European Parliament Elections 2019

Donald Trump

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Except MEPs aren't supposed to be elected to represent the view of national governments, but those of the broader political grouping they will join in Strasbourg. Wallace was open that he would join GUE/NGL if elected, which takes a critical view in relation to tax reform, among other things, so it was up to voters to reject him if they didn't agree with that.

I never said he was expected to represent a national government. He would be supposed to represent his Irish electorate in the EU. Not use it as a personal platform to "be a thorn in the side of" the Irish government. Stay as a TD if he wants to do that.

LuckyLloyd

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What's the word on Dublin...are we for the High Court?

I don't think so. Boylan's surplus has been distributed, and Gannon's already had her in the lead.

Where FF have messed up here is in not getting Fitzgerald's surplus distributed. That would have allowed potential legal arguments around the setting of a quota as per a 4 seater but counting it as a 3 seater. But with the surplus of Cuffe and Fitzgerald not distributed, I cannot see how the result could now change or be invalidated.

Quite the coup for Daly in all respects.

LuckyLloyd

normanoffside wrote: »

Ni Riada is still transferring very well in the south.
Is there a good chance she will stay ahead of O'Sullivan?

I think she should be more worried about being caught by FF and FG candidates with large amounts of Labour and FG votes to be distributed. I think she's in real trouble at this point.

Donald Trump

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I don't think so. Boylan's surplus has been distributed, and Gannon's already had her in the lead.

Where FF have messed up here is in not getting Fitzgerald's surplus distributed. That would have allowed potential legal arguments around the setting of a quota as per a 4 seater but counting it as a 3 seater. But with the surplus of Cuffe and Fitzgerald not distributed, I cannot see how the result could now change or be invalidated.

Quite the coup for Daly in all respects.

What I don't understand is how it wasn't all decided and agreed upon in writing up front.


Perhaps they should have counted it both ways - as a three seater and as a 4-seater and hoped that the result would have been in the same in both cases.


Why did they not demand for Fitzgeralds transfers to be distributed? I didn't get that bit.

L1011

Heaney gives a significant bundle to the Irexit candidate and the agrarian candidate predictably; but nearly 200 votes to Labour and over 300 to the Greens is inexplicable. >2000 non-transferrable!

normanoffside

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think she should be more worried about being caught by FF and FG candidates with large amounts of Labour and FG votes to be distributed. I think she's in real trouble at this point.

If she can stay ahead of O'Sullivan she should get the 5th seat IMO.
She has maintained her lead over O'Sullivan since the first count. They have transferred equally over 10 rounds.

Curiously (unless RTE have got it wrong) in the MNW Casey got more PBP transfers than either Carthy, Ming or McHugh

L1011

normanoffside wrote: »

If she can stay ahead of O'Sullivan she should get the 5th seat IMO.
She has maintained her lead over O'Sullivan since the first count. They have transferred equally over 10 rounds.

Curiously (unless RTE have got it wrong) in the MNW Casey got more PBP transfers than either Carthy, Ming or McHugh

Is it not Renua votes being transferred which would clearly lean towards Casey?

LuckyLloyd

Donald Trump wrote: »

Why did they not demand for Fitzgeralds transfers to be distributed? I didn't get that bit.

I honestly have no idea. They should have forced that point. It might not have mattered, but it would have given them far more options to challenge after the fact and it may just have kept his nose in front even with Gannon's votes breaking for Daly in large numbers.

Delboy2015

normanoffside wrote: »

If she can stay ahead of O'Sullivan she should get the 5th seat IMO.
She has maintained her lead over O'Sullivan since the first count. They have transferred equally over 10 rounds.

Curiously (unless RTE have got it wrong) in the MNW Casey got more PBP transfers than either Carthy, Ming or McHugh

That was Renua's transfer, PBP is up next

robman60

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I honestly have no idea. They should have forced that point. It might not have mattered, but it would have given them far more options to challenge after the fact and it may just have kept his nose in front even with Gannon's votes breaking for Daly in large numbers.

Don't get this at all. Why would her surplus not be distributed? I thought that is a requirement.

