High Court action to have bye election in South Donegal

bleg

I'm just wondering how much the state is paying in legal fees to contest this case. Seeing as the election will be held at some stage, surely it makes no sense to contest it. What an absolute utter waste of money...

Fo Real

I don't know the exact figures but agree completely that it's an utter waste of public money. The general election is coming within the next 6 months, if not sooner.

It's just the Shinners trying to score some points and play on the anti-government sentiment. I'd hope the good people of South Donegal know better than to elect a terrorist sympathiser to our national parliament.

gandalf

Talk about being outraged at the wrong thing. The outrage here is we haven't had these elections long before now. I am no fan of our current electoral system but even I see that the voters in the three constituencies that are without full representation are being denied their rights as citizens of this country.

The only reason I see the elections being delayed is the incumbent Government parties cowardice because they know they will be on to a hiding and it could push a General Election even closer when the numbers constrict further.

At this moment I would say kudos to Sinn Fein in pursuing this and again register my disgust at Fianna Fail and their hangers on the Green Party at their continued denial of the voters right in those constituencies to full representation.

PomBear

What waste of money, sure the people of Donegal SW don't need to represented,

Silly democracy, always getting in the way......

Shea O'Meara

Fo Real wrote: »

...It's just the Shinners trying to score some points and play on the anti-government sentiment. I'd hope the good people of South Donegal know better than to elect a terrorist sympathiser to our national parliament.

Why when ever anybody calls the government out on something, do we get the 'trying to score points' slant?
Would you rather we all stayed quiet and just hoped they went away?

Lockstep

Personally, I think it's a fair point. The seat has been vacant for over a year and I'd imagine the main reason no election has been called is that Fianna Fáil know that the seat will go to an opposition member.

ednwireland

Fo Real wrote: »

I don't know the exact figures but agree completely that it's an utter waste of public money. The general election is coming within the next 6 months, if not sooner.

It's just the Shinners trying to score some points and play on the anti-government sentiment. I'd hope the good people of South Donegal know better than to elect a terrorist sympathiser to our national parliament.

have you seen the other candidates we have up here theres not much choice beleive me (if rumours of pat the cope's wife running and if she gets elected ........... i just despair)

Lenny Lovett

Fo Real wrote: »

It's just the Shinners trying to score some points and play on the anti-government sentiment. I'd hope the good people of South Donegal know better than to elect a terrorist sympathiser to our national parliament.

So you're another of these people that believes that the people of Northern Ireland should be forced to deal with Sinn Fein but we shouldn't have to? Ridiculous. Sinn Fein are a recognised democratic Political Party and should be treated as such. They/the IRA have complied with their obligations and agreements under the various Northern Ireland agreements and as such have justified their place in any decision making process.

gandalf wrote: »

Talk about being outraged at the wrong thing. The outrage here is we haven't had these elections long before now. I am no fan of our current electoral system but even I see that the voters in the three constituencies that are without full representation are being denied their rights as citizens of this country.

Correct. The usual people who can't see the wood for the trees.

gandalf wrote: »

At this moment I would say kudos to Sinn Fein in pursuing this and again register my disgust at Fianna Fail and their hangers on the Green Party at their continued denial of the voters right in those constituencies to full representation.

Agreed.

ednwireland wrote: »

have you seen the other candidates we have up here theres not much choice beleive me (if rumours of pat the cope's wife running and if she gets elected ........... i just despair)

That point is irrelevant. The point, as stated above by another poster, is that the Government are denying the voters their democratic right. The voters do not necessarily have to vote for any of the candidates if they feel they're not up to it. They can record their discord by spoiling the ballot paper. You seem to think the candidates you have are poor... Why not run yourself?

Wolfe Tone

Even if he wins his case there is no guarantee that the election will be held. The courts cannot make the govt hold it. He wants a deceleration saying that the delay is unreasonable and unconstitutional, and is living in the hope that govt will have the election in order to save face and uphold the constitution. It is entirely up to the govt whether they do so or not.

ei.sdraob

The state using taxpayers/citizen's money to defend against a citizen who wishes to have a right to cast his vote.

