the work of the Government, in Accordance with Article 28.1° of the Constitution, then they are failing in their duties.

It never ceases to amaze me that nobody cares about this.

If anyone tried to stop the President doing his job, there would be a national outcry. Yet the President is a member of the Oireachtas, as is every backbench FG and Labour TD. But when backbenchers are dominated and impeded by Government and the party system from undertaking their constitutional roles, nobody bats an eyelid.

KingBrian2 · 08-02-2015 11:24pm

conorh91 wrote: »

Presumably, the person I quoted.

No it doesn't. Fine Gael TDs, who are not members of the Government, are not to 'represent' the Executive. Their office exists to legislate and to hold the Government to account, just like every other TD. If they are failing to properly oversee the work of the Government, in Accordance with Article 28.1° of the Constitution, then they are failing in their duties.

It never ceases to amaze me that nobody cares about this.

If anyone tried to stop the President doing his job, there would be a national outcry. Yet the President is a member of the Oireachtas, as is every backbench FG and Labour TD. But when backbenchers are dominated and impeded by Government and the party system from undertaking their constitutional roles, nobody bats an eyelid.

First of all I was under the impression you were simple quoting a fictitious opinion out there.

Their is a contradiction to the constitution. It is not the party that holds the cabinet to account that is purpose of the parliament which is made up of many different parties. The constitution gives powers to TD's to challenge the government of the day but parties are elected purely for the interest of constituencies. A communist could be elected and he is not beholden to challenge the Taoiseach. His priority is to the voter so he could just hang around Dail all day doing nothing. Have a election and you can chose to kick him out or not.

Sean Barrett, the "infallibility" of the Ceann Comhairle and Irish politics

Comments