Abbeylara referendum

sensibleken · 19-10-2011 01:11PM

limklad wrote: »

What is Fair in Politics? It is not a perfect Political World we have. They make blundering Mistakes.
There is no rights of Appeal before Inquires. Right of Appeal are after an event.
It is not the Politicians job to Pass judgements or to declare who morally right or Wrong. We do not elect them to do that Job.
We elect them to run the country and to pass legislation.
We Pay Judges and have jury trails to Pass judgements. We have Several Ombudsman's to pass judgements we have plenty of Appeal process in various sectors.
The Dail has the power to setup Independent Ombudsman's and Enquires.

I have no problem with them using the Inquires they currently have to gain an understanding if they want to legislate for a particular problem and to allow them to bring a person before them to gain that understanding. They should have any other Power as that power can be abused.

I have rarely know Political committee or any Dail meeting that is shown on TV or news to be very civil. Listen to Dail debates, They are always ego bruising encounters to bring down the other side. What Rights do they give each other? This is the kind of Envoirnment you expect persons drawn before them what will be "Show Trials" for Populous Vote getting exercise. They have the Power currently to bring Bertie before them for Conduct. Yet they never did have their inquiry before the Tribunal got their hands on him. They rather bruise him in the Dail for TV consumption is their prefer option.
Nothing is Fair in Politics as everything is up for grabs even the "rights of a person" if they are allowed to have that power.
If Political are concerned to have the "Rights of a person in Mind". why haven't they ratify the latest batch of Rights of a person they sign up to in International Treaties? For example The "Rights of Children" is ongoing for 6 years once the issue with the Irish Constitution was brought up which the government sign up to with the UN in 1992.
During the Lisbon Treaty the Excuse from one particular Government minister that people would reject it because they may mixed up the two referendums.

"
There is no rights of Appeal before Inquires. Right of Appeal are after an event. ." - there are rights of appeal for evidence presented and before the final report is made public.

exactly what rights do you think this legislation will remove?

carveone · 19-10-2011 01:14PM

limklad wrote: »

Listen to Dail debates, They are always ego bruising encounters to bring down the other side. What Rights do they give each other?

Off topic but I saw Enda this morning accusing Gerry Adams over the Priory Hall disaster: "One of your lot, that was. Yes. Yes. Yes...."

Super. It degenerated from there pretty rapidly.

morke · 19-10-2011 02:50PM

Has anyone any link to the legal definition of what is constitutes a definition of "principles of fair procedures".
Morke

sensibleken · 19-10-2011 03:08PM

morke wrote: »

Has anyone any link to the legal definition of what is constitutes a definition of "principles of fair procedures".
Morke

I dont think there is one. Its based on rights based in constitutional law, legislation and precedent as far as i can see. From refcom:

“Fair procedures” is a general term that covers a range of rights to which individuals are entitled when their conduct is being investigated. The rights derive from the Constitution and have been developed by decisions of the courts over many years.

so it appears these are the rights that are already in place in judicial trials

Scofflaw · 19-10-2011 03:32PM

sensibleken wrote: »

Ok I just finished reading through it.

FAir proceedures seem to be better catered for in the bill than is expressed in the amendment

the considerations to be taken into account in determining the
appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public
interest in ensuring an effective inquiry, including the public interest in
concluding the inquiry within a reasonable time frame, in the
efficiency and cost effectiveness of the inquiry, and in ensuring
fairness of procedures for persons against whom allegations of
wrongdoing are made.

Also if someone objects to the private draft report circulated they can refer to the courts for amendment.

also Head 36 - provides that a person who gives evidence to a committee is entitled to the same privileges, immunities and responsibilities as a witness before the Courts

It also outlines that salaries and costs have to be laid out by the oversight commitee (the body who essentailly makes sure the commitee is behaving itself)

I agree that the legislation appears somewhat more comforting than the bare amendment, but in fact this doesn't say anything more than is said in the amendment:

the Oversight Committee, subject to the approval of the House(s) shall make rules relating to the conduct of the relevant proceedings and to the procedure generally of relevant bodies or a class of relevant bodies.

