Referendum result

garroff

Before anyone asks: yes the voters knew exactly what they were doing. They were not confused.

Silentcorner

Well I'm confused...I was on the fence until I saw Micheal Martins performance on TV3...I then decided to vote yes...a No vote was announced...FF are now "claiming victory"....I'm absolutely confused...

garroff

Funny, when the government loses a referendum....the electorate are confused....when the government win, there is no confusion.

Will we get a second chance to get it "right"

tayto lover

Whether people were confused or not the right result was achieved.

garroff

Message to Enda: be very afraid.

emo72

as someone who was delighted to see FG destroy FF in the last GE, i am delighted at this result. the obvious answer is to reform the seanad. we werent given this choice. a more populist referendum you couldnt ask for." get rid of politicians, save 20 million" and they still couldnt get this past the line? people dont trust you enda, you didnt argue for it yourself. i think you are a fraud.

roll on the locals.

tayto lover

emo72 wrote: »

as someone who was delighted to see FG destroy FF in the last GE, i am delighted at this result. the obvious answer is to reform the seanad. we werent given this choice. a more populist referendum you couldnt ask for." get rid of politicians, save 20 million" and they still couldnt get this past the line? people dont trust you enda, you didnt argue for it yourself. i think you are a fraud.

roll on the locals.

+ 1.

garroff

Enda should be reminded of the 1945 British General Election when the people showed their gratitude to Winston Churchill for winning the war. They kicked Churchill out.

martingriff

What I am confused about is the people who use these referendums to give the governments a bloody nose and not vote for what they think is right be it yes or no. Because what you vote on in referendums will not only affect you for right now but into the future

tayto lover

martingriff wrote: »

What I am confused about is the people who use these referendums to give the governments a bloody nose and not vote for what they think is right be it yes or no. Because what you vote on in referendums will not only affect you for right now but into the future

Obviously the people voted for Seanad reform rather than abolishment.
Enda should have given the option.

Delighted.

emo72

martingriff wrote: »

What I am confused about is the people who use these referendums to give the governments a bloody nose and not vote for what they think is right be it yes or no. Because what you vote on in referendums will not only affect you for right now but into the future

i voted on what i thought was right. that i hate this government is a separate issue. where was the 20 million saving coming from. no one in the civil service loses a job. they will all be transfered into different jobs.

im not against a seanad. only this one. reform it. for the benefit of the people of ireland. there is money to be saved. universities getting to choose who goes in there? thats wrong. make it democratic and half the number of senators.

in the end, an easier sell they could not have had. get rid and save 20 million. but the obvious answer was to reform it. he treated us with contempt by not giving us a chance to reform it.

court of appeal? the obvious answer is add more judges and run 3/4/5/6 supreme courts at one time. its already there, make it work harder. the last thing we need is a whole new court and all the expense that that would apply. its so ****ing easy if you want to save money.

syklops

Jesus the way some people are going on you'd swear 90% of the electorate voted no. Facebook is unbearable at the moment. All these self satisfied status updates with the dig in to Enda Kenny. The reality is half of them probably didnt even vote.

martingriff

tayto lover wrote: »

Obviously the people voted for Seanad reform rather than abolishment.
Enda should have given the option.

I said some people read my post not all. If you think there was not someof it then you be deluding yourself. Of course the vast vast majority of the no vote voted for reform. Will it come now is the thng

martingriff

emo72 wrote: »

i voted on what i thought was right. that i hate this government is a separate issue. where was the 20 million saving coming from. no one in the civil service loses a job. they will all be transfered into different jobs.

im not against a seanad. only this one. reform it. for the benefit of the people of ireland. there is money to be saved. universities getting to choose who goes in there? thats wrong. make it democratic and half the number of senators.

in the end, an easier sell they could not have had. get rid and save 20 million. but the obvious answer was to reform it. he treated us with contempt by not giving us a chance to reform it.

court of appeal? the obvious answer is add more judges and run 3/4/5/6 supreme courts at one time. its already there, make it work harder. the last thing we need is a whole new court and all the expense that that would apply. its so ****ing easy if you want to save money.

