Mahon fallout: would you support a referendum to seize pensions? [MOD NOTE IN OP]

Dostoevsky

On The Week in Politics a moment ago Seán O'Rourke and others are talking about having a referendum to take/reduce the pensions of named wrongdoers in the Mahon report. The three TD panelists (Joe Costello; Seán Ó Fearghaíl; Justin O'Brien) said they'd support it. The usual self-serving waffle, perhaps, but the possibilities for this referendum are enormous.

Leaving aside Ahern, Flynn, Reynolds etc, a referendum could surely be extended to allow other people like John Hurley (Central Bank Governor, 2002-2009), Patrick Neary (Financial Regulator, 2003/2006-2009); Michael Fingleton, Seán Fitzpatrick and David Drumm to have their pensions taken? (Irish Nationwide & Anglo-Irish Bank are now state-owned)

And could Bank of Ireland/AIB etc get an amendment passed so that they can take the ridiculous pensions off Eugene Sheehy (AIB CEO 2005-2009) and Brian Goggin (BofI CEO 2004-2009)?

It's beyond unacceptable that all these people, people whose systematic negligence and dishonesty have cost Irish society billions, are living on pensions multiple times the average industrial wage. To think that Ray Burke, for instance, is still being paid more than €100k per annum in a pension. He has been paid a pension each year since 1997. He got his first pension in 1982, when he was 39 years of age. His jail time and corruption need no introduction. Yet, he receives over €100k per year just for growing old in infamy. That's three nurses/teachers in societal terms.

My primary fear is that Ahern et al would challenge it in the court for years and probably win because our senior civil servants and legislators would phrase the legislation incompetently. And the Irish taxpayers would have to pay the lawyers, who still achieve fees and conditions from this government that defy credibility, and ultimately nothing would change bar the latter's bank balances. /end cynicism.

Would you support a referendum which would penalise the pensions of public servants who have systematically behaved negligently or corruptly in their positions? Or do they deserve to keep these pensions?

Note: In order to help lawmakers on their way, I've distinguished between systematic negligence and negligence, everybody in their work is guilty of the latter at times. It takes a certain quality of negligence to be systematically negligent.

[MOD NOTE:

This thread has been moved from AH to Politics. Please be aware that posting norms in Politics are different than AH. A quick and dirty version of the Politics charter is available here. If yo have any questions, feel free to PM a moderator.]

Biggins

I would support the re-claiming of money and assets if a court found by evidence, there was legal breakages of the law by officials while supposed to be doing their employed duty.
I wouldn't support a non-legalised, just tribunal method - not matter how strongly I might (and do) feel about such people that are seen as bad.

Foghladh

Depends (explain in post)

And who gets to draw the line between negligence and systematic negligence? Or even defines negligence? Does it only apply to those in the Mahon report or will we see others having their pensions seized because posterity doesn't agree with their decisions.

Mr. Incognito

Depends (explain in post)

No.

God there is a very simple solution.

ALL State Pensions are hereby capped at XK a year with the balance taxed at 100%

Same with bankers bonues- cannot get involved in contractual provisions? Okay - No problem

All bonuses hereby taxed at 100%

Problem solved

Tigger

i'm not voting thats how they get ya for house tax

Dostoevsky

No

Foghladh wrote: »

And who gets to draw the line between negligence and systematic negligence? Or even defines negligence? Does it only apply to those in the Mahon report or will we see others having their pensions seized because posterity doesn't agree with their decisions.

Yeah, I can see the distinction between negligence and systematic negligence being fought over, but if there isn't such a distinction made any charges will not stand up.

As a general definition, people in positions of authority ignoring abundant evidence and carrying on with their negligence over a sustained period of time would constitute systematic negligence. There is plenty of evidence to show that many public figures have been guilty of this. And there is much more to uncover if we suspend that 30-year rule on revealing the state papers for a while. The current government has the power to change the law to allow this to happen.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

This thread has been moved from AH to Politics. Please be aware that posting norms in Politics are different than AH. A quick and dirty version of the Politics charter is available here. If yo have any questions, feel free to PM a moderator.

thebman

Would depend on the wording TBH.

nesf

No

A very provisional yes depending hugely on the wording. If it's politicians convicted in court losing their pensions, I'd have no problem with it. Something looser than that and I'd be fairly wary about it.

sfakiaman

I would be totally against any form of retrospective legislation but would support a move to freeze the assets of those suspected of corruption till a tribunal could make a (leisurly) examination of the facts. Of course there is always the option of taxing all state/company pensions above say €50,000 pa at a penal rate of say 95%. Apart from the ordinary state pension which everyone should be entitled to, I believe everyone should make their own pension provisions from their earnings.

