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

Jesus! That's awful!

@DanielGault I agree with @StephanieSuperpowers on this, it's a very grim distraction method if that's what they are intending to do.

I think releasing this statement re euthanasia tonight is the final nail in the Yes campaigns coffin (no pun intended here of course!) They could have waited until Monday.

I know some won't like the source but the language sounds very Leo vs state care:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/15/canada-has-revealed-the-horror-of-assisted-dying/amp/

It is really strange to issue something like that while the refs are going on. Maybe they are all just chronically stupid, but I don't think so. I think they're cynical son's who treat the voters with at best disdain and at worst malice.

They didn't have time to debate properly, the Supreme Court case is early next month I think.

They need this in and changers before they break for Easter

You are right, we are a major inconvenience in their grand plans. They have pure contempt for us all, any contradiction to their misinformation is immediately labelled "far right"..

It's an odd one to come out with the night before a referendum they are hell bent on pushing through.

This is it though, our pesky constitution getting in the way of their holidays!?! I'm really losing all faith in the system.

Can anyone shed light on the first one….
would a durable family, which is not defined, devalue marriage and legal partnerships?

Could the classic mumsnet father example seen often on here use this change as a “as sure we have a durable relationship there is no need to get married” type scenario?

Also on the other side of the coin, could it deter more mature people from entering relationships later in life with fear of their wills being contested? A long term partner may not be included in a will but legally may be able to claim something?

@Readytoevolve Michael McDowell had some good case studies & scenarios on the Tonight Show last night if you can rewatch
Personally I can't answer you it's all too vague for me.

I think yes to both. But it will be up to the courts, eventually.

How long is a piece of string? And that's why it's so ridiculous. Putting something so utterly undefined in the constitution is crazy. It's inviting years upon years worth of legal challenges. 'Durable' has absolutely no meaning in this context. (Imo anyway)

I have read that assisted dying is the 7th leading cause of death in Canada. Shocking if true.
Leo seems to be vying with Trudeau to be leader of the most 'progressive' country in the world.
Though it might need a Referendum

From the Citizens Information website

"Right to lifeThe Constitution specifically recognises and protects your right to life (Article 40.4).
Your right to life also means the right to have nature take its course and to die a natural death. That does not mean that you have the right to have your life terminated or death unnaturally accelerated."

MMD was strong about succession rights as they stand right now.

The spouse will always trump the partner regardless of time in event of no will.

This is wide open to interpretation and let's be honest, every case that gets to court will have a different outcome.

It would be funny if it didn't have such serious consequences.

I will rewatch thank you.

I was having this debate with a friend this week.
I asked them would this change to durable relationships devalue marriage, and they said, well that’s only for religious purposes anyways so it doesn’t matter.

Did I hell get married for the Catholic Church.

I despair for this vote tomorrow if that’s how people think of marriage. So many legal battles will result and the CF of people will enter new levels.

I think a lot of people are stuck on, families who are together and not married and how good it is for them. I say just get married if it matters to them. But this is one very small example. Durable relationships is a bollox made up term.

@festivefavorites if this will (hopefully) go to referendum why won't the proposed Hate Speech Bill? That is just as terrifying to me.
Or would anyone else be able to shed light on the Hate Speech Bill?

Ask her what about same sex marriage, is that for religious purposes too?

I worry that yes yes will win.

Me too. I haven't spoken to anyone planning to vote yes but I'm sure there must be many.

AG Rossa Fanning’s leaked advice to government, from December '23, in full. This is not in breach of the moratorium, as The Ditch is an online news service.

https://www.ontheditch.com/attorney-general-advice-in-full/

It doesn't seem likely. The best hope is that the Government collapses before it comes through. Though SF, the amazing opposition party that doesn't oppose anything, also support it. It is such a sinister law.

From the Citizens Information website
Freedom of expression
You have a right to freely express your convictions and opinions (Article 40.6.1.i). However, that right can be limited in the interests of public order and morality. You can also not use this right to defame someone else as this would interfere their constitutional right to a good name.
The Constitution also states that it is an offence to publish or utter seditious (material undermining the authority of the State or advocating for the overthrow of the State) or indecent material.

My DD and I are seeing the referendum completely differently. She wants to remove the clause 'woman in the home' and says it's obsolete. It doesn't say 'a woman's place is in the home' I said but she says it is the obvious and only interpretation. I want to keep the clause because I think it recognises the valuable contribution of women's work in the home and also it means that the state must step up and support women who choose to stay at home with their children. Which one of us is right? Am I being narrow-minded?

She says that 'durable relationships' is in EU law and is not a problem. I don't know enough about the law to know if this is a problem. Personally I like marriage as a contract between two individuals because it's defined. I do not wish to exclude single parent families from the definition of a family but are they included in the revised article? I take 'durable relationships' to mean between two adults.

DD did not seem concerned about the 'strive to care' issue. I thought she would as she normally is sympathetic towards minorities which is the position of vulnerable people in this instance.

Everyone seems to see what they want to see in this according to their own lived experience and own personal views, myself included!

I don't think they will. The No campaign finished very strongly this week especially in the live closing debates. Many were still undecided at that point & I'd imagine a fair few were swayed, my dh included.

On the other hand the Yes campaign have had a dastardly week with some fine examples of misinformation, fairly to disclose information (said information leaked😁), Leo admitting care is not the states problem.

Also certain groups, organisations & TDs have changed their stance to a yes /no after originally being yes/yes.

For me Sinn Féins absence & silence speaks volumes. They are the opposition. Where are they? Where were they for the live debates? Where is Mary Lou?
They are trying to distance themselves from the Yes campaign. Damage control perhaps?

Such a pity this didn't come out at the start of the week. Better late than never though.
Would love to know who leaked it!

Thanks
@festivefavorites for posting that. Scary times ahead if it passes. We're supposed to live in a democracy. How is hate speech even defined? It sounds very much in the ilk of durable relationship to me & entirely up to personal interpretation 🤷

SF silence has been deafening alright. ML is usually front and centre but not a peep right now.