Abbeylara referendum

walrusgumble · 13-09-2011 06:05PM

whatstherush wrote: »

Murdoch had all the politicians in his pocket(I don't mean by bribes, more through the power of his papers) and he still ended up in front of a committee. If the public out cry is large enough, no one is safe.

So what, the hearing are in public. For years Tom Watson was the most vocal mp on the hacking scandal, yet it didn't affect his ability to question Murdoch when before committee.

If the system that is being proposed is so open to abuse, why don't these abuses occur in Britain.

I do not mean financial bribes either. The Committee were fairly soft on him (you can be hard and still be fair)

I would say, that the British Politician is a fair bit more skilled than most of ours, intelligent too. (yes just as corruptible)Moreover, They are going to more TV coverage of such committees and trying to get filming in court cases.

The only objection i have, is the quality and ability of our representatives. I do not have trust in members of Parliament.what happens when we have another Beef Tribunal lark etc, or politicians trying to claim privilege etc? Governments going, oh, ok sure. (knowing damn well there maybe stuff that would hurt them)

We have grand standers like Shatter making adverse comments about a Tribunal while its on going, potentially with the effect of frustrating it (lets put the genuine issues of the unjustified delays to one side) why were comments made public?

At the same time, aren't these inquiries only meant to be inquiries with no legal effect (whether parliament or tribunal)? I want to see guarantees, rules and policies laid out on how precisely this parliament will act and the basis for such action, before I say yes.

Sir Oxman · 13-09-2011 10:00PM

The wording is very bad, especially section 4 I think.
Who dominates the Oireachtas committees? The govt of the day. I think it's entirely probable that they won't be investigating themselves or their antics.
Also, as far as I am aware there will be no one to appeal to after the committee makes their findings
So, who watches The Watchmen?

Surely, there has to be a better way, starting with total reform of the Oireachtas and the current situation where the govt of the day is virtually unaccountable.
this smacks of putting the cart before the horse, therefore I will be voting no on this wording.

Het-Field · 17-09-2011 07:38PM

I am amazed that this matter is not getting people more animated. I accept that the referendum is likely to occur on the same day as a personality centric election, however, the 30 Amendment has very significant ramifications for the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and the independence of judicial functions.

Let me put it this way

THE 30TH AMENDMENT IS MORE THAN MERE HOUSKEEPING.

ninty9er · 17-09-2011 07:43PM

I'm in favour, but I'd prefer if the committees needed 80% of the votes in the initiating House and 60% of the votes in the approving House to be established.

Het-Field · 17-09-2011 07:46PM

ninty9er wrote: »

I'm in favour, but I'd prefer if the committees needed 80% of the votes in the initiating House and 60% of the votes in the approving House to be established.

So you have no problem in potentially handing quasi-judicial power to any member of the current Oireachtas?

ninty9er · 17-09-2011 07:52PM

Het-Field wrote: »

So you have no problem in potentially handing quasi-judicial power to any member of the current Oireachtas?

As a systematic addition, no. Oireachtas committees are cross-party in their make-up and as such there is little scope for a witch hunt or injustice any more than there is in the current system. I think it could expedite some matters.

Het-Field · 17-09-2011 07:58PM

ninty9er wrote: »

As a systematic addition, no. Oireachtas committees are cross-party in their make-up and as such there is little scope for a witch hunt or injustice any more than there is in the current system. I think it could expedite some matters.

Do you remember Callely? Further, the Courts are not constrained by the necessity for re-election, which would give rise to attempts to make popular decisions, as is the case in the US. The Courts have made a number of decisions which would be deemed "unpopular", while being legally sound. On the other hand, politicians require re-election, and as a result popularity is key. When decision are being made in such an arena, it is possible that politicians will plump for the popular decisions as opposed to the right decisions.

I believe in the Separation of Powers Doctrine. As it is, the fused executive and legislature give rise to an imperfect separation, however, Subsection 3 would give rise to a further destruction of the Partition between the Judiciary and the fused executive and legislature. Such centralisation is something which I dont agree with.

Foghladh · 17-09-2011 08:21PM

ninty9er wrote: »

As a systematic addition, no. Oireachtas committees are cross-party in their make-up and as such there is little scope for a witch hunt or injustice any more than there is in the current system. I think it could expedite some matters.

Committees may be cross party but representation is proportional so the government balance will carry through to an inquiry. As I've stated in an earlier post, I'm really not comfortable will the notion that a gathering of elected officials can assume the responsibility of deciding what rights are applicable to a particular situation. I'd prefer findings were made in relation to the law, not what's occupying the front pages of the papers that week. I don't claim that it will lead to witch hunts, but if the clamour for a witch hunt is loud enough the framework is there.

