Abbeylara referendum

Doirtybirdy

sensibleken wrote: »

I dont think youve read the propsed bill correctly. The commitee of inquiry is apointed from among TDs and senators. It does not have to be cross party. It is appointed by an oversight commitee (of indeterminate size) by the house, which is controlled by the government through the whip.

It does not require a conspiracy it just requires a knowledge of how government works.

The proposal is not like how it works in the UK, they cannot decide to suspend your rights in what is deemed the public interest.

by the way the public interest is not defined in law. Th eheadshop nonsense, dangerous dog acts etc were illogical legislation brought in on the foot of media hyteria.

I was't aware of that actually-if that's the case I'll be voting no.
Oh and caseyanne please give your no2 to michael d..if only as a vote against the fianna failer sean gallagher.
I'd rather mcguinness in than a fianna failer.
Tactical voting is needed.

Scofflaw

Bosco boy wrote: »

In other words the best case senario is that half of any jury will understand and the other half won't. I think this is insulting to ordinary people in this country. Juries goe through a selection process and drawn from the general public. Could it be possible that oneself could find oneself on a jury and oneself be fooled because oneselfs feels superior to everyone else and may not entertain the valid points made by fellow jurors.

Obviously, yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

swordofislam wrote: »

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.

Let's turn it on its head for a moment. What if the government wanted to increase judicial pay at a time when they wanted to cut the pay of dinner ladies? There is nothing in this referendum to stop this. So, would it not make sense to provide that judicial pay should be cut in line with equivalent public sector pay? Alternatively, should it not be done by an independent body who can say "wait a minute now, we can't cut dinner ladies' pay without cutting judges pay by more?"

[Jackass] wrote: »

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.

I dunno. Supposing you were a top executive in Anglo Irish bank. You did nothing wrong and you weren't aware of the most extravagant excesses by those at the very top. You carried out the shareholder's instructions, namely that you should lend to builders/developers on their terms, and if they didn't want to sign a personal guarantee they didn't have to. You also acted on the advice of your professional economists who forcasted that the property boom would go on indefinately and that you should keep investing in property loans and not waste time on other types of loans.

Supposing that with all that you have nothing to hide and nothing to answer for as the law stands. But, the public don't see it like that. They see you as asleep at the wheel and somehow culpable. Those shareholders that wouldn't listen and demanded that you keep lending to developers have now turned on you and are throwing eggs at you for losing money (you can bet that the most vocal shareholders who lost money were equally vocal about increasing the profits per share when they believed things were good. Many people want to blame others but never themselves).

You are now summoned before an Oireachtas inquiry. The people who are going to judge you have a vested interest in finding you guilty of something. Equally, they have a vested interest in not finding that you are blameless. They are reactive and beholden to the people that vote them in. So, out of fear of committing an unpopular decision, or desire to make a popular decision, they are happy to find you guilty of wrongdoing because that is what the public believe.

Bosco boy wrote: »

The legal profession have to get out of the dark ages and play their part in the recovery of this economy.

Specifically, what do you mean by this?

Bosco boy wrote: »

They need to stop treating anyone who disagrees with as if they are idiots who don't know what they are talking out. They also need to know that you don't need to have a law degree to read the proposed amendments!

What if they people who disagree with them are idiots who don't know what they are talking about. What about if the people they are arguing with have not actually read the proposed amendements and have simply adopted the government/media line on the issue as, with the greatest of respect, you clearly have done so far in this thread.

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of an almostly exclusively legal eagle sector opposition to this.
I note though most of them are also opposed to the easier pay restraint referendum.

Actually, most of the calls have not been from the legal sector but from people who work in areas such as journalism, human rights etc.

For lawyers, this referendum is great news as it is opening up a whole new area of practice for them - you've heard of tribunal lawyers, now we will have inquiry lawyers as well.

Bosco boy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

swordofislam wrote: »

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.

Let's turn it on its head for a moment. What if the government wanted to increase judicial pay at a time when they wanted to cut the pay of dinner ladies? There is nothing in this referendum to stop this. So, would it not make sense to provide that judicial pay should be cut in line with equivalent public sector pay? Alternatively, should it not be done by an independent body who can say "wait a minute now, we can't cut dinner ladies' pay without cutting judges pay by more?"

[QUOTE='[Jackass];75100301']
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.

I dunno. Supposing you were a top executive in Anglo Irish bank. You did nothing wrong and you weren't aware of the most extravagant excesses by those at the very top. You carried out the shareholder's instructions, namely that you should lend to builders/developers on their terms, and if they didn't want to sign a personal guarantee they didn't have to. You also acted on the advice of your professional economists who forcasted that the property boom would go on indefinately and that you should keep investing in property loans and not waste time on other types of loans.

