Constitutional Convention

Technoprisoner

How about a referendum on Irish water at the same time...one of there complaints was it cost too much to have a referendum

RangeR

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What justification is there for giving people who are not adults the vote? We don't even trust them to buy a drink.

This has been discussed at length here. I'd be happy to discuss this with you but that question has been answered.

Technoprisoner wrote: »

How about a referendum on Irish water at the same time...one of there complaints was it cost too much to have a referendum

Hmmm, there is no appetite in gov.ie to put this to a referendum. That appetite belongs to opposition parties. Let's see how that plays out. Personally, I'm not sure if this is Constitution material. My personal believe is that IW is being primed for privatisation, maybe not in the short term but definitely medium to long term.

expectationlost

Fourth Report of the Constitutional Convention on the Dáil Electoral System: Statements https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2014-12-18a.414&s=%22referendum+commission%22#g461

Fourth Report of the Convention on the Constitution
Dáil Electoral System
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=fdf70670-030f-e311-a203-005056a32ee4

what going to happen to the recommendations, if the ones the gov hasn't rejected, they passed them onto the electoral commission which does not yet exist, and will be lucky to get started before the end of this gov.

what year will we have a Electoral Commission?

is there somebody from the government still working on the convention? as part of their duties, to ensure follow-up?

Technoprisoner

It seems so silly to spend so much money holding a refurendum to lower the age to vote when it is already difficult enough to get the younger generation to vote in the first place..... Yet a basic human right of water is being ignored and converted to an asset

Godge

Technoprisoner wrote: »

It seems so silly to spend so much money holding a refurendum to lower the age to vote when it is already difficult enough to get the younger generation to vote in the first place..... Yet a basic human right of water is being ignored and converted to an asset

Can you translate the statement in bold for me? It makes no sense at all.

Technoprisoner

Godge wrote: »

Can you translate the statement in bold for me? It makes no sense at all.

It is fairly obvious that they want to privatise water in this country.... Water is a basic human right which should not be chargeable.... There should be a referendum where the people decide if water should stay in the hands of the Irish people. The government moaned that there is no need for a referendum and the it would cost too much too hold one...yet they want to hold one to lower the age to vote.... And as we already know that in this country, the youth that already have a vote do not use it...yet they want to spend money on a referendum to lower the age.

expectationlost

David Norris I have a bit of news for the Minister; the Constitutional Convention is over. It is kaput. This caring, listening Government did not pay a blind bit of odds to something that went through with 98% support in the convention, the opening up of the Presidency to the will of the people and to nomination, in some form, by the people. I was accused by a Government spokesman of having a personal interest in that, but I have no intention of going next nor nigh the Presidency again. I am far too bloody old for a start. It is up to younger people to do that job.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2014-12-19a.68&s=%22Constitutional+Convention%22#g837

Give citizens a say in the nomination process
Yes No Don’t know
94 6 0
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=e1f8e128-2496-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013071800021?opendocument

In considering the recommendation that citizens be given a say in the presidential election nomination process the Government is conscious that the present arrangement already provides for citizens to have a say in the presidential election nomination process through their elected representatives both at national and at local level. We would encourage citizens, candidates and elected representatives to exercise fully their democratic mandate in this regard. The Government therefore proposes that this recommendation be referred to the relevant Oireachtas committee for consideration.

expectationlost

RadharcAilainn wrote: »

The whole constitutional convention is, well, pretty unconstitutional.

It's a sop to the Labour Party. Who are increasingly, an irrelevance.

Fine Gael had in it in their manifesto too http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

Fine Gael Manifesto 2011 (page 7)

We will establish a Citizens Assembly, along the lines of those used in the Netherlands, to make recommendations on electoral reform.

