Abbeylara referendum

oscarBravo

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

I actually don't know why except that the courts hindered the abbeylara one or something.

Colum Kenny wrote an interesting op-ed piece on the subject nearly ten years ago:

The sub-committee intended to make extremely serious judgments about those involved and to express a view on whether or not Carthy's death was avoidable. It felt free to report a finding of unlawful killing by a particular garda or gardaí.

The committee called witnesses to whom it intended to deny the right of cross-examination which is normal in any court.

[...]

The DIRT inquiry, chaired by Jim Mitchell TD, is central to understanding political anger at the recent High Court judgment. The DIRT inquiry was a high-profile event, televised daily on TG4, which made deputies look good. Bankers were cast as the villains, and these were publicly tongue-whipped. It was great entertainment and ended quickly.

The DIRT inquiry was a circus.

[...]

...the High Court uncovered a remarkable trail of inefficiency and error at the Oireachtas. On one occasion the Abbeylara committee misrepresented its terms of reference to another committee, which in turn acted on a resolution that had not been passed. Certain terms of reference of the inquiry even went missing for months and were only produced in court after some delay. Such inefficiencies on the part of the Oireachtas do not augur well for the passing or adequate funding of effective measures to prevent future malpractice...

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Anyway if we all agreed on everything life would be boring

Ain't that the truth

walshb

The fact that eight Attorney's General unanimously came out against the amendment tells me something is not right; so I will vote for the amendment.

oscarBravo

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

Maybe Mike mcdowell will set me straight in a few moments on primetime...

Yeah, that wasn't a terribly enlightening debate.

walshb wrote: »

The fact that eight Attorney's General unanimously came out against the amendment tells me something is not right; so I will vote for the amendment.

I guess it's less effort than thinking rationally about the topic.

walshb

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess it's less effort than thinking rationally about the topic.

Yes, sometimes it's just right in front of your nose.

oscarBravo

walshb wrote: »

Yes, sometimes it's just right in front of your nose.

Like I said.

FreudianSlippers

walshb wrote: »

Yes, sometimes it's just right in front of your nose.

Especially when there's nothing behind your nose.

carveone

Doirtybirdy wrote: »

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?

If the amendment went the way you are phrasing it, then I wouldn't have such an issue with it. I don't want to put words in others mouths, given that I can't remember everything that everyone said in this thread. However other here wouldn't have a problem with the Oireachtas having powers of enquiry in the way you are describing.

The problem is that the amendment steps over the line. It makes "findings" (as oscarBravo says I think that word has a specific meaning) while having the ability to determine *any* of your rights (ie: set them aside). If they said "you have no right to representation", then we could mull it more deeply but saying "Hey, we can tap your phones, or deny you the right to silence, or the right to privacy *in the public interest*" and there's nothing you can do about it scares people.

Given the things Haughey was doing in office, it scares me anyway

carveone

walshb wrote: »

The fact that eight Attorney's General unanimously came out against the amendment tells me something is not right; so I will vote for the amendment.

Well, big mean Carl is for the amendment so I'll vote against it. So nyah

Big Mean Carl:

oscarBravo

Interestingly, Shatter was on the original Abbeylara committee - was he even the chair? can't remember - and was very annoyed that the real courts interfered in the kangaroo court they were running at the time. Looks like he has taken his opportunity to put the judiciary back in its place.

carveone

To add to my post rather than edit it. It's this bit we (can I say we?) have trouble with:

http://www.referendum2011.ie/your-decision/referendum-on-inquiries-by-the-oireachtas/balance-of-rights-and-fair-procedures

The referendum commission practically says that it's an issue. "it would be for the House or Houses to decide how those rights would be applied in particular cases". And then they list main rights like "The right to an unbiased hearing –for example, a decision-maker cannot have a personal interest in the subject-matter of the inquiry".

So the Oireactas could legally hold a hearing where the decision is made by someone with a personal interest in the subject matter. Great.

swordofislam

carveone wrote: »

So the Oireactas could legally hold a hearing where the decision is made by someone with a personal interest in the subject matter. Great.

Don't judges do that all the time? When's the last time you heard of an Irish judge recusing himself?

You people seem to believe that Irish judges are honest Solomons whereas they are the scum of the earth.

FreudianSlippers

swordofislam wrote: »

Don't judges do that all the time? When's the last time you heard of an Irish judge recusing himself?

You people seem to believe that Irish judges are honest Solomons whereas they are the scum of the earth.

It happens on a daily basis. Hell, it happened in two cases I was personally in last week alone.

limklad

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

I agree.