What have we come to now


btw >

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If you want to bring change via protest, get few thousand people not to pay taxes

"no taxation without representation" could be claimed by the people in the areas being denied a by-election

this should bring down current govt and bring on full elections

now where is my gold star

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Even if he wins his case there is no guarantee that the election will be held. The courts cannot make the govt hold it. He wants a deceleration saying that the delay is unreasonable and unconstitutional, and is living in the hope that govt will have the election in order to save face and uphold the constitution. It is entirely up to the govt whether they do so or not.

If it's unconstitutional then why can't the courts force them to hold an election?

Iwasfrozen

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The state using taxpayers/citizen's money to defend against a citizen who wishes to have a right to cast his vote.

What have we come to now


btw >

Yeah, that's exactly what we need right now, people not paying taxes. :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yeah, that's exactly what we need right now, people not paying taxes. :rolleyes:

Why should people pay taxes if they are not being represented and denied a democratic vote?

Iwasfrozen

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Why should people pay taxes if they are not being represented and denied a democratic vote?

Because:

1. It's illegal.
2. If they don't then the rest of us have to pay even more.
3. Unless they stop buying everything, including food, and take all their money out of their bank accounts then they can't avoid taxes.
4. Rounding them up and putting them on trial will cost the rest of us even more money.

ei.sdraob

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because:

1. It's illegal.
2. If they don't then the rest of us have to pay even more.
3. Unless they stop buying everything, including food, and take all their money out of their bank accounts then they can't avoid taxes.
4. Rounding them up and putting them on trial will cost the rest of us even more money.

1. it worked for the American Colonies vs British empire before no taxation without representation

2. if there is a change of government then the likes of anglo and their bondholders could be told to **** off, saving us billions

3. of course there are indirect taxes, i am talking about direct ones

4. attempting to round up thousands of people who are fed up with not being represented will not work neither is there enough detention space, if anything it speed up the government collapse and we all get elections


edit: any move against a group of people seeking their right to have a vote will bring the attention of the world towards Ireland.
And the last thing the government needs is negative press and be shown to be undemorcratic so they will cave in and then collapse.
They dug themselves a hole, about time the people set a trap for these rats.

Iwasfrozen

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. it worked for the American Colonies vs British empire before no taxation without representation

This is not eighteenth century America. And I don't think south Donegal will be declaring independence anytime soon.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

2. if there is a change of government then the likes of anglo and their bondholders could be told to **** off, saving us billions

Do you realise what happens to peoples credit ratings when they default on their loans? Well the same thing happens to countries on a global scale. Except this time is happens to millions instead of one.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

3. of course there are indirect taxes, i am talking about direct ones.

You didn't say that earlier. And of course this now means you must change your chant to "No direct taxation without representation."

ei.sdraob wrote: »

4. attempting to round up thousands of people who are fed up with not being represented will not work neither is there enough detention space, if anything it speed up the government collapse and we all get elections

Of course we can round up thousands of people if it comes to that. Which I doubt it willl. More likely the government would just suspend services like closing schools, hospitals, roads etc. untill the people agree to pay for them.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Haven't read all the Paul Gogarty threads yet, anyone know offhand if this topic was put to him?

Wolfe Tone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If it's unconstitutional then why can't the courts force them to hold an election?

Due to the separation of powers. The Judiciary cannot tell a TD what way to vote if a motion(in this case to move the writ) comes before the Dáil. Doherty knows this, thus has not asked for a injunction or anything like that, as he knows that that would never be granted. I could go into further detail here but it is not really necessary. To the best of my knowledge the courts cannot force the govt to hold this election. They just cannot.

So to sum up, the courts cannot force the govt on this issue. They can however, issue a deceleration saying that it is unconstitutional.

ei.sdraob

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is not eighteenth century America. And I don't think south Donegal will be declaring independence anytime soon.
.

you should brush up on history, original aim of the colonists was representation not independence (that came later), no one is calling for independence here just long overdue democratic elections :rolleyes:

what is wrong with holding elections? its democratic no??

