Referendum re: Oireachtas inquiries

Mike 1972 · 18-10-2011 03:23AM

sensibleken wrote: »

Anything Patricia McKenna is against must be a good thing

Paedophillia ?

grenache · 18-10-2011 04:30AM

Never in my life thought i'd be siding with Ronan Mullen for anything, but i'm definitely voting no on this. The place to judge people is in the courts, not in an oireachtas committee room.

Raze_them_all · 18-10-2011 04:42AM

The government Will accept the peoples decision no matter what it is.

I'll vote no, It'll pass.....

The government will make me vote again till the yes vote is passed.

Thank **** for the lisbon traty...country is swimming in jobs.

(still angry over that farce that I voted no to, twice)

randylonghorn · 18-10-2011 05:02AM

Raze_them_all wrote: »

The government will make me vote again till the yes vote is passed.

I doubt that will happen this time tbh. Firstly, it isn't FF, and while I wouldn't be a big fan of the present crowd either, I think they have a small bit more sense. Secondly, it isn't as crucial an issue.

In fairness, I don't think it's the Lisbon Treaty that scuppered us, I think our politicians and financial regulators and banks and so on managed most of that just fine, but that's an aside on this topic.

What might happen is that they throw it up again at some stage with a better wording. Which is fine, I'd certainly be prepared to look at it with an open mind. I don't have a problem with them looking for a better / cheaper way than the Tribunals / Commissions, or trying to give Dáil Committees more teeth.

But they don't need to drive a coach-and-four, to paraphrase O'Connell, through natural justice to do it, or set up a situation where they politicians decide who they target and how they do it and what protection (if any) those called before them have. That erodes the foundation of law and justice in any civilised society. This wording is just sloppy at best and self-serving at worst.

expectationlost · 18-10-2011 05:09AM

christ patricia mckenna and ronan mullen, christ

mikemac · 18-10-2011 05:40AM

Politicians selecting targets/scapegoats, drawing up the questions and deciding the results

The next scandal this is used on someone will take the blame but it will not be the people asking the questions or their superiors

If you want someone to be tried, take it before a judge.
Having said that, something has to be done about the cost of the tribunals and hundreds if not thousands that barristers pull per day

sensibleken · 18-10-2011 09:40AM

mikemac wrote: »

Politicians selecting targets/scapegoats, drawing up the questions and deciding the results

The next scandal this is used on someone will take the blame but it will not be the people asking the questions or their superiors

If you want someone to be tried, take it before a judge.
Having said that, something has to be done about the cost of the tribunals and hundreds if not thousands that barristers pull per day

Isnt this the point?

It seems tehy will be established the same way as tribunals and pretty much will have the same power as tribunals but will cost less

seamus · 18-10-2011 09:51AM

sensibleken wrote: »

but will cost less

I seriously doubt that. If anything they'll cost more as the individuals being investigated, fight and fight and fight and fight and fight this in the courts.

It's a populist amendment. If someone was worth investigating, then the Gardai can do it. If they have broken the law, then they can be investigated, arrested and tried.
The reason that this doesn't happen is because the politicians try to hide it and try to force the Gardai not to investigate their buddies. Tribunals were cooked up as a way of making it look like they were doing something against the bad men, but without having to make their political buddies suffer the indignity of being subject to a criminal investigation.

If someone hasn't done something legally wrong, then why should the Dáil have any power to instigate an investigation against them, except to drag their name through mud? If they've done something illegal, then we have processes to deal with that.

They're effectively asking the people to rubber-stamp the setting up of kangaroo courts which will solve nothing and catch no-one.

They will be used before elections to drag the opposition politicians out into the public view and throw shit at them.

Orando Broom · 18-10-2011 09:56AM

lastlaugh wrote: »

It seems that by voting Yes, you are more or less giving free reign to a commitee of politicians, but I'm not sure what power they would have in a real sense, besides invading someone's privacy in a very public manner.

<<Selective quoting of LL>>

Absolutely. Can you imagine some of the luders we elect being given this power. We need to erode the power of the Oireachtas where possible, not enhance it. I find it interesting how the media choose the people to present the cases for and against. Surely there would be a few constitutional experts that would have divergent opinions that could coherently set out both cases.

