Future Referenda - Remember this day

[ItsSupposedToBeSummer]

This isn't meant as a debate about the rights or wrongs of the 3 day wait for an abortion.

Its just to say that in any future referendum when those pushing a yes vote give you assurances about how it will work and how they will implement it they are lying.

I've always been suspicious of how referenda are pushed and the lies that are spun. How lucky we were to vote no on the last one about removing mothers.

I’ve become a lot more cynical about referenda myself over the last decade: the equal marriage vote that I supported also had legislation attached to allow men fill in a form online and get the legal right to be considered women - that element of it I don’t support.

The defeated vote to remove the current definition of mother from the constitution was also a cynical ploy to reduce the government’s obligation towards mothers with disabled children and to expand the definition of mother so as to grant those rights to others that weren’t explicitly mentioned in the proposal that was publicised by that side of the argument.

These proposals are cloaked in virtuousness and promoted as socially progressive/liberal but you have to read the small print to see the real changes the proposers want to make to Irish laws & society.

At the time of the referendum it was made clear that the referendum was to give the government the power to legislate for abortion how they saw fit. Anyone who thought they were voting to set the new laws in place forever just wasn't paying attention. The government could relax the laws or they could make them more restrictive at any time.

This was the wording on the ballot paper "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy." This is what people voted yes to and this is what the government is doing.

@UtopiaPlanitia yes 100% agree, everything presented one way but intended another. I read somewhere but don't know if its correct that this legislation goes way beyond removing 3 days, that was the headline grabbing "in the womens interest" version.

Our political parties have women firmly in their sights, and not in a good way. Referendum last year. Removal of SNAs earlier this year which they have now got thro in another way. Removing private maternity options as first on list for Slainte care. On and on and on. Its like being in the last carriage of a train that is completely out of control.

Agree

This isnt a debate on abortion but the fact is that many many people voted yes in the referendum as high-profile politicians promised that if the public voted Yes, the subsequent legislation would include strict safeguards. The 72-hour reflection period was prominently featured to prove that abortion would not be "on demand" or treated lightly.

People believed them is all im saying and this should inform how people decide how to vote in future referendum.

Obviously not pertaining to Ireland but I always believed in referenda till I saw what happened in the uk with brexit and I will never trust a referendum again as this shows how wrong they can be.

Please someone explain to me.
Why another Bill in the Dáil re the 3 day delay ?
Wasn’t there one very recently proposed by the Soc Dems that was defeated.
What is the difference between it and this Sinn Féin one that has been approved ?

The soc dems proposal was just before the recent elections in Galway and dublin so ffg voted against to try and save their votes. No upcoming elections so no risk as the sheeple will have forgotten by next one and vote them back in.

Don't know how true but saw that last night an increase in fuel taxes was voted in so this 3 day thing was a nice distraction.

The soc dems proposal included changes to rules around terminations for fatal abnormalities but the SF proposal was just about the 3 day wait.

Hope thats true but I dont think so. Just like the referendum there's the palatable headline to get it through and then there's the actual detail and think this is more like soc dem than we have been told

It is true. SF didn't support the soc dems bill which included widening provision around fatal abnormalities. SFs bill was very straightforward and only around the 3 day wait.

the equal marriage vote that I supported also had legislation attached to allow men fill in a form online and get the legal right to be considered women

No, they were separate legislative processes @UtopiaPlanitia. The GRA was passed by the Oireachtas less than two months after the marriage vote and no doubt was influenced by how ‘cool’ we all were now. The dropping of the requirement for medical evidence was almost certainly influenced by this at least, and many consider the timing not a coincidence. However, it’s important to know they weren’t ‘attached’ votes …in no way did the Irish public vote for the GRA.

Removal of SNAs earlier this year which they have now got thro in another way.
Sorry OP, I missed this I think. How has that got through in another way?

OK great but no doubt as we prove ourselves to be wokest in the universe that will be the next step followed quickly by the pillow act so we can get rid of those pesky old people now that they cost us money rather than pay taxes.

Pity we dont put the time and money into services and supports that give people quality of life.

Thanks, I misremembered the exact timing.

Sorry i didn't answer re SNA. Both SNAs and parents of kids with additional needs believe this new initiative is the first SNA reduction proposal dressed up differently.

