Dail Suspended - Debate and Voting

walshb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He once kicked Richard Boyd Barrett out of the Dail for daring to question why different standards were being applied during question time, to the opposition and to government TDs.

And rightly so!

hatrickpatrick

walshb wrote: »

And rightly so!

You think it's ok that the Ceann Comhairle should be allowed to exercise his role in a partisan manner and should be unchallengeable on this?

walshb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You think it's ok that the Ceann Comhairle should be allowed to exercise his role in a partisan manner and should be unchallengeable on this?

Because Boyd Barrett says so?

hatrickpatrick

walshb wrote: »

Because Boyd Barrett says so?

....?

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Your default position seems to be that Sinn Fein are correct in everything they say or do

Unlike you Godge who have given them a fair hearing and the benefit of the doubt on every occasion, eh? Puh-lease.
Why do you keep coming out with this "you always answer the same way" twaddle anyway? It's nothing more than an admission you can't address the question so you've got to play the man instead.

Dan_Solo

walshb wrote: »

Because Boyd Barrett says so?

You think it's OK because Boyd Barrett said so?
Is that supposed to make any sense?

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Unlike you Godge who have given them a fair hearing and the benefit of the doubt on every occasion, eh? Puh-lease.
Why do you keep coming out with this "you always answer the same way" twaddle anyway? It's nothing more than an admission you can't address the question so you've got to play the man instead.

Your selective quoting allows you to omit the fact that I did actually answer the question posed.

Godge wrote: »

Seriously? Does everything have to be proven to you? Or are you playing some kind of game?

Your default position seems to be that Sinn Fein are correct in everything they say or do and have the majority of public support for everything they say or do unless someone can prove otherwise using criminal level of proof.

Do you realise how silly that looks? As for the question you ask, the level of electoral support for SF North and South during the 1970s and 1980s demonstrates clearly the lack of support for the terrorist campaign. Their vote only went up when the violence stopped, further proof.

hatrickpatrick

walshb wrote: »

Because Boyd Barrett says so?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You think it's OK because Boyd Barrett said so?
Is that supposed to make any sense?

I think he's implying that the only evidence I have for Sean Barrett's partisan behavior is Richard's word - but the remark makes no sense so I'm not actually sure.
Assuming that is indeed what's being implied, I don't need anyone to tell me what is partisan behavior and what isn't, I was in the viewing gallery on the day in question and a video of the exchange is available on the Oireachtas website. I can find this for you this evening if you like?

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Your selective quoting allows you to omit the fact that I did actually answer the question posed.

Nope, you went on to say something else unrelated.
Sorry about that.

Dan_Solo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think he's implying that the only evidence I have for Sean Barrett's partisan behavior is Richard's word - but the remark makes no sense so I'm not actually sure.

No surprise Godge agrees with it though, even though it doesn't mean anything!

walshb

Yes, Boyd Barret making a claim means F all. He may be correct, but he may not be. SF were pulled up, and they failed to obey the order to leave the chamber. Then they moan and whinge about a biased Barrett. Throw in a Boyd Barret claim and suddenly the case against Barrett is proven?

Dan_Solo

walshb wrote: »

Yes, Boyd Barret making a claim means F all. He may be correct, but he may not be. SF were pulled up, and they failed to obey the order to leave the chamber. Then they moan and whinge about a biased Barrett. Thrown in a Boyd Barret claim and suddenly the case against Barrett is proven?

But the question you were asked was

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You think it's ok that the Ceann Comhairle should be allowed to exercise his role in a partisan manner and should be unchallengeable on this?

Which has nothing specifically to do with Barrett at all.
See? No?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You think it's ok that the Ceann Comhairle should be allowed to exercise his role in a partisan manner and should be unchallengeable on this?

The problem you have here is that "exercise his role in a partisan manner" is a judgment issue. It is possible for two people to have a different opinion on this and it usually is not as clear as you think. Even though you were in the chamber at the time to witness what happened Boyd-Barrett, you wouldn't have been there every other day since 1922 (or since 1977 or whenever Sean Barrett was elected) to see the precedence of rulings which the Ceann Comhairle was relying on so you have little way of knowing whether it was partisan or not as you do not have the context of decades of Dail sittings.

