Government considering another go at Oireachtas Inquiry Referendum: Examiner

[gijoe]

Well we do have a record of doing what we are told the 2nd time round having been appropriately chastised. The government are considering having another go with a revised wording. They could run it with the Seanad Referendum I suppose.
Government to revisit failed referendum on inquiries | Irish Examiner

[farnaby]

Not much wrong with a rerun this time. If they rebalance the wording of the 4th subclause to address civil liberties fears then a majority would probably support it.

Not the same thing as rerunning with the same content in a different context. Sure that would never work...

[johnfás]

Which is fine, as all of us who called for a no vote previously stated, we're quite happy to vote yes if you give us an appropriate wording.

[RobertW]

Voting 'no' to this referendum was an act of stupidity.

There are many who have a vested interest in the Dáil having little investigative powers and who would be more than delighted with, say, a new tribunal set up with all the nice expenses that would involve.

It seems the Irish are prepared to say "No" on anything . . just to "show da gubberment what I thinkada cuts"

[Toland]

Well we do have a record of doing what we are told the 2nd time round having been appropriately chastised. The government are considering having another go with a revised wording. They could run it with the Seanad Referendum I suppose.
Government to revisit failed referendum on inquiries | Irish Examiner

What part of "revised wording" do you not understand?

[Rocky]

Supposedly the groups who opposed it just disagreed with the wording, rather than the idea, so it does makes sense. It'd be very interesting to see the reaction of the legal profession and the Civil Liberties group to a different wording though.

[cricket]

I voted no the last time because of what I saw as inadequate precautions against abuse of procedure. If these concerns were addressed , I think I'd vote yes because the principle involved is a good one. However, I think the government would be mad to have another go. It would simply be turned into a referendum on cuts in all sorts of areas. It would be far more important to make sure that the childrens's referendum is passed.

[RobertW]

I think I'd vote yes because the principle involved is a good one. However, I think the government would be mad to have another go.

Bertie, Seanie Fitz, David Drumm, Cowen, Willie McAteer, Neary and "co-workers" would be in agreement totally with you there.

[johnfás]

Supposedly the groups who opposed it just disagreed with the wording, rather than the idea, so it does makes sense. It'd be very interesting to see the reaction of the legal profession and the Civil Liberties group to a different wording though.

Why would they disagree? I understand that many here (not your good self Rocky!) like to concoct ulterior motives, brewed in dark rooms behind closed doors, for almost all situations. However, there is no real reason why the professions and civil liberties groups would oppose an appropriate wording. The reality is the Tribunals are gone and not coming back, everybody knows this. A further reality is that nobody in their right mind will go before one of these hearings without legal advice so it doesn't put anybody out of a job in any case.

[Rocky]

Why would they disagree? I understand that many here (not your good self Rocky!) like to concoct ulterior motives, brewed in dark rooms behind closed doors, for almost all situations. However, there is no real reason why the professions and civil liberties groups would oppose an appropriate wording. The reality is the Tribunals are gone and not coming back, everybody knows this. A further reality is that nobody in their right mind will go before one of these hearings without legal advice so it doesn't put anybody out of a job in any case.

I don't know and it would be impossible to know without seeing the wording, but I would have a level of cynicism. More so with the Civil Liberties group than the Attorneys Generals to be fair. It could turn out to be risky strategy for the government as well, as the next wording may also have flaws in it and it may actually transpire that it is impossible to have a wording that doesn't. I think it would be worthwhile to look at it though and maybe even for the AG to sit down and discuss the matter with a wider group of people.