Sean Barrett, the "infallibility" of the Ceann Comhairle and Irish politics

hatrickpatrick

Surprised not to see a debate about this here already.

For anyone who hasn't been keeping an eye on politics this week, there's been another sh!tstorm of controversy surrounding Ceann Comhairle Sean Barrett.

In this particular case, the Dail was due to debate the terms of reference etc prior to the establishment of the previously announced commission of investigation into the Guerin Report's findings regarding the Garda whistleblowers.

Ceann Comhairle Sean Barrett issues an eleventh hour ruling that the debate could not in fact go ahead as the matter is sub judice (before the courts) and would breach standing order 57 section 2.

Standing order 57 is as follows:

[url=http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/proceduraldocuments/Standorders2011_revised.pdf]The Dail Standing Orders[/url] wrote:

57. Subject always to the right of Dáil Éireann to legislate on any matter (and any guidelines which may be drawn up by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges from time to time), and unless otherwise precluded under Standing Orders, a member shall not be prevented from raising in the Dáil any matter of general public importance, even where court proceedings have been initiated: Provided that—
(1) the matter raised shall be clearly related to public policy;
(2) a matter may not be raised where it relates to a case where notice has been served and which is to be heard before a jury or is then being heard before a jury;
(3) a matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner so that it appears to be an attempt by the Dáil to encroach on the functions of the Courts or a Judicial Tribunal;
(4) members may only raise matters in a substantive manner (i.e. by way of Parliamentary Question, matter raised under Standing Order 21, motion, etc.) where due notice is required; and
(5) when permission to raise a matter has been granted, there will continue to be an onus on members to avoid, if at all possible, comment which might in effect prejudice the outcome of proceedings.

The government decided to go ahead with setting up the commission in the absence of the debate after this ruling from Sean Barrett.

The opposition, predictably, was furious. A protracted row followed in which it was requested by both Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail that the commission of investigation's initiation be postponed until such a time as the matter could in fact be debated, presumably whenever the court proceedings end. Enda Kenny responded that the Ceann Comhairle's ruling is absolute and therefore no debate can take place, rather than simply no debate can take place until a particular time. He repeatedly stated that "the government is happy to have a debate, but the Ceann Comhairle has ruled against it."
Micheal Martin asked whether the Ceann Comhairle had received any correspondence asking him to axe the debate, and further pointed out that standing order 57 (2) only refers to jury based cases, which Shatter's action over the Guerin report is not. He asked for an explanation of the Ceann Comhairle's rationale and stated that it raised fundamental questions about the role of the Dail in government.

I won't summarise the entire debate here as it was very long, I have provided a link and timestamp below for anyone who's interested, but having watched it last night it can basically be summed up as repeated requests for information by the opposition as well as calls for the entire issue to be postponed, with the standard "The Ceann Comhairle is absolutely independent" and "The Ceann Comhairle's word is final and cannot be debated" responses from the government. The opposition continuously argued that undermining the Dail in this manner was extraordinary, particularly in view of the fact that the standing order in question was originally written to prevent gagging of this nature being used to prevent a Dail debate. Gerry Adams pointed out that this rule was not applied in the case of Padraig Wilson, and furthermore asked whether Shatter or anyone else involved requested through correspondence that the debate be silenced, and requested that the debate be postponed.

After this went on for a very long time, Kenny admitted that Shatter and Shatter's legal team had written to the Ceann Comhairle and the government pointing out that this issue was sub judice, and that this precipitated the whole incident. There was predictable uproar - particularly when Mick Wallace pointed out that he has asked the same question the previous day and had not been given an answer.

Transcript of the previous day's discussion:

[url=http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2015012700029]Dail Record[/url] wrote:

Deputy Mick Wallace: I want to ask the Taoiseach a few questions about the motion regarding the proposed commission of investigation into matters considered by Mr. Seán Guerin SC. Given that a commission of investigation can only be established by order whereby the terms of reference must be discussed in the Dáil, am I to take it that the commission has not been established? Can the Taoiseach confirm - yes or no - whether the removal from the Dáil schedule today of the motion regarding the proposed commission of investigation into matters considered by Guerin was as a result of a court order or a letter from Deputy Shatter's solicitor? Can the Taoiseach confirm whether the Government sought and received legal advice from the Attorney General's office as to whether the matter can be debated in the Dáil?

