AIBU to be shocked by the Irish referendum?

[Yetmorebeanstocount]

I'm not from the Irish Republic. I just read what the ballot was about. I am shocked at what their constitution contained:

Article 41.2.1° “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”
Article 41.2.2° “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

I'm even more shocked that early results suggest the Irish have voted to KEEP this dire crap in their constitution.

Am I missing something?

Too kind by far!

They fucked it by thinking that the more recent referendums on gay marriage and abortion meant that they just needed to tell people that these were more Liberal and progressive amendments.

They rushed out, didn't workshop the proposed amendments and ended up with such terribly drafted proposed amendments that even people like myself who support the general proposals that relationships other than traditional marriage should be recognised in the constitution and that the reference to women in the home should be removed, couldn't even hold our noses and vote yes for the vague shite they offered up

AMEN TO THIS!!!

Unlike the bollix that is Brexit, the govt. will go back to the drawing board, re-word the amendments and put it back to the electorate until it's more clearly defined and approved.

I'm from NI as I think op is? From what I can understand these referenda seemed to be virtue signalling nonsense from Varadkar and other progressive leadership in ROI. The "durable relationship" language was SO vague and the proposed deletion of the carers clause was not for the benefit of women at all. I'm pleased for Ireland and us as their neighbours that the outcome was no-no. The Irish government seem extremely out of touch.

Oh and YABU

Shocked that Irish women, given a choice, have chosen to retain a recognition and a right in our constitution? It would have been good to see it extended to men but we were not given that option. Not good if it had been taken out altogether, leaving us not at human beings in a web of social and familial commitments, but as financial production units.

btw, that politician who drafted the text had been the child of a single mother who could not look after him, so that he ended up being raised by his grandmother. He romanticised 'home' a bit, but also pushed huge-scale social housing provision when he was in power.

Exactly. I voted No, No. I would have voted Yes, Yes if it was a simple deletion of the women in the home wording and if the wording was something like "legally recognised" or "legally sanctioned" rather than durable relationship. Even something like "durable relationship as defined by legislation" would have given me a chance to vote yes.

The Irish electorate tends to be quite politically savvy. We tend to spend time considering the implications of our vote. If you can't predict the outcome of a vote for change, it is sensible to vote for the status quo until you get presented with a clearer choice.

ps. Varadkar is not 'progressive'. He made it very clear earlier in the week just how extremely right wing he is, believing the state should have no responsibility to provide housing or education for citizens. If anyone doubted why he wanted to make sure the state did not have a clearly stated commitment to care for those who need care, that shone the light on it.

We know exactly what we were doing with no/no.

Unlike the english with brexit.
Maybe the english should take a leaf out of our book?
V pleased with the result.

Yep that was utterly horrifying.

YABVVVU

You do NOT understand what was at stake.
There was a lot more nuance that you've bothered to realise.

For one thing a vote to change this language was also a vote AGAINST supporting disabled people and their carers.

Would you vote yes to that @Yetmorebeanstocount?

Exactly - I find it funny that people assume just because he is gay that he must be a liberal. He's not. He was very much against abortion until he realised the electorate were overwhelmingly for it.

I said it on another thread, but in his brief time working in a maternity hospital, he was workshy and still remembered badly by the midwives. He is out for no 1, no more, no less. And he's not even attempting to hide it anymore.

Yetmorebeanstocount

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are. I voted No/No because what they were offering up was no better, and very likely worse.

I was more shocked they asked the question at all rather than the answer.

Yabu , worry about the state of your own country !

Haha oh yes, what a fine job they'd do!

YABU to assume you know and fully understand the issues. As PP have pointed out, it's a lot more nuanced than what you've said.

Yes exactly, I think people were annoyed that time and money was wasted on something so badly worded and rushed.
They guillotined these proposals through the Oireachtas, failed to have a pre legislative debate around the wording and ignored the advice of the Attorney General.
They then just assumed the electorate would just do what we were told. Such arrogance.

What exactly were you shocked at in terms of them asking the question? Do you actually know what the question was?

There is a thread about this on Craicnet. Entitled Referendum. Perhaps you could give it a look and find that you are indeed ' missing something '. In fact practically everything. We voted against this rubbish for a host of good reasons. Chiefly the removal of the word Mother and the threat to carers allowance implied by the amendments. If you've been following any of the arguments in Feminism : Women's Rights that should be a help.

The wording of the proposed new Constitutional text was unclear. Even the Government conceded that the interpretation of durable relationships would be down to the courts. Personally, I don't think the Constitution should contain language that requires judicial interpretation as that means the courts might determine that the provision means something that not even the Government envisaged. If that happened, it's too late as it would be in the Constitution and only a referendum could change it. Also, the Government made poor decisions, such as ignoring the Citizens Assembly recommendations and not allowing time for the proposed text to be discussed in the Dáil. The issues the people had when voting would have been highlighted prior to the text been finalised if they'd allowed more debate before settling on the final text.

The outcome of this referendum is not because people necessarily want to keep the original text. It's because the proposed text was not the right text to replace it with. It could have ended up causing more problems than the original text. At least now, the Government, or future Governments, have the chance to think more carefully about the correct words to replace the text with.

Imo, Leo and co. know that they are facing a difficult European election this summer, with a General Election not that far off. I think they assumed everyone would vote yes/yes to the referenda so that they could go into the European election on a positive note.

As an aside, I don't think it's necessary for people to insult the Irish for their Constitutional provisions or for the outcome of this referendum, particularly if you don't fully understand the reasons for both. Today's result shows that the Irish will not allow politicians to dictate what they should do without understanding what it means. It also shows that the Irish take their Constitution seriously and are not willing to vote for something that might make things worse. We accept that the original text is not great. However, we will not compromise our Constitution by voting for something that is worse just because politicians and NGOs tell us we should.

They could get some practice in for when they write one of their own. 😂

I'm in NI so obviously didn't have a vote and didn't follow it too closely, but the briefest of reading showed the amendment was poorly worded and wouldn't necessarily achieve its aims.

Ireland uses referenda far more often than the UK, including on some very technical points - more technical than this, or the well-known marriage and reproductive rights referenda. The electorate is used to thinking about the nuance involved and not shy in telling the government of the day to go back and try again.

Part of me likes that the constitution acknowledges the work of women in the home. It's work that usually feels unseen. It probably should be updated to include men but we know that sadly it is still women doing the majority across a country as a whole.