Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

124»

Comments

  • #92
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    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.


  • #93
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • #94
    Arsemageddon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭Arsemageddon


    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.


  • #95
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    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.


  • #96
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,751 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    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


  • #98
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    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.


  • #99
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    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.


  • #100
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    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.


  • #101
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    conorh91 wrote: »
    But when backbenchers are dominated and impeded by Government and the party system from undertaking their constitutional roles, nobody bats an eyelid.

    Backbenchers aren't "dominated and impeded" - they choose to support a government made up of their party colleagues.

    Any backbencher can quit their party at any stage should they so choose; they choose not to in virtually every case.


  • #103
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    View wrote: »
    Backbenchers aren't "dominated and impeded" - they choose to support a government made up of their party colleagues.

    Any backbencher can quit their party at any stage should they so choose; they choose not to in virtually every case.

    Possibly because under Dail standing orders, they lose the full rights of a TD if they are not aligned to a group with seven or more members. :rolleyes:


  • #104
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,751 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    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.


    technicaly you are your right, along with your usual dose of condescension

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/measuring-tds-d%C3%A1il-activity-rates-the-method-behind-the-data-1.2093934
    His observation was echoed by fellow backbenchers Helen McEntee and Joe O’Reilly, who maintained that any information they sought could be retrieved informally and free of cost by liaising with the relevant Government departments. They also said that parliamentary questions were primarily tailored for Opposition TDs who are not in a position to avail of similar links.

    that's in relation to PQs, buts its also the case for legislation, ask a goverment party TD why they don't speak more in the Dail and they say they prefer to have quiet word with the Minister, TDs across the country use this as a feature during elections, saying, I'll be in the government party, you'll want a government TD in your constituency so you have access to Minister through me.

    plus people are constantly giving out about the whip, which is related to this, if you have to vote for the bill whatever it contents, then why speak publically out against the bill they'll rarely do it.


  • #105
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Possibly because under Dail standing orders, they lose the full rights of a TD if they are not aligned to a group with seven or more members. :rolleyes:

    And who decides the Dáil Standing Orders?

    Why, it is the TDs themselves - hence they choose the system, choose to maintain it and choose to follow it.

    And, to point out the obvious, if as the previous poster claims backbench TDs are being "dominated and impeded" then they don't have the "full rights of a TD", so the prospect of losing those nominal "full rights" (which they can't exercise in reality), is hardly going to persuade anyone to go along with the system unless they want to...


  • #106
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,751 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    View wrote: »
    And who decides the Dáil Standing Orders?

    Why, it is the TDs themselves - hence they choose the system, choose to maintain it and choose to follow it.
    under whip via the cpp which always has a government party majority

    and even the chair wasn't consulted before the gov party's announced their reforms
    Mr Barrett confirmed that he was not consulted prior to the publication of the Government's latest reform plans.
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0922/475771-politics/

    but they would have gone through the cpp i guess after the annoucement but nobody is allowed minutes of cpp meetings, not even other TDs http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/shane-ross/were-in-dangerous-territory-as-dails-most-powerful-cabal-keeps-its-secrets-30355007.html


  • #107
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    expectationlost wrote: »
    under whip via the cpp which always has a government party majority

    Again, a "government party majority" only exists because a majority of TDs - with a majority thereof being backbench TDs - choose to support the government of the day. TDs choose to take the whip and they choose not to reject it. They are perfectly free to refuse to take the whip should they so choose - and, they'll still collect the same salary & expenses should they refuse it.


  • #108
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    View wrote: »
    Again, a "government party majority" only exists because a majority of TDs - with a majority thereof being backbench TDs - choose to support the government of the day. TDs choose to take the whip and they choose not to reject it. They are perfectly free to refuse to take the whip should they so choose - and, they'll still collect the same salary & expenses should they refuse it.

    And if all politicians were the self serving gobsh!tes who care primarily about salary and expenses, that would work out. But others actually care about serving their constituents as best they can, which is clearly implausible if they're never allowed to speak in the representative body because they've been ostracized for not obeying the leader.

    We've had hundreds of whip discussions on this forum and we all know very well where everyone stands on it. Personally I feel it's irrelevant to this particular incident - whether whipped or not, our parliament has the right to hold the government to account as best they can. Denying them the right to vet the terms of an extremely important enquiry into possible wrongdoing in the administration of justice, on the basis of a letter from someone who is accused of partaking in or at least facilitating the aforementioned wrongdoing, is wrong, dangerous, and absurd.

    I'm genuinely surprised that people are arguing "Sure why did they need to debate it, what would they have changed". This suggests that when a majority already know what they want, nobody should be allowed to make any statements on the matter.

    I for one am not particularly fond of the dictatorial singularity which results from taking this apparent principle to its natural conclusion. :confused:


  • #109
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    View wrote: »
    Backbenchers aren't "dominated and impeded" - they choose to support a government made up of their party colleagues.
    Ridiculous statement.

    Parties provide research, administrative and financial support and personnel (many of them volunteers) that an ejected member could never hope to replicate, and in such circumstances ejection represents a major impairment to future electoral prospects. This is even more pronounced when it comes to future cabinet appointments.

    If you are seriously trying to tell me that wielding a piano by a thin rope over someone's career does not amount to domination, then you just cannot be taken seriously.

    Of course it does. Ejection from qualified-party membership and from candidate selection has major career and financial implications for individual TDs, and this opens the way to political domination, or whipping, of individual TDs.


Advertisement