If people don’t understand it then they shouldn’t tick no for the sake of it. I spoiled my vote for the other referendum because I felt I didn’t know enough to make an informed choice.

Elizabeth. If you’re not sure you should vote no. That means there’s no change and that is better than just a spoil. The gov don’t get any message from a spoil – they don’t care

Don’t u mean , why would u spoil your vote instead of voting yes.

@Elizabeth – I’m surprised to hear that you spoiled your vote and admit to doing so publicly. If you did not have enough information to make a decison, you should have voted NO. This means that there is no change to the status quo. The same applied to all constitutional referenda.

A vote is a valuable thing and there is an obligation upon you to know how to vote and what you are voting for. Spoiling a vote should never be an acceptable option as it says nothing and means that you have no voice. Better off to stay at home!

Theirs can already be reduced without needing a referendum.

You’re the one that’s going to suffer the most out of this you idiot.

How dare you speak to Eire like that! Where’s your patriotism? Seriously though, what are both of ye on about?

How many bankers have been brought before them?

Seriously? I somehow can’t see a 10-13% pay cut being imposed on the judges causing them to turn to dark side. Scaremongering!

Isn’t that like saying if we cut nurses pay, the will let us die (wait that didnt matter) and if we cut teachers pay, they wont teach our children (sure who cares about our children) everyone in the public sector has been cut and why should the jugdges be regarded as anything different than a public servant.

@John. Are you saying that the judges lack integrity? :)

That seems like a solid analysis to me there Cormac, you might also want to include those who value the independence of the judiciary. I mean, it’s not like the separation of powers is the foundation of any constitutional democracy or anything…

How about the 20% is made up of voters who understood the implications of a ‘yes’ result in this referendum. For starters the whole thing was so vague from start to finish. There wasn’t one informed voter in the whole country on this issue.

I voted no to it. Don’t think people truly know the implications of this.

And probably those who understand that this is totally unnecessary and a total waste of tax payers money because the number of judges who fit into the category that will be affected is not worth it and as time goes by and these judges retire it will be non-existent.

Count those of us who do not want to see politicians holding any influence over the judiciary. Sorry to burst your little bubble of moral outrage there.

Add ‘critical thinkers’ and you have the complete list.

I voted no, because I take the constitution seriously and I believe it should be unambiguous. I had no problem with reducing judges pay, but why couldn’t they word this section clearly? What in the world are ‘classes of people’? That can be interpreted to mean anything anyone wants. Crazy stuff. It needed to be rewritten.

It will be fine in the short term, let’s hope this change doesn’t bite us in the bum years down the line.

I voted no.
I’m neither a member of any law profession, nor am I a serial No voter.

If you don’t understand, or didn’t bother to look at any of the no arguments, you made an informed choice. Didn’t you?

Otherwise, you would know that the No arguments were valid and wouldn’t be making sweeping statements on this site.

The amendment still allows for the independence of the judiciary. Read the wording. If the government tried to reduce judges’ pay to “keep them in line” there’s now way it would be found to be constitutional after a challenge.

FWIW I do value the independence of the judiciary. I voted No in the other referendum because the amendment is far too open-ended. The one on judges’ pay is pretty much watertight.

Eight former Attorney Generals, a former Chief Justice and a sizable number of legal academics beg to differ. Maybe we should’ve trusted the experts on this one.

This is a constitution that says a womans placce is in the home and that people cannot have an abortion even if their life depends on it.

Or those of us who believe in the separation of powers. There was a reason the constitution was written the way it was.

Cormac – add to the 20% people who may not understand the implications of the changes and were thus unhappy to vote yes.

Ugh, I’m actually losing faith in humanity on this site…

How do you know that judges are going to be paid that in future
( E208,000 Net ) ???

@Lou Brennan

You’re missing the point. The judges’ pay itself is not the issue, the issue is WHO decides the judges pay – and one thing’s for certain it should NOT be the Oireachtas. The two are supposed to be independent from each other for a normal constitutional democracy to function.

So if you’re heart isn’t broken for the judges (vast majority of whom already took a voluntary pay cut), maybe your heart might go out to those who are involved in cases against the state, 50% of all cases heard in this jurisdiction apparently, in front of a judiciary whose impartiality has been severely compromised by this election. The ordinary citizen is the real loser here, not the five judges who didn’t take their pay cut voluntarily. I hope you realise that.

But that’s the point: if those 5 judges took the voluntary pay cut this would have never happened. They left the whole profession wide open and have paid the price. Nobody to blame but them IMO.

The referendum is outdated with regards to the Catholic teaching????? What on earth does that mean. You shouldn’t be saying what you (thought) you heard someone else saying until you know what you’re talking about.

Absolutely right. People were hoodwinked because the Government knows which buttons to press.

Yes indeed but what do you do with an electorate who won’t inform themselves and vote on their emotions rather than on policy or facts?