Het-Field · 19-09-2011 07:58PM

Another day of endless personality driven discussion about the Presidential Election, while no attention has been given to this crucially important referendum which will be held on the same day.

Foghladh · 19-09-2011 11:04PM

I suppose a lot of the noise usually generated around a referendum comes from politicians with differing viewpoints. This refererendum about the 30th amendment is different in that it gives more power to the Oireachtas, and so probably isn't seen as a controversial by very many in those houses.

It's probably seen as 'popular' reform as well, with the assertion by the government to use it to launch a Banking Inquiry. A bit like the 29th Amendment going through the same day on 'Judicial pay'. I haven't heard too much discussion on that one either in the media and whether or not it serves to weaken the position of the judiciary relative to the legislative.

There is a commentary on Human Rights in Ireland about the 30th amendment if anyone wants a read

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2011/09/12/reversing-abbeylara-a-commentary-on-the-thirtieth-amendment-of-the-constitution-bill/

Scofflaw · 19-09-2011 11:27PM

Het-Field wrote: »

Another day of endless personality driven discussion about the Presidential Election, while no attention has been given to this crucially important referendum which will be held on the same day.

Unfortunately, that's likely to be the pattern right up to polling day. About the best we can hope for is that someone decides to ask the candidates their views on it - although the chances are that they'll all be in favour of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Het-Field · 19-09-2011 11:57PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's likely to be the pattern right up to polling day. About the best we can hope for is that someone decides to ask the candidates their views on it - although the chances are that they'll all be in favour of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree.

However, there was a small discussion on the matter tonight on VB. The concerns regarding Subsection 4 were raised. I would also be anxious to see the matter of Subsection 3 raised also.

walrusgumble · 21-09-2011 02:27PM

Het-Field wrote: »

I am amazed that this matter is not getting people more animated. I accept that the referendum is likely to occur on the same day as a personality centric election, however, the 30 Amendment has very significant ramifications for the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and the independence of judicial functions.

Let me put it this way

THE 30TH AMENDMENT IS MORE THAN MERE HOUSKEEPING.

Yes it is extremely worrying that many people will not have paid any notice to it. I know that campaigns are to only occur at a certain point, but surely, in normal referendums, information and debates would have occurred by now. Many won' t see the significance to it, simply thinking "well if they did not act in X,Y,Z" they would not be here or "if they are innocent, they have nothing to worry about". Which is the wrong attitude.

Maybe if some petition/letter etc is written to Howlin's & Shatter's department asking whether Section 4 will instead continue to allow a person before a committee as they do at a Tribunal of Inquiry to enjoy their Constitutional rights and specify what are their limits and why the hell the wording was not put in a clearer fashion. Demand a guarantee that the Court's jurisidiction will not be infringed. Also, what is the position as to the ability of the courts to review the decision ala the Ivor Callely case.

Force them into making a public statement to relieve people's concerns or at least allow the people to know exactly what they are voting on.

I think Vincent Brown is one of the few journo's to discuss it.

Should people bang heads together to set out a proposal letter to seek clarification (and warning them that one would go public on it, if they don't respond he he - some how, i don't see how they will be bothered)

Het-Field · 21-09-2011 03:09PM

walrusgumble wrote: »

Yes it is extremely worrying that many people will not have paid any notice to it. I know that campaigns are to only occur at a certain point, but surely, in normal referendums, information and debates would have occurred by now. Many won' t see the significance to it, simply thinking "well if they did not act in X,Y,Z" they would not be here or "if they are innocent, they have nothing to worry about". Which is the wrong attitude.

Maybe if some petition/letter etc is written to Howlin's & Shatter's department asking whether Section 4 will instead continue to allow a person before a committee as they do at a Tribunal of Inquiry to enjoy their Constitutional rights and specify what are their limits and why the hell the wording was not put in a clearer fashion. Demand a guarantee that the Court's jurisidiction will not be infringed. Also, what is the position as to the ability of the courts to review the decision ala the Ivor Callely case.

Force them into making a public statement to relieve people's concerns or at least allow the people to know exactly what they are voting on.

I think Vincent Brown is one of the few journo's to discuss it.

