Abbeylara referendum

oscarBravo · 21-10-2011 05:40PM

sensibleken wrote: »

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

I wish I could thank this twice.

Walter Sobchak III wrote: »

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.

As an aside, that's a pretty compelling argument against the idea of trial by jury. :pac:

maggy_thatcher · 22-10-2011 10:29AM

sensibleken wrote: »

I think all theyre saying there is 'we dont know what the legislation will say'. Which is true. If the govt had half a brain or an ounce of fairness they should have published the legislation before the referendum. We are voting half blind here.

The thing is - it doesn't actually matter what's in the proposed Bill -- once the constitution has changed, the Government of the day can change the law to suit themselves within the confines of what the constitution allows. They could put out a nice tame bill and go "look, we'll ensure everyone has their rights preserved, and we'll only go after really nasty people", and then two weeks down the line swap it with a much more draconian bill, and there'd be nothing we could do about it.

This is why I voted no on the 27th amendment...I agreed in principle that our citizenship rules needed to be changed, however I thought (and still do think) that what the rules are should be decided by citizens, not the Government of the day. Unfortunately, too many others disagreed and voted it through.

I'll be voting No on this amendment regardless of what the law that they propose to use with it, as it simply comes down to trust...the current Government hasn't earned it, let alone future ones!

oscarBravo · 22-10-2011 11:22AM

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

The thing is - it doesn't actually matter what's in the proposed Bill -- once the constitution has changed, the Government of the day can change the law to suit themselves within the confines of what the constitution allows.

This is the crucial point that many people seem to be missing. It's not good enough to decide to trust the present government to Do The Right Thing with these constitutional powers; we owe it to ourselves and future generations to imagine the worst-case scenario that could result from passing this amendment, and vote accordingly.

Het-Field · 22-10-2011 03:35PM

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.

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.

This is absolute nonsense. In an attempt at "payback", which is couched in you sterotypical view of Barristers, you will ratify the destruction of the separation of powers, and provide for the insertion of appallingly subjective terminology into the constitution which could be detrimental to the rights and freedoms of the people of this state.

Perhaps, the Bar Council consulted with its members, and appraised the situtation from a legal, constitutional, and comparative system point of view? Perhaps their decision to oppose the refendum is couched in their willingness to fight for natural and constitutional justice, and prevent executive/legislature overreach in the nation? Perhaps, there are legitimate concerns that section 4 could lead to negative, and incorrect outcomes, which will be detrimental to the persons reputation, and potentially cost the state more money as the mistakes of the committee may have to be erased by the courts?

Further, in relation to "Godge's" point, the tribunal fees were set by the State, not by the lawyer. So you are incorrect when you talk about some incumbancy on tribunal lawyers to modify their fees. I know you have not covered yourself with glory on this thread, but the least you should do is get your facts straight.

RandomName2 · 22-10-2011 10:05PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is the crucial point that many people seem to be missing. It's not good enough to decide to trust the present government to Do The Right Thing with these constitutional powers; we owe it to ourselves and future generations to imagine the worst-case scenario that could result from passing this amendment, and vote accordingly.

I thought you were in favour of large unaccountable governments? :eek:

UglyBolloxFace · 23-10-2011 12:24AM

Lads I need your help with something.

Don't ask me how I've managed this, but I'm in my mid-twenties and I still haven't registered to vote.

I know, it's my own fault (or is it? I put my name down when that card came around the doors to register) but I really need to know if I can still register so that I can take part in all three upcoming votes.

I understand that in order to be on the register for the upcoming referenda etc you must do it 14 days beforehand. However, seeing as that has passed, is there anyway at all to register now?

Cheers.

Seth Brundle · 23-10-2011 12:32AM

As was the case with Lisbon, maybe if the government don't get the result they want, they will have a rematch and you could vote then but otherwise, no!

oscarBravo · 23-10-2011 05:08PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

I thought you were in favour of large unaccountable governments? :eek:

I'll add that to the list of random things that people have thought about me.

carveone · 23-10-2011 05:31PM

kbannon wrote: »

As was the case with Lisbon, maybe if the government don't get the result they want, they will have a rematch and you could vote then but otherwise, no!

