Abbeylara referendum

Jowls

Just seen the wording for the referendum on the powers of Oireachtas committees and I have to say, I think the politicians have gone way too far with this.

By my reading, the proposal would basically put committees above the Constitution by letting them decide everything - what to investigate, who to investigate and the protection that any person being investigated would get. It looks like their decisions could not be challenged by anyone - they'd be investigating Garda, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner all in one!

Unless Im wrong, this looks incredibly dangerous. Any thoughts?

HellFireClub

Is this for real??? TD's, the biggest bunch of no hoper citizens, looking for the constitution to be amended now to allow them to enquire into any particular matter, and to compel witnesses to attend?!?!?

Isn't that what we have the courts of the land for?!? This sounds like a dangerous place where are coming to when a bunch of career failures decide that they want to be able to enquire into any matter and compel citizens to attend an enquiry.

I'll be voting NO, and if you want to hold me to account as a citizen, then charge me with an offence and take me to court. There are no shartage of laws there to convict small businesses with fraud. I fail to see why bigger interests cannot be prosecuted in the courts.

Manach

I'd agree in the main with HellFireClub. The proper place for the administration of Justice is in the courts to be done by reasonably competant professions - not politicians who might be tempted to ignore the core issues and instead further their electoral chances.This is a breach of the separation of powers. I'll be voting no.

HellFireClub

Manach wrote: »

I'd agree in the main with HellFireClub. The proper place for the administration of Justice is in the courts to be done by reasonably competant professions - not politicians who might be tempted to ignore the core issues and instead further their electoral chances. This is a breach of the separation of powers. I'll be voting no.

This idea is pure madness, you'd have to wonder how on earth they think that the one body of people in this country who have proven themselves to be utterly incompetent and money grabbing thieves as a group, politicians, are now fit to judge anyone else.

It's breath taking, the stupidity of it, go back to Kildare Street and give us a half credible job creation strategy and stop wasting time with this absolute nonsense.

charlemont

I'll go with No..Our justice system is a joke anyway but not as much of a joke as our politicians .

vellocet

Playing devils advocate for a minute, surely it could be argued that the Oireachteas should be able to investigate whatever it wants in Irish life. To many vested interests can hide behind their professional grouping or current regulatory framework. What harm in the Oireachteas being able to investigate doctors, lawyers, bankers, Gardaí etc?

HellFireClub

vellocet wrote: »

Playing devils advocate for a minute, surely it could be argued that the Oireachteas should be able to investigate whatever it wants in Irish life. To many vested interests can hide behind their professional grouping or current regulatory framework. What harm in the Oireachteas being able to investigate doctors, lawyers, bankers, Gardaí etc?

Good point, and what if we need to investigate the worst of them all, POLITICIANS???

Jowls

I agree that the Oireachtas should in an ideal world be able to look into matters of public interest.

Mind you, in an ideal world, they would also do so on genuine matters of public interest and do so properly. The more cynical (and Im not necessarily that - I think some politicians have good intentions at least) might suggest that they are more likely to look into whatever is the headline news in that week's papers, and only look into it enough to get their names in the papers rather than do any real thinking. I mean, I didnt see them queuing up to look into whether there was a bubble in the housing market when half of the posters on here were able to tell you it was there.

After all, Abbeylara doesnt actually say they can never hold inquiries. There's an interesting (and long) discussion of Abbeylara by an expert in UCD which is briefly summarised here:

http://www.ucd.ie/law/constitutionalstudiesgroup/pastnews/


But, even if you accept that there's a need for this, and that they have good intentions, this proposal still goes way too far, especially by allowing them to decide what protections a person gets.

Look at Abbeylara. Your a member of the Gardai doing your job. Suddenly, there's a lot of media interest and speculation in about an incident you were involved in. As often happens with media speculation, some of it is misleading, some inaccurate and some of it suggests that you or your mates are guilty of something. That may or may not be true but at the moment, you're only found guilty after a court process where all of the evidence is looked at by an independent person who, whatever his faults, is not taking part in a popularity contest for votes.

If this was passed, you could be summoned before a bunch of politicians who are queing up to be the one who gets to go on TV and accuse the scapegoat Garda of all sorts of misconduct. You ask for a lawyer but they say you cant have one. Before the hearing, one of them comes out and says your definitely guilty of misconduct because they have a statement from another Garda saying it was your fault. You ask to see the evidence but they say no, because "he's a whistleblower and we protect their confidentiality". You ask to have a chance to test the evidence but they say no because its not in the public interest.