Should people bang heads together to set out a proposal letter to seek clarification (and warning them that one would go public on it, if they don't respond he he - some how, i don't see how they will be bothered)

If you remember the first Campaign against the Lisbon Treaty, it commenced no quicker than the ink had dried on the text of the Treaty. I recall Libertas kicked off their campaign against Lisbon in December 2007, a whole 7 months before the referendum was held.

What amazes me is the lack of discussion about this crucial matter, which calls into question the continued prevalence of the Separation of Powers doctrine which exists. First, we have an imperfect separation on the basis that the Legislature and the Executive are virtually fused, however, Subsection 3 represents a massive power-grab on the part of the fused executive/legislature to invoke powers of the Judiciary, thus partially merging the three pillers. I would have thought this matter would have exercised everybody, however, save for Vincent Browne and Gerry White, this matter has, thus far, been successfully represented by the Government as mere housekeeping.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 21-09-2011 03:14PM

My automatic stance is to always vote in a manner that either reduces or contains the power of government. The reasons should be obvious. And I will vote no differently this time.

By the way, if I registed for the last election, do I need to reregister?

walrusgumble · 22-09-2011 09:57AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

My automatic stance is to always vote in a manner that either reduces or contains the power of government. The reasons should be obvious. And I will vote no differently this time.

By the way, if I registed for the last election, do I need to reregister?

I am just thinking about the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" tune.

If you registered, you will be fine. Still living in the same address?

Many people here don't have an issue with changing the law on Abbeylara per se. It is just that Sections 3 and 4 jump out as being rather nasty. If there were guarantees that people will still enjoy the same rights of fair procedures etc and the Committees could only act as a fact finding inquiry,like the Tribunals, (and not interfering with the Court's function) then I would have no issue.

It is possible to interpret (however strained) that the Oireachtas will, in light of case law, always ensure fair procedures etc. But, why Section 4?

Scofflaw · 22-09-2011 03:33PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

My automatic stance is to always vote in a manner that either reduces or contains the power of government. The reasons should be obvious. And I will vote no differently this time.

By the way, if I registed for the last election, do I need to reregister?

You shouldn't have to. The usual "check the register" sites should be available fairly shortly, I guess.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Het-Field · 30-09-2011 03:50PM

Another week has passed where the focus has been on the personality of the Presidential Candidates, as opposed to any tangible issues which may effect this society.

Any media coverage of the proposed referenda has been peripheral and ephemeral.

I urge posters to educate themselves on the proposed changes before even considering putting pencil to ballot paper.

recedite · 06-10-2011 09:03PM

Het-Field wrote: »

this crucial matter, which calls into question the continued prevalence of the Separation of Powers doctrine which exists. First, we have an imperfect separation on the basis that the Legislature and the Executive are virtually fused, however, Subsection 3 represents a massive power-grab on the part of the fused executive/legislature to invoke powers of the Judiciary, thus partially merging the three pillers

Aren't all judges government appointees anyway?
So it's really a power grab on the part of a fused executive/legislature/judiciary against itself.
Having said that, there is the possibility that judges will wander off after a few years in the job and "evolve" some independence, or that they remain loyal to a previous and different govt.

So I oppose it. If TD's are keen to investigate stuff (and that's a big if),why can't the Dail committees make preliminary investigations, in their own time (which is at taxpayers expense) then if they find anything suspect, refer the matter to the DPP?

For example, the lack of political will to pursue crooked bankers was nothing to do with lack of power. The govt. at the time had ample access to books and accounts.

Alan_P · 08-10-2011 04:04PM

Whatever people's opinions of it, it seems likely to be passed pretty comfortably. The Irish Times asked people about this as part of their recent Presidential and politicial party opinion poll.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1008/1224305460850.html

"65 per cent said they would vote Yes, 8 per cent said they would vote No, 23 per cent were undecided and 4 per cent said they would not vote."

Even if all the undecided end up voting no, that would still be a 2 to 1 yes vote.

As an aside, the referendum on judge's pay looks like being having the largest majority in the history of the State :- 88 yes, 4 no, 5 percent undecided.

walrusgumble · 08-10-2011 04:20PM

Alan_P wrote: »

Whatever people's opinions of it, it seems likely to be passed pretty comfortably. The Irish Times asked people about this as part of their recent Presidential and politicial party opinion poll.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1008/1224305460850.html

"65 per cent said they would vote Yes, 8 per cent said they would vote No, 23 per cent were undecided and 4 per cent said they would not vote."

Even if all the undecided end up voting no, that would still be a 2 to 1 yes vote.

As an aside, the referendum on judge's pay looks like being having the largest majority in the history of the State :- 88 yes, 4 no, 5 percent undecided.

