Oh, and there is a referendum.

[Denn Forever]

On election day, there are 2 referenda.

Referendum 1 Judge's Pay i.e. allowing it be reduced in special circumstances.  Seems to be fair.

Referendum 2  Giving the Dail and Senate the power to conduct enquiries. 
I suppose like the MPs enquiry into the Murdocks.  Seems to be a good thing, getting our TDs to give value for money.

[Shamrock Shore]

Yes to 1
No to 2

Do you really want the likes of Michael Healy Rae with such power?

[guy crouchback]

i am inclined to vote no on the 2nd one. I'm not sure our td's and senators are fit to conduct such enquires,  also a lot of the time its the td's who need enquiring into.

[Hardy]

Yes to 1
No to 2

Do you really want the likes of Michael Healy Rae with such power?

Hear, hear. No, no, no, no, no.

[Billys Boots]

Even the crap from the referendum commission is very scanty on No. 2.  I think the only option in this event (the lack of information provided in relation to what's involved) is a resounding 'No'.

[Declan]

Yes to 1
No to 2

Do you really want the likes of Michael Healy Rae with such power?

Was only chatting about this at lunchtime and my feeling would be similar alright though my politically connected friend reckons they'll both pass commfortably!

[sammymaguire]

Give nothing to the back scratchers 

[Declan]

Sir, – We are strongly opposed to the current proposals to amend the Constitution for the following reasons.

The proposal in relation to Oireachtas inquiries seriously weakens the rights of individual citizens, firstly to protect their good names, and secondly to have disputes between themselves and the Oireachtas concerning their constitutional rights (especially their rights to fair procedures) decided by an independent judiciary.

The proposal to allow proportionate reductions in judicial remuneration (which we support in principle) provides insufficient protection for the independence of the judiciary. – Yours, etc,

PATRICK CONNOLLY,

PETER SUTHERLAND,

JOHN ROGERS,

HAROLD WHELEHAN,

DERMOT GLEESON,

DAVID BYRNE,

MICHAEL MCDOWELL,

PAUL GALLAGHER,

C/o The Law Library,

Dublin 7.


When I see those names I might just vote yes to them both!

[Denn Forever]

Information from Wiki on the 2nd referendum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtieth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2011_(Ireland)

[Shamrock Shore]

Declan - what's your problem with 8 former Attorneys General saying that they are opposing the referendum.

Are they not well qualified to speak or do you feel that they are rowing in behind their legal chums who may see Tribunal gravy trains being halted?

I am voting 'No' cos I don't like it. There is a very clear seperation between legislature and judiciary here in Ireland and I would hate to see the Dáil and Seanad, with a fair few gobshites warming their fat arses on the plush seats, having the power to arraign, try and execute individuals. Look at the balls they made of the Ivor Callelly 'trial'. They harp on about the DIRT enquiry. Hardly a mention is given to the fact that the banks went in and bent over and spread their cheeks. Fish in barrell stuff.

Let the Dáíl and Seanad legislate and let the Courts do their work.

Besides - a figure of 314 mill was quoted as been spent on Tribunals in the past 10 years with the bulk going to barristers. No mention, no siree, of the fact that 50% of that would have been paid back in taxes and levies.

And no, I am not a barrister

[Declan]

Declan - what's your problem with 8 former Attorneys General saying that they are opposing the referendum.

Are they not well qualified to speak or do you feel that they are rowing in behind their legal chums who may see Tribunal gravy trains being halted?

The latter SS - When I see Peter Sutherland, Dermot Gleeson, Harry Whelehan and McDowell's name attached to anything my antenna's go into Def Con 3 position automatically

As I said earlier in the thread my instinct would be as you stated in keeping the separation as is but my cynicism comes to the fore when our learned friends are in such unison!

[Hardy]

Declan, I see your point, but I get even more scared when the whole political establishment (even SF, ffs) gangs up on the people and tries to give themselves the right to decide on an ad hoc basis whether an individual's rights or the "national interest" (in reality any issue they themselves decide to investigate) should take precedence in any given circumstance.

I don't know an electorate anywhere in the world that would sign over its rights and freedoms to parliament in perpetuity. And that's even in countries where the scale of venality among the political class is nowhere near as notable as it is here.

This is a fundamental constitutional issue. It effectively abolishes the separation of powers and gives parliament carte blanche to ignore the judicial system at its whim. Can you imagine the public outcry in republics like France or the USA if the politicians tried to pull a stunt like this? Here, we haven't even had a campaign.

[muppet]

I'm with Declan.

Everyone in the country is whinging about why Seanie Fitz and co have yet to appear in court. The reason is that there are very few laws to charge them on. The Law Society (of which Michael Lynn was a member), Irish Medical Council (of which Patrick Neary was a member) and the Political Establishment (Bertie?) have long avoided creating any legislation under which they themselves might be charged.

This amendment isn't perfect, but if it existed a few years ago and we had the political will (I know) some of the above would now be in jail.

Vote no by all means, but don't whinge about why Seanie Fitz and co are still playing their golf.

[Hardy]

The problem with locking up Seánie Fitz has nothing to do with giving the likes of Healy-Rae or Ó Snodaigh or Shatter carte blanche to prosecute anyone they happen to take a dislike to, send the guards into their houses with search warrants etc. and find them guilty by kangaroo court while they grandstand and compete to get the juiciest headline in the next morning's papers.

And that's not to mention the fact that we have no way of knowing who will make up future parliaments, much as the Germans didn't in, say, 1930 (please, I'll take the Godwin's Law posts as read).

Even if this were the only way to get Seánie, it wouldn't justify jeopardising the rights of citizens in the process, a la the post 9/11 carry on in the USA.

And I'm afraid I can't buy the proposition that the crowd of clowns in Leinster House who bungled the Ivor Callely investigation as they fell over each other to make headlines would have sorted out Seanie without making such a complete bollix of it as to make sure the little hoor would never hang his coat on a cell door.

[muppet]

The problem with locking up Seánie Fitz has nothing to do with giving the likes of Healy-Rae or Ó Snodaigh or Shatter carte blanche to prosecute anyone they happen to take a dislike to, send the guards into their houses with search warrants etc. and find them guilty by kangaroo court while they grandstand and compete to get the juiciest headline in the next morning's papers.

And that's not to mention the fact that we have no way of knowing who will make up future parliaments, much as the Germans didn't in, say, 1930 (please, I'll take the Goidwin's Law posts as read).

Even if this were the only way to get Seánie, it wouldn't justify jeopardising the rights of citizens to do so, a la the post 9/11 carry on in the USA.

And I'm afraid I can't buy the proposition that the crowd of clowns in Leinster House who bungled the Ivor Callely investigation as they fell over each other to make headlines would have sorted out Seanie without making such a complete bollix of it as to make sure the little hoor would never hang his coat on a cell door.

They had no weapons with which to investigate Callelly.

Back to the issue. It might force the lazy electorate to think about who they are voting for.