Referendum!

[springbrigid]

Anyone inclined to give an opinion? I am leaning towards a yes/no vote, the yes to remove what I see as sexist language in the constitution, the no because the government are so appalling in terms of providing services and rights to disabled citizens and I feel the clause is paternalistic and pushes care on families yet again

I think, perhaps, if you consider yourself to be liberal and progressive, then there must be some level of discomfort when you see people with disabilities on the opposite side.
I think there must be several other politicans in the predicament but are afraid to challenge the status quo.
I just wish that Ruth, and several other politicians could also have the same self reflection on other issues,without using labels to silence people.

The Lisbon Treaty Referendum.

Or colloquially, the Neverendum.

I agree that there’s now much more discomfort, but also politicians feel compelled to follow the party whip or are just not really listening.

Pre-legislative scrutiny usually involves representatives of those most affected by a referendum as well as legal analysts. That step was skipped with this which might be why it’s so messy.

I wouldn’t be using their change of mind as a stick to beat them with but it does show there needs to be more careful consideration of a number of perspectives w legislation/constitutional change and that clearly didn’t happen in this case.

Pre-legislative scrutiny usually involves representatives of those most affected by a referendum as well as legal analysts. That step was skipped with this which might be why it’s so messy.

I wonder if there is more information about why this step was skipped, and what justification they gave? It's not like they were under a deadline to run the referendum.

@MagnificentHats

I feel the government are worried about the Supreme Court hearing due shortly enough.

www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2023/11/16/supreme-court-to-hear-mothers-appeal-over-means-testing-of-carers-allowance/

It is hearing the appeal in part due to article 41.2.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerSP/status/1764940423892484229?t=uouwikDKlpPDWLGatWrKOQ&s=19
Well, Ruth is back to the name calling 😂.

Her twitter account has some awful rambling shite....

I would agree with you. I can't think of any reason that the Referendum date couldn't be set until after this hearing. If they were trying to preempt the ruling, then it was a very cynical move by the parties involved.

Well Leo is very clear that it's not the State's responsibility to care for those needing care, he says it's the family's responsibility.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1764943533926916440

That was always going to be the case!
This is exactly why I'm voting NO NO. This government cannot be trusted.

They gave two years to the citizens assembly and I’m not sure why there wasn’t pre-legislative scrutiny unless it’s because it is so different from CA and Oireachtas committee recommendations but ideologically so in line with FG? Also the symbolism of women’s day, and the April court case which will be void if the amendment passes.

Also @honeyrider so many nursing homes & homes for the elderly have been shut down recently & repurposed as accommodation for asylum seekers.
No wonder Leo is there spouting out that the onus of care should be on the family. There will be no nursing homes left at the rate they are shutting them down & repuropsing them.
NO and NO

This article tries to track the decision making and refers to the case in April as being one possible motivation:

https://www.ontheditch.com/comment-striving-for-nothing/

thecountess.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a32921007ca037116487857c4&id=c5d92b45ae&e=575d8aee7a

Hopefully this link works

@Dublincailin yes it works thanks. The Countess have provided very solid information throughout the build up to Friday.

I think it's fair to say that was a very convincing win for the No campaign on Primetime tonight.
Mehole Martin completely ballsed up!

@VoteNONO

Is it worth a watch?

I absolutely hate RTE., rte player is rubbish

https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/implausible-to-suggest-amendments-will-have-no-serious-consequence.html

Absolutely. Maria Steen handed Martin his balls on a plate. I was hesitant to watch as I thought it would be very one-sided but I tuned in with dh.
She had very solid arguments the main one being that the constitution trumps legislation.

Mehole was clearly completly out of his depth. The old school teacher vs the barrister.
Maria Steen was came accross completely composed, highly educated & articulate.

Towards the end Martin lost his cool & accused her of being "a prophet of doom" during the divorce referendums. She repeatedly said that she was not a part of the divorce referendums, they were before her time! She was only a child during the referendums aged 14 in 1995!

Mehole forgets that both he & Fianna Fáil also advocated for a No vote during the divorce referendums. He has a very short memory.

It was a terrible showing from the government & by Martin. I think many undecided will now vote No due to Martin's diabolical performance. Well done Maria Steen!

,

I saw it. Not sure if I would be bothered. Micheal Martin waffled his way through it, without really saying anything. The woman from the Iona Institute, Maria Steen, spoke pretty well and made some good points, especially on the family referendum but I thought she was interrupted a lot in comparison to Martin.
I think Martin might have felt he was not winning though, as he resorted to personal attacks in the wind up.
But the Iona Institute are not an organisation that a lot of people will have an affinity for so I don't know how well she went down in that respect.

Sorry, crossed post.

@festivefavorites I felt the same, she was cut off plenty of times where she was in the middle of making some very valid points.

While I did think she performed better than Martin, it is unfortunate that they wheel out the fundamentalist catholics for the no side. There are many of us who are socially liberal who are also voting no but it's always the socially conservative perspective that is shown.

At this stage, I am not as definite on how I will be voting. I want the women in the home clause removed but I think the replacement is too wishy washy and could potentially result in care being pushed back on to families with the government abdicating its responsibilities. I need to balance the positivity of the removal of the archaic and insulting wording against the potential for unintended consequences.

I would like to see all families recognised but am very nervous of the vague wording. I'm old enough to remember the campaign in 1983 when they swore blind women would not be prevented from travelling, yet a few years later we had the X case. They also insisted no women would be let die and yet we have Savita Halappanavar because the medics would not abort while there was still a heartbeat. This is where vague wording that needs to be interpreted by the courts ends up. However, all the arguments for a No on this one are coming from social conservatives who I cannot abide. I need to weigh up that against my nervousness of the vague wording.

I will watch the debate later on. I recorded it last night. Your post summed up my thoughts on this @OchonAgusOchonOh
I'm usually very decided on referendum issues but I'm not certain on this one. It's not satisfactory and so maybe it is best to reject it on that basis.

@OchonAgusOchonOh I thought Maria had a very good point regarding durable relationships.

The yes side are claiming that single parent families will be recognised however as Maria pointed out they need to be in a "durable relationship" to be recognised under the new constitution. That opens a completely new can of worms that I didn't realise.
And she is right. Obviously single parent families are not in durable relationships (otherwise they would not be called single parent families!) so where do they stand?
The durable relationship simply isn't good enough wording. And again last night Martin could not explain what a durable relationship is.