Where did I say that is wrong and my post was towards those who do vote no for giving the government a bloody nose not for people like you who vote for what they believe in.

Actually I believe the new court is a good thing. I think a separate appeal court for smaller courts would help with the speeding up of cases.

superelliptic

I seriously hope we see some genuine reform though I doubt we will see it from this government. My biggest problem though is the observation that most people who voted for abolition didn't appear to know what the senate is for and why it is important to reform it and make it work. What we need imo is to get people better educated in how political process works in Ireland so that they vote from an informed standpoint rather than from a ideological one.

syklops

superelliptic wrote: »

My biggest problem though is the observation that most people who voted for abolition didn't appear to know what the senate is for and why it is important to reform it and make it work.

To be fair the same can be said for a lot of people in the No category. A lot of people on both sides don't know what the Seanad is for, or what it does. There was a lot of "Send a message to the government" in this referendum.

oscarBravo

superelliptic wrote: »

What we need imo is to get people better educated in how political process works in Ireland so that they vote from an informed standpoint rather than from a ideological one.

I completely agree with this, which is why I get depressed when I see suggestions about simplifying the ballot papers. If you can't understand the ballot paper, how can you understand the implications of voting either way?

P_1

How on earth could the ballot papers be made any simpler though? It was a simple yes/no ballot should we add little cartoons in future or something?

emo72

martingriff wrote: »

Where did I say that is wrong and my post was towards those who do vote no for giving the government a bloody nose not for people like you who vote for what they believe in.

Actually I believe the new court is a good thing. I think a separate appeal court for smaller courts would help with the speeding up of cases.

correct. you didn't mate in fairness. how do we know if the electorate was more interested in giving enda a bloody nose, or, making the decision based on what they thought the right thing to do was? i think people voted correctly. it was probably a mature sensible decision to keep it and hopefully reform it. now all we can hope is enda allows it to be reformed and not kick it into touch. is he man enough?

twinytwo

emo72 wrote: »

as someone who was delighted to see FG destroy FF in the last GE, i am delighted at this result. the obvious answer is to reform the seanad. we werent given this choice. a more populist referendum you couldnt ask for." get rid of politicians, save 20 million" and they still couldnt get this past the line? people dont trust you enda, you didnt argue for it yourself. i think you are a fraud.

roll on the locals.

For the record the 20 mill was a lie. The seanad costs 8.5 mil a year and this is for all staff.

twinytwo

P_1 wrote: »

How on earth could the ballot papers be made any simpler though? It was a simple yes/no ballot should we add little cartoons in future or something?

Tbf those ballot papers are a joke.

Why they can just ask.. " Should the seanad be abolished?... YEs or NO". I had to read mine twice, to see what they hell they were actually asking.

martingriff

emo72 wrote: »

correct. you didn't mate in fairness. how do we know if the electorate was more interested in giving enda a bloody nose, or, making the decision based on what they thought the right thing to do was? i think people voted correctly. it was probably a mature sensible decision to keep it and hopefully reform it. now all we can hope is enda allows it to be reformed and not kick it into touch. is he man enough?

I think they will send it to the constitution convention to see. With so mant referendums coming down the path be wondering where it would go as any reforms worth noting would have to go in a referendum

What do you mean by the bold bit.

Muahahaha

twinytwo wrote: »

Tbf those ballot papers are a joke.

Why they can just ask.. " Should the seanad be abolished?... YEs or NO". I had to read mine twice, to see what they hell they were actually asking.

Same here, I had to read mine twice to make sure I wasn't going to vote the opposite to what I wanted. It was a little confusing and took a second take to make sure

echo beach

Muahahaha wrote: »

Same here, I had to read mine twice to make sure I wasn't going to vote the opposite to what I wanted. It was a little confusing and took a second take to make sure

It was confusing because people were not expecting the question to be put in that way. A sample of the ballot paper should have been in the Referendum Commission booklet or sent with the polling card so people could have had a look at and been clear what it meant BEFORE they went into vote.

People thought they going to be asked if they wanted to abolish the Seanad, when in fact the question was 'do you approve' of a Bill, which most voters hadn't seen or read.

StewartGriffin

emo72 wrote: »

make it democratic and half the number of senators

So a general election style vote, costing a huge amount in campaign and admin fees, and for what?

Why would I go out to vote for a senator? What benefit is it to us to do so?

emo72

StewartGriffin wrote: »

So a general election style vote, costing a huge amount in campaign and admin fees, and for what?

Why would I go out to vote for a senator? What benefit is it to us to do so?

Well it's still there. Keep it as small as possible. Maybe run the elections same time as the Europeans? If we couldn't get rid of it this time, it's here for good. Mate I don't have the answers, I can only the questions put in front of me.

I don't think the dail works well either to be honest. Seems we need a good dose of reform all round. I won't hold my breath.

Toby Take a Bow

tayto lover wrote: »

Obviously the people voted for Seanad reform rather than abolishment.
Enda should have given the option.

Would love to know how you can speak for the intentions of those on the no side. How do you know that the intention wasn't to keep it just as it is?

garroff

Give people freedom for 1 day and look at what they do. Just can't trust them.

Addictedtogolf

Can someone tell me how much was spent on the YES and NO campaigns?
Must be millions?

K.Flyer

There is a huge apathy towards politics in this country and it shows when less than half of the population are bothered to go out to vote.
People are weary of the way that both sides of the dail still conduct themselves, instead of working together in a more constructive way to help the country.
As I heard someone reply the other day when asked if he was going to vote...
"...sure why bother, the government always win!"
Reform is badly needed if there is any faith and trust to be restored to the political arena.

Sierra Oscar

Addictedtogolf wrote: »

Can someone tell me how much was spent on the YES and NO campaigns?
Must be millions?

The SPIO reports will tell us exactly, but it definetly would not have been in the millions. I know that FF spent €80,000 on it's campaign. Fine Gael haven't said what exactly they spent yet, but commenators have suggesgted it was around the €200,000 mark. It seems that FG really have squandered a lot on this campaign.

The referendum itself cost €14 million to run though.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

wow sierra

Voted no on the real issue - I wanted to retain a second house. I think even at its worst it is a forum where real ideas for change have been fostered down through the years. I'm old enough to remember the work done by David Norris for Gay rights when it was radical. Even today there is plenty of serious work done there. It isn't a good idea to make drastic changes like this just because there is a recession - it has survived the 50's and the 80's.

The fact that it means a serious kick in the arse for Enda Kenny, the arrogant prat, is what they call a "fringe benefit" and a sweet one.

petronius

Meath West and Waterford also voted No! so the map is wrong.

superelliptic

Addictedtogolf wrote: »

Can someone tell me how much was spent on the YES and NO campaigns?
Must be millions?

To be honest, I dont have a clue but the government didnt campaign very hard, and the No groups were mainly lobby groups like Democracy Matters etc. FF got in on this also but I wouldnt say they have much cash to through around these days (like the rest of us)

Pro Hoc Vice

martingriff wrote: »

What I am confused about is the people who use these referendums to give the governments a bloody nose and not vote for what they think is right be it yes or no. Because what you vote on in referendums will not only affect you for right now but into the future

If the people wanted to give bloody nose, why was one defeated the other passed, surely if that was motivation the Appeal Court would have been no as well.

Pro Hoc Vice

emo72 wrote: »

i voted on what i thought was right. that i hate this government is a separate issue. where was the 20 million saving coming from. no one in the civil service loses a job. they will all be transfered into different jobs.

im not against a seanad. only this one. reform it. for the benefit of the people of ireland. there is money to be saved. universities getting to choose who goes in there? thats wrong. make it democratic and half the number of senators.

in the end, an easier sell they could not have had. get rid and save 20 million. but the obvious answer was to reform it. he treated us with contempt by not giving us a chance to reform it.

court of appeal? the obvious answer is add more judges and run 3/4/5/6 supreme courts at one time. its already there, make it work harder. the last thing we need is a whole new court and all the expense that that would apply. its so ****ing easy if you want to save money.

For saving money the maths sure does not add up, current SC 8 people plus 2 new ones allows a 3 courts of 3, to have 6 courts of 3 would require 18 SC judges, with inherent risk of 6 different decisions on the one point. The proposed system is 10 new Court if Appeal judges, plus the SC being reduced to 5 so total of 15 judges.

Also as a fact the Irish Courts service costs the Exchequer less than the arts council. Arts council 60 million. Courts Service 110 million, less income of 50 million giving 60 million cost, less 14 million in fines imposed and paid net cost 46 million. Also the courts raise some 2 million in charitable contributions. Over all I think value for money, in Europe we have the 3rd cheapest courts service.

Bob Z

infosys wrote: »

If the people wanted to give bloody nose, why was one defeated the other passed, surely if that was motivation the Appeal Court would have been no as well.

i could be wrong but maybe it was because it wasnt identified with any particular party?

Pro Hoc Vice

martingriff wrote: »

Where did I say that is wrong and my post was towards those who do vote no for giving the government a bloody nose not for people like you who vote for what they believe in.

Actually I believe the new court is a good thing. I think a separate appeal court for smaller courts would help with the speeding up of cases.

There is a smaller court of appeal for smaller courts, the District Court is appealed to the Circuit Court, that's the end of most small cases.

Deise Vu

Reading this thread I do not know whether to laugh or cry. We really bloodied Enda's nose didn't we? Har! har! Lets see what the little bollix will do now eh?

I'll tell you what he'll do, he will rub his hands with glee pondering on which of his friends he will bestow the gift of half a million in salary and expenses or which of his troublesome backbenchers he will buy off with a senatorship if they fail to get re-elected. Reform? Yeah, lets give the senate real teeth so they can paralyse the Government like in the USA.

Of course, in it's current form, it gives a voice to deep thinkers such as David Norris. A man too sick to lecture a couple of bored TCD students for, what was it? 30 Years? But well able to pontificate to the nation and use his position to try and save Israeli rapists from jail. Sure, where would we be without him? Or Ivor Callelly, jogging around Clontarf every day but having to go 'home' to West Cork every day to get suited up for the Senate. Or Des Richardson, senator for 4 weeks and privileges for life thanks to Bertie for all the wonderful work he did for Bertie... sorry, the Nation. Not the first, and certainly not the last, person to be given this sinecure for services rendered.

Enda in crisis? I'd say he is cackling like a lunatic when he gets behnd closed doors. And he gave us the chance to get rid of these shysters, hucksters and wasters? To paraphrase Dumb and Dumber: Just when I think the Irish electorate couldn't get any more stupid, then you go ahead and do this.

superelliptic

Deise Vu wrote: »

Reading this thread I do not know whether to laugh or cry. We really bloodied Enda's nose didn't we? Har! har! Lets see what the little bollix will do now eh?

I'll tell you what he'll do, he will rub his hands with glee pondering on which of his friends he will bestow the gift of half a million in salary and expenses or which of his troublesome backbenchers he will buy off with a senatorship if they fail to get re-elected. Reform? Yeah, lets give the senate real teeth so they can paralyse the Government like in the USA.

Of course, in it's current form, it gives a voice to deep thinkers such as David Norris. A man too sick to lecture a couple of bored TCD students for, what was it? 30 Years? But well able to pontificate to the nation and use his position to try and save Israeli rapists from jail. Sure, where would we be without him? Or Ivor Callelly, jogging around Clontarf every day but having to go 'home' to West Cork every day to get suited up for the Senate. Or Des Richardson, senator for 4 weeks and privileges for life thanks to Bertie for all the wonderful work he did for Bertie... sorry, the Nation. Not the first, and certainly not the last, person to be given this sinecure for services rendered.

Enda in crisis? I'd say he is cackling like a lunatic when he gets behnd closed doors. And he gave us the chance to get rid of these shysters, hucksters and wasters? To paraphrase Dumb and Dumber: Just when I think the Irish electorate couldn't get any more stupid, then you go ahead and do this.

I agree with the sentiment of this, but there's a comparison you made that doesn't stand up. Our society is nothing like America's. We don't have hoards of lay religious people and cults who want their politicians to polarise every debate. Most people in Ireland bothered enough to vote in this referendum find that behaviour backward so I don't think we have much to fear of it affecting us. As for individual gripes about individual senators, your right, everything you mention above did happen, but if the seanad had been abolished, it could never be reformed and that's what people voted for - no one voted to keep it in it's current form, in fact I'd say if there had been a reform option on the ballot more people would have gone for that instead.

Deise Vu

superelliptic wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment of this, but there's a comparison you made that doesn't stand up. Our society is nothing like America's. We don't have hoards of lay religious people and cults who want their politicians to polarise every debate. Most people in Ireland bothered enough to vote in this referendum find that behaviour backward so I don't think we have much to fear of it affecting us. As for individual gripes about individual senators, your right, everything you mention above did happen, but if the seanad had been abolished, it could never be reformed and that's what people voted for - no one voted to keep it in it's current form, in fact I'd say if there had been a reform option on the ballot more people would have gone for that instead.

Did you ever hear of a fella called Charlie Haughey? "Cuts affect the old, the sick and the needy unless I get into power" was his very sucessful slogan as I remember it. There is nothing we can learn from the US impasse since we designed the template for making the country ungovernable.

I wouldn't have cared if abolishing the Senate cost money it should have been done. It has never achieved anything, never will achieve anything and will never, or should never, be given the power to do anything. If we want reform, start with the Dáil. I will vomit the next time someone like a Healy-Eames disgraces herselfs and I contemplate how much money I have to put in her pocket. And people think they have bloodied the Govt's nose with this asinine vote? There really is no hope for us.

Bob Z

Deise Vu wrote: »

Reading this thread I do not know whether to laugh or cry. We really bloodied Enda's nose didn't we? Har! har! Lets see what the little bollix will do now eh?

I'll tell you what he'll do, he will rub his hands with glee pondering on which of his friends he will bestow the gift of half a million in salary and expenses or which of his troublesome backbenchers he will buy off with a senatorship if they fail to get re-elected. Reform? Yeah, lets give the senate real teeth so they can paralyse the Government like in the USA.

Then why have the referendum in the first place?

Victor

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

petronius wrote: »

Meath West and Waterford also voted No! so the map is wrong.

Apologies, corrected map attached.

Deise Vu

Bob Z wrote: »

Then why have the referendum in the first place?

Because he promised it when he was campaigning for the big pension and it was the populist thing to do. He wasn't going to leave anything unpromised that might have brought the ultimate victory of outright majority.

Not even an Irish politician (except maybe Charlie or Bertie or Ray or P or Liam or Ivor or........) would have the neck to nail their colours to Seanad abolition and then not do anything about it. Besides after 16 years of FF misrule the Fine Gaelers would probably have forgotten the joy and power of doling out the sinecures.

Now he is in the box seat. He called for abolition and the people vooted 'No'. Poor Enda will just have to bow to the will of the people and reluctantly dole out the Christmas crackers.

Bob Z

Deise Vu wrote: »

Because he promised it when he was campaigning for the big pension and it was the populist thing to do. He wasn't going to leave anything unpromised that might have brought the ultimate victory of outright majority.

Not even an Irish politician (except maybe Charlie or Bertie or Ray or P or Liam or Ivor or........) would have the neck to nail their colours to Seanad abolition and then not do anything about it. Besides after 16 years of FF misrule the Fine Gaelers would probably have forgotten the joy and power of doling out the sinecures.

Now he is in the box seat. He called for abolition and the people vooted 'No'. Poor Enda will just have to bow to the will of the people and reluctantly dole out the Christmas crackers.

i'm not defending FG or Enda Kenny but i don't see your point. Other political parties have campaigned against and have not only changed their minds but nominated senators. As you say it would have been a better result for him personally if he had won the referendum and for FG so i can't really imagine him agreeing to something he wanted to lose