Amendment court challenge

Peregrinus · 14-08-2015 8:20am

Daith wrote: »

So why would the Judge say at the Court of Appeals that the stay on issuing the cert can be lifted?

Because that's how it's done. If the objectors knew, at the time the CA judgement was handed down, that they would definitely appeal they would say so, and ask him not to lift the stay, and I think he would accede to that request. As that didn't happen, he lifted the stay. If the objectors then decide to appeal, they can go into the Supreme Court and ask it to re-impose the stay, which it would certainly do (if, of course, it agreed to take the appeal, which it doesn't have to).

Daith wrote: »

I fail to see how anyone could be in the wrong here for issuing the cert.

Nobody would be in the wrong, legally speaking. But nothing would be acheived by it and it could be made by the ignorant or malicious to look like an attempt to pre-empt any possible appeal. Why expose yourself to the hassle?

Daith wrote: »

My main issue is that we are coming into General Election season. We haven't implemented the Children and Family Act either and that was signed off in March/April.

This has all-party support and definitely won't be an election issue except for the kind of fringe party that will seek to make it an election issue no matter what happens or doesn't happen in the meantime. Besides, as already pointed out, cert or no cert the Dail can't progress this because they are not sitting until 22 September, so issuing the cert now rather than when the appeal deadline expires will make precisely zero difference to whatever risk there may be of this becoming an election issue.

Daith · 14-08-2015 8:27am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Besides, as already pointed out, cert or no cert the Dail can't progress this because they are not sitting until 22 September, so issuing the cert now rather than when the appeal deadline expires will make precisely zero difference to whatever risk there may be of this becoming an election issue.

I agree it's just a tad frustrating. It'll be even more so if they wait to the last possible moment to appeal.

I had nearly forgotten that the Dail won't be back till the 22nd of Sept. That is some break.

SpaceTime · 14-08-2015 10:51am

I do think though someone at Government level should really issue a statement on what's going on here.

A few overseas journalists I know have asked me to explain why it's not passed yet and are reading in some kind of corruption / institutional homophobia into the situation that isn't there.

The impression that it's giving from the outside, if you don't understand the system, is that the state is sitting on it.

Everywhere else in Europe where they've passed marriage equality, it's been by primary legislation. That means that once passed, people were able to immediately start marrying.

Where as in Ireland we've only unblocked the constitutional issues and we still have to actually legislate for it.

It's amazing though, if this were something like bailing out the banks, it would be done in 24 hours.

Daith · 14-08-2015 12:12pm

Could somebody clarify something.

My understanding is that the Marriage Bill has already being debated and passed by the Dail and Seanad. Does it need to to be passed again?

lottpaul · 14-08-2015 1:55pm

Daith wrote: »

My understanding is that the Marriage Bill has already being debated and passed by the Dail and Seanad.

No - draft legislation has been prepared and shouldn't take too long to progress through the Dáil and Seanad, though I would expect some TDs and Senators (perhaps with an eye on the forthcoming election) will want to have their say.
The Oireachtas can't pass legislation prior to any referendum as that could be a waste of time, depending on the result.

Daith · 14-08-2015 2:12pm

lottpaul wrote: »

No - draft legislation has been prepared and shouldn't take too long to progress through the Dáil and Seanad, though I would expect some TDs and Senators (perhaps with an eye on the forthcoming election) will want to have their say.
The Oireachtas can't pass legislation prior to any referendum as that could be a waste of time, depending on the result.

Ah, I was getting confused between the Marriage Equality Bill (to allow us to have the referendum) and the Marriage Bill which is in draft form.

NuMarvel · 14-08-2015 2:19pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

I appreciate that there's a desire to complete this process and actually start celebrating weddings. But in the scheme of things, waiting for the 28-day limit to expire is not a big deal. This change was recommended to the Government by the Constitutional Convention in May 2013. It took the Government 7 months to consider that recommendation and commit to it. It took another 14 months before they introduced the necessary Bill into the Oireachtas. Another 2 months for the Oireachtas to pass it. 2 more months to organise the referendum. In the light of this fairly deliberate pace, a 28-day pause at a time when the Oireachtas isn't sitting anyway doesn't look like anything to get worked up about.

And don't forget that the campaign for marriage equality in Ireland is over 10 years old. Add that 10 year campaign to what you've listed above, and 28 days is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Compared to delays in the implementation of other referenda, this will be pretty short; eg divorce legislation was signed 7 months after the referendum.

Daith wrote: »

So why would the Judge say at the Court of Appeals that the stay on issuing the cert can be lifted? I fail to see how anyone could be in the wrong here for issuing the cert.

The judge gave an order that the stay could be lifted. But court standing orders allow an appeal against an order to be lodged within 28 days.

As I see it, they're within their rights to issue the cert, but they're likely be ultra cautious to make sure every i is dotted and t crossed. We've less than 2 weeks until they can issue the cert, and then the President can sign the referendum bill, and then we can all run out and buy our new Constitutions

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because that's how it's done. If the objectors knew, at the time the CA judgement was handed down, that they would definitely appeal they would say so, and ask him not to lift the stay, and I think he would accede to that request. As that didn't happen, he lifted the stay. If the objectors then decide to appeal, they can go into the Supreme Court and ask it to re-impose the stay, which it would certainly do (if, of course, it agreed to take the appeal, which it doesn't have to).

As an aside, when the judge mentioned he was lifting the stay, both of the objectors said they had no objection and indeed hadn't sought it in the first place (which they hadn't). Then again, this was the same time they heard there was an application for costs against them, so the idea of an appeal probably wasn't foremost in their mind at the time.

Daith wrote: »

Could somebody clarify something.

My understanding is that the Marriage Bill has already being debated and passed by the Dail and Seanad. Does it need to to be passed again?

Definitely not the Marriage Bill. Only the general outline of that has been seen and there's no point doing anything with it until the constitution has been amended. You might thinking about the referendum bill, which needs to be passed by both houses before going to the people.

Daith · 14-08-2015 2:32pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

You might thinking about the referendum bill, which needs to be passed by both houses before going to the people.

Indeed I was.

Does this mean we have to listen to Ronan again in the Seanad?

SpaceTime · 14-08-2015 3:21pm

Daith wrote: »

Could somebody clarify something.

My understanding is that the Marriage Bill has already being debated and passed by the Dail and Seanad. Does it need to to be passed again?

It'll largely be a rubber stamping exercise where it will just go through all stages quite rapidly. The work has all largely been completed.

SpaceTime · 14-08-2015 3:23pm

Actually, the biggest issue that's likely to crop up with be Labour and FG both clambering to claim the credit for it.

I get the impression Labour's quite sore about FG suddenly grabbing the limelight on this issue when they've been chipping away at it for decades without much recognition.

This is quite likely to be very unlike a US debate on legislation as you'll have a lot of parties scrambling to prove they're the most LGBT-friendly.

Annasopra · 14-08-2015 6:17pm

Daith wrote: »

My main issue is that we are coming into General Election season.

Thats not an issue. Once the referendum comes into force the government is obliged to legislate because the wording is self executing

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/same-sex-marriage-referendum-a-legal-review-1.2074579

NuMarvel · 14-08-2015 6:17pm

Daith wrote: »

Does this mean we have to listen to Ronan again in the Seanad?

Yeah, I'm wondering if he, Fidelma, and Jimmy Walsh will try to filibuster it. Not that it'll do them any good whatsoever, but I'll be curious to see if they'll pipe up or if they'll just let it go through.

Annasopra · 14-08-2015 6:22pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yeah, I'm wondering if he, Fidelma, and Jimmy Walsh will try to filibuster it. Not that it'll do them any good whatsoever, but I'll be curious to see if they'll pipe up or if they'll just let it go through.

They'll try to introduce all sorts of conscience clauses into law for registrars and wedding cake suppliers.

L1011 · 14-08-2015 6:28pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yeah, I'm wondering if he, Fidelma, and Jimmy Walsh will try to filibuster it. Not that it'll do them any good whatsoever, but I'll be curious to see if they'll pipe up or if they'll just let it go through.

Don't forget Fergal Quinn. He sold his middle class friendly supermarket before letting most of his customers know it'd have been worth boycotting

Annasopra · 14-08-2015 6:41pm

L1011 wrote: »

Don't forget Fergal Quinn. He sold his middle class friendly supermarket before letting most of his customers know it'd have been worth boycotting

I thought is was well known that he was a Catholic conservative and a Knights of Columbanus member.

SpaceTime · 14-08-2015 6:56pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yeah, I'm wondering if he, Fidelma, and Jimmy Walsh will try to filibuster it. Not that it'll do them any good whatsoever, but I'll be curious to see if they'll pipe up or if they'll just let it go through.

They could try but they'd be unlikely to get very far.
The Seanad doesn't have any ability to actually block legislation, only delay it and the majority of senators are in favour.

Also, I'm sure David Norris could take them on with plenty of back up from several other socially liberal senators.

hotmail.com · 14-08-2015 7:18pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That's democracy - that there are checks and balances and legislation takes time to go through. I agree these cases were ridiculous and vexatious but I think it's completely healthy and a good thing that we have a democracy where such cases can be taken.

Many people would argue that these cases undermine democracy. I cannot see how these cases are healthy for democracy. They are a complete farce.

L1011 · 14-08-2015 7:56pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I thought is was well known that he was a Catholic conservative and a Knights of Columbanus member.

He kept his mouth shut when he had a business, though. Also never obviously let the religion interfere - they sold condoms as soon as they went on general sale for instance. Something a lot of other right wing business people aren't able to do!

SpaceTime · 14-08-2015 11:37pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

Many people would argue that these cases undermine democracy. I cannot see how these cases are healthy for democracy. They are a complete farce.

The delay is definitely looking a bit ridiculous at this stage.

An appeals process should be timely, however anything that goes through the justice system here rarely is!

Peregrinus · 15-08-2015 12:55am

SpaceTime wrote: »

The delay is definitely looking a bit ridiculous at this stage.

An appeals process should be timely, however anything that goes through the justice system here rarely is!

Are you serious? The objections have already been through the High Court, and judgement given, and through the Court of Appeal, and judgment given, and now there remains only 12 days to try and bring a final appeal to the Supreme Court. I don't see how that's anything other than very fast.

On television legal cases get wrapped up within 45 minutes of the underlying events occurring. But you're in the real world now.

SpaceTime · 15-08-2015 1:01am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are you serious? The objections have already been through the High Court, and judgement given, and through the Court of Appeal, and judgment given, and now there remains only 12 days to try and bring a final appeal to the Supreme Court. I don't see how that's anything other than very fast.

On television legal cases get wrapped up within 45 minutes of the underlying events occurring. But you're in the real world now.

I'd consider 85 days and ticking to get an official result on a referendum pretty odd by any standard.

This is serious enough to warrant hearing all the various appeals over a matter of a few days.

We could easily be looking at 180+ days before this is enacted.

In terms of Irish legal process being slow, relatively simple cases that would take a couple of days - a few weeks at most in other jurisdictions are averaging 18+ months here due to bureaucracy and lack of resources.

There has been significant criticism of the way things process in the courts here and time delays etc etc.

Even the Oireachtas holidays are nuts:

14 August 2015 to 22 September 2015

27 weekdays / 39 days including weekends.

They take off from 22 Dec to 14 Jan

amongst other breaks..

It sits about 100 days a year (123 last year but that was due to a few odd issues)

Measured in terms of legislative output, the Irish parliamentary system is one of the least productive in the EU.

Peregrinus · 15-08-2015 9:16am

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'd consider 85 days and ticking to get an official result on a referendum pretty odd by any standard.

Only if you consider it odd that there can be challenges in court to the way a referendum has been conducted. But once you accept that the conduct of a referendum should be open to review in the courts, then "85 days and counting" is a pretty short time.

SpaceTime wrote: »

This is serious enough to warrant hearing all the various appeals over a matter of a few days.

No. This is serious enough to warrant hearing all the appeals properly. Objectors have to be given time to assemble evidence, and then prepare and submit arguments. The state has to be given time to consider the arguments and frame a response. The court has to be given time to consider what it has heard and prepare a judgment. The parties have to be given time to consider the possibility of an appeal. Rinse and repeat.

You can't devise a framework for all this which assumes that any objections to the conduct of the referendum will be bogus and can be dismissed without any serious consideration. The time limits, the processes, etc all have to be devised on the assumpt that there may be a real issue to be addressed.

SpaceTime wrote: »

We could easily be looking at 180+ days before this is enacted.

We're looking at well over two years, but most of this is the executive and the legislature faffing around. The judicial side of this, by constrast, has proceeded with remarkable dispatch.

SpaceTime wrote: »

In terms of Irish legal process being slow, relatively simple cases that would take a couple of days - a few weeks at most in other jurisdictions are averaging 18+ months here due to bureaucracy and lack of resources.

Irish hearings, once they start, generally proceed with more dispatch than in England, and take fewer days to conclude. Other countries' trials are not easily comparable, since they tend to do a lot less in court, and a lot more in the paperwork beforehand. But, yes, there can be long delays in getting a case on for hearing. But there certainly hasn't been in this particular case.

There has been significant criticism of the way things process in the courts here and time delays etc etc.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Even the Oireachtas holidays are nuts:

Maybe, but that's hardly a criticism of the courts. As already pointed out, the argument over whether the cert should be signed before the expiry of the appeal period or not is pointless, since even if the cert is signed immediately the Oireachtas wont's be sitting until long after the appeal period has elapsed.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Measured in terms of legislative output, the Irish parliamentary system is one of the least productive in the EU.

When you consider some of the legislation they put out, that might not be an entirely bad thing!

SpaceTime · 15-08-2015 10:56am

In general though the impression coming across is there's some serious foot dragging going on.

despite their euphoria after the result, FG sat on the referendum date announcement for a very long time which resulted in what was probably one of the longest referendum debates in Irish history.

For some people, that actually caused rather a lot of pain and anguish as the media put the very concept various forms of family on public trial and rolled out all the anti gay commentators to have a good rant with 50% of the airtime handed over

even months before the official campaign the BAI was upholding complaints against RTE because Derek Mooney happened to mention he'd like to get married !!

I really do think this is being dragged out absolutely ridiculously far at this stage.

Some of the content of the appeals was also almost farcical from what I've read anyway.

Ireland is certainly excellent at tying itself in legal and bureaucractic knots, that's for sure!

Annasopra · 15-08-2015 9:49pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

Many people would argue that these cases undermine democracy. I cannot see how these cases are healthy for democracy. They are a complete farce.

No. The fact that the result can be challenged and the cases can be taken is in my opinion very healthy for democracy. The cases themselves are farcical but the fact they can be taken is a very good thing in my opinion. I would prefer to live in a democracy where there are checks and balances allowed rather than a tin pot dictatorship where citizens cannot challenge elections or referenda.

Annasopra · 15-08-2015 9:56pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

In general though the impression coming across is there's some serious foot dragging going on.

I havent got that impression at all.

I think they've acted quite fast when you consider that the Childrens referendum was in November 2012 and couldnt be signed until April 2015 because of court challenges. In comparison these cases are taking much quicker.

hotmail.com · 16-08-2015 4:15pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. The fact that the result can be challenged and the cases can be taken is in my opinion very healthy for democracy. The cases themselves are farcical but the fact they can be taken is a very good thing in my opinion. I would prefer to live in a democracy where there are checks and balances allowed rather than a tin pot dictatorship where citizens cannot challenge elections or referenda.

I don't agree that this particular challenge and hold up is healthy for democracy.

Annasopra · 16-08-2015 8:28pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

I don't agree that this particular challenge and hold up is healthy for democracy.

It is though in the sense that the challenge can happen. Imagine living in a country where an ordinary had no access to the courts to challenge laws of the land and how democracy happens. Imagine if Norris and Zappone and Gilligan and Foy didnt have access to challenge laws. The challenge itself is a farce but I can't agree that we should never allow cases like this to happen. There have been important cases such as McKeena in this area which found that the state can't spend government (taxpayers) money promoting one side of a referendum. It is perfectly healthy that we can allow checks and balances within our democracy.

Yes this is a farce
Yes it is frustratingly causing delays
No we should ban cases like this. Let the courts examine them on a case by case basis.

newacc2015 · 16-08-2015 9:34pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

even months before the official campaign the BAI was upholding complaints against RTE because Derek Mooney happened to mention he'd like to get married !!

The BAI should be abolished with how it handled the marriage referendum. Una Mullally spent years, writing a book on Irish LGBT history. The BAI informed her, if she wanted to discuss it on air, that should would have to have an opposing body. This was before the referendum was called. WTF is up with having an opposing body on a factual history book?

pl4ichjgy17zwd · 16-08-2015 9:59pm

newacc2015 wrote: »

The BAI should be abolished with how it handled the marriage referendum. Una Mullally spent years, writing a book on Irish LGBT history. The BAI informed her, if she wanted to discuss it on air, that should would have to have an opposing body. This was before the referendum was called. WTF is up with having an opposing body on a factual history book?

Wow, I didn't know that. That is really disgraceful.

SpaceTime · 16-08-2015 10:06pm

newacc2015 wrote: »

The BAI should be abolished with how it handled the marriage referendum. Una Mullally spent years, writing a book on Irish LGBT history. The BAI informed her, if she wanted to discuss it on air, that should would have to have an opposing body. This was before the referendum was called. WTF is up with having an opposing body on a factual history book?

If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it censors like a censor.. well, it's probably a board of censorship.

Peregrinus · 17-08-2015 12:23am

SpaceTime wrote: »

If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it censors like a censor.. well, it's probably a board of censorship.

I gotta say, though, that wanting opposing views to be heard is the opposite of censorship, isn't it?

I don't know the ins and outs of the incident - if there was no referendum campaign under way, on what basis and in what context did the BAI require that a contrary view be heard? Maybe there is a case for objecting to this ruling, but anyone criticising it as "censorship" risks looking like a graduate of the Iona Institute school of drama queenery - "If I can't say my piece uncontradicted I'm being censored!"

SpaceTime · 17-08-2015 1:25am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I gotta say, though, that wanting opposing views to be heard is the opposite of censorship, isn't it?

I don't know the ins and outs of the incident - if there was no referendum campaign under way, on what basis and in what context did the BAI require that a contrary view be heard? Maybe there is a case for objecting to this ruling, but anyone criticising it as "censorship" risks looking like a graduate of the Iona Institute school of drama queenery - "If I can't say my piece uncontradicted I'm being censored!"

You can read all about it here:

It related to a broadcast made nearly a year and a half before the referendum 20th Jan 2014.

http://www.bai.ie/?ddownload=53028

It relates to a complaint made on behalf of The Family & Media Association.

The decision provoked a response from the NUJ and various human rights campaigners.

https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/nuj-challenges-mooney-programme-ruling-on-same-sex-marriages/

Broadcasting regulation like this is very unwelcome in a democracy. It's completely over the top.

It's a complaints driven process which is massively interfering with the running of a very normal light entertainment show that was having a fairly casual chat about marriage equality.

Also the only complaint upheld was against one side.

The "censored" no campaigners were given 50% of the airtime and nobody was censured or censored for expressing their opinions. Only the LGBT people were!

Peregrinus · 17-08-2015 1:40am

Is this the right report, Spacetime? There is no mention in what you link of Una Mullally or her book on Irish LGBT history. And it refers to a broadcast made about a month after the referendum had been announced (as in, the Government announced that it would hold a referendum), not before. Finally, the substance of this Decision was not that there should have been guests invited to express opposing views; it was that in the absence of any guests expressing opposing views it was the role of the presenter to put alternative views to the guests he did have, which he did not do. Instead, he expressed his own view on the matter.

SpaceTime · 17-08-2015 1:50am

That ruling set the precedent where by Una's book couldn't be discussed.

Most broadcasters wouldn't touch LGBT issues for 2014 because of that. It had a chilling effect on discussion of gay issues.

The BAI referendum guidelines do not come into force until an official referendum campaign is underway.

They chose to extend them backwards by well over a year.

At that rate nothing could be discussed on air ever basically. Any mater of public debate could be dragged into this.

If you brought on someone to discuss being a Kerry fan, you'd need someone on arguing for the abolition of County Kerry.

If you had a discussion about wearing seatbelt a, you'd need an "expert" on to discuss why it's total nonsense and you should just not bother & sure use your mobile whole you're at it.

The BAI is complaints process is open to being used as a tool by lobbyists to censure broadcasters for saying things they don't like. That's the long and the short of it.

A complaints driven broadcasting complaints process should be dealing with things like graphic violence or things like total lies on air presented as news, lack of standards for fact checking etc etc

This is getting down to tying presenters and producers in knots, taking away all autonomy and basically micromanaging broadcasting to the point it would be unworkable.

If the BAI keeps this up, I'll be lobbying very hard to have it reigned in or abolished.

This is absolutely censorship.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions." (Webster Dictionary)

They considered the expression of an opinion to be politically incorrect, inconvenient and possibly harmful to a hypothetical referendum that hadn't been called. So, they upheld a complaint which causes a major impact on the station and chilled on air discussion on anything to do with LGBT issues.

That is censorship.
You can dress it up whatever way you want, it's still censorship.

Peregrinus · 17-08-2015 2:02am

You're forgetting what I said about drama queens, spacetime. The government hasn't committed to referendums about abolishing County Kerry or the use of seatbelts. These situations are not analogous.

And, for the record, the BAI didn't "extent the referendum guidelines backwards for well over a year". They applied rules 4.21 and 4.22, which apply at all times to the discussion of matters of public controversy and public debate. The significance of the referendum was this; the fact that a referendum had been announced meant that the issue of same-sex marriage was considered to be a matter of public controversy or public debate. Which, to be honest, I don't think is an unreasonable position. Separate codes of conduct exist for the coverage of elections and referenda themselves; they were not applied in this instance.

You may think that discussion about matters about which referenda have been announced are going to be a bit formulaic and dull if alternative views always have to be aired, but that's not "censorship", except in the sense of the word which is current in 23 Merrion Square.

Honestly, you're beginning to look very Iona Insitute-y, and you probably don't want that.

SpaceTime · 17-08-2015 2:07am

Honestly, I never resort to insulting other posters and name calling when I'm losing a debate!

Annasopra · 17-08-2015 10:23am

SpaceTime wrote: »

Honestly, I never resort to insulting other posters and name calling when I'm losing a debate!

If you have a problem with a post then report it.

SpaceTime · 17-08-2015 10:26am

Oh forget it!

I'm wasting too many hours on boards anyway.

Closing account.

hotmail.com · 17-08-2015 6:39pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is though in the sense that the challenge can happen. Imagine living in a country where an ordinary had no access to the courts to challenge laws of the land and how democracy happens. Imagine if Norris and Zappone and Gilligan and Foy didnt have access to challenge laws. The challenge itself is a farce but I can't agree that we should never allow cases like this to happen. There have been important cases such as McKeena in this area which found that the state can't spend government (taxpayers) money promoting one side of a referendum. It is perfectly healthy that we can allow checks and balances within our democracy.

Yes this is a farce
Yes it is frustratingly causing delays
No we should ban cases like this. Let the courts examine them on a case by case basis.

I have a different opinion to you. Let's leave it at that please.

Daith · 24-08-2015 1:19pm

Does anyone know if the 28 days from the Court of Appeal includes weekends? or just "working" days.

NuMarvel · 24-08-2015 1:29pm

Daith wrote: »

Does anyone know if the 28 days from the Court of Appeal includes weekends? or just "working" days.

My reading is that it's calendar days, i.e. including weekends, bank holidays etc. If it only applied to particular days, then I think it would say so (eg, the legislation on voting registration says you have X amount of days to apply for inclusion on the Voting Register Supplement, not including Sundays or Bank Holidays).

So, by my reckoning, the Returning Officer will be free and clear to finalise the Provisional Result on Friday morning.

Annasopra · 25-08-2015 10:06pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

My reading is that it's calendar days, i.e. including weekends, bank holidays etc. If it only applied to particular days, then I think it would say so (eg, the legislation on voting registration says you have X amount of days to apply for inclusion on the Voting Register Supplement, not including Sundays or Bank Holidays).

So, by my reckoning, the Returning Officer will be free and clear to finalise the Provisional Result on Friday morning.

There's still a possibility of Messrs Walshe and Lyons actually appealing to the Supreme Court.

NuMarvel · 25-08-2015 11:04pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There's still a possibility of Messrs Walshe and Lyons actually appealing to the Supreme Court.

Fair point. I think such an appeal is unlikely to happen, but it's definitely true to say that it's a possibility.

Daith · 26-08-2015 7:26am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There's still a possibility of Messrs Walshe and Lyons actually appealing to the Supreme Court.

Yes but it needs to be done by Thursday at the latest right?

Annasopra · 26-08-2015 5:21pm

Daith wrote: »

Yes but it needs to be done by Thursday at the latest right?

I think so. I'm advised yes by a friend in the know. I think that means the returning officer can sign on Friday and possibly the President too.

Daith · 27-08-2015 3:22pm

Seemingly they have both lodged appeals

pl4ichjgy17zwd · 27-08-2015 3:33pm

Daith wrote: »

Seemingly they have both lodged appeals

How surprising they dragged it out to the last possible second :rolleyes:

elekid · 27-08-2015 3:56pm

Daith wrote: »

Seemingly they have both lodged appeals

Do you have a source for this?

If it's true, I wonder if these appeals can be refused or is there definitely going to be another delay on this now?

Daith · 27-08-2015 4:09pm

elekid wrote: »

Do you have a source for this?

If it's true, I wonder if these appeals can be refused or is there definitely going to be another delay on this now?

According to a poster on Gaire. The Sup Court can refuse to hear them though.

Annasopra · 27-08-2015 5:08pm

NuMarvel wrote: »

Fair point. I think such an appeal is unlikely to happen, but it's definitely true to say that it's a possibility.

I've heard informally from a friend that both lodged appeals

Amendment court challenge

Comments