Dirk Gently

like others, it would have to be proved rule breaking, in a court preferably, not some fluffy open ended investigation where politicians witch hunt each other like the recent defeated powers of enquiry referendum would have set up. (perhaps they can reword that one and put more than 2 minutes thought into it? ) I would include tribunal findings though, otherwise you'd never get anyone. What’s really needed is a mechanism to deal with such things other than a tribunal though, something that prevents the law profession milking state funds for 10 years at a time.


I think if this went to referendum though everyone would just vote yes if there was even a wiff of cutting someones (anyones) pension for what ever reason.

raymon

Depends (explain in post)

I don't support a referendum to seize pensions.

Apart from the fact that it would open us up to protracted and costly litigation (recent example was Callely's challenge to his suspension from the Seanad) , we have plenty of laws in place to deal with corruption.

I think that the weak link here is the DPP and Gardai for not being able to investigate and prosecute white collar crime efficiently

Even Ray Burke was not jailed for corruption. They got him on tax charges.

So before we rush through some new laws, let's see why the implementation of our existing laws are completely ineffective and toothless.

Believe me - I would like to see all of these corrupt politicians stripped of their pensions , but let's get them convicted first .

Michael Lowry is still sitting in the Dail .......

No

Jail them and make them pay the costs of the tribunal 300 million would cost them a fair whack. Add all previous payments by the state to the bill too. Take everything back we ever paid them.

Did I mention Jail time? Worth mentioning again.

Hotblack Desiato

raymon wrote: »

Even Ray Burke was not jailed for corruption. They got him on tax charges.

Just like Al Capone... They don't need to prove that funds were obtained in a certain way or for a certain purpose (as would be required for corruption charges) just that funds exist which have not been declared for tax.

I would reckon that Revenue are going through that tribunal report with a fine tooth comb...

CAB don't require a criminal conviction either to seize funds, if they can convince a judge that they were obtained by illegal means.

Bertie still doesn't have a tax clearance certificate AFAIK. Payment of all political salaries and pensions should be conditional on a current TCC. This should be the case for high level public servants, advisers etc. too (say over 100k)

Michael Lowry is still sitting in the Dail .......

Yeah :mad: Says it all about a sizeable proportion of the electorate here, to them standards don't matter a damn, just perceived self-interest.

raymon

Depends (explain in post)

ninja900 wrote: »

Just like Al Capone... They don't need to prove that funds were obtained in a certain way or for a certain purpose (as would be required for corruption charges) just that funds exist which have not been declared for tax.

I would reckon that Revenue are going through that tribunal report with a fine tooth comb...

CAB don't require a criminal conviction either to seize funds, if they can convince a judge that they were obtained by illegal means.

Bertie still doesn't have a tax clearance certificate AFAIK. Payment of all political salaries and pensions should be conditional on a current TCC. This should be the case for high level public servants, advisers etc. too (say over 100k)



Yeah :mad: Says it all about a sizeable proportion of the electorate here, to them standards don't matter a damn, just perceived self-interest.

But that's my point , our laws aren't being enforced by the DPP and Gardai.

Lowry will never go to jail, neither will Bertie. Callely will get off too. Flynn won't even get to see the inside of a cell.

So I don't support making a brand new law, that these people will weasel out of.

votecounts

While this apparent referendum would seem to be a good idea, it will not occur. The same way Bertie,P. Flynn,etc will never see the inside of a jail cell.
People, this is Ireland and the Establishment does not go to prison rather jail a person for not paying tax on garlic(6/7 years ffs)or social welfare fraud as opposed to the guys and girls who f'ed the country.:mad:

Mr.Micro

raymon wrote: »

But that's my point , our laws aren't being enforced by the DPP and Gardai.

Lowry will never go to jail, neither will Bertie. Callely will get off too. Flynn won't even get to see the inside of a cell.

So I don't support making a brand new law, that these people will weasel out of.

I do believe, if I recall correctly, that the Revenue never looked into Haughey's affairs either, through either fear or awe. The relevant authorities need to man up for the 21st century and do the job without fear or favour.

Hotblack Desiato

raymon wrote: »

But that's my point , our laws aren't being enforced by the DPP and Gardai.

Lowry will never go to jail, neither will Bertie. Callely will get off too. Flynn won't even get to see the inside of a cell.

So I don't support making a brand new law, that these people will weasel out of.

