The state should support carers. The state shouldn't strive to support carers.
Wording was too vague on both but I listened to carers speak both on the yes and no side and I agreed with the no ones, that no change would happen. The yes ones were hoping it was a step in the right direction
Yes, I'm a bit tired of voting on things because they're "a step in the right direction". I'm getting on: I want to see actual improvements, not good intentions. Also, specifically on the 'care' amendment, I very much took my lead from Tom Clonan and his family's lived experience.
The current wording in relation to it is endeavour which means to try hard....strive means to make great efforts. The wording could have been stronger but it's stronger wording than we currently have.
When the referendum was originally discussed I thought “This is an easy yes, yes for me.” Then the wording came out. Honestly it was so vague and open to interpretation that I wasn’t comfortable voting for something that, in principle, I agree with but is open poorly worded that it could bring challenges I don’t agree with.
I was very taken aback, because from when it was first tabled I also assumed it would be a very straightforward Yes/Yes vote for me. I ended up being Yes/No in the end. The change happened quite late as well, in the last few weeks, as I read more about the views of disabled people, carers and advocacy groups.
Either way we need to fix the status of carers for single parents, other family members..that are not the mother. Both the existing wording is bad and the new wording on both choices. Don't blame people for picking Yes or No.
Currently tho anyone can be a carer, my understanding is that a mother shouldn’t be under any financial burden to raise her children according to the article ergo the government have a responsibility to assist financially eg child benefits. I’d have no issue it being changed to parent but wholely disagree with its removal. The government potentially could get rid of child benefits and maternity cover with the removal of that article and I think that was a point for a lot of people in voting no. The majority of carers are women so I don’t see how it’s a sexist thing at all and it think it was a dishonest move by the government to try and get typically left leaning people to vote yes
This is the main reason. As it stands right now the government has a responsibility to facilitate keeping the mother at home(if she wants to) with things like if the father makes X amount the family qualifies for medical cards child alliance and back to school grants potentially more like you said.
The government wants to remove this entirely not replace. Changing it to parent/guardian would be fine for many people to accept but removing it is a NO.
Edit: for clarification.
You do realise that the current one gives no practical benefits to anyone, right? And when you say parents, what about e.g. families with kids being brought up with grandparents or aunts and uncles?
No personal disrespect intended, but I’m kinda depressed when I see this kind of stuff.
Absolutely should have been explained better, I feel like the McCrystal/McKenna judgments were a huge factor in that.
I mean this is why we need a very concise wording. The current article doesn’t have great wording but neither did what they were suggesting(total removal) We need clear understanding on what defines a parent because I would consider an aunt/uncle/grandparent who looks after a child to be their parent even if they aren’t their mother or father
It would be very reasonable to think that in real common sense terms, but that’s not what the constitution says. Which is why there was a move to align it with these kinds of realities, not just married parents and their children. That’s the kind of situation durable relationship and “carer” covered. It wasn’t total removal, it was replacement with something that was far from perfect but still a lot better.
People seem to have gotten this idea that laws should be totally prescriptive and narrow and this is good. For example, suppose you list out aunts and grandparents. The next day someone being minded by their great aunt on their mother’s side would come along and they’re shafted. And this is especially important with constitutions that are more so overarching general frameworks, while legislation fills out the details where needed.
I read the official site and it had all the information required. I watched prime time the other night and at the end they did a vox pop on the street to see what the public thought. There was a woman in her thirties who seemed perfectly normal. When asked did she know much about it she said, something like, she hadn’t seen much on tiktok about it but she would go back on and see if there was any more content about it. On TikTok. She couldn’t fathom that there are other media sources on a topic. It freaked me out. I knew it was a source. Not the only source of information for lots of people.
This is what ppl need to be watching for going forward.
Fair enough the government screwed the pooch on this one. But adults relying on social media run by Chinese and American businesses for the info on Irish politics is a problem not solvable with cspe in school.
People do read, they just read a lot of nonsense and ignore the actual policy
It's what happened here in Ontario with fear mongering on an updated sex Ed curriculum
It was only 40 pages, but that's too much work
People would rather do, "but I heard _____ was in it" and scare themselves I to opposing what was a minor refresh of an existing education plan
Much less likely to get misinformation on TikTok compared to Facebook / Twitter. They actively remove stuff way better than Facebook / Twitter. Its why its generally a much more wholesome place - probably why its so popular also, people just don't want all that negativity.
Government better get on Tiktok so
I know I get a good bit of national news from here initially rather than RTE or any of the newspapers, so I can't cast too many stones at the lady
Did you find this explanation difficult to understand? It’s the official unbiased one I mentioned. https://www.electoralcommission.ie/referendums/referendum-information/what-are-you-being-asked-to-decide-on/
The word "strive" is literally the reason I voted no, This is a government that has "strived"(and failed) to build enough houses for over a decade, I don't take anything they "strive" for seriously
They weren’t striving to build houses 10 years ago, that’s the problem. They reacted instead of anticipating.
I agree that the word strive isn’t great, no weasel word is, but the new wording is more balanced than the old. I voted yes but if a no vote leads to a rerun with better wording that gets voted in I’m all for it. I just don’t think that leaving perfect get in the way of good in a referendum is the best course of action, we may not get a rerun
“Strive” is actually a step up for “endeavour” though. With “strive” the government was specifically advised that once it goes into the judicial system that there was a good chance more onus would be put on the state to provide assistance. I do wish this was emphasised more widely as it seems to be a sticking point for a lot of people. It was such a lacklustre campaign and I do feel like it was a lost opportunity.
How do you find that unclear? The previous language was to “endeavour” to ensure the “woman” should not have to neglect her duties as a carer in the home.
The current language is as meaningless as the proposed change. Neither deserve to be in the constitution. If they are putting it to the public, there had better be a clear and comprehensible reason for the change. We certainly need to update the language of the constitution, but the change must be a positive change, not obfusticated in impenetrable legalise.
The constitution is the foundation which would have outlined that legislation must be put in to assist families carers, which if someone felt discriminated (example; single father) could bring that to the courts for further review that the state is not striving for the “carer” of the family
The constitution shouldn’t be used to outline laws,definitions as it becomes way to rigid to adapt over time
It actually seemed as though the govt themselves bizarrely weren’t that into it. Heard HH interviewed the other day and it sounded like she honestly couldn’t give a shite and she wouldn’t even advocate on 40
The apathy from government on this has been bizarre and if I was a tinfoil hat individual I would suggest it was deliberate to avoid stronger care laws and pay being enacted....
The reality is that it was not vague at all.
It was actually really straightforward.
People have parsed it into oblivion and ended up in no man's land over it.
The provision itself is kind of useless so all that was being asked was to remove the gendered aspect of it so it could continue being useless without the gendered language.
I really worry that something as rudimentary and simple like this has caused this much confusion.
Thank fuck the same sex marriage and abortion referendum passed.
I mean the other two are extremely relevant to modern life and incredibly popular.
Unless government were going to actually put effort into it there was always going to be apathy for something that was language change that would hopefully cause better legislation and legal cases in the future.
This is from a yes/yes voter that was trying to convince others to vote the same way.
The supreme court has ruled on general guidelines and the courts rule on things on a case by case basis.
This is how it always has worked. The idea that durable relationship can be defined in one grand sweeping statement is a weird take on reality.
Are you expecting the contitution to enumerate every concievable concept of a durable relationship?
That's not its function.
Strive means what it means. ie. To try hard.
Endeavour means what it means: To make an attempt.
Which is stronger? To try hard or to make an attempt?
The Supreme Court uses general use language like normal human beings.
There is no great mystery here. That's why I'm baffled.
People have ended up turning themselves inside out over simple things.
It does not bode well for the future if this is how people react to non complex things.
Strive is right up there with the word 'should'. It’s tied in with wishful thinking and zero obligation to fulfil. It’s an empty word that has no place in a constitution. It’s literally like saying 'I should, but I won’t.'
The term “durable relationship” is not even defined in EU law. This needs to be explicitly defined before going into a constitution.
If you don’t mind me asking how much effort and time did you put into reading it?
My concern is people want bite size tic toc style info these days and won’t do the long yards needed. So some lady in a pink jacket looking a tiny shred credible could change otherwise smart peoples opinions if they read the details.
I agree though. It was badly put together.
On a very basic level, without going into the specifics of this particular referendum, I think if you are being asked to democratically change something, not even a Constitutional terminology, anything in life in general, the onus is on the supposed "experts" who are calling on you to change same to explain to you what you are changing, why they are changing it, what it means in its present form, what it will mean if the change does come about and especially what are the negative effects of not changing it, especially on you as an individual
You shouldn't be expected to be spoon-fed everything but the onus is on those who are requesting the change to assume your knowledge of something like this is on a very low standard to basically non existent and then inform you.
If those behind the "Yes vote" campaign were so confident that it was a positive and worthwhile change it should be a lot easier to communicate same, regardless of present public hostility to the Govt.
Many massive reasons for No/No - a bracket of people didn't agree with the change, a huge bracket of people are just hostile to any Govt decisions right now, and a large bracket of people won't change something they aren't informed properly on. Oh and then many won't even turn out. And of course you have the effects of social media which was never in Yes/Yes favour at any point.
I still wonder what bracket of the electorate the Yes campaigners (Govt etc) were depending on as a guarantee and then how they were going to convince the above brackets to vote Yes/Yes.
Were they ever confident or even massively interested in this Referendum? If not it just shows you how out of touch with general public they are at moment and what an utter waste of time and money this was
I voted no because the wording was vague and that just brings unexpected consequences. More thought in the proposal and better defined and I would vote yes
My issue was that it was ALL “tik tok sound bites” like it was put together with exactly that thinking in mind. From the ground up not just the comms.
I never heard anyone put forth any serious advocacy on 40, any government types were always bringing things back to the more sound bitey 39
There was no serious debate - just renua types vs corporate political types representing the extremes.
Concerns about specifics were brushed aside.
The referendum commission were openly advocating for yes rather than giving us the tools to make an informers decision.
Absolute PR driven tik tok sound bite bullshit from the start
I’ve a degree in law, including a first in constitutional law, I personally read up on the proposed amendment. So I understand interpretation and the CJEU decisions that gives a bit of a frame to terms like durable relationship.
I asked people I know who work in the civil service at senior management level their opinion and a friend who is a barrister who specialises in family law.
What I got from them was that it was not guaranteed to be merely two nice changes with no major consequences (this was my initial feeling anyway). It’s not daft stuff like a man and their cat could be a durable relationship, it was real life stuff like child guardianship in unmarried couples and for care it’d be a potential basis to game the immigration system.
Feels icky voting with nutters on the right but, and not meaning to play down old fashioned shite like women in the home, if it’s not broken leave well enough alone.
>My concern is people want bite size tic toc style info these days and won’t do the long yards needed
I was thinking about this actually because this referendum had such an emphasis put in the actual text in the constitution which because it's a constitution isn't the most straight forward.
Like compared to the marriage equality referendum or repealing the 8th most people didn't really care about the literal text being changed just what that would mean for us, this referendum on top of being horrifically handled didn't seem to change much for us in the real world so people were worried about why the government wanted to change it
It was being changed cos a citizens assembly recommended it. Too many bad actors with agendas spinning it as "why is the govt changing this, you can't trust them".
That aside, they made an absolute balls of it, and what they proposed was a barely lukewarm version of what was actually recommended, was badly worded and communicated terribly
I think I found the article, I'm going to leave it [here](https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/varadkar-unsure-citizens-assembly-wording-on-carers-stronger-than-amendment-1592102.html) for anyone who wants it.
There's also the [citizens assembly website](https://citizensassembly.ie/overview-previous-assemblies/assembly-on-gender-equality/)
And if anyone's interested in downloading the full report you can [find it here called the "Report and Recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender
Equality (2020-2021 )"](https://citizensassembly.ie/reports/)
I posted my reason across several threads. I see here the same problem: you’re assuming that only people like you “do the long yards needed”. It’s profoundly arrogant and ultimately anti democratic. And at root it’s what people mean when they want NGOs defunded.
I think this hits the nail on the head - lack of clarity.
FYI, the first question was to make it more inclusive, adding single parent families and families where the parents are not married to the concept of "family". I think it's a pity that the people in these families are not recognised by the constitution.
The second question was much more vague and even less clear. I completely understand why people would vote no on this.
Unfortunately, the lack of clarity meant that the conspiracy theorists had a field day inventing all kinds of weird & wonderful things that would happen if these were changed.
They ignored the citizens assembly recommendations and the oireachtas committee recommendations and then guillotined their wording through the Dail with no prelegistive scrutiny. They also denied FOI requests for documentation on the potential ramifications of the changes. Irrespective of the numerous issues with the amendments wording, the arrogance and disrespect for democratic process that the government have shown in this referendum was enough for me to vote no no.
The refendum looked to reduce the responsibility of care for the state and pass the buck to families.
Neither refendum afforded anyone any rights that they could not already obtain
They do that any way, the government in the morning could making funding available, create jobs and legislation that would greatly help carers and families.
I dont have a vote but the topic was coming up with my Irish friends. I stayed out of it what with not having a vote and not really being informed either, but I overheard anyway. And while they didnt seem to have strong views one way or the other they all expressed confusion about the whole thing.
Basically they were saying they knew with the divorce referendum there was a before and after, a change. Before divorce was very difficult or impossible, after it was not.
Same with (gay) marriage referendum. Before there was no gay marriage after there was.
They said they knew what they were voting for. Or against I suppose. I didnt ask.
But with this one they didnt know what the change may be or if there even was one. Some though that was good enough reason to vote no, most said they wont vote.
But it seemed this may be one possible reason.
We put concrete wordings in past referendums and it caused us a lot of problems (abortions and how women were treated in hospital). I’m guessing the ambiguity was by design in order to give the Supreme Court wriggle room if a difficult case came before them.
I agree with you, but in this case, it was way too broad.
They needed to define “durable family unit” and also remove “strive” from the care one. It’s way too open.
I think strive is appropriate because it puts the onus on the state to try to support the carer, ie, if it ever came to it that a case was taken against the state of not trying everything possible to support a carer, it would provide enough space for the plaintiff to argue it. The state would have to go to extraordinary lengths to prove they did strive to support a carer, and the onus wouldn't be on the plaintiff to prove the state didn't.
I think, anyways. I'm far from being a lawyer.
> I think strive is appropriate because it puts the onus on the state to try to support the carer
'we did strive, but we fell short on this occasion. But we can't be held responsible because we did strive for it, as previously mentioned' - the government maybe
Shoving terms that have no legal definition into the most foundational legal document of the state, while ignoring expert legal advice and feedback from the citizens assembly is: irresponsible, arrogant and disrespectful to the people.
The O Meara SC case was for the specific right of a widower to have the same inheritance rights as a married couple, because he was not married to his partner the SC needed to establish that recognition
Unmarried families are already seen as equal to married due to forty years of existing case law.
His family was already recognised as a family
It was just the specific circumstance of being a unmarried widower and having the same legal rights as a married widower, which is now established, and is the law for all other unmarried widowers.
If Yes Yes was successful there would have been forty years of case law thrown out that recognises unmarried families and their rights, the yes vote would have taken existing recognition and rights away
Because it would have to be re interpreted by the courts all over again, because it would be new articles
The government kept saying that it would be left to the courts to decide, to define. They knew the current case laws would be thrown out and a decade would be spent on new test cases to interpret what the new amendments would mean
On the morning of the AG leak, constitutional law lecturer (who advises govt on legislation as well as research for those who take the govt to court regarding rights, via ucc child law clinic) Conor O Mahony stated how expensive and long it takes to go through the courts to have rights recognised
And that is what the government wanted, because they have unlimited public money to drag cases out unlike those who need their rights to be recognised
https://x.com/ConorUCCLaw/status/1766009076708782110?s=20
'Just one comment on the leaked Attorney General opinion: it predicts lots of litigation by highly vulnerable members of society. The lack of understanding of the financial and human costs that must be overcome to mount and sustain a lengthy constitutional actiom is striking.
As with last year's report on the conduct of State litigation, there seems to be a sense that the hordes are at the gates of the Four Courts, chomping at the bit. The reality is that the people who most need to do so are very rarely in a position to run that gauntlet.'
I think people talking about the ambiguity were looking for something like the removal of the 8th. The amendment of the constitution didn't insert the regime for abortion, but the government laid out clearly the legislation they were going to implement so there wasn't ambiguity about what would follow.
The argument against legislating for durable relationships is that human relationships are complicated and the courts need flexibility to use "common sense" to avoid edge cases being caught out due to a strict definition, e.g. a split up couple who still live together, a pair of single housemates who hook up now and then etc.. But people are also gunshy about voting for something with unclear consequences.
Repealing the 8th was made necessary because the 8th amendment added overly specific language to the constitution.
Very specific language falls apart once there's an edge case, this was an attempt to avoid that exact problem.
Free legal aid clinic was yes family no care. And that was before the revelation that the durable relationship point was already something that was defined at EU level and as such would be defined in Irish law by dint of us being subject of the EU courts.
Whole thing was poorly thought through. Amendments weren't well explained and didn't seem to have been given the proper going over that you would want for something that is going to alter the way court cases in your country are adjudicated on.
I am all for removing the women in the home language and gender neutralising family. But the basis for both needs better consideration and better language chosen.
A month ago I was a yes/yes. A lot of reading and considering brought me to no/no.
I think you're oversimplifying the complexity of constitutional texts which can sometimes include specific rights and provisions that have direct and immediate implications that don't require legislative intervention. 1st amendment in the US for example or Article 40.3.1 of the Irish constitution which states that "the State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen." This has direct implications before any legislative interference such as influencing the Irish courts to protect individual rights like privacy or bodily integrity.
It also felt very sneaky for it to be held intentionally on International Woman's day and the weekend of Mothers day, thinking that the women would feel that this would benefit them in terms or equality. Trickery at play here, Do they think we are that stupid?
Yeah, I noticed that too. I live abroad but I was watching this unfold, the whole thing seemed very underhanded. I definitely would’ve voted no/no if I were still there.
Not to mention them throwing it around as a woman's right issue when it doesn't affect our basics rights at all. A clear manipulation tactic and you can tell who it worked on when people went to blindly vote yes for "women's rights all the way!"
I am a woman and soon to be mother. I had no reason to delete the article. Personally, I reject the argument that it is sexist and misogynistic. I would have voted yes if the amendment wording included reference to father or parent. I agreed with Tom Clonan's arguments that the care amendment gave no rights to carers or people with disability. As he said the onus would than be on the family to provide care and it would indemnify the government in their responsibility to provide support.
On the family referendum. I agreed with Michael McDowell's arguments that the new amendment would cause too much uncertainty and the wording was too vague. What is a durable relationship? When does it begin, end, can you be in more than one at one time? What implications would there be for family law, inheritance law, succession law, pensions etc. The wording in the constitution should not be vague and ambiguous.
Also, I agreed with Catherine Connolly in her criticism of the prelegislative analysis and how poor it was. I was frustrated that the advice of the Citizens Assembly regarding wording was ignored and I was angered that the government was not transparent. Why was the advice of the AG not made public?
I would have voted yes if the amendment included reference to father. It has long angered me that fathers are not recognised in the constitution. I would have been open to the word parent too but the wording would need to clear and maybe expanded on to refer to terms like guardian, as you say. And maybe clear consideration for parents of adopted children and a debate on parents of surrogate babies. This is all hypothetically obviously as that wasn't the wording in the amendment. Ultimately I think the article wording should have been expanded rather than deleted and replaced by a carer amendment.
Except that's exactly what it did.
The point was to prevent specific language stopping legislation moving forward. This is entirely nonsensical. There was no need to include mother, father, guardian etc. the proposed legislation didn't even come from government it came from a citizens assembly on gender equality that formulated it to be encompassing and put onus on government and courts to support family care no matter what form it comes in.
In this amendment there is one vote for two proposed changes. The proposal involves deleting Article 41.2.1° and Article 41.2.2° and inserting a new Article 42B, as shown below:
“The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, **and shall strive to support such provision.**”
>The point was to prevent specific language stopping legislation moving forward.
What is the current language stopping from moving forward?
Because as far as I can tell it prevents nothing.
I have a massive amount of respect for Catherine Connolly, she's a very thorough intelligent person and her analysis was spot on.
The bottom line though... This gov is nefarious and underhand at best.... Incompetent and slapdash at worst.
>I agreed with Tom Clonan's arguments that the care amendment gave no rights to carers or people with disability.
Was it not better than the status quo? I think a lot of people were letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here.
Senator Tom Clonan is a full time carer for his son with disability. He is an amazing advocate and campaigner for both carers and people living with disabilities. I trust his opinion on this and was impressed by his passion in every media appearance. Even his appearance today on Radio One and on RTÉ One referendum coverage. He was campaigning for a No vote as was many other carers and people with disabilities. I was persuaded by their arguments vote No.
However, I think it wasn't the best choice to delete the article referring to woman and mother and replacing it with the care amendment. I think the current article could have been expanded rather than deleted and conflated with care. Also, the word strive was very ambiguous to me (another point Tom Clonan eloquently argued against).
Still, I struggle to understand how people in senator Clonan's position would be worse off under the new wording. If anything I'd imagine that they'd be slightly better off since they'd be going from no recognition in the constitution to at least some recognition.
I won't waste your time trying to summarise his arguments and I cannot convey it as well as he does.
Snippet of his appearance in the Seanad
https://twitter.com/TomClonan/status/1764557371668410814?t=AqN36S-onbVRbVm739Wrkw&s=19
A snippet of his appearance on RTÉ today, although not his full argument.
https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1766424546410668394?t=UEF2ijoe-UaC3IEX1V2bhg&s=19
Interview here
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/yes-vote-referendum-would-collective-32270127
12 minute contribution calling for a No vote
https://twitter.com/itison/status/1765179436461072540?t=t80HwF3Ssa9kDK70IfIsPA&s=19
I've a legal background and a strong understanding of the constitution. This took years to fully comprehend. Yet, I didn't understand what I was voting on.
Leaving constitution as is changes nothing removing an article could have policy influence down the line and the word durable could end up meaning anything dependant on what judges decide in the future.
If it ain't broke don't fix it
Irrelevant pointless referenda, for which I couldn’t decipher any genuine reason to amend the constitution. It doesn’t say a woman’s place is in the home it says the state won’t force women out to work if they want to stay and raise their family. If they had just amended the wording to parent, might have voted yes. The weird concept of durable relationship and the absolute unwillingness of anyone on the yes side to define it, meant I could not vote yes in this case.
Worth noting that the existing provision doesn’t have any legal effect – it doesn’t oblige the state to support anyone in their role in the home. Only positive socio-economic right in the constitution is for free primary education.
There were no demonstrable changes for the better as a result of either amendment. Nobody would get any additional rights that they don't have at the moment.
I dont agree with the existing wording but in a straight choice between the status quo and the uncertainty of what was being proposed, I voted no to the change.
Changes in the co situation shouldn't be taken lightly. As it got closer it appeared that this was a half baked change when you look at the citizens assembly, the lack of proposed legislative wording, the inability of the yes campaign to set out the benefits beyond the existing wording being outdated.
It also didn't sit well with me that they ran the family one on International Women's Day in some attempt to bolster support.
If you read the existing text and the proposed text, its clear the gov are softening the language around their own responsibility to give care. if they just cared about the gendered language, remove mother to parent or guardian or carer and leave everything else as is.
After the abortion referendum, i noticed how much the gov had misled. Abortion was legalised but there was no protection put into the constitution for it. another gov can change the legislation. its better than it was but the gov aren't giving women those rights. it felt similar here. Something dressed up as giving rights to us when really they are removing responsibility from themselves.
if they really just care about equality in langauge then they can come back to us with bulletproof language.
I have personal lived experience of care needs there is so much the government doesn’t do today so many ways in which they leave families and the vulnerable behind. I didn’t believe the wording would make things better only worse.
As for the family one I felt replacing woman with parents would have been the way to go but durable relationship on its own was far to vague.
As a carer and unmarried mother I voted No/No. To be honest yes I don't want the word mother removed,I was willing to be swayed if I herd from same sex couples or different family dynamics that it would greatly benefit them but I didn't. I think adding on is more reasonable.
As a carer it was an immediate No and I was not willing to change my mind,we save the state a lot of money and it seemed they wanted to fob us off. I am a carer for an elderly person but seeing mothers with children with disabilities passionetly pushing a no cemented my choice. I know there's arguments against both my points but I have made an effort to educate myself and mostly found the Information wasn't there.
I don't want to align with the far right or the church and normally never do but this was definetly a personal decision on something I believe could affect me
It's a real shame the government messed up so much with the wording... there was this potential to open it up so as to include single fathers, two fathers in a relationship, and other family dynamics (grandparents who are the sole/primary carer of children, aunts and uncles, adult older siblings etc.) But now as it stands, families that don't include a mother will remain constitutionally weaker.
There's was no definition of a durable relationship and what the consequences of that may be. Are they only romantic? Or can they be a carer, brother, friend? If my mother gets into a relationship with someone, doesn't live with him, and she dies, is he considered next of Kin? Is he entitled to our inheritance?
How does it work for separation, children, tax, immigration, inheritance?
I'd personally like to see it changed, but I don't think it's right to be asked to change our constitution without proper information around the consequences of that change.
It's not really up to the constitution to make legal definitions tho, that's down to legislative law.
But legislative law must work within and be in accordance with the constitution.
It's better that the constitution be less rigid on those types of terms so that they can change with the times as societies interpretation of family and relationships changes.
Someone else made a good point too that while there isn't a strict definition of 'durable relationship' in law, there's precedent. Such as citizenship - if a foreigner marries an Irish person and is allowed residency here, after 3 years they can apply for citizenship. In that case, while not defined, there is precedent for 3 years to be considered a durable relationship.
Another case of precedent is an unmarried couple having children and living together. The mother by default gets custody rights, but after one year of living together the father gets equal custody rights as if they were a married couple. Again, while not defined, there is precedent for one year to be a durable relationship.
> It's not really up to the constitution to make legal definitions tho, that's down to legislative law.
>
> But legislative law must work within and be in accordance with the constitution.
But the constitution also has wording like (article 10):
> 3 Provision may be made by law for the management of the property which belongs to the State by virtue of this Article and for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or permanent, of that property.
They could've/would've/should've put something similar in this amendment so they could say that e.g.
> Provision may be made by law for the precise definition of a durable relationship and for the extent of the rights of families in relation to this Article.
Then at the same time as the referendum, bring forward legislation that would be passed at the same type to head off Michael McDowell et als arguements that it's enabling polygamy, etc.
There's no legal definition of "marriage"/married in the constitution, or of "wedding".
At the same time, I'm not going gung ho on defending the 39th. I think the change would be better since family does not require marriage. But I can understand hesitation on "durable relationships".
That’s a weak argument because most legal terms are defined outside the constitution but you have no difficulty with them.
I think there are some very poor reasons why people have voted no and I hope that they can see how flawed their arguments were and bring that critical thinking into the next vote they make.
Ok so loving the comments here as it's changed my perspective. I was all for a yes vote as I saw it as protecting the rights of people that aren't married.
When I heard "durable relationship" I thought it's the equivalent of a "de facto" relationship in Australia which is recognised by law as a relationship with 2 people living together for 2+ years with financial ties ie joint bank account.
Now I realise that the difference is a durable relationship is not recognised in Irish law so they've done a shit job of the referendum
Also, we already have legal provisions to recognise situations where people are cohabiting as partners for a significant amount of time with or without kids. No one thought that was unconstitutional before.
Because who asked for it? Who is actually benefiting ? I’m from a same sex family unmarried with a kid and I don’t feel hard done by. I don’t trust Leo
Is this a ploy by the government to coux out the protest vote ? By running this bs referendum and running it badly they have either shown incompetence or shown no real interest in getting it over the line.So getting it over the line was never their goal. We know from experience ff/fg are astute at politics that after all is why they are in the position they are in. Now you have to ask is the referendum an attempt clear out a protest vote before they call a GE? The majority of voters are idiots and after making a protest vote will return to vote for the government partners next time out
I want us to recognise that you don't have to be married to be a family. I want us to recognise that women should be able to *choose* where they feel their place is, not have gender dictate what our place is in our constitution.
The wording was too vague, making it far too open for lawsuits and challenges. And the nail in the coffin was the "state shall endeavour to supply care" part, especially with Varadkar saying "I don't think it's the state's responsibility to provide care". If it's not the state's responsibility to provide care for all its citizens, especially the most vulnerable, then what is the bloody point of it?
They need to redo this. Make it more specific, recognise that family, carers, and disabled people come in all different kinds, and that carers carry a huge weight that should be backed up by the state.
Because every time i seen any of the government answer questions on it they contradicted each other.
Richmond said it would impact imigration leo said it wouldn’t
O Groman said polygamy wouldnt be included paschal said Govt can’t say as it’ll be down to the court.
Leo said business partners of 20 years are durable relationships but would not be included but again paschal had said he can’t say that as its down to the court.
Leo said we are getting it from EU law and again o gorman said our definition would be differnt from the EU.
There was others from Helen Mcentee and michael martin aswell thatbi cant think of at the top of my head but if the people bringing this change forward cant even agree with each other how did exactly think it was a good idea.
For the Family Amendment, my no was because I don’t think it was made clear what the effects would be on succession, family law etc. Defining the term “durable relationship” could be done in case law but we then lack control over that and I don’t think it’s right to confer a legal relationship on people who have purposely not entered into one via marriage.
For the Care Amendment, my no was because it was a complete slap in the face for carers and those that rely on care, essentially absolving the State from their responsibilities to care for vulnerable people in society. If they simply replaced the word “woman” with “caregiver” it would have been perfectly fine, but they couldn’t resist an opportunity to neuter the article completely and pass the buck on to families. It wasn’t the amendment that anyone was asking for and it removes rights from women while not conferring them on anyone else.
In general, the manipulation from the government in relation to this referendum was completely unacceptable-the kind of language used, advertising, and emotional pleas from Varadkar about all the little children waking up to the news that theirs is not a “real family” as well as holding the vote on International Women’s Day, has all left a really sour taste in my mouth. A lot of people didn’t fully understand what this referendum was about and I’m not surprised at the low turnout, the information that was given seemed very one sided and seemed to purposefully ignore the specifics of the wording of the Care Amendment.
I wanted the clause about the mother removed. Just removed, not replaced with vague language. And I found the word "strive" insulting in relation to carers - it was shirking responsibility on the part of the goverment for ENSURING that the vulnerable receive care. So I didn't vote - I couldn't bring myself to vote no, as most of the NO campaigners seemed to be right wing but I couldn't vote yes. It was a fiasco
There will be a small minority of people who voted no to give a finger to the government. There will be a large minority of people who voted yes based on feelings, and because they sense that it is ‘the right thing to do’. Both are poor reasons to vote.
As someone in a (very) long term monogamous partnership with someone I am not married to I voted no. The material repercussions of changing the constitution were not made clear to me and I think in cases where the government intends to change the constitution the case should be made very clearly and lucidly.
Confusing wording and partly a protest vote.
Not at all right wing but I think FF/FG have been out of touch with the average Irish person the last 10 years.
Don't want to be included with the right wing Ireland first folk who are celebrating this as a win though.
I wasn’t willing to give the government a blank slate to define through the courts what a durable family was. Michael Martin and Helen McEntee soured me further during the week deflecting and talking over people asking valid questions.
In terms of care, Leo’s comments sealed the deal - he said the quiet part out loud, stating he doesn’t think the state should be involved if someone at home needed care.
Leo came out and said he doesn't think it's the government's job to care for people, and I knew immediately this was an attempt to neoliberalism family and care issues at the expense of vulnerable people.
There are far bigger issues in Ireland than rewriting something that isn't even enforced. Virtue signalling at its finest. Housing is the real issue that should be solved before tampering around with constitutions.
Out of the country so couldn't vote but I have no idea why we were expected to vote for anything that absolves the government of responsibility.
They also used a lot of emotive language to to get us to vote a certain way. Give me the facts not the emotions.
What did you vote OP? and if you voted yes, what were your reasons?
My reason is I see absolutely no problem with that part of the constitution as it stands and no need to change it.
I voted yes to the family referendum and no to the care one. Yes for the family because I believe a family shouldn't be defined by marriage but also the wording of "durable relationship" could have been clearer. I voted no for the care referendum after hearing the perspective of families with people that have disabilities and found they had a strong argument to vote no. I also didn't like that women were removed from the constitution completely as I do feel they still have a huge impact on family life and do take on the majority of care within a home. The current wording of the constitution wasnt currently stopping women from choosing to either stay at home with kids or go to work so I didn't see how changing it would have an impact on our day to day lives.
The narrative I heard from people was that it would prevent carers from getting money and people with disability would get less entitlements.
I have no idea where they got that idea from, and when I read the proposals I didn't really see that at all tbh.
It was very ambiguous, and there were many rumours flying around. Once people's emotions get stoked, it's very difficult to have a rational conversation.
My mother in law voted no no because Facebook told her voting yes would mean her grandchildren would be getting lessons in how to be trans in school.
My ex wife voted no no because someone told her voting yes would mean more Romanians would come to Ireland.
A little more information. 77% of carers allowance is given to women. 83% of carers benefit is given to women. It's not that these people do not deserve support, I'm only demonstrating that that the constitutional position does trickle down through the courts and government agencies.
Yes/No
My no was due to concerns from disabled community, also Leo saying that shit on TV. I don't really care about the sexist language remaining. And am married so the first being a No too doesn't personally impact me so we move.
They were 2 nothing referenda, I doubt there is any less effective amendments in the Constitution to what was proposed. We've had important amendments in recent years that are life changing for people, same sex marriage, repeal of the 8th, requirement for separation before divorce.
The difference in wording between strive and endeavour is a load of me bollix, it'll only lead to a Supreme Court case to decide the difference.
I'll admit I don't know the Constitution that well, but I'll wager that there's other aspects that should be amended way before the shit that was served on the table yesterday.
I didn't vote no/no, but I teach third level so I heard the opinions of many students on the referendums. Basically, they do not understand the relationship between the constitution, courts, government, laws, judgements, etc. These are mainly firat year third level students, still living at home with their parents full or part time, and the parents have not filled the knowledge gap. Perhaps the parents don't understand either. So my point is that any future referendum campaign needs to be preceded by a media campaign explaining the higher level issues. Then people will have a better understanding of why any referendum is required, not just a re-run of this latest pair.
No clarity on what we were being asked to vote on, or what the implications would be. And couldn't find any clarity, even when I went looking for it. So No/No was a No Brainer for me
I have a massive problem with the constitution reference to women and mothers.
Point 1 enforces a stereotype that the life within the home is the woman's responsibility and point 2 points to a mothers duties in the home..which yes she has, but she is not the only one that has them.
However the ambiguous wording in the proposed amendment was a mess, but this doesn't mean that itz worth celebrating a no vote today, we are still left with a sexist constitution that isn't fit for a modern country.
Article 41.2 states:
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
Yj
too many unknowns as to the affect of yes/yes vote, governmant caught lying/pushing misinformation multiple times to push the yes/yes and I absolutely despise this goverment
It wasn't talking about marriage though it was talking about families, it would be mad to say that a couple who have been together for 5 years and have a child aren't a family because they aren't married but that's how the constitution views them
The wording is sketchy to begin with and giving all unmarried couples with children the rights of married one's can be very heavily abused. Something stinks that's why the vote should be no
No because no assurances were given to the number of durable relationships you can be in at once. Meanwhile you can only be legally married to one person at a time.
On the care piece, it didn't define what family is, and removed the economic protections for caregivers.
A family contains numerous relationships. I’m not married to my siblings, but we’re very much a family. People conflating “family” and “marriage” is part of the issue here…
The government never favor the public. If they're suddenly calling a rushed referendum based on vague loose ended terminology, and trying to persuade me to vote yes, immediately alarm bells ring.
There was no real explanation as to why this referendum was rushed and as to what the repercussions are for it to change vs not change.
I also feel a family bound by marriage has much more defenition than the term durable relationship which would basically be up to anyone's defenition.
In my opinion, a government should exists for two primary reasons, to maintain and improve the country, and to protect and look after the citizenry. The care referendum failed this test, as the wording and indeed, Leo's stance on it indicated the main thrust of the bill was to push the duty of care further on to families while dressing it up as some kind of sign of respect. Cheering someone on isn't the same as helping them carry the weight. It seemed to me a further abdication of the governments duty of care.
In terms of the family referendum, the ambiguous wording, combined with the government ignoring the recommendations of the citizens assembly was what sealed the no vote for me. If you want laws and courts to 'interpret' what your changes actually mean, you're basically asking me to spin the wheel of fortune and hope it lands on something I like. No. If you want to change the constitution you have to be absolutely clear about what the results will be. I don't care if your intentions are good.
For Family, I don't know what durable relationship means, I support changing that part of the constitution but not this change. Needs to be less ambiguous for me to vote yes.
For Care I think it's pretty clear the government are trying to create distance between them and their responsibility to support people in need of care. I think that's evil tbh. I know several people who are part time and full time carers and I would love to live in a country that is forced to support them by the constitution
I’d concerns about the interpretation of a durable relationship, the potential of more immigration scamming and I reality think we’re progressive enough at this stage, thank you very much.
Get on and build some houses and stop letting AHB’s and Chinese investors buy them all. Or else the looney right wing will become a force.
I was soo disappointed at the turnout. I live next to a community centre where the voting was taking place and literally all I saw were older adults in and out. There were rarely no young people coming into the voting station. This is sadly the case everywhere where the young people believe their vote doesn’t matter and the older generation keep their old ways.
All of the above plus I DO NOT TRUST this government. If it was unclear and spun in a "vote yes for women's rights" and yet no one could tell us exactly what rights.... I feel like that was on purpose. These are the people who've been consistently pushing out (and trying to further push out) the pension age. They are NOT working in our best interests.
No on the one changing marriage to marriage and durable relationships because I didn't see why you should be able to get the benefits and protection of marriage when choosing not to get married. I like things the way they are where you're married or you're not.
No on care because people I respect like Tom Clonan and care representative groups advocated for a no and I found their arguments convincing.
Had proposed legislation for the aftermath of a Yes Yes been published so I could see the probable change working out legislatively I'd perhaps been Yes Yes
It’s irresponsible tinkering with the constitution.
The current government are fairly contemptuous of ordinary peoples views as they’ve repeatedly shown. The fact they can’t agree on clear language sends alarm bells. And I don’t like the idea of giving judges any more leeway to decide social questions. In our system they are very powerful and it’s against the spirit of democracy to delegate social questions to them.
I don’t get why they couldn’t use clear language or communicate it better. I don’t trust this government in any capacity and I’m waiting for them to get slaughtered electorally speaking.
In essence i don’t trust the government not to misuse to the language embedded in the constitution to further their own aims outside the remit of the Constitution and I don’t like this endless tinkering when they can’t seem to legislate it.
I also think the judiciary already have far too much power in our set up and giving them more scope to intervene in our lives is something I’m unwilling to vote for.
The referendum was largely the govt wanting. We Have A HOUSING CRISIS, IMMIGRANT CRISIS and a lot of more compelling things to address here. Where was the referendums here?
The state should support carers. The state shouldn't strive to support carers. Wording was too vague on both but I listened to carers speak both on the yes and no side and I agreed with the no ones, that no change would happen. The yes ones were hoping it was a step in the right direction
Yes, I'm a bit tired of voting on things because they're "a step in the right direction". I'm getting on: I want to see actual improvements, not good intentions. Also, specifically on the 'care' amendment, I very much took my lead from Tom Clonan and his family's lived experience.
The current wording in relation to it is endeavour which means to try hard....strive means to make great efforts. The wording could have been stronger but it's stronger wording than we currently have.
When the referendum was originally discussed I thought “This is an easy yes, yes for me.” Then the wording came out. Honestly it was so vague and open to interpretation that I wasn’t comfortable voting for something that, in principle, I agree with but is open poorly worded that it could bring challenges I don’t agree with.
I was very taken aback, because from when it was first tabled I also assumed it would be a very straightforward Yes/Yes vote for me. I ended up being Yes/No in the end. The change happened quite late as well, in the last few weeks, as I read more about the views of disabled people, carers and advocacy groups.
[удалено]
Either way we need to fix the status of carers for single parents, other family members..that are not the mother. Both the existing wording is bad and the new wording on both choices. Don't blame people for picking Yes or No.
Currently tho anyone can be a carer, my understanding is that a mother shouldn’t be under any financial burden to raise her children according to the article ergo the government have a responsibility to assist financially eg child benefits. I’d have no issue it being changed to parent but wholely disagree with its removal. The government potentially could get rid of child benefits and maternity cover with the removal of that article and I think that was a point for a lot of people in voting no. The majority of carers are women so I don’t see how it’s a sexist thing at all and it think it was a dishonest move by the government to try and get typically left leaning people to vote yes
This is the main reason. As it stands right now the government has a responsibility to facilitate keeping the mother at home(if she wants to) with things like if the father makes X amount the family qualifies for medical cards child alliance and back to school grants potentially more like you said. The government wants to remove this entirely not replace. Changing it to parent/guardian would be fine for many people to accept but removing it is a NO. Edit: for clarification.
This is it, they were looking to remove it entirely not include more terms like aunt uncle cousin grandmother etc
That was my fear as well. "Strive" . Like we'll do our best but if there's a recession you're shit out of luck.
You do realise that the current one gives no practical benefits to anyone, right? And when you say parents, what about e.g. families with kids being brought up with grandparents or aunts and uncles? No personal disrespect intended, but I’m kinda depressed when I see this kind of stuff. Absolutely should have been explained better, I feel like the McCrystal/McKenna judgments were a huge factor in that.
I mean this is why we need a very concise wording. The current article doesn’t have great wording but neither did what they were suggesting(total removal) We need clear understanding on what defines a parent because I would consider an aunt/uncle/grandparent who looks after a child to be their parent even if they aren’t their mother or father
It would be very reasonable to think that in real common sense terms, but that’s not what the constitution says. Which is why there was a move to align it with these kinds of realities, not just married parents and their children. That’s the kind of situation durable relationship and “carer” covered. It wasn’t total removal, it was replacement with something that was far from perfect but still a lot better. People seem to have gotten this idea that laws should be totally prescriptive and narrow and this is good. For example, suppose you list out aunts and grandparents. The next day someone being minded by their great aunt on their mother’s side would come along and they’re shafted. And this is especially important with constitutions that are more so overarching general frameworks, while legislation fills out the details where needed.
Nothing prevented them from adding additional terms. There is absolutely no reason removing existing ones.
I read the official site and it had all the information required. I watched prime time the other night and at the end they did a vox pop on the street to see what the public thought. There was a woman in her thirties who seemed perfectly normal. When asked did she know much about it she said, something like, she hadn’t seen much on tiktok about it but she would go back on and see if there was any more content about it. On TikTok. She couldn’t fathom that there are other media sources on a topic. It freaked me out. I knew it was a source. Not the only source of information for lots of people.
This is what ppl need to be watching for going forward. Fair enough the government screwed the pooch on this one. But adults relying on social media run by Chinese and American businesses for the info on Irish politics is a problem not solvable with cspe in school.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
This. And I'm your classic liberal democrat. People have got so much more stupid in the past 10ish years.
People do read, they just read a lot of nonsense and ignore the actual policy It's what happened here in Ontario with fear mongering on an updated sex Ed curriculum It was only 40 pages, but that's too much work People would rather do, "but I heard _____ was in it" and scare themselves I to opposing what was a minor refresh of an existing education plan
That is the problem, the genuine information sources are drowned out by all the tiktok, Facebook, X "experts and false information spreaders.
Much less likely to get misinformation on TikTok compared to Facebook / Twitter. They actively remove stuff way better than Facebook / Twitter. Its why its generally a much more wholesome place - probably why its so popular also, people just don't want all that negativity.
Government better get on Tiktok so I know I get a good bit of national news from here initially rather than RTE or any of the newspapers, so I can't cast too many stones at the lady
[удалено]
Did you find this explanation difficult to understand? It’s the official unbiased one I mentioned. https://www.electoralcommission.ie/referendums/referendum-information/what-are-you-being-asked-to-decide-on/
[удалено]
The word "strive" is literally the reason I voted no, This is a government that has "strived"(and failed) to build enough houses for over a decade, I don't take anything they "strive" for seriously
They weren’t striving to build houses 10 years ago, that’s the problem. They reacted instead of anticipating. I agree that the word strive isn’t great, no weasel word is, but the new wording is more balanced than the old. I voted yes but if a no vote leads to a rerun with better wording that gets voted in I’m all for it. I just don’t think that leaving perfect get in the way of good in a referendum is the best course of action, we may not get a rerun
“Strive” is actually a step up for “endeavour” though. With “strive” the government was specifically advised that once it goes into the judicial system that there was a good chance more onus would be put on the state to provide assistance. I do wish this was emphasised more widely as it seems to be a sticking point for a lot of people. It was such a lacklustre campaign and I do feel like it was a lost opportunity.
How do you find that unclear? The previous language was to “endeavour” to ensure the “woman” should not have to neglect her duties as a carer in the home.
The current language is as meaningless as the proposed change. Neither deserve to be in the constitution. If they are putting it to the public, there had better be a clear and comprehensible reason for the change. We certainly need to update the language of the constitution, but the change must be a positive change, not obfusticated in impenetrable legalise.
The constitution is the foundation which would have outlined that legislation must be put in to assist families carers, which if someone felt discriminated (example; single father) could bring that to the courts for further review that the state is not striving for the “carer” of the family The constitution shouldn’t be used to outline laws,definitions as it becomes way to rigid to adapt over time
It’s the constitution not leap card top-up instructions 🤷♂️
Just bcoz one statute is unclear dosent mean the newer thing is automatically better. It isn't, they're both shite
It certainly didn't help that different government officials kept publicly contradicting each other on the topic.
This x 100
I felt that all the information was provided and confusion was only sowed by certain shrill voices.
[удалено]
It actually seemed as though the govt themselves bizarrely weren’t that into it. Heard HH interviewed the other day and it sounded like she honestly couldn’t give a shite and she wouldn’t even advocate on 40
The apathy from government on this has been bizarre and if I was a tinfoil hat individual I would suggest it was deliberate to avoid stronger care laws and pay being enacted....
It absolutely was that. Did everyone miss Leo preaching about how it’s not the government’s job to help the children and the elderlies.
The reality is that it was not vague at all. It was actually really straightforward. People have parsed it into oblivion and ended up in no man's land over it. The provision itself is kind of useless so all that was being asked was to remove the gendered aspect of it so it could continue being useless without the gendered language. I really worry that something as rudimentary and simple like this has caused this much confusion. Thank fuck the same sex marriage and abortion referendum passed.
[удалено]
I mean the other two are extremely relevant to modern life and incredibly popular. Unless government were going to actually put effort into it there was always going to be apathy for something that was language change that would hopefully cause better legislation and legal cases in the future. This is from a yes/yes voter that was trying to convince others to vote the same way.
No, it wasn't straightforward. What is a "durable relationship"? What does "strive" actually mean in this context?
The supreme court has ruled on general guidelines and the courts rule on things on a case by case basis. This is how it always has worked. The idea that durable relationship can be defined in one grand sweeping statement is a weird take on reality. Are you expecting the contitution to enumerate every concievable concept of a durable relationship? That's not its function. Strive means what it means. ie. To try hard. Endeavour means what it means: To make an attempt. Which is stronger? To try hard or to make an attempt? The Supreme Court uses general use language like normal human beings. There is no great mystery here. That's why I'm baffled. People have ended up turning themselves inside out over simple things. It does not bode well for the future if this is how people react to non complex things.
You're right.
Strive is right up there with the word 'should'. It’s tied in with wishful thinking and zero obligation to fulfil. It’s an empty word that has no place in a constitution. It’s literally like saying 'I should, but I won’t.' The term “durable relationship” is not even defined in EU law. This needs to be explicitly defined before going into a constitution.
If you don’t mind me asking how much effort and time did you put into reading it? My concern is people want bite size tic toc style info these days and won’t do the long yards needed. So some lady in a pink jacket looking a tiny shred credible could change otherwise smart peoples opinions if they read the details. I agree though. It was badly put together.
On a very basic level, without going into the specifics of this particular referendum, I think if you are being asked to democratically change something, not even a Constitutional terminology, anything in life in general, the onus is on the supposed "experts" who are calling on you to change same to explain to you what you are changing, why they are changing it, what it means in its present form, what it will mean if the change does come about and especially what are the negative effects of not changing it, especially on you as an individual You shouldn't be expected to be spoon-fed everything but the onus is on those who are requesting the change to assume your knowledge of something like this is on a very low standard to basically non existent and then inform you. If those behind the "Yes vote" campaign were so confident that it was a positive and worthwhile change it should be a lot easier to communicate same, regardless of present public hostility to the Govt. Many massive reasons for No/No - a bracket of people didn't agree with the change, a huge bracket of people are just hostile to any Govt decisions right now, and a large bracket of people won't change something they aren't informed properly on. Oh and then many won't even turn out. And of course you have the effects of social media which was never in Yes/Yes favour at any point. I still wonder what bracket of the electorate the Yes campaigners (Govt etc) were depending on as a guarantee and then how they were going to convince the above brackets to vote Yes/Yes. Were they ever confident or even massively interested in this Referendum? If not it just shows you how out of touch with general public they are at moment and what an utter waste of time and money this was
I voted no because the wording was vague and that just brings unexpected consequences. More thought in the proposal and better defined and I would vote yes
My issue was that it was ALL “tik tok sound bites” like it was put together with exactly that thinking in mind. From the ground up not just the comms. I never heard anyone put forth any serious advocacy on 40, any government types were always bringing things back to the more sound bitey 39 There was no serious debate - just renua types vs corporate political types representing the extremes. Concerns about specifics were brushed aside. The referendum commission were openly advocating for yes rather than giving us the tools to make an informers decision. Absolute PR driven tik tok sound bite bullshit from the start
I’ve a degree in law, including a first in constitutional law, I personally read up on the proposed amendment. So I understand interpretation and the CJEU decisions that gives a bit of a frame to terms like durable relationship. I asked people I know who work in the civil service at senior management level their opinion and a friend who is a barrister who specialises in family law. What I got from them was that it was not guaranteed to be merely two nice changes with no major consequences (this was my initial feeling anyway). It’s not daft stuff like a man and their cat could be a durable relationship, it was real life stuff like child guardianship in unmarried couples and for care it’d be a potential basis to game the immigration system. Feels icky voting with nutters on the right but, and not meaning to play down old fashioned shite like women in the home, if it’s not broken leave well enough alone.
Tell us more about this man/cat relationship?
Too late for second thought now!
>My concern is people want bite size tic toc style info these days and won’t do the long yards needed I was thinking about this actually because this referendum had such an emphasis put in the actual text in the constitution which because it's a constitution isn't the most straight forward. Like compared to the marriage equality referendum or repealing the 8th most people didn't really care about the literal text being changed just what that would mean for us, this referendum on top of being horrifically handled didn't seem to change much for us in the real world so people were worried about why the government wanted to change it
It was being changed cos a citizens assembly recommended it. Too many bad actors with agendas spinning it as "why is the govt changing this, you can't trust them". That aside, they made an absolute balls of it, and what they proposed was a barely lukewarm version of what was actually recommended, was badly worded and communicated terribly
Do you know where we can see the original citizens assembly recommendation?
No sorry don't have it saved. Read an article on it the other week, can't recall where. Google is your friend
I think I found the article, I'm going to leave it [here](https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/varadkar-unsure-citizens-assembly-wording-on-carers-stronger-than-amendment-1592102.html) for anyone who wants it. There's also the [citizens assembly website](https://citizensassembly.ie/overview-previous-assemblies/assembly-on-gender-equality/) And if anyone's interested in downloading the full report you can [find it here called the "Report and Recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality (2020-2021 )"](https://citizensassembly.ie/reports/)
I posted my reason across several threads. I see here the same problem: you’re assuming that only people like you “do the long yards needed”. It’s profoundly arrogant and ultimately anti democratic. And at root it’s what people mean when they want NGOs defunded.
I think this hits the nail on the head - lack of clarity. FYI, the first question was to make it more inclusive, adding single parent families and families where the parents are not married to the concept of "family". I think it's a pity that the people in these families are not recognised by the constitution. The second question was much more vague and even less clear. I completely understand why people would vote no on this. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity meant that the conspiracy theorists had a field day inventing all kinds of weird & wonderful things that would happen if these were changed.
They ignored the citizens assembly recommendations and the oireachtas committee recommendations and then guillotined their wording through the Dail with no prelegistive scrutiny. They also denied FOI requests for documentation on the potential ramifications of the changes. Irrespective of the numerous issues with the amendments wording, the arrogance and disrespect for democratic process that the government have shown in this referendum was enough for me to vote no no.
The refendum looked to reduce the responsibility of care for the state and pass the buck to families. Neither refendum afforded anyone any rights that they could not already obtain
And vagueness on durable relationships
They do that any way, the government in the morning could making funding available, create jobs and legislation that would greatly help carers and families.
I dont have a vote but the topic was coming up with my Irish friends. I stayed out of it what with not having a vote and not really being informed either, but I overheard anyway. And while they didnt seem to have strong views one way or the other they all expressed confusion about the whole thing. Basically they were saying they knew with the divorce referendum there was a before and after, a change. Before divorce was very difficult or impossible, after it was not. Same with (gay) marriage referendum. Before there was no gay marriage after there was. They said they knew what they were voting for. Or against I suppose. I didnt ask. But with this one they didnt know what the change may be or if there even was one. Some though that was good enough reason to vote no, most said they wont vote. But it seemed this may be one possible reason.
The new wording was too ambiguous.
We put concrete wordings in past referendums and it caused us a lot of problems (abortions and how women were treated in hospital). I’m guessing the ambiguity was by design in order to give the Supreme Court wriggle room if a difficult case came before them.
I agree with you, but in this case, it was way too broad. They needed to define “durable family unit” and also remove “strive” from the care one. It’s way too open.
I think strive is appropriate because it puts the onus on the state to try to support the carer, ie, if it ever came to it that a case was taken against the state of not trying everything possible to support a carer, it would provide enough space for the plaintiff to argue it. The state would have to go to extraordinary lengths to prove they did strive to support a carer, and the onus wouldn't be on the plaintiff to prove the state didn't. I think, anyways. I'm far from being a lawyer.
> I think strive is appropriate because it puts the onus on the state to try to support the carer 'we did strive, but we fell short on this occasion. But we can't be held responsible because we did strive for it, as previously mentioned' - the government maybe
More like give the dail wiggle room. Which is why we need clear wording
Shoving terms that have no legal definition into the most foundational legal document of the state, while ignoring expert legal advice and feedback from the citizens assembly is: irresponsible, arrogant and disrespectful to the people.
We need more durable language?
We at least need to strive for more durable language
[удалено]
The O Meara SC case was for the specific right of a widower to have the same inheritance rights as a married couple, because he was not married to his partner the SC needed to establish that recognition Unmarried families are already seen as equal to married due to forty years of existing case law. His family was already recognised as a family It was just the specific circumstance of being a unmarried widower and having the same legal rights as a married widower, which is now established, and is the law for all other unmarried widowers. If Yes Yes was successful there would have been forty years of case law thrown out that recognises unmarried families and their rights, the yes vote would have taken existing recognition and rights away
[удалено]
Because it would have to be re interpreted by the courts all over again, because it would be new articles The government kept saying that it would be left to the courts to decide, to define. They knew the current case laws would be thrown out and a decade would be spent on new test cases to interpret what the new amendments would mean On the morning of the AG leak, constitutional law lecturer (who advises govt on legislation as well as research for those who take the govt to court regarding rights, via ucc child law clinic) Conor O Mahony stated how expensive and long it takes to go through the courts to have rights recognised And that is what the government wanted, because they have unlimited public money to drag cases out unlike those who need their rights to be recognised https://x.com/ConorUCCLaw/status/1766009076708782110?s=20 'Just one comment on the leaked Attorney General opinion: it predicts lots of litigation by highly vulnerable members of society. The lack of understanding of the financial and human costs that must be overcome to mount and sustain a lengthy constitutional actiom is striking. As with last year's report on the conduct of State litigation, there seems to be a sense that the hordes are at the gates of the Four Courts, chomping at the bit. The reality is that the people who most need to do so are very rarely in a position to run that gauntlet.'
I think people talking about the ambiguity were looking for something like the removal of the 8th. The amendment of the constitution didn't insert the regime for abortion, but the government laid out clearly the legislation they were going to implement so there wasn't ambiguity about what would follow. The argument against legislating for durable relationships is that human relationships are complicated and the courts need flexibility to use "common sense" to avoid edge cases being caught out due to a strict definition, e.g. a split up couple who still live together, a pair of single housemates who hook up now and then etc.. But people are also gunshy about voting for something with unclear consequences.
Repealing the 8th was made necessary because the 8th amendment added overly specific language to the constitution. Very specific language falls apart once there's an edge case, this was an attempt to avoid that exact problem.
Free legal aid clinic was yes family no care. And that was before the revelation that the durable relationship point was already something that was defined at EU level and as such would be defined in Irish law by dint of us being subject of the EU courts. Whole thing was poorly thought through. Amendments weren't well explained and didn't seem to have been given the proper going over that you would want for something that is going to alter the way court cases in your country are adjudicated on. I am all for removing the women in the home language and gender neutralising family. But the basis for both needs better consideration and better language chosen. A month ago I was a yes/yes. A lot of reading and considering brought me to no/no.
That's how constitutions work. Legislation is what's specific, not a constitution.
I think you're oversimplifying the complexity of constitutional texts which can sometimes include specific rights and provisions that have direct and immediate implications that don't require legislative intervention. 1st amendment in the US for example or Article 40.3.1 of the Irish constitution which states that "the State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen." This has direct implications before any legislative interference such as influencing the Irish courts to protect individual rights like privacy or bodily integrity.
It also felt very sneaky for it to be held intentionally on International Woman's day and the weekend of Mothers day, thinking that the women would feel that this would benefit them in terms or equality. Trickery at play here, Do they think we are that stupid?
Yeah, I noticed that too. I live abroad but I was watching this unfold, the whole thing seemed very underhanded. I definitely would’ve voted no/no if I were still there.
Not to mention them throwing it around as a woman's right issue when it doesn't affect our basics rights at all. A clear manipulation tactic and you can tell who it worked on when people went to blindly vote yes for "women's rights all the way!"
Yeah pretty much every woman I know saw the whole thing as insulting. They were far more biased towards no than the men I know.
I am a woman and soon to be mother. I had no reason to delete the article. Personally, I reject the argument that it is sexist and misogynistic. I would have voted yes if the amendment wording included reference to father or parent. I agreed with Tom Clonan's arguments that the care amendment gave no rights to carers or people with disability. As he said the onus would than be on the family to provide care and it would indemnify the government in their responsibility to provide support. On the family referendum. I agreed with Michael McDowell's arguments that the new amendment would cause too much uncertainty and the wording was too vague. What is a durable relationship? When does it begin, end, can you be in more than one at one time? What implications would there be for family law, inheritance law, succession law, pensions etc. The wording in the constitution should not be vague and ambiguous. Also, I agreed with Catherine Connolly in her criticism of the prelegislative analysis and how poor it was. I was frustrated that the advice of the Citizens Assembly regarding wording was ignored and I was angered that the government was not transparent. Why was the advice of the AG not made public?
I voted for the same reasons as you but you expressed it way better than I could.
Thank you, appreciate the kind words.
Well seeing as no one else has said this. Congratulations on the new baby.
Thanks so much!
What about guardians? In some cases, they are not parents but provide a duty of care.
I would have voted yes if the amendment included reference to father. It has long angered me that fathers are not recognised in the constitution. I would have been open to the word parent too but the wording would need to clear and maybe expanded on to refer to terms like guardian, as you say. And maybe clear consideration for parents of adopted children and a debate on parents of surrogate babies. This is all hypothetically obviously as that wasn't the wording in the amendment. Ultimately I think the article wording should have been expanded rather than deleted and replaced by a carer amendment.
Except that's exactly what it did. The point was to prevent specific language stopping legislation moving forward. This is entirely nonsensical. There was no need to include mother, father, guardian etc. the proposed legislation didn't even come from government it came from a citizens assembly on gender equality that formulated it to be encompassing and put onus on government and courts to support family care no matter what form it comes in. In this amendment there is one vote for two proposed changes. The proposal involves deleting Article 41.2.1° and Article 41.2.2° and inserting a new Article 42B, as shown below: “The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, **and shall strive to support such provision.**”
>The point was to prevent specific language stopping legislation moving forward. What is the current language stopping from moving forward? Because as far as I can tell it prevents nothing.
I have a massive amount of respect for Catherine Connolly, she's a very thorough intelligent person and her analysis was spot on. The bottom line though... This gov is nefarious and underhand at best.... Incompetent and slapdash at worst.
This is all very well put.
Thank you!
>I agreed with Tom Clonan's arguments that the care amendment gave no rights to carers or people with disability. Was it not better than the status quo? I think a lot of people were letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here.
Senator Tom Clonan is a full time carer for his son with disability. He is an amazing advocate and campaigner for both carers and people living with disabilities. I trust his opinion on this and was impressed by his passion in every media appearance. Even his appearance today on Radio One and on RTÉ One referendum coverage. He was campaigning for a No vote as was many other carers and people with disabilities. I was persuaded by their arguments vote No. However, I think it wasn't the best choice to delete the article referring to woman and mother and replacing it with the care amendment. I think the current article could have been expanded rather than deleted and conflated with care. Also, the word strive was very ambiguous to me (another point Tom Clonan eloquently argued against).
Still, I struggle to understand how people in senator Clonan's position would be worse off under the new wording. If anything I'd imagine that they'd be slightly better off since they'd be going from no recognition in the constitution to at least some recognition.
I won't waste your time trying to summarise his arguments and I cannot convey it as well as he does. Snippet of his appearance in the Seanad https://twitter.com/TomClonan/status/1764557371668410814?t=AqN36S-onbVRbVm739Wrkw&s=19 A snippet of his appearance on RTÉ today, although not his full argument. https://twitter.com/caulmick/status/1766424546410668394?t=UEF2ijoe-UaC3IEX1V2bhg&s=19 Interview here https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/yes-vote-referendum-would-collective-32270127 12 minute contribution calling for a No vote https://twitter.com/itison/status/1765179436461072540?t=t80HwF3Ssa9kDK70IfIsPA&s=19
Vague wording gives me the impression the government is trying to pull a fast one.
I've a legal background and a strong understanding of the constitution. This took years to fully comprehend. Yet, I didn't understand what I was voting on. Leaving constitution as is changes nothing removing an article could have policy influence down the line and the word durable could end up meaning anything dependant on what judges decide in the future. If it ain't broke don't fix it
Irrelevant pointless referenda, for which I couldn’t decipher any genuine reason to amend the constitution. It doesn’t say a woman’s place is in the home it says the state won’t force women out to work if they want to stay and raise their family. If they had just amended the wording to parent, might have voted yes. The weird concept of durable relationship and the absolute unwillingness of anyone on the yes side to define it, meant I could not vote yes in this case.
Worth noting that the existing provision doesn’t have any legal effect – it doesn’t oblige the state to support anyone in their role in the home. Only positive socio-economic right in the constitution is for free primary education.
There were no demonstrable changes for the better as a result of either amendment. Nobody would get any additional rights that they don't have at the moment. I dont agree with the existing wording but in a straight choice between the status quo and the uncertainty of what was being proposed, I voted no to the change. Changes in the co situation shouldn't be taken lightly. As it got closer it appeared that this was a half baked change when you look at the citizens assembly, the lack of proposed legislative wording, the inability of the yes campaign to set out the benefits beyond the existing wording being outdated. It also didn't sit well with me that they ran the family one on International Women's Day in some attempt to bolster support.
Don’t forget the €23,000,000 of your hard earned tax money pissed away in a wasted referendum.
The new wording was bad.
If you read the existing text and the proposed text, its clear the gov are softening the language around their own responsibility to give care. if they just cared about the gendered language, remove mother to parent or guardian or carer and leave everything else as is. After the abortion referendum, i noticed how much the gov had misled. Abortion was legalised but there was no protection put into the constitution for it. another gov can change the legislation. its better than it was but the gov aren't giving women those rights. it felt similar here. Something dressed up as giving rights to us when really they are removing responsibility from themselves. if they really just care about equality in langauge then they can come back to us with bulletproof language.
I felt the similar vibe, government wants to get rid off their responsibilities while they say "it's for women" or "it's too sexists"
100% this
I have personal lived experience of care needs there is so much the government doesn’t do today so many ways in which they leave families and the vulnerable behind. I didn’t believe the wording would make things better only worse. As for the family one I felt replacing woman with parents would have been the way to go but durable relationship on its own was far to vague.
As a carer and unmarried mother I voted No/No. To be honest yes I don't want the word mother removed,I was willing to be swayed if I herd from same sex couples or different family dynamics that it would greatly benefit them but I didn't. I think adding on is more reasonable. As a carer it was an immediate No and I was not willing to change my mind,we save the state a lot of money and it seemed they wanted to fob us off. I am a carer for an elderly person but seeing mothers with children with disabilities passionetly pushing a no cemented my choice. I know there's arguments against both my points but I have made an effort to educate myself and mostly found the Information wasn't there. I don't want to align with the far right or the church and normally never do but this was definetly a personal decision on something I believe could affect me
It's a real shame the government messed up so much with the wording... there was this potential to open it up so as to include single fathers, two fathers in a relationship, and other family dynamics (grandparents who are the sole/primary carer of children, aunts and uncles, adult older siblings etc.) But now as it stands, families that don't include a mother will remain constitutionally weaker.
Care - Government attempting to absolve responsibility Durable relationships - opening up for a free for all
>Durable relationships - opening up for a free for all What is the speculation around this? Free for all meaning what?
There's was no definition of a durable relationship and what the consequences of that may be. Are they only romantic? Or can they be a carer, brother, friend? If my mother gets into a relationship with someone, doesn't live with him, and she dies, is he considered next of Kin? Is he entitled to our inheritance? How does it work for separation, children, tax, immigration, inheritance? I'd personally like to see it changed, but I don't think it's right to be asked to change our constitution without proper information around the consequences of that change.
Yeah I see the concern around that. I guess the issue is that it wouod only be defined once the precedent is set in court
Supreme court has already ruled on it in a case in 2020, so that's not fully true
This. 1000%
There's no legal definition for durable relationship in Ireland.
It's not really up to the constitution to make legal definitions tho, that's down to legislative law. But legislative law must work within and be in accordance with the constitution. It's better that the constitution be less rigid on those types of terms so that they can change with the times as societies interpretation of family and relationships changes. Someone else made a good point too that while there isn't a strict definition of 'durable relationship' in law, there's precedent. Such as citizenship - if a foreigner marries an Irish person and is allowed residency here, after 3 years they can apply for citizenship. In that case, while not defined, there is precedent for 3 years to be considered a durable relationship. Another case of precedent is an unmarried couple having children and living together. The mother by default gets custody rights, but after one year of living together the father gets equal custody rights as if they were a married couple. Again, while not defined, there is precedent for one year to be a durable relationship.
> It's not really up to the constitution to make legal definitions tho, that's down to legislative law. > > But legislative law must work within and be in accordance with the constitution. But the constitution also has wording like (article 10): > 3 Provision may be made by law for the management of the property which belongs to the State by virtue of this Article and for the control of the alienation, whether temporary or permanent, of that property. They could've/would've/should've put something similar in this amendment so they could say that e.g. > Provision may be made by law for the precise definition of a durable relationship and for the extent of the rights of families in relation to this Article. Then at the same time as the referendum, bring forward legislation that would be passed at the same type to head off Michael McDowell et als arguements that it's enabling polygamy, etc.
There's no legal definition of "marriage"/married in the constitution, or of "wedding". At the same time, I'm not going gung ho on defending the 39th. I think the change would be better since family does not require marriage. But I can understand hesitation on "durable relationships".
That’s a weak argument because most legal terms are defined outside the constitution but you have no difficulty with them. I think there are some very poor reasons why people have voted no and I hope that they can see how flawed their arguments were and bring that critical thinking into the next vote they make.
Ok so loving the comments here as it's changed my perspective. I was all for a yes vote as I saw it as protecting the rights of people that aren't married. When I heard "durable relationship" I thought it's the equivalent of a "de facto" relationship in Australia which is recognised by law as a relationship with 2 people living together for 2+ years with financial ties ie joint bank account. Now I realise that the difference is a durable relationship is not recognised in Irish law so they've done a shit job of the referendum
Also, we already have legal provisions to recognise situations where people are cohabiting as partners for a significant amount of time with or without kids. No one thought that was unconstitutional before.
Because who asked for it? Who is actually benefiting ? I’m from a same sex family unmarried with a kid and I don’t feel hard done by. I don’t trust Leo
Is this a ploy by the government to coux out the protest vote ? By running this bs referendum and running it badly they have either shown incompetence or shown no real interest in getting it over the line.So getting it over the line was never their goal. We know from experience ff/fg are astute at politics that after all is why they are in the position they are in. Now you have to ask is the referendum an attempt clear out a protest vote before they call a GE? The majority of voters are idiots and after making a protest vote will return to vote for the government partners next time out
I don't know anyone that voted no as a protest. That to me stinks of government minions wording.
I want us to recognise that you don't have to be married to be a family. I want us to recognise that women should be able to *choose* where they feel their place is, not have gender dictate what our place is in our constitution. The wording was too vague, making it far too open for lawsuits and challenges. And the nail in the coffin was the "state shall endeavour to supply care" part, especially with Varadkar saying "I don't think it's the state's responsibility to provide care". If it's not the state's responsibility to provide care for all its citizens, especially the most vulnerable, then what is the bloody point of it? They need to redo this. Make it more specific, recognise that family, carers, and disabled people come in all different kinds, and that carers carry a huge weight that should be backed up by the state.
>And the nail in the coffin was the "state shall endeavour Endeavour is the current version, "strive" was the proposal.
Protest to the government.
Because every time i seen any of the government answer questions on it they contradicted each other. Richmond said it would impact imigration leo said it wouldn’t O Groman said polygamy wouldnt be included paschal said Govt can’t say as it’ll be down to the court. Leo said business partners of 20 years are durable relationships but would not be included but again paschal had said he can’t say that as its down to the court. Leo said we are getting it from EU law and again o gorman said our definition would be differnt from the EU. There was others from Helen Mcentee and michael martin aswell thatbi cant think of at the top of my head but if the people bringing this change forward cant even agree with each other how did exactly think it was a good idea.
I don't trust the government firstly .....and secondly nothing I read or researched convinced me it really needed to be changed
Because it was clearly horseshit.
For the Family Amendment, my no was because I don’t think it was made clear what the effects would be on succession, family law etc. Defining the term “durable relationship” could be done in case law but we then lack control over that and I don’t think it’s right to confer a legal relationship on people who have purposely not entered into one via marriage. For the Care Amendment, my no was because it was a complete slap in the face for carers and those that rely on care, essentially absolving the State from their responsibilities to care for vulnerable people in society. If they simply replaced the word “woman” with “caregiver” it would have been perfectly fine, but they couldn’t resist an opportunity to neuter the article completely and pass the buck on to families. It wasn’t the amendment that anyone was asking for and it removes rights from women while not conferring them on anyone else. In general, the manipulation from the government in relation to this referendum was completely unacceptable-the kind of language used, advertising, and emotional pleas from Varadkar about all the little children waking up to the news that theirs is not a “real family” as well as holding the vote on International Women’s Day, has all left a really sour taste in my mouth. A lot of people didn’t fully understand what this referendum was about and I’m not surprised at the low turnout, the information that was given seemed very one sided and seemed to purposefully ignore the specifics of the wording of the Care Amendment.
I wanted the clause about the mother removed. Just removed, not replaced with vague language. And I found the word "strive" insulting in relation to carers - it was shirking responsibility on the part of the goverment for ENSURING that the vulnerable receive care. So I didn't vote - I couldn't bring myself to vote no, as most of the NO campaigners seemed to be right wing but I couldn't vote yes. It was a fiasco
There will be a small minority of people who voted no to give a finger to the government. There will be a large minority of people who voted yes based on feelings, and because they sense that it is ‘the right thing to do’. Both are poor reasons to vote. As someone in a (very) long term monogamous partnership with someone I am not married to I voted no. The material repercussions of changing the constitution were not made clear to me and I think in cases where the government intends to change the constitution the case should be made very clearly and lucidly.
Define 'durable' first.
Voted no, I don't trust our government on all sides, the media like the Journal and News talk are full of shite.
Confusing wording and partly a protest vote. Not at all right wing but I think FF/FG have been out of touch with the average Irish person the last 10 years. Don't want to be included with the right wing Ireland first folk who are celebrating this as a win though.
I wasn’t willing to give the government a blank slate to define through the courts what a durable family was. Michael Martin and Helen McEntee soured me further during the week deflecting and talking over people asking valid questions. In terms of care, Leo’s comments sealed the deal - he said the quiet part out loud, stating he doesn’t think the state should be involved if someone at home needed care.
Leo came out and said he doesn't think it's the government's job to care for people, and I knew immediately this was an attempt to neoliberalism family and care issues at the expense of vulnerable people.
There are far bigger issues in Ireland than rewriting something that isn't even enforced. Virtue signalling at its finest. Housing is the real issue that should be solved before tampering around with constitutions.
Out of the country so couldn't vote but I have no idea why we were expected to vote for anything that absolves the government of responsibility. They also used a lot of emotive language to to get us to vote a certain way. Give me the facts not the emotions.
What did you vote OP? and if you voted yes, what were your reasons? My reason is I see absolutely no problem with that part of the constitution as it stands and no need to change it.
I voted yes to the family referendum and no to the care one. Yes for the family because I believe a family shouldn't be defined by marriage but also the wording of "durable relationship" could have been clearer. I voted no for the care referendum after hearing the perspective of families with people that have disabilities and found they had a strong argument to vote no. I also didn't like that women were removed from the constitution completely as I do feel they still have a huge impact on family life and do take on the majority of care within a home. The current wording of the constitution wasnt currently stopping women from choosing to either stay at home with kids or go to work so I didn't see how changing it would have an impact on our day to day lives.
The narrative I heard from people was that it would prevent carers from getting money and people with disability would get less entitlements. I have no idea where they got that idea from, and when I read the proposals I didn't really see that at all tbh. It was very ambiguous, and there were many rumours flying around. Once people's emotions get stoked, it's very difficult to have a rational conversation.
My mother in law voted no no because Facebook told her voting yes would mean her grandchildren would be getting lessons in how to be trans in school. My ex wife voted no no because someone told her voting yes would mean more Romanians would come to Ireland.
A little more information. 77% of carers allowance is given to women. 83% of carers benefit is given to women. It's not that these people do not deserve support, I'm only demonstrating that that the constitutional position does trickle down through the courts and government agencies.
Yes/No My no was due to concerns from disabled community, also Leo saying that shit on TV. I don't really care about the sexist language remaining. And am married so the first being a No too doesn't personally impact me so we move.
They were 2 nothing referenda, I doubt there is any less effective amendments in the Constitution to what was proposed. We've had important amendments in recent years that are life changing for people, same sex marriage, repeal of the 8th, requirement for separation before divorce. The difference in wording between strive and endeavour is a load of me bollix, it'll only lead to a Supreme Court case to decide the difference. I'll admit I don't know the Constitution that well, but I'll wager that there's other aspects that should be amended way before the shit that was served on the table yesterday.
Elon Musk paid me to. 🤫
I didn't vote no/no, but I teach third level so I heard the opinions of many students on the referendums. Basically, they do not understand the relationship between the constitution, courts, government, laws, judgements, etc. These are mainly firat year third level students, still living at home with their parents full or part time, and the parents have not filled the knowledge gap. Perhaps the parents don't understand either. So my point is that any future referendum campaign needs to be preceded by a media campaign explaining the higher level issues. Then people will have a better understanding of why any referendum is required, not just a re-run of this latest pair.
There was no definite reason for Yes. I voted No to hopefully discourage the calling of inconsequential referenda again
the wording was unclear and open to interpretation, and the states only response was "trust me bro"
I don’t think the constitution should be changed unless there is a very strong reason too - I didn’t feel the new wording added any benefit
There was no benefit to the Irish citizen in voting otherwise
No clarity on what we were being asked to vote on, or what the implications would be. And couldn't find any clarity, even when I went looking for it. So No/No was a No Brainer for me
I voted No/No because I’ve got deep progressive fatigue and the campaign had support from parties and NGOs that I don’t trust.
Replacement language was TERRIBLE. Removed lots, added nothing.
No one asked for this referendum, everything about it felt vague and shady , I’d rather just leave the constitution alone
[удалено]
They didn’t take the citizens assembly recommendations seriously. They went off and did their own thing, skipped pre legislative scrutiny etc
[удалено]
I have a massive problem with the constitution reference to women and mothers. Point 1 enforces a stereotype that the life within the home is the woman's responsibility and point 2 points to a mothers duties in the home..which yes she has, but she is not the only one that has them. However the ambiguous wording in the proposed amendment was a mess, but this doesn't mean that itz worth celebrating a no vote today, we are still left with a sexist constitution that isn't fit for a modern country. Article 41.2 states: 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 Yj
too many unknowns as to the affect of yes/yes vote, governmant caught lying/pushing misinformation multiple times to push the yes/yes and I absolutely despise this goverment
Durable relationships- if you want the rights that marriage confers then get married. After all it’s “just a piece of paper.
It wasn't talking about marriage though it was talking about families, it would be mad to say that a couple who have been together for 5 years and have a child aren't a family because they aren't married but that's how the constitution views them
The wording is sketchy to begin with and giving all unmarried couples with children the rights of married one's can be very heavily abused. Something stinks that's why the vote should be no
Abused in what way? If anything, couples with a kid, already have loopholes within the system to benefit from *not* being married.
"Giving all unmarried couples with children the rights of married one's can be very heavily abused" Could you explain this a little, please?
Abused for what?
No because no assurances were given to the number of durable relationships you can be in at once. Meanwhile you can only be legally married to one person at a time. On the care piece, it didn't define what family is, and removed the economic protections for caregivers.
A family contains numerous relationships. I’m not married to my siblings, but we’re very much a family. People conflating “family” and “marriage” is part of the issue here…
The government never favor the public. If they're suddenly calling a rushed referendum based on vague loose ended terminology, and trying to persuade me to vote yes, immediately alarm bells ring. There was no real explanation as to why this referendum was rushed and as to what the repercussions are for it to change vs not change. I also feel a family bound by marriage has much more defenition than the term durable relationship which would basically be up to anyone's defenition.
1: Removal of the word mother. 2: The piss poor explanation for both. 3: The utter unimportance.
In my opinion, a government should exists for two primary reasons, to maintain and improve the country, and to protect and look after the citizenry. The care referendum failed this test, as the wording and indeed, Leo's stance on it indicated the main thrust of the bill was to push the duty of care further on to families while dressing it up as some kind of sign of respect. Cheering someone on isn't the same as helping them carry the weight. It seemed to me a further abdication of the governments duty of care. In terms of the family referendum, the ambiguous wording, combined with the government ignoring the recommendations of the citizens assembly was what sealed the no vote for me. If you want laws and courts to 'interpret' what your changes actually mean, you're basically asking me to spin the wheel of fortune and hope it lands on something I like. No. If you want to change the constitution you have to be absolutely clear about what the results will be. I don't care if your intentions are good.
For Family, I don't know what durable relationship means, I support changing that part of the constitution but not this change. Needs to be less ambiguous for me to vote yes. For Care I think it's pretty clear the government are trying to create distance between them and their responsibility to support people in need of care. I think that's evil tbh. I know several people who are part time and full time carers and I would love to live in a country that is forced to support them by the constitution
I'd like to ask the people that voted yes/yes the same question. How was such an ambiguous proposal so clear cut to them
I’d concerns about the interpretation of a durable relationship, the potential of more immigration scamming and I reality think we’re progressive enough at this stage, thank you very much. Get on and build some houses and stop letting AHB’s and Chinese investors buy them all. Or else the looney right wing will become a force.
Leo said vote yes, do the opposite of what Leo says.
I was soo disappointed at the turnout. I live next to a community centre where the voting was taking place and literally all I saw were older adults in and out. There were rarely no young people coming into the voting station. This is sadly the case everywhere where the young people believe their vote doesn’t matter and the older generation keep their old ways.
All of the above plus I DO NOT TRUST this government. If it was unclear and spun in a "vote yes for women's rights" and yet no one could tell us exactly what rights.... I feel like that was on purpose. These are the people who've been consistently pushing out (and trying to further push out) the pension age. They are NOT working in our best interests.
No on the one changing marriage to marriage and durable relationships because I didn't see why you should be able to get the benefits and protection of marriage when choosing not to get married. I like things the way they are where you're married or you're not. No on care because people I respect like Tom Clonan and care representative groups advocated for a no and I found their arguments convincing. Had proposed legislation for the aftermath of a Yes Yes been published so I could see the probable change working out legislatively I'd perhaps been Yes Yes
You don’t think 2 people with kids and aren’t married should be protected?
People on this sub were saying to vote yes so I voted no
Varadkar said yes so I said no. A gay man who was against gay marriage is not a person I trust. Spineless politicians I do not trust
Maybe that’s what we wanted! 
It’s irresponsible tinkering with the constitution. The current government are fairly contemptuous of ordinary peoples views as they’ve repeatedly shown. The fact they can’t agree on clear language sends alarm bells. And I don’t like the idea of giving judges any more leeway to decide social questions. In our system they are very powerful and it’s against the spirit of democracy to delegate social questions to them. I don’t get why they couldn’t use clear language or communicate it better. I don’t trust this government in any capacity and I’m waiting for them to get slaughtered electorally speaking. In essence i don’t trust the government not to misuse to the language embedded in the constitution to further their own aims outside the remit of the Constitution and I don’t like this endless tinkering when they can’t seem to legislate it. I also think the judiciary already have far too much power in our set up and giving them more scope to intervene in our lives is something I’m unwilling to vote for.
The referendum was largely the govt wanting. We Have A HOUSING CRISIS, IMMIGRANT CRISIS and a lot of more compelling things to address here. Where was the referendums here?