McDowell and co advise?

Jay D

Been browsing back and forth and have seen nothing here about it.

What's people's take on their advise?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1024/referendum.html

I just feel it seems as though they are making an attempt at covering their own backs if anything. Isn't McDowell from an era of blatant rip off corrupt politics?

I may be wrong alright but I can't trust this person's advise one bit.

My name is URL

I hate McDowell but I'd take the word of 8 former Attorney Generals over that of Shatter any day.

Jay D

Same here but having only read the earlier report, now this updated one, it seems the lads are definitely looking out for themselves here.
Shatter:

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.

McDowell

Mr McDowell said that once these powers were conferred on politicians, they would become addicted to using them and it would never be possible to get them back.
Speaking on RTÉ's Today with Pat Kenny, Mr McDowell said the wording of the amendment was very badly drafted and could send gardaí in to search people's homes.
He said the Commission of Inquiries set up under legislation he brought in as Minister for Justice were a much fairer way to investigate matters and cited the Murphy Commission as being fair to victims and perpetrators. He said it was not designed to grab headlines.

Spacedog

I hate McDowell because of his criminal justice bill, his efforts to implement widespread data retention and compulsory ID cards across the EU.

I hate him because he say on his hands knowing about Berties corrupt nature, and only said something when it suited him to have a general election (which he lost).

Most of all I hate him because he seemed to escape his deserved share of public accountability by losing his seat before the sh*t hit the fan, and slithering off to his cushy barrister job. he is one of those people who seem to fail upwards.

For some Irelands golden boy can do no wrong.

latenia

Jay D wrote: »

I just feel it seems as though they are making an attempt at covering their own backs if anything. Isn't McDowell from an era of blatant rip off corrupt politics?

I may be wrong alright but I can't trust this person's advise one bit.

McDowell wasn't corrupt, he's just a cunt.

Doinker

A bunch of ex and current Barristers advising to vote against something that will end a gravy train for Barristers.

Shock. Horror.

Wertz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants#Ireland

I'll still be voting No despite him, same way as I voted No on Lisbon despite Ganley.



lol @ his concern for the rights of citizens though...pity he didn't adpot that attitude as Min for Justice back in the day...

My name is URL

Jay D wrote: »

Same here but having only read the earlier report, now this updated one, it seems the lads are definitely looking out for themselves here.

I'm sure they are looking out for themselves to a certain degree. But the change in the constitution does not just affect them, it affects everyone. Once the change is made it'd be almost impossible to undo it. I don't necessarily think that allowing the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries is an inherently bad thing, but the wording is vital, and right now it's ambiguous to say the least.

The judges pay thing is just populist tosh. 85% of judges have already taken a voluntary cut in their salaries.

Buceph

Doinker wrote: »

A bunch of ex and current Barristers advising to vote against something that will end a gravy train for Barristers.

Shock. Horror.

Ok. Lets presume it will end a "gravy train." How will it do that? By removing the right to representation before a judiciary? By letting the Oireachteas decide when to investigate, who to investigate, how to investigate, what defense the person before them is allowed, and then giving them the right to rule on that person. Have you heard the expression, "judge, jury and executioner" because that's what this constitutional amendment allows for.

Remember, when it comes down to it, when you hire a lawyer they represent you. No-one else, they have no other interest other than seeing that you are treated correctly. What this means is that the Oireachteas can decide you don't deserve representation, or if you do then Jackie Healy-Rae is going to be your representation. And if you don't like it, if you complain about your rights, then tough ****, because you've just voted them away and the TDs and Senators get to decide what's fair and what's not.

Gee Bag

My name is URL wrote: »

I hate McDowell but I'd take the word of 8 former Attorney Generals over that of Shatter any day.

Agree with this 100%.

The ammendmant is correct in principle. I think everyone would like to see bankers and other such malignant gobshytes compelled to being questioned by our parliament.

If it's worth doing, then it's worth doing properly. Clearly there is a problem with the proposal if the ex-AGs, independent TDs and academic types have problems with it.

Shatter appears to be acting like a spoilt child because people disagree him.

fishy fishy

he makes me physically retch. anytime I see his excuse for a mug on tv I have to switch channels - have no interest in him, or what lies he has to tell

Teclo

This is turning out to be the most authoritarian and illiberal government we have ever had. The populist horseshyte they shovel about judicial elites and investigating wrong doers is designed to give themselves more power then our constitution previously gave them(for good reason). Sneaking in these referendums during a presidential campaign shows the contempt they have for the constitution, they know they can take advantage of the people whose conservative nature leads them to vote yes unless there is a more open debate on the issues involved.

AskMyChocolate

My name is URL wrote: »

I hate McDowell but I'd take the word of 8 former Attorney Generals over that of Shatter any day.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Agree with this 100%.

The ammendmant is correct in principle. I think everyone would like to see bankers and other such malignant gobshytes compelled to being questioned by our parliament.

If it's worth doing, then it's worth doing properly. Clearly there is a problem with the proposal if the ex-AGs, independent TDs and academic types have problems with it.

Shatter appears to be acting like a spoilt child because disagree him.