You mean if they get a No, the government will be less arrogant next time? Sure, I could go for that...

FreudianSlippers · 23-10-2011 05:47PM

The thing about both of these referenda is that if you are even remotely unhappy with the wording or the implications you should vote no.

It's one of those situations where you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Bosco boy · 23-10-2011 08:46PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The thing about both of these referenda is that if you are even remotely unhappy with the wording or the implications you should vote no.

It's one of those situations where you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I'll be voting yes to the judges pay amendment and no to the second amendment. The arrogance of some judges in refusing to take a cut stems from years of bring spoilt and being in an untouchable profession, their arrogance is beyond belief. If they all had taken the cuts there would be no need for this amendments, judges who did take the cut must be disgusted with the remaining judges who have caused this amendment.

Why would we grant politicans powers of the second amendment, they have failed in their own roles, they got their answer in the abbeylara judgement and now want to ignore it, it's driven by the ego's of the same people who sat on the abbeylara committee who are now making up the cabinet. It will be abused by them in the same way politicans abused their powers to bring this country to it's knees!

johnnyskeleton · 23-10-2011 09:49PM

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.

ah the old double bluff. Love it. The bar council know they are unpopular, so in order to get people to vote for loads of new profitable inquiries with consequent jobs for barristers, they urge people to vote no. Hook, line and sinker.

If thr bar council urged a yes vote, would you vote no? Is this what democracy has become?

johnnyskeleton · 23-10-2011 10:04PM

Bosco boy wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The thing about both of these referenda is that if you are even remotely unhappy with the wording or the implications you should vote no.

It's one of those situations where you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I'll be voting yes to the judges pay amendment and no to the second amendment. The arrogance of some judges in refusing to take a cut stems from years of bring spoilt and being in an untouchable profession, their arrogance is beyond belief. If they all had taken the cuts there would be no need for this amendments, judges who did take the cut must be disgusted with the remaining judges who have caused this amendment.

Why would we grant politicans powers of the second amendment, they have failed in their own roles, they got their answer in the abbeylara judgement and now want to ignore it, it's driven by the ego's of the same people who sat on the abbeylara committee who are now making up the cabinet. It will be abused by them in the same way politicans abused their powers to bring this country to it's knees!

Can we vote to break the croake park agreement so that we can cut garda pay? For too long they have been a sheltered profession, what with the blue flu and work to rule etc.

Better yet, let's dock them pay every time they fail to get a conviction or if they don't object hard enough to someone getting bail.

Bosco boy · 23-10-2011 10:39PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The thing about both of these referenda is that if you are even remotely unhappy with the wording or the implications you should vote no.

It's one of those situations where you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I'll be voting yes to the judges pay amendment and no to the second amendment. The arrogance of some judges in refusing to take a cut stems from years of bring spoilt and being in an untouchable profession, their arrogance is beyond belief. If they all had taken the cuts there would be no need for this amendments, judges who did take the cut must be disgusted with the remaining judges who have caused this amendment.

Why would we grant politicans powers of the second amendment, they have failed in their own roles, they got their answer in the abbeylara judgement and now want to ignore it, it's driven by the ego's of the same people who sat on the abbeylara committee who are now making up the cabinet. It will be abused by them in the same way politicans abused their powers to bring this country to it's knees!

Can we vote to break the croake park agreement so that we can cut garda pay? For too long they have been a sheltered profession, what with the blue flu and work to rule etc.

Better yet, let's dock them pay every time they fail to get a conviction or if they don't object hard enough to someone getting bail.

