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

_Kaiser_

So Enda corrects the record this afternoon...

The Taoiseach has corrected the Dáil record and admitted he was in possession of letters between Alan Shatter and the Ceann Comhairle.

Translation for the rest of us: I lied!

However, Enda Kenny has denied that his Fine Gael colleague had any role in shutting down a Dáil debate on alleged Garda malpractice last week.
Deputy Shatter and his lawyers wrote to both the Taoiseach and Ceann Comhairle last month trying to get Deputy Shatter's actions excluded from a Commission of Inquiry.

Riight, because after admitting he lied in the Dail/on the record a minute ago, Kenny thinks he remains at all credible in his next statement - especially when you consider the previous "corrections" and antics during the Callinan/Shatter debacle last year.

How much longer can this go on?

Arsemageddon

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

How much longer can this go on?

The government or this thread?

I think their will be an election in September or October, as for this thread I'd say it's pretty much done.

hatrickpatrick

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The government or this thread?

I think their will be an election in September or October, as for this thread I'd say it's pretty much done.

I think it was the BS in the Dail he was referring to, in which case the unfortunate answer is until there is major overhaul of committees and standing orders.

The whole concept of the Ceann Comhairle chairing the only committee which has the power to reproach him for example, and the government majority on that committee. Absolute farce.

_Kaiser_

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The government or this thread?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think it was the BS in the Dail he was referring to, in which case the unfortunate answer is until there is major overhaul of committees and standing orders.

Actually I was referring to a situation where the supposed "leader" of the country can lie on the record, be caught out and admit it, and yet somehow face no sanctions - from anyone! This of course is merely the latest in a seemingly never-ending stream of corruption, incompetence and cronyism that has been the hallmark of the current government.

As it stands he and his government are completely unaccountable to ANYONE - and even when an election is called they will be able to freely try again or retire on multiple pensions to the lecture circuit/life of a lobbyist.

The longer FG remain in power, the more damage is done to our democratic process - assuming it's not already beyond salvaging at this point with their performance over the last few years. FF were bad enough, but FG have taken the abuse of our system of government to new lows in my opinion.

expectationlost

the problem here is that the Opposition Party Whips had to depend on the Government Chief Whip Paul Kehoe to tell them of the Ceann Comhairle decision, and I still don't know if they actually told them the actual subclause he was citing.
in general why should the opposition have to depend on petty, evasive game playing government to find out whats happening in the House of Representatives

KingBrian2

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Actually I was referring to a situation where the supposed "leader" of the country can lie on the record, be caught out and admit it, and yet somehow face no sanctions - from anyone! This of course is merely the latest in a seemingly never-ending stream of corruption, incompetence and cronyism that has been the hallmark of the current government.

As it stands he and his government are completely unaccountable to ANYONE - and even when an election is called they will be able to freely try again or retire on multiple pensions to the lecture circuit/life of a lobbyist.

The longer FG remain in power, the more damage is done to our democratic process - assuming it's not already beyond salvaging at this point with their performance over the last few years. FF were bad enough, but FG have taken the abuse of our system of government to new lows in my opinion.

I'm sure a more enlightened party will come to power and resolve all the problems. Get real corruption is nowhere as bad as you say but electioneering is still a staple of any parliamentary democracy.

View

expectationlost wrote: »

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.

And what was the ruling by the Committee of Procedures and Privelege on the issue? Or, was it a case, after all the hoo-ha, that no one actually lodged a complaint?

expectationlost

View wrote: »

And what was the ruling by the Committee of Procedures and Privelege on the issue? Or, was it a case, after all the hoo-ha, that no one actually lodged a complaint?

think meeting is Wednesday

Im no sure, whether they actually want to change the standing orders, as I said think communication is just as big an issue.

expectationlost

amendments to terms of reference were going to be made says Catherine Murphy, on RTE Late Debate, http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/op/Jan15/Supple/2sp280115.pdf

flutered

Godge wrote: »

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.

are not some of the above responsible for the whistle blower case, one of side effect of it was shatter walked the plank, very ungracefully at that

expectationlost

Godge wrote: »

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.

the government already has e-cigarrete legislation,already in train but tbf they are taking their time on it.

