What do we call a government that outlaws dissent in the Oireachtas?

[He3]

Stilling the voice of dissent within the Oireachtas would be a subversive act. The government is proposing to do that in the NAMA Bill.

This is section 50(2) of the NAMA Bill:

'the CEO and the Chairman, in giving evidence under subsection (1) [ie to the Public Accounts Committee] shall not

(a) question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the government or a minister of the government or on the merits of the objective of such a policy

or

(b) produce to the Committee a specified document in which the CEO or Chairman questions or expresses an opinion on the merits of any such policy or such objective'

..

Dissent is a vital element in the feedstock of democracy. Those holding political responsibility for the banker/developer led crisis now wish to immunise themselves from criticism, even from senior officials speaking to an Oireachtas Committee. It is a subversive move.

[Wakeupcall]

Who are the 'terrorists' now?

[goosebump]

Stilling the voice of dissent within the Oireachtas would be a subversive act. The government is proposing to do that in the NAMA Bill.

This is section 50(2) of the NAMA Bill:

'the CEO and the Chairman, in giving evidence under subsection (1) [ie to the Public Accounts Committee] shall not

(a) question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the government or a minister of the government or on the merits of the objective of such a policy

or

(b) produce to the Committee a specified document in which the CEO or Chairman questions or expresses an opinion on the merits of any such policy or such objective'

..

Dissent is a vital element in the feedstock of democracy. Those holding political responsibility for the banker/developer led crisis now wish to immunise themselves from criticism, even from senior officials speaking to an Oireachtas Committee. It is a subversive move.

The CEO/Chairman of NAMA is not a member of the Oireachtas, you gormless fool. Stop starting stupid misleading threads.

The reason the specific provision exists in the legislation is to protect the CEO/Chairman, not the Minister. Members of the Oireachtas can have a go at the Minister, with full privilege, any time they want.

Its more than co-incidental that you lifted this from our sh1ttiest of sh1trags, The Daily Mail. The level of hysteria that surronds NAMA at this stage is off the scale.

[He3]

The CEO/Chairman of NAMA is not a member of the Oireachtas, you gormless fool. Stop starting stupid misleading threads.

The reason the specific provision exists in the legislation is to protect the CEO/Chairman, not the Minister. Members of the Oireachtas can have a go at the Minister, with full privilege, any time they want.

Its more than co-incidental that you lifted this from our sh1ttiest of sh1trags, The Daily Mail. The level of hysteria that surronds NAMA at this stage is off the scale.

I hope your indigestion settles soon

1. The gagging section prevents the Public Accounts Committee having a frank discussion with the CEO or the Chairman. Those NAMA officials may not voice any views contrary to the government's view. The Committee is hampered in its work on our behalf. That is to protect the government, and not to protect the officials in NAMA. You have missed the point, and it is quite a big one.

2. I never read the Daily Mail - do you? My source is the NAMA Bill - which I linked to here the minute it was published.

Subversive is as subversive does.

[He3]

Who are the 'terrorists' now?

We can see who would be kept off the air by this section. I wonder what the government is so terrified of?

[He3]

The Bill has been put out for public comment. Maybe a dedicated thread pulling together suggested amendments would be useful?

[odie1kanobe]

I hope your indigestion settles soon

1. The gagging section prevents the Public Accounts Committee having a frank discussion with the CEO or the Chairman. Those NAMA officials may not voice any views contrary to the government's view. The Committee is hampered in its work on our behalf. That is to protect the government, and not to protect the officials in NAMA. You have missed the point, and it is quite a big one.

2. I never read the Daily Mail - do you? My source is the NAMA Bill - which I linked to here the minute it was published.

Subversive is as subversive does.

Its a good clause to prevent the idiot members of the PAC try and make a name for themselves asking stupid headline questions to get on front of Mail / Sun or any other rag.

IF the Chairman / CEO disagrees with Minister then up to him/her to do so in private, not in public.

NAMA works on our behalf or did you not realise that.

[SamVimesBoots]

NAMA works on our behalf

Depends on your definition of "our". It is blindingly obvious on whose behalf NAMA is going to be working, and it ain't the average joe.

[He3]

Who is this 'our' exactly? Tom Parlon wants it up and paying pronto. Who else is in 'our' with him and yourself there odie?

[Libero]

Its a good clause to prevent the idiot members of the PAC try and make a name for themselves asking stupid headline questions to get on front of Mail / Sun or any other rag.

Well, yes, it will prevent that shocking, shameful scenario.

But you also say that NAMA works on our behalf, so that provides a pretty solid basis for you demanding that it account for itself.

Aren't you worried that the form of words used, "opinion on the merits", will allow any half-way intelligent NAMA CEO to refuse to answer all sorts of good, moderate questions? You know, even the sort of questions you'd like the answers to, to make sure it's working well on our behalf?