I see I touched a nerve, I thought you'd be capable of a more intelligent reply! Ya you go ahead you dock my pay for the 5th time yet leave your pals unscathed!

johnnyskeleton · 23-10-2011 10:56PM

Bosco boy wrote: »

I see I touched a nerve, I thought you'd be capable of a more intelligent reply! Ya you go ahead you dock my pay when one of these judges refuse a bail application!

Not at all, I am not a judge. But suffice it to say that if we are talking about untouchable professions, surely the public sector generally can be called into question?

Cutting public sector wages generally is far more important for the economic wellbeing of the country than cutting judge's pay. Both should be cut, but lets not get caught up on this pleasant little distraction and thereby ignore the real issues. The millions paid to judges per year is nothing compared to the €20bn or so spent on public sector pay.

Bosco boy · 23-10-2011 11:04PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

I see I touched a nerve, I thought you'd be capable of a more intelligent reply! Ya you go ahead you dock my pay when one of these judges refuse a bail application!

Not at all, I am not a judge. But suffice it to say that if we are talking about untouchable professions, surely the public sector generally can be called into question?

Cutting public sector wages generally is far more important for the economic wellbeing of the country than cutting judge's pay. Both should be cut, but lets not get caught up on this pleasant little distraction and thereby ignore the real issues. The millions paid to judges per year is nothing compared to the €20bn or so spent on public sector pay.

Practically every sector of the economy is paying with austerity and pay cuts, yet you find it acceptable that this group don't have too. They were asked to do so and some all but put two fingers up to the nation. I think they should have been named, their judgement and arrogance is appawling and and it brings into question their fitness the judge and serve this county. It also taints decent judges who were prepared to take the cuts! Ironically the wording of the amendment is to take cuts in line with pubic servants! You don't seem to acknowledge any cuts thus far!

oscarBravo · 23-10-2011 11:28PM

Bosco boy wrote: »

Practically every sector of the economy is paying with austerity and pay cuts, yet you find it acceptable that this group don't have too.

That's what wrecks my head - the amendment is going to sail through, on the presumption that anyone who opposes it wants to preserve judges' pay. The point is being missed, and it's being missed through deliberate obtuseness.

Ironically the wording of the amendment is to take cuts in line with pubic servants!

No, it isn't. If you're voting on a constitutional amendment based on what you think it might possibly mean rather than on the basis of what it actually says, then you're doing it wrong. To be fair, you're only one of the hundreds of thousands of people doing it wrong, but unfortunately those of us who have actually read the damn thing will be stuck with its consequences along with those who haven't.

Speaking of reading the damn thing: there's a separate thread about the judges' pay referendum. This one is about Oireachtas inquiries.

johnnyskeleton · 23-10-2011 11:41PM

Bosco boy wrote: »

Practically every sector of the economy is paying with austerity and pay cuts, yet you find it acceptable that this group don't have too.

Not at all. I think their pay should be cut in line with other PS workers. And at that, I believe PS pay (including judges) should be cut further.

Despite the advice that was given to government by the AG, I and many others believe that under the current constitution judges pay could be reduced in line with all other PS workers. At the very least, they should have tried it and if any judge challenged it successfully we could then bring in an amendment to the constitution.

Moreover, all supreme court judges and most (if not all) high court judges have taken the voluntary pay cuts. Even if the superior court judges' pay cannot be cut, I believe an argument could be made that district and circuit judges' pay could be cut without a referendum.

And finally, pay for new judges has been reduced dramatically, so the cuts only apply to the current incumbents.

Bosco boy wrote: »

They were asked to do so and some all but put two fingers up to the nation.

15% didn't take the cut, for whatever reason. If 15% of Gardai were found to have committed acts of brutality or corruption, would that mean that An Garda Siochana is putting two fingers up to the nation?

Besides, this is to ignore completely the actual response of the judges. They made it quite clear that they are not opposed to pay cuts nor are they opposed to an amendement to the constitution, but that change could be done on the basis of an independent assessment of the pay cuts. So if the IMF dictated that 10% be taken off all PS workers, then they should take that cut. If they said it should be 20% if they earn more than €100k, then they should take that cut if it applies.

