• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Will the Referendum result be Challenged??


Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
10,092
In light of the Supreme Court decision last week and the apparent apathy of the electorate towards the referendum do you think the result will be challenged?? Kenny stated last week that he could not cancel the referendum because it would trigger a GE so now it can be effectively challenged without an election threat.
 

Levellers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
14,113
It will be but won't get very far.

Whilst I think the referendum was contaminated it does not make sense to run it again. I think the Cabinet should be made to pay the cost of printing the biased booklet.

And unlike FF, FG and Lab I accept the vote of the people – I don’t expect to keep running it until I get the result I want.
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,583
They have 7 days to mount a challenge, after which it stands. There is precedent in the Hanafin challenge to divorce but that failed as it could not establish that the result had been materially affected. That result was far tighter and so one must conclude that a challenge here is remote and even if it does come, will fail.
 

fuque

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
4,512
get over it already....
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,294
I hope it's challenged, if only to remove some resources from the fruitcakes for the next time they take over the airwaves thanks to the Coughlan Judgement.
A fruitcake being anyone with the audacity to disagree with the political and social consensus ?
how dare they ?
And yet i bet you belive yourself to have liberal views ....hilarious
 

Shqiptar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
6,309
If it is challenged, it's only fair that the judges will also take into account the effects of crazy distortions from the no side.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,364
This has to be challenged.

Becuase the information, not advertising supplied by the Government was, according to the Supreme Court, neither accurate nor fair. This is different to the Divorce Referendum.

All you're looking for is a switch in 8% of the vote and you have a majority NO vote.

If the basic information supplied by the Government was illegally supplied to the public then why not sell goods that were stolen (in good faith) and expect to get away with it.
 
Last edited:

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,345
It may well be challenged but as has been pointed out, the chances of success are almost nil.

In Hanafin, the SC ruled that it could not be proven that the breach of conduct had materially altered the result. This was despite the fact that (a) the result was the closest in the nation’s history and (b)the complained of conduct had been much more widespread than in this case.

But what’s more, the SC made the point that what is relevant is not just that the result is very close, but that the secret nature of the ballot means that material impact cannot be proven. Why? Because, even if the referendum was passed by only 10,000 votes, how do you prove that at least 10,001 voters voted yes because of the breach of conduct, but would otherwise have voted no.

Do you get 10,001 registered voters to sign a petition to that effect? How does the Court know they voted yes? How do they prove that they would otherwise have voted no? It becomes impossible to prove, even in the case of very tight results. Much moreso with very large margins voting to pass the referendum.

There is, quite simply, no way to prove the test that the SC requires for the setting aside of a referendum result. And rightly so. What happened on Saturday was the democratic will of those who voted. There is no evidence whatsoever that if only the Government hadn’t published the booklet, that the referendum would have been defeated. In fact, all the evidence we have is that booklet or no booklet, this referendum would have been passed. As such, it would be wrong for the SC to set aside that decision of the people simply as a punitive measure against the Government.
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
10,092
Some legal reasons that would be considered in any challenge.

Barrister Paul Anthony McDermott told TheJournal.ie that if a challenge to the result of that referendum could potentially come from a number of aspects.

If the vote had been carried by 70 or 80 per cent, it would make it difficult to suggest the unlawful publications had affected the outcome of the referendum.


But if the challengers felt that the initial opinion polls got it “so wrong to suggest people were very undecided and right up to walking into the booth hadn’t made up their mind”, the challengers could attempt to say the unlawful publication did have a disproportionate affect.


There was a day and a half’s gap between the material being removed from the website and people voting. McDermott noted that the booklets also included in the Supreme Court challenge hadn’t been removed from homes, nor an order given for people to destroy them. McDermott pointed out that in the Hanafin case, it was proved that the unlawful publicity ceased a week before and so people had time to make up their own minds.
Referendum result ‘could be challenged’ · TheJournal.ie
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,718
They have 7 days to mount a challenge, after which it stands. There is precedent in the Hanafin challenge to divorce but that failed as it could not establish that the result had been materially affected. That result was far tighter and so one must conclude that a challenge here is remote and even if it does come, will fail.
In the Hanafin case the SC found that the govt. propaganda campaign, costing a small fortune, had no effect on the outcome - none! With that kind of logic, a challenge probably isn't going to get anywhere.

The only angle I could see having some success is if a voter from the islands or a postal voter claimed he voted on the basis of the govt. information.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,345
In the Hanafin case the SC found that the govt. propaganda campaign, costing a small fortune, had no effect on the outcome - none! With that kind of logic, a challenge probably isn't going to get anywhere.

The only angle I could see having some success is if a voter from the islands or a postal voter claimed he voted on the basis of the govt. information.
In which case the SC may well say that he has some cause of action against the Government but that overturning the referendum result si not an appropriate remedy.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
64,439
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
A fruitcake being anyone with the audacity to disagree with the political and social consensus ?
how dare they ?
And yet i bet you belive yourself to have liberal views ....hilarious
That's not the definition I'd make. I'm not talking about the no voters, I'm talking about the attention-seeking fruitcakes leading the charge against a no-brainer with arguments that amounted to little more than paranoid nonsense.

Kathy Sinnott and John Waters spring to mind.

chuckle (not)
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,718
In which case the SC may well say that he has some cause of action against the Government but that overturning the referendum result si not an appropriate remedy.
In that case it will come down to the level of respect the SC affords the individual vote. If one vote is unimportant, then we're not in democratic territory.

btw, I wonder what would happen if citizens decided to sue the govt. for infringing their constitutional rights? It may be the only avenue towards establishing a degree of accountability.
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
10,092
In which case the SC may well say that he has some cause of action against the Government but that overturning the referendum result si not an appropriate remedy.
So the government violated the constitution (law) to pass this referendum and the appropriate action would be to let the result stand?? Interesting..
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,345
In that case it will come down to the level of respect the SC affords the individual vote. If one vote is unimportant, then we're not in democratic territory.

btw, I wonder what would happen if citizens decided to sue the govt. for infringing their constitutional rights? It may be the only avenue towards establishing a degree of accountability.

Overturning the decision based on one vote would be wholly undemocratic. Even then, how does random person from the islands prove that he voted No, and how does he prove that the booklet was instrumental in his decision to do so? He can't.

Which is also why a civil action for damages would, I believe, fail.

But it's not correct to say that the SC refusing to overturn the decision based on one vote is undemocratic. On the contrary, if a very clear majority voted for an outcome, it would be undemocratic to ignore that decision because of one person.
 
Top