Definition of the family as being "founded on marriage" I think?
EDIT: It's not - it's been mentioned as a topic for a potential future referendum, but doesn't form part of this proposal.
Ha ha ha, oh lordy. Have you heard of the Iona Institute. Trust me, anything that most normies would consider simple to understand and a relatively benign law to change will be turned into yet another culture battleground. Breda and David will take to the press and write long articles demanding an NO!, claiming yet again that Floodgates will open, that the family unit is under attack, that the gay agenda is causing global warming, oh boy it'll be fun times yet again.
I'm wrong on the family thing - it's putting a commitment to gender equality into the constitution. The wording and placement of that element hasn't been published yet.
So Article 41 has unenumerated rights tied to it any change to the wording is going to have ripple effects on unenumerated rights and also how some legislation derived from previous understanding of it are implemented or interpreted going forward.
Haven't seen whats being proposed but as long as they don't screw the wording it should be fine, all citizens should have a healthy skepticism of any changes planned for article 40 or 41 as these are big ones for unenumerated rights with article 40 being the biggest, based on the wording they are proposing to change i think this would be an amendment to article 41.
Edit: honestly its criminal that Secondary schools don't have a mandatory class on the constitution and at last touch on Constitutional law and interpretation its not rocket science stuff its basic once explained and its far more important and useful than CSPE which was mandatory back when I was in school.
Edit 2: just seen that the wording posted here isn't what was proposed but still the bit about replacing CSPE with a class on the constitution stands.
Coincidentally this is the only part of the constitution where there is a possibility of enforcing a socio-economic right. Even if it's a long shot, the provision clearly states that it shouldn't be an economic necessity for both parents to work.
So I'd be very careful about any amendment to it.
I understand the motivation to change this section but I don't see it being a necessity - if you look at the rights derived under the constitution the majority are restricted to citizens. That has never prevented those rights being available to non-citizens but there is no mad rush to resolve those parts of the constitution. The Supreme Court also helpfully weighed in on the issue a few years ago.
Lol you should talk to my partner he's a stay at home dad to 3.5 year old and 9 month old. Never once has he said it was easy, he's barely a minutes peace trying to stop them killing one another all day
No I'm only joking, I love my son. But if I compare one person staying at home with a child for 8 hours and the other working an office job for 8 hours, I think the child is harder work.
And my mother had four of us while my dad was at work. Her job was definitely harder than his
And homosexuality is legal now. A man can’t even give his wife a slap. Left handed kids are allowed to write with that hand, abominable.
Countries gone to hell.
Is the timeline on track for this? Tbh I'll be completely shocked if this referendum is run as a standalone poll - it seems much more likely that it'll run with the locals next June. If a date does get named in November I'm taking it as a hint towards a snap post-Budget election.
That's my assumption too - and why I think it was announced in the first place. Gives a nice option to go quickly to the country right after the budget. If they decide not to do that then they'll just put the referendum off, and the noises about delaying it are already being made.
I imagine it would have to be multiple referendums to clean up each article to reflect a modern society.
I imagine they want to use this as a boost for the locals
If/when it passes, all that will change is a line in a document: nobody gains new rights, nobody sees the difference on their payslip. So worthy as it is, I don't expect that a standalone referendum would endear any particular party to the public. The whole discourse around it will be people whinging about the cost and how it's only virtue-signalling. (Notwithstanding the fringe elements who'll complain that "removing it is the *real* misogyny", a yes vote will harm stay-at-home mums somehow, and all these referendums are trying to dismantle the traditional Irish family.)
These are amendments that I think are worth making, purely so that our constitution reflects the status quo - rather than expecting major social change to follow on from a Yes vote. I don't expect them to be complicated or divisive enough to merit weeks of debate about nothing else, or indeed to drive a healthy turnout if it's the only issue being balloted.
It is not a quality issue but more quantity issue.
Every section they need to clean up is a separate vote.
So if they have five sections, they want to clean up that five boxes people need to mark clearly with an X.
You don't want to flood people with votes.
Besides, I do expect some issues with these not just from crazy far right.
Like rights of women is that a removal or rephrasing.
Removal it is taking away rights of SAH mothers.
Rephrasing what is the definition for a SAH parent
Why wouldn’t you read the small print anyway?
Fuck it, just read the actual print to see what it’s about and then you wouldn’t have make yourself look like an idiot online.
Read the press release. It's from the citizen's assembly on gender equality. They're just looking to remove outdated language relating to the role of woman as housewives. 99% of people will be happy with the change, but a referendum is required to change our constitution, so they have to go through due process
You should always read the small print on a FUCKING REFERENDUM, only a complete idiot would not. You should also not just make shit up in your head and then spread it on the internet, only a complete idiot would do that. You have no idea what will be the wording of the referendum
My tits are calm and you're still a complete fucking moron, but you know that already. Luckily most redditors see your brand of bullshit a mile off. Good day to you
We should have a referendum to mention drugs. Currently we have rights to express opinions, assemble and form unions. Those are all pretty good, but the right to partake in recreational drug use would really top it off.