The point is that there is a difference between a tribunal finding, an adverse Revenue judgement against you, and a criminal conviction.

The level of proof needed for the last one is a lot higher than that needed for the other two.

'Knowing' something to be true is one thing, being able to prove it in court beyond any reasonable doubt is quite another thing.

Hotblack Desiato

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I do believe, if I recall correctly, that the Revenue never looked into Haughey's affairs either, through either fear or awe. The relevant authorities need to man up for the 21st century and do the job without fear or favour.

Really? I remember hearing (don't have cites to hand and can't look at the moment) that his children were hit for tax for his dodgy scheme to make bequests of assets to them while still controlling the assets for his lifetime.

raymon

Depends (explain in post)

ninja900 wrote: »

The point is that there is a difference between a tribunal finding, an adverse Revenue judgement against you, and a criminal conviction.

The level of proof needed for the last one is a lot higher than that needed for the other two.

'Knowing' something to be true is one thing, being able to prove it in court beyond any reasonable doubt is quite another thing.

That is the problem we can spend 300 million on a tribunal, but will not have anyone convicted of an offence.

The evidence is out there but the DPP and Gardai don't care .

A new law will just add another law that will not be used in prosecutions.

K-9

raymon wrote: »

The evidence is out there but the DPP and Gardai don't care .

Why do you assume they don't care? The FF in Government excuse is gone now and probably is for the foreseeable future, FG/Labour would love to see a case over this.


Maybe it's because the DPP and Guards have to weigh up the evidence in front of them and decide is it worth taking. Either way, loads of Joe Duffy calls. Do nothing, irate citizens, weigh up the evidence and decide to do nothing, irate citizens, bring a case and it fails, irate citizens.

Maybe it is because corruption is very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, as even the Tribunal found with a lesser degree of proof, no irate citizens!

I suppose we could just set aside legal principles because it's FF and people want their pound of flesh but that sets a precedent and Barristers love precedents.

Hotblack Desiato

raymon wrote: »

The evidence is out there but the DPP and Gardai don't care .

Yet again you miss the point... is there sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction, or not? The DPP won't send a case to trial if there is little likelihood of a conviction.

raymon

Depends (explain in post)

But the Gardai are reluctant to gather the evidence in white collar crime cases , and the DPP is reluctant to prosecute politicians.

Let's take three examples

1) Lowry
2) Haughey
3) Ray Burke

None prosecuted for corruption.

My point is that I do not support a new law that introduces new punishments for corruption when we don't convict corrupt politicians .

We have plenty of laws .

ednwireland

Depends (explain in post)

i'd be worried this would be loosley worded law and would allow a general pension grab (not like this gov would do that eh)

so no for me
anyway surely its in their and all civil service contracts ?

FreudianSlippers

A misunderstanding of what referenda are. There is no constitutional issue here firstly, secondly if we were having our first ordinary referendum it would need to be on a bill proposed by the Oireachtas (good luck there) and perhaps most importantly it absolutely smashes separation of powers allowing the Oireachtas or whom to act as judge and jury into a question of negligence which would be challenged on the grounds of constitutionality.

Why not just breach our contract with these people and let them she the state. We say that they have in fact breached their contract to the state. Problem solved.

FreudianSlippers

A misunderstanding of what referenda are. There is no constitutional issue here firstly, secondly if we were having our first ordinary referendum it would need to be on a bill proposed by the Oireachtas (good luck there) and perhaps most importantly it absolutely smashes separation of powers allowing the Oireachtas or whom to act as judge and jury into a question of negligence which would be challenged on the grounds of constitutionality.

Why not just breach our contract with these people and let them she the state. We say that they have in fact breached their contract to the state. Problem solved.

antoobrien

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A misunderstanding of what referenda are. There is no constitutional issue here firstly, secondly if we were having our first ordinary referendum it would need to be on a bill proposed by the Oireachtas (good luck there) and perhaps most importantly it absolutely smashes separation of powers allowing the Oireachtas or whom to act as judge and jury into a question of negligence which would be challenged on the grounds of constitutionality.

Why not just breach our contract with these people and let them she the state. We say that they have in fact breached their contract to the state. Problem solved.

I'm not so sure, the proposal to seizing pensions would seem to be clashing with article 45

The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:
i. That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

To my mind depriving somebody of their pension (no matter how justified it may appear) is in direct conflict with the above.

Also as has been said on here, I'd be wary of the burden of proof required and the possible need for retrospective legislation to cover this.

