Referendum 2011

pakalasa

Just wondering are most people going to vote Yes twice or is going to be another case of, shur I'm not sure, so I'll vote NO.

On the second referendum, it wasn't exactly debated publicly, was it.

http://www.referendum2011.ie/

flatout11

yes to the judges pay
no to giving the Oireachtas the right to investigate an indivudal - they are not qualified to do so for a start
the lack of a decent debate on the issue was appalling,

bbam

flatout11 wrote: »

yes to the judges pay
no to giving the Oireachtas the right to investigate an indivudal - they are not qualified to do so for a start
the lack of a decent debate on the issue was appalling,

Spot on...
What the hell would the likes of Ming Flannagan & Co know about investigating into anyone... and then they get to decide what the rights of the person being investigated are?? clapped out junkies and ex developers and teachers

It would be better for all of us if they could set up Tribunals with appropriate terms and conditions rather than the blank cheque scenarios of the past... Tribunals are a good system if they are started off on the right footing... but give them a free reign and they will run out of control...

Each Tribunal needs a specific timeframe, limited funds and a business manager to ensure both are adhered to.. I see no reason why they couldnt be managed like any other project

kerry365

Referendum 1. Yes. I would agree with 'Flatout11' - Yes to control Judges Pay (i.e. scale it in line with other civil servants, etc.)... we all took a blow....wages reduction
Referendum 2. No to give Oireachtas right to investigate ordinary people.
Would also agree that it was poorly debated..... would have liked more media coverage but we were all Obsessed with our magnificent 7..... and look where it got us..... I would vote for Pat Cox if he was on the list.....

Joeyde

Definitely a no for no.2.

I agree in principal with no.1 but just concerned about the point raised by the ex -attorneys general regarding maintaining the courts independence. Any more detail on this? I presume it opens the doors to the government controlling judges pay but surely they cant control individual judges pay under this change?

bbam

Jebus..
Just back from Voting and I tought the referendum slips were poorly done...
It took me a few attempts to know which was which....

God knows how many older folks will make mistakes..

weefarmer

bbam wrote: »

Jebus..
Just back from Voting and I tought the referendum slips were poorly done...
It took me a few attempts to know which was which....

God knows how many older folks will make mistakes..

Had the same problem myself! So I just did the traditional irish thing, if I dont know what i'm voting for vote against it

Min

No to both.

The oireachtas should not be meddling in what pay a judge gets, the judiciary are suppose to be independent and having the oireachtas involves weakens this independence.
A government could choose to cut the pay of judges to make a point to the judiciary.

I voted no to the oireachtas inquiries as the powers the politicians are giving themselves in the draft legislation is an affront to the rights of the people.

5live

Joeyde wrote: »

Definitely a no for no.2.

I agree in principal with no.1 but just concerned about the point raised by the ex -attorneys general regarding maintaining the courts independence. Any more detail on this? I presume it opens the doors to the government controlling judges pay but surely they cant control individual judges pay under this change?

Using that argument, was their independance compromised by having their pay increased at any time since the constitution was enacted? Obviously, using their logic, it was and should therefore be reduced to the level it was at when the constitution was enacted. Sorted

johngalway

Particularly enjoyed voting Yes to judges pay!

Voted No to the politicians (more) power to investigate people, they're not qualified as said and to be honest, I don't trust them to do the right thing.

Drumpot

johngalway wrote: »

Particularly enjoyed voting Yes to judges pay!

Voted No to the politicians (more) power to investigate people, they're not qualified as said and to be honest, I don't trust them to do the right thing.

I think the government convinced people of the kind of satisfaction they would get from voting yes on judges pay.

There were other ways that judges pay could of been cut but the gov offered it Ian 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.

johngalway

Drumpot wrote: »

I think the government convinced people of the kind of satisfaction they would get from voting yes on judges pay.

There were other ways that judges pay could of been cut but the gov offered it Ian 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.

Hang on a second.

The judges were asked previously to take a pay cut at a time the country was going down the swanny.

Their answer was NO.

Screw them.

Drumpot

johngalway wrote: »

Hang on a second.

The judges were asked previously to take a pay cut at a time the country was going down the swanny.

Their answer was NO.

Screw them.

So the only way to reduce their pay was ask them or give powers to the government to decide what to do ? :rolleyes:

Do you actually believe all the self serving rhetoric that most governments engage in ? It doesnt upset you that the government sold this as simply about reducing judges pay, when in fact it was about giving politicians the power to decide in future what their pay should be? You dont see how this could be abused ?

Like I said , there were other ways of reducing their pay that didnt have to give the government these kind of powers . .

5live

Drumpot wrote: »

So the only way to reduce their pay was ask them or give powers to the government to decide what to do ? :rolleyes:

Do you actually believe all the self serving rhetoric that most governments engage in ? It doesnt upset you that the government sold this as simply about reducing judges pay, when in fact it was about giving politicians the power to decide in future what their pay should be? You dont see how this could be abused ?

Like I said , there were other ways of reducing their pay that didnt have to give the government these kind of powers . .

Like?

johngalway

Having had more experience of Judges than I'd like I'm not too awfully bothered about them. They're over paid, they had the opportunity to take a reduction, refused and slapped every face in the country whilst doing so. If they were that worried about their own independence they could have chosen to take a reduction themselves. They didn't, so tough titty.

No, it doesn't upset me. As I don't believe this country has sank quite that far that yet.

Drumpot

5live wrote: »

Like?

You are asking this now ?

Did you not listen to all the debates . . Oh no, wait . .