Abbeylara referendum

caseyann · 11-10-2011 04:25PM

Meanwhile the referendum on Oireachtas Inquiries will give the Dail and Seanad power to conduct inquiries into matters of general public importance and, in doing so, to make findings of fact about any person's conduct.

I am little confused i thought Seanad is being abolished? So why would they be written into anything?

Scofflaw · 11-10-2011 11:32PM

caseyann wrote: »

Meanwhile the referendum on Oireachtas Inquiries will give the Dail and Seanad power to conduct inquiries into matters of general public importance and, in doing so, to make findings of fact about any person's conduct.

I am little confused i thought Seanad is being abolished? So why would they be written into anything?

Possibly just to cover all the bases, possibly because they're not being abolished. Given that there's an active process of 'internal reform' happening in the Seanad (http://politicalreform.ie/2011/09/30/seanad-public-consultation-committee/) my money is on the latter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Het-Field · 15-10-2011 06:11PM

recedite wrote: »

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

I accept your point that the affair was unsatisfactorily handled. However, that is not evidence of a malaise in Judicial Independence, or accurate Judicial thought. Every industry, profession, and vocation will have individuals which will make grave, and untenable errors of judgement. However, that does not mean that the entire industry, vocation, or profession is to be tarred with the same brush.

We are now within sight of polling day, and save for Dr Bryan McMahon's statements via the Referendum commission, the debate has been confined to Vincent Browne, while the likes of RTE continue to focus of the personality driven, high farce of the Presidential election.

I maintain that the Government have acted in a very sneaky manner in this attempted power grab, as they have decided to hold the referendum on the same day as they Judicial Pay referendum which will find favour with many voters.

I know what way I will be voting, as I dont believe this amendment is good for Ireland, democracy, or the separation of powers, which is hanging on by a thread in this country.

recedite · 15-10-2011 07:00PM

Het-Field wrote: »

I accept your point that the affair was unsatisfactorily handled. However, that is not evidence of a malaise in Judicial Independence, or accurate Judicial thought.

On the contrary, it was handled well in the end, but only by the free press and the public. A judges resignation was forced, but even then the sponsoring political party tried to reward him with a plum job in european banking. It was public outrage that thwarted that plan.
What concerns me is the rotten system. To expect honest people to thrive in a rotten system is the triumph of hope over experience. It is reasonable to assume that most cases of corruption are hidden from the public eye, so the ones we know of are only the tip of the iceberg.

I'll vote against this referendum, but IMO the outcome is trivial. We should be voting instead on whether govt should be allowed to appoint judges, and whether govt should be allowed to continue to stifle the Dail legislature.

Mycroft H · 16-10-2011 03:31PM

Thread needs poll.

To be honest, I'm scratching my head as to how this even made it to a referendum and wasn't thrown out earlier.

I'm a firm believer in the independence of the judiciary and handing politicians, judicial power, no matter how small it is, is a big no no.

After all, we all no how independent and honest politicians are, don't we.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 17-10-2011 10:20AM

Vote yes for Stalinistesque show trials. Vote yes for jobs.

Killer Pigeon · 17-10-2011 08:18PM

Justice should never be politicised. I'll be voting NO!

jimmycrackcorm · 18-10-2011 12:51AM

I thought it was interesting that a panel member on the Frontline argued against this amendment by using the Ivor Calelly case as an example where the courts overturned the Senate committee's findings against him.

Because I thought the Senate committee were correct in their findings; I do appreciate though, the courts point of view on the process flaws.

I also am against the alternative which are endless and exorbitantly expensive tribunals, which incidentally have also have had the same points raised as argued here about the use of powers. When I go to put my mark on the ballot, I'll be thinking of Lowry and Moriarty.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 18-10-2011 09:44AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I thought it was interesting that a panel member on the Frontline argued against this amendment by using the Ivor Calelly case as an example where the courts overturned the Senate committee's findings against him.

Because I thought the Senate committee were correct in their findings; I do appreciate though, the courts point of view on the process flaws.

