Referenda 2013 Tallies and Results

Oops69

Oh no , Patricia mc kenna is back on rte coverage , what next devalera back from the grave !

seligehgit

Not a snowballs chance of reform,history tells us this.

seamus

spank_inferno wrote: »

Well... The people were asked if they wanted the status quo.

No they weren't. I don't know about you, but the only question on that ballot was whether I wanted to change the constitution in order to effect the abolition of the Dail.

Nobody mentioned anything about a status quo.

macgrub wrote: »

While many of the No side were very well informed as to why they made that decision, others appear to have done so just to oppose government.
Enda Kenny should have done the old 'reverse psychology' trick and sided with the No campaign if he really wanted the Yes side to win.

I don't think in the history of the state, the government has ever opposed a referendum. It would make no sense - why would they put a referendum to the people and then campaign against it?

It's one of the things which doesn't work in our system; there should be at least one mechanism through which to call a referendum which doesn't require a Dail or Seanad majority.

Amirani

spank_inferno wrote: »

Well... The people were asked if they wanted the status quo.

and the people said 'yes'

And assuming that these people don't also want reform of the status quo isn't a valid logical extension to make.

AK333

I heard a middle aged man at the voting yesterday say, and I'm paraphrasing, if we abolish the Seanad it will save 20 million but then if we put the Court of Appeal in they are paying Judges 8 million a year. He actually believed that we would pay Court of Appeal Judges €8 million a year in wages and benefits. It doesn't matter how many Information booklets are printed, you can't beat ignorance.

seamus

AK333 wrote: »

I heard a middle aged man at the voting yesterday say, and I'm paraphrasing, if we abolish the Seanad it will save 20 million but then if we put the Court of Appeal in they are paying Judges 8 million a year. He actually believed that we would pay Court of Appeal Judges €8 million a year in wages and benefits. It doesn't matter how many Information booklets are printed, you can't beat ignorance.

How do you know the new judges won't cost €8m per year. Obviously not €8m each, but stick in 20 judges and their benefits and staff costs and you could easily get up to €8m.

Edit:
Just to put some figures in there. A supreme court judge earns ~ €220k, a high court judge is ~€206k. Since one of these new judges lies between that, you're probably looking at ~€210k p.a. I think that's before pension payments are included. Add in the Irish-standard of 3 assistants per judge, multiply by 20 and you won't be far shy of that €8m figure.

mikofo

KevIRL wrote: »

Varadker now saying that the low turnout means people dont care and there is no mandate to reform the seanad.

What a muppet and he is the so called new face of politics:mad::cool:

Calina

spank_inferno wrote: »

Well... The people were asked if they wanted the status quo.

and the people said 'yes'

Or, the people were offered a single alternative and that alternative was less palatable to them so they rejected it.

CiaranIRL

The figures speak for themselves -

The turnout currently is 38.5%. It has to be assumed that the other 61.5% couldn't be bothered to vote OR are happy with the current set-up.

The YES vote running at 49% (or 18.9% of the electorate)
The NO vote is running at 51% (or 19.6% of the electorate)

So, over 81% of the electorate don't want any change and are happy with the current arrangement. Remember, the option for reform wasn't on the table.

Gawd help us... The majority of my fellow Dub are muppets..

.jacksparrow.

CiaranIRL wrote: »

The figures speak for themselves -

The turnout currently is 38.5%. It has to be assumed that the other 61.5% couldn't be bothered to vote OR are happy with the current set-up.

The YES vote running at 49% (or 18.9% of the electorate)
The NO vote is running at 51% (or 19.6% of the electorate)

So, over 81% of the electorate don't want any change and are happy with the current arrangement. Remember, the option for reform wasn't on the table.

Gawd help us... The majority of my fellow Dub are muppets..

It would seem you are in the minority there.

seamus

CiaranIRL wrote: »

So, over 81% of the electorate don't want this change and are happy with the current arrangement.

FYP.
To draw any other conclusions is just making up things with zero evidence. This was a poll to ask whether the electorate wanted this change to be made. You cannot infer anything from the results except their feelings about this change.

Figerty

CiaranIRL wrote: »

The figures speak for themselves -

The turnout currently is 38.5%. It has to be assumed that the other 61.5% couldn't be bothered to vote OR are happy with the current set-up.

The YES vote running at 49% (or 18.9% of the electorate)
The NO vote is running at 51% (or 19.6% of the electorate)

So, over 81% of the electorate don't want any change and are happy with the current arrangement. Remember, the option for reform wasn't on the table.