Where the hell has the referendum commission gone ?(funny enough, normally headed by a judge)

And there is nothing a person could do by challenging the State's clear refusal to provide any objective literature out there or postpone the referendum until people are fully educated on the implications of these referendums. The Courts have previously said that there is a presumption that the people will find out for themselves. Its a shame the politicans don't take a leaf out of the books of the courts then (ala Nice and Libson)

Personally, if the Dail, put in writting clarifications as to paragraph 4 of the Abbeylara referedum then that would help me to agree with it, but on paper, it looks really bad. We all know Ivor Callely got off and although he did not break any law etc he still in the eyes of public opinion considered to have done something wrong. whether you like him or not,he potentially could have been severely prejudice by idiots (like Dan Boyle Twitting - but he was found to do no wrong and other politicans making public commit - though not damning while the case was on going) , party political prejuidces and grandstanding to the people. Can you really allow the Oireachtas do these sittings when you look at the calibre of some of them?

As for judges pay, I would like to see clarifications on how this will be done. i am on the fence on this one. Am I naive to think that its nonsense coming from the judges that without huge payments that they could not be impartial when deciding cases and avoid judicial activism? Something is either lawful or not. They claim to be impartial, yet they are making it clear that they are more concerned that their paymasters don't try to get rid of them? but surely it may be dangerous in how the political groups dictate completely how this is to be done. Will this refernda bring out an ahem, independent body to decide these issues (without the quango effect etc)

Het-Field · 08-10-2011 05:26PM

recedite wrote: »

Aren't all judges government appointees anyway?
So it's really a power grab on the part of a fused executive/legislature/judiciary against itself.
Having said that, there is the possibility that judges will wander off after a few years in the job and "evolve" some independence, or that they remain loyal to a previous and different govt.

The manner in which the Government appoints they Judiciary does not fuse the Judicial arm of the state to the fused executive/legislature on the basis that the Courts are under no obligation to act on the whim of the fused body. The Fused body cannot pass acts which bind the Courts to act in a certain way, or determine the Court's decision in any matter. The separation of powers seeks to ensure that the actions of the judiciary are not directed by the state. As things stand, that situation prevails.

recedite wrote: »

So I oppose it. If TD's are keen to investigate stuff (and that's a big if),why can't the Dail committees make preliminary investigations, in their own time (which is at taxpayers expense) then if they find anything suspect, refer the matter to the DPP?.

That would amount to the implicit affixing of an adverse reputation/name on somebody or some entity, as the committee has clearly decided that there is something "shady" which requires investigation. That would be a finding, and the Committees are not That is what the Abbeylara judgement is all about. Plus, our laws must be sophisticated enough to deal with certain types of crime. As things stand, our laws are not sophisticated enough to deal with "white collar crime", and the DPP cannot investigate matters which are not illegal.

recedite wrote: »

For example, the lack of political will to pursue crooked bankers was nothing to do with lack of power. The govt. at the time had ample access to books and accounts.

However, they dont have the power to make adverse findings. That is the "power" that the Oireachtas is looking for. This referendum, if passed, will potentially instill quasi-judicial functions in every single representative, whether they are capable of appreciating that power or not. One of the major perks of the selection process for the Irish Judiciary is the fact that they are not beholden to the whim of the masses when making decisions. On the other hand, the vocations of Oireachtas members are given life by the support of the masses. Unpopular decisions can give rise to removal from office. Remember Michael D Higgins saying as much about the loss of his seat in 1982? Considering the views expressed by members of the Oireachtas on banking matters, I do not believe that it would be right and fair for them to be able to investigate "the bankers", as it is possible that the views expressed would prejudice the inquiry, and that the will of the masses would be at the forefront of their minds when making such decisions. At least the Courts are impartial, and the Judiciary do not need to make "popular decisions".

Het-Field · 08-10-2011 05:28PM

walrusgumble wrote: »

Where the hell has the referendum commission gone ?(funny enough, normally headed by a judge)

And there is nothing a person could do by challenging the State's clear refusal to provide any objective literature out there or postpone the referendum until people are fully educated on the implications of these referendums. The Courts have previously said that there is a presumption that the people will find out for themselves. Its a shame the politicans don't take a leaf out of the books of the courts then (ala Nice and Libson)

Personally, if the Dail, put in writting clarifications as to paragraph 4 of the Abbeylara referedum then that would help me to agree with it, but on paper, it looks really bad. We all know Ivor Callely got off and although he did not break any law etc he still in the eyes of public opinion considered to have done something wrong. whether you like him or not,he potentially could have been severely prejudice by idiots (like Dan Boyle Twitting - but he was found to do no wrong and other politicans making public commit - though not damning while the case was on going) , party political prejuidces and grandstanding to the people. Can you really allow the Oireachtas do these sittings when you look at the calibre of some of them?

As for judges pay, I would like to see clarifications on how this will be done. i am on the fence on this one. Am I naive to think that its nonsense coming from the judges that without huge payments that they could not be impartial when deciding cases and avoid judicial activism? Something is either lawful or not. They claim to be impartial, yet they are making it clear that they are more concerned that their paymasters don't try to get rid of them? but surely it may be dangerous in how the political groups dictate completely how this is to be done. Will this refernda bring out an ahem, independent body to decide these issues (without the quango effect etc)

Paragraph 3 is my personal beef. While Paragraph 4 lacks clarity, the clarity of what Paragraph 3 is unequivocable, and unacceptable from my point of view.

recedite · 08-10-2011 09:41PM

Het-Field wrote: »

the Courts are under no obligation to act on the whim of the fused body.

True, but if the judge only got his/her job because he/she is a party hack, or a buddy of a TD attached to whatever party has just got into government, he/ she cannot always be trusted 100% to be truly independent.

Het-Field wrote: »

That would amount to the implicit affixing of an adverse reputation/name on somebody or some entity, as the committee has clearly decided that there is something "shady" which requires investigation. That would be a finding, and the Committees are not That is what the Abbeylara judgement is all about.

No, it would just be grounds for referring the matter to a court or a tribunal headed up by a judge, where an actual finding could be made.

Het-Field wrote: »

Plus, our laws must be sophisticated enough to deal with certain types of crime. As things stand, our laws are not sophisticated enough to deal with "white collar crime", and the DPP cannot investigate matters which are not illegal.

Agreed +1

Het-Field wrote: »

One of the major perks of the selection process for the Irish Judiciary is the fact that they are not beholden to the whim of the masses when making decisions.

True, but they are beholden to the politician who gave them the job, every bit as much as CJ Haughey or Bertie Ahern were beholden to those donors who gave them the financial "dig-outs", but supposedly never got anything back in return.

It's interesting to compare our system to Germany;

Ireland; A barrister with many years work experience/and making contacts, joins a major political party or cultivates buddies within it, waits for that party to get into govt. then gets nominated as a judge.

Germany; The smartest law students with the highest grades are streamed into specialist training, and holding that advanced qualification are eligible for interview when a vacancy arises in the judiciary.

Ireland; (when/and if this referendum passes) Governing party controls the ministries, and also all Dail legislature business, and also can hold a quasi judicial inquiry into anyone they don't like, in "the public interest." The victim apparently has no recourse to the courts.

Germany; If a quarter of the Bundestag members get together (ie the opposition) they have the right to demand an inquiry into whatever arouses their suspicions.

walrusgumble · 08-10-2011 11:23PM

recedite wrote: »

True, but if the judge only got his/her job because he/she is a party hack, or a buddy of a TD attached to whatever party has just got into government, he/ she cannot always be trusted 100% to be truly independent.

No, it would just be grounds for referring the matter to a court or a tribunal headed up by a judge, where an actual finding could be made.
Agreed +1
True, but they are beholden to the politician who gave them the job, every bit as much as CJ Haughey or Bertie Ahern were beholden to those donors who gave them the financial "dig-outs", but supposedly never got anything back in return.

It's interesting to compare our system to Germany;

Ireland; A barrister with many years work experience/and making contacts, joins a major political party or cultivates buddies within it, waits for that party to get into govt. then gets nominated as a judge.

Germany; The smartest law students with the highest grades are streamed into specialist training, and holding that advanced qualification are eligible for interview when a vacancy arises in the judiciary.

Ireland; (when/and if this referendum passes) Governing party controls the ministries, and also all Dail legislature business, and also can hold a quasi judicial inquiry into anyone they don't like, in "the public interest." The victim apparently has no recourse to the courts.

Germany; If a quarter of the Bundestag members get together (ie the opposition) they have the right to demand an inquiry into whatever arouses their suspicions.

Sure without our system, we would not know what to do with the De Valera /O'Caoimh clan - dynasty.

