• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Enda Kenny: no Court has set out the meaning of the McKenna Judgement.


He3

Moderator
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
17,094
Mr Kenny told the Dáil today that 'no court had set out specifically the parameters, confines and meaning of the McKenna judgement', according to the Irish Times website report by two of the paper's experienced Dáil reporters Michael O'Regan and Marie O'Halloran. I am assuming their report is accurate.

The claim he makes about no Court setting out the meaning of the McKenna judgment indicates that Mr Kenny believes there is still some lingering doubt about how it was that he and his Government broke their Constitutional duty in the conduct of the referendum. If that is so, we really do have cause to worry. It could not be much simpler.

Four Supreme Court judges in the McKenna case set out exactly what they meant in their own words and using plain English. Their 1995 judgment is here.

And if that was too long, how about reading 500 words? That is the rough length of the Supreme Court ruling of last Thursday. If you missed it, here it is:

'Ruling of the Court delivered on the 8th day of November, 2012 by Denham C.J.

1. This is an appeal by Mark McCrystal, the plaintiff/appellant, referred to as “the appellant”, from the judgment and order of the High Court (Kearns P.) given on the 1st November, 2012.

2. This matter was dealt with as a matter of urgency by the High Court, as it is by this Court, as the appellant has sought declarations, an injunction and consequential orders which have a relevance to the Referendum taking place on the 10th November, 2012.

3. In McKenna v. An Taoiseach (No. 2) [1995] 2 I.R. 10, it was held that the Government in expending public moneys in the promotion of a particular result in a Referendum process was in breach of the Constitution.

The people adopted the Constitution 75 years ago. The Constitution belongs to the people and may be amended only by the people in a Referendum. It is this democratic process which is protected by the McKenna principles. Public funding should not be used in a Referendum to espouse a particular point of view.


4. The McKenna principles may be found in the several judgments in that case. These principles, which are not in dispute, are consistent with standards recognised both nationally and internationally for a Referendum process, such as the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Code for Good Practice on Referendums, adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 19th Meeting (Venice, 16 December, 2006) and the Venice Commission at its 70th Plenary Session (Venice, 16 – 17 March, 2007).

5. At issue in this case is the application of these principles to a booklet and a website, both entitled “Children’s Referendum”, and advertisements, published and disseminated by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, on foot of moneys voted by the Oireachtas, which the appellant submits breach the McKenna principles.

6. The Court is required to give its decision promptly, in view of the pending Referendum to be held on Saturday, 10th November, 2012. The substance of that proposal is a matter for the people alone. The Court will give its ruling today and judgements will be delivered on Tuesday, 11th December, 2012.

7. The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the McKenna principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

8. The Court is satisfied that while not all of the website or the booklet are in breach of the McKenna principles, because of the overall structure of the booklet and website, it would not be appropriate for the Court to redact either.

9. Accordingly, the Court would grant a declaration that the respondents have acted wrongfully in expending or arranging to expend public moneys on the website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the Referendum on the Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill, 2012, in a manner which was not fair, equal or impartial. The Court does not consider it either appropriate or necessary to grant an injunction, as it is to be assumed that the respondents will cease distributing and publishing the material.'

There it is: the public's money must not be used by Government in a campaign to persuade the public to change the Constitution.

That was the rule, and that was what was broken by the Government.

Please do not pay more of our money to consultants, market researchers, lawyers or anyone else in a politically expedient effort to make the simple complex. Just run the next referendum by the rules. That is not a lot to ask of our lawmakers.
 
Last edited:

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,939
Mr Kenny told the Dáil today that 'no court had set out specifically the parameters, confines and meaning of the McKenna judgement', according to the Irish Times website report by two of the paper's experience Dáil reporters Michael O'Regan and Marie Halloran. I am assuming their report is accurate.

The claim he makes about no Court setting out the meaning of the McKenna judgment indicates that Mr Kenny believes there is still some lingering doubt about how it was that he and his Government broke their Constitutional duty in the conduct of the referendum. If that is so, we really do have cause to worry. It could not be much simpler.

Four Supreme Court judges in the McKenna case set out exactly what they meant in their own words and using plain English. Their 1995 judgment is here.

And if that was too long, how about reading 500 words? That is the rough length of the Supreme Court ruling of last Thursday. If you missed it, here it is:

'Ruling of the Court delivered on the 8th day of November, 2012 by Denham C.J.

