29th Amendment (Judicial Pay) Exit Poll

Eliot Rosewater

How did you vote in today referendum on giving the Oireachtas the power to reduce judicial pay in certain circumstances?

See also:
Presidential election exit poll: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...?t=2056433501#
30th Amendment exit poll: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056433507#

Pride Fighter

I voted no as I believe that the national legislature deciding the pay of the judiciary is dangerous in a democracy. A healthy democracy has a separation of powers and this is an affront to it.

Bannasidhe

Voted yes on this one as I think since the government can award judges pay increases it should be able to impose pay cuts - present system of up-ward only salaries is not sustainable or ethically justifiable.
I do think that an independent (possible external) authority should be responsible for setting all PS (incl TDs) salary grades or a formula based on the average industrial wage as determined by the CSO should be employed but we weren't given those options.

Red Silurian

Yes, every other public servant had to take a pay cut to help finance this country. Why should the judges not get the same treatment?

limklad

I Voted No. I do not want Politicians interfering with Judges Decision making process.

I want an Independent body (not appointed by the Government or Oireachtas, Civil Service, etc) to decide if Judges Pay be reduce. They can have a referendum on the Salary % Cut of Judges along with their own Politicians Salary should be set by the People.

I am in Favour of Judges salaries reduction but not allow Politicians a Crack at possible interfering with Judges Decision making process.

If Politicians Linked their Income to that of the Judges, then I would be in favour of it.

I say Income because Politicians have a sneaky way of getting Money in the Pocket in the back door while Judges cannot work in any other field of work while working as a Judge.

Min

I voted No.

FreudianSlippers

It's a "NO" vote from me - I think my reasons are clear from the other threads

caseyann

I vote yes,but pity they didnt add in the government pay being cut by someone outside of the government.

Sunnyisland

Voted no.

monkeybutter

How is docking a judges considerable pay going to affect their decisions exactly?

Boulevardier

No on this, but yes on Oireachtas enquiries.

sparkling sea

I voted No, I don't believe any of our politicans are above manipulation and corrupt partices.

I could easily see politicans trying to influence judges decisions ( particularly for their own family, friends and constitutients) by playing the salary card.
I would be very worried it lead to politicans interpreting legislation rather than judges as happened in countries like Egypt.

We are sliding back down the modernity scale, I would hate to see the terms of our social contract sliding backwards too:eek:

MagicMarker

I voted yes, but I admit had I heard some of the reasons for voting no beforehand then I may have voted no.

charlemont

No.

nkay1985

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I voted no as I believe that the national legislature deciding the pay of the judiciary is dangerous in a democracy. A healthy democracy has a separation of powers and this is an affront to it.

Voted the same as you for exactly the same reasons. I heard someone quoting on Newstalk the other morning saying that you don't write constitutions for good governments, you write them for bad ones. Taking all things into considerations and with those sentiments in mind, I had to vote no, even though I do think their pay should be decreased.

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

How is docking a judges considerable pay going to affect their decisions exactly?

Judge Monkeybutter is a Supreme Court judge hearing the Article 26 reference about whether or not the Health (Amendment) No.2 Bill is Constitutional or not. The Bill is an attempt by the Government to retrospectively justify the illegal seizure of certain monies by the State to pay for in-patient care for residential nursing homes.

The Minister for Justice, Minister Breakglass, knows that if the Court decides it is unconstitutional that it will cost the State an absolute fortune giving the money they took illegally from old age pensioners back to them. He threatens Judge Monkeybutter, saying that if he finds the Bill unconstitutional he will reduce his wages to minimum wage and alter his pension terms so that his wife will not receive any pension benefits after his death.

That's how. Oh yeah, and in real life (no threats by any Minister I should add) the Supreme Court didn't let the Government pass their Bill to justify the illegal seizure of OAP's cash. You can read the judgment here.

Damned overpaid guardians of our constitutional rights and freedoms...

