Abbeylara referendum

Bosco boy

walrusgumble wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

I see I touched a nerve, I thought you'd be capable of a more intelligent reply! Ya you go ahead you dock my pay for the 5th time yet leave your pals unscathed!

I don't see anyone calling for the Judge's pay not to be touched. NO body is saying that they should not be touched. They complain about the wording of the Referendum Bill. There is already a genuine concern about the Judges relationship with government already (eg Former Chief Justice John Murrary -absolute FF boot boy who has done well financially with FF over the years - through his excellent expertise , i should add and also, he was not afraid to rule against them)

People simply want an independent body to oversee the decisions on payment. That is why there is a notion of no. If safe guards were in place, no one would be complaining.

Using other groups in the public sector as a comparison is ridiculous and for obvious reasons. The Judiciary, unlike other bodies is an organ of State as per Separation of Powers. They also don't decide to adjudicate matters of importance.

I don't recall the Croke Park Deal going before the people. It would unlikely have succeeded

Croke park didn't have to go before the people because the goverment had the power to inflict cuts on public servants and they have passed on nearly 20% of cuts already. Judges pay simply could not be touched without this amendment. On the other matter it worries me that the ex attorney generals are advocating a no vote to both amendments, clearly in the first they are trying to battle for their pals and hope the confusion will mean the public will reject it, the second I agree with them but the support of the first smacks of cronieism!

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's what wrecks my head - the amendment is going to sail through, on the presumption that anyone who opposes it wants to preserve judges' pay. The point is being missed, and it's being missed through deliberate obtuseness. No, it isn't. If you're voting on a constitutional amendment based on what you think it might possibly mean rather than on the basis of what it actually says, then you're doing it wrong. To be fair, you're only one of the hundreds of thousands of people doing it wrong, but unfortunately those of us who have actually read the damn thing will be stuck with its consequences along with those who haven't.

Speaking of reading the damn thing: there's a separate thread about the judges' pay referendum. This one is about Oireachtas inquiries.

I wish I could thank this post a thousand times and I wish the part I highlighted in bold could be sent as a text message to every single person in this country.

walrusgumble

Bosco boy wrote: »

Croke park didn't have to go before the people because the goverment had the power to inflict cuts on public servants and they have passed on nearly 20% of cuts already. Judges pay simply could not be touched without this amendment. On the other matter it worries me that the ex attorney generals are advocating a no vote to both amendments, clearly in the first they are trying to battle for their pals and hope the confusion will mean the public will reject it, the second I agree with them but the support of the first smacks of cronieism!

O'Byrne v Minister for Finance 1950 say salaries can be touched.

How many, affected by Croke Park, rule on the Constitutionality of legislation or actions of a Minister, rule on one's rights in society, send people to jail, seek to ensure that the other institutions of the State act within the law?

The reason why ex Attorney Generals (some of them retired from practice and unlikely to ever appear before Tribunals - so nice try Leo V - talking about great debate there - you worry about your consultant peers) came to the conclusion, is because, with their experience between mentality of government and the civil servants and the laws, they come to the view that they have no power. But yeah, look its hard to side with them, after all, some of these former AG's are aspiring Judges. (McDowell highly unlikely of course)

Again, no one is saying judges pay should not be dealt with. They are saying that an independent group should deal with this. You don't see the courts being able to decided the proportionality of the pay of a Dáiler, do you?

When there are clowns like Leo Vardakar and Enda Kenny who come out with justifications like the ones they use, and intentionally ignoring the actual criticisms made against the wording of the amendment as oppose to the principles, you really do have to worry.

FreudianSlippers

Bosco boy wrote: »

Croke park didn't have to go before the people because the goverment had the power to inflict cuts on public servants and they have passed on nearly 20% of cuts already. Judges pay simply could not be touched without this amendment. On the other matter it worries me that the ex attorney generals are advocating a no vote to both amendments, clearly in the first they are trying to battle for their pals and hope the confusion will mean the public will reject it, the second I agree with them but the support of the first smacks of cronieism!