Supposing that with all that you have nothing to hide and nothing to answer for as the law stands. But, the public don't see it like that. They see you as asleep at the wheel and somehow culpable. Those shareholders that wouldn't listen and demanded that you keep lending to developers have now turned on you and are throwing eggs at you for losing money (you can bet that the most vocal shareholders who lost money were equally vocal about increasing the profits per share when they believed things were good. Many people want to blame others but never themselves).

You are now summoned before an Oireachtas inquiry. The people who are going to judge you have a vested interest in finding you guilty of something. Equally, they have a vested interest in not finding that you are blameless. They are reactive and beholden to the people that vote them in. So, out of fear of committing an unpopular decision, or desire to make a popular decision, they are happy to find you guilty of wrongdoing because that is what the public believe.

Bosco boy wrote: »

The legal profession have to get out of the dark ages and play their part in the recovery of this economy.

Specifically, what do you mean by this?

Bosco boy wrote: »

They need to stop treating anyone who disagrees with as if they are idiots who don't know what they are talking out. They also need to know that you don't need to have a law degree to read the proposed amendments!

What if they people who disagree with them are idiots who don't know what they are talking about. What about if the people they are arguing with have not actually read the proposed amendements and have simply adopted the government/media line on the issue as, with the greatest of respect, you clearly have done so far in this thread.

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of an almostly exclusively legal eagle sector opposition to this.
I note though most of them are also opposed to the easier pay restraint referendum.

Actually, most of the calls have not been from the legal sector but from people who work in areas such as journalism, human rights etc.

For lawyers, this referendum is great news as it is opening up a whole new area of practice for them - you've heard of tribunal lawyers, now we will have inquiry lawyers as well.[/Quote]

beats chasing ambulances!

walrusgumble

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just to be clear, in O'Byrne the Supreme Court held that Judges were liable to any taxes and pension levies that may come out and that these were not considered to be diminishing their "remuneration" as per the constitution.

It is correct to say that the salary of a sitting Judge cannot be lowered. The outcry over the pension levy is interesting because the government did not have to make it voluntary and the Chief Justice told them that. According to Shatter, the most recent ex-AG informed him it would be unconstitutional (which I find difficult to believe).


This is the crux of the issue. If people are worried that Judges aren't taking the pension levy then it's sorted via the O'Byrne decision.

If it's an issue of lowering pay there are two valid options:
1) a referendum that states specifically that judges' pay is tied to a specific category of public sector worker and their pay will move up and down in relation to said category.
2) a referendum establishing an independent body that examines the issue of judges' pay and implements changes accordingly (the body could easily be clumped in with the regulator for the legal profession that the Legal Services Bill proposes).


Giving the Oireachtas carte blanche to adjust the pay of judges in relation to a nebulous group is unsettling at best and idiotic at worst.

Yeah, sorry, I should have made that clear. Even that case was a close run thing, all over the meaning of one word.

walrusgumble

[Jackass] wrote: »

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...

You do realise that politicans are experts in twisting the words of others. Will they still enjoy privilege for any comments they will make that they would not make outside the Dáil? Considering these guys are not good at following the evidence of others, reports, and Review Committees reports etc which, if they had, they would not be in this mess, how can you have faith in them?

The Oireachtas is not exactly showing any evidence to suggest any concerns are sensationalist.

Look, for instance, Leo Vardakar's comments yesterday. Compleltely ignorning why people are out to vote know, he simply comes out, like some smarmy school senior prefect / head of class and comments that lawyers (including AG's who will never have a difficulty in commanding a brief in big cases ever again, as it they ever had problems) are just worried about their pay packages. :rolleyes:

Yeah, good man Leo, conveniently forgetting that
(a) Its the Dáil who decides the purpose of the Tribunal and the rates of pay from the lawyers
(b) As I said again, if his like, ie politicians, had been more open and honest, there would not be been a need to go for so long
(c) The one's who got the gigs (some of whom FG will likely want to now make judges, if any were FG law library boot boys)
(d) No one, not even the Chief Justice is damning the notion that pay reductions should be in place, but its the wording.
(e) I was going to say that FG are not exactly strangers for making public denouncements of other organs of the State, ahem Paddy Donegan. But that would be unfair. Yet, not so long ago, Our Minister for Justice stupidity got involved in a public spate with a Judge regarding the Swithwick Tribunal, making a comment that should have remained in private and a comment that won't guarantee it will happen, taking no regard to other people such as the Unionists who may use it as a political football.

