Eight former attorneys general oppose constitutional amendments

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

swordofislam

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

This post has been deleted.

swordofislam

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

This post has been deleted.

meditraitor

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

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

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

I would support their views on the Oireachtas Inquiries Referendum.

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

swordofislam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Boulevardier

Responding to the criticisms, Mr Shatter said that what they had said had no credibility.
He said some of those who had signed the statement "ould themselves have shown greater wisdom had they not engaged in this particular issue because of matters in which they had previously been involved, which were of relevance either to the economic collapse of the state or to the banking difficulties which the state had experienced."
Mr Shatter said there were individuals who had signed the document who would have been involved in decision-making processes with regard either to government economic policy or to the giving of legal advice.
He also noted that one individual was chairman of AIB at a time when AIB was lending enormous sums of money to developers in very unwise circumstances and the decision-making processes in AIB were what led to that bank's enormous difficulties and the huge burden that has fallen on the state, to ensure that bank continues in operation.
He said a lot of legal experts had an opposite view about the referendums to that of the eight signatories.
He said, sadly there was a vested interest, because substantial fees had been earned by the legal profession and members of the bar library through the continuation of the tribunal system., which had largely been a disaster - going on too long, and costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of euro.
He also said that on occasion the courts had found that tribunals had not applied proper procedures.
He said there was no reason to believe that our parliament was incapable of holding proper inquiries, which protected people and their rights as happened in parliaments around the world.
He also said that members of the Oireachtas were accountable to the electorate, and should they abuse their powers, the electorate would have their say in a serious way. He said there was an elaborate series of protections in place so there was no reason of any description for the hysterical criticisms that had been voiced to be taken seriously"

I think Shatter's points are very good ones.

carveone

gizmo555 wrote: »

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.

Peadar Toibin* (SF) came across pretty arrogant on Tonight in Politics last night. With Pat Rabitte essentially saying (paraphrasing from memory): "Let's try it and see how it goes".

In essence any criticism is being countered by the government with a discussion on the surrounding legislation and framework. Which can be changed by the, er, government.

I think the legislative process has its weaknesses, and I'd definately like to see considerable reform in this area. But I think the government is showing utter contempt for the process and total disdain of the electorate. I don't trust lawyers much and I trust politicians far less.


*Peadar Tóibín, TD elected Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/pressreleases/name-2319-en.html

gizmo555

Boulevardier wrote: »

Responding to the criticisms, Mr Shatter said that what they had said had no credibility.
He said some of those who had signed the statement "ould themselves have shown greater wisdom had they not engaged in this particular issue because of matters in which they had previously been involved, which were of relevance either to the economic collapse of the state or to the banking difficulties which the state had experienced."
Mr Shatter said there were individuals who had signed the document who would have been involved in decision-making processes with regard either to government economic policy or to the giving of legal advice.
He also noted that one individual was chairman of AIB at a time when AIB was lending enormous sums of money to developers in very unwise circumstances and the decision-making processes in AIB were what led to that bank's enormous difficulties and the huge burden that has fallen on the state, to ensure that bank continues in operation.
He said a lot of legal experts had an opposite view about the referendums to that of the eight signatories.
He said, sadly there was a vested interest, because substantial fees had been earned by the legal profession and members of the bar library through the continuation of the tribunal system., which had largely been a disaster - going on too long, and costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of euro.
He also said that on occasion the courts had found that tribunals had not applied proper procedures.
He said there was no reason to believe that our parliament was incapable of holding proper inquiries, which protected people and their rights as happened in parliaments around the world.
He also said that members of the Oireachtas were accountable to the electorate, and should they abuse their powers, the electorate would have their say in a serious way. He said there was an elaborate series of protections in place so there was no reason of any description for the hysterical criticisms that had been voiced to be taken seriously"

I think Shatter's points are very good ones.

What this amounts to is he attacked the messengers, not the message, with a supplementary "trust us, we won't abuse these powers, or if we do you can punish us at the ballot box".

So the only redress an individual citizen who has had his rights trampled on has, is that his fellow citizens might not re-elect the politicans concerned.

I think we should scrap the two proposed amendments and do a cut & paste of article 30 of the Massachussetts constitution:

In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.

meditraitor

carveone wrote: »

. I don't trust lawyers much and I trust politicians far less.

Here lies the problem, 8 politically appointed lawyers against a whole bunch of incompetant politicians.

Why would anyone believe either bunch,

As for the amendments

1. Judges' Remuneration,

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



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

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.

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

Nothing amiss here unless of course your a judge, former judge or former attorney general.

