General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

blanch152

Red_Wake wrote: »

Would this open the door to a legal challenge against any and all actions decided[including laws passed] upon by a dail chamber where someone had engaged in proxy voting?

What would be the basis for the legal challenge? Is there precedent or some clause in legislation or the Constitution that could be relied on?

Hotblack Desiato

AFAIK once the Ceann Comhairle calls the result that's it.

If the opposition think it's close enough to win, they can always call for a walk-through vote. If they didn't bother and lost a vote they could have won, then tough.

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

Would this open the door to a legal challenge against any and all actions decided[including laws passed] upon by a dail chamber where someone had engaged in proxy voting?

I asked similar in another forum. Hopefully not but any attempt would be justified IMO. If you had the money and felt strongly about an issue didn't go your way the door is open for the courts to in the least hear you out. Might have to go to Europe where they take politics and constitutions a little more seriously.

People are talking about how many, fact is we don't have a clue and likely nobody does.

L1011

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I asked similar in another forum. Hopefully not but any attempt would be justified IMO. If you had the money and felt strongly about an issue didn't go your way the door is open for the courts to in the least hear you out. Might have to go to Europe where they take politics and constitutions a little more seriously.

People are talking about how many, fact is we don't have a clue and likely nobody does.

Europe has no jurisdiction over something like this

James Brown

L1011 wrote: »

Europe has no jurisdiction over something like this

What about someone wanting to question a policy vote passed in the questionable Dail? I'm not talking about the people unable to compete with trained monkey level operations, (pressing a button), I'm talking about the validity of issues decided on by this 'voting' style. Has Europe no role in that?

L1011

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What about someone wanting to question a policy vote passed in the questionable Dail? I'm not talking about the people unable to compete with trained monkey level operations, (pressing a button), I'm talking about the validity of issues decided on by this 'voting' style. Has Europe no role in that?

No. Domestic constitutional issue.

beggars_bush

Could we get the bank bailout vote checked?

L1011

beggars_bush wrote: »

Could we get the bank bailout vote checked?

That vote wasn't even tight.

James Brown

L1011 wrote: »

No. Domestic constitutional issue.

So if anyone has an issue with any policy enacted by the state they feel is illegitimate due to voting irregularities they cannot bring it to the ECJ or other EU body?
I thought each member state had to adhere to European law and couldn't false representation such as the voting scandal fall into such an area?
Can't anyone question the legitimacy of practically everything the state voted on and raise it with the EU, (our system seemingly being a take it as you find it affair)? Genuinely curious.

IMO everything the state has decided on is open to question. It's a mockery of the democratic process.

James Brown

L1011 wrote: »

That vote wasn't even tight.

As far as we know.

L1011

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As far as we know.

No, we know. FG, FG, GP and SF voted in favour which was a landslide.

L1011

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So if anyone has an issue with any policy enacted by the state they feel is illegitimate due to voting irregularities they cannot bring it to the ECJ or other EU body?
I thought each member state had to adhere to European law and couldn't false representation such as the voting scandal fall into such an area?
Can't anyone question the legitimacy of practically everything the state voted on and raise it with the EU, (our system seemingly being a take it as you find it affair)? Genuinely curious.

IMO everything the state has decided on is open to question. It's a mockery of the democratic process.

The specific issue is the voting process within the Dail which is an entirely domestic issue

James Brown

L1011 wrote: »

No, we know. FG, FG, GP and SF voted in favour which was a landslide.

Even if a number of votes weren't legitimate. Doesn't exactly fill one with confidence.

L1011 wrote: »

The specific issue is the voting process within the Dail which is an entirely domestic issue

I got that. I'm wondering about people being able to question the legitimacy of any decision based on the voting issue. In the real world were people face consequences for their actions, say in a more serious and better run situation like a parish bingo hall; a recount or re-do would be ordered.

L1011

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Even if a number of votes weren't legitimate. Doesn't exactly fill one with confidence.



I got that. I'm wondering about people being able to question the legitimacy of any decision based on the voting issue.

It was by such a margin that it's impossible to have been otherwise. The chamber would have had to be empty for Labour, Joe Higgins and some independents to vote it down

You can attempt a challenge in the domestic courts but there is no path of appeal to Europe

James Brown

L1011 wrote: »

It was by such a margin that it's impossible to have been otherwise. The chamber would have had to be empty for Labour, Joe Higgins and some independents to vote it down

You can attempt a challenge in the domestic courts but there is no path of appeal to Europe

You are talking about one specific vote.
I was asking does this voting issue not open up to question any/all votes and if so could someone bring the issue of legitimacy on any/all votes into question. Was. I'm good thanks.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So if anyone has an issue with any policy enacted by the state they feel is illegitimate due to voting irregularities they cannot bring it to the ECJ or other EU body?
I thought each member state had to adhere to European law and couldn't false representation such as the voting scandal fall into such an area?
Can't anyone question the legitimacy of practically everything the state voted on and raise it with the EU, (our system seemingly being a take it as you find it affair)? Genuinely curious.