I really don't think Godge (or conorjh9) actually expects anyone to believe what he writes here. You really need to try a little harder Godge, I avoid answering you two and others here because I know you are not serious, and are just putting out lazy political stereotypes. We're supposed to accept the idea that terms of reference of a commission of inquiry are somehow not as much Dail business as anything else. Just like the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation debate that was held this week, don't see anyone here saying that was a waste of time, or not Dail business.

You know the opposition rarely ever get their bills passed, a few each term,
you can read the PMB bills that opposition, including the above, put here http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/nav/legislation.htm

its the same arguement that was had over the Seanad Abolition, the Government pointing out the relatively small defined contribution Senators make because the government chooses so rarely to accept the amendments they do put.

We see how well that arguement went over with the public. They want the government challenged in as many ways as possible.

Muahahaha

Arsemageddon wrote: »

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.

We can add Brian Leneihan, barrister at law and Brian Cowen, solicitor to that list. The two worst ever Ministers for Finance in the history of the state, two lawyers who sold Ireland into servitude.

Not to mention the high proportion of criminality in the lawyer classes, we even have judges who are criminals in this country.

feargale

I have nothing to say about the rights and wrongs of this controversy. But I don't believe a T.D. who is a member of a party can easily become overnight an impartial speaker/Ceann Comhairle. A member of the judiciary should do the job.
And before you ridicule the idea - who do you suggest? Let's hear an alternative.

gladrags

feargale wrote: »

I have nothing to say about the rights and wrongs of this controversy. But I don't believe a T.D. who is a member of a party can easily become overnight an impartial speaker/Ceann Comhairle. A member of the judiciary should do the job.
And before you ridicule the idea - who do you suggest? Let's hear an alternative.

.

gladrags

The bottom line here is...

In whose interests did Barrett make the decision to block Dail debate?

The public interest or Shatter.

The answer is Shatter.

There are other questions to be answered
here,regarding how much influence Kenny had in this decision.

And why other debates are stifled by FG
,or promoted,depending on political gain rather than public interest.

For example why did Barrett not apply the same criteria to the Mairia Cahill allegations.?

Which have now been effectively prejudiced beyond recall.

Kenny should resign alobg with Barrett.

FreudianSlippers

Arsemageddon wrote: »

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.

You might have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think?

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.

To my knowledge (other than Shatter who will get no defence from me outside of his keen knowledge of family law) none of them has worked a day as solicitor or barrister in their careers. You will get no defence from me for the "academic lawyers" in the government.

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.

The typical armchair lawyer idiotic response. Your argument fails on so many levels I actually feel sorry for you:
You fundamentally misinterpret Art15.10 of the constitution which actually states that "Each House [...] shall have power to ensure freedom of debate" not that they have the right to debate everything. You also fundamentally ignore the first part which states that they shall have standing orders - with power to attach penalties for their infringement. That means there must strike a balance Constitutionally between the standing orders and the power to ensure freedom of debate.

Standing Order 57 is quite clear that there are specific rules for discussing matters sub judice.

Now if you had bothered to read the thread before mouthing off your unenlightened "legal" opinion about the Constitution; you will have seen that I already disagreed with the application of Standing Order 57 in this instance. My statement was merely that given the scope of the Terms of Reference as drafted, I can see why the Ceann Comhairle felt as though the debate would breach SO57 - I still don't necessarily agree, but I can see the logic.

Which leads on to your next chestnut:

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

So basically your answer is you don't know what else they could have added? Dail debates aren't a take-home exam you know.

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.

You aren't seriously calling for the terms of reference to have been put back until after any potential legal case concluded are you?

You also seem to have missed that I believe the CC was incorrect here in principle given SO57. My point was that in viewing the ToR, I can see why the CC would have thought that the only point in debate would be to breach SO57.

FreudianSlippers

For Reals wrote: »

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?

Can you show me where I suggested that?

With all due respect your honour, it's not your call to make.

Is it somehow your call to make? Last I checked it was the CC’s call to make actually.