Annasopra

expectationlost wrote: »

Fine Gael had in it in their manifesto too http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

Fine Gael Manifesto 2011 (page 7)

Thats not quite the same thing

expectationlost

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats not quite the same thing

why not? most of the issues discussed at the convention were electoral reform

Annasopra

expectationlost wrote: »

why not? most of hte issue discussed at the convention were electoral reform

Political reform and Constitutional reform are different. Of course they do overlap but not entirely. A lot of political reform could be done without constitutional reform.

expectationlost

referendums we are having

marriage equality - non CC related

and presidents age 35 > 21

how many referendums are we not having?

diaspora votes http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/referendum-on-emigrant-vote-unlikely-this-year-deenihan-1.2066892


general voting age http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coalition-abandons-plan-for-poll-on-younger-voting-age-1.2066152#.VLd72KU3tTV.twitter

Blasphemy https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-01-14a.257&s=blasphemy#g312

etc

non CC related

(EU Patent Court that we're required to have before mid 2016 )

(8th Amendment)

Godge

Technoprisoner wrote: »

It is fairly obvious that they want to privatise water in this country.... .

No, it is not. They have passed legislation that requires a plebiscite if the government wants to privatise it.

Technoprisoner wrote: »

Water is a basic human right which should not be chargeable....

Nobody is ever going to charge you for the right to stick a bucket outside and collect water.

However, if you want that water purified, treated and delivered in a pipe to your tap......

Technoprisoner wrote: »

There should be a referendum where the people decide if water should stay in the hands of the Irish people.

But it is staying in the hands of the Irish people, why do we need a referendum for something that is not happening.

Technoprisoner wrote: »

The government moaned that there is no need for a referendum and the it would cost too much too hold one...yet they want to hold one to lower the age to vote.... And as we already know that in this country, the youth that already have a vote do not use it...yet they want to spend money on a referendum to lower the age.

School-leaving age is 16, so there is an argument that if you can leave school at 16, then you can vote. On the other hand you cannot drive, smoke or drink alcohol at 16. If you are not responsible enough to drive, are you responsible enough to vote?

RangeR

The more this goes on, the more I think I may have wasted a year and a half of my life. My disillusionment with the ccven process is increasing.

I can only see this veto as a veiled attempt to get FG past the next GE.


IrishTimes

The Government’s decision not to hold a referendum to lower the voting age to 16 has been attacked by Sinn Féin and the Greens

expectationlost

RangeR wrote: »

The more this goes on, the more I think I may have wasted a year and a half of my life. My disillusionment with the ccven process is increasing.

I can only see this veto as a veiled attempt to get FG past the next GE.


IrishTimes

how would the having the referendum on reudcing vote age say on the say day as the one about the president age be confusing?

is there anyone else in the constitutional convention who feels that way?



this line from the Fine Gael that we had to fix the economy first that poltical reform is a luxury that can wait, No! That's why we're in this mess, Government departments can do more then one thing at one time if the will is there, you have to start these things asap in order to have them completed before the government ends.

Scofflaw

RangeR wrote: »

The more this goes on, the more I think I may have wasted a year and a half of my life. My disillusionment with the ccven process is increasing.

That's a genuinely very sad outcome. About the only compensating thought is that this government has shot itself very solidly in the feet as regards reform, and that the effects of that will come back to bite them quite soon.

I don't think anyone has done more to help SF into government than the current government. And it's amazing that they can't see that. There were so many bulls that could have been taken by the horns in this government's tenure, and it would have been really quite easy to carry the country forward on a platform of reform, rejuvenation, a new republic for our new century - we could have at least had the feeling that we were coming out of the crisis poorer but wiser and the better for it.

Instead I feel that everything has been done to protect the people who made mistakes, protect the way mistakes were made, and sweep everything under the rug to try to get back to business as usual. I had heard that the troika had expressed frustration with this government's resistance to reform, and I can fully believe it.

I don't think FG believed it was possible for them to screw up even half as hard as FF, but you know, I think they've pulled it off.

glumly,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

FG/Lab have done more to damage this country than FF could have ever done. But the really damning thing is that where FF ****ed up through negligence, FG/Lab have consciously and deliberately failed the electorate.

