Eight former attorneys general oppose constitutional amendments

Permabear · 24-10-2011 11:44AM #1

This post has been deleted.

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 12:01PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If Peter Sutherland is against this referendum that's a pretty good reason to vote in favour.

Permabear · 24-10-2011 12:14PM

This post has been deleted.

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 12:20PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It certainly is given his role in the illegal imprisonment of peace campaigners when Ronald Reagan was in power and the positions that he has adopted post his time as AG.

I'm glad that you accept that I am right.

Permabear · 24-10-2011 12:27PM

This post has been deleted.

meditraitor · 24-10-2011 12:29PM

I'm not disagreeing with the Vote No stance but taking the word of 8 politically appointed members of the Legal profession is not something I would do, or anyone in their right mind.

As fo peter "goldman sachs" sutherland, he is the last person I would seek advise from!

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 01:08PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think that Martin McGuinness supports gay marriage. He is some sort of strict devotional Catholic.

oscarBravo · 24-10-2011 01:14PM

meditraitor wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with the Vote No stance but taking the word of 8 politically appointed members of the Legal profession is not something I would do, or anyone in their right mind.

You're absolutely right. I plan to canvas the opinions of eight plumbers instead.

Killer Pigeon · 24-10-2011 01:16PM

I would support their views on the Oireachtas Inquiries Referendum.

However, are there any compelling arguments against the Referendum on Judges pay?

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 01:16PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're absolutely right. I plan to canvas the opinions of eight plumbers instead.

A wise course. The plumbers are much more likely to give you their real opinion given that they won't have spent decades being paid to devise opinions regardless of what they themselves believe to be true.

oscarBravo · 24-10-2011 01:18PM

swordofislam wrote: »

A wise course. The plumbers are much more likely to give you their real opinion given that they won't have spent decades being paid to devise opinions regardless of what they themselves believe to be true.

Yup. On the same basis, I always ask my pharmacist for advice on home heating, and my barber about my prescriptions.

Sure, they don't have the first clue about the topic, but that's better than the possibility that they might have an agenda, isn't it?

oscarBravo · 24-10-2011 01:19PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

However, are there any compelling arguments against the Referendum on Judges pay?

Yes. It's badly worded, and weakens the separation of powers. There are a few threads on the subject.

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 01:20PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I would support their views on the Oireachtas Inquiries Referendum.

However, are there any compelling arguments against the Referendum on Judges pay?

The system of allowing our bewigged masters' pay to be set by ministerial order which has been in place since 1968 is immoral and allows undue interference by politicians with the chauffeur driven tipstaff following class. Or at least it does now that their pay is to be cut.

MagicMarker · 24-10-2011 01:21PM

swordofislam wrote: »

I don't think that Martin McGuinness supports gay marriage. He is some sort of strict devotional Catholic.

He's said within the last hour that he does support gay marriage.

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 01:24PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

However, are there any compelling arguments against the Referendum on Judges pay?

Judges will have their pay reduced if the referendum is passed.

carveone · 24-10-2011 01:25PM

I was gobsmacked that this has happened. I've never seen this type of intervention before. If anything, the question has to be asked - why did the government say that they'd asked legal opinion and sure it was grand and don't worry you can trust us.

I might recheck what the government was saying on Tonight in Politics or whatever it's called to see if they'd mentioned the AG. If the government are now caught in bare faced lies to the electorate it doesn't bode well. We don't really have the economic stability to start having collapsing governments.

(I'll add that FG have lost my vote. Whatever that's worth)

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 01:25PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

He's said within the last hour that he does support gay marriage.

There you go Permabear now you how to vote when this question is put to the people.

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 01:27PM

carveone wrote: »

I was gobsmacked that this has happened. I've never seen this type of intervention before. If anything, the question has to be asked - why did the government say that they'd asked legal opinion and sure it was grand and don't worry you can trust us.

I might recheck what the government was saying on Tonight in Politics or whatever it's called to see if they'd mentioned the AG. If the government are now caught in bare faced lies to the electorate it doesn't bode well. We don't really have the economic stability to start having collapsing governments.

(I'll add that FG have lost my vote. Whatever that's worth)

It was the last government who claimed that the AG had told them that they couldn't reduce judicial pay. But don't let easily checkable facts get in the way of whatever you are having yourself.

Re your vote sure it was only on loan from FF anyway.
EDIT
NO IT WASN'T

carveone · 24-10-2011 01:28PM

swordofislam wrote: »

There you go Permabear now you how to vote when this question is put to the people.

That's a pretty illustrative statement right there. Make sure you leave your mind and conscience at the door and vote the way entrenched interests tell you to. Or the opposite way, whatever way your politics swing.

(Edit: Withdrawn - I'm in area of personal attacks here).

carveone · 24-10-2011 01:29PM

swordofislam wrote: »

It was the last government who claimed that the AG had told them that they couldn't reduce judicial pay. But don't let easily checkable facts get in the way of whatever you are having yourself.

I know this. I mentioned that I need to check if the current government had mentioned the AG. Which is why I said it. I think they did last night.

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 01:30PM

carveone wrote: »

That's a pretty illustrative statement right there. Make sure you leave your mind and conscience at the door and vote the way entrenched interests tell you to. Or the opposite way, whatever way your politics swing.

Steady on carveone. Just because the opponent of this referendum would vote against gay marriage just because McGuinness supports it is no reason to accuse them of a lack of mind and conscience.

oscarBravo · 24-10-2011 01:31PM

swordofislam wrote: »

Judges will have their pay reduced if the referendum is passed.