What do you mean "hiding place" of Court. Correct me if I am wrong, but which is more accessible to the public - curious George? Ordinary Courts, Dail/Senand Committee and or Tribunal hearings in Dublin Castle? Regardless of where you go, the same principles on how a hearing is to be run apply or are suppose to apply, which is now questionable by this Amendment.

Whether one likes it or not, Senator Ivor Callely was ruled to have done no wrong doing, as per the letter of the Dáil's law. Yet The Committee intended to shift the goalposts, without following proper procedures.

In the Bertie Ahern v Mahon case; a case involving Bertie's attempts to prevent the Tribunal using his comments in the Dáil and put it to him that they differed to evidence at the Tribunal, Kelly J, said that why the Tribunal could not do that, they could put it in report , without reaching a conclusion, and let the reader ie the public decide for themselves. (He was probably loving it, in light of his clashes over the years)


What is wrong with the alternative such as that used in the Murphy & Ryan Report? Effective and Cheap.

Politicians judging each other, not really a good idea. is it? These Tribunal cases often always involve members of all parties. Wonder how willing and helpful they will be when one of their own is being quizzed as a witness.

Did anyone watch Vincent Browne last night? He claims that he rang the AG office and was told that they did not see how access to the court was possible, when challenging. Odd. I was of the view that even if there was access, what the Courts will do

FreudianSlippers

dunphy3 wrote: »

just read where the dpp said that the ordinary man/women can not understand the bank failours with out special treaning,ie suggested that only accountants/lawers shoud be on jurys shoud a case come to court.[first we got in rong ,ie lisbon1ant2, now we cant make up our own minds????????

Bosco boy wrote: »

In other words the best case senario is that half of any jury will understand and the other half won't. I think this is insulting to ordinary people in this country. Juries goe through a selection process and drawn from the general public. Could it be possible that oneself could find oneself on a jury and oneself be fooled because oneselfs feels superior to everyone else and may not entertain the valid points made by fellow jurors.

The implication there being simply that expert evidence would have to be adduced to the jury to explain the more complex details. Not that only accountants/economists (lawyers? Most layers don't have in-depth details of the bank failures, so no point in clumping them in as the default people) could sit on the jury.

FreudianSlippers

sensibleken wrote: »

every pice of evidence, every witness and the draft findings can all be appealled to the high court before they are made public.

There is no evidence in the amendment that this is accurate.

FreudianSlippers

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Some t.d's/senators may not be trustworthy but committee's are crossparty.
There's where you need a tinfoil hat if you believe mcarthiate inquisitions and injustices will happen widely in crossparty situations.
It implies all of them needing to be in it together in the conspiracy.

I don't buy that.

That's not the issue. I think the actual issue has been adequately covered in this thread and the other.

As for separation of powers,is it a problem in the UK'what with their legal system being largely the parent of ours.

I keep hearing comparisons with the powers in the UK and the US. While the general scope and concept is similar, the proposed 30th amendment will be much more severe, granting the Oireachtas more power than the US or UK legislatures have and it is by no means clear whether these inquiries will be subject to rules of evidence, witness rights, appeal or judicial review by the courts.

If it were actually modelled on the US or UK systems I'd probably vote yes for this amendment; unfortunately it rings slightly more Orwellian.

I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of an almostly exclusively legal eagle sector opposition to this.
I note though most of them are also opposed to the easier pay restraint referendum.

I have asked almost 10 times now in this and another thread.

How does the legal profession benefit from voting no on either of these amendments.

I will take the answer for the 29th amendment on judges' pay in the other thread.

Bosco boy wrote: »

beats chasing ambulances!

Come on Bosco boy! :rolleyes:

sensibleken

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is no evidence in the amendment that this is accurate.

Not in the amendment. In the draft legislation

oscarBravo

sensibleken wrote: »

Not in the amendment. In the draft legislation

...which can be replaced by different legislation in the future. You can't accept a constitutional amendment on the basis of legislation that accompanies it now; you have a duty to think of what legislation it could allow later.

Call it tinfoil hat stuff if you will, but if you have that much faith in this and every future government to only ever do the right thing, why do we need a constitution in the first place?

sensibleken

oscarBravo wrote: »

...which can be replaced by different legislation in the future. You can't accept a constitutional amendment on the basis of legislation that accompanies it now; you have a duty to think of what legislation it could allow later.

