How is government regulated?

fret_wimp2

How is government regulated and kept in line in Ireland?

e.g. the 16k topup for super junior ministers. whats to stop that being 26k, or 106k?

Who/what decides whats right and fair or whats a bit too much?
If a government did go nuts, what process stops them?

From news articles it seems like they decide among themselves what they can get away with without causing too much grumbling from the general population, and the worst that will happen is a tribunal years after the fact, but I find it difficult to believe there are not more controls.

To take it to extreme, if ministers decided to award everyone in the cabinet a million euro salary, what stops this?

Im not asking for rants or government bashing, im genuinely curious what controls are in place and how they work, so please no "gravy train comments.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

You vote them out next election. Protests & riots could probably have some impact if they try to go to far. They gave the banks a €64 billion bailout and not much happened, even have FF in power again. The message from the people is screw us whatever way you want

fret_wimp2

So the only control a people have is when they vote, and if things get bad enough during a term, riot?

KiKi III

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

So the only control a people have is when they vote, and if things get bad enough during a term, riot?

The branches of government hold each other accountable, i.e. new laws have to pass through the Dail, Seanad and Presidency.

The President signs a bill into law, so if they were making sweeping unethical changes the President could refuse to do so.

If all three branches of government were behaving unethically, it could probably be challenged through the courts.

If they were breaking laws, they would be arrested by the Gardai.

Coillte_Bhoy

Tds and Minsters salaries are pegged to grades in the civil service afaik,

jimmycrackcorm

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

How is government regulated and kept in line in Ireland?

e.g. the 16k topup for super junior ministers. whats to stop that being 26k, or 106k?

Who/what decides whats right and fair or whats a bit too much?
If a government did go nuts, what process stops them?

Generally the salaries are kept in line with levels in the civil service.

GarIT

KiKi III wrote: »

The branches of government hold each other accountable, i.e. new laws have to pass through the Dail, Seanad and Presidency.

The President signs a bill into law, so if they were making sweeping unethical changes the President could refuse to do so.

If all three branches of government were behaving unethically, it could probably be challenged through the courts.

If they were breaking laws, they would be arrested by the Gardai.

I believe the president can't refuse to sign something into law unless he believes it to be unconstitutional.

Gregor Samsa

KiKi III wrote: »

The President signs a bill into law, so if they were making sweeping unethical changes the President could refuse to do so.

The President can only refuse to sign a Bill into law if he believes it to be unconstitutional. In that case, it’s gets referred to the Supreme Court. If they deem the bill to be constitutional, he has to sign it, regardless of what his opinion of the ethics of it are.

The only thing he could do if faced with an otherwise constitutional bill he had a personal/moral/ethical disagreement with that prevented him from signing it is resign.

blanch152

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

How is government regulated and kept in line in Ireland?

e.g. the 16k topup for super junior ministers. whats to stop that being 26k, or 106k?

Who/what decides whats right and fair or whats a bit too much?
If a government did go nuts, what process stops them?

From news articles it seems like they decide among themselves what they can get away with without causing too much grumbling from the general population, and the worst that will happen is a tribunal years after the fact, but I find it difficult to believe there are not more controls.

To take it to extreme, if ministers decided to award everyone in the cabinet a million euro salary, what stops this?

Im not asking for rants or government bashing, im genuinely curious what controls are in place and how they work, so please no "gravy train comments.

We elect them to decide things, that is the point of democracy.

If you don't like it, you vote for someone else the next time.

Rodney Bathgate

blanch152 wrote: »

We elect them to decide things, that is the point of democracy.

If you don't like it, you vote for someone else the next time.

Probably voted for SF. A wasted vote again.

Found it quite surreal that the attorney general,who is a landlord,could tell government it illegal to ban rent rises


And noone is allowed question,if this is a conflict of interest,without whole internet screaming shinners at em.....its like the new racist to shut down debate/common sense

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Found it quite surreal that the attorney general,who is a landlord,could tell government it illegal to ban rent rises


And noone is allowed question,if this is a conflict of interest,without whole internet screaming shinners at em.....its like the new racist to shut down debate/common sense

Who is preventing you ‘questioning’ it?

This is like posters claiming that SF were ‘prevented’ from going into government.

Pathetic.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tbf....if anyone raises any qs about ethical carryon of government....they are just labelled shinnerz,called peadophile supporter or terrorist/murderer and debate shut down....just the way it is on boards....hence why reddit rocks nowadays

You ‘godwined’ your own post by bringing up SF, so what do you expect?

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Agh yes.....forgot the also labeling anyone who dare qs government as shinners and equating them to nazis (which is what the godwin rule is)

Dont dare and qs,who regulates government (the dail btw)...its simply not allowed



Somehow shortly this will be mary-lou mcdonalds fault and the issue of conflict of interest on attorney general and rent freeze ban will be forgot and shut down

Can you answer my question - who is preventing you ‘questioning’ this?

I’m well aware of what the Godwin rule is. The point is your post mentioned SF then you complain that the responses will be about SF.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pretty sure its againest rules to namecheck posters.....but way to go entice folks into getting banned to try shut down any conversation you dislike

Some sort of conspiracy to silence you?

ronivek

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

The President can only refuse to sign a Bill into law if he believes it to be unconstitutional. In that case, it’s gets referred to the Supreme Court. If they deem the bill to be constitutional, he has to sign it, regardless of what his opinion of the ethics of it are.

