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

@DeanElderberry exactly. It's progressive that the Dutch are seeing their policies for what they are.
I really doubt the "Assisted dying" will get much of a following in Ireland.

The government and their capitalist pals are assisting us to die quite enough thank you.

I'm not opposed to euthanasia in principle. But I wouldn't trust the O Gormans of this world with it....

I am opposed to euthanasia in principle, but would fear a backlash leading to a referendum putting a ban on it into the constitution so that clinicians would no longer want to risk prescribing morphine for end-of-life care. Just as procedures that were always carried out in Catholic (and other) hospitals to terminate non-viable and dangerous (ie ectopic) pregnancies became problematic because of that constitutional ban.

The old principle of if it ain't broke, don't fix it is foreign to some of our leaders - I suppose they like the distraction from their failures regarding housing and the health service.

End of life care could certainly be improved. A man here who was suffering from terminal cancer hanged himself a few years ago. This required some effort on his part since he was 85. He had been a sportsman and keen cyclist , one of life's optimists I always thought. He shouldn't have died like that in the 21st century.

Women are not being removed from the constitution. Women currently are referenced 3 times. One instance is proposed to be removed.
In reality what has the state ever done to ensure women didn't have to work? My mother and grandmothers worked outside the home.

Well quite. I don't know any woman who has been hindered by this article. So why mess with it? Who was banging down the doors of Dáil Éireann asking for this referendum? We don't need it. But the government clearly do. They should fess up and explain why

Exactly! What is the hidden agenda. The same sex marraige & divorce referendum were absolutely necessary & wanted by the vast majority of the constitution.. But this?!
How much is this referendum costing the state? Plus all the kids around the country missing an unnecessary day of school due to this as the school is being used as a voting centre..

No woman could be hampered from working if she wanted to because article 45: 2: i of the Constitution states: The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing: That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.

tl:dr people really should read the Constitution. It's still quite a short document.

The further I got into the thread the more people started saying no. It's really really long and I didn't read it all.

I'm seeing no - no on a few SM group I'm in. A lot for the same reasons I have, they are uncertain what it means.

No there isn't the same drive behind this as the last few ref's and I don't think people will be flying home to vote. I think a lot of people won't vote

I am thinking I will vote no, no.

She is fantastic. Here's her reasoning for a no vote:
https://www.thejournal.ie/women-in-the-home-catherine-connolly-6275205-Jan2024/

In reality, the state did pass the Civil Service (Employment of Married Women) Act in 1943 and was one of the last countries in Europe to repeal legislation preventing women from working (1973). The law required single women to resign from their job when they married and disqualified married women from applying for permanent jobs both formally (i.e. in line with the law) in the public sector, and informally across much of the private sector.

I know. My mother had to leave her well paid job in the civil service when she got married. She still had to work out of economic necessity.
The state forced women out of decent jobs and into lower paid ones.

They had the option to postpone it and only take the gratuity when they got pregnant but most opted to take the gratuity for a deposit on a house. If they went back in to the civil service later, they could buy back that service (for pension purposes)

But only after the bar was lifted - and in the early years the Bill only enabled married women with previous service to be reinstated in their former positions where hardship considerations warranted it, eg in cases of 'desertion' or where the husband was permanently incapacitated.

We know the bar was a bad thing, and that it was better for countries that had wars so that women had to be fully integrated into the workforce - though they still got paid less than their male colleagues, and in the UK had an earlier retirement age until very recently, but IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTION. Sorry to shout, but seeing it dragged up again and again - more than half a century after it was abolished in the public service - is getting very dull in the context of the referendum debate.

@loveisanopensore , perhaps read some of the many contributions to the thread from those advocating a No vote. Even Justice Susan Dunham said the constitution never held women back.

The Constitution enshrines and evokes certain values, for example it says it derives its authority from a Trinitarian God 'In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred' etc. So while I don't think people have said the bar was directly enacted due to the constitution, both it and the (to some, offending) article are reflective of sexist values, alongside other legislation that limited women's participation in public life and curtailed their rights in terms of property ownership, marital rape, jury service etc. 41.2.2 has been identified and discussed as sexist by various bodies including the UN who said it betrayed '[...] traditional attitudes toward the restricted role of women in public life, in society and in the family’, in breach of the State’s obligations under Articles 3 (equality between women and men), 25 (equality in public life) and 26 (equality before the law) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I would have liked a straightforward deletion of 41.2.2.

What I don't get is why a deletion/repeal isn't on offer instead of the shitshow of having to accept as a substitute the deeply paternalistic 'care' clause which evokes the privatisation of care, the eschewing of responsibilities by a state which is the only one in the EU not to have rights-based legislation for people with disabilities, and that is not supporting the Disability Rights Bill Tom Clonan introduced last year. In general, people with disabilties and people who care for them want rights and services, not a half-assed 'striving' on the part of the government to support them.

If the result is no no then it looks like we will have to vote again until we vote the "right" way next time

https://twitter.com/Quinlan5Mick/status/1759948380543857147?t=eXpsgnECI6Py5hMVTK1Ehw&s=19

@festivefavorites I have no doubt about it! And imagine the cost of having to rerun the referendum to get the answer they want! And another day of school closures that won't be made up!

They are not sounding too confident though if they're coming out with statements like that!

In all fairness even the U. K didn't try to do a rerun of Brexit after the referendum even though it meant a disaster for the country. They respected the publics vote & the majority voted to leave. They respected the constituency like any normal democracy

Just like Ireland.

Voting more than once on an issue is rare, and has only happened when the initial question has changed or after societal attitudes have shifted a lot (ie on divorce).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Have you see the footage of varadkar et al walking off the podium after gript asked a question on the referendum.? They are our elected leaders elecged by the people and tbey womt answer questions. Omg the disdain they must hold thr public in !! Its outrageous

Lisbon Treaty?

True it is rare.

SF will promise anything they think might be popular. They seem to be struggling to be sure what that is right now!

I don't care. Gript are an inflammatory outfit that does its best to whip up racism, and I hope that the law suit whereby they're being sued for the misidentification of an innocent person as the perpetrator of the Parnell Square attack bankrupt them.

Excellent investigation into them here:

https://villagemagazine.ie/gript-by-lies-stirring-hatred-and-sometimes-racist-by-michael-smith/