You seem to have this notion that all lawyers, attorney generals and judges are bffs or something.

The ex-AGs are arguing for a No vote because of the ridiculousness of the wording.

Judges themselves said that there ought to be a way to reduce their pay, this is just NOT that way.

FreudianSlippers

walrusgumble wrote: »

O'Byrne v Minister for Finance 1950 say salaries can be touched.

Just to be clear, in O'Byrne the Supreme Court held that Judges were liable to any taxes and pension levies that may come out and that these were not considered to be diminishing their "remuneration" as per the constitution.

It is correct to say that the salary of a sitting Judge cannot be lowered. The outcry over the pension levy is interesting because the government did not have to make it voluntary and the Chief Justice told them that. According to Shatter, the most recent ex-AG informed him it would be unconstitutional (which I find difficult to believe).

Again, no one is saying judges pay should not be dealt with. They are saying that an independent group should deal with this. You don't see the courts being able to decided the proportionality of the pay of a Dáiler, do you?

This is the crux of the issue. If people are worried that Judges aren't taking the pension levy then it's sorted via the O'Byrne decision.

If it's an issue of lowering pay there are two valid options:
1) a referendum that states specifically that judges' pay is tied to a specific category of public sector worker and their pay will move up and down in relation to said category.
2) a referendum establishing an independent body that examines the issue of judges' pay and implements changes accordingly (the body could easily be clumped in with the regulator for the legal profession that the Legal Services Bill proposes).


Giving the Oireachtas carte blanche to adjust the pay of judges in relation to a nebulous group is unsettling at best and idiotic at worst.

Bosco boy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

Croke park didn't have to go before the people because the goverment had the power to inflict cuts on public servants and they have passed on nearly 20% of cuts already. Judges pay simply could not be touched without this amendment. On the other matter it worries me that the ex attorney generals are advocating a no vote to both amendments, clearly in the first they are trying to battle for their pals and hope the confusion will mean the public will reject it, the second I agree with them but the support of the first smacks of cronieism!

You seem to have this notion that all lawyers, attorney generals and judges are bffs or something.

The ex-AGs are arguing for a No vote because of the ridiculousness of the wording.

Judges themselves said that there ought to be a way to reduce their pay, this is just NOT that way.

I said no such thing about judges, ag or lawyers and judges were given a chance to reduce their pay, most did but some did not. If they were all at one and took the cut there would be no proposed amendment. It's that shear arrogance that has brought forward this amendment. The legal profession have to get out of the dark ages and play their part in the recovery of this economy. They need to stop treating anyone who disagrees with as if they are idiots who don't know what they are talking out. They also need to know that you don't need to have a law degree to read the proposed amendments!

Scofflaw

Bosco boy wrote: »

They also need to know that you don't need to have a law degree to read the proposed amendments!

I'm not sure they're being presented with any evidence that that's the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Doirtybirdy

I'm voting yes to both referenda for a couple of similar reasons.

I don't believe the guff that a government some time in the future will turn all gadaffi on us.
The committee system in the Dáil is cross party and it's tinfoil hat territory to suggest a justice system power grab is underway.All our t.d's are elected.
Solicitors and barristers cynically opposing this are not.
Their opposition just screams money money money to me.They don't want their printing presses withdrawn.

What is underway is the replacement of an expensive system that we have now that extremely generously lines the pockets of the legal eagles, with something much more transparent,a lot cheaper and subject ultimately to the best form of public verdict on performance ie elections.

FreudianSlippers

Bosco boy wrote: »

I said no such thing about judges, ag or lawyers and judges were given a chance to reduce their pay, most did but some did not. If they were all at one and took the cut there would be no proposed amendment. It's that shear arrogance that has brought forward this amendment. The legal profession have to get out of the dark ages and play their part in the recovery of this economy. They need to stop treating anyone who disagrees with as if they are idiots who don't know what they are talking out. They also need to know that you don't need to have a law degree to read the proposed amendments!

I think I misread the post I quoted. You still seemed to suggest that the AG and Judges are cosily rubbing elbows. I just find that hard to accept.