Based on this wording, it looks like their decision is final on all of these things. You cant go to court to challenge it. You have no protection under the Constitution at all.

You might say (rightly) that we should have some of the bankers in for that kind of treatment. But experience in other countries shows that some politicans cant resist the chance to get some easy votes from going after scapegoats - McCarthyism in the US is the most well known and truly scary abuse of this power. Nothing in this would stop our own Senator McCarthy. In fact, I think its right to say these committees would have more power and less limits than even McCarthy had.

The question is if you're an ordinary person who for, whatever reason, finds themselves caught up in a media storm as a scapegoat for something, or a member of an unpopular minority group - do you trust politicians to protect your constitutional rights?

johnnyskeleton

Basically, lawyer/judge bashing is all the rage at the moment and referenda like childrens rights and abolition o the Seanad will create real debate pro and against. This and the judges pay referenda are jut ways of the government scoring points. I expect they will both go through with high majorities and little debate because if you are against these erosions of fundamental and long standing protection of thr separation of powers, then you support those evil lawyers/judges or else you are one.

whatstherush

Will these powers be much different to the british system. For me, to see Rupert Murdoch being held publicly accountable for the first time in his life, doesn't seem to be a bad system.

Foghladh

Personally I don't disagree with the idea of Oireachtas inquiries provided they are competently carried out. I mean we've had endless tribunals for years now and I suppose this is an alternative route and could be cheaper, assuming the baggage train is kept to a minimum. I can see a few difficulties in that parliaments are are essentially partisan environments and any committee might reflect that, depending on the nature of the inquiry. It's basically a jury trial without being a trial.
I'm probably more uneasy about the last sub-section

2° Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or an inquiry with the other House, in a manner provided for by law, into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance.

3° In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person (whether or not a member of either House) may be investigated and the House or Houses concerned may make findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning the matter to which the inquiry relates.
4° It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2º applies

I know the explanatory notes do stress the 'extensive rights' of any witnesses but I don't like having that bit stuck in there.

Bosco boy

The legal system is by no means perfect but this is a seriously backward step for this country. If our politicans create judical power for themselves then the seperation of powers are no more. These committees are seen by politicans as a mechanism to boost their own image with the public. Fairness and justice will be secondary as they will be anxious to give the media and public what's popular. They simply cannot be trusted with the power they have not alone this. It's no co incidence that the main players in the abbeylara committee are now in government and driving this. The supreme court ruled on it and now that they are in power they are getting payback. That's democracy? It's a disgrace and I hope the people see it for what it is, it could be them in the dock in front of their kangaroo court!

goose2005

Manach wrote: »

I'd agree in the main with HellFireClub. The proper place for the administration of Justice is in the courts to be done by reasonably competant professions - not politicians who might be tempted to ignore the core issues and instead further their electoral chances.This is a breach of the separation of powers. I'll be voting no.

Oddly no-one cares that there is no separation of executive and legislature. Our parliament has essentially no power, so I think they need something to do.

vellocet

So if I have this straight, most political commentators and watchers will agree that the legislative is too weak. When plans are made to strengthen its powers, people complain that it eats into the judicial powers.

Does not compute.

I don't really see a problem with the Oireachteas having the power to call, say for example, the solicitors organisation up to explain why they are charging a grand to do conveyancing, or dentists to explain why work is a third of the price in Newry or the NUJ to explain why their members are lying cockroaches. I think it a bit farfetched that they will target individual citizens.

Manach

A benefit of keeping this within the judicial branch of the state, is that there can be an ending to proceedings. In the proposed amendment, there is no halting space in that the "2°.... into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance." could be such that the politicians would be driven to continuous hold their inquiry - this to me seems analogous to the McCarthyism era US senate trials.
If the politicians had demonstrated they could fulfill their core competencies in legislative/executive roles then this might be a reasonable amendment. Sadly this is not the case given the current state of the country.

Boulevardier

I'm leaning towards yes. We need more powerful Dail committees which can do the kind of job US House and Senate Committees do. A few good people like Joe Higgins (for example) will be able to do huge good in a way that the current system does not allow.

johnnyskeleton

vellocet wrote: »

So if I have this straight, most political commentators and watchers will agree that the legislative is too weak. When plans are made to strengthen its powers, people complain that it eats into the judicial powers.

Does not compute.

It is being strengthened in the wrong areas and weakened also in the wrong areas.

