Irish Referendum

Sheikh

Sheikh

At the Start
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
4,284
Location
The Garden
What do people think about the proposed changes to the constitution.
On it's own the first change to allow pay reductions for Judges looks fine but coupled with the proposed second change which gives the Oireachtas the power to investigate 'issues of public interest' it looks a bit sinister.

The rash of expensive Tribunals we had was a disgrace but I believe these issues should be dealt with impartially. The Oireachtas is hardly impartial.
The Government would also have the ability to place pressure on the judiciary by hitting them in the pocket.

Most Citizens wouldn't have the resources to lawyer up and clear their names in the courts having had an Oireachtas committee ruin their reputation.
 
Last edited:
Rabitte was on last night saying that if you didn't like the findings of the investigation you could always take a high court case to clear your name...eh apart from the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. How much is a Barrister ?
 
The attorney general's advice a few years ago that judges' salaries couldn't be reduced in line with other public sector salaries was outrageous. The government of the day should have gone ahead and done it anyway and let the judges dare to challenge it.

They'll be stuck now with an inferior solution, because they were unprepared to make room for a bit of common sense. But judges are part of society too and should have to go through the same ups and downs as anyone else.

Regarding the other referendum, the main concern at present is that nobody in Ireland is accountable for their actions. When, if ever, will the people who destroyed the banks be required to provide even an explanation of what went on? Tribunals are too slow, too detailed and too expensive. Under the present rules Ireland would never have been able to do the job on News International that the British parliament has done.
 
Grey said:
The attorney general's advice a few years ago that judges' salaries couldn't be reduced in line with other public sector salaries was outrageous. The government of the day should have gone ahead and done it anyway and let the judges dare to challenge it.

They'll be stuck now with an inferior solution, because they were unprepared to make room for a bit of common sense. But judges are part of society too and should have to go through the same ups and downs as anyone else.

Regarding the other referendum, the main concern at present is that nobody in Ireland is accountable for their actions. When, if ever, will the people who destroyed the banks be required to provide even an explanation of what went on? Tribunals are too slow, too detailed and too expensive. Under the present rules Ireland would never have been able to do the job on News International that the British parliament has done.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if Judges should be vulnerable to the same ups and downs as an ordinary citizen. Certainly a lot of them could do with a large dose of reality. Perhaps if their salaries where somehow linked to some sort of cost of living index (vague I know) but I don't think politicians should be allowed meddle with the judiciary's income.

I think everyone would agree we need a more efficient tool than the tribunals. Gravy trains for the legalese. They often behaved in a bullying manner. I just don't feel comfortable with that power in the hands of politicians.
 
Sheikh said:
I'm not sure if Judges should be vulnerable to the same ups and downs as an ordinary citizen. Certainly a lot of them could do with a large dose of reality. Perhaps if their salaries where somehow linked to some sort of cost of living index (vague I know) but I don't think politicians should be allowed meddle with the judiciary's income.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with linking them to particular grades in the public service, which worked fine for sixty years? Why shouldn't that continue? The purpose of the protection in the constitution was to prevent them being singled out for unfair treatment, not to allow them to stand on dry ground while the rest of us swim for our lives.

I think everyone would agree we need a more efficient tool than the tribunals. Gravy trains for the legalese. They often behaved in a bullying manner. I just don't feel comfortable with that power in the hands of politicians.
Click to expand...

The power has to be given to somebody, and politicians at least are accountable once every five years. Given the conservative nature of our political parties I think it unlikely they would abuse it, and in a country where every reflex has been to protect the interests and privacy of the rich, no matter what they have been up to, I don't think there is much to worry about.
 
As regards the salary, when you put it like that it sounds reasonable.Have they already suggested linking to senior Civil servants pay grades ?

My worry regarding the other issue is that a little bloke wouldn't be able to defend himself but than it is highly unlikely that they would invoke this to go after the little bloke ?
 
Have they already suggested linking to senior Civil servants pay grades ?
Click to expand...

That has always been the practice.

My worry regarding the other issue is that a little bloke wouldn't be able to defend himself but than it is highly unlikely that they would invoke this to go after the little bloke ?
Click to expand...

There are no guarantees, but I would agree with you. And TDs and Senators already have immunity from prosecution for whatever they say in the Oireachtas, but I can't recall any cases where that power has been abused.
 
Eight former Attorney Generals, all barristers, are now saying they are opposed to the second referendum, while Minister in charge, and solicitor, Shatter is telling them to get stuffed.
 
In the greater scheme of things and with such voter apathy likely I would hate to call either bill.
 
SlimChance said:
In the greater scheme of things and with such voter apathy likely I would hate to call either bill.
Click to expand...


I think both of them will hose in...People see it as a case of lowering judges pay, "yeah, fcuk them, cut them down to size", and "tribunals cost too much, this will get rid of them".
 
del boy said:
I think both of them will hose in...People see it as a case of lowering judges pay, "yeah, fcuk them, cut them down to size", and "tribunals cost too much, this will get rid of them".
Click to expand...

When in reality it will do f*ck all.
 
This letter to the Irish Times is rather good:

Sir, – In listening to the debate on the advisability of permitting the Oireachtas to conduct hearings versus letting the courts be the sole arbiter on wrongdoing it seems the vast majority are taking it for granted that every court administers perfect justice every time.

I can only assume none of them have been unfortunate enough to have been subjected to the very fallible judges who grace our esteemed courts of justice. I have bad news for them: it simply isn’t so. In my opinion, based on experience of the courts, one is just as likely to suffer wrongly at the hands of an incompetent, perhaps even biased, judge. Personally, I’d rather take my chances with a number of elected “judges” answerable to public opinion than with a single member of the insider-elite who answers to nobody. – Yours, etc,

LIAM O’MAHONY,
Barrow Lane,
Graiguenamanagh,
Co Kilkenny.
Click to expand...
 
The judiciary should of course be independent, but it's no harm pointing out that no institution is perfect. Parliamentary enquiries will have their flaws, but so do the alternatives.

I see the attorneys general even want to oppose the first referendum. Their letter has this single sentence on the subject:

The proposal to allow proportionate reductions in judicial remuneration (which we support in principle) provides insufficient protection for the independence of the judiciary.
Click to expand...
Gentlemen, this is sophistry. Either you support the principle or you don't.
 
Grey said:
The judiciary should of course be independent, but it's no harm pointing out that no institution is perfect. Parliamentary enquiries will have their flaws, but so do the alternatives.

I see the attorneys general even want to oppose the first referendum. Their letter has this single sentence on the subject:

Gentlemen, this is sophistry. Either you support the principle or you don't.
Click to expand...

We are neither familiar with the terms Gentlemen nor Sophistry - please try to dumb down your posts a little.....:blink::blink::blink:
 
Grey said:
The judiciary should of course be independent, but it's no harm pointing out that no institution is perfect. Parliamentary enquiries will have their flaws, but so do the alternatives.
Click to expand...

On the whole there is far more incentive for elected politicians to compromise their independence in my view. The worst-case scenario - political show-trials that amount to little more than organised witch-hunts - is not entirely unfathomable given the state of the Dail.

Conversely, the legal profession have absolutely fleeced the country in their handling of tribunals since the eighties and deserve to held to account. I haven't made up my mind yet.
 
If the judges pay referendum vote doesn't get close to a 98% yes vote I would be extremely surprised. It will be interesting to see how many people who voted in the presidential election but abstained from the referendum votes. I wouldn't want to be on the referendum commission from what I am hearing at the polling stations.
 
Back
Top