No one, I repeat no one is saying that judicial pay shouldn't be cut. Why can't you understand that? Are you not listening or does your agenda not permit you to deal with the actual issues?

Bosco boy wrote: »

I think they should have been named, their judgement and arrogance is appawling and and it brings into question their fitness the judge and serve this county.

Maybe so. Perhaps if they are named they could also be given a chance to explain their reasons for not taking the cut and/or to justify their salary and/or to be allowed to retire from being a judge and resume practice as a solicitor/barrister.

Bosco boy wrote: »

It also taints decent judges who were prepared to take the cuts! Ironically the wording of the amendment is to take cuts in line with pubic servants! You don't seem to acknowledge any cuts thus far!

No its not. If it did, there would be no problem. It is to take cuts in proportion to certain classes of persons. There is a massive difference between this and what you are saying it does.

If it was merely to do what you say, it would be the simplest thing in the world to add in, after judges pay shall not be cut, that this does not apply to reductions in line with pay cuts in the rest of the public sector. Instead, we have a much more convoluted wording, designed to confuse the electorate and many, like yourself are falling for it.

If it really was as simple as you and the government are saying that it is, why didn't they use such a simple wording? Wouldn't the simple wording be better?

Bosco boy · 24-10-2011 12:01AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bosco boy wrote: »

Practically every sector of the economy is paying with austerity and pay cuts, yet you find it acceptable that this group don't have too.

That's what wrecks my head - the amendment is going to sail through, on the presumption that anyone who opposes it wants to preserve judges' pay. The point is being missed, and it's being missed through deliberate obtuseness.

Ironically the wording of the amendment is to take cuts in line with pubic servants!

No, it isn't. If you're voting on a constitutional amendment based on what you think it might possibly mean rather than on the basis of what it actually says, then you're doing it wrong. To be fair, you're only one of the hundreds of thousands of people doing it wrong, but unfortunately those of us who have actually read the damn thing will be stuck with its consequences along with those who haven't.

Speaking of reading the damn thing: there's a separate thread about the judges' pay referendum. This one is about Oireachtas inquiries.

I get ya - a no vote is a yes vote and a yes vote is a no vote! It's late I'm off to bed

johnnyskeleton · 24-10-2011 12:18AM

Bosco boy wrote: »

I get ya - a no vote is a yes vote and a yes vote is a no vote! It's late I'm off to bed

This is the attitude that makes many people want to leave Ireland. Can you not simply read what other posters are saying and discuss it without resorting to rhetoric?

His point is simple, the wording of the referendum is different to your understanding of it. What is your response to this?

swordofislam · 24-10-2011 09:09AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No its not. If it did, there would be no problem. It is to take cuts in proportion to certain classes of persons. There is a massive difference between this and what you are saying it does.

If it was merely to do what you say, it would be the simplest thing in the world to add in, after judges pay shall not be cut, that this does not apply to reductions in line with pay cuts in the rest of the public sector. Instead, we have a much more convoluted wording, designed to confuse the electorate and many, like yourself are falling for it.

If it really was as simple as you and the government are saying that it is, why didn't they use such a simple wording? Wouldn't the simple wording be better?

Because then if pay cuts were imposed on the highest paid civil servants (which would include judges) their lordships would find those cuts unconstitutional on the grounds that binmen and dinnerladies weren't having their pay cut.

The judiciary simply cannot be trusted; the Irish judiciary has like most areas of civil life been poisoned by decades of Fianna Fail domination. Their lordships have been bought with grotesque pay rises and conditions.

[Jackass] · 24-10-2011 09:57AM

I have a question regarding this proposed ammendment.

If this passes, does this mean that it will be much easier to investigate and prosecute corrupt politicians, such as Haughey, Ahern etc., that they couldn't dance around tribunals hiding details as the tribunal has little or no power at a cost of hundreds of millions to the state, would this not be a cheap way of getting the bad apples, and via a means that is accountable to public opinion, where if the voters demand an investigation, it's a lot more likely to happen rather than hiding behind the judicial mumbo-jumbo to make it go away and using the courts as an excuse for no accountability?