The Taoiseach: As far as I understand it, this is a matter that is listed for tomorrow. Clearly, the Government decided to have a commission of inquiry and the Government's intention is to set up the commission of inquiry. The Government has approved the terms of reference for the Guerin inquiry. I understand that the Ceann Comhairle has a view on this in respect of Standing Orders, but the matter is listed for tomorrow and the Government fully intends to set up the inquiry as envisaged.

The opposition then walked out of the Dail in protest, and the motion was carried in their absence.

The Dail debate can be viewed here, with this incident starting from 4:30:00
mmsh://wmv.heanet.ie/oireachtas/Dail/Dail_20150128.wmv?MSWMExt=.asf

The controversy has grown and grown in recent days, with even Alan Kelly now questioning the Ceann Comhairle's antics.

This entire incident raises fundamental questions about the structure of our democracy, IMO.

It has long been my view (and I say this as someone who helped to elect him) that Sean Barrett has been an absolute appalling Ceann Comhairle. the level of bias in his application of the rules has been outrageous, and we've had perhaps more public controversies surrounding his behaviour than with any Ceann Comhairle in recent memory bar John "I will remind the deputy" O'Donoghue. Any time such controversy arises, the standard, generic reaction is "the Ceann Comhairle is independent" and "The Ceann Comhairle's ruling cannot be questioned".

Is this enforced "infallibility" of the chair a good thing? Is it healthy for democracy that a chair elected from the ranks of the sitting majority is completely unaccountable? He or she has considerable power to influence Dail proceedings and to sabotage them, and it seems to me that Sean Barrett's tenure, and John O'Donoghue's before him, has underlined precisely why such absolute power is so incredibly damaging to politics. Obviously there are some who are capable of acting in an impartial manner, but it would seem that when we get one who is not, the government is able to hide behind his "absolute independence" to avoid any accountability over their party colleague's bias. I have no doubt that the same would happen were the Ceann Comhairle to be elected from the opposition, so that clearly isn't a solution.
But should the Ceann Comhairle's independence place him above the elected representatives of the house in such a manner as to prevent any controversial ruling being discussed, appealed, or criticised? In my view this is extremely dangerous. Should he be completely immune to scrutiny or accountability?

What do people make of this week's events, and what say ye on the subject of Ceann Comhairle accountability, infallibility, and successive governments' rigid refusal to discuss accusations of improper chairing?

conorh91

I think we need an executive summary

A motion was put before the Dail regarding a Commission of Investigation. The Ceann Comhairle put down the motion without the need for a debate. The motion passed without the opposition being allowed to mount their soapbox. But they are getting their Commission they wanted, and the State has avoided pointless litigation.

Just another ridiculous attempt at publicity from the corridors of powerlessness

Sobko

conorh91 wrote: »

I think we need an executive summary

A motion was put before the Dail regarding a Commission of Investigation. The Ceann Comhairle put down the motion without the need for a debate. The motion passed without the opposition being allowed to mount their soapbox. But they are getting their Commission they wanted, and the State has avoided pointless litigation.

Just another ridiculous attempt at publicity from the corridors of powerlessness

Regardless the optics are bad. We were promised new politics not fascism.

conorh91

Sobko wrote: »

Regardless the optics are bad. We were promised new politics not fascism.

Are you likening Fascism to 'bad optics'?

Fascism had a real and enduring devastating effect on hundreds of millions of Europeans.

The recent Dáil motion had no negative effect on anybody at all. It saved the State from potentially costly litigation.

'Bad optics' is a trite, meaningless buzz-term.

Sobko

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you likening Fascism to 'bad optics'?

