Referendums on 8th of March

That makes no sense, I'm sorry, you can't keep having referendums until you get the right response. By that logic we should be re running the divorce, abortion and EU referendums. This is over , the people have answered, if the government don't like it, tough. How about the referendums I have suggested above, removing the ridiculous quotas for representation for a td
 
Knuttell said:
failed....Anecdotally I've heard Eamon Ryan supposedly claim yesterday that it would be rerun (if Greens form part of next Govt).
Click to expand...
Greens definitely won't be in next government, if ff and fg back it will be with a new party or some independent alliance arrangement. I can't see varadker et al sticking around for that, that's if he even gets re elected himself as a td
 
joe sod said:
Greens definitely won't be in next government, if ff and fg back it will be with a new party or some independent alliance arrangement. I can't see varadker et al sticking around for that, that's if he even gets re elected himself as a td
Click to expand...
Agreed, it was more the absolute arrogance of the man I found galling.
 

Under your system we would only ever vote on the Constitution once and then have to put up with it forever because the people have spoken at one point in time.

A major mistake people are making is framing this as something the government is pushing on us. It is clear from the constitutional convention, citizens assembly, media, social media, talking to other human beings, etc. that there is an appetite to change the constitution.

It's perfectly reasonable for any government to fail, take feedback, make a new proposal and then let the electorate approve or reject it.

And we have over the years run multiple referendums on divorce/abortion/EU, etc. without the sky falling in.
 
arbitron said:
Probably same anecdotist?
Click to expand...
Not at all, I posted what i had heard on radio but marked it as anecdotal.I then found an article that substantiated it, I edited the post and added a link to the piece
arbitron said:
A lot of people who voted No/No want it to be re-run with better wording and a more informative campaign
Click to expand...
Could you perhaps do the same for your claim, a recent poll would be best in this instance but any evidence to substantiate that swathes of voters are crying out for a rerun would be welcome.
 
Knuttell said:
Not at all, I posted what i had heard on radio but marked it as anecdotal.I then found an article that substantiated it, I edited the post and added a link to the piece
Click to expand...

I see, so you were happy to provide an anecdote without source originally, but the rest of us must provide them from the start, understood.

Knuttell said:
Could you perhaps do the same for your claim, a recent poll would be best in this instance but any evidence to substantiate that swathes of voters are crying out for a rerun would be welcome.
Click to expand...

A recent poll is actually the opposite of what you want because that's based on the wording and campaign of this referendum.

If you look at polling from February, Yes/Yes had the lead: Clear majority of voters intend to vote Yes in both referendums, poll shows

If they wanted the status quo, they would have been No/No from the beginning.

But when people read what was actually being voted on they seemed to find it confusing/vague or just didn't agree with it. Some felt it was too radical, others not radical enough, farmers worried it might complicate inheritance, some women felt it erased what visibility they have achieved, carers and people with disabilities thought it was an insult, etc. etc. Lots of reasons given and many good points made.

But when people have been asked for years/decades now "do you think these parts of the Constitution should be changed?" they have consistently said yes. So it's totally reasonable to review it and present a new proposal. That is democracy and progress, even if people find it inconvenient or expensive. The alternative is worse.
 
arbitron said:
I see, so you were happy to provide an anecdote without source originally, but the rest of us must provide them from the start, understood.
Click to expand...
Clearly its not understood (by you at least).

I was very careful not to make bold unsubstantiated statements passing them off as fact (something you have no fear of).

Therefore I prefaced that it was anecdotal, thereby signalling that it was potentially not fact.

I then went to the trouble to find supporting evidence and posted a link to it.

Despite several paragraphs you fail to provide any evidence whatsoever that the people of Ireland are wringing their hands,falling en masse to the ground wailing & beseeching the ruling class to rerun the referendum with wording they can understand & vote yes to.
 

Don't fret about it. The Greens will be gone soon, no other party will touch it for a long time, and the people who are actually affected by it can wait their turn.

