Poll on Judges Pay Referendum

Duke Leonal Felmet

Time for one methinks.

Where is the option to put up one? Have the forum Gestapo struck again?

Killer Pigeon

Judges pay: I'm voting YES.

Allowing the Oireachtas to form inquires under the current suggested amendment: I'm voting NO.

Does my vote matter: Statistically, NO.

Mycroft H

Thread needs poll?

Judges Pay: No to changing to the current constitution
House Inquiries: No to changing to the current constitution

femur61

Yes judges pay should be reduced.

Don't know yet as to oireachtas having more power.

Duke Leonal Felmet

BX 19 wrote: »

Thread needs poll?

Judges Pay: No to changing to the current constitution
House Inquiries: No to changing to the current constitution

I can't add a poll, there was no option to.

Judges pay: NO
House Inquiries: NO

Boulevardier

I am no longer in doubt about the Abbaylara referendum.

If we don't vote yes to this, the rich and powerful, the bankers and rezoners, will breathe a huge sigh of relief, because it will be many years before we gat another chance to have these people held to account in a public forum.

The near-unanimity of the overpaid and cosseted legal establishment on last night's Front Line against the Abbeylara bill convinced me.

I'm voting an emphatic Yes on Abbeylara.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Boulevardier wrote: »

I am no longer in doubt about the Abbaylara referendum.

If we don't vote yes to this, the rich and powerful, the bankers and rezoners, will breathe a huge sigh of relief, because it will be many years before we gat another chance to have these people held to account in a public forum.

The near-unanimity of the overpaid and cosseted legal establishment on last night's Front Line against the Abbeylara bill convinced me.

I'm voting an emphatic Yes on Abbeylara.

So you trust this and all future governments to not abuse this powerful tool? How very naive...

Boulevardier

I say let them at it. The legal system has failed us. The only rights protected by the law at the moment are those of the rich and powerfu, and the white collar criminals.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Boulevardier wrote: »

I say let them at it. The legal system has failed us. The only rights protected by the law at the moment are those of the rich and powerfu, and the white collar criminals.

As I said, how very naive...

You know, Hitler asked the German people for absolute power on the back of an economic crisis. It's funny how citizens are so willing to hand away their freedoms in times of need.

Killer Pigeon

Boulevardier wrote: »

I am no longer in doubt about the Abbaylara referendum.

If we don't vote yes to this, the rich and powerful, the bankers and rezoners, will breathe a huge sigh of relief, because it will be many years before we gat another chance to have these people held to account in a public forum.

The near-unanimity of the overpaid and cosseted legal establishment on last night's Front Line against the Abbeylara bill convinced me.

I'm voting an emphatic Yes on Abbeylara.

I understand the need for the Oireachtas to be allowed to hold inquiries, but the current suggested amendment goes way too far. It doesn't have to specifically apply to the "rich and powerful, the bankers and rezonsers" it applies to everyone and under any matter that would be deemed in the interest of the public (which is very broad).

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.

Basically the rights of the individual in question will be at the discretion of politicians. In hindsight, the politicizes true justice. It takes away from the notion of a fair trial. The amendment needs to be re-drafted before it's put before the people.

jmayo

Boulevardier wrote: »

I am no longer in doubt about the Abbaylara referendum.

If we don't vote yes to this, the rich and powerful, the bankers and rezoners, will breathe a huge sigh of relief, because it will be many years before we gat another chance to have these people held to account in a public forum.

The near-unanimity of the overpaid and cosseted legal establishment on last night's Front Line against the Abbeylara bill convinced me.

I'm voting an emphatic Yes on Abbeylara.

It was noticable how pat the plank refused to go with the Law Professor from UCC when he asked how many people in the audience were practicing leeches, sorry legal professionals.

I think the story about how the overcharging and the statement by the taxing master that barristers should drop their €5,000 a day since the economy had tanked and that €4,000 was sufficient says a lot about the profession.
What fooking planet do these people live on ?
Oh yeah Planet Gombeen Ireland where they continue to leech off the rest of us. :mad:

The ultimte one was that bint legal correspondent announcing she would rather have a €320 million tribunal than the Oireachtas given powers to investigate.
Of course she would since her colleagues would have their snouts in the trough.
Pigs all of them.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

So you trust this and all future governments to not abuse this powerful tool? How very naive...

Do I trust a legal professional ?

Has anyone of the theiving ones been sent to jail yet ?
What about tomas bryne, michael lynn, ruairi o'ceallaigh and the ones that short changed and affectively stole from abuse victims ?
Have any of those even spent a night in jail for their activities ?
Oh yeah they will get due process. :rolleyes:

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

As I said, how very naive...

You know, Hitler asked the German people for absolute power on the back of an economic crisis. It's funny how citizens are so willing to hand away their freedoms in times of need.