There is no absolute measure of parliamentary power. Instead, they are given certain powers, some are good, some are bad.

It is much the same as how the HSE is both a money pit on the one hand and chronically underfunded on the other. These two seemingly contradictory statements are reconciled because it is easy to see that the money is being sunk into the black hole of administration and this leads to frontline services being strangled.

vellocet wrote: »

I don't really see a problem with the Oireachteas having the power to call, say for example, the solicitors organisation up to explain why they are charging a grand to do conveyancing, or dentists to explain why work is a third of the price in Newry or the NUJ to explain why their members are lying cockroaches. I think it a bit farfetched that they will target individual citizens.

Well they can do that now, if they want. But they don't want. They want to go after individuals and give them a show trial and have them convicted in the court of public opinion.

It is all down to the lies and misdirections of this government. They want to imply that the Oireachtas has no powers to carry out inquiries. But they can do this whenever they want. The Abeylara decision simply meant that when carrying out an executive inquiry, they cannot use judicial powers. So they can carry out an inquiry generally, but they cannot make specific findings of guilt against any particular person.

This referendum is designed to give them the power to make specific findings of guilt. They are using the public anger over the banking crises and general dissillusionment with the judicial process to replace it with kangaroo courts.

johnnyskeleton

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm leaning towards yes. We need more powerful Dail committees which can do the kind of job US House and Senate Committees do. A few good people like Joe Higgins (for example) will be able to do huge good in a way that the current system does not allow.

And do you really think the government will staff these committees with good people, or will they be party hacks to do their masters' bidding?

HellFireClub

Foghladh wrote: »

Personally I don't disagree with the idea of Oireachtas inquiries provided they are competently carried out.

Nowhere in this country has incompetence been more extensively demonstrated, than in the Dail. As for the "public interest", same can be said, these people must be on drugs if they think the people of this country will run with a minute of this...

Foghladh

HellFireClub wrote: »

Nowhere in this country has incompetence been more extensively demonstrated, than in the Dail. As for the "public interest", same can be said, these people must be on drugs if they think the people of this country will run with a minute of this...

Well that's why I used the big block letters A lot of things are sound in theory but the practical side of things can be different. I don't know that the expertise exists on the floor of either house to competently carry out inquiries into a potentially wide range of issues. I assume some measure of expertise from outside would have to be brought in to advise and therefore, would we just be moving the tribunals from Dublin Castle to Leinster House? Plus the House committees would decide what's in the 'public interest', decide the terms of reference and adjudicate after deciding the appropriate balance between the 'public interest' and the rights of the individual? Sounds like a big ask for some TD's I won't mention!

Also I believe the very reasons for the elected representitives being present in the Dail or Seanad might stymie them. Say in a case of an inquiry into 'Big Business', would a left-leaning TD be less inclined to put aside a possible antagonism? Or an inquiry that might implicate the government in something, could a government TD be trusted to act impartially? Maybe they could but I have my doubts

vellocet

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is being strengthened in the wrong areas and weakened also in the wrong areas.

I'm not sure do I agree with that. But I do have a major reservation about them being able to decide if you get to bring a lawyer.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There is no absolute measure of parliamentary power. Instead, they are given certain powers, some are good, some are bad.

Agreed.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is much the same as how the HSE is both a money pit on the one hand and chronically underfunded on the other. These two seemingly contradictory statements are reconciled because it is easy to see that the money is being sunk into the black hole of administration and this leads to frontline services being strangled.

Completely irrelevant. If anything this will save the state money.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well they can do that now, if they want. But they don't want. They want to go after individuals and give them a show trial and have them convicted in the court of public opinion.

You don't know that. That is populist hyperbole.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is all down to the lies and misdirections of this government. They want to imply that the Oireachtas has no powers to carry out inquiries. But they can do this whenever they want. The Abeylara decision simply meant that when carrying out an executive inquiry, they cannot use judicial powers. So they can carry out an inquiry generally, but they cannot make specific findings of guilt against any particular person.

And I don't especially see this as changing that situation. Currently you cannot compell anyone or any group to a Oireachtes committee hearing.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This referendum is designed to give them the power to make specific findings of guilt. They are using the public anger over the banking crises and general dissillusionment with the judicial process to replace it with kangaroo courts.

One way of looking at it. To me it strengthens the Oireachteas to actually take on vested interests and ask them hard questions. We need more democracy, not less.