Perfectly simple: Yes



2. Oireachtas Inquiries,

Existing text
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
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.

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.

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.

You must be joking, a comprehensive NO.

Boulevardier

I'm really sorry that so many people are so worried about politicians that they are prepared to throw away the only chance we will have this decade to get to the bottom of how we were shafted by the banks and other vested interests.

If this amendment goes down, any prospect of Dail enquiries is over for the forseeable. That is the reality.

meditraitor

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm really sorry that so many people are so worried about politicians that they are prepared to throw away the only chance we will have this decade to get to the bottom of how we were shafted by the banks and other vested interests.
If this amendment goes down, any prospect of Dail enquiries is over for the forseeable. That is the reality.

Why cant the current legal system deal with this? Maybe thats another big issue/

oscarBravo

Boulevardier wrote: »

He also said that on occasion the courts had found that tribunals had not applied proper procedures.
He said there was no reason to believe that our parliament was incapable of holding proper inquiries...

That's an interesting claim. He's basically saying that there is no possibility of the Oireachtas - which consists of elected politicians who, by their very definition, have axes to grind - couldn't possibly make the mistake of not applying proper procedures. He's saying that we can trust the Oireachtas in a way that we can't trust the legal system.

He also said that members of the Oireachtas were accountable to the electorate, and should they abuse their powers, the electorate would have their say in a serious way.

It's not too much of a stretch to read into this that he's saying that politicians are more accountable than the courts, and so the legislature is better placed to hold inquiries than the judiciary.

He said there was an elaborate series of protections in place...

Not in the proposed amendment, there ain't.

...so there was no reason of any description for the hysterical criticisms that had been voiced to be taken seriously"

"Trust me, I'm a politician. Have we ever lied to you?"

Talk about throwing the separation of powers issue into stark relief.

meditraitor wrote: »

Here lies the problem, 8 politically appointed lawyers against a whole bunch of incompetant politicians.

Why would anyone believe either bunch

We could always, I dunno, examine their arguments on their merits and make up our own minds. Slightly harder work than just leaping on a populist bandwagon, I know, but I would have thought it the least we could do when amending the constitution.

Nothing amiss here unless of course your a judge, former judge or former attorney general.

Or, unless you care about the separation of powers.

I mean, seriously: there have been many voices raised in public commentary in opposition to this amendment. Many of those voices (including mine) are not those of members or former members of the legal profession or the judiciary. So there's something else going on. Doesn't that at least deserve consideration?

meditraitor

oscarBravo wrote: »

We could always, I dunno, examine their arguments on their merits and make up our own minds. Slightly harder work than just leaping on a populist bandwagon, I know, but I would have thought it the least we could do when amending the constitution. Or, unless you care about the separation of powers.

I mean, seriously: there have been many voices raised in public commentary in opposition to this amendment. Many of those voices (including mine) are not those of members or former members of the legal profession or the judiciary. So there's something else going on. Doesn't that at least deserve consideration?

Please enlighten us on what exactly is going on? How can anyone consider someone else's spidey sense?

Its simple, Judges are paid too much, the constitution stops any reduction in pay. to change the constitution a referendum must be held.

The changes are clear,

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 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.

Were is the bogey man in this?

oscarBravo

meditraitor wrote: »

Its simple, Judges are paid too much, the constitution stops any reduction in pay. to change the constitution a referendum must be held.

So far, so good. To this point, you're in complete agreement with pretty much everyone who opposes this amendment.

The changes are clear...

This is where we start to differ. If the changes were clear, there wouldn't be a problem.

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.

Persons belonging to particular class? What class? Not clear.

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.

What classes of persons paid out of public money? Politicians? Teachers? Sub-contractors to construction firms paid by the state to build roads? Social welfare recipients? Not clear.

In the public interest? Defined by whom? Not clear.

Proportionate reductions? What proportion? A tenth? Double? Not clear.

There's nothing clear about this amendment. It introduces a muddiness into that section of the constitution which undermines the entire point of having that section there in the first place - the separation of powers, and ensuring that the government can't exert undue influence on the judiciary.

gizmo555

As someone pointed out on last week's Frontline, there is also no time limit within which the pay reduction to the unnamed class of persons must be passed on to judges. In other words, once an applicable pay cut has happened, it can be held as a threat over the judges' heads indefinitely, for years or even decades.

Wildlife Actor

Eight Attorneys General

.... I like that.

gizmo555

gizmo555 wrote: »

As someone pointed out on last week's Frontline, there is also no time limit within which the pay reduction to the unnamed class of persons must be passed on to judges. In other words, once an applicable pay cut has happened, it can be held as a threat over the judges' heads indefinitely, for years or even decades.

