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

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.

CountyHurler

Never mind FF, Sean Barrett should apologise to the Irish people for his performances on the radio in recent weeks... Heard him last week and he was his usual ratty, irritable self... He was asked a few reasonable enough questions by the RTE presenter and couldnt have been more rude, abrupt and belligerent. He's the wrong personality type for that job.

That whole Ceann Comhairle thing is a racket anyway... An excuse for the Government to get a slight bias in the debates, and a free seat at the next election.. It's one of those things that I thought Enda was meant to change..

FreudianSlippers

expectationlost wrote: »

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

What exactly are a bunch of school teachers and farmers going to debate in a legal document? Having viewed the terms of reference I feel as though the Ceann Comhairle may have actually been somewhat correct - the only scope for any "debate" outside of those terms would be to prejudice (whether on purpose our out of ignorance like our friend MLMcD) a potential trial on the subject.

IMO anything outside of those terms as drafted are highly likely to be issues sub judice.

maccored

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What exactly are a bunch of school teachers and farmers going to debate in a legal document? Having viewed the terms of reference I feel as though the Ceann Comhairle may have actually been somewhat correct - the only scope for any "debate" outside of those terms would be to prejudice (whether on purpose our out of ignorance like our friend MLMcD) a potential trial on the subject.

IMO anything outside of those terms as drafted are highly likely to be issues sub judice.

those school teachers and farmers were democratically voted into the dail to debate. You'd be better asking those who voted for them why they did.

Arsemageddon

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What exactly are a bunch of school teachers and farmers going to debate in a legal document?

The arrogance of this statement is breath taking. Few people outside of the legal profession hold barristers and solicitors in the same esteem which they hold themselves.

There would have been no need for this inquiry if Shatter had done his job properly and hadn't assumed he was smarter than mere mortal non-legal eagles. FFS he was bested my Mick Wallace of all people.

Off the top of my head the Dail also has such keen legal minds as;

• Lucinda (Can't think up a name for her party much less get anyone to join)
• Willie Penrose (sets silly ultimatum and has to quit as minister)
• Michelle Mullherrin (Cuckoo, Cuckoo!!)

M'learned friends listed above do not exactly inspire confidence in the legal profession.

Our democratically elected parliament should have been afforded the opportunity to debate the terms of reference of this inquiry. The government (or was it just the Taoiseach?) decided not to have a debate after receiving a letter from Shatter's solicitor. As I pointed out in a previous post article 15 10 affords the Dail the right to debate. The constitutional right of the Dail to freely debate should not have been subverted in this way. Rule by diktat is fundamentally repugnant to the constitution.

Having viewed the terms of reference I feel as though the Ceann Comhairle may have actually been somewhat correct - the only scope for any "debate" outside of those terms would be to prejudice (whether on purpose our out of ignorance like our friend MLMcD) a potential trial on the subject.

I'm sure that given the opportunity the 165 members of the Dail and their various legal advisors might have been able to come up with a few proposals. You'll have to forgive my scepticism about accepting the opinion of some fella on the internet that everything is kosher and above board

IMO anything outside of those terms as drafted are highly likely to be issues sub judice.

Opinions are like arses, everybody has one.

_Kaiser_

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?

I'd like to propose an addition to the question m'lud

That being if he (and others like him) will still feel the same when FG find themselves back on the opposition benches?

I wonder will he still be as keen to allow the sitting government ram through legislation without discussion then?

The farce that a small cabaal of Senior Ministers can effectively muzzle opposing views from within their own party through the whip system is bad enough - but the nonsense that they can just carry on regardless after the Opposition has walked out in protest is a shocking indictment of our so-called "democracy".

FG need to be put back in their place on the other side of the House at the earliest opportunity - if for no other reason (and there are PLENTY of those too!) than because they are a genuine threat to our Constitutional right as citizens to have our views represented and expressed/debated in our parliament.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What exactly are a bunch of school teachers and farmers going to debate in a legal document? Having viewed the terms of reference I feel as though the Ceann Comhairle may have actually been somewhat correct - the only scope for any "debate" outside of those terms would be to prejudice (whether on purpose our out of ignorance like our friend MLMcD) a potential trial on the subject.

IMO anything outside of those terms as drafted are highly likely to be issues sub judice.

Aside from the fact that the issue could have been put to one side until after Shatter's legal proceedings, you're missing the wider point here - the Ceann Comhairle's unaccountability. I for one am tired of hearing "The Ceann Comhairle is independent" as a stock response any time he is accused of wrongdoing - if he has questions to answer about his conduct in office, he should be made to answer them.

CountyHurler

Embarrassing back down from Sean Barrett... Seems like he's doing anything to hold on the job (and seat for the next dail) at this stage.. He'll have to go pandering to the Shinners now..

For Reals

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What exactly are a bunch of school teachers and farmers going to debate in a legal document? Having viewed the terms of reference I feel as though the Ceann Comhairle may have actually been somewhat correct - the only scope for any "debate" outside of those terms would be to prejudice (whether on purpose our out of ignorance like our friend MLMcD) a potential trial on the subject.

IMO anything outside of those terms as drafted are highly likely to be issues sub judice.

My god, seriously? Should we get in unelected book worms from the judiciary to call the shots on the faith of the nation? And when the rules run awry who will decide to create new ones or abolish antiquated ones?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Having viewed the terms of reference I feel..

With all due respect your honour, it's not your call to make. It may suit you and others who have read a series of law books others haven't to feel you know better, I would suggest do your job and explain it to the decision makers elected by the people, the schoolteachers, the farmers and let them decide.

When it's dictating terms to the Irish people legal experts may be hired to decipher all the legalese, but it's democratically elected representatives from what ever walk, who should be calling the shots. It seems that's an alien concept to you and as it also seems to be to other noted pro-IW posters on this thread.
Everybody knows the Ceann Comharlie is the shill of the government of the day. Maybe we should change that or should we just read books about why it's so?

There'll soon be a google App that can do your job

expectationlost

Correspondence to Office of An Taoiseach regarding O'Higgins Commission of Inquiry - See more at: http://www.merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/News/Correspondence_to_Office_of_An_Taoiseach_re_O_Higgins_Commission_of_Investigation.html

expectationlost

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Aside from the fact that the issue could have been put to one side until after Shatter's legal proceedings, you're missing the wider point here - the Ceann Comhairle's unaccountability. I for one am tired of hearing "The Ceann Comhairle is independent" as a stock response any time he is accused of wrongdoing - if he has questions to answer about his conduct in office, he should be made to answer them.

his stock answer is usually, if you have problem bring it to the Committee of Procedures and Privilege, thats the Committee he also Chairs that always has a government majority.