Interesting. I think you are literally the first person to suggest that as a reason for voting against it.

I know you were being all clever and ironic and trying to make out that people who are opposed to the amendment have some sort of vested interest, but there really can't be much left of that particular straw man with the beating it has taken.

carveone · 24-10-2011 01:35PM

swordofislam wrote:

Steady on carveone. Just because the opponent of this referendum would vote against gay marriage just because McGuinness supports it is no reason to accuse them of a lack of mind and conscience.

Fine. I strayed into the arena of personal attacks. But don't say my vote is on loan from FF. I'd consider that an affront. We'll both back off slowly then

meditraitor · 24-10-2011 01:37PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're absolutely right. I plan to canvas the opinions of eight plumbers instead.

You would be as well to, they all have 1 vote, unless there is something else the establishment is not telling us?

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 01:39PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Interesting. I think you are literally the first person to suggest that as a reason for voting against it.

I know you were being all clever and ironic and trying to make out that people who are opposed to the amendment have some sort of vested interest, but there really can't be much left of that particular straw man with the beating it has taken.

Just an application of the principles of William of Ockham.

The current system of pay increases not as part of a general increase in wages, not by vote of the Dail but by ministerial order has been kosher for 40 years.

A much stricter mechanism for cutting pay is an interference with the 'separation of powers'.

Every practising barrister has a keen interest in being perceived as being on the side of the judges on this issue (whatever they really believe).

oscarBravo · 24-10-2011 01:45PM

swordofislam wrote: »

Just an application of the principles of William of Ockham.

A piss-poor one, frankly. You're subscribing to the view that the only thing that matters is the reduction of judges' pay, and that any side effects of an amendment to achieve that are acceptable.

Worse again, rather than discuss the issue in a grown-up manner, you resort to smart-assery and caricaturing of other people's positions.

I expect nothing less in any referendum debate in this country - we are, after all, poster children for how to do direct democracy as badly as possible - but it's still depressing.

carveone · 24-10-2011 01:48PM

Just to go back on my point about the AG: "I might recheck what the government was saying on Tonight in Politics or whatever it's called to see if they'd mentioned the AG".

I did hear it alright. Whathisface* (I've lost my memory today) says it here, 19 minutes 0 seconds in on Week in Politics.

Edit: Pat Rabitte TD
Edit2: With Peadar Toibin (SF) who is Caithleach (sp?) of the oversight commitee assurring us that everying is just dandy. I'm so reassurred now.

RandolphEsq · 24-10-2011 01:49PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

swordofislam wrote: »

Steady on carveone. Just because the opponent of this referendum would vote against gay marriage just because McGuinness supports it is no reason to accuse them of a lack of mind and conscience.

I'd disagree, and it is a reason to accuse someone of a lack of mind and conscience, e.g.

swordofislam wrote: »

If Peter Sutherland is against this referendum that's a pretty good reason to vote in favour.

gizmo555 · 24-10-2011 01:49PM

swordofislam wrote: »

If Peter Sutherland is against this referendum that's a pretty good reason to vote in favour.

On the same logic, we should vote against it on the basis that Alan Shatter is in favour of it.

I know it's a crowded field, but if there's a more arrogant and self-important person in Irish politics I've yet to come across him or her.

In reply to an RTE interviewer broadcast on this lunchtime's radio news he said that the letter from the eight former attorneys general is "nonsense" and that they had "no credibility". He didn't actually explain why the letter is nonsensical nor why he, Mr Shatter, has greater credibility than eight former attorneys general. No, Shatter has spoken, these guys should shut up and we the voters should do as we're told.

Vote no!

Nodin · 24-10-2011 01:52PM

swordofislam wrote:

If Peter Sutherland is against this referendum that's a pretty good reason to vote in favour..

There are two questions. Presuming you refer to both, you might explain to me the merits of giving TD's involved in inquiries the extended powers proposed, bearing in mind the uses it could have been put to by Sutherland etc in the 80's.

swordofislam wrote:

I don't think that Martin McGuinness supports gay marriage. He is some sort of strict devotional Catholic. .

He actually said otherwise many years ago.

Friday April 23 2004

Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness, a practising Catholic, has been attacked by a leading churchman after openly expressing his support for gay marriage and adoption, as well as abortion under certain circumstances.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mcguinness-angers-church-by-standing-up-for-gay-rights-177212.html

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 01:53PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

A piss-poor one, frankly. You're subscribing to the view that the only thing that matters is the reduction of judges' pay, and that any side effects of an amendment to achieve that are acceptable.

Worse again, rather than discuss the issue in a grown-up manner, you resort to smart-assery and caricaturing of other people's positions.

I expect nothing less in any referendum debate in this country - we are, after all, poster children for how to do direct democracy as badly as possible - but it's still depressing.

The position that the ability to reduce the pay of all judges using mechanisms much stricter than those used to increase the pay of all judges for the past 43 years is in some way an interference with the separation of powers is so risible that I choose not to insult those who express this opinion by assuming that they are sincere.

I would have thought that a consideration of possible bias and insincerity on the part of people publicly espousing a particular viewpoint was discussion in a grown up manner.

EDIT
This does not refer to people on boards because we are not PUBLICLY espousing any point of view.

Eight former attorneys general oppose constitutional amendments

Comments