1. This is an appeal by Mark McCrystal, the plaintiff/appellant, referred to as “the appellant”, from the judgment and order of the High Court (Kearns P.) given on the 1st November, 2012.

2. This matter was dealt with as a matter of urgency by the High Court, as it is by this Court, as the appellant has sought declarations, an injunction and consequential orders which have a relevance to the Referendum taking place on the 10th November, 2012.

3. In McKenna v. An Taoiseach (No. 2) [1995] 2 I.R. 10, it was held that the Government in expending public moneys in the promotion of a particular result in a Referendum process was in breach of the Constitution.

The people adopted the Constitution 75 years ago. The Constitution belongs to the people and may be amended only by the people in a Referendum. It is this democratic process which is protected by the McKenna principles. Public funding should not be used in a Referendum to espouse a particular point of view.


4. The McKenna principles may be found in the several judgments in that case. These principles, which are not in dispute, are consistent with standards recognised both nationally and internationally for a Referendum process, such as the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Code for Good Practice on Referendums, adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 19th Meeting (Venice, 16 December, 2006) and the Venice Commission at its 70th Plenary Session (Venice, 16 – 17 March, 2007).

5. At issue in this case is the application of these principles to a booklet and a website, both entitled “Children’s Referendum”, and advertisements, published and disseminated by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, on foot of moneys voted by the Oireachtas, which the appellant submits breach the McKenna principles.

6. The Court is required to give its decision promptly, in view of the pending Referendum to be held on Saturday, 10th November, 2012. The substance of that proposal is a matter for the people alone. The Court will give its ruling today and judgements will be delivered on Tuesday, 11th December, 2012.

7. The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the McKenna principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

8. The Court is satisfied that while not all of the website or the booklet are in breach of the McKenna principles, because of the overall structure of the booklet and website, it would not be appropriate for the Court to redact either.

9. Accordingly, the Court would grant a declaration that the respondents have acted wrongfully in expending or arranging to expend public moneys on the website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the Referendum on the Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill, 2012, in a manner which was not fair, equal or impartial. The Court does not consider it either appropriate or necessary to grant an injunction, as it is to be assumed that the respondents will cease distributing and publishing the material.'

There it is: the public's money must not be used by Government in a campaign to persuade the public to change the Constitution.

That was the rule, and that was what was broken by the Government.

Please do not pay more of our money to consultants, market researchers, lawyers or anyone else in a politically expedient effort to make the simple complex. Just run the next referendum by the rules. That is not a lot to ask of our lawmakers.
Succinctly and accurately put.

No shouting, no emotion, just truth.


D
 

culmore

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
3,184
This just a case of the judges getting their own back on Kenny for cutting their pay .
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,255
Halfwit
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,255

PO'Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
12,425
Website
www.facebook.com
As the saying goes, if voting could change anything they'd abolish it :roll:
 

adrem

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
924
Kenny trying to build a case that they couldn't have known where the line was and therefore can't be held responsible for crossing said line . . . implication being also that they did us a favour by clearly delineating what does and does not constitute a breach of McKenna. Of course that argument ignores the fact that a child (pun intended) could have told him that the way the framed and worded the website and the leaflet was quite obviously pro-yes. In any other world Frances Fitzgerald (FF !!) would walk for this but not here. If FF were still in power all in FG and LAB would be demanding heads.
 

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,939
This just a case of the judges getting their own back on Kenny for cutting their pay .
I really could use your opinion on something.*








*What are next week's lottery numbers.




Referendum on Judges pay [2012]

McKenna Judgment [1995]

Coughlan Judgment [2000]



Kenny must have the gift as well.


D
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
If FF were still in power all in FG and LAB would be demanding heads.
But the fact is they're not in power and as things stand what would be the point of demanding a head if there's nothing in it??
 

artfoley56

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
9,599
Mr Kenny told the Dáil today that 'no court had set out specifically the parameters, confines and meaning of the McKenna judgement', according to the Irish Times website report by two of the paper's experience Dáil reporters Michael O'Regan and Marie Halloran. I am assuming their report is accurate.

The claim he makes about no Court setting out the meaning of the McKenna judgment indicates that Mr Kenny believes there is still some lingering doubt about how it was that he and his Government broke their Constitutional duty in the conduct of the referendum. If that is so, we really do have cause to worry. It could not be much simpler.

