pilly wrote: » I heard Cora Sherlock on the news at lunchtime basically trying to call a halt to the referendum by calling in question the whole process of the Citizens Assembly. It's such a sign of panic when you're scrambling around trying desperately to prevent the public from having any say in this. When asked if surely the referendum result was the only one that matters she stuttered and stammered like mad. It gave me comfort anyway, if the pro-lifers were sure of a win they'd be pushing for a referendum tomorrow.
pilly wrote: » It gave me comfort anyway, if the pro-lifers were sure of a win they'd be pushing for a referendum tomorrow.
ForestFire wrote: » I don't agree with it and I don't believe it had any material effect, but from there point of view, you can see why they would use it to their advantage. Their belief is that the 8th should be maintained, so why would they not use any opportunity to sway opinion to their advantage (If possible). I think the real question is why the CA was even set-up in the first place (Not particularly to do with this topic, just in general as a scapegoat for politicians)
splinter65 wrote: » I was listening out in the kitchen and I didn’t here any stammering but the point is, would you not prefer Pilly if the referendum went ahead based on a completely unbiased report from the CA? You do realize that if the referendum is carried now there will be endless cases to the High Court based on this ?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » are you assuming that the report from the CA was biased?
splinter65 wrote: » You do realize that if the referendum is carried now there will be endless cases to the High Court based on this ?
Orion wrote: » Fianna Fáil’s Eamon Scanlon at it in the Dail too. 7 members of the CA who met last month for a totally different issue doesn't impact on CA conclusions from last year! Mattie was at it as well.
splinter65 wrote: » Well it’s a bit cloudy today would you not agree? Cloudy enough for it to be an issue?
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
seamus wrote: » People are free to waste their money with endless cases to the High Court, but since there is no legislative aspect to the CA, the High Court would continually just throw the cases out. The outcome of a referendum is unaffected by whatever mechanism has been used to decide to hold that referendum in the first place. Even if someone could prove that George Soros himself wrote the amendment*, that wouldn't affect the fact that it was democratically approved.*Obviously I'm being facetious, don't go down this rabbit hole
Charmeleon wrote: » People were led to believe they were presenting an unbiased consensus, now it looks more like a propaganda exercise. That’s bad for the democratic process itself.
Charmeleon wrote: » I guess the problem will be that the CA made recommendations for the oireachtas who will draw up the proposed wording. The findings are presented to the public as being a fair and balanced look at the complex issues and the outcome as representative as possible to the diversity of opinion in the wider community. It looks extremely bad for the supposed impartiality of the CA, first we had the statisticians looking at the selection and finding it is ‘unintentionally biased’ having excluded the more stereotypically conservative midlands and south west, now we have actual evidence of intentional skewing of the composition of the assembly. People were led to believe they were presenting an unbiased consensus, now it looks more like a propaganda exercise. That’s bad for the democratic process itself.
uptherebels wrote: » We had statiticans applying a selection method that by their own admission was not the one used by Red C. Fromhttp://https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/an-unintended-bias-in-the-citizens-assembly-1.2908884 "They appear to have employed a hybrid method with a random component but including systematic aspects in the interests of balance." You mean the assembly was skewed that only looked at how referendums were held in this country and didn't have any say on the abortion assembly? "The seven people attended the assembly meeting of January 13th and 14th when it considered and voted on the manner in which referendums are held. They did not attend or take part in earlier assembly meetings, when it considered abortion, after which an Oireachtas committee was established to consider the findings of the Citizens’ Assembly."https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/call-for-abortion-vote-delay-over-citizens-assembly-recruitment-1.3401905 Funny how you ignore what actually happened.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Nothing about the current scandal makes the CA look like a propaganda exercise. It looks like an employee at a private firm took a shortcut after the 8th debate was long over.
ForestFire wrote: » I don't agree with it and I don't believe it had any material effect, but from there point of view, you can see why they would use it to their advantage. Their belief is that the 8th should be maintained, so why would they not use any opportunity to sway opinion to their advantage (If possible).
Charmeleon wrote: » Fine, maybe it was just a bad egg, let’s have an inquiry to find out.
seamus wrote: » It looks like an enquiry has already been carried out, the employee in question has been disciplined. What purpose would it serve to hand over millions of euro to judges and barristers in an "enquiry"? To what end?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » what do you think? they just want to delay a referendum they are terrified of losing. If they lose this referendum they have no reason for existence. Iona and the likes i mean.
Charmeleon wrote: » We don’t know what happened, only that the selection was not random but had ‘systematic aspects’ as stated in the article. What were the ‘systematic aspects’? How do we know they were interested in balance, as the article writers cautiously assume? Do we have transparency or not? We now know votes did go ahead with specially selected members.
david75 wrote: » Theyre already getting ready for the church running schools and the right to die debates.