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you realise what happens to peoples credit ratings when they default on their loans? Well the same thing happens to countries on a global scale. Except this time is happens to millions instead of one.
.

Defaulting on bondholders would be a smart thing to do asap, alot of economists agree, just go visit the irisheconomy.ie forum where many independent economists written on subject

if anything it be positive to our ratings since the debtors buying government bonds would realise that there will be more chance that they are paid back now that the bank noose is loosened somewhat

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You didn't say that earlier. And of course this now means you must change your chant to "No direct taxation without representation."

dont be silly, if you want other forms of tax (cat, corpo) can be withheld if businesses join in.
the whole point of this is peaceful disobedience until the democratic right of the people is granted.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course we can round up thousands of people if it comes to that. Which I doubt it willl. More likely the government would just suspend services like closing schools, hospitals, roads etc. untill the people agree to pay for them.

the moment they attempt to roundup more than a thousand people the **** would hit the fan, hows this for a Times headline "Irish government arrests citizens demanding an overdue democratic election"
That would break the camels back leading to more popular support.



so there you have it, peaceful and democratic process against a government denying representation for the citizens.
no revolutions, no car-burnings no ****, all civilized

Wolfe Tone

Times headline "Irish government arrests citizens demanding an overdue democratic election"

It is not overdue. There exists no timetable, outline etc of how long it can be left.

Lenny Lovett

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It is not overdue. There exists no timetable, outline etc of how long it can be left.

That's straight from the Robert Mugabe handbook of Democracy. How long do you believe is a fair length of time to wait for an election then?

mikemac

In the next election could we possibly also have a referendum to amend the constitution?

Something simple, like 3 months or even 6 months to have a by-election?

Wolfe Tone

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

That's straight from the Robert Mugabe handbook of Democracy. How long do you believe is a fair length of time to wait for an election then?

I would have thought a snipe at my username would have been more apt tbh!

I dont know, 2 months max? Doesn't really matter what I think.

Hopefully when this case concludes we will have a constitutional clarification from the courts.


Fact is, the govt have done nothing illegal. And even if Doherty gets the deceleration he wants saying that the delay is unconstitutional, the govt are under no obligation to move the writ forward.

bleg

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It is not overdue. There exists no timetable, outline etc of how long it can be left.

Nice username.



It just baffles me completely and utterly how the Govt can stand by this action. I don't care who's doing the point scoring, that's irrelevant. But using strained State finances to fight a case such as this is puzzling to say the least.


I'm completely and utterly disillusioned.

Wolfe Tone

feelingstressed wrote: »

In the next election could we possibly also have a referendum to amend the constitution?

Something simple, like 3 months or even 6 months to have a by-election?

That would have to pass through the Oireachtas first. So the next government may want to do that.

Personally I suspect that if the court comes out and declares that there is a constitutional obligation to fill a seat within a certain time frame governments in the future will do so.

bleg

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Fact is, the govt have done nothing illegal.

Yes but what they're doing is plain wrong and they have the cheek to use our money to defend their own position.


Legal/Illegal does not equal Right/Wrong, something as a nation we seem to have forgotten.

Lenny Lovett

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I would have thought a snipe at my username would have been more apt tbh!

Dang! I missed that. Must try harder!!;)

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I dont know, 2 months max? Doesn't really matter what I think.

Hopefully when this case concludes we will have a constitutional clarification from the courts.

Fact is, the govt have done nothing illegal. And even if Doherty gets the deceleration he wants saying that the delay is unconstitutional, the govt are under no obligation to move the writ forward.

True. The thing is, like expenses reform, removal of state cars etc etc I can't see any party bringing it through given that they may need it themselves next time. Let's face it they're all guzzling from the same trough opposition or not.

Wolfe Tone

bleg wrote: »

Nice username.



It just baffles me completely and utterly how the Govt can stand by this action. I don't care who's doing the point scoring, that's irrelevant. But using strained State finances to fight a case such as this is puzzling to say the least.


