What kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

That’s a great way to address an argument about picking your own numbers to straw man your own argument: pluck some more numbers out of thin air to build up another straw man argument.

Not sure what you mean about the government burying anything however. Seems to have been as Democratic a process as you could get.

See this post to get a picture of how the government framed the showdown.

They know they have a degree of public support and they know that they have a strong card to play in terms of "hard cases". If we came to know, during the debate that the middle were torn between hard cases and abortion on request, then you can be sure the government had an idea of this before they set off with their gameplan.

The key issue for most, abortion on request, is buried into the larger gameplan, which the government figures they can win.

"Hard cases" is milked for all it's worth, and then some ... and the gameplan succeeds.

It turns out, however, that only half the electorate are for abortion on request up to 12 weeks (take a bow RTE). No matter, by hiding this issue inside the Trojan Horse of "hard cases" the government takes Troy.


The question isn't whether the Government won the game. In that sense, they are to be commended for their tactics.

The question is whether they won by Thierry Henry. And whether Doing-a-Thierry, they served democracy.

Chips Lovell

I believe the last poll had majority of around 52% supported abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks.

Anyhow, it's now in the hands of the Dail. They will legislate and if the public changes its mind and doesn't like the legislation, they can vote in someone else that promises to legislate differently next time around. That's democracy.

antiskeptic

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

I haven't seen in this thread some actions that to me seem quite obvious.

Some no campaigners have repeatedly said throughout the campaign that there are ways to word legislation to support the so-called 'hard cases' without having abortion up to twelve weeks with no restriction as to reason.
They have their opportunity now.

More than half of all FF TDs came out against this change to the constitution. I'm sure Fidelma Healey-Eames or Maria Steen can find one among that group who is willing to propose amendments to the legislation.

It would appear from comments so far that politics, not democracy, will come to the fore. It needn't matter that the country appears split on the question of abortion on request, if the government feels that they can parlay repeal into mandate to do as they wish.

As ordinary citizens anyone who is interested in those amendments can lobby for them to be fairly debated.
I have already written to some politicians who have said that they expect the proposed legislation to be rubber-stamped, asking them to be more careful and deliberate in dealing with proposed amendments.

It will depend heavily on whether these politicians are democrats or not.

It will also depend on the media to an extent. Whilst stoking up the celebrations at the moment, they are not unused to turning to tear down that which they so recently built up. New stories are more important than anything else, so a little stirring it up isn't beyond them.

It will be interesting to see their response once the news cycle has moved on

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

See this post to get a picture of how the government framed the showdown.

They know they have a degree of public support and they know that they have a strong card to play in terms of "hard cases". If we came to know, during the debate that the middle were torn between hard cases and abortion on request, then you can be sure the government had an idea of this before they set off with their gameplan.

The key issue for most, abortion on request, is buried into the larger gameplan, which the government figures they can win.

Hard cases is milked for all it's worth and the gameplan succeeds.

It turns out, however, that only half the electorate are for abortion on request up to 12 weeks. No matter, by hiding this issue inside the Trojan Horse of "hard cases" the government takes Troy.


The question isn't whether the Government won the game. In that sense, they are to be commended for their tactics.

The question is whether they won by Thierry Henry. And whether Doing-a-Thierry, they served democracy.

This is complete and utter rubbish, based on one line in a single exit poll. No serious commentator would urge a change in government policy based on that.

I must say that the desperate attempts of the NO lobby to rescue restricted abortion from the ashes of their failed campaign would be laughable if this wasn't such a serious issue.

The Government were upfront from the start as to what they were proposing. The NO campaign were clear on this as well, referring to the Government proposals (inaccurately) as "abortion on demand". There is a clear unambiguous mandate to legislate in accordance with the government's proposals.

antiskeptic

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I believe the last poll had majority of around 52% supported abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks.

Baron, Proportional Representation, Proportional Representation, Baron.

Besides, if you correct for the actual margin of error (somewhat above the estimated margin of error) you'd have a slight minority on the support for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

Not that I'd suppose that means carte blanche for no restricted abortion. Proportional representation you see.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

This is complete and utter rubbish, based on one line in a single exit poll. No serious commentator would urge a change in government policy based on that.

One wonders whether any serious commentator will look at what turned out to be a very accurate exit poll, see the split as indicative of something ... and wonder why the government somehow omitted to allow a means whereby the country's wishes could be exercised.

Have you read post 85?

Are you happy that the Government set their framework on the representative views of 100 people? Before you rush to answer, could you observe the errors inherent in polls of 1000 people and note that it took RTE polling 4000 people in order to get a pretty accurate representation of the nation.

Now I know the likelihood is that you'll duck and weave, rather than say you either are or aren't happy. But it would help progress things if you could be clear.

Assuming you do see 100 people as somewhat unrepresentative, are you at all suspicious that the Citizens Assembly was just a device cobbled together by the Government to ensure they got the framing they wanted?

Are you impressed by the title "Joint Committee"? If so, are you similarily impressed by the 2.5:1 Yes/No weighting in that committee?

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

This is complete and utter rubbish, based on one line in a single exit poll. No serious commentator would urge a change in government policy based on that.

One wonders whether any serious commentator will look at what turned out to be a very accurate exit poll, see the split as indicative of something ... and wonder why the government somehow omitted to allow a means whereby the country's wishes could be exercised.

Have you read post 85

Are you happy that the Government set their framework on the representative views of 100 people? Before you rush to answer, could you observe the errors inherent in polls of 1000 people and note that it took RTE polling 4000 people in order to get a pretty accurate representation of the nation.

Now I know the likelihood is that you'll duck and weave, rather than say you either are or aren't happy. But it would help progress things if you could be clear.

Assuming you do see 100 people as somewhat unrepresentative, are you at all suspicious that the Citizens Assembly was just a device cobbled together by the Government to ensure they got the framing they wanted?

Are you impressed by the title "Joint Committee"? If so, are you similarily impressed by the 2.5:1 Yes/No weighting in that committee?


-


It's not that any of this went unnoticed before hand. It's just that in the cut and thrust of a campaign, you fight the issue in front of you.

That "unfortunate" split poll is a loose thread however. It causes (as it caused me) to scratch my head, take a look back and find "Hey Presto" something a bit smelly.

And if it does that to me, with a few minutes Googling, it can't be hard for anyone else to see. Once the dust settles. It's one thing to run the 100m in record time. Another thing to be stripped of your medals when it's found out you took performance enhancing substances. The Government, if found taking the electorate for a ride, will have done all sides a disservice, Yes and No.

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Baron, Proportional Representation, Proportional Representation, Baron.

Besides, if you correct for the actual margin of error (somewhat above the estimated margin of error) you'd have a slight minority on the support for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

Not that I'd suppose that means carte blanche for no restricted abortion. Proportional representation you see.

Could you please explain what you mean by proportional representation, as I have no earthly idea of what it is supposed to mean in this context.

Also, the reality may in fact be an even larger majority in favour as that is how margins of error work.

You have yet to clearly explain why, in your idea of a true democracy, you would override the wishes of 52% of the population?

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

Could you please explain what you mean by proportional representation, as I have no earthly idea of what it is supposed to mean in this context.

Simply put and in this case, it means the government looks at the fact the country is split down the middle on an aspect of their proposed legislation and finds a way where both sides can be represented in proportion to the view they expressed.

If they simply go "winner of the referendum takes all" then they are not representing the views of a significant proportion (half) of the electorate.

In the afterglow of a much-desired victory, they might simply chose to ignore this and proceed. But politicians know they have to face the electorate at some point. And they might wish to find a way of pleasing more of the people than they would if they simply ignored them

Also, the reality may in fact be an even larger majority in favour as that is how margins of error work.

Indeed. In this case, the RTE poll overshot the actual result. This overshoot, if corrected back might well work for are near even split. The point isn't about a percent this way or that. The point is a split.

And whether the government takes due note of that, once the excitement has died down

You have yet to clearly explain why, in your idea of a true democracy, you would override the wishes of 52% of the population?

a) We don't know the actual split. All we know is that there was one.

b) A democracy can be first past the post on everything - if that's how they chose to be set up. Our's typically isn't - politicians tend to take account of as much of the electorate as they can.

It's why we end up with coalitions of big parties, small parties, independents. etc (proportional representation) vs the UK's Tory or Labour (in the main) first past the post system.

If, say, abortion on request up to 12 weeks was the sole issue and you had a 52/48 split in a referendum then that would be fine. It was set up as first past the post and folk run with it.

In this referendum, however, you've a whole host of issues being voted on: repeal + various bits of proposed legislation. The vote didn't give ( nor was the question on the ballot phrased to give) people a first past the post choice on each issue. All you have is a global insight into the country's view

Since the country's view on abortion on the demand was near evenly split AND that view wasn't obtained during a first past the post process, proportional representation becomes possible.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

Baron, Proportional Representation, Proportional Representation, Baron.

Besides, if you correct for the actual margin of error (somewhat above the estimated margin of error) you'd have a slight minority on the support for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

Not that I'd suppose that means carte blanche for no restricted abortion. Proportional representation you see.

Unfortunately for yourself, and the rest of the NO campaign, they have zero credibility on this new daft proportional representation issue, having refused to even countenance a referendum for decades and having to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

If you don't compromise early, you suffer marginalisation by virtue of an extreme position.

FreudianSlippers

If we wanted PR in referenda, we'd have done that.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

Unfortunately for yourself, and the rest of the NO campaign, they have zero credibility on this new daft proportional representation issue, having refused to even countenance a referendum for decades and having to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

If you don't compromise early, you suffer marginalisation by virtue of an extreme position.

As appears to frequently the case, No's contribution to this state of affairs is plastered over what the electorate expresses on the matter - when someone has the wit to ask them.

You don't seem to mind that:

a) the electorate weren't given an option on the most significant element of the new proposal

b) the electorate's view won't be represented if abortion on request comes in

This is what I mean when I question someone's democratic sensibilities. You seem more interested in your view holding sway, no matter how achieved.

Hand-of-God politics so to speak

antiskeptic

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If we wanted PR in referenda, we'd have done that.

We?

We got it precisely the way pro-choice top brass wanted to present it to us.

FreudianSlippers

antiskeptic wrote: »

As appears to frequently the case, No's contribution to this state of affairs is plastered over what the electorate expresses on the matter - when someone has the wit to ask them.

You don't seem to mind that:

a) the electorate weren't given an option on the most significant element of the new proposal

b) the electorate's view won't be represented if abortion on request comes in

This is what I mean when I question someone's democratic sensibilities. You seem more interested in your view holding sway, no matter how achieved.

Hand-of-God politics so to speak

The electorate were given an option though as, effectively, the heads of terms of the legislation were released prior to the referendum; including the 12-week limit.

In fact, as I've pointed out previously, is disingenuous for a "No" campaigner to make the claim you appear to be making given they published material and posters claiming that the 12-week limit would actually be 6 months.

So, if the "No" campaign's materials are to be believed as being genuine and honest with regard to this 6 month claim, then theoretically some voters saw this and agreed that they would still vote yes even in this circumstance.

FreudianSlippers

antiskeptic wrote: »

We?

We got what the pro-choice top brass wanted.

This is nothing more than sour apples at this stage - really showing yourself up now tbh.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Baron, Proportional Representation, Proportional Representation, Baron.

Besides, if you correct for the actual margin of error (somewhat above the estimated margin of error) you'd have a slight minority on the support for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

Not that I'd suppose that means carte blanche for no restricted abortion. Proportional representation you see.

Well, you see the problem is that your can't have PR in a referendum. The constitution is very clear that an amendment is only considered approved when a simple majority in a referendum does so.

So your options are:

1. Pause all planned referenda until we have a referendum on modifying the system for constitutional amendments. Which, even if it could be approved, makes the system incredibly complicated. Because you would still be voting on the actual amendments, and not on a list of potential legislative changes that will come after the amendment.

2. Hold a plebiscite in advance to determine what the public want you to ask them in the next referendum. Ignoring the fact that this would be non-binding, it would also be quite wasteful. Any government could rightfully be accused of passing the buck and making the public do the work they've been elected to do, and there's a good chance you will sour the public against referendums in general. Could you imagine if we had a plebiscite on this a year ago, and the months of confusion, disinformation and anger that would have involved. And then a year later, we have the same damn thing all over again.

Instead of no. 2, we had a citizen's assembly, who instead of a campaign, heard submissions from interested parties in a structured manner, and then did the "PR" bit to determine the best thing to ask. Which worked incredibly well. Although the politicians were still accused of passing the buck.

antiskeptic

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is nothing more than sour apples at this stage - really showing yourself up now tbh.

Sour apples really isn't what's going on here. It's certainly true that a person like me needs some motivation to set off down an argumentation journey. But that's the lesser element. The spark, so to speak

The fact is, I like argumentation full stop.


In this particular case, of course I'm not happy with the outcome. And of course I'm entitled to see whether something can be done, within democratic boundaries to affect the outcome.

It actually doesn't matter whether the motivation is pure sour grapes (which it isn't). The question is whether an argument can be made or not.


-

And so, the issue of a split vote on a central element of the YES campaign. And more than a little interest into why it took an RTE poll to discover why it was a split vote.

You see sour grapes - which I've hopefully dispelled somewhat.

What I see is a tendency for folk to focus on having achieved their desired result. They've no interest in whether the electorate was massaged into this result. And no interest in whether the final legislation actually reflects the will o' da people.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

As appears to frequently the case, No's contribution to this state of affairs is plastered over what the electorate expresses on the matter - when someone has the wit to ask them.

You don't seem to mind that:

a) the electorate weren't given an option on the most significant element of the new proposal

b) the electorate's view won't be represented if abortion on request comes in

This is what I mean when I question someone's democratic sensibilities. You seem more interested in your view holding sway, no matter how achieved.

Hand-of-God politics so to speak

In relation to

(a) Quite clearly they were, the NO campaign were adamant on the point that a YES meant "abortion on demand", the Government side was adamant that they would legislate on the basis of their proposals in the event of a YES.

(b) The margin was 66-33 in favour of a YES. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, it is a lie to say that it is abortion on request.


I remember an Education official in a Dail Committee talking about universities I think and he said something like "what bit of no do they not understand?"

The opposite phrase could be used for many of the delusional pro-lifers since Saturday - which bit of YES do you not understand?

FreudianSlippers

Sour GRAPES.... I knew apples weren't the right fruit when I posted, but couldn't think of the right one for the life of me.

blanch152

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sour GRAPES.... I knew apples weren't the right fruit when I posted, but couldn't think of the right one for the life of me.

Trucks of sour grapes, held up in a French port because of Brexit.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

The margin was 66-33 in favour of a YES.

A question for you. Which you are pretty much guarenteed not to answer.

If the Governments proposals had been as they were, except that they declared themselves intent, subsequent to the referendum, to establish the views of the electorate (via their elected representatives or by other means) on the extent of abortion on request up to 12 weeks (the most contentious element of their proposals)..

...do you think the landslide would have been bigger?



If not, why not.

If so, why do you think the government didn't seek to obtain a bigger mandate in fulfilling the will of the people?


Advice: don't use the words "Citizens Assembly" or "Joint Oireachtas Committee" in your answer

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

A question for you. Which you are pretty much guarenteed not to answer.

If the Governments proposals had been as they were, except that they were open, subsequent to the referendum, to the views of the electorate (via their elected representatives or by other means) on the extent of abortion on request up to 12 weeks..

...do you think the landslide would have been bigger?



If not, why not.

If so, why do you think the government didn't seek to obtain a bigger mandate in fulfilling the will of the people?


Advice: don't use the words "Citizens Assembly" or "Joint Oireachtas Committee" in your answer

Which bit of the referendum was unclear?

https://loveboth.ie/the-government-plans-to-replace-the-8th-amendment-with-abortion-on-demand/

https://www.save8.ie/posters/our-posters-licence-to-kill/


People knew what they were voting for, and voted by 66% to 33% in favour of it. You need to give it a rest and just accept it happened.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

Which bit of the referendum was unclear?

https://loveboth.ie/the-government-plans-to-replace-the-8th-amendment-with-abortion-on-demand/

https://www.save8.ie/posters/our-posters-licence-to-kill/


People knew what they were voting for, and voted by 66% to 33% in favour of it. You need to give it a rest and just accept it happened.