The vast majority of the legal profession is not paid by the state also, we're playing our part by paying taxes and contributing to the economy.


The part that really concerns me is that this isn't really about their "pay" since people keep saying that they had the chance. They had the chance to voluntarily agree to the pension levy; which 85% did. If the people and government want a way to force the judges to take the levy, they don't need to amendment as per O'Byrne.
If the issue is about pay, the amendment is not properly worded to adequately deal with the issue.

FreudianSlippers

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

I'm voting yes to both referenda for a couple of similar reasons.

I don't believe the guff that a government some time in the future will turn all gadaffi on us.

That's not the point.

The committee system in the Dáil is cross party and it's tinfoil hat territory to suggest a justice system power grab is underway.All our t.d's are elected.

You mean a legislative power grab? It doesn't matter that all TDs are elected - the issue is that this referendum undermines the fundamental concept of separation of powers.

Solicitors and barristers cynically opposing this are not.

Their opposition just screams money money money to me.They don't want their printing presses withdrawn.

Actually, 99.9% of solicitors have nothing to gain from this monetarily either way.

About 50-100 barristers (representing the very small number that work on tribunals; note there are probably nearly 2500 at the bar this year), on the other hand, actually stand to make more money through this amendment being passed.
The vast majority of barristers (I'd say ~98%) have nothing to gain or lose monetarily from this amendment going either way - that'd be the percentage that have never and/or never will work on a tribunal.

What is underway is the replacement of an expensive system that we have now that extremely generously lines the pockets of the legal eagles, with something much more transparent,a lot cheaper and subject ultimately to the best form of public verdict on performance ie elections.

Not only proven false, but suggested that it will go the other way.

Bosco boy

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure they're being presented with any evidence that that's the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks for proving my point! I rest my case!

carveone

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

I'm voting yes to both referenda for a couple of similar reasons.

I don't believe the guff that a government some time in the future will turn all gadaffi on us.

I admire your faith. Were you here in the 80s? Haughey kinda dampened my faith a touch.

I would prefer that they figure out the agri diesel situation if they need the money.

Has anyone comments about a member of SF being chairman of this Investigations, Oversight and Petitions committee? Or is that tinfoil hat...

Scofflaw

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

I'm voting yes to both referenda for a couple of similar reasons.

I don't believe the guff that a government some time in the future will turn all gadaffi on us.
The committee system in the Dáil is cross party and it's tinfoil hat territory to suggest a justice system power grab is underway.All our t.d's are elected.
Solicitors and barristers cynically opposing this are not.
Their opposition just screams money money money to me.They don't want their printing presses withdrawn.

What is underway is the replacement of an expensive system that we have now that extremely generously lines the pockets of the legal eagles, with something much more transparent,a lot cheaper and subject ultimately to the best form of public verdict on performance ie elections.

We already have exactly such a system, that of commissions of inquiry appointed by the Oireachtas. The proposed legislation doesn't create the only possible alternative to Tribunals, nor were Tribunals held because such inquiries were impossible - they were held when it was thought (before the Abbeylara judgement) that the Oireachtas had full powers of inquiry.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dunphy3

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure they're being presented with any evidence that that's the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

just read where the dpp said that the ordinary man/women can not understand the bank failours with out special treaning,ie suggested that only accountants/lawers shoud be on jurys shoud a case come to court.[first we got in rong ,ie lisbon1ant2, now we cant make up our own minds????????

Scofflaw

dunphy3 wrote: »

just read where the dpp said that the ordinary man/women can not understand the bank failours with out special treaning,ie suggested that only accountants/lawers shoud be on jurys shoud a case come to court.[first we got in rong ,ie lisbon1ant2, now we cant make up our own minds????????

The bank failures are complicated, and one would need a lot of background information if one doesn't want to be misled by the bankers and politicians involved.

It's easy to think of oneself on such a jury, and to assume that the other members of the jury would, like oneself, see instantly through the 'justifications' offered by those being investigated - but it would be quite easy to find that half the jury believed everything Lenihan and Fianna Fáil had said about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bosco boy

Scofflaw wrote: »

The bank failures are complicated, and one would need a lot of background information if one doesn't want to be misled by the bankers and politicians involved.