The Ex- AGs of this state tend to either represent the bankers and malignant gob****es/inner circle of privilege or are themselves this inner circle. Peter Sutherland and Dermot Gleeson being the stand-out cnuts in this rogues' gallery.

You can be damn sure they don't want their behaviour or ethics put under any spotlight.

Edit: Woo-Hoo.\o/ Just noticed. 1500th post and I got to call both Peter Sutherland and Dermot Gleeson cnuts in it. Probably should have thrown in McDowell for good measure.

Sean Quagmire

I like the fries better at McDonald's, but I'd never tell Mr McDowell that.

Gee Bag

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

The Ex- AGs of this state tend to either represent the bankers and malignant gob****es/inner circle of privilege or are themselves this inner circle. Peter Sutherland and Dermot Gleeson being the stand-out cnuts in this rogues' gallery.

You can be damn sure they don't want their behaviour or ethics put under any spotlight.

Fair point,

I'm not going to attempt to argue that they're a grand bunch of lads. That said I wouldn't dismiss their opinion out of hand on the basis of their past cvntishness. By the same token I don't trust Alan Shatter one bit.

However, I would value the opinion of some of the others advocating a no vote (Stephen Donnelly, Shane Ross, Etc.,)

We have had next to no debate about this referendum until the last two weeks. The media have been far too busy asking presiedential hopefuls important questions like what their favourite colour is.

To me all of this seems like a p1ss poor way of making an important descision. That's why I'll be voting no on this one.

mikom

Teclo wrote: »

This is turning out to be the most authoritarian and illiberal government we have ever had. The populist horseshyte they shovel about judicial elites and investigating wrong doers is designed to give themselves more power then our constitution previously gave them(for good reason). Sneaking in these referendums during a presidential campaign shows the contempt they have for the constitution, they know they can take advantage of the people whose conservative nature leads them to vote yes unless there is a more open debate on the issues involved.

Well what else would you expect from Fine Gael the Christian democratic party.

SeaFields

Pat Rabbitte was "debating" this issue with Noel Whelan the other morning on the Pat Kenny show. Rabbitte got very personal with Whelan with snide remarks and shouting. It didnt sit well with me that he couldnt justify the changes proposed without this gutter level of debate. Decided to vote no on that basis.

DEFTLEFTHAND

SeaFields wrote: »

Pat Rabbitte was "debating" this issue with Noel Whelan the other morning on the Pat Kenny show. Rabbitte got very personal with Whelan with snide remarks and shouting. It didnt sit well with me that he couldnt justify the changes proposed without this gutter level of debate. Decided to vote no on that basis.

Typical behaviour from Rabbitte, alot of the champagne socialists take an overly aggressive approach to debates.

MetalDog

McDowell is only against this because he's no longer in political office.

If he was still the Minister for Justice, he'd be clamouring for it, because he' be the exact type to use it against whoever he liked, whenever he liked.

Uriel.

Teclo wrote: »

Sneaking in these referendums during a presidential campaign shows the contempt they have for the constitution, they know they can take advantage of the people whose conservative nature leads them to vote yes unless there is a more open debate on the issues involved.

Whatever about the right or wrong of the proposed constitutional amendments, I'm glad the government have the common sense to hold the elections (presidential and by-election) and the referendum on the same day. No point in throwing money away by having them on separate days. That's just ridiculous

Teclo

mikom wrote: »

Well what else would you expect from Fine Gael the Christian democratic party.

back in the day they were Christian democrats... around about the same day Michael D Higgins was joining Fianna Fáil

mikom

Teclo wrote: »

back in the day they were Christian democrats... around about the same day Michael D Higgins was joining Fianna Fáil

Really......

Mitchell confirms plan to seek FG nomination for Presidency




10/06/2011 - 11:18:02
Gay Mitchell has confirmed that he is to seek the Fine Gael nomination for the Presidency.

In a statement this morning, he said wished to advance his Christian Democratic ethos in public life and he saw the Presidency as a way of doing this.

He said if this ethos is applied sensibly, "it will help equip Ireland to overcome some of its present economic and ethical difficulties".

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mitchell-confirms-plan-to-seek-fg-nomination-for-presidency-508501.html#ixzz1biP9xxSu

Teclo

Uriel. wrote: »

Whatever about the right or wrong of the proposed constitutional amendments, I'm glad the government have the common sense to hold the elections (presidential and by-election) and the referendum on the same day. No point in throwing money away by having them on separate days. That's just ridiculous

sure, what is integrity of the constitution as we know it compared to a few bob...