Also, doesn't this also enable us to pull in the directors of banks and hold them accountable rather than, again, hiding behind the courts, and should wrong doing be found, we have an ability to act?

Doesn't this make EVERYONE accountable, including the elite and very rich, that we can hold them to account and demand answers and detail with nowhere to hide for these people?

It's not like this can be used punish innocent people, it just means we can get people who hide behind the courts in this country and demand answers and have real power to impose consequences...

I'm leaning towards yes on this, I don't fear giving this power to a committee, YES politicians as a whole have been fools, but you have to look at who can use this power and against whom, if we had this while investigating all the corruption of the past, a lot more senior politicians and directors would have seen the jail time they deserve.

Permabear · 24-10-2011 10:35AM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 24-10-2011 10:36AM

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 24-10-2011 10:37AM

[Jackass] wrote: »

If this passes, does this mean that it will be much easier to investigate and prosecute corrupt politicians, such as Haughey, Ahern etc., that they couldn't dance around tribunals hiding details as the tribunal has little or no power at a cost of hundreds of millions to the state, would this not be a cheap way of getting the bad apples, and via a means that is accountable to public opinion, where if the voters demand an investigation, it's a lot more likely to happen rather than hiding behind the judicial mumbo-jumbo to make it go away and using the courts as an excuse for no accountability?

Also, doesn't this also enable us to pull in the directors of banks and hold them accountable rather than, again, hiding behind the courts, and should wrong doing be found, we have an ability to act?

Doesn't this make EVERYONE accountable, including the elite and very rich, that we can hold them to account and demand answers and detail with nowhere to hide for these people?

That's the sales pitch, yes. On the surface, it sounds appealing - we can deny individuals that are the current objects of public anger their right of recourse to the courts, and force them to face the music.

It's not like this can be used punish innocent people, it just means we can get people who hide behind the courts in this country and demand answers and have real power to impose consequences...

Well, there's the problem. If you hand the government a stick to beat people you dislike, you're trusting them not to beat anyone else with it. You say "it's not like it can be used..." - on what basis do you say that? You talk about punishing "innocent" people - the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of jurisprudence in this country. Are you sure it's something you want to give away?

I'm leaning towards yes on this, I don't fear giving this power to a committee, YES politicians as a whole have been fools, but you have to look at who can use this power and against whom, if we had this while investigating all the corruption of the past, a lot more senior politicians and directors would have seen the jail time they deserve.

Yes, you have to look at who can use this power and against whom. The answer is that the government - not just this government, but every future government, including the inevitable corrupt senior politicians that will rise to power again in the future - will have this power, and they can use it against anyone they damn well please, as long as they claim (and remember, they only have to claim, not prove) that it's in the "public interest" to do so.

You're saying that you can't imagine a government abusing its power in this way. That strikes me as a failure of imagination, tbh.

On a point of order: we won't be giving committees the power to jail people. That's a power that must always remain with the courts.

[Jackass] · 24-10-2011 10:51AM

Thanks for the replies.

I'm still not sold on the fact that this will be a mass give away of power to a dictatorship type Government, who can use this power to engage anyone who gets in their way.

Remember, this is for the good of the public, not a personal tool of investigation. To use the power, and avoid political suicide, it must be of the popular opinion that someone has a point to defend.

As you say, this does not have the power of
sending someone to prison, BUT it does remove the hiding place of the courts. When I say it can't be used against "innocent" people, I just mean that if someone has nothing to answer for, nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. There is still a burden of proof, and I think any notion of a committee following a personal agenda and ignoring the facts is a bit sensationalist in predicting doom.

It's merely another tool with which we can persue the corrupt and the criminal who hide behind courts and power and money.

