Referendum

LegacyUser · 18-02-2015 11:08am #1

If marriage is understood but not defined as being between opposite couples then why the referendum if there is not constitutional change? Thanks

Ten of Swords · 18-02-2015 6:50pm

This referendum will be the 34th ammendment to the constitution and if it passes then marriage will be defined in the constitution

Article 41.4 will state "‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex’"

L1011 · 18-02-2015 7:02pm

There's not universally agreed belief that the line about family could be argued as making it unconstitutional. The referendum ensures that it cannot

LegacyUser · 18-02-2015 7:08pm

But the family is defined as being based on a marriage, and a marriage isn't defined as being either same or opposite sex couples so technically couldn't same sex marriage come to pass without any amendment/referendum

jobbridge4life · 18-02-2015 7:48pm

Drieo wrote: »

If marriage is understood but not defined as being between opposite couples then why the referendum if there is not constitutional change? Thanks

The Constitution/constitutional law is not strictly limited to the words of the Constitution itself it is informed by case law. For instance in Ireland we enjoy Constitutional protection of several unenumerated rights. These are not insignificant or minor in effect either, for instance our right to 'bodily integrity', an essential right, was only recognized through case law as a Constitutional right. So as you can see the wording of the Constitution is not the end of the matter.

Annasopra · 19-02-2015 8:26am

Drieo wrote: »

But the family is defined as being based on a marriage, and a marriage isn't defined as being either same or opposite sex couples so technically couldn't same sex marriage come to pass without any amendment/referendum

Possibly. However marriage has been defined in the High Court as between one man and one woman. Also it has been suggested the article in the constitution about protecting the institution of marriage against attack would also make it unconstitutional.

Daith · 19-02-2015 10:23am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Possibly. However marriage has been defined in the High Court as between one man and one woman. Also it has been suggested the article in the constitution about protecting the institution of marriage against attack would also make it unconstitutional.

This pretty much. I think you could legislate for it but it would be tied up in legal challenges from now until the Earth dies.

Bear in mind that groups like Iona actually thought Civil Partnership was an attack on marriage so you could only imagine what would happen if we tried to legalize same sex marriage.

floggg · 19-02-2015 11:29am

Daith wrote: »

This pretty much. I think you could legislate for it but it would be tied up in legal challenges from now until the Earth dies.

Bear in mind that groups like Iona actually thought Civil Partnership was an attack on marriage so you could only imagine what would happen if we tried to legalize same sex marriage.

Not really. All that would be required would be the president to refer the bill in its entirety to the Supreme Court, and we would have a definitive answer on its constitutionality in a reasonably short space of time.

And the High Court case was not on whether same sex marriage was constitutional, but whether it was constitutional required.

Very different questions.

ninty9er · 21-02-2015 12:38am

floggg wrote: »

Not really. All that would be required would be the president to refer the bill in its entirety to the Supreme Court, and we would have a definitive answer on its constitutionality in a reasonably short space of time.

I'd imagine that's the government's fall back position.

Aard · 21-02-2015 2:08am

floggg wrote: »

Not really. All that would be required would be the president to refer the bill in its entirety to the Supreme Court, and we would have a definitive answer on its constitutionality in a reasonably short space of time.

Sending a bill to the Supreme Court is iffy though. The court would have to decide on the bill on its own merits. It's generally considered better for a court to use an actual case to make a judgment.

----

That said, I remain unconvinced that there is a constitutional impediment atm to legislating for same sex marriage. It certainly doesn't help however that there is mention of "husband and wife" in the Civil Registration Act 2004.

Referendum is the clearest way to go. But I doubt it will pass tbh.

blushirt88 · 21-02-2015 7:05pm

My parents and my aunty were sitting at the kitchen table last night at home and all said that they will be voting 'no' in the referendum as they believe two men or two women should not be allowed to raise a child or children together, children need a mother and a father. They also said that they would not be happy seeing two people of the same sex being married in a church.

I did point out that the referendum will not enable couples of the same sex to adopt children as the legislation for this is separate and will be passed (presumably) before the 22nd of May so before the referendum.