Orando Broom · 18-10-2011 09:58AM

It would be more in thier line to cap the fees for barristers for Tribunals. Certainly in this climate plenty would take the work with reduced terms.

opinion guy · 18-10-2011 10:47PM

expectationlost wrote: »

christ patricia mckenna and ronan mullen, christ

Seriously who are these people that you all object to ?
Never heard of either of them tbh

Thrill · 18-10-2011 11:30PM

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/vote-would-give-politicians-judges-powers-171075.html

Vote ‘would give politicians judges’ powers’

Tuesday, October 18, 2011
A SENIOR counsel has raised significant concerns over the "sweeping and draconian powers" which will be afforded to politicians if the public votes yes in next week’s referendum on Oireachtas inquiries.
Oisin Quinn has questioned the impartiality of politicians to whom such powers may soon be given.

Yesterday he briefed a meeting of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants on what a yes vote will mean. The association’s members are typically the civil servants who must attend and give evidence at the Oireachtas hearings.

Mr Quinn said there was no doubt there was a necessity for a "limited power of Oireachtas inquiry" designed to address failings in public administration and oversight.

However, he said a yes vote would allow the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries into any matter "of general public importance", to investigate the conduct of any person and to make findings in relation to the conduct of that person.

"There can therefore be no doubt that passage of this referendum will pass to the Oireachtas sweeping and draconian powers which will enable politicians to conduct and control inquiries into individuals and make the most serious findings of fact against those persons."

He said "there is public anger at the failure of the institutions of the state to deal with the banking and property crisis and the subsequent failure to bring those persons responsible to account".

However, he said the passing of the referendum will not address the cost of independent tribunals of inquiry, the duration of the inquiry or the "continuing failure to prosecute certain solicitors and bankers arising out of the property and banking crisis".

He said a yes vote would give Oireachtas investigators the power to enter "at any reasonable time any premises" where they have "reasonable grounds to believe there are any documents, or there is any information in any form relating to any matter within the terms of the reference for the inquiry".

He said politicians are not expected to be judges nor to be trained in either the process of elucidating evidence, questioning witnesses or reaching independent and fair-minded judgments. He said independent judges were in place to carry out that role.

"The public needs politicians who can speak their mind, who will take up important public issues and who will fight for changes. Sitting in judgment over their fellow citizens is not why, I suggest, most politicians seek office. Nonetheless, it is a power they will have thrust upon them should this referendum be passed."

languagenerd · 18-10-2011 11:52PM

randylonghorn wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think it's the Lisbon Treaty that scuppered us

No, it wasn't, but does anyone else remember the "Vote Yes For Jobs" posters that were put up all over the place for Lisbon II? It was such blatant manipulation - the Lisbon Treaty was never anything to do with jobs, but the politicians took advantage of the recession to push the Yes vote (the recession started between the two Lisbon referendums, which was possibly a reason for the change from No to Yes.).

I find it weird that there are no posters up for the referendums this time though! Nice I & II, Lisbon I & II and even the abortion one years ago all had tons of propaganda posters up for both sides. Why are the parties so unfazed by these ones?

Min · 19-10-2011 11:15AM

I am voting no, we have laws, we have judges, it is the politicians that should legislate, not legislate to make themselves into some sort of judicial system.
I hope the people vote no to this, if people have done wrong we have a system that can be improved without giving the politicians more powers.

IITYWYBMAD · 19-10-2011 11:24AM

seamus wrote: »

I seriously doubt that. If anything they'll cost more as the individuals being investigated, fight and fight and fight and fight and fight this in the courts.

......

I thought part of this amendment removed the right of the individual to appeal against it's findings, which would be the singular reason why I'd vote against it?

sensibleken · 19-10-2011 11:46AM

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I thought part of this amendment removed the right of the individual to appeal against it's findings, which would be the singular reason why I'd vote against it?

No. Anyone involved can appeal against the findings in the draft report to the high court. This draft is not known to the public. the final report is then published. Also if there is an objection to the evidence it can be refered to the courts see 32.___ (1)(b) of the draft bill

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

Also the bill does give powers to set costs, legal fees and time frames. It is definetely more likely to cost less than tribunals which included costs in the high court and the costs of the inquiry. In this case the cost of the latter can be restricted

seamus · 19-10-2011 11:51AM

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I thought part of this amendment removed the right of the individual to appeal against it's findings, which would be the singular reason why I'd vote against it?