IMO everything the state has decided on is open to question. It's a mockery of the democratic process.

On which grounds would they bring it to the ECJ?

Irish people have a peculiar knee jerk habit of believing everything they don’t like can be challenged in the courts. It simply isn’t so.

For example, imagine I was a business owner and announced I would not hire anyone who wore yellow at an interview - shirt, blouse, tie, skirt, chinos, whatever. Any yellow, no job. I would have the usual suspects crying discrimination, illegal, you can’t do that. Except you can. There is no law against discrimination on the basis of someone wearing yellow clothing.

In the same way, there is no legal basis to challenge any legislation on the basis of an illegal vote in the Dail. You could try, but if costs were awarded against you, you would be very poor as well as being very sorry.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

On which grounds would they bring it to the ECJ?

Irish people have a peculiar knee jerk habit of believing everything they don’t like can be challenged in the courts. It simply isn’t so.

For example, imagine I was a business owner and announced I would not hire anyone who wore yellow at an interview - shirt, blouse, tie, skirt, chinos, whatever. Any yellow, no job. I would have the usual suspects crying discrimination, illegal, you can’t do that. Except you can. There is no law against discrimination on the basis of someone wearing yellow clothing.

In the same way, there is no legal basis to challenge any legislation on the basis of an illegal vote in the Dail. You could try, but if costs were awarded against you, you would be very poor as well as being very sorry.

You answering my question with the same question?
So you are saying...

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I asked similar in another forum. Hopefully not but any attempt would be justified IMO. If you had the money and felt strongly about an issue didn't go your way the door is open for the courts to in the least hear you out. Might have to go to Europe where they take politics and constitutions a little more seriously.

You are criticising my questions as if I'm trying to pass them off as claims. You should read comments more closely.
Again you offer no opinion on this. Pointless analogy.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You answering my question with the same question?
So you are saying...



You are criticising my questions as if I'm trying to pass them off as claims. You should read comments more closely.
Again you offer no opinion on this. Pointless analogy.

I am offering the opinion that the case would be laughed out of court because it is based on nonsense.

Care to explain how there is a legal basis. Believing something is wrong or can be challenged in court doesn’t magic up a legal basis.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I am offering the opinion that the case would be laughed out of court because it is based on nonsense.

Care to explain how there is a legal basis. Believing something is wrong or can be challenged in court doesn’t magic up a legal basis.

I suggested that the door might be open to anyone with the money to question any vote they weren't happy with. I went further and said they might need take it to a European court.

You say it would be laughed out of court. Victory! All I said was the door might be open for someone to take it to court. You agree.
I'm no legal chap but someone could argue that the decision wasn't legit because of the flaws in the voting process. For further details we'd need a court case to see if it got laughed out.

I find I spend more time correcting you than discussing anything.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I suggested that the door might be open to anyone with the money to question any vote they weren't happy with. I went further and said they might need take it to a European court.

You say it would be laughed out of court. Victory! All I said was the door might be open for someone to take it to court. You agree.
I'm no legal chap but someone could argue that the decision wasn't legit because of the flaws in the voting process. For further details we'd need a court case to see if it got laughed out.

I find I spend more time correcting you than discussing anything.

There is no European court to take it though, its not in their competence. It would be purely an Irish constitutional issue.

FreudianSlippers

Red_Wake wrote: »

Would this open the door to a legal challenge against any and all actions decided[including laws passed] upon by a dail chamber where someone had engaged in proxy voting?

No

FreudianSlippers

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is no European court to take it though, its not in their competence. It would be purely an Irish constitutional issue.

It's not even really a Constitutional issue, it's a parliamentary procedures question. If (and there's zero evidence of this ever being the case) there was legislation that was passed / rejected by a margin less than that of which there was "irregular" voting on the Bill, there would certainly be a claim that the Bill pursuant to parliamentary procedures ought to be voted on again.

The issue is really lack of clarity in the Standing Orders, specifically the Standing Orders Relative to Public Business (starting on page 15 here) Clause 77 (page 55 of the PDF). Pay attention to the definition of the phrase "members present and voting" it's clear in my view that the word "present" has an ordinary meaning that would be difficult to dispute, so in my view any member that was not in the Oireachtas at the time was not "present". I'm not entirely clear myself whether "present" would have to mean in the chamber itself. So, if the member was out of the Oireachtas, at home, on holiday... whatever. I think their vote should be nullified. However, there is nothing in the rules that says that a "present" member can't have someone cast the vote on their behalf. So, we need to tighten the rules here and amend the SO to stipulate (if we so desire) that "present" means in the chamber for the vote and that voting must be done by the member. I'm not sure, necessarily, that we want to do that. I don't see the harm in a proxy casting the vote on behalf of the member if that member is present in the Oireachtas at the time the vote is being carried out.