It's easy to think of oneself on such a jury, and to assume that the other members of the jury would, like oneself, see instantly through the 'justifications' offered by those being investigated - but it would be quite easy to find that half the jury believed everything Lenihan and Fianna Fáil had said about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In other words the best case senario is that half of any jury will understand and the other half won't. I think this is insulting to ordinary people in this country. Juries goe through a selection process and drawn from the general public. Could it be possible that oneself could find oneself on a jury and oneself be fooled because oneselfs feels superior to everyone else and may not entertain the valid points made by fellow jurors.

sensibleken

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

I'm voting yes to both referenda for a couple of similar reasons.

I don't believe the guff that a government some time in the future will turn all gadaffi on us.
The committee system in the Dáil is cross party and it's tinfoil hat territory to suggest a justice system power grab is underway.All our t.d's are elected.
Solicitors and barristers cynically opposing this are not.
Their opposition just screams money money money to me.They don't want their printing presses withdrawn.

What is underway is the replacement of an expensive system that we have now that extremely generously lines the pockets of the legal eagles, with something much more transparent,a lot cheaper and subject ultimately to the best form of public verdict on performance ie elections.

I dont see that this will necesarily be cheaper or put a dent in the salaries of lawyers. Although the cost of the oireachtas side of the inquiry will be plain at the outset as decided by the oversight commitee, every pice of evidence, every witness and the draft findings can all be appealled to the high court before they are made public. the cost of these would be far far greater than if the decission to admit evidence was in a judicial enquiry.

That this cannot be abused by corrupt politicians is a bit naive. the tribunals themselves have told us again and again that these guys arent trustworthy

Doirtybirdy

Some t.d's/senators may not be trustworthy but committee's are crossparty.
There's where you need a tinfoil hat if you believe mcarthiate inquisitions and injustices will happen widely in crossparty situations.
It implies all of them needing to be in it together in the conspiracy.

I don't buy that.

As for separation of powers,is it a problem in the UK'what with their legal system being largely the parent of ours.

I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of an almostly exclusively legal eagle sector opposition to this.
I note though most of them are also opposed to the easier pay restraint referendum.

sensibleken

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Some t.d's/senators may not be trustworthy but committee's are crossparty.
There's where you need a tinfoil hat if you believe mcarthiate inquisitions and injustices will happen widely in crossparty situations.
It implies all of them needing to be in it together in the conspiracy.

I don't buy that.

As for separation of powers,is it a problem in the UK'what with their legal system being largely the parent of ours.

I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of an almostly exclusively legal eagle sector opposition to this.
I note though most of them are also opposed to the easier pay restraint referendum.

I dont think youve read the propsed bill correctly. The commitee of inquiry is apointed from among TDs and senators. It does not have to be cross party. It is appointed by an oversight commitee (of indeterminate size) by the house, which is controlled by the government through the whip.

It does not require a conspiracy it just requires a knowledge of how government works.

The proposal is not like how it works in the UK, they cannot decide to suspend your rights in what is deemed the public interest.

by the way the public interest is not defined in law. Th eheadshop nonsense, dangerous dog acts etc were illogical legislation brought in on the foot of media hyteria.

caseyann

I am going to vote Martin,then yes on number one and no on number two on referendum.

Oh woe is me with the results this time around again i fear the minority like in the Lisbon am i and others.

Doirtybirdy

sensibleken wrote: »

I dont think youve read the propsed bill correctly. The commitee of inquiry is apointed from among TDs and senators. It does not have to be cross party. It is appointed by an oversight commitee (of indeterminate size) by the house, which is controlled by the government through the whip.

It does not require a conspiracy it just requires a knowledge of how government works.

The proposal is not like how it works in the UK, they cannot decide to suspend your rights in what is deemed the public interest.

by the way the public interest is not defined in law. Th eheadshop nonsense, dangerous dog acts etc were illogical legislation brought in on the foot of media hyteria.

I was't aware of that actually-if that's the case I'll be voting no.
Oh and caseyanne please give your no2 to michael d..if only as a vote against the fianna failer sean gallagher.
I'd rather mcguinness in than a fianna failer.
Tactical voting is needed.

Scofflaw

Bosco boy wrote: »

In other words the best case senario is that half of any jury will understand and the other half won't. I think this is insulting to ordinary people in this country. Juries goe through a selection process and drawn from the general public. Could it be possible that oneself could find oneself on a jury and oneself be fooled because oneselfs feels superior to everyone else and may not entertain the valid points made by fellow jurors.

Obviously, yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

swordofislam wrote: »

Because then if pay cuts were imposed on the highest paid civil servants (which would include judges) their lordships would find those cuts unconstitutional on the grounds that binmen and dinnerladies weren't having their pay cut.

The judiciary simply cannot be trusted; the Irish judiciary has like most areas of civil life been poisoned by decades of Fianna Fail domination. Their lordships have been bought with grotesque pay rises and conditions.

Let's turn it on its head for a moment. What if the government wanted to increase judicial pay at a time when they wanted to cut the pay of dinner ladies? There is nothing in this referendum to stop this. So, would it not make sense to provide that judicial pay should be cut in line with equivalent public sector pay? Alternatively, should it not be done by an independent body who can say "wait a minute now, we can't cut dinner ladies' pay without cutting judges pay by more?"

[Jackass] wrote: »

Remember, this is for the good of the public, not a personal tool of investigation. To use the power, and avoid political suicide, it must be of the popular opinion that someone has a point to defend.

As you say, this does not have the power of
sending someone to prison, BUT it does remove the hiding place of the courts. When I say it can't be used against "innocent" people, I just mean that if someone has nothing to answer for, nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. There is still a burden of proof, and I think any notion of a committee following a personal agenda and ignoring the facts is a bit sensationalist in predicting doom.

I dunno. Supposing you were a top executive in Anglo Irish bank. You did nothing wrong and you weren't aware of the most extravagant excesses by those at the very top. You carried out the shareholder's instructions, namely that you should lend to builders/developers on their terms, and if they didn't want to sign a personal guarantee they didn't have to. You also acted on the advice of your professional economists who forcasted that the property boom would go on indefinately and that you should keep investing in property loans and not waste time on other types of loans.

Supposing that with all that you have nothing to hide and nothing to answer for as the law stands. But, the public don't see it like that. They see you as asleep at the wheel and somehow culpable. Those shareholders that wouldn't listen and demanded that you keep lending to developers have now turned on you and are throwing eggs at you for losing money (you can bet that the most vocal shareholders who lost money were equally vocal about increasing the profits per share when they believed things were good. Many people want to blame others but never themselves).

You are now summoned before an Oireachtas inquiry. The people who are going to judge you have a vested interest in finding you guilty of something. Equally, they have a vested interest in not finding that you are blameless. They are reactive and beholden to the people that vote them in. So, out of fear of committing an unpopular decision, or desire to make a popular decision, they are happy to find you guilty of wrongdoing because that is what the public believe.

Bosco boy wrote: »

The legal profession have to get out of the dark ages and play their part in the recovery of this economy.

Specifically, what do you mean by this?

Bosco boy wrote: »

They need to stop treating anyone who disagrees with as if they are idiots who don't know what they are talking out. They also need to know that you don't need to have a law degree to read the proposed amendments!

What if they people who disagree with them are idiots who don't know what they are talking about. What about if the people they are arguing with have not actually read the proposed amendements and have simply adopted the government/media line on the issue as, with the greatest of respect, you clearly have done so far in this thread.

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of an almostly exclusively legal eagle sector opposition to this.
I note though most of them are also opposed to the easier pay restraint referendum.

Actually, most of the calls have not been from the legal sector but from people who work in areas such as journalism, human rights etc.

For lawyers, this referendum is great news as it is opening up a whole new area of practice for them - you've heard of tribunal lawyers, now we will have inquiry lawyers as well.