On the other hand, refusal to obey the Ceann Comhairle, as MLD did, is clear-cut - it is a refusal to obey the democratically expressed wish of the Dail. As a matter of fact, it is undemocratic whereas Barrett's actions are only undemocratic as a matter of opinion.

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But the question you were asked was

Which has nothing specifically to do with Barrett at all.
See? No?

Ok, then the answer is no, he should not be allowed operate in a partisan manner.

hatrickpatrick

walshb wrote: »

Yes, Boyd Barret making a claim means F all. He may be correct, but he may not be. SF were pulled up, and they failed to obey the order to leave the chamber. Then they moan and whinge about a biased Barrett. Throw in a Boyd Barret claim and suddenly the case against Barrett is proven?

Let me clarify this, I was in the Dail to witness SB's bias for myself. I am not making a judgement based merely on hearsay, I'm making a judgement based on the evidence of my own eyes and ears on that occasion, and on numerous videos of his antics on other occasions.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

The problem you have here is that "exercise his role in a partisan manner" is a judgment issue. It is possible for two people to have a different opinion on this and it usually is not as clear as you think. Even though you were in the chamber at the time to witness what happened Boyd-Barrett, you wouldn't have been there every other day since 1922 (or since 1977 or whenever Sean Barrett was elected) to see the precedence of rulings which the Ceann Comhairle was relying on so you have little way of knowing whether it was partisan or not as you do not have the context of decades of Dail sittings.

Is it not enough to say I was there for a lengthy Dail session in which RBB was lambasted by the Ceann Comhairle for behavior he had ignored from government TDs literally minutes before?
If there's a precedent for that, then all that proves is that the office of Ceann Comhairle has a record of acting in a biased manner. I don't see how anyone can possibly claim double standards are not being applied when one person is called out for behavior which was accepted from others literally minutes beforehand.

On the other hand, refusal to obey the Ceann Comhairle, as MLD did, is clear-cut - it is a refusal to obey the democratically expressed wish of the Dail. As a matter of fact, it is undemocratic whereas Barrett's actions are only undemocratic as a matter of opinion.

I'd argue that it is a matter of opinion that decisions taken by SB as Ceann Comhairle are "the democratically expressed wish of the Dail", considering he was not elected to this position by the people but by the Dail itself. Furthermore, if the majority of the population regarded Sean Barrett's behavior as undemocratic, it would be undemocratic. The only way to solve this would be with some kind of nationwide poll.

I feel we're arguing over semantics here. Do you or do you not regard it as acceptable for a chairperson of a debate to apply different standards to different participants in that debate? Do you furthermore regard it as mere coincidence when those subjected to more lenient standards are the chairperson's party colleagues?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Seriously? Does everything have to be proven to you? Or are you playing some kind of game?

Well you are the one positing the ridiculous notion that revolutionaries have some capability to prove a mandate. How utterly ridiculous.

Your default position seems to be that Sinn Fein are correct in everything they say or do and have the majority of public support for everything they say or do unless someone can prove otherwise using criminal level of proof.

More nonsense, I just object to your cliched geeralising about republican issues.

Do you realise how silly that looks? As for the question you ask, the level of electoral support for SF North and South during the 1970s and 1980s demonstrates clearly the lack of support for the terrorist campaign. Their vote only went up when the violence stopped, further proof.

SF where a fledgling party in the 70's and 80's and where restricted by draconian and undemocratic actions by two governments intent on stopping them gaining any visible electoral support. (Section 31, the activities of The Heavy Gang and similar British demonisation)
The Irish government have had to find more sinister means to try and stop their rise and the transparency of their actions in the last while may very well see the Irish electorate reward SF with a share of the power on the whole island, North and South by 2016.
One in the eye for FG FF as they say.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is it not enough to say I was there for a lengthy Dail session in which RBB was lambasted by the Ceann Comhairle for behavior he had ignored from government TDs literally minutes before?
If there's a precedent for that, then all that proves is that the office of Ceann Comhairle has a record of acting in a biased manner. I don't see how anyone can possibly claim double standards are not being applied when one person is called out for behavior which was accepted from others literally minutes beforehand.