Apart from the appeal which sensibleken highlights, at least the very first few attempts to use this amendment will be very strongly challenged in the courts as to whether it's actually legal/constitutional to use. It could possibly go as far as being brought to Europe to rule on.

My suspicion is that even if this gets voted in, it will take a couple of years before they wade through all the legal challenges to it and actually manage to invoke it.

subway · 19-10-2011 11:54AM

voting no on this one.
surprised there have been none of the usual boards responses. such gems of wisdom as
"if you've nothing to hide why does it matter"
"if you break the law you don't deserve a fair trial"
and so on

sensibleken · 19-10-2011 12:00PM

seamus wrote: »

I seriously doubt that. If anything they'll cost more as the individuals being investigated, fight and fight and fight and fight and fight this in the courts.

It's a populist amendment. If someone was worth investigating, then the Gardai can do it. If they have broken the law, then they can be investigated, arrested and tried.
The reason that this doesn't happen is because the politicians try to hide it and try to force the Gardai not to investigate their buddies. Tribunals were cooked up as a way of making it look like they were doing something against the bad men, but without having to make their political buddies suffer the indignity of being subject to a criminal investigation.

If someone hasn't done something legally wrong, then why should the Dáil have any power to instigate an investigation against them, except to drag their name through mud? If they've done something illegal, then we have processes to deal with that.

They're effectively asking the people to rubber-stamp the setting up of kangaroo courts which will solve nothing and catch no-one.

They will be used before elections to drag the opposition politicians out into the public view and throw shit at them.

Im not so sure. For a start the cost of the enquiry is set by the oversight commitee. the cost of tribunals is not set. both have appeals to the court but you cant set those costs.

i dont see how kangaroo courts can be set up or opposition politicians can be dragged out in the way you describe as the draft legislation sets out the criteria for establishing them, the rights of appeal etc that would make it very difficult to just hold these inquiries on an ad hoc manner.

Those accused or involved have a right to appeal the findings to the court before they are made public

seamus · 19-10-2011 12:04PM

I understand that ken, but that's in the draft legislation. Legislation can be changed and without much debate. If the majority party of the day decides that they want to relax the legislation to allow them more *ahem* robust powers in relation to investigation, they can do it with little noise and without having to ask the people. It's theoretical, but I don't like the idea that it's possible.

You're effectively giving this power to the Government and trusting them not to use it. Since I have no idea who that Government will be in 1, 5, 10, 30, 50 years time, I'm not comfortable handing that power over.

sensibleken · 19-10-2011 12:08PM

seamus wrote: »

I understand that ken, but that's in the draft legislation. Legislation can be changed and without much debate. If the majority party of the day decides that they want to relax the legislation to allow them more *ahem* robust powers in relation to investigation, they can do it with little noise and without having to ask the people. It's theoretical, but I don't like the idea that it's possible.

You're effectively giving this power to the Government and trusting them not to use it.

yes it is possible for them to change it before its passed into law. they could certainly try and pull the wool over everyones eyes and bring this in and nobody would protest (or if they did theyd just be called jobless hippies)

for the record Im a floating voter just trying to cut through the drama.

Persiancowboy · 19-10-2011 02:13PM

About time some debate took place on this issue. It must suit the Govt down to the ground that the meeja and general public are all focussed on the 7 dwarves and their sideshow for the Aras while nobody is paying much attention to this important issue.

Just imagine the likes of Timmy Dooley, Caoimhin O Caolain, Mary Lou, Willie o'dea, Michael Healy-Rae, Michael Lowry, James "Bonkers" Bannon and a host of other fukcing tossers sitting around a committee room "making findings of fact" against individuals. :eek:

While they would all enjoy their parliamentary privilege of saying what they liked without fear of being sued, the individual(s) enjoy no such luxury.

Fcuk that......I'm voting NO:mad:

sensibleken · 19-10-2011 02:17PM

Persiancowboy wrote: »

Michael Healy-Rae, Michael Lowry,

good point

randylonghorn · 19-10-2011 10:46PM

sensibleken wrote: »

... the draft bill ...

sensibleken wrote: »

... the draft legislation ...

That's a lot of the problem in my eyes ... as Seamus says, it's draft legislation, it can be amended before being passed, it can be amended later by the very people who are setting themselves up as investigators, judge and jury in what is essentially an extra-judicial system.