First off we Irish are not Germans who crave order.
So less of the hyperbole.

It's also very funny how the trough feeders are getting incensed when their cosy little world is threatened.
What freedoms are the legal profession really worried baout losing ?
Is the freedom to be able to ride their clients sideways with extortionate fees ?
Is the freedom to only be investigated by their peers ?
Is the freedom to be the only ones allowed investigate matters of public importance and charge handsomely for doing so ?

Every other parliament has powers that allow them investigate, but of course in this country the legal professional would rather tribunals of enquiry that run for 10 odd years and feather the nest of some of their members.

Ste.phen

jmayo wrote: »

Has anyone of the theiving ones been sent to jail yet ?
What about tomas bryne, michael lynn, ruairi o'ceallaigh and the ones that short changed and affectively stole from abuse victims ?
Have any of those even spent a night in jail for their activities ?
Oh yeah they will get due process. :rolleyes:

So because you feel the legal system didn't act appropriately in a few specific cases you feel passionate about, you're OK with us removing the concept of due process from everyone?

bigwormbundoran

Judges pay: YES
House Inquiries: NO

carveone

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

You know, Hitler asked the German people for absolute power on the back of an economic crisis. It's funny how citizens are so willing to hand away their freedoms in times of need.

I wanted to say that in the other thread but instead I settled on being subtle. Funny how subtle the Act of Enablement was really and how close the Patriot Act came to being the same thing. Oh wait, it was the same thing

Judges Pay: Sure. Why not.
Judges Pay through this referendum: No
House Inquiries: No

Can we have a referendum to take away Mr Yellow Trousers' gold plated pension?

My name is URL

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Time for one methinks.

Where is the option to put up one? Have the forum Gestapo struck again?

You need to contact a mod if you want a poll set up. They're disabled by default on this forum.

I'll be voting No to both.

jmayo

Ste.phen wrote: »

So because you feel the legal system didn't act appropriately in a few specific cases you feel passionate about, you're OK with us removing the concept of due process from everyone?

A few cases ?
Self regulation is no regulation.
That has been proven across multiple areas and the legal profession is another example.
Although this is now discussing the legal bills rtatehr than referenda.

How many tribunals have we had and how much have they cost ?
Oh and where did that huge cost go, was it not to the legal profession ?
One of the few enquiries in this country that achieved anything was the Dirt enquiry and that was carried out by the Oireachtas.

For instance what is wrong with allowing a Dáil enquiry have the ability to force an individual to turn up to answer matters of public importance.
Or should we just have to have another tribunal of enquiry.

I might not rate politicans, particularly those of certain parties, but at least we can reelect them unlike the legal professionals.

There is probably only one judge that I would say is worth a damm in this country and that is Justice Kelly who continues to cut through the bull****.
As for the rest we have for the most part a bunch of liberal incompentents who allow murderers, rapists, theives, fraudsters out on remand or bail where they can continue their activities.

Perhaps if we had a true justice system I would be interested in protecting it, as it is I don't see the point in protecting the very cosetted purveyors of such a system.

touts

Judges pay - No. We are talking about such a small number of people this is a meaningless publicity stunt. We are spending more money holding the referendum than we will ever get back on the pay side. Also I have to look at it not in terms of would the current government abuse the power to influence the legal process but in terms of will Sinn Fein abuse the power if they are in government and I think that is an almost certain yes. So therefore it is No from me.

House Inquiries- No. These will simply become political points scoring matches. The government has a majority in the Dail so they stack a few committees and investigate members of the opposition to make some predetermined findings of guilt. However if it was just political grandstanding I could half accept that to avoid opening the taxpayer up to abuse by the likes of Mahon and Moriarity and their mates. However again as with the Judges pay I have to ask would I trust a Sinn Fein majority government with this power and I simply could not. They would rapidly become show trials so that seals a no from me again.

Duke Leonal Felmet

jmayo wrote: »

Boulevardier wrote: »

I am no longer in doubt about the Abbaylara referendum.

If we don't vote yes to this, the rich and powerful, the bankers and rezoners, will breathe a huge sigh of relief, because it will be many years before we gat another chance to have these people held to account in a public forum.

The near-unanimity of the overpaid and cosseted legal establishment on last night's Front Line against the Abbeylara bill convinced me.

I'm voting an emphatic Yes on Abbeylara.

It was noticable how pat the plank refused to go with the Law Professor from UCC when he asked how many people in the audience were practicing leeches, sorry legal professionals.

I think the story about how the overcharging and the statement by the taxing master that barristers should drop their €5,000 a day since the economy had tanked and that €4,000 was sufficient says a lot about the profession.
What fooking planet do these people live on ?
Oh yeah Planet Gombeen Ireland where they continue to leech off the rest of us. :mad:

The ultimte one was that bint legal correspondent announcing she would rather have a €320 million tribunal than the Oireachtas given powers to investigate.
Of course she would since her colleagues would have their snouts in the trough.
Pigs all of them.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

So you trust this and all future governments to not abuse this powerful tool? How very naive...