In terms of this being a matter for the Courts, I'm not sure how a passed / rejected bill could ever give locus standi to an individual in court. Think about it... a Bill doesn't pass, what impact could arise from that which would give a person a valid connection and harm to that action which would allow them the standing to bring a case? There really isn't anything.
So what about a Bill that does pass? Well that individual, if they had the standing - again valid connection and harm - simply on foot of the Bill being enacted to bring a case on the Constitutionality of that Act.

McMurphy

I see local member's of DL branch of FG have stated (by secret ballot) that they want the party to reconsider her remaining on the ticket or not.

It will be interesting how this goes now, because I for one would like to see how they will spin her removal (assuming that it happens)

Remember, leo told us that his internally conducted report found:

The inquiry confirms the following:

“Deputy Bailey was injured following a fall from a swing in a hotel in 2015. She sustained painful injuries and incurred significant medical bills as a result.

“The accident happened and the injuries were real and were confirmed by medical reports. The inquiry states that it was not a fraudulent claim.

And if Maria Bailey goes, what about the person who advised her to take the route she took?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I see local member's of DL branch of FG have stated (by secret ballot) that they want the party to reconsider her remaining on the ticket or not.

It will be interesting how this goes now, because I for one would like to see how they will spin her removal (assuming that it happens)

Remember, leo told us that his internally conducted report found:



And if Maria Bailey goes, what about the person who advised her to take the route she took?

I don't see any incompatibility.

The inquiry can clear Maria Bailey, the Taoiseach can accept that, but he can still conclude that she is politically damaged and is no longer the best candidate to take a seat for Fine Gael. That is perfectly logical and in no way contradicts the finding of the inquiry.

tayto lover

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't see any incompatibility.

The inquiry can clear Maria Bailey, the Taoiseach can accept that, but he can still conclude that she is politically damaged and is no longer the best candidate to take a seat for Fine Gael. That is perfectly logical and in no way contradicts the finding of the inquiry.

Do you think her legal advisor will suffer fallout?

FreudianSlippers

tayto lover wrote: »

Do you think her legal advisor will suffer fallout?

Generally speaking: Why should someone suffer political fallout for, at worst, professional negligence (and I think that's a stretch to be honest) in their previous career?

More specifically: In fact, there's no professional negligence here. The case was, as I've pointed out previously, on the top end of the Circuit Court jurisdiction based on the book of quantum, therefore it's a coin-toss really as to whether it's worth the financial risk for the Plaintiff to bring the case in the High Court and potentially suffer adverse costs implications if they're awarded damages in the Circuit Court jurisdiction.

That's ultimately a client decision.

tayto lover

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Why should someone suffer political fallout for, at worst, professional negligence (and I think that's a stretch to be honest) in their previous career?

There were rumors that she was in Bailey’s company at the time of the “fall” though and might have given very bad advice as well as drafting the letter to the Dean. Bailey could take her down with her if true especially as the legal advisor has now dropped her like a hot potato.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Generally speaking: Why should someone suffer political fallout for, at worst, professional negligence (and I think that's a stretch to be honest) in their previous career?

More specifically: In fact, there's no professional negligence here. The case was, as I've pointed out previously, on the top end of the Circuit Court jurisdiction based on the book of quantum, therefore it's a coin-toss really as to whether it's worth the financial risk for the Plaintiff to bring the case in the High Court and potentially suffer adverse costs implications if they're awarded damages in the Circuit Court jurisdiction.

That's ultimately a client decision.

How the party handle this, and now bailey is dealt with will possibly decide on what more we are told about the case.

From last night's meeting, from Maria Bailey herself.

Ms Bailey used a short speech to argue that not all the facts about her compensation case over a fall from a swing are in the public domain.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

How the party handle this, and now bailey is dealt with will possibly decide on what more we are told about the case.

From last night's meeting, from Maria Bailey herself.

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't see how it's relevant to my post in context of the statement that was made.

FreudianSlippers

tayto lover wrote: »

There were rumors that she was in Bailey’s company at the time of the “fall” though and might have given very bad advice as well as drafting the letter to the Dean. Bailey could take her down with her if true especially as the legal advisor has now dropped her like a hot potato.

1) You haven't addressed what I said;
2) What relevance is it whether her solicitor was with her at the time of the incident?
3) What relevance is someone's career prior to being a politician?