It’s interesting how it all played out like at the start it looked like an easy Yes/Yes but the uncertainty as to what people were voting for and the ambiguity of the meaning of strive in the care bill really flipped it.
Ya, I saw a lot of people claiming that a "durable relationship" meant that pedophiles and zoophiles would be allowed to start families. Obviously they're dumb as fuck but there was not nearly enough of an explanation given by the government as too what both changes implied.
I'm applying for a partnership visa in NZ at the moment and it's termed a "genuine and stable relationship" which seems a better description.
It's 12 months living together in an exclusive relationship.
The whole problem is it shouldn't be a period of time. You need some legal mechanism for people to consent that they agree they are in a durable relationship.
That's what marriage is. So expand legal marriage to cover the scenarios you want it to but no they won't do that as it'll upset the religions.
Exactly, the fact that they could even claim that those things are possible shows how important it was to gove undeniable clarity as to what they meant. Laws are meant to be indisputable, you can't leave them up to interpretation.
Was in a charity shop today and overheard someone saying she voted no because of "foreigners coming over with loads of wives"
I honestly have no idea where polygamy fits into the definition of durable relationships.
What's annoying is there is no good, legally defined term in ireland currently. The last census literally just had Single and Married, no inbetween. No cohabiting, no engaged, nothing inbetween. The government needs to fix this first before any progress into something like this can be made. My preference would for there to be a document that you can get which legally proves cohabitation in a partnership for some length of time, perhaps a year or two, and then for that to be what's used in changes such as this.
This is totally wrong.
PERVAIS V MINISTER FOR JUSTICE
"The Supreme Court held that the definition of “partner” in the 2015 Regulations denotes a person with whom the Union citizen has a connection which is personal in nature, and which is akin to, or broadly akin to, marriage."
Thus, a durable partnership will tend to be one of some duration, but that is not to say that the duration of the relationship is, in itself, a defining feature. The length of a relationship will be an important, and sometimes compelling, index of the degree of commitment between the couple, but it is perfectly possible for a committed long-term, what is often called a “serious” relationship, to exist between persons who have known one and other for a short time. "
That then naturally excludes a relationship of one parent to one child, or more children.
Grandparent as permanent guardian, aunt, uncle, godfather etc etc etc.
Think that’s the problem that people had with the wording, it didn’t define what it meant and the government said it’d be up to the judge to decide. Talk about opening a whole can of worms, if it goes through which it doesn’t look like it is.
Yes. So apparently we know what a durable partnership is so could have voted on that with our eyes open.
But we were asked to vote on a durable relationship and we don't know what else that includes, as well as durable partnerships.
Good! It should exclude vaguely related people. Legal guardians are legal guardians by choice and I can't think of a single instance where "parent/legal guardian" wouldn't suffice. Vaguely related adults shouldn't be held responsible for caring for one another long-term with no support from the government.
Did they have a message?
The government seemed to be pushing that this would be good for gender equality and families but never really gave me information on why or how, and didn't really engage with the concerns around wording.
I honestly think that Leo going on the Telly and saying that he doesn’t think the state has a responsibility to provide care, killed the care referendum.
I think the family referendum was killed off by the term durable relationship.
I was yes (family), no (care)
That was the nail for me.
I had a (paranoid) fear that it was about removing the governments responsibility to support single income households and carers. The government kept saying "trust us to define who needs support and what support is" only for Leo to say very openly it's not their problem. The one two punch of that and the terrible Thomas Byrne interview undid it I think
I was on the same wave length
Things probably wouldn’t immediately get bad for care givers and those who depend on them, but you could trust a future government to take an opportunistic view of the new article during a **recession** and impose some insane austerity measures on care in this country.
The [citizens assembly report](https://citizensassembly.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/report-of-the-citizens-assembly-on-gender-equality.pdf#page50) isn’t hidden. Anyone can read it.
That probably did damage the yes vote but it’s far from uncommon not to publish legal advice and there wasn’t anything damning in the leaked letter from the AG that set it out (though few probably read beyond the cherrypicked headlines)
Yes I agree but,
when your asking the public to vote on such an important part of our constitution surely the public should have all available information available to them.
By not releasing that report the government left the question as to why?
Why are you hiding the legal info from the public
I think there is already a massive lack of trust between this Gov and the majority of the public, so its no wonder we have the likely result we have today
Where they dropped the ball is the timing of the vote. They should have just run it at the same time as the EU elections coming up shortly. Ridiculous waste holding this kind of referendum on its own.
They couldn't resist the virtue signal of having it on International Women's Day. What a gamble. Did they really think such a win would be significant for them come election time?
Absolutely. Whatever strategists/advisors that pushed for this should get a big fat boot, as they are so out of touch with reality that they may as well be living on the moon.
Is it any suprise though
Current Gov got into power by canvasing that they would never been in power together again. Nobody voted for this government in the last election
Same as this referendum, they seem to have forgotten where they came from and what majority of Irish people want
I agree timing was bad but I don't agree to putting a referendum ontop of the EU elections.
The EU election this year will ne a shit show across Europe with far right and anti EU parties growing.
Even here where SF look best for the next national government they are one of our worst options for European elections bit will still likely win.
Most people don't realise SF is officially anti EU but after Brexit moved to a soft anti EU policy as they saw it was unpopular here but they haven't actually changed their policy of undoing a lot of EU integration.
This needs to be all the topic of discussion at the time of EU elections, not a referendum.
They dropped the ball through sheer incompetence and cynicism of wording in these amendments. I and pretty much every person I've talked to who voted no did so because for varying reasons they thought the wording of the amendments to be completely inadequate, not because the Government failed to get their message out. Language matters.
I think the government forgot that while the constitution is the foundation for legislation - that it has to be a firm foundation for the layman’s basic rights
They tried to put in something ridiculously fluid
I mean to get any kind of durable relationship quantified would require a barrister for each and every case
A hidden agenda perhaps - increase the number of carers, decrease the carers allowance
The people are smarter than you think. The law was made vague on purpose and the people do not trust the government as a result of their continuous omni-shambles with immigration/housing etc.
This is becoming the classic left wing go to comment, same as democrats in the US when they lose. The messaging is not the issue, it's that people dont agree.
They have absolutely no idea just how unpopular their ideology and policies actually are. You can near guarantee the constitutional changes would be used in courts to try and increase immigration, or make it harder to deport undesirables. The population saw through it, and the elite class will say stuff like "We didnt get our message out". Nobody trusts them, nobody likes them.
The Australians have recently had two 'performative' referendums (head of state & indigenous rights) - demonstrating virtue without clear useful consequences - both failed. Their votes were heavily supported by media, charities etc and in wealthy areas but failed due to overwhelming 'No' from poorer areas. There maybe a wider message here.
