Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why no impeachment of politicians in this country.

  • 13-03-2013 3:39pm
    #1
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭


    I know that the constitution does not allow for the removal of sitting TDs, apart from bankruptcy, We have the likes of Luke Flanagan and Mick Wallace who have been shown to be corrupt.



    This argument of saying we will wait for the next election and the people can have their say is surely not fit for purpose and when I hear another TD spout this I see it as a cop out.



    If a TD has broken the law or have been found they should be removed immediately like they do in the UK. Shouldn’t they be automatically removed and a bye-election called.


Comments

  • #2
    Death and Taxes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Death and Taxes


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I know that the constitution does not allow for the removal of sitting TDs, apart from bankruptcy, We have the likes of Luke Flanagan and Mick Wallace who have been shown to be corrupt.



    This argument of saying we will wait for the next election and the people can have their say is surely not fit for purpose and when I hear another TD spout this I see it as a cop out.



    If a TD has broken the law or have been found they should be removed immediately like they do in the UK. Shouldn’t they be automatically removed and a bye-election called.

    While Flanagan has admitted that he is corrupt and has stated that he doesn't consider his corruption a resigning matter, Wallace has never either been found to be corrupt by any court or tribunal , nor has he ever admitted to any corruption.
    They are not automatically removed in the UK either BTW, as the case Neil Hamilton shows.


  • #3
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I think there are MUCH worse examples than the "bad boys du jour". They just don't have a party with money behind them to cover it up with some media wizardry.


  • #4
    debaser13
    Registered Users Posts: 29 ✭debaser13


    The whole thing is sickening.


  • #5
    hfallada
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,180 ✭✭✭hfallada


    The last thing we need is that they can be removed with the use of tribunal. This will only result in a massive report(who bothers to read them. By the time someone those everyone has forgotten about the issue.)

    It will result in huge bill to the tax payer to remove someone who has tarnished reputation and no one sees are important anymore. The individual should have the decency to resign


  • #6
    G Power
    Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭G Power


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    I know that the constitution does not allow for the removal of sitting TDs, apart from bankruptcy, We have the likes of Luke Flanagan and Mick Wallace who have been shown to be corrupt.



    This argument of saying we will wait for the next election and the people can have their say is surely not fit for purpose and when I hear another TD spout this I see it as a cop out.



    If a TD has broken the law or have been found they should be removed immediately like they do in the UK. Shouldn’t they be automatically removed and a bye-election called.

    there are far worse targets you could have used to prove the point you're trying to make.

    you give away your agenda immediately


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    I have no agenda. Neither of them are in my constiuancy and I'm not a member of any political party. These are just the latest two examples. I guess I could have gone back and named more but i resent the implication of an agenda. Maybe it's you who has an agenda?


  • #8
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Flanagan did nothing illegal. That's the fact of the matter. A charge of corruption put by politicians against a politician is unthinkable.


  • #9
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    hfallada wrote: »
    The individual should have the decency to resign

    That would be the ideal. But history has shown us that TDs in general have lacked the decency to resign.


  • #10
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    Where does the Constitution allow bankrupts be removed from being a TD?


  • #11
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think there are MUCH worse examples than the "bad boys du jour". They just don't have a party with money behind them to cover it up with some media wizardry.

    No doubt that there have been worse examples. The point seems to be getting lost on names. I'm talkin about the example of corruption and no impeachment as a method of removing these TDs.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    Where does the Constitution allow bankrupts be removed from being a TD?
    Where does it prevent it?


  • #13
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    Where does the Constitution allow bankrupts be removed from being a TD?

    Apologies not the constitution but you can read about it here.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/limited-number-of-ways-tds-can-lose-their-seats-26736028.html


  • #14
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Apologies not the constitution but you can read about it here.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/limited-number-of-ways-tds-can-lose-their-seats-26736028.html

    Aye, I'd say that if that ever happened they'd win a constitutional challenge and stay TDs.


  • #15
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    Aye, I'd say that if that ever happened they'd win a constitutional challenge and stay TDs.
    On what grounds?


  • #16
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    On what grounds?

    There is no power to remove a TD in the Constitution.

    I would also argue that the exclusion of bankrupts in the Electoral Act would be unconstitutional unless it was justified under Art 16.1.1. Would be interesting to see it tested though.


  • #17
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    There is no power to remove a TD in the Constitution.
    There's no prohibition on the removal of a TD in the constitution.
    I would also argue that the exclusion of bankrupts in the Electoral Act would be unconstitutional unless it was justified under Art 16.1.1.
    Article 16.1.1 explicitly allows for legislation to disbar a citizen from eligibility to be a TD, as long as that legislation doesn't discriminate based on sex.
    Would be interesting to see it tested though.
    It would.


  • #18
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's no prohibition on the removal of a TD in the constitution. Article 16.1.1 explicitly allows for legislation to disbar a citizen from eligibility to be a TD, as long as that legislation doesn't discriminate based on sex. It would.

    Without wanting to get into a large constitutional law debate, I think the Court wouldn't be too keen on TDs being removed from the Dail without a specific power to do so.

    There is discussion on this in relation to Local Councillors so I think TDs would have greater protection.

    Art 16.1.1 is eligibility to run not to be removed once elected and even then there is case law that suggests the reason for excluding must be fair and objective and the authors of Hogan and Whyte have written that in their view bankruptcy might not meet that test.

    We'd need to have the Court settle this for us though.


  • #19
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    Without wanting to get into a large constitutional law debate, I think the Court wouldn't be too keen on TDs being removed from the Dail without a specific power to do so.
    There is a specific power; it's legislative rather than constitutional, but it's there.
    Art 16.1.1 is eligibility to run not to be removed once elected...
    Actually, it's eligibility for membership, which would cover both situations.
    We'd need to have the Court settle this for us though.
    Agreed.


Advertisement