Referenda Results

ilovemybrick

Both Referenda passed.

1250 ish votes for each.

Constitution passed with 800ish votes.

Coke returns to the shop with 700ish votes.

Ron DMC

Fantastic, I am delighted with both results.

Can we get lilt in the shop now as well?

Jonathan

Wooo for coke.

Señor Juárez

jmccrohan wrote: »

Wooo for coke.

Down with socialism :P

Now now, no need to accuse of socialism.

I'm only surprised the the margin was so small. The voter turnout is, however, unsurprising. Nobody cares about SU politics in Trinity.

BertrandMeyer

I voted yes because I do know that the original policy was devised based on nothing in particular. The reasons for it in the referendum, deciding how the SU shop will only add to the current policy being lifted so that student can be in power at a time etc., so there's no queue, doesn't mean that there's no room to accommodate everyone. That isn't the S.U. dictating to the left who brought that absurd policy to the college.

jamesnp

Good stuff. I voted yes to both.

I hate Coke though and love Pepsi, so let's hope they keep Pepsi there even now that Coke will return.

-jp

Prof.Badass

How many spoils?

i demand my votes be recognised !

Mark200

So is coke going to be back into the shops pretty much straight away or what?

snappieT

Mark200 wrote: »

So is coke going to be back into the shops pretty much straight away or what?

I should bloody well hope so. We undid the ban on the shop stocking it, I presume the shop will actually decide to stock it now.

Jonathan

Señor Juárez wrote: »

Now now, no need to accuse of socialism.

I got ninja'd.

Unregistered.

snappieT wrote: »

I should bloody well hope so. We undid the ban on the shop stocking it, I presume the shop will actually decide to stock it now.

So what IF, the shop just doesn't want to sell coke anymore - say that there's a higher profit margin on the likes of pepsi, or for whatever LEGITIMATE reason(if there is one) - what say ye then? Me, I'd laugh. I'm glad I didn't vote; and Conor Smith campaigning for Yes to Coke, served as a reminder of another reason why Coke should be boycotted, IMO.

BertrandMeyer

The less freedom we give students the better. The SU will do anything to keep its fascist boot firmly placed at the throat of the eligible voters.

Ron DMC

Unregistered. wrote: »

I'm glad I didn't vote; and Conor Smith campaigning for Yes to Coke, served as a reminder of another reason why Coke should be boycotted, IMO.

What would that be a reason for the boycott? If anything, the fact that he has worked in the shop for years would mean he's in tune with what students want. I can't imagine how often people must ask him "Why is there no coke for sale in here? I want a coke".

Unregistered.

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

I can't imagine how often people must ask him "Why is there no coke for sale in here? I want a coke".

I'm not sure and perhaps the voter turnout is backing me up on this, but I didn't think anyone would have cared enough to ask!

Mark200

Yeah I doubt people cared all that much to hassle the guy in the shop about why there's no coke. And I've never heard of them doing a 'what students want' survey in the shop either, so I don't think it necessarily means he knows what people want.

I didn't vote, the 'boycott' didn't really bother me because it's not like it was banned in Trinity, it was just banned in the SU shops. People could still get it in vending machines.

tolosenc

Mark200 wrote: »

So is coke going to be back into the shops pretty much straight away or what?

1st bottle has already been bought.

Ron DMC

obl wrote: »

1st bottle has already been bought.

Symbolically or did they actually get in stock?

Awayindahils

Ronny Mitchell wrote: »

Symbolically or did they actually get in stock?

Symbolically definitly the yes campaign had a bottle of coke behind the desk in front office and I think they gave it to the shop and someone then bought it.

Rob Donohue was going to put in an order for the JCR, so maybe he bought a case and sold a bottle properly already.

tolosenc

Rob bought a bottle, sold it to the JCR and bought it back.

ilovemybrick

Both shops will have coke products to sell, including lilt ronny, from Monday.

I didnt have the exact figures to hand when posting but some of the spoils were great.

ilovemybrick

Awayindahils wrote: »

Symbolically definitly the yes campaign had a bottle of coke behind the desk in front office and I think they gave it to the shop and someone then bought it.

Not quite true.

t0mm

You gotta admit, for a campaign to introduce a drinks range into a shop, they were fairly well motivated.

tolosenc

t0mm wrote: »

You gotta admit, for a campaign to introduce a drinks range into a shop, they were fairly well motivated.

It wasn't about that.

fiveone

Yeh, nothing to do with the CV's at all.