The only thing he could do if faced with an otherwise constitutional bill he had a personal/moral/ethical disagreement with that prevented him from signing it is resign.

Technically I believe the President could refer a Bill to the Supreme Court even without believing it to be unconstitutional; should he wish to draw attention to a particular bill and delay its passing in the hopes that it may be withdrawn. If the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional he would be forced to sign it however.

There is another option (although it has never been exercised in the history of the state):
A Seanad majority coupled with 1/3rd of the Dail can petition the President under Article 27 of the Constitution to hold a referendum on the enacting of a Bill which may be of 'National Importance'.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

Found it quite surreal that the attorney general,who is a landlord,could tell government it illegal to ban rent rises


And noone is allowed question,if this is a conflict of interest,without whole internet screaming shinners at em.....its like the new racist to shut down debate/common sense

The AG does not make binding judgements on anything.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just aswell noone said that so then



Nonetheless.....it is a conflict of interest,which noone is allowed to qs or point out anymore

Who is preventing you questioning it?

Who is preventing you pointing it out?

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

Just aswell noone said that so then



Nonetheless.....it is a conflict of interest,which noone is allowed to qs or point out anymore

Anyone can question it. The opposition, the voters etc. Ultimately they can push through with the law and let the judiciary decide. The AG should also publish their opinion and the reasoning.

I don't necessarily agree that merely by the concept of being a landlord the AG is facing a conflict of interests, but regardless the idea that it "can not be questioned" is farcical. It can be questioned in the same way as any govt decision.

Rodney Bathgate

Podge_irl wrote: »

Anyone can question it. The opposition, the voters etc. Ultimately they can push through with the law and let the judiciary decide. The AG should also publish their opinion and the reasoning.

I don't necessarily agree that merely by the concept of being a landlord the AG is facing a conflict of interests, but regardless the idea that it "can not be questioned" is farcical. It can be questioned in the same way as any govt decision.

He has been asked a few times to clarify who is preventing it being questioned and his response was like a poorly formed conspiracy theory.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In theory yes....in reality anyone who dare qs it....is labeled a shinner,then paedo/murderer and last but not least a facist and thus dismissed and this puts people off speaking out


A fasinating form of censorship/abuse depending on ones take

How many posters have you labelled ‘racist’ to shut down discussion on here?

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

In theory yes....in reality anyone who dare qs it....is labeled a shinner,then paedo/murderer and last but not least a facist and thus dismissed and this puts people off speaking out on what is an obvious conflict of interest


A fasinating form of censorship/abuse, depending on ones take

Pretty sure you're questioning it and so far as I can tell no one has labelled you anything.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Zero

Lads can be racist all they want...im not the taught police


Now....can same be said of anyone,who dare qs government or do everyone scream shinner at em??

Do you accept that branding posters as ‘racist’ is a widely used strategy to shut down online discussion?

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except its not....as i explained even naming those who engage in this practicw isnt allowed or be banned


Trying to goad anyone who disagrees with yous into getting banned,is indeed a poor form of debate.

I see little prospect of positive engagement,when yous seem unable to accept this info and want it shouted down

Childish response. No one is trying to ‘goad you’.

Do a search for terms like ‘racist’ and ‘blueshirt’ and ‘right wing’ and tell me that posters on the other side of the discussion always post or debate in ‘good faith’.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except its not....but whatever,as i suspect little prospect of positive engagement....kinda unusal to scream childish at someone instead of shinner i guess



Agh yes....its always someone elses fault,no need for personal responsibility

Whose fault do you think it is?

I could name a few posters, I think I did before in response to you in the feedback thread. One spent his life posting against the previous FG governments with a creepy twist. He has since widened his scope to include the current government parties, probably has the most posts in the Eamon Ryan thread.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That you called me childish,em you,only responsible for own actions




And this,has what to do,with noone being allowed speak out about the conflict of interest of the attorney general??

(Fair play for buying into those threads,that you can remember names though,impressive)

You have been asked numerous times to name those who you claim are preventing you discussing this alleged ‘conflict of interest’.

Seems pretty obvious that you are making this up. Presumably attention seeking.

LawBoy2018

Art. 17 of the Constitution gives the government discretion to allocate funds as they see fit.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And i have also explained as to why noone allowed name those shutting down discussion??



Seems somewhat circular that you refuse to accept this reluctance to get myself banned??

.....prefering to deflect any critism of a website as attention seeking and being made up,to try shut down discussion on those groundz

No one deflecting, just looking for you to back up your ridiculous claims.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seems we have reached a crossroads....your unwilling to accept my reluctance not to get banned and thus using this to dismiss/label anyone who dare speak out as ridcolus is certainly different to labeling them shinner,

whatever works i guess :rolleyes:

Yeah, so you have stopped yourself from discussing the subject. I can see why you wouldn’t want to get banned for naming yourself.

You must be in on the conspiracy yourself.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Interesting take on events all right


But regretably for you, not based in reality

Yes, you are correct, I apologise. Mysterious all powerful forces are at play here, preventing you questioning whether the current attorney general has a conflict of interest because he is a landlord.

I’m surprised this thread hasn’t been nuked yet. They must be taking a break. Normal service will resume shortly.

ExMachina1000

Why do you keep voting the same people back in