Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Leo Varadkar announces abortion referendum

Options
123457

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    But surely the Irish historical experience is that it makes a massive difference. Is anyone now actively seeking the re-outlawing of divorce, or contraception or gay sex. Conversely, if the second divorce referendum had gone the other way, can you say with confidence there wouldn't have been another referendum within the last 20 years.
    Well, no, I don't think the Irish experience comes into it. Calling someone progressive or conservative only labels them in line with your own perspective; it's a way of describing them in relation to your opinion of yourself (those you agree with will tend to be progressive, oddly enough), but it doesn't relate them to each other. So arguing that those who wanted to deprive women of the vote are the same as those who want to deprive women of the right to kill their offspring only means you think you're progressive compared to them. It doesn't mean either identify with each other, or that neither would consider themselves progressive compared to someone who supports legally legitimising acts of killing.

    There are lots of things societies used to do that they don't do anymore, because societies change; there's not many people calling for human sacrifice these days either, along with all Nozz's other examples. The error is in imagining that because these things changed, and you want this thing to change, they can be lumped together.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I believe they prefer the label "Reactionary".
    Is that not self-proclaimed progressives who are really just kicking out at whatever their parents supported?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,128 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, no, I don't think the Irish experience comes into it. Calling someone progressive or conservative only labels them in line with your own perspective; it's a way of describing them in relation to your opinion of yourself (those you agree with will tend to be progressive, oddly enough), but it doesn't relate them to each other. So arguing that those who wanted to deprive women of the vote are the same as those who want to deprive women of the right to kill their offspring only means you think you're progressive compared to them. It doesn't mean either identify with each other, or that neither would consider themselves progressive compared to someone who supports legally legitimising acts of killing.

    There are lots of things societies used to do that they don't do anymore, because societies change; there's not many people calling for human sacrifice these days either, along with all Nozz's other examples. The error is in imagining that because these things changed, and you want this thing to change, they can be lumped together.

    I think you're fixating on labels because you realise you're argument is untenable. Well alright I'll try to make it using the most neutral language I can

    In the first 40-50 years of independent Ireland, a lot of things were banned or severely restricted: divorce, contraceptives, 'dirty books', what have you. From the 1960s, efforts were made to legalise/liberalise these things, and groups were formed (or pre-existing groups took up the cudgels) to stymie those efforts. I don't know what non-perjorative label you'd be happy with for 'those forces' so I'll just call them that.

    You are claiming that once extensive liberalisation of abortion has been achieved in Ireland (if it ever is), 'those forces' will campaign to have that liberalisation reversed. The argument that I and others in this thread are making is that once other formerly taboo practices like divorce are legalised or the restrictions on their availability are relaxed, 'those forces' essentially drop the issue in question and make no serious attempts to reverse its liberalisation. I know none of these other issues is exactly analogous to abortion, but then no analogy is ever precise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I think you're fixating on labels because you realise you're argument is untenable. Well alright I'll try to make it using the most neutral language I can
    Not really, I'm just pointing that saying a group of things belong together because you'd like them to doesn't mean they do, it just means you'd like them to.
    In the first 40-50 years of independent Ireland, a lot of things were banned or severely restricted: divorce, contraceptives, 'dirty books', what have you. From the 1960s, efforts were made to legalise/liberalise these things, and groups were formed (or pre-existing groups took up the cudgels) to stymie those efforts. I don't know what non-perjorative label you'd be happy with for 'those forces' so I'll just call them that.
    Or, rather than thinking of all these things as a movement culminating in what you'd like to achieve, you might consider that the reason you think that what has gone before is progressive is because you are a result of it, and it doesn't necessarily betoken that your own views will either prevail or be considered progressive themselves, depending on the course of history.
    You are claiming that once extensive liberalisation of abortion has been achieved in Ireland (if it ever is), 'those forces' will campaign to have that liberalisation reversed. The argument that I and others in this thread are making is that once other formerly taboo practices like divorce are legalised or the restrictions on their availability are relaxed, 'those forces' essentially drop the issue in question and make no serious attempts to reverse its liberalisation. I know none of these other issues is exactly analogous to abortion, but then no analogy is ever precise.
    I'd say that there will always be groups who are dissatisfied with and campaign against the prevailing political, moral and ethical climate, and as any one view prevails at a given moment, it is considered to have been the progressive one, whether or not the issues they champion are 'taboo' or otherwise.

    You're correct, none of the social mores which have changed in the last few thousand years are exactly analogous to our current circumstances with regard to abortion, which is quite a good reason not to consider any of them to be indicative of how it will play out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    This. I'm blue in the face saying it. I'll be campaigning for nothing short of full repeal.