AndrewJRenko

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Quite the political coup by Wallace and Daly. I think Daly in particular is a massive loss to politics in this country. She's been an exceptional parliamentarian willing to stand in the wilderness on issues like Gardai corruption and female bodily autonomy well before the stampede came to join her.

In fairness, Labour were standing in the wilderness on bodily autonomy while Clare was still in school. She wasn't the initiator on that issue.

charlie14

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I don't think so. Boylan's surplus has been distributed, and Gannon's already had her in the lead.

Where FF have messed up here is in not getting Fitzgerald's surplus distributed. That would have allowed potential legal arguments around the setting of a quota as per a 4 seater but counting it as a 3 seater. But with the surplus of Cuffe and Fitzgerald not distributed, I cannot see how the result could now change or be invalidated.

Quite the coup for Daly in all respects.

Any idea as to why Fitzgerald`s surplus was not distributed before Gannon`s elimination ?
At the time of her being declared elected her surplus exceeded the difference between Daly and Andrews as far as I can see.

I thought that was the mandatory sequence.

dusty bin

charlie14 wrote: »

Any idea as to why Fitzgerald`s surplus was not distributed before Gannon`s elimination ?
At the time of her being declared elected her surplus exceeded the difference between Daly and Andrews as far as I can see.

I thought that was the mandatory sequence.

I think it was do with Gannon still in the race at that point. When fitzgerald was elected, I understood that her surplus would not be used because even if all went to Gannon, he still couldnt get elected. He was then excluded and his transfers counted. Maybe someone could correct me, but they cant use Fitzgerald's surplus once Gannon's was counted am I right?

dusty bin

If they had used a 3 seat quota rather than a 4th seat Quota, would it have made any difference in the order of those elected? I presume, Fitzgerald would have still being unelected up to Boylans Transfers.

Sonny noggs

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Except MEPs aren't supposed to be elected to represent the view of national governments, but those of the broader political grouping they will join in Strasbourg. Wallace was open that he would join GUE/NGL if elected, which takes a critical view in relation to tax reform, among other things, so it was up to voters to reject him if they didn't agree with that.

Mick is a great one for tax reform, knows all about not paying tax.

L1011

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In fairness, Labour were standing in the wilderness on bodily autonomy while Clare was still in school. She wasn't the initiator on that issue.

When she was still in Labour realistically (1989 she was expelled)

charlie14

dusty bin wrote: »

I think it was do with Gannon still in the race at that point. When fitzgerald was elected, I understood that her surplus would not be used because even if all went to Gannon, he still couldnt get elected. He was then excluded and his transfers counted. Maybe someone could correct me, but they cant use Fitzgerald's surplus once Gannon's was counted am I right?

I could see where that would be the case if Fitzgerald`s surplus was less than the difference between the next two highest, Daly and Andrews, but it wasn`t. It was nearly 2,000 votes great than the difference between them.
Seems very strange.

Danzy

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Quite the political coup by Wallace and Daly. I think Daly in particular is a massive loss to politics in this country. She's been an exceptional parliamentarian willing to stand in the wilderness on issues like Gardai corruption and female bodily autonomy well before the stampede came to join her. I don't think she will achieve near the same impact in Brussels, but I completely understand the reasons why she would look for an essential promotion.

I don't agree with her on much but her and Wallace's work on garda corruption mark them out as fine servants of justice in this country, while many of those in big parties kept quite to avoid the hassle.

dusty bin

charlie14 wrote: »

I could see where that would be the case if Fitzgerald`s surplus was less than the difference between the next two highest, Daly and Andrews, but it wasn`t. It was nearly 2,000 votes great than the difference between them.
Seems very strange.

boylan was still in the race at that stage too. Andrews and Daly would have being 3 and 4 out of 6 when fitzgerald got elected. I was always under the impression the difference should be between the bottom two.

Jupiter Mulligan

Donald Trump wrote: »

Wallace's main contribution to NAMA was the heap of properties and debt he used to have that they bailed him out over

Not forgetting the Italian vineyard that he handed over to his brother for a song. He stinks to high heaven.

Miriam's hamfisted attempt to stitch him up in the televised debate was probably the biggest gift ever given by an RTE interviewer to any candidate.

charlie14

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Mick is a great one for tax reform, knows all about not paying tax.