Fascism had a real and enduring devastating effect on hundreds of millions of Europeans.

The recent Dáil motion had no practical effect on anybody at all. 'Bad optics' is a trite, meaningless buzz-term.

This is not the first time Barret has stifled debate. His job is to be impartial. He is failing.

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you likening Fascism to 'bad optics'?

Fascism had a real and enduring devastating effect on hundreds of millions of Europeans.

The recent Dáil motion had no negative effect on anybody at all. It saved the State from potentially costly litigation.

'Bad optics' is a trite, meaningless buzz-term.

The cabinet decided the terms of reference of a very important commission of investigation and this was then set up without the opposition - or, indeed, backbench government TDs - being given the opportunity to scrutinise or criticise those terms of reference.

All of this happened because of a private letter sent by one of the key parties under investigation, and the existence of that letter was only admitted to after extensive stonewalling by the government and the chair.

Furthermore, any criticism whatsoever of any ruling by the chair or any instances of suspected bias is met with "the chair is independent", in other words, is accountable to absolutely nobody.

You honestly think that this is merely "bad optics"? It fundamentally undermines the Dail.

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

The motion passed without the opposition being allowed to mount their soapbox.

...

Just another ridiculous attempt at publicity from the corridors of powerlessness

So you're one of those who thinks that elected representatives who don't happen to be part of the government shouldn't be allowed to represent the people who elected them?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you're one of those who thinks that elected representatives who don't happen to be part of the government shouldn't be allowed to represent the people who elected them?

My problem with the Dail at the moment is that too many TDs are looking for publicity opportunities. They are not interested in the real business - legislating.

For example, take Wednesday. The publicity stunt was about a Commission of Inquiry, where the actual real business will be done by the Commission.

Where was the controversy over the EU Foreign Trade Agreements with Colombia and Peru? Or this bill:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2014/7814/document1.htm

Or this one?

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2014/11114/document1.htm

You know the X-Factor generation are not interested in real tangible issues, they just want the sexy faux soapboxing that masquerades as serious debate.

KingBrian2

Sobko wrote: »

Regardless the optics are bad. We were promised new politics not fascism.

Fascism was always liked by a certain portion of the country, normally the really nasty guys.

Cedrus

Sobko wrote: »

This is not the first time Barret has stifled debate. His job is to be impartial. He is failing.

WHAT? I want that job, sounds cushty.

Actually, the CCs job is to run the house in an orderly fashion according to the order of business, stop any unlawful discussion and not let showboaters derail discussions or abuse other deputies.

hatrickpatrick

Cedrus wrote: »

WHAT? I want that job, sounds cushty.

Actually, the CCs job is to run the house in an orderly fashion according to the order of business, stop any unlawful discussion and not let showboaters derail discussions or abuse other deputies.

So you believe it is not part of his job to be impartial? :eek:

Are there people here who genuinely believe that the opposition shouldn't be able to scrutinize, question, or propose changes to the terms of reference of a commission of investigation?

Are there people here who genuinely believe that it was ok for the government to stonewall over the existence of the Shatter letter until hounded about it for several hours?

Would those people favour, following an election, a coalition / majority being established, a cabinet elected, and then any TD who is not part of the aforementioned arrangement simply being kicked out of the Dail for the remainder of the term? That would save many salaries, furniture, and pesky interruptions by those who are lesser representatives of the people than those who happen to be aligned in such a way as to grant them ultimate importance, even though each elected by a same proportion of the people as those other wasters. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Godge, I'll have to research the asset management bill before commenting, but what issue do you have with the redress bill?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you believe it is not part of his job to be impartial? :eek:

Are there people here who genuinely believe that the opposition shouldn't be able to scrutinize, question, or propose changes to the terms of reference of a commission of investigation?

Are there people here who genuinely believe that it was ok for the government to stonewall over the existence of the Shatter letter until hounded about it for several hours?