Call it tinfoil hat stuff if you will, but if you have that much faith in this and every future government to only ever do the right thing, why do we need a constitution in the first place?

yes i know it can be changed. and relax im voting no. The reason i brought up the right of appeal is that it is extremely unlikely to be removed as it can very easily be argued that it goes against fair proceedures and principles of natural justice.

It also counters that there is no right of appeal whatsoever and finally it argues against the idea that these will be substantially cheaper than tribunals as although the cost of the inquiry would be controlled the inevitablely much larger appeals process would be more expensive

oscarBravo

sensibleken wrote: »

yes i know it can be changed. and relax im voting no.

Yeah, I know, the argument wasn't directed at you specifically.

The reason i brought up the right of appeal is that it is extremely unlikely to be removed as it can very easily be argued that it goes against fair proceedures and principles of natural justice.

Argued by whom? A government with a firm majority can change the law to say whatever it wants, as long as it's constitutional - and this amendment makes it constitutional to do so.

sensibleken

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, I know, the argument wasn't directed at you specifically. Argued by whom? A government with a firm majority can change the law to say whatever it wants, as long as it's constitutional - and this amendment makes it constitutional to do so.

Argued by anybody who wishes to bring it to the high court.
It doesnt give them carte blanche to do what they want. It still has to be conform to principles of fair proceedures and principles of natural justice. While I do think this amendment gives them powers which are too far reaching we are not getting rid of the judiciary or creating a totalitarian state here.

Bosco boy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Some t.d's/senators may not be trustworthy but committee's are crossparty.
There's where you need a tinfoil hat if you believe mcarthiate inquisitions and injustices will happen widely in crossparty situations.
It implies all of them needing to be in it together in the conspiracy.

I don't buy that.

That's not the issue. I think the actual issue has been adequately covered in this thread and the other.

As for separation of powers,is it a problem in the UK'what with their legal system being largely the parent of ours.

I keep hearing comparisons with the powers in the UK and the US. While the general scope and concept is similar, the proposed 30th amendment will be much more severe, granting the Oireachtas more power than the US or UK legislatures have and it is by no means clear whether these inquiries will be subject to rules of evidence, witness rights, appeal or judicial review by the courts.

If it were actually modelled on the US or UK systems I'd probably vote yes for this amendment; unfortunately it rings slightly more Orwellian.

I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of an almostly exclusively legal eagle sector opposition to this.
I note though most of them are also opposed to the easier pay restraint referendum.

I have asked almost 10 times now in this and another thread.

How does the legal profession benefit from voting no on either of these amendments.

I will take the answer for the 29th amendment on judges' pay in the other thread.

Bosco boy wrote: »

beats chasing ambulances!

Come on Bosco boy! :rolleyes:

Sorry, below the belt! I'm coming around to your arguement on the judges pay amendment, we all know the need for cuts but the way the government have worded it seems to have been rushed and Badly thought out, while i'd love to see them share the pain I don't want the seperstion of powers deminished, probally will vote no to both amendments.

oscarBravo

sensibleken wrote: »

Argued by anybody who wishes to bring it to the high court.

I think it would be the Supreme Court, and I'm far from convinced that the SC can do anything other than assess the constitutionality of a law.

It doesnt give them carte blanche to do what they want. It still has to be conform to principles of fair proceedures and principles of natural justice.

Not really, no. The amendment says:

It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance...

In other words, they're not allowed to completely disregard those principles, but they are allowed to decide to what extent they are outweighed by an undefined "public interest".

While I do think this amendment gives them powers which are too far reaching we are not getting rid of the judiciary or creating a totalitarian state here.

The problem with slippery slopes is that it's a lot easier to start down them than to arrest the descent later.

sensibleken

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think it would be the Supreme Court, and I'm far from convinced that the SC can do anything other than assess the constitutionality of a law.

It would be the high court first as it would follow normal judicial review

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not really, no. The amendment says: In other words, they're not allowed to completely disregard those principles, but they are allowed to decide to what extent they are outweighed by an undefined "public interest".

The problem with slippery slopes is that it's a lot easier to start down them than to arrest the descent later.

correct. they are allowed to strike a balance between fair proceedures and the purpose of the inquiry. which is dreadfully sloppy wording that doesnt adequatly qualify its meaning. One of the reasons im against it.

And the biggest problem with slippery slops is that calling something a slippery slope means you can invent any dystopian future and say were on our way to it. Its a bad amendment, its not a fourth reich amendment

FreudianSlippers

sensibleken wrote: »

It would be the high court first as it would follow normal judicial review



correct. they are allowed to strike a balance between fair proceedures and the purpose of the inquiry. which is dreadfully sloppy wording that doesnt adequatly qualify its meaning. One of the reasons im against it.

