<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Possible referendums on Articles 26 and 34</title>
	<atom:link href="http://politicalreform.ie/2012/07/20/possible-referendums-on-articles-26-and-34/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://politicalreform.ie/2012/07/20/possible-referendums-on-articles-26-and-34/</link>
	<description>A PSAI blog for discussion of politics, policy and political reform</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:27:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Gallagher</title>
		<link>http://politicalreform.ie/2012/07/20/possible-referendums-on-articles-26-and-34/comment-page-1/#comment-9909</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Gallagher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:57:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalreform.ie/?p=3554#comment-9909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As a further thought, possibly the changes mooted re Article 26 are intended to address a question raised on this site way back on 3 October 2011, namely what is the situation if a president refers a bill that the constitution explicitly says that he or she cannot refer, such as a money bill? Is the Supreme Court obliged to go through the full review process nonetheless, or can it look behind the referral, at the behest of, say, the government, and refuse to consider the question on the basis that the referral was improper in the first place? The constitution does not provide an explicit answer to that question and maybe this possible change, though it is rather cryptically expressed, is intended to address this.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a further thought, possibly the changes mooted re Article 26 are intended to address a question raised on this site way back on 3 October 2011, namely what is the situation if a president refers a bill that the constitution explicitly says that he or she cannot refer, such as a money bill? Is the Supreme Court obliged to go through the full review process nonetheless, or can it look behind the referral, at the behest of, say, the government, and refuse to consider the question on the basis that the referral was improper in the first place? The constitution does not provide an explicit answer to that question and maybe this possible change, though it is rather cryptically expressed, is intended to address this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paulthunt</title>
		<link>http://politicalreform.ie/2012/07/20/possible-referendums-on-articles-26-and-34/comment-page-1/#comment-9877</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[paulthunt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalreform.ie/?p=3554#comment-9877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We need to think a little bit about what the Government is really up to here.  No government will voluntarily consider amending the Constitition unless it is under some pressure to do so or there is some naked politcial advantage to be secured.  I don&#039;t for a moment doubt Minister Shatter&#039;s good intentions about a Family Court or an Appeals Court to reduce the burden being imposed on the Supreme Court (he has a solid reputation in the family law area), but all this provides cover for the additional Bertiesque &#039;smoke and daggers&#039; about the Supreme Court deciding on the constitutionality of specific bills which is a blatant attempt to avoid, so far as is possible, further referendums driven by institutional and procedural changes in the functioning of the EU.  And these changes will be necessary, and are likely to be incremental and drawn out over a long period, if the Euro project is to be saved.

The Government simply wants to avoid an unending series of demands for referendums as each and every incremental or procedural change in the functioning of the EU is agreed - and to avoid constitutional challenges from individuals, pressure groups or politcial factions.

This whole thing is rapidly descending in to a farce, but I suspect that most voters have little interest in what are seen as boring constitutional issues - and the Government is getting away, for the moment, with its silly games.

We are going to have a Constitutional Convention, which was sold initially on the basis that it would do the &#039;divil and all&#039; but will now consider only a handful of largely peripheral issues.  In any event it will have no credibility, authority or standing.  The second House of the Oireachtas is going to be abolished without any proper procedural evaluation of the options or implications.  And now we have this further raft of constitutional amendments.

The Government lost the Oireachtas inquiries amendment referendum - which would have been only a first, very limited step in separating and re-balancing the powers of the legislature and the executive.  But, understandably, it has no stomach for a programme of reform of this nature - unless some naked politcial advantage might be secured - and so we are left with these silly games.

It may take a while for a sufficient number of voters to wake up to what is going on, but they will eventually.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We need to think a little bit about what the Government is really up to here.  No government will voluntarily consider amending the Constitition unless it is under some pressure to do so or there is some naked politcial advantage to be secured.  I don&#8217;t for a moment doubt Minister Shatter&#8217;s good intentions about a Family Court or an Appeals Court to reduce the burden being imposed on the Supreme Court (he has a solid reputation in the family law area), but all this provides cover for the additional Bertiesque &#8216;smoke and daggers&#8217; about the Supreme Court deciding on the constitutionality of specific bills which is a blatant attempt to avoid, so far as is possible, further referendums driven by institutional and procedural changes in the functioning of the EU.  And these changes will be necessary, and are likely to be incremental and drawn out over a long period, if the Euro project is to be saved.</p>
<p>The Government simply wants to avoid an unending series of demands for referendums as each and every incremental or procedural change in the functioning of the EU is agreed &#8211; and to avoid constitutional challenges from individuals, pressure groups or politcial factions.</p>
<p>This whole thing is rapidly descending in to a farce, but I suspect that most voters have little interest in what are seen as boring constitutional issues &#8211; and the Government is getting away, for the moment, with its silly games.</p>
<p>We are going to have a Constitutional Convention, which was sold initially on the basis that it would do the &#8216;divil and all&#8217; but will now consider only a handful of largely peripheral issues.  In any event it will have no credibility, authority or standing.  The second House of the Oireachtas is going to be abolished without any proper procedural evaluation of the options or implications.  And now we have this further raft of constitutional amendments.</p>
<p>The Government lost the Oireachtas inquiries amendment referendum &#8211; which would have been only a first, very limited step in separating and re-balancing the powers of the legislature and the executive.  But, understandably, it has no stomach for a programme of reform of this nature &#8211; unless some naked politcial advantage might be secured &#8211; and so we are left with these silly games.</p>
<p>It may take a while for a sufficient number of voters to wake up to what is going on, but they will eventually.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eoin O'Malley</title>
		<link>http://politicalreform.ie/2012/07/20/possible-referendums-on-articles-26-and-34/comment-page-1/#comment-9817</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eoin O'Malley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:25:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politicalreform.ie/?p=3554#comment-9817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s not clear why setting up a Family Court would require a referendum. We already have a Commercial Court which is, I think, a division of the High Court. Surely the same could be done for family law.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not clear why setting up a Family Court would require a referendum. We already have a Commercial Court which is, I think, a division of the High Court. Surely the same could be done for family law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
