+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: The Twenty Ninth Amendment of the Constitution (Judges’ Pay) Bill 2011

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Jimdagym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Balbriggan
    Posts
    4,052
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 956 Times in 529 Posts

    The Twenty Ninth Amendment of the Constitution (Judges’ Pay) Bill 2011

    If the amendment is approved in the forthcoming Referendum. It will propose that the current Article 35.5 of the Constitution be amended by substituting the following:

    "35.5.1° The remuneration of judges shall not be reduced during their continuance in office save in accordance with this section.

    35.5.2° The remuneration of judges is subject to the imposition of taxes, levies or other charges that are imposed by law on persons generally or persons belonging to a particular class.

    35.5.3° Where, before or after the enactment into law of this section, reductions have been or are made by law to the remuneration of persons belonging to classes of persons whose remuneration is paid out of public money and such law states that those reductions are in the public interest, provision may also be made by law to make reductions to the remuneration of judges."

  2. #2
    Super Moderator Jimdagym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Balbriggan
    Posts
    4,052
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 956 Times in 529 Posts
    This is also something that sounds great. Judges should earn less if everyone else is. They start at 148k or something.

    Absolutely no way the government should hold control over the judges. The seperation of powers absolutely must be observed. I'm all for creating some sort of index to base Judges pay off, but not this. it is also very sinister how little this has been discussed.

    I will be voting no.

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11,471
    Thanks
    1,511
    Thanked 5,878 Times in 2,629 Posts
    I'll be voting yes. Absolutely no way Judges can accept their pay to be increased inline with senior public servants, but then cry when the government tried to impose same sort of cuts as the public servants got

    Government already decides what to pay Judges, this just allows them to reduce salary if economic circumstances dictate

  4. #4
    Administrator charliesboots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 182 Times in 86 Posts
    I'll be voting no for two very simple reasons:

    1. The constitution should not be changed unless it is necessary to do so. It is widely accepted that there is no impediment in the constitution preventing the imposition of taxed and or levies on the judiciary. If it were the case then any tax increase ever could have been challenged by the judiciary - this hasn't happened.

    2. The constitution should be a document that is for all time and not just the present government. There is nothing in the new provision to stop governments who may be dissatisfied with the judiciary from classing them as a 'class of person' and reducing their pay. Its frightening to think that some government will be legally entitled to reduce the pay of the judiciary merely by stating that it's in the public interest.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to charliesboots For This Useful Post:


  6. #5
    Patrons
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,553
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked 1,292 Times in 651 Posts
    i was always dead cert that this change had to happen, but would i be right in thinking that it has the potential to increase cronyism as a result of politicians being in charge of pay and pay increases ? judges getting into bed with politicians is a dangerous area and cronyism is one of the fundamental problems with this country imo
    Cyril The Judas

  7. #6
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11,471
    Thanks
    1,511
    Thanked 5,878 Times in 2,629 Posts
    I don't think they can change individual pay, just rates of pay. So if they want to reduce the pay of one judge with ten years experience, they have to do it with all of them

  8. #7
    Patrons
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,553
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked 1,292 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodge View Post
    I don't think they can change individual pay, just rates of pay. So if they want to reduce the pay of one judge with ten years experience, they have to do it with all of them
    that was i was thinking might happen, but its all about how specific they can make it. For example,can they increase or decrease rate of pay for judges with between 12 and 14 years experience, which could potetially catch just 1 or 2 judges, which could potentially be all they want. an extreme example i know, but nothing would surprise me anymore
    Cyril The Judas

  9. #8
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11,471
    Thanks
    1,511
    Thanked 5,878 Times in 2,629 Posts
    I think I read that there's only 5 points on the Judge's payscale, so its not going to be specific at all. I think once you're a judge for ten years you're on the max scale

  10. #9
    Patrons
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,553
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked 1,292 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodge View Post
    I think I read that there's only 5 points on the Judge's payscale, so its not going to be specific at all. I think once you're a judge for ten years you're on the max scale
    okay so there is very little room for the relationship between a judge and politician to have an impact on their pay - positively or negatively
    Cyril The Judas

  11. #10
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11,471
    Thanks
    1,511
    Thanked 5,878 Times in 2,629 Posts
    Thats my understanding yeah. I've been known to get things wildly wrong though

  12. #11
    Administrator charliesboots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 182 Times in 86 Posts
    The problem is that the text is as is written by Jim - the definitions of it can be passed by legislation, so effectively by any government with a majority.