Do I trust a legal professional ?

Has anyone of the theiving ones been sent to jail yet ?
What about tomas bryne, michael lynn, ruairi o'ceallaigh and the ones that short changed and affectively stole from abuse victims ?
Have any of those even spent a night in jail for their activities ?
Oh yeah they will get due process. :rolleyes:

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

As I said, how very naive...

You know, Hitler asked the German people for absolute power on the back of an economic crisis. It's funny how citizens are so willing to hand away their freedoms in times of need.

First off we Irish are not Germans who crave order.
So less of the hyperbole.

It's also very funny how the trough feeders are getting incensed when their cosy little world is threatened.
What freedoms are the legal profession really worried baout losing ?
Is the freedom to be able to ride their clients sideways with extortionate fees ?
Is the freedom to only be investigated by their peers ?
Is the freedom to be the only ones allowed investigate matters of public importance and charge handsomely for doing so ?

Every other parliament has powers that allow them investigate, but of course in this country the legal professional would rather tribunals of enquiry that run for 10 odd years and feather the nest of some of their members.

Won't even dignify this with a considered response.

Vote how your overlords command you to, my boy.

Duke Leonal Felmet

To those who wish to vote yes to inquiries and who won't jabber on with a load of verbal excrement:

Are you not concerned that these inquires are inherently flawed by the fact that the government gets to pick the sitting judges of the inquiry? Does this fact make it impossible for the government to effectively inquire itself? Does it not, in fact, make it more likely that this tool will be used for political purposes only?

No waffle, please. Cheers.

Boulevardier

Almost all the sitting judges of our judiciary were picked by the government. Thay are all from a very small gene pool.

I would rather see Joe Higgins asking the hard questions than trust most of our judges to do so.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Boulevardier wrote: »

Almost all the sitting judges of our judiciary were picked by the government. Thay are all from a very small gene pool.

I would rather see Joe Higgins asking the hard questions than trust most of our judges to do so.

Why on earth would Joe Higgins be on the panel? Why do you pick your favoured choice as the rule, rather than the exception? Why wouldn't the government pick candidates who will ensure they get the results they prefer, rather than the just result? How do you feel about Fianna Fail having such power? Sinn Fein? Why don't you look at this realistically for at least a moment?

limklad

before looking at the referendum material and listen to Frontline Last night
Judges pay: YES
House Inquiries: NO

After Frontline due to lack on information adn new Information
Judges pay: No
House Inquiries: Definitely NO

I will favour a Future Judges Pay reduction in line with with Minimum % drop of Politicians Income or Public/Civil Pay wages drop which ever is less. This way the Government will have little influence over Judges. For anything extraordinary, then a committee is setup for any future events about anything about Judges pay, then the Government/Politicians should have little say and the President of Republic of Ireland should appoint a nominee (On behalf of the People - No Politicians current or past or Government related persons), President of the District Court, President of the High Court, President of the Supreme Court and Attorney General should form a Committee on Judges Pay reductions and deductions. Decision made there must be approved by the People of Ireland in a Referendum.

Personally Judges should pay the usual for Public/Civil pay deductions of PRSI, USC and contribute towards their Pension, etc like the rest of us Private employees. In General Pay on all State paid employees did far exceed those counterparts of Rich Countries such as Germany, France and UK, including the Politicians which are still vastly overpaid which should be put to a Referendum on Pay increases. Having them decide on Pay increases to give themselves is a Joke and abuse of power.

Another Idea 2:
Better still Let Judges state what Politicians should be Paid either increased/Decreased pay and vica versa on the Public Interest. It will not take them long to get over the issue of Pay. Let them set an agreement on Pay Face to Face. It will keep independence of Both Institutions as both have a stake on not upsetting the other.

Another Idea 3
During times of Recession and it is in the National Interest, the President of Ireland Must state that Pay should be reduced, since the Government/Politicians set the President of Ireland Pay for Term of Office. Let Judges and The Government state agree what % Pay rates must be reduce by all of the Parties Involved together.

Senior Civil/Public Servants and All Public Bodies (All persons Nominated or Approved by the Government) Pay is Automatic reduce by the same %. Any Pay Job where the Tax Payers is paying wages of Managers/CEO/Directors etc. and State institutions such as DPP, Court service, Central Bank , Banks under State control, Financial Regulator and every other Independent state appointed Regulators, Ombudsman, State Boards/Agencies, State own Companies and all in those Public/Civil and state related services Managers, Local Council Managers above a certain Managers and directors with a certain Pay grade must also be reduce by the same % and those whose Pay is linked to the Upward swing despite not been Individual performance related pay increased.