Tribunal Inquires are fast becoming a thing of the Past with or without a Referendum, because of the Commission for Inquiries that Michael McDowell setup as a cheaper alternatives to Tribunals to properly investigate Matter of Public Importance.

Dail Inquires of this nature are just more money for Politicians with extra excuse for more money for attending more Dail Buisness and EXPENSES to draw. They will be far more Dail Inquires than they ever were Tribunals and Loads of ding dong Matters will becomes "Matter of Public Importance" (depending on the government of the day) rather than have proper State bodies who we (Tax Payers) pay salaries for and train to properly investigate and press charges for Breaches of Regulations/Law.

So the Money now goes for "Non Existence future Tribunal Lawyers to TD's Pockets" for New Inquires instead of a proper Inquires of actual Fact that the Commission of Inquires setup can achieve rather than the TD's version of FACT. We Got many FACTS from TD's over the years who are not trained Investigators. The Economy is facing a Soft Landing which was declared FACT. I still waiting for that Soft Landing. Gift Grub this morning had the perfect Analogy, "Cronies investigating Cronies". For The FACTS of Findings of Dail Inquires cannot give Justice unlike the Gardai Investigations and convictions in the Courts. Every one of us like to see people Jail for the Dismissal oversight of the Banks. We will never see Justice with the outcomes of any Dail Inquires with the Amendment no matter how much we want to.

TD's and Senators are Legislators looking towards their next Election, not Trained Investigators who can properly do their Job.

M007

I for one will be voting No on this one. We need to keep the three pillars of the seperation of powers distinct.

Shatter is on an ego trip trying to pushed this through without a debate. The Dail Inquiries aren't limited to sitting TD's or Civil Servants they could potential put an ordinary citizen on "trial" without legal protections and coming to a find of "fact" - honestly would be be happy if you were being judged by Lowry, Ming or even Mick Wallace!

NO NO NO

maggy_thatcher

M007 wrote: »

I for one will be voting No on this one. We need to keep the three pillars of the seperation of powers distinct.

Ireland doesn't have three pillars, it only has two. There is no separation between the legislative branch and the executive branch - that's how come the Ministers are all TDs. This (imho) is bad, but changing that would be tricky. In a true separated government, the executive branch would be made up of people experienced in that sector, and would not (necessarily) be party politicians.

Scofflaw

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Ireland doesn't have three pillars, it only has two. There is no separation between the legislative branch and the executive branch - that's how come the Ministers are all TDs. This (imho) is bad, but changing that would be tricky. In a true separated government, the executive branch would be made up of people experienced in that sector, and would not (necessarily) be party politicians.

...but then we'd have people banging on about how the Ministers were unelected and unaccountable, as they do for the EU Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Ireland doesn't have three pillars, it only has two. There is no separation between the legislative branch and the executive branch - that's how come the Ministers are all TDs. This (imho) is bad, but changing that would be tricky. In a true separated government, the executive branch would be made up of people experienced in that sector, and would not (necessarily) be party politicians.

It would really only involve giving the President more powers IMO. With all this talk about a new constitution for 2016, it may not be a bad idea to overhaul the legislative and executive branches entirely.

maggy_thatcher

Scofflaw wrote: »

...but then we'd have people banging on about how the Ministers were unelected and unaccountable, as they do for the EU Commission.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well they could be elected by the legislative branch...similar to how in the US government, the Senate can block appointments on the executive branch.

Either way, that's a topic for a different thread I think. At the moment we have a two-branch government, and that's here to stay for the foreseeable future.

M007

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Ireland doesn't have three pillars, it only has two. There is no separation between the legislative branch and the executive branch - that's how come the Ministers are all TDs. This (imho) is bad, but changing that would be tricky. In a true separated government, the executive branch would be made up of people experienced in that sector, and would not (necessarily) be party politicians.

Sorry there are clearly three branches.

The Executive is the Government.

The Legislature - is the Dail & Seanad

The Judiciary - the Courts.

Now for a more detailed explaination - taken from courts.ie

"The Separation of Powers

The Constitution provides for a tripartite separation of powers: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. This ensures that no one organ of State may interfere with the functions ascribed to the other two. Articles 12 to 14 set out the functions of the President of Ireland, who is the Head of State. The powers vested in the President are largely ceremonial although several discretionary powers are also provided for under the terms of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the separation of powers the Courts exercise a constitutional function in reviewing the constitutionality and legality of actions of the other organs of State.