Rules under subsection (3) shall include rules relating to:

- the considerations to be taken into account in determining the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest in ensuring an effective inquiry, including the public interest in concluding the inquiry within a reasonable time frame, in the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the inquiry, and in ensuring fairness of procedures for persons against whom allegations of wrongdoing are made.

This is no more than the mechanism by which the striking of the balance between people's rights and Oireachtas expediency shall be achieved - an oversight committee will lay down the rules. Yes, that removes the idea that the inquiry itself will decide these things on a completely ad hoc basis, but it doesn't change the fact that the Oireachtas will be setting the rules for itself, it doesn't change the fact that we don't know what those rules will be, and, rather importantly, it certainly doesn't preclude those rules being changed by a vote in the Oireachtas, where the government of the day will ordinarily have a majority, and where every vote is subject to the Whip.

So, to add another worm to the can of worms that is subsection 4 of the amendment, the mechanism being set up allows for the government of the day to change the rules before an inquiry - it can say "this inquiry needs to happen particularly quickly, so the balance between the rights of the accused and public interest should be to further curtail the rights of the accused", and it can say "this inquiry is particularly sensitive, and the balance should allow maximum rights for the accused", depending on whether it favours the inquiry or not. Indeed, there seems to be nothing preventing the rules being changed mid-inquiry.

Again, all that one can really posit against this very obvious political control over the process is that the government might choose to refrain from putting its fingers on the scales too obviously. Again, that's a level of trust of which no government is deserving. This amendment, once passed, is highly unlikely ever to be revisited, and our historical record suggests that the amount of time likely to pass before we once again see the likes of Bertie, Charlie, or Biffo in Leinster House is measurable in years rather than decades.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sensibleken · 19-10-2011 03:53PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree that the legislation appears somewhat more comforting than the bare amendment, but in fact this doesn't say anything more than is said in the amendment:

This is no more than the mechanism by which the striking of the balance between people's rights and Oireachtas expediency shall be achieved - an oversight committee will lay down the rules. Yes, that removes the idea that the inquiry itself will decide these things on a completely ad hoc basis, but it doesn't change the fact that the Oireachtas will be setting the rules for itself, it doesn't change the fact that we don't know what those rules will be, and, rather importantly, it certainly doesn't preclude those rules being changed by a vote in the Oireachtas, where the government of the day will ordinarily have a majority, and where every vote is subject to the Whip.

no we dont know what they will be, buy we dont know what they will be investigating either so i dont know how they would set down specific rules. they do have to abide by priciples of fairness which have been set down in precedent

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, to add another worm to the can of worms that is subsection 4 of the amendment, the mechanism being set up allows for the government of the day to change the rules before an inquiry - it can say "this inquiry needs to happen particularly quickly, so the balance between the rights of the accused and public interest should be to further curtail the rights of the accused", and it can say "this inquiry is particularly sensitive, and the balance should allow maximum rights for the accused", depending on whether it favours the inquiry or not. Indeed, there seems to be nothing preventing the rules being changed mid-inquiry.

I would have interpreted that the rules were agreed upon before the commitee is set up as meaning they cant be changed during an investigation.

Also again I have to point out the bill being bound to ensuring principles of fairness, Head 23 also points out the right to know evidence against them and representation if thir 'good name' could be damaged

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, all that one can really posit against this very obvious political control over the process is that the government might choose to refrain from putting its fingers on the scales too obviously. Again, that's a level of trust of which no government is deserving. This amendment, once passed, is highly unlikely ever to be revisited, and our historical record suggests that the amount of time likely to pass before we once again see the likes of Bertie, Charlie, or Biffo in Leinster House is measurable in years rather than decades.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think trust is the main thing. But we just should be clear on what exactly we are trusting them with without throwing orwellian analogies around (not directed at yourseld scofflaw)

Scofflaw · 19-10-2011 04:18PM

sensibleken wrote: »

no we dont know what they will be, buy we dont know what they will be investigating either so i dont know how they would set down specific rules. they do have to abide by priciples of fairness which have been set down in precedent

I would have interpreted that the rules were agreed upon before the commitee is set up as meaning they cant be changed during an investigation.

