A news item involving Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 October 2009.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 2, 2010 and October 2, 2012.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wouldn't this be a "twenty-eighth" amendment, too, as the previous attempt at a twenty-eighth amendment didn't pass? —Nightstallion 19:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right. For example, there is Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 1958 and Third Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 1968. Snappy (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the numbering refers to the bills not the changes, so every new bill has a new number see Amendments to the Constitution of Ireland#List of failed amendments Bogger (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I have misunderstood, my understanding is that that only applies when they are put to the people simultaneously (i.e. the succeeding numbers are passed, and so their names are set in stone). Though I stand to be corrected. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 23:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill as introduced is the 28th, not the 29th. (I am in Leinster House right now and have the bill before me.) 213.94.210.30 (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these small samples being used to suggest public opinion has changed. This is a biased article and I dispute the facts presented. The samples are too small to draw any conclusions. A ridiculous article and I would like to see fantasy seperated from fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.233.75 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the latest opinion poll which shows a slip in the yes support...but as the above comment points out they are small samples. I had to get a reference for the sample size of this poll as mainstream Irish news didn't give this info...

"The mainstream Irish news didn't give this info". Try front page of todays Irish Times! [1]. Try harder! Snappy (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed this to Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD group in the European Parliament), Nigel Farage made it quite clear he was there on behalf of the EFD group, the leaflet that they sent out to homes in Ireland was also from EFD, not UKIP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.137.44 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pie chart says

• For = 67.13%
• Against = 32.87%
• Spoilt = 0.40%

The total is over 100! (100.40%) The problem is that the 'spoilt' percentage is percentage of all casted votes, whereas 'For' and 'Against' are percentage of the total votes taken account (casted minus spoilt). So it doesn't really make much sense. I would suggest simply removing the spoilt percentage.

laug (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have solved you problem. 212.2.173.243 (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'Reaction' section of this article more weight is placed on the No side reaction than on the Yes side reaction. However the Yes side won the elecion by a margin of over 2:1. It was represented by more groups than discussed in the article. Surely reaction from the civic groups should be included. The reactions of trade unions such as SIPTU, ICTI, IBEC and the IFA, the community groups, and some of the leading economists' reactions should be included. As seen as the more controversial parties such as UKIP are included on the No side perhaps Ryanair and Michael O'Leary should be included on the Yes side. I tried editing the article by adding quotes from the IFA and IBEC that stated their respective reactions to beef up the Yes side reactions from the Irish Times but I don't know how to make references. Perhaps someone would be as kind to inform me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdave84 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says passing the amendment 'enables' ratification of the treaty of Lisbon. This implies the action is not yet taken, but is now possible. Is that right, or has the amendment, in fact, ratified the Treay, and the word 'enable' is the wrong one? 173.13.153.50 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is correct. In fact the amendment has yet to come into force as the President has yet to sign. The earliest she can do this is tomorrow week. After that there a parliamentary procedure to go through. Once this is done, actual ratification will take place in Rome when the Irish ambassador lodges the ratification instrument with the Italian foreign ministry. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page eight of today's Irish Times explains that the official electorate figures are out of date and does not take two supplementary registers into account. Under the paper's figures the total electorate is 1,816,098 making the turnout 58%. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is REALLY annoying. I first put in most of the figures using the IT as a source. Then I noticed that they differed from the official result at referendum.ie, so I changed the results table to use the official figures. Now it seems that the IT is correct and that the official figures are wrong! I give up! The official electorate is given as 3,078,032, while the IT says it is 3,132,475. (BHL, the figure of 1,816,098 which you mention is the total valid poll which both agree on. Snappy (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be moved to Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. I don't see why there should be 2 separate articles, one for the Act (including Referendum campaign) and one for the Amendment. They should be merged to be like Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, with 1 article for the background, bill, referendum campaign, result and amendment. Snappy (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a totally pedantic point so I don't know why I'm bothering with it, but I think the most elegant and commonly used phrasing is ""the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union" (if referring to the EU as part of the overall name). I'm obviously not the only one who thinks this, because compare these Google results:

• "Lisbon Treaty of the European Union" (615,000 results)
• "Treaty of Lisbon of the European Union" (715 results)

The difference is pretty startling.

But by all means lets call it the Treaty of Lisbon when we're not including the "of the European Union" bit. -Iota (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your inclusion of - "of the European Union" has skewed the ghits, more accurately it is:

• Treaty of Lisbon - 3,280,000
• Lisbon Treaty - 3,310,000

So Lisbon Treaty gets slightly more, but its roughly the same. The reason I changed it was so that the first reference to it would be the official name, but its fine like it is now. Snappy (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Apologies again for being such a pedant. Iota (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EXTLINK.

I've removed general Lisbon Treaty websites, which are only relevant to Treaty of Lisbon, not this article.

I've removed all the political party and campaign group websites. Most had linkrotted away, and the random selection that remains would give an unbalanced view of what once was. It might be work checking the Wayback Machine to see if any of the sites was comprehensively archived as at October 2009; but I'm not optimistic enough to put in the effort myself. jnestorius^(talk) 11:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political party campaigns

• No 2 Lisbon Sinn Féin
• Lisbon Treaty – Socialist Party
• Lisbon – A Treaty Too Far – Workers' Party

Other group campaigns

• Case for a No vote – Cóir
• No to Lisbon – éirígí
• Women for Europe

Meaning either the website or the relevant page is gone altogether has been updated (e.g. to focus on the 2012 Treaty) and is no longer relevant to this particular article.

Political party campaigns

• Stronger with Europe – Fianna Fáil
• Yes to Europe – Fine Gael
• Labour for Europe – Labour Party
• The Lisbon Treaty – Green Party
• No to Lisbon – People Before Profit Alliance
• Lisbon Treaty – Libertas Ireland

Groups

• Better Than Lisbon
• Business for Europe
• Campaign Against the EU Constitution
• Charter Group
• Generation YES
• Lisbon Treaty – Institute of International and European Affairs
• Ireland for Europe
• No to Lisbon 2 website
• PANA – Peace and Neutrality Alliance
• Peoples' Movement
• VoteNo.ie
• We Belong
• Vote No – Workers Solidarity Movement

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091004235315/http://www.referendum.ie:80/referendum/current/index.asp?ballotid=79 to http://www.referendum.ie/referendum/current/index.asp?ballotid=79
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.france24.com/en/20090130-crisis-poll-ireland-favour-lisbon-treaty-europe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005155154/http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1003/eulisbon1.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1003/eulisbon1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608013353/http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1243801021.73 to http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1243801021.73/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527040621/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/33498/lisbon_treaty_could_pass_in_new_irish_vote to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/33498/lisbon_treaty_could_pass_in_new_irish_vote
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426235401/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/33312/lisbon_treaty_would_pass_in_ireland to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/33312/lisbon_treaty_would_pass_in_ireland
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090323014511/http://eubusiness.com/news-eu/1233489721.75 to http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1233489721.75
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126111958/http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/index.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729014425/http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index5066.html?locID=442&docID=-1 to http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index5066.html?locID=442&docID=-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]