Mike
What political Party do you support?

@ Gary.
I have voted ff in the past but seeing the way the country went and the “you voted wrong so do it again” debacle I opted for fg and lab believing their election promises.
Now at this stage I am seriously thinking of putting my vote to a rank outsider rather than wasting my vote.
I do however think there should be a “none of the above” option.
Does that answer your question.

Can’t see any court overturning something the people have spoken on. Even if was only a third of the electorate.

Nah man, that suggests that following the ruling a rake of people (over 170,000), who had relied on the government leaflet/website, decided to seek out alternative info which differed so markedly from their previous understanding that they swapped sides. That’s just not plausible. If anything the ruling might have voted no after the ruling because they felt like the government should be punished

In their hatred of a democratically-elected government some people on Journal.ie would see the very heaven’s fall.

@Desmond to repeat the government misused public funds.They are entitled to use their own funds to promote their arguments.The supreme court said they were wrong or do you as a member of Labour believe the supreme court is wrong and the government is right?

Don’t you understand Brian that the supreme court said the government lied, was biased towards the yes side and didn’t give appropriate funding to the no side. How can you say the result should stand when false information was given out meaning people voted on something without any idea what it actually meant

And the no side didn’t lie about anything.
Sure most of their arguments were complete fabrications.

Well the Supreme Court didn’t find anything wrong with the no side. The information leaflets sent out to every household was found by the Supreme Court to be totally biased towards the yes side. If you can’t comprehend what that means you are an …… nah I won’t get my comment deleted this time

Typo * that its *

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

@Sean

Godwin’s Law so soon?

You must be worried Bryan .

@Teryona.
You may know that godwins law describes the inevitable and inappropriate referencing, or comparison of a contrary view, during an online discussion, with those of Hitler or the nazis.

To qualify a rhetorical fallacy must have occurred. Evoking godwin law, in itself, does not make referencing the nazis a rhetorical fallacy.
I contend that Bryan was guilty of a rhetorical fallacy-argumentum ad passiones- by asserting that the governments legal transgression was appropriate as they intended to protect defenseless children. A clear rhetorical fallacy.
My Hitler reference was intended to illustrate the clear abandonment of logic in his statement.
So I contend the reference was appropriate and therefore not described by godwin law.

Sean,
Your reference to the Nazis wasn’t inappropriate at all, I believe “The Best Interests of the Child” principle was first used by the Nazis. We, as a democratic republic, (!?!) have voted to have this undefined principle inserted in our Constitution.

@Sean

“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” – Mike Godwin.

Godwin’s Law does not dispute the validity of the comment, as sometimes it is relevant to the discussion. It simply states that the overuse of references to Hitler and Nazis should be avoided as it usually leads to the end of the discussion. Traditionally, the person who made the original reference to Hitler/Nazis is deemed to have lost the discussion/debate.

Spoken like a true democrat

Children were always at the heart of the constitution. They have the same rights as adults. Its the incompetence of the government and support services that have continually failed our children. This change to the referendum will have absolutely no effect unless the system changes.

@Declan if Labour along with FG had allowed the Ref Commission do their job this would not have happened.Instead using public money they promoted a “yes” and the supreme court said they were wrong.

Simon if I could like ur comment a million times I would. The referendum was a smoke screen so Edna could hide behind it without ever having to get tuff on child rapists. All he had to do was bring in laws to support what was already in the constitution but no, instead he makes a balls of his own smoke screen.

All for the rights of children but the government has made for a lousy parent over the years. Look at all the children who’ve escaped from state care and who take drugs and commit crimes while in care. I can’t see how that is better for them. What about the children in recent years that have died when they were supposed to be in care? If the state had sorted out its act and guaranteed a brighter future for children in bad families then there would be no issue. Kicking the can down the road, just like they’ve done with everything else.

@Garry try reading what i wrote and not what you think i wrote.Thanks.Never mentioned an injuction just misuse of public funds in the hoping of advancing their argument.They could have used their own funds with no threat of legal action.

The Supreme Court were not asked to stop the referendum Garry. They were asked if the Government was misusing public funds by funding a one sided information campaign and the SC agreed with that argument. I take it if the 2 people taking this action succeed (doubtful I think) then the 2 parties in government will refund the tax payer €1.1 million from their own party coffers (cost of their ill advised information campaign) and pay for the costs from the first challenge re misuse of public funds and this latest challenge?