Would those people favour, following an election, a coalition / majority being established, a cabinet elected, and then any TD who is not part of the aforementioned arrangement simply being kicked out of the Dail for the remainder of the term? That would save many salaries, furniture, and pesky interruptions by those who are lesser representatives of the people than those who happen to be aligned in such a way as to grant them ultimate importance, even though each elected by a same proportion of the people as those other wasters. :rolleyes:

I want the TDs to get on with what they were elected to do - legislate.

Fair play to Averil Power and John Crown for bringing forward legislation on e-cigarettes, that is the sort of thing they were elected for.

Posturing in the Dail, the way Mary Lou, Gerry, Mick Wallace, Claire Daly and the rest act doesn't do anything for me. All empty vessels with nothing of substance to say except to be against everything. Tiresome, tedious and pointless.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

I want the TDs to get on with what they were elected to do - legislate.

And you think they should legislate without debating what they're legislating? That is exactly what happened this week with regard to the terms of reference of the Guerin commission of investigation.

Fair play to Averil Power and John Crown for bringing forward legislation on e-cigarettes, that is the sort of thing they were elected for.

I'll have to research that legislation, but if it involves severely regulating e-cigarettes so as to impose the nanny state on people's choices help to maintain the profit margins of tobacco companies, I for one will be less than impressed. :rolleyes:

Posturing in the Dail, the way Mary Lou, Gerry, Mick Wallace, Claire Daly and the rest act doesn't do anything for me. All empty vessels with nothing of substance to say except to be against everything. Tiresome, tedious and pointless.

You're failing to address, in any way, what actually happened. I'll ask you again:

Are you ok with the fact that the terms of reference for this commission were decided on and rammed through the Dail without any of your elected representatives being given the opportunity to scrutinise, criticise, or propose amendments to them? Yes or no?
It's not just the opposition you so detest who were denied an opportunity to represent their electorate. No government backbenchers were allowed a say either.

Cedrus

Sobko wrote: »

............ Barret has stifled debate. His job is to be impartial...............

Cedrus wrote: »

...............
Actually, the CCs job is to run the house in an orderly fashion according to the order of business, stop any unlawful discussion and not let showboaters derail discussions or abuse other deputies.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you believe it is not part of his job to be impartial? :eek:
................................................

Where did I say that the CC should not be impartial,? Never mind that it should be part of his job?
Of course it is PART of his job but not the only part.

hatrickpatrick

Cedrus wrote: »

Where did I say that the CC should not be impartial,? Never mind that it should be part of his job?
Of course it is PART of his job but not the only part.

I never claimed it was the only part. It is, however, a fundamental part. In other words, if he's not being impartial, he shouldn't be Ceann Comhairle at all.
It's obvious even looking at his language that he treats certain deputies with complete contempt. He broadly favours the government, but he's willing to at least allow FF to sometimes do their job as TDs. SF or Technical Group members he picks constant fights with over rules he literally never enforces with others.

expectationlost

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Surprised not to see a debate about this here already.

For anyone who hasn't been keeping an eye on politics this week, there's been another sh!tstorm of controversy surrounding Ceann Comhairle Sean Barrett.

In this particular case, the Dail was due to debate the terms of reference etc prior to the establishment of the previously announced commission of investigation into the Guerin Report's findings regarding the Garda whistleblowers.

Ceann Comhairle Sean Barrett issues an eleventh hour ruling that the debate could not in fact go ahead as the matter is sub judice (before the courts) and would breach standing order 57 section 2.

Standing order 57 is as follows:



The government decided to go ahead with setting up the commission in the absence of the debate after this ruling from Sean Barrett.

The opposition, predictably, was furious. A protracted row followed in which it was requested by both Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail that the commission of investigation's initiation be postponed until such a time as the matter could in fact be debated, presumably whenever the court proceedings end. Enda Kenny responded that the Ceann Comhairle's ruling is absolute and therefore no debate can take place, rather than simply no debate can take place until a particular time. He repeatedly stated that "the government is happy to have a debate, but the Ceann Comhairle has ruled against it."
Micheal Martin asked whether the Ceann Comhairle had received any correspondence asking him to axe the debate, and further pointed out that standing order 57 (2) only refers to jury based cases, which Shatter's action over the Guerin report is not. He asked for an explanation of the Ceann Comhairle's rationale and stated that it raised fundamental questions about the role of the Dail in government.

