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.

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

The Executive is not responsible for refusing a debate.

The executive was given the option to postpone the legislation until after the relevant court proceedings. They chose to ignore this request and instead pass the legislation without debate. They are, therefore, as responsible as the Ceann Comhairle.

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.

See above.

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

When it comes to something as fundamental as this, pragmatism isn't as relevant as procedure. Our Dail is our body of representatives. They have the right to represent us.

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,

I have never said any such thing, and I think my extensive discussion here about how the rules of the Dail could be changed and in some cases tightened shows that this statement is ridiculous.

and accept that the Ceann Comhairle exercised the functions of his office with pragmatism.

If that was the case, the situation wouldn't be nearly as controversial as it is.

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.

The Dail lost the right to debate a piece of legislation before passing it. That is an affront to our democratic system.

FreudianSlippers

I previously backed Barrett on his decisions, particularly in relation to MLMcD acting the absolute maggot. However, this decision is either ignorant or lazy (I can't decide which is worse). There is no reason that a debate could not have gone ahead with the usual warning about discussing matters sub judice; if and when any members breached that rule, they could then have been expelled etc. pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Godge

expectationlost wrote: »

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.

That is a very interesting editorial and addresses many of the points raised here.

The important thing is that the Commission of Inquiry was established and can get on with its work. No court case was allowed prevent this.

Yes, the opposition lost out on the chance to throw sticks and stones at the Government but that isn't debate.

Chips Lovell

If you don't want your TD to be subject to a whip, don't vote for someone who's a member of a party running one.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

That is a very interesting editorial and addresses many of the points raised here.

The important thing is that the Commission of Inquiry was established and can get on with its work. No court case was allowed prevent this.

Yes, the opposition lost out on the chance to throw sticks and stones at the Government but that isn't debate.

I ask you again then whether you'd prefer if we abolished the Dail altogether and just let the cabinet do everything themselves?
If you don't believe our elected representatives should be involved in forming legislation, then why should we bother paying them at all?

I'm genuinely surprised by how dismissive some posters are being towards our parliament, the body which is supposed to be the fruits of our democratic process. If you answer no to the above question, then I'm genuinely puzzled as to what you believe Dail Eireann's function to be.

If, as you're saying, the opposition (or indeed government backbenchers) being allowed to debate legislation is a luxury they shouldn't be given, then in practise would you have a problem with the Dail confirming the cabinet at the beginning of a term and then stepping down until the next election, leaving just the cabinet?

If not, then I'm afraid your argument is completely inconsistent.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If you don't want your TD to be subject to a whip, don't vote for someone who's a member of a party running one.

That wouldn't have made any difference here. FG backbenchers were also denied an opportunity to speak. The cabinet did not merely bypass the opposition, the cabinet bypassed the Dail altogether, both friends and foes. This, in my view, crosses a democratic line.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I ask you again then whether you'd prefer if we abolished the Dail altogether and just let the cabinet do everything themselves?
If you don't believe our elected representatives should be involved in forming legislation, then why should we bother paying them at all?

I'm genuinely surprised by how dismissive some posters are being towards our parliament, the body which is supposed to be the fruits of our democratic process. If you answer no to the above question, then I'm genuinely puzzled as to what you believe Dail Eireann's function to be.

If, as you're saying, the opposition (or indeed government backbenchers) being allowed to debate legislation is a luxury they shouldn't be given, then in practise would you have a problem with the Dail confirming the cabinet at the beginning of a term and then stepping down until the next election, leaving just the cabinet?

If not, then I'm afraid your argument is completely inconsistent.



That wouldn't have made any difference here. FG backbenchers were also denied an opportunity to speak. The cabinet did not merely bypass the opposition, the cabinet bypassed the Dail altogether, both friends and foes. This, in my view, crosses a democratic line.

Terms of Reference for a Commission of Inquiry are not serious legislation.

The Dail isn't a talking shop for soundbites for RTE News, most of the independents don't show up for the serious business of legislation.


The Government has been enacting 40 bills a year since 2011, that is significant work and there have been plenty of debates on them. That is where the real work of the Dail is.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Terms of Reference for a Commission of Inquiry are not serious legislation.

I genuinely can't tell whether this is meant in jest or not. If not, I guess you and me have very different thresholds for defining serious legislation.
Either way it's irrelevant - are you arguing that for non serious legislation the Dail should be abolished, and only sit for what you define as serious legislation?

The seriousness of legislation, in that case, should still be defined by whether or not TDs wish to debate it. Not solely by the cabinet.

The Dail isn't a talking shop for soundbites for RTE News, most of the independents don't show up for the serious business of legislation.

