Leo is the new king of Ireland.

mattser

markodaly wrote: »

Francie is like the economist who predicts a crash every year. They will be right eventually and hold themselves up as a soothsayer, but in reality people will see through it.

The sky was supposed to fall in on Leo and FG last week on his return from the U.S.
But they got an increase in the polls :D
Shows how out of touch the agenda perma whingers really are.

Chips Lovell

Right, this thread has started to go downhill into trench warfare.

So everyone take a deep breath and go read the charter. If you're just here to take pucks out the other, this isn't the forum for you.

Serious, substantive posts please.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

oscarBravo

Let's recap, shall we:

charlie14 wrote: »

Well from people I have talked, to quite a few are not happy with not being given the opportunity to decide on accepting or rejecting the constitution wording now.

You claimed that people are unhappy that they won't get to decide on accepting or rejecting the constitution wording. I pointed out that that's incorrect, because that's precisely what the referendum is for.

charlie14 wrote: »

They are getting the opportunity to accept or reject the present wording, Not the wording that will replace it.
That is precisely what they`re unhappy about.

You doubled down and claimed that the people won't get to accept or reject the wording that will replace the current wording. I pointed out that you were still wrong, because accepting or rejecting the proposed replacement wording is, again, precisely what the referendum is for.

charlie14 wrote: »

In the upcoming referendum is the wording to replace on the ballot paper or not ?

I replied that it is, because that's how referendums work: the proposed change to the wording is printed on the ballot paper, along with the question: do you accept this proposed change? and two boxes, yes or no.

You then decided not merely to move the goalposts, but to take a drive across town and start playing a different sport:

charlie14 wrote: »

That would be a no to both.

The only proposal on the ballot paper is a yes or no to repeal and replace the 8th amendment to the constitution.
If passed, the new constitutional article would state that the Oireachtas may provide for the termination of pregnancy.

There is no wording on the referendum ballot paper as to what that provision will be.

Suddenly, we're not talking about what we've been talking about all along, which is - to quote you verbatim - the "constitution wording"; now you're trying to claim that people are unhappy because they won't get to have an entire proposed "Healthcare (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill 2018", or whatever, printed on the ballot paper.

If that's what people are unhappy about, they're going to have to live with their unhappiness, because it's grounded in a basic lack of understanding of how the constitutional amendment process - or, indeed, the Constitution itself - works.

charlie14

markodaly wrote: »

Do, people even know what a Hard Brexit is?

That is when the Brits cannot agree to the terms of settlement and take themselves out of the EU unilaterally.

Leo cannot control what the UK does, he can only influence what Ireland and the EU does.

FG and Leo have no say in internal British politics.

Now I wonder if there was some sort of Irish Nationalist voice inside the UK that could actually influence outcomes there, wouldn't that be great, no?? Hmmm, **** it just blame Leo.

A Hard Brexit is simple enough.
It is if Britain leaves the EU without a final agreement that has to be ratified by Britain and all the remaining EU states.
Ireland`s main issue is the border.
Ireland had the opportunity with the backing of our EU partners at the end of Phase 1 negotiations to have this issue resolved to our satisfaction before negotiations could move to Phase 2.
What we agreed too was a kick the can down the road fudge with negotiations moving on to Phase 2.
We are now looking at the increasing likelihood of that can being kick as far as the final draft agreement with all other issues resolved other than the border.
If so with Britain insisting that the 6 county border remains then I cannot see any reason any other state in the EU would have to object to that (or any legal basis for the EU to object as they accepted upon entry that the 6 counties were part of Britain).
In which case Ireland has two options.
Either agree or veto the final draft agreement.
If we veto, then it is a Hard Brexit.

Podge_irl

charlie14 wrote: »

A Hard Brexit is simple enough.
It is if Britain leaves the EU without a final agreement that has to be ratified by Britain and all the remaining EU states.
Ireland`s main issue is the border.
Ireland had the opportunity with the backing of our EU partners at the end of Phase 1 negotiations to have this issue resolved to our satisfaction before negotiations could move to Phase 2.
What we agreed too was a kick the can down the road fudge with negotiations moving on to Phase 2.
We are now looking at the increasing likelihood of that can being kick as far as the final draft agreement with all other issues resolved other than the border.
If so with Britain insisting that the 6 county border remains then I cannot see any reason any other state in the EU would have to object to that (or any legal basis for the EU to object as they accepted upon entry that the 6 counties were part of Britain).
In which case Ireland has two options.
Either agree or veto the final draft agreement.
If we veto, then it is a Hard Brexit.