Hootanany

A lot of Judges on here to tonight:cool:

That Handsome Devil

No.

Not because I think judges pay shouldn't be cut, I do, but because this was poorly written, rushed, and overly vague legislation. Good intentions, poorly executed.

Trampas

if a judge can't remain unbiased due to a wage cut then they shouldn't be a judge

Hogzy

Trampas wrote: »

if a judge can't remain unbiased due to a wage cut then they shouldn't be a judge

The large majority already took a paycut to be inline with other public servants. The cut was voluntary.

MagicMarker

Hogzy wrote: »

The large majority already took a paycut to be inline with other public servants. The cut was voluntary.

I think the point being made is if a judge lets the threat of a pay cut influence a decision then that person should not be a judge.

Hogzy

MagicMarker wrote: »

I think the point being made is if a judge lets the threat of a pay cut influence a decision then that person should not be a judge.

Unfortunately alot of people fail to see the bigger picture here. Saving a bit of money is a minute issue. The issue is purely about control and the separation of powers between the Oireachtas and the Judiciary.

I think its a disgrace that these amendments were allowed go to referendum at the same time a presidential campaign was going on. There were feck all debates on the Referenda and therefore the majority could not make an educated vote. They just saw a way of saving a few million per year at the expense of the independence of our judicial system.

walshb

I voted against the amendment. I can think of many other areas where we are pissing money down holes. Leave the judges alone!

carveone

Hogzy wrote: »

I think its a disgrace that these amendments were allowed go to referendum at the same time a presidential campaign was going on. There were feck all debates on the Referenda and therefore the majority could not make an educated vote. They just saw a way of saving a few million per year at the expense of the independence of our judicial system.

It's set and settled now and initial indications are that the people voted the same way as boards.ie polls indicate, ie: Yes to 29 and No to 30. So I guess the other threads will fade out as there is little point arguing it now. Other than I agree with the sentiment expressed in the Legal Forum that the 29th would pass because the 30th was so outrageous that people would put all their effort into stopping the 30th.

But as above, there is a point in asking what the government was doing. There were many indications of people handing back the leaflets saying they didn't know what they were voting for. Which is interesting - these people didn't vote Yes just because the government told them to, they chose to complain and not vote at all.

It's possible the government thought they'd learn something from the Lisbon Treaty referendum (I was a Yes voter in case that matters) and just minimise discussion, slap it in, distract everyone with a viscious Presidential campaign and instruct people to vote Yes. I hope that the next few days proves that the people have told them where to shove it. They certainly seem to have told the FG Pres candidate where to go

sensibleken

yes because i do not beieve that a salry only going upwards is any garuntee of impartiality.

goat2

we got the litrature of the referendum about a week before the ballot, yet we got litrature from most if not all through the post weeks before the ballot, and to add to that the litrature we got in the post we got one for each member of the family, which amounts to six pieces of paper from each, but the litrature we got on the yes and no referendum was one tiny little booklet between the six,
yet i considered the litrature on the yes, no should have been deemed more important, it was misled, i had intended to read it, i had read a bit,but had not got to the end of book, but i always look at small print in everything, the devil is in the detail, i would like to have seen a debate on it by well informed people, then it would definately have helped me,
i do know a person in my house did vote, but i doubt they had any more information than i had on it, i always watch the current affairs programmes and they spoke too late, too little too late.

Ozymandius2011

I voted Yes because they should share the pain with the rest of the country. I heard they are the highest paid in the world for sitting judges but the salary for new judges has been reduced. The argument that it would interfere with judicial independence puzzles me. Noone is saying that the courts are finding in favour of the govt more when it raises their pay so why would it influence them if the pay was lowered?

Hogzy

sensibleken wrote: »

yes because i do not beieve that a salry only going upwards is any garuntee of impartiality.

MagicMarker wrote: »

I think the point being made is if a judge lets the threat of a pay cut influence a decision then that person should not be a judge.

