Eight former attorneys general oppose constitutional amendments

Boulevardier

Responding to the criticisms, Mr Shatter said that what they had said had no credibility.
He said some of those who had signed the statement "ould themselves have shown greater wisdom had they not engaged in this particular issue because of matters in which they had previously been involved, which were of relevance either to the economic collapse of the state or to the banking difficulties which the state had experienced."
Mr Shatter said there were individuals who had signed the document who would have been involved in decision-making processes with regard either to government economic policy or to the giving of legal advice.
He also noted that one individual was chairman of AIB at a time when AIB was lending enormous sums of money to developers in very unwise circumstances and the decision-making processes in AIB were what led to that bank's enormous difficulties and the huge burden that has fallen on the state, to ensure that bank continues in operation.
He said a lot of legal experts had an opposite view about the referendums to that of the eight signatories.
He said, sadly there was a vested interest, because substantial fees had been earned by the legal profession and members of the bar library through the continuation of the tribunal system., which had largely been a disaster - going on too long, and costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of euro.
He also said that on occasion the courts had found that tribunals had not applied proper procedures.
He said there was no reason to believe that our parliament was incapable of holding proper inquiries, which protected people and their rights as happened in parliaments around the world.
He also said that members of the Oireachtas were accountable to the electorate, and should they abuse their powers, the electorate would have their say in a serious way. He said there was an elaborate series of protections in place so there was no reason of any description for the hysterical criticisms that had been voiced to be taken seriously"

I think Shatter's points are very good ones.

carveone

gizmo555 wrote: »

I know it's a crowded field, but if there's a more arrogant and self-important person in Irish politics I've yet to come across him or her.

Peadar Toibin* (SF) came across pretty arrogant on Tonight in Politics last night. With Pat Rabitte essentially saying (paraphrasing from memory): "Let's try it and see how it goes".

In essence any criticism is being countered by the government with a discussion on the surrounding legislation and framework. Which can be changed by the, er, government.

I think the legislative process has its weaknesses, and I'd definately like to see considerable reform in this area. But I think the government is showing utter contempt for the process and total disdain of the electorate. I don't trust lawyers much and I trust politicians far less.


*Peadar Tóibín, TD elected Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas Committee on Investigations, Oversight and Petitions:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/pressreleases/name-2319-en.html

gizmo555

Boulevardier wrote: »

Responding to the criticisms, Mr Shatter said that what they had said had no credibility.
He said some of those who had signed the statement "ould themselves have shown greater wisdom had they not engaged in this particular issue because of matters in which they had previously been involved, which were of relevance either to the economic collapse of the state or to the banking difficulties which the state had experienced."
Mr Shatter said there were individuals who had signed the document who would have been involved in decision-making processes with regard either to government economic policy or to the giving of legal advice.
He also noted that one individual was chairman of AIB at a time when AIB was lending enormous sums of money to developers in very unwise circumstances and the decision-making processes in AIB were what led to that bank's enormous difficulties and the huge burden that has fallen on the state, to ensure that bank continues in operation.
He said a lot of legal experts had an opposite view about the referendums to that of the eight signatories.
He said, sadly there was a vested interest, because substantial fees had been earned by the legal profession and members of the bar library through the continuation of the tribunal system., which had largely been a disaster - going on too long, and costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of euro.
He also said that on occasion the courts had found that tribunals had not applied proper procedures.
He said there was no reason to believe that our parliament was incapable of holding proper inquiries, which protected people and their rights as happened in parliaments around the world.
He also said that members of the Oireachtas were accountable to the electorate, and should they abuse their powers, the electorate would have their say in a serious way. He said there was an elaborate series of protections in place so there was no reason of any description for the hysterical criticisms that had been voiced to be taken seriously"

I think Shatter's points are very good ones.

What this amounts to is he attacked the messengers, not the message, with a supplementary "trust us, we won't abuse these powers, or if we do you can punish us at the ballot box".

So the only redress an individual citizen who has had his rights trampled on has, is that his fellow citizens might not re-elect the politicans concerned.

I think we should scrap the two proposed amendments and do a cut & paste of article 30 of the Massachussetts constitution:

In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.

meditraitor

carveone wrote: »

. I don't trust lawyers much and I trust politicians far less.