Or to say that this year's team actually did anything.

ilovemybrick

lydonst wrote: »

Yeh, nothing to do with the CV's at all.

Or to say that this year's team actually did anything.

In the first instance, no it really doesn't. Those of us who are not undergraduates next year on the team already have job contracts, elected positions,masters offerings or plans for next year. This was about taking a stance on something anachronistic, hypocritical and ridiculous that was affecting a Union that we care about.

What do you mean by this year's team? In the past there was no team that campaigned for the removal of this ban.

fiveone

ilovemybrick wrote: »

In the first instance, no it really doesn't. Those of us who are not undergraduates next year on the team already have job contracts, elected positions,masters offerings or plans for next year. This was about taking a stance on something anachronistic, hypocritical and ridiculous that was affecting a Union that we care about.

The fact that you have plans doesn't convince me of your ideals.

ilovemybrick wrote: »

What do you mean by this year's team? In the past there was no team that campaigned for the removal of this ban.

Exactly, they were doing something else. Very strange to see so many SU heads standing around the arts block for the last few days.

If you could organise protests as good as you organised this I'd be proud of you.

ilovemybrick

lydonst wrote: »

The fact that you have plans doesn't convince me of your ideals.

My ideals are clear. I believe in freedom of choice. I believe also in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". If the "no" team were able to provide one shred of clear,unbiased and independently produced evidence that the murders in Colombia are in fact linked to the Coca-Cola then the issue would be up for debate. Then maybe they could attempt to force the representative structure of the students in this college to show solidarity with Sinaltrainal. But they can't, because it doesn't exist.

My ideals are also based on the clear message individuals and representative structures put out. The policy that was until today read as follows
"TCDSU will not sell any products of the Coca Cola Corporation or enter into sponsorship agreements with the Coca Cola Corporation due to the current situation in Colombia"

What is the current situation in Colombia? Why is something that so many students purchase on a daily basis banned from sale in SU outlets due to a "current situation"? The ban is ineffective and anachronistic.

Also I don't need to convince you of my ideals, they are mine. You have yours which, while I might disagree with, I can respect. So stop the personal attack. I'll gladly debate the issue with you but show some respect for yourself by dealing with things you can prove and demonstrate rather than things you just assume.

lydonst wrote: »

If you could organise protests as good as you organised this I'd be proud of you.

This was organised by a group of people who did this independently. I don't believe in free fees under the model that is currently in place nor do I agree with the model touted by USI or TCDSU. If I did then maybe I would have been motivated to help improve the protests.


Really though, you are now just attacking something because the side that you supported lost. The "no" campaigners that I encountered were all impassioned people looking for support for something they believed in. I respect that. They were polite, friendly and courteous. They are nice people and some of them are friends of mine. At no stage did I experience unpleasantness between the two teams. There was an incident of a rather over-zealous individual being personally abusive but he was not a campaigner. So ask questions of the team and I will provide answers where I can but stop making assumptions or believing rumours.

and I don't need you to be proud of me.

fiveone

ilovemybrick wrote: »

My ideals are clear. I believe in freedom of choice. I believe also in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". If the "no" team were able to provide one shred of clear,unbiased and independently produced evidence that the murders in Colombia are in fact linked to the Coca-Cola then the issue would be up for debate. Then maybe they could attempt to force the representative structure of the students in this college to show solidarity with Sinaltrainal. But they can't, because it doesn't exist.

The legal proceeding may not have been conclusive, but Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have observed that Columbia’s legal system is corrupt and untrustworthy and is routinely used to attack human rights defenders and trade-unionists. An independent 2004 investigation, directed by New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate, documented 179 ‘major human rights violations’ against Coke workers, along with numerous allegations that ‘paramilitary violence against workers was done with the knowledge of, and likely under the direction of, company managers.’

So it seems to me you are invoking the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in an unsuitable context, as you are failing to acknowledge that the juridicial system in country is not as transparent, or indeed effective, as ours. Furthermore I believe that there is ample evidence to support the claim that your support of the motion is motivated for other reasons, rhetoric aside. "Freedom of choice" is invalid here: if you wanted Coke you can buy it anywhere else on campus. The ban was a symbolic show of solidarity, and conveyed the message that students actually cared about events outside of the university.

ilovemybrick wrote: »

What is the current situation in Colombia? Why is something that so many students purchase on a daily basis banned from sale in SU outlets due to a "current situation"? The ban is ineffective and anachronistic.

The boycott of Coke has the potential to force Coca-Cola in a more ethical direction, but so far there has been no indication that the company has changed for the better: therefore the ban should (theoretically) remain. "Current situation" refers to the period in which the ban was introduced: this is knit picking.

ilovemybrick wrote: »

This was organised by a group of people who did this independently. I don't believe in free fees under the model that is currently in place nor do I agree with the model touted by USI or TCDSU. If I did then maybe I would have been motivated to help improve the protests.

I saw at least one incoming SU officer in a "yes" shirt, I was told a former Ents officer was also to be seen in a shirt. I don't want to make unsubstantiated accusations, but the majority of yes shirts in the Arts Block are not infrequent visitors of house six. So you can take this as a nudge and a wink, eh? For some reason I am not surprised to hear your stance on the protests. Until I know your position or connection to the SU I won't say any more.

ilovemybrick wrote: »

Really though, you are now just attacking something because the side that you supported lost. The "no" campaigners that I encountered were all impassioned people looking for support for something they believed in. I respect that. They were polite, friendly and courteous. They are nice people and some of them are friends of mine. At no stage did I experience unpleasantness between the two teams. There was an incident of a rather over-zealous individual being personally abusive but he was not a campaigner. So ask questions of the team and I will provide answers where I can but stop making assumptions or believing rumours.

I have been arguing on this very forum for days. So don't accuse me of jumping on the bandwagon for the sheer craic of it. I think this referendum was Lisbon Treaty-esque to say the least, and quite frankly I question the ethical and political motivations of those involved in the 'yes' side of this referendum. I find the team's enthusiasm especially striking during what has been an otherwise politically lacklustre year for SU politics.

ilovemybrick wrote: »

and I don't need you to be proud of me.

I guess you can't put admiration on a CV.

ilovemybrick

lydonst wrote: »

I have been arguing on this very forum for days. So don't accuse me of jumping on the bandwagon for the sheer craic of it. I think this referendum was Lisbon Treaty-esque to say the least, and quite frankly I question the ethical and political motivations of those involved in the 'yes' side of this referendum. I find the team's enthusiasm especially striking during what has been an otherwise politically lacklustre year for SU politics.

First of all I don't want to come across as accusing you of jumping on the bandwagon. I just think you are trying to insinuate something without any evidence. If our enthusiasm was striking it is because it was genuine.

You can question our motivation all you want. I know that I can't really change your mind about what you think our motivation was. But I am confident in my own beliefs so that is fine with me.

Its not Lisbon treaty-esque. That is a tired and narrow minded argument. The policy reads "current situation" and as such deserves to be updated.

lydonst wrote: »

I guess you can't put admiration on a CV.

Im not all that concerned.

ilovemybrick

lydonst wrote: »

The legal proceeding may not have been conclusive, but Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have observed that Columbia’s legal system is corrupt and untrustworthy and is routinely used to attack human rights defenders and trade-unionists. An independent 2004 investigation, directed by New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate, documented 179 ‘major human rights violations’ against Coke workers, along with numerous allegations that ‘paramilitary violence against workers was done with the knowledge of, and likely under the direction of, company managers.’

The investigation was also discredited by HRW. Colombia is a messed up country. But that does not remove the fact that there has been no evidence provided that links it to coke. The burden of proof is on the no side simply because they are making the absurdist claims.

Kopf

heh

tolosenc

lydonst wrote: »

An independent 2004 investigation, directed by New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate, documented 179 ‘major human rights violations’ against Coke workers, along with numerous allegations that ‘paramilitary violence against workers was done with the knowledge of, and likely under the direction of, company managers.’

Independant, maybe, unbiased, absolutely not.

Aside: Is he the Senator facing 7 years jail time and indictment?

lydonst wrote: »

So it seems to me you are invoking the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in an unsuitable context, as you are failing to acknowledge that the juridicial system in country is not as transparent, or indeed effective, as ours.

Bring that one up with the Colombian government, not the students of TCD.

lydonst wrote: »

Furthermore I believe that there is ample evidence to support the claim that your support of the motion is motivated for other reasons, rhetoric aside.

Do go on...

lydonst wrote: »

"Freedom of choice" is invalid here: if you wanted Coke you can buy it anywhere else on campus. The ban was a symbolic show of solidarity, and conveyed the message that students actually cared about events outside of the university.

Freedom of choice is arguably THE most important feature of a democratic society. The ban was symbolic of an authoritarian regime.

lydonst wrote: »

The boycott of Coke has the potential to force Coca-Cola in a more ethical direction, but so far there has been no indication that the company has changed for the better: therefore the ban should (theoretically) remain. "Current situation" refers to the period in which the ban was introduced: this is knit picking.

Wording is always very important in these sorts of things. It allows challenges, which in this case reinstated the democratic will of the student body.

lydonst wrote: »

I saw at least one incoming SU officer in a "yes" shirt, I was told a former Ents officer was also to be seen in a shirt.

True. And while there were a large number of House 6 heads in shirts, there were numerous others, including myself, with little SU association who took part in the campaign.

lydonst wrote: »

I think this referendum was Lisbon Treaty-esque to say the least, and quite frankly I question the ethical and political motivations of those involved in the 'yes' side of this referendum. I find the team's enthusiasm especially striking during what has been an otherwise politically lacklustre year for SU politics.

Horrific analogy.

What exactly are your suspicions of the yes camp? For me, the motivation was democracy, law, and freedom of choice. It was an excersize in principles.

Kopf

obl wrote: »

Independant, maybe, unbiased, absolutely not.

Aside: Is he the Senator facing 7 years jail time and indictment?

What kind of report would satisfy you as being unbiased? If it's independent, you don't get much more unbiased than that, do you? Have you read the report, in order to form this opinion? If so, could you point me to a copy, since I haven't?

So, what kind of report would you accept as unbiased? How is that report biased? Have you read it? If so, could you please point me to a copy?
What exactly are your suspicions of the yes camp? For me, the motivation was democracy, law, and freedom of choice. It was an excersize in principals.

What kind of principals? Primary school or secondary?

fiveone

I was pleased to get a coherent argument from ilovebricks there initially, but I'm going to stop now before this thread descends into nonsense quoting. I don't doubt you'll continue justifying yourselves for the next few pages, but the nature of the points I have to make will ultimately become personal, which is probably inappropriate. You know who you are, and so do I.

tolosenc

1am is no time for spelling.

http://www.killercoke.org/report.htm - yes, I'm aware it's hosted by the for-profit organisation at the centre of this.

I'd accept one from a source not intertwined with trade-unionism.

tolosenc

Actually, the end-note in that report. Never noticed it before. The bottling company in question about this whole thing is 39.6% owned by a Coca-Cola (wholly-owned) subsidiary. That's the link to Coke. That's it?!

lydonst wrote: »

I was pleased to get a coherent argument from ilovebricks there initially, but I'm going to stop now before this thread descends into nonsense quoting. I don't doubt you'll continue justifying yourselves for the next few pages, but the nature of the points I have to make will ultimately become personal, which is probably inappropriate. You know who you are, and so do I.

I'm out too. There's no need for this to wind up like the last one.

Yay for Coke and all that jazz...

dan719

lydonst wrote: »

The legal proceeding may not have been conclusive, but Amnesty International has observed that Columbia’s legal system is corrupt.

As they have said of Japans and several others in the western world. Do we ignore all those verdicts too?

Furthermore I believe that there is ample evidence to support the claim that your support of the motion is motivated for other reasons, rhetoric aside. "Freedom of choice" is invalid here: if you wanted Coke you can buy it anywhere else on campus. The ban was a symbolic show of solidarity, and conveyed the message that students actually cared about events outside of the university.

Events that never happened? Solidarity with a for profit website making false accusations? Who exactly are we showing solidarity with?

The boycott of Coke has the potential to force Coca-Cola in a more ethical direction, but so far there has been no indication that the company has changed for the better: therefore the ban should (theoretically) remain. "Current situation" refers to the period in which the ban was introduced: this is knit picking.

The ban was flawed in the first place, and so it is right that it has been abandoned.

I saw at least one incoming SU officer in a "yes" shirt, I was told a former Ents officer was also to be seen in a shirt. I don't want to make unsubstantiated accusations, but the majority of yes shirts in the Arts Block are not infrequent visitors of house six. So you can take this as a nudge and a wink, eh? For some reason I am not surprised to hear your stance on the protests. Until I know your position or connection to the SU I won't say any more.

Oh really? Big SU conspiracy? Well as anyone can tell you, I am as vehemently opposed to the SU as anyone in the college, and wish it didn't exist. Suppose my help with the campaigning doesn't really count as it doesn't suit your agenda (nasty habit the no side ha of being unable to support accusations).

I have been arguing on this very forum for days. So don't accuse me of jumping on the bandwagon for the sheer craic of it. I think this referendum was Lisbon Treaty-esque to say the least, and quite frankly I question the ethical and political motivations of those involved in the 'yes' side of this referendum. I find the team's enthusiasm especially striking during what has been an otherwise politically lacklustre year for SU politics

.

