Did you receive an information leaflet from the referendum commission?

starlit · 26-10-2011 04:17PM

Honestly don't know what we are suppose to really vote for in the referendum. Could someone please explain to me despite adverts on tv, radio, info online and in the leaflet I don't really understand what are we voting for like?

Reducing Judges pay and that the senad has a say in people data or what ever?

MagicMarker · 26-10-2011 04:23PM

doovdela wrote: »

Honestly don't know what we are suppose to really vote for in the referendum. Could someone please explain to me despite adverts on tv, radio, info online and in the leaflet I don't really understand what are we voting for like?

Reducing Judges pay and that the senad has a say in people data or what ever?

http://www.referendum2011.ie/

smash · 26-10-2011 04:26PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

http://www.referendum2011.ie/

The site keeps going up and down.

The important one I think:

Proposed amendment – Oireachtas inquiries

At present, Article 15.10 states:
“Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.”

It is proposed to renumber this as 15.10.1° and to insert the following subsections:

2° Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or an inquiry with the other House, in a manner provided for by law, into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance.

3° In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person (whether or not a member of either House) may be investigated and the House or Houses concerned may make findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning the matter to which the inquiry relates.

4° It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2° applies.

but there's more, such as: http://www.referendum2011.ie/your-decision/referendum-on-inquiries-by-the-oireachtas/finding-which-affects-a-persons-good-name

Kidchameleon · 26-10-2011 04:33PM

If I vote no then the Gov. will run the referendum again so I wont be voting.

MagicMarker · 26-10-2011 04:34PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If I vote no then the Gov. will run the referendum again so I wont be voting.

Smart

If you vote no and you're made vote again then you vote no again.

CYHSN · 26-10-2011 04:36PM

I definitely got mine, the only reason I remember is the sexy wan on the front of the leaflet

Wertz · 26-10-2011 04:46PM

smash wrote: »

2° Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or an inquiry with the other House, in a manner provided for by law, into any matter stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance.

"Provided for by law." Including laws not yet on statute book?
"Into any matter concerned to be of public importance" So basically, whatever you're having yourself and determined by whoever is in power at the time, which in the future could be any one.
Too open ended

3° In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person (whether or not a member of either House) may be investigated and the House or Houses concerned may make findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning the matter to which the inquiry relates.

"ANY person's conduct...concerning the matter to which the inquiry relates."
So anyone deemed to have broken a "law" by way of their conduct or raised the hackles of people or politicians...they can have "findings" made against them. Findings?
Go away and write it again

4° It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2° applies.

They get to determine the RIGHTS of ANY individual who has conducted themselves in a manner against a law which may not even be on the statute yet? Due regard to fairness is interpretative in many ways, especiallly when you bring up such stuff as the greater good or in the public interest...appropriately of course.

The bold emphasis is my comprehension and may well be alarmist...but the wording is so ambiguous and can be interpreted and adjusted accordingly.
Once this is in the founding document, what politician in power will move to have it removed?
The fine detail of this hasn't just been hidden, it's not even clear when you read the damn thing...but where is the commission telling us their interprataion of it and what it'll actually mean? Lazy lazy smug adverts that are cahracter lead and focus on nothing of the substance of the changes involved.
Sometimes I really really hate this country.

We need some more powers of investigation...BUT we need them on clear terms.
We also need a cap on the pay of senior cousel and barristers, never mind the judges who already take a pay cut the minute they get their wig and gowns...

Disturbingly I was talking to an aunt earlier who says she and her husband who aren't stupid people are voting yes to both. I tried to dissuade her but she was having none of it.

ríomhaire · 26-10-2011 04:48PM

I got one in the post at home (as in, my parents' house) but now where I live for college term.

Ellis Dee · 26-10-2011 04:50PM

I didn't get an information leaflet, but I did get a disinformation leaflet.

Coated paper, too, so not even of use in the jacks.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

markc1184 · 26-10-2011 04:50PM

Plenty of the candidates leaflets coming in the post lately but nothing about the referendum.

Kidchameleon · 26-10-2011 04:57PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Smart

If you vote no and you're made vote again then you vote no again.

So what would have happened if Lisbon 2 was a no vote?

Wertz · 26-10-2011 05:15PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So what would have happened if Lisbon 2 was a no vote?

They would have tweaked the wording that was being focused on by the No campaign and went with a Lisbon3 perhaps...or else something could have happened in one of the other states voting on the Treaty. we'll never know because people were spun a line on jobs and other such nonsense in order for the euro project to proceed...and look where we're at now (not that a No vote would have changed that really)

If this gets a No vote, they can only find out why people were against it and redraft the amendment for another ref at a later stage.
That's why a No vote is the safer bet here...no information or biased information is no way to runs such a vital ref...No means they "must try harder" (to quote my old school teacher)...

ShooterSF · 26-10-2011 05:23PM

Did get the leaflet, though by then I had read up on the topics plenty. Will probably vote no on both but as they're two populist amendments I can't see them not passing. Also where is my referendum on children's rights, on the blasphemy crap and on the existence of the seanad?

MagicMarker · 26-10-2011 07:20PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So what would have happened if Lisbon 2 was a no vote?

Who cares?

Whether you vote twice or a million times, why change your vote unless you've actually changed your mind?

sdanseo · 26-10-2011 09:05PM

By the way folks, please God vote NO to both of these. Certainly to the oireachtas one but remember the Judges' pay one also attempts to place a constituional precedent for categorising people "of a particular class" - terribly stupid wording and VERY, VERY dangerous.

TheZohanS · 26-10-2011 09:09PM

Don't worry, shur if we vote the wrong way they'll have another vote. Shur the Irish people are thicko's.

MagicMarker · 26-10-2011 09:55PM

sdeire wrote: »

By the way folks, please God vote NO to both of these. Certainly to the oireachtas one but remember the Judges' pay one also attempts to place a constituional precedent for categorising people "of a particular class" - terribly stupid wording and VERY, VERY dangerous.

Can you expand on that a little? I think you might be misinterpreting the ''classes of persons'' part, or I am.

2° The remuneration of judges is subject to the imposition of taxes, levies or other charges that are imposed by law on persons generally or persons belonging to a particular class.

I interpret the ''particular class'' part as referring to any changes in taxes referring to any specific tax bracket, rather than changes across the board?

This doesn't sound like an issue to me.

Baked.noodle · 26-10-2011 10:08PM

No leaflet in Galway city. This referendum will be a disaster. Not even the bare minimum of effort has been undertaken to inform the general public of the issues. I suspect the proposed changes to the constitution will be resoundingly rejected, in keeping with the developing tradition of Irish referendums. No doubt we will be back here debating these issues again, regardless of the optimistic poles. Perhaps if these issues, and others, where actually respected by the government we wouldn't have to deal with them again and again. It is clear the establishment has nothing but contempt for ordinary decent Irish people.

sdanseo · 28-10-2011 12:03AM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can you expand on that a little? I think you might be misinterpreting the ''classes of persons'' part, or I am.

2° The remuneration of judges is subject to the imposition of taxes, levies or other charges that are imposed by law on persons generally or persons belonging to a particular class.

I interpret the ''particular class'' part as referring to any changes in taxes referring to any specific tax bracket, rather than changes across the board?

This doesn't sound like an issue to me.

I know what it's meant to be intrepreted as and what the intention is, and agree that the intention is perfectly harmless (except perhaps to judges :P )

What worries me is that it is open to interpretation - all it takes is one stupid supreme court judgement and suddendly it's OK to classify people by other means.

Oh_Noes · 28-10-2011 12:11AM

I recieved it but then I wasn't relying on printed literature coming in my front door to inform me of possible changes to the constitution. People should be informed or be able to inform themselves, if anything they shouldn't have wasted paper by doing this.

I think both of these amendments are a step too far and completely regressive. I hope to god that they aren't passed because it will further remove Alan Shatter from reality and encourage his egotism.

lmaopml · 28-10-2011 12:20AM

I think it's moreso about the seperation of powers between the judiciary and the state - Neither one has a stronghold, and it's not a 'silly' reason that it was included in the Constitution in the first place!...

... and it certainly shouldn't have been put to the people on the day of a Presidential Election along with another 'Referendum' on amending the Constitution on the balance of power between the two either - It's been presented in a 'popular' manner rather cynically, and for that reason, I voted 'No'

Plus, to answer the OP - I didn't get any literature whatsoever in the post, I had to find out for myself about the proposed edits to the Irish Constitution that seems to be introduced in a very ambiguous and 'timely' rather cynical way...I hope the people vote 'No' to both - especially if a person never examined them properly first. The President will come and go, the Constitution was not written up by idiots, and nor should it be amended lightly.

Did you receive an information leaflet from the referendum commission?

Comments