PHIL HOGAN NEEDS TO RESIGN.

stockshares

Claire Byrne really going for it now.

She's talking about "the extraordinary story of King Carlos of Spain."

Is she getting her instructions directly from Denis O Brien?

There's 80 extraordinary stories she should be talking sbout., Mainly Seamus Woulfe, Brian Hayes and Vulture Funds + why has Helen McEntee brought it legislation supporting Vulture Funds profiteering.

caveat emptor

ec18 wrote: »

no ones denying how the commission is appointed. I'm just confused as to why you want to vote for a commissioner?

Is it the principle that you want to be able to vote for everyone in political institutions?

To be honest I'm not sure that the public at large would take the time to educate themselves firstly on the workings of the commission as well as it's purpose and on each of the candidates available in each of the countries to make it an informed vote and come out with a commission that was functioning

That's the point of it to be fair.
It's called a 'commission' or a college.
It's a government as it set's legislation.
What's different about this government is that they are not voted into power.

Big Phil got the nod. Every other country sends a representative who is not elected.

The EU parliament (Luke Ming et al) are actually voted in but have no real power.

You may think this is a great idea but some posters don't.

This is very relevant because Phil Hogan can't be made to resign for bringing the office into disrepute. Even though our elected representatives nominated him.

The commission structure makes lobbying very easy. 27 people to cajole vs a parliament / government. Very handy for big corporations to get legislation passed.

jm08

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

So you are saying he did pass a fair judgement on you?

He "let you off" - you got away with it?

It was a genuine mistake forgetting to pay the fine. I was quite unusual in the court in actually not having paid 1 fine, because most the people there had 100s of unpaid fines.

elperello

jm08 wrote: »

Michael O'Leary was Leader of the Labour Party and became a judge (I was up in front of him once for a parking fine which I had forgotten to pay which he let me off with just paying the original fine).

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The ex-judge at the shindig, Pat McCartan was a Workers Party TD in a former life

And who could say that they didn't bring the benefit of their experience in their former careers to their work on the bench?

The idea of excluding anyone who has been involved in democratic politics from the judiciary would need a lot more consideration.

ec18

mick087 wrote: »

Nonsense they should be accountable to its citizens as you full well know.

27 commissioners 1 for each country let the citizens of each country vote for for there commissioner.

This unelected commissioner and president nonsense must change.

what about the cabinet of ministers in the irish government? Do you have a similar view on them? The advisers that work with them? what about the sec generals of the different govt departments?

where does the voting for things stop ? I'm all for democracy but and one person one vote but there comes a point when it's counter productive and inefficient for everyone to vote on everything

RandomViewer

elperello wrote: »

And who could say that they didn't bring the benefit of their experience in their former careers to their work on the bench?

The idea of excluding anyone who has been involved in democratic politics from the judiciary would need a lot more consideration.

No consideration, if your judgment is so poor that you join a political party you shouldn't be a judge .
Funny how FG let someone from Official SF/The Workers Party be a judge?

fly_agaric

caveat emptor wrote: »

This is very relevant because Phil Hogan can't be made to resign for bringing the office into disrepute. Even though our elected representatives nominated him.

It is not really because making it so our directly elected reps can remove the commissioner post fact as well as nominate him/her will obviously create chaos in the Commission, particularly if not every country always uses such a mechanism in good faith (...fat chance). The EU, as Eurosceptics remind us constantly often has a hard time getting anything done, especially responding to events rapidly with 26 member states arguing the toss. A change like that would probably make the whole thing ungovernable at some point and more likely to collapse.
Edit: He can be made to resign, but not by us/our government.

caveat emptor wrote: »

The commission structure makes lobbying very easy. 27 people to cajole vs a parliament / government. Very handy for big corporations to get legislation passed.

That is why there needs to be fairly strong ethics around it...but not one member state being able to recall " their" commissioner because he dirties his bib at home.

Happydays2020

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I wonder who came up with that wheeze of the partition down the middle of the room (and then made the call to pull it back before the end of the night). Surely it must have been agreed in advance at some level between the Golf Society and the hotel. Obviously it's within the hotel's power not to go along with the plan even if it was initiated by the golf club so they must be at least partially responsible for any rule-breaking.