And the biggest problem with slippery slops is that calling something a slippery slope means you can invent any dystopian future and say were on our way to it. Its a bad amendment, its not a fourth reich amendment

Yes, the High Court would be port of first call, however the issue is within Art 15 generally as these matters are generally non-justiciable.

Even the referendum commission stated that:

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

sensibleken

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yes, the High Court would be port of first call, however the issue is within Art 15 generally as these matters are generally non-justiciable.

Even the referendum commission stated that:

Agreed. its sloppy and vague

limklad

Another Coming out of the woodwork to urge people to Vote NO.

Irish Independent wrote:

Dail Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairman John McGuinness urged people to vote 'No' to the investigative proposal.


"I believe the State already has enough power -- and the powers being sought will do nothing but create expense and controversy," he told the Irish Independent. "But, particularly, I will vote 'No' because I believe it offends principles of natural justice and the rights of the individual."
He is the second Fianna Fail TD to come out in defiance of party leader Micheal Martin, who is supporting a 'Yes' vote.
The stand taken by Mr McGuinness and health spokesman Billy Kelleher will damage Mr Martin -- even though both voted for the proposal in the Dail.

swordofislam

John McGuinness is a Fianna Fail creature of course it wants nothing investigated. So far as John McGuinness and its cronies are concerned the future is a boot stamping on a human face forever.

Doirtybirdy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have asked almost 10 times now in this and another thread.

How does the legal profession benefit from voting no on either of these amendments.

Well the way I see it,simply put,Dáil inquiries taking business away from the courts which means money away from the legal profession.

I'm pretty sure theres no stomach in the Dáil or the imf for paying Dáil inquiry employee's a €1000 a day or the colour of it.
I'm pretty sure too that the legal profession,masters of adversarial debate as they are have 100's of concoctions to entangle this debate ready but they've made a tactical error I think in leaving it to the last minute.

The ordinary voter still thinks barristers are gougers (I don't,but I do think they get paid way too much).

Mcdowell yesterday just nudged me to the yes side again,don't roll him out too much.
I just don't like the fact that at the heart of this is,don't trust the elected people to do their job.
We elect them,we also fire them.
Most of the t.d's there now are very good with the interests of the public at heart.
If that changes it's democracy.

FreudianSlippers

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Well the way I see it,simply put,Dáil inquiries taking business away from the courts which means money away from the legal profession.

I'm pretty sure theres no stomach in the Dáil or the imf for paying Dáil inquiry employee's a €1000 a day or the colour of it.
I'm pretty sure too that the legal profession,masters of adversarial debate as they are have 100's of concoctions to entangle this debate ready but they've made a tactical error I think in leaving it to the last minute.

The ordinary voter still thinks barristers are gougers (I don't,but I do think they get paid way too much).

Mcdowell yesterday just nudged me to the yes side again,don't roll him out too much.
I just don't like the fact that at the heart of this is,don't trust the elected people to do their job.
We elect them,we also fire them.
Most of the t.d's there now are very good with the interests of the public at heart.
If that changes it's democracy.

Only about 2% of barristers are "tribunal barristers". Passing the 30th would actually open up more work for an extra 2% of "inquiry barristers".

More work for a few barrister really.

sensibleken

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Well the way I see it,simply put,Dáil inquiries taking business away from the courts which means money away from the legal profession.

I'm pretty sure theres no stomach in the Dáil or the imf for paying Dáil inquiry employee's a €1000 a day or the colour of it.
I'm pretty sure too that the legal profession,masters of adversarial debate as they are have 100's of concoctions to entangle this debate ready but they've made a tactical error I think in leaving it to the last minute.

The ordinary voter still thinks barristers are gougers (I don't,but I do think they get paid way too much).

Mcdowell yesterday just nudged me to the yes side again,don't roll him out too much.
I just don't like the fact that at the heart of this is,don't trust the elected people to do their job.
We elect them,we also fire them.
Most of the t.d's there now are very good with the interests of the public at heart.
If that changes it's democracy.

But the appeals process is likely to be much more costly than it is at the moment which is where they could make their money.

If a judge is hearing a case he can rule certain evidence inadmissable and thats the end of it for that inquiry. In an oireachtas commitee someone can appeal each piece of evidence to a higher court. thats a hell of a lot of appeals and a hell of a lot of pay checks

walrusgumble

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Well the way I see it,simply put,Dáil inquiries taking business away from the courts which means money away from the legal profession.