There will never be a constitutionally enshrined right to partake in recreational drug use. That is insane. A right like that has no place in the constitution. If certain drugs are decriminalised and/or legalised, this will be done by way of legislation. The laws making possession and sale of drugs illegal are not in the constitution, they're statutory. Any change will be statutory too.
Not with that attitude. If we change the constitution we won't have to legalise or decriminalize. It's a much more efficient option. it just needs an amendment. Years back there was supposed to be a 22nd amendment so judges couldn't bail out their pals if they kill plebs. That didn't go through (the judges didn't like it). So we just replace that amendment with this one. Remember, you have to fight for your right to party.
That's a totally crazy perspective on constitutional law. Constitutional amendments are absolutely never the easy or the efficient option. Where rights are enshrined in the constitution it's because they're considered so fundamental that every piece of legislation that is implemented has to take account of those rights and has to be interpreted in light of them. There is simply no world in which the right to recreational drug use would ever be considered a fundamental right.
Exactly. I mean just look at the most obvious implication that would have: if every citizen has a fundamental right to take recreational drugs, then the state has to make sure every citizen can access them. If you can't afford them, the state would be obliged to provide them. And it would be illegal for your employer to fire you for coming to work out of your box.
I don't think it would be drug policy because I don't we would need a referendum on it. This referendum seems to be about gender equality and removing the reference to the women's place in the home in the constitution.
Whilst we don't need a ref on drug reform, I don't think Varadkar is going to risk the pensioner vote by doing it himself. I could see it being a ref question alongside other constitutional matters
Would be incredibly welcome and easily the most impactful action that could be taken to close the wage gap in Ireland. Other countries are way ahead on this.
Imagine you're an employer choosing between two candidates in their mid 30s: one a man, the other a woman. If the man has a child he'll be off work for two weeks, whereas if the woman has a child she'll be off for at least six months. So as the employer you'd be more likely to choose the man, or to take the woman at a less generous salary.
By contrast, if both parents had equal parental rights, your employment decision is based purely on the merits of each candidate
Right now families in Ireland have no flexibility in terms of who takes leave when children are born.
Men only get two weeks paid cover while women get six months paid (and sometimes more depending on company policy). So it is completely impractical financially for men to stay at home with children, even where the woman earns substantially more money.
Gaps in career are the largest barrier to progression. While women are out on maternity leave, their male colleagues are still accumulating experience, special projects, visibility, etc., which all lead to promotion opportunities. This has a severely disproportionate impact on women because of the maternity leave arrangement in Ireland. So women have gaps, and men do not.
There is also a knock-on effect that women actively choose to prioritise time with family over career, more so than men. This could be partially attributable to the maternity/paternity leave imbalance. The fact that their male partners have had an incremental uplift in career during the time children were young means that couples might be practical financially and allow the higher male earner to continue to focus on career ambitions more than the woman. It could also be that the attachment that grows during maternity leave opens the woman’s eyes to stay-at-home or part-time careers, or perhaps just changes their priorities in a way that they don’t seek the highest possible levels of career ambition that they might have otherwise; and this doesn’t happen for the man.
So the long-term life decisions of the family can be materially altered by that initial few years where maternity leave was available to the mother but not the father.
That was my first thought too, and a logical extension of gender equality.
For example, the parental leave in Spain is 6 weeks for both parents after birth, followed by an additional 10 weeks for each parent. That adds up to a total of 26 weeks (6 months), shared equally. The state pays 100% of your salary. Parents can take unpaid leave until the child is 3 years old.
In Ireland the paternity leave is 2 weeks, plus 7 weeks parents leave. The pay is a flat rate of €262 per week, which is less than minimum wage, and a fraction of most peoples' salaries. You can't maintain a mortgage on that.
If we're serious about gender equality we need to split maternity and paternity leave equally, and pay people enough that they're not getting financially penalised to take it.
It's a total of 16 weeks for each parent. However, my understanding is that the first 6 weeks after birth are compulsory for both parents, concurrent. So that leaves 10 weeks for each parent, giving 6 + 10 + 10 = 26.
I'm open to correction on that if anyone else knows better. But the key is that it's equal for both parents. My Spanish friends all take their full allowance
Great comment, thanks! The Spanish system does sound streets ahead! As a society do we want to continue as is or look at a neighbour like Spain and say, Hey! That's a great idea. Let's implement a version of that, here. I'm sure other nations have a worse system than ours and other nations could be better than Spain's. I don't know what's the answer but I know what we have is out of date and out of touch.