Oh yes it was very lisbon treaty esque, with the influence on a huge common economic area and 400 pages of dense legalese. :rolleyes:

To be honest, SU politics seems more vibrant than ever; the fees issue has galvanised students (for good or for ill) and there was a huge turnout in the elections. Oh my god I think I jut defended the SU. Eww.

BertrandMeyer

A boycott is really making the most of what happened in Columbia. Does it make your political platform any stronger? There is no analogy to be drawn here.

andrew

What coke did or did not do is irelevant. Even if coke were mowing workers down with gatling guns, I'd still resent the SU for making the decision that I shouldn't drink coke for me. It's not their place/role.

mathew

andrew wrote: »

What coke did or did not do is irelevant. Even if coke were mowing workers down with gatling guns, I'd still resent the SU for making the decision that I shouldn't drink coke for me. It's not their place/role.

By being a member, you are the SU tho, well, we collectivity are the SU.
Thats why they have a referendum, so everyone can decide.

Still tho, I dont think a product should be boycotted/banned. It should be up to the customer in the shop to make the decision.
As I said before, if enough people support the view that coke shouldnt be bought, demand will drop below a level where its worth stocking it. Therefore having a more effective boycott that is supported by a very vast majority of the students.

Jonathan

/ponders at how much longer this thread will remain open

Awayindahils

jmccrohan wrote: »

/ponders at how much longer this thread will remain open

Not long.

Coca-Cola just makes people so mad. *sigh* The world would be a much better place without corn syrup and Aspartame.

Unregistered.

Awayindahils wrote: »

The world would be a much better place without corn syrup and Aspartame.

In your opinion.....

Awayindahils

Unregistered. wrote: »

In your opinion.....

I'm pretty sure its a truism.

jamesnp

I am constantly surprised by people casting judgement on things like this with little to no knowledge on the subject. I stood up and said this at council about two years ago and I've said it to everyone I've talked to about the issue since.

Coca Cola Bottlers Ireland Ltd. ≠ Coca Cola Colombia

Coca Cola operates as a franchise!

Therefore a boycott of Irish coke is a boycott of the wrong product. Coke in Ireland is widely regarded as a good employer who respects workers' rights, trade unions and does not kill people

Fact. A boycott of Irish Coke would not make one iota of difference to the franchise holders in Colombia.

-jp

Danger Bob

Am I the only one who finds lydonst's 'You know who you are' comments a little weird? And if I am, does that mean it's me?! I'm puzzled.

Not to repeat ilovemybrick's comments too much but I was one of the head organisers of the Yes campaign and am quite proud of our motivations and our execution of the campaign. The turnout of less than 10% showed how little students cared about the boycott (probably a good reason to be rid of it tbh) and all we did really was to provide a voice for the students in Trinity who really hated the boycott.

Given that the point was made, I think it's important for me to reiterate that the campaign was not a CV stunt. I've personally given years of my life to the college community and, while it looks good on the CV, that was never a motivation of mine. The organisation of the Coke campaign pales in comparison to the difficulties faces in some of the other jobs I've done on campus so I won't be ranking it up there as a major piece of experience.

Secondly, it was not, as the other rumour went, that we were getting paid by Coca Cola. This accusation was made of me about four times during the campaign and it was laughable but also a bit offensive. We were just a bunch of involved students who were frustrated at a policy which we seriously disagreed with so we did something about it. That's all.

I appreciate the support given to our campaign by people on this forum who voted yes. It made the work worthwhile. Also, like Eoin said, the No campaign was made up of some really great people who did a great job too and who I really hope won't hate us all after what's now happened.

Stargal

What was the turn-out?

d93c2inhxfok4y

andrew wrote: »

What coke did or did not do is irelevant. Even if coke were mowing workers down with gatling guns, I'd still resent the SU for making the decision that I shouldn't drink coke for me. It's not their place/role.

Gotta agree with andrew here, 100%. For me the issue wasn't over whether or not I agree'd with coke, but more so whether or not I had the right to choose.

Crash

Exactly. And if I want an abortion, its all my choice.


waits for thread to self destruct

d93c2inhxfok4y

Crash wrote: »

Exactly. And if I want an abortion, its all my choice.


waits for thread to self destruct

Killing a foetus - not the same as supporting coca cola.

But anyway:
*doesnt take the bait*

Bubye.

manicmonoliths

Woo new constitution!