Can you blame them? The entire system is rigged to prevent them from speaking and to ignore them when they do. Sean Barrett's treatment of the opposition during his tenure as Ceann Comhairle has been an absolute disgrace - it's no wonder if they feel there's no point in showing up anymore. The guillotine has utterly defined the last five years of Irish politics.

The Government has been enacting 40 bills a year since 2011, that is significant work and there have been plenty of debates on them. That is where the real work of the Dail is.

You're still not answering my question. Let's take those 40 bills a year. Would you, or would you not, be ok with a new scenario in which all of those bills were written and debated among the cabinet, and passed by the cabinet, without any TDs being involved at all?

Yes or no? Straight answer?

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I genuinely can't tell whether this is meant in jest or not. If not, I guess you and me have very different thresholds for defining serious legislation.
Either way it's irrelevant - are you arguing that for non serious legislation the Dail should be abolished, and only sit for what you define as serious legislation?

Perhaps pedantic of me, but Terms of Reference aren't legislation at all.

The_Captain

The opposition parties are always banging on about 'debating' and 'democracy'

Imagine how much more efficient the Dail would be if we just got rid of all non Fine Gael politicians and never allowed anyone to question Enda

expectationlost

Godge wrote: »

That is a very interesting editorial and addresses many of the points raised here.

The important thing is that the Commission of Inquiry was established and can get on with its work. No court case was allowed prevent this.

Yes, the opposition lost out on the chance to throw sticks and stones at the Government but that isn't debate.

so we should never have a dail debate because all its is the opposition throwing sticks and stones.

expectationlost

this is the draft term of reference http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/JUQdoclaid191214a_120052.pdf looks like pretty serious legislation to me

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Perhaps pedantic of me, but Terms of Reference aren't legislation at all.

A Dail subject to such pedantry would make an absolutely epic series of Gift Grub sketches

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.



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:



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.

Terms of reference are a relatively minor issue and suitable for passing without debate.

Major pieces of legislation are continually ignored by the technical group and the shinners because there is no publicity in making sure they are right. The way people swallow the propaganda from them is unbelievable.

FreudianSlippers

expectationlost wrote: »

this is the draft term of reference http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/JUQdoclaid191214a_120052.pdf looks like pretty serious legislation to me

That looks like a pretty good set of terms to me. Am I missing what needs to be debated here?

Godge

expectationlost wrote: »

so we should never have a dail debate because all its is the opposition throwing sticks and stones.

Not at all.

The Dail should get on with what it is supposed to do and legislate and have debates about legislation.

We already have too much time wasted on questions.

The_Captain

Godge wrote: »

We already have too much time wasted on questions.

The most Fine Gael sentence ever.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Terms of reference are a relatively minor issue and suitable for passing without debate.

They're really, really not. Terms of reference for an enquiry like this define the enquiry's remit. I find it hard to believe that you honestly regard them as so insignificant - Shatter was a member of the cabinet and presided over the incidents which Guerin investigated. To allow his former colleagues and friends to decide on the terms of reference for the resulting enquiry and not allow anyone else - in their own party or otherwise - to propose changes or debate them before setting up the enquiry is ridiculously dangerous. It's like only allowing team-mates of a rugby player accused of doping to decide on the remit of the doping investigation, who it may interview, what questions it may ask them, etc.

I honestly don't think I can explain this any more clearly. Terms of reference are as significant a matter as the enquiry itself. The only way I can see you justifying a claim that they are unimportant is if you believe the enquiry itself to be similarly unimportant.
If you believe the enquiry to be important, then it logically follows that the enquiry's remit and how that is defined would be considered equally important. The two cannot be separated.

Major pieces of legislation are continually ignored by the technical group and the shinners because there is no publicity in making sure they are right. The way people swallow the propaganda from them is unbelievable.

So let me ask you, if instead of the Guerin investigation, this whole incident had blown up over a piece of legislation you personally consider to be important, would you still be arguing that it's ok for debate to be shut down in this manner?

If not, then you're simply arguing that issues only matter if they matter to you. :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

The Dail should get on with what it is supposed to do and legislate and have debates about legislation which I consider to be more important than the legislation currently under discussion.

FYP?

Arsemageddon

Godge wrote: »

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

Absolutely wrong...

Article 15 10

'Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.'

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

The role of any parliament in a liberal democracy is to debate legislation. The very world is derived from the French Parler to speak.

expectationlost

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That looks like a pretty good set of terms to me. Am I missing what needs to be debated here?

maybe, maybe not, perhaps the Dail could debate it, by people paid to do so.