Scofflaw

It seems to me to be a measure that could be used either way - either to take on vested interests, or to have show trials in the court of public opinion, since there's nothing that prevents it being misused. It's probable, therefore, that it will be used for both.

It's a shame there seems to be no way to restrict this to inquiries into the civil service.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

vellocet wrote: »

Completely irrelevant. If anything this will save the state money.

Simply explaining how wanting to increase the Oireachtas' powers in one area and reduce it in another is not at all a contradictory point of view.

vellocet wrote: »

You don't know that. That is populist hyperbole.

Well, in a sense no one can absolutely predict the future. But, by looking at what is proposed, we can get some inclining as to its purpose. To my mind, the only reason they need this additional power at all is to go after individuals. They can raise institutional issues already. They also want to make specific findings of guilt or innocence, because they can already make findings short of same. They also want to curtail the rights of persons appearing before them, including the right to appeal and/or access the Courts if they are not given fair procedures. This is because they tried to give Callely an unfair hearing and were thwarted by the Courts.

Of course, it is very popular to give them unlimited powers to spill blood on the senate floor, but is that really the way we want to assert our democracy?

vellocet wrote: »

And I don't especially see this as changing that situation. Currently you cannot compell anyone or any group to a Oireachtes committee hearing.

That's exactly what they want to change. If you want to ignore the fairly clear intention of the wording, then fair enough.

vellocet wrote: »

One way of looking at it. To me it strengthens the Oireachteas to actually take on vested interests and ask them hard questions. We need more democracy, not less.

Explain to me what exactly you mean by this? Do you think that, for example, calling the Director General of the Law Society before an Oireachtas committe, shouting abuse at him for all the perceived wrongs of the legal profession, and then fining him is democratic?

Or do you think that any changes to these vested interests should be done by way of democratic legislation that applies to everyone equally and which has safeguards in the Courts if it is abused, or do we want to re-introduce the old bills of attainder (link)?

walrusgumble

whatstherush wrote: »

Will these powers be much different to the british system. For me, to see Rupert Murdoch being held publicly accountable for the first time in his life, doesn't seem to be a bad system.

What happens, though, if /or when someone like Murdoch has Politicians in his pocket? Guys like him, and other media heads have politicians by the balls have the time. Not exactly independent, ie interest of the Public, are they, in that scenario. Look at Bertie and one particular group and Rupert himself

If people read into the incidents into Ivor Calley (take away the preceived situation) case, they will see that some members of the Oireachtas are simply not fit to run an inquiry. Do you want gob****es like Dan Boyle twitting to everyone whose pushed about whats going on (he of course was clearly found to not saying or do anything prejudicial) You don't hear (during course of case) Judges gobbing off about cases do you?

That said, surely the Courts would review any committee hearing, and apply the same principles? Not every case will fall into the Calley situation.

Its not a good idea. Its not like the politicians have been squeeky clean or perfect themselves.

whatstherush

walrusgumble wrote: »

What happens, though, if /or when someone like Murdoch has Politicians in his pocket? Guys like him, and other media heads have politicians by the balls have the time. Not exactly independent, ie interest of the Public, are they, in that scenario. Look at Bertie and one particular group and Rupert himself

Murdoch had all the politicians in his pocket(I don't mean by bribes, more through the power of his papers) and he still ended up in front of a committee. If the public out cry is large enough, no one is safe.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Do you want gob****es like Dan Boyle twitting to everyone whose pushed about whats going on (he of course was clearly found to not saying or do anything prejudicial) You don't hear (during course of case) Judges gobbing off about cases do you?

So what, the hearing are in public. For years Tom Watson was the most vocal mp on the hacking scandal, yet it didn't affect his ability to question Murdoch when before committee.

If the system that is being proposed is so open to abuse, why don't these abuses occur in Britain.

vellocet

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Simply explaining how wanting to increase the Oireachtas' powers in one area and reduce it in another is not at all a contradictory point of view.

Fair enough.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well, in a sense no one can absolutely predict the future. But, by looking at what is proposed, we can get some inclining as to its purpose. To my mind, the only reason they need this additional power at all is to go after individuals. They can raise institutional issues already. They also want to make specific findings of guilt or innocence, because they can already make findings short of same. They also want to curtail the rights of persons appearing before them, including the right to appeal and/or access the Courts if they are not given fair procedures. This is because they tried to give Callely an unfair hearing and were thwarted by the Courts.