I also am against the alternative which are endless and exorbitantly expensive tribunals, which incidentally have also have had the same points raised as argued here about the use of powers. When I go to put my mark on the ballot, I'll be thinking of Lowry and Moriarty.

So why not use the courts then? Why the need for this at all? When people offer your explanation, it just makes me want to vote NO more.

walrusgumble · 18-10-2011 10:22AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I thought it was interesting that a panel member on the Frontline argued against this amendment by using the Ivor Calelly case as an example where the courts overturned the Senate committee's findings against him.

Because I thought the Senate committee were correct in their findings; I do appreciate though, the courts point of view on the process flaws.

I also am against the alternative which are endless and exorbitantly expensive tribunals, which incidentally have also have had the same points raised as argued here about the use of powers. When I go to put my mark on the ballot, I'll be thinking of Lowry and Moriarty.

1. Members of the Ivor Callely committee put themselves in a position, of potentially prejudicing the case by not refusing to make any comment whatsover about the Committee, when interviewed during the process. You don't see the Tribunal Judges (eg Mahon, Smithwitwick) and the like twittering about their job do you? (To be fair, the Courts found that Boyle did nothing wrong, but he still put himself in the dodgy position)

2. The Senate came to a conclusion that was outside the remit of the purpose of their inquiry ie whether Senator acted unlawfully. The Dept of Finance said no. Not happy with that, or not deciding to cease that inquiry and establish another, it tried to move the goal posts and argue that it was breach of ethics, not the headings contained in the original inquiry, if they had, that you be a different story. Why didn't they ?)

3 What guarantees will there be about it being less expensive. I would imagine, for the first Inquiry under the Amendment, there maybe be numerous High Court / Supreme Court cases which will frustrate the workings. What does it mean by Paragraph 4 of the bill (in light of the draft act)?

recedite · 18-10-2011 11:13AM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I also am against the alternative which are endless and exorbitantly expensive tribunals, which incidentally have also have had the same points raised as argued here about the use of powers. When I go to put my mark on the ballot, I'll be thinking of Lowry and Moriarty.

You're a bit out of date there. After the scandalous expense of the tribunals, a better way of investigating matters was arrived at; the commissions of inquiry. So we have had the child abuse reports and the banking inquiry since the tribunals.
These inquiries worked well; quick and cheap, but also used fair procedures and were headed up by an experienced judge, not a media-whore politician.

Boulevardier · 18-10-2011 01:40PM

There is no doubt that the legal and business establishment are against this referendum. There is also no doubt that if this referendum is lost, it will be many, many years before the bankers, rezoners and senior public servants will be held to accoubt in a public forum.

The present legal system, including the present constitution, has failed the people and it has served the wealthy and powerful well.

This referendum is the only opportunity we will get to arrive at the root of the establishment's failure in banking, in planning and in white collar crime.

Vote no to the status quo. Vote yes on Abbeylara.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 18-10-2011 02:28PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

There is no doubt that the legal and business establishment are against this referendum. There is also no doubt that if this referendum is lost, it will be many, many years before the bankers, rezoners and senior public servants will be held to accoubt in a public forum.

The present legal system, including the present constitution, has failed the people and it has served the wealthy and powerful well.

This referendum is the only opportunity we will get to arrive at the root of the establishment's failure in banking, in planning and in white collar crime.

Vote no to the status quo. Vote yes on Abbeylara.

Vote YES for Fianna Fail or Sinn Fein led inquires within a decade.

seamus · 18-10-2011 02:57PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

This referendum is the only opportunity we will get to arrive at the root of the establishment's failure in banking, in planning and in white collar crime.

If a crime has been committed, the courts will handle it.

I find it odd that you blame the woes of the Irish people on a system that benefits the upper classes, while at the same time you think that by handing additional power to those same upper classes, it will cause major change to happen.

All this referendum will really do is give tribunals more power to demand access to information. It won't make any prosecutions, it won't put anyone behind bars or force them to pay back money or prevent them from doing the same things again.

Far from being used to bring bankers to account, these powers will be used within the next five years to start high-profile investigations against the leadership in Sinn Féin and the high-flyers in Fianna Fail, to destroy their names and eliminate them as any kind of serious political opposition.

Boulevardier · 18-10-2011 02:58PM

Vote No to let the bankers and rezoners stay silent. Vote No to keep relying on a "justice" system which raps the big boys on the knuckle and sends the small fry to jail.

Boulevardier · 18-10-2011 03:13PM

"If a crime has been committed, the courts will handle it."

Yeah, right. We all know that that is SO true!

There are superb TDs and senators who are not upper class. The judiciary and SCs almost all are.

As for party political use of inquiries, that will be difficult if those same parties have seats on the committees themselves, as is likely to be the case.

I really think that the ant-Abbeylara campaign is a pro status quo campaign in more ways than one.

seamus · 18-10-2011 03:17PM

You've failed to illustrate her Boulevardier, just how this amendment will cause any justice to be done.

What will it achieve?

"Hold bankers to account". And then what? They admit what they did, then what. Oh yes, they walk away scott free.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 18-10-2011 03:21PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

There are superb TDs and senators who are not upper class. The judiciary and SCs almost all are.

Funny.

Boulevardier wrote: »

As for party political use of inquiries, that will be difficult if those same parties have seats on the committees themselves, as is likely to be the case.

Based on nothing.

Boulevardier wrote: »

I really think that the ant-Abbeylara campaign is a pro status quo campaign in more ways than one.

I am against giving the government more power. I believe there are countless reasons why this is a solid stance. This same institution (govt) is the one that your kind probably protest against on a continuous basis. Yet, you want to make them more powerful. Baffling. And yet, inconsistency is the only consistent thing from your people.

Boulevardier · 18-10-2011 03:29PM

No, I want to have it so that independently-minded TDs and senators will be able to put the establishment fat cats, the bankers and rezoners, the connivers at white collar crime, on a spit and grill them.

It happens in the US, it happens in the UK. It cannot happen here without this referendum.

It will make no difference to who does or does not go to jail. Sadly, most of them wont go there anyway.

seamus · 18-10-2011 03:46PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, I want to have it so that independently-minded TDs and senators will be able to put the establishment fat cats, the bankers and rezoners, the connivers at white collar crime, on a spit and grill them.

It happens in the US, it happens in the UK. It cannot happen here without this referendum.

It will make no difference to who does or does not go to jail. Sadly, most of them wont go there anyway.

So...you just want more tribunals? Long, drawn-out affairs where people talk about what they did, lots of money gets spent, and nothing important happens at the end?

In the US and the UK, law enforcement officials put their white-collar criminals in front of a judge and they go to jail. Here in Ireland, our politicians tell our Gardai to leave their golf buddies alone and drop the investigation.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 18-10-2011 03:47PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, I want to have it so that independently-minded TDs and senators will be able to put the establishment fat cats, the bankers and rezoners, the connivers at white collar crime, on a spit and grill them.

It happens in the US, it happens in the UK. It cannot happen here without this referendum.

It will make no difference to who does or does not go to jail. Sadly, most of them wont go there anyway.

Why would the govt appoint 'independent minded tds'? That doesn't sound like something this government would do, nor FF, nor SF. Where in the name of Jebus are you getting this fantastical notion from?

sensibleken · 18-10-2011 04:02PM

Ok there already seems to be a load of strawmen and bluster going on. People are talking about show trials and bias etc. How do they know this is the case

The referendum as far as i can see has no specifics. How these work will be determined under future legislation. This referendum only asks if you agree on principle.

Now i understand the concern about "the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest"

The refcom website states "When doing so, they would be obliged to have regard to the principles of fair procedures. These principles have been established by the Constitution and by the Courts"

that seems fair enough if the rights of the person will remain garunteed by the constitution.

Boulevardier · 18-10-2011 04:03PM

No, I want a viable alternative to tribunals.

The Dail elects members of committees, usually in proportion to party size. Some committees are chaired by opposition TDs. Independents like Joe Higgins and Shane Ross are on these committees and the government cannot prevent that.

If the Gardai are being leaned on to drop inquiries, we have no way of knowing. Also, dodgy gardai cannot be questioned by public representatives because of - yes, you guessed it, the original Abbeylara decision!

Duke Leonal Felmet · 18-10-2011 04:08PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

No, I want a viable alternative to tribunals.

The Dail elects members of committees, usually in proportion to party size. Some committees are chaired by opposition TDs. Independents like Joe Higgins and Shane Ross are on these committees and the government cannot prevent that.

If the Gardai are being leaned on to drop inquiries, we have no way of knowing. Also, dodgy gardai cannot be questioned by public representatives because of - yes, you guessed it, the original Abbeylara decision!

I can't even tell if you are addressing me, because you don't address anything I say. It's like you are talking to yourself. If you are happy with FF potentially controlling this tool one day, fair enough. You dug your own grave there.

What makes me laugh is your blatant ignorance of the truth. Talking about status quo's when ignoring the fact that the vast majority of TDs went to fee-paying schools and many TDs are sitting in 'legacy' seats.

Get a grip on reality.

Boulevardier · 18-10-2011 04:32PM

Duke, I am correct about the method of composition of Dail committees. Check any textbook if you are not sure.

As for social class, today's TDs and senators demonstrably have a more diverse social, economic and gender makeup than judges and SCs.

The yanks and Brits have not, as a rule, produced kangaroo courts, and I don't see why we should be any worse than them.

We are constrained by the Abbeylara judgment and by a bogus constititional "right to a good name." That, plus our draconian libel laws, are how the speculators and bankers have been getting away with it for so long.

It is time to take back our legal system from our cosseted, parasitic legal profession who, unsurprisingly, hate this amendment and are working to defeat it.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 18-10-2011 04:37PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Duke, I am correct about the method of composition of Dail committees. Check any textbook if you are not sure.

As for social class, today's TDs and senators demonstrably have a more diverse social, economic and gender makeup than judges and SCs.

The yanks and Brits have not, as a rule, produced kangaroo courts, and I don't see why we should be any worse than them.

We are constrained by the Abbeylara judgment and by a bogus constititional "right to a good name." That, plus our draconian libel laws, are how the speculators and bankers have been getting away with it for so long.

It is time to take back our legal system from our cosseted, parasitic legal profession who, unsurprisingly, hate this amendment and are working to defeat it.

You seem to have full confidence in one cosseted, parasitic system, and yet no confidence in another.

Bizarre.

carveone · 18-10-2011 04:44PM

I think it might be interesting to find out how the Senate Congressional hearings work in the US and to draw parallels to what might be achieved in Ireland if the right framework was put in place. Especially if the (Irish) Senate was to make the decisions rather than the Dail.

I understand where Boulevardier and others are coming from - it's not as if I'm dismayed and distressed at the level of seeming immunity - but I don't believe this referendum is the right framework and I'm frankly alarmed at the proposed 15.10.4 wording: "The appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest...". This seems unnecessary and dangerous and when I see things like this I get worried as to why they are there, what the government hopes to achieve and how this tinkering will manifest itself in the future; in 10 years, 20 years.

From the Irish Times, April 19th: Speaking after the publication of the Nyberg report Minister for Finance Michael Noonan said justice had not only to be done, but to be seen to be done.

Seen to be done implies a certain level of show trial as far as I'm concerned.

sensibleken · 18-10-2011 04:55PM

carveone wrote: »

I think it might be interesting to find out how the Senate Congressional hearings work in the US and to draw parallels to what might be achieved in Ireland if the right framework was put in place. Especially if the (Irish) Senate was to make the decisions rather than the Dail.

I understand where Boulevardier and others are coming from but I don't believe this referendum is the right framework and I'm frankly alarmed at the proposed 15.10.4 wording: "The appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest..."

From the Irish Times, April 19th: Speaking after the publication of the Nyberg report Minister for Finance Michael Noonan said justice had not only to be done, but to be seen to be done.

Seen to be done implies a certain level of show trial as far as I'm concerned.