    If the constitution allows it then there is nothing preventing a future government, for cynical reasons, to pass legislation making certain classes specific to judges in general and reduce the pay of the judiciary without reducing the pay of anybody else, in the public interest.

    I just think it's dangerous to allow for something in the constitution when it's unnecessary at the moment and open to abuse in the future.

  13. #12
    Patrons
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,553
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked 1,292 Times in 651 Posts
    ah bollox , i cant decide on this. leaning slightly towards yes. They earn a crazy amount of money that just isnt right

    but is this enough of a reason to change the constitution ......
    Cyril The Judas

  14. #13
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11,471
    Thanks
    1,511
    Thanked 5,878 Times in 2,629 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSaintsno.12 View Post
    ah bollox , i cant decide on this. leaning slightly towards yes. They earn a crazy amount of money that just isnt right

    but is this enough of a reason to change the constitution ......
    The reason its going to a referendum is because the judges said that cutting their ages was unconstitutional.

  15. #14
    Martin Russell
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    504
    Thanks
    1,256
    Thanked 233 Times in 98 Posts
    Anyone wanna tell me in one or two sentences why I should vote no/yes to both of these?

    Heading over to vote soon and I haven't a clue what to do.

  16. #15
    Super Moderator Jimdagym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Balbriggan
    Posts
    4,052
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 956 Times in 529 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodge View Post
    The reason its going to a referendum is because the judges said that cutting their ages was unconstitutional.
    No, its because cutting their wages is unconstitutional. The referendum isnt to test the constitution, its to change it.

  17. #16
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    11,471
    Thanks
    1,511
    Thanked 5,878 Times in 2,629 Posts
    Charliesboots disagrees Jim

    Quote Originally Posted by charliesboots View Post
    1. The constitution should not be changed unless it is necessary to do so. It is widely accepted that there is no impediment in the constitution preventing the imposition of taxed and or levies on the judiciary. If it were the case then any tax increase ever could have been challenged by the judiciary - this hasn't happened.
    He's not the only one

  18. #17
    Administrator charliesboots's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    715
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 182 Times in 86 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodge View Post
    The reason its going to a referendum is because the judges said that cutting their ages was unconstitutional.
    That's not true - the judge's haven't suggested that imposing levies or taxes on them is unconstitutional.

    The reason the previous government didn't cut judges pay was on advice from the former Attorney General. Any Senior Counsel I've spoken to thinks that the advice was wrong.

    The present government got advice from the current AG but have decided not to say what it is - I've a suspicion why...........

  19. #18
    Patrons
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,553
    Thanks
    1,515
    Thanked 1,292 Times in 651 Posts
    at the last minute i went with no. My theory is that if your on the fence you shouldnt really vote yes to change the constitution. the two changes need to get far more discussion and be explained more
    Cyril The Judas

  20. #19
    John McDonnell
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,238
    Thanks
    868
    Thanked 739 Times in 295 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by charliesboots View Post
    That's not true - the judge's haven't suggested that imposing levies or taxes on them is unconstitutional.

    The reason the previous government didn't cut judges pay was on advice from the former Attorney General. Any Senior Counsel I've spoken to thinks that the advice was wrong.

    The present government got advice from the current AG but have decided not to say what it is - I've a suspicion why...........
    All true Charlie but the fuckers wouldent volunteer to take a pay cut: its now led to this debacle:

  21. #20
    Paul McGrath Doom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northside Scum
    Posts
    1,985
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 376 Times in 209 Posts
    This was passed
    Negativity is the new Positivity.

  22. #21
    Super Moderator Jimdagym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Balbriggan
    Posts
    4,052
    Thanks
    471
    Thanked 956 Times in 529 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Doom View Post
    This was passed
    It let me down for the treble...

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts