Animavore wrote:No government decided this for us.

Ani I am very happy that you have won but I still disagree with referenda. You elect a government and the government should have the guts to change laws. Passing the buck to the people is ducking their duty.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Animavore wrote:No government decided this for us.

Ani I am very happy that you have won but I still disagree with referenda. You elect a government and the government should have the guts to change laws. Passing the buck to the people is ducking their duty.

As has already been explained, they had to change the constitution, therefore a referendum was required.

Have the guts lol yeah governments, or rather certain groups and individuals have more than guts to change laws when they or someone allied are beneficiaries of such changes. its called politics in folk tales called democracy. have the guts yeah like if they are responsible for their decisions.

Briton wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Animavore wrote:No government decided this for us.

Ani I am very happy that you have won but I still disagree with referenda. You elect a government and the government should have the guts to change laws. Passing the buck to the people is ducking their duty.

As has already been explained, they had to change the constitution, therefore a referendum was required.

We dont have a referendum to change the constitution. Two thirds in both houses is what is required.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Briton wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Animavore wrote:No government decided this for us.

Ani I am very happy that you have won but I still disagree with referenda. You elect a government and the government should have the guts to change laws. Passing the buck to the people is ducking their duty.

As has already been explained, they had to change the constitution, therefore a referendum was required.

We dont have a referendum to change the constitution. Two thirds in both houses is what is required.

So what? Your comment about the Irish government passing the buck to the people was incorrect. They were following procedure.

Procedure is wrong. Never rely on referenda.

There is nothing wrong with referenda for making a large change to a countries constitution. It is just as good as allowing the changes to be made based on the number of elected officials voting for it.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:There is nothing wrong with referenda for making a large change to a countries constitution. It is just as good as allowing the changes to be made based on the number of elected officials voting for it.

Uhm... No. Elected officials are meant to understand bills entering parliament people rarely do. This case in question is fairly open and shut but other subjects often need more understanding. Often even the question on the ballot paper is usually difficult enough to start off with. The last British referendum on changing the voting system is a prime example of how manipulative the question can be.
In 2005 we had our last and the first in 200 years. It turned out to be a vote of confidence in the sitting cabinet than a referendum on the Europe constitution. It was decided afterwards that the use of referenda would be dropped.

Seen on Twitter:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Procedure is wrong. Never rely on referenda.

I suppose they could change the Constitution so that referenda are no longer required to change the Constitution. But then that would require a referendum, wouldn't it?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:There is nothing wrong with referenda for making a large change to a countries constitution. It is just as good as allowing the changes to be made based on the number of elected officials voting for it.

Uhm... No. Elected officials are meant to understand bills entering parliament people rarely do. This case in question is fairly open and shut but other subjects often need more understanding. Often even the question on the ballot paper is usually difficult enough to start off with. The last British referendum on changing the voting system is a prime example of how manipulative the question can be.
In 2005 we had our last and the first in 200 years. It turned out to be a vote of confidence in the sitting cabinet than a referendum on the Europe constitution. It was decided afterwards that the use of referenda would be dropped.

Basic civil rights should be beyond the touch of the democratic system. Such issues should be decided by interpretation of the law by courts. But you need those rights enacted in law in the first place. That was not the case in this situation.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Procedure is wrong. Never rely on referenda.

The thing is though, it is when the people start to believe that governments are not representing them that the big trouble starts. Holding a referendum reassures people that the government does not conspire behind their backs to ignore or misrepresent popular opinion.

zulumoose wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Procedure is wrong. Never rely on referenda.

The thing is though, it is when the people start to believe that governments are not representing them that the big trouble starts. Holding a referendum reassures people that the government does not conspire behind their backs to ignore or misrepresent popular opinion.

Why would that be a problem with a matter like this, as opposed to any other measures the government might pass?

The issues in which the government actually does conspire behind our backs are never subjected to referenda. e.g. matters of spying and national security. Actually, the whole point of such exercises seem to be that they do occur behind our backs, without our knowledge or consent.

Today, anyone in Ireland who starts a sentence with; 'Well I'm a Christians and so...' Or; "As a person of faith..."
Just fuck off and get over it.

If basic human rights can be granted by popular vote, can they be taken away by popular vote?

I am all for referenda that expands civil rights to unfavored groups. I am opposed to those that restrict rights.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:There is nothing wrong with referenda for making a large change to a countries constitution. It is just as good as allowing the changes to be made based on the number of elected officials voting for it.

Uhm... No. Elected officials are meant to understand bills entering parliament people rarely do. This case in question is fairly open and shut but other subjects often need more understanding. Often even the question on the ballot paper is usually difficult enough to start off with. The last British referendum on changing the voting system is a prime example of how manipulative the question can be.
In 2005 we had our last and the first in 200 years. It turned out to be a vote of confidence in the sitting cabinet than a referendum on the Europe constitution. It was decided afterwards that the use of referenda would be dropped.

That is the dream you are living or rather there is difference between what something is meant to be and what something is. It is quite possible that the Dutch are content with someone else representing them but so are the Qatari. It tells little whether those who vote on laws are knowledgeable about them or if group of "experts" works out expert opinion which then is parroted to others who vote by their party color as advised alternatively as they were discussing over lunch with that guy from national industry something.

If the dream works its fine. After all little theft, bribery, tit for tat, slackery, incompetence or idiocy at the expense of the treasury will probably not get noticed. And when it does its .. financial crisis. Its still a dream, like communism .. IF everyone behaved by what is meant.

Sure, local councils where people know each other representatives can work nicely and exceptions surely exist but the really important issues are not decided on those levels and exceptions are just that.

What is the break down of results per region. I.E did Dublin swing it and drag the country with them or was this across the nation.

Anyway - well done.

DougC wrote:What is the break down of results per region. I.E did Dublin swing it and drag the country with them or was this across the nation.

Anyway - well done.

From an Irish FB friend

Result from Waterford: Yes 60.33% No 39.67%. That is 28,313 votes for Yes and 18,620 for now. A margin of 9,693. The turnout was 59.37%.
Result from Wicklow: Yes 68.37% No 31.63%. That is 44,059 votes for Yes and 20,384 for No - a margin of 23,675. The turnout was 68.77%.
Result from Meath West: Yes 60.1% No 39.9%. That is 21,374 for Yes and 14,189 for No. A margin of 7,185. Turnout was 56.28%.
Result from Cork South Central: Yes 65.78% No 34.22%. That is 38,591 votes for Yes and 20,072 for No. A margin of 18,519. The turnout was 63.86%.
Result from Galway East: Yes 53.28% No 46.72%. That is 25,389 for Yes and 22,265 for No. The margin was 3,124. Turnout was 56.01%.

Thanks for . Bettter than I thought. Well done Ireland.