I won't summarise the entire debate here as it was very long, I have provided a link and timestamp below for anyone who's interested, but having watched it last night it can basically be summed up as repeated requests for information by the opposition as well as calls for the entire issue to be postponed, with the standard "The Ceann Comhairle is absolutely independent" and "The Ceann Comhairle's word is final and cannot be debated" responses from the government. The opposition continuously argued that undermining the Dail in this manner was extraordinary, particularly in view of the fact that the standing order in question was originally written to prevent gagging of this nature being used to prevent a Dail debate. Gerry Adams pointed out that this rule was not applied in the case of Padraig Wilson, and furthermore asked whether Shatter or anyone else involved requested through correspondence that the debate be silenced, and requested that the debate be postponed.

After this went on for a very long time, Kenny admitted that Shatter and Shatter's legal team had written to the Ceann Comhairle and the government pointing out that this issue was sub judice, and that this precipitated the whole incident. There was predictable uproar - particularly when Mick Wallace pointed out that he has asked the same question the previous day and had not been given an answer.

Transcript of the previous day's discussion:



The opposition then walked out of the Dail in protest, and the motion was carried in their absence.

The Dail debate can be viewed here, with this incident starting from 4:30:00
mmsh://wmv.heanet.ie/oireachtas/Dail/Dail_20150128.wmv?MSWMExt=.asf

The controversy has grown and grown in recent days, with even Alan Kelly now questioning the Ceann Comhairle's antics.

This entire incident raises fundamental questions about the structure of our democracy, IMO.

It has long been my view (and I say this as someone who helped to elect him) that Sean Barrett has been an absolute appalling Ceann Comhairle. the level of bias in his application of the rules has been outrageous, and we've had perhaps more public controversies surrounding his behaviour than with any Ceann Comhairle in recent memory bar John "I will remind the deputy" O'Donoghue. Any time such controversy arises, the standard, generic reaction is "the Ceann Comhairle is independent" and "The Ceann Comhairle's ruling cannot be questioned".

Is this enforced "infallibility" of the chair a good thing? Is it healthy for democracy that a chair elected from the ranks of the sitting majority is completely unaccountable? He or she has considerable power to influence Dail proceedings and to sabotage them, and it seems to me that Sean Barrett's tenure, and John O'Donoghue's before him, has underlined precisely why such absolute power is so incredibly damaging to politics. Obviously there are some who are capable of acting in an impartial manner, but it would seem that when we get one who is not, the government is able to hide behind his "absolute independence" to avoid any accountability over their party colleague's bias. I have no doubt that the same would happen were the Ceann Comhairle to be elected from the opposition, so that clearly isn't a solution.
But should the Ceann Comhairle's independence place him above the elected representatives of the house in such a manner as to prevent any controversial ruling being discussed, appealed, or criticised? In my view this is extremely dangerous. Should he be completely immune to scrutiny or accountability?

What do people make of this week's events, and what say ye on the subject of Ceann Comhairle accountability, infallibility, and successive governments' rigid refusal to discuss accusations of improper chairing?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: said it was 57 (3)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: In reaching that view, the Ceann Comhairle had particular regard to Standing Order 57(3), which reads: "a matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner so that it appears to be an attempt by the Dáil to encroach on the functions of the Courts or a Judicial Tribunal".

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015012900023?opendocument

goose2005

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you likening Fascism to 'bad optics'?

Fascism had a real and enduring devastating effect on hundreds of millions of Europeans.

and it started with parliamentary government being replaced by rule by decree.

conorh91

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The cabinet decided the terms of reference of a very important commission of investigation and this was then set up without the opposition - or, indeed, backbench government TDs - being given the opportunity to scrutinise or criticise those terms of reference.

