Goverment breking rules in Referendum

humanji

mikom wrote: »

These are the cunts that are supposed to to look after our children then.........

They fuck up, then charge you for it.
Monkeys.

The ones who organised the referendum aren't the same ones who would be in charge of taking care of children. The state is made up of more than 2 people.

Ghandee

goat2 wrote: »

it should be called off, a court has already ruled, all one sided, and for my tuppence, i was thinking of abstaining anyway,

Abstaining?

That'll achieve zero.

Inform yourself, vote accordingly.

Death and Taxes

humanji wrote: »

The ones who organised the referendum aren't the same ones who would be in charge of taking care of children. The state is made up of more than 2 people.

Thats right, they would be handing the children over to the brothers and nuns..........
....oops didn't we try this shíte before!

Death and Taxes

jesse pinkman wrote: »

How comes it takes an engineer to recognise then do anything about this misappropriation of public funds, why did no-one in the media (whose job it is) cop what was going on here?

Maybe he is a Sanitation Engineer, so he can recognise crap when he sees it!

humanji

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Thats right, they would be handing the children over to the brothers and nuns..........
....oops didn't we try this shíte before!

That's what happens if you vote no. Ho ho ho, isn't it fun saying emotive cr@p on serious subjects?

SafeSurfer

humanji wrote: »

The ones who organised the referendum aren't the same ones who would be in charge of taking care of children. The state is made up of more than 2 people.

Yes but the person who approved the legality of the wording of the information booklet is the same person who approved the legality of the wording of the referendum proposal.

humanji

And? They're still not the person who would actually be dealing with the children.

Annasopra

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes but the person who approved the legality of the wording of the information booklet is the same person who approved the legality of the wording of the referendum proposal.

No.

The wording of the referendum is 99% similar to that proposed by Mary O Rourke under the previous government

geeky

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Thats right, they would be handing the children over to the brothers and nuns..........
....oops didn't we try this shíte before!

Yes, because foster carers today are all child abusing brothers, nuns and lizard people... oh wait.

Some serious s**** being spouted by opponents of this referendum. In lieu of actual arguments, they're now turning to sneering, insulting innuendo at the people picking up the pieces from negligent or abusive parents.

SafeSurfer

mango salsa wrote: »

No.

The wording of the referendum is 99% similar to that proposed by Mary O Rourke under the previous government

That doesn't alter the fact that what I said is correct. The Attorney General approved the wording of the booklet which has been shown to be unconstitutional, the same Attorney General has approved the wording of the referendum which will be put before the people tomorrow.

humanji

But that's a completely different issue. If you don't like the wording of the referendum, you vote no. That's how it works.

SafeSurfer

humanji wrote: »

But that's a completely different issue. If you don't like the wording of the referendum, you vote no. That's how it works.

But how can we be sure that the wording of the proposed referendum is legally sound?

That it is not in conflict with other articles of the constitution or their supreme court interpretation?

Cool Mo D

SafeSurfer wrote: »

But how can we be sure that the wording of the proposed referendum is legally sound?

That it is not in conflict with other articles of the constitution or their supreme court interpretation?

A referendum wording cannot be legally unsound. If it conflicts with older parts of the constitution, it replaces them. That is the whole point of a referendum - it has complete power to change or delete any part of the constitution.

SafeSurfer

Cool Mo D wrote: »

A referendum wording cannot be legally unsound. If it conflicts with older parts of the constitution, it replaces them. That is the whole point of a referendum - it has complete power to change or delete any part of the constitution.

That is what I fear. What unintended consequences will there be for existing articles of the constitution.

Sarky

Um, there's this little booklet out about now that'll actually tell you the consequences.

C'mon kids, reading can't be that hard. You're on an internet discussion forum ffs.

Chips Lovell

You mean the referendum could make the constitution unconstitutional?

Mind blown.

Piliger

The new articles are excellent and it is a disgrace that our elected Government is restricted from promoting it. I will be voting YES.

tomred1

I hope they repay the money back from Labour and Fine Gael coffers.

Solair

We should all send them an invoice for the total cost of the campaign + the court cases divided by 4,487,000 (population of Ireland).

That'd keep them busy for a while!

They already cost us all €15 each for the screw up on the site location of the National Children's Hospital (roughly €70m estimated to be the cost there)

So, in a typical household of 4, that decision cost you about €60

We should all just keep an account, do the maths and post an invoice up to the Taoiseach every year as a form of protest.

My name is URL

I can't help but find the whole thing hilarious. The amendment would have easily passed without the government interfering in a way which they knew was in breach of rules. Now, even if it does pass (which is less likely because of their actions), it'll have a cloud of doubt and distrust hanging over it. It all just about sums up the people in charge of this country.