That seems to be the controversial bit. But from the referendum commision:

The main rights involved are:
• The right to know the case against you – you are entitled to be told if allegations of wrong-doing have or may be made against you, and the basis for such allegations.
• The right to defend yourself against such allegations – this may include the right to give evidence, to call other people to give evidence on your behalf and the right to cross-examine witnesses. It may also extend to a right to be represented by a lawyer.
• The right to an unbiased hearing –for example, a decision-maker cannot have a personal interest in the subject-matter of the inquiry. There are a number of decisions of the Courts, including the Abbeylara decision itself, which confirm that people appearing before an Oireachtas inquiry are entitled to fair procedures

It states they have to give due regard to fair proceedures also. so i dont see a whole lot of ways to conduct a show trial.

carveone · 18-10-2011 05:04PM

sensibleken wrote: »

That seems to be the controversial bit. But from the referendum commision:
...
It states they have to give due regard to fair proceedures also. so i dont see a whole lot of ways to conduct a show trial.

Also from the referendum website:

When making that decision, the House or Houses would have to have “due regard to” the principles of fair procedures.

This means that the House or Houses would have discretion as to the procedures to be applied in any given case. The balance struck in any given case may have important implications for people affected by an inquiry. It is not possible to state definitively what role, if any, the courts would have in reviewing the procedures adopted by the Houses.

If anything I now feel worse than before!

I'll say one thing - boards.ie is discussing the issue. The media are talking about Norris' knickers or something.

Scofflaw · 18-10-2011 05:28PM

seamus wrote: »

You've failed to illustrate her Boulevardier, just how this amendment will cause any justice to be done.

What will it achieve?

"Hold bankers to account". And then what? They admit what they did, then what. Oh yes, they walk away scott free.

And if one favours the amendment because those called in front of it don't walk away scot free, then one is admitting that the amendment will be giving quasi-judicial powers to politicians.

Also, I see Mary Davis has made a statement calling for more discussion of the amendments:

Lack of scrutiny of constitutional change is dangerous, short-sighted – Mary Davis

Citizens should not casually dilute their Constitutional rights without very good reason, a thorough debate, and considerable thought
It is in interest of political system that these changes are waved through but citizens should be 100% aware of the changes they are being asked to make

Tuesday, October 18th – Mary Davis, Independent Candidate for the Presidency, has said that waving constitutional change through without debate or scrutiny is dangerous and short-sighted. Mary Davis has also said that she has concerns about the potential impact of both of the proposed changes to the Constitution to be voted on next week and has advised people to carefully consider both questions in advance of casting their vote on October 27th.

“The primary role of the next President, whoever that may be, will be to protect the Constitution. However, next week the people of Ireland are being asked to change the Constitution in two important ways, and I am concerned at both the potential impact of these changes and the complete lack of real debate or scrutiny of these proposals.

“The referendum questions that are being put to the people, if passed, will allow for salaries of judges to be reduced and give TDs and Senators considerably more power to conduct inquiries and investigations into matters of public interest.

“There are good reasons behind each of these proposals. However, both of them involve the granting of more power to Leinster House, which is not something to be treated lightly.

“These changes, if accepted, will dilute some of the rights and protections that are afforded to all citizens. Therefore, it is incumbent on all citizens to be 100% aware of the implications of their vote on October 27th.

“In respect of Oireachtas inquiries the Referendum Commission has said it would be difficult for the Courts to successfully challenge a decision of the Oireachtas to carry out an inquiry given the wording of the amendment, and that the Houses of the Oireachtas alone would determine the balance between the rights of the individual and the public interest.

“These two questions, if passed, will give a significant amount of new power to our politicians, so it is vital that we consider these proposed changes very carefully before deciding whether to accept or reject them.

“It is in the interest of the political system that these changes are waved through but as citizens we all rely on the independence of our judiciary, on the separation of the political system from the judicial system, and on the fundamental protections that are afforded us all under the constitution.

“Changing any aspect of this requires good reason, a thorough debate, and considerable thought – at this time, however, we have had none of these.”

Nice to see a Presidential candidate actually talking about the Constitution, given the Constitutional role of the President as guardian of the Constitution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Abbeylara referendum

Comments