primetime on cohabitation

ei.sdraob

anyone watching this?

big nanny state forcing some serious legal implications on couples living together

jebus if people want to get married, they get married

why is this thing optin by default?

nesf

It should be opt-in or the limit should be 5 years.

Listening to John Waters is painful though, the man has such a chip on his shoulder over marriage etc.

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why is this thing optin by default?

It's opt-out by default, not opt-in.

ei.sdraob

nesf wrote: »

It's opt-out by default, not opt-in.

you sure? from what they said unless you sign an agreement to opt out the clock starts ticking once you move together

gonna have to rewatch it

changes

Opt in would be the best option (although i'd prefer adults coming to their own arrangements).
Alot of people don't get married because they don't want the law involved in their relationship.

A bad law i think if it goes ahead.

PeterIanStaker

what decade is it? the 50's?

Joey the lips

Been out just home would love to see it all. Is this on real player....

Realtine

ei.sdraob wrote: »

anyone watching this?

big nanny state forcing some serious legal implications on couples living together

jebus if people want to get married, they get married

why is this thing optin by default?

Just missed this - what's the implications? I haven't heard about this?

Piste

This is so crazy, does it only apply to dependents? What if I decide to live with someone in my course for college so we can carpool together, would the law really view us as being a "civil partnership"? Is there draft legislation for this yet?

ei.sdraob

Realtine wrote: »

Just missed this - what's the implications? I haven't heard about this?

seems like you get all the disadvantages of marriage but none of the advantages

and a great way for solicitors to make alot of money since this is gonna be a minefield now

nesf

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you sure? from what they said unless you sign an agreement to opt out the clock starts ticking once you move together

gonna have to rewatch it

That's opt-out you're talking about.

Opt-out = Must choose to opt out to not have the law apply to you.
Opt-in = Must choose to opt in to have the law apply to you.

Dannyboy83

ei.sdraob wrote: »

seems like you get all the disadvantages of marriage but none of the advantages

and a great way for solicitors to make alot of money since this is gonna be a minefield now

Hammer. Nail. Head.

And is my girlfriend still not entitled to Jobseeker's allowance then?

Maybe we should go away and get married for the tax benefits and I will go back to doing fecking doorwork, nothing to lose at this stage:D

ei.sdraob

nesf wrote: »

That's opt-out you're talking about.

Opt-out = Must choose to opt out to not have the law apply to you.
Opt-in = Must choose to opt in to have the law apply to you.

thanks sorry got tripped up by double negative

Realtine wrote: »

Just missed this - what's the implications? I haven't heard about this?

i only caught end of it

but there was article here few days ago

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0401/civil.html

Mr Bryan said it would be a cause of serious concern to the farming community that legal claims for the transfer of a property, a lump sum, maintenance payments, a share in pension entitlements or a claim on an estate, could arise following the ending of a relationship between a couple living together for as little as three years.

He said this means people previously living together would find themselves open to maintenance and property claims quite similar to those arising following a marriage break-up with the potential also for costly legal disputes and court proceedings

basically you could be dragged thru "divorce" like proceedings without being married


this new Law seems like a bad joke, why dont they just give Gay couples the right to marry? why create this crazy of legislation??

.

Joey the lips

Have not seen the program but hopeing to... From reading its pointing that the govt are trying to encourage marriage instead of co-habitation... This is in line with the constition so i imagined that.... What about gay/lesbien couples....?

Just out of curiosity..

Piste

This Civil Partnership bill doesn't even seem necessary. Why not just change the definition of marriage to being between two people and leave it at that, it would require much less effort than introducing a whole new partnership contract.

nesf

Piste wrote: »

This Civil Partnership bill doesn't even seem necessary. Why not just change the definition of marriage to being between two people and leave it at that, it would require much less effort than introducing a whole new partnership contract.

A lot of people consider Marriage to be between a man and a woman and just that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Thirdfox

Piste wrote: »

This Civil Partnership bill doesn't even seem necessary. Why not just change the definition of marriage to being between two people and leave it at that, it would require much less effort than introducing a whole new partnership contract.

That would require a Constitutional amendment and while many people are supporting giving rights to all couples they aren't supportive of extending the recognition of marriage to a partnership other than one woman and man.

Or...as some of the right wing American campaigners put it - "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" :pac:

So this compromise is worked out...

stvincent

So I've being with my partner for over 8 years now. If it comes in, will we be automatically covered straight away, or will the 3 years start ticking from when the law is brought in?

Sleepy

So, does this mean I have to move out of my house every three years if I don't want my girlfriend to have the same 'entitlement' to my future earnings that she'd have if we were married? Would it work the same way were she to earn huge money in the future should we break up?

If it goes ahead, does it act retrospectively or from the date the law comes into force?

A nonsense of a law if you ask me. If I and my partner wanted to formalise our relationship in such a fashion, we'd do so. It's a personal decision and one the state should have no say in whatsoever imho.

As it stands in Ireland, aside from the ability to automatically gain one's rights as a father, there's already no logical reason for a man to get married, this makes it illogical for a man to be involved in a long term relationship. Sexist statement? Maybe, but it does tend to be the man that's the more career orientated in most couples and where that's not the case, there are very few men who'll seek alimony in my experience.

Chuchoter

Joey the lips wrote: »

Have not seen the program but hopeing to... From reading its pointing that the govt are trying to encourage marriage instead of co-habitation... This is in line with the constition so i imagined that.... What about gay/lesbien couples....?

Just out of curiosity..

I have no idea what the government are trying to achieve with this bill other than enforcing the church's disdain for "living in sin". As far as I'm concerned, this bill certainly has a place to protect hardworking people from moocher girlfriends and boyfriends, however it needs an opt out clause.

This bill is basically a giant two fingers to gay and lesbians. We can only have this inadequate, insulting half marriage. It reinforces that gay relationships are not real relationships.

MagicSean

crayolastereo wrote: »

I have no idea what the government are trying to achieve with this bill other than enforcing the church's disdain for "living in sin". As far as I'm concerned, this bill certainly has a place to protect hardworking people from moocher girlfriends and boyfriends, however it needs an opt out clause.

This bill is basically a giant two fingers to gay and lesbians. We can only have this inadequate, insulting half marriage. It reinforces that gay relationships are not real relationships.

The government are clearly trying to introduce a non-religious alternative to marraige. This will presumably be open to everyone. They can't make marraige open to everyone because it is in effect a religious commitment and homosexuality is not accepted in most religion. I think it is a good step in the seperation of church and state.

Sleepy

A good step towards separation of church and state would be the exact opposite to be honest. Allowing the legal status of marriage be defined by the religious interpretation of the arrangement is not separation. Separating the two would mean the legal institution of marriage could be granted to all adults and the religions could keep their ritualistic ceremonies for their members.

Piste

Thirdfox wrote: »

That would require a Constitutional amendment and while many people are supporting giving rights to all couples they aren't supportive of extending the recognition of marriage to a partnership other than one woman and man.

Or...as some of the right wing American campaigners put it - "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" :pac:

So this compromise is worked out...

I don't think marriage is defined in the constitution, as far as I'm aware there was legislation amended to define it as being between a man and a woman, so no referendum would be needed. I think I remember you posting somewhere that you're a law student though, so you're probably right, I could be mistaken.

EDIT: Found it, Section 2(2)(e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004 excludes same sex couples from marrying. All they have to do is take out that one sentence and we wouldn't need this whole new legislation.

Annasopra

Ok
A few things

The Civil Partnership Bill is in draft stage, It has 2 SEPARATE sections, one on civil Partnerships for gay people only and the other section on cohabitation for people living together as a couple -(gay or straight but Not brothers and sisters or friends etc). This section is automatic opt in unless you choose to opt out, it is a redress scheme and means that if you are financially dependent on your partner and you split up then you maybe entitled to maintenance or a share in the house. This will apply retrospectively so all current cohabitants will be effected. The Draft Legislation has a timeframe of 3 years before the redress scheme kicks in and 2 years in the case of children, However Minister Ahern will probably change this to 5 years.
Given that the legislation is a government priority it could be law within 6 months

Some legal academics have suggested that the 2 sections (Civil Partnership and Cohabitation) Should be legislated for separately

Annasopra

Piste wrote: »

I don't think marriage is defined in the constitution, as far as I'm aware there was legislation amended to define it as being between a man and a woman, so no referendum would be needed. I think I remember you posting somewhere that you're a law student though, so you're probably right, I could be mistaken.

EDIT: Found it, Section 2(2)(e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004 excludes same sex couples from marrying. All they have to do is take out that one sentence and we wouldn't need this whole new legislation.

It's not that simple at all - Marriage has been defined by Irish Courts as between a man and a woman and the numerous lawyers and apparently the AG have argued it is unconstitutional

Piste

But that's what I'm saying, it's been defined by the courts as being between a man and a woman, but it's not in the constitution so it should be easier to change than having a referendum.

Thanks for explaining the Bill further. How do they define a "couple?" if a "couple" breaks up and are living as friends are they exempt from the bill? Do the three (or five) years have to be consecutive?

The_Minister

ei.sdraob wrote: »

this new Law seems like a bad joke, why dont they just give Gay couples the right to marry? why create this crazy of legislation??

.

Because people procrastinate.

At the moment you have situations where a woman and man will have children together and support each other, but will never get married. Then, when one of them dies, all hell breaks loose as they may not have any legal ties.

nesf

Piste wrote: »

But that's what I'm saying, it's been defined by the courts as being between a man and a woman, but it's not in the constitution so it should be easier to change than having a referendum.

Thanks for explaining the Bill further. How do they define a "couple?" if a "couple" breaks up and are living as friends are they exempt from the bill? Do the three (or five) years have to be consecutive?

The Courts interpret the Constitution, it's that interpretation that matters rather than the plain language of the Constitution itself.

Piste

Oh I know that, but can they not just reinterpret the constitution instead of holding a referendum?

Annasopra

Piste wrote: »

But that's what I'm saying, it's been defined by the courts as being between a man and a woman, but it's not in the constitution so it should be easier to change than having a referendum.

Thanks for explaining the Bill further. How do they define a "couple?" if a "couple" breaks up and are living as friends are they exempt from the bill? Do the three (or five) years have to be consecutive?

The courts interpret what the constitution says and it says that the state shall protect the institution of marriage against attack - the argument is that gay marriage is an attack on marriage

I'll answer your other question tomorrow

nesf

Piste wrote: »

Oh I know that, but can they not just reinterpret the constitution instead of holding a referendum?

Not really, no.

Thirdfox

Piste wrote: »

I don't think marriage is defined in the constitution, as far as I'm aware there was legislation amended to define it as being between a man and a woman, so no referendum would be needed. I think I remember you posting somewhere that you're a law student though, so you're probably right, I could be mistaken.

EDIT: Found it, Section 2(2)(e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004 excludes same sex couples from marrying. All they have to do is take out that one sentence and we wouldn't need this whole new legislation.

I believe (and this is going back 4 years to Constitutional Law 101 now ) that the key phrase is "marriage upon which the foundation of the family is built upon" - this has been taken to mean that a man/man, woman/woman pairing, as they cannot procreate, cannot form a "family" in the context taken by the Constitution and thus are precluded from marriage as their inclusion would constitute an "attack" on the institution of marriage.

One could look at Canada and see that the Supreme Court Judges have interpreted a similar provision differently - insofar as saying that homosexual couples can constitute a "family" (I believe homosexual adoption is possible in Canada) and thus marriage is available to them.

Thus to attack the current interpretation of the Supreme Court, one could campaign to allow for homosexual adoption, thus providing a "backdoor" of sorts into the "family" category.

But that opens up another can of worms with many people who are pro-gay marriage not necessarily being pro-gay adoption etc.

edit: so my backdoor approach would be one way for courts to keep the current reasoning it uses to disallow gay marriage to include it in the future without a referendum. However, gay adoption could well require a Supreme Court ruling too and it's anyone's guess how they'll interpret what should be a family.

We do have a case a few years ago where gay adoption was denied by the Supreme Court (High Court?) (I believe). Last I heard, it was going to the European Court of Human Rights...though the ECHR tend to be differential to us on these matters - they did rule that Norris v. AG (homosexuality being a crime) was ruled incorrectly.

Here's an article on a recent ruling in this area (an offshoot - guardianship rights)
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1210/guardianship.html

"Ms Justice Susan Denham ruled there was no such institution as a 'de facto' family in Ireland and that the lesbian couple were not a family under the Constitution." - Unanimous decision...

edit edit: It was the Zappone case from a few years ago - legally married in Canada, wanted recognition in Ireland - denied by Supreme Court on account that they weren't a constitutional family (I haven't read the judgment in a few years now - I think that was the reasoning).

Annasopra

The issue of gay marriage/civil partnership is separate to cohabitation but just to respond to a few points made by thirdfox, firstly the law on adoption could be changed, it wouldn't necessitate a referendum. Secondly the Zappone and Gilligan case is still waiting to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The High Court found against them

Sleepy

The_Minister wrote: »

At the moment you have situations where a woman and man will have children together and support each other, but will never get married. Then, when one of them dies, all hell breaks loose as they may not have any legal ties.

And if that man and woman want to ensure this doesn't happen they need to create wills. If they wish to cement the future status of the relationship - (i.e. that partner A will continue to support partner B irrespective of future actions) they have the option to marry. This legislation forces partner A to be financially responsible for partner B whether they choose this or not.

Whatever about forcing this situation on someone's future actions (i.e. choosing to live with someone for the 3/5 years to tie you to them permanently after the legislation comes into effect)I can't see how the retrospective nature of this can be applied in a country with any sense of justice. It'd be completely invalidating people's choices which were made under different legal circumstances. I can't marry someone retrsopectively and claim their tax credits for that period so I can't see how the government can determine someone has a claim on my assets based on my past actions. AFAIK, they can't even do this to benefit themselves with taxation!

PeterIanStaker

Sleepy wrote: »

I can't see how the retrospective nature of this can be applied in a country with any sense of justice. QUOTE]


It'll be applied in Ireland so.

Annasopra

Sleepy wrote: »

This legislation forces partner A to be financially responsible for partner B whether they choose this or not.

It would depend on each case but Partner B would have to be financially dependent on Partner A within the relationship

gimme5minutes

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Ok
A few things

The Civil Partnership Bill is in draft stage, It has 2 SEPARATE sections, one on civil Partnerships for gay people only and the other section on cohabitation for people living together as a couple -(gay or straight but Not brothers and sisters or friends etc). This section is automatic opt in unless you choose to opt out, it is a redress scheme and means that if you are financially dependent on your partner and you split up then you maybe entitled to maintenance or a share in the house. This will apply retrospectively so all current cohabitants will be effected. The Draft Legislation has a timeframe of 3 years before the redress scheme kicks in and 2 years in the case of children, However Minister Ahern will probably change this to 5 years.
Given that the legislation is a government priority it could be law within 6 months

Some legal academics have suggested that the 2 sections (Civil Partnership and Cohabitation) Should be legislated for separately

I have seen it all now. The country is going under fast and meanwhile the government is working on absolutely ridiculous laws like this.

It is absolutely crazy that you should have to pay maintenance to someone you merely lived with for three years. It is beyond ludicrous. This has to be the biggest nanny state law yet. This law would also be open to a HUGE amount of abuse. For example, a relationship ends badly and the bf/gf who has been scrounging off their parnter for the last 2-3 years now has a legal entitlement to get even more money off them in future. Like what kind of ****ING JOKE IS THAT? Whether it's 3 years or if it gets amended to 5 years, it is a complete joke.

Does anyone know if any other countries in the world have a similar system in operation?

Annasopra

Some blog posts on this

http://aclatterofthelaw.com/2010/03/29/marriage-by-default-and-the-civil-partnership-bill-2009/

http://humanrightsinireland.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/cohabitation-default-protection-and-the-civil-partnership-bill-2009/

http://www.ionainstitute.org/index.php?id=544

and the bill here

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=12249

Annasopra

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Does anyone know if any other countries in the world have a similar system in operation?

From the Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0323/1224266873411.html

Cohabiting Couples: How They Are Recognised In Other Countries

The proportion of cohabiting couples has increased right across Europe and developed countries in recent decades. However, there is a large diversity over how different countries legally recognise unmarried couples.

Nordic countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland have the highest proportion of cohabiting couples across the EU. These countries tend to have a form of registered partnership which a couple chooses to enter, or an “opt in” system.

In contrast, Ireland is considering a presumptive rights regime, or an “opt out” system. Australia and New Zealand are the closest countries to Ireland’s proposed system in terms of how their cohabiting arrangements operate.

Their schemes are triggered following the death or break-up of a relationship and provide for a dependent partner to access a statutory redress scheme.

Also, in more recent times, Scotland has made provision for a similar automatic system which makes provision for cohabitants under laws passed in 2006.

In one of the first cases to come before the courts in Scotland, a legal secretary was awarded £14,500 to be paid by her former partner and cohabitant. This was as a result of the financial loss and the economic burden experienced by the woman who was the main carer for the couple’s two children.

England, meanwhile, has detailed proposals for a similar regime but has decided to wait and see how the Scottish approach will operate.

Elsewhere across the EU, Portugal and the Netherlands also have significant legislation giving automatic rights to cohabiting couples.

Tim Robbins

I love this bill. As a married person, I don't like the way couples who don't marry get a lot of financial advantages and there are many.

My wife was made redundant so I have to pay her mortgage. If we weren't married she could claim relief.

If she wasn't made redundant, she could do "rent a room" and I could claim rent relief.

There's plenty of others. It seems ridiculous that couples that get married get penalised...

Also, more importantly if people are cohabiting and have kids, they need some sort of legal framework even if they don't want to get married. It seems mad one could stay at home and the other just leg it and the stay at home person not have any rights.

I like to see the bill change so it is more immediate if you have kids and less immediate if you don't.

ei.sdraob

what financial advantages?

can we get the married persons tax credits please :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Piste wrote: »

Oh I know that, but can they not just reinterpret the constitution instead of holding a referendum?

The constitution is interpreted based on how it was written at the time that it was written, not based on current definitions. In 1949, a "family" was a man, his wife and any children that they may have had and therefore that's what the constitution is referring to. So the definition of a constitutional family can't be extended to include same-sex couples (and indeed cohabiting hetero couples) unless the constitution is amended.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that you have to cease to be living together in order for the relationship to end and "cohabiting" to cease.
That provision seems to have been included to prevent anyone using a lack of sexual relations as a defence when in all reality they would still have had a relationship.
It doesn't mean that if you end a relationship but continue to live together, you are still cohabiting.

I can see the point of this bill, to a certain extent. There are a lot of people operating in marriage-like scenarios, without the marriage, where one party is entirely dependent on the other, for any of a number of reasons. Under current legislation, the other party has nothing if the relationship breaks up.

The nature of someone's dependence isn't really an issue here. It's often a woman who has been out of the workforce for 10 years supporting their child, but there are men in the same situation too.

Imagine Joe is on €50k and his girlfriend is on €25k and between them Joe pays the mortgage on his house and she pays nothing, she just lives there.
It would seem the primary fear here is that if they break up, she'll be able to claim a certain % of his salary, as well as part of his house.

She won't. That's not the intent of the legislation. On the other hand, if Joe is on €50k and his girlfriend has spent the last five years at home looking after their child, then Joe will be required to provide a certain amount of maintenance to his ex-girlfriend in order so that she can get somewhere to live and continue to look after their child, having sacrificed her career and put herself in the dependence of Joe.

The reason it's applied by default is because most people won't register it otherwise, seeing it as a form of marriage.

I've yet to read the legislation fully, but that's my understanding of it. No doubt though they've managed to make a right bollix of it.

TLDR:
If you're in an "equal opportunites" partnership, this won't really affect you.
But if you're supporting your live-in lover, then you may have to continue supporting them until they get back on their feet.

Dannyboy83

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I love this bill. As a married person, I don't like the way couples who don't marry get a lot of financial advantages and there are many.

Only through dishonesty.
Financially, it is better to marry (Tax Credits, Pensions etc.) than to be a couple.
There has to be an financial incentive, otherwise nobody would do it.

Of course, if you are dishonest, then there are a whole range of benefits; such as single mother allowance etc. but it is because of failure in the system that these people are not caught.
If they do get caught, they are screwed.

My wife was made redundant so I have to pay her mortgage. If we weren't married she could claim relief.

Not if you lived together as a couple.
It would be dependent on a means test AFAIK.

If she wasn't made redundant, she could do "rent a room" and I could claim rent relief.

Again AFAIK, In order to do that, you would have to lie and claim that ye were not in a relationship.

There's plenty of others. It seems ridiculous that couples that get married get penalised...

I don't think they are penalised and I don't think it seems ridiculous.
What I do find ridiculous tho is that the people who are dishonest and exploit the system are not caught and prosecuted - how hard can it be?

Also, more importantly if people are cohabiting and have kids, they need some sort of legal framework even if they don't want to get married. It seems mad one could stay at home and the other just leg it and the stay at home person not have any rights.

It would be even better if it would act as a deterrent.
Some of the fcuked up scummers I've seen who have children and don't give a crap about them because they don't have to responsible........

I like to see the bill change so it is more immediate if you have kids and less immediate if you don't.

Fair point I guess.

I would just like to see the system which is currently there enforced properly. There are way too many people screwing the system.

Annasopra

seamus wrote: »

The constitution is interpreted based on how it was written at the time that it was written, not based on current definitions. In 1949, a "family" was a man, his wife and any children that they may have had and therefore that's what the constitution is referring to. So the definition of a constitutional family can't be extended to include same-sex couples (and indeed cohabiting hetero couples) unless the constitution is amended.

Actually the constitution can be interpreted in several ways. It can be interpreted as it was intended OR it can be interpreted contemporaneously - so it's not necessarily correct to state that it can't be extended. As I have pointed out the Zappone case has not yet been before the Supreme Court

MagicSean

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what financial advantages?

can we get the married persons tax credits please :rolleyes:

I understood that that a married couples tax credits was the same as two people living together. What married persons tax are you referring to?

Sleepy

seamus wrote: »

She won't. That's not the intent of the legislation. On the other hand, if Joe is on €50k and his girlfriend has spent the last five years at home looking after their child, then Joe will be required to provide a certain amount of maintenance to his ex-girlfriend in order so that she can get somewhere to live and continue to look after their child, having sacrificed her career and put herself in the dependence of Joe.

The reason it's applied by default is because most people won't register it otherwise, seeing it as a form of marriage.

Precisely because it is, in effect, a form of marriage.

You're also making the assumption in your example that Joe's girlfriend had a career to sacrifice. What if Joe would rather become primary care-taker and pay for childminding during the day than support his girlfriend who's just broken up with him because she's found someone else?

They're trying to legislate human relationships that by the very absence of a marriage aren't formalised because the people involved in the relationship have chosen not to formalise it!

I wonder how expensive it'll be to opt-out of this law? And will I be paying this to the government or their buddies in the Law Society??

Sleepy

k_mac wrote: »

I understood that that a married couples tax credits was the same as two people living together. What married persons tax are you referring to?

Where only one member of a married couple are working they can claim extra tax credits for their dependant partner. This is not available to co-habiting couples even though the dependent partner in a co-habiting arrangement is only a "dependent" because they're refused social welfare on the basis of their co-habitation.

nesf

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Only through dishonesty.
Financially, it is better to marry (Tax Credits, Pensions etc.) than to be a couple.
There has to be an financial incentive, otherwise nobody would do it.

There has to be an incentive not necessarily a financial one. There are many non-financial incentives for getting married including property rights and security etc along with father's rights with respect to children and so on.

nesf

seamus wrote: »

The constitution is interpreted based on how it was written at the time that it was written, not based on current definitions. In 1949, a "family" was a man, his wife and any children that they may have had and therefore that's what the constitution is referring to. So the definition of a constitutional family can't be extended to include same-sex couples (and indeed cohabiting hetero couples) unless the constitution is amended.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that you have to cease to be living together in order for the relationship to end and "cohabiting" to cease.
That provision seems to have been included to prevent anyone using a lack of sexual relations as a defence when in all reality they would still have had a relationship.
It doesn't mean that if you end a relationship but continue to live together, you are still cohabiting.

I can see the point of this bill, to a certain extent. There are a lot of people operating in marriage-like scenarios, without the marriage, where one party is entirely dependent on the other, for any of a number of reasons. Under current legislation, the other party has nothing if the relationship breaks up.

The nature of someone's dependence isn't really an issue here. It's often a woman who has been out of the workforce for 10 years supporting their child, but there are men in the same situation too.

Imagine Joe is on €50k and his girlfriend is on €25k and between them Joe pays the mortgage on his house and she pays nothing, she just lives there.
It would seem the primary fear here is that if they break up, she'll be able to claim a certain % of his salary, as well as part of his house.

She won't. That's not the intent of the legislation. On the other hand, if Joe is on €50k and his girlfriend has spent the last five years at home looking after their child, then Joe will be required to provide a certain amount of maintenance to his ex-girlfriend in order so that she can get somewhere to live and continue to look after their child, having sacrificed her career and put herself in the dependence of Joe.

The reason it's applied by default is because most people won't register it otherwise, seeing it as a form of marriage.

I've yet to read the legislation fully, but that's my understanding of it. No doubt though they've managed to make a right bollix of it.

TLDR:
If you're in an "equal opportunites" partnership, this won't really affect you.
But if you're supporting your live-in lover, then you may have to continue supporting them until they get back on their feet.

That's pretty much my reading of it too though we won't know for sure until it's tested in the courts. I'd like to see this law protect only those who give up their careers to mind children or situations where a person worked in the other's business at less than a reasonable wage*, I wouldn't like to see it give income claims to people simply because they lived with someone for X years and they earn less than the other person.

*Consider a woman working for minimum wage doing all the admin/back-office stuff for the partner's business. This is a better than minimum wage job in most companies but in this case to help the business succeed the woman takes a financial cut in wages. This woman arguably has some degree of rights towards the company that they helped build with their partner through work done etc.