SF in government will destroy this country and it's clear by the mentality of their supporters on this forum alone that their policy is lacking, but at the end of the day they make a lot of noise

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

FG/Lab have done more to damage this country than FF could have ever done. But the really damning thing is that where FF ****ed up through negligence, FG/Lab have consciously and deliberately failed the electorate.

Neither of those statements are remotely true. For the first claim, one can put an immediate and very simple cost on the damage FF did to the country - bank bailouts plus the yawning hole from the deficit, which together sum to a least €150 billion. It's absolutely not possible, even by the greatest contortions the party faithful are capable of, to come up with a remotely similar figure for FG.

As for the second, that's not true either. "Negligence" does not begin to describe the policies of FF from 1997-2007, unless you slap at least "willful" in front of it, and preferably "willful and self-deluded".

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

Neither of those statements are remotely true. For the first claim, one can put an immediate and very simple cost on the damage FF did to the country - bank bailouts plus the yawning hole from the deficit, which together sum to a least €150 billion. It's absolutely not possible, even by the greatest contortions the party faithful are capable of, to come up with a remotely similar figure for FG.

As for the second, that's not true either. "Negligence" does not begin to describe the policies of FF from 1997-2007, unless you slap at least "willful" in front of it, and preferably "willful and self-deluded".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Economically, there is an argument that FF were wilfully negligent; I think FG/Lab have done more social and political damage to the country than FF ever have though. IMHO the farce of the Constitutional Convention only supports my view that FG/Lab are only worried about expanding their own executive power at the cost of democracy; when the answers don't suit them, they bin them.

RangeR

expectationlost wrote: »

is there anyone else in the constitutional convention who feels that way?

I don't know. Outside of the actual convention, we don't really talk about the convention. We are just back to our normal lives.

Having said that, I know of only one more of the 66 that is out spoken on the ccven issues. I believe she is a regular contributor to the Joe Duffy show. I don't listen to the show so I'm not sure on the specifics.

Larbre34

What is it, fight club or something? There are other more important issues that should go before the people the voting age or Presidents age limit.

conorh91

As a former Minister once remarked, the public love to have something to say No to.

On a multi-amendment referendum day, they tend to focus their "No" votes toward the most controversial question with the least-visible ramifications. So it was with the Abortion (exclusion of suicide) referendum in 1993, when the three less-controversial questions passed.

When the 'Good Friday amendment' was enthusiastically ratified a few years later, the Amsterdam Treaty also passed, but support was lower than could be rationally explained.

When we ratified the constitution to prohibit capital punishment, we rejected the Nice Treaty.

When we agreed to lower judges pay, we said No to Oireachtas Inquiries.

When we said Yes to the Court of Appeal, we said No to Seanad abolition.

Again, voters love to have something to say No to. They don't like to 'give with both hands'.

Reducing the voting age might have become sufficiently controversial to say No to. It could have given the public the bit of excitement they need on referendum day. Now, I think the same-sex marriage amendment might suffer.

expectationlost

Larbre34 wrote: »

What is it, fight club or something? There are other more important issues that should go before the people the voting age or Presidents age limit.

the government/civil servants need to be eased into these things too

maybe they pair uncontroversial referendums with more controversial ones

unlike ^some^ I don't think the public are unthinking idiots :mad:

johnnyskeleton

conorh91 wrote: »

As a former Minister once remarked, the public love to have something to say No to.

On a multi-amendment referendum day, they tend to focus their "No" votes toward the most controversial question with the least-visible ramifications. So it was with the Abortion (exclusion of suicide) referendum in 1993, when the three less-controversial questions passed.

When the 'Good Friday amendment' was enthusiastically ratified a few years later, the Amsterdam Treaty also passed, but support was lower than could be rationally explained.

When we ratified the constitution to prohibit capital punishment, we rejected the Nice Treaty.

When we agreed to lower judges pay, we said No to Oireachtas Inquiries.

When we said Yes to the Court of Appeal, we said No to Seanad abolition.

Again, voters love to have something to say No to. They don't like to 'give with both hands'.

Reducing the voting age might have become sufficiently controversial to say No to. It could have given the public the bit of excitement they need on referendum day. Now, I think the same-sex marriage amendment might suffer.

With all of those examples, bar Nice I, I believe the people's opinion was correctly expressed on each issue. I dont agree with some of those views, but the polling was broadly accurate. The Nice treaty was mostly due to a confused pro side and an articulate euroskeptic side.

So I dont agree that people just want something to say no to and I dont think people want to vote agaibst government for the sake of it. Much like in Brewsters Millions, the people really want to vote for "none of the above" and demand a better class of politician.

As an aside, I dislike the way independents are all lumped together. There is nothing remotely similar between shane ross and michael healy rae other than their lack of party alignment. I think we need to encourage independents and smaller parties, if for no reason other than they are better than what we have. I dont like the way this view is often dismissed as a mere protest vote or not voting for a government (of course not suggesting that youre saying that either)

Sierra Oscar

RangeR wrote: »

The more this goes on, the more I think I may have wasted a year and a half of my life. My disillusionment with the ccven process is increasing.

I can only see this veto as a veiled attempt to get FG past the next GE.


IrishTimes

Some of the groups involved in the marriage equality campaign carried out extensive private polling for both the marriage equality referendum and the proposal to reduce the voting age. There was concern that the referendum regarding the voting age could have a negative impact on the marriage equality referendum as there has not been as much debate on the voting age issue.

The research would have been carried out and compiled before Christmas. At the time it showed that the marriage equality referendum should pass by a 70% / 30% margin. No one is taking that for granted considering the no side campaign is only getting started now. Everyone knows it is going to be much closer than that.

However the same internal polling showed that the proposal to lower the voting age would be defeated, and I mean really badly defeated, if it was held. It was struggling to get 25 - 30% support - and that is before the traditional scaremongering no campaign gets underway.

Im not surprised that the government has put off holding the referendum regarding the voting age. Getting the marriage equality referendum across the line is going to be tough as it is. Pressure from the yes side in the marriage equality campaign was definitely a big factor in ensuring the voting age referendum got shelved for now.

expectationlost

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Some of the groups involved in the marriage equality campaign carried out extensive private polling for both the marriage equality referendum and the proposal to reduce the voting age. There was concern that the referendum regarding the voting age could have a negative impact on the marriage equality referendum as there has not been as much debate on the voting age issue.

The research would have been carried out and compiled before Christmas. At the time it showed that the marriage equality referendum should pass by a 70% / 30% margin. No one is taking that for granted considering the no side campaign is only getting started now. Everyone knows it is going to be much closer than that.

However the same internal polling showed that the proposal to lower the voting age would be defeated, and I mean really badly defeated, if it was held. It was struggling to get 25 - 30% support - and that is before the traditional scaremongering no campaign gets underway.

Im not surprised that the government has put off holding the referendum regarding the voting age. Getting the marriage equality referendum across the line is going to be tough as it is. Pressure from the yes side in the marriage equality campaign was definitely a big factor in ensuring the voting age referendum got shelved for now.

you can forever say now is not the right time, but you could have many referendum days over the last few years.

FreudianSlippers

conorh91 wrote: »

When we agreed to lower judges pay, we said No to Oireachtas Inquiries.

When we said Yes to the Court of Appeal, we said No to Seanad abolition.

IMO all correct decisions

Sierra Oscar

expectationlost wrote: »

you can forever say now is not the right time, but you could have many referendum days over the last few years.

Oh I agree that it has to be held and I think the government should have given us a date as to when they intend holding it when they put it back.

I'm just saying that I am not all that surprised that it has been put off considering the impact it could have had on the marriage equality referendum. I think the lowering of the voting age is a good proposal, but it will encounter staunch opposition. Last night's Prime Time programme showed that the no side has plenty of muck to throw to try and confuse voters. It will need a big campaign to get it over the line, and such a campaign would not have got the airtime it needs if it was held at the same time as the marriage equality referendum.

Godge

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Oh I agree that it has to be held and I think the government should have given us a date as to when they intend holding it when they put it back.

I'm just saying that I am not all that surprised that it has been put off considering the impact it could have had on the marriage equality referendum. I think the lowering of the voting age is a good proposal, but it will encounter staunch opposition. Last night's Prime Time programme showed that the no side has plenty of muck to throw to try and confuse voters. It will need a big campaign to get it over the line, and such a campaign would not have got the airtime it needs if it was held at the same time as the marriage equality referendum.

On the voting age, I believe that if society believes that people are responsible enough to vote, then they should be allowed drive, drink alcohol, get married, smoke cigarettes and have sex with a 50-year old, if that is what they want.

If they are not to be trusted on all those issues, how can we say they are responsible enough to vote?

expectationlost

how did the issue of president age come up, seems a lot of spite towards convention when it was probably introduced by the government following on from previous constitutional reviews

the first convention report on presidential term length and voting age includes questions on presidential candidate age. page 7

https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=e1f8e128-2496-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

there is a slight issue in the contradiction between the Irish version saying the candidate needs to be 35 and the English version saying the candidate needs to be 34, the Irish version of law takes precedence.

this came up in one of the expert submissions https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?aid=653ac830-7665-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

Eligibility to become President of Ireland and the election of the President

To be eligible as a candidate for the Presidency, the candidate must be an Irish citizen of 35 years or more.1 There is a conflict between the English and Irish texts of the Constitution with regard to the eligibility age, the English text states that the candidate must be at least 35 years, and the Irish text states that the candidate must have completed his/her 35th year, meaning they must be 36 years of age. Article 25.5.4 provides that the Irish text prevails in an interpretation of the constitution; therefore, the age is 36 years. While this has, thus far, never arisen as an issue, it is a matter which requires amendment at the opportune time.

although I read another version of this which says its 35 not 36, 35 is right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ireland#Minimum_age_requirement_for_the_President

Minimum age requirement for the President

Perhaps the most significant discrepancy between the two texts of the Constitution is to be found in the subsection stipulating the minimum age for a candidate to be eligible for election as President (Art. 12.4.1°). According to the English text, an eligible candidate "has reached his thirty-fifth year of age", whereas the Irish text has this as "ag a bhfuil cúig bliana tríochad slán" ("has completed his thirty-five years").

A person's first year begins when he or she is born and ends the day before his or her first birthday. A first birthday is the beginning of his second year. Accordingly the thirty-fifth year of age is reached on a person's thirty-fourth birthday. In contrast a person has completed their first year on their first birthday and their thirty-fifth year on their thirty-fifth birthday.[16] This can be contrasted with Article 16.1.2˚ regarding the entitled to vote for Dáil Éireann which states that those "who have reached the age of eighteen years".

source https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bunreacht%20na%20hEireann%20-%20Study%20of%20the%20Irish%20Text.pdf

The
Report of the Constitution Review Group
(May 1996) https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Constitutional%20Review%20Group%201996.pdf page 24
commented as follows on this section:
There is an apparent discrepancy between the English
and Irish versions. The Irish version has ‘ag a bhfuil
cúig bliana tríochad slán’ (that is, has completed thirty-
five years), whereas the English version is ‘who has
reached his thirty-fifth year of age’, which could mean
has entered rather than completed that year.

The
First Progress Report of the All-Party Oireachtas Com-
mittee on the Constitution https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Oireachtas%201st-%20Progress%20Report%201997.pdf
(April 1997), following this,
recommends (on p. 89) substituting the word ‘completed’
for ‘reached’ in the English text. The Twentieth Amendment
of the Constitution Bill, 1999, which proposed to lower
the age-limit for candidates for the Presidency, dealt with
the noted inconsistency by proposing to substitute ‘the
age of eighteen years’ for ‘his thirty-fifth year of age’ – i.e.
rather than substituting ‘his eighteenth year of age’

we await the actual bill to see if will actually address that