Does anyone understand them ?
The Nazifascists are calling for 2 No Votes so they're obviously 2 good things.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 12, 2024, 11:25:04 PMThe Nazifascists are calling for 2 No Votes so they're obviously 2 good things.
That logic does not follow.
On 8 March voters will be asked if they wish to:
-Amend Article 41 of the Constitution to provide for a wider concept of family (i.e. not one only based on marriage)
-Delete Article 41.2 of the Constitution to remove text on the role of women in the home, and insert a new Article 42B to recognise family care
-The family amendment, the 39th Amendment of the Constitution, proposes to amend Article 41.1.1 to insert the words "whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships". It also proposes the deletion of the words "on which the family is founded" from Article 41.3.1.
-The care amendment, the 40th amendment, proposes to delete Article 41.2 from the Constitution and insert an Article 42B with the following wording:
"The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision."
I've seen it mentioned that 41.2 is what gives constitutional protection to things like maternity leave. So if this is removed a future Oireachtas could do away with it.
To paraphrase ...
A woman can't be forced by economic necessity to neglect her duties in the home.
That could be interpreted as women shouldn't have jobs
Or
The Government should pay all women a living wage to stay at home and cook, wash, tidy, mind children or grandparents etc.
The nazifascists claim the proposed amendment broadening the definition of family is to enable foreigners to bring loads of relations into the State as part of the "Great replacement" and "New plantation".
Does anyone know why this is taking place in March and not along with the Local Elections in June?
Probably because only Irish Citizens can vote in Referendum, any resident of over 6 months can vote in Local Election and EU citizens probably can vote in the Euros.
Be some confusion at a table in the voting station...you can have 4 papers, you can only have 2, you can only have 1...
Quote from: Blowitupref on February 13, 2024, 06:05:49 AMOn 8 March voters will be asked if they wish to:
-Amend Article 41 of the Constitution to provide for a wider concept of family (i.e. not one only based on marriage)
-Delete Article 41.2 of the Constitution to remove text on the role of women in the home, and insert a new Article 42B to recognise family care
-The family amendment, the 39th Amendment of the Constitution, proposes to amend Article 41.1.1 to insert the words "whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships". It also proposes the deletion of the words "on which the family is founded" from Article 41.3.1.
-The care amendment, the 40th amendment, proposes to delete Article 41.2 from the Constitution and insert an Article 42B with the following wording:
"The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision."
Strive is weaker than the previous wording. Durable relationships is a legal minefield. The Constitution determines social benefits
If loopholes do exist after the referendum (relating to the definition of a family) I would have zero confidence that the government will step in and close them
It's a lot easier to start virtue signaling and calling people far right than actually doing your job and enforcing the law
Yes they really do need to find the arsonist scum and enforce the Law on the cnuts.
Quote from: Rossfan on February 13, 2024, 02:47:21 PMYes they really do need to find the arsonist scum and enforce the Law on the cnuts.
Completely agree
Enfore the laws as they are written (on both Irish Arsonists and Immigration Scammers)
Quote from: Rossfan on February 13, 2024, 02:47:21 PMYes they really do need to find the arsonist scum and enforce the Law on the cnuts.
Those, currently down on their luck job wise patriots are trying to save our amazing white Irish bloodline
Family section of Bunreacht na hÉireann (https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article41)
Referendum information (https://www.electoralcommission.ie/referendums/referendum-information/what-are-you-being-asked-to-decide-on/#CareAmendment)
The Family Amendment (White Ballot Paper)
• Article 41.1 – referendum on proposed changed wording
• Article 41.2 – see proposal to delete this article under Care Amendment below
• Article 41.3 – referendum on proposed changed wording
The Family Amendment to a certain extent mirrors the Marriage Equality referendum held in 2015. There were then and there are now sincerely held views on both sides. Rossfan's post above re. "Nazifascists" is plain childish.
The Care Amendment (Green Ballot Paper)
• Article 41.2 – referendum on proposal to delete this article entirely (41.2.1 and 41.2.2)
• Article 42B to be added to the CHILDREN section of Bunreacht na hÉireann
Individualisation was introduced into the Irish Income Tax system over 20 years ago. The purpose was to base the tax system on individuality rather than family relationships. The effect was that a one-income married couple pay more tax than a two-income married couple on the same earnings.
Many would argue that this change to the tax system effectively made Article 41.2.2 redundant and many women were actually obliged, by economic necessity rather than choice, to get a job outside the home. Removing Article 41.2 now is merely window dressing and the new Article 42B is airy-fairy.