It occurs to me that it also doesn't say that if the pay of the teachers, road builders, gardai, or whoever is subsequently increased, the judges pay must likewise be increased.

A future government could cut teachers' pay on Monday, judges' pay on Tuesday, and reverse the teachers' pay cut on Wednesday while still staying in line with this amendment.

It's an absolute dog's dinner of a law . .

RandomName2

Underpants Gnomes Logic:

Increase politicians' powers.
???
Profit!

Or altenatively: blah blah blah bankers - vote yes.

Surely the logical thing vis a vis judges' pay is just to freeze it and allow inflation take its natural course. It's not like judges' pay cuts are going to make that much of a difference to the economy. There are a whole heap of public servants earning vastly too much - and there are no constitutional barriers preventing their wages being cut.

swordofislam

RandomName2 wrote: »

Surely the logical thing vis a vis judges' pay is just to freeze it and allow inflation take its natural course.

Or recognise that unless implemented by an independent body both pay cuts and pay rises for judges are inappropriate. The pay scales set by the courts of justice act 1922 should be restored and all monies paid to judges in excess of those amounts should be reclaimed from judges or from their estates or from the estates of the beneficiaries of their estates or from the estates of the beneficiaries of the beneficiaries of their estates etc.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Turnabout is fair play.

jimmycrackcorm

Won't the ex AGs be amongst the premier choices as barristers for lucrative tribunals?

oscarBravo

swordofislam wrote: »

Or recognise that unless implemented by an independent body both pay cuts and pay rises for judges are inappropriate.

Can you point to the wording in the proposed referendum that addresses the problem of judges' pay rises, or establishes such an independent body?

johnnyskeleton

Boulevardier wrote: »

He also said that members of the Oireachtas were accountable to the electorate, and should they abuse their powers, the electorate would have their say in a serious way. He said there was an elaborate series of protections in place so there was no reason of any description for the hysterical criticisms that had been voiced to be taken seriously"

I think Shatter's points are very good ones.

Those latter two seem to be mutually contradictory. If the safeguard is that they are accountable to the electorate, then why the elaborate protections?

There are in fact no protections in this amendment. Indeed, it could be said to be actually doing away with the standard protections altogether.

The argument about accountable to the electorate is ludicrous.

Supposing Joe Soap TD is the chairman of an inquiry into Hitler Bin Churchill, the evil puppy killer who escaped the justice of the courts. Supposing Hitler Bin Churchill was not convicted in the courts because he is actually innocent, and the people of Ireland have just rushed to condemn him anyway because of his unfortunate name. Joe is therefore in a position where if he does what is right i.e. find him innocent, he will lose votes from his local constituency. If he ignores what is right and finds him guilty, he will gain votes in his constituency.

Thus, the incentive for politicians is not to find the facts as they are, but the facts which suit the particular popular mood at any given time.

That a lawyer could seriously suggest that accountability to the electorate will make for an impartial judge is beyond belief.

swordofislam

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you point to the wording in the proposed referendum that addresses the problem of judges' pay rises, or establishes such an independent body?

I am not seeking such a body. I would rather win what can be won today by cutting judicial pay (and boy are they going to cut it hee hee hee ) than seek to establish a body that has never been called for before.

As I say I would be happy to have all juidicial pay reset to 1922 levels (and all monies in excess of that repaid) if this referendum falls.

Were you an agitator for such a body before this referendum and if not why not and what's changed?

swordofislam

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Thus, the incentive for politicians is not to find the facts as they are, but the facts which suit the particular popular mood at any given time.

The same surely applies to judges who are after all political appointees who owe their positions to good breeding, good schools and good dinners.

PeterIanStaker

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm really sorry that so many people are so worried about politicians that they are prepared to throw away the only chance we will have this decade to get to the bottom of how we were shafted by the banks and other vested interests.

If this amendment goes down, any prospect of Dail enquiries is over for the forseeable. That is the reality.

The cynic in me believes the politicians won't investigate the banks; we can almost write off any chance to bring the crooked bankers to task.

Now don't get me wrong - I'd like to see 'em swing, but this is Ireland and they'll get away with it on a full pension.

If this got passed, its probable that TD's given more powers of investigation would decide that it's "not in the public interest" to investigate the dealings of Banker X or Banker Y, but instead use the new legislation to character assassinate rivals or censure people who disagree with them - all in the public interest of course.

I breathe a sigh of relief that Rottweiler McDowell is not longer in the Dáil.