I addressed that point earlier. What do they want to amend? What's the problem with the terms of reference? Shatter's role will be investigated against his wishes. I don't really see what the problem is.

Even if there were disagreement on the ToF, the party whips are such that any disagreement would be functionally irrelevant.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you're one of those who thinks that elected representatives who don't happen to be part of the government shouldn't be allowed to represent the people who elected them?

No. I oppose the whip system. But at the end of the day, TDs volunteer to be whipped, they had the choice to vote against the motion. Moreover, given the benign and positive nature of the terms of reference, and the fact that the Dáil did actually vote, it makes a nonsense of any claims of a democratic injustice.

goose2005 wrote: »

and it started with parliamentary government being replaced by rule by decree.

First the came for Mick Wallace. And I did not speak out.

Yes this is exactly like fascism. Happy?

RandomName2

Godge wrote: »

I want the TDs to get on with what they were elected to do - legislate.

I want the Dail to be used for what it's there for. Debate.

Godge

RandomName2 wrote: »

I want the Dail to be used for what it's there for. Debate.

The word "debate" is not mentioned in the Constitution in respect of the Oireachtas or the Dail.

What is says is:

"The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State"

Its purpose is to legislate. Debate is for Joe Duffy.

nice_guy80

The Ceann Comhairle is set up in such a way that it will always favour one side over the other ie - the side they are from!!!

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

I addressed that point earlier. What do they want to amend? What's the problem with the terms of reference? Shatter's role will be investigated against his wishes. I don't really see what the problem is.

And therein lies the problem: We don't know what they might have wanted to amend. It could be that they didn't want to amend anything at all. But the point is, denying them the opportunity to debate the issue at all, makes an absolute mockery of what the Dail's purpose is.

Even if there were disagreement on the ToF, the party whips are such that any disagreement would be functionally irrelevant.

Which is precisely why we need a parliament without such a strict party whip.

No. I oppose the whip system. But at the end of the day, TDs volunteer to be whipped, they had the choice to vote against the motion. Moreover, given the benign and positive nature of the terms of reference, and the fact that the Dáil did actually vote, it makes a nonsense of any claims of a democratic injustice.

What has this incident got to do with the whip system though? This is about TDs being denied an opportunity to scrutinize, comment on, and/or propose amendments to the terms of reference. Whip or not, to castrate the Dail in this manner is outrageous.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Its purpose is to legislate. Debate is for Joe Duffy.

And how exactly does a body of more than a hundred people legislate without debating first…?

Are you seriously suggesting that you're happy to see legislation passed without any debate at all? Would you favour the abolition of Dail Eireann in that case, as you're effectively arguing that its purpose is defunct?

conorh91

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And therein lies the problem: We don't know what they might have wanted to amend. It could be that they didn't want to amend anything at all.

Opposition politicians have been all over the media, articulating their objections to lack of debate on the motion, and don't you think it strange that they are not voicing any concerns with the substantive terms? You yourself accept the possibility that they have no difficulty with the terms of reference as they are.

I'm not saying that the Ceann Comhairle was correct to imply that a debate would have encroached on the functions of the Courts. But I do believe that Alan Shatter is sufficiently litigious and megalomaniac, and has all of the legal acuity, to start a merry dance with the Commission, in a costly and completely unnecessary trip across the quays.

Barrett has simply taken the pragmatic approach and the Opposition got their publicity. I wouldn't be anticipating Acerbo laws and fascist salutes just yet.

RandomName2

Godge wrote: »

The word "debate" is not mentioned in the Constitution in respect of the Oireachtas or the Dail.

What is says is:

"The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State"

Its purpose is to legislate. Debate is for Joe Duffy.

The purpose of a parliament is, by definition, "to speak". There is no purpose of a parliament if there is no debate within it.

listermint

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And how exactly does a body of more than a hundred people legislate without debating first…?

Are you seriously suggesting that you're happy to see legislation passed without any debate at all? Would you favour the abolition of Dail Eireann in that case, as you're effectively arguing that its purpose is defunct?

