Dail Suspended - Debate and Voting

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What you said was

Which is simply untrue and shows you know next to nothing about Sinn Fein or the North's history.

The terrorist campaign was unjustified, I stand by that. It was never accepted at any time by the majority of Irish people that it was justified.

Revisionist to suggest otherwise.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

The terrorist campaign was unjustified, I stand by that. It was never accepted at any time by the majority of Irish people that it was justified.

Revisionist to suggest otherwise.

Irrelevant to your original assertion that "modern" Sinn Fein has its roots in a terrorist war though.

walshb

Godge wrote: »

The terrorist campaign was unjustified, I stand by that. It was never accepted at any time by the majority of Irish people that it was justified.

Revisionist to suggest otherwise.

Unjustified to some. Bottom line was that it worked. Could other ways have worked? Possibly.

Fine for many people down the South to say it was unjustified. They didn't have to live with the oppression and fear that those up North had to live with. Those up North fought back by means of an armed resistance. They won their freedom. Damn well earned it!

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

The terrorist campaign was unjustified, I stand by that. It was never accepted at any time by the majority of Irish people that it was justified.

Revisionist to suggest otherwise.

And now you are gonna show us all the other revolutionary groups in the world who held referenda before taking up arms? :rolleyes:

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

And now you are gonna show us all the other revolutionary groups in the world who held referenda before taking up arms? :rolleyes:

Seriously? Does everything have to be proven to you? Or are you playing some kind of game?

Your default position seems to be that Sinn Fein are correct in everything they say or do and have the majority of public support for everything they say or do unless someone can prove otherwise using criminal level of proof.

Do you realise how silly that looks? As for the question you ask, the level of electoral support for SF North and South during the 1970s and 1980s demonstrates clearly the lack of support for the terrorist campaign. Their vote only went up when the violence stopped, further proof.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

The roots of modern day Sinn Fein are in the unjustified terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland that tried to change the governance of that state by undemocratic means. The refusal to obey the Ceann Comhairle last week is a more recent manifestation of that undemocratic attitude.

And what would you call the Ceann Comhairle's persistently partisan behavior since taking office?

walshb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And what would you call the Ceann Comhairle's persistently partisan behavior since taking office?

Care to give us examples of this partisan behavior?

hatrickpatrick

walshb wrote: »

Care to give us examples of this partisan behavior?

His treatment of Mary Lou as compared with his treatment of members of government is a good example. He acted in a similar manner during the budget speeches, in which he admonished a member of the opposition (forget who, will check shortly) for behavior which had been endemic during the government speeches prior and had elicited no comment from him. He once kicked Richard Boyd Barrett out of the Dail for daring to question why different standards were being applied during question time, to the opposition and to government TDs.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

His treatment of Mary Lou as compared with his treatment of members of government is a good example. He acted in a similar manner during the budget speeches, in which he admonished a member of the opposition (forget who, will check shortly) for behavior which had been endemic during the government speeches prior and had elicited no comment from him. He once kicked Richard Boyd Barrett out of the Dail for daring to question why different standards were being applied during question time, to the opposition and to government TDs.

And in a democracy the place for SF to raise that issue is in the Committee on Privileges and Procedures or through the use of Private Members Time.

Refusing to leave the Dail chamber was undemocratic.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

And in a democracy the place for SF to raise that issue is in the Committee on Privileges and Procedures or through the use of Private Members Time.

Where the government also has a massive majority, presumably whipped, thus ensuring that no action whatsoever would be taken. :rolleyes:

Refusing to leave the Dail chamber was undemocratic.

It may have been, indeed, but it was a reaction to a highly undemocratic decision by the Ceann Comhairle, which there appears to be no reasonable way to deal with.

walshb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He once kicked Richard Boyd Barrett out of the Dail for daring to question why different standards were being applied during question time, to the opposition and to government TDs.

And rightly so!

hatrickpatrick

walshb wrote: »

And rightly so!

You think it's ok that the Ceann Comhairle should be allowed to exercise his role in a partisan manner and should be unchallengeable on this?

walshb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You think it's ok that the Ceann Comhairle should be allowed to exercise his role in a partisan manner and should be unchallengeable on this?

Because Boyd Barrett says so?

hatrickpatrick

walshb wrote: »

Because Boyd Barrett says so?

....?

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Your default position seems to be that Sinn Fein are correct in everything they say or do

Unlike you Godge who have given them a fair hearing and the benefit of the doubt on every occasion, eh? Puh-lease.
Why do you keep coming out with this "you always answer the same way" twaddle anyway? It's nothing more than an admission you can't address the question so you've got to play the man instead.