Here lies the problem, 8 politically appointed lawyers against a whole bunch of incompetant politicians.

Why would anyone believe either bunch,

As for the amendments

1. Judges' Remuneration,

Existing text:The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.



Proposed text The remuneration of judges shall not be reduced during their continuance in office save in accordance with this section.

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.

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

Nothing amiss here unless of course your a judge, former judge or former attorney general.

Perfectly simple: Yes



2. Oireachtas Inquiries,

Existing text
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.

Proposed inserted text
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.

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.

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.

You must be joking, a comprehensive NO.

Boulevardier

I'm really sorry that so many people are so worried about politicians that they are prepared to throw away the only chance we will have this decade to get to the bottom of how we were shafted by the banks and other vested interests.

If this amendment goes down, any prospect of Dail enquiries is over for the forseeable. That is the reality.

meditraitor

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm really sorry that so many people are so worried about politicians that they are prepared to throw away the only chance we will have this decade to get to the bottom of how we were shafted by the banks and other vested interests.
If this amendment goes down, any prospect of Dail enquiries is over for the forseeable. That is the reality.

Why cant the current legal system deal with this? Maybe thats another big issue/

oscarBravo

Boulevardier wrote: »

He also said that on occasion the courts had found that tribunals had not applied proper procedures.
He said there was no reason to believe that our parliament was incapable of holding proper inquiries...

That's an interesting claim. He's basically saying that there is no possibility of the Oireachtas - which consists of elected politicians who, by their very definition, have axes to grind - couldn't possibly make the mistake of not applying proper procedures. He's saying that we can trust the Oireachtas in a way that we can't trust the legal system.

He also said that members of the Oireachtas were accountable to the electorate, and should they abuse their powers, the electorate would have their say in a serious way.

It's not too much of a stretch to read into this that he's saying that politicians are more accountable than the courts, and so the legislature is better placed to hold inquiries than the judiciary.

He said there was an elaborate series of protections in place...

Not in the proposed amendment, there ain't.

...so there was no reason of any description for the hysterical criticisms that had been voiced to be taken seriously"

"Trust me, I'm a politician. Have we ever lied to you?"

Talk about throwing the separation of powers issue into stark relief.

meditraitor wrote: »

Here lies the problem, 8 politically appointed lawyers against a whole bunch of incompetant politicians.

Why would anyone believe either bunch

We could always, I dunno, examine their arguments on their merits and make up our own minds. Slightly harder work than just leaping on a populist bandwagon, I know, but I would have thought it the least we could do when amending the constitution.

Nothing amiss here unless of course your a judge, former judge or former attorney general.

Or, unless you care about the separation of powers.

I mean, seriously: there have been many voices raised in public commentary in opposition to this amendment. Many of those voices (including mine) are not those of members or former members of the legal profession or the judiciary. So there's something else going on. Doesn't that at least deserve consideration?

meditraitor

oscarBravo wrote: »

We could always, I dunno, examine their arguments on their merits and make up our own minds. Slightly harder work than just leaping on a populist bandwagon, I know, but I would have thought it the least we could do when amending the constitution. Or, unless you care about the separation of powers.

I mean, seriously: there have been many voices raised in public commentary in opposition to this amendment. Many of those voices (including mine) are not those of members or former members of the legal profession or the judiciary. So there's something else going on. Doesn't that at least deserve consideration?

Please enlighten us on what exactly is going on? How can anyone consider someone else's spidey sense?

Its simple, Judges are paid too much, the constitution stops any reduction in pay. to change the constitution a referendum must be held.

The changes are clear,

Existing text
The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.


Proposed text
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.

Were is the bogey man in this?

oscarBravo

meditraitor wrote: »

Its simple, Judges are paid too much, the constitution stops any reduction in pay. to change the constitution a referendum must be held.

So far, so good. To this point, you're in complete agreement with pretty much everyone who opposes this amendment.

The changes are clear...

This is where we start to differ. If the changes were clear, there wouldn't be a problem.

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.

Persons belonging to particular class? What class? Not clear.

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.

What classes of persons paid out of public money? Politicians? Teachers? Sub-contractors to construction firms paid by the state to build roads? Social welfare recipients? Not clear.