It was agreed between the Department of Tourism, Bord Failte and the Irish Hotels Federation that functions could be split into different rooms but under strict criteria - it seems that the hotel did not fully follow the conditions attached to this.

RandomViewer

jm08 wrote: »

It was a genuine mistake forgetting to pay the fine. I was quite unusual in the court in actually not having paid 1 fine, because most the people there had 100s of unpaid fines.

Local paper reports court cases ,have never seen anyone up with 100's of fines, more than one but never 100's,

RandomViewer

stockshares wrote: »

Claire Byrne really going for it now.

She's talking about "the extraordinary story of King Carlos of Spain."

Is she getting her instructions directly from Denis O Brien?

There's 80 extraordinary stories she should be talking sbout., Mainly Seamus Woulfe, Brian Hayes and Vulture Funds + why has Helen McEntee brought it legislation supporting Vulture Funds profiteering.

McEntee gets a pass same as Coveney, still questions on both incidents,

elperello

RandomViewer wrote: »

No consideration, if your judgment is so poor that you join a political party you shouldn't be a judge .
Funny how FG let someone from Official SF/The Workers Party be a judge?

So you think just joining a party should exclude one from the judiciary?

What's wrong with joining a party?

I haven't time to go through them all just now but that would probably rule out about half the current crop.

Not really all that funny it was just part of the deal at the time.

Psychiatric Patrick

stockshares wrote: »

Claire Byrne really going for it now.

She's talking about "the extraordinary story of King Carlos of Spain."

Is she getting her instructions directly from Denis O Brien?

There's 80 extraordinary stories she should be talking sbout., Mainly Seamus Woulfe, Brian Hayes and Vulture Funds + why has Helen McEntee brought it legislation supporting Vulture Funds profiteering.

Journalists are like those heroes in old martial arts movies. They can only take on one at a time.

Jizique

Psychiatric Patrick wrote: »

You realise you doing exactly the same thing?

I said many consider him a prick, didn’t say that I do

caveat emptor

caveat emptor wrote: »

That's the point of it to be fair.
It's called a 'commission' or a college.
It's a government as it set's legislation.
What's different about this government is that they are not voted into power.

Big Phil got the nod. Every other country sends a representative who is not elected.

The EU parliament (Luke Ming et al) are actually voted in but have no real power.

You may think this is a great idea but some posters don't.

This is very relevant because Phil Hogan can't be made to resign for bringing the office into disrepute. Even though our elected representatives nominated him.

The commission structure makes lobbying very easy. 27 people to cajole vs a parliament / government. Very handy for big corporations to get legislation passed.

fly_agaric wrote: »

It is not really because making it so our directly elected reps can remove the commissioner post fact as well as nominate him/her will obviously create chaos in the Commission, particularly if not every country always uses such a mechanism in good faith (...fat chance). The EU, as Eurosceptics remind us constantly often has a hard time getting anything done, especially responding to events rapidly with 26 member states arguing the toss. A change like that would probably make the whole thing ungovernable at some point and more likely to collapse.



That is why there needs to be fairly strong ethics around it...but not one member state being able to recall " their" commissioner because he dirties his bib at home.

The government isn't responsible for removing / recalling, they've stated this. They are calling on the EU commission to respect the ethics and morals that the citizen's of the EU are supposed to uphold. Any PM can remove a minister as Leo has done and other eu governments have done. So if Ursla decides to keep him in post then there is very clearly a difference in morals between our national government and the EU commission.

Phil just had a moral/ethical failure. They tend to irrecoverable and bring the office into disrepute if no action taken.

To do anything else shows "one rule for them, one rule for us".
Do you think that a commissioner once in situ is unpunishable or that they are free to break local laws.?

To be clear if he broke the rules in Germany, Spain , UK he would have a massive fine and be gone anyway.

Happydays2020

mick087 wrote: »

That's not good if true.

It is absolutely impossible that he has done so. He was appointed to he Supreme Court on 24 July and to the best of my knowledge has not been a judge in any case. The Supreme Court sits as a collective court and in public, and each judge can deliver his/her own opinion with the majority being the ruling.

