"The possibility of abolishing the Law Reform Commission should be investigated"

conorh91

..That's according to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, following a submission on cost savings by the Office of the Attorney General.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/welfare-cuts-urged-by-howlin-s-department-in-review-1.1970756

Is this the most ridiculous savings proposal to date?

It would save a measly €1.5 million per annum. That is absolutely tremendous value for a body that taps into the best legal experts, and has played an enormous role in updating and improving our legal system, particularly on the criminal side.

For a country the side of Ireland's, with scant guidance on complex points of law, the LRC's researches have injected some crucial certainty, and its work has been extensively mined by the courts.

I just noticed this story on the front page of the Times this morning, and was surprised that anyone would think this was a remotely clever idea. The most basic examination would appear to indicate its abolition would deprive the Irish legal system of a valuable resource.

Manach

Great.

Well it is a small start on the pull-back on the extreme overdrawn expenditure, of which the state is spending the taxpayers money (historian AJ Taylor source). This LRC body is one which many of the taxpayers do not themselves know or avail of, and the experts from my own experience are of the academic sort: proposing theoretical solutions which look wonderful based on their own jurisprudential leanings but do not reflect the organic common law traditions of the country (a point thinkers like Rodger Scruton emphasise in the English equivalent). Alternatives to this commission, apart from the normal cut and paste of Irish law from the UK or EU, could be to use how other countries draft law by actually listening not to experts but instead crowd sourcing to the people as various initiative projects in Europe are following (as mentioned by Slashdot).

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

Great.

Well it is a small start on the pull-back on the extreme overdrawn expenditure, of which the state is spending the taxpayers money (historian AJ Taylor source). This LRC body is one which many of the taxpayers do not themselves know or avail of, and the experts from my own experience are of the academic sort: proposing theoretical solutions which look wonderful based on their own jurisprudential leanings but do not reflect the organic common law traditions of the country (a point thinkers like Rodger Scruton emphasise in the English equivalent). Alternatives to this commission, apart from the normal cut and paste of Irish law from the UK or EU, could be to use how other countries draft law by actually listening not to experts but instead crowd sourcing to the people as various initiative projects in Europe are following (as mentioned by Slashdot).

Good idea, but in order to filter all this crowd souring we would need 5 assistant secretaries, 10 principle officers, 20 support staff, a flashy new office, a favoured contract for cleaning etc which would cost a lot more than 1.5m

Grolschevik

Manach wrote: »

Great.

Well it is a small start on the pull-back on the extreme overdrawn expenditure, of which the state is spending the taxpayers money (historian AJ Taylor source). This LRC body is one which many of the taxpayers do not themselves know or avail of, and the experts from my own experience are of the academic sort: proposing theoretical solutions which look wonderful based on their own jurisprudential leanings but do not reflect the organic common law traditions of the country (a point thinkers like Rodger Scruton emphasise in the English equivalent). Alternatives to this commission, apart from the normal cut and paste of Irish law from the UK or EU, could be to use how other countries draft law by actually listening not to experts but instead crowd sourcing to the people as various initiative projects in Europe are following (as mentioned by Slashdot).

Why are you randomly referencing AJP Taylor and Roger Scruton here?

Those mentions don't even work as source references in the context of what you wrote. Did you just want us to know you'd heard of them, though not well enough to be certain of their names?

conorh91

Grolschevik wrote: »

Why are you randomly referencing AJP Taylor and Roger Scruton here?

Those mentions don't even work as source references in the context of what you wrote. Did you just want us to know you'd heard of them, though not well enough to be certain of their names?

irony radar alert:pac:

Grolschevik

conorh91 wrote: »

irony radar alert:pac:

You think?

conorh91

Grolschevik wrote: »

You think?

Ah lads come on.

Yes. I think. Manach was taking the piss. I deeply regret that it was not obvious.

Anyway, it appears to be off the table for now, since the economic growth rendered these cuts redundant. But it just goes to show how vulnerable such structures may be in future. i have to say I never thought the LRC was a serious point of contention. I'm genuinely surprised that the AG would raise this as a possible saving.

Grolschevik

conorh91 wrote: »

Ah lads come on.

Yes. I think. Manach was taking the piss. I deeply regret that it was not obvious.

Anyway, it appears to be off the table for now, since the economic growth rendered these cuts redundant. But it just goes to show how vulnerable such structures may be in future. i have to say I never thought the LRC was a serious point of contention. I'm genuinely surprised that the AG would raise this as a possible saving.

Nothing surprises me on Boards these days.

But nothing surprises me either in terms of things governments can think worthless.

nuac

LRC should be kept.

While it may have academics on it, afaik there are representative of the Law Society and the Bar Council on it, this giving practitioners an opportunity to make representations