In the meantime, we will make back the €4 per head of population spent on the campaign because the old reliable mammies of Ireland can stay home looking after their disabled children 24/7 at minimal cost to the state. Definitely what we as a people envisage as the exemplar of a modern constitutional republic based on Christian values.
 
arbitron said:
the old reliable mammies of Ireland can stay home looking after their disabled children 24/7 at minimal cost to the state.
Click to expand...
We don't need constitutional change to improve the lot of carers. Most people I know in this and similar situations wanted action and not meaningless words.
 
Last edited:
Sophrosyne said:
We don't need a constructional change to improve the lot of carers. Most people I know in this and similar situations wanted action and not meaningless words.
Click to expand...
Perhaps but the point is that it is totally reasonable for carers (or anyone else) to want Constitutional change, even if it is symbolic and even if not strictly necessary. Some people want specific justiciable rights in the Constitution in order to help them get action.
 
arbitron said:
Some people want specific justiciable rights in the Constitution in order to help them get action.
Click to expand...
Would that were the case. But it helps them to get nothing!

"Strive" is not "shall".

I would love to introduce you to people I know who have been battling the HSE, the Social Protection Dept and the Government for years to get what is really basic help. Meanwhile, they have gotten older, weaker and less able to provide necessary care. They fear what will happen to their loved one(s) when they die. They have no life of their own.

They didn't give a continental about the referendum; indeed some were annoyed with it as it would not change their circumstances one iota.

What matters to them is government commitment and action to provide appropriate services and to stop treating them as an annoyance.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying these referendums should have passed. I'm saying that there are people who voted No in the hope they would get another chance to vote in the near future on something with clearer/stronger language.

The benefit of having rights vindicated by reference to the Constitution is that it is much less vulnerable to the whims of the Oireachtas or a populist electorate. The current government could give carers what they need and then the next government could backtrack. With justiciable constitutional rights that is much more difficult.
 
arbitron said:
The benefit of having rights vindicated by reference to the Constitution is that it is much less vulnerable to the whims of the Oireachtas or a populist electorate.
Click to expand...
Was this referendum not put before people because of the "whims of the oirechtas". A "populist electorate" isn't that the definition of democracy and is sorely lacking in putins russia. Are you suggesting putting stuff into the constitution that later cannot be changed by a ",populist electorate ". A bit like trump signing presidential decrees or putin signing laws that annex territories in Ukraine. Obviously I'm exaggerating but it's same logic
 
joe sod said:
Was this referendum not put before people because of the "whims of the oirechtas".
Click to expand...
No, it was the result of decades if discussion, deliberation, and input from many groups along the political spectrum.

joe sod said:
A "populist electorate" isn't that the definition of democracy and is sorely lacking in putins russia.
Click to expand...

Populism has various definitions but have never heard it used in that sense.

Completely lost now, nothing to do with Trump, Putin, etc.

The idea is that the Constitution is much more difficult to change than legislation, therefore voters can directly enshrine key ideas/rules in the Constitution that govern and influence the legislature and the courts, so it is harder for "activist judges" or the government of the day to reverse important rights.
 
I understand constitutional rights. But the proposed amendment did not confer any justiciable rights to the people I mentioned.

So, what was its purpose?

My own view is that both amendments were rushed through the Oireachtas, will little time for debate. Why the big rush?

Serious questions posed as to the possible legal implications were answered with flim flam or not answered at all.
 
Changing the constitution won’t stop the HSE from being incompetent and grossly wasteful and it won’t stop the complacency and complicity of the vested interests within the healthcare industry, including the doctors and nurses, in that waste and structural incompetence.

Fixing that will require more than constitutional window dressing. The proposed changes will just pour more money into the bottomless pit and give more talking points to the bleating representatives of the vested interest groups who wring their hands on the public airwaves but won’t acknowledge that they also have blood on those hands.

This sort of thing is a distraction, a sleight of hand, a bit of PR. It would change nothing unless Supreme Court judges could compel those within the healthcare industry to run it for the benefit of the sick and vulnerable rather than themselves. Until then constitutional wording is as useful to the sick, vulnerable and disabled as a poem about food is to a starving child.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register