Loafing Oaf

stockshares wrote: »

Claire Byrne really going for it now.

She's talking about "the extraordinary story of King Carlos of Spain."

Is she getting her instructions directly from Denis O Brien?

There's 80 extraordinary stories she should be talking sbout., Mainly Seamus Woulfe, Brian Hayes and Vulture Funds + why has Helen McEntee brought it legislation supporting Vulture Funds profiteering.

So news/current affairs programming should be all Golfgate all the time at the moment? And any presenter talking about anything else must be an establishment shill?

Jizique

mick087 wrote: »

Nonsense they should be accountable to its citizens as you full well know.

27 commissioners 1 for each country let the citizens of each country vote for for there commissioner.

This unelected commissioner and president nonsense must change.

Nigel Farage agrees with you

mick087

fly_agaric wrote: »

Maybe you should start another thread on .

the issue so...?
There's loads of posters here who'll join in to have a good moan/bash about the EU.

There are some points that you've never addressed.

* The selection method of the commissioners is down to the member states (if we are sticking with current system where our govt. nominates one to send rather than EU level direct democracy [which you seem to like] ala the European Parliament). edit: I think you did say you wanted to keep it that Ireland (and other member states) would have 1 nominee each...perhaps not very "democratic" in your very narrow conception at an EU level.

Yes direct democracy for its citizens. Why does that frighen you? People can loan the powers then take them back. I see no reason for each state not be able to elect a commissioner.


* "Electing" the commissioners will not help remove Hogan, which is (nominally) what the thread is about. Would need other, likely extremely detrimental & damaging changes to the EU to allow Irish citizens or their political reps to remove a sitting EU commissioner from office early. Any thoughts?
Change is always hard no one likes change but to improve change must happen. By making the commissioners accountable to its citizens i believe you would see a much more democratic EU.

Really your posting of the same thing, in almost the same words over and over brings discussion down to the levels of automated bots, not even human trolls. I'm not sneering here, just stating a fact

Sometimes the truth hurts sometimes you don't agree with what someone says but by stating that im saying the same thing means you want someone to be quiet and agree with you.

The sneer comments only show your own arrogance and serve no other purpose.

Psychiatric Patrick

jm08 wrote: »

It was a genuine mistake forgetting to pay the fine. I was quite unusual in the court in actually not having paid 1 fine, because most the people there had 100s of unpaid fines.

Typo in my post due to a faulty keyboard.

I meant are you saying that the judge didn't pass fair judgement?

I'm not putting into question whether you genuinely forgot (I can say with certainty it is the kind of thing I'd forget myself ) but used the "let me off".

"Let you off" is like saying "get away with it" and not that it was a fair judgment for a genuine mistake.

stockshares

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So news/current affairs programming should be all Golfgate all the time at the moment? And any presenter talking about anything else must be an establishment shill?

No but in the way shes doing it it's very disjointed. For example Sports should have it's own regular slot. The actual pieces on Maguire and Messi were good.

Meanwhile the latest on Ursula
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1298563937059971072?s=19

fly_agaric

caveat emptor wrote: »

So if Ursla decides to keep him in post then there is very clearly a difference in morals between our national government and the EU commission.

You would characterise it like that of course. The EU institutions have generally had higher "morals" than our own political representatives over the years from what I've seen and have helped improved standards of governance here.
e.g. I posted early on thread of Charlie McCreevy having to be told by the EU that taking up a director role after his period as Commissioner would cause conflict of interest. The way that politicians in this country have operated in the past + the way citizens here seem to generally be "okay" with that sort of thing (so long as he's "pulling" for us") probably meant he saw no problem at all with it.

RandomViewer

elperello wrote: »

So you think just joining a party should exclude one from the judiciary?

What's wrong with joining a party?

I haven't time to go through them all just now but that would probably rule out about half the current crop.

Not really all that funny it was just part of the deal at the time.

What part of IMPARTIAL are you struggling with, if Woulfe is down the FG Cumann with the trouserlegs rolled up at night and then making judicial decisions during the day there isn't impartiality

Psychiatric Patrick

Jizique wrote: »

I said many consider him a prick, didn’t say that I do

You criticised s1ippy for calling someone a prick just because they have a different opinion.