But they won't be investigating criminal matters and can't give out punishments, so all they are doing is beefing up their current, accepted, powers.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Of course, it is very popular to give them unlimited powers to spill blood on the senate floor, but is that really the way we want to assert our democracy?

I do. I have no objection to not criminal, but possibly illegal, behaviour like price fixing, closed shops and cartels being probed by politicians in the absence of realistic regulation.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's exactly what they want to change. If you want to ignore the fairly clear intention of the wording, then fair enough.

That is my point. They should be able to compel people to explain themselves.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Explain to me what exactly you mean by this? Do you think that, for example, calling the Director General of the Law Society before an Oireachtas committe, shouting abuse at him for all the perceived wrongs of the legal profession, and then fining him is democratic?

It is as democratic as you can get short of me shouting at him.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or do you think that any changes to these vested interests should be done by way of democratic legislation that applies to everyone equally and which has safeguards in the Courts if it is abused, or do we want to re-introduce the old bills of attainder (link)?

Why not do both? I don't quite understand the logic that the Oireacteas has been neutered by the executive but heaven forbid they try and grow teeth.

Fcuk the vested interests and spiv based cartels. Let the estate agents, taxi drivers, legal and medical professions, media, builders, bankers, accountants and their ilk face scrutiny from our democratically elected representitives.

Its the same old in Ireland. We complain about the state of the place and then whinge when someone goes to do something about it.

Manach

vellocet wrote: »

Fair enough.

Fcuk the vested interests and spiv based cartels. Let the estate agents, taxi drivers, legal and medical professions, media, builders, bankers, accountants and their ilk face scrutiny from our democratically elected representitives.

But would not the same democratically elected representitives have created the environment were such practices have existed in the first place. Perhaps it might be more proper to hold a referendum on the creation of People's committees to investigate the conduct of politicians (current/ex) themselves.

Scofflaw

Its the same old in Ireland. We complain about the state of the place and then whinge when someone goes to do something about it.

That's not contradictory either, unfortunately, since it's quite common for the proposed action to be a bad thing in itself. And in this case I don't think it's possible to claim the proposed powers can't be abused - the best defence available is to point to another jurisdiction with rather different standards in public life and say that it doesn't happen there. But over the last decade, how many Irish Ministers have voluntarily resigned when found to be doing something questionable, as against how many British Ministers?

cordially,
Scofflaw

vellocet

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's not contradictory either, unfortunately, since it's quite common for the proposed action to be a bad thing in itself. And in this case I don't think it's possible to claim the proposed powers can't be abused - the best defence available is to point to another jurisdiction with rather different standards in public life and say that it doesn't happen there. But over the last decade, how many Irish Ministers have voluntarily resigned when found to be doing something questionable, as against how many British Ministers?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't especially disagree with that, but the standard of current politician is not grounds in itself to curtail democracy.

We all agree that one of the major problems with Irish politics is that the legislative is weak and constrained to being a rubber stamp for the cabinet. So logically giving them more power is a good thing. There is a debate about the provisions of the act to be had, but many posters are arguing that we shouldn't allow an existing structure some more teeth, which is a whole different argument.

I find it very, very, hard to believe Ireland would be a worse place if the Oireachteas could have called on, say, Seanie Fitz to explain himself and his actions around the time of the bailout vote or the Archbishop of Dublin over the abuse allegations.

I'm struggling very hard to see why even the most populist FF hack would bother random citizens. That is scaremongering.

Scofflaw

vellocet wrote: »

I don't especially disagree with that, but the standard of current politician is not grounds in itself to curtail democracy.

We all agree that one of the major problems with Irish politics is that the legislative is weak and constrained to being a rubber stamp for the cabinet. So logically giving them more power is a good thing. There is a debate about the provisions of the act to be had, but many posters are arguing that we shouldn't allow an existing structure some more teeth, which is a whole different argument.

I find it very, very, hard to believe Ireland would be a worse place if the Oireachteas could have called on, say, Seanie Fitz to explain himself and his actions around the time of the bailout vote or the Archbishop of Dublin over the abuse allegations.

I'm struggling very hard to see why even the most populist FF hack would bother random citizens. That is scaremongering.

No, I don't think one can simply dismiss it as scaremongering, unless one makes of the concern the largely straw man you've just offered. I don't think anyone is of the opinion that such committees are likely to "bother random citizens" in the sense that phrase phrase implies (that is, picking people off the street) - they are likely only to bother such citizens as come to the attention of the public and media. That's not quite entirely random, but it does mean that citizens may come to the attention of the committee by a means over which they have no control.