Dan_Solo

walshb wrote: »

Because Boyd Barrett says so?

You think it's OK because Boyd Barrett said so?
Is that supposed to make any sense?

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Unlike you Godge who have given them a fair hearing and the benefit of the doubt on every occasion, eh? Puh-lease.
Why do you keep coming out with this "you always answer the same way" twaddle anyway? It's nothing more than an admission you can't address the question so you've got to play the man instead.

Your selective quoting allows you to omit the fact that I did actually answer the question posed.

Godge wrote: »

Seriously? Does everything have to be proven to you? Or are you playing some kind of game?

Your default position seems to be that Sinn Fein are correct in everything they say or do and have the majority of public support for everything they say or do unless someone can prove otherwise using criminal level of proof.

Do you realise how silly that looks? As for the question you ask, the level of electoral support for SF North and South during the 1970s and 1980s demonstrates clearly the lack of support for the terrorist campaign. Their vote only went up when the violence stopped, further proof.

hatrickpatrick

walshb wrote: »

Because Boyd Barrett says so?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You think it's OK because Boyd Barrett said so?
Is that supposed to make any sense?

I think he's implying that the only evidence I have for Sean Barrett's partisan behavior is Richard's word - but the remark makes no sense so I'm not actually sure.
Assuming that is indeed what's being implied, I don't need anyone to tell me what is partisan behavior and what isn't, I was in the viewing gallery on the day in question and a video of the exchange is available on the Oireachtas website. I can find this for you this evening if you like?

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Your selective quoting allows you to omit the fact that I did actually answer the question posed.

Nope, you went on to say something else unrelated.
Sorry about that.

Dan_Solo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think he's implying that the only evidence I have for Sean Barrett's partisan behavior is Richard's word - but the remark makes no sense so I'm not actually sure.

No surprise Godge agrees with it though, even though it doesn't mean anything!

walshb

Yes, Boyd Barret making a claim means F all. He may be correct, but he may not be. SF were pulled up, and they failed to obey the order to leave the chamber. Then they moan and whinge about a biased Barrett. Throw in a Boyd Barret claim and suddenly the case against Barrett is proven?

Dan_Solo

walshb wrote: »

Yes, Boyd Barret making a claim means F all. He may be correct, but he may not be. SF were pulled up, and they failed to obey the order to leave the chamber. Then they moan and whinge about a biased Barrett. Thrown in a Boyd Barret claim and suddenly the case against Barrett is proven?

But the question you were asked was

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You think it's ok that the Ceann Comhairle should be allowed to exercise his role in a partisan manner and should be unchallengeable on this?

Which has nothing specifically to do with Barrett at all.
See? No?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You think it's ok that the Ceann Comhairle should be allowed to exercise his role in a partisan manner and should be unchallengeable on this?

The problem you have here is that "exercise his role in a partisan manner" is a judgment issue. It is possible for two people to have a different opinion on this and it usually is not as clear as you think. Even though you were in the chamber at the time to witness what happened Boyd-Barrett, you wouldn't have been there every other day since 1922 (or since 1977 or whenever Sean Barrett was elected) to see the precedence of rulings which the Ceann Comhairle was relying on so you have little way of knowing whether it was partisan or not as you do not have the context of decades of Dail sittings.

On the other hand, refusal to obey the Ceann Comhairle, as MLD did, is clear-cut - it is a refusal to obey the democratically expressed wish of the Dail. As a matter of fact, it is undemocratic whereas Barrett's actions are only undemocratic as a matter of opinion.

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But the question you were asked was

Which has nothing specifically to do with Barrett at all.
See? No?

Ok, then the answer is no, he should not be allowed operate in a partisan manner.

hatrickpatrick

walshb wrote: »

Yes, Boyd Barret making a claim means F all. He may be correct, but he may not be. SF were pulled up, and they failed to obey the order to leave the chamber. Then they moan and whinge about a biased Barrett. Throw in a Boyd Barret claim and suddenly the case against Barrett is proven?

Let me clarify this, I was in the Dail to witness SB's bias for myself. I am not making a judgement based merely on hearsay, I'm making a judgement based on the evidence of my own eyes and ears on that occasion, and on numerous videos of his antics on other occasions.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

The problem you have here is that "exercise his role in a partisan manner" is a judgment issue. It is possible for two people to have a different opinion on this and it usually is not as clear as you think. Even though you were in the chamber at the time to witness what happened Boyd-Barrett, you wouldn't have been there every other day since 1922 (or since 1977 or whenever Sean Barrett was elected) to see the precedence of rulings which the Ceann Comhairle was relying on so you have little way of knowing whether it was partisan or not as you do not have the context of decades of Dail sittings.