I would not, with the exception of the ones I mentioned, suggest that our current High Court & Supreme Court Judiciary are unfit to be judges, certaintly not as many of them as barristers were involved in high profile cases on a regular basis, who would dare say Dr Gerard Hogan should not be a judge, or even Hardchaw Hardiman. But, when they come out, in cases talking about how they must be impartial etc as an excuse for refusing to deal with economic and social issues (which many would scream judicial activism anyway) and clearly use subjective views on their ideas of how governments and democracy runs, you would be tempted to attack their impartiality on the basis that their pockets, while barristers, were filled as many of them got the best cases, representing the state in the past or acted as attorney generals. - that though, must be viewed , to be fair to them on the basis of their talent.

As for the selection in the lower courts however, this, at times is an absolute joke. Jobs for the boys.

Het-Field · 08-10-2011 11:51PM

recedite wrote: »

True, but if the judge only got his/her job because he/she is a party hack, or a buddy of a TD attached to whatever party has just got into government, he/ she cannot always be trusted 100% to be truly independent..

But they remain without fetter when making their decisions, regardless of what political party or entity they may or may not be affiliated to. That is the Separation of Powers in action. I trust judicial independence, as our Judges are not forced to make politically motivated decisions, nor are they likely to make "popular" decisions. An example would be the declaration granted to Pierce Doherty TD last November that the Government's failure to hold the Donegal South West by-election amounted to an infringement of his constitutional rights. This would not have been popular with the establishment. On the other hand, the Brian Curtain decision would not have been publically popular. Neither decision took into account the potential attitudes of the public, or political implications.

recedite wrote: »

No, it would just be grounds for referring the matter to a court or a tribunal headed up by a judge, where an actual finding could be made...

No, implicit in that decision would be an adverse finding against a person or a legal body. The Oireachtas do not have the power to do that, and to ensure the Separation of Powers, that must be maintained.

recedite wrote: »

True, but they are beholden to the politician who gave them the job, every bit as much as CJ Haughey or Bertie Ahern were beholden to those donors who gave them the financial "dig-outs", but supposedly never got anything back in return....

There are a number of points of difference between the Judiciary and the politican. First, the Politican's "contract" comes up for renewal every five years(at least), and they rely on public support for that renewal. They must renew popularity, and must take popular decision to retain their seats. Second, historically, politicians have always been more culpable when it comes to shady dealings than any member of the Judiciary. Third, I would like to know the benefits which a District Court Judge can bistow upon the "appointing" politician?

recedite wrote: »

It's interesting to compare our system to Germany;

Ireland; A barrister with many years work experience/and making contacts, joins a major political party or cultivates buddies within it, waits for that party to get into govt. then gets nominated as a judge.

Germany; The smartest law students with the highest grades are streamed into specialist training, and holding that advanced qualification are eligible for interview when a vacancy arises in the judiciary.

Ireland; (when/and if this referendum passes) Governing party controls the ministries, and also all Dail legislature business, and also can hold a quasi judicial inquiry into anyone they don't like, in "the public interest." The victim apparently has no recourse to the courts.

Germany; If a quarter of the Bundestag members get together (ie the opposition) they have the right to demand an inquiry into whatever arouses their suspicions.

While interesting, it is important to note that Germany's Separation of Powers is far more robust than it is in Ireland. The Referendum is an unsatisfactory attempt to take a large aspect of the Judiciary's functions, and invest it in the fused executive/legislature.

walrusgumble · 09-10-2011 01:56AM

worth reading

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Draft-Heads-Houses-of-the-Oireachtas-_Powers-of-Inquiry_-Bill-20116.pdf

recedite · 09-10-2011 03:45PM

Het-Field wrote: »

But they remain without fetter when making their decisions, regardless of what political party or entity they may or may not be affiliated to. That is the Separation of Powers in action. I trust judicial independence, as our Judges are not forced to make politically motivated decision.................historically, politicians have always been more culpable when it comes to shady dealings than any member of the Judiciary. Third, I would like to know the benefits which a District Court Judge can bistow upon the "appointing" politician?

How about; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Sheedy_Affair

Het-Field wrote: »

While interesting, it is important to note that Germany's Separation of Powers is far more robust than it is in Ireland. The Referendum is an unsatisfactory attempt to take a large aspect of the Judiciary's functions, and invest it in the fused executive/legislature.

Indeed. Lucky Germans. Except, I don't believe in "luck".

caseyann · 09-10-2011 11:00PM

Anything in there about cutting his and the others wages per chance?

K-9 · 10-10-2011 01:11AM

walrusgumble wrote: »

Where the hell has the referendum commission gone ?(funny enough, normally headed by a judge)

Welcome to the Refcom Website

Abbeylara referendum

Comments