I'm completely and utterly disillusioned.

The governments stance seems to be that if the 3 bye elections are held this year it will cause economic damage. However if they are basing their arguments on that I don't see where that will get them as there is a precedent set that practicability in these cases refers to administrative things, not stuff like state finances.

The constitution states something to the effect that casual seats shall be regulated in accordance to law. However you have to read that in light of other parts of the constitution. Govt says it has not breached said law.

Wolfe Tone

bleg wrote: »

Yes but what they're doing is plain wrong and they have the cheek to use our money to defend their own position.


Legal/Illegal does not equal Right/Wrong, something as a nation we seem to have forgotten.

But what if their position is the legally correct one?


Morally I think it is wrong to delay them so much.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fo Real wrote: »

It's just the Shinners trying to score some points and play on the anti-government sentiment. I'd hope the good people of South Donegal know better than to elect a terrorist sympathiser to our national parliament.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Why when ever anybody calls the government out on something, do we get the 'trying to score points' slant?
Would you rather we all stayed quiet and just hoped they went away?

Absolutely Shea. Love it when Irish people complain about inaction but then snipe when someone does the right thing. I mean how far could that accusation go?

''Stupid government, just introducing universal healthcare and free education to score points''

maccored

there has to be a crossover between those shouting for an election and those who voted for FF in the last election. I find that level of shortsightedness amazing - though that is a tad offtopic.

oscarBravo

On the subject of the state defending this case: I actually think they made a strong defence of it. Note that they weren't defending the decision not to hold the by-elections, but arguing against the idea that the Court could tell them to hold them.

The state made the case that the Oireachtas decides when to hold by-elections. This is true, and the Oireachtas has decided not to hold them until next year. If the Supreme Court finds in Doherty's favour, it won't be the government that it tells to hold the elections, but the Oireachtas - and that's a clear breach of separation of powers.

The problem here is the usual one: the Oireachtas is effectively useless. Debates and votes are meaningless, because a government with a majority is a de facto dictatorship until the next election.

If we want by-elections held in a reasonable timeframe, we'll have to have a constitutional amendment. Put it on the shopping list for your opposition candidates: insist that they'll hold such a referendum in the lifetime of the next government.

Wolfe Tone

Oscarbravo, they have not asked for the courts to tell anyone to do anything. If they had done so it would have been thrown out due to the separation of powers. They have asked for a declaration.

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Oscarbravo, they have not asked for the courts to tell anyone to do anything. If they had done so it would have been thrown out due to the separation of powers. They have asked for a deceleration.

An acceleration might be more useful.

No, I know that. The thing is, even a declaration would amount to a breach of separation of powers. The Court would, in effect, be telling the Oireachtas that it made a decision it shouldn't have made. The only such role the SC can play is to decide that an Act is unconstitutional, and set it aside.

I can't see any way in which the Court can, with any validity, tell the Oireachtas that it has acted wrongly in failing to pass legislation without infringing on SoP.

bleg

I'm not saying whether their argument is valid or not, I'm saying paying for the argument out of state finances at a time of unprecedented pressure on said finances is wrong.


The State will have to pay for the bye election anyway, why waste more of the taxpayer's money in this court case? Why not just announce the bye election and save the State some money?

It's underhanded, immature and wasteful.

oscarBravo

bleg wrote: »

I'm not saying whether their argument is valid or not, I'm saying paying for the argument out of state finances at a time of unprecedented pressure on said finances is wrong.


The State will have to pay for the bye election anyway, why waste more of the taxpayer's money in this court case? Why not just announce the bye election and save the State some money?

It's underhanded, immature and wasteful.

Of all the reasons the government should hold the by-elections, to do so in order to save the cost of this case is probably the least important.

To understand what I mean: if you estimate the cost of the government's defence of the case, and express it as a percentage of the bloody great hole we're in, does that percentage really outweigh the democratic deficit of failing to fill the seats in the first place?

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

An acceleration might be more useful.

oops! Damn spellcheck!