Is it not enough to say I was there for a lengthy Dail session in which RBB was lambasted by the Ceann Comhairle for behavior he had ignored from government TDs literally minutes before?
If there's a precedent for that, then all that proves is that the office of Ceann Comhairle has a record of acting in a biased manner. I don't see how anyone can possibly claim double standards are not being applied when one person is called out for behavior which was accepted from others literally minutes beforehand.

On the other hand, refusal to obey the Ceann Comhairle, as MLD did, is clear-cut - it is a refusal to obey the democratically expressed wish of the Dail. As a matter of fact, it is undemocratic whereas Barrett's actions are only undemocratic as a matter of opinion.

I'd argue that it is a matter of opinion that decisions taken by SB as Ceann Comhairle are "the democratically expressed wish of the Dail", considering he was not elected to this position by the people but by the Dail itself. Furthermore, if the majority of the population regarded Sean Barrett's behavior as undemocratic, it would be undemocratic. The only way to solve this would be with some kind of nationwide poll.

I feel we're arguing over semantics here. Do you or do you not regard it as acceptable for a chairperson of a debate to apply different standards to different participants in that debate? Do you furthermore regard it as mere coincidence when those subjected to more lenient standards are the chairperson's party colleagues?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Seriously? Does everything have to be proven to you? Or are you playing some kind of game?

Well you are the one positing the ridiculous notion that revolutionaries have some capability to prove a mandate. How utterly ridiculous.

Your default position seems to be that Sinn Fein are correct in everything they say or do and have the majority of public support for everything they say or do unless someone can prove otherwise using criminal level of proof.

More nonsense, I just object to your cliched geeralising about republican issues.

Do you realise how silly that looks? As for the question you ask, the level of electoral support for SF North and South during the 1970s and 1980s demonstrates clearly the lack of support for the terrorist campaign. Their vote only went up when the violence stopped, further proof.

SF where a fledgling party in the 70's and 80's and where restricted by draconian and undemocratic actions by two governments intent on stopping them gaining any visible electoral support. (Section 31, the activities of The Heavy Gang and similar British demonisation)
The Irish government have had to find more sinister means to try and stop their rise and the transparency of their actions in the last while may very well see the Irish electorate reward SF with a share of the power on the whole island, North and South by 2016.
One in the eye for FG FF as they say.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is it not enough to say I was there for a lengthy Dail session in which RBB was lambasted by the Ceann Comhairle for behavior he had ignored from government TDs literally minutes before?
If there's a precedent for that, then all that proves is that the office of Ceann Comhairle has a record of acting in a biased manner. I don't see how anyone can possibly claim double standards are not being applied when one person is called out for behavior which was accepted from others literally minutes beforehand.

That is your opinion.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd argue that it is a matter of opinion that decisions taken by SB as Ceann Comhairle are "the democratically expressed wish of the Dail", considering he was not elected to this position by the people but by the Dail itself. Furthermore, if the majority of the population regarded Sean Barrett's behavior as undemocratic, it would be undemocratic. The only way to solve this would be with some kind of nationwide poll.

I feel we're arguing over semantics here. Do you or do you not regard it as acceptable for a chairperson of a debate to apply different standards to different participants in that debate? Do you furthermore regard it as mere coincidence when those subjected to more lenient standards are the chairperson's party colleagues?

It is a fact that the Dail voted to support the CC and remove MLD.

So we have your opinion versus a democratic vote.

I think I will choose the democratic vote.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well you are the one positing the ridiculous notion that revolutionaries have some capability to prove a mandate. How utterly ridiculous.


More nonsense, I just object to your cliched geeralising about republican issues.


SF where a fledgling party in the 70's and 80's and where restricted by draconian and undemocratic actions by two governments intent on stopping them gaining any visible electoral support. (Section 31, the activities of The Heavy Gang and similar British demonisation)
The Irish government have had to find more sinister means to try and stop their rise and the transparency of their actions in the last while may very well see the Irish electorate reward SF with a share of the power on the whole island, North and South by 2016.
One in the eye for FG FF as they say.

So you have no evidence to show that the terrorist campaign was supported by anything other than a small minority of disaffected people.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

So we have your opinion versus a democratic vote.