Also again I have to point out the bill being bound to ensuring principles of fairness, Head 23 also points out the right to know evidence against them and representation if thir 'good name' could be damaged

I think trust is the main thing. But we just should be clear on what exactly we are trusting them with without throwing orwellian analogies around (not directed at yourseld scofflaw)

I don't think Orwellian analogies are necessary (and Kafka would be more apt) - I think it's only necessary to consider what these inquiries would be like under a Bertie.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Duke Leonal Felmet · 19-10-2011 04:22PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

sensibleken wrote: »

no we dont know what they will be, buy we dont know what they will be investigating either so i dont know how they would set down specific rules. they do have to abide by priciples of fairness which have been set down in precedent

I would have interpreted that the rules were agreed upon before the commitee is set up as meaning they cant be changed during an investigation.

Also again I have to point out the bill being bound to ensuring principles of fairness, Head 23 also points out the right to know evidence against them and representation if thir 'good name' could be damaged

I think trust is the main thing. But we just should be clear on what exactly we are trusting them with without throwing orwellian analogies around (not directed at yourseld scofflaw)

I don't think Orwellian analogies are necessary (and Kafka would be more apt) - I think it's only necessary to consider what these inquiries would be like under a Bertie.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Exactly. Let's investigate the evil media who criticise me.

recedite · 19-10-2011 10:07PM

sensibleken wrote: »

I think trust is the main thing.

If we could trust them, there would be no need for a Constitution at all.

recedite · 19-10-2011 10:16PM

sensibleken wrote: »

I think trust is the main thing. But we just should be clear on what exactly we are trusting them with...

Power... you are trusting them with more and more power.

Sounds like you are a democrat. Democracy; rule by majority.
I'm a republican. Republic; rule by law for the public good.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 20-10-2011 09:45AM

recedite wrote: »

sensibleken wrote: »

I think trust is the main thing.

If we could trust them, there would be no need for a Constitution at all.

This is the point. Something people take for granted. They seem to think this is throwaway vote to save a few quid and get the bankerz. It's so much more than that.

Walter Sobchak III · 20-10-2011 10:19AM

I will be voting no to this. If passed I imagine a situation in which an incident occurs. Queue the Media entering the fray with hysterical polemic in search of a scapegoat. In a kneejerk reaction to the media's puritanical outcry the Government of the day set up a Dail commitee to investigate the matter. Now if I was subject of any percieved wrongdoing, I would not like a group of unqualified individuals such a convicted gunrunner, a bankrupt builder and person who has a penchant for the odd doobie or two sitting in judgement of me. No thank very much.

sensibleken · 20-10-2011 10:27AM

recedite wrote: »

Power... you are trusting them with more and more power.

Sounds like you are a democrat. Democracy; rule by majority.
I'm a republican. Republic; rule by law for the public good.

okey dokey.

im not trusting them with anything. ive not even decided which way im going to vote

walrusgumble · 20-10-2011 10:28AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

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

I don't see why. The principle of justice being seen to be done has always underlain our court system of justice.

Carveone, I do agree that we are right to discuss it. I also think that supporters of the referendums are being complacent. Most of the discussion is being done by opponents. That is why as a supporter of the Abbeylara referendum I think it may be defeated next week.

I also think, as I have said brefore, that if it is defeated the bankers, rezoners and senior civil servants will breathe a huge sigh of relief. This is not like Lisbon, where the establishment's economic agenda was at stake. Another referendum on this subject will not be put again for many many years.

The Oireachtas is not a Court. The Court are not known for show boating or playing to the crowd (while in Court), unlike the Dáil - Seanad.

Justice being seen to be done has little or nothing to stop a case being tried unfairly.