Laminations

No

I'm not so sure, the proposal to seizing pensions would seem to be clashing with article 45
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:
i. That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

Is that as specific as the Constitution gets on this? That is massively open to interpretation and I see many issues therein.

Citizens have a right to an adequate means of livelihood? Tell that to the emigrants and unemployed.

reasonable provision? Is 150,000 euros a year pension 'reasonable' for their domestic needs?

Could Gilligan not have argued to retain his ill gotten gains on the basis of that article? 'may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs'. He was/is a career criminal.
'Find the means'? what if those means are criminal, like accepting bribes etc.?

The state pay these pensions. I imagine they come from some pension pot which is managed by some state body? Is there anything in the constitution forcing the state to manage these pensions a certain way? I think it would be fair comeuppance to make poor investment choices with Bertie et al.s pension money and tell them 'sorry the cupboard is bare....world economic downturn and all that, global crash, unforeseen, hard luck'.

A referendum on the superannuation and pensions act 1963 should focus on inserting a clause that a public servant (above a certain level that conveys critical responsibilities) who brings their office/role into disrepute (not necessarily a criminal offense - they need to be severely and monetarily punished for ethical breaches), is liable to a cut or revocation of their pension provision (the part topped up by the state).

Other than that, with the position of the state finances, a pension tax should be introduced for anyone (paid by the state) with ludicrously large and/or multiple pensions, time-limited until our deficit drops below 3%.

At the very least Bertie should be bankrupted on costs. He did not cooperate with the tribunal. The tribunal was long and drawn out. It ended up costing 300 million. Bertie cost the state in more ways than one.

later12

No

Interesting comments from Willie O'Dea today as well in relation to the seizing of corrupt politicians' pensions

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/odea-backs-cutting-pensions-for-corrupt-politicians-545121.html

The Limerick said he supports calls for some of those named in the Mahon tribunal report published last week to be stripped of their pension entitlements.

"I wouldn't have any hesitation at all of pushing that line," he said.

"I think that the people who have been found guilty of abusing their public office to receive money corruptly... I mean I don't see why the taxpayer should be continuing to pay them a pension, quite frankly."

His sentiments were echoed by former Fianna Fáil TD for Donegal North East Jim McDaid.

"I think that anybody (found to have) abused their position certainly should have a case to answer.

"I'd have no hesitation in saying that their pensions should be under review, if not removed.

"If they abused their position - that position gave them their pension and there is no entitlement to a pension."

Elsewhere, Willie O'Dea denied some of the allegations made in Mahon.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0323/1224313769074.html

I would tend to agree that in the case of Willie O'Dea, he undermined the arguments of counsel for the tribunal (though not the character or integrity of Mahon himself). However, to propose that O'Dea sought to "collapse" the tribunal is really pushing it, I would have thought.

antoobrien

Laminations wrote: »

Is that as specific as the Constitution gets on this? That is massively open to interpretation and I see many issues therein.

Citizens have a right to an adequate means of livelihood? Tell that to the emigrants and unemployed.

The through their occupation bit is important there - it doesn't guarantee one. This means that the government can't reasonably restrict anybody from working (i.e. discrimination) so long as their occupation is legal

Laminations wrote: »

reasonable provision? Is 150,000 euros a year pension 'reasonable' for their domestic needs?

Don't know, don't particularly care because I'm hoping to eventually have more than that myself one day through private endeavors. I'm pretty sure that some people would find the potential provisions of my (currently measly) pension pot as being more than is reasonably required as well.

My concern here is that people appear to be calling for the entire pension to be cut off - I believe that would conflict with the constitution.

Or maybe we should remove the state pension (in whatever form) from everyone who broke a law, potentially making them destitute, which is 's the logical extension of this . Wanna lose it for a couple of speeding points?

Laminations

No

antoobrien wrote: »

The through their occupation bit is important there - it doesn't guarantee one. This means that the government can't reasonably restrict anybody from working (i.e. discrimination) so long as their occupation is legal

The bit it brackets about right to adequate livelihood is separate from the rest of the article.

Don't know, don't particularly care because I'm hoping to eventually have more than that myself one day through private endeavors. I'm pretty sure that some people would find the potential provisions of my (currently measly) pension pot as being more than is reasonably required as well.

Do you work for the state? Is this pension topped up by the state? Then I don't care - but if it turns out you acted illegally in whatever job you're doing that's providing you an income then your pension should be effected. So if you are Michael Fingleton, you shouldn't get to retire on millions.

My concern here is that people appear to be calling for the entire pension to be cut off - I believe that would conflict with the constitution.