I think I will choose the democratic vote.

I vote that the CC is bent.
All votes are is the opinion of many you know.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I vote that the CC is bent.
All votes are is the opinion of many you know.

No, not all votes are the same.

166 people sitting in a room can have a vote and it means nothing.

166 TD's elected to the Dail voting in parliament is the expression of the democratic will of the people.

Unless you are saying we shouldn't have a parliamentary democracy and be ruled some other way?

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I vote that the CC is bent.
All votes are is the opinion of many you know.

Sorry, but that is ludicrous to say that your opinion on the matter is the same as elected Dail TDs casting a vote on the issue.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

So you have no evidence to show that the terrorist campaign was supported by anything other than a small minority of disaffected people.

The IRA had enough support to sustain their campaign, I know that doesn't suit people like you but there you have it. It's is and has been the same the world over and since the beginning of time. It was a battle for hearts and minds and they won, against gerrymandering and a failed Unionist state.

There is plenty of evidence to also show that in a free democratic vote, the majority of nationalists now realise who attained their freedoms and equality and continue to reward them with their votes. Exactly the same way that the majority in the south now realise who got them their freedom and independence.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Unless you are saying we shouldn't have a parliamentary democracy and be ruled some other way?

Not addressed to me, but to be fair I've been saying this for a long time

fergus1001

Godge wrote: »

I didn't say it hadn't changed. Not sure what your point is.

That it achieved equality for catholics

So you are telling me the ira were 100% wrong in the north (what they achieved overall)

Please enlighten me

fergus1001

I'd also like to point out that if the whip system was abolished government would not be able to shoehorn legislation the way it is now, backbenchers would be more that just pawns and the cc might be a bit more nervous about calling votes like he did

hatrickpatrick

fergus1001 wrote: »

I'd also like to point out that if the whip system was abolished government would not be able to shoehorn legislation the way it is now, backbenchers would be more that just pawns and the cc might be a bit more nervous about calling votes like he did

Was about to point this out, although I bring this up ad nauseum here it cuts to the heart of why our Dail cannot be considered democratic.
I wonder how many FG TDs would have voted confidence in Alan Shatter had there been no consequences for voting with their own opinions instead of as the cabinet directed?

I still find it unbelievable that Godge is defending double standards in what should be a democratic parliament. It doesn't matter which party someone is from or whether you agree with them or not, if we allow the chair of parliament to only selectively apply the rules of the house, we are allowing our parliament to become a farce.

Let's say ML McD was in fact wrong to stage a Dail sit-in. Leaving that aside, concentrating only on Sean Barrett's behavior, do those opposing ML's actions believe that the Ceann Comhairle acted as appropriate for his office? How about his behavior during the budget speeches in which he also upheld rules against her which he had ignored with government TDs mere moments beforehand?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Was about to point this out, although I bring this up ad nauseum here it cuts to the heart of why our Dail cannot be considered democratic.
I wonder how many FG TDs would have voted confidence in Alan Shatter had there been no consequences for voting with their own opinions instead of as the cabinet directed?

I still find it unbelievable that Godge is defending double standards in what should be a democratic parliament. It doesn't matter which party someone is from or whether you agree with them or not, if we allow the chair of parliament to only selectively apply the rules of the house, we are allowing our parliament to become a farce.

Let's say ML McD was in fact wrong to stage a Dail sit-in. Leaving that aside, concentrating only on Sean Barrett's behavior, do those opposing ML's actions believe that the Ceann Comhairle acted as appropriate for his office? How about his behavior during the budget speeches in which he also upheld rules against her which he had ignored with government TDs mere moments beforehand?

I am not defending double standards.

What I am saying is that we live in a democracy and the place to make our voice heard is at the ballot box.

You think Sean Barrett showed bias but that is only your opinion, it is not fact. One man's bias is another man's fair ruling.

"Let's say ML McD was in fact wrong to stage a Dail sit-in." There is no "let's say" about it. In a democracy, the vote of the Dail is paramount unless the Dail does something illegal in which case the Council of State will advise the President or if they miss it, the Courts will intervene. MLMcD rejected a democratic decision of the Dail, that is not opinion, that is fact. That put her outside the democracy and the fact she climbed down so quickly proved that she knew it too.

We do not live in a country where policy is decided with a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

We do not live in a country where policy is decided with a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other.

No, we live in a country where policy is decided with a fat envelope in one hand and the latest orders from Angela Merkel in the other.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

I am not defending double standards.