Bosco boy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

swordofislam wrote: »

Because then if pay cuts were imposed on the highest paid civil servants (which would include judges) their lordships would find those cuts unconstitutional on the grounds that binmen and dinnerladies weren't having their pay cut.

The judiciary simply cannot be trusted; the Irish judiciary has like most areas of civil life been poisoned by decades of Fianna Fail domination. Their lordships have been bought with grotesque pay rises and conditions.

Let's turn it on its head for a moment. What if the government wanted to increase judicial pay at a time when they wanted to cut the pay of dinner ladies? There is nothing in this referendum to stop this. So, would it not make sense to provide that judicial pay should be cut in line with equivalent public sector pay? Alternatively, should it not be done by an independent body who can say "wait a minute now, we can't cut dinner ladies' pay without cutting judges pay by more?"

[QUOTE='[Jackass];75100301']
Remember, this is for the good of the public, not a personal tool of investigation. To use the power, and avoid political suicide, it must be of the popular opinion that someone has a point to defend.

As you say, this does not have the power of
sending someone to prison, BUT it does remove the hiding place of the courts. When I say it can't be used against "innocent" people, I just mean that if someone has nothing to answer for, nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. There is still a burden of proof, and I think any notion of a committee following a personal agenda and ignoring the facts is a bit sensationalist in predicting doom.

I dunno. Supposing you were a top executive in Anglo Irish bank. You did nothing wrong and you weren't aware of the most extravagant excesses by those at the very top. You carried out the shareholder's instructions, namely that you should lend to builders/developers on their terms, and if they didn't want to sign a personal guarantee they didn't have to. You also acted on the advice of your professional economists who forcasted that the property boom would go on indefinately and that you should keep investing in property loans and not waste time on other types of loans.

Supposing that with all that you have nothing to hide and nothing to answer for as the law stands. But, the public don't see it like that. They see you as asleep at the wheel and somehow culpable. Those shareholders that wouldn't listen and demanded that you keep lending to developers have now turned on you and are throwing eggs at you for losing money (you can bet that the most vocal shareholders who lost money were equally vocal about increasing the profits per share when they believed things were good. Many people want to blame others but never themselves).

You are now summoned before an Oireachtas inquiry. The people who are going to judge you have a vested interest in finding you guilty of something. Equally, they have a vested interest in not finding that you are blameless. They are reactive and beholden to the people that vote them in. So, out of fear of committing an unpopular decision, or desire to make a popular decision, they are happy to find you guilty of wrongdoing because that is what the public believe.

Bosco boy wrote: »

The legal profession have to get out of the dark ages and play their part in the recovery of this economy.

Specifically, what do you mean by this?

Bosco boy wrote: »

They need to stop treating anyone who disagrees with as if they are idiots who don't know what they are talking out. They also need to know that you don't need to have a law degree to read the proposed amendments!

What if they people who disagree with them are idiots who don't know what they are talking about. What about if the people they are arguing with have not actually read the proposed amendements and have simply adopted the government/media line on the issue as, with the greatest of respect, you clearly have done so far in this thread.

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of an almostly exclusively legal eagle sector opposition to this.
I note though most of them are also opposed to the easier pay restraint referendum.

Actually, most of the calls have not been from the legal sector but from people who work in areas such as journalism, human rights etc.

For lawyers, this referendum is great news as it is opening up a whole new area of practice for them - you've heard of tribunal lawyers, now we will have inquiry lawyers as well.[/Quote]

beats chasing ambulances!

walrusgumble

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just to be clear, in O'Byrne the Supreme Court held that Judges were liable to any taxes and pension levies that may come out and that these were not considered to be diminishing their "remuneration" as per the constitution.

It is correct to say that the salary of a sitting Judge cannot be lowered. The outcry over the pension levy is interesting because the government did not have to make it voluntary and the Chief Justice told them that. According to Shatter, the most recent ex-AG informed him it would be unconstitutional (which I find difficult to believe).


This is the crux of the issue. If people are worried that Judges aren't taking the pension levy then it's sorted via the O'Byrne decision.

If it's an issue of lowering pay there are two valid options:
1) a referendum that states specifically that judges' pay is tied to a specific category of public sector worker and their pay will move up and down in relation to said category.
2) a referendum establishing an independent body that examines the issue of judges' pay and implements changes accordingly (the body could easily be clumped in with the regulator for the legal profession that the Legal Services Bill proposes).


Giving the Oireachtas carte blanche to adjust the pay of judges in relation to a nebulous group is unsettling at best and idiotic at worst.

Yeah, sorry, I should have made that clear. Even that case was a close run thing, all over the meaning of one word.

walrusgumble

[Jackass] wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

I'm still not sold on the fact that this will be a mass give away of power to a dictatorship type Government, who can use this power to engage anyone who gets in their way.

Remember, this is for the good of the public, not a personal tool of investigation. To use the power, and avoid political suicide, it must be of the popular opinion that someone has a point to defend.

As you say, this does not have the power of
sending someone to prison, BUT it does remove the hiding place of the courts. When I say it can't be used against "innocent" people, I just mean that if someone has nothing to answer for, nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. There is still a burden of proof, and I think any notion of a committee following a personal agenda and ignoring the facts is a bit sensationalist in predicting doom.

It's merely another tool with which we can persue the corrupt and the criminal who hide behind courts and power and money.

I think the negative aspects being touted assume a lot about the cynical nature of a Government of the day, like some poor innocent person will be framed and damned in front of the nation, and we'll all fall for it. The judiciary does still hold entire power over what to do with the findings, this is merely a vehicle to obtain the information without all the legal BS to protect / enable the hiding of facts. Like I said, if no wrong doing has been done, than what possible harm can an investigation do?

I appreciate that it's something very relivant to today, and this will change in the future, but a lot of awkward questions have been asked in front of the senate in the united states and the chambers in London, and if a Government demands answers on behalf of the people, they should have the right to ask those questions without the individual being able to refuse accountability and take on a long legal battle that will cost a lot of money and will be limited in it's investigation powers.

I'm open to debate on this, but all I see from the no side is mass paranoia, all I see from the prospect of a yes vote is more accountability in the state for your actions, particularly, and exclusively when looking at people in high power positions, both publically and politically, the hardest to pin down and prosecute in the current legal format.

Also, regarding the FF TDs investigating FF, that would not be the case, the oppisition would have the power to ask questions and demand answers.

Also, people can refuse to attend a tribunal as far as I'm aware, but can not refuse to attend an investigation of this nature, and the main difference being that while a tribunal can take 10 years to more or less tell us someone was dirty corrupt to the core, then it's left at that and good luck. This will get there quickly and immediately reffer the findings to a judge, who if it is found to be accurate and on evidence, can take action, unlike before where the DPP is informed and a long winded prosectution case can be built etc...

You do realise that politicans are experts in twisting the words of others. Will they still enjoy privilege for any comments they will make that they would not make outside the Dáil? Considering these guys are not good at following the evidence of others, reports, and Review Committees reports etc which, if they had, they would not be in this mess, how can you have faith in them?

The Oireachtas is not exactly showing any evidence to suggest any concerns are sensationalist.

Look, for instance, Leo Vardakar's comments yesterday. Compleltely ignorning why people are out to vote know, he simply comes out, like some smarmy school senior prefect / head of class and comments that lawyers (including AG's who will never have a difficulty in commanding a brief in big cases ever again, as it they ever had problems) are just worried about their pay packages. :rolleyes:

Yeah, good man Leo, conveniently forgetting that
(a) Its the Dáil who decides the purpose of the Tribunal and the rates of pay from the lawyers
(b) As I said again, if his like, ie politicians, had been more open and honest, there would not be been a need to go for so long
(c) The one's who got the gigs (some of whom FG will likely want to now make judges, if any were FG law library boot boys)
(d) No one, not even the Chief Justice is damning the notion that pay reductions should be in place, but its the wording.
(e) I was going to say that FG are not exactly strangers for making public denouncements of other organs of the State, ahem Paddy Donegan. But that would be unfair. Yet, not so long ago, Our Minister for Justice stupidity got involved in a public spate with a Judge regarding the Swithwick Tribunal, making a comment that should have remained in private and a comment that won't guarantee it will happen, taking no regard to other people such as the Unionists who may use it as a political football.