When All boats rise together then they should Fall together.

Boulevardier

Duke, as I said before, the govt do NOT pick these committees. The Dail picks them in proportion to party sizes. A number of opposition TDs already sit on them.

Incidentally, FFs Billy Kelleher has now come out against Abbeylara. That sort of thing should speak volumes.

limklad

House Inquiries: Definitely NO

www.referendum2011.ie wrote:

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.

Politicians are always look forward to the the Next election, It starts the moment they are elected, therefore Populous events take precedence for them to keep themselves in the public eye. Politicians are notorious for denying the rights of others when their selfish/ego interest is at stake, You see that in the Dail. It is Human Nature in a Populous World. For them to decide on how you a person can defend yourself is Wrong. To put an analogy on this perspective, It is like them tying the persons Hands and Legs and Blindfolding you and beating you with a hurley denying you the right to defend yourself.

A Person in front of Any Public Inquiries must have the same Rights as going before the Courts.

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.

To me That a Dangerous Power to Hand over to the House of the Oireachtas.
Currently Politicians in the Oireachtas can defame anyone in the Oireachtas without any serious consequences as they are Protected by Law such as for any serious breaches of the law such as Drunk driving while travelling to and from the Dail. A Politicians could in Theory Rob you while heading to the Dail or Give out you secrets or defame you in the Dail/Senate Chamber. They cannot be Prosecuted or brought before to e Courts while they do anything while they are under Oireachtas Business.

If A Politicians Defames or deny Rights to a Person before these Inquiries then Court Proceeding of Defamation must be allowed against the Politician/s in question to prevent a similar type of event again. A Person who is not a member of the Oireachtas who is brought before an Inquiry or Committee shall be giving full rights and Dignity of self defence and it will keep the Politicians in check for any defamation of Character.

Giving the Politicians a Blank cheque on what Rights a person can have in Inquires is Morally Wrong because partial or Absolute Power Corrupts. I have no problems with Inquiries and having the power to bring a person involved brought before the Committees or Inquires in the Oireachtas which should be allowed, but a show man type fire fest or for a Manipulate Politicians is a No no (as I say to badly behaving kids). The rights of Self Defence of a person brought before these Inquires must be the same as before our Courts of Law and Rights of the EU Human Rights must be respected, self dignity must be abide by all parties. For a Politicians to decide what Rights you may or not have for any Inquiries they setup will be abused or manipulated in favour for the Politicians selfish agenda whenever it is right or wrong to have an Inquiry.

Having a AbbeyLara type Politician trail inquiry is Wrong. That for the Garda Ombudsman and the DPP to Prosecute for any offences. While the Garda Commissioner may be brought before the Committee of the Oireachtas, after any Legal matters related to the Matter must be cleared by the relevant Ombudsman (if any), The AG, the DPP and Courts, (to prevent or compromise a Criminal Prosecution. They may ask or understand how a similar situation can be avoided is the most what they should be allowed to do, so they can Legislate or Regulate for in the Oireachtas for a future law. Any Criminal Behaviour or breaches should be the Authority of the Relevant State/Police Authority, the DPP and the Irish Courts to Judge and Punish if necessary.

We Elect Politicians to the Oireachtas to create/change Law and Run the Country on behalf of it's Citizens. Not to make Judgements or punish, it is not their Job.

nesf

Poll added. I'll start a second thread with a poll on Dáil Inquiries.

nesf

Voting No to both. Don't like the idea of the Government having any say over Judge's pay or conditions. Give us a properly independent body to deal with such matters.

Don't like the wording and ambiguities of the Dáil Inquiries one, good idea but looks like it'll immediately need to be worked out by the Supreme Court if it's passed and I don't like voting for something that ambiguous.

walrusgumble

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Judges pay: I'm voting YES.

Allowing the Oireachtas to form inquires under the current suggested amendment: I'm voting NO.

Does my vote matter: Statistically, NO.

Of course it matters. Your sticking it to the man , yer. At least you can then say, "at least you did something about it".

walrusgumble

Boulevardier wrote: »

Duke, as I said before, the govt do NOT pick these committees. The Dail picks them in proportion to party sizes. A number of opposition TDs already sit on them.

Incidentally, FFs Billy Kelleher has now come out against Abbeylara. That sort of thing should speak volumes.

That is true, but the government dominates Parliament and Senand. Oh the joys of our wacky separation of powers and the insistence of some of our judges belief that its rigid, and of course party whip system.

As for Kelleher, it is always good, in issues of National importance, to be free to make your own choice. However, its not like Michael Martin is truly in a position to punish his own party member is it? (assuming FF support the Abbeylara judgment) Will he even be leader of FF by June ? Considering that it was a Fianna Fail government in 2002 and their hopes that they will one day rise again, its no surprise that he is taking such a stance. What is the position on FF on this anyway. Most Members of the Dáil hated Abbeylara in the first place, so its hardly a brave new beginning.