I also pointed out that that even if the referendum is passed, a same sex couple will still not be allowed to marry in a church as the church has a very strong stance on this matter and can accept/reject who they like to be married in that institution. Civil marriages would be facilitated if the referendum is passed. They still came to the conclusion that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman and will be voting no. Unfortunately, I think this is the prevailing attitude among their generation- the aged 50 and overs. They are the cohort that will go out and vote which is a big worry for the yes side. I was very disappointed at the staunch conservatism of my parents but unsurprised nonetheless. Will the young who express support for marriage equality actually bother to vote on the 22nd of May? The turnout among the aged 20-40 group is consistently poor.

Annasopra · 21-02-2015 7:08pm

Blushirt88 - do they know you are bi? Would they perhaps feel differently if they knew that?

I'm not suggesting you come out or asking you to come out by the way! Just wondering

blushirt88 · 21-02-2015 7:29pm

Joeytheparrot- No they don't. I have been reluctant to say anything because they have made homophobic remarks any time the issue of homosexuality comes up so that doesn't inspire much confidence.

They know lots of gay people, for example, their good friend's sister, a daughter of a friend, acquaintances that they seem to like as people but express disapproval of a gay or non-conformist 'lifestlye' as they would put it- being in a same sex relationship is a 'waste of a life' apparently. I am unlikely to change their views. I have tried subtly to argue in favor of equality for all people including those who are not heterosexual but they are fairly staunch in what they believe.

I really don't believe me telling them that I am bisexual will change their views much to be honest. They won't approve and will be disappointed- sad but they are the way they are. It makes me very sad actually

Ash885 · 21-02-2015 7:49pm

I'm not belittling anyone's circumstances, but in 99% of cases when someone close knows someone who is gay, their views do change. Maybe not a full circle change, but they do.

Gay people are not mythical beings anymore; they're teachers, doctors, athletes, bus drivers and what have you. PEople also need to see them as the sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, cousins etc that they are too though. And sometimes you need to put a face to this referendum; it's is a good way to show people how exactly it affects us and how close to home it comes to. I know my family support the ref. because it directly affects my rights as opposed to that Graham Norton on television kind of thing.

Incidently today we were talking about the recent Ronan Mullen radio debate debate at dinner today (because we're very exciting like that) and when the mother asked who on Earth would agree with him and vote No, I replied most likey the older generation. She was horrified and categorically refused for herself and the father to be lumped into the "oldies barrage". Guess I don't give them half enough credit. But I honestly couldn't see that same viewpoint a few years ago had they not known I was gay. Just my two cents.

Annasopra · 21-02-2015 8:13pm

blushirt88 wrote: »

Joeytheparrot- No they don't. I have been reluctant to say anything because they have made homophobic remarks any time the issue of homosexuality comes up so that doesn't inspire much confidence.

They know lots of gay people, for example, their good friend's sister, a daughter of a friend, acquaintances that they seem to like as people but express disapproval of a gay or non-conformist 'lifestlye' as they would put it- being in a same sex relationship is a 'waste of a life' apparently. I am unlikely to change their views. I have tried subtly to argue in favor of equality for all people including those who are not heterosexual but they are fairly staunch in what they believe.

I really don't believe me telling them that I am bisexual will change their views much to be honest. They won't approve and will be disappointed- sad but they are the way they are. It makes me very sad actually

Peoples views do very often change when their family members come out. I know of a case where a politician was very strongly opposed to decriminalisation of gay male sex. His son came out and now he has changed his mind a lot because his son is civil partnered. Look at what happened during decriminalisation. Gay rights activists were lobbying the Minister. They were getting nowhere. A woman went in with them and spoke to Minister Geoghegan Quinn. Having a chat mother to mother changed Minister Geoghegan Quinns mind. There are many many cases where families come around over time.

feardeas · 23-02-2015 9:31pm

Maire Geoghean Quinn gave an interview on TG4 years ago describing that meeting and really drove that change. I'm intrigued as to the other politcian but any opinion can change.

I'm not sure how it will go. Feel it could be passed slimly but could go the other way. I think young people could get behind this like the ice bucket challenge. Interesting to see a GAA player from Donegal pledge to vote today.

I don't know why journalists are talking the chances of a yes vote down maybe to get over complacency. Although how anyone could be complacent when it comes to an issue like this I have no idea.

Lots saying that the applause for Enda Kennys speech on it was lukewarm. maybe but in fairness it aint going to get paryy people excited like giving it to the opponents or the economy.

Also a report on news talk today on pat kenny from Sligo and Donegal. They reputed from the IT in Sligo with all but one saying yes. They even managed to find four men at a mart to say they were yes. Now four were no but to find four willing to say yes was remarkable i thought.