The conatitution only seems to protect a reasonable pensuon. The state pension alone is reasonable. A private or public pension should therefore not be protected from large cuts if the monies were earned through illegal activities, or while breaching the code of conduct for their particular job.

Or maybe we should remove the state pension (in whatever form) from everyone who broke a law, potentially making them destitute, which is 's the logical extension of this . Wanna lose it for a couple of speeding points?

Now that would seem to breach the constitution. The state has a responsibility to protect basic provisions for citizens (criminals too)

antoobrien

Laminations wrote: »

The bit it brackets about right to adequate livelihood is separate from the rest of the article.

Nope that's 45.2.i - one subsection of article 45, of which there are 4 sections. Really go read th whole thing before making factually inaccurate statements.

Laminations wrote: »

Do you work for the state? Is this pension topped up by the state? Then I don't care - but if it turns out you acted illegally in whatever job you're doing that's providing you an income then your pension should be effected. So if you are Michael Fingleton, you shouldn't get to retire on millions.

No, no - and what the hell does fingers, who hasn't had any findings (let alone verdicts) made against him, have to do with this? He hasn't been found guilty or even culpable of anything except pissing off the public - so we can't exactly say that what he did was illegal or immoral (or you're opening yourself up to slander & libel). Incompetence isn't illegal either.

Laminations wrote: »

The conatitution only seems to protect a reasonable pensuon. The state pension alone is reasonable. A private or public pension should therefore not be protected from large cuts if the monies were earned through illegal activities, or while breaching the code of conduct for their particular job.

Who are you, or I, to decide what's reasonable or fair for somebody else? Somebody put in a suggestion that the public service pensions should be capped at the average industrial wage. Why would this be fair or reasonable to somebody to say a department secretary who has held a post equivalent to CEO in a private company?

Laminations wrote: »

Now that would seem to breach the constitution. The state has a responsibility to protect basic provisions for citizens (criminals too)

So you believe that with taking pensions from some people that you believe are criminals is constitutional, but the rest would be unconstitutional? Will we posthumously re-instate the generals dole then, since its withdrawal was seen as a punishment for his criminal activities, which as often as not were not proven in court?

Laminations

No

antoobrien wrote: »

Nope that's 45.2.i - one subsection of article 45, of which there are 4 sections. Really go read th whole thing before making factually inaccurate statements.




No, no - and what the hell does fingers, who hasn't had any findings (let alone verdicts) made against him, have to do with this? He hasn't been found guilty or even culpable of anything except pissing off the public - so we can't exactly say that what he did was illegal or immoral (or you're opening yourself up to slander & libel). Incompetence isn't illegal either.




Who are you, or I, to decide what's reasonable or fair for somebody else? Somebody put in a suggestion that the public service pensions should be capped at the average industrial wage. Why would this be fair or reasonable to somebody to say a department secretary who has held a post equivalent to CEO in a private company?




So you believe that with taking pensions from some people that you believe are criminals is constitutional, but the rest would be unconstitutional? Will we posthumously re-instate the generals dole then, since its withdrawal was seen as a punishment for his criminal activities, which as often as not were not proven in court?

I should have said re fingers 'if found guilty of a crime or deemed to have seriously breached the code of ethics for his industry, or the ethical responsibilities of his position, as determined by a court or independent regulator'

Savings are different to pensions. If there is an employer contribution to a pension and it is found that the now retired employee breached serious company rules or acted illegally or unethically to the point where the company (or state) was brought into disrepute, I don't think it unreasonable for the employer to stop/freeze/recoup any contributions to the pension.

antoobrien

Laminations wrote: »

If there is an employer contribution to a pension and it is found that the now retired employee breached serious company rules or acted illegally or unethically to the point where the company (or state) was brought into disrepute, I don't think it unreasonable for the employer to stop/freeze/recoup any contributions to the pension.

True, but I'm not sure how legal that is - might depend on the rules of the pension scheme, contract law and a host of other things.

Laminations

No

antoobrien wrote: »

Nope that's 45.2.i - one subsection of article 45, of which there are 4 sections. Really go read th whole thing before making factually inaccurate statements.

