Well said Conor. The majority of people will fail to inform themselves on the consequences of voting yes.

Just out of interest is that a total of 147 judges, or s 147 the 15% who won’t take the voluntary pay cut?
Either way changing the constitution to save such a small amount of money is a ridiculous overreaction to the issue.

There are 147 judges in Ireland in total.

It will actually pretty much cost more money to run the referendum and make the necessary changes than will be saved in the short term.

Normally there are 147 judges in the State (though there are a large number of vacancies at the moment). As I understand it, 21 judges did not voluntarily take a pay cut in line with the pension levy. I think all new appointments start on a lower rate anyway. And the expenses regime has room for cuts. Each question of a referendum requires 3m ballot papers and a commission and additional day counting. The total cost of the votes on 27th will be approx €17-22m. Overkill is one word for it (leaving scope for manipulation of judges to a Ray Burke figure of the future might need another word).

SIX Judges have failed to take the voluntary reduction amounting to approx €60 pa. This is a populist proposal.

Our idiot politicians are invariable advised by their party hacks who more often than not are legal practitioners. The ‘poorly worded’ amendment proposed in the referendum have been worded by legal practitioners on behalf of the government. I would not be disposed to taking the opposition of the bar council to the proposed amendment as in anyway indicative of any independence of thought in terms of the legal consideration of this amendment.

If politicians are not allowed to lobby judges what the hell was john Crown up to trying to propose a Bill to stop this very carry on. Barristers and solicitors are supposed to inform you how much your costs will be but in my experience they never do.
The only human rights the irish legal profession is concerned about is their right to keep their snouts in the trough!
I still dont agree with politicians having this power but something has to be done

The cap on pay is not being restricted to judges with ‘fine legal minds

Independent Senator John Crown tried unsuccessfully to introduce a bill to limit/abolish lobbying of judges by elected members of the Dail which was blocked by the government.

Personally, I have plied my trade in court and never have I experienced any kind of set guidance given by a barrister relating to fees in any case I have been involved in.

‘Wronged’ people lucky enough to be favoured by the court in many cases wait for years to get paid if ever.

Separation of powers is nothing more than a ‘illusion’ while the judiciary are appointed and lob

Yes Gavin, that’s the way I see it!:
1) If public expenditure has to be severely curtailed then there should be no exceptions: Vote YES for the 29th Amendment.
2) I really think it’s imperative, for our democracy, to maintain the separation of powers. Given the lackadaisical level of enquiry shown by the electorate to date, it’s only a matter of time before cronyism/corruption, in the Oireachtas, is replaced by a far more cynical level of exclusionist politics. Imagine if Haughey/Aherne or even Kaiser Biff had this level of power, as proposed by the amendment——– I really shudder to think! An independent Judiciary is absolutely necessary for the continuing nurture of OUR fledgling democracy! Vote NO for the 30th Amendment.

No one is denying that there needs to be a change in how judges’ pay is decided.

But this power should not be vested in the Executive, it should be vested in an independent body.

That’s the problem. That’s the issue people have with this.

You should vote no on this referendum because the Government should not have this ability.

Ding Dong! The architect on the roundabout!

This is about protecting YOUR fundemental rights. If you ever need to go to Court against the State to protect your rights and freedoms, do you want a judge who is wholly independent, or a judge who can be economically manipulated by the State?

Yes, a referendum IS needed to reduce Judge’s pay, and we, as a State, should be entitled to reduce Judge’s pay in times of economic crisis, however, this power should not be vested in the Executive, there should be an independent body set up to deal with judge’s pay.

This referendum is not worded properly and it is potentially dangerous. We need a better worded referendum.

With regard too Oireachtas inquiries, if you are being investigated for alleged wrongdoing, do you want to have the right to fair procedure, legal representation and all of that? Do you want your case decided by a jury of your peers or an independent judge who is an expert on the law and on deciding cases such as these?

Or would you rather a gombeen politician who was elected to fix potholes who relies on popularity to keep his job investigate you, with the ability to ruin your good name, and accuse you of all sorts of things without fear of recrimination? Would you rather face such an inquiry absent any legal representation or fair procedure to which you’d be entitled in Court?

Yes, these are the worst case scenarios, however, if a constitutional referendum can have a worst case scenario as bad as this, I will certainly be voting no.

Loathe as I am to resort to Godwin’s law, but read up about the Nazi’s rise to power in the 1930’s – The Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act… It started with the erosion of the Separation of powers.

These referenda, if passed, will erode our separation of powers – a cornerstone of any democracy. It is the beginning of a dangerous path.

The ‘independent’ body would be no more independent than the judiciary are now!

John, what proposal would you recommend?

Really good question BJ! I honestly don’t have an answer. I do know how I’ll be voting however

The system we have needs to be changed John, but just because it needs to be changed, it doesn’t mean we vote for a system which is worse, simply because it is different.

Absolutely !

What interests are vested?

The bar council

I think if you are going to make such outlandish statements you need to back them up with facts. Can you please give me ONE example of a serving Judge delivering a judgement that was swayed by political pressure?

I did not anywhere in my comment suggest that any judge made a decision influenced by political pressure. My argument here (which I am not presenting through outlandish comment) is that judicial independence is an illusion given the amount of political influence already allowed through lobbying by elected members and the political appointment of judges. My main point here is that it is disingenuous to argue that capping judicial pay will affect a judicial independence that does not exist.

That’s a good attitude, not like they’re legal experts or anything.

Why listen to experts on the subject?

well why cant the experts make a statement of what they would propose instead of the governments constitutional ammendment in its current form? there is still time before the vote to make a case for an alternative. So far all we’re hearing from the legal profession is the lack of clarity in this law change and that is it. Do they not realise that a cap on judiciary pay is innevitable? Either have a proactive say in how this is to be shaped or risk a public looking to vent their own economic frustrations in whatever way they can.

If ordinary people can get a stay of execution on poorly planned policy (clontarf residents Vs dublin coco) by suggesting an alternative rather than just opposing it, then surely the judiciary can come forward with a proposal of how they would draft legislation for reduction of their pay. These are after all the best legal minds in the country yet they are about to be outmanouevred by a system they help police. People may actually vote against this proposal if it were seen that the judiciary would work towards implementing effective and clear law.

@paul madden

Their whole point is that the wording of the proposed amendments was rushed and ought to be delayed for further consideration, so that they CAN come up with a better alternative. There’s no point in criticising something as rushed, and then providing a similarly rushed alternative.

And please, stop with the whole ordinary people vs the elite dichotomy. Believe it or not, those in the legal profession are people too.

Brian there is no doubt that the Bar Council has legal expertise but they are no different to a trade union, the interests of the members of their profession would be their primary concern. There us nothing wrong with that but it needs to understood to give proper context to what they are saying.