I'm pretty sure theres no stomach in the Dáil or the imf for paying Dáil inquiry employee's a €1000 a day or the colour of it.
I'm pretty sure too that the legal profession,masters of adversarial debate as they are have 100's of concoctions to entangle this debate ready but they've made a tactical error I think in leaving it to the last minute.

The ordinary voter still thinks barristers are gougers (I don't,but I do think they get paid way too much).

Mcdowell yesterday just nudged me to the yes side again,don't roll him out too much.
I just don't like the fact that at the heart of this is,don't trust the elected people to do their job.
We elect them,we also fire them.
Most of the t.d's there now are very good with the interests of the public at heart.
If that changes it's democracy.

Taking what business away? The only thing it ceases to end is the Tribunal of Inquiries. A very simple google search or go to the Tribunal website and read the reports, you will find the names of the solicitor and counsels . They tend to be the same names and faces acting.

No one is actually saying the Ordinary Courts should deal with this. They are saying that Politicians should not be the decision makers. This is because they are not independent from Parliament and / or Government or Senand. A judge is and is trained to deal in such problems.

For the rest of the majority, they continue in the Courts as normal.

As some one rightly pointed out, lawyers will still be hired by people who are asked to attend, even if its only for legal advise or preparation of documents. Yes the money will be lowered for that small select, something NOBODY will be sorry about, (bar maybe those who did well) but so long as there is work so what.

An Oireachtas has no powers or rights to adjudicate in this manner. There is a good reason for it, even if many in the Oireachtas have legal training.


Why did the dáil set the fees so high? Why weren't those who clearly did not co-operate or attempted to bring the tribunal into disrepute (eg O'Brien with his advertisements in the papers) refused or deducted their entitlement to legal expenses?


I would be inclined that FG and Labour, so far have not being too bad. But considering their promise of transparency and new politics , why then have they done the same as others and

1. Rushed the Amendment Bills in the Oireachtas without any meaningful discussion
2. Put these Amendments on a day that will clearly be overshadowed by the Presidential Elections (I accept it was for costs reasoning and nothing too sinister but it should not have happened)
3. Put the election on a Thursday, not Friday but Thursday, that it very hard to stomach as being done in good faith.

That is not putting the public interest first nor is it democracy. Its taking people for granted, despite such an attitude being taken at Lisbon 1. They will ****e on that they are barred from campaigning (ala McKenna case), which is nonsense, they just don't want to spend their own party money in doing so

Doirtybirdy

The turn out if these votes were on a separate day would have been less than 20% probably.

Also providing inquiries at the moment via the judiciary is too costly,thats why we don't have enough of them.

@Freudianslippers-try telling the public that only 2% of barristers are tribunal barristers.
The damage is already done,people think they are all paid too much.
It's going to be hard to get sympathy from jonnie public for to stop cheaper inquiries.

As for appealing every bit of evidence to the high court,legislators make laws to stop that.It's commonly known as closing loopholes.
Courts and the legal profession do have to bow to the will of the legislature,it's their job.
They can frustrate that by ruling something unconstitutional of course but sparingly I'd hope,lest the people are asked to close the loophole.

FreudianSlippers

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

The turn out if these votes were on a separate day would have been less than 20% probably.

Also providing inquiries at the moment via the judiciary is too costly,thats why we don't have enough of them.

@Freudianslippers-try telling the public that only 2% of barristers are tribunal barristers.
The damage is already done,people think they are all paid too much.
It's going to be hard to get sympathy from jonnie public for to stop cheaper inquiries.

As for appealing every bit of evidence to the high court,legislators make laws to stop that.It's commonly known as closing loopholes.
Courts and the legal profession do have to bow to the will of the legislature,it's their job.
They can frustrate that by ruling something unconstitutional of course but sparingly I'd hope,lest the people are asked to close the loophole.

I'm trying to find one correct thing in this post... I think it's bold parts and the rest is utter nonsense.

Also shows a completely incorrect view of the constitutional relationship between the judiciary and the legislature.

sensibleken

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

As for appealing every bit of evidence to the high court,legislators make laws to stop that.It's commonly known as closing loopholes.
Courts and the legal profession do have to bow to the will of the legislature,it's their job.
They can frustrate that by ruling something unconstitutional of course but sparingly I'd hope,lest the people are asked to close the loophole.

Its not a loophole. Its essential to due process to allow evidence to be disputed.

It is absolutely not the job of the courts to bow to the will of the legislature. That is almost the opposite of their job. It is their job to follow the letter of the law without influence from the legislature

FreudianSlippers

sensibleken wrote: »

Its not a loophole. Its essential to due process to allow evidence to be disputed.