As for the reasons why you think that it might be defeated, (maybe / maybe not) , most people don't have a clue what is at stake. Does not help when the Presidential elections are taking up time.

No, it should force the Dáil Éireann to legislate better and DPP to bring charges before a Court of Law. Any sort of Tribunal / Inquiry will do nothing that has not already being publicized by the economists and writers/

sensibleken · 20-10-2011 10:31AM

Walter Sobchak III wrote: »

I will be voting no to this. If passed I imagine a situation in which an incident occurs. Queue the Media entering the fray with hysterical polemic in search of a scapegoat. In a kneejerk reaction to the media's puritanical outcry the Government of the day set up a Dail commitee to investigate the matter. Now if I was subject of any wrongdoing, I would not like a group of unqualified individuals such a convicted gunrunner, a bankrupt builder and person who has a penchant for the odd doobie or two sitting in judgement of me. No thank very much.

Actually thats a very good point. Last thing we need is a Joe duffy democracy.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 20-10-2011 10:32AM

Won't someone please think of the rezoners?

walrusgumble · 20-10-2011 10:35AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I note how Bertie has called for an investigation into the media, in todays news. Can you imagine the likes of him with this tool at his disposal?

Christ, the naivety...

Yeah , investigate his relationship with Tony O'Reilly and Rupurt Murdoch

RandomName2 · 20-10-2011 11:29AM

Either house may investigate any individual in Ireland, to whatever extent they like, provided they feel like it?

Er - no thanks. :pac:

Manach · 20-10-2011 12:16PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Either house may investigate any individual in Ireland, to whatever extent they like, provided they feel like it?

Er - no thanks. :pac:

Well, on the positive side as a matter of national public interest they could investigate why Westlife split?

Thrill · 21-10-2011 03:02AM

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/surge-in-calls-to-reject-inquiry-powers-171430.html

Surge in calls to reject inquiry powers

By Juno McEnroe, Political Reporter
Friday, October 21, 2011
A GROUP of politicians, civil rights campaigners and lawyers have joined forces and called for a "no" vote in next week’s referendum on whether or not Oireachtas members should be given increased powers of investigation.
With just six days to go to polling day, momentum is building to reject changes to the Constitution which will give TDs and senators the powers to investigate the actions of individuals.

The 10 TDs and two senators said the "flawed" referendum had been "rushed", adding that a yes vote would exclude any recourse to the courts for those under investigation.

The group is comprised of TDs Catherine Murphy, Shane Ross, Stephen Donnelly, Finian McGrath, Maureen O’Sullivan, John Halligan, Mick Wallace, Luke "Ming" Flanagan, Thomas Pringle, Tom Fleming, and senators John Crown and Ronán Mullen.

Independent technical group chairman Finian McGrath said politicians supported the idea of holding Oireachtas inquiries but had concerns about the present wording.

"There has been inadequate debate, the legislation was rushed," he said.

"This gives dramatic new powers to the Government, not the Oireachtas. It may exclude the courts, inquiries could prejudice trials and we need to make sure that other investigative bodies are fully resourced first."

The group said Oireachtas committees were dominated by government parties and called for it to be decided alongside the children’s rights referendum next year.

Mr Ross said: "It’s an absolutely appalling amendment and I think it’s being held on the same day as the presidential election so that there won’t be a full debate on it. The power in this bill goes to politicians to decide what the public interest is and it leaves it open to them to exploit it for their own political advantage."

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties said the referendum has been rushed, was ill-considered and did not strike the right balance between the public interest and individual rights.

The Bar Council also urged citizens to vote no, saying it remained unclear what role the courts might have for those appealing inquiries.

The council said inquiries should not be led by Oireachtas members, who have "an ever-present interest in the political issues of the day, including the standing of the Government".

Removing this protection would "render such inquiries free to trample, without fear of censure, over the rights of the citizen", the Bar Council said.

Referendum commission chairman Bryan McMahon said the courts would have "a very great difficulty second guessing" the balance decided by committees between a citizen’s rights and matters of public interest.

The Government dismissed concerns yesterday.