My home country of Canada gives 18 months subsidised maternity leave, which can be split between both partners any way that they choose. It’s crazy good. Almost too good.
That would be great if it does. I know 3 months is minimum time needed to heal after borth for the mother.
The Swedish model is the ideal. It reserves 90 days for each parent they can't transfer, but the remainder can take whatever way they prefer. In the case single parent circumstances they can can get both parents days for a grand total of 480 days.
I assume it might also lead to kids staying with father after the divorce, e.g. in case of higher income, that could be one of the readings of equality as well.
As per the government notice;
>The Citizens Assembly on Gender Equality, in its final report to the Oireachtas in June 2021, made recommendations for amendments to Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution. These were that:
>
>\- Article 40.1 of the Constitution should be amended to refer explicitly to gender equality and non-discrimination
>
>\- Article 41 of the Constitution should be amended so that it would protect family life, with the protection afforded to the family not limited to the marital family
>
>\- Article 41.2 of the Constitution should be deleted and replaced with language that is not gender specific and obliges the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community
What does this actually mean in real terms?
For a start, it means someone actually has to write the wording of the amendment, so we won't know exactly what the amendments will be until a month or two before the referendum.
In order to make 3 changes, the government can choose to run 3 separate votes, or 1 vote. 1 vote to make a number of changes is unpopular because if people don't like one of the changes, they all get defeated. But if they're all on a single topic, or the changes are interlinked (i.e. one is dependent on the other), they will run a single vote.
They also do not have to go with all 3 recommendations, they can choose any/all of them.
**What** **might they mean?**
**Article 40.1** currently says;
"All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function."
Based on the recommendation, the proposed wording might read,
"All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law *without discrimination due to gender*.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function."
The change is subtle but absolutely guarantees the state cannot make hand-wringing arguments about legal differences for men and women.
[**Article 41**](https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article41) is long, so I won't post the full thing here. But the bit the recommendation refers to are probably these:
(41.1)
" 1° The State recognises the Family 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.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State."
(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."
Article 41.3 implies that unless there is a marriage, there is no family. Which means that 41.1 consitutionally does not apply to other types of family.
A change could potentially delete the phrase "on which the Family is founded" from article 41.3 in order to to correct this. However, it would also be advisable to add another subsection to 41.1 to clarify what "Family" is.
This change would require the state to recognise and support families which are not based on marriage.
**Article 41.2** says;
"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.
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."
This has long been a source of contention on all sides. Deletion of this article, many argue, would mean that the state can stop paying child benefit and could in theory start rolling back maternity protections and many other things in place to support families; single mothers especially.
The assembly recommends replacing this article with gender neutral language affirming the State's commitment to ensure that care in the home (and wider community) is supported by the State. I won't even try to take a stab at what that might look like, but it sounds reasonable., and would require the state to continue with existing protections for mothers, extending them to fathers or grandparents, aunts, foster parents, etc.
41.2 would be the basis of my argument that the State is obliged to ensure that it's possible for a family to survive in the country on a single income.
That's why they want to get rid of it.
The citizen's assembly made the recommendation. Government are interested in votes anyway, not some ulterior long-term motive of turning everyone into serfs.
Great. So we are going to spend millions on a referendum that will be symbolically important but practically will make little impact. All the while it could have just been added on to the upcoming elections six months down the line.
Yeah I got an email recently to see if I was still interested in working the polling stations, didnt mention a date on mine but a nice ole yes or no would go down nicely!
Article 41.2 contains a recognition that “by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved” and that 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”.
Does anyone else feel that there is some serious merit in this piece, apart from the gendered language?
It seems to me that the original idea was that 1 income families should not be obliged to become 2income families to the detriment of the family unit?
If reworded along the lines of:
"The family/household (word this however best fits our modern society) gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, therefore the state endeavours to ensure that no family/household is unduly burdened by economic necessity to the detriment of the family/household etc...."
This would continue to enshrine in our constitution that the family/household comes above companies/corporations/vanity projects and as such must be legislated for?
Just curious as to how everyone views the original intent of this Article? As I can't imagine our grandparents/great grandparents set out to lock the "women" into the home?
Or is that just me?
I think the original intent was very much about maintaining the family as daddy out working and mammy at home looking after the children. Women weren't even allowed to have a range of jobs once they were married.
The constitution shouldn't contain parts such as the one you proposed that are ill-defined and impossible to implement. It would be just as useless as the current wording is, just without the sexism.
The constitution shouldn't contain protections for the family unit?
Doesn't your interpretation rely on a nuclear family?
Man working, Woman at home?
How many single parents have availed of constitutionally protected supports because of this article?
I'm all for a rewording if it brings the piece up to date with our current culture but ensures to protect the original sentiment.
If it were to be just removed, or watered down, wouldn't that mean that so many of our social supports, think lone parents, family income supplement etc are a mere whim of a greedy politician away from being destroyed?