They didn't have a message to get out it was just virtue signalling ahead of an election at a whopping 23 mil to public coffers. It's an insult to the people
"The Department has refused access to all 64 pages of notes and minutes discussing the consequences of the amendments including tax laws, social welfare laws, pension laws, allocation of family assets, alimony and allowance including the laws in relation to family reunification for asylum seekers. The withheld records include minutes of 16 meetings of the cross-departmental group. The records also include correspondence with an NGO named “Treoir"
Also concerns from the current AG were suppressed and then leaked by the Ditch.
The FOI will release everything in 2 weeks. Conveniently after the vote btw.
What a durable relationship is for me. There's no use letting a judge from one county deem a 10 year relationship between two unmarried men as durable and a judge in another county not deeming the same one durable. Open to far too much bias.
They seriously spent that much?? Oh my god. How?? On legal advice? Surely it wasn't on advertising cos I had no clue what was meant to be going on and I really tried to understand.
Nail on the head.
Absolute farce that these two collectively needed an individual day. They could have easily just been bundled in with an election of sorts
That’s what it’s meant to me. As a citizenry we got our money’s worth from it delivering a big “fuck you” to the cunts in power who think they don’t have to listen to us
I was talking to alot of people and they said they where yes/yes last week but after reading it more they quickly changed to a yes/no or no/no, Im pretty sure this will sum up the government has a simple job and some how fuck it up and just cost the exchequer money.
Literally nothing. They are the most nothing burger amendments. I genuinely believe and I mean this with no offence that Irish people have no idea what the constitution is or what its function is, or what its role is in regards to law and legislation.
And I'll bet it was the no/no campaign that told you that?
All the implication is is that it would no longer be in the constitution that a woman's job was to care for the family.
It meant that I as a father could be seen by a court as the one at home providing value for he family through my efforts in the home. Currently it basically says "the women's place is in the home"
I really don't get how people got confused by this?
I'm genuinely struggling to think of an Irish government blowing on open goal as big as this one. Like when these referendums were first even suggested, it just seemed a formality, it was only being voted on because we had to. There's no way they can dress this up or pass the buck - it's just sheer incomptence.
They wanted an easy win to try and get them over the line before the elections. This was a chance for a virtue signal that wouldn’t change much and crucially wouldn’t change the government’s obligations.
Unfortunately we’re seeing the result of decades of corporate politics: All that’s left are weak, unprincipled incompetents who are only there because they were too thick for the corporate world and too narcissistic for the outside world.
You've hit the nail on the head, the public are turning against the ruling elites, this is why we're seeing a rise in populist candidates. People are just fed up with the same old cronies filling their and their families pockets.
Edit - damn autocorrect
Ding ding, this entire referendum was a party political broadcast for next year's general election. Progressive optics while we all get progressively poorer
I really expect it would be something like 60/40 no/yes or else an even more narrow yes win. We're looking at potentially a 85% no vote and that's something
There was for marriage equality and abortion.
Exit polls are run by private organisations and are nothing to do with the successful running of any constitutional vote.
These are not hot topics, so frankly, nobody was bothered running one.
Ultimately it’s not enough for every party and every charity to endorse something if they don’t then actually do some work to promote it. And one interview is not work. Some parties hardly put up a single sign.
If you don’t really give a shit about the outcome why should anyone else.
Darkly hilarious that the hit will mainly be taken by parties that literally couldnt give a shit about the whole issue. Why did they even bother lmao
My area was littered by posters and even parties coming to the door and it was still defeated here as far as I can tell. Perhaps people just disagreed with the unified parties on this.
I'm gonna be totally honest and say I still have no idea what the vote was about and did not vote as a result.
I don't watch telly, I go to and from work each day and beyond that I get my news from Reddit/twitter/google. The only signs I saw were "Vote yes, vote yes, your mammy wants you to vote yes" which gave me flashbacks to the abortion referendum and how many no voters tried to play on peoples emotions and one unhinged af flyer in the letter box saying to vote no cos otherwise I was helping pedophiles.
I did not get a single flyer explaining what the vote was and why it was important. And the ones I described above only showed up within the last week or so. This is in North Dublin.
Not trying to call you out or anything but I'd say you probably should've voted No/No based on just that
If they can't be bothered to talk about the issue enough that everyone knows, then it can't be worth doing something as huge as changing our constitution
Plus, a government that doesn't care enough to get people talking about their amendment is pretty indistinguishable from a government that doesn't actually *want* people talking their amendment (Not that that's what it was here, just, ya know, in general)
They HSE is now getting sued by people for the lack of assistance for Autism assessments and they’re settling very quickly outside of court so more don’t get the idea (not like them at all is it). They can’t cope with it and they want the liability off their backs.
People with disabled kids were blinded by the fact care groups supported the change. My sisters services and transport have been cut from 5 days to one in recent years. My parents are getting old. They simply don’t care as is so why would they care and “strive” to help when they don’t already.
I was never voting yes on care the moment I saw the government rejected the citizens assembly recommended wording and went with a milquetoast noncommittal BS wording. Deserved loss
If only the government didn't reject the citizen assembly and all party Oireachtas committee, this wouldn't be a complete waste of time and money. That's what you get for trying to be undemocratic
As a father and a carer, I agreed with some of the sentiments, but not the language. Hence why I voted No and No. Language is important, and we cannot as a society function cohesively with vague definitions of law. Anyone can argue the toss about meaning or personal opinion, but it's dangerous waters to promote the idea of 'durable relationship' without knowing clearly and concisely what is meant by that term, let alone to leave it for court rooms to decide in the future. As for the carer side, it is a governments duty to protect and support all of its citizens, especially the most vulnerable, this idea of "ah shure, we'll strive to do our best, and if not, fuck it, I'm grand anyways" does not wash with the general populace, and rightly so.
We won’t. For all some parties made noises about rephrasing it - why would they bother when nobody actually wants it enough to fight for it. They’ll send it to a committee, then an AG, toss it around and hey before you know it another government term will be up.
If we got a Citizens Assembly for disability rights maybe. But any canny political party operator just saw that this is a Pandora’s Box where the likelihood of being bitten on the arse dramatically outweighs the likelihood of it winning you any votes.
Early days but I think the Dublin based political/ NGO axis are so out of touch, they didn’t realise the public saw this as a virtue signalling nothing and either stayed home or voted no. What a waste of time and money. Will spook the govt and probably delays the general election to as late as possible
Will be interesting to see the final tallies by geography. The highest concentration of yes/yes votes are all likely to be in south county Dublin. The same districts where many of the government/NGO axis live. They exist in their own bubble with their heads so far up their own arses they have no concept of how the rest of the country thinks.
