Coca Cola Referendum

passive

The_Minister wrote: »

In fairness, the issues surrounding divorce have not changed in the past few years because it is a long-running social policy, but the Coke situation has, as it is a temporary phenomenon.
The whole point of the ban, IMO, is that someday it is lifted, otherwise, why would Coke change?

It doesn't matter if they change or not... They're evil, y'know. We're against them and their whole capitalist machine. And since it got through before, we should leave it in place indefinitely, rather than risking a change in opinion amongst the apathetic pro-establishment fools preventing us from making our stand.

17 year old me was all for this ban, and fought tooth and nail to get it implemented in my secondary school vending machines. He didn't care that people who wanted to boycott it were free to do so, and people who didn't shouldn't have their choices limited.

Yes, the *previous* owners decided to stop stocking coke (or, more to the point, a vote was taken amongst the previous owners, and a certain proportion, probably significantly less than half of them, had their say, with the militant, anti-coke side being very much more likely to vote than the majority of students who go about their business and ignore the college politicians and spam posters, winning the day.) But now we, the owners, are different, so a new vote should be taken.

So, when's the next divorce referendum?
I never had a chance to vote on that.

Go get enough people to apply for a new referendum on that then, like the people who got this new Coke Boycott referendum on the cards did. Or was it just a childish example, and you don't actually have any issue with the result of the divorce referendum? I'm sorry if you're afraid that the boycott will be overturned, and the democratic wishes of the coke-drinking-or-not-caring majority will be respected, but we at least deserve a shot at it...

That said, I don't think there's much point in voting on it, since it'll probably be maintained, with a turn out of 3000 or something, 2000 of which support the boycott, while the 17000 who don't give a ****, but would happily buy coke if it was in the shop, and wonder vaguely why it's in the vending machines but not the SU shops, don't go to vote about it.

Raphael

passive wrote: »

Yes, the *previous* owners decided to stop stocking coke (or, more to the point, a vote was taken amongst the previous owners, and a certain proportion, probably significantly less than half of them, had their say, with the militant, anti-coke side being very much more likely to vote than the majority of students who go about their business and ignore the college politicians and spam posters, winning the day.) But now we, the owners, are different, so a new vote should be taken.

And this is happening. The system works.

RE: the fact that most people didn't vote, that;s their fault, tbh. They were entitled to, and chose not to exercise their right to vote. By doing so, they, frankly, lost their right to have a say in whether coke is stocked. That's democracy.

passive

Raphael wrote: »

And this is happening. The system works.

RE: the fact that most people didn't vote, that;s their fault, tbh. They were entitled to, and chose not to exercise their right to vote. By doing so, they, frankly, lost their right to have a say in whether coke is stocked. That's democracy.

As to the first part, I'm responding to 33% and Mad Lad's divorce/constitution analogies which seem to imply that the previous vote should stand uncontested.

And the second part... yeah... I know. It's just depressing. The very nature of the issue is one that you're only going to *care* about if you support the ban. I, personally, will vote against the boycott because I'm familiar with the issue, and am annoyed by the types that bring this in, but it doesn't really affect me that coke isn't there. I'm not losing sleep about it. It's much easier to get stuff like this passed than undone.

Kat Slater

Raphael wrote: »

The boycott was initiated based on a referendum. THe student body voted to stop selling Coke in the SU shops. It was not the big bad SU forbidding you from buying coke. Please consider the facts next time you try to make a point.

I'm aware of that, but after 4 years in UCD I take the results of any student vote with a massive pinch of salt, given that no-one I know of in my class actually voted in the most recent elections. I'm assuming the SU decided to go ahead with the referendum in the first place, bit of a waste of time.

griffdaddy

Should the apathetic attitude of many students in relation to this not be enough to make the SU realise that it's a non-issue? I don't particularly care whether coke is there or not, but I do care that leftist agendas are pushed through using my, and my fellow students money, when clearly the issue is of minor relevance to most students life. Why don't they spend the money used to promote and facilitate over-ambitious and unrealistic sh1t like this for something practical? Go to a pound shop in town for instance, buy 50 multi-plugged extension leads for €100, and bam, laptop facilities in the library have been increased 400% in many areas. I'd rather see an SU that took a walk around the college every monday and said, 'what can we improve? what can we make even a tiny bit more efficient?' instead of thinking 'How can i end aids, bring down a multi-national corporation and initiate a union-driven coup of a small South American company?'

mad lad

I wouldn't get worked up over it, there isn't going to be a referendum. The Observer quoted a spokesperson for the campaign to overturn the boycott. At no point is that person named.

We're not idiots.

griffdaddy

Are you 1968 or mad lad? make your mind up

rainbow kirby

griffdaddy wrote: »

Why don't they spend the money used to promote and facilitate over-ambitious and unrealistic sh1t like this for something practical? Go to a pound shop in town for instance, buy 50 multi-plugged extension leads for €100, and bam, laptop facilities in the library have been increased 400% in many areas. I'd rather see an SU that took a walk around the college every monday and said, 'what can we improve? what can we make even a tiny bit more efficient?' instead of thinking 'How can i end aids, bring down a multi-national corporation and initiate a union-driven coup of a small South American company?'

+1

mad lad

griffdaddy wrote: »

Are you 1968 or mad lad? make your mind up

Logged in on a friends laptop.

Why don't they spend the money used to promote and facilitate over-ambitious and unrealistic sh1t like this for something practical?

Exactly what money are you talking about? It costs nothing to not stock a product and the union hasn't been spening money to encourage people to boycott coke.

griffdaddy

mad lad wrote: »

Logged in on a friends laptop.


Exactly what money are you talking about? It costs nothing to not stock a product and the union hasn't been spening money to encourage people to boycott coke.

It costs money to create posters drawing people's attention to the referendum, it costs money to create leaflets about the issues. It detracts from real issues by taking their time and attention and investing it in this bull. They must feel they have very little to do if they can turn their attention to such grandiose matters as this, whereas, as we unfortunately all know, there is a lot that could be done to improve the college.

mad lad

Then your gipe should be with the people who are planning on holding the referendum, not the union itself. If people collect the signatures for the referendum, the union has to provide material.

anonymous_joe

The ban had a purpose back then, though one I disagree with (corporate governance is not a simple business, and the Coca-Cola you buy and consume in Ireland has very little to do with the Coca-Cola bought and sold in Colombia.) because, at the end of the day people weren't boycotting Colombian Coke, (aw yeah, I said it :pac:) but the Irish stuff.

Anyway, most people have no idea there's a ban, most people don't give two fúcks about the student union as it is, which is a pity, but that's teh way it is.

Overature

why is there a ban on it?

Korvanica

PEPSI!!!!!

griffdaddy

mad lad wrote: »

Then your gipe should be with the people who are planning on holding the referendum, not the union itself. If people collect the signatures for the referendum, the union has to provide material.

Unfortunately it's very hard to predict who is going to petition for what, I could spend my time apprehending anyone who looks slightly socialist in disposition, trying to preempt their next move, but that would mean alienating myself from most of my Philosophy class. A better solution would perhaps be for the SU to exercise more rigidly what actually falls within their remit, rather than using their resources to push an agenda that has little bearing on student life. I'm sure i could collect enough signatures demanding that the SU intervene and force Stephen Ireland to come back and play football for Ireland, it doesn't mean they should.