nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Did you know that there's two referenda this month?

Morag

Yeah they want to change the constitution again, at this stage it's more "repaired" then a fishermans net, they should just draft a new one.

I didn't know there was two of them we're meant to be voting on until this morning. Did you know?

One is about lowering judges salaries and the other is something about having the Dail and Senate being able to investigate more things. Like they are soo good at it now, I swear Ivor calley is roaring laughing.

Anyway I reckon most people who go to vote on the 27th will wonder why the fúck they are being given 3 ballot papers, unless your one of the lucky ones who get to also vote in the bye election for Brian "I;m not dying I swear" Lenihan's seat.

and it's not like we have body set up just for campgaining for and educating the people about up and coming referenda, oh **** yeah we do.
Which was apprently created through another fecking referenda.

About the only thing they have done is snuck up a website, no posters from
this lot to let people know whats going on.

http://www.referendum2011.ie/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

CrazyRabbit

Well that's what I get for relying on rte.ie for my news. I didn't know about the referendum until about 2 weeks ago....and it was from a thread here on boards.

sdanseo

I think that in all the hype about the Presidential Election this Thursday, the two referendums also being held have been cast into a shadow. While this is being looked at seperately in politics I think it's important enough to deserve a proper thread in AH as it's of equal, if not greater national importance as it amends our constitution.

There is potential in the first mentioned amendment below, that on the Oireachtas enquiries, for the Oireachtas to effectively be given the power to act as judge, jury and executioner in relation to people whom they might choose to investigate. It's being said that it could amount to a fundamental abuse of the method of democracy we use which suggests that there should be a clear distinction between the executive, the parliament and the judiciary. This is effectively handing some judicial power to TDs who have no training in legal areas.

I'd like to see what everyone thinks of these referendums, and I think certainly that they deserve discussion here.

The Referendum Commission wrote:

Proposed amendment – Oireachtas inquiries

At present, Article 15.10 states:
“Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.”
It is proposed to renumber this as 15.10.1° and to insert the following subsections:
2° Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or an inquiry with the other House, in a manner provided for by law, into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance.
3° In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person (whether or not a member of either House) may be investigated and the House or Houses concerned may make findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning the matter to which the inquiry relates.
4° It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2° applies.

The Referendum Commission wrote:

Proposed amendment – judges’ pay At present, Article 35.5 of the Constitution states:
“The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.”
It is proposed to replace this with the following wording:
5 1° The remuneration of judges shall not be reduced during their continuance in office save in accordance with this section.
2° The remuneration of judges is subject to the imposition of taxes, levies or other charges that are imposed by law on persons generally or persons belonging to a particular class.
3° Where, before or after the enactment of this section, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of persons belonging to classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money and such law states that those reductions are in the public interest, provision may also be made by law to make proportionate reductions to the remuneration of judges.

Dartz

No to Oireachteas Enquiries.
Because:

It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest

The right's of the 'defendant' need to be paramount or all we'll have is a HUAC

Yes to the Judges thing.

And don't forget the by election in Dublin West.

Super-Rush

Threads merged and new poll added.

sdanseo

Ledge for the merge super-rush, thanks.

For the uninitiated I posted a more detailed poll etc not seeing this original thread, they've now been coupled together.

sdanseo

As I was saying before - absolutely people should be voting NO to the inquiries one. It gives the Oireachtas CARTE BLANCHE to investigate, and make findings about, whoever the hell the feel like investigating. These guys are public representatives, a lot of them bad, untidy, hash-smoking ones. They should certainly not have the power to investigate and "make findings" about people, whether they be Bankers or Developers or my Kleptomanical granny. It's not on.

Noreen1

I'm in favour of Judges pay being reduced, but I will vote "No" to this, after originally planning to vote "Yes."
The wording is too vague, (deliberately?) - and I can see the potential for using pay reductions as a method of applying Governmental pressure on the Judiciary.

Why do the Government have a problem with the Judges suggestion that an Independent body look at, and determine judges pay?

As to allowing either the previous Government, the current Government, or, even worse, an unknown future Government to decide what is "fair procedure", who should get investigated, what subject is (in their view), "in the public interest" - Hell, No!

Now, if they were to hold a referendum that gave the public the power to recall the Government when they make lousy decisions (Bank Bailout, anyone?) - I'd vote "Yes" in a heartbeat.

pajunior

Can anyone let me know how Britain and other countries run their parliamentary investigations?

jimgoose

No to the Judge thing the Constitution is not the place for setting judges pay . The protection but there by we the people in 1937 was for a very good reason which have not gone away a fair trail needs free judges do not vote away these very important rights changing the Constitution results in permanent change,think who looked for this type of change.

jimgoose

Noreen1 wrote: »

I'm in favour of Judges pay being reduced, but I will vote "No" to this, after originally planning to vote "Yes."
The wording is too vague, (deliberately?) - and I can see the potential for using pay reductions as a method of applying Governmental pressure on the Judiciary.

Why do the Government have a problem with the Judges suggestion that an Independent body look at, and determine judges pay?

As to allowing either the previous Government, the current Government, or, even worse, an unknown future Government to decide what is "fair procedure", who should get investigated, what subject is (in their view), "in the public interest" - Hell, No!

Now, if they were to hold a referendum that gave the public the power to recall the Government when they make lousy decisions (Bank Bailout, anyone?) - I'd vote "Yes" in a heartbeat.

could not agree with you more

jimgoose

Dartz wrote: »

No to Oireachteas Enquiries.
Because:

The right's of the 'defendant' need to be paramount or all we'll have is a HUAC

Yes to the Judges thing.

And don't forget the by election in Dublin West.

not by changing the Constitution though.

jimgoose

pajunior wrote: »

Can anyone let me know how Britain and other countries run their parliamentary investigations?

to answer your question for me is not what they do in others countries but more what we should do in our own country. First of all I would ask myself who is trying to bring change about,and why now? why the rush? surely the people of this nation deserve time to discuss and reflect om such important matters are we to be treated as sheep or cattle and rushed into decisions that later it is not possible to rush out of ,the government should have more respect for its citizens . I beilve there is no need to change our Constitution they are other ways methods in which to bring about such inquiries that does not give away our right to fair trail or fair procedure.

jimgoose

Hi, has anyone asked themselves where all this is coming from? Why now? Whats the rush? Why all we are thinking about is judges pay etc. How will a reduction in Judges pay help us in our daily life as we go looking for work and paying our bills. So along comes the government and fix the problem for us the problem that wont makes us any better off financially or indeed solve our economic situation. Remember the present government were our past opposition - I dont recall seeing or hearing any protest while they stood idly by while our country any our sovereignty was lost. This present government are life long politicians - I did not hear any of them shouting stop, in fact most of the councils around the country were controlled by either fine gael or Labour and fine gael Now I would like us to think again before we make an almost permanent change to our Constitution and think who will really benefit from any change to our constitution. I myself will be voting No to both proposed changes as I believe a yes vote would confer too much power to the government of the day and there are other ways as effective for dealing with the said issues. A No vote on Thursday is a yes vote for democracy.

sdanseo

Spot on Jimgoose. Both bills are fundamentally flawed.

Guys if you know shag all about these referenda, please read to the end of this post.

Oireachtas Inquiries referendum attempts to give almost total power to TDs - even Shane Ross TD has said this is a terrible idea and that they are not qualified to be given this much responsibility.

It WILL be misused. There is a CLEAR conflict of interest. It is the height of irresponsibility for any citizen to vote yes to this one. My opinion: VOTE NO.

As for judges pay, while I agree with the principle, its wording is flawed. It attempts to categorise groups containing "a particular class of person". That is probably meant in terms of PRSI classes etc, but its wording effectively leaves potential for a constitutional segregation of citizens into classes according to their occupation or other things.

That's also simply not on. My opinion: VOTE NO.

wonderfulname

sdeire wrote: »

Oireachtas Inquiries referendum attempts to give almost total power to TDs - even Shane Ross TD has said this is a terrible idea and that they are not qualified to be given this much responsibility.

Shane Ross TD wrote:

Sir, – As a member of the Oireachtas – to whom dangerous new powers are proposed to be in entrusted in tomorrow’s referendum – I am incredulous. I am one of the last people on God’s Earth suitable to be given such a golden opportunity to target political opponents.

