The Referenda

[Oldschool]

Judges Pay - Correct decison - Nobody should be above the "law".

Dail Enquiries - Correct decision - Didn't like the wording, but would have voted for it if there was a time limit. ie It and any legislation relating to it would automatically lapse after a 14 year period, requiring another referendum to continue it. Also who is going to enquire into the behaviour of politicians? - Maybe this is a power the president should be given.

[Donny B.]

Tis all good in the hood so.............

Those f%~king lackeys who relentlessly protect the establishment while persecuting the poor will have one less ivory backscratcher this Christmas.......

[Hippo]

Judges Pay - Correct decison - Nobody should be above the "law".

Dail Enquiries - Correct decision - Didn't like the wording, but would have voted for it if there was a time limit. ie It and any legislation relating to it would automatically lapse after a 14 year period, requiring another referendum to continue it. Also who is going to enquire into the behaviour of politicians? - Maybe this is a power the president should be given.

I posted on this in the 'Presidential' thread. Judge's pay was never 'above the law', but I can certainly let it go. The second proposal was very poorly worded, and accorded free license to politicians to conduct enquiries with minimal regard to fair procedures, a ridiculous and potentially dangerous idea. This wouldn't have been 'legislation', it would have been part of the Constitution and beyond any possible time limits.
You can forget about giving the President any such powers. How could you structure a Presidential investigation of politicians' behaviour? This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be awkward!

[Broken Wing]

Nice to see Shatter blaming the "No" on confusion and lack of information. Of course it couldn't possibly be that the people just didn't want the Oireachtas to have undisclosed powers that superseded the rights of citizens.

[simplythebest]

As far as I was concerned, there was no need for a referendum on Judges pay. The Constitution specifically states that;
"The remuneration of a Judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office"
That to me that is very clear. That a Judge cannot have his pay docked. However, that does not mean that the Body Judicial cannot have their pay docked. So my reading of the Constitution is that a singluar Judge couldn't have his pay reduced (and a very important safeguard imo) but the pay for all Judges, as a complete group, could be. To me there was nothing in the constitution saying that all Judges will have a pay reduction of 20% or whatever. However, if they tried to reduce a singluar Judge or even a specific class of Judge, then they would run into problems. Much ado about nothing.

[Scrum 5]

As I understand it Enda was going to cut all Judges pay but a senior judge spoke up to say it was/may be unconstitutional. Hence the referendum to clear any doubt.

[CRAZYDAVE]

Nice to see Shatter blaming the "No" on confusion and lack of information. Of course it couldn't possibly be that the people just didn't want the Oireachtas to have undisclosed powers that superseded the rights of citizens.

1. the NO Campaign
2. The Referendum Commission
3. ... "anyone else but me"
4. .. "The dog ate my homework"

It's amazing how self-ineptitude in not getting the message across is never put forward as the real excuse/reason for failure !

As for FF and their counter claims of "arrogance" on the part of the Government, two words beautifly reflect "arrogance" in terms of referendums .... Nice & Lisbon

Is it any wonder that the nation saw fit not to give any of them additional powers under the constitution.

[John23]

In truth I had a problem with both referendums. The judges pay for me should be set aside from any other public/civil renumeration. However my biggest bug bear was the Dail committee. I posted this on another forum that my concerns were if the folllowing happens:
(1) An incident of public interest occurs.
(2) An hysterical and puritanical outcry from the media ensues.
(3) Our Government paralysed by fear of bad publicity calls "Let's have a Dail Committee of Public Inquiry".
Now if I were the subject of any percieved wrongdoing and I had sitting in judgement of me any of the of the following:
(A) a convicted gunrunner
(B) a chappie who has been accused by a state appointed tribunal of tax evasion
(C) a guy who has a penchant for smoking the odd doobie or two and whose sole aim is to work for the turfcutters of Roscommon & Leitrim
(D) Last but not least a clown who wears a flat leather cap for no other obvious reason other than that maybe he is auditioning for the part of a displaced g*psey in a Bollywood musical in Trinity.
Sorry folks I'd like to take my chances in a costly tribunal conducted by qualified professionals

[Oldschool]

Judges Pay - Correct decison - Nobody should be above the "law".

Dail Enquiries - Correct decision - Didn't like the wording, but would have voted for it if there was a time limit. ie It and any legislation relating to it would automatically lapse after a 14 year period, requiring another referendum to continue it. Also who is going to enquire into the behaviour of politicians? - Maybe this is a power the president should be given.

I posted on this in the 'Presidential' thread. Judge's pay was never 'above the law', but I can certainly let it go. The second proposal was very poorly worded, and accorded free license to politicians to conduct enquiries with minimal regard to fair procedures, a ridiculous and potentially dangerous idea. This wouldn't have been 'legislation', it would have been part of the Constitution and beyond any possible time limits.
You can forget about giving the President any such powers. How could you structure a Presidential investigation of politicians' behaviour? This is a serious question, I'm not trying to be awkward!

As regards time limits. It is the constitution and you can pretty much put into it whatever you want (I know, I know and human rights etc).
Therefore putting in an amendment which automatically lapses unless re-indorsed should be quite simple.
Members of the president's council of state could act as his/her agents for example.
Perhaps what was required was two sub sections in the amendment. One covering the presidents area and the other the rest.
either way - It is the lack of a time limit that is the big issue for me, because the people can't introduce an amendment, they can only vote on one.
The politicians would never voluntarily give up any power once granted to them.
Bottom line - The politicians need to devise a wording that does apply time restrictions, so that if the people don't like the way it was implemented they get a chance to vote on it again and repeal it.

As example of abuse - When the population increased sufficiently to warrant additional seats, the politicians did exactly that and created more jobs for the boys. The people weren't instead asked, "Would you like to change the representation ratio such that no new seats would be created" or indeed "such that the number of seats could actually be reduced"
That's how you abuse the constitution. If there had been a clause in the constitution requiring that the representation ratio be reviewed every 21 years then that would be much more democratic. Our constitution is actually very undemocratic - written by politicians for politiicans.
Charlie Haughey said of Bertie that he was the most devious etc etc. He was wrong - DeValera was the most devious etc etc.

[TerenureJim]

Can we have a referendum to reduce the number of TD's to a nice round 100, scrap the local authorities by creating provincial govenrment based on a population/geographic analysis of the country with say 4/5 provinces/administrative districts.

Also before the new universal media charge comes into effect can we have a referendum on having RTÉ in it's current format. I'd be very interested to see how people feel regarding that cosy little bubble.