Your hypothetical scenario is predicated on the EU having misled Ireland (and indeed the UK) at every possible turn with regards to the importance placed upon the Irish border.

They are not going to get a final draft agreement without tackling the border issue.

charlie14

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's recap, shall we:
You claimed that people are unhappy that they won't get to decide on accepting or rejecting the constitution wording. I pointed out that that's incorrect, because that's precisely what the referendum is for
You doubled down and claimed that the people won't get to accept or reject the wording that will replace the current wording. I pointed out that you were still wrong, because accepting or rejecting the proposed replacement wording is, again, precisely what the referendum is for.
I replied that it is, because that's how referendums work: the proposed change to the wording is printed on the ballot paper, along with the question: do you accept this proposed change? and two boxes, yes or n.
You then decided not merely to move the goalposts, but to take a drive across town and start playing a different sport:
Suddenly, we're not talking about what we've been talking about all along, which is - to quote you verbatim - the "constitution wording"; now you're trying to claim that people are unhappy because they won't get to have an entire proposed "Healthcare (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill 2018", or whatever, printed on the ballot pap.
If that's what people are unhappy about, they're going to have to live with their unhappiness, because it's grounded in a basic lack of understanding of how the constitutional amendment process - or, indeed, the Constitution itself - works.

You appear to be confused as to what the proposed wording on the ballot paper is.

It is simply a yes or no vote if voters wish to repeal Article 40,3,3 of the constitution and replace it with the following 13 word sentence.
"Provision may be made in law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy"

I have not being changing goalposts or anything else.
I have simply said that quite a few people I have talked to have serious reservations on that as it leaves the decision on regulation of termination, not just now, but in the future, at the sole discretion of legislators.
They are uneasy about what that could entail in the future without them having any say in the matter.

Apparently it is not just some voters that are uneasy about that proposal with Coveney now looking for a 2/3 Dail vote lock on any future proposed changes.
With An Tánaiste now having the same reservations on this proposed change to the constitution, then it is difficult to not see their point, and something imo if this proposal fails to be accepted, will be a major reason as to why

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

Your hypothetical scenario is predicated on the EU having misled Ireland (and indeed the UK) at every possible turn with regards to the importance placed upon the Irish border.

They are not going to get a final draft agreement without tackling the border issue.

Not at all.
My hypothesis is based on a fudge in Phase 1 when we had the backing of the EU that allowed negotiations to move on without a definitive resolution.

In legal terms the only commitment the EU has to Ireland on the border issue fall under the GFA.
The EU cannot interfere in matters of sovereignty. Something it made very clear in the Spain/Catalan dispute.
If Britain decides with all other matters resolved come a final draft proposal that they are claiming sovereignty, then there is nothing the EU can do.
If that scenario occurs then Ireland have either to accept the final draft agreement or veto which would automatically result in a hard Brexit.

Podge_irl

charlie14 wrote: »

You appear to be confused as to what the proposed wording on the ballot paper is.

It is simply a yes or no vote if voters wish to repeal Article 40,3,3 of the constitution and replace it with the following 13 word sentence.
"Provision may be made in law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy"

I have not being changing goalposts or anything else.

You either have moved goalposts or simply spoke incorrectly. You claimed that we would not see the constitutional wording on the ballot paper and that is fundamentally incorrect.

Allowing the Oireachtas to legislate the issue how they see fit is the entire point of the referendum. If people have an issue with that they have an issue with the core concept of the referendum - the intention is to remove specific wording and leave it as a legislative matter.

Podge_irl

charlie14 wrote: »

Not at all.
My hypothesis is based on a fudge in Phase 1 when we had the backing of the EU that allowed negotiations to move on without a definitive resolution.

In legal terms the only commitment the EU has to Ireland on the border issue fall under the GFA.
The EU cannot interfere in matters of sovereignty. Something it made very clear in the Spain/Catalan dispute.
If Britain decides with all other matters resolved come a final draft proposal that they are claiming sovereignty, then there is nothing the EU can do.
If that scenario occurs then Ireland have either to accept the final draft agreement or veto which would automatically result in a hard Brexit.

The EU had no legal commitment to Ireland before we agreed talks could move on to phase 2 either.

I have no idea what issues of sovereignty have to do with it. There is no debate about where sovereign control of Northern Ireland will remain. Based on literally everything the EU negotiators have stated, there will not be a scenario where everything but the Irish border issue is decided.

James Brown

As Ireland prepares to expel the Russian diplomat, where might that leave Fine gael economics as regards the myriad questionable Russian legal(?) money laundering operations?

Russian companies sanctioned over Ukraine linked to Ireland
A number of major Russian companies that are subject to the sanctions introduced following Russia’s assault on Ukraine in 2014 have connections with Ireland due to the role it plays in the global funds industry.
The fund operations remain legal despite European Union and US sanctions, although their ability to provide services to their Russia counterparts may have been hit by the introduction of sanctions.
Some of the Russian companies concerned are very close to the Kremlin and the Russian president Vladimir Putin.
The Irish companies tend to have few if any employees despite the enormous transactions they are involved with, and usually pay very little in tax.
However, they contribute to the Irish economy by way of the fees paid for the provision of professional services.
A recent study from Trinity College Dublin estimated that 125 Russian-linked companies have raised €103 billion through Irish funds operations since 2007.
One of the major operations based here is that of Rosneft International Finance. Based in the East Point Business Park, Dublin 3, it is a subsidiary of the massive Rosneft oil company, which is itself the subject of the EU and US sanctions.

Rosneft chief executive Igor Sechin is considered one of Mr Putin’s closest allies and is on the US sanctions list.
Rosneft’s assets include assets that used to belong to Yukos, the since broken-up oil and gas conglomerate whose former owner, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was at one stage Russia’s richest oligarch. He fell foul of Mr Putin’s regime and was jailed for a number of years before being released after lobbying by the German government.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/russian-companies-sanctioned-over-ukraine-linked-to-ireland-1.3440975

Is expelling the diplomat merely window dressing if we continue to allow Russian financial institutions, on US watch lists, operate in this great little country to do business?

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

The EU had no legal commitment to Ireland before we agreed talks could move on to phase 2 either.

I have no idea what issues of sovereignty have to do with it. There is no debate about where sovereign control of Northern Ireland will remain. Based on literally everything the EU negotiators have stated, there will not be a scenario where everything but the Irish border issue is decided.

Indeed they had not, but Ireland had the EU`s public stated backing that until we were satisfied that we had a binding resolution from Britain on the border issue, talks would not move on to Phase 2.
With talks moving on that is now gone and we are left with a fudge that we accepted and one where the EU has no power to insist on enforcement.

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

You either have moved goalposts or simply spoke incorrectly. You claimed that we would not see the constitutional wording on the ballot paper and that is fundamentally incorrect.

Allowing the Oireachtas to legislate the issue how they see fit is the entire point of the referendum. If people have an issue with that they have an issue with the core concept of the referendum - the intention is to remove specific wording and leave it as a legislative matter.

What I have simply being saying is that from speaking to a number of people quite a few are uneasy that what is being asked off them is to repeal Article 40.3.3 and replace it with :
"Provision may be made in law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy".
Their point being, and from Coveney`s utterances apparently his as well, that it is too open-ended in that it leaves the decision on the regulation of termination in the future solely in the hands of a simple Dail majority where they would have no say.
Whether you or others want to accept that is up to you, but it is going to be a problem in getting this referendum to pass, and if it should not, then imo a major reason as too why not

Podge_irl

charlie14 wrote: »

What I have simply being saying is that from speaking to a number of people quite a few are uneasy that what is being asked off them is to repeal Article 40.3.3 and replace it with :
"Provision may be made in law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy".
Their point being, and from Coveney`s utterances apparently his as well, that it is too open-ended in that it leaves the decision on the regulation of termination in the future solely in the hands of a simple Dail majority where they would have no say.
Whether you or others want to accept that is up to you, but it is going to be a problem in getting this referendum to pass, and if it should not, then imo a major reason as too why not

I have absolutely no problem accepting that. I would find it unusual if anyone had a problem accepting the idea that the central tenant and primary purpose of the referendum was a key factor in the result of said referendum.

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

I have absolutely no problem accepting that. I would find it unusual if anyone had a problem accepting the idea that the central tenant and primary purpose of the referendum was a key factor in the result of said referendum.

You may not, but from people I have talked too there appears to be quite a few who do have a problem with it.
Even Coveney who not only being a minister in the government proposing this, is also Tánaiste.
Other than pointing out the facts of what accepting this proposal could entail I do not know what Coveney was up to on this two thirds lock idea of his.
Surely it is unconstitutional and you would imagine a member of government, especially one in his position, would realise that.
But then he has been jittery on this whole proposed change since the outset, so not being able because of his position to campaign against it, he just choose to highlighted a possible future problem with this proposed constitutional change that others have identified.

Either way, it is a serious shot across the government bows on getting this referendum passed .

Podge_irl

charlie14 wrote: »

But then he has been jittery on this whole proposed change since the outset, so not being able because of his position to campaign against it, he just choose to highlighted a possible future problem with this proposed constitutional change that others have identified.

Either way, it is a serious shot across the government bows on getting this referendum passed .

It is not a "possible future problem". It is the entire point of the referendum.

Varadkar, the cabinet and the government have made the clear cut decision, based on advice from not least the citizen's assembly and oireachtas committee, to have a referendum on making the issue of abortion a legislative one and no longer have it enshrined in the constitution. The fact that a future Dail can alter the legislation is not some loophole or oversight, it is the entire point. This is not a question of the government handling it poorly or being taken by surprise or being under-prepared.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

From reading the link, it seems that the vote has no meaning or purpose at all, other than a publicity stunt. Just another waste of Dail time when important legislation could have been debated.

The Government had already decided on a review, the review will take place and the government will then make its mind up on the outcome. The vote in the Dail has no meaning either way it went.

Am I missing something?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The purpose of the vote in my opinion was to draw publicity to a spin unit being used to promote Leo and his govt with advertorials clearly designed to look like real news stories promoting FG politicians, and featuring celebrities and economists who weren't even informed their words would be used in the ads by the government.

Did someone mention publicity stunts ^^

The government had already decided to review itself? Not sure if you're serious tbh.

If Leo and his government decide to ignore every other party in the Dail (weren't you crowing on about this in another thread?) It shows his disregard for anyone and everyone who isn't Leo Varadkar and his government - way to go to rile people up Leo, arrogance in the past seen the last government get its marching orders.

So if Leo decides he's going to try and ignore the result of the vote, not only will he be displaying a level of arrogance that would bypass Kenny - he will basically he confirming that propaganda is more important to him than good governance.

I reckon it's toast - you reckon the vote will have no effect.

Let's see who ends up being correct shall we.


At a guess, I think the decision by PAC to write to Leo on foot of the vote result.

Leo's been having a bad few weeks.

I admire your defence of him through thick and thin though, especially for someone who votes green no1

As I was saying.

Cheerio to the SCU.

Strategic Communications Unit to be closed down by July

The Government’s controversial Strategic Communications Unit (SRU) is to be wound down by July, the Cabinet has been told.

The decision follows a series of negative stories surrounding the unit, which had been set up to promote the work of the Government.

All staff will be redeployed to other areas of the civil service.

It is understood the secretary general of the Department of the Taoiseach Martin Fraser outlined his concerns regarding the effect of the unit on the civil service.

Opposition parties had claimed that the civil service was being politicised by what they labelled a “spin unit”

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

What I have simply being saying is that from speaking to a number of people quite a few are uneasy that what is being asked off them is to repeal Article 40.3.3 and replace it with :
"Provision may be made in law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy".
Their point being, and from Coveney`s utterances apparently his as well, that it is too open-ended in that it leaves the decision on the regulation of termination in the future solely in the hands of a simple Dail majority where they would have no say.
Whether you or others want to accept that is up to you, but it is going to be a problem in getting this referendum to pass, and if it should not, then imo a major reason as too why not

For a start you are conflating Coveney’s concerns with those of your friends, I do not think they are the same.

As your friends, I understand their point, but it is probably the most foolish position to take on the referendum. Putting a complicated scenario into the Constitution will only lead to a repeat of the mess of the 1983 referendum and the associated court cases.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

As I was saying.

Cheerio to the SCU.

Strategic Communications Unit to be closed down by July

As decided by the government not by the Dail, which was the point I was making.

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is not a "possible future problem". It is the entire point of the referendum.

Varadkar, the cabinet and the government have made the clear cut decision, based on advice from not least the citizen's assembly and oireachtas committee, to have a referendum on making the issue of abortion a legislative one and no longer have it enshrined in the constitution. The fact that a future Dail can alter the legislation is not some loophole or oversight, it is the entire point. This is not a question of the government handling it poorly or being taken by surprise or being under-prepared.

Well from my experience it is a point that has been recognised by some, not least Coveney, and they have a problem with it.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

As decided by the government not by the Dail, which was the point I was making.

Forced by the opposition, (including the Greens) which was the point everyone else was making.

Leo is wearing the emperor's new clothes.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

For a start you are conflating Coveney’s concerns with those of your friends, I do not think they are the same.

As your friends, I understand their point, but it is probably the most foolish position to take on the referendum. Putting a complicated scenario into the Constitution will only lead to a repeat of the mess of the 1983 referendum and the associated court cases.

I did not say they were friends. They are people, who in general conservation when the subject came up, expressed their concerns.
Whether I agree with them or not, I would hope that the government would go perhaps further to allay their concerns than telling them it is probably the most foolish position to take on the referendum.

I was not combining two sets of concerns expressed on this proposal by, again not friends, people I have talked too and Coveney.
I view them as the same concern.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

As decided by the government not by the Dail, which was the point I was making.

Callan`s Kicks got there before them with a skit last week on it going by July and all hands reassigned.

Shows what a farce it had become.

James Brown

To paraphrase a comment I just read;

It’s funny that for a government spending as much money as FG are on information services they’ve forgotten to include the information that the Siteserv inquiry is still running. Coming to it's second year it seems.
I'd thought it was long disappeared, certainly forgotten. But that's the point of these things I suppose.

charlie14

Matt Barrett wrote: »

To paraphrase a comment I just read;

It’s funny that for a government spending as much money as FG are on information services they’ve forgotten to include the information that the Siteserv inquiry is still running. Coming to it's second year it seems.
I'd thought it was long disappeared, certainly forgotten. But that's the point of these things I suppose.

I would hazard a guess that from the whole fiasco of water charges and related controversies, there are quite a few in government that would dearly love the Siteserv inquiry to disappear.
Even one or two supposedly outside of politics or political influence.

Podge_irl

charlie14 wrote: »

Well from my experience it is a point that has been recognised by some, not least Coveney, and they have a problem with it.

The they are welcome to vote no.

What has this got to do with Leo Varadkar?

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

The they are welcome to vote no.

What has this got to do with Leo Varadkar?

If those concerns are not addressed I imagine they most likely will.

Unless there has been a change I haven`t heard about, then he is still Taoiseach and leader of FG.
The main government party putting forward the proposals in this referendum.

Podge_irl

charlie14 wrote: »

If those concerns are not addressed I imagine they most likely will.

Unless there has been a change I haven`t heard about, then he is still Taoiseach and leader of FG.
The main government party putting forward the proposals in this referendum.

Their "concerns" are the core issue of the referendum. There is no way to address them which is what you seem not to be understanding.

McMurphy

Does the Taoiseach get to decide on the states neutrality?

Ireland is now a fully-fledged participant in 'modern Cold War' as Varadkar says we can't be neutral

oscarBravo

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Does the Taoiseach get to decide on the states neutrality?

What neutrality?

seamus

Neutrality is a political aspiration, not a constitutional or legal requirement.

Article 29 sets out these aspirations, but does not go as far as stating that Ireland is neutral. At best, A.29 prohibits us from participating in an armed conflict as a belligerent unless all reasonable peaceful avenues have been exhausted.

Since expelling diplomats is not an violent or military act and arguably is a peaceful method of settling international disputes, then there's no issue with it.