Would such a committee have had the power to call Declan Ganley in to account for Libertas' spending in the Lisbon debates - above and beyond the requirements of SIPO? Yes, they could have done so. Would they have done so? Quite possibly. Is that a good thing? Not in my book, despite my views on Libertas - the rules are the rules, and giving the government of the day the power of fiat judgement is very risky.

This would increase the power of the Oireachtas if and only if it is not susceptible to the power of the government - as it is, I'm not seeing it as automatically an extension of the powers of the Oireachtas as against the government, but (given the whip system) as likely to be simply an extension of the powers of the government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

walrusgumble

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm leaning towards yes. We need more powerful Dail committees which can do the kind of job US House and Senate Committees do. A few good people like Joe Higgins (for example) will be able to do huge good in a way that the current system does not allow.

Assuming he would get voted onto a panel (the joys of our parliament system)

Still, is he capable of being fair, no bias, objective?

(could use him as the prosecution, i suppose)

Ever see the brilliant clip in Blackadder goes forth where Blackadder faces court marital and stephen fry's character is judge and witness.

walrusgumble

whatstherush wrote: »

Murdoch had all the politicians in his pocket(I don't mean by bribes, more through the power of his papers) and he still ended up in front of a committee. If the public out cry is large enough, no one is safe.



So what, the hearing are in public. For years Tom Watson was the most vocal mp on the hacking scandal, yet it didn't affect his ability to question Murdoch when before committee.

If the system that is being proposed is so open to abuse, why don't these abuses occur in Britain.

I do not mean financial bribes either. The Committee were fairly soft on him (you can be hard and still be fair)

I would say, that the British Politician is a fair bit more skilled than most of ours, intelligent too. (yes just as corruptible)Moreover, They are going to more TV coverage of such committees and trying to get filming in court cases.

The only objection i have, is the quality and ability of our representatives. I do not have trust in members of Parliament.what happens when we have another Beef Tribunal lark etc, or politicians trying to claim privilege etc? Governments going, oh, ok sure. (knowing damn well there maybe stuff that would hurt them)

We have grand standers like Shatter making adverse comments about a Tribunal while its on going, potentially with the effect of frustrating it (lets put the genuine issues of the unjustified delays to one side) why were comments made public?

At the same time, aren't these inquiries only meant to be inquiries with no legal effect (whether parliament or tribunal)? I want to see guarantees, rules and policies laid out on how precisely this parliament will act and the basis for such action, before I say yes.

Sir Oxman

The wording is very bad, especially section 4 I think.
Who dominates the Oireachtas committees? The govt of the day. I think it's entirely probable that they won't be investigating themselves or their antics.
Also, as far as I am aware there will be no one to appeal to after the committee makes their findings
So, who watches The Watchmen?

Surely, there has to be a better way, starting with total reform of the Oireachtas and the current situation where the govt of the day is virtually unaccountable.
this smacks of putting the cart before the horse, therefore I will be voting no on this wording.

Het-Field

I am amazed that this matter is not getting people more animated. I accept that the referendum is likely to occur on the same day as a personality centric election, however, the 30 Amendment has very significant ramifications for the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and the independence of judicial functions.

Let me put it this way

THE 30TH AMENDMENT IS MORE THAN MERE HOUSKEEPING.

ninty9er

I'm in favour, but I'd prefer if the committees needed 80% of the votes in the initiating House and 60% of the votes in the approving House to be established.

Het-Field

ninty9er wrote: »

I'm in favour, but I'd prefer if the committees needed 80% of the votes in the initiating House and 60% of the votes in the approving House to be established.

So you have no problem in potentially handing quasi-judicial power to any member of the current Oireachtas?

ninty9er

Het-Field wrote: »

So you have no problem in potentially handing quasi-judicial power to any member of the current Oireachtas?

As a systematic addition, no. Oireachtas committees are cross-party in their make-up and as such there is little scope for a witch hunt or injustice any more than there is in the current system. I think it could expedite some matters.

Het-Field

ninty9er wrote: »

As a systematic addition, no. Oireachtas committees are cross-party in their make-up and as such there is little scope for a witch hunt or injustice any more than there is in the current system. I think it could expedite some matters.

Do you remember Callely? Further, the Courts are not constrained by the necessity for re-election, which would give rise to attempts to make popular decisions, as is the case in the US. The Courts have made a number of decisions which would be deemed "unpopular", while being legally sound. On the other hand, politicians require re-election, and as a result popularity is key. When decision are being made in such an arena, it is possible that politicians will plump for the popular decisions as opposed to the right decisions.

