Goverment breking rules in Referendum

Death and Taxes · 08-11-2012 1:04pm #1

The Supreme Court have ruled that two million leaflets distributed by the government and a website run by the government have broken the rules by being biased in facour of a yes vote in the Childrens Referendum.
Even if they win now the result must surely be tainted and subject to legal challenge.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1108/childrens-referendum-court.html

MagicMarker · 08-11-2012 1:08pm

The principles prohibit the use of public funds to promote a particular outcome in a referendum.

In this case who pays for all those piece of shít signs that go up on lamp posts anytime a referendum comes up?

Death and Taxes · 08-11-2012 1:10pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

In this case who pays for all those piece of shít signs that go up on lamp posts anytime a referendum comes up?

Interested parties pay for that, not the government.

okedoke · 08-11-2012 1:14pm

Poster breking spelling rules in title!

MagicMarker · 08-11-2012 1:16pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Interested parties pay for that, not the government.

But where do the parties get their money from? It's not all private donations surely?

SeaFields · 08-11-2012 1:18pm

No side broke the rules when they got Dana on board

My name is URL · 08-11-2012 1:18pm

Does this open up the possibility that the outcome of the referendum could be challenged or overturned? What a clusterfcuk by the government.. again.

NuMarvel · 08-11-2012 1:20pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

In this case who pays for all those piece of shít signs that go up on lamp posts anytime a referendum comes up?

Posters are paid for by the political parties, so it isn't coming directly out of public funds.

seamus · 08-11-2012 1:25pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Does this open up the possibility that the outcome of the referendum could be challenged or overturned? What a clusterfcuk by the government.. again.

No, this is a matter of misuse of government funds more than anything else. The government is entitled to campaign for a yes vote, doing so is not prohibited. The funding just cannot come from state coffers.

The information distributed by RefCom is still fine and has not been challenged, so there's still an unbiased government agency providing unbiased information on it.

If the RefCom leaflet has been declared biased, then there would be trouble.

pablohoney87 · 08-11-2012 1:26pm

seamus wrote: »

If the RefCom leaflet has been declared biased, then there would be trouble.

It has

Death and Taxes · 08-11-2012 1:30pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Does this open up the possibility that the outcome of the referendum could be challenged or overturned? What a clusterfcuk by the government.. again.

It certainly does. They might as well cancel it now

bbam · 08-11-2012 1:31pm

This is another epic ****up by the government further proving their inability to do a good job on even the simplest tasks. A yes vote was surely in the bag on this Referrendum, but now there may be a protest vote or a challenge after a yes vote.
Surely this is a major failure from the office of the Attorney General?

I had low expectations for this government, and they are failing to meet that even.

CardBordWindow · 08-11-2012 1:33pm

They all need a good paddling. Any volunteers?

Death and Taxes · 08-11-2012 1:34pm

I wonder what the "European of the Year" will have to say about latest gubberment ****up?

seamus · 08-11-2012 1:39pm

pablohoney87 wrote: »

It has

As far as I can tell, this relates to the info distributed by the Dept of Children and childrensreferendum.ie, not the RefCom stuff.

Death and Taxes · 08-11-2012 1:47pm

seamus wrote: »

As far as I can tell, this relates to the info distributed by the Dept of Children and childrensreferendum.ie, not the RefCom stuff.

Just read the the Ruling and you are right, however in view of the fact that the Government distributed 2,000,000 of the booklets and ran a website, with a total spend of €1.1 , it has to be argued that they have seriously tainted the result of the poll.
Hopefully the result will be ruled void because of this anti-democracy exercise by Inda and Eamo!

seamus · 08-11-2012 1:52pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Just read the the Ruling and you are right, however in view of the fact that the Government distributed 2,000,000 of the booklets and ran a website, with a total spend of €1.1 , it has to be argued that they have seriously tainted the result of the poll.
Hopefully the result will be ruled void because of this anti-democracy exercise by Inda and Eamo!

There's not really any scope in law to declare a result void because one of the campaigns broke the law or spent more money than the others.
The only scenario I could see that occurring in is if it could be shown that the population were not provided with an unbiased source of information.
Since the RefCom info is still sound, then I don't believe this referendum can be challenged after the fact. I could be wrong of course.

CruelCoin · 08-11-2012 1:53pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Interested parties pay for that, not the government.

Labour pay for labour signs, part of government, derp.

L1011 · 08-11-2012 1:55pm

CruelCoin wrote: »

Labour pay for labour signs, part of government, derp.

A political party spending its funds on something does not equate to a body it is elected to spending its funds on it.

Riskymove · 08-11-2012 2:00pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Just read the the Ruling and you are right, however in view of the fact that the Government distributed 2,000,000 of the booklets and ran a website, with a total spend of €1.1 , it has to be argued that they have seriously tainted the result of the poll.
Hopefully the result will be ruled void because of this anti-democracy exercise by Inda and Eamo!

all parties in most elections and referenda produce and circulate biased material

the issue here is how it was funded

admiralofthefleet · 08-11-2012 2:02pm

SeaFields wrote: »

No side broke the rules when they got Dana on board

feck, i was voting No til i saw that religious freak was on board. might spoil now

Valetta · 08-11-2012 2:03pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

.
Hopefully the result will be ruled void because of this anti-democracy exercise by Inda and Eamo!

This would be the same as having a "no" result.

Is this what you want?

Ghandee · 08-11-2012 2:05pm

This govt just keep giving and giving.

How much more eff ups will it take before they go bye bye?

bbam · 08-11-2012 2:12pm

Ghandee wrote: »

This govt just keep giving and giving.

How much more eff ups will it take before they go bye bye?

To let who in?
Do we have any viable party or combination of parties who could do a better job? This is another example of why politics in Ireland is dead, a lost cause.

Ghandee · 08-11-2012 2:17pm

bbam wrote: »

To let who in?
Do we have any viable party or combination of parties who could do a better job? This is another example of why politics in Ireland is dead, a lost cause.

Direct rule from Germania.

They seem to be pulling the strings as it is.

Ghandee · 08-11-2012 2:23pm

Valetta wrote: »

This would be the same as having a "no" result.

Is this what you want?

I honestly haven't decided how I'll vote yet.

However, if now the govt have been found to be unfairly giving a one sided campaign, how can any result be deemed a fair result?

Like their predecessors, its only fair if its what they want.

Riskymove · 08-11-2012 2:41pm

Ghandee wrote: »

I honestly haven't decided how I'll vote yet.

However, if now the govt have been found to be unfairly giving a one sided campaign, how can any result be deemed a fair result?

Like their predecessors, its only fair if its what they want.

every side gives a one-sided campaign!

as above, the only issue is about using Public funds

Capt'n Midnight · 08-11-2012 2:44pm

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1108/childrens-referendum-court.html

t granted a declaration that the State acted wrongfully in spending public money on the website, information booklets and advertisements in relation to the referendum.

However, it did not grant an injunction as the court assumed the State will stop distributing and publishing the material.

...
The full reasons for the decision will be given next month.

The link to the Children's Referendum website, www.childrensreferendum.ie, is no longer active.

Death and Taxes · 08-11-2012 2:54pm

Valetta wrote: »

This would be the same as having a "no" result.

Is this what you want?

Since the Government have illegally sought to influence the outcome of the poll, then yes, a declaration that the result is invalid is what I want.
It would appear that there are grounds to challange the result because of the the level of illegal spending by the government in pursuit of its desired outcome.

SafeSurfer · 08-11-2012 3:00pm

I am delighted with the Supreme Court decision.

I have always thought that even the naming of referendums was partisan.

Why are the government allowed to call something

The Stability Referendum or The Children's Referendum, which have overtly positive connotations.

Why not call it the 43rd amendment to the constitution or whatever?

SafeSurfer · 08-11-2012 3:03pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Since the Government have illegally sought to influence the outcome of the poll, then yes, a declaration that the result is invalid is what I want.
It would appear that there are grounds to challange the result because of the the level of illegal spending by the government in pursuit of its desired outcome.

The government have stated that the referendum will proceed.

However the result of the referendum is likely to be the subject of a legal challenge given today's ruling. If any such challenge would succeed is a different matter, in my opinion it would not.

jhegarty · 08-11-2012 3:05pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I am delighted with the Supreme Court decision.

I have always thought that even the naming of referendums was partisan.

Why are the government allowed to call something

The Stability Referendum or The Children's Referendum, which have overtly positive connotations.

Why not call it the 43rd amendment to the constitution or whatever?

They only called it today because "Flags for orphans" was taken.

SafeSurfer · 08-11-2012 3:05pm

Riskymove wrote: »

every side gives a one-sided campaign!

as above, the only issue is about using Public funds

No. There is the issue of incorrect and misleading information in the booklet as well.

Riskymove · 08-11-2012 3:25pm

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. There is the issue of incorrect and misleading information in the booklet as well.

nope

the report says the Court found one "misstatement" it does not say anything about misleading information and it does not suggest any consequences for this.

it is about the material being biased and funded by public money - it is clearly the reason for the judgement if you read it. The McKenna judgment is about public funding of one-sided campaigns

all sides in any referenda or election bring out biased information and in many cases "incorrect and misleading" info

I have yet to hear of any being declared void because of this

SafeSurfer · 08-11-2012 3:33pm

Riskymove wrote: »

nope

the report says the Court found one "misstatement" it does not say anything about misleading information and it does not suggest any consequences for this.

it is about the material being biased and funded by public money - it is clearly the reason for the judgement if you read it. The McKenna judgment is about public funding of one-sided campaigns

all sides in any referenda or election bring out biased information and in many cases "incorrect and misleading" info

I have yet to hear of any being declared void because of this

The full text of the supreme court decision will be released tomorrow.

My understanding is that this misstatement is misleading and leads people to draw incorrect conclusions about the effects of the change in the constitution. The misstatement centred around the use of the word "contunues" This was the point of view expressed on RTE's the news at one this afternoon.

Death and Taxes · 08-11-2012 3:35pm

Riskymove wrote: »

nope

the report says the Court found one "misstatement" it does not say anything about misleading information and it does not suggest any consequences for this.

it is about the material being biased and funded by public money - it is clearly the reason for the judgement if you read it. The McKenna judgment is about public funding of one-sided campaigns

all sides in any referenda or election bring out biased information and in many cases "incorrect and misleading" info

I have yet to hear of any being declared void because of this

From the actual Ruling:

The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]McKenna [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT]principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

The Government are phohibited by law from spending public funds in pursuit of a particular result.

Riskymove · 08-11-2012 3:49pm

WileyCoyote wrote: »

From the actual Ruling:

The Court has concluded that it is clear that there are extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]McKenna [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT][/FONT]principles. This material includes a misstatement, now admitted to be such, as to the effect of the Referendum.

The Government are phohibited by law from spending public funds in pursuit of a particular result.

well exactly, thats my point

lots of the material does not meet McKenna principles - i.e. it is one-sided and funded by public money

there also happens to be one misstatement in it - a seperate issue

tan11ie · 08-11-2012 4:02pm

It's an absolute joke! the voting shouldn't take place on Saturday.

http://www.newstalk.ie/2012/news/tds-call-for-childrens-referendum-to-be-postponed/

Sarky · 08-11-2012 5:24pm

You don't trust yourself to make an informed decision? Has their campaign had some sort of subliminal effect on you to rob you of your will?

tan11ie · 08-11-2012 6:41pm

Sarky wrote: »

You don't trust yourself to make an informed decision? Has their campaign had some sort of subliminal effect on you to rob you of your will?

Is this for me? if so I made up my mind already, today's findings don't surprise me in the slightest ...it's to be expected from them at this stage.

1.1 million eh, ah sure who cares the government will do as they please when they please and continue to get away with it as per usual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clGS4zjakuo

goat2 · 08-11-2012 6:48pm

it should be called off, a court has already ruled, all one sided, and for my tuppence, i was thinking of abstaining anyway,

lightspeed · 08-11-2012 7:13pm

Is it not an issue that people on the aran islands have already voted today on this referendum ?

Its quite ridiclous that on the same day that the supreme court has ruled that government spending on the issue did not conform to the McKenna judgement, people have already began voting.

According to RTE the Supreme Court did not order an injuction as it assumed that the state would stop distributing the bias material. How can this not be too little and too late when there are some people who have already voted on the referendum and the rest of the population will be voting on Saturday.

What a disgrace to democracy.

My name is URL · 08-11-2012 7:58pm

Website is back up now with important parts of the amendment 'missing'

http://www.thejournal.ie/childrens-referendum-website-returns-with-incomplete-text-of-amendment-666918-Nov2012

Bullseye1 · 08-11-2012 8:07pm

If as shown this government cannot be trusted with how public funds are spent how can they be trusted with greater powers concerning the wellbeing of children.

Napper Hawkins · 08-11-2012 8:07pm

Newsflash! Irish government makes a dogs mickey of something! Millions drunk!

Boombastic · 08-11-2012 8:53pm

Was the fact checking and rule following allowance removed? God bless those civil servants,

Run_to_da_hills · 08-11-2012 9:00pm

We had the same level of distrust during the Lisbon referendum.

mikom · 08-11-2012 9:05pm

These are the cunts that are supposed to to look after our children then.........

They fuck up, then charge you for it.
Monkeys.

Death and Taxes · 09-11-2012 8:45am

mikom wrote: »

These are the cunts that are supposed to to look after our children then.........

They fuck up, then charge you for it.
Monkeys.

What have you got against monkeys?
Monkeys are intelligent and caring creatures, neither of which could be said about this shower of arrogant, power hungry, and scheming fraudsters!

jesse pinkman · 09-11-2012 8:46am

How comes it takes an engineer to recognise then do anything about this misappropriation of public funds, why did no-one in the media (whose job it is) cop what was going on here?

phasers · 09-11-2012 8:52am

Sure nobody reads those things anyway

Goverment breking rules in Referendum

Comments