That is what he said yes. He will put the hazards on look over his shoulder and Beep Beep back out of it though.


Beep Beep Beep Beep Beep

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

Opposition politicians have been all over the media, articulating their objections to lack of debate on the motion, and don't you think it strange that they are not voicing any concerns with the substantive terms? You yourself accept the possibility that they have no difficulty with the terms of reference as they are.

I am, the point is that I feel it's irrelevant. The issue at hand here is the executive behaving in an extraordinarily dictatorial manner by refusing to allow any of the TDs the opportunity to debate a very important piece of legislation. It shouldn't be allowed to happen - if for whatever reason something cannot be debated at a particular time, the vote should be postponed until such time as a debate can take place.

Passing any legislation without the opportunity for any debate in the Dail is, in my view, anti-democratic.

I'm not saying that the Ceann Comhairle was correct to imply that a debate would have encroached on the functions of the Courts. But I do believe that Alan Shatter is sufficiently litigious and megalomaniac, and has all of the legal acuity, to start a merry dance with the Commission, in a costly and completely unnecessary trip across the quays.

So you're effectively saying that when we know the subject of an enquiry is a bully, we should allow them to bully our parliament into silence?

Barrett has simply taken the pragmatic approach and the Opposition got their publicity. I wouldn't be anticipating Acerbo laws and fascist salutes just yet.

The government has undermined our democratically elected parliament by voting on a piece of legislation without any debate. It brings the concept of shoehorned legislation to a new and disturbing level - it's happened often enough through other means, and it shouldn't happen at all.

expectationlost

I expected hatpatrick to acknowledge that he got the Standing Order subclause wrong because this is part of the problem that occured in the Dail, its not clear they were told which Standing Order subclause the Ceann Comharle was depending on, or when they were told it.

Can somebody clear this up for me in this article who wrote "the note given to TDs" http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/alan-kelly-strongly-criticises-se%C3%A1n-barrett-over-d%C3%A1il-ruling-1.2083308

expectationlost

The editor of the Irish Times wrote a similaraly bizarre editorial where he also described any Dail debate as just an opportunity for publicity http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/ill-founded-accusations-against-ceann-comhairle-1.2085762

and like hatpatrick is saying, what ever you think about the efficacy of Dail debate, its about more then publicity for the opposition.

expectationlost

conorh91 wrote: »

Opposition politicians have been all over the media, articulating their objections to lack of debate on the motion, and don't you think it strange that they are not voicing any concerns with the substantive terms? You yourself accept the possibility that they have no difficulty with the terms of reference as they are.

the Dail chamber would the place for them to raise those concerns and comments. The benefit and responsibility of privilege speech included.

conorh91

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am, the point is that I feel it's irrelevant. The issue at hand here is the executive behaving in an extraordinarily dictatorial manner by refusing to allow any of the TDs the opportunity to debate a very important piece of legislation.

The Executive is not responsible for refusing a debate. One member of the Executive has reportedly described this spat, with characteristic hypebole, as a "constitutional crisis".

Refusing a debate on the motion was a decision for the Ceann Comhairle. It was unfortunate that it fell to the Taoiseach to defend the decision of the Ceann Comhairle when the Ceann Comhairle was away, but the Ceann Comhairle is an independent officeholder.

Furthermore, when it comes to taxpayers' money, I don't think it is sufficient to say that you don't think pragmatism is relevant.

I'm sure you'd prefer a completely unfettered, chaotic parliament with no rules but I think the vast majority of people accept the need for restrictions on debates, and accept that the Ceann Comhairle exercised the functions of his office with pragmatism.

So you're effectively saying that when we know the subject of an enquiry is a bully, we should allow them to bully our parliament into silence?

Generally, no. But if we can go against the bully's wishes whilst simultaneously saving the taxpayer frustration and money, then I'm all for it, provided that there are no adverse outcomes in practice.

In this case, nobody lost anything in any practical way. Even the opposition TDs managed to recoup significant publicity.