You're not discussing them at all, you're deflecting the discussion every time they're brought up.

What I am saying is that we live in a democracy and the place to make our voice heard is at the ballot box.

Because that's been so effective around the world for producing accountable governments :rolleyes:

You think Sean Barrett showed bias but that is only your opinion, it is not fact. One man's bias is another man's fair ruling.

He applied rules to ML McD which he did not apply to government TDs. That is a fact, as you will see if you have a look at the video from the budget speeches. Specifically, he lambasted her for speaking directly to other TDs instead of through the chair. Michael Noonan did exactly that when delivering his speech and was not called out for it.

That is not opinion, that is a fact. It is also a fact that this is defined as the application of a double standard.
From the Oxford Dictionary:
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/57004?rskey=SzcgKf&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid6164709

double standard n. a rule, principle, judgement, etc., viewed as applying more strictly to one group of people, set of circumstances, etc., than to another; applied specifically to a code of sexual behaviour that is more rigid for women than for men.

Somewhat surprised that the dictionary regards double standard as primarily referring to sex when I would have thought it was far more relevant in politics, but I digress.

Have you watched the video yourself? Do you deny that the Ceann Comhairle applied a double standard in the upholding of the standing order?

"Let's say ML McD was in fact wrong to stage a Dail sit-in." There is no "let's say" about it. In a democracy, the vote of the Dail is paramount unless the Dail does something illegal in which case the Council of State will advise the President or if they miss it, the Courts will intervene. MLMcD rejected a democratic decision of the Dail, that is not opinion, that is fact. That put her outside the democracy and the fact she climbed down so quickly proved that she knew it too.

We do not live in a country where policy is decided with a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other.

So once again you refuse to actually address the double standard issue. I will quote it again for you:

do those opposing ML's actions believe that the Ceann Comhairle acted as appropriate for his office? How about his behavior during the budget speeches in which he also upheld rules against her which he had ignored with government TDs mere moments beforehand?

Care to offer an opinion?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He applied rules to ML McD which he did not apply to government TDs.

I'm not actually convinced that this is the case. I distinctly heard him berate Enda Kenny in the past week for not addressing his remarks to the chair.

The difference is, Enda ignored him (which he shouldn't have, but one of my major problems with Dáil Éireann is the fact that much of the time it's indistinguishable from a primary school classroom) whereas Mary Lou turned to him and asked "are you serious?"

Back to the primary school analogy: if, in school, my class was acting up and the teacher told us to quiet down, we might get away with ignoring the instruction, but to turn to the teacher and incredulously demand to know what the f*ck his problem was would guarantee a trip to the principal.

So yes: he does, in fact, apply the same rules to opposition and government TDs. The difference is that Mary Lou seems to feel that she has a right to object to those rules, whereas others pretend they haven't heard. Neither is admirable behaviour, but one of them is begging for - and received - a smackdown.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

The difference is, Enda ignored him (which he shouldn't have, but one of my major problems with Dáil Éireann is the fact that much of the time it's indistinguishable from a primary school classroom) whereas Mary Lou turned to him and asked "are you serious?"

Back to the primary school analogy: if, in school, my class was acting up and the teacher told us to quiet down, we might get away with ignoring the instruction, but to turn to the teacher and incredulously demand to know what the f*ck his problem was would guarantee a trip to the principal.

You seem to be on the one hand complaining that the Dail is like a primary school classroom, yet at the same time berating McDonald for being unwilling to accept it as such.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You seem to be on the one hand complaining that the Dail is like a primary school classroom, yet at the same time berating McDonald for being unwilling to accept it as such.

Right now, I'm debating whether the double standards exist to the extent claimed.

But if Mary Lou wants the Dáil to be less like a primary school, I'd respectfully suggest that turning to the speaker of the house and demanding to know if he's serious when he points out the rules to her is probably not the most productive approach she could possibly have taken.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right now, I'm debating whether the double standards exist to the extent claimed.

But if Mary Lou wants the Dáil to be less like a primary school, I'd respectfully suggest that turning to the speaker of the house and demanding to know if he's serious when he points out the rules to her is probably not the most productive approach she could possibly have taken.

So given that you think the Dail is like a primary school class, you now seem to be saying the best thing to do is just accept it is and don't cause any fuss.
What should she do, blow raspberries?

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So given that you think the Dail is like a primary school class, you now seem to be saying the best thing to do is just accept it is and don't cause any fuss.
What should she do, blow raspberries?

