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

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.