No, I know that. The thing is, even a declaration would amount to a breach of separation of powers. The Court would, in effect, be telling the Oireachtas that it made a decision it shouldn't have made.

If we look at O’Donovan v Att. Gen. [1961] IR 114 I believe it effectively tells us that practicability is confined to statistical and administrative difficulties with regard to equality of representation, not things like the economy. So thats the defense of the financial situation out the window(the article I read yesterday seemed to say that this was part of their defense)

While Dudley v An Taoiseach [1994] 2 ILRM 321 (a similar case to Dohertys one) suggests that while they cant issue a declaration against the Dail they can against the government.

Also, if we read Article 34.3.1 of the constitution

The Courts of First Instance shall include a High Court invested with full original jurisdiction in and power to determine all matters and questions whether of law or fact, civil or criminal.

it appears that the courts have the jurisdiction to review the action/inaction of the government itself, the executive, where it violates the constitution.



I think. We will find out soon enough anyways.

Wolfe Tone

bleg wrote: »

I'm not saying whether their argument is valid or not, I'm saying paying for the argument out of state finances at a time of unprecedented pressure on said finances is wrong.


The State will have to pay for the bye election anyway, why waste more of the taxpayer's money in this court case? Why not just announce the bye election and save the State some money?

It's underhanded, immature and wasteful.

As far as I know they have announced the bye elections for the first quarter next year.

EDIT, They intend to move the writ for that time but have not done so yet.

Lenny Lovett

I think Sinn Fein's reasons for the case are valid and well meant however, the likelihood is that there will be a General Election by next May at the latest so we may as well wait until then for it.

Mr.Micro

I do not believe for one minute that The State will lose the case. There is no way that the Court will rule against the will of the Oireachtas. It is up to the voters to remember that in a general election that FF/Green and several Independents are anti democracy. Other parties such as Labour and FG should make it part of their manifestos to have legislation put in place so that this never happens. Will they.....I doubt it.

oscarBravo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If we look at O’Donovan v Att. Gen. [1961] IR 114 I believe it effectively tells us that practicability is confined to statistical and administrative difficulties with regard to equality of representation, not things like the economy. So thats the defense of the financial situation out the window(the article I read yesterday seemed to say that this was part of their defense)

That seems like a pretty silly defence, tbh. The separation of powers argument is the clincher for me.

While Dudley v An Taoiseach [1994] 2 ILRM 321 (a similar case to Dohertys one) suggests that while they cant issue a declaration against the Dail they can against the government.

I need to read some more on that, but I'm still not convinced. The Court is an arbiter of law - if the declaration being sought is that the failure of the Oireachtas to move a writ is unconstitutional, I think it will fail, because I don't think it is. If it's that the failure is unfair or immoral or whatever, that's not the Court's call to make.

Also, if we read Article 34.3.1 of the constitution [...] it appears that the courts have the jurisdiction to review the action/inaction of the government itself, the executive, where it violates the constitution.

Right, but the government hasn't failed to move the writs. The Oireachtas has voted not to - as is its right.

The fact that there's no practical difference is a separate issue, and - in many respects - a much more serious one.

limklad

Fo Real wrote: »

I don't know the exact figures but agree completely that it's an utter waste of public money. The general election is coming within the next 6 months, if not sooner.

It's just the Shinners trying to score some points and play on the anti-government sentiment. I'd hope the good people of South Donegal know better than to elect a terrorist sympathiser to our national parliament.

Right now I do not see the difference between a terrorist sympathiser and our current batch of Politicians who are terrorising us in the News everyday in how bad the economy and the Banks and blaming everybody else and the extra cut backs and Taxes we have to pay for their mess for years to come!!

ei.sdraob

limklad wrote: »

Right now I do not see the difference between a terrorist sympathiser and our current batch of Politicians who are terrorising us in the News everyday in how bad the economy and the Banks and blaming everybody else and the extra cut backs and Taxes we have to pay for their mess for years to come!!