    Clearly defined human rights is basic law, no? One way or the other the Constitution is the place for any text on this. We don't want to give this power to legislators IMO. They could ban all abortion, or allow a free for all to minutes before birth, or anything in between. I want to know what I'm voting for or against on such a fundamental issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,067 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    professore wrote: »
    Clearly defined human rights is basic law, no? One way or the other the Constitution is the place for any text on this. We don't want to give this power to legislators IMO.

    Personally I'd rather we gave it to doctors and couples involved, not to lawyers and random people who aren't the ones going to be left literally holding the baby.

    But if we're not giving it to those directly involved, then surely the legislators are the only serious alternative? We've seen - and proved to the rest of the world unfortunately - that a constitutional article is far too blunt an instrument for what are sometimes complex medical decisions. That's how we got a dead woman whose family were medically advised to turn off her life support then being left literally rotting away because those same doctors didn't want to to risk being accused of not respecting the constitution.
    They could ban all abortion, or allow a free for all to minutes before birth, or anything in between. I want to know what I'm voting for or against on such a fundamental issue.
    Apart from how offensive - and just plain bizarre - it is to suppose that the only thing that stops women from aborting minutes before birth is a law preventing them (how do other countries manage?) wouldn't this actually be just inducing a birth? It's commonplace, in Ireland and elsewhere. And the baby survives it.

    So why you think a woman might go through nine months of pregnancy and then - minutes before birth! - decide she'd changed her mind and no longer wanted the baby is hard for me to grasp. Do you actually know any women you think might do this? Or is this some sort of fantasy woman?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,128 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Absolam wrote: »
    Not really, I'm just pointing that saying a group of things belong together because you'd like them to doesn't mean they do, it just means you'd like them to.Or, rather than thinking of all these things as a movement culminating in what you'd like to achieve, you might consider that the reason you think that what has gone before is progressive is because you are a result of it, and it doesn't necessarily betoken that your own views will either prevail or be considered progressive themselves, depending on the course of history.

    I'd say that there will always be groups who are dissatisfied with and campaign against the prevailing political, moral and ethical climate, and as any one view prevails at a given moment, it is considered to have been the progressive one, whether or not the issues they champion are 'taboo' or otherwise.

    You're correct, none of the social mores which have changed in the last few thousand years are exactly analogous to our current circumstances with regard to abortion, which is quite a good reason not to consider any of them to be indicative of how it will play out.

    Okay, if you refuse to see the development of other social issues in Ireland in recent decades as being in any way predictive of the likely development of the abortion issue over the coming years, how about the handling of abortion itself in other 'liberal democracies'. Do you accept that that in all or nearly all comparable countries, once a right to abortion on demand/request in the early stages of pregnancy has been established, opposition to that dispensation has largely evaporated, or at least been marginalised? And if so why would you accept the issue to evolve differently in Ireland?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    volchitsa wrote: »
    ...wouldn't this actually be just inducing a birth? It's commonplace, in Ireland and elsewhere. And the baby survives it.
    Depends on the choices made. If it was treated as a premature baby, it might survive. If treated as an abortion, it definitely won't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,067 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    recedite wrote: »
    Depends on the choices made. If it was treated as a premature baby, it might survive. If treated as an abortion, it definitely won't.

    Once it's born, if it's viable, I don't believe there's any country that would allow a health baby to die. An extremely premature baby (whether aborted or miscarried) will sometimes not be resuscitated because the consequences for the child if it survives at all, are likely to be terrible handicaps. That happens in Ireland too by the way.

    But in reality, pretty much all very late abortions are for severe disability even when there's no legal time limit. Women just don't turn round after 8 or 9 months and decide they can't be bothered any more. Doesn't happen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Without going into the gory details, there is an overlap in many countries between the time period when a late term abortion can happen, and when a premature baby can be delivered and survive. Hence there is a choice.

    I'm not going to speculate on all the reasons why that might hypothetically happen.
    However, we do know that in the already well documented Miss Y case, a girl was apparently almost going to go to the Netherlands for an abortion with the assistance of various agencies, but then for whatever reason, did not go, and then eventually came back to the HSE here and demanded a late term abortion in Ireland, on the grounds of suicide.

    You could argue that if abortion "on demand" had been available in Ireland in the first place, the problem would have been solved early on. Nevertheless, the crux of this case is that the girl went off the radar of social services for a long time, and when she finally came back she was at that stage when "the choice" had to be made.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,067 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    No, that was not the crux of it at all, the crux of it was that she was very distressed upon learning of her pregnancy at 8 weeks, and wanted an abortion then. It was our law that prevented her from having one then because she wasn't distressed enough yet.