Four Supreme Court judges in the McKenna case set out exactly what they meant in their own words and using plain English. Their 1995 judgment is here.

And if that was too long, how about reading 500 words? That is the rough length of the Supreme Court ruling of last Thursday. If you missed it, here it is:

'Ruling of the Court delivered on the 8th day of November, 2012 by Denham C.J.

1. This is an appeal by Mark McCrystal, the plaintiff/appellant, referred to as “the appellant”, from the judgment and order of the High Court (Kearns P.) given on the 1st November, 2012.

2. This matter was dealt with as a matter of urgency by the High Court, as it is by this Court, as the appellant has sought declarations, an injunction and consequential orders which have a relevance to the Referendum taking place on the 10th November, 2012.

3. In McKenna v. An Taoiseach (No. 2) [1995] 2 I.R. 10, it was held that the Government in expending public moneys in the promotion of a particular result in a Referendum process was in breach of the Constitution.

The people adopted the Constitution 75 years ago. The Constitution belongs to the people and may be amended only by the people in a Referendum. It is this democratic process which is protected by the McKenna principles. Public funding should not be used in a Referendum to espouse a particular point of view.


4. The McKenna principles may be found in the several judgments in that case. These principles, which are not in dispute, are consistent with standards recognised both nationally and internationally for a Referendum process, such as the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Code for Good Practice on Referendums, adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 19th Meeting (Venice, 16 December, 2006) and the Venice Commission at its 70th Plenary Session (Venice, 16 – 17 March, 2007).

5. At issue in this case is the application of these principles to a booklet and a website, both entitled “Children’s Referendum”, and advertisements, published and disseminated by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, on foot of moneys voted by the Oireachtas, which the appellant submits breach the McKenna principles.

6. The Court is required to give its decision promptly, in view of the pending Referendum to be held on Saturday, 10th November, 2012. The substance of that proposal is a matter for the people alone. The Court will give its ruling today and judgements will be delivered on Tuesday, 11th December, 2012.

7. The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the McKenna principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

8. The Court is satisfied that while not all of the website or the booklet are in breach of the McKenna principles, because of the overall structure of the booklet and website, it would not be appropriate for the Court to redact either.

9. Accordingly, the Court would grant a declaration that the respondents have acted wrongfully in expending or arranging to expend public moneys on the website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the Referendum on the Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill, 2012, in a manner which was not fair, equal or impartial. The Court does not consider it either appropriate or necessary to grant an injunction, as it is to be assumed that the respondents will cease distributing and publishing the material.'

There it is: the public's money must not be used by Government in a campaign to persuade the public to change the Constitution.

That was the rule, and that was what was broken by the Government.

Please do not pay more of our money to consultants, market researchers, lawyers or anyone else in a politically expedient effort to make the simple complex. Just run the next referendum by the rules. That is not a lot to ask of our lawmakers.
enda kenny the teacher who can't do simple reading and comprehension. no wonder he went into politics
 

turdsl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
26,085
Kenny's comments fall in line with Charlie Flanagan's attack on McKenna and Shatter's arrogant response to the Government's breach of it. These Supreme Court rulings stop them from walking all over our Constitution so they'd like to see them done away with.
Why did they do it, ? It is another shameful episode in our history,

Good God, when we voted for them, we expected them to lift us out of the gutter

After 20 months for a government to try this proves we are still up to our necks in it.

We have a minister of justice, an officer of the court himself completely ignore an offer
to apologize to the people for their actions.

They had to be forced by a legal team to take down the offending article twice.

Why was it necessary to it, The Irish electorate gave them their trust, they turn around

and give us a kick in the teeth.
 

constitutionus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
23,330
any sign of him paying back the 1.1 million yet ?
 

dgl

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
783
Kenny trying to build a case that they couldn't have known where the line was and therefore can't be held responsible for crossing said line . . . implication being also that they did us a favour by clearly delineating what does and does not constitute a breach of McKenna. Of course that argument ignores the fact that a child (pun intended) could have told him that the way the framed and worded the website and the leaflet was quite obviously pro-yes. In any other world Frances Fitzgerald (FF !!) would walk for this but not here. If FF were still in power all in FG and LAB would be demanding heads.
That may all be correct, BUT, (and I'm asking this not having investigated the detail) why did the High Court find no problem. If the case was that cut and dried surely the HC would have found against the Govt?