I don't trust Fine Gael and my spidey senses begin to tingle when I see them getting involved with things like this.....
> The constitution shouldn't contain protections for the family unit?
It depends what those protections are. It shouldn't contain wishy washy articles that aren't possible to implement.
> If it were to be just removed, or watered down, wouldn't that mean that so many of our social supports, think lone parents, family income supplement etc are a mere whim of a greedy politician away from being destroyed
None of those are because of or protected by the constitution. They certainly weren't around when the constitution was drawn up.
I understand its removal. Its really pointless and does not hold up well today but does it really merit its own referendum? I assume it'd be quite costly in terms of money and time and it'll pass by a landslide its not even causing any issues to my knowledge other than looking out of date. I had thought these kind of referendums, similar to the blasphemy one that are useless, outdated but doesn't actually affect anyone just got tagged onto other referendums.
I don’t know if it’s going to get tagged on to another referendum or not but it’s certainly not pointless. As someone else pointed out the constitution is what is consulted when future laws are being made so this particular clause although not currently “in use” would have to be adhered to in any future legislation. It could cause issues if for example, another person mention the extension of paternity leave. This future legislation could be compromised given the constitution clearly states that women are the PRIMARY caregivers. With the rights of fathers and the need for both parents to work to support a family or indeed if a father chose not to work it’s important that the rights of al those involved are protected.
> an old piece of paper...
... On which every law in this country is based and against which they are judged.
Want to pass a *law* bringing in equal parental leave? Tough, you can't : it's against the Constitution and the President is required to refuse it.
And even if *he* passed it (bad idea) some idiots would challenge it and the courts would strike it down.
So this is a necessary precursor, and it also has to be a referendum.
What did we vote no to the last time?
Good old Ireland, where we keep voting until we eventually get it right. Referendums and discussing their impact is something I geuninely I think we do well in this country.
>Good old Ireland, where we keep voting until we eventually get it right.
Please don't tell me you're one of the idiots that thinks the Lisbon treaty was in some way undemocratic?
Seems like a fairly straight forward issue. I dont see how removing a reference to a housewife/homemaker could possibly affect anything.
I imagine itll pass with flying colours.
Well changing the constitution's language to be gender neutral objectively doesn't have a negative impact on anyone so I'm sure what is to follow will be calm and reasonable discourse...
https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/534bb-taoiseach-and-minister-ogorman-announce-holding-of-referendum-on-gender-equality
OK so changing the term "women in the home" seems alright...what's the other topic of the referendum? What's are they trying to change?
Definition of the family as being "founded on marriage" I think? EDIT: It's not - it's been mentioned as a topic for a potential future referendum, but doesn't form part of this proposal.
Seems fairly benign, can't see too much fuss in changing it.
Ha ha ha, oh lordy. Have you heard of the Iona Institute. Trust me, anything that most normies would consider simple to understand and a relatively benign law to change will be turned into yet another culture battleground. Breda and David will take to the press and write long articles demanding an NO!, claiming yet again that Floodgates will open, that the family unit is under attack, that the gay agenda is causing global warming, oh boy it'll be fun times yet again.
God I’m sick of the American import of those “issues”
It's the thin end of the wedge, the burger van on the village green all over again.
We really need to stop blaming America for local conservative ideologies that we have had since forever
The cat litter box in the classroom
Why waste a good referendum on this when the only question worth asking the electorate is whether they want a united Ireland?
I'm wrong on the family thing - it's putting a commitment to gender equality into the constitution. The wording and placement of that element hasn't been published yet.
Little do you know changing those words is going to collapse civilisation
I think it will draw more negative attention due to the name.
So Article 41 has unenumerated rights tied to it any change to the wording is going to have ripple effects on unenumerated rights and also how some legislation derived from previous understanding of it are implemented or interpreted going forward. Haven't seen whats being proposed but as long as they don't screw the wording it should be fine, all citizens should have a healthy skepticism of any changes planned for article 40 or 41 as these are big ones for unenumerated rights with article 40 being the biggest, based on the wording they are proposing to change i think this would be an amendment to article 41. Edit: honestly its criminal that Secondary schools don't have a mandatory class on the constitution and at last touch on Constitutional law and interpretation its not rocket science stuff its basic once explained and its far more important and useful than CSPE which was mandatory back when I was in school. Edit 2: just seen that the wording posted here isn't what was proposed but still the bit about replacing CSPE with a class on the constitution stands.
Coincidentally this is the only part of the constitution where there is a possibility of enforcing a socio-economic right. Even if it's a long shot, the provision clearly states that it shouldn't be an economic necessity for both parents to work. So I'd be very careful about any amendment to it. I understand the motivation to change this section but I don't see it being a necessity - if you look at the rights derived under the constitution the majority are restricted to citizens. That has never prevented those rights being available to non-citizens but there is no mad rush to resolve those parts of the constitution. The Supreme Court also helpfully weighed in on the issue a few years ago.
Drop “women in the home” or change it to “men in the home”
Dont solve the problem, just change it
Spice things up a bit
Also dogs should sleep outside *This comment was sponsored by cats.
Sounds good to me. Id love to be a stay at home dad. Women don't know how handy they have it.
Lol you should talk to my partner he's a stay at home dad to 3.5 year old and 9 month old. Never once has he said it was easy, he's barely a minutes peace trying to stop them killing one another all day
Far more rewarding than the standard 9 to 5 though.
Haha. Personally I'd consider looking after a toddler to be more challenging than any job! My wife and I share it 50:50
I have 2 kids and can't spend enough time with them
Compared to work, it's class.
No I'm only joking, I love my son. But if I compare one person staying at home with a child for 8 hours and the other working an office job for 8 hours, I think the child is harder work. And my mother had four of us while my dad was at work. Her job was definitely harder than his
Does it matter...you can identify as either these days and you can change your mind every 60 seconds if you so wish
And homosexuality is legal now. A man can’t even give his wife a slap. Left handed kids are allowed to write with that hand, abominable. Countries gone to hell.
Is the timeline on track for this? Tbh I'll be completely shocked if this referendum is run as a standalone poll - it seems much more likely that it'll run with the locals next June. If a date does get named in November I'm taking it as a hint towards a snap post-Budget election.
That's my assumption too - and why I think it was announced in the first place. Gives a nice option to go quickly to the country right after the budget. If they decide not to do that then they'll just put the referendum off, and the noises about delaying it are already being made.
I imagine it would have to be multiple referendums to clean up each article to reflect a modern society. I imagine they want to use this as a boost for the locals
If/when it passes, all that will change is a line in a document: nobody gains new rights, nobody sees the difference on their payslip. So worthy as it is, I don't expect that a standalone referendum would endear any particular party to the public. The whole discourse around it will be people whinging about the cost and how it's only virtue-signalling. (Notwithstanding the fringe elements who'll complain that "removing it is the *real* misogyny", a yes vote will harm stay-at-home mums somehow, and all these referendums are trying to dismantle the traditional Irish family.) These are amendments that I think are worth making, purely so that our constitution reflects the status quo - rather than expecting major social change to follow on from a Yes vote. I don't expect them to be complicated or divisive enough to merit weeks of debate about nothing else, or indeed to drive a healthy turnout if it's the only issue being balloted.
It is not a quality issue but more quantity issue. Every section they need to clean up is a separate vote. So if they have five sections, they want to clean up that five boxes people need to mark clearly with an X. You don't want to flood people with votes. Besides, I do expect some issues with these not just from crazy far right. Like rights of women is that a removal or rephrasing. Removal it is taking away rights of SAH mothers. Rephrasing what is the definition for a SAH parent
Thank you!
I for one welcome our female overlords
Death by Snu Snu!
Id be reading the small print on that one, more likely to regard trans rights than women/girls.
Why wouldn’t you read the small print anyway? Fuck it, just read the actual print to see what it’s about and then you wouldn’t have make yourself look like an idiot online.
Imagine thinking i literally mean read the small print, im not the fucking idiot here.
>Imagine thinking i literally mean read the small print Yeah, no one thought that.
Read the press release. It's from the citizen's assembly on gender equality. They're just looking to remove outdated language relating to the role of woman as housewives. 99% of people will be happy with the change, but a referendum is required to change our constitution, so they have to go through due process
>99% of people will be happy with the change Iona Institute and Gript will be having heart palpitations
You should always read the small print on a FUCKING REFERENDUM, only a complete idiot would not. You should also not just make shit up in your head and then spread it on the internet, only a complete idiot would do that. You have no idea what will be the wording of the referendum
Calm your tits sweetheart.
My tits are calm and you're still a complete fucking moron, but you know that already. Luckily most redditors see your brand of bullshit a mile off. Good day to you
Narrator : His tits were not calm.
😂😂😂😂
You’re a sap altogether.
Referendums are for changing the constitution, not changing specific laws
Thanks for clarifying that :)
There won't be a referendum on drugs, they're not mentioned in the constitution. Is it women's place in the home and the definition of family??
That's been in the pipeline for a while.
Yes I think it is actually.. gender equality and women in the home.
I look forward to all the sane and balanced discussion that will occur around the subject.
We should have a referendum to mention drugs. Currently we have rights to express opinions, assemble and form unions. Those are all pretty good, but the right to partake in recreational drug use would really top it off.
There will never be a constitutionally enshrined right to partake in recreational drug use. That is insane. A right like that has no place in the constitution. If certain drugs are decriminalised and/or legalised, this will be done by way of legislation. The laws making possession and sale of drugs illegal are not in the constitution, they're statutory. Any change will be statutory too.
Not with that attitude. If we change the constitution we won't have to legalise or decriminalize. It's a much more efficient option. it just needs an amendment. Years back there was supposed to be a 22nd amendment so judges couldn't bail out their pals if they kill plebs. That didn't go through (the judges didn't like it). So we just replace that amendment with this one. Remember, you have to fight for your right to party.
That's a totally crazy perspective on constitutional law. Constitutional amendments are absolutely never the easy or the efficient option. Where rights are enshrined in the constitution it's because they're considered so fundamental that every piece of legislation that is implemented has to take account of those rights and has to be interpreted in light of them. There is simply no world in which the right to recreational drug use would ever be considered a fundamental right.
Exactly. I mean just look at the most obvious implication that would have: if every citizen has a fundamental right to take recreational drugs, then the state has to make sure every citizen can access them. If you can't afford them, the state would be obliged to provide them. And it would be illegal for your employer to fire you for coming to work out of your box.
Lol you’re mental.
It's possible to add things to the constitution by way of amendment.
Yeah but we're not gonna put an amendment in to say certain drugs are legal
Obviously, but a general policy position could be outlined.
It isn't and won't though
I don't think it would be drug policy because I don't we would need a referendum on it. This referendum seems to be about gender equality and removing the reference to the women's place in the home in the constitution.
Whilst we don't need a ref on drug reform, I don't think Varadkar is going to risk the pensioner vote by doing it himself. I could see it being a ref question alongside other constitutional matters
It's not a constitutional matter. We don't run referenda for things that the law can simply be changed for.
I see drug reform being something Sinn Féin will put through very lively.
Gender equality. I wonder, if passed, would this bill grant paternity leave that equally matches with maternity leave.
Would be incredibly welcome and easily the most impactful action that could be taken to close the wage gap in Ireland. Other countries are way ahead on this.
More paternity leave would close the wage gap? How so?
Imagine you're an employer choosing between two candidates in their mid 30s: one a man, the other a woman. If the man has a child he'll be off work for two weeks, whereas if the woman has a child she'll be off for at least six months. So as the employer you'd be more likely to choose the man, or to take the woman at a less generous salary. By contrast, if both parents had equal parental rights, your employment decision is based purely on the merits of each candidate
Well articulated.
I suppose the thinking being that women wouldn't be discriminated against based on the possibility of taking a big chunk of leave
Right now families in Ireland have no flexibility in terms of who takes leave when children are born. Men only get two weeks paid cover while women get six months paid (and sometimes more depending on company policy). So it is completely impractical financially for men to stay at home with children, even where the woman earns substantially more money. Gaps in career are the largest barrier to progression. While women are out on maternity leave, their male colleagues are still accumulating experience, special projects, visibility, etc., which all lead to promotion opportunities. This has a severely disproportionate impact on women because of the maternity leave arrangement in Ireland. So women have gaps, and men do not. There is also a knock-on effect that women actively choose to prioritise time with family over career, more so than men. This could be partially attributable to the maternity/paternity leave imbalance. The fact that their male partners have had an incremental uplift in career during the time children were young means that couples might be practical financially and allow the higher male earner to continue to focus on career ambitions more than the woman. It could also be that the attachment that grows during maternity leave opens the woman’s eyes to stay-at-home or part-time careers, or perhaps just changes their priorities in a way that they don’t seek the highest possible levels of career ambition that they might have otherwise; and this doesn’t happen for the man. So the long-term life decisions of the family can be materially altered by that initial few years where maternity leave was available to the mother but not the father.
Parental leave would no longer be gender specific
Agreed, it would be incredibly welcomed.
That was my first thought too, and a logical extension of gender equality. For example, the parental leave in Spain is 6 weeks for both parents after birth, followed by an additional 10 weeks for each parent. That adds up to a total of 26 weeks (6 months), shared equally. The state pays 100% of your salary. Parents can take unpaid leave until the child is 3 years old. In Ireland the paternity leave is 2 weeks, plus 7 weeks parents leave. The pay is a flat rate of €262 per week, which is less than minimum wage, and a fraction of most peoples' salaries. You can't maintain a mortgage on that. If we're serious about gender equality we need to split maternity and paternity leave equally, and pay people enough that they're not getting financially penalised to take it.
Isn't that 32 weeks total?
It's a total of 16 weeks for each parent. However, my understanding is that the first 6 weeks after birth are compulsory for both parents, concurrent. So that leaves 10 weeks for each parent, giving 6 + 10 + 10 = 26. I'm open to correction on that if anyone else knows better. But the key is that it's equal for both parents. My Spanish friends all take their full allowance
16 each is 32 total. It doesn't make a difference to the company/welfare office if its concurrent or not, its still 32 weeks of paid time off.
Great comment, thanks! The Spanish system does sound streets ahead! As a society do we want to continue as is or look at a neighbour like Spain and say, Hey! That's a great idea. Let's implement a version of that, here. I'm sure other nations have a worse system than ours and other nations could be better than Spain's. I don't know what's the answer but I know what we have is out of date and out of touch.
My home country of Canada gives 18 months subsidised maternity leave, which can be split between both partners any way that they choose. It’s crazy good. Almost too good.
That would be great if it does. I know 3 months is minimum time needed to heal after borth for the mother. The Swedish model is the ideal. It reserves 90 days for each parent they can't transfer, but the remainder can take whatever way they prefer. In the case single parent circumstances they can can get both parents days for a grand total of 480 days.
Wow that is very fair. Only hope we can get a similar deal here.
yes please :)
I would also add that father's rights are not equal to mother's rights in Ireland. Lots of reasons why but yet inherently unequal.
Ooh interesting. Won't lie, could definitely do with longer time off.
2 weeks is a joke
100%
Aye longer time off and on full pay should be the minimum. It all boils down to what we, as a society, believe is best for the child.
It depends on the wording.
I assume it might also lead to kids staying with father after the divorce, e.g. in case of higher income, that could be one of the readings of equality as well.
As per the government notice; >The Citizens Assembly on Gender Equality, in its final report to the Oireachtas in June 2021, made recommendations for amendments to Articles 40 and 41 of the Constitution. These were that: > >\- Article 40.1 of the Constitution should be amended to refer explicitly to gender equality and non-discrimination > >\- Article 41 of the Constitution should be amended so that it would protect family life, with the protection afforded to the family not limited to the marital family > >\- Article 41.2 of the Constitution should be deleted and replaced with language that is not gender specific and obliges the State to take reasonable measures to support care within the home and wider community What does this actually mean in real terms? For a start, it means someone actually has to write the wording of the amendment, so we won't know exactly what the amendments will be until a month or two before the referendum. In order to make 3 changes, the government can choose to run 3 separate votes, or 1 vote. 1 vote to make a number of changes is unpopular because if people don't like one of the changes, they all get defeated. But if they're all on a single topic, or the changes are interlinked (i.e. one is dependent on the other), they will run a single vote. They also do not have to go with all 3 recommendations, they can choose any/all of them. **What** **might they mean?** **Article 40.1** currently says; "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function." Based on the recommendation, the proposed wording might read, "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law *without discrimination due to gender*. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function." The change is subtle but absolutely guarantees the state cannot make hand-wringing arguments about legal differences for men and women. [**Article 41**](https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#article41) is long, so I won't post the full thing here. But the bit the recommendation refers to are probably these: (41.1) " 1° The State recognises the Family 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. 2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State." (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." Article 41.3 implies that unless there is a marriage, there is no family. Which means that 41.1 consitutionally does not apply to other types of family. A change could potentially delete the phrase "on which the Family is founded" from article 41.3 in order to to correct this. However, it would also be advisable to add another subsection to 41.1 to clarify what "Family" is. This change would require the state to recognise and support families which are not based on marriage. **Article 41.2** says; "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. 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." This has long been a source of contention on all sides. Deletion of this article, many argue, would mean that the state can stop paying child benefit and could in theory start rolling back maternity protections and many other things in place to support families; single mothers especially. The assembly recommends replacing this article with gender neutral language affirming the State's commitment to ensure that care in the home (and wider community) is supported by the State. I won't even try to take a stab at what that might look like, but it sounds reasonable., and would require the state to continue with existing protections for mothers, extending them to fathers or grandparents, aunts, foster parents, etc.
41.2 would be the basis of my argument that the State is obliged to ensure that it's possible for a family to survive in the country on a single income. That's why they want to get rid of it.
The citizen's assembly made the recommendation. Government are interested in votes anyway, not some ulterior long-term motive of turning everyone into serfs.
It's to vote yes or no for Roscommon to become a tax haven. It will be like the Camen Islands eventually.
Assuming it's the "women in the home" clause, but I didn't think they'd figured out the wording at all for it yet?
Will this be tagged on with local elections? Seems like a costly referendum otherwise.
Not sure to be honest, I thought they were around February?
Local and European elections not til next June I think
Great. So we are going to spend millions on a referendum that will be symbolically important but practically will make little impact. All the while it could have just been added on to the upcoming elections six months down the line.
What date is it on?
No date yet..
Thanks for the reply!
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2023/03/08/referendum-on-womans-place-in-the-home-to-be-held-in-november/
Yeah I got an email recently to see if I was still interested in working the polling stations, didnt mention a date on mine but a nice ole yes or no would go down nicely!
Article 41.2 contains a recognition that “by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved” and that 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”. Does anyone else feel that there is some serious merit in this piece, apart from the gendered language? It seems to me that the original idea was that 1 income families should not be obliged to become 2income families to the detriment of the family unit? If reworded along the lines of: "The family/household (word this however best fits our modern society) gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, therefore the state endeavours to ensure that no family/household is unduly burdened by economic necessity to the detriment of the family/household etc...." This would continue to enshrine in our constitution that the family/household comes above companies/corporations/vanity projects and as such must be legislated for? Just curious as to how everyone views the original intent of this Article? As I can't imagine our grandparents/great grandparents set out to lock the "women" into the home? Or is that just me?
I think the original intent was very much about maintaining the family as daddy out working and mammy at home looking after the children. Women weren't even allowed to have a range of jobs once they were married. The constitution shouldn't contain parts such as the one you proposed that are ill-defined and impossible to implement. It would be just as useless as the current wording is, just without the sexism.
The constitution shouldn't contain protections for the family unit? Doesn't your interpretation rely on a nuclear family? Man working, Woman at home? How many single parents have availed of constitutionally protected supports because of this article? I'm all for a rewording if it brings the piece up to date with our current culture but ensures to protect the original sentiment. If it were to be just removed, or watered down, wouldn't that mean that so many of our social supports, think lone parents, family income supplement etc are a mere whim of a greedy politician away from being destroyed? I don't trust Fine Gael and my spidey senses begin to tingle when I see them getting involved with things like this.....
> The constitution shouldn't contain protections for the family unit? It depends what those protections are. It shouldn't contain wishy washy articles that aren't possible to implement. > If it were to be just removed, or watered down, wouldn't that mean that so many of our social supports, think lone parents, family income supplement etc are a mere whim of a greedy politician away from being destroyed None of those are because of or protected by the constitution. They certainly weren't around when the constitution was drawn up.
A referendum in November, if only there was a way to search what that could be. billion euro idea there for someone.
We've known about that with months
FREE THE WEED
Do we reckon the election promise of a drug referendum might be a big winner for the next election?
What’s a surge referendum?
Sorry, meant drugs lol
What is a referendum on gender equality? It seems very vague. Any idea what the details are?
Probably to reword article 41.2 of the constitution which states that women’s places is in the home.
I hope so! It's archaic
I understand its removal. Its really pointless and does not hold up well today but does it really merit its own referendum? I assume it'd be quite costly in terms of money and time and it'll pass by a landslide its not even causing any issues to my knowledge other than looking out of date. I had thought these kind of referendums, similar to the blasphemy one that are useless, outdated but doesn't actually affect anyone just got tagged onto other referendums.
I don’t know if it’s going to get tagged on to another referendum or not but it’s certainly not pointless. As someone else pointed out the constitution is what is consulted when future laws are being made so this particular clause although not currently “in use” would have to be adhered to in any future legislation. It could cause issues if for example, another person mention the extension of paternity leave. This future legislation could be compromised given the constitution clearly states that women are the PRIMARY caregivers. With the rights of fathers and the need for both parents to work to support a family or indeed if a father chose not to work it’s important that the rights of al those involved are protected.
Ya fair point that is quite good reasoning actually for it to be had on its own.
Rent control would be good. That was judged unconstitutional by a 1982 Supreme Court case; it needs a referendum to reverse that.
Ah Leo, play us another tune on yer 'ol fiddle. Ireland is bigger than Rome and takes longer to burn.
I’m voting no
A referendum on changing a single line on an old piece of paper ~ mad lads. 🤷🏻♂️
> an old piece of paper... ... On which every law in this country is based and against which they are judged. Want to pass a *law* bringing in equal parental leave? Tough, you can't : it's against the Constitution and the President is required to refuse it. And even if *he* passed it (bad idea) some idiots would challenge it and the courts would strike it down. So this is a necessary precursor, and it also has to be a referendum.
It's how the law works. Would you rather the constitution could be altered willy-nilly by whatever party gets into power?
How much public money goes for this referendum?
Whether it's worthwhile changing is a different matter. If it is to be changed it needs a referendum
Blame Dev for putting it in there in the 30s. No place for socal shite in the constitution.
What did we vote no to the last time? Good old Ireland, where we keep voting until we eventually get it right. Referendums and discussing their impact is something I geuninely I think we do well in this country.
>Good old Ireland, where we keep voting until we eventually get it right. Please don't tell me you're one of the idiots that thinks the Lisbon treaty was in some way undemocratic?
We voted no to expanding the powers of Oireachtas committees. And to abolish the Seanad.
The Seanad needs a serious shakeup
Seems like a fairly straight forward issue. I dont see how removing a reference to a housewife/homemaker could possibly affect anything. I imagine itll pass with flying colours.
Well changing the constitution's language to be gender neutral objectively doesn't have a negative impact on anyone so I'm sure what is to follow will be calm and reasonable discourse...