In the public interest? Defined by whom? Not clear.

Proportionate reductions? What proportion? A tenth? Double? Not clear.

There's nothing clear about this amendment. It introduces a muddiness into that section of the constitution which undermines the entire point of having that section there in the first place - the separation of powers, and ensuring that the government can't exert undue influence on the judiciary.

gizmo555

As someone pointed out on last week's Frontline, there is also no time limit within which the pay reduction to the unnamed class of persons must be passed on to judges. In other words, once an applicable pay cut has happened, it can be held as a threat over the judges' heads indefinitely, for years or even decades.

Wildlife Actor

Eight Attorneys General

.... I like that.

gizmo555

gizmo555 wrote: »

As someone pointed out on last week's Frontline, there is also no time limit within which the pay reduction to the unnamed class of persons must be passed on to judges. In other words, once an applicable pay cut has happened, it can be held as a threat over the judges' heads indefinitely, for years or even decades.

It occurs to me that it also doesn't say that if the pay of the teachers, road builders, gardai, or whoever is subsequently increased, the judges pay must likewise be increased.

A future government could cut teachers' pay on Monday, judges' pay on Tuesday, and reverse the teachers' pay cut on Wednesday while still staying in line with this amendment.

It's an absolute dog's dinner of a law . .

RandomName2

Underpants Gnomes Logic:

Increase politicians' powers.
???
Profit!

Or altenatively: blah blah blah bankers - vote yes.

Surely the logical thing vis a vis judges' pay is just to freeze it and allow inflation take its natural course. It's not like judges' pay cuts are going to make that much of a difference to the economy. There are a whole heap of public servants earning vastly too much - and there are no constitutional barriers preventing their wages being cut.

swordofislam

RandomName2 wrote: »

Surely the logical thing vis a vis judges' pay is just to freeze it and allow inflation take its natural course.

Or recognise that unless implemented by an independent body both pay cuts and pay rises for judges are inappropriate. The pay scales set by the courts of justice act 1922 should be restored and all monies paid to judges in excess of those amounts should be reclaimed from judges or from their estates or from the estates of the beneficiaries of their estates or from the estates of the beneficiaries of the beneficiaries of their estates etc.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Turnabout is fair play.

jimmycrackcorm

Won't the ex AGs be amongst the premier choices as barristers for lucrative tribunals?

oscarBravo

swordofislam wrote: »

Or recognise that unless implemented by an independent body both pay cuts and pay rises for judges are inappropriate.

Can you point to the wording in the proposed referendum that addresses the problem of judges' pay rises, or establishes such an independent body?

johnnyskeleton

Boulevardier wrote: »

He also said that members of the Oireachtas were accountable to the electorate, and should they abuse their powers, the electorate would have their say in a serious way. He said there was an elaborate series of protections in place so there was no reason of any description for the hysterical criticisms that had been voiced to be taken seriously"

I think Shatter's points are very good ones.

Those latter two seem to be mutually contradictory. If the safeguard is that they are accountable to the electorate, then why the elaborate protections?

There are in fact no protections in this amendment. Indeed, it could be said to be actually doing away with the standard protections altogether.

The argument about accountable to the electorate is ludicrous.

Supposing Joe Soap TD is the chairman of an inquiry into Hitler Bin Churchill, the evil puppy killer who escaped the justice of the courts. Supposing Hitler Bin Churchill was not convicted in the courts because he is actually innocent, and the people of Ireland have just rushed to condemn him anyway because of his unfortunate name. Joe is therefore in a position where if he does what is right i.e. find him innocent, he will lose votes from his local constituency. If he ignores what is right and finds him guilty, he will gain votes in his constituency.

Thus, the incentive for politicians is not to find the facts as they are, but the facts which suit the particular popular mood at any given time.

That a lawyer could seriously suggest that accountability to the electorate will make for an impartial judge is beyond belief.

swordofislam

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you point to the wording in the proposed referendum that addresses the problem of judges' pay rises, or establishes such an independent body?

I am not seeking such a body. I would rather win what can be won today by cutting judicial pay (and boy are they going to cut it hee hee hee ) than seek to establish a body that has never been called for before.