Public Expenditure Minister Brendan Howlin said: "The strong advice I have been given by the Attorney General is the panoply of rights available to a citizen is in no way circumscribed by this amendment."

Thrill · 21-10-2011 03:03AM

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bar-council-urges-no-vote-in-name-of-citizens-rights-171421.html

Bar council urges ‘no’ vote in name of citizens’ rights

By Stephen Rogers
Friday, October 21, 2011
THE Bar Council has become the latest legal body to urge citizens to vote "no" in the upcoming referendum on inquiries by the Oireachtas.
The council points out that the referendum, if passed, would amend the Constitution to allow the Houses of the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries into matters of general public importance and, in so doing, to make findings of fact about any person’s conduct.

It says it has concerns firstly about the way the proposed amendment would impact on the rights of the individual citizen, and secondly about the very nature of parliamentary inquiries.

"The wording states that the rights of a citizen called to appear before such an inquiry would be determined by the Houses of the Oireachtas and not the Courts," the Bar Council said in a statement.

"At present, a citizen who is aggrieved about any restriction on the level of fair procedures afforded to him or her by a public inquiry can challenge that decision before the courts.

However, the Referendum Commission, the body charged with the task of explaining factually and clearly what the people are voting on has stated that "It is not possible to state definitively what role, if any, the courts would have in reviewing the procedures adopted."

The council said the right to fair procedures is one of the most basic afforded to citizens and that it ensures fairness.

"To remove the oversight of the Courts would be to render such inquiries free to trample, without fear of censure, over the rights of the citizen and leave the citizen without the most basic protection against attack by the State or an arm of the State, which is available at present, namely, the right to apply to the courts to prevent it."

The council said it was "deeply disturbing" to think that if this amendment is passed, the citizen aggrieved at his treatment by Deputies or Senators in an inquiry in which his rights are at risk, will not be afforded the opportunity to vindicate his or her rights before the courts.

As regards the inquiries themselves, the Bar Council said it does not believe that it is appropriate that members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, who have an ever present interest in the political issues of the day, including the standing of the Government, should be allowed to make findings of fact about the conduct of individual citizens."

The Bar Council has also taken issue with the amendment on Judicial pay, which will also be voted on.

"The referendum wording ought to be water-tight, leaving absolutely no room for ambiguity as to the maximum size of cuts in judicial pay," it said. "This proposal is vague and imprecise. The independence of the judiciary has been an invaluable protection for the Irish people since the foundation of the State."

Boulevardier · 21-10-2011 03:39PM

If the Bar Council want a No, then its time for normal people to think seriously about voting Yes, as I am going to do.

sensibleken · 21-10-2011 03:42PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

If the Bar Council want a No, then its time for normal people to think seriously about voting Yes, as I am going to do.

If youre going to vote yes do it because you think the amendment and likely legislation is good. not because someone you dont like is against it.

My god. Is there any chance we can get a referendum to reduce the power of the electorate?

RandomName2 · 21-10-2011 03:44PM

Manach wrote: »

Well, on the positive side as a matter of national public interest they could investigate why Westlife split?

I don't know - if the Senate drags in Louis Walsh for a full blown investigation it could upset the X-factor!

RandomName2 · 21-10-2011 03:47PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

If the Bar Council want a No, then its time for normal people to think seriously about voting Yes, as I am going to do.

That's a very rational way to look at the situation.

I have heard that the Bar Council opposes you sending me €2,000.

If you ever need my postal address, for any random reason, just give me a shout!

seamus · 21-10-2011 04:51PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

If the Bar Council want a No, then its time for normal people to think seriously about voting Yes, as I am going to do.

Equally one could argue that since Sinn Fein support this amendment, that's a good enough reason to vote no.

Vote on the merits of the amendment and what it aims to achieve, not on who is supporting it.

Regardless of your anti-Bar agenda, you'll find that sometimes, just sometimes, you and the Bar will agree on something. If this is one of those times, then you're cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Godge · 21-10-2011 04:53PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

If the Bar Council want a No, then its time for normal people to think seriously about voting Yes, as I am going to do.