Gawd help us... The majority of my fellow Dub are muppets..

That's quite a leap in a making that assumption about 81% of the population. The apathy of the voters is most likely split on both sides pretty equally.

The real annoyance on this vote is the fact that it has cost a small fortune. It could have been done with the local elections or some other event.

How much has been saved in real terms?.. nothing. Enda's pet project has now cost the government money instead of saving it.

AK333

seamus wrote: »

How do you know the new judges won't cost €8m per year. Obviously not €8m each, but stick in 20 judges and their benefits and staff costs and you could easily get up to €8m.

Edit:
Just to put some figures in there. A supreme court judge earns ~ €220k, a high court judge is ~€206k. Since one of these new judges lies between that, you're probably looking at ~€210k p.a. I think that's before pension payments are included. Add in the Irish-standard of 3 assistants per judge, multiply by 20 and you won't be far shy of that €8m figure.

From listening to the man, he meant €8 million per judge, absolute nonsense. Curious as to why you have said 20 judges? That's not my understanding of it. Certainly not 20, possibly 4, plus 2 assistants no way is it €8 million. That's just scaremongering.

nesf

spank_inferno wrote: »

Well... The people were asked if they wanted the status quo.

and the people said 'yes'

There were many reasons to vote No, not just wanting the status quo. There was only one reason to vote Yes though.

Horrid Henry

AK333 wrote: »

From listening to the man, he meant €8 million per judge, absolute nonsense. Curious as to why you have said 20 judges? That's not my understanding of it. Certainly not 20, possibly 4, plus 2 assistants no way is it €8 million. That's just scaremongering.

And do judges and their staff not pay tax?

The real cost is probably 50% of the headline figure.

KevIRL

Most outrageous spin attempt of the day?

Damien Tiernan @damienrte

Phil Hogan told reporters in Kilkenny that – ‘people like their national politicians and they don’t want to lose them

AK333

Horrid Henry wrote: »

And do judges and their staff not pay tax?

The real cost is probably 50% of the headline figure.

I agree. I was responding to an earlier post. It won't be €8 million a year, either for 1 judge (as the man in the voting booth was spouting) or for 20 judges (as an earlier poster quoted). There won't be 20 judges, yes they will have assistants but I don't believe it will cost €8 million, and as HH above quoted, there will be monies recouped in tax, VAT etc.

I should say my figures are based on my understanding as it is. I don't know how many Judges they are planning on having in the Court of Appeal, if it was successful, but it won't be 20, maybe 4.

Does anyone know if this Referenda was passed?

Amirani

CiaranIRL wrote: »

The figures speak for themselves -

The turnout currently is 38.5%. It has to be assumed that the other 61.5% couldn't be bothered to vote OR are happy with the current set-up.

The YES vote running at 49% (or 18.9% of the electorate)
The NO vote is running at 51% (or 19.6% of the electorate)

So, over 81% of the electorate don't want any change and are happy with the current arrangement. Remember, the option for reform wasn't on the table.

Gawd help us... The majority of my fellow Dub are muppets..

Would you mind informing me why I'm a muppet please? Thanks.

Frank Grimes

AK333 wrote: »

Does anyone know if this Referenda was passed?

The counting hasn't started yet.

Overdahill

spank_inferno wrote: »

Well... The people were asked if they wanted the status quo.

and the people said 'yes'

You aren't wrong...but my opinion is that the wrong question was asked. Why did it have to be abolish or leave as it is? Because once again our elected leaders thought that sheeple like we would do as we were told. We have lost so much control with the troika, the bailing out of the banks and the bond holders...it's time we stopped doing what were were told and doing what we think is right. Back me into a corner with an all or nothing question and you won't like the way it goes.

Sala

RTE re quoted a tweet, the count from the Court of CRIMINAL appeal will begin

AK333

Sala wrote: »

RTE re quoted a tweet, the count fro the Court of CRIMINAL appeal will begin

No its Court of Appeal - we already have courts that deal with criminal Appeal per se. This referenda was about the Court of Appeal.

Below is an extract from the Information Booklet delivered to each home

The present Courts system includes:

• the Supreme Court (highest court)
• the High Court
• the Circuit Court
• the District Court (lowest level court)

There is also a Court of Criminal Appeal which hears appeals in criminal cases from the High Court, the Circuit Court and the Special Criminal Court. The roles of the High Court and the Supreme Court are set out in the Constitution.
If this referendum is passed:

• A new Court – the Court of Appeal – will be set up at a level between the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Sala

AK333 wrote: »

No its Court of Appeal - we already have courts that deal with criminal Appeal per se. This referenda was about the Court of Appeal.

Below is an extract from the Information Booklet delivered to each home

The present Courts system includes:

• the Supreme Court (highest court)
• the High Court
• the Circuit Court
• the District Court (lowest level court)

There is also a Court of Criminal Appeal which hears appeals in criminal cases from the High Court, the Circuit Court and the Special Criminal Court. The roles of the High Court and the Supreme Court are set out in the Constitution.
If this referendum is passed:

• A new Court – the Court of Appeal – will be set up at a level between the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Yes I am aware of this, hence CRIMINAL being emphasised in my post. Embarrassed for rte

AK333

Sala wrote: »

Yes I am aware of this, hence CRIMINAL being emphasised in my post. Embarrassed for rte

Sorry, my apologies, I thought you were referring to my earlier post

Billy86

Can't wait until the introduce the full reforms: the introduction of a fada over the 'e'.

andyman

"We've reformed significantly in the past 2 years"

Who the **** does this joker think he's fooling?

AK333

Vincent Browne hosting a TV3 Seanad referendum panel at 5pm - should liven things up a bit

uck51js9zml2yt

42500 margin in favour of keeping dramas.

Pretzill

Soren Sticky Performance wrote: »

42500 margin in favour of keeping dramas.

Agree the Seanad coverage is often far more entertaining.

Happy to see a no vote holding mostly because of my mistrust of the current goverment.

It wasn't a vote for reform although I'd hazard a guess many of the spoiled votes possibly made some comment to that.

Political reform is needed though.

dave1982

Anyone know when we will being going to the polls to vote yes like they want.:D

A small victory today but still we are losing

Billy86

Pretzill wrote: »

Happy to see a no vote holding mostly because of my mistrust of the current goverment.

...and what about the crowd that came before them? Seems odd to specify 'current' all things considered.

Pretzill

Billy86 wrote: »

...and what about the crowd that came before them? Seems odd to specify 'current' all things considered.

Not odd at all considering it is the current government who brought this to referendum.

And did I trust the last government or the one before or even the one before? No. Which in someway went towards the success at election of the current government...

Billy86

Pretzill wrote: »

Not odd at all considering it is the current government who brought this to referendum.

And did I trust the last government or the one before or even the one before? No. Which in someway went towards the success at election of the current government...

In more than 'some way' - when a government thinks it can pretty much flaunt it's corruption and get re-elected (and be right on one occasion!) I think that should say it all. I'm not particularly trusting of any Irish politicians either, but I certainly trust FG over FF, all things considered. Two evils mind, all-in-all.

Like I said though, even the Seanad have pretty much admitted to being useless in their current guise. Now watch for the 'reforms' to be the introduction of a fada, or something that would make that look like a big reform compared to what we will get. Sadly, I could pretty much guarantee that.

petronius

This was a victory for our Democracy
The people were not confused!
The people were not bought by a false promise of 20million savings
The people were right to thrust the government with more power
The people respect the constitution and only sanction a change based on evidence and argument
How can any government senator keep their seats if they voted to abolish it saying it was irrelevant that shows disrespect for the institution they participate in! The will still take the cheque and even some government members who may lose their seats in the next general election may look to get a seanad seat...
Reform the seanad with in the constitution
Implement the 1979 referendum
Open the franchise to all panels to every one
Allow for irish citizens abroad to vote for one of the panels
Allow people from the north to vote for one of the panels

Ultra Classic

In the USA the approval of both houses (Senate and Representatives) is required for any bill, including a revenue bill, to become law. Both Houses must pass the same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by sending amendments back and forth or by a conference committee, which includes members of both bodies.

Why can't we have power given to the Seanad to block a bill if it deems it to be inappropriate. The need for a bill to have to pass both houses does away with the Dail's majority.

My feeling is that the senate should be made up of 2 non-political elected representatives from each County. In the case of Dublin: one from the city and one from the County..... same for Cork, Limerick Galway, Waterford etc. . These representatives should be from a cross-section of Irish citizens. The Taoiseach's appointees should be done away with as should be the University seats.

Please comment.

Wild_Goose11

If people wanted excess drama they should have stuck with Eastenders than the Seanad.