It is absolutely not the job of the courts to bow to the will of the legislature. That is almost the opposite of their job. It is their job to follow the letter of the law without influence from the legislature

Thanks, my face was firmly planted in my palm.

carveone

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

They can frustrate that by ruling something unconstitutional of course but sparingly I'd hope,lest the people are asked to close the loophole.

You misspelt "noose".

Doirtybirdy

To be honest,if this amendment passes,will you not accept you are in a bubble protected from what the little people think regarding gravy trains?
The perception is out there

It is absolutely not the job of the courts to bow to the will of the legislature. That is almost the opposite of their job. It is their job to follow the letter of the law without influence from the legislature

Sorry but who passes the laws again?
The td's and senators not the judiciary or the solicitors,they are just part of the enforcement coils.
Some may be employed to frame the laws but thats where their influence ends.
It's the people that drive the system,the voters and their elected representatives.
It's them that need convincing.

FreudianSlippers

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

To be honest,if this amendment passes,will you not accept you are in a bubble protected from what the little people think regarding gravy trains?
The perception is out there

Sorry but who passes the laws again?
The td's and senators not the judiciary or the solicitors,they are just part of the enforcement coils.
Some may be employed to frame the laws but thats where their influence ends.
It's the people that drive the system,the voters and their elected representatives.
It's them that need convincing.

That's the point of a system based on the separation of powers.

Legislative drafts the laws.
Executive puts the laws into effect.
Judiciary implements and interprets the laws.


Your point is going around in circles here. You don't seem to have a clear message or even understanding of what you're talking about.

Mycroft H

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

To be honest,if this amendment passes,will you not accept you are in a bubble protected from what the little people think regarding gravy trains?
The perception is out there

Sorry but who passes the laws again?
The td's and senators not the judiciary or the solicitors,they are just part of the enforcement coils.
Some may be employed to frame the laws but thats where their influence ends.
It's the people that drive the system,the voters and their elected representatives.
It's them that need convincing.

Okay, your not too familiar with the legal system here. Its called common law not civil law

carveone

carveone wrote: »

You misspelt "noose".

Crud. I meant to imply that the noose was around our necks; closing it causing our own demise. Overly flippant I guess

Separation of powers is important to prevent tyranny. And the president has some oversight on the legislature. I can't type today... and FreudianSlippers just answered the separation of powers thing.

Doirtybirdy

@ freudianslippers No I think you are sidestepping my point.
Laws can be anything as long as the elected will of the people devise them.
Within 5 years if it's not working out,we can dump the legislators and elect those with a mandate to reverse or change things.
Judges,solicitors etc can do nothing about that ultimate power except sing maybe.

FreudianSlippers

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

@ freudianslippers No I think you are sidestepping my point.
Laws can be anything as long as the elected will of the people devise them.
Within 5 years if it's not working out,we can dump the legislators and elect those with a mandate to reverse or change things.
Judges,solicitors etc can do nothing about that ultimate power except sing maybe.

But that doesn't make sense in regards to an argument as to why the Oireachtas should have unbridled powers in inquiry?

maggy_thatcher

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Laws can be anything as long as the elected will of the people devise them.

The whole point of the constitution is that it provides limits to what those laws can be. This referendum is in place to remove (some of) those limits, handing over more power to the government. Is this a good thing? In my view, no - at least not without control over what they're going to do.

Doirtybirdy

@freudianslippers The argument is,they are the peoples choice.
Do you understand the concept whereby if 2 people in a 3 person house want to watch eastenders and the third wants the discovery channel,it's Eastenders thats watched?


Honestly,I'm only speaking on democracy here,people power.
Nobody including the legal profession has the right to over rule it in my opinion.

To address maggy above,I've no problem with what the people want.They can change the constitution if they want or not.

carveone

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Laws can be anything as long as the elected will of the people devise them.

In principle that sounds like the way it works. In practise it doesn't (shouldn't?) to prevent tyranny of the majority and fad legislation. Over all that lies the Constitution and the protectors of same - the President and the Supreme Court. Which is why changing the Constitution is a serious matter.

Within 5 years if it's not working out,we can dump the legislators and elect those with a mandate to reverse or change things.

This is what Pat Rabbitte said on Sunday and others have said since. I think once things are in the Consititution, they're hard to remove. And who decides when an amendment becomes necessary? This government had various mandates on entering office. They seem to be adopting different ones.

