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

Well it says there's legal uncertainty around the word strive, but it also talks about potential litigation as as result of including the term 'strive' and says that it's stronger than 'endeavour'.

Which might suggest the government weren't preparing to dodge their responsibilities?

Not so clear cut imho.

@ceirseach but why did Roderic O Gorman not want the electorate to see the advice given by the Attorney General ?

Result on Saturday?

Seems like it might be at 10am. It won't take long to count 563 votes.

😂

😂😂

Sorry, got that wrong. Speed reading!
There's uncertainty as to whether it's stonger than endeavour as well.

Yes, it seems the current wording 'endeavour' puts more onus on the Government than the word 'strive'

It certainly begs the question as to where Heather Humphries received the advice that a yes vote would strengthen her hand in providing better supports for carers.

I can't remember how they count referendums. Do all the boxes get sent to Dublin and opened there, or are they counted in the local centres and the results forwarded? And have the islands already voted, as happens in elections?

It's local centres for counting. Kids events are cancelled in the community centre on Saturday for the count here.

Thanks.

It says 'strive' will likely mean vulnerable people will be forced to litigate, and this will cause financial harm to the state when they win. If you're a carer or disabled life is often difficult enough to have to go through the trouble and often expense of bringing a court case just to be able to access supports and services that are a legal right in every single other country in the EU. Hence O'Gorman's statement that people can bring the state to court under the new amendment. I just think - why should they have to? And how does 'so sue me' make for a good value to have in the constitution?

The HSE deemed it necessary for my son who is disabled to have access to a whole range of therapies, but then failed to provide them. I did everything I could but in the end went to a solicitor to see if I'd any legal recourse. The initial consultation would be 800 euro, and then the court case would entail time away from my son, and from work, and I just couldn't see a way to follow through financially or time wise. It's not a good default as it puts extra stress on everyone, other than the legal professionals who stand to gain from this. The Citizens Assembly wording would have been far more compelling.

A further issue with the wording is that the Irish language version which is supposed to have primacy is translated in two different ways which arguably mean two different things.
So basically the proposed amendment is a pig in a poke, a mess, a manipulation, a travesty and a pile of poo

And a very expensive pile of poo!

It's just catastrophically bad.

Crazy money

Does nobody have the power to veto it and say this is rubbish? In a legal sense? Or do the government just get to do what they want? It seems crazy to change the wording of our constitution to something so vague and undefined. Surely it can be contested in some way? Does the AG not have any power? Maybe the President would intervene??

We have the power, commencing 7am on IWD.

I have a headache from it now. Talking to H about it, we keep picking holes in each others understanding so it gets less clear as time goes on. And 'strive' really doesn't work.

If they'd debated it properly in Dáil they maybe wouldn't have come up with this nonsense in the first place. All rushed through, recommendations from the Citizens Assembly ignored, meetings had with no minutes published because according to O'Gorman its "not in the public interest" - now it seems it was very much in the public interest. This is a disgrace 😠

Thank you for the explanation @springbrigid

😆

Fully agree. It really shouldn't be the case that there is such confusion. I find myself wondering why the rush and what's the agenda. Which I realise sounds a bit Q Anon or something but it's all very odd. And at the end of the day, it's the constitution so it shouldn't be trifled with on an ill defined whim.

Very well said. Hopefully us women who want to be recognised will be celebrating our constitutional survival on Mothers Day.

@DanielGault it's also interesting that O Gorman did none of the recent live debates. What qs & grilling was he dodging?