The rise of the far right in ireland is partly to blame on dissident republicans and inla types they seem to be too terrified to go after them
Quote from: Eire90 on February 13, 2024, 04:26:37 PMThe rise of the far right in ireland is partly to blame on dissident republicans and inla types they seem to be too terrified to go after them
Every post is like putting pins in my eyes.
Quote from: Eire90 on February 13, 2024, 04:26:37 PMThe rise of the far right in ireland is partly to blame on dissident republicans and inla types they seem to be too terrified to go after them
I think we had this discussion before
So someone who disagrees with you on immigration is "far right" and you're expressing disappointment that paramilitaries don't seriously assault or kill them
Do I have that right?
Quote from: whitey on February 13, 2024, 05:14:31 PMQuote from: Eire90 on February 13, 2024, 04:26:37 PMThe rise of the far right in ireland is partly to blame on dissident republicans and inla types they seem to be too terrified to go after them
I think we had this discussion before
So someone who disagrees with you on immigration is "far right" and you're expressing disappointment that paramilitaries don't seriously assault or kill them
Do I have that right?
I actually think he's just stirring the pot, and doesn't believe a lot of what he posts. Like tossing in a grenade and walking away, just to see what happens.
Why did O'Gorman ignore the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee?
The far right agenda is very similar to that in other countries so it is more than likely to be some sort of astroturfing. They are all anti immigrant, anti climate action, pro Russia, never fix anything, provactive, expert in fearmongering.
Quote from: seafoid on February 13, 2024, 07:00:15 PMThe far right agenda is very similar to that in other countries so it is more than likely to be some sort of astroturfing. They are all anti immigrant, anti climate action, pro Russia, never fix anything, provactive, expert in fearmongering.
So is a person objecting to a direct provision facility next to their house far right?
Quote from: whitey on February 13, 2024, 07:11:12 PMQuote from: seafoid on February 13, 2024, 07:00:15 PMThe far right agenda is very similar to that in other countries so it is more than likely to be some sort of astroturfing. They are all anti immigrant, anti climate action, pro Russia, never fix anything, provactive, expert in fearmongering.
So is a person objecting to a direct provision facility next to their house far right?
Not necessarily. The Govt process to date has been poor. Local people deserve to be briefed on any changes locally . Othewise unsavoury elements may fill the vacuum
And I actually thought seafoid had started this thread to have a debate about the referendums on March 8 ???
More fool me.
It's classic social media buffoonery - fellas like seafoid, Rossfan and Eire90 spouting their tuppence worth of codology .
Thank you The Boy Wonder and Blowitupref for providing some information to this thread.
As someone living overseas, I used to use this board to find out information about what is going on at home, to be somwewhat infomed when talking to family and friends.
Unfortunately, the nonsense that used to be confined to a couple of posters or a couple of threads has spread to infest the majority of the entire board, so I am rarely on here anymore.
Lads creating bogeymen from social media that they can argue with on here, without anyone actually putting forward the viewpoints that are being vehemently shouted down.
Is it *broadly* to modernise the definition of the family unit?
There was a debate on Claire Byrne. 2 sides shouting at each other. It looks like another culture war.
Senator Michael McDowell (https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/)makes a cogent case for voting No in both referendums.
Yes vote on family referendum is a vote for an avoidable mess (https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/yes-vote-on-family-referendum-is-a-vote-for-a-foreseeable-mess.html)
"The Government has deliberately chosen not to allow the Oireachtas by law to decide on the meaning and extent of the term "other durable relationships" but to hand over to the courts the task of deciding what that term means".
This suggest it's a case of putting the cart before the horse.
Voting No is wisest option in upcoming blindman's buff referendums (https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/voting-no-is-wisest-option-in-upcoming-blindman%E2%80%99s-buff-referendums.html)
Each one of us will make his/her own mind on how to vote. Whether or not one has the same political leanings as Senator Michael McDowell I believe he can be trusted to give non-biased and well-informed views on the referendums.
There may well be some equally non-biased and well-informed persons of proven reputation who would advocate voting Yes. Maybe some posters here might point us to such viewpoints.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 14, 2024, 03:45:34 PMSenator Michael McDowell (https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/)makes a cogent case for voting No in both referendums.
Yes vote on family referendum is a vote for an avoidable mess (https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/yes-vote-on-family-referendum-is-a-vote-for-a-foreseeable-mess.html)
"The Government has deliberately chosen not to allow the Oireachtas by law to decide on the meaning and extent of the term "other durable relationships" but to hand over to the courts the task of deciding what that term means".
This suggest it's a case of putting the cart before the horse.
Voting No is wisest option in upcoming blindman's buff referendums (https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/voting-no-is-wisest-option-in-upcoming-blindman%E2%80%99s-buff-referendums.html)
Each one of us will make his/her own mind on how to vote. Whether or not one has the same political leanings as Senator Michael McDowell I believe he can be trusted to give non-biased and well-informed views on the referendums.