Teclo

mikom wrote: »

Really......

you believe every election leaflet you read?

besides, Mitchell isn't all that popular with the Fine Gael leadership,

and his election agent Charlie Flanagan is a church hater

mikom

Teclo wrote: »

you believe every election leaflet you read?

besides, Mitchell isn't all that popular with the Fine Gael leadership,

and his election agent Charlie Flanagan is a church hater

Are you saying Gay "Fine Gael" Mitchell is not a Christian democrat?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/view.do?id=28112&language=EN

A bit more here..... http://www.eurocarers.org/euactivities_mepsinterestgroups.php

Gay MITCHELL

Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Member of the Bureau
Ireland
Party Fine Gael
Email gay.mitchell@europarl.europa.eu
Web http://www.gaymitchell.ie

or
Seán KELLY

Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Member
Ireland
Party Fine Gael

or

Mairead McGUINNESS

Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) Member
Ireland
Party Fine Gael


Cool pic............ http://www.flickr.com/photos/young-fine-gael/5071580928/

Teclo

What bunch they align themselves in Europe is unimportant, Garrett Fitzgerald very purposely turned them into a social democrat party. Right now they're content to be the new Fianna Fáil.

Back on thread, McDowell got it right when he spoke of Robespierre and the Stasi.

mikom

Teclo wrote: »

What bunch they align themselves in Europe is unimportant,

Yep.

Teclo wrote: »

Back on thread,

Sidestep, Yep.

Uriel.

Teclo wrote: »

sure, what is integrity of the constitution as we know it compared to a few bob...

where is this happening?

Wertz

Uriel. wrote: »

where is this happening?

All around you on thursday.

It's all just a pleasant accident that we're all in a tizzy about a ceremonial role election being held on the same day as such an important proposed changes to the founding document of the State, which is only in the closing fortnight receiving the public airing that it should be receiving....I suppose them not sending out referendum literature is another money saving elemnet you applaud, deciding instead on a dumbed down soundbite heavy cliffnotes version on the radio an TV...

Teclo

mikom wrote: »

Sidestep, Yep.

Not sidestep, nope.

Can you point to any Fine Gael policy document or speech by a leader in which the party's Christian democrat principles are shown to be based on well defined principles rather than pointing out who they get to sit next to in the European parliament?

mikom

Teclo wrote: »

Not sidestep, nope.

Can you point to any Fine Gael policy document or speech by a leader in which the party's Christian democrat principles are shown to be based on well defined principles rather than pointing out who they get to sit next to in the European parliament?

Gotta eat now, but here's a little snippet to digest.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs Deputy Lucinda Creighton on Dr. Garret FitzGerald

I remember meeting him during the Nice treaty and Lisbon treaty campaigns when despite his years, he was sprightly, energetic and enthusiastic and, most important, he brought young people with him in selling the European ideal on this island. He also brought Fine Gael into the Christian Democratic family in Europe and of that I am deeply proud.

InReality

I'll be voting no to the judges pay and yes to the dail investigation.

Judges pay should be reduced by a bill in the dail now , if the SC finds against it later - then a referendum could be called.

Thats the right way of doing it.

The dail proposal is not worded great , but we need to kick off some sort of proper role for TD's like other countries have.
If its voted down we might never get a chance to get it in again.

Senate investigations in the US are about the only check on the powerful organisations there , we really need some sort of populist power of that sort here.

UglyBolloxFace

Wertz wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants#Ireland

I'll still be voting No despite him, same way as I voted No on Lisbon despite Ganley.

Just out of interest, why will you be voting No? I am in serious need of information and opinion about this.

What are some reasons to vote no?

My name is URL

Anyone see the pictures of Kenny & Gilmore in Merrion Sq. today?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/902390431.jpg?

Pair of arseholes.. Labour may aswell just merge with FG altogether.. anyone that thinks they are still a party acting on their own original ideals is either naive or deluded. There's no credible left-leaning party in this country, it's quite a depressing thought.

Wertz

Feckin' yes men.

My name is URL

Wertz wrote: »

Feckin' yes men.

They really must see us plebs as brainless idiots who can be swayed by cheap gimmicks. Really, they should be keeping their mouths shut on the matter.. it's not a party political referendum.

There's a debate on Prime Time about it atm. Hopefully it'll open enough people's eyes on the matter.

mikom

My name is URL wrote: »

Anyone see the pictures of Kenny & Gilmore in Merrion Sq. today?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/902390431.jpg?

Pair of arseholes.. Labour may aswell just merge with FG altogether.. anyone that thinks they are still a party acting on their own original ideals is either naive or deluded. There's no credible left-leaning party in this country, it's quite a depressing thought.

Gimps.
Reminds me of these Lisbon promises............. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2010/11/3946820635_8284b6e18b.jpg

charlemont

He is saying it as it is so fair play to him, I'm voting No now, I'v never liked his policies but no one can deny he is very intelligent and honest.

Wertz

I always use a rule of thumb that you do the opposite to what the majority party(s) in office are telling you to do...

The Primetime debate won't be watched by many that aren't already in possession of enough knowledge to vote on this...some of the No side are possibly damaging because of past political roles or affiliations...O Rourke for instance and indeed Penfold himself (Did he get contacts or laser surgery?)

Uglybollocksface...sorry only seen your post now: in short it's too open ended and badly worded and in it's current form grants too many powers to God knows who now and for ever more. We need some form of committees process...we don't need this form of it though. Go away and re draft it and properly inform people of what it is the powers will precisely be and I might vote for the change...

Oh still no information leaflet fropm the Ref Commission here today...I call BS on their ad's claim of said literature.