I think the negative aspects being touted assume a lot about the cynical nature of a Government of the day, like some poor innocent person will be framed and damned in front of the nation, and we'll all fall for it. The judiciary does still hold entire power over what to do with the findings, this is merely a vehicle to obtain the information without all the legal BS to protect / enable the hiding of facts. Like I said, if no wrong doing has been done, than what possible harm can an investigation do?

I appreciate that it's something very relivant to today, and this will change in the future, but a lot of awkward questions have been asked in front of the senate in the united states and the chambers in London, and if a Government demands answers on behalf of the people, they should have the right to ask those questions without the individual being able to refuse accountability and take on a long legal battle that will cost a lot of money and will be limited in it's investigation powers.

I'm open to debate on this, but all I see from the no side is mass paranoia, all I see from the prospect of a yes vote is more accountability in the state for your actions, particularly, and exclusively when looking at people in high power positions, both publically and politically, the hardest to pin down and prosecute in the current legal format.

Also, regarding the FF TDs investigating FF, that would not be the case, the oppisition would have the power to ask questions and demand answers.

Also, people can refuse to attend a tribunal as far as I'm aware, but can not refuse to attend an investigation of this nature, and the main difference being that while a tribunal can take 10 years to more or less tell us someone was dirty corrupt to the core, then it's left at that and good luck. This will get there quickly and immediately reffer the findings to a judge, who if it is found to be accurate and on evidence, can take action, unlike before where the DPP is informed and a long winded prosectution case can be built etc...

sensibleken · 24-10-2011 11:07AM

Hi, sorry the quote thing isnt working properly for some reason but let me try and respond.

Remember, this is for the good of the public, not a personal tool of investigation. To use the power, and avoid political suicide, it must be of the popular opinion that someone has a point to defend.

'public interest' is defined here by the oversite commitee of TDs and senators. this could be legitimate or it could be the demon de jour, headshops, dangerous dogs or whatever joe duffys audience get riled up about next.

As you say, this does not have the power of
sending someone to prison, BUT it does remove the hiding place of the courts. When I say it can't be used against "innocent" people, I just mean that if someone has nothing to answer for, nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about. There is still a burden of proof, and I think any notion of a committee following a personal agenda and ignoring the facts is a bit sensationalist in predicting doom.

It does not remove the hiding place of the courts. according to the draft legislation every piece of evidence can be appealed to the court, as can the findings before they are made public. This is much more lengthy than having it ruled on imediately by the judge in a tribunal.

the idea that if people have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear is a non starter. If people have done nothing illegal then fair enough and if they have well thats for the courts. If someone however is not liked they can be treated as a criminal by being dragged through the mud. Remember we currently have a consitutionla right ot a good name. this removes that and legalises mud slinging

It's merely another tool with which we can persue the corrupt and the criminal who hide behind courts and power and money.
I think the negative aspects being touted assume a lot about the cynical nature of a Government of the day, like some poor innocent person will be framed and damned in front of the nation, and we'll all fall for it. The judiciary does still hold entire power over what to do with the findings, this is merely a vehicle to obtain the information without all the legal BS to protect / enable the hiding of facts. Like I said, if no wrong doing has been done, than what possible harm can an investigation do?

Pleanty of harm. Dominique Strauss Kahn has had his carrer ruined even though the investigation showed he did no wrong. So was parnell. History is littered with these examples

I appreciate that it's something very relivant to today, and this will change in the future, but a lot of awkward questions have been asked in front of the senate in the united states and the chambers in London, and if a Government demands answers on behalf of the people, they should have the right to ask those questions without the individual being able to refuse accountability and take on a long legal battle that will cost a lot of money and will be limited in it's investigation powers.
I'm open to debate on this, but all I see from the no side is mass paranoia, all I see from the prospect of a yes vote is more accountability in the state for your actions, particularly, and exclusively when looking at people in high power positions, both publically and politically, the hardest to pin down and prosecute in the current legal format.
Also, regarding the FF TDs investigating FF, that would not be the case, the oppisition would have the power to ask questions and demand answers.

The senate commitee and the ones in england are not the same as they cannot decide at the outset if you can have a lawyer defend you. This bill does allow that.

the opposition can ask questions all they want, they are not now nor have they ever been entitled to answers.

I am absolutely in favour of some type of investigation by the oireachtas. I do not think this is the way to do it as it is forever, not just for going after the bankers (which it wont do). I echo the statement by the opposition, the irish times and the civil liberties union that its a good concept but horendously worded, sloppy and when the next bertie or haughey or biffo gets in it oculd be downright dangerous

limklad · 24-10-2011 11:47AM

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.

Senior public servants are already appearing before Dail Committees to explain events.
Inquires are not necessary for that.

The Amended constitution as propose by the Government will serve only the Politicians, not the Public.

If the government set up Criminal Law correctly then the Gardai and other State bodies such as the Ombudsman and Regulators can proceed with investigations who are all paid to do and train with proper skills in Investigating. Politicians are NOT TRAINED for this propose. They are Legislators not INVESTIGATORS. There is no criminal punishment for the outcomes of Dail Inquires and they will jeopardise future Criminal Cases.
The Dail is NOT a JUDGE and JURY and they cannot Punish with Jail Sentences for Breaches of the Law. They are according to the Constitution is the Legislative Body. The Court System is where people are Punished where we the Tax payer already pay for.

Builders who abused the system, the same System and poor regulations that the same Politicians (Government and Oppositions) who setup System in Law and in Regulations. These were the same Builders who Paid Politicians with funds and contributions, for example in years gone by in the Galway Tent for FF and more.

We Already Know the Failure for the Banking Issues. They are Highlighted over and over again in the News Media.
The Banking Issues occurred because of Poor Regulations of Relaxed Regulation because of the successive Governments decisions for doing so. Unscrupulous Bankers Abused this privilege of relaxed Regulation.
The Government and States Bodies who were negalated in understanding what happed are the Blinds ones who are now trying to fixed a Broken system they broke in the first place and unscrupulous banker who capitalised on the Broken Regulatory system.
You not going to see Brian Cowan before the Inquires are you?

Now the Government and Politicians who lack experience in proper legal Investigating skills want to scapegoat the problems that their own profession caused.

If they Setup the Law and Regulatory system for Breaches of certain acts as a Criminal Offence and allow the Gardai and equivalent State bodies to investigate and press charges and allow the Legal Courts in which we already paid for to Jail these Unscrupulous people including Unscrupulous Politicians for breaches of the Law.
Ivor Calley is a Prime example for Large vouched Expenses abuses that the Politicians allowed to be Legal. This can easily be abused and it is legal!!! Ivor Calley is not the only Politician who abused this privilege that was given to them and that the Senate Inquires screwed up their Investigation in which Ivor Calley got off. This is a Prime Example for not Allowing Politicians to have Inquires who abused legal Rights of persons. If they had a system to Allow the Gardai to Investigate and Press Charges for Corruption then we do not need Inquires and the Courts Will find the Truth. Not Politicians "So called Truth".

He abused that in which you and me call stealing, but the Politicians demean it as "breaches of Expenses". If I stole from you, you can have the Gardai investigate me and I can be charges with a Criminal Offence and possible Jail Times or Fines in which the Dail setup as Law for it to be a Criminal Offence.

I am In favour for Inquires for understanding of events to legislate for future occurrences for issues. I not in Favour for Politicians to use inquires to scape goat their problems to others.
I will be voting No to Abbeylara as Abbeylara types events is the Jurisdiction for the Gardai and Garda Ombudsman not the Dail.
We pay as Tax Payers for the Garda Ombudsman to be Trained and Legally Investigate Events like the AbbeyLara types events involving the Gardai.