(i) The Legislature

As mandated by the Constitution, the Oireachtas consists of a bicameral chamber and the President of Ireland. The two Houses of the Oireachtas are Seanad Éireann (the Senate) and Dáil Éireann (the chamber of deputies). While Article 15 of the Constitution vests sole law-making power in the Oireachtas, this power is not unfettered as the Oireachtas is precluded from enacting legislation that is repugnant to the terms of the Constitution. Legislation that retrospectively creates an offence or which would provide for the imposition of the death penalty is similarly forbidden. Legislation may be initiated in either of the two Houses, with the exception of Money Bills and Bills to amend the Constitution which may only be introduced in Dáil Éireann. A Bill goes through various stages in both Houses before being sent to the President of Ireland for her signature, whereupon the Bill becomes an Act of the Oireachtas.

(ii) The Executive

The Executive is the Government of Ireland and is provided for in Article 28 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the Government must consist of no fewer than 7, and no more than 15 members and includes the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) who is the head of the Executive and his next-in-command, the Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister).

(iii) The Judiciary

Articles 34 to 38 of the Constitution provide for the system of courts in Ireland and the trial of offences. Article 34 expressly states that "Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by Judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution". Provision is made in Article 35 for the appointment and tenure of members of the Irish judiciary, who, under the terms of the Article "shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and subject only to this Constitution and the law." Under Article 35.4.4 of the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court and the High Court can be removed from office solely by a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas for stated misbehaviour or incapacity. The tenure of Circuit and District Judges is similarly protected by statute. In addition, under Article 35.4.5 of the Constitution the remuneration of a judge cannot be reduced during his or her term of office.

johnnyskeleton

walshb wrote: »

The fact that eight Attorney's General unanimously came out against the amendment tells me something is not right; so I will vote for the amendment.

The immigrants rights network has called for a yes vote though.

/walshb's head explodes from contradictory prejudices.

limklad

oscarBravo wrote: »

Colum Kenny wrote an interesting op-ed piece on the subject nearly ten years ago:

Ain't that the truth

Well Spotted. I forgotten about that Article.

maggy_thatcher

M007 wrote: »

The division of branches is into an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary.

The Executive is the Government.

The Legislature - is the Dail & Seanad

The Judiciary - the Courts.

Yes - but the Executive is a sub-set of the Legislature (e.g. Enda Kenny is both head of the Executive Branch, and a TD) -- therefore it's a very weak separation of powers. If you look at the US system, the President is head of the Executive Branch, but effectively the Speaker of the House is head of the Legislature.

Scofflaw

That's the theory, but in practice the fact that in Ireland the executive controls the legislature collapses two of those branches into one. There has been no recent case where the legislature acted independently of the executive, so the separation between them is purely theoretical.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the theory, but in practice the fact that the executive controls the legislature collapses two of those branches into one. There has been no recent case where the legislature acted independently of the executive, so the separation between them is purely theoretical.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It could be argued that the executive/legislative separation is theoretical, but the executive/legislative against the judicial is fairly clear cut.

dunphy3

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the theory, but in practice the fact that the executive controls the legislature collapses two of those branches into one. There has been no recent case where the legislature acted independently of the executive, so the separation between them is purely theoretical.

cordially,
Scofflaw

have changed my mind am now voting in favour,why? just heard suds on radio ,any change the former head of goldman sacks is in favour off i for one am voting against.

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It could be argued that the executive/legislative separation is theoretical, but the executive/legislative against the judicial is fairly clear cut.

True - and that separation assumes even greater importance in Ireland because of the weak separation of the other two.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

dunphy3 wrote: »

have changed my mind am now voting in favour,why? just heard suds on radio ,any change the former head of goldman sacks is in favour off i for one am voting against.

Tell you what - name a politician you don't like...

amused,
Scofflaw

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It could be argued that the executive/legislative separation is theoretical, but the executive/legislative against the judicial is fairly clear cut.

Except that the judiciary are themselves nominated by the executive/legislative.

limklad

oscarBravo wrote: »

Interestingly, Shatter was on the original Abbeylara committee - was he even the chair? can't remember - and was very annoyed that the real courts interfered in the kangaroo court they were running at the time. Looks like he has taken his opportunity to put the judiciary back in its place.

No Seán Ardagh was Chairman at the time.

The committee had seven members: Seán Ardagh, T.D. (FF) (Chair); Marian McGuinness, T.D. (FF); John McGuinness, T.D. (FF); Alan Shatter, T.D. (FG); Monica Barnes, T.D. (FG); Brendan Howlin, T.D. (Lab) and Senator Denis Donovan (FF).

The Big Supporter of the Referendum was on Prime Time debate last night was Brendan Howlin T.D. .
Alan Shatter T.D. who was also a member of that Same Committee, The Same Committee which Abuse their Term of Reference of that Inquiry.