That is your opinion.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd argue that it is a matter of opinion that decisions taken by SB as Ceann Comhairle are "the democratically expressed wish of the Dail", considering he was not elected to this position by the people but by the Dail itself. Furthermore, if the majority of the population regarded Sean Barrett's behavior as undemocratic, it would be undemocratic. The only way to solve this would be with some kind of nationwide poll.

I feel we're arguing over semantics here. Do you or do you not regard it as acceptable for a chairperson of a debate to apply different standards to different participants in that debate? Do you furthermore regard it as mere coincidence when those subjected to more lenient standards are the chairperson's party colleagues?

It is a fact that the Dail voted to support the CC and remove MLD.

So we have your opinion versus a democratic vote.

I think I will choose the democratic vote.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well you are the one positing the ridiculous notion that revolutionaries have some capability to prove a mandate. How utterly ridiculous.


More nonsense, I just object to your cliched geeralising about republican issues.


SF where a fledgling party in the 70's and 80's and where restricted by draconian and undemocratic actions by two governments intent on stopping them gaining any visible electoral support. (Section 31, the activities of The Heavy Gang and similar British demonisation)
The Irish government have had to find more sinister means to try and stop their rise and the transparency of their actions in the last while may very well see the Irish electorate reward SF with a share of the power on the whole island, North and South by 2016.
One in the eye for FG FF as they say.

So you have no evidence to show that the terrorist campaign was supported by anything other than a small minority of disaffected people.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

So we have your opinion versus a democratic vote.

I think I will choose the democratic vote.

I vote that the CC is bent.
All votes are is the opinion of many you know.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I vote that the CC is bent.
All votes are is the opinion of many you know.

No, not all votes are the same.

166 people sitting in a room can have a vote and it means nothing.

166 TD's elected to the Dail voting in parliament is the expression of the democratic will of the people.

Unless you are saying we shouldn't have a parliamentary democracy and be ruled some other way?

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I vote that the CC is bent.
All votes are is the opinion of many you know.

Sorry, but that is ludicrous to say that your opinion on the matter is the same as elected Dail TDs casting a vote on the issue.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

So you have no evidence to show that the terrorist campaign was supported by anything other than a small minority of disaffected people.

The IRA had enough support to sustain their campaign, I know that doesn't suit people like you but there you have it. It's is and has been the same the world over and since the beginning of time. It was a battle for hearts and minds and they won, against gerrymandering and a failed Unionist state.

There is plenty of evidence to also show that in a free democratic vote, the majority of nationalists now realise who attained their freedoms and equality and continue to reward them with their votes. Exactly the same way that the majority in the south now realise who got them their freedom and independence.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Unless you are saying we shouldn't have a parliamentary democracy and be ruled some other way?

Not addressed to me, but to be fair I've been saying this for a long time

fergus1001

Godge wrote: »

I didn't say it hadn't changed. Not sure what your point is.

That it achieved equality for catholics

So you are telling me the ira were 100% wrong in the north (what they achieved overall)

Please enlighten me

fergus1001

I'd also like to point out that if the whip system was abolished government would not be able to shoehorn legislation the way it is now, backbenchers would be more that just pawns and the cc might be a bit more nervous about calling votes like he did

hatrickpatrick

fergus1001 wrote: »

I'd also like to point out that if the whip system was abolished government would not be able to shoehorn legislation the way it is now, backbenchers would be more that just pawns and the cc might be a bit more nervous about calling votes like he did

Was about to point this out, although I bring this up ad nauseum here it cuts to the heart of why our Dail cannot be considered democratic.
I wonder how many FG TDs would have voted confidence in Alan Shatter had there been no consequences for voting with their own opinions instead of as the cabinet directed?

I still find it unbelievable that Godge is defending double standards in what should be a democratic parliament. It doesn't matter which party someone is from or whether you agree with them or not, if we allow the chair of parliament to only selectively apply the rules of the house, we are allowing our parliament to become a farce.