Anyway I guess my idea is to have faith that it will go through. Turnout is key and there's only 3 months of it to go.

Annasopra · 23-02-2015 9:40pm

feardeas wrote: »

I don't know why journalists are talking the chances of a yes vote down

Informed experience.

Look at the polls from referenda before; divorce, seanad, childrens rights - high yes a good bit out then the campaign takes full swing and that high yes does not materialise.

Noel Whelan had some good analysis on this

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/same-sex-marriage-why-the-proposal-may-not-be-accepted-by-voters-1.2034752

feardeas · 23-02-2015 10:05pm

Informed experience in cintexts that coyld be different.

For the divorce the focus on property rights was major issue in no vote. Also the goodbye daddy business. The church was a stronger force then. It was pre most of the abuse scandals being publicised. What is instructive here i suggest is that Dublin going yes along with the commuter belt was key. Also as Richard Sinott said on the count the creeping up of the yes vote in rural constituencies vis a vis 86.

For the seanad the yes vote rarely crept over 50 in any poll. Also a third of the people polled at times favoured reform. Plus turnout was circa 39%. Plus muddke class graduates didnt want it to go. Look at the results from the leafy areas in Dublin.

Turnout for the childrens referendum was circa 32%. Polls were out largely because they tend to be predicated on larger turnouts. A small turnout tends to put their sampling methods askew. And there will always be a certain no vote no matter what. Look at these GFA in 1998.

The only time , in recebt years, that a turnout of over 50% yielded a result seriously contra polling was Lisbon 1. Turnout was circa 52. It rose above 60 in the second referendum and result was more in line with polls.

Noel Whelan is right to say that polls this far out are quite pointless but my point is that in the referendums he references particularly children and the seanad turnout was a factor. If it is low in May the referendum will fail.

It will be this time too. I've followed politics and elections since i was a child (mis spent youth). Id be interested even if i didnt have skin in the game.

I agree with those that say the campaign can change things but starting with 62% in the Millward poll is a reasonable start. Anyway time will tell.

feardeas · 23-02-2015 10:09pm

Please excuse fairly awful spelling mistakes. Working from a s4 is my only excuse.

Keepan Eye · 24-05-2015 8:12pm

Since all current Political parties and Politicians supported the YES position; it should be FUN to see how they try to explain to the 40%, who took the No position, why the NO people should elect them as a representative. Maybe not hard to say really but something to watch in the Republic of Ireland media.

marmurr1916 · 24-05-2015 8:24pm

Keepan Eye wrote: »

Since all current Political parties and Politicians supported the YES position; it should be FUN to see how they try to explain to the 40%, who took the No position, why the NO people should elect them as a representative. Maybe not hard to say really but something to watch in the Republic of Ireland media.

Maybe people who voted No in the referendum voted for TDs in the general election to represent them on a far, far wider range of issues than same-sex marriage, as people tend to to in a general election.

Did the nearly 50% of people who voted No in the 1995 divorce referendum set up a political party or support a political party to represent their views on divorce?

Or did they accept, like the vast majority of people, that it's possible to disagree with the stance of a political party or political parties on one issue but still support them, and feel represented by them, on the huge range of other issues that TDs vote on?

L1011 · 24-05-2015 8:27pm

Keepan Eye wrote: »

Since all current Political parties and Politicians supported the YES position; it should be FUN to see how they try to explain to the 40%, who took the No position, why the NO people should elect them as a representative. Maybe not hard to say really but something to watch in the Republic of Ireland media.

Most people understand that politicians and political parties never agree with them on every issue.

We've had a vast number of referenda pass or fail on tiny margins in the past. Divorce as mentioned; and then the Mildred Fox Referendum second attempt at overturning the X Case which FF were gung-ho for, lost the referendum then nearly won an overall majority six months later.

Keepan Eye · 24-05-2015 8:27pm

Good point -- Lets wain 'n see.

Keepan Eye · 24-05-2015 8:37pm

The difference between this Referendum and all previous is that ALL politicians, voted YES. Previously different Politicians were split. This time it was a Blanket YES by All political parties and Politicians, so you see That is a Massive new factor in the equation. Wouldn't you agree? So my original point still needs consideration. Should be FUN to see the wriggling.

Aard · 24-05-2015 8:38pm

Was it really all politicians? I thiught a lot of them didn't state their voting intention.

L1011 · 24-05-2015 10:21pm

Keepan Eye wrote: »

The difference between this Referendum and all previous is that ALL politicians, voted YES. Previously different Politicians were split. This time it was a Blanket YES by All political parties and Politicians, so you see That is a Massive new factor in the equation. Wouldn't you agree? So my original point still needs consideration. Should be FUN to see the wriggling.

A number of politicians did not vote yes. Jim Walsh, Fidelma Healy-Eames, Ronan Mullen, Matty McGrath all publicly said they voted No.

It is highly unlikely it will even be mentioned during the general election campaign.

Lawliet · 24-05-2015 10:29pm

Aard wrote: »

Was it really all politicians? I thiught a lot of them didn't state their voting intention.

There was definitely a thing in rural areas of politicians being no supporters on the quiet, refusing to put up yes posters and ignoring yes campaigners.

Keepan Eye · 25-05-2015 6:20pm

Yes Indeed; it was All Political Parties and Politicians who voted YES. So the question remains; since this is the case who will the NO 40% be voting for. How will the Politicians cope with the 40% NO who may feel dispossessed of any political representation in the Dáil. What can they offer the 40% --......that's a lot of voters. Should be Fun. What do you think Politicians will be saying soon on the canvass ?

Since all current Political parties and Politicians supported the YES position; it should be FUN to see how they try to explain to the 40%, who took the No position, why the NO people should elect them as a representative. Maybe not hard to say really but something to watch in the Republic of Ireland media.

Aard · 25-05-2015 6:25pm

I don't think it will be as big a deal as that tbh. People generally vote for a TD based on local matters, and wouldn't let one lone national issue dissuade them from that. Plus, as Averil Power has indicated, a lot of FF TDs did not lobby in favour of the referendum. I'd hazard a guess that those who voted no probably also vote FF in higher numbers.

Keepan Eye · 25-05-2015 10:05pm

Thanks Aard. Hard to find any FF voter these days. FG always had a split vote. Trendy side such as Garrett Fitzgerald V the Conservative side Liam Cosgrave days. Labour which was taken over by Sinn Féin Workers Party/Official IRA political wing [ EAMON GILMORE ex member of Sinn Féin Workers Party and Minister Kathleen Lynch ex Official Sinn Féin member ].Labour will lose to the New FaceBook Fluffy Generation of Provisional Sinn Féin.[ Bitter enemies of the Stickies a.k.a Workers Party Labour. ]The disparate but well financed Communist Groups; AAA, water Charges groups etc. So If you take the fact that these various tribes have to split 1.2Million votes but the Conservative 3/4 Million are a BLOCK conservative group I still think on the basis that All Political Parties deserted the conservative 40% NO Vote it will be FUN, particularly if the Media row in to point this out in order to fill the space left vacant by their Pro Yes Vote coverage. Ohh the FUN.........

Annasopra · 25-05-2015 10:14pm

Keepan Eye wrote: »

Thanks Aard. Hard to find any FF voter these days. FG always had a split vote. Trendy side such as Garrett Fitzgerald V the Conservative side Liam Cosgrave days. Labour which was taken over by Sinn Féin Workers Party/Official IRA political wing [ EAMON GILMORE ex member of Sinn Féin Workers Party and Minister Kathleen Lynch ex Official Sinn Féin member ].Labour will lose to the New FaceBook Fluffy Generation of Provisional Sinn Féin.[ Bitter enemies of the Stickies a.k.a Workers Party Labour. ]The disparate but well financed Communist Groups; AAA, water Charges groups etc. So If you take the fact that these various tribes have to split 1.2Million votes but the Conservative 3/4 Million are a BLOCK conservative group I still think on the basis that All Political Parties deserted the conservative 40% NO Vote it will be FUN, particularly if the Media row in to point this out in order to fill the space left vacant by their Pro Yes Vote coverage. Ohh the FUN.........