Absolutely agree with this. This referendum poses the biggest challenge to the big money earned by barristers in Ireland over the last twenty years. If they had modified their fees and kept the costs of the tribunals reasonable, nobody would be looking for this referendum.

Payback time for the greedy barristers. First enquiry by the Dail should be into the legal profession.

Scofflaw · 21-10-2011 04:58PM

Godge wrote: »

Absolutely agree with this. This referendum poses the biggest challenge to the big money earned by barristers in Ireland over the last twenty years. If they had modified their fees and kept the costs of the tribunals reasonable, nobody would be looking for this referendum.

Payback time for the greedy barristers. First enquiry by the Dail should be into the legal profession.

The lack of an OIreachtas inquiry power was not why we had Tribunals, because the Tribunal system pre-dates the Abbeylara judgement, and were therefore held at a time when it was believed the Oireachtas had the power to hold exactly this kind of inquiry.

Nor would an inquiry like this be necessary to change the pay rates of the legal profession, or even useful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Duke Leonal Felmet · 21-10-2011 04:59PM

Godge wrote: »

Boulevardier wrote: »

If the Bar Council want a No, then its time for normal people to think seriously about voting Yes, as I am going to do.

Absolutely agree with this. This referendum poses the biggest challenge to the big money earned by barristers in Ireland over the last twenty years. If they had modified their fees and kept the costs of the tribunals reasonable, nobody would be looking for this referendum.

Payback time for the greedy barristers. First enquiry by the Dail should be into the legal profession.

I also look forward to the day when governments use this tool. I can only dream of a future Bertie Ahern or Charles J. Haughey being entrusted with this power and going after other citizens... all in the public interest, of course.

Yes, a Brave New World.

walrusgumble · 21-10-2011 05:21PM

Godge wrote: »

Absolutely agree with this. This referendum poses the biggest challenge to the big money earned by barristers in Ireland over the last twenty years. If they had modified their fees and kept the costs of the tribunals reasonable, nobody would be looking for this referendum.

Payback time for the greedy barristers. First enquiry by the Dail should be into the legal profession.

1. Only a small bunch of Barristers got selected for the Tribunals and Court Challenges. Sometimes, the Court Challenges were proven to be fully legitimate. They tended to be the same usual names (for obvious reasons due to their ability). The allegations were serious and boarder lined accusations of criminal activities, which the Dáil and DPP should have sent the cases to the Criminal Courts in the first place.

But yes, some made a fortune, enough to retire on. Then again, if our society was not so corrupt then there would not have been a need for tribunals, especially if Governments had the back bone to address white collar crime and prosecute, like any other democratic state.

2. What makes you think that this will be an end to the many inevitable expensive Court challenges to dáil / senand inquiry committees?

3. Very few people are against the decision to let the Dáil / Senand take over. A prominent Supreme Court Judge (someone, I believe, himself, acted as Counsel in the earlier tribunals) has acknowledged the uselessness of Tribunals. No one would suggest otherwise. The problem, if you bothered to understand the criticism, is the need to word the amendment in the manner that it has done so.

If a case is in the national importance, and it is a potential crime or civil law breach, it should go before trial and jury. If it is so serious, then society demands that they are charged.

Of course, there are other cases, like say, the Star dust Tribunal, that it would be appropriate to have Dáil look into.

4. I think that the Dáil itself had power to control the Tribunal time frame and costings. Had politicians actually cooperated (after all, barristers can't act without instructions) then it might not have lasted so long.

5. Few would argue that the legal profession does not need reform. Alan Shatter, a solicitor is looking into this. (though seems more interested in dealing with the wigs) You seem to be suggesting something far more sinister, and yet did nothing about it, eg complain to their respective bodies and Court, if necessary.

If you have been stung before, why didn't you shop around for better quotes and insist that they provide the likely charges before opening a file. Was a gun put to your head?

Abbeylara referendum

Comments