There may well be some equally non-biased and well-informed persons of proven reputation who would advocate voting Yes. Maybe some posters here might point us to such viewpoints.
There was a previous concept in referendums, if you don't know vote know. So usually there was a clear proposal for what exactly was entailed, unlike Brexit. McDowell is making the point that there is no legal certainty about what this means or so no way of knowing the consequences of it.
The worst thing is that most people have no idea about either referendum
Quote from: armaghniac on February 14, 2024, 04:27:58 PMQuote from: The Boy Wonder on February 14, 2024, 03:45:34 PMSenator Michael McDowell (https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/)makes a cogent case for voting No in both referendums.
Yes vote on family referendum is a vote for an avoidable mess (https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/yes-vote-on-family-referendum-is-a-vote-for-a-foreseeable-mess.html)
"The Government has deliberately chosen not to allow the Oireachtas by law to decide on the meaning and extent of the term "other durable relationships" but to hand over to the courts the task of deciding what that term means".
This suggest it's a case of putting the cart before the horse.
Voting No is wisest option in upcoming blindman's buff referendums (https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/voting-no-is-wisest-option-in-upcoming-blindman%E2%80%99s-buff-referendums.html)
Each one of us will make his/her own mind on how to vote. Whether or not one has the same political leanings as Senator Michael McDowell I believe he can be trusted to give non-biased and well-informed views on the referendums.
There may well be some equally non-biased and well-informed persons of proven reputation who would advocate voting Yes. Maybe some posters here might point us to such viewpoints.
There was a previous concept in referendums, if you don't know vote know. So usually there was a clear proposal for what exactly was entailed, unlike Brexit. McDowell is making the point that there is no legal certainty about what this means or so no way of knowing the consequences of it.
McDowell is talking through his hole. As was pointed out in that RTE debate, the constitution does not provide legal clarity, it spells out the fundamental principles. It is the laws that are created which define the legal clarity to what the constitution refers to.
Nordic country constitutions have the fundamental principles but it's the family and cohabiting laws which have the very clear definitions on all related issues such as civil partnerships,joint taxation, divorce, property, children welfare, child support, carers, disputes.
Ok Main Street, can you enlighten us on the law that provides legal clarity to "other durable relationships" ?
No you cannot because no such law exists at present.
The amendment would leave it in the hands of the courts to define what "other durable relationships" means.
We elect members to The Oireachtas to frame our laws, not the courts.
People should know what "other durable relationships" means before enshrining it into our constitution.
Senator Michael McDowell is a legal professional and he advises that if the Yes vote wins on the Family Amendment (White Ballot Paper) we are buying a pig in a poke. Not being a expert myself I could not contradict him.
Rather then criticise Senator McDowell perhaps you should try and make a persuasive case as to why people should vote Yes to one or both ballots.
McDowell Condemns O'Gorman's Department's FOI Cover Up (https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/mcdowell-condemns-o%E2%80%99gorman%E2%80%99s-department%E2%80%99s-foi-cover-up.html)
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 14, 2024, 11:04:07 PMOk Main Street, can you enlighten us on the law that provides legal clarity to "other durable relationships" ?
No you cannot because no such law exists at present.
The amendment would leave it in the hands of the courts to define what "other durable relationships" means.
We elect members to The Oireachtas to frame our laws, not the courts.
People should know what "other durable relationships" means before enshrining it into our constitution.
Senator Michael McDowell is a legal professional and he advises that if the Yes vote wins on the Family Amendment (White Ballot Paper) we are buying a pig in a poke. Not being a expert myself I could not contradict him.
Rather then criticise Senator McDowell perhaps you should try and make a persuasive case as to why people should vote Yes to one or both ballots.
I am not in the business of attempting to persuade people to vote one way or the other. I have my opinions and I express them. Are you into the persuasion business? it would seem so. This is a discussion board.
If you are not inclined to contradict McDowell's stance merely because of his legal credentials, then have you no considered opinions on the issue?
Have you considered other legal opinions on the referendum wording that would contradict McDowell's?
Are they of less value seeing as you have already expressed fulsome appreciation for the standing of legal expertise? Seeing as you have admitted no legal expertise yourself, how would you have an objective opinion one way or the other?
is it possible that you already have decided on a NO vote because of your particular values, therefore you identify with McDowell's stance? Honesty is the best policy :)
McDowell said in a recent Irish times article that when the Constitution is unclear it gives rise to hard cases which turn up in the courts . And that hard cases make bad law.
I stated previously on this thread "There may well be some equally non-biased and well-informed persons of proven reputation who would advocate voting Yes. Maybe some posters here might point us to such viewpoints".
I joined this discussion because, as seafoid's initial post implied, there is a lack of understanding regarding the pros and cons of voting Yes or No on these two ballots.
Main Street's question – "Have you considered other legal opinions on the referendum wording that would contradict McDowell's?"
I have invited posters to provide viewpoints other that Senator McDowell so that we have a balanced picture.
Main Street again – "Seeing as you have admitted no legal expertise yourself, how would you have an objective opinion one way or the other?"
The majority of the electorate would be in same boat as myself regarding legal expertise.
I am certainly not trying to influence people how to vote. I'm inclined to the view in this situation of "if it's not broken don't fix it". However I'm open to persuasion – that is why I invite those inclined to vote Yes to share their reasons. All the main political parties are advocating Yes votes so the electorate are not hearing from their elected representatives about possible downsides to these Constitutional changes.
Quote from: seafoid on February 15, 2024, 06:18:58 AMMcDowell said in a recent Irish times article that when the Constitution is unclear it gives rise to hard cases which turn up in the courts . And that hard cases make bad law.
At times McDowell spouts (durable) nonsense, in a Senate debate he questioned (fearmongering?) "whether the definition of a durable relationship could include one involving more than two people" "if it is, don't just airily dismiss throuples or bigamy or polygamy or polyandry."
Durable relationship is a defined term in EU and EEA law, cohabiting unmarried couples living together for at least 2 years and single parents.
Decades ago I was able to gain residence and working visa as a formality on the basis of having a durable relationship.
There are a myriad of legal,tax and social issues where the civil rights,mobility and social welfare of those living in a durable relationship are protected by relevant laws.
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 15, 2024, 09:12:02 AMI stated previously on this thread "There may well be some equally non-biased and well-informed persons of proven reputation who would advocate voting Yes. Maybe some posters here might point us to such viewpoints".
I joined this discussion because, as seafoid's initial post implied, there is a lack of understanding regarding the pros and cons of voting Yes or No on these two ballots.
Main Street's question – "Have you considered other legal opinions on the referendum wording that would contradict McDowell's?"
I have invited posters to provide viewpoints other that Senator McDowell so that we have a balanced picture.
Main Street again – "Seeing as you have admitted no legal expertise yourself, how would you have an objective opinion one way or the other?"
The majority of the electorate would be in same boat as myself regarding legal expertise.
I am certainly not trying to influence people how to vote. I'm inclined to the view in this situation of "if it's not broken don't fix it". However I'm open to persuasion – that is why I invite those inclined to vote Yes to share their reasons. All the main political parties are advocating Yes votes so the electorate are not hearing from their elected representatives about possible downsides to these Constitutional changes.
It's really complicated. Referendums don't really work when voters haven't got a clue. This is why ignoring the citizens' assembly and Oireachtas committee proposals is important to note.
A point about carers is that in Ireland families are responsible, not the State. Tom Clonan is very good on this because he is a carer. Debate with a yes voter starts at 1hr 11 minutes
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/today-with-claire-byrne/2024/0208/1431180-today-with-claire-byrne-thursday-8-february-2024/
The Claire Byrne debate the other day was quite interesting. It really sounds like a culture war
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22355941/
Actual wording of the changes:
Add bolded text to Article 41.1.1° "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
Delete text from 41.3.1°: "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Delete the following: Article 41.2.1° "In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."
Delete the following: Article 41.2.2° "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."
Add the following: Article 42B: "The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision."
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 16, 2024, 04:45:02 PMActual wording of the changes:
Add bolded text to Article 41.1.1° "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
Delete text from 41.3.1°: "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
Delete the following: Article 41.2.1° "In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."
Delete the following: Article 41.2.2° "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home."
Add the following: Article 42B: "The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision."
Why was the word mother deleted ?
1. They ignored the Citizens' Assembly recommendation for the State's responsibility for care to be recognised
Tom Clonan
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22352606/
2. There is no respite for mothers (or fathers). Listening to this would break your heart.
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22357882/
Is there any chance they cancel these referendums if they think its going to go against them.
cant find odds on these referendums is that a sign how low a turnout and how much people care.
As an onlooker the policies of the current administration is disconcerting personally.
Interesting that Elon is weighing in some of the carry on
https://youtu.be/aYJGiXLZujk?si=JQY3MEVgtaIjwrAP
Cryptofascists closing ranks.....
Our Government must be doing something right!
There is very little about these referendums but I find all I need to do is look at the people who are against it to know that I am for it.
Quote from: Last Man on February 22, 2024, 07:33:38 AMAs an onlooker the policies of the current administration is disconcerting personally.