In fairness he isn`t the only one hanging around the present Dail that has had a few dodgy dealing.
A case grinding its way through the courts on a certain mobile licence involving an ex minister which if it goes against the state will put Wallace`s tax bill in the halfpenny place.

charlie14

dusty bin wrote: »

boylan was still in the race at that stage too. Andrews and Daly would have being 3 and 4 out of 6 when fitzgerald got elected. I was always under the impression the difference should be between the bottom two.

Good point. You may be correct in that.

If so I do not get why Boylan`s vote was then distributed. Doing that based on the European act governing EU elections appears to be illegal and there was no need to do it.

Gael23

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think she should be more worried about being caught by FF and FG candidates with large amounts of Labour and FG votes to be distributed. I think she's in real trouble at this point.

I would agree with this. She won’t pick up any significant transfers so I think she in serious bother.

Galwayguy35

Not really a fan of Wallace but he played a blinder in the Prime Time debate, he caught MOC out on a number of things she threw at him which showed she hadn't checked her facts properly.

If he made an effort to pay back his loans people might be more inclined to listen to him.

blackcard

In theory, you have 2 completely different counts if there is a additional seat caused by Brexit. Say you have 100,000 valid votes. With 4 seats, the quota would be 20,001. With 3 seats, the quota would be 25,001. You could have someone deemed elected on the first count with 20,001 votes on the premise that there might be 4 seats. However, if Britain stayed in the EU, there should be only 3 seats. So a candidate with 20,001 votes might not pick up sufficient transfers to reach 25,001 votes and could miss out altogether

SirGerryAdams

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I also think it's surprising FF lost the procedural battle in the count centre. Allied to standing two candidates in Midlands / NW, they don't seem to be as sharp in the campaign strategy and management side of things as you'd expect. Daly and Wallace obviously have surrounded themselves with people very able at the boots on the ground stuff.

Daly and Wallace have name recognition. Everyone in the country knows them.

Not everyone would know every TD. For example, if you asked me was Kelleher a TD I would have said no.

Daly and Wallace are always good for a soundbite too, you know when they'll be on RTE or Vincent Browne and they say something clever and people go "you know he's dead right"

James Brown

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Daly and Wallace have name recognition. Everyone in the country knows them.

Not everyone would know every TD. For example, if you asked me was Kelleher a TD I would have said no.

Daly and Wallace are always good for a soundbite too, you know when they'll be on RTE or Vincent Browne and they say something clever and people go "you know he's dead right"

I think Daly is seen to speak up on issues, (with Wallace tagging along). People like it when questions are asked.

Capt'n Midnight

micosoft wrote: »

My critique of that awful poll was very Yes Minister.

Questions like "90% of voters feel that the Government needs to prioritise climate change more"
Who could deny that? But if it was phrased:
"Do you want to prioritise climate change if it means 20c on a litre of fuel, €150 on a tank of heating oil, €45 on top of a flight, reduction in national herd" how exactly would people vote? Might change the figures drastically.

Here's an older poll with a €9Bn cost. When the undecided are excluded - 50.4% said they would vote in favour, 49.6% said they would vote against.

The actual cost could be as low as £5.7Bn and that's before EU funds and grants. And if their economy follows ours rather than the UK's that cost should drop year by year.


NI was originally given 3 MEP's so that the region wouldn't just elect a pair of Unionist ones every time. Until now they've been electing a pair of Unionist ones every time , and a Nationalist one.

Faugheen

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Not really a fan of Wallace but he played a blinder in the Prime Time debate, he caught MOC out on a number of things she threw at him which showed she hadn't checked her facts properly.

If he made an effort to pay back his loans people might be more inclined to listen to him.

Wallace is actually a good politician. He's not one of these parish pump Independents either. He seems to understand that he's elected to represent Wexford but in the national interest. The fact he has a good track record of getting elected shows that the lack of parish pump politics says that Wexfordians are happy with that as well.

A lot more Independents can learn a thing or two about what a TD actually is supposed to do instead of acting like a glorified councillor in order to get votes.

Gael23

South is shaping up to be Kelly,Wallace,Keliher and who after?