They Shifted the Goal Posts by abusing the Rights of Self Defence as proven by the High Court.

The Supreme Court had ruled this committee unconstitutional was that the Oireachtas has no explicit, implicit or inherent power to conduct an inquiry which could lead "to adverse findings of fact and conclusions (including a finding of unlawful killing) as to the personal culpability of an individual not a member of the Oireachtas so as to impugn their good name is ultra vires in that the holding of such an inquiry is not within the inherent powers of the Oireachtas"

I wonder is their Ego still bruising after that Correct and fair Ruling of the High and Supreme Court of the Abuses of Rights of Individuals by members of that Committee. 10 Years and they still failed to learn.

Yet Will People blindly vote their Rights of proper self defence away?

limklad

Wikipeadia wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Inquiry#List_of_Irish_public_inquiries


The following is a list:[5]

• 1926: Retail prices of articles in general consumption
• 1926: Ports and Harbours
• 1928: Shooting of Timothy Coughlin
• 1929: Whether mixture of maize meal and maize products with home-grown cereals would be in the national interest
• 1930: Marketing of butter
• 1933: Pig production
• 1934: Grading etc. of Fruit and Vegetables
• 1935: Town Tenants
• 1936: Pearse Street Fire
• 1938: Public Transport
• 1943: Fire at St. Josephs Orphanage, Cavan
• 1944: Dealings in Great Southern Railway Stocks between 1 January 1943 and 18 November 1943
• 1946: Allegations concerning Parliamentary SecretaryI][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I
• 1947: Disposal of Distillery of John Locke and Co. Ltd., Kilbeggan
• 1957: Cross Channel Freight Rates
• 1967: Death of Liam O'Mahony in Garda custody
• 1969: "Seven Days" Television programme on illegal moneylending
• 1975: Allegations made by two Members in the Dáil against the Minister For Local Government
• 1979: Costello Inquiry into the Whiddy Island Disaster
• 1981: Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster
• 1984: The Kerry Babies Tribunal to determine the cause of death/connection between the bodies of two babies found within a short period of time in County Kerry
• 1991: Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry, chaired by Mr Justice Liam Hamilton,[6] the "Beef Tribunal"
• 1997: Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Politicians by Ben Dunne – the McCracken Tribunal.
• 1997–2011: Tribunal of Inquiry (Dunnes Payments) (follow-up), the Moriarty Tribunal
• 1997–ongoing: Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, now known as The Mahon Tribunal
• 1996-99: Lindsay Tribunal to investigate the infection of haemophiliacs with HIV and Hepatitis C from contaminated blood products.
• 2002–2006: Tribunal of Inquiry into the siege and shooting of John Carthy in Abbeylara, County Longford, the Barr Tribunal
• 2002–ongoing: Tribunal of Inquiry into complaints concerning some Gardaí of the Donegal Division, the Morris Tribunal
• 2005–ongoing: Commission of Investigation: Dublin and Monaghan Bombings 1974 (Sole Member: Patrick MacEntee SC QC)
• 2005: the Travers Report into overcharging of fees at some nursing homes. Between refundable fees and legal costs the Tribunal's findings would cost €500 million.[7][8]
• 2005: the Ferns Report on clerical sexual abuse in the Irish Catholic Diocese of Ferns, County Wexford
• 2005- : the Smithwick Tribunal, investigating whether Irish officials assisted in the deaths of two RUC officers in 1989[9]
• 2008: the Baker-Tilly Report into procurement practices at Córas Iompair Éireann[10]
• 2000–2009 The Ryan Report (CICA) on child abuse at religiously-run institutions
• 2006–2009: The Murphy Report on the Sexual abuse scandal in Dublin archdiocese

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Taoiseach_and_Government/Government_Legislation_Programme/Tribunals_of_Inquiry/

There was Plenty of Tribunals well before AbbeyLara and cheaper Commission of Inquiries setup by Micheal McDowell (Former Minister of Justice) .

FreudianSlippers

An excellent post on this in Legal Discussion today.

Deleted User wrote: »

The 30th Amendment to the Constitution is nicknamed the Abbeylara Amendment. If you want an argument against it here it is. Let's look at what the Abbeylara Committee actually did.

1. They misled the Compellability Committee about its terms of reference in order to be allowed compel witnesses. They only altered their terms of reference after they had misled the Compellability Committee into thinking they had already done so.

2. They altered their terms of reference at will to, among other things, not allow witnesses to be cross-examined. A denial of a fundamental right of fair procedures in any inquiry, judicial or otherwise.