Interesting that Elon is weighing in some of the carry on
https://youtu.be/aYJGiXLZujk?si=JQY3MEVgtaIjwrAP
Not interesting. Who gives f**k what that goon thinks?
Quote from: Itchy on February 22, 2024, 09:52:01 AMThere is very little about these referendums but I find all I need to do is look at the people who are against it to know that I am for it.
That's just like voting green or orange in the North just to stick it to the other side.
Quote from: clarshack on February 22, 2024, 10:15:41 AMQuote from: Itchy on February 22, 2024, 09:52:01 AMThere is very little about these referendums but I find all I need to do is look at the people who are against it to know that I am for it.
That's just like voting green or orange in the North just to stick it to the other side.
No it's not like that at all. Michael McDowell for example is someone I've never agreed with a single thing he's said. Same for gript media. If they say No, I'm 99% it should be yes.
Quote from: Itchy on February 22, 2024, 09:52:01 AMThere is very little about these referendums but I find all I need to do is look at the people who are against it to know that I am for it.
That doesn't work in the case of gaslighting. Sounds like if you have been born over the border you would have voted for Brexit
A very easy No No vote for me.
Quote from: Itchy on February 22, 2024, 12:14:47 PMQuote from: clarshack on February 22, 2024, 10:15:41 AMQuote from: Itchy on February 22, 2024, 09:52:01 AMThere is very little about these referendums but I find all I need to do is look at the people who are against it to know that I am for it.
That's just like voting green or orange in the North just to stick it to the other side.
No it's not like that at all. Michael McDowell for example is someone I've never agreed with a single thing he's said. Same for gript media. If they say No, I'm 99% it should be yes.
Did you actually read or listen to McDowell's arguments?
I rarely agree with him either, but he made a very strong case.
I didn't even bother voting (for the first time since I could vote I think), but I would have voted No, No.
Quote from: Itchy on February 22, 2024, 09:52:01 AMThere is very little about these referendums but I find all I need to do is look at the people who are against it to know that I am for it.
That's a very uninformed way of looking at things. Screams of "I can't be bothered to do my homework on it or try to understand what it's about". It's wilful ignorance like this that led to Brexit and Trump.
Looking like a landside for No/No!
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 09, 2024, 08:57:23 AMQuote from: Itchy on February 22, 2024, 09:52:01 AMThere is very little about these referendums but I find all I need to do is look at the people who are against it to know that I am for it.
That's a very uninformed way of looking at things. Screams of "I can't be bothered to do my homework on it or try to understand what it's about". It's wilful ignorance like this that led to Brexit and Trump.
This is the opposite of Brexit, which was people voting for change without a clue what it was. This is people voting to keep things the same because those who advocate change have not explained it properly
Quote from: armaghniac on March 09, 2024, 10:42:16 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on March 09, 2024, 08:57:23 AMQuote from: Itchy on February 22, 2024, 09:52:01 AMThere is very little about these referendums but I find all I need to do is look at the people who are against it to know that I am for it.
That's a very uninformed way of looking at things. Screams of "I can't be bothered to do my homework on it or try to understand what it's about". It's wilful ignorance like this that led to Brexit and Trump.
Qukte the opposite. Brexit was people voting for change without a clue what it was. This is people voting to keep things the same because those who advocate change have not explained it properly
The only wilful ignorance is your comment.
Think you've misread what I'm saying. He said he is voting for the change (yes/yes) because of who's against it, not me! I'm agreeing with you.
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 09, 2024, 10:35:09 AMLooking like a landside for No/No!
When is the replay ?
Why the need for referendums, can surely be legislated for in the Dail.
The referendums offered nothing to women.
Durable relationships and the law . Tsk tsk
Quote from: bennydorano on March 09, 2024, 11:18:28 AMWhy the need for referendums, can surely be legislated for in the Dail.
Dail can't change the constitution, need a referendum.
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 09, 2024, 11:35:18 AMQuote from: bennydorano on March 09, 2024, 11:18:28 AMWhy the need for referendums, can surely be legislated for in the Dail.
Dail can't change the constitution, need a referendum.
But they didn't actually give any example of legislation that they wanted to pass that the constitution was preventing or any concrete action that they a change would enable,
Regina Doherty more concerned with who leaked the AG advice, rather than the outcome of the referendum.
Why did they try to hide the advice of the top legal mind in the country, which would have helped people make an informed decision?
Quote from: RedHand88 on March 09, 2024, 10:53:08 AMQuote from: armaghniac on March 09, 2024, 10:42:16 AMQuote from: RedHand88 on March 09, 2024, 08:57:23 AMQuote from: Itchy on February 22, 2024, 09:52:01 AMThere is very little about these referendums but I find all I need to do is look at the people who are against it to know that I am for it.
