In reality he dismissed the former office holders as not knowing what they were talking about, which is quite unusual as the office of attorney general and it's holders are usually referred to (in political terms at least) almost as godlike, and very definitely absolutely beyond any form of reproach, both for competence and integrity.
This is a huge departure from the political norm, and I take it that Alan Shatters opinions (as minister for justice) is far more significant and knowledgeable about legal matters, than the paid staff I.e. the attorney general. I mean why would you need a minster for justice if you are going to reverentially defer to the attorney general every time a legal issue arises. There is a political deference to the office of attorney general, in that the office is supposed to be the highest source of independent legal advice available to the government, and maybe that's true, I,ve never been at a cabinet meeting, so I can,t say for definite, but suffice this for definite, the office is treated as royalty, and constantly referred to in political terms, both by the government and opposition parliamentarians.
I was quite shocked to read Alan Shatter' comments as they seemed to dismiss the former office holders as not being legally competent, and also some had a less than perfect level of integrity, in, that they were using their hidden personal agendas, to stop what the government seen as a forward thinking means to grant themselves more power to investigate people. Anyway the referendum was not passed by the people, so to a certain extent and from a certain perspective you could say that the government got it wrong and the former attorneys general got it right. So in that case you would have decide yourself who is most competent, the minister or the attorneys general?
Either way I assumed the minister and the government had decided the ministers office was the most important of the two offices, considering the ministers office is capable of passing laws affecting citizens, while the attorney generals office is only as a paid legal advisor, or indeed the governments solicitor.
All that being said I,m a bit shocked the hear the government ministers again referring to the attorney generals office in reverential terms when it comes to the possibility of whether the Irish citizens will get a referendum on the fiscal compact treaty being negotiated in this decade of austerity. It appears the government have got over their hang ups they had against the other former office holders, when it comes to the possibility of a referendum, so the office of attorney general in Ireland is now back as being acknowledged (by the government) as the most competent legal advisor in the land. The line is, "if the wording of the treaty needs a referendum, then the attorney general will tell us that, and then we will have a referendum", so that's it then, the big government knows best.
Somehow I have a feeling that it will not stop there. In reality which is my world, somebody will challenge the governments refusal to hold a referendum, one way or the other, someone will push this all the way to the supreme court.
And then, we will see who, is really, the most competent legal advisor in the land.