What do you mean "hiding place" of Court. Correct me if I am wrong, but which is more accessible to the public - curious George? Ordinary Courts, Dail/Senand Committee and or Tribunal hearings in Dublin Castle? Regardless of where you go, the same principles on how a hearing is to be run apply or are suppose to apply, which is now questionable by this Amendment.

Whether one likes it or not, Senator Ivor Callely was ruled to have done no wrong doing, as per the letter of the Dáil's law. Yet The Committee intended to shift the goalposts, without following proper procedures.

In the Bertie Ahern v Mahon case; a case involving Bertie's attempts to prevent the Tribunal using his comments in the Dáil and put it to him that they differed to evidence at the Tribunal, Kelly J, said that why the Tribunal could not do that, they could put it in report , without reaching a conclusion, and let the reader ie the public decide for themselves. (He was probably loving it, in light of his clashes over the years)


What is wrong with the alternative such as that used in the Murphy & Ryan Report? Effective and Cheap.

Politicians judging each other, not really a good idea. is it? These Tribunal cases often always involve members of all parties. Wonder how willing and helpful they will be when one of their own is being quizzed as a witness.

Did anyone watch Vincent Browne last night? He claims that he rang the AG office and was told that they did not see how access to the court was possible, when challenging. Odd. I was of the view that even if there was access, what the Courts will do

FreudianSlippers

dunphy3 wrote: »

just read where the dpp said that the ordinary man/women can not understand the bank failours with out special treaning,ie suggested that only accountants/lawers shoud be on jurys shoud a case come to court.[first we got in rong ,ie lisbon1ant2, now we cant make up our own minds????????

Bosco boy wrote: »

In other words the best case senario is that half of any jury will understand and the other half won't. I think this is insulting to ordinary people in this country. Juries goe through a selection process and drawn from the general public. Could it be possible that oneself could find oneself on a jury and oneself be fooled because oneselfs feels superior to everyone else and may not entertain the valid points made by fellow jurors.

The implication there being simply that expert evidence would have to be adduced to the jury to explain the more complex details. Not that only accountants/economists (lawyers? Most layers don't have in-depth details of the bank failures, so no point in clumping them in as the default people) could sit on the jury.

FreudianSlippers

sensibleken wrote: »

every pice of evidence, every witness and the draft findings can all be appealled to the high court before they are made public.

There is no evidence in the amendment that this is accurate.

FreudianSlippers

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Some t.d's/senators may not be trustworthy but committee's are crossparty.
There's where you need a tinfoil hat if you believe mcarthiate inquisitions and injustices will happen widely in crossparty situations.
It implies all of them needing to be in it together in the conspiracy.

I don't buy that.

That's not the issue. I think the actual issue has been adequately covered in this thread and the other.

As for separation of powers,is it a problem in the UK'what with their legal system being largely the parent of ours.

I keep hearing comparisons with the powers in the UK and the US. While the general scope and concept is similar, the proposed 30th amendment will be much more severe, granting the Oireachtas more power than the US or UK legislatures have and it is by no means clear whether these inquiries will be subject to rules of evidence, witness rights, appeal or judicial review by the courts.

If it were actually modelled on the US or UK systems I'd probably vote yes for this amendment; unfortunately it rings slightly more Orwellian.

I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of an almostly exclusively legal eagle sector opposition to this.
I note though most of them are also opposed to the easier pay restraint referendum.

I have asked almost 10 times now in this and another thread.

How does the legal profession benefit from voting no on either of these amendments.

I will take the answer for the 29th amendment on judges' pay in the other thread.

Bosco boy wrote: »

beats chasing ambulances!

Come on Bosco boy! :rolleyes:

sensibleken

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is no evidence in the amendment that this is accurate.

Not in the amendment. In the draft legislation