Trampas wrote: »

if a judge can't remain unbiased due to a wage cut then they shouldn't be a judge

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I voted Yes because they should share the pain with the rest of the country. I heard they are the highest paid in the world for sitting judges but the salary for new judges has been reduced. The argument that it would interfere with judicial independence puzzles me. Noone is saying that the courts are finding in favour of the govt more when it raises their pay so why would it influence them if the pay was lowered?

Again everyone who seems to have voted yes has done so because of the money element. LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE

If the Government can adjust the pay of a judge during their time as a judge then an element of bias will come in. Judges may feel that if they do "Favours" for the government in legal cases and find in favour for the state then the Government will "owe them one" and might not reduce their pay in the future or might increase it by quite a bit.

In a perfect world this wouldnt happen, and people can argue that if they are going to be biased then they shouldnt be judges. This isnt a perfect world.

It drives me insane that people didnt see the bigger picture here. All they saw was that judges are paid alot of money (for VERY good reason) and they should suffer like everyone else

sensibleken

Hogzy wrote: »

Again everyone who seems to have voted yes has done so because of the money element. LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE

If the Government can adjust the pay of a judge during their time as a judge then an element of bias will come in. Judges may feel that if they do "Favours" for the government in legal cases and find in favour of the state then the Government will "owe them one".

In a perfect world this wouldnt happen, and people can argue that if they are going to be biased then they shouldnt be judges. This isnt a perfect world.

It drives me insane that people didnt see the bigger picture here. All they saw was that judges are paid alot of money (for VERY good reason) and they should suffer like everyone else

yes yes yes. we have heard that arguement but I was not convinced by it. they cannot arbitrarily alter the pay of individual judges or the judiciary in isolation. 'this isnt a perfect world' is no excuse for making it more unfair.

as has been said. if that theory holds sway then their current ability to increase the pay is equally capable of introducing a bias.

carveone

What drove me nuts was the way, when the government was asked a question about either referendum, they went on about Judges' pay. They seemed to be going out of their way NOT to discuss the 30th amendment. Even RTE did it on what was supposed to be an unbiased look at both referenda - "Look! Look at how much they earn" (Pat Kenny was probably quieter on that one).

johnnyskeleton had a discussion about a possible alternative wording that everyone could have been happy with:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75169999&postcount=242

and would answer concerns that Ozymandius2011 just raised about raising their pay. Even if they'd stopped at 35.5.1 and 35.5.2 I think that would have been OK. Instead they have to insert this gobbledegook into 35.5.3.

It really brings up the case as to why the government gets to decide these wordings anyway. Can we not have a unbiased Constitutional commitee of some sort.

If the government was so concerned about the money, it should have taken the proper route. Make the bill reducing Judges' pay, send it to president, president refers it to Supreme Court, we have an answer.

Hogzy

sensibleken wrote: »

yes yes yes. we have heard that arguement but I was not convinced by it. they cannot arbitrarily alter the pay of individual judges or the judiciary in isolation. 'this isnt a perfect world' is no excuse for making it more unfair.

as has been said. if that theory holds sway then their current ability to increase the pay is equally capable of introducing a bias.

Thats a fair enough point. But that is where the wording of the amendment is bad. The amendment should read that Judical pay can only be decreased or increased if done so in line with public sector cuts. The wording doesnt say that so it leaves the whole thing open.

Both Amendment 30 and 29 have been VERY VERY badly worded. Its a disgrace. I do believe that Judges should be paid less but Amendment 29 is not the way to do it.

sensibleken

Hogzy wrote: »

Thats a fair enough point. But that is where the wording of the amendment is bad. The amendment should read that Judical pay can only be decreased or increased if done so in line with public sector cuts. The wording doesnt say that so it leaves the whole thing open.