Garda Ombudsman was a result of Gardai Corruption or breaches or even appearance of breaches of conduct of Gardai. The Garda Ombudsman an Independent body was decades overdue from put in place (2005) The Morris Tribunal was setup in 2002 and was forced on the Politicians because of the correct restriction of Interference of Politicians in criminal and policing investigations. The Garda Ombudsman save us a hell of alot of money in possible future Tribunals in future. Any future Dail Inquiry will be interfering with Criminal Investigating of Abbeylara types events or Donegal types criminal events involving the Gardai will prevent successful Criminal prosecution of Unscrupulous/corrupt or Criminal Gardai, as they (the Politicians) will (rightly or wrongly) bias future Juries in Criminal cases and give unfairness of Self Defence.
The Independent Garda Ombudsman also clears Garda of any wrong doing if the Garda did no wrong and press Charges on those who did wrong.

The Dail Inquires with Bias views can condemn the Garda integrity with no right of proper self defence. Unscrupulous Politicians can legally scape goat their problems when they have any easy route to do so especially when they setup the Inquiry wrong or in an unfair manner according to them in the "Public Interest" with no recourse in the Courts.

oscarBravo · 24-10-2011 12:13PM

[Jackass] wrote: »

I'm still not sold on the fact that this will be a mass give away of power to a dictatorship type Government, who can use this power to engage anyone who gets in their way.

You have to bear in mind that the entire point of the constitution is to set limits on the power of the government. When you're deciding on whether or not to amend the constitution, you have a duty to decide not how likely it is that a reasonable government will abuse a constitutional power; but whether it's possible for an unreasonable government to do so.

Remember, this is for the good of the public, not a personal tool of investigation. To use the power, and avoid political suicide, it must be of the popular opinion that someone has a point to defend.

A popular opinion isn't necessarily an accurate one. There are scads of historical precedents for this, and they are the reasons for the very existence of constitutional protections like the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. Think about witch hunts, or McCarthyism.

When I say it can't be used against "innocent" people, I just mean that if someone has nothing to answer for, nothing to hide, they have nothing to worry about.

That's an equally compelling reason to give police the power to stop and search anyone in the street with no reason, or to search your house without a warrant. Would you argue for that?

There is still a burden of proof, and I think any notion of a committee following a personal agenda and ignoring the facts is a bit sensationalist in predicting doom.

It doesn't have to be likely; it just has to be possible. You're operating on the assumption that you can hand a corrupt government a weapon and that they won't use it corruptly. That's not a safe assumption.

It's merely another tool with which we can persue the corrupt and the criminal who hide behind courts and power and money.

The allegedly corrupt and the criminal are innocent of corruption and criminality until convicted in a court of law. A popular belief that someone is corrupt or criminal should not - must not - be sufficient to remove their presumption of innocence.

Like I said, if no wrong doing has been done, than what possible harm can an investigation do?

I'm going to make the perfectly reasonable assumption that you're not a child molester. On that basis, what possible harm could result from you being put on trial for child molesting?

walrusgumble · 24-10-2011 12:38PM

Bosco boy wrote: »

I see I touched a nerve, I thought you'd be capable of a more intelligent reply! Ya you go ahead you dock my pay for the 5th time yet leave your pals unscathed!

I don't see anyone calling for the Judge's pay not to be touched. NO body is saying that they should not be touched. They complain about the wording of the Referendum Bill. There is already a genuine concern about the Judges relationship with government already (eg Former Chief Justice John Murrary -absolute FF boot boy who has done well financially with FF over the years - through his excellent expertise , i should add and also, he was not afraid to rule against them)

People simply want an independent body to oversee the decisions on payment. That is why there is a notion of no. If safe guards were in place, no one would be complaining.

Using other groups in the public sector as a comparison is ridiculous and for obvious reasons. The Judiciary, unlike other bodies is an organ of State as per Separation of Powers. They also don't decide to adjudicate matters of importance.

I don't recall the Croke Park Deal going before the people. It would unlikely have succeeded

Abbeylara referendum

Comments