The Presidential Election and the Referendums

Mark Hamill

So who are you voting for in the upcoming elections? And why? Please tell me because I have no idea who to vote for (I know I dont want Dana in, but thats all) and I need some information on the candidates.

Also, the referendums, how are you voting? I'm not even sure how many there are, is it two or three?

(Poll allows multiple choice, pick your top 2 or 3 if you like)

biko

How is this tied in with Atheism?

Mark Hamill

In terms of the presidency, I dont really see the point. We dont really need a president (not like the office holds a lot of real power) and it seems like a waste of money. But to remove the requirement for a president, we would need a referendum, right? Spoiling a vote would be a waste and serve nothing (unless every did it).

In terms of the two (I assume?) referendum, the 30th amendment seems logical enough (give Oireachtas Committees more power to investigate), but there seems to be contention with the 29th amendment (remove ban on reducing judicial salaries). Some think this would be easily abusable (it was originally brought in to keep the judiciary independent from the government, to prevent the government from punishing the judiciary for judgements they disagreed with, apparently).

shanered

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In terms of the presidency, I dont really see the point. We dont really need a president (not like the office holds a lot of real power) and it seems like a waste of money. But to remove the requirement for a president, we would need a referendum, right? Spoiling a vote would be a waste and serve nothing (unless every did it).

In terms of the two (I assume?) referendum, the 30th amendment seems logical enough (give Oireachtas Committees more power to investigate), but there seems to be contention with the 29th amendment (remove ban on reducing judicial salaries). Some think this would be easily abusable (it was originally brought in to keep the judiciary independent from the government, to prevent the government from punishing the judiciary for judgements they disagreed with, apparently).

This is what I would be fairly worried about!
And prob wrong thread for this topic me-thinks!!!!

Manach

I'm not A&A, but may I point out that the 30th amendment, "Abbeylara" as it is know would be a knock against the separation of powers doctrine where the Government (executive) should not interfere with the Judicial area. There is at least one thread in the politics section which would give contending PoVs.

Mark Hamill

biko wrote: »

How is this tied in with Atheism?

The same way the Lisbon treaty was? :pac:
I dont know, I agree with most of the regulars here on a lot of big (imo) issues and the disagreements are usually based on well though out arguments so I thought it might be good place to educate myself. There are religious/secular issues for some of the candidates too (Dana and Gay Mitchell are pretty strongly Catholic values, aren't they?).

Dades

biko wrote: »

How is this tied in with Atheism?

It's currently not, but Zeus knows we do like to talk.

shanered

In reality, this absolutely nothing to do with Atheism & Agnosticism.

biko

I guess from a secular POV McG is a better candidate than Mitchell and Dana.
Norris should also not be a fervent defender of the church.

jhegarty

biko wrote: »

I guess from a secular POV McG is a better candidate than Mitchell and Dana.
Norris should also not be a fervent defender of the church.

But a President has no power to push either a secular or Church agenda.

28064212

They're all going to take an oath to be guided in their duties by the Almighty God, so none of them :pac:

Beruthiel

I am happy to vote yes to the government being able to investigate matters of public interest.

Having power over a judge though, I'm reluctant to see that happening.
They maybe getting paid too much at the moment, but I would not like to see a situation where a judge has to consider a decision based on whither he gets a rise/pay cut.

magicbastarder

is there not also meant to be a referendum on whistleblowers?
though i don't have any further detail on what that actually entails...

ShooterSF

"People on this forum seem to be obsessed with talking about religion"

Topic not a bout religion.

"What has this got to do with atheism?"



I am leaning towards the shinner as I see the role of president as a pointless one and he seems to want to do it for less money. If he wasn't willing to do it for less I would have voted for Norris but he seems to have no problem using his state position for private benefit which I can't stand.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The same way the Lisbon treaty was? [...] There are religious/secular issues for some of the candidates too (Dana and Gay Mitchell are pretty strongly Catholic values, aren't they?).

Well, I was out of town last week, but I gather that Holy Mary showed up on Tubridy last Friday to say that if she was elected president, she would refuse -- refuse, mark! -- to sign a European Constitution (waves copy of said Constitution) into law.

For those with nothing better to do on Friday than tune into Tubridy, did that actually happen?

MagicMarker

I'm not voting, at the end of the day I couldn't give a toss tbh.

sensibleken

Ahem....

magicbastarder

ShooterSF wrote: »

I am leaning towards the shinner as I see the role of president as a pointless one and he seems to want to do it for less money.

insert obvious quip about him already having a source of money...

Dades

robindch wrote: »

For those with nothing better to do on Friday than tune into Tubridy, did that actually happen?

I made it my business to miss it.

Aren't they all on Vincent Browne tonight?

Delirium

robindch wrote: »

Well, I was out of town last week, but I gather that Holy Mary showed up on Tubridy last Friday to say that if she was elected president, she would refuse -- refuse, mark! -- to sign a European Constitution (waves copy of said Constitution) into law.

For those with nothing better to do on Friday than tune into Tubridy, did that actually happen?

Pretty much. She made it sound like she was going to save Ireland from Europe armed with only the Irish constitution.

She was the only candidate to say she would oppose the mandatory reporting due to the seal of confession. She managed to dodge the question on gay marriage that the rest of the people said they would support it.

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

Pretty much. She made it sound like she was going to save Ireland from Europe armed with only the Irish constitution.

She was the only candidate to say she would oppose the mandatory reporting due to the seal of confession. She managed to dodge the question on gay marriage that the rest of the people said they would support it.

in the interest of fairness, she was never asked that question. You make it sound like she avoided it. I was surprised she wasn't asked it myself, as I was interested in seeing if she had the courage of her convictions unlike the other professing Catholic Sean Gallagher. She went on about telling the truth quite a bit, so I thought that question was going to be interesting when directed at her. Tubridy didn't go to her though.

Delirium

she was upset that she thought she was the only one to be asked a question about religion. Then when a second question was asked she had no problem not answering it, even though everyone else did.

I will concede that Tubs didn't ask her for some reason.

ironingbored

A question regarding the David Norris letter controversy:

If one of the presidential candidates had written a letter pleading for clemency for a women convicted of having consensual sex with a 15 year-old male, would there be the same scrutiny?

I'm not condoning either the behaviour of Ezra Nawi or the above scenario but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.

Mark200

Don't suppose any of them are atheists? I thought Michael D might have been (really just because the Labour Party seems to have their fair share) but Norris referred to himself as the only non-Catholic on the Late Late.

Mark Hamill

Anyone see the debate with Vincent Brown? I only caught the end of it, where he was trying to get details about the letter from Norris, but Norris came across really badly. His blatant (and incredibly amateurish) question dodging would have made even some of the trolls I've seen on boards wince.

sensibleken

the flying fúks i could give about this are in the fractions. there are two more infinetely important referendums on that day which are getting no airtime because of this pointless election

ShooterSF

ironingbored wrote: »

A question regarding the David Norris letter controversy:

If one of the presidential candidates had written a letter pleading for clemency for a women convicted of having consensual sex with a 15 year-old male, would there be the same scrutiny?

I'm not condoning either the behaviour of Ezra Nawi or the above scenario but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.

Yes if they had tried to use their state position as leverage like Norris did. TBH 15 is not all that far from 16 (age of consent I believe), it's more to do with him appearing to think he as a senator and potential president should be allowed to leverage that in his private life that gets me.

MagicMarker

sensibleken wrote: »

the flying fúks i could give about this are in the fractions. there are two more infinetely important referendums on that day which are getting no airtime because of this pointless election

What else is being voted on?

I wasn't going to vote but after watching the VB debate I feel compelled to vote against McGuinness and Dana.

Malari

I thought I'd made up my mind, but I really only know who I'm definitely NOT going to vote for. Voting by elimination of the worst candidates is just depressing.

Mark Hamill

MagicMarker wrote: »

What else is being voted on?

I wasn't going to vote but after watching the VB debate I feel compelled to vote against McGuinness and Dana.

There are two referendums, one on giving the government the power to change Judges pay, and the other giving Oireachtas committee a lot more power.

I had so little awareness of either of these two things that, at first, I didn't see the problems with either one, but after reading about them in various places (like this thread on the politics forum) they both seem to be very bad ideas.

ShooterSF

Ok who's the smart ass that voted for her?

amacachi

I don't get how being allowed to reduce judges' salaries is any different to be being allowed to increase them.

Penn

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok who's the smart ass that voted for her?

I think the better question would be "Who let Dana sign up to boards.ie?"

ShooterSF

amacachi wrote: »

I don't get how being allowed to reduce judges' salaries is any different to be being allowed to increase them.

If you had an issue with someone and ended up in court against them and found out that they are friends with people that can cut a judges wage would you not fear the judges interests could be misplaced?
Im not saying what we have now is great but I think that's the concern. Thew seperation of legislating and judicary.

magicbastarder

who currently determines their pay?

sensibleken

ShooterSF wrote: »

If you had an issue with someone and ended up in court against them and found out that they are friends with people that can cut a judges wage would you not fear the judges interests could be misplaced?
Im not saying what we have now is great but I think that's the concern. Thew seperation of legislating and judicary.

they wont be able to cut individual judges pay though

"allow for a law to be passed reducing the pay of judges proportionately if the pay of public servants is being or has been reduced and that reduction is stated to be “in the public interest”. and aparantely it would force them to pay the pension levy, which they refused to do.

EDIT: just to throw in that judicial and legislatory is not seperate in practice as they are cabinet apointments.

Giving the power of investigation to the oireachtas seems infinitly preferabe to their only course of action now, the tribunal.

ShooterSF

The big issue I have with both is this "public interest" claim. Have you met the public? They're idiots.

sensibleken

ShooterSF wrote: »

The big issue I have with both is this "public interest" claim. Have you met the public? They're idiots.

well there is that. every investigation would be x factor or fúcking whathisname handball french guy revenge fantasies

Mark Hamill

sensibleken wrote: »

they wont be able to cut individual judges pay though

"allow for a law to be passed reducing the pay of judges proportionately if the pay of public servants is being or has been reduced and that reduction is stated to be “in the public interest”. and aparantely it would force them to pay the pension levy, which they refused to do.

EDIT: just to throw in that judicial and legislatory is not seperate in practice as they are cabinet apointments.

Full proposed text:

Existing text

The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.
Proposed text

1° The remuneration of judges shall not be reduced during their continuance in office save in accordance with this section.

2° The remuneration of judges is subject to the imposition of taxes, levies or other charges that are imposed by law on classes generally.

3° Where, on or after March 1st 2009, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of classes of persons paid directly out of public money and such law is in the public interest, provision may also be made by law to make equivalent reductions to the remuneration of judges, where such judges come or would have come within these classes of persons but for the provisions of this Article.

I'm not very good at reading this type of legalese, but it does seem to say that no acting judges pay will effected and that their pay can only be effected in line with other public servants.

sensibleken wrote: »

Giving the power of investigation to the oireachtas seems infinitly preferabe to their only course of action now, the tribunal.

Existing text

(1°) Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.
Proposed inserted text

2° Subject to the agreement of the House or Houses concerned, as determined by a majority of not less than 90 per cent of the members of the relevant House or Houses, each House shall have the power to conduct an individual or joint inquiry into any matter or matters which relate to the common good, in a manner provided for by law.

3° In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person (whether a member of either House or not) may be investigated, in a manner provided for by law, having regard to the provisions of this Constitution.

4° In the course of such inquiry the House or Houses concerned may make findings, in a manner provided for by law, but may not impose criminal sanctions on any person or persons subject to inquiry. Such findings shall be made having regard to the provisions of this Constitution.

5° A person or persons subject to such inquiry shall have the right to appeal the method of inquiry and the findings of the House or Houses, either exclusively or jointly, to the Courts, in a manner provided for by law, having regard to the relevant provisions of this Constitution.

Some of the possible issues I've heard are that these powers could be used by politicians looking for a public opinion boost and that a person-under-examininations' rights can be ignored "in the public interest" at the whim of the committee.

In general though, I've never understood the point of tribunals. They have no power, so why not have normal investigations through the court system that the rest of us would have to go through and that can actually punish the guilty?

sensibleken

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Full proposed text:

I'm not very good at reading this type of legalese, but it does seem to say that no acting judges pay will effected and that their pay can only be effected in line with other public servants.

as far as i can see yes.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Some of the possible issues I've heard are that these powers could be used by politicians looking for a public opinion boost and that a person-under-examininations' rights can be ignored "in the public interest" at the whim of the committee.

In general though, I've never understood the point of tribunals. They have no power, so why not have normal investigations through the court system that the rest of us would have to go through and that can actually punish the guilty?

they could be. but TDs can boost their profiles by making 3 hour speeches against Rangers FC. I dont see how rights could be ignored.

With regards to this one, this isnt the legislation so its non specific and there isnt a lot of details to argue about. its an amendment to allow the drawing of legislation. in essence its a question of principle whether they be allowed to investigate individuals.

at the moment they can have a tribunal which, as you say, is powerless and can cost 100s of millions because of their independant nature of judicial inquiries they drag it out filling their pockets with as much of hour money as they can, and no-one can tell them otherwise

magicbastarder

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In general though, I've never understood the point of tribunals. They have no power, so why not have normal investigations through the court system that the rest of us would have to go through and that can actually punish the guilty?

because courts have to rule beyond reasonable doubt. the rules on tribunals are more lax; e.g. a court may have had to rule that there was no smoking gun in affairs leading to the moriarty tribunal, but the tribunal can essentially rule 'it's pretty obvious what went on'.

Plautus

robindch wrote: »

Well, I was out of town last week, but I gather that Holy Mary showed up on Tubridy last Friday to say that if she was elected president, she would refuse -- refuse, mark! -- to sign a European Constitution (waves copy of said Constitution) into law.

For those with nothing better to do on Friday than tune into Tubridy, did that actually happen?

She's been doing this since the launch of the campaign, blissfully unaware that the Constitutional Treaty has been dead since 2005 and was re-incarnated as Lisbon minus certain contentious components. If she means Lisbon, she'd be better served thumping a copy of that. As it is, she seems to be implying that the Constitutional Treaty is operative law when it was never ratified.

Not that she could do anything about a ratified treaty anyway. It boggles the mind that she hasn't received some basic tutoring in Constitutional Law in the intervening period of 14 years. She may have had time to ponder Article 29.4.10 of the constitution she pledges to uphold:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

Her lack of accumen is quite disturbing.

Mark Hamill

magicbastarder wrote: »

because courts have to rule beyond reasonable doubt. the rules on tribunals are more lax; e.g. a court may have had to rule that there was no smoking gun in affairs leading to the moriarty tribunal, but the tribunal can essentially rule 'it's pretty obvious what went on'.

But if they have no power to pass sentencing or punishment, then what difference does it make?

sensibleken

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But if they have no power to pass sentencing or punishment, then what difference does it make?

thats what the tribunal can do. these investigative bodies may dhave that power, or may not, depending on the legislation

EDIT: oh sorry, i missunderstood. the actual answer to your question is: a small bit of shame and 100s of millions of cost. so not a lot

amacachi

ShooterSF wrote: »

If you had an issue with someone and ended up in court against them and found out that they are friends with people that can cut a judges wage would you not fear the judges interests could be misplaced?
Im not saying what we have now is great but I think that's the concern. Thew seperation of legislating and judicary.

I understand that, but why is the opposite argument not just as valid? They've had pay-rises above inflation over the last decade and a half so why not say that that's the reason we still haven't had a politician or banker charged with anything?

Jimoslimos

Mark200 wrote: »

Don't suppose any of them are atheists? I thought Michael D might have been (really just because the Labour Party seems to have their fair share) but Norris referred to himself as the only non-Catholic on the Late Late.

I heard/read somewhere that Michael D was a leading member of the Legion of Mary. Seems just as feverently religious as Dana but he hides it well.
The closest, surprisingy, might be McGuinness:eek:

For the record,
McGuinness - NO
Dana - NO
Mitchell - NO
Davis - NO
Norris - Probably not (was a maybe but fast disappearing into a NO)
Gallagher - Probably not (Seems like a venture to further his business opportunities)
Higgins - Maybe (The least worst of a bad bunch?)

recedite

Mark200 wrote: »

Norris referred to himself as the only non-Catholic on the Late Late.

He seems to be going for "the minority vote"...
pretty much every gay protestant in Dublin's north inner city is going to vote for him.

sensibleken wrote: »

they wont be able to cut individual judges pay though

"allow for a law to be passed reducing the pay of judges proportionately if the pay of public servants is being or has been reduced and that reduction is stated to be “in the public interest”. and aparantely it would force them to pay the pension levy, which they refused to do.

EDIT: just to throw in that judicial and legislatory is not seperate in practice as they are cabinet apointments.

Agree that all judges are political stooges anyway.
I'll also throw in this; there is nothing in the constitution that says public service levies or any taxes applied across the board cannot apply to judges.
The constitution rightly prevents the judiciary from being singled out for a pay cut.
But to prove that, a politician would have to refer the matter to the courts...

sully025

well im not a sinn fein member or voter, however i do think that martin mcguinness coming out with a statement the 400 euro per week would be sufficient enough wage for him and that he would stand shoulder to shoulder with the normal joe soap was a pretty brave one because if he is elected and rolls back on that sinn fein will get some roasting in the dail, and would find it very hard to put an argument to someone again, so i for one will take a risk and judge him on his recent merits and statements, the other options are pretty slim.

MagicMarker

sully025 wrote: »

well im not a sinn fein member or voter, however i do think that martin mcguinness coming out with a statement the 400 euro per week would be sufficient enough wage for him and that he would stand shoulder to shoulder with the normal joe soap was a pretty brave one because if he is elected and rolls back on that sinn fein will get some roasting in the dail, and would find it very hard to put an argument to someone again, so i for one will take a risk and judge him on his recent merits and statements, the other options are pretty slim.

Sure why would he need the money? Didn't he withdraw a substantial amount from the Northern Bank a few years back?

magicbastarder

not even that, it's plain from the account posted that that's not the only account they use. no utility bills, and other expected transactions missing.

magicbastarder

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I heard/read somewhere that Michael D was a leading member of the Legion of Mary. Seems just as feverently religious as Dana but he hides it well.
The closest, surprisingy, might be McGuinness:eek:

For the record,
McGuinness - NO
Dana - NO
Mitchell - NO
Davis - NO
Norris - Probably not (was a maybe but fast disappearing into a NO)
Gallagher - Probably not (Seems like a venture to further his business opportunities)
Higgins - Maybe (The least worst of a bad bunch?)

instead of PR, they should just ask you to rate each candidate on a scale of -10 to 10, and then add up all the numbers.
mcguinness would admittedly be wiped out by this, since you're either generally for him or against him.
also admittedly, this may be why i have suggested such a system.