Let's say ML McD was in fact wrong to stage a Dail sit-in. Leaving that aside, concentrating only on Sean Barrett's behavior, do those opposing ML's actions believe that the Ceann Comhairle acted as appropriate for his office? How about his behavior during the budget speeches in which he also upheld rules against her which he had ignored with government TDs mere moments beforehand?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Was about to point this out, although I bring this up ad nauseum here it cuts to the heart of why our Dail cannot be considered democratic.
I wonder how many FG TDs would have voted confidence in Alan Shatter had there been no consequences for voting with their own opinions instead of as the cabinet directed?

I still find it unbelievable that Godge is defending double standards in what should be a democratic parliament. It doesn't matter which party someone is from or whether you agree with them or not, if we allow the chair of parliament to only selectively apply the rules of the house, we are allowing our parliament to become a farce.

Let's say ML McD was in fact wrong to stage a Dail sit-in. Leaving that aside, concentrating only on Sean Barrett's behavior, do those opposing ML's actions believe that the Ceann Comhairle acted as appropriate for his office? How about his behavior during the budget speeches in which he also upheld rules against her which he had ignored with government TDs mere moments beforehand?

I am not defending double standards.

What I am saying is that we live in a democracy and the place to make our voice heard is at the ballot box.

You think Sean Barrett showed bias but that is only your opinion, it is not fact. One man's bias is another man's fair ruling.

"Let's say ML McD was in fact wrong to stage a Dail sit-in." There is no "let's say" about it. In a democracy, the vote of the Dail is paramount unless the Dail does something illegal in which case the Council of State will advise the President or if they miss it, the Courts will intervene. MLMcD rejected a democratic decision of the Dail, that is not opinion, that is fact. That put her outside the democracy and the fact she climbed down so quickly proved that she knew it too.

We do not live in a country where policy is decided with a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

We do not live in a country where policy is decided with a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other.

No, we live in a country where policy is decided with a fat envelope in one hand and the latest orders from Angela Merkel in the other.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

I am not defending double standards.

You're not discussing them at all, you're deflecting the discussion every time they're brought up.

What I am saying is that we live in a democracy and the place to make our voice heard is at the ballot box.

Because that's been so effective around the world for producing accountable governments :rolleyes:

You think Sean Barrett showed bias but that is only your opinion, it is not fact. One man's bias is another man's fair ruling.

He applied rules to ML McD which he did not apply to government TDs. That is a fact, as you will see if you have a look at the video from the budget speeches. Specifically, he lambasted her for speaking directly to other TDs instead of through the chair. Michael Noonan did exactly that when delivering his speech and was not called out for it.

That is not opinion, that is a fact. It is also a fact that this is defined as the application of a double standard.
From the Oxford Dictionary:
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/57004?rskey=SzcgKf&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid6164709

double standard n. a rule, principle, judgement, etc., viewed as applying more strictly to one group of people, set of circumstances, etc., than to another; applied specifically to a code of sexual behaviour that is more rigid for women than for men.

Somewhat surprised that the dictionary regards double standard as primarily referring to sex when I would have thought it was far more relevant in politics, but I digress.

Have you watched the video yourself? Do you deny that the Ceann Comhairle applied a double standard in the upholding of the standing order?

"Let's say ML McD was in fact wrong to stage a Dail sit-in." There is no "let's say" about it. In a democracy, the vote of the Dail is paramount unless the Dail does something illegal in which case the Council of State will advise the President or if they miss it, the Courts will intervene. MLMcD rejected a democratic decision of the Dail, that is not opinion, that is fact. That put her outside the democracy and the fact she climbed down so quickly proved that she knew it too.

We do not live in a country where policy is decided with a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other.

So once again you refuse to actually address the double standard issue. I will quote it again for you:

do those opposing ML's actions believe that the Ceann Comhairle acted as appropriate for his office? How about his behavior during the budget speeches in which he also upheld rules against her which he had ignored with government TDs mere moments beforehand?

Care to offer an opinion?