That's a very uninformed way of looking at things. Screams of "I can't be bothered to do my homework on it or try to understand what it's about". It's wilful ignorance like this that led to Brexit and Trump.
Qukte the opposite. Brexit was people voting for change without a clue what it was. This is people voting to keep things the same because those who advocate change have not explained it properly
The only wilful ignorance is your comment.
Think you've misread what I'm saying. He said he is voting for the change (yes/yes) because of who's against it, not me! I'm agreeing with you.
Apologies for that, I think I did, I didn't do my homework properly on this one ;) I revised my post.
I've listened to a few people talking about this referendum, and still am none the wiser.
Can anyone explain them, in a nutshell?
are counciller types now terrified that insurgent types will win seats at the local elections
So the govt (and other major political parties) and their lackeys in the taxpayer funded NGOs had their @r$es handed to them
Cant wait for the local elections
Quote from: Rebel84 on March 09, 2024, 01:53:04 PMQuote from: RedHand88 on March 09, 2024, 12:33:26 PMRegina Doherty more concerned with who leaked the AG advice, rather than the outcome of the referendum.
Why did they try to hide the advice of the top legal mind in the country, which would have helped people make an informed decision?
Because just maybe the South is one of the most corrupt states on the planet?
You obviously live on a different planet.
What the government wanted wasn't voted in favour of it appears. Very poor turnout also.
Quote from: Rebel84 on March 09, 2024, 01:53:04 PMQuote from: RedHand88 on March 09, 2024, 12:33:26 PMRegina Doherty more concerned with who leaked the AG advice, rather than the outcome of the referendum.
Why did they try to hide the advice of the top legal mind in the country, which would have helped people make an informed decision?
Because just maybe the South is one of the most corrupt states on the planet?
You mean one of the least corrupt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
Quote from: armaghniac on March 09, 2024, 02:55:36 PMQuote from: Rebel84 on March 09, 2024, 01:53:04 PMQuote from: RedHand88 on March 09, 2024, 12:33:26 PMRegina Doherty more concerned with who leaked the AG advice, rather than the outcome of the referendum.
Why did they try to hide the advice of the top legal mind in the country, which would have helped people make an informed decision?
Because just maybe the South is one of the most corrupt states on the planet?
You obviously live on a different planet.
And there's no State anywhere on this planet called "the South".
most of the corruption in ireland is hidden corruption shady deals under the disguise of having a pint
You'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
The issue was not the removal of the two "backward clauses" from the constitution. The issue was their replacement with a vague and undefinable definition that would open the door to all sorts of unintended consequences
Quote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 03:50:46 PMYou'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
This is where you have it wrong - Brexit and Trump was a vote for change.
This was a vote for holding onto what we have.
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 09, 2024, 04:13:41 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 03:50:46 PMYou'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
This is where you have it wrong - Brexit and Trump was a vote for change.
This was a vote for holding onto what we have.
Have I? Brexit and Trump was change by people who were nostalgic for a different era (less diversity, etc). This was holding on to older, out of date values, too. More similar than you might think.
Quote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 03:50:46 PMYou'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
The wordings were very weak. They ignored the Citizens Assembly . There was no pre legislative scrutiny in the Dail. The Government will now have to look seriously into disability respite and funding. It was a good day for democracy.
Quote from: seafoid on March 09, 2024, 05:02:24 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 03:50:46 PMYou'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
The wordings were very weak. They ignored the Citizens Assembly . There was no pre legislative scrutiny in the Dail. The Government will now have to look seriously into disability respite and funding. It was a good day for democracy.
The family one was clear: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships" instead of "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded."
That is some kick in the teeth to an unmarried mother who has worked hard all her life to raise her children. Even if wording was weak, it was still better than what we kept.
Quote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 05:13:49 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 09, 2024, 05:02:24 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 03:50:46 PMYou'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
The wordings were very weak. They ignored the Citizens Assembly . There was no pre legislative scrutiny in the Dail. The Government will now have to look seriously into disability respite and funding. It was a good day for democracy.
The family one was clear: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships" instead of "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded."
That is some kick in the teeth to an unmarried mother who has worked hard all her life to raise her children. Even if wording was weak, it was still better than what we kept.
Unmarried mothers are protected under the Constitution. McDowell explains
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22367052/
The referendum was about diluting marriage.
"The people have spoken, the bastards" Dick Tuck
Quote from: seafoid on March 09, 2024, 05:18:26 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 05:13:49 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 09, 2024, 05:02:24 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 03:50:46 PMYou'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
The wordings were very weak. They ignored the Citizens Assembly . There was no pre legislative scrutiny in the Dail. The Government will now have to look seriously into disability respite and funding. It was a good day for democracy.
The family one was clear: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships" instead of "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded."
That is some kick in the teeth to an unmarried mother who has worked hard all her life to raise her children. Even if wording was weak, it was still better than what we kept.
Unmarried mothers are protected under the Constitution. McDowell explains
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22367052/
The referendum was about diluting marriage.
"The people have spoken, the bastards" Dick Tuck
More didn't vote at all than voted.
Quote from: Blowitupref on March 09, 2024, 05:34:42 PMMore didn't vote at all than voted.
Presumably, they weren't too bothered about change either.
Quote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 05:13:49 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 09, 2024, 05:02:24 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 03:50:46 PMYou'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
The wordings were very weak. They ignored the Citizens Assembly . There was no pre legislative scrutiny in the Dail. The Government will now have to look seriously into disability respite and funding. It was a good day for democracy.
The family one was clear: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships" instead of "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded."
That is some kick in the teeth to an unmarried mother who has worked hard all her life to raise her children. Even if wording was weak, it was still better than what we kept.
Define "durable relationships"
Quote from: Blowitupref on March 09, 2024, 05:34:42 PMMore didn't vote at all than voted.
I think that's pretty normal in referendums.
Quote from: burdizzo on March 09, 2024, 07:07:48 PMQuote from: Blowitupref on March 09, 2024, 05:34:42 PMMore didn't vote at all than voted.
I think that's pretty normal in referendums.
Turn outs for the last 15 years.
59% for 28th Amendment (Treaty of Lisbon)
57% for 29th Amendment (To relax the prohibition on the reduction of judges' salaries)
51% for 30th Amendment (To permit the state to ratify the European Fiscal Compact
34% for 31st Amendment (Relating to children's rights)
39% for 32nd Amendment (Abolition of the Seanad)
39% for 33rd Amendment (Establishment of a Court of Appeal)
61% for 34th Amendment (To permit marriage to be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex)
61% for 35th Amendment (To reduce the minimum age of candidacy for the office of President from 35 to 21)
64% for 36th Amendment (To permit the Oireachtas to legislate for the regulation of termination of pregnancy)
44% for 37th Amendment (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter)
51% for 38th Amendment (To delete the requirement for a period of separation before proceedings for divorce could be initiated. To recognise foreign divorces)
44% was the turn out for this one.
If I remember correctly about 750k voted against dropping the Abortion ban, around twice that voted yes.
I'd imagine most of that 750k voted no yesterday while most of the 1.5m stayed at home.
Poor effort from the Government from rushing the thing through, ignoring Attorney Geberal advice, not explaining it very well and leaving the whole thing to a Minister who has about 8 or 9 areas of responsibility including immigration/refugees etc
Quote from: Rossfan on February 12, 2024, 11:25:04 PMThe Nazifascists are calling for 2 No Votes so they're obviously 2 good things.
Huh !
Quote from: Tubberman on March 09, 2024, 06:48:14 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 05:13:49 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 09, 2024, 05:02:24 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 03:50:46 PMYou'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
The wordings were very weak. They ignored the Citizens Assembly . There was no pre legislative scrutiny in the Dail. The Government will now have to look seriously into disability respite and funding. It was a good day for democracy.
The family one was clear: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships" instead of "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded."
That is some kick in the teeth to an unmarried mother who has worked hard all her life to raise her children. Even if wording was weak, it was still better than what we kept.
Define "durable relationships"
Define "Family"?
For most, any mother and child in a lasting relationship is a family. But in context of Irish constitution, it's a married mother and child. You know we once sent the unmarried mothers to homes, sold their babies, to keep up this fiction.
And so this attacking the "durable relationships" to mean Mohammed bringing in his 10 wives to Ireland when in real world over 40% of Irish children are born out of wedlock was shitty. And Irish people pleading ignorance - sure that could he Mohammed and his ten wives or the live in girlfriend claiming the farm.
Meaning is context dependent. In context of Irish constitution, it was clear what durable relationships meant.
Quote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 11:49:47 PMQuote from: Tubberman on March 09, 2024, 06:48:14 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 05:13:49 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 09, 2024, 05:02:24 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 03:50:46 PMYou'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
The wordings were very weak. They ignored the Citizens Assembly . There was no pre legislative scrutiny in the Dail. The Government will now have to look seriously into disability respite and funding. It was a good day for democracy.
The family one was clear: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships" instead of "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded."
That is some kick in the teeth to an unmarried mother who has worked hard all her life to raise her children. Even if wording was weak, it was still better than what we kept.
Define "durable relationships"
Define "Family"?
For most, any mother and child in a lasting relationship is a family. But in context of Irish constitution, it's a married mother and child. You know we once sent the unmarried mothers to homes, sold their babies, to keep up this fiction.
And so this attacking the "durable relationships" to mean Mohammed bringing in his 10 wives to Ireland when in real world over 40% of Irish children are born out of wedlock was shitty. And Irish people pleading ignorance - sure that could he Mohammed and his ten wives or the live in girlfriend claiming the farm.
Meaning is context dependent. In context of Irish constitution, it was clear what durable relationships meant.
A sitting government minister (Neale Richmond) said on TV-that a Yes vote in the Family referendum would have "serious consequences" for immigration law.
A single mother is not in a durable relationship either, so what was the benefit of adding that text to the marriage sentence?
Quote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 11:49:47 PMQuote from: Tubberman on March 09, 2024, 06:48:14 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 05:13:49 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 09, 2024, 05:02:24 PMQuote from: weareros on March 09, 2024, 03:50:46 PMYou'd have thought removing these two backward Eamon DeValera clause in the Irish constitution (family is founded on marriage, a woman's duty is in the home) would have been an easy win for the Irish government. Had the vote been held between 1993-2008, it would have easily passed. The mood has now shifted and it's not unlike Brexit or Trump's America where the people want a fantasy country back from the forces of liberal elite, media, WEF, EU, immigrants, whatever you're having yourself. Watch Brexiters in UK, Unionists, right wingers, Catholic Church cheer this result.
The wordings were very weak. They ignored the Citizens Assembly . There was no pre legislative scrutiny in the Dail. The Government will now have to look seriously into disability respite and funding. It was a good day for democracy.
The family one was clear: "The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships" instead of "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded."
That is some kick in the teeth to an unmarried mother who has worked hard all her life to raise her children. Even if wording was weak, it was still better than what we kept.
Define "durable relationships"
Define "Family"?
For most, any mother and child in a lasting relationship is a family. But in context of Irish constitution, it's a married mother and child. You know we once sent the unmarried mothers to homes, sold their babies, to keep up this fiction.
And so this attacking the "durable relationships" to mean Mohammed bringing in his 10 wives to Ireland when in real world over 40% of Irish children are born out of wedlock was shitty. And Irish people pleading ignorance - sure that could he Mohammed and his ten wives or the live in girlfriend claiming the farm.
Meaning is context dependent. In context of Irish constitution, it was clear what durable relationships meant.
It was NOT clear what durable relationship meant - that was the main problem!
It was vague, and was to be determined by the courts.
People were asked to vote in a change to the constitution when they couldn't know the impacts of that change.
They rightly rejected it.
"Durable relationship" and "strive" were what sunk the proposals.
Catherine Connolly called it from the start
https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1766528405036581142
Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2024, 10:40:17 AM"Durable relationship" and "strive" were what sunk the proposals.
Catherine Connolly called it from the start
https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1766528405036581142
Personal victory for Ewan by the looks of it, tweeting non stop since yesterday about it. He's called every single minor anti establishment victory event ever since he's joined twitter tbf. Most of them retrospectively and without any actual evidence of having done so, but still...
Quote from: The Boy Wonder on February 13, 2024, 03:42:13 PMFamily section of Bunreacht na hÉireann (https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article41)
Referendum information (https://www.electoralcommission.ie/referendums/referendum-information/what-are-you-being-asked-to-decide-on/#CareAmendment)
The Family Amendment (White Ballot Paper)
• Article 41.1 – referendum on proposed changed wording
• Article 41.2 – see proposal to delete this article under Care Amendment below
• Article 41.3 – referendum on proposed changed wording
The Family Amendment to a certain extent mirrors the Marriage Equality referendum held in 2015. There were then and there are now sincerely held views on both sides. Rossfan's post above re. "Nazifascists" is plain childish.
The Care Amendment (Green Ballot Paper)
• Article 41.2 – referendum on proposal to delete this article entirely (41.2.1 and 41.2.2)
• Article 42B to be added to the CHILDREN section of Bunreacht na hÉireann
Individualisation was introduced into the Irish Income Tax system over 20 years ago. The purpose was to base the tax system on individuality rather than family relationships. The effect was that a one-income married couple pay more tax than a two-income married couple on the same earnings.
Many would argue that this change to the tax system effectively made Article 41.2.2 redundant and many women were actually obliged, by economic necessity rather than choice, to get a job outside the home. Removing Article 41.2 now is merely window dressing and the new Article 42B is airy-fairy.
This can be overstated. Invidualisation is very limited and reflects the fact that there is a real cost to going to work so some recognition of that is appropriate.In reality the whole thing could have been reorgansed to reflect care, I see no particular reason why a woman with no children or whose children have grown up should get support from the tax system to stay at home.
It's quite interesting to read over the thread now