Dirk Gently

nesf wrote: »

Poll added. I'll start a second thread with a poll on Dáil Inquiries.

is the wording of this poll not a bit loaded?

I'm not in favour of government setting judges pay. I want an independent body to do it. That's not what the referendum options are about though. Politicians already set their pay and this referendum wont change that, only allow them to bring it in line with government policy across the public sector. I'd vote to pass the referendum but vote "no state interference" in your particular poll question. The referendum isn't a question on setting up a political free body to address pay.

Het-Field

First, I believe the Government have been very cynical in tagging these important referenda onto the back of the most personality driven election in our electoral cycle. Pugging these referenda through the fence will increase their powers, and afford them the chance to use populist means to appeal to voters. If the Government had true confidence in their convictions, they would have held these referenda, at another time(May/June 2012) when the issues could be debated at length, and true proponents and opponents would have come to the fore.

Second, I am flabbergasted that the Bills on which these amendments were based were debated for an hour in the Dail. Regardless of whether all sides of the house are four square with the spirit of these referenda, it is short-sighted, such legislation must be given proper scrutiny, and considering the myriad of ambiguities, and lack of clarity around a number of these amendments it is clear that no adequate debate took place. The Dail should act as a scrutineer on such important manners.

In terms of these referenda, I shall be voting NO. I have never voted no in my life, but I cannot, in good faith, vote for these amendments.

1)Oireachtas Committees.

Reasons

1-I believe in the Separation of Powers. This referendum will undermine the separation, and make quasi Judges out of every politician we elect to the Dail, and every Senator the Councils and the Universities elect to the Seanad. Committees are stuffed with those who were deemed "not good enough" to serve as a Minister or Junior Minister, or have been deemed by the public not capable of serving in Government.

2-The Callely Case identifies the weaknesses in the Committee system, and the ability for a witchunt to take place against individuals, in matters where it is politically advantageous to witchhunt. Even members of the FF Parliamentary Party were gunning for Callely, as it was clear that he was dispensable

3-Paragraph 4 remains vague, and subjective. While I accept that it must be read in the context of the overall Constitutional Framework, I deny that it negates all the draconian language of the Section. Is it better to be safe then sorry? I think so!

4-Unlike the Judiciary whose Independence is Constitutionally enshrined, elected representative rely on popular decisions to have their mandate renewed. It was the Courts which took the unpopular step of deeming Ivor Callely to have been mistreated, in the light of what is intra vires for the Dail Committee. On the other hand, the Oireachtas Committee made the popular decision, which was in breach of fair procedures and natural justice.

5-The Courts also stood up to the Government last November in issuing a declaration that the rights of Pierce Doherty, and the people of Donegal South West had been infringed in relation to the holding of a bye-election. The Government was unwilling to reduce its own majority, so moral pressure was applied by the Courts, without a breach of the Separation of Powers. This moral pressure vindicated the rights of the people of Donegal, while giving a bloody nose to the Government. Without a doubt, this was a wonderful display of an Independent Judiciary.

6-I believe the legislature should legislate. It was up to the legislature to ensure that our white collar crime laws were the most sophisticated in the World. They failed to do that, however, after the fact, they wish to save face by hauling a number of bankers before an Oireachtas Committee. Is it acceptable that they can mitigate for their own failings by backtracking, and

7-The independence of the relevant committee members must be scrutinised if a banking enquiry takes place. A variety of TDs could not be capable of engaging in a fact finding mission, and making allegations of fact against bankers in the light of statements made prior to any such investigation. There is no way that Joe Higgins TD would be a suitable member of a fact finding mission against bankers, as he has made so many prejudicial statements against them. On the other hand, the Judiciary has been silent on the matter, and remains the right forum in which to deal with rogues.

I oppose the Judicial Pay Referendum on constitutional grounds, and on the basis of the practicalities of the savings which will allegedly be made.

nesf

Dirk Gently wrote: »

is the wording of this poll not a bit loaded?

Perhaps, I did it off the cuff. If you can come up with a better wording post it and I'll change it.

Good loser

I'm definitely yes to both.

The reference to judges pay in the constitution comes from the American constitution. I believe the whole idea is outmoded; ideally it should just be deleted from the constitution. An extremely crude and unsubtle measure.

They are already far too highly paid for their abilities, probably because of outrageous fees they command while senior counsel. A pay equivalent to a university professor is plenty for them. They are paid far more than British or U.S. judges.

There is no control over their competence once appointed. When have we ever seen a judge removed for incompetence or corruption?