There must be a dedicated Department of Pallatability because this hovernment can be spin and dress up and use other news as deflections to an expert level. Yes im cynical!

The equality referendum did not have other legalisation attached to it.

The gender recognition bill that you are talking about was already drafted. However at the time of drafting it had to stipulate that only non married people could change their gender. After the equality referendum it was amended as now married people could be of the same sex. So it impacted the final bill,

But the gender recognition bill was already in the process of becoming law. It would not be necessary to have a referendum on this piece of legislation as it did not require amendments to the constitution.

They didn't even need a referendum for Brexit

The UK operates under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. This means that Parliament has the absolute, supreme legal authority to pass, amend, or repeal any law it chooses.
The results of the referendum weren't even legally binding but obviously no government would go against the vote.

It is different in Ireland:
Ireland requires a constitutional referendum to make any changes to its constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann). It is not possible to add, remove, or edit any part of the text without a direct vote of the people

@ItsSupposedToBeSummer I think a lot of the issues you cited on referendums appear to be based on your own misunderstandings of what you were and weren't voting on

@Boolabus nope I saw beyond the narrative and knew this would happen quickly....again its not about the right or wrong of with or without 3 days. My point to this discussion is that many voters trusted the commitments 100% as they were used to get those wavering between yes and no to vote yes

All im saying is to remember in future referenda to not decide your vote on government commitments based on law if that part is a big influence on your decision. They tried same approach in last years referendum but thankfully enough of us saw thro it.

Again though a statutory review of Ireland’s abortion legislation was explicitly mandated to take place five years after the referendum. This was there for all to see at the time of the referendum. It wasn't hidden. This was carried out in 2023 and this is when the 3 day wait was brought into question. It's taken a further 3 years for action on that review.

You say 'remember in future referenda to not decide your vote on government commitments' but a review was always in those commitments. It was always there. There is no big conspiracy just people who clearly didn't bother to read even the basics surrounding the referendum.

The referendum was about removing the reference to the “equal right to life of the unborn" and the pregnant woman from the constitution and allowing for termination to be dealt with through legislation. They could explain what the new legislation would look like, and they did. But of course they could not say that the legislation would remain like that forever. Law evolves, new bills are put forward. No government could “commit “ to what a law will look like years down the line.

That’s why it’s a big deal to put something in or out the constitution.

I never ever trust politicians.

@deeahgwitch lol me neither which is why this week was no surprise. It was to a lot of people who have that trust.

@CagedBirdInACage @Gealach dont disagree with what you say but the fact remains that a lot of voters trusted that the commitments would stay in place. Ultimately that's my only point.

I have zero trust in the government now too. I'm suspicious of everything since learning how the GRA 2015 was snuck in without public awareness.

I also voted for people to have the right to access abortion thinking I would hope never to be in that situation, but didn't want to deny someone else the right. Now I wish I had had more foresight and been my current cynical self.

My new worry, not that I needed any more, is how far are they going to push it. Will they try to extend the term limit for abortion? 10,000 people changed their minds on abortion last year during the 3 day wait. That's 10,000 babies alive this year because of that. I cannot see what harm there was to have the 3 day wait and what good they think they are doing for women by abolishing it. It's just a pointless spin to get the law passed. But the question remains why are they so keen on abolishing it. It's not for the good of women.

@BruachAbhann ff fg and sf are definitely not pro women no matter what they say.

Apparently at committee stage other changes can be added so time will tell how far they take it, in a few years 10,000 per year might look small.

@ItsSupposedToBeSummer but there was no commitment. Abortion legislation was due to be reviewed…that was clearly stated at the time. You just weren’t paying attention.

Not only was the review that was done, clearly stated at the time but you’d honestly be a bit mad to think legislation would stay in its current form. The 10,000 women who didn’t make it to the second appointment also include those who were timed out of having a medical termination, those who had a miscarriage, those who couldn’t have an medical abortion for medical reasons.

The independent legalisation review found that the 3 day wait caused stress to women particularly vulnerable women, women in domestic violence situations, younger women, women who live rurally. It also meant that some women were timed out of medical abortion. The 3 day wait was just barrier on access to abortion by removing it, the power goes back to women’s hands.