I also don’t see how it is your call to make who gets to express their opinions on this site? I have merely stated that whilst I disagree with the CC’s use of SO57 in this case, I fail to see what a bunch of teachers and farmers could have added to a thorough ToR on the issue (other than potentially prejudicing a legal case).

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.

This sentence makes barely any sense, but if it is trying to say what I think it is, you are fundamentally misunderstanding my position. I am not suggesting the Dail shouldn’t do what it was elected to do; I’m saying that on viewing the ToR, it’s easy to see why the CC would have thought that any debate was simply for the purposes of breaching the principles of SO57.

When it's dictating terms to the Irish people legal experts may be hired to decipher all the legalese,

I think you’re somewhat unclear that this is the point of having lawyers in society…

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.

I fail to see what this has to do with Irish Water; nor do I see where I have ever suggested that the Oireachtas should not legislate as per its mandate. The alien concept to you seems to be the fact that the CC has a job to do as per the Standing Orders which are mandated by the Constitution. There is certainly (as I have already outlined) a strong argument that the CC was incorrect in his view on this matter, but the fact of the matter is it is still my opinion that there is very little outside of the scope of the ToR (which I am almost certain you have not read) which a bunch of halfwits in the Dail could have added to (including academic lawyers).

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?

So your argument basically boils down to your jealousy of people with “fancy book learnin’”? I’m sure you think doctors just read books about medicine too right?

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

There will be a Google App that does advocacy? Don’t be jealous because I have a cooler and better paying job than you

Rightwing

I'm not surprised Barrett has withdrawn his allegation. I can't think of an easier job on such money. Sure the man only claimed €500K expenses over the last few years . Let's keep this gravy train rolling at all costs springs to mind.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You aren't seriously calling for the terms of reference to have been put back until after any potential legal case concluded are you?

If they cannot be debated by the Dail until then, absolutely.

You also seem to have missed that I believe the CC was incorrect here in principle given SO57. My point was that in viewing the ToR, I can see why the CC would have thought that the only point in debate would be to breach SO57.

In which case the vote should have been postponed until such time as they would no longer breach SO57.

The idea of passing a piece of legislation where TDs want to debate it and are not allowed to is simply unacceptable in my view.

K-9

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You might have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think?

Mod:

There's absolutely no need for that. If you aren't that bothered don't reply then!

Everybody keep it civil please.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If they cannot be debated by the Dail until then, absolutely.



In which case the vote should have been postponed until such time as they would no longer breach SO57.

The idea of passing a piece of legislation where TDs want to debate it and are not allowed to is simply unacceptable in my view.

It's not legislation though. If it was or id anyone can point out the deficit in the TOR I might be inclined to agree with you but otherwise I just can't.

Muahahaha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There will be a Google App that does advocacy? Don’t be jealous because I have a cooler and better paying job than you

More arrogance, totally uncalled for. You're the one who said that teachers and farmers have this country in a mess.

Care to address how the two worst finance ministers in the history of the state were both lawyers like yourself ? Perhaps take a look at the rot (and criminality) in your own profession before you go shouting from your ivory tower?

Thought not :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

Muahahaha wrote: »

More arrogance, totally uncalled for. You're the one who said that teachers and farmers have this country in a mess.

Now you're just making things up?

Care to address how the two worst finance ministers in the history of the state were both lawyers like yourself ?

I think Lenihan has been somewhat vindicated by his views on Anglo personally ; I have also said in line with the other that I don't have a positive view on "academic lawyers" .

Perhaps take a look at the rot (and criminality) in your own profession before you go shouting from your ivory tower?

Thought not :rolleyes:

I don't see any criminality unless you're stupidly accusing me of something

Muahahaha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't see any criminality unless you're stupidly accusing me of something

You must be blind because the last time I checked your profession is up to its eyes in criminality and fraud- you only have to take a trip down to the courts to see the amount of solicitors who have been struck off over the last three years due to being criminals.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you seem to think you're above a bunch of teachers and farmers yet as a profession lawyers have being involved in far more criminality in this country than those two professions combined.