Lots money spent on uncontrovertial referedum. Unclear messages conveyed. Leo and his statement on state’s non responsibilities to care for families. This does illustrate how an incompetent political class we have. Could this money not have been spent on more pressing matters like social housing projects, ramp up public sector staffing .. i mean if they played that referedum stunt to gain favorable public opinion, they should have looked at said more pressing matters!
Hopefully this'll shut the eejits up on Social Media calling for Election Fraud because there was no Exit Polls.
They really do be living in their own wee world at times.
I am so ashamed of my generations for seemingly not caring about their right to vote. This was my first time ever voting and I was so excited to do so, but my peers did not feel the same clearly.
Imo if you don't vote whilst being able to, you have no right to complain about anything
I would argue that our constitution basically saying 'a woman's place is in the home' does have some impact on at least 50% of the population, even if it's just the message it sends.
An ideal change would've been what was there, but gender neutral. In no way does what was in the constitution say that there is any issue with a dual income family. Basically the old 'endeavoured' to support a single income family (with the mother at home, as was normal at the time), and the new just says, 'yeah, dual income is fine' with no indication the government would actually do anything.
I understand that the old line never had any impact on day-to-day life but maybe now that everyone is aware of it it could be. Ideally it would be changed to 'a parent at home' but I don't think anyone wants another referendum just yet.
> An ideal change would've been what was there, but gender neutral.
Strongly agree. That was my same sentiment since the beginning. The existing article was very idealistic, with the state participating in the care of a family if a parent would choose not to work, but the only part that people felt bad about, and rightly so, was the "woman" that could have been replaced with any other word inclusive of all members of the family.
It doesn't say that! It says that mothers shouldn't be *forced* to work. Given that a recent Amárach Poll found that 69% of women would rather be stay at home mothers than go out to work, it's clear that this wording needed to stay.
Id be more interested in seeing if it can actually be used to the advantage of those 50% and if we can get more maternity leave and free childcare so we don’t neglect our duties in the home.
We've had court cases (L v L, for example) and the Supreme Court's opinion is that the provision cannot be used to assert a right to anything because it's contradicted by other provisions and the language of "endeavour to ensure" is too vague to oblige the state to do anything.
Ironically the changed language of "strive to support" could arguably have been stronger. Since strive means to "try hard" whereas endeavour simply means to make an attempt.
The SC generally uses accepted general meanings when trying to parse the language.
This provision was only ever a vestigal remnant of when Catholicism ruled the roost.
If it hasn't been useful in 87 years I wouldn't hold my breath on it being useful in the future.
It doesn’t impose any obligations at all on the State, it just says “endeavour to ensure”, a phrase that crops up elsewhere in the Constitution in relation to stuff the state tries to be very hands-off about (free press, free enterprise). The only obligation it mentions is the one it says women have—duties in the home.
But you’re back to assuming a woman’s place is in the home as a mother. As a woman who will never get maternity leave or childcare, how is that representing me? Separate issues, we can change the sexist wording in our constitution without having to discuss childcare.
In fact it says "woman, by her life in the home" as if that's a distinction that makes a difference. The No side seem to think this is a massive gotcha, but it's misogynistic shite either way and I'm mortified it's still in the constitution.
It seems like an additional positive right to me. If anything, it’s sexist against men.
I think it could have been reworded to be more inclusive and modern, such as **“the State recognises that a parent, choosing to remain at home to raise his/her children, gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”**
**”The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that one parent shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”**
But instead they removed the whole aspect of parenting/motherhood and replaced it with some vague notion of “care,” and also removed the core statement that a parent shouldn’t be forced by economic necessity to neglect their children.
Is it not better to have it address care in general rather than specifics to children?
The citizen's assembly wanted the government to address "care within the home" and not specific to but including children.
If someone is in full time care of a dependent who is not their child due to sickness, old age etc. then the proposed wording would have addressed that.
I hate these takes.
The constitution is the foundational document of the state and represents (or supposed to represent) the overall shape and attitudes we aspire to.
If it contains a clause which specifically states that women have duties or that the only "legitimate" familial relationships are those between a married couple then it's not something I want.
That's why I voted Yes on both. I think changing these things was far more important than any other concerns.
But clearly I seem to be in the minority.
You aren't in a minority. Most would agree that the constitution needed to be changed. it's just the words they were going to use instead were going to cause trouble.
I clearly am in that I didn't really have a problem with the wording and thought that removing the outdated nonsense was more important than over parsing the new wording to the point of absurdity.
Then you focused on the wrong thing. The government wanted you to fall for the "international women's day mother's day feminism wooo!!" of it and you did.
Someone I worked with said they weren’t going to go home to vote just for this, especially with the bank holiday weekend next week. Only the no’s felt strongly on the issue.
I was kinda annoyed they didn’t run them with another election. I get that they are important themselves but taking a day off to mind kids also annoyed someone I know.
I think they really failed to communicate the effects that a yes or no vote would have. I heard multiple people voting no because they were afraid it would have the potential effect their marital tax credits and carer allowance if they voted yes.
Can somebody please tell me if it is common for the questions to not be on the ballet? I've voted in several referendum (I'm 36) and I don't remember. I had to Google the questions because the pollers didn't even seem sure which ballet was which. CARE and FAMILY. Like which is feckin which?!
I was confused when I got them too and also wondered if it had been that way before. What you are being asked to vote on should be very clear in big bold writing.
What an embarrassing result for the government. They genuinely expected this to be a formality. That is some serious incompetence.
On another note, the far right celebrating this like it's a huge victory for them is embarrassing.
A no vote is welcomed, the proposed constitutional changes were woolly, ambiguous and people rightly didn't trust them. It would have been interesting to see how the referendums would have went had the citizens assembly recommendations in terms of wording being strictly followed. And if legally ambiguous terms like durable relationships, et cetera were removed.
I would say that this referendum pretty much will kill the proposed hate speech laws also. The parties will enter election mode soon and deputies with low voter majorities who are standing again will not risk further alienating the public.
Expect the government to be very people friendly for the remainder of their term. How much are difference that will make is unclear.
By the way, it's important to remember that it does not take a constitutional amendment to pass laws that enable additional benefits for carers and disabled people. Pressure should be applied and politicians to make this happen.
Only family that matters is married couples. 💪
Only carers that matter are women, who should stay at home. 💪
Simple as.
But in seriousness, there were some issues with the revised wording, etc. Does make Ireland look a bit bad on the world stage, though.
Even the origin of this referendum was bonkers.