Both Amendment 30 and 29 have been VERY VERY badly worded. Its a disgrace. I do believe that Judges should be paid less but Amendment 29 is not the way to do it.

fair enough. i really didnt think it was very badly worded. though i didnt see the need of stating they have to pay taxes

carveone

sensibleken wrote: »

fair enough. i really didnt think it was very badly worded. though i didnt see the need of stating they have to pay taxes

I think the original problem was "is a levy the same thing as a tax". Which is probably what half the public sector has been asking themselves. According to the government, it wasn't clear cut that the 1951 Supreme Court ruling (Judges pay tax) also applied to levies. Tedious, isn't it. You'd think they'd ask the Supreme Court given that the 1951 ruling has been just fine for 60 years but nooooo.

So I guess 35.5.2 covered the bases. But, as PermaBear pointed out way way earlier, it doesn't stop them increasing Judges' pay:

"When the judiciary receives record wage increases while investigating a sitting Taoiseach's financial irregularities, one has to ask whether this whole issue of pay and judicial independence is not already a moot point"

So I don't think anyone's really happy :rolleyes:

Hogzy

The funny thing is, 85% of judges have voluntarily reduced their pay anyway and last year gave back an extra 1.5 million Euro to the exchequer between them all. So this referendum will probably bring in an extra 150-200k for the exchequer. The referendum probably cost 5 times this.

carveone

Hogzy wrote: »

The funny thing is, 85% of judges have voluntarily reduced their pay anyway and last year gave back an extra 1.5 million Euro to the exchequer between them all. So this referendum will probably bring in an extra 150-200k for the exchequer. The referendum probably cost 5 times this.

At least 5 times. Can't find a reference for how much these things cost but it isn't free. Probably cheaper when you factor in the election and the massive power grab... I mean 30th amendment.

85% is way more than the percentage of the electorage who bother to vote yesterday.

According to the Irish Times there are 143 sitting Judges in Ireland. Less 85% is 21. Alan Shatter said the referendum would save 5.5 million per annum.

Uh huh.

MagicMarker

Hogzy wrote: »

If the Government can adjust the pay of a judge during their time as a judge then an element of bias will come in. Judges may feel that if they do "Favours" for the government in legal cases and find in favour for the state then the Government will "owe them one" and might not reduce their pay in the future or might increase it by quite a bit.

If a judge is willing to be essentially paid off then an amendment to the constitution isn't going to change anything. They will be biased regardless of weather or not their salaries can be reduced.

irishh_bob

Hogzy wrote: »

The funny thing is, 85% of judges have voluntarily reduced their pay anyway and last year gave back an extra 1.5 million Euro to the exchequer between them all. So this referendum will probably bring in an extra 150-200k for the exchequer. The referendum probably cost 5 times this.

yes and who knows what kind of trojan horse has arrived underneath the umbrella of populism

oscarBravo

carveone wrote: »

If the government was so concerned about the money, it should have taken the proper route. Make the bill reducing Judges' pay, send it to president, president refers it to Supreme Court, we have an answer.

Amen to that.

caseyann

carveone wrote: »

What drove me nuts was the way, when the government was asked a question about either referendum, they went on about Judges' pay. They seemed to be going out of their way NOT to discuss the 30th amendment. Even RTE did it on what was supposed to be an unbiased look at both referenda - "Look! Look at how much they earn" (Pat Kenny was probably quieter on that one).

johnnyskeleton had a discussion about a possible alternative wording that everyone could have been happy with:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75169999&postcount=242

and would answer concerns that Ozymandius2011 just raised about raising their pay. Even if they'd stopped at 35.5.1 and 35.5.2 I think that would have been OK. Instead they have to insert this gobbledegook into 35.5.3.

It really brings up the case as to why the government gets to decide these wordings anyway. Can we not have a unbiased Constitutional commitee of some sort.

If the government was so concerned about the money, it should have taken the proper route. Make the bill reducing Judges' pay, send it to president, president refers it to Supreme Court, we have an answer.

No if they were bothered about money they would have cut their own wages by 100grand each and then i would have been convinced they gave a **** about Ireland.