I believe in the Separation of Powers Doctrine. As it is, the fused executive and legislature give rise to an imperfect separation, however, Subsection 3 would give rise to a further destruction of the Partition between the Judiciary and the fused executive and legislature. Such centralisation is something which I dont agree with.

Foghladh

ninty9er wrote: »

As a systematic addition, no. Oireachtas committees are cross-party in their make-up and as such there is little scope for a witch hunt or injustice any more than there is in the current system. I think it could expedite some matters.

Committees may be cross party but representation is proportional so the government balance will carry through to an inquiry. As I've stated in an earlier post, I'm really not comfortable will the notion that a gathering of elected officials can assume the responsibility of deciding what rights are applicable to a particular situation. I'd prefer findings were made in relation to the law, not what's occupying the front pages of the papers that week. I don't claim that it will lead to witch hunts, but if the clamour for a witch hunt is loud enough the framework is there.

Het-Field

Another day of endless personality driven discussion about the Presidential Election, while no attention has been given to this crucially important referendum which will be held on the same day.

Foghladh

I suppose a lot of the noise usually generated around a referendum comes from politicians with differing viewpoints. This refererendum about the 30th amendment is different in that it gives more power to the Oireachtas, and so probably isn't seen as a controversial by very many in those houses.

It's probably seen as 'popular' reform as well, with the assertion by the government to use it to launch a Banking Inquiry. A bit like the 29th Amendment going through the same day on 'Judicial pay'. I haven't heard too much discussion on that one either in the media and whether or not it serves to weaken the position of the judiciary relative to the legislative.

There is a commentary on Human Rights in Ireland about the 30th amendment if anyone wants a read

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2011/09/12/reversing-abbeylara-a-commentary-on-the-thirtieth-amendment-of-the-constitution-bill/

Scofflaw

Het-Field wrote: »

Another day of endless personality driven discussion about the Presidential Election, while no attention has been given to this crucially important referendum which will be held on the same day.

Unfortunately, that's likely to be the pattern right up to polling day. About the best we can hope for is that someone decides to ask the candidates their views on it - although the chances are that they'll all be in favour of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Het-Field

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's likely to be the pattern right up to polling day. About the best we can hope for is that someone decides to ask the candidates their views on it - although the chances are that they'll all be in favour of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree.

However, there was a small discussion on the matter tonight on VB. The concerns regarding Subsection 4 were raised. I would also be anxious to see the matter of Subsection 3 raised also.

walrusgumble

Het-Field wrote: »

I am amazed that this matter is not getting people more animated. I accept that the referendum is likely to occur on the same day as a personality centric election, however, the 30 Amendment has very significant ramifications for the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and the independence of judicial functions.

Let me put it this way

THE 30TH AMENDMENT IS MORE THAN MERE HOUSKEEPING.

Yes it is extremely worrying that many people will not have paid any notice to it. I know that campaigns are to only occur at a certain point, but surely, in normal referendums, information and debates would have occurred by now. Many won' t see the significance to it, simply thinking "well if they did not act in X,Y,Z" they would not be here or "if they are innocent, they have nothing to worry about". Which is the wrong attitude.

Maybe if some petition/letter etc is written to Howlin's & Shatter's department asking whether Section 4 will instead continue to allow a person before a committee as they do at a Tribunal of Inquiry to enjoy their Constitutional rights and specify what are their limits and why the hell the wording was not put in a clearer fashion. Demand a guarantee that the Court's jurisidiction will not be infringed. Also, what is the position as to the ability of the courts to review the decision ala the Ivor Callely case.

Force them into making a public statement to relieve people's concerns or at least allow the people to know exactly what they are voting on.

I think Vincent Brown is one of the few journo's to discuss it.

Should people bang heads together to set out a proposal letter to seek clarification (and warning them that one would go public on it, if they don't respond he he - some how, i don't see how they will be bothered)

Het-Field

walrusgumble wrote: »

Yes it is extremely worrying that many people will not have paid any notice to it. I know that campaigns are to only occur at a certain point, but surely, in normal referendums, information and debates would have occurred by now. Many won' t see the significance to it, simply thinking "well if they did not act in X,Y,Z" they would not be here or "if they are innocent, they have nothing to worry about". Which is the wrong attitude.