You said you "For this alone I hope Hogan survives in his role"

You hope Hogan maintains his position regardless of any wrongdoing just just because you diagree with calling a person a prick.

You are doing the same thing you say s1ippy did.

stockshares

Ursula has just said she will take into account other sources of info regarding Phil Hogan.

caveat emptor

fly_agaric wrote: »

You would characterise it like that of course. The EU institutions have generally had higher "morals" than our own political representatives over the years from what I've seen and have helped improved standards of governance here.
e.g. I posted early on thread of Charlie McCreevy having to be told by the EU that taking up a director role after his period as Commissioner would cause conflict of interest. The way that politicians in this country have operated in the past + the way citizens here seem to generally be "okay" with that sort of thing (so long as he's "pulling" for us") probably meant he saw no problem at all with it.

So because politicians were bad in the past here they should be allowed to flout Irish Law and act with impunity because the EU is good? It's not a great argument.

If they are so moral then they should have no issue holding him to account. It shouldn't take him getting caught in several lies for this to be the case BTW.

Fair play to MM and Leo for having the balls to call him on his bullsh!t. They understand that people have had it with this crap.

mick087

ec18 wrote: »

no ones denying how the commission is appointed. I'm just confused as to why you want to vote for a commissioner?

Is it the principle that you want to be able to vote for everyone in political institutions?

To be honest I'm not sure that the public at large would take the time to educate themselves firstly on the workings of the commission as well as it's purpose and on each of the candidates available in each of the countries to make it an informed vote and come out with a commission that was functioning

There would be a case for many of the political institutions for its citizens vote yes.



You would have a point about many would not know the workings of the commission. This does need to change.

Im sure if more people knew the power that such an important unelected by its citizens organization had then more people would want to know why.
Yes it might not be easy for citizens a informed vote but then again maybe it would be easy maybe the citizens actually know whats best instead of a selcted few.

stockshares

stockshares wrote: »

Ursula has just said she will take into account other sources of info regarding Phil Hogan.

I think we need to let her get on with it now. There’s nothing we can do, his future as commissioner is in her hands.

I’d say she’s also considering how all this will look on her if she makes the wrong decision.

fly_agaric

mick087 wrote: »

Sometimes the truth hurts sometimes you don't agree with what someone says but by stating that im saying the same thing means you want someone to be quiet and agree with you.

The sneer comments only show your own arrogance and serve no other purpose.

I don't know. Posting the same thing over and over again on a public message board is a bit arrogant also. I suppose I'm guilty of that also by bothering to respond. I don't think you should be "quiet" but I suppose on your own thread about this hobbyhorse you'll have less eyeballs so that is your issue.

I don't think I'm arrogant but I am human and was irritated by what you'd posted + failure to address points made to you before by myself and others. I'm not afraid and I don't actually care if government do at some point have us voting for our Commissioner.

I would want them to be somewhat careful of exactly who runs for such a job (given the power it holds and as we see dificulty of removing them until their term is up) & to educate the voters about what voting for this person means. Such as how the Referendum Commission tries to inform us about the issues involved + the weight and importance of the matters we sometimes have to cast our vote on.

Psychiatric Patrick

Lads, can we talk about the but where Hogan says the Guards wouldn't;t have stopped him if they knew who he was?

How has this not cause the country to implode?

mick087

ec18 wrote: »

no ones denying how the commission is appointed. I'm just confused as to why you want to vote for a commissioner?

Is it the principle that you want to be able to vote for everyone in political institutions?

To be honest I'm not sure that the public at large would take the time to educate themselves firstly on the workings of the commission as well as it's purpose and on each of the candidates available in each of the countries to make it an informed vote and come out with a commission that was functioning

There would be a case for many of the political institutions for its citizens vote yes.

You would have a point about many would not know the workings of the commission. This does need to change.

Im sure if more people knew the power that such an important unelected by its citizens organization had then more people would want to know why.
Yes it might not be easy for citizens a informed vote but then again maybe it would be easy maybe the citizens actually know whats best instead of a selcted few.