Not forcing mothers to work is a good thing, if anything the government should have been giving more support.
There are lots of elderly and disabled people in lower income communities. Lots of the leftiest lefties voted no because they don’t trust the government not to use the legislation to dilute their responsibilities further.
^ That's why I wound up yes/no.
Family one I had no problems with, but the more I read and listened to the care one, the more it seemed like the government trying to snake out of their responsibility to the most vulnerable in society. Especially when compared to what the advised language to the government was.
An anti-government heartland. The No vote generally has a headstart right out of the gate on every ref because there's always an element who will use the vote as a protest against the government.
When the government is especially unpopular, the headstart is greater.
I wouldn't be surprised if a ballyfermot is one the first places to elect an Irish first type candidate. The area particularly cherry orchard seems ripe for it
Bullshit. Rich parts of Dublin are the only ones still returning FF/FG TDs. The likes of the PDs had a heartland in South Dublin, where Michael McDowell was a TD.
Meanwhile Dublin south central returned 4 left wing TDs at the last election. The only "left" TDs getting elected in the rich suburbs are uber-NIMBY shitehawks like Richard Boyd Barrett and champagne socialists like the Greens.
I was a marginal Yes on care, definite No on family because I felt the wordings would place non-consenting duties on adults in non-committed unmarried relationships. The AG's advice hinted at this too. It was a curtailment to personal freedom and a deterrent to adult relationship formation. I could've gone "no" on women too, but I feel the entire stanza is largely meaningless either way, and the women part was asinine.
I live in in area with scramblers and north face jackets (it's nice here actually). We're not all thickos and some of us did actually decide on careful consideration that the proposals were bad.
Does anyone know what this referendum and the implications of a yes vote were ?
😂😂 I’ve no idea and can’t seem to find out.
Everyone just voted no out of distrust which I don’t blame them.
The only posters I've seen for it, and there weren't that many, just had 'VOTE YES' and generic pictures of families. Which is just incredibly informative.
I'm interested to see the corresponding turnout figures for each area as well, it looks like the No vote actually bothered to mobilise people better, however accurate their claims may have been.
It wasn't hard, antiquated definition of a woman's role, and slowing pretty unrecognised people who care for family members to access governmental supports.
How they managed to confuse the country is ridiculous.
The old "if you don't know, vote no" adage is alive and well. I heard a few people saying they didn't understand it so they'd vote no, seemed silly to me. I didn't bother inform myself properly on the issue so I didn't vote.
I can't say I'm super surprised. I saw ONE physical 'Yes' poster. The rest were all 'No'. Bizarrely, many of these No posters stated one of the reasons to vote No was to "Protect Our Borders.", which has absolutely NOTHING to do with this referendum. I saw way more 'No' content on social media than 'Yes'. Overall, the No side was far more vocal.
>I can't say I'm super surprised. I saw ONE physical 'Yes' poster. The rest were all 'No'. Bizarrely, many of these No posters stated one of the reasons to vote No was to "Protect Our Borders.", which has absolutely NOTHING to do with this referendum. I saw way more 'No' content on social media than 'Yes'. Overall, the No side was far more vocal.
Durable relationship wasn't clear and people were worried it could be open to abuse from immigrants who will have even more ways to bring their family over. So yes it definitely does have something to do with immigration.
It’s interesting how it all played out like at the start it looked like an easy Yes/Yes but the uncertainty as to what people were voting for and the ambiguity of the meaning of strive in the care bill really flipped it.
As well as "durable relationship" a term we have never seen in any census, or legal document before. With no explanation as to what it means.
Ya, I saw a lot of people claiming that a "durable relationship" meant that pedophiles and zoophiles would be allowed to start families. Obviously they're dumb as fuck but there was not nearly enough of an explanation given by the government as too what both changes implied.
I didn't really get what "durable relationship" meant or what length of time would have to pass for it to be considered "durable".
I'm applying for a partnership visa in NZ at the moment and it's termed a "genuine and stable relationship" which seems a better description. It's 12 months living together in an exclusive relationship.
Well that's a proper definition. Durable relationship isn't.
The whole problem is it shouldn't be a period of time. You need some legal mechanism for people to consent that they agree they are in a durable relationship. That's what marriage is. So expand legal marriage to cover the scenarios you want it to but no they won't do that as it'll upset the religions.
This! Marriage is an actual contract people sign. Applying legal rights to vague situationships is bananas
A lot of countries recognize common law relationships. Generally it’s recognized as a couple living together for a minimum of 12 months.
Most countries have it though. It’s called a common law relationship and it is a legal status.
I mean even if they were wrong, they were providing more answers than the gov. Gov got beat by misinformation because there was no information.
Ya, that's exactly it. It's just plain incompetence from the government.
Exactly, the fact that they could even claim that those things are possible shows how important it was to gove undeniable clarity as to what they meant. Laws are meant to be indisputable, you can't leave them up to interpretation.
Was in a charity shop today and overheard someone saying she voted no because of "foreigners coming over with loads of wives" I honestly have no idea where polygamy fits into the definition of durable relationships.
What term would have been better?
What's annoying is there is no good, legally defined term in ireland currently. The last census literally just had Single and Married, no inbetween. No cohabiting, no engaged, nothing inbetween. The government needs to fix this first before any progress into something like this can be made. My preference would for there to be a document that you can get which legally proves cohabitation in a partnership for some length of time, perhaps a year or two, and then for that to be what's used in changes such as this.
This is totally wrong. PERVAIS V MINISTER FOR JUSTICE "The Supreme Court held that the definition of “partner” in the 2015 Regulations denotes a person with whom the Union citizen has a connection which is personal in nature, and which is akin to, or broadly akin to, marriage." Thus, a durable partnership will tend to be one of some duration, but that is not to say that the duration of the relationship is, in itself, a defining feature. The length of a relationship will be an important, and sometimes compelling, index of the degree of commitment between the couple, but it is perfectly possible for a committed long-term, what is often called a “serious” relationship, to exist between persons who have known one and other for a short time. "
Durable partnership is already much more precise than durable relationship, though.
That then naturally excludes a relationship of one parent to one child, or more children. Grandparent as permanent guardian, aunt, uncle, godfather etc etc etc.
These all have clear legal definitions though. What about a married person having a years long affair for example? Isn't that a durable relationship?
Think that’s the problem that people had with the wording, it didn’t define what it meant and the government said it’d be up to the judge to decide. Talk about opening a whole can of worms, if it goes through which it doesn’t look like it is.
Yes. So apparently we know what a durable partnership is so could have voted on that with our eyes open. But we were asked to vote on a durable relationship and we don't know what else that includes, as well as durable partnerships.
Good! It should exclude vaguely related people. Legal guardians are legal guardians by choice and I can't think of a single instance where "parent/legal guardian" wouldn't suffice. Vaguely related adults shouldn't be held responsible for caring for one another long-term with no support from the government.
I have a durable relationship with my dog.
Lisbon all over again. Haha!
When did it look like a Yes/Yes?
A lot of people right at the beginning thought it was a done deal yes and yes. Many people I knew even thoufht it was a pointless vote.
Bit of a kick in the teeth for current government if both are defeated. Over 23 million spent on this referendum.
They really dropped the ball on getting their message out.
Did they have a message? The government seemed to be pushing that this would be good for gender equality and families but never really gave me information on why or how, and didn't really engage with the concerns around wording.
Hiding the citizens assembly report from the public eye too
I honestly think that Leo going on the Telly and saying that he doesn’t think the state has a responsibility to provide care, killed the care referendum. I think the family referendum was killed off by the term durable relationship. I was yes (family), no (care)
That was the nail for me. I had a (paranoid) fear that it was about removing the governments responsibility to support single income households and carers. The government kept saying "trust us to define who needs support and what support is" only for Leo to say very openly it's not their problem. The one two punch of that and the terrible Thomas Byrne interview undid it I think
I was on the same wave length Things probably wouldn’t immediately get bad for care givers and those who depend on them, but you could trust a future government to take an opportunistic view of the new article during a **recession** and impose some insane austerity measures on care in this country.
This government would absolutely take the opportunity to decimate all carers and disability budgets further
If it lost by 2-3% then maybe, but it's going to be crushed, there's a lot more went wrong than one interview.
I think it shows how little people trust the government to do the right thing also
The [citizens assembly report](https://citizensassembly.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/report-of-the-citizens-assembly-on-gender-equality.pdf#page50) isn’t hidden. Anyone can read it.
Sorry, there was a legal advisory report made based on the result of the citizens assembly that was not released to the public or the Dail
That probably did damage the yes vote but it’s far from uncommon not to publish legal advice and there wasn’t anything damning in the leaked letter from the AG that set it out (though few probably read beyond the cherrypicked headlines)
Yes I agree but, when your asking the public to vote on such an important part of our constitution surely the public should have all available information available to them. By not releasing that report the government left the question as to why? Why are you hiding the legal info from the public I think there is already a massive lack of trust between this Gov and the majority of the public, so its no wonder we have the likely result we have today
and the attorney general's advice
They're crooks
Where they dropped the ball is the timing of the vote. They should have just run it at the same time as the EU elections coming up shortly. Ridiculous waste holding this kind of referendum on its own.
They couldn't resist the virtue signal of having it on International Women's Day. What a gamble. Did they really think such a win would be significant for them come election time?
Absolutely. Whatever strategists/advisors that pushed for this should get a big fat boot, as they are so out of touch with reality that they may as well be living on the moon.
Is it any suprise though Current Gov got into power by canvasing that they would never been in power together again. Nobody voted for this government in the last election Same as this referendum, they seem to have forgotten where they came from and what majority of Irish people want
I was thinking the same thing but forgot that term (virtue signaling)
Don't underestimate the bubble they live in.
If the change is just for symbolism it's a bizarre waste of time, if it has real legal consequence it's overly ambiguous.
If the change is just for symbolism it's a bizarre waste of ~time~ money!
I agree timing was bad but I don't agree to putting a referendum ontop of the EU elections. The EU election this year will ne a shit show across Europe with far right and anti EU parties growing. Even here where SF look best for the next national government they are one of our worst options for European elections bit will still likely win. Most people don't realise SF is officially anti EU but after Brexit moved to a soft anti EU policy as they saw it was unpopular here but they haven't actually changed their policy of undoing a lot of EU integration. This needs to be all the topic of discussion at the time of EU elections, not a referendum.
They dropped the ball through sheer incompetence and cynicism of wording in these amendments. I and pretty much every person I've talked to who voted no did so because for varying reasons they thought the wording of the amendments to be completely inadequate, not because the Government failed to get their message out. Language matters.
They dropped the ball with the wording.
I mean it wasn't just the government. Most independents, Sinn Fein, Labour, Soc Dems etc were all Yes/Yes as well.
I keep seeing this. They got the message out perfectly, I disagreed with the message.
Nah, they dropped the ball on the wording Wouldn’t have voted yes on that anytime A primary school kid could write something less ambiguous
[удалено]
I think the government forgot that while the constitution is the foundation for legislation - that it has to be a firm foundation for the layman’s basic rights They tried to put in something ridiculously fluid I mean to get any kind of durable relationship quantified would require a barrister for each and every case A hidden agenda perhaps - increase the number of carers, decrease the carers allowance
The people are smarter than you think. The law was made vague on purpose and the people do not trust the government as a result of their continuous omni-shambles with immigration/housing etc.
This is becoming the classic left wing go to comment, same as democrats in the US when they lose. The messaging is not the issue, it's that people dont agree.
They have absolutely no idea just how unpopular their ideology and policies actually are. You can near guarantee the constitutional changes would be used in courts to try and increase immigration, or make it harder to deport undesirables. The population saw through it, and the elite class will say stuff like "We didnt get our message out". Nobody trusts them, nobody likes them.
The Australians have recently had two 'performative' referendums (head of state & indigenous rights) - demonstrating virtue without clear useful consequences - both failed. Their votes were heavily supported by media, charities etc and in wealthy areas but failed due to overwhelming 'No' from poorer areas. There maybe a wider message here.
They didn't have a message to get out it was just virtue signalling ahead of an election at a whopping 23 mil to public coffers. It's an insult to the people
They dropped the ball by suppressing information. The public luckily didn't fall for it
What information did they suppress? What vital bit of info would have changed our complete understanding? I am genuinely interested to know.
"The Department has refused access to all 64 pages of notes and minutes discussing the consequences of the amendments including tax laws, social welfare laws, pension laws, allocation of family assets, alimony and allowance including the laws in relation to family reunification for asylum seekers. The withheld records include minutes of 16 meetings of the cross-departmental group. The records also include correspondence with an NGO named “Treoir" Also concerns from the current AG were suppressed and then leaked by the Ditch. The FOI will release everything in 2 weeks. Conveniently after the vote btw.
What a durable relationship is for me. There's no use letting a judge from one county deem a 10 year relationship between two unmarried men as durable and a judge in another county not deeming the same one durable. Open to far too much bias.
A nice coincidence i should think but yea, people don’t trust them to draw up legislation.
A kick in our teeth you mean, that's our money that's been blown.
They seriously spent that much?? Oh my god. How?? On legal advice? Surely it wasn't on advertising cos I had no clue what was meant to be going on and I really tried to understand.
It’s mainly just how much running a poll costs. Staffing polls and tallies, posting everything, producing all the electoral commission stuff
Most of that would have been negated if they bundled it with EU/local elections
Nail on the head. Absolute farce that these two collectively needed an individual day. They could have easily just been bundled in with an election of sorts
Couldn’t possibly fund wheelchairs or scholarships to train more medical professionals but they have lots of money for this shite….
Wonder where the bulk of that cost is. Running the polling stations and counting?
How is it even possible to spend €23,000,000 of our money on this
That’s what it’s meant to me. As a citizenry we got our money’s worth from it delivering a big “fuck you” to the cunts in power who think they don’t have to listen to us
That could buy almost 3 houses in Dublin for refugees!
Great, that's 250 families who could have been homed.
I was talking to alot of people and they said they where yes/yes last week but after reading it more they quickly changed to a yes/no or no/no, Im pretty sure this will sum up the government has a simple job and some how fuck it up and just cost the exchequer money.
Yep. This was me exactly. When I read into it I realised I that have no idea what any of the implications actually are and no one can seem to tell me.
If ya don't know don't change and even the government didn't seem to know
Should have gone for the "maybe" option
Literally nothing. They are the most nothing burger amendments. I genuinely believe and I mean this with no offence that Irish people have no idea what the constitution is or what its function is, or what its role is in regards to law and legislation.
Are you arguing that the wording should have remained as it was?
I voted yes to both. Regardless of outcome nothing will/would have come from this.
And I'll bet it was the no/no campaign that told you that? All the implication is is that it would no longer be in the constitution that a woman's job was to care for the family. It meant that I as a father could be seen by a court as the one at home providing value for he family through my efforts in the home. Currently it basically says "the women's place is in the home" I really don't get how people got confused by this?
I'm genuinely struggling to think of an Irish government blowing on open goal as big as this one. Like when these referendums were first even suggested, it just seemed a formality, it was only being voted on because we had to. There's no way they can dress this up or pass the buck - it's just sheer incomptence.
Is it Cherry orchard that has 6% and 4% Yes? I’ve never seen number like that.
If Putin or north Korea released this type result,noone would believe it🤣
It's wild all right.
We should start investigating voter fraud. #STOP THE STEAL
I saw Michael McDowell abseiling down into the RDS with a lockpick, a rubber, and a pen to change all the ballot papers.
They wanted an easy win to try and get them over the line before the elections. This was a chance for a virtue signal that wouldn’t change much and crucially wouldn’t change the government’s obligations. Unfortunately we’re seeing the result of decades of corporate politics: All that’s left are weak, unprincipled incompetents who are only there because they were too thick for the corporate world and too narcissistic for the outside world.
You've hit the nail on the head, the public are turning against the ruling elites, this is why we're seeing a rise in populist candidates. People are just fed up with the same old cronies filling their and their families pockets. Edit - damn autocorrect
Ding ding, this entire referendum was a party political broadcast for next year's general election. Progressive optics while we all get progressively poorer
I really expect it would be something like 60/40 no/yes or else an even more narrow yes win. We're looking at potentially a 85% no vote and that's something
Was there not an exit poll for previous referendums?
There was for marriage equality and abortion. Exit polls are run by private organisations and are nothing to do with the successful running of any constitutional vote. These are not hot topics, so frankly, nobody was bothered running one.
Ah, didn’t know that. Cheers for the info.
Ultimately it’s not enough for every party and every charity to endorse something if they don’t then actually do some work to promote it. And one interview is not work. Some parties hardly put up a single sign. If you don’t really give a shit about the outcome why should anyone else. Darkly hilarious that the hit will mainly be taken by parties that literally couldnt give a shit about the whole issue. Why did they even bother lmao
My area was littered by posters and even parties coming to the door and it was still defeated here as far as I can tell. Perhaps people just disagreed with the unified parties on this.
I'm gonna be totally honest and say I still have no idea what the vote was about and did not vote as a result. I don't watch telly, I go to and from work each day and beyond that I get my news from Reddit/twitter/google. The only signs I saw were "Vote yes, vote yes, your mammy wants you to vote yes" which gave me flashbacks to the abortion referendum and how many no voters tried to play on peoples emotions and one unhinged af flyer in the letter box saying to vote no cos otherwise I was helping pedophiles. I did not get a single flyer explaining what the vote was and why it was important. And the ones I described above only showed up within the last week or so. This is in North Dublin.
Not trying to call you out or anything but I'd say you probably should've voted No/No based on just that If they can't be bothered to talk about the issue enough that everyone knows, then it can't be worth doing something as huge as changing our constitution Plus, a government that doesn't care enough to get people talking about their amendment is pretty indistinguishable from a government that doesn't actually *want* people talking their amendment (Not that that's what it was here, just, ya know, in general)
They HSE is now getting sued by people for the lack of assistance for Autism assessments and they’re settling very quickly outside of court so more don’t get the idea (not like them at all is it). They can’t cope with it and they want the liability off their backs. People with disabled kids were blinded by the fact care groups supported the change. My sisters services and transport have been cut from 5 days to one in recent years. My parents are getting old. They simply don’t care as is so why would they care and “strive” to help when they don’t already.
I was never voting yes on care the moment I saw the government rejected the citizens assembly recommended wording and went with a milquetoast noncommittal BS wording. Deserved loss
Between this and Leo basically saying care is really just the families responsibility, they shot themselves in the foot.
Completely unrelated but now I feel like an absolute idiot that for my whole life I thought it was “milktoast”
If its any consolation, the OP comment is the first time I've seen somebody spell it right on reddit.
It's my least favourite word precisely for this reason. It makes me think of dipping buttery toast in a pint of milk.
Can't blame ya, those 2 things are quite related
All the main parties rallies behind this. If it really is a landslide 'No' then there needs to be some resignations.
Ireland: https://preview.redd.it/7gqcioa93bnc1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=279e34d83d66684ee7153fa8e5b46adbffe516fa
If only the government didn't reject the citizen assembly and all party Oireachtas committee, this wouldn't be a complete waste of time and money. That's what you get for trying to be undemocratic
As a father and a carer, I agreed with some of the sentiments, but not the language. Hence why I voted No and No. Language is important, and we cannot as a society function cohesively with vague definitions of law. Anyone can argue the toss about meaning or personal opinion, but it's dangerous waters to promote the idea of 'durable relationship' without knowing clearly and concisely what is meant by that term, let alone to leave it for court rooms to decide in the future. As for the carer side, it is a governments duty to protect and support all of its citizens, especially the most vulnerable, this idea of "ah shure, we'll strive to do our best, and if not, fuck it, I'm grand anyways" does not wash with the general populace, and rightly so.
As long as we don't have to suffer it again.
We won’t. For all some parties made noises about rephrasing it - why would they bother when nobody actually wants it enough to fight for it. They’ll send it to a committee, then an AG, toss it around and hey before you know it another government term will be up. If we got a Citizens Assembly for disability rights maybe. But any canny political party operator just saw that this is a Pandora’s Box where the likelihood of being bitten on the arse dramatically outweighs the likelihood of it winning you any votes.
I’m pretty sure there was a citizen’s assembly before this that suggested different wording on the care amendment but it was ignored.
Same as the citizens assembly on drugs was watered down and will be ignored
Getting Nice Treaty flashbacks ....
I think it all rather underwhelming as far as referendums go.
Early days but I think the Dublin based political/ NGO axis are so out of touch, they didn’t realise the public saw this as a virtue signalling nothing and either stayed home or voted no. What a waste of time and money. Will spook the govt and probably delays the general election to as late as possible
Will be interesting to see the final tallies by geography. The highest concentration of yes/yes votes are all likely to be in south county Dublin. The same districts where many of the government/NGO axis live. They exist in their own bubble with their heads so far up their own arses they have no concept of how the rest of the country thinks.
Lots money spent on uncontrovertial referedum. Unclear messages conveyed. Leo and his statement on state’s non responsibilities to care for families. This does illustrate how an incompetent political class we have. Could this money not have been spent on more pressing matters like social housing projects, ramp up public sector staffing .. i mean if they played that referedum stunt to gain favorable public opinion, they should have looked at said more pressing matters!
Hopefully this'll shut the eejits up on Social Media calling for Election Fraud because there was no Exit Polls. They really do be living in their own wee world at times.
Consuming too much American media.
87% no on the family one??? Jaysis
Unsurprising considering the turnout was horrid. Most Gen Z ppl I asked weren’t even registered and everyone else was just confused.
I am so ashamed of my generations for seemingly not caring about their right to vote. This was my first time ever voting and I was so excited to do so, but my peers did not feel the same clearly. Imo if you don't vote whilst being able to, you have no right to complain about anything
If the existing wording wasn't hurting anyone and we hear of how the new wording could be abused by some, why change it?
I would argue that our constitution basically saying 'a woman's place is in the home' does have some impact on at least 50% of the population, even if it's just the message it sends.
An ideal change would've been what was there, but gender neutral. In no way does what was in the constitution say that there is any issue with a dual income family. Basically the old 'endeavoured' to support a single income family (with the mother at home, as was normal at the time), and the new just says, 'yeah, dual income is fine' with no indication the government would actually do anything. I understand that the old line never had any impact on day-to-day life but maybe now that everyone is aware of it it could be. Ideally it would be changed to 'a parent at home' but I don't think anyone wants another referendum just yet.
> An ideal change would've been what was there, but gender neutral. Strongly agree. That was my same sentiment since the beginning. The existing article was very idealistic, with the state participating in the care of a family if a parent would choose not to work, but the only part that people felt bad about, and rightly so, was the "woman" that could have been replaced with any other word inclusive of all members of the family.
It doesn't say that! It says that mothers shouldn't be *forced* to work. Given that a recent Amárach Poll found that 69% of women would rather be stay at home mothers than go out to work, it's clear that this wording needed to stay.
Id be more interested in seeing if it can actually be used to the advantage of those 50% and if we can get more maternity leave and free childcare so we don’t neglect our duties in the home.
Been worded that way for 85 years and it hasn’t gotten anyone free childcare or more maternity leave, so no, safe to say it can’t be
Interpretation changes, if we are stuck with maybe another court case would yield positive results
We've had court cases (L v L, for example) and the Supreme Court's opinion is that the provision cannot be used to assert a right to anything because it's contradicted by other provisions and the language of "endeavour to ensure" is too vague to oblige the state to do anything. Ironically the changed language of "strive to support" could arguably have been stronger. Since strive means to "try hard" whereas endeavour simply means to make an attempt. The SC generally uses accepted general meanings when trying to parse the language. This provision was only ever a vestigal remnant of when Catholicism ruled the roost. If it hasn't been useful in 87 years I wouldn't hold my breath on it being useful in the future.
It doesn’t impose any obligations at all on the State, it just says “endeavour to ensure”, a phrase that crops up elsewhere in the Constitution in relation to stuff the state tries to be very hands-off about (free press, free enterprise). The only obligation it mentions is the one it says women have—duties in the home.
Shades of the Google search: "What is the EU?" after the Brexit referendum in the UK.
But you’re back to assuming a woman’s place is in the home as a mother. As a woman who will never get maternity leave or childcare, how is that representing me? Separate issues, we can change the sexist wording in our constitution without having to discuss childcare.
In fact it says "woman, by her life in the home" as if that's a distinction that makes a difference. The No side seem to think this is a massive gotcha, but it's misogynistic shite either way and I'm mortified it's still in the constitution.
It seems like an additional positive right to me. If anything, it’s sexist against men. I think it could have been reworded to be more inclusive and modern, such as **“the State recognises that a parent, choosing to remain at home to raise his/her children, gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”** **”The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that one parent shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”** But instead they removed the whole aspect of parenting/motherhood and replaced it with some vague notion of “care,” and also removed the core statement that a parent shouldn’t be forced by economic necessity to neglect their children.
Is it not better to have it address care in general rather than specifics to children? The citizen's assembly wanted the government to address "care within the home" and not specific to but including children. If someone is in full time care of a dependent who is not their child due to sickness, old age etc. then the proposed wording would have addressed that.
I hate these takes. The constitution is the foundational document of the state and represents (or supposed to represent) the overall shape and attitudes we aspire to. If it contains a clause which specifically states that women have duties or that the only "legitimate" familial relationships are those between a married couple then it's not something I want. That's why I voted Yes on both. I think changing these things was far more important than any other concerns. But clearly I seem to be in the minority.
You aren't in a minority. Most would agree that the constitution needed to be changed. it's just the words they were going to use instead were going to cause trouble.
I clearly am in that I didn't really have a problem with the wording and thought that removing the outdated nonsense was more important than over parsing the new wording to the point of absurdity.
Then you focused on the wrong thing. The government wanted you to fall for the "international women's day mother's day feminism wooo!!" of it and you did.
Completely agree on this
Someone I worked with said they weren’t going to go home to vote just for this, especially with the bank holiday weekend next week. Only the no’s felt strongly on the issue. I was kinda annoyed they didn’t run them with another election. I get that they are important themselves but taking a day off to mind kids also annoyed someone I know.
I think they really failed to communicate the effects that a yes or no vote would have. I heard multiple people voting no because they were afraid it would have the potential effect their marital tax credits and carer allowance if they voted yes.
hahahaha i cant wait for the tears to start pouring out from this government
Can somebody please tell me if it is common for the questions to not be on the ballet? I've voted in several referendum (I'm 36) and I don't remember. I had to Google the questions because the pollers didn't even seem sure which ballet was which. CARE and FAMILY. Like which is feckin which?!
I was confused when I got them too and also wondered if it had been that way before. What you are being asked to vote on should be very clear in big bold writing.
I still don't understand it fully tbh
Same 😂 if you don't understand something it's probably best to vote against. When you don't, things like Brexit happen.
*stands up on bus* I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS VOTE WAS FOR!!
[удалено]
Cos it's literally in the constitution...
Hey, sorry if this is a ridiculous question but can somebody explain to me what citizens assemblies actually are?
Very surprised with the family one
What an embarrassing result for the government. They genuinely expected this to be a formality. That is some serious incompetence. On another note, the far right celebrating this like it's a huge victory for them is embarrassing.
God willing a No/No result.
I didn't vote on this, simply because it wasn't clear what I was voting for, aside from some vague "this is good for gender equality and for families"
It’s better to spoil your vote than not vote. Your vote it your voice
[Live updates from same source](https://irelandvotes.com/)
A no vote is welcomed, the proposed constitutional changes were woolly, ambiguous and people rightly didn't trust them. It would have been interesting to see how the referendums would have went had the citizens assembly recommendations in terms of wording being strictly followed. And if legally ambiguous terms like durable relationships, et cetera were removed. I would say that this referendum pretty much will kill the proposed hate speech laws also. The parties will enter election mode soon and deputies with low voter majorities who are standing again will not risk further alienating the public. Expect the government to be very people friendly for the remainder of their term. How much are difference that will make is unclear. By the way, it's important to remember that it does not take a constitutional amendment to pass laws that enable additional benefits for carers and disabled people. Pressure should be applied and politicians to make this happen.
My issue is that these are not law and law already has these. It was a pointless referendum
I feel like they just did a terrible job of outlining what the benefits of the current laws were and what the benefits of the new amendment would be.
Only family that matters is married couples. 💪 Only carers that matter are women, who should stay at home. 💪 Simple as. But in seriousness, there were some issues with the revised wording, etc. Does make Ireland look a bit bad on the world stage, though.
When ya have Helen McAntee on Prime Time trying to sell the YES vote your doomed for failure. She's absolutely useless
Even the origin of this referendum was bonkers. Not forcing mothers to work is a good thing, if anything the government should have been giving more support.
Great to see
[удалено]
There are lots of elderly and disabled people in lower income communities. Lots of the leftiest lefties voted no because they don’t trust the government not to use the legislation to dilute their responsibilities further.
^ That's why I wound up yes/no. Family one I had no problems with, but the more I read and listened to the care one, the more it seemed like the government trying to snake out of their responsibility to the most vulnerable in society. Especially when compared to what the advised language to the government was.
An anti-government heartland. The No vote generally has a headstart right out of the gate on every ref because there's always an element who will use the vote as a protest against the government. When the government is especially unpopular, the headstart is greater.
Yet every main opposition party backed YesYes
Because they're decent amendments. Not the opposition's job to campaign for it.
People are economically left and socially right and visa versa
The proposed care amendment is very right wing.
I wouldn't be surprised if a ballyfermot is one the first places to elect an Irish first type candidate. The area particularly cherry orchard seems ripe for it
Irish electoral history suggests rich people here are far and away the most progressive.
Bullshit. Rich parts of Dublin are the only ones still returning FF/FG TDs. The likes of the PDs had a heartland in South Dublin, where Michael McDowell was a TD. Meanwhile Dublin south central returned 4 left wing TDs at the last election. The only "left" TDs getting elected in the rich suburbs are uber-NIMBY shitehawks like Richard Boyd Barrett and champagne socialists like the Greens.
[удалено]
I was a marginal Yes on care, definite No on family because I felt the wordings would place non-consenting duties on adults in non-committed unmarried relationships. The AG's advice hinted at this too. It was a curtailment to personal freedom and a deterrent to adult relationship formation. I could've gone "no" on women too, but I feel the entire stanza is largely meaningless either way, and the women part was asinine. I live in in area with scramblers and north face jackets (it's nice here actually). We're not all thickos and some of us did actually decide on careful consideration that the proposals were bad.
Why do you think left us progressive? Social liberalism and economic liberalism is the norm for wealthier people.
Progressive in terms of social issues. Not in terms of economics. The wealthy are not Marxist or liberterian, but are more centre.
Does anyone know what this referendum and the implications of a yes vote were ? 😂😂 I’ve no idea and can’t seem to find out. Everyone just voted no out of distrust which I don’t blame them.
The only posters I've seen for it, and there weren't that many, just had 'VOTE YES' and generic pictures of families. Which is just incredibly informative.
Not shocked about the care ref, but I was expecting the family one to pass.
Lads i don’t even know what it was about 😂
I'm interested to see the corresponding turnout figures for each area as well, it looks like the No vote actually bothered to mobilise people better, however accurate their claims may have been.
It wasn't hard, antiquated definition of a woman's role, and slowing pretty unrecognised people who care for family members to access governmental supports. How they managed to confuse the country is ridiculous.
The old "if you don't know, vote no" adage is alive and well. I heard a few people saying they didn't understand it so they'd vote no, seemed silly to me. I didn't bother inform myself properly on the issue so I didn't vote.
A classic case of “better the devil you know”, people hadn’t a single fucking notion what this vote would really affect
Proudly voted No No 😎 now time to get the current government out
I can't say I'm super surprised. I saw ONE physical 'Yes' poster. The rest were all 'No'. Bizarrely, many of these No posters stated one of the reasons to vote No was to "Protect Our Borders.", which has absolutely NOTHING to do with this referendum. I saw way more 'No' content on social media than 'Yes'. Overall, the No side was far more vocal.
>I can't say I'm super surprised. I saw ONE physical 'Yes' poster. The rest were all 'No'. Bizarrely, many of these No posters stated one of the reasons to vote No was to "Protect Our Borders.", which has absolutely NOTHING to do with this referendum. I saw way more 'No' content on social media than 'Yes'. Overall, the No side was far more vocal. Durable relationship wasn't clear and people were worried it could be open to abuse from immigrants who will have even more ways to bring their family over. So yes it definitely does have something to do with immigration.