Having read the Iarnrod Dail investigation on the ESAT licence I find it much more impressive than any judicial enquiry which cost millions. These latter are just gravy trains for lawyers. Give the Dail the powers most/all other parliaments have.

femur61

Can anyone put the link for how the poll will be worded. It doesn't appear to be on the site.

Scofflaw

femur61 wrote: »

Can anyone put the link for how the poll will be worded. It doesn't appear to be on the site.

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.

The effect will be to weaken the independence of the judiciary, because the amendment allows the government to put pressure on the judiciary through control of their pay. That has been acknowledged by, amongst others, the Chairman of the Referendum Commission. Indeed, it's hardly arguable, since the whole point of the amendment is to allow the government control over judges' pay.

The same over-broad competence is the problem here as in the other proposed amendment. The occasions on which judges' pay can be reduced are very vaguely defined. Who are "persons belonging to classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money"? Is it to be a particular group, as TD's pay is tied to a certain PS grade? How many such persons need to be otherwise affected by such legislation? Can judges' pay be reduced during absolutely any change in remuneration that affects anyone in the PS? It seems so - so all the government needs to do is to tack a claim that the reduction is in the public interest onto a review of, say, junior teachers' pay and voila! the same instrument will do for reducing sitting judges' pay.

Too broad, and too vague. Let them redraft it and have another go, because once in the Constitution, no government will want to take this out again.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Duke Leonal Felmet

Good loser wrote: »

I'm definitely yes to both.

The reference to judges pay in the constitution comes from the American constitution. I believe the whole idea is outmoded; ideally it should just be deleted from the constitution. An extremely crude and unsubtle measure.

They are already far too highly paid for their abilities, probably because of outrageous fees they command while senior counsel. A pay equivalent to a university professor is plenty for them. They are paid far more than British or U.S. judges.

There is no control over their competence once appointed. When have we ever seen a judge removed for incompetence or corruption?

Having read the Iarnrod Dail investigation on the ESAT licence I find it much more impressive than any judicial enquiry which cost millions. These latter are just gravy trains for lawyers. Give the Dail the powers most/all other parliaments have.

Why do you trust the government (and all future govts) so very much?

limklad

I did not like the wording of this Poll

poll wrote:

"YES to allowing the State some level of control over Judges' pay"

In reality it should be
to

poll wrote:

YES to allowing the Politicians some level of control over Judges' pay which may breach Judges independence.

Using State as the same as the current wording of the Referendum is wrong. The Sate consist of many Institutions as define under the Irish Constitution. In Reality it is the Government/Oireachtas (two Branches of the State) not the State (as the State consist of the Judiciary). It is the Political class who wants the power to interfere with the Judges Pay. I want to see the Mechanisms put forwards on Judges Pay is a more clear and direct way. I want no interference on Judges by the Political Class and the Judges independence copper-fasten even if their decision goes against me in Court.

I agree and have no problems with Judges Pay must be in line with the Public Sector and contribute to Pension, USC, PRSI, etc. I.e, if Public Pay increase by x% the Judges Pay pay increases by x% and if Public Pay decrease by x% then Judges Pay decrease by x%. Right now the wording of the referendum addendum wording is way too vague.
The same increases and decreases in pay for every other high level Position of the State where the Tax Payers fund wages.

While Politicians may comments and criticise or defame a Judge on Decisions in the Dail, it is not the same vica versa. A Judge cannot comment on a Political situation or defend themselves in public unlike you and me. They can take you to court which is rare for defamation if you are outside the Court. Normally in court they can put you in contempt of Court if you defame a Judge in Court. They can only pass judgement on the particular Law that is before them.

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.

Everybody depending on their mood and Attitude have varying degree what is Proportionate. Direct or indirect (third Party) interfering with Judges Pay by the Political system undermines Judges Decision Making process. This Cannot be Allow as we have seeing for ourself that Politicians are the ones who screwed our Country Finances with lax regulations and poor laws which Judges do throw out from time to time when a particular law comes before them.

I am In favour of Linking Pay by % increases or Decreases if All High Level Pay grades across all State jobs are Linked. i.e if President of Ireland/Taoiseach/Minister/TD/Senators/AG/Garda Commissioner/DPP/Central Bank Head/Financial Regulator Head, etc Rise together by x% and decrease together by x% amount. The Judges pay should rise and decrease accordingly otherwise it must remain independent without interference by the the Political Class. We do not want Judges decision making process on what Law is constitutional or award against the State institutions/Agencies or not wondering will the Political Class will deduct his/her pay if they make the wrong Political decision.

Either all Boats rises or decreases together or the Status Quo shall remain.

30Min

touts wrote: »

Judges pay - No. We are talking about such a small number of people this is a meaningless publicity stunt. We are spending more money holding the referendum than we will ever get back on the pay side.

The referendum will be held once.

If a law was passed to reduce Judges pay, this reduction would be effective in every year going forward.

carveone

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Why do you trust the government (and all future govts) so very much?