The politicians vote for the details of bills, we the people have the chance to vote next week on the amendment to our constitution which outlines the principles and rights underpinning those laws, and the boundaries within which those laws must be framed. That's not just our right, it's our duty as citizens.

And to my mind the boundaries outlined in this particular amendment are too broad.

I agree, personally, that we need to find better mechanisms than the costly tribunals and commissions and so forth of the past. But we don't need this sweeping an amendment to do it.

It's like choosing to use a pressure hose to fill a glass of water ... there will almost inevitably be overflow and splashback!

sensibleken · 20-10-2011 10:36AM

randylonghorn wrote: »

That's a lot of the problem in my eyes ... as Seamus says, it's draft legislation, it can be amended before being passed, it can be amended later by the very people who are setting themselves up as investigators, judge and jury in what is essentially an extra-judicial system.

The politicians vote for the details of bills, we the people have the chance to vote next week on the amendment to our constitution which outlines the principles and rights underpinning those laws, and the boundaries within which those laws must be framed. That's not just our right, it's our duty as citizens.

And to my mind the boundaries outlined in this particular amendment are too broad.

I agree, personally, that we need to find better mechanisms than the costly tribunals and commissions and so forth of the past. But we don't need this sweeping an amendment to do it.

It's like choosing to use a pressure hose to fill a glass of water ... there will almost inevitably be overflow and splashback!

Fair enough. I think a lot of it comes down to trust. Someone just gave a good point on the politics forum about media hysteria. I canthink of the head shop ban and the dangerous dog act. Both useless counter productive laws based on hysteria rather than reason. I could see a similar situation arising in the future.

For example. the demon of the day is bankers and developers. fair enough. what if it was head shop owners and the government of the day was another bertie/harney etc. the kind of hysteria generated by the likes of jow duffy could just be enough to push through the checks and balances outlined in the bill.

Wertz · 20-10-2011 11:17AM

What disturbs me most about this amendment is the lack of any real discussion and plain english explanation for the people who actually have the power to change or not chnage it.... all we're getting in the media is presidency presidency presidency and then some discussion that goes over the heads of many people. Same with the one on judge's pay.

Personally I'll be voting no on both, despite my concern about the abbeylara incident and investigation...these measure go (or could go) too far. Any current crop of TD's and senators presiding over inquiries into the flavour du jour and dtermining their own powers of investigation and deciding what defines "public interest" is alarming, particularly when many of them may have have little background in legal areas. they efectively become judge and jury on anyone that they decide has wrong the public in some way or other (however that gets decided)
We do need something beyond the model of costly tribunals and some more powers of inquiry alongside the judicial system but this is far too open ended and prone to abuse.

Killer Pigeon · 20-10-2011 11:20AM

El Weirdo wrote: »

If you think it deserves further discussion, maybe you should put a few more discussiony bits in your post.

I bumped this thread because the topic is important and it deserved more attention. Do you mind? I am completely against the amendment and I found it very worrying that some opinion polls are showing that a large amount of people are for it. It's really going right underneath people's noses.

El Weirdo · 20-10-2011 11:24AM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I bumped this thread because the topic is important and it deserved more attention. Do you mind? I am completely against the amendment and I found it very worrying that some opinion polls are showing that a large amount of people are for it. It's really going right underneath people's noses.

Hey that's cool and I agree with you. I was just being a smartarse...

...2 days ago.

Killer Pigeon · 20-10-2011 11:26AM

El Weirdo wrote: »

Hey that's cool and I agree with you. I was just being a smartarse...

...2 days ago.

I only noticed your post today!

Popeleo · 20-10-2011 11:52AM

Persiancowboy wrote: »

Just imagine the likes of Timmy Dooley, Caoimhin O Caolain, Mary Lou, Willie o'dea, Michael Healy-Rae, Michael Lowry, James "Bonkers" Bannon and a host of other fukcing tossers sitting around a committee room "making findings of fact" against individuals. :eek:

I agree with you, but I'm voting yes anyway. The main problem there is the idiots that 'we', the people, elect.

Maybe the rest of the country should take action against the constituency that votes in the biggest eejit.
Funding cuts? County/counties banned from senior GAA? Blasting them with bodily fluids of boardsies? Genocide? That'll teach em!

Referendum re: Oireachtas inquiries

Comments