With as much respect as I can muster, I'm not going to bother debating this with you, because your ability to invoke logic seems to stop at "defend SF at any cost!"

For the avoidance of doubt: the best thing to do is for everyone - everyone - who holds elected office to grow the f*ck up and learn to debate in a civilised manner, including learning the rules and standing orders of the House and abiding by them.

If that translates for you into me believing that ML should blow raspberries... well, like I said, I'm not interested in debating the topic further with you. You can have the last word if you like, and you can tell yourself that you won the argument. Whatever makes you feel like you've successfully defended The Party today.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

With as much respect as I can muster, I'm not going to bother debating this with you, because your ability to invoke logic seems to stop at "defend SF at any cost!"

Ah yes, define the opponent as always wrong, therefore, ya know, he's wrong, because, like I said, he's always wrong.
What is it with you SF haters always coming out with the exact same "always defend SF" line? Does that constitute a rebuttal of anything in your head before you trot it out yet again?
By the way, I think you are incapable of using logic. So there.
Remember, you said I was getting the last word, so no comebacks now!

PS: you talk an awful lot for a guy who "isn't interested".

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not actually convinced that this is the case. I distinctly heard him berate Enda Kenny in the past week for not addressing his remarks to the chair.

In the specific session I'm referring to, which was the budget session, he very definitely did not. I'll try and find the relevant parts of the video tomorrow.

The difference is, Enda ignored him (which he shouldn't have, but one of my major problems with Dáil Éireann is the fact that much of the time it's indistinguishable from a primary school classroom) whereas Mary Lou turned to him and asked "are you serious?"

Back to the primary school analogy: if, in school, my class was acting up and the teacher told us to quiet down, we might get away with ignoring the instruction, but to turn to the teacher and incredulously demand to know what the f*ck his problem was would guarantee a trip to the principal.

And do you think it's right, that one cannot call out a double standard without bringing more sh!te upon themselves? Don't see the value in that myself.

So yes: he does, in fact, apply the same rules to opposition and government TDs.

He may have in the case you're referring to, he most certainly did not on budget day.

The difference is that Mary Lou seems to feel that she has a right to object to those rules

She wasn't objecting to the rules, merely to the uneven application of them.

whereas others pretend they haven't heard. Neither is admirable behaviour, but one of them is begging for - and received - a smackdown.

Agree neither is admirable behavior, absolutely disagree that calling out a double standard should be in any way discouraged. Double standards have no place anywhere in a decent society, be it in parliament or indeed in any other context.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And do you think it's right, that one cannot call out a double standard without bringing more sh!te upon themselves? Don't see the value in that myself.

If you think the best, most appropriate, most effective way to draw attention to what you perceive as an uneven application of the rules is to throw a public hissy fit, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you think the best, most appropriate, most effective way to draw attention to what you perceive as an uneven application of the rules is to throw a public hissy fit, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

If there's no other realistic option open (and many have been tried by various opposition TDs during this Dail term) I still don't think it's a good idea, but nobody has suggested what else she could have done about this. I'm sure complaining to a government whipped majority committee would have produced results :rolleyes:

EDIT: Richard Boyd Barrett attempted to call this out in a reasonable manner by sticking his hand up and waiting, and calling a point of order. He was ejected from the chamber for this. Again, what exactly are they supposed to do? Complaining to a committee which is whipped by the same party as the man they're there to complain about is clearly not a satisfactory option.

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2011/05/20110510rbb.mp3

conorh91

If Government domineered the Courts the way it domineers Parliament, it would be interesting to see the reaction from Government cheerleaders. I bet an excuse would be found, nevertheless.

I suspect the lack of acknowledgement of the problem stems from the poltiical affiliation of the opposition TDs in question.

The SOs of Dail Eireann are a joke, as is the traditional deference of the Ceann Comnhairle to the Government. The main function of the standing orders and the Ceann Comhairle appears to support the Government -- because after all, they exist at the whim of Government.

I would guesstimate that 90% of people are unaware of the meaning of the word Government.

The extreme majority of people in this country appear equally unaware that the Government and the Parliament are as constitutionally discrete as Government and the Courts. In the popular conscience, the doctrine of the separation of powers is presumed only to protect the courts.

Thus the doctrine, insofar as it exists, has been wantonly ignored to the detriment of the powers of Parliament, and to the benefit of traditional political parties.

I may disagree with the individual TDs concerned, but I'm glad to see some of the newly-elected FG TDs like Eoghan Murphy acknowledge this problem, too.