Was there a party only representing those against divorce?

jobbridge4life · 25-05-2015 10:23pm

Keepan Eye wrote: »

Thanks Aard. Hard to find any FF voter these days. FG always had a split vote. Trendy side such as Garrett Fitzgerald V the Conservative side Liam Cosgrave days. Labour which was taken over by Sinn Féin Workers Party/Official IRA political wing [ EAMON GILMORE ex member of Sinn Féin Workers Party and Minister Kathleen Lynch ex Official Sinn Féin member ].Labour will lose to the New FaceBook Fluffy Generation of Provisional Sinn Féin.[ Bitter enemies of the Stickies a.k.a Workers Party Labour. ]The disparate but well financed Communist Groups; AAA, water Charges groups etc. So If you take the fact that these various tribes have to split 1.2Million votes but the Conservative 3/4 Million are a BLOCK conservative group I still think on the basis that All Political Parties deserted the conservative 40% NO Vote it will be FUN, particularly if the Media row in to point this out in order to fill the space left vacant by their Pro Yes Vote coverage. Ohh the FUN.........

You know why noone/very few of our elected representatives came out as a no? Its not like the polls didn't indicate a sizable no minority especially in more rural areas. So why do you think no party wanted to be associated with it?

Because it is poison and very few want to be associated with the losing side. And the no vote are not only the losing side with regard to the results of this referendum they are the losing vote in regards to everything. Ye had decades in charge of our country and the greatest thing you social conservatives ever produced was a culture that tortured single mothers and raped children. Your political death will be slow and strained but it is inevitable and that is why politicians with hope for a fulsome future avoided ye like the plague and why since the results only the fool hardy or truly desperate have clung to ye. Even the Church itself strains under the weight of having to put up with ye.

Keepan Eye · 25-05-2015 10:32pm

Thanks Joey. In relation to the Divorce ref there were varying views from the Political Parties. Some for , some against. [ Though the Communist parties tended to have most if not all in favour of the introduction of Divorce]. I suppose what I am clarifying for you is that YES and NO in the Divorce Ref. had persons in Dáil Eireann they could identify with. They felt represented in the Irish Parliament whether their side won or not. In the Current situation where All Politicians and All Political Parties Voted YES, the 40% NO voters now have Nil representation in the Dáil. If a person is a YES supporter that may make them Happy, but the Knock on affect is you now have a large 40% NO vote who are unrepresented in what they Obviously felt strongly about. That's not far off Half the Voters.
What has History taught us about this. Hardly revolution, NO Voters are supposed to be conservative. But every Action has an opposite etc etc etc.....SO How will Politicians who don't represent the 40% NO Voters get support from this 750,000 Block NO vote.

Annasopra · 26-05-2015 3:17am

I don't think it is a block vote that would vote homogenously. Also if you really analyse this campaign it was not mainly lead by politicians. The Yes Equality group won this campaign and a massive number of politicians didnt get involved at all and stayed silent enough. In fact my guess is the vast majority of politicians did no campaignimg on this issue.

Keepan Eye · 26-05-2015 7:27pm

Hi Joey-- Indeed Politicians were thin on the ground. They all welcomed the 60% YES and ignored the 40% NO..But their POSTERS and spokesmen were everywhere and as I understand it Politicians were told to support the Party Line on pain of expulsion. So whilst their faces weren't there,their Money was. I saw Richard Bruton out on the canvass in Northside Dublin. FF Avril [forget her second name] was knocking on doors and of course AAA and some Communist side people came and a lot of Labour Party. I assume the TÁ badges were Provisional Sinn Féin
How was the YES side so well funded?. Most positive coverage was for a YES vote --Indo, IT and Radio/TV. That kind of Campaign Costs a fortune. I'd like to know how I could raise enough to pay off me debts after the Politicians wrecked the country.
Anyhow not to deviate the Fact is that the 750,000 First Preference Votes have no home unless a New conservative Party emerges. ...Unlikely...........So it will still be Fun to watch the scramble for these Votes. I would sense most of these are not Nazi party types voting No [ although that's how media and YES side portrayed it ]; but thinking people who just didn't Agree to putting a Traditional Union of Man and Woman into a lower status or same category as other types of Marriages. So the problem remains; How do the Politicians propose to Include this 40% who were excluded in what really should have been all about Social Inclusion of everyone. The result is now a mess with tensions worse than 1983 et seq. The Media are peddling that it was the YOUNG who swung the Vote...............so the otherside of that coin is the Older people are excluded or tolerate them but exclude them. Naturally we ALL grow old very very quickly so 'Persons may live to regret'. that comment. Maybe someone will write to the papers pointing out the impact of their thought process. Anyhow lets see how it works out and indeed What do the 1.3 Million Irish who didn't vote THINK. Esentially to be sure we only got a 37% Yes.; 23% NO and 40% ???--how do they feel. Hope it doesn't end like USA where 1st Jan 1863 Black people got their freedom......................last time I watched the news they still were WAITING.
Role on the Elections and the Scrambling Politicians.

