Not another bloody referendum

stoneill

So the referendum on children's rights will take place before the end of they year.
This has been promised since 2006 - in debate for much longer than that.
Why was this referendum not added to the fiscal treaty referendum?
I would think that the turn out for this is going to be extremely low as the voting public gets referendum apathy.

How much does it cost to hold a referendum, closing schools, paying for all those people to sit there all day, ballot boxes, transport, counting centers, etc.

I know it is an important issue, but so is any referendum, but that doesn't stop the turn out getting lower and lower,

Dirk Gently

They wanted to hold this one as a stand alone referendum. Less chance of people voting against it for the sake of voting against the government as might be the case with euro referenda. It will focus the mind on the issue and not a protest vote.

FreudianSlippers

Also the Bill is not ready to be published either. It's a very sensitive issue and I don't think we should be rushing it when it comes to protection of children in the Constitution. I don't think it's necessarily referendum apathy, I think that where the issue is important people will come out to vote - where people are largely undecided on an issue or feel that they don't want to vote a certain way but it must be done; they rightfully abstain. I think a large part of that was represented in the recent referendum.

oscarBravo

Dirk Gently wrote: »

They wanted to hold this one as a stand alone referendum. Less chance of people voting against it for the sake of voting against the government as might be the case with euro referenda. It will focus the mind on the issue and not a protest vote.

I don't disagree that this is the case, but it is a truly shocking reflection on our attitude as an electorate to our responsibilities as voters.

Cork boy 55

stoneill wrote: »

...

How much does it cost to hold a referendum, closing schools, paying for all those people to sit there all day, ballot boxes, transport, counting centers, etc.

..

I heard the figure of 20 million cost on the radio.

Slydice

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't disagree that this is the case, but it is a truly shocking reflection on our attitude as an electorate to our responsibilities as voters.

After what's been revealed to have happened during the last few decades (corruption, church child abuse, child abuse, banks etc...), all of which supervised by Governments voted by various electorates of this country, I don't think it's a shocking reflection on our attitude as an electorate to our responsibilities as voters.

oscarBravo

Slydice wrote: »

After what's been revealed to have happened during the last few decades (corruption, church child abuse, child abuse, banks etc...), all of which supervised by Governments voted by various electorates of this country, I don't think it's a shocking reflection on our attitude as an electorate to our responsibilities as voters.

If you think it reflects well on a voter that he or she will vote to deny children enhanced constitutional protections just to piss off the government of the day, then we quite simply don't have a common framework for a discussion, because I just can't imagine any rational basis whatsoever for believing that.

Maybe you were making a subtler point, in which case I apologise for missing it.

Slydice

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you think it reflects well on a voter that he or she will vote to deny children enhanced constitutional protections just to piss off the government of the day, then we quite simply don't have a common framework for a discussion, because I just can't imagine any rational basis whatsoever for believing that.

Maybe you were making a subtler point, in which case I apologise for missing it.

Yeah I think you missed my point.

My point was only: I don't think it's shocking.

The reason being that cos of all the ****e this country has gone through, I find it difficult to be shocked that we need to seperate and simplify stuff for the people who will be voting "just in case".

jonniebgood1

This is the type of legislation that governments are elected to deal with rather than going to referendum at every turn. If the constitution wont allow the government to provide child safety legislation then the referendum should be to modernise the constitution.

FreudianSlippers

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This is the type of legislation that governments are elected to deal with rather than going to referendum at every turn. If the constitution wont allow the government to provide child safety legislation then the referendum should be to modernise the constitution.

That's what it is... that's what all referenda are about. There is a process by which the President can force legislation to a so-called "ordinary" referendum; but that has never been done.

Feathers

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I heard the figure of 20 million cost on the radio.

So roughly €6.50 for everyone eligable to vote? If you don't cast your vote, you should be made to pay €20 fine. & €40 if you're not even registered.

That way roughly 50% turnout, the other 50% pay for the cost of the whole thing!


(Obviously we'd need to have weekend voting/postal voting for this, so never going to happen)

Cork boy 55

They have a form of direct democracy in California in the USA.
it is possible to have loads of referendum( ballot proposition ) on same day.

For example on November 2008
they had 13 on one day
November 4, 2008

1 – State Legislature amended proposition after a number was already designated; amended version became Proposition 1A.
1A – Passed – California High Speed Rail Bond. S.B. 1856.
2 – Passed – Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.
3 – Passed – Children's Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute.
4 – Failed – Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Constitutional Amendment. (third attempt at Proposition 73)
5 – Failed – Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Statute.
6 – Failed – Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding. Statute.
7 – Failed – Renewable Energy. Statute.
8 – Passed – Amends the California Constitution so that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Initiative Constitutional Amendment.[1]
9 – Passed – Criminal Justice System. Victims' Rights. Parole. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
10 – Failed – Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Statute.
11 – Passed – Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
12 – Passed – Veterans' Bond Act of 2008. S.B. 1572.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/title-sum/prop8-title-sum.htm

StillWaters

The Iona Institute has already fired its first bow. A yes vote is not a foregone conclusion at all, particularly if there is a low turn out.

I also think Coughlan/McKenna will damage the campaign, we are going to have to listen to some sinister, deep pocketed forces!

FreudianSlippers

Iona just made me think... if anything about abortion is included in this I'm voting 'no'

StillWaters

There won't be anything about abortion in it, but that won't stop Iona and the no side inferring there is.

vicwatson

stoneill wrote: »

So the referendum on children's rights will take place before the end of they year.
This has been promised since 2006 - in debate for much longer than that.
Why was this referendum not added to the fiscal treaty referendum?
I would think that the turn out for this is going to be extremely low as the voting public gets referendum apathy.

How much does it cost to hold a referendum, closing schools, paying for all those people to sit there all day, ballot boxes, transport, counting centers, etc.

I know it is an important issue, but so is any referendum, but that doesn't stop the turn out getting lower and lower,

Money more important than rights of children according to current and successive Irish Governments:mad:

C14N

What will either answer mean for the country? Does Yes mean more rights or the status quo?

Piste

What are they actually proposing adding to/removing from the constitution? "Child protection" and "rights of child" mean different things to different people.

FreudianSlippers

Piste wrote: »

What are they actually proposing adding to/removing from the constitution? "Child protection" and "rights of child" mean different things to different people.

We don't know the wording of the proposed bill yet AFAIK. I know next to nothing about family law, but surely it will be the inclusion of some fundamental right to protect children in the Constitution.