What are you talking about here? It is a statement in brackets about 'the right to an adequate means of livelihood' that is separate from the gist of that subsection about 'making reasonable provision for their domestic needs' by finding means 'through their occupations'. (and there are 5 sections)

I'm saying that the state doesn't adhere to that principle, evidenced by the emigrants and unemployed'

The principles are:

• "justice and charity" must "inform all the institutions of the national life".
• Everyone has the right to an adequate occupation.
• The free market and private property must be regulated in the interests of the common good.
• The state must prevent a destructive concentration of essential commodities in the hands of a few.
• The state must supplement private industry where necessary.
• The state should ensure efficiency in private industry and protect the public against economic exploitation.
• The state must protect the vulnerable, such as orphans and the aged.
• No one may be forced into an occupation unsuited to their age, sex or strength.

These are principles and intended solely "for the general guidance of the Oireachtas", and "shall not be cognisable by any Court under any of the provisions of this Constitution" (preamble to Article 45).

They are relatively ignored. So citing one of them as a constitutional protection for pensions when others are ignored is not a great defense. The 'reasonable provision' is supported by another principle 'The state must protect the vulnerable, such as orphans and the aged' which would protect the state pension or retaining a modest private pension in situations where the state seeks to end pension provision in cases of corruption or major ethical/criminal breaches.

Using article 45 as a defense of private pensions is bizarre given that contained within the same article we have

'That the ownership and control of the material resources of the community may be so distributed amongst private individuals and the various classes as best to subserve the common good.'

which is summarised by this principle - The free market and private property must be regulated in the interests of the common good.

Be very sure of your stuff before criticising me on my factual accuracy!

antoobrien

Laminations wrote: »

What are you talking about here?

I'm very sure of my factual accruacy here. I'm copying this directly from Bunreacht Na hÉireann:

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL POLICY
Article 45
The principles of social policy set forth in this Article are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas. The application of those principles in the making of laws shall be the care of the Oireachtas exclusively, and shall not be cognisable by any Court under any of the provisions of this Constitution.

1. The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the whole people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice and charity shall inform all the institutions of the national life.

2. The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:
i. That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.
ii. That the ownership and control of the material resources of the community may be so distributed amongst private individuals and the various classes as best to subserve the common good.
iii. That, especially, the operation of free competition shall not be allowed so to develop as to result in the concentration of the ownership or control of essential commodities in a few individuals to the common detriment.
iv. That in what pertains to the control of credit the constant and predominant aim shall be the welfare of the people as a whole.
v. That there may be established on the land in economic security as many families as in the circumstances shall be practicable.
3. 1° The State shall favour and, where necessary, supplement private initiative in industry and commerce.
2° The State shall endeavour to secure that private enterprise shall be so conducted as to ensure reasonable efficiency in the production and distribution of goods and as to protect the public against unjust exploitation.
4. 1° The State pledges itself to safeguard with especial care the economic interests of the weaker sections of the community, and, where necessary, to contribute to the support of the infirm, the widow, the orphan, and the aged.
2° The State shall endeavour to ensure that the strength and health of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children shall not be abused and that citizens shall not be forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their sex, age or strength.

The bit one bold is one section. It seems that you've take what i've said as an amalgamation of several sections, not one. My point was that the government can't legally discriminate against any people or group of people to prevent them from making a reasonable living. Removing pension entitlements (to my mind) would break this.

Plus if we consider Article 15.5.1

5. 1° The Oireachtas shall not declare acts to be infringements of the law which were not so at the date of their commission.

If these measures aren't legal now they can't be retrospectively applied. They can just be applied to future issues.

Laminations

No

antoobrien wrote: »

I'm very sure of my factual accruacy here. I'm copying this directly from Bunreacht Na hÉireann:




The bit one bold is one section. It seems that you've take what i've said as an amalgamation of several sections, not one. My point was that the government can't legally discriminate against any people or group of people to prevent them from making a reasonable living. Removing pension entitlements (to my mind) would break this.

Plus if we consider Article 15.5.1


If these measures aren't legal now they can't be retrospectively applied. They can just be applied to future issues.

We might have cross wires here. My point was that even though the bit in bold is one section, the bracketed bit is a stand-alone principle and one that is being ignored. In fact the whole article begins with a preamble on how these are principles to direct government policy but are not cognisable by any court. Therefore they can be ignored, or at least interpreted in various ways. Like I said all this principle seems to suggest is that the state has a responsibility to protect the aged with reasonable provision.

If the state pension is considered enough for Mary down the street then the state would be upholding their responsibility to Bertie or Fingers by leaving them with just that pension and confiscating the rest (if they are deemed to have acted illegally or in breach of their ethical responsibilities), and this action would be supported by the principle that the free market and private property must be regulated in the interests of the common good.

It is a common good to see these people (if found in serious breach of codes of conduct in their highly influential roles) monetarily punished.