As I say I would be happy to have all juidicial pay reset to 1922 levels (and all monies in excess of that repaid) if this referendum falls.

Were you an agitator for such a body before this referendum and if not why not and what's changed?

swordofislam

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Thus, the incentive for politicians is not to find the facts as they are, but the facts which suit the particular popular mood at any given time.

The same surely applies to judges who are after all political appointees who owe their positions to good breeding, good schools and good dinners.

PeterIanStaker

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm really sorry that so many people are so worried about politicians that they are prepared to throw away the only chance we will have this decade to get to the bottom of how we were shafted by the banks and other vested interests.

If this amendment goes down, any prospect of Dail enquiries is over for the forseeable. That is the reality.

The cynic in me believes the politicians won't investigate the banks; we can almost write off any chance to bring the crooked bankers to task.

Now don't get me wrong - I'd like to see 'em swing, but this is Ireland and they'll get away with it on a full pension.

If this got passed, its probable that TD's given more powers of investigation would decide that it's "not in the public interest" to investigate the dealings of Banker X or Banker Y, but instead use the new legislation to character assassinate rivals or censure people who disagree with them - all in the public interest of course.

I breathe a sigh of relief that Rottweiler McDowell is not longer in the Dáil.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

swordofislam wrote: »

I am not seeking such a body.

So you are happy for judicial pay cuts to be handled in an inappropriate manner?

I would rather win what can be won today by cutting judicial pay (and boy are they going to cut it hee hee hee ) than seek to establish a body that has never been called for before.

It's interesting that those of us who seek to protect the constitution are accused of having an axe to grind in favour of judges, when every single post you make on this topic speaks to a serious and deep-rooted hatred of the judiciary.

So, tell me: what's your beef?

As I say I would be happy to have all juidicial pay reset to 1922 levels (and all monies in excess of that repaid) if this referendum falls.

I would normally ask whether you would be happy to have your pay reset to 1922 levels, but that would be missing the point that you clearly have an agenda against judges in particular.

Were you an agitator for such a body before this referendum and if not why not and what's changed?

What's changed is an attempt to eviscerate the constitution in an attempt to appease people like you who don't consider any price too high to make judges suffer.

PeterIanStaker

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Would you like to hand the likes of Gerry Adams or Martin Ferris these kind of powers? (Not that they give a toss about this State or its laws).
Fine Gael are authoritarian enough, thanks. Also, if Fianna Fail worm, weasel, crawl back into govt in 5 - 10 years, bankers won't even get a look in . . . in the National Interest!

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's why people are extremely naive when they think it'll be used to investigate the bankers or anyone responsible for the current mess. O'Toole is being quite naive today if he thinks that this, or any future govt will use these powers for anything other than witch-hunting or ass-covering : http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1025/1224306445790.html

oscarBravo

Man, that O'Toole op-ed makes depressing reading.

The fact that such men oppose the referendum on Oireachtas inquiries (albeit for the purest of reasons) is not a bad argument in its favour.

On the contrary, Fintan, it's about the worst possible argument in its favour.

We have to risk disappointment by having some hope of real change.

We're not risking disappointment, we're risking the bloody constitution.

I've considered Fintan a muppet for a long time, but this takes the biscuit.

swordofislam

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's changed is an attempt to eviscerate the constitution in an attempt to appease people like you who don't consider any price too high to make judges suffer.

The constitution will be amended not eviscerated. I am a democrat. I believe that the sovereign will of the Irish people must triumph over the dead hand of de Valera. Of course I am not a judge nor is my mother a judge.

swordofislam

oscarBravo wrote: »

every single post you make on this topic speaks to a serious and deep-rooted hatred of the judiciary.

So tell me what's your beef?

1. Judges in Ireland are intellectually inconsistent
2. Judges in Ireland are intellectually inconsistent to help the powerful
3. Judges in Ireland are inconsistent in their decisions
4. Judges in Ireland are drawn massively disproportionately from the ranks of the rich
5. Judges in Ireland are appointed through political patronage and favour
6. Judges in Ireland are appointed through political patronage and favour and this impacts on their decisions
7. Judges in Ireland are unaccountable for their actions
8. Judges in Ireland are overpaid
9. Judges in Ireland receive 40/80ths of a pension after 15 years
10. Judges in Ireland were drivers of the industrial schools system
11. Judges in Ireland scourge the poor and toady to the rich
12. Judges in Ireland demand that those who appear before them toady to them

I could go on and on and on.

oscarBravo

swordofislam wrote: »

The constitution will be amended not eviscerated.