L1011 · 26-05-2015 8:58pm

If anyone other than you and a few Iona heads even mentions this at the GE I'd be astounded.

The vast, vast majority of people do not associate referendum results with general elections. Your one-man-mission won't change that.

Annasopra · 27-05-2015 5:50am

keepan eye I still don't actually think that people who voted no are a homogenous block who would all vote en masse the same way in a general election.

I really cant see tensions being worse than 1983 either. Can you explain more on this?

Cushie Butterfield · 27-05-2015 7:28am

Keepan Eye wrote: »

The difference between this Referendum and all previous is that ALL politicians, voted YES. Previously different Politicians were split. This time it was a Blanket YES by All political parties and Politicians, so you see That is a Massive new factor in the equation. Wouldn't you agree? So my original point still needs consideration. Should be FUN to see the wriggling.

So your point is that it should be fun to see politicians wriggling - that's fair enough if thats what a general election means to you, but I'd hazard a wild guess that most voters are usually more concerned about party policy on taxation, job creation, public services (health, education, care for the elderly & disabled) than they are about basic civil/human rights issues such as SSM, or about any fetish/fantasy they might have at the thoughts of a politician wriggling.

In any political party 'towing the party line' is nothing new either. This is the whole ethos of the political party system. Compromisation is part & parcel of any political party just like in other areas of life (business, marriage, sport or in any area where more than one person is involved). In the case of the recent referendum as I see it all parties were on the same page as regards equal rights for same sex couples, so I suppose you'll just have to vote for independents in the future. That's your choice & the beauty of our political voting system.

No-one forced anyone to vote yes or no & even if a voter was physically held captive & forced to vote by gunpoint the secret ballot system ensured that they could vote either yes or no - they could also have spoilt their vote. In fact no-one knows how any individual politician voted either. The referendum is over now & we're all aware of the result. The nation has spoken. It's time to move on now.

Furthermore, politicians 'wriggling' is not a new phenomenon during the run up to a general election. Perhaps you will get more mileage out of your brief encounters with them when they canvass at your doorstep, but I feel that you'd be muddying the waters on the major issues just as was the case in the entire NO campaign which is why the NO campaigners arguments in the run up to the recent referendum did more for the opposing side's cause than it did for their own imo.

But fear not, clouding the election issues with red herrings by dwelling or concentrating on the referendum result will probably be a welcome break for door to door canvassers & will be like water off a ducks back as per usual, so don't get over excited at the prospect because if you do you'll be sorely disappointed (again).

Keepan Eye · 27-05-2015 7:58pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You know why noone/very few of our elected representatives came out as a no? Its not like the polls didn't indicate a sizable no minority especially in more rural areas. So why do you think no party wanted to be associated with it?

Because it is poison and very few want to be associated with the losing side. And the no vote are not only the losing side with regard to the results of this referendum they are the losing vote in regards to everything. Ye had decades in charge of our country and the greatest thing you social conservatives ever produced was a culture that tortured single mothers and raped children. Your political death will be slow and strained but it is inevitable and that is why politicians with hope for a fulsome future avoided ye like the plague and why since the results only the fool hardy or truly desperate have clung to ye. Even the Church itself strains under the weight of having to put up with ye.

Must be the Irish in Liberal Labour UK who are now in the Spot Light for abuse....Also check out the Rotherham Scandal..........UK --Liberals.....LIBERAL CHINA selling human Organs--- -- EU Russia China -IMPERIALISTS robbing Africa by proxy.....
37% YES--23% --NO--- 40% Qui Sait

Keepan Eye · 27-05-2015 8:02pm

L1011 wrote: »

If anyone other than you and a few Iona heads even mentions this at the GE I'd be astounded.

The vast, vast majority of people do not associate referendum results with general elections. Your one-man-mission won't change that.

Howdy -- Yeah you could be right......suppose time will tell---but you got to admit 750,000 First preference votes from people who Always Vote is pretty tempting to Conservative and Communists alike --not to mention Liberals.