Anyone who was around when Haughey was in power had that trust flayed out of them :rolleyes:

I remember writing to the Minister of Justice about a point in an SI to do with immigration (which I won't go into) and being told that I was "confusing a statutory instrument with an Act having legislative effect".

I was pretty confused given that I thought SIs were secondary legislation deriving from Acts and if they weren't valid (ultra vires?) then why were they sitting on the immigration website as if they were. It like being told I was confusing doors with buildings. Yes, thanks. I'm not 6.

Anyway, the result was that I assumed the government makes it up as it goes along and hopes noone notices or calls them on it. Which is why vagueness in constitutional referendums freaks me out a bit

Killer Pigeon

walrusgumble wrote: »

Of course it matters.

At least someone acknowledges my existence .

limklad

I just read this on the courts Website some month back. I kept the PDF in case it got withdrawn. The Memo is not against Pay reduction. It is Against the Method of which the Pay reduction can occur. The Propose Reduction in Judge wage is Politicly Influence thus weakening Judges Independence.

30. This memorandum is not prepared in opposition to an amendment of the Constitution so as to ensure that judges bear a fair share of the burden of pay reductions, but rather proposes that, if this is to be achieved, the essence of constitutional independence must be safeguarded by means of an independent adjudication on what these reductions should be.

See attached Memo for Full Statement.

recedite

nesf wrote: »

Poll added. I'll start a second thread with a poll on Dáil Inquiries.

Poll shows inherent bias; the wording of the poll is different to the proposed referendum.

YES to allowing the State some level of control over Judges' pay

First we are talking about the govt. not the State.
Second, the govt. can increase judges pay anytime they like, or refuse to increase. The govt. could have applied the same levy to judges as they applied to other PS workers earlier this year.
So they already have some level of control.
Enough control IMO.

nesf

recedite wrote: »

Poll shows inherent bias; the wording of the poll is different to the proposed referendum.



First we are talking about the govt. not the State.
Second, the govt. can increase judges pay anytime they like, or refuse to increase. The govt. could have applied the same levy to judges as they applied to other PS workers earlier this year.
So they already have some level of control.
Enough control IMO.

Give me a better wording then and I'll change it.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Give me a better wording then and I'll change it.

"Yes to giving the government increased powers over judges' pay", perhaps?

cordially,
Scofflaw

opo

limklad wrote: »

I just read this on the courts Website some month back. I kept the PDF in case it got withdrawn. The Memo is not against Pay reduction. It is Against the Method of which the Pay reduction can occur. The Propose Reduction in Judge wage is Politicly Influence thus weakening Judges Independence.
See attached Memo for Full Statement.

When I see or hear them suggest the IMF for example, set their pay in accordance with the real world, I will believe their sincerity.

RubyRoss

As with some posters here, there was a legal expert (which should be read as ‘vested interest’) on NewTalk suggesting that cutting judges pay was pointless as the money saved was miniscule in comparison to the deficit.
What an ignorant quip! There is no individual cut that could plug a hole in the state finances but each cut is being justified as an accumulated effort.



If the judges are happy to take their appointments from the government, they can accept the government’s right to cut their pay in line with other cuts.

Also, I really don’t understand why people find it so abhorrent that our elected government – people we vote in and out – can hold an inquiry.


We are free to decry a government –people are terrified of the legal profession and that profession makes a fortune on the fear it instils and the backward befuddlement of its processes.

Comparing these referenda/referendums to the Enabling Act or the Patriot Act is simply idiotic.

FreudianSlippers

RubyRoss wrote: »

As with some posters here, there was a legal expert (which should be read as ‘vested interest’)

I don't see how this is a vested interest. Of all of the legal professionals in Ireland, 99.5% of them will never be a judge.
Of legal academics, 100% of them will never be a judge.

on NewTalk suggesting that cutting judges pay was pointless as the money saved was miniscule in comparison to the deficit.
What an ignorant quip! There is no individual cut that could plug a hole in the state finances but each cut is being justified as an accumulated effort.

It's a valid point; a more valid point is that the referendum will cost more than the projected savings. Also, the cuts can be done without the referendum - that is, there is already a method available to make judges privy to the levy.
Pay cuts could be done by a body independent of the Oireachtas.

If the judges are happy to take their appointments from the government, they can accept the government’s right to cut their pay in line with other cuts.

That's not the way separation of powers in democracy works.

Also, I really don’t understand why people find it so abhorrent that our elected government – people we vote in and out – can hold an inquiry.

This is unrelated to the judges' pay referendum. The problem with the 30th amendment is contained in another thread. Essentially the problem is that there is no due process or rules of evidence.
Also there is doubt that these legislative investigations can be examined or appealed by the Supreme Court.