Weakening the separation of powers amounts to the evisceration of the constitution. Of course, if the single most important thing in your life is the suffering of judges, then trivia like the checks and balances inherent in a true republic can be safely ignored.

I am a democrat. I believe that the sovereign will of the Irish people must triumph over the dead hand of de Valera.

I have no idea what DeValera has to do with anything, but a true democrat would understand that there's more to democracy than blunt majoritarianism.

Of course I am not a judge nor is my mother a judge.

If you believe that everyone who is opposed to this amendment is either a judge or related to one, then there's no point discussing the issue with you any further. You have demonstrated the most closed-minded attitude to any issue that I've ever seen on this forum, and - trust me - that's an astonishing achievement.

Go ahead, vote this in. You'll get your short-term pound of flesh. I hope you get as much satisfaction from it as you seem to be getting from the mere anticipation of it. I guess true democracy is a small price to pay.

oscarBravo

swordofislam wrote: »

1. Judges in Ireland are intellectually inconsistent
2. Judges in Ireland are intellectually inconsistent to help the powerful
3. Judges in Ireland are inconsistent in their decisions
4. Judges in Ireland are drawn massively disproportionately from the ranks of the rich
5. Judges in Ireland are appointed through political patronage and favour
6. Judges in Ireland are appointed through political patronage and favour and this impacts on their decisions
7. Judges in Ireland are unaccountable for their actions
8. Judges in Ireland are overpaid
9. Judges in Ireland receive 40/80ths of a pension after 15 years
10. Judges in Ireland were drivers of the industrial schools system
11. Judges in Ireland scourge the poor and toady to the rich
12. Judges in Ireland demand that those who appear before them toady to them

I could go on and on and on.

You could, but so far you're batting one for twelve (only point 8 is remotely relevant to this amendment, and this amendment is the wrong way to address that - you've admitted as much yourself, although you quickly reversed course when brought up on it).

How will the proposed amendment in any way, shape or form address the other eleven points you've made?

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup. On the same basis, I always ask my pharmacist for advice on home heating, and my barber about my prescriptions.

Sure, they don't have the first clue about the topic, but that's better than the possibility that they might have an agenda, isn't it?

But would you canvass the opinions of plumbers on any law that would lessen their future earning potential ?
One should always way up who gains out of a decision and a course of action.
Getting members of the legal profession to agree to any amendments or bills that lessen their control is like getting turkeys to vote for christmas.

I actually admire Shatter because even though a member of the legal profession he is at least trying to shake up our decrepit legal system.
The propsoed legal bill is badly needed and I do believe our parliamentary enquiries do lack teeth.
And I do know that for some the argument is the wording rather than the idea.

Oh and I do think he was right to challenge the bonafides of some of the signatories of that letter.

dermot gleeson is one of the last people that should have any input into the way future enquiries are formulated, as he has huge questions to answer as to why the Irish taxpayers are responsible to the tune of many billions for an private sector organisation where he was chairman of the board.
Another signatory was in the government whose economic decisions should be subject to future enquiry.

swordofislam

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could, but so far you're batting one for twelve (only point 8 is remotely relevant to this amendment, and this amendment is the wrong way to address that - you've admitted as much yourself, although you quickly reversed course when brought up on it).

How will the proposed amendment in any way, shape or form address the other eleven points you've made?

It allows for point 9 to be addressed.
Reducing judicial pay will make them less sympathetic to the rich.
If being an judge were less of a handy number we might get some MORE people of integrity on the bench (we have had some I freely admit).

If people of integrity were on the bench this might have an impact on the culture of the bar. and this might have an impact on legal culture and on the culture of business generally.

By cutting judicial pay we can created a society in which rules are applied fairly and evenhandedly.

A vote against cutting judicial pay is a vote of support for those judges who sent thousands of children to the Fianna Fail gulag Ireland's industrial schools.