After SSM, what next?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

We need to make a lot of changes, this is a manifesto I wouldn't mind seeing (off the top of my head):

1. Get rid of our ridiculous blasphemy law = who cares anyway for jaysus sake?

2. Legalize weed = I don't even smoke cigarettes myself but the ban on weed is a hopeless waste of time.

3. Legalize some 'other drugs' = we can thrash this one out, perhaps while on some drugs :-)

4. Abortion on demand = This is a no brainer, I'm a man so I'm not likely to have an abortion anytime soon but it's a woman's choice and it's extremely unfair to say otherwise!

5. Religion OUT of schools and the constitution = needs no explanation.

6. Legalize euthanasia = sometimes people just want to go for various reasons, we should let them go peacefully.

7. Round the clock drinkin' = sorry who the f*** are you to tell me I can't buy a drink past 2.30 in the morning on weekends?...4.30 in coppers of course.

8. Regulate Prostitution = ah the world's oldest trade, completely unstoppable so no point in trying to swim against the tide, offer women protection not prosecution.

9. ban Monday mornings, because fffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Rhys Essien wrote: »

Religion and religious cermonies(communions and confirmations)having involvement with schools needs to be done away with.

No thanks, they are grand as they are.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Tend to agree.. the fact that we still have a load of these "what will we vote on next" threads clogging up AH shows just how overhyped this issue was - if only people took the same level of interest in local/general elections we might not be stuck with the same bunch of parochial, corrupt gombeens everytime!

Actually, I think it's representative of a massive disconnect between the general populace and the political classes.

That only 37% of the electorate are homophobic isn't a recent thing. Were this voted on 5 years ago, I'd be pretty certain it would have had the same result. Were it put to the people even 10 years ago, there's a strong chance it would still have been a yes vote. Were voting in referendums mandatory, as in Australia, I suspect the Yes side would have won by an even larger majority.

Our politicians are more socially conservative than the vast majority of the population they represent and, due to our party system, there's little us plebs can do to change that. Were I to demand that any candidate I vote for supports x, y and z I'd simply be left with no one to vote for. Even if there's a candidate in my constituency who holds all the same views I do on what I consider to be the important issues, the party whip system means that my representative may never get to even raise those issues in the Dáil and, should she, there's no guarantee that she'll be allowed to vote how she wants.

Instead of voting for the candidates that represent us, we vote for the ones we disagree with the least whose party's policies are most in-line with our own thinking.

A referendum gives us the chance to bypass the Dail. To actually have our unfiltered opinion as a nation heard. Of course there's many of us who want more referendums, they're our chance to enact the changes we want to see made in our society.

superelliptic wrote: »

No thanks, they are grand as they are.

NOPE.

Religion needs to have no hold on our education/legal/healthcare system. I have no problem at all with private worship, but we need to be a secular state.



(an aside, the sooner more people wake up and realise there is no such thing as the magic man in the sky, the happier the world will be)

Sleepy wrote: »

Actually, I think it's representative of a massive disconnect between the general populace and the political classes.

That only 37% of the electorate are homophobic isn't a recent thing. Were this voted on 5 years ago,

That people call their opponents names and stereotype them in an attempt to remove the validity of their opinion is not a recent thing either.

Bishop Fancy Projector wrote: »

Disagree with most.

Whats wrong with marijuana and prostitution ? The drug is no more harmful than alcohol, and alcohol is encouraged at most social events.
And prostitution is an agreement made between two consenting adults, doesn't harm anybody (excluding pimps and sex trafficking which arent the same thing.)Why should it be illegal just because some people think its icky?

Ush1 wrote: »

I'd double the rate of inheritance tax.

Why? Nobody should feel entitled to an inheritance, but people should be entitled to leave what they want without fear of half of it being sucked up in tax.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

This is the reason I was hoping for a no vote.
The country is now delicately poised for a descent into liberal anarchy.

Good, it's about time.

I want to see the grip the Church has on Ireland eradicated. It has only ever hurt the Irish people, be it through Magdalene Laundries, sexual/physical/mental torture or opposition to LGBT rights.

They need to go. If people want to worship in their own time, that's entirely up to them. I don't want God mentioned by the Government, teachers or doctors.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why do posters keep saying that 37% of the population voted no? The population is approx 4.5 million, 730k voted no. Among the entire population, there are those who are not yet of voting age and those who abstained from voting. It can be taken that those who abstained from voting did not feel strongly enough about it to vote no (or yes, but I see their lack of resistance as positive). Only around 16% of the population voted no.

Add in the fact that most of the people who voted no were elderly or very religious and because of this not really voting no due to being consciously homophobic and really you see thats its no big deal.. Also a lot of people would have been thrown by the No campaigns surrogacy posters, Iknow for a fact that a lot of people voted no because of this and not because they think gay people shouldn't marry

Bishop Fancy Projector wrote: »

I'd have inheritance tax abolished. Its disgraceful.

I wouldn't, somebody has to pay civil servants wages I'd guess. Think it makes sense.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

And is abortion on demand funded by taxpayers not a huge negative?

Cheaper than child benefit

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Why? Nobody should feel entitled to an inheritance, but people should be entitled to leave what they want without fear of half of it being sucked up in tax.

Half isn't "sucked up in tax".

Inheritances between spouses are tax-free.

There are generous allowances for parents to children.

The rate is 30% or 33%, after the allowances.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

And is abortion on demand funded by taxpayers not a huge negative?

Not objectively, I suppose. It means that fewer children are born to women who are unable to provide for them.

Repealing the eighth is something that even anti-abortion people should be in favour of tbh.
It was pointed out before it was brought in, that while its intention was to outlaw aborition and protect children, that it could have the exact opposite effect. Ten years later that predication came to pass in the X case, and 20 years after that, abortion was legalised in certain circumstances.

At the moment we have a constitution which sits massively conflicted on the question, and as a result leaves both mothers and unborn babies in a worse position than they would be if the 8th amendment didn't exist.

Geuze wrote: »

Plenty of people I know voted no. They are in their 30s, not particularly religious.

I said most. I know 18 year olds who aren't religious and voted no, theyre just not common is all.

Bishop Fancy Projector wrote: »

Calls for it to be increased or maintained are one of the ultimate forms of begrudgery.

Not really. Those calls can also recognise the fact that wealth hoarding is one of the primary factors for income inequality across the world.

Ultimately wealth is far easier to acquire when you've already got plenty of it, so to allow wealth to pass unencumbered from generation to generation effectively means that none of that wealth ever makes it into the economy and is actually being removed, to the detriment of society.

I would support maintaining the existing regime for gift tax, as this would allow parents to assist their child if or when they need it. However any wealth passed across after someone's death should not have any tax-free thresholds applied to it, it should all be hit at 33%.

This would, one hopes, encourage people to actually spend their money rather than hoarding it to pass on at a later stage.

It is more complicated than that in reality. When you get up to super-rich levels, money is rarely left sitting in a bank account to be used, it's often "owned" by a holding company or trust, so when the parent dies or steps out, the child simply "takes over" that corporate body and "Inherits" the wealth without paying any real tax on it.

Bishop Fancy Projector wrote: »

They shouldn't be getting a slice of this money, the money is owned by the family and should be free to pass around as they wish.

Inheritance tax has been abolished in a number of countries so its far from an outlandish thing to call for.

No they shouldn't, see, I can play the same game.

Plenty of countries that have it and go further, the solidarity tax in France for instance. Do you not think civil servants should be better paid via more taxes?