Keepan Eye · 27-05-2015 8:04pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

keepan eye I still don't actually think that people who voted no are a homogenous block who would all vote en masse the same way in a general election.

I really cant see tensions being worse than 1983 either. Can you explain more on this?

High Joey....previously there was Media and Political balance of representation.This time there was not; I dont think you could deny that.

jobbridge4life · 27-05-2015 8:04pm

Keepan Eye wrote: »

Must be the Irish in Liberal Labour UK who are now in the Spot Light for abuse....Also check out the Rotherham Scandal..........UK --Liberals.....LIBERAL CHINA selling human Organs--- -- EU Russia China -IMPERIALISTS robbing Africa by proxy.....
37% YES--23% --NO--- 40% Qui Sait

This is nonsense, uninformed factually incorrect nonsense of the most specious nature.

Its beneath my full engagement.

L1011 · 27-05-2015 8:16pm

Keepan Eye wrote: »

Howdy -- Yeah you could be right......suppose time will tell---but you got to admit 750,000 First preference votes from people who Always Vote is pretty tempting to Conservative and Communists alike --not to mention Liberals.

IF those votes were there to be won on one issue, perhaps. But they aren't.

Keepan Eye · 27-05-2015 8:16pm

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

So your point is that it should be fun to see politicians wriggling - that's fair enough if thats what a general election means to you, but I'd hazard a wild guess that most voters are usually more concerned about party policy on taxation, job creation, public services (health, education, care for the elderly & disabled) than they are about basic civil/human rights issues such as SSM, or about any fetish/fantasy they might have at the thoughts of a politician wriggling.

In any political party 'towing the party line' is nothing new either. This is the whole ethos of the political party system. Compromisation is part & parcel of any political party just like in other areas of life (business, marriage, sport or in any area where more than one person is involved). In the case of the recent referendum as I see it all parties were on the same page as regards equal rights for same sex couples, so I suppose you'll just have to vote for independents in the future. That's your choice & the beauty of our political voting system.

No-one forced anyone to vote yes or no & even if a voter was physically held captive & forced to vote by gunpoint the secret ballot system ensured that they could vote either yes or no - they could also have spoilt their vote. In fact no-one knows how any individual politician voted either. The referendum is over now & we're all aware of the result. The nation has spoken. It's time to move on now.

Furthermore, politicians 'wriggling' is not a new phenomenon during the run up to a general election. Perhaps you will get more mileage out of your brief encounters with them when they canvass at your doorstep, but I feel that you'd be muddying the waters on the major issues just as was the case in the entire NO campaign which is why the NO campaigners arguments in the run up to the recent referendum did more for the opposing side's cause than it did for their own imo.

But fear not, clouding the election issues with red herrings by dwelling or concentrating on the referendum result will probably be a welcome break for door to door canvassers & will be like water off a ducks back as per usual, so don't get over excited at the prospect because if you do you'll be sorely disappointed (again).

But would you not agree that Politicians will have concerns as to how they need to Placate the 750,000 NO First Pref Votes. It was the general consensus of the NO side that they are now deserted. Ignored and dehumanised by a YES side[ sorry a large bunch of Yes side] which branded them Untermensch - From my viewpoint I agree Homosexual people should have the right to Marry. [ sorry; do have the right to Marry] but in the last analysis Hetrosexual unions are the basic building blocks of the world and have a Special place in the world.Change as many Laws or rules as you like but most people, Including YES voters, believe the same - Its just how life began

Keepan Eye · 27-05-2015 9:22pm

Thanks to Boards.ie Maybe the last Bastion of Democracy.
Thank you for hosting this debate and a Big Thank you to all who contributed -- I know we get' het up ' and on reflection most of us approach these discussions in a sober way eventually. I did tease, rise people and went a tad overboard -apologies and have a good nights sleep.
At the end of the day a Good Marriage is built on compromise and we will have to do that if we are all to get along.
Thanks again and again ; Boards; Rock On.

Keepan Eye

Fleawuss · 27-05-2015 10:09pm

Dreamland. "It's the losing side who must be accommodated". Laughable deluded garbage. All this represents is the determination of bigotry to remain in place. Tea party anyone?

Annasopra · 28-05-2015 4:56am

In fact I think the opposite is the case. I think no voters could be quite conservative and not really change their traditional voting patterns or preferences. But yes voters could be much more open to radical change.

Referendum

Comments