And Varadkar coming out and saying ‘If the government made a mistake we accept that’... IF?! hahaha

Anything they touch seems to turn to shite. €1.1 million (+ fcuk knows what legal costs) wasted on damaging the thing they were trying to promote.. and them threatening to bring people to court over non-payment of the HHC. It's like a political sitcom at this stage.

SafeSurfer

Sarky wrote: »

Um, there's this little booklet out about now that'll actually tell you the consequences.

C'mon kids, reading can't be that hard. You're on an internet discussion forum ffs.

Is that the booklet with the misleading information in it?

The booklet cannot tell me what the consequences will be. The booklet tells me what the Attorney General thinks the consequences will be. The supreme court is the final arbitrator and interpretator of the constitution and the supreme court can and has overruled the opinion of the attorney general, not just in the case of the Mc Kenna judgement but in the past as well.

Why do you think that we had to vote so many times on abortion referendums? It was because the wording of the referendum was drafted in an ambiguous way which resulted in unforseen consequences, the x case etc.

Chips Lovell

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Is that the booklet with the misleading information in it?

No

Chips Lovell

My name is URL wrote: »

...in a way which they knew was in breach of rules....

How did they know they were breaking the rules? Their own legal advisers and the Attorney General's office cleared it?

SafeSurfer

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

No

Oh right so the electorate was given a booklet from the referendum commission with the correct information and a booklet from the government with the incorrect information but we were expected to know to only refer to the referendum's commission booklet for the correct information?

Chips Lovell

I don't think the general public are complete idiots.

SafeSurfer

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't think the general public are complete idiots.

Neither do I. It was a member of the public who identified an attempt by government to pervert the course of democracy and was vindicated by the supreme court.

Chips Lovell

"Pervert the course of democracy" is probably a tad hyperbolic given the circumstances.

My name is URL

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

How did they know they were breaking the rules? Their own legal advisers and the Attorney General's office cleared it?

They should have known, and you'd need to be fairly naive to believe that they didn't know considering that lay members of the public spotted the bias straight away.

If they genuinely didn't know then it's not a defense, it's a mark of their gross ineptitude.

Sarky

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Oh right so the electorate was given a booklet from the referendum commission with the correct information and a booklet from the government with the incorrect information but we were expected to know to only refer to the referendum's commission booklet for the correct information?

You... You seriously didn't know that? Could I interest you in this magical rock I have that keeps tigers away?

Chips Lovell

My name is URL wrote: »

They should have known, and you'd need to be fairly naive to believe that they didn't know considering that lay members of the public spotted the bias straight away.

If they genuinely didn't know then it's not a defense, it's a mark of their gross ineptitude.

So essentially you're claiming that the Dept. knew and decided to ignore it, their legal advisers knew, but decided to ignore it and the AG knew, but decided to ignore it?

My name is URL

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So essentially you're claiming that the Dept. knew and decided to ignore it, their legal advisers knew, but decided to ignore it and the AG knew, but decided to ignore it?

I'm not claiming anything. I'm merely pointing out that they overlooked a very obvious breach of the McKenna Judgment.. willfully or otherwise. In any case it doesn't bode well for those charged with ensuring that these things don't happen. If members of the general public were able to spot a breach right off the bat then surely the Dept. and its throngs of highly paid advisers should be expected to have spotted it also.

The outcome is the same regardless of how it happened. The amendment is now less likely to be passed because of the ineptitude of certain people employed by the state. And if it does pass, it won't be as welcome as it otherwise would have been.

franktheplank

There was some constitutional law 'expert' on radio one yesterday evening, his take on it was that in the McKenna case subsequent challenges weren't upheld because the government withdrew the biased material a week beforehand so the public still had enough time to impartially make up their minds.

He thought that in this case an appeal could be stronger because the material was only withdrawn a day and a half beforehand. He reckoned the government would counter this if there was a large majority in favour they will argue the material didn't make a difference.

It seems to me they're taking a big risk with this, I can't see why they won't postpone it for a few weeks, surely it's the only fair thing to do?

Chips Lovell

franktheplank wrote: »

It seems to me they're taking a big risk with this, I can't see why they won't postpone it for a few weeks, surely it's the only fair thing to do?

They can't. There is no provision in law to postpone a referendum once it is called. The only circumstances in which they can change the date is if a general election is called.

franktheplank

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

They can't. There is no provision in law to postpone a referendum once it is called. The only circumstances in which they can change the date is if a general election is called.

Is that one of the laws they can change, or do they need a referendum to postpone a referendum?

Either way i'm voting no and i hope more people will now too, do we trust these people to have more power over our children?

Capt'n Midnight

mango salsa wrote: »

No.

The wording of the referendum is 99% similar to that proposed by Mary O Rourke under the previous government

LOL

The object of pass the parcel is to be the one holding it when the music stops.

Once you understand that it explains a lot of the Dail debates about passing common sense legislation.

Chips Lovell

franktheplank wrote: »

Is that one of the laws they can change

Yes. Whether they could do it in 24 hours though is another question.