We are free to decry a government –people are terrified of the legal profession and that profession makes a fortune on the fear it instils and the backward befuddlement of its processes.

Again, judges' pay has nothing to do with the legal profession.
Also, people don't seem to understand that the legal profession is not paid (for the most part) out of the public coffer... so who cares how much money they make. Seems like sour grapes to me.

Comparing these referenda/referendums to the Enabling Act or the Patriot Act is simply idiotic.

It's not idiotic at all. Who wants an all powerful Oireachtas? Not me; I like the idea of liberties and due process and transparency.

johnnyskeleton

Good loser wrote: »

I'm definitely yes to both.

The reference to judges pay in the constitution comes from the American constitution. I believe the whole idea is outmoded; ideally it should just be deleted from the constitution. An extremely crude and unsubtle measure.

They are already far too highly paid for their abilities, probably because of outrageous fees they command while senior counsel. A pay equivalent to a university professor is plenty for them. They are paid far more than British or U.S. judges.

There is no control over their competence once appointed. When have we ever seen a judge removed for incompetence or corruption?

Having read the Iarnrod Dail investigation on the ESAT licence I find it much more impressive than any judicial enquiry which cost millions. These latter are just gravy trains for lawyers. Give the Dail the powers most/all other parliaments have.

while I don't agree with your views on voting yes to both, this is the first informed commentary I've seen here or in the media or voting yes. you make some very interesting points. Sadly, most of the yes voters will vote without thinking.

Duke Leonal Felmet

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't see how this is a vested interest. Of all of the legal professionals in Ireland, 99.5% of them will never be a judge.
Of legal academics, 100% of them will never be a judge.


It's a valid point; a more valid point is that the referendum will cost more than the projected savings. Also, the cuts can be done without the referendum - that is, there is already a method available to make judges privy to the levy.
Pay cuts could be done by a body independent of the Oireachtas.


That's not the way separation of powers in democracy works.


This is unrelated to the judges' pay referendum. The problem with the 30th amendment is contained in another thread. Essentially the problem is that there is no due process or rules of evidence.
Also there is doubt that these legislative investigations can be examined or appealed by the Supreme Court.


Again, judges' pay has nothing to do with the legal profession.
Also, people don't seem to understand that the legal profession is not paid (for the most part) out of the public coffer... so who cares how much money they make. Seems like sour grapes to me.


It's not idiotic at all. Who wants an all powerful Oireachtas? Not me; I like the idea of liberties and due process and transparency.

A reasonable and logical response. Shame to see it wasted.

RubyRoss

I don't see how this is a vested interest. Of all of the legal professionals in Ireland, 99.5% of them will never be a judge.
Of legal academics, 100% of them will never be a judge.

By way of comparison: of all those working in academia, only a handful become university heads but do you think it is in the interest of the vast majority to publically question the salaries of the head or processes by which they are appointed?

I would argue that those legal experts have a similar vested interest in this case. The UCC professor Gwynn Morgan (voting yes on both, he said) was on the Frontline last Monday and very clearly took the same view. In fact, he openly mocked the sway of the ‘debate’ by asking how many members of the audience were also members of the legal profession.

people don't seem to understand that the legal profession is not paid (for the most part) out of the public coffer... so who cares how much money they make. Seems like sour grapes to me.

Who cares how much money the legal profession make? – The people who have to fork out the money do!





I stand by the assertion that comparisons to the Enabling Act and Patriotic Act are absurd unless those making those claims want to explain why countries which allow their parliaments to make public enquires are proto-fascist...like the UK?



(Your reply was courteous – if mine seems curt it’s because this tiny device I’m on is shrinking my humanity)

Duke Leonal Felmet

RubyRoss wrote: »

By way of comparison: of all those working in academia, only a handful become university heads but do you think it is in the interest of the vast majority to publically question the salaries of the head or processes by which they are appointed?

I would argue that those legal experts have a similar vested interest in this case. The UCC professor Gwynn Morgan (voting yes on both, he said) was on the Frontline last Monday and very clearly took the same view. In fact, he openly mocked the sway of the ‘debate’ by asking how many members of the audience were also members of the legal profession.



Who cares how much money the legal profession make? – The people who have to fork out the money do!





I stand by the assertion that comparisons to the Enabling Act and Patriotic Act are absurd unless those making those claims want to explain why countries which allow their parliaments to make public enquires are proto-fascist...like the UK?



(Your reply was courteous – if mine seems curt it’s because this tiny device I’m on is shrinking my humanity)

This is a question that I have asked many proponents of this amendment. I have yet to receive a reply.

So long as your are comfortable with such powers being potentially in the hands of Fianna Fail/Sinn Fein, then you should be ok with this.

Are you comfortable with this?

RubyRoss

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

A reasonable and logical response. Shame to see it wasted.

'Reasonable' and 'logical' are not synonyms for 'I agree'