    Making access to early abortion difficult, whether by making it illegal as in Ireland, or just closing all the abortion clinics as in the USA, is what leads to late abortions.

    So if someone really wanted to ensure that late abortions didn't happen, they wouldn't waste too much time making laws about time limits, they would ensure that first trimester abortions were available for women who wanted them

    Of course most people who claim to care about preventing late abortions are really only using the shock value of late abortions to try to stop women being allowed early abortions either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Okay, if you refuse to see the development of other social issues in Ireland in recent decades as being in any way predictive of the likely development of the abortion issue over the coming years, how about the handling of abortion itself in other 'liberal democracies'. Do you accept that that in all or nearly all comparable countries, once a right to abortion on demand/request in the early stages of pregnancy has been established, opposition to that dispensation has largely evaporated, or at least been marginalised? And if so why would you accept the issue to evolve differently in Ireland?
    Which countries do you think are comparable; the ones that have similar abortion regimes to Ireland, or the ones that have different regimes to Ireland? I suspect you'd like to compare Ireland to countries that have arrived at a more liberal abortion regime, even though they have followed an utterly different historical, social, and legislative path. Even still, the largest post colonial bicameral democracy in the world the US has a famously vocal and active anti abortion lobby, as does France, where the government has had to pass legislation to prevent them misleading people, and the UK, where SPUC has been active for 50 years, along with Life and others. In fact, I'm not sure there are any countries with liberal abortion regimes where opposition has 'evaporated'.

    More to the point, none of the above in any way validates any sort of prophetic ability; quite simply neither your or Nozz know that opposition to abortion will evaportate if abortion ever becomes liberally available. I suspect you'd like it to, because that would make you feel you were right about liberalising abortion, and that you think if you tell people it will disappear then maybe they won't bother opposing liberal abortion if it does happen. My own feeling is that those who oppose it on principle will have no reason to stop opposing it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No, that was not the crux of it at all, the crux of it was that she was very distressed upon learning of her pregnancy at 8 weeks, and wanted an abortion then. It was our law that prevented her from having one then because she wasn't distressed enough yet.
    No, our law prevented her from having one because her life was not endangered by her pregnancy.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Making access to early abortion difficult, whether by making it illegal as in Ireland, or just closing all the abortion clinics as in the USA, is what leads to late abortions.
    Sounds like the solution to that problem is to outlaw abortion so that neither early or late abortion is available.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    So if someone really wanted to ensure that late abortions didn't happen, they wouldn't waste too much time making laws about time limits, they would ensure that first trimester abortions were available for women who wanted them
    Or, make abortion unavailable so that those who want them simply can't have them; that way late abortions wouldn't happen, or early ones.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Of course most people who claim to care about preventing late abortions are really only using the shock value of late abortions to try to stop women being allowed early abortions either.
    Possibly, as far as those who claim to care go. Most people who actually care about preventing late abortions might well care about preventing early abortions too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    I want to know what I'm voting for or against on such a fundamental issue.

    And yet people who voted for the 8th thinking it banned abortion were appalled to discover in the X case that they had actually legalized abortion accidentally.

    And because it is in the Constitution, it is extremely hard to fix.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,240 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    And yet people who voted for the 8th thinking it banned abortion were appalled to discover in the X case that they had actually legalized abortion accidentally.

    And because it is in the Constitution, it is extremely hard to fix.
    It wouldn't be that hard to fix, if people wanted to fix it.

    They've twice been offered the opportunity in referenda to reverse the X case and amend the Constitution so that the risk of suicide will not be grounds for abortion. And each time they have voted that down.

    So it's not that the X case is hard to fix. It's that people don't want to fix it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    And yet people who voted for the 8th thinking it banned abortion were appalled to discover in the X case that they had actually legalized abortion accidentally.
    Well, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in accidentally; as I pointed out when you and I discussed this before, the framers of the 8th Amendment clearly envisioned abortion being available in limited circumstances, just as the SC in the X Case found they did; Noonan said that the underlying principle of the amendment was that the practice of abortion 'in the ordinary sense of that term' should not be permitted to creep into our law, saying "But there could be some hard cases where the “treatment” sought would constitute abortion which conflicts both with existing law and with the proposed amendment. The question may, therefore, legitimately be asked whether what I have said amounts to saying that neither the law nor society can take account of hard cases no matter how heartrending they may be and that there can be no allowance for a woman who breaks this rigid law. Of course it does not mean that.".

    It's fair to say it's obvious that from the outset there was an intent for abortion to be legal is some circumstances, so it was no 'accident', even if some who voted for the 8th (just as there will be some who vote in the next referendum) would have preferred it were available in no circumstances.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    With the referendum to be informed by the report of the Citizens Assembly, I guess this thread is as good as any to discuss their report and recommendations on the 8th Amendment. (Mods: apologies if it's not and feel free to delete or move as is appropriate.)

    There are no real surprises. Their recommendation for constitutional change was "to remove Article 40.3.3° from the Constitution, and for the avoidance of doubt, to replace it with a provision in the Constitution, which would make it clear that termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman are matters for the Oireachtas. In other words, it would be solely a matter for the Oireachtas to decide how to legislate on these issues".

    They also recommended that legislation include allowing abortion without restriction, with a 12 week gestational limit having the most support. They also proposed 12 grounds for which abortion should be allowed, with varying gestational limits.

    And they also included some ancillary recommendations too, about improved sex education, maternity scanning, and counselling during pregnancy.

    I can't see anything controversial in their constitutional proposal, but I can envisage resistance from politicians nonetheless. They've been happy to stay as far away from the matter as possible, so I can see them being uncomfortable proposing a constitutional amendment that puts the matter squarely in their hands. But anything else would be a snub to the Assembly they themselves set up, so I imagine this is the type of amendment we'll be voting on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I imagine this is the type of amendment we'll be voting on.

    I would rather vote on that and lose than enact some new legal horror in the constitution.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 910 ✭✭✭BlinkingLights


    We really need to avoid putting what should be Oireachtas legislation into the Constitution ever again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I can't see anything controversial in their constitutional proposal, but I can envisage resistance from politicians nonetheless. They've been happy to stay as far away from the matter as possible, so I can see them being uncomfortable proposing a constitutional amendment that puts the matter squarely in their hands. But anything else would be a snub to the Assembly they themselves set up, so I imagine this is the type of amendment we'll be voting on.
    I think it's fair to say it's extraordinarily controversial, hence the Times "the consensus in the Oireachtas is that the assembly's recommendations were an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue." The Times which has been fairly consistently pro choice also asked "Why did members of the Citizens’ Assembly recommend a more liberal abortion regime than the Irish public would appear to want?" When we consider the full substantive recommendations of the Assembly;
    That Article 40.3.3° should not be retained in full. (87%)
    That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced or amended. (56%)
    That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman. (57%)
    we can see why the Independent noted an issue of concern for the pro choice camp; the Assembly "has voted in favour of changing the constitutional clause which effectively criminalises abortion – but stopped short of repealing the law entirely."

    I think we'll have no shortage of controversy over how much or how little of the Assembly's views are put before the public before we get to a referendum. And there will certainly be those who think placing a matter like this in the hands of career politicians rather than the people would be a grave mistake.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,886 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think it's fair to say it's extraordinarily controversial, hence the Times "the consensus in the Oireachtas is that the assembly's recommendations were an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue." The Times which has been fairly consistently pro choice also asked "Why did members of the Citizens’ Assembly recommend a more liberal abortion regime than the Irish public would appear to want?" When we consider the full substantive recommendations of the Assembly;
    That Article 40.3.3° should not be retained in full. (87%)
    That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced or amended. (56%)
    That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman. (57%)
    we can see why the Independent noted an issue of concern for the pro choice camp; the Assembly "has voted in favour of changing the constitutional clause which effectively criminalises abortion – but stopped short of repealing the law entirely."

    I think we'll have no shortage of controversy over how much or how little of the Assembly's views are put before the public before we get to a referendum. And there will certainly be those who think placing a matter like this in the hands of career politicians rather than the people would be a grave mistake.

    I feel like if the times was truly that pro choice it would surely have pointed out that anything less than what England has would result in those with the money travelling over.

    Even as is, if I thought a woman should be allowed an abortion on mental health grounds I would recommend England over risking get a pro life psychiatrist. I have no idea what the odds are and if this is the best decision but the current system does not feel me with faith either. I figure until we have at a minimum the English system the rich will travel instead of risking getting caught in the tracks of the Irish system


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Christy42 wrote: »
    I feel like if the times was truly that pro choice it would surely have pointed out that anything less than what England has would result in those with the money travelling over.
    Well, I don't think you need to consistently repeat the rhetoric in order to be pro choice, certainly the Times hasn't been shy about discussing the fact that Irish women travel to the UK for abortion; only a few weeks ago it had an article on how the numbers travelling to Britain for abortion have fallen to 1980 levels.
    Christy42 wrote: »
    Even as is, if I thought a woman should be allowed an abortion on mental health grounds I would recommend England over risking get a pro life psychiatrist. I have no idea what the odds are and if this is the best decision but the current system does not feel me with faith either. I figure until we have at a minimum the English system the rich will travel instead of risking getting caught in the tracks of the Irish system
    I'm not sure what risk there actually is of 'getting a pro life psychiatrist', if any at all. Given that it takes three doctors to decide that being pregnant is placing a woman's life at risk and that only an abortion can avert that risk, I doubt there are many psychiatrists who will provide a diagnosis they know to be untrue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,886 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, I don't think you need to consistently repeat the rhetoric in order to be pro choice, certainly the Times hasn't been shy about discussing the fact that Irish women travel to the UK for abortion; only a few weeks ago it had an article on how the numbers travelling to Britain for abortion have fallen to 1980 levels.
    I'm not sure what risk there actually is of 'getting a pro life psychiatrist', if any at all. Given that it takes three doctors to decide that being pregnant is placing a woman's life at risk and that only an abortion can avert that risk, I doubt there are many psychiatrists who will provide a diagnosis they know to be untrue.

    True but I don't really think you can use whst else they printed to add weight to your stance.

    I do agree the odds are probably low but I don't see why you take the chance if you had the money to go to England. Didn't some psychiatrists say they would never recommend an abortion? Can't find the link at the moment though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    I"the consensus in the Oireachtas is that the assembly's recommendations were an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue."
    quoting the IT

    The Oireachteas are a bunch of cautious old fogeys, years behind "middle ireland"


  • Registered Users Posts: 448 ✭✭Syphonax


    A big no from me on this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Christy42 wrote: »
    True but I don't really think you can use whst else they printed to add weight to your stance.
    My stance that they've been fairly consistently pro choice? I'd say what they've printed is the only thing that could add weight to it, or take it away.
    Christy42 wrote: »
    I do agree the odds are probably low but I don't see why you take the chance if you had the money to go to England. Didn't some psychiatrists say they would never recommend an abortion? Can't find the link at the moment though.
    That goes for pretty much everything; if you have the money you can get whatever you want, even if it's not what you need.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    quoting the IT

    The Oireachteas are a bunch of cautious old fogeys, years behind "middle ireland"

    Did the IT really say that?

    I myself think the Oireachteas stay well aware of the moods of "middle Ireland" so they know just what to say to get themselves re-elected.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think it's fair to say it's extraordinarily controversial, hence the Times "the consensus in the Oireachtas is that the assembly's recommendations were an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue." The Times which has been fairly consistently pro choice also asked "Why did members of the Citizens’ Assembly recommend a more liberal abortion regime than the Irish public would appear to want?" When we consider the full substantive recommendations of the Assembly;
    That Article 40.3.3° should not be retained in full. (87%)
    That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced or amended. (56%)
    That Article 40.3.3° should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn, and any rights of the pregnant woman. (57%)
    we can see why the Independent noted an issue of concern for the pro choice camp; the Assembly "has voted in favour of changing the constitutional clause which effectively criminalises abortion – but stopped short of repealing the law entirely."

    I think we'll have no shortage of controversy over how much or how little of the Assembly's views are put before the public before we get to a referendum. And there will certainly be those who think placing a matter like this in the hands of career politicians rather than the people would be a grave mistake.

    The Assembly's constitutional recommendations aren't an issue for pro-choice campaigners. They've welcomed the recommendations. And going by comments on social media at the time, many campaigners didn't think the Assembly would go this far.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    Did the IT really say that?

    No, the bit I quoted from your post was a quote from the IT.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I can't see anything controversial in their constitutional proposal, but I can envisage resistance from politicians nonetheless. They've been happy to stay as far away from the matter as possible, so I can see them being uncomfortable proposing a constitutional amendment that puts the matter squarely in their hands. But anything else would be a snub to the Assembly they themselves set up, so I imagine this is the type of amendment we'll be voting on.

    What? They've shown themselves to be way out of touch with the electorate as a whole, the Repeal side didn't expect that outcome in their wildest wet dreams. Hell, even Sinn Féin (the most liberal of the 3 big parties) opened fire on them for not having the democratic mandate/the Dáil being a Citizen's Assembly.

    Both the political class and the electorate have proven to be much more resistant to those changes proposed by the CA.

    If it's phrased with a "12-week limit" that doesn't require any reason, I can see this being defeated by quite a large margin.


Advertisement