In case I am accused of false modesty there are 225 other citizens who are equally underqualified to exercise this unsolicited gift. 165 of them are TDs. The other 60 are Senators. – Yours, etc,

SHANE ROSS TD,
Dáil Eireann,
Leinster House,
Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

From The Times.

Neither referenda are adequately worded, and the one referred to above is seriously flawed, so I will be voting no on both.

cocoshovel

Spoiling the presidential one because I don't give a f**K. As for the other 2, well to be honest I haven't read about them what so ever. Probably will vote yes on both just to see if anything happens. :cool: Unless someone here can change my mind by tomorrow. Actually f**k that Im going to bed

Mint Sauce

If only the presidential vote was as easy as these two.

Mint Sauce

cocoshovel wrote: »

Spoiling the presidential one because I don't give a f**K. As for the other 2, well to be honest I haven't read about them what so ever. Probably will vote yes on both just to see if anything happens. :cool: Unless someone here can change my mind by tomorrow. Actually f**k that Im going to bed

In fairness, if you haven't read up on them, you are as well to vote NO, as then nothing changes if the NO vote wins.

Dave!

Probably vote no to the judges' pay one, because it seems like tokenistic, populist begrudgery. It'll save us fúck all money and is pretty pointless really. Better off keeping up whatever seperations exist at present.

Will vote yes to the Oireachtas enquiries one, because it seems pretty normal for houses of parliament (etc.) to be able to investigate things. The Senate / House in the U.S. do it, and they do it in the UK too. They'll have no powers beyond investigation, so I don't see the problem.

carfiosaoorl

I will be voting No to both of them but I fecked up my vote above and clicked vote Yes to both of them:o Hope that doesnt happen tomorrow.

randylonghorn

Dave! wrote: »

Will vote yes to the Oireachtas enquiries one, because it seems pretty normal for houses of parliament (etc.) to be able to investigate things.

True, and I have no issue with the basic idea, but I have huge issues with the wording proposed.

Dave! wrote: »

The Senate / House in the U.S. do it, and they do it in the UK too. They'll have no powers beyond investigation, so I don't see the problem.

Problems:

1) There are no limits in the amendment on what or who can be investigated, that will be down to the government of the day to decide "in the public interest" ... in other words, on the basis of what the redtops are screaming about and what the politicians think they might get a few votes from being seen to be concerned about.

2) It will also be up to the politicians to decide "the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest" ... in other words, to make up the rules as they go along. Laws are easy to change, the Constitution isn't. They're asking us to give them carte blanche in this amendment to overturn normal civil and individual rights as they see fit.

3) If genuine wrongdoing IS uncovered in one of these kangaroo courts, what are the chances of the offender actually being prosecuted? As soon as they are arraigned, they will be off to the Supreme Court to claim that their right to a fair trial has been prejudiced by the public hoo-hah over the original inquiry ... and I reckon they would have a damn good case!

4) Seamus has argued elsewhere that this amendment and any legislation / inquiries arising out of it are likely to see cases being brought before the ECHR ... a nice expensive long-drawn-out process which will cost the country millions.

The wording of this amendment is imho terrible. Eight former AGs have come out to condemn it (including three Fine Gael ones). I honestly wonder whether the current AG was listened to when this was drafted; to me it looks like something the Minister scribbled on the back of an envelope before he got up to speak! >.<

Dartz

Well, I've checked the Seanad roll and we don't have a Joe McCarthy in the Seanad. We Have a Micheal McCarthy in the Dáil...

I wouldn't trust some of these gob****es with the power to run a lightbulb, let alone the power to set aside the rights of innocent people, compel them to testify and blacken their names if they don't.....

Sofa King Great

Compulsion to answer questions, no right to appeal and no right to cross examine.

Add to that the fact that it is poorly drafted. Voting no.

Dempsey

The government have made a bags of these referendums, all I see on TV is 7 useless people slinging mud at each other for a position a non executive position instead of information, the pros and cons, long term affects etc of what my vote will do.

I shall be voting no, shur wont they reword it and shove it down my throat anyways!

sdanseo

Dave! wrote: »

Probably vote no to the judges' pay one, because it seems like tokenistic, populist begrudgery. It'll save us fúck all money and is pretty pointless really. Better off keeping up whatever seperations exist at present.

Will vote yes to the Oireachtas enquiries one, because it seems pretty normal for houses of parliament (etc.) to be able to investigate things. The Senate / House in the U.S. do it, and they do it in the UK too. They'll have no powers beyond investigation, so I don't see the problem.

DPP begins a prosecution against Joe Bloggs for Money Laundering. Joe is innocent.

Goes to trial, and evidence is presented stating that a Dáil COmmitte unanimously decided he was clearly guilty of money laundering, essentially libelling the man but leaving him no recourse;

Joe Bloggs is innocently convicted.

just an example of how this hair-brained little scheme can go awry.

I vehemently disagree with politicians being so deeply involved in the USA and UK; I am not going to vote YES to this just because they do it in other countries (making a mockery of their supposed democracies).

The ones who make the law SHOULD NEVER have a say in administering it. To allow this is not much short of fascism.

Absolutely and unequivocally voting NO.

tolosenc

I will be voting no to Oireachteas Inquires as I feel it is foolish and shortsighted to allow a group of people, with a track record of incompetency, to disregard fundamental rights as they see fit. In essence, the use of the term "in the public interest" is a blank cheque giving the governmet the power to investigate whoever they want, in relation to whatever they want, whenever they want, only aknowlidging which ever rights of citizens they want. The Supreme Court has already said that this function is not necessary for the operation of the parliament.

I will be voting no to the Judges' pay referendum as I believe the seperation of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive is paramount in a functioning democracy.

A constitution is not designed to protect you from a benign governement, but a malicious one.

In principal, I am OK with the Houses of the Oireachtas performing inquiries, and I am OK with variations in judges' pay. As for the terms set forth in these bills for those purposes, I am absolutely not OK with them.

jimgoose

pajunior wrote: »

Can anyone let me know how Britain and other countries run their parliamentary investigations?

Hi through independent committee NOT THROUGH THEIR CONSTITUTION.

jimgoose

sdeire wrote: »

DPP begins a prosecution against Joe Bloggs for Money Laundering. Joe is innocent.

Goes to trial, and evidence is presented stating that a Dáil COmmitte unanimously decided he was clearly guilty of money laundering, essentially libelling the man but leaving him no recourse;

Joe Bloggs is innocently convicted.

just an example of how this hair-brained little scheme can go awry.

I vehemently disagree with politicians being so deeply involved in the USA and UK; I am not going to vote YES to this just because they do it in other countries (making a mockery of their supposed democracies).

The ones who make the law SHOULD NEVER have a say in administering it. To allow this is not much short of fascism.

Absolutely and unequivocally voting NO.

I AGREE WITH YOU, WHY PUT THE PROTECTION IN OUR CONSTITUTION IT WAS FOR A VERY GOOD REASON JUDGES PAY CAN BE DEALT ELSEWHERE BUT NOT LIKE THIS.

Dartz

Cap's lock mate.... cap's lock.

Well, that's that voted for.

"I think the former Attorney Generals (sic) have a right to give their view," he said.

"I don’t agree with it, they’re against both referendums, they want to keep judges’ pay up and they want to keep the Oireachtas out of investigations, it sounds to me like a bunch of lawyers looking to protect their incomes. "

If that's the best argument Leo Varadkar can rustle up.

But seriously, I'm shocked at the lack of debate there's been over both of these. From what I've seen they just haven't been discussed and something like the 30th Amendment needs to be discussed.... debated and done.

conorhal

Sharrow wrote: »

Yeah they want to change the constitution again, at this stage it's more "repaired" then a fishermans net, they should just draft a new one.
http://www.referendum2011.ie/

Firstly, of course I know there were 2 amendments to the constitution proposed for today, I made it my business to know by not living under a rock.

Secondly, Our constitution is a fine document that has ensured our democracy for the past 100yrs. You want to hand the draught of a new constitution (and there is a proposal to do this BTW) to the mental midgets in our Dial that can't even get a simple amendment right? Good luck!