Maybe if some petition/letter etc is written to Howlin's & Shatter's department asking whether Section 4 will instead continue to allow a person before a committee as they do at a Tribunal of Inquiry to enjoy their Constitutional rights and specify what are their limits and why the hell the wording was not put in a clearer fashion. Demand a guarantee that the Court's jurisidiction will not be infringed. Also, what is the position as to the ability of the courts to review the decision ala the Ivor Callely case.

Force them into making a public statement to relieve people's concerns or at least allow the people to know exactly what they are voting on.

I think Vincent Brown is one of the few journo's to discuss it.

Should people bang heads together to set out a proposal letter to seek clarification (and warning them that one would go public on it, if they don't respond he he - some how, i don't see how they will be bothered)

If you remember the first Campaign against the Lisbon Treaty, it commenced no quicker than the ink had dried on the text of the Treaty. I recall Libertas kicked off their campaign against Lisbon in December 2007, a whole 7 months before the referendum was held.

What amazes me is the lack of discussion about this crucial matter, which calls into question the continued prevalence of the Separation of Powers doctrine which exists. First, we have an imperfect separation on the basis that the Legislature and the Executive are virtually fused, however, Subsection 3 represents a massive power-grab on the part of the fused executive/legislature to invoke powers of the Judiciary, thus partially merging the three pillers. I would have thought this matter would have exercised everybody, however, save for Vincent Browne and Gerry White, this matter has, thus far, been successfully represented by the Government as mere housekeeping.

Duke Leonal Felmet

My automatic stance is to always vote in a manner that either reduces or contains the power of government. The reasons should be obvious. And I will vote no differently this time.

By the way, if I registed for the last election, do I need to reregister?

walrusgumble

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

My automatic stance is to always vote in a manner that either reduces or contains the power of government. The reasons should be obvious. And I will vote no differently this time.

By the way, if I registed for the last election, do I need to reregister?

I am just thinking about the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" tune.


If you registered, you will be fine. Still living in the same address?

Many people here don't have an issue with changing the law on Abbeylara per se. It is just that Sections 3 and 4 jump out as being rather nasty. If there were guarantees that people will still enjoy the same rights of fair procedures etc and the Committees could only act as a fact finding inquiry,like the Tribunals, (and not interfering with the Court's function) then I would have no issue.

It is possible to interpret (however strained) that the Oireachtas will, in light of case law, always ensure fair procedures etc. But, why Section 4?

Scofflaw

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

My automatic stance is to always vote in a manner that either reduces or contains the power of government. The reasons should be obvious. And I will vote no differently this time.

By the way, if I registed for the last election, do I need to reregister?

You shouldn't have to. The usual "check the register" sites should be available fairly shortly, I guess.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Het-Field

Another week has passed where the focus has been on the personality of the Presidential Candidates, as opposed to any tangible issues which may effect this society.

Any media coverage of the proposed referenda has been peripheral and ephemeral.

I urge posters to educate themselves on the proposed changes before even considering putting pencil to ballot paper.

recedite

Het-Field wrote: »

this crucial matter, which calls into question the continued prevalence of the Separation of Powers doctrine which exists. First, we have an imperfect separation on the basis that the Legislature and the Executive are virtually fused, however, Subsection 3 represents a massive power-grab on the part of the fused executive/legislature to invoke powers of the Judiciary, thus partially merging the three pillers

Aren't all judges government appointees anyway?
So it's really a power grab on the part of a fused executive/legislature/judiciary against itself.
Having said that, there is the possibility that judges will wander off after a few years in the job and "evolve" some independence, or that they remain loyal to a previous and different govt.

So I oppose it. If TD's are keen to investigate stuff (and that's a big if),why can't the Dail committees make preliminary investigations, in their own time (which is at taxpayers expense) then if they find anything suspect, refer the matter to the DPP?

For example, the lack of political will to pursue crooked bankers was nothing to do with lack of power. The govt. at the time had ample access to books and accounts.

Alan_P

Whatever people's opinions of it, it seems likely to be passed pretty comfortably. The Irish Times asked people about this as part of their recent Presidential and politicial party opinion poll.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1008/1224305460850.html

"65 per cent said they would vote Yes, 8 per cent said they would vote No, 23 per cent were undecided and 4 per cent said they would not vote."

Even if all the undecided end up voting no, that would still be a 2 to 1 yes vote.

As an aside, the referendum on judge's pay looks like being having the largest majority in the history of the State :- 88 yes, 4 no, 5 percent undecided.