Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Irish politics discussion thread

1114115117119120238

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,516 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭pureza


    The wishy washy unnecessary referendum was woke nonsense in my opinion that all parties are prone to bar Áontu

    A come uppance to the nonsense was long overdue and delivered sweetly by democracy



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 42,837 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    1. Correlation is not causation. Just because Aontu were against the referendum does not mean that the public agree with them. In fact, it appears that most people were against the vague wording and not necessarily against the idea of the actual proposals.
    2. I propose that we ban the use of the word "woke" which is such an annoying term used to criticise anything that doesn't suit a particular agenda or else to troll people




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭pureza


    Well it certainly wasn't intended as a troll word in my post,it's a genuinely held view that there's a tendency to manufacture problems where they don't exist

    Noone bar religious zealots today probably believe a woman's place is in the home,even if our constitution was written at a time that was normal

    I do not think another 23 million should be wasted re running a referendum on the matter

    It would be better spent providing rest bite for carers,imagine what a difference 46 million would do there



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭tomhammer..


    "We must take responsibility for the referendum vote"

    What does that even mean from varadkar and coveney ?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,831 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    It means they publicly accept that they got it totally wrong. While it might be a doh, moment, such acknowledgment is important in a democracy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,264 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    The entire political class, media and the electorate must be woke if we are to believe those who the term in Ireland. It's really only a few cranks from the Irish far right on social media who use the term as an insult - this is not the UK.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭tomhammer..


    Is it real though

    What does "publically accept" and "acknowledgement in a democracy " mean



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,831 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Not a lot. Losing by 2:1 and 3:1, they just have to suck it up.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,528 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    It would be better spent providing rest bite for carers,imagine what a difference 46 million would do there

    Very little.

    The Constitution is a living document that should represent, as much as possible, the current standards and views of the Irish people. "Ah that's old, we don't really mean that bit" is not sufficient.

    Obviously, that being said, the proposed amendments were rejected. Alas, one downside of constitutional referenda is that it is clear what a yes vote means, and generally unclear what a no one does



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,647 ✭✭✭yagan


    It didn't feel like a protest no result, like in has happened in other votes. There was no real heat in it, the carer groups who called for a no because the wording didn't go far enough weren't defending the existing wording either, so really it was a judgement on how the whole thing was handled.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,358 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I think in the case, the very opposite is this case.

    What is a durable relationship? No-one could define it in a way that the SC would accept as valid. Could there be multiple durable relationships? Well yes and no - no-one knew.

    Was the intention of the care referendum that the responsibility for care should move from the state to the family and relatives?

    Well, that is what it looked like because it was doubtful for most voters that STRIVE would make the Gov of the day more active in the care of the disabled or those in need of special needs.

    I think STRIVE is a strong word that puts an obligation on the state to show how much effort they have put into care in a particular case, without creating the moral hazard a rights approach would create. We already have Special Needs Assistants in classrooms for children that require them which did not exist 50 years ago, but how far should that go? There are Gov grants to assist those who have special needs, but how far should that go? It is very hard to put into a few words into the constitution that covers it fully - or even at all. The needs are so varied and so specific to each case that it is impossible. Legislation is where this should go.

    The Gov have found it beyond the nations resources to cope with the massive number of immigrants arriving here in the recent times. We have too much trouble with International Protection Applicants expecting hotel accommodation on arrival - and they have a legal right to accommodation that citizens do not have. Can you imagine the result if the whole population had such a right.

    There is no easy solution to any of this this when the whole of this state (and most of Europe) has a housing crisis and an immigration crisis.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    ...is that it is clear what a yes vote means, and generally unclear what a no one does

    Did you get these reversed? If anything, it's the consequences of a yes vote that can be unclear, a no vote always means the status quo is retained

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,528 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Sure. But none of that answers what people actually wanted. Did they want no changes or different changes.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,528 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Not talking about the outcome, but the intention. A yes vote means people are accepting the proposed change. A no vote can mean anything from vehemently opposed to change to objecting to change not going for enough.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    In my opinion, if the referenda had just proposed to delete the relevant articles from the Constitution they would have passed.

    Even if the wording was slightly different as in "durable relationships as defined in legislation", it probably would have passed. The people aren't stupid. They saw the mess that the 8th amendment created by vague language and have been wary ever since.

    On the carer referendum, the meaning of "strive" is completely unclear. It could mean nothing is obliged on the government, but here's a thing, on the other side of that argument, if it did mean something, if the referendum had passed, carers would have had more rights in the Constitution than the elderly and disabled people that they are caring for.

    Lack of clarity.

    We also need to look again as the Citizen's Assembly set-up. Are they truly representative?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,647 ✭✭✭yagan


    Wasn't the issue that the proposed wording didn't reflect the summation from the citizens assembly?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The referenda were so comprehensively voted down that the wisdom of holding them must also be questioned, no matter the wording, and that comes from the citizens assembly.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,931 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    What I heard this morning was the CA had advised more changes than what was actually put for for the referenda.

    The simple fact is they over complicated this. It should have been a simple removal of wording not a replacement. Then down the way when wording has been properly vetted add more again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,264 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Yes, that's a good summation. One might initially have thought it was an anti-FF/FG/Green vote but we've heard the opposition parties take just as much criticism in the last 24 hours. It seems people were unhappy with the actual referendum itself, how it was worded and so on.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,088 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    In terms of the vote, was at a large party on Saturday. The vote came up as the results started to come in.

    Nobody in the room from young to old could understand what the vote meant, what it would change. The feeling was the government wasn't even too concerned and didn't even try to push it till the last minute. Right or wrong that's what people felt.

    As they didn't understand some didn't vote and others just voted no because they didn't understand it. I don't think a single vote yes was in the room and the people that didn't vote would have voted no.

    Bad job by government in terms of communication on the vote, what it meant etc and seemingly no feet on the street going around telling people about it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,911 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    The constitution is the wrong forum for what is essentially social policy. Some of the new wording really came across as virtue-signalling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,516 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I see Willie O'Dea FF joining Lisa Chambers FF in claiming they voted No No.

    I will say it again, when the war about the direction FF is going, breaks out into the open, it will be nasty and potentially ruinous for the party,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,264 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    He's put out a somewhat odd tweet though about the "woke gallery" and "NGOs".....trying to court the far right vote or something? Slightly peculiar language for a former cabinet minister.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The conservative rural nationalist vote is up for grabs, Willie knows this. Fianna Fail lost this vote to Sinn Fein and the rural independents, he wants it back.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,264 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    The funny thing is he and Mattie McGrath don't believe in any of this stuff themselves - it does seem a bit opportunistic to say the least.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,516 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    O'Dea and Chambers are engaging in old fashioned bog standard undermining of the leader. Don't think for a second it is about the referendum issues, far right or near left stuff, it isn't.

    It's internal FF jockeying and stalking horses coming under starters orders.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,849 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,849 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout



    Seems strange for Chambers. Wasn't she a darling of MM. He sorted her out for a Seanad seat and all.


    I wonder does this have anything to do with it:


    image.png




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,831 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Matt Carthy is saying SF won't rerun these Referendums if in Govn't. MLMCD said the opposite last week. They're all running for cover IWT. Just admit most of the political parties got this very wrong. Even though I voted Yes/Yes, others in my family voted Yes No, One has to have good reason and a clear path, when asking the Irish people to change the Constitution.



Advertisement