Oh, and there is a referendum.

[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 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.

My point is that their carry-on, where they fell over each other to make headlines by saying whatever came into their heads with no regard for procedure or the actual outcome, if repeated in the case of a Seánie Fitz (as it most certainly would, with knobs on to impress the electorate) would certainly make him immune to prosecution on the fair trial principle.

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

It might. But I wouldn't fancy hanging my rights as a citizen on that slim possibility.

[trileacman]

Bertie Ahern
Brian Cowen
Ivor Callely
Both Healy-Rae's
Michael McDowell
Michael Lowry
Charlie Haughey
John Gormley
to name but a few,
These are the type of person that runs for  and acquires political office in this country. And the people want to give them more power?

[Billys Boots]

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

It certainly isn't working in relation to the Presidential election.

[LaurelEye]

No to the second one. I've no problem with the first two parts of it, but it shouldn't be for the politicians themselves to decide what is fair and appropriate. People are desperate at the moment and are likely to get more desperate the way things are going, and any set of snake-oil salesmen with a load of plausible guff, whether it be Five Point Plans or sh:te about positivity, may be in power at some point in the future.

For the first one, I'm going to do a first and spoil my ballot. They should have gone ahead and imposed the same cuts on the judges as they did on everyone else in the public service and seen what way the cards fell where the constitutionality of it was concerned. This is simply a cheap publicity stunt and should be treated as such.

[muppet]

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

It certainly isn't working in relation to the Presidential election.

And who will the President be investigating as part of the referendum?

[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.

My point is that their carry-on, where they fell over each other to make headlines by saying whatever came into their heads with no regard for procedure or the actual outcome, if repeated in the case of a Seánie Fitz (as it most certainly would, with knobs on to impress the electorate) would certainly make him immune to prosecution on the fair trial principle.

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

It might. But I wouldn't fancy hanging my rights as a citizen on that slim possibility.

There is something very Irish about this. We demand they do something, they suggest something, but when someone says it might affect you we demand they do nothing.

[Hardy]

That's cheap, Muppet, if I may say so. It seems to twist my argument into a statement of self-interest. For the record, though I would have thought it was plain, my argument is for the preservation of the rights of ALL citizens.

How about your argument on the merits of the proposal itself and your position on whether
- it doesn't jeopardise the rights of citizens
- it does, but not enough to balance the advantages it confers (and what those advantages are).

[muppet]

That's cheap, Muppet, if I may say so. It seems to twist my argument into a statement of self-interest. For the record, though I would have thought it was plain, my argument is for the preservation of the rights of ALL citizens.

How about your argument on the merits of the proposal itself and your position on whether
- it doesn't jeopardise the rights of citizens
- it does, but not enough to balance the advantages it confers (and what those advantages are).

You are entitled to defend your rights as a citizen and you exercise them as an individual single citizen (e.g. voting). How is my questioning that cheap?

We moaned about the corruption of Fianna Fáil and within 6 months of removing them we are about to elect one of them President. That along comes a proposal to do something about the corruption and malpractice etc and we are afraid of it.

We deserve to be screwed over and over as we aren't smart enough to find a way out.

[Hardy]

That's cheap, Muppet, if I may say so. It seems to twist my argument into a statement of self-interest. For the record, though I would have thought it was plain, my argument is for the preservation of the rights of ALL citizens.

How about your argument on the merits of the proposal itself and your position on whether
- it doesn't jeopardise the rights of citizens
- it does, but not enough to balance the advantages it confers (and what those advantages are).

You are entitled to defend your rights as a citizen and you exercise them as an individual single citizen (e.g. voting). How is my questioning that cheap?

I explained why I thought it was cheap. But no big deal, I’m a big boy now.

We moaned about the corruption of Fianna Fáil and within 6 months of removing them we are about to elect one of them President. That along comes a proposal to do something about the corruption and malpractice etc and we are afraid of it.

Your seem to be suggesting that we should accept the first proposal that comes along, without question, on the basis that at least it’s something. That’s not a sensible approach to the framing of public policy. We could lock up all the bankers. That would be something. And it would infringe the rights of fewer people than this proposal potentially does. But it wouldn't be right either and it wouldn't be effective, because it wouldn’t stand up.

A bad solution is worse than no solution at all. We don’t need to do “something”; we need to do the right thing. As I asked earlier, do you have an opinion on the merits of the proposal in its own right, other than that at least it’s something?

We deserve to be screwed over and over as we aren't smart enough to find a way out.

I‘ll take that as a rhetorical statement. 

[muppet]

That's cheap, Muppet, if I may say so. It seems to twist my argument into a statement of self-interest. For the record, though I would have thought it was plain, my argument is for the preservation of the rights of ALL citizens.

How about your argument on the merits of the proposal itself and your position on whether
- it doesn't jeopardise the rights of citizens
- it does, but not enough to balance the advantages it confers (and what those advantages are).

You are entitled to defend your rights as a citizen and you exercise them as an individual single citizen (e.g. voting). How is my questioning that cheap?

I explained why I thought it was cheap. But no big deal, I'm a big boy now.

We moaned about the corruption of Fianna Fáil and within 6 months of removing them we are about to elect one of them President. That along comes a proposal to do something about the corruption and malpractice etc and we are afraid of it.

Your seem to be suggesting that we should accept the first proposal that comes along, without question, on the basis that at least it's something. That's not a sensible approach to the framing of public policy. We could lock up all the bankers. That would be something. And it would infringe the rights of fewer people than this proposal potentially does. But it wouldn't be right either and it wouldn't be effective, because it wouldn't stand up.

A bad solution is worse than no solution at all. We don't need to do "something"; we need to do the right thing. As I asked earlier, do you have an opinion on the merits of the proposal in its own right, other than that at least it's something?

We deserve to be screwed over and over as we aren't smart enough to find a way out.

I'll take that as a rhetorical statement. 

This proposes to allow Oireachtas committees to be set up with investigative powers.  It appears to give those committees powers similar to those of the courts. Those who sit in the courts are appointed by the President on the advice of the Government. This proposal cuts out the middlemen (Judges) who are appointed by the same people anyway.

[Hardy]

Why do we bother with courts then?

[muppet]

Why do we bother with courts then?

Courts are means of settling disputes and processing complaints and dealing with law enforcement issues. This proposal is to deal with issues that fall outside that.

The US Senate does it and does the UK. It is not unusual. There is a risk, being elected and all that, the politicians could go all populist and only go after the rogues du jour. Such as Murdock etc. But watching the US Senate slaughter the SEC for allowing Bernie Madoff to operate for decades made me think we need some of that. The courts won't go after the SE, but the Senate did.

[mylestheslasher]

Why give the senate the power to do anything, I thought fg were going to put it to the people to shut it down or was that just another broken promise.  Yes to judges pay, no to powers to the senate/dail

[muppet]

Why give the senate the power to do anything, I thought fg were going to put it to the people to shut it down or was that just another broken promise.  Yes to judges pay, no to powers to the senate/dail

The power goes to the Oireachtas. Closing the Senate subsequently won't matter.

It requires a referendum to shut down the Senate. I have no idea whether they intend to hold another referendum during the course of this Government. Was it in the Programme for Government?

[Hardy]

There is a role for Oireachtas committees to investigate matters of public interest. However, the problem here is that (again) the government is asking us to take them (and all future governments) on trust. They simply won't tell us the legislative provisions they propose in order to balance the rights of individual against what THEY decide at any time is the national interest. They have proposed no rules of evidence. They arrogate to themselves the right to decide what are "fair procedures". And there is no guarantee of access to the courts for any person mistreated by such procedures.

Behold your judge and jury: