Referendum

paul71

I am not sure if the wording of the 2 referendum has been posted in another thread, so here they are.

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.




Referendum on inquiries by the Oireachtas



This referendum proposes to give the Houses of the Oireachtas (the Dáil and Seanad) express power to conduct inquiries into matters of general public importance and, in doing so, to make findings of fact about any person’s conduct.
At present, the Constitution does not give power to the Houses of the Oireachtas to conduct such inquiries. The proposed change to the Constitution would mean that
1.The Dáil and the Seanad, either separately or together, would have the power to conduct an inquiry into any matter that either or both consider to be a matter of general public importance. Legislation would be required to be introduced to set out the details of how such inquiries would take place.2.When conducting any such inquiry, either or both Houses would have the power to inquire into the conduct of any person and the power to make relevant findings about that person’s conduct.3.The Dáil and/or the Seanad would have the power to determine the appropriate balance between the rights of people involved in any such inquiry and the requirements of the public interest. When doing so, they would be obliged to have regard to the principles of fair procedures. These principles have been established by the Constitution and by the Courts.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.




Website for referendum.

http://www.referendum2011.ie/

Drumpot

I think the government convinced people of the kind of satisfaction they would get from voting yes on judges pay, which meant people didn't bother paying attention to the details or potential ramifications.

There were other ways that judges pay could of been cut but the gov offered it In a manner whereby they could change it if they thought it was in publics interest. Funny how people don't trust the gov with extra powers on one thing but are delighted that giving them the powers to make populist decisions against the judges is fine.

Gives a good incite into why we have been duped as an electorate by so many chancers.

It also highlights why many superior people don't get into politics and we are stuck with the "best of a bad bunch" when voting. What's the point if you need to pander and promise ridiculous things to get to a position of power or get something passed.

This wasn't simply about cutting judges pay, it was about giving the government control over judges pay. For a country that has, for good reason, little faith in their government, we certainly closed our eyes in the interest of populist satisfaction on this one.