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

Bloody hell chaps “The Department has refused access to all 64 pages of notes and minutes discussing the consequences of the amendments including tax laws, social welfare laws, pension laws, allocation of family assets, alimony and allowance including the laws in relation to family reunification for asylum seekers.” [McDowell] said.

I am suspicious of Gript in some circumstances, but glad they exist to say this openly.

And glad that McDowell and (a few) others are speaking out. I just hope that it puts enough doubt in peoples' minds to make them vote NO

Michael McDowell has been very vocal.. Funnily enough RTE or other mainstream media are not publishing his views.. Wonder why 🤔

Friend of mine is a civil servant who works in immigration, when him and his bosses were asked to give their opinion on the proposed wording last summer, they all wrote memos about what a terrible idea the durable relationship wording would be

Saw the Green party yes posters up today, they're very pro-life/Iona looking

The irony of the Greens using a mother to promote this when they want to erase the word mother from the constitution.

I've been asking a few people what they think. There is a lot of confusion out there. Including my own. I am currently a no voter but still very willing to listen to both side

Hmm. I have an enduring relationship with a person in a non EU country. We've known each other many years , not carnally of course , but does that matter given the wording ?

The lawyers will be kept busy for decades. I've no time for Thatcher but she had a point about Referendums , calling them ' the favourite weapon of dictators'.

I don't really agree re Thatcher and referenda but both clauses seem really poorly written and not in keeping with the recommendations of the citizens assembly

Whether or not they're in line with the Citizen's Assembly is arguably neither here nor there. The CA is not an elected group, its make-up and how it is put together have been the subject of some concern when it comes to broad representativeness. I'm not sure why we slipped into thinking they should have power to determine legislative or policy direction.

On a separate note, I have always wondered how is the CA's chosen.

Is it through electoral register?

Theoretically it is random selection from anyone entitled to vote in a referendum. But availability and willingness immediately skew the make-up. The selection of the people and organisations who get to speak to them is a whole other question.

And of course, 99 people randomly selected is a small number and not necessarily representative of the population at large anyway.

No/No from me. I have a child with asd so I'm a carer and I know from groups I'm in that most people in similar circumstances to me are also no

@SparkyBlue I recently read Roderic O G said they have the means already to make things better for carers but want the wording changed... Why I wonder🤔 To me it seems that by widening the spectrum of carer that it is taking less legal responsibility off the state & in fact putting more onus on carers.. I have a sinister feeling about it. Whatever the Irish govt want is not for the good of the Irish people.. Sure look at the education sector & SEN education, it's is cruel what they are doing to our future generation.

Apologies Sparky. It was Simon Harris who did the government could fund carers with or without yes vote!!
Unreal.. What is the agenda? Video linked below to the Simon Harris statement.

https://gript.ie/harris-government-could-fund-carers-with-or-without-yes-vote/

I'm voting No/No, for the reasons listed above. Is the current wording of the Constitution ideal? No. But what they're proposing is not a better solution.

springbrigid
I agree that it's woolly and aspirational, but I do think the recognition of durable relationships (eg unmarried parents, single parents) is fine, particularly as we have marriage between two people regardless of their gender in the constitution now.

But surely your interpretation of what a 'durable relationship' is may not be someone else's. If they want to recognise single parents why not explicitly say so? Why use a wishy washy term like durable relationship that means whatever someone wants it to mean?

That's the issue, it's not defined properly, so the implications of it are not clear. And the fact that they won't release the minutes of meetings discussing the implications of these changes is ominous.

Also, sorry to sound patronising but it's sex, not gender. Women are discriminated against because of our sex. Gender is meaningless nonsense these days (72 genders anyone?) Incidentally it is this government's ignoring of women's sex based rights in favour on gender bollox that makes me distrust them so much.

It's a No/No from me.

For the more knowledgeable how/can the 2012 legislation which allows SAHP's claim stamps to qualify for full pension impact?

That clause was a solid basis not to impact on mothers who stay at home to challenge the system for financial support in later years.

Many people (mainly women) got pittance and financially struggled when they were older as they did not have enough.

Basically I am wondering was the government about to hammered in a court challenge which they were advised they would lose which brought that change. Bringing the change meant they could control the start date and therefore not have huge payout reward claims

What is the best way of communicating the message that it's an incredibly , badly-thought-out referendum, that the alterations are incredibly badly expressed, and that the government really needs to decide what it means by a 'woman'?

@TemplesofDelight just keep telling everyone you meet "if it any doubt safer to vote No" or "if you don't fully understand the implications" (which in fairness the fecking govt don't even know!) vote No.

I think there's a court case pending but not sure. I read something somewhere about a court case and how the referendum if passed will affect it but not sure of the facts.

My late mother in law always said this. If ever she didn't fully understand a referendum she always said just vote no.

Leo the leak was on Pat Kenny's show last week and Pat asked him will the referendum mean more money for carers, he said it did

@honeyrider gas & Simon Harris in the video above saying they have the have the means to do it with or without a yes vote.
How much is the referendum costing the state?
Many schools are closing to facilitate the voting..
If they can already provide for carers now what is the secret agenda behind the referendum? This current govt is not to be trusted.