Printable View
Seems odd that these votes will be taking place in 17 days, and yet to date, there has been practically zero discussion or information on either. Personally, I see no objection to reducing judges' pay, however until there is a convincing reason given as to why the Oireachtas should be allowed conduct inquiries, I'll be voting no in that referendum.
If anything the last 4 years has shown that we need the Oireachtas to hold inquiries and with that the ability to compel witnesses.
The courts aren't always the best forum.
Too much to expect a fellow member of the Profession to have the balls, but Lenihan should've reduced it and seen them in court. It's clear the intent was to stop individual punishment, not to exempt them from across the board cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
The cost of tribunals? The lack of accountability for the fook ups over the last 10 years? The comparisons with other jurisdictions, such as the UK, that can have an inquiry done and dusted in a few weeks? Put it together with Oireachtas TV and we'd have a more meaningful parliament. In my view, it's only putting us back in a place that we thought we were pre-Abbeylara tribunal.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
My one reservation would be that it could be used, like the tribunals, to mean people avoid the full rigour of the law. FF and their fellow travellers have form in this, such as "accidentally" getting Haughey off charges, the fact that Ahern, Burke et al should've been answering to CAB etc. If they've gone through a public inquiry, it could limit the chances of a trial.
Hit the nail on the head mate - on paper, this is an excellent idea, as it it should remove the automatic path to irrelevant and costly tribunal land. But do we trust these people to manage it properly ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
I don't trust the cops and DPP to do it either though (any Anglo charges yet?), so better some justice than none. On balance I'm a "Yes" on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
Damn right. We need someone with experience with this sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
http://douglawrence.files.wordpress....6/mccarthy.jpg
Thing is we can vote out TD's, what can we do about disinterested cops and prosecutors?
We are all against wasting money on tribunals and punishing corrupt individuals. However, the wording of this amendment is extremely suspect. Do you trust politicians to prosecute individuals? If yes, then vote to support amendment. If you think i'd rather not give inept, parish-pump politicians such scope then vote against.
This is why this referendum should not be supported:
It is proposed to insert into Article 15 of the Constitution an explicit power for the Houses of the Oireachtas to conduct inquiries into matters of “general public importance” with a clear power to make findings in respect of the conduct of individuals. Somewhat controversially, sub-section 4 of the proposed amendment provides: “It shall be for the House . . . to determine the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry. . .” It is clear, even from the explanatory memorandum, that the purpose of this sub-section is to minimise the degree to which the courts can “impede” parliamentary inquiries in challenges that might be taken by individuals affected by such inquiries.
Full article http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...304195636.html
"Shall we shoot them?" --FionaQuote:
Originally Posted by Macy
I'm incredibly lazy and haven't read an iota about this yet, so spare me the energy and tell me, does the bit on judge's pay just wipe out the line, or does it create rules for prevention of abuse? If the latter, should we be voting for it?
Irish legislation is badly-written at best, invariably on purpose. While I wouldn't explicitly vote against it in the case above, I don't see how I could vote for it.
It changes it so that they are treated the same as the public servant grades to which their pay is linked (pay and public sector levies). A lot of the arguement on this amendment is nonsense in my opinion. I don't see how this makes any sense that the process of awarding them increases was ok, but when exactly the same process is used to reduce pay as per the grades to which their pay is linked, it somehow becomes and affront to the separation of powers*. That argument hasn't a leg to stand on, imo. If it's good enough on the way up, it's good enough on the way down.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
*some of the commentary on this has been really disappointing, especially from journalists that I previously would've had respect for. Whilst I see the other amendment as debatable, this one is so clear cut!
What I still don't understand to this day why the previous government were so worried? *plants tongue into cheek*
Bunreact na hÉireann Article 35.5- The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.
Bunreact na hÉireann Article 35.5- Ní cead laghdú a dhéanamh ar thuarastal breithimh an fad is bheidh in oifig.
Literal translation: No permission is given to reduce the salary of a justice/judge for the length he is in office.
(If there are better Irish speakers' here please improve on the literal if possible)
The remuneration of a public sector employee is analogous to their "gross" pay. Levies and taxes are not "pay cuts" officially.
It would have taken a brave judge to take a case in this country and manage to get away with it.
It was very difficult for the new government coming in to just push these changes through after a previous administration had said what they had said.
We all know the real reason that this wasn't pushed through:
...Dermot Ahern (Solicitor), Barry Andrews (Barrister), Thomas Byrne (Solicitor), Brian Cowen (Solicitor), Brian Lenihan(Barrister), Michael Mulcahy (Barrister), Willie O'Dea (Barrister), John O'Donoghue (Solicitor), Peter Power (Solicitor)...
Proposed Article 35.5-
1° The remuneration of judges shall not be reduced during their continuance in office save in accordance with this section.
2° The remuneration of judges is subject to the imposition of taxes, levies or other charges that are imposed by law on persons generally or persons belonging to a particular class.
3° Where, before or after the enactment of this section, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of persons belonging to classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money and such law states that those reductions are in the public interest, provision may also be made by law to make proportionate reductions to the remuneration of judges.
I think this is simple and straightforward and doesn't interfere with judicial independence.
It is not elegant law though.
See the proposal here.
Interestingly enough only this week the New Jersey State Supreme Court over-ruled legislation proposed by the State legislature on the basis that the below article from the State Constitution bars the Judiciary from contributing more of their salaries' towards health care insurance and pension contributions.
State of New Jersey Constitution, Article VI-Section VI-6. The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Superior Court shall receive for their services such salaries as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during the term of their appointment. They shall not, while in office, engage in the practice of law or other gainful pursuit.
Wrt the "Abbeylara" referendum I agree in the general principle of the separation of powers, however I definitely think that Oireachtas Inquiries with the power of coercion could sort out certain things a lot faster than a self-serving tribunal could.
The misinformation out there though seems to think that a load of kangaroo courts will be set up willy-nilly to expedite judgements through the Dáil and Seanad. This is simply not the case and a brief reading of the Referendum Commission's website would show that.
And of course on advice of the AG, also a barrister...Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Obviously I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I must say I was never entirely convinced it was unconstitutional, given the aforementioned link to specific grades in the civil service on which their pay was based. Maybe it wouldn't have got through the Supreme Court (either through a challenge, or referral from Council of State), but could never find a logical reason St Brian of Mulhuddart didn't try.
Thanks Macy.
The Oireachtas Inquiry Referendum has been defeated:
Yes: 46.7% (812,008)
No: 53.3% (928,175)
Unsurprisingly, the Judicial Pay vote went almost 4:1 in favour:
Yes: 79.3% (1,393,877)
No: 20.7% (354,134)
The judicial pay one was easy, as they were really clutching at straws to justify a no vote.
I just came down on the side of yes on the second, mainly swayed that you can't look at one line/ section in isolation, so there was enough protection. I don't really get why there should be an undue delay to a rerun on amended words, as I've heard suggested today. We're supposed to have the childrens rights referendum soon, so a reworded and properly debated amendment should be reproposed.
I'd be pretty much of the same mind as yourself I think Macy. I'd concerns about the Oireachtas Inquiry amendment for sure but eventually decided it was inadequate to rule out attempting to rectify wrongs we know happened on the basis it might lead to wrongs as yet unknown or vaguely defined.