Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Referendum 2011 Ireland, How will you vote?

  • 16-10-2011 10:48am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 261 ✭✭


    Referendum on the pay of judges

    This referendum is about whether the pay of judges can be reduced in certain circumstances. At present the Constitution does not allow for the reduction of the remuneration of sitting judges.
    The proposed change to the Constitution would
    • 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”. At present, judges pay tax and the Universal Social Charge in the same way as everyone else. Judges are not legally obliged to pay the “Public Service Pension Levy” although they may voluntarily choose to make an equivalent contribution.
    The proposal would also
    • allow for a law to be passed making judges subject to the “Public Service Pension Levy” and to any other future similar charge or charges. Proposed amendment – judges’ pay

    At present, Article 35.5 of the Constitution states:
    “The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.”
    It is proposed to replace this with the following wording:
    5 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 persons generally or persons belonging to a particular class.
    3° Where, before or after the enactment of this section, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of persons belonging to classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money and such law states that those reductions are in the public interest, provision may also be made by law to make proportionate reductions to the remuneration of judges.




    Referendum on inquiries by the Oireachtas

    This referendum proposes to give the Houses of the Oireachtas (the Dáil and Seanad) express power to conduct inquiries into matters of general public importance and, in doing so, to make findings of fact about any person’s conduct.
    At present, the Constitution does not give power to the Houses of the Oireachtas to conduct such inquiries. The proposed change to the Constitution would mean that
    1. The Dáil and the Seanad, either separately or together, would have the power to conduct an inquiry into any matter that either or both consider to be a matter of general public importance. Legislation would be required to be introduced to set out the details of how such inquiries would take place. 2. When conducting any such inquiry, either or both Houses would have the power to inquire into the conduct of any person and the power to make relevant findings about that person’s conduct. 3. The Dáil and/or the Seanad would have the power to determine the appropriate balance between the rights of people involved in any such inquiry and the requirements of the public interest. When doing so, they would be obliged to have regard to the principles of fair procedures. These principles have been established by the Constitution and by the Courts. Proposed amendment – Oireachtas inquiries

    At present, Article 15.10 states:
    “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.”
    It is proposed to renumber this as 15.10.1° and to insert the following subsections:
    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, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, 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 2° applies.

    (P.S i should of renamed the title waterford area?)


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,080 ✭✭✭homolumo


    Yes and yes


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,200 ✭✭✭kensutz


    Couldn't give a toss


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    First one, yes. Second one, unsure.

    As for not giving a toss Ken, I take it the photography business is going well? ;p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,200 ✭✭✭kensutz


    Quite happy


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 963 ✭✭✭cococoady


    kensutz wrote: »
    Couldn't give a toss
    Couldn't of said it better meself sutz


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,081 ✭✭✭ziedth


    Yes & Yes for me. To push it out a little further, who's getting your vote? I see Gallaher is favorite, I cringe at the thought of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 137 ✭✭Marchandire


    kensutz wrote: »
    Couldn't give a toss

    To be shure, you can't expect everyone to read all those big words bhouy :p

    In answer to the OP, I support the first (who wouldn't) but the second amendment is problematic and probably will be voted down. What exactly is 'general public importance'? This is too vague a term for a constitutional amendment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,200 ✭✭✭kensutz


    cococoady wrote: »
    Couldn't of said it better meself sutz

    Me & politics is a big no no ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 355 ✭✭chelloveks


    I like the candidate that Waterford Whispers has put forth...an empty bag of Tayto Crisps....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Big Lar


    ziedth wrote: »
    Yes & Yes for me. To push it out a little further, who's getting your vote? I see Gallaher is favorite, I cringe at the thought of it.
    Gallagher will be getting my no. 1 also, you can cringe away.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    Big Lar wrote: »
    Gallagher will be getting my no. 1 also, you can cringe away.

    Curious as to why your picking Gallagher?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,682 ✭✭✭deisemum


    Yes to the first, unsure about the 2nd - haven't given it much thought.

    As for the president, I'm undecided so far but will be voting from 7 to 1 in that order as to who I don't want getting the role. I just hope it's not Dobby - I've always found him creepy and his voice irritates me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 339 ✭✭RodVelvet


    I'll be voting Yes and Yes.

    Not sure who for president, though I won't vote for Dana, Davis or McGuiness. Think Gallagher is getting the traditional FF vote. If he gets in i'm sure the FF machine will be well oiled for the next election.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭ex_infantry man


    no and no


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭wellboytoo


    Yes , yes ,


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    no and no

    Why wouldn't you like to see judges pay cut when others in the public sector (and private) had it?!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 261 ✭✭Premier


    On the first will be voting yes and on the seccond No, the seccond one is very unclear, but my guess is that if it's not voted in the gov will make us vote again? bit of history repeating me think.

    I agree with kensutz position but what are we to do?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Yes to the first amendment on judge's pay.
    No to the second amendment due to
    4° It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, 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 2° applies.

    Smacks too much of McCarthism for my taste.


Advertisement