3. They did not tell the people into whom they were inquiring how they were changing their own terms of reference. In fact they didn't even tell the High Court what they had done until 3 days into the High Court hearing. To quote from the actual decision of the High Court:

President of the High Court wrote:

As already noted, the full and true picture concerning the various amendments that had been made and steps taken did not emerge until this hearing was under way for a number of days. Only then were the now admitted imperfections, lacunae and errors made apparent to the applicants and this court.

4. The Committee considered, during its deliberations, that anyone trying to put into place, to quote the Chairman Sean Ardagh, the legal "nitty gritties" was simply delaying the work of the committee.

Sean Ardagh TD, Chairman of Abbeylara Committee wrote:

Thank you Mr Rogers. I must say that your legal submission, which I respect, I feel at this point is based on spurious, as you say, nitty gritty legalities. I think that it is...[he is cut off here]

The legal "nitty-gritties" that were being challenged was the right of the accused to ask his accusers questions and challenge them on their evidence: an absolutely fundamental right of the accused in any civilised society. The response of Sean Ardagh was as follows:

Sean Ardagh wrote:

I will certainly withdraw the word 'spurious'. I ask you to accept that this is an Oireachtas Committee and I think that you are aware, as all of the people in this country are aware, that we have the full confidence, good will and support of all of the Oireachtas. This attempt to actually put all of the legalities into place is leading to frustration and trying to put a spanner in the works of the good work that this committee is now proceeding with.

The word "spurious", which was used by 2 other committee members the day before, essentially implied that making sure that an accused was being inquired into with the proper protections of the law was something that should not be done and that the accused should simply allow the Committee to do as it pleased. The 2 other committee members that had made similar remarks were Brendan Howlin TD and Alan Shatter TD. Brendan Howlin TD is the sponsor of the Bill to amend and Alan Shatter is its most vociferous advocate.

To quote President Morris:

President of the High Court Morris wrote:

Whatever about the way in which parliament regulates its own members, a citizen cannot be subjected to a parliamentary process unless it is lawful, within jurisdiction and is fair. The adjudication of whether those criteria had been met is a matter for this court and, contrary in particular to the submissions made by Deputy Shatter, is not a matter to be determined by parliament or by any committee thereof.

It appears that Deputy Shatter does not believe that it should be for the Court to adjudicate on whether or not fair procedures have been adhered to. Certainly that was his position 10 years ago. How then can we believe him when he says all persons brought before these committees will have the right to go to the High Court for determination of these matters?

Awww shucks Freud. Appreciated.

Duke Leonal Felmet

There is a good article by VB on why the idea of parliamentary inquires is good, our current system guarantees that it will be dominated by government.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2011/1026/1224306495919.html

oscarBravo

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2011/1026/1224306495919.html

404.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

404.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1026/1224306495919.html

cordially,
Scofflaw

walrusgumble

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It would really only involve giving the President more powers IMO. With all this talk about a new constitution for 2016, it may not be a bad idea to overhaul the legislative and executive branches entirely.

Yeah, step one, insist on (a) Proper debating time for legislation (b) and actually consider any Constitutionalism Implications (c) allow Parliament more time on legislation (d) end this party v party nonsense when a private member bill is put to the floor, it might actually be very good (eg Shatter's family law legislation in the early 1990's)

Give the Senand a more meaningful role. (there is no point saying, party members should not be elected because we are too small a country, and you should never dictate to the voter who they can vote for)

FreudianSlippers

walrusgumble wrote: »

Yeah, step one, insist on (a) Proper debating time for legislation (b) and actually consider any Constitutionalism Implications (c) allow Parliament more time on legislation (d) end this party v party nonsense when a private member bill is put to the floor, it might actually be very good (eg Shatter's family law legislation in the early 1990's)

Give the Senand a more meaningful role. (there is no point saying, party members should not be elected because we are too small a country, and you should never dictate to the voter who they can vote for)

Agreed, we need a proper bicameral legislature and a proper executive that doesn't include members of the legislature.

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Agreed, we need a proper bicameral legislature and a proper executive that doesn't include members of the legislature.

We also need the German stipulation about members of Parliament, that they shall vote in accordance with their conscience only (no whip system).

Darned Germans, getting things right. Do you think we could ask them to run the country for a while...oh, wait...

cordially,
Scofflaw

dunphy3

Scofflaw wrote: »

Tell you what - name a politician you don't like...

amused,
Scofflaw

please????????? dont get me started,i have work in the morning.

Scofflaw

dunphy3 wrote: »

please????????? dont get me started,i have work in the morning.

And they're all saying you should vote Yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw