Government considering another go at Oireachtas Inquiry Referendum: Examiner

[brughahaha]

Strong chance of passing if the legitimate concerns of the no camp are addressed, however over christmas heard It discussed and Hayes seemed unrepentant and refused to accept para 4 was a problem so we'll see

Would be greatly helped by a cabinet reshuffle that got rid of shatter anyway , the mans arrogance could yet again scupper the referendum ........ Ditto Rabbite

[j26]

I think we can set our watch to it now:
Step 1- "Independent Research" into the reasons for the no vote sets up a few strawmen arguments.
Step 2- Backroom deals with sectional interest groups to get them to recommend a yes.
Step 3- Media charchter assassination of anyone who argues for a no vote......by innuendo of course!!!
Step 4- Media questioning of the funding of the no campaign but not the yes campaign.
Step 5- "Civil Society" and "Concerned Citizens" groups to spontaneously emerge with massive financial backing.
Step 6- The Queering of the pitch by media shills who will speak of the upcoming yes campaign misinformation as establihed fact.
Step 7- The ignoring of the McKenna judgment.
Step 8- Yes campaigners introduced by the media as trustworthy experts in their field and No campaigners as fringe amateur cranks and malcontents.
Step 9- Various appeals to emotion.
Step 10- Non-denial denials of the claims of No campaigners rather than any rebuutal or critique of them.

To name but a few...

Or just modify the wording of ss4....

[Greener]

Strong chance of passing if the legitimate concerns of the no camp are addressed, however over christmas heard It discussed and Hayes seemed unrepentant and refused to accept para 4 was a problem so we'll see

Would be greatly helped by a cabinet reshuffle that got rid of shatter anyway , the mans arrogance could yet again scupper the referendum ........ Ditto Rabbite

The first step would be for some of the FG/Lab sympathisers to accept the deficient nature of the wording. If existing members of the Oireachtas refuse to accept the will of the people, and the criticism of a swath of qualified legal eagles, politically mandated people, civil liberties organisations, and the independent referendum commission, then an alternative wording will be much the same as the first, which will attract the same opposition. Only this time, the same opposition will be coming from an even stronger place, and will be well versed in the valid arguments against the amendment.

[ger12]

Voting 'no' to this referendum was an act of stupidity.

There are many who have a vested interest in the Dáil having little investigative powers and who would be more than delighted with, say, a new tribunal set up with all the nice expenses that would involve.

It seems the Irish are prepared to say "No" on anything . . just to "show da gubberment what I thinkada cuts"

The people voted yes to one referendum and no to another because it was flawed. Funny though, many of your vested interests are sitting on the government benches. Tribunals were set up by politicians many of whom wasted much time trying to obstruct them.

The Oireachtas referendum was flawed. Simple.

[ger12]

The first step would be for some of the FG/Lab sympathisers to accept the deficient nature of the wording. If existing members of the Oireachtas refuse to accept the will of the people, and the criticism of a swath of qualified legal eagles, politically mandated people, civil liberties organisations, and the independent referendum commission, then an alternative wording will be much the same as the first, which will attract the same opposition. Only this time, the same opposition will be coming from an even stronger place, and will be well versed in the valid arguments against the amendment.

I was opposed to this referendum the minute I read subsection 4°. I had expected a mature Oireachtas would have accepted the decision of the electorate with grace and a commitment to ensure that the valid concerns of our citizens would be reflected upon. It was disappointing when many politicians attempted to lay blame for a defeated referendum at the feet of the eight AGs, the Referendum Commission, "the confused electorate" and each other.

Now I wonder if our present government could really be trusted to use powers of investigation appropriately.

[Finbar10]

I would vote yes to something along similar lines to the original wording recommended by the Oireachtas committee on the constitution (rights would be better protected). But my yes vote would be unenthusiastic. I think this will make far less difference than people think. I doubt it will "give power back to parliament" as claimed.

There seem to be two circumstances where parliamentary powers of inquiry are particularly effective. The first circumstance is where there is a genuinely independent second chamber, which may not be government controlled. The powerful Australian Senate is a good example of this. Its voting system means it is virtually never government controlled. And one of its most attractive features is its ability to inquire into the actions of the government of the day. The US is another example.

A second chamber isn't a necessity however. The second circumstance where inquiry powers have a lot of impact is where a qualified minority in parliament has the power to initiate an inquiry. Germany is a great example of this. A quarter of MPs in the Bundestag can initiate an inquiry. And the rights of this minority are protected in the conduct of the inquiry (the Germany constitutional court ensures this), e.g. a quarter of the members of the committee of inquiry have the right to compel their own witnesses. And the government cannot use its majority to railroad a particular blanket inquiry finding. A minority can insist in having their dissenting finding included in the final report (it's not necessarily a consensus document).

Going with the second option of granting a qualified minority inquiry rights would actually strengthen the argument in favour of abolishing the Seanad. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is neither an independent reformed Seanad or inquiry powers for a Dáil minority. An expert actually described in detail and argued in favour of the German approach when talking in front of the Oireachtas committee that drew up the original less controversial committee wording (including Brendan Howlin also). The Seanad is admittedly very flimsy as one of our checks and balances. There are two sensible approaches. One either turns the Seanad into a proper check on government power (increase its powers, make it directly elected, and take it out from under the shadow of the Dáil) or if abolition is insisted upon then put alternative checks and balances in place. Granting a qualified Dáil minority inquiry rights would be one excellent way of doing this.

An interesting aside is that we actually very nearly got German style inquiry powers written into the original Free State Constitution. The following wording appeared in one of the drafts:

The House has the right – which on the motion of one third of its members becomes an obligation – to appoint a committee of inquiry. Details as to the election, number and procedure of such committees shall be determined by Standing Orders or special resolution. The courts and administrative authorities are bound to produce evidence and documents before such committees …

but this never quite made it into the final document.

And, fyi, this is the relevant German article (IMO very well written and constructed):

Article 44
[Committees of inquiry]
(1) The Bundestag shall have the right, and on the motion of one
quarter of its Members the duty, to establish a committee of
inquiry, which shall take the requisite evidence at public
hearings. The public may be excluded.
(2) The rules of criminal procedure shall apply mutatis
mutandis to the taking of evidence. The privacy of correspondence,
posts and telecommunications shall not be
affected.
(3) Courts and administrative authorities shall be required to
provide legal and administrative assistance.
(4) The decisions of committees of inquiry shall not be subject
to judicial review. The courts shall be free to evaluate and
rule upon the facts that were the subject of the investigation.

[ger12]

I would vote yes to something along similar lines to the original wording recommended by the Oireachtas committee on the constitution (rights would be better protected). But my yes vote would be unenthusiastic. I think this will make far less difference than people think. I doubt it will "give power back to parliament" as claimed.

There seem to be two circumstances where parliamentary powers of inquiry are particularly effective. The first circumstance is where there is a genuinely independent second chamber, which may not be government controlled. The powerful Australian Senate is a good example of this. Its voting system means it is virtually never government controlled. And one of its most attractive features is its ability to inquire into the actions of the government of the day. The US is another example.

A second chamber isn't a necessity however. The second circumstance where inquiry powers have a lot of impact is where a qualified minority in parliament has the power to initiate an inquiry. Germany is a great example of this. A quarter of MPs in the Bundestag can initiate an inquiry. And the rights of this minority are protected in the conduct of the inquiry (the Germany constitutional court ensures this), e.g. a quarter of the members of the committee of inquiry have the right to compel their own witnesses. And the government cannot use its majority to railroad a particular blanket inquiry finding. A minority can insist in having their dissenting finding included in the final report (it's not necessarily a consensus document).

Going with the second option of granting a qualified minority inquiry rights would actually strengthen the argument in favour of abolishing the Seanad. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is neither an independent reformed Seanad or inquiry powers for a Dáil minority. An expert actually described in detail and argued in favour of the German approach when talking in front of the Oireachtas committee that drew up the original less controversial committee wording (including Brendan Howlin also). The Seanad is admittedly very flimsy as one of our checks and balances. There are two sensible approaches. One either turns the Seanad into a proper check on government power (increase its powers, make it directly elected, and take it out from under the shadow of the Dáil) or if abolition is insisted upon then put alternative checks and balances in place. Granting a qualified Dáil minority inquiry rights would be one excellent way of doing this.

An interesting aside is that we actually very nearly got German style inquiry powers written into the original Free State Constitution. The following wording appeared in one of the drafts:

but this never quite made it into the final document.

And, fyi, this is the relevant German article (IMO very well written and constructed):

"The Bundestag may, and must, set up a committee of inquiry on a motion supported by one quarter of its Members".

This government was proposing that a simple majority in the "House" is what would be required for an inquiry to proceed - therefore the subject and range of investigations would be dictated by the government of the day.

The political interests of the parties in government would determine what got investigated and what didn't.