The fact that the HC found for the Govt, and the SC against, suggests on the face of it that either the HC (and Govt) are incompetent, or that it was not a simple case.
 

slippy wicket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
4,560
Personally I am open to the idea of challenging the McKenna judgement , and wonder what could be the possible options for doing so.
 

NLPete

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
573
Great OP. Totaly with other posters talking about paid advisors etc, but kenny had an air of asurance, certainty even! in his words and tone regarding the findings that will be released in time to come...hmmm.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,281
Mr Kenny told the Dáil today that 'no court had set out specifically the parameters, confines and meaning of the McKenna judgement', according to the Irish Times website report by two of the paper's experience Dáil reporters Michael O'Regan and Marie Halloran. I am assuming their report is accurate.

The claim he makes about no Court setting out the meaning of the McKenna judgment indicates that Mr Kenny believes there is still some lingering doubt about how it was that he and his Government broke their Constitutional duty in the conduct of the referendum. If that is so, we really do have cause to worry. It could not be much simpler.

Four Supreme Court judges in the McKenna case set out exactly what they meant in their own words and using plain English. Their 1995 judgment is here.

And if that was too long, how about reading 500 words? That is the rough length of the Supreme Court ruling of last Thursday. If you missed it, here it is:

'Ruling of the Court delivered on the 8th day of November, 2012 by Denham C.J.

1. This is an appeal by Mark McCrystal, the plaintiff/appellant, referred to as “the appellant”, from the judgment and order of the High Court (Kearns P.) given on the 1st November, 2012.

2. This matter was dealt with as a matter of urgency by the High Court, as it is by this Court, as the appellant has sought declarations, an injunction and consequential orders which have a relevance to the Referendum taking place on the 10th November, 2012.

3. In McKenna v. An Taoiseach (No. 2) [1995] 2 I.R. 10, it was held that the Government in expending public moneys in the promotion of a particular result in a Referendum process was in breach of the Constitution.

The people adopted the Constitution 75 years ago. The Constitution belongs to the people and may be amended only by the people in a Referendum. It is this democratic process which is protected by the McKenna principles. Public funding should not be used in a Referendum to espouse a particular point of view.


4. The McKenna principles may be found in the several judgments in that case. These principles, which are not in dispute, are consistent with standards recognised both nationally and internationally for a Referendum process, such as the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Code for Good Practice on Referendums, adopted by the Council for Democratic Elections at its 19th Meeting (Venice, 16 December, 2006) and the Venice Commission at its 70th Plenary Session (Venice, 16 – 17 March, 2007).

5. At issue in this case is the application of these principles to a booklet and a website, both entitled “Children’s Referendum”, and advertisements, published and disseminated by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, on foot of moneys voted by the Oireachtas, which the appellant submits breach the McKenna principles.

6. The Court is required to give its decision promptly, in view of the pending Referendum to be held on Saturday, 10th November, 2012. The substance of that proposal is a matter for the people alone. The Court will give its ruling today and judgements will be delivered on Tuesday, 11th December, 2012.

7. The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the McKenna principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

8. The Court is satisfied that while not all of the website or the booklet are in breach of the McKenna principles, because of the overall structure of the booklet and website, it would not be appropriate for the Court to redact either.

9. Accordingly, the Court would grant a declaration that the respondents have acted wrongfully in expending or arranging to expend public moneys on the website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the Referendum on the Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill, 2012, in a manner which was not fair, equal or impartial. The Court does not consider it either appropriate or necessary to grant an injunction, as it is to be assumed that the respondents will cease distributing and publishing the material.'

There it is: the public's money must not be used by Government in a campaign to persuade the public to change the Constitution.

That was the rule, and that was what was broken by the Government.

Please do not pay more of our money to consultants, market researchers, lawyers or anyone else in a politically expedient effort to make the simple complex. Just run the next referendum by the rules. That is not a lot to ask of our lawmakers.
Except, of course, for the teensy-tiny inconvenience that is the FACT that the Supreme Court have yet to deliver their full judgement. They have yet to say where and how the booklet was in breach of McKenna.

Hate to rain on your parade and all that, but its a kinda important point.
 

im axeled

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Messages
29,724
Succinctly and accurately put.

No shouting, no emotion, just truth.

D
that is what is wrong with it, it is the truth, politicians and their ilk cannot understand the truth, now if it was smoke and mirrors ?
 
Top