FreudianSlippers

I have no problem with the Oireachtas having a power of inquiry. But here's what needs to change:

1) Define what matters of "public interest" are.
2) Clearly state that general rules of evidence will be followed and allow the courts to become involved at the will of the investigated. As it stands the amendment will “make it impossible for the courts to protect the substantive rights” of people before inquiries.
3) Ensure decisions are capable of being reviewed by the courts.

FreudianSlippers

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

@freudianslippers The argument is,they are the peoples choice.
Do you understand the concept whereby if 2 people in a 3 person house want to watch eastenders and the third wants the discovery channel,it's Eastenders thats watched?


Honestly,I'm only speaking on democracy here,people power.
Nobody including the legal profession has the right to over rule it in my opinion.

To address maggy above,I've no problem with what the people want.They can change the constitution if they want or not.

Then what does any of this have to do with the 30th amendment bill other than it will be voted on?

carveone

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

@freudianslippers The argument is,they are the peoples choice.
Do you understand the concept whereby if 2 people in a 3 person house want to watch eastenders and the third wants the discovery channel,it's Eastenders thats watched?

No offence but I think that's a plebiscite. A democracy is not the same thing.

maggy_thatcher

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

@freudianslippers The argument is,they are the peoples choice.
Do you understand the concept whereby if 2 people in a 3 person house want to watch eastenders and the third wants the discovery channel,it's Eastenders thats watched?

I prefer the definition "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner." Some rights can't be taken away from people, regardless of how many people want it - and, in my view, the right for a person to have a fair trial where due process is followed should be one of those rights.

oscarBravo

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I prefer the definition "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner." Some rights can't be taken away from people, regardless of how many people want it - and, in my view, the right for a person to have a fair trial where due process is followed should be one of those rights.

Which is why that right is - currently - enshrined in the constitution, where the whim of an angry electorate or a corrupt government can't legislate it away.

sensibleken

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

To be honest,if this amendment passes,will you not accept you are in a bubble protected from what the little people think regarding gravy trains?
The perception is out there
.

perception is not the same as reality. and who are these little people you patronise? I dont have a law degree and i come from a working class background but bothered to read about how the system actually works before changing it. you clearly havent

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Sorry but who passes the laws again?
The td's and senators not the judiciary or the solicitors,they are just part of the enforcement coils.
Some may be employed to frame the laws but thats where their influence ends.
It's the people that drive the system,the voters and their elected representatives.
It's them that need convincing.

Yes the oirechtas makes the law. The judges interpret how that law applies to the facts of case. Politicians cannot interfere because then they would be able to get their mates or constituents off criminal charges as they have tried to do in the past.

thats the point of an independant judiciary!

Doirtybirdy

can someone explain this to me then.
As it stands a member of the dail or seanad can say what they like in the houses true or not about anyone and the courts have diddly squat say against this right.

Given with the inquiry based system proposed,they're also likely to be doing that except in a prolonged fashion presenting evidence and cross examining people who are allowed to give their side of the story(I don't believe they won't be).
Then how is this any different apart from being more extensive obviously.

Do you want to remove t.d's unfeathered dail free speech too?

oscarBravo

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Then how is this any different apart from being more extensive obviously.

If a TD says something under Dáil privilege at the moment, it's an expression of opinion. The findings of a committee would be findings of fact, and carry a lot more weight (including, presumably, legal weight).

If, say, a TD accuses someone under Dáil privilege of being corrupt. If I repeat that on here, I'm potentially guilty of defamation. If, on the other hand, a Dáil committee operating under these new rules produces a finding of corruption, I can repeat it because it's no longer an opinion, it's a fact.

Doirtybirdy

Yes it seems to say it can make findings alright but where exactly does it define it's purpose as findings of fact or findings with any specific legal consequences ? as opposed to just a declaration that we the dail think the following and here's why.

What I'm asking here is why is it not just another albeit a collective opinion that we can take or leave just like what one t.d says or a few.
Obviously it would be a more open,transparently arrived at opinion as we'd be looking on in real time as still as it's forming.

You can see my fundamentals on this are borne out of a distaste for some group think distaste/distrust of politics and democracy.

oscarBravo

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

...as opposed to just a declaration that we the dail think the following and here's why.

Why would we need a constitutional amendment to allow TDs to express opinions? They can do that already.

The amendment refers to "findings". I'll defer to those with legal training, but I think that's a term with specific meaning, especially when written into a constitution.

Doirtybirdy

I actually don't know why except that the courts hindered the abbeylara one or something.
Maybe Mike mcdowell will set me straight in a few moments on primetime <shudder>

Anyway if we all agreed on everything life would be boring