Unless you want to show me where farmers and teachers were stealing money during the Celtic Tiger? I must have missed that with all the coverage of Michael Lynn and Helen Peron :rolleyes:

Need I go on listing the dozens of other cases where solicitors stole money from their client accounts? Or are you at least going to admit there is criminality in the lawyer classes ?

FreudianSlippers

Muahahaha wrote: »

You must be blind because the last time I checked your profession is up to its eyes in criminality and fraud- you only have to take a trip down to the courts to see the amount of solicitors who have been struck off over the last three years due to being criminals.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you seem to think you're above a bunch of teachers and farmers yet as a profession lawyers have being involved in far more criminality in this country than those two professions combined.

Unless you want to show me where farmers and teachers were stealing money during the Celtic Tiger? I must have missed that with all the coverage of Michael Lynn and Helen Peron :rolleyes:

Need I go on listing the dozens of other cases where solicitors stole money from their client accounts? Or are you at least going to admit there is criminality in the lawyer classes ?

not that it's relevant to the thread but farmers and teachers in government have been just as much to blame for the crash. I'd also point out that there are "criminals" in many walks of life - it might make you feel better to blame everything on lawyers (I certainly didn't blame anything on teachers and farmers before) but it doesn't mean you're in any way correct

In any event I'm not a solicitor so idc

Muahahaha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

not that it's relevant to the thread but farmers and teachers in government have been just as much to blame for the crash. I'd also point out that there are "criminals" in many walks of life - it might make you feel better to blame everything on lawyers (I certainly didn't blame anything on teachers and farmers before) but it doesn't mean you're in any way correct

In any event I'm not a solicitor so idc

So do you admit there are criminals in the legal profession, who were members of the legal profession when they commited their crime- yes or no ? Simple question really

Scofflaw

Muahahaha wrote: »

So do you admit there are criminals in the legal profession, who were members of the legal profession when they commited their crime- yes or no ? Simple question really

This has veered off into baiting a particular poster and "have you stopped beating your wife" territory.

Pack it in. Nobody here answers for a whole profession, nobody can.

moderately,
Scofflaw

For Reals

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can you show me where I suggested that?

You question the point of having elected officials debate and rather let the legal profession deal with such things.
It's an ego thing really isn't it?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So your argument basically boils down to your jealousy of people with “fancy book learnin’”? I’m sure you think doctors just read books about medicine too right?

No, I'll simplify it
If I read a book you haven't, I have information you don't. That doesn't make me superior to you. If you are elected to debate and broker decisions for the public and the information I have may help, it's up to me to explain it, but as an unelected person of a profession/trade, not may place to decide any policy or action.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There will be a Google App that does advocacy? Don’t be jealous because I have a cooler and better paying job than you

My dear friend, I chose not to study law. It's the last refuse of the snake oil salesman. 'No win, no fee' 'But if they pay my bills and offer you one euro, that's technically a win' classy....
Or you decipher poorly written legal text.
Either way let democratically elected people carry out their work.

Arsemageddon

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You might have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think?

Your rather vexed response would tend to indicate otherwise.

To my knowledge (other than Shatter who will get no defence from me outside of his keen knowledge of family law) none of them has worked a day as solicitor or barrister in their careers. You will get no defence from me for the "academic lawyers" in the government.

Pretty sure both Penrose and Mulherrin did practice. Also worth noting that there are several other solicitors and barristers in the Dail. The point I was making was that being a solicitor or barrister does not necessarily make one a competent legislator, the corollary of that statement is that having a background in another profession does not make one incompetent.

The typical armchair lawyer idiotic response. Your argument fails on so many levels I actually feel sorry for you

Blah, blah, blah

You fundamentally misinterpret Art15.10 of the constitution which actually states that "Each House [...] shall have power to ensure freedom of debate" not that they have the right to debate everything. You also fundamentally ignore the first part which states that they shall have standing orders - with power to attach penalties for their infringement. That means there must strike a balance Constitutionally between the standing orders and the power to ensure freedom of debate.

If so, then perhaps you can cite a similar instance where the terms of reference for an enquiry have not been debated in the Dail and SO 57.3 has been invoked as the reason? The standard interpretation of SO 57.3 has always been that the Dail has the right to debate matters which are before the superior courts or a tribunal as long as they do so within reason. John Downing cited the instance in 2007 when SO 57.3 was interpreted as giving the Dail the right to discuss Bertie Ahern's financial affairs even though the matter was before the Mahon Tribunal.

Standing Order 57 is quite clear that there are specific rules for discussing matters sub judice.

The only specific rules are in SO57.2 which refer to cases held in front of juries. Shatter has applied for a judicial review of the Guerin report. There is no jury in a judicial review, therefore SO57.2 is irrelevant.

I'm surprised that a keen student of the law such as yourself didn't pick up on that.

Now if you had bothered to read the thread before mouthing off your unenlightened "legal" opinion about the Constitution; you will have seen that I already disagreed with the application of Standing Order 57 in this instance. My statement was merely that given the scope of the Terms of Reference as drafted, I can see why the Ceann Comhairle felt as though the debate would breach SO57 - I still don't necessarily agree, but I can see the logic.

In post #33 of this thread you stated that you believed Barrett's decision was wrong. In post #53 you stated it was the correct decision. In the quote above your claiming it is both correct and incorrect at the same time. Looks to me like your trying to pass off a flip-flop as a nuanced opinion.

The 'logic' behind this decision could potentially be used to stifle any debate in the Dail. Unless the CC happens to have psychic powers how could he predict what members of the house were going to say?

Which leads on to your next chestnut:

So basically your answer is you don't know what else they could have added? Dail debates aren't a take-home exam you know.

Any suggestions I might have regarding the terms of reference would be moot, I am not a T.D. It is the job of our elected representatives to suggest amendments to the Terms of Reference, and it was the duty of the CC to afford them that right in an impartial manner.

In summary, this whole affair was another cack-handed attempt at stroke politics by FG that has backfired spectacularly. If they can't manage a straight-forward matter like this I shudder to think what happens when they negotiate with the big boys and girls in Europe

FreudianSlippers

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Pretty sure both Penrose and Mulherrin did practice. Also worth noting that there are several other solicitors and barristers in the Dail. The point I was making was that being a solicitor or barrister does not necessarily make one a competent legislator, the corollary of that statement is that having a background in another profession does not make one incompetent.

I don't believe either did actually and neither are members of the government.

If so, then perhaps you can cite a similar instance where the terms of reference for an enquiry have not been debated in the Dail and SO 57.3 has been invoked as the reason? The standard interpretation of SO 57.3 has always been that the Dail has the right to debate matters which are before the superior courts or a tribunal as long as they do so within reason. John Downing cited the instance in 2007 when SO 57.3 was interpreted as giving the Dail the right to discuss Bertie Ahern's financial affairs even though the matter was before the Mahon Tribunal.

You're the one who has claimed that Dail has a constitutional right to debate all issues.

Please direct me to where I stated that SO57.3 stated otherwise than you suggest.

The only specific rules are in SO57.2 which refer to cases held in front of juries. Shatter has applied for a judicial review of the Guerin report. There is no jury in a judicial review, therefore SO57.2 is irrelevant.

Either you know that's not correct and you're being misleading (which I believe to be the case considering you literally just mentioned SO57.3 above); or you haven't a bull's notion what you're talking about.

SO57.2 is one absolute bar on discussion, not the only bar.

In post #33 of this thread you stated that you believed Barrett's decision was wrong. In post #53 you stated it was the correct decision. In the quote above your claiming it is both correct and incorrect at the same time. Looks to me like your trying to pass off a flip-flop as a nuanced opinion.

I said no such thing.

What I have said multiple times is that his decision was incorrect on its merits, due to the rules under SO57; however I can understand on viewing the ToR why he made the decision pursuant to SO57.3 - there is very little of merit that could have been added to the ToR which would not have breached the sub judice rule.

The 'logic' behind this decision could potentially be used to stifle any debate in the Dail. Unless the CC happens to have psychic powers how could he predict what members of the house were going to say?

It's not that great of a leap to look at the ToR and determine that the major issues were addressed and anything else would have been potentially damaging or contrary to SO57.