Actually the economy is in alot worse state than the politicians are admitting, they were putting on a brave face and lying about the real state of economy for a long time but, now after 2 years of lying and turned corners its coming back and biting them in ass ...

jock101

bleg wrote: »

I'm just wondering how much the state is paying in legal fees to contest this case. Seeing as the election will be held at some stage, surely it makes no sense to contest it. What an absolute utter waste of money...

It doesnt really matter! As we don't have any sovereignty in this state anymore, Thats in the hands of the markets and brussels!:rolleyes:

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

On the subject of the state defending this case: I actually think they made a strong defence of it. Note that they weren't defending the decision not to hold the by-elections, but arguing against the idea that the Court could tell them to hold them.

The state made the case that the Oireachtas decides when to hold by-elections. This is true, and the Oireachtas has decided not to hold them until next year. If the Supreme Court finds in Doherty's favour, it won't be the government that it tells to hold the elections, but the Oireachtas - and that's a clear breach of separation of powers.

The problem here is the usual one: the Oireachtas is effectively useless. Debates and votes are meaningless, because a government with a majority is a de facto dictatorship until the next election.

If we want by-elections held in a reasonable timeframe, we'll have to have a constitutional amendment. Put it on the shopping list for your opposition candidates: insist that they'll hold such a referendum in the lifetime of the next government.

...or better yet insist on PR List being introduced so that when someone pops their clogs, we don't need to waste money on bye elections, we just replace them with someone from the same party. PRSTV has never been good for Ireland in IMO.

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

...or better yet insist on PR List being introduced so that when someone pops their clogs, we don't need to waste money on bye elections, we just replace them with someone from the same party. PRSTV has never been good for Ireland in IMO.

The idea has a lot of merit. We really, really, really need a root and branch re-think of our political system.

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea has a lot of merit. We really, really, really need a root and branch re-think of our political system.

Totally agree.

From the merging of silly little county councils into larger regional authorites (with the consequent redundancy of vast numbers of admin types) and giving the new regional authorities REAL power to raise taxes and decide spending in their own part of the country.

The senate IMO should be abolished completely. Other countries do just fine (better than us) with a unicameral legislature.

The Dail should be elected from a national list to eliminate the poxy parish pump influence of STV once and for all. (The netherlands elects its MPs from a national list and it's a bigger country in economic and population terms)

TDs competing against each other in the same constituency to get that pothole fixed are bound to have their eyes off the national/international ball and we all see now what happens then!

Ireland actually has a hell of a lot of potential but we need to start from scratch with how we run the place.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Thinking about this some more it really is a big deal.

The idea of a government paying legal fees to stop a bi-election is insane.

Would it be international news or is it typical of western governments? If so would that put more pressure on them to hold the elections if it was reported on and condemned worldwide? Wonder would it be possible to get a viral video successful enough to grab worldwide attention

imme

ei.sdraob wrote: »

1. it worked for the American Colonies vs British empire before no taxation without representation




edit: any move against a group of people seeking their right to have a vote will bring the attention of the world towards Ireland.
And the last thing the government needs is negative press and be shown to be undemorcratic so they will cave in and then collapse.
They dug themselves a hole, about time the people set a trap for these rats.

'taxation without representation'.
what nonsense. There are two other sitting TD's in the constituency, so the people are represented.
In that sense someone who voted for a candidate who they gave their 17th preferance to could take a court case to argue that they were not represented.

bleg

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Thinking about this some more it really is a big deal.

The idea of a government paying legal fees to stop a bi-election is insane.

Isn't it just nuts? Using taxpayers' money in such a fashion, I just can't get my head around it like. You'd swear we were rolling in it and not facing 15 billion euro worth of cuts at least in the next 4 years.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

An acceleration might be more useful.

No, I know that. The thing is, even a declaration would amount to a breach of separation of powers. The Court would, in effect, be telling the Oireachtas that it made a decision it shouldn't have made. The only such role the SC can play is to decide that an Act is unconstitutional, and set it aside.

I can't see any way in which the Court can, with any validity, tell the Oireachtas that it has acted wrongly in failing to pass legislation without infringing on SoP.

Turned over on appeal you reckon?