Prophecy fulfilled..

Is there another democrat in the house who would like to answer the question posed in my previous post

megaten

antiskeptic wrote: »

Prophecy fulfilled..

Is there another democrat in the house who would like to answer the question posed in my previous post

Whats the point of your question and what do you think personally on the scenarios you suggested.

salmocab

This is painful, the referendum passed at 2:1 ratio and you want to now have legislation based on a poll of less than 4000 people.
The people knew exactly what they were voting for and that is what we will and should get.
Of course different people would want different legislation but it’s impossible to please everyone because there is a whole spectrum of what people want.
If they start to pander they will end up with a camel of a bill and nobody will be happy least of all the majority that voted for this.

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

Well, you see the problem is that your can't have PR in a referendum. The constitution is very clear that an amendment is only considered approved when a simple majority in a referendum does so.

I was referring to proportional representation in subsequent legislation.

Not that you follow this one down a rabbit hole to nth degree but because:

1. The referendum is subsequently found to have split the nation on the most significant (by a country mile) element in the proposals offered.

2. The electoral split could have been roughly ascertained beforehand, such as to direct the formulation of the proposals (namely a.o.r.)

3. Because so many things were wrapped up in the vote, no clear mandate exists for a.o.r. to 12 weeks. Now technically, the mandate given can be read as a positive nod to a.o.r. In the absence of the RTE poll, we would have to be agnostic on the matter of any particular item proposed


It seems the gov. only managed to extract a technical approval for a.o.r
An approval obtained through a process designed to bury the publics views on a.o.r under a mountain of other issues

Until RTE asked the question.

I don't know if you've read post #85. If you do/did and consider yourself democrat 1st, Yes-voter 2nd, then you might be disturbed that politicians are allowed to subvert our democratic process so.

To hide behind a technical mandate, dishonestly gained, involving a matter of huge interest to the entire nation. A once in a generation matter.




So your options are:

Instead of no. 2, we had a citizen's assembly, who instead of a campaign, heard submissions from interested parties in a structured manner, and then did the "PR" bit to determine the best thing to ask. Which worked incredibly well. Although the politicians were still accused of passing the buck.

You really need to read post #85 in this thread and then review this point.

antiskeptic

salmocab wrote: »

This is painful, the referendum passed at 2:1 ratio and you want to now have legislation based on a poll of less than 4000 people.

Read post number 85 in this thread. Your referendum was extracted from a forum established for the purposes of obtaining a Yes.

If you think the opinion of 4000 exhaustively informed citizens counts for nowt, you should be even less impressed by the musings of a hastily briefed (and very well managed) 100.


Get back to me with your thoughtsby all means

salmocab

antiskeptic wrote: »

Read post number 85 in this thread. Your referendum was extracted from a forum established for the purposes of obtaining a Yes.

If you think the opinion of 4000 exhaustively informed citizens counts for nowt, you should be even less impressed by the musings of a hastily briefed (and very well managed) 100.


Get back to me with your thoughtsby all means

I’ve given you my thoughts on a few occasions, your constantly dismissive of people’s views and keep mentioning post 85, I know you think that your showing people up with your debating but your really not.
We will and should get the legislation we voted for and that even in the poll your clinging to a majority suggest they want, that is democracy.

antiskeptic

megaten wrote: »

Whats the point of your question and what do you think personally on the scenarios you suggested.

Lets suppose the demonstrably accurate RTE poll is accurate too on this 50/50 split.

If the proposal was as I suggest, soft no-ers would have voted yes. As would all the existing yes.

To what extent? Hard to know but wind out of No sails ( the big bogeymanof a.o.r.) and an option somewhat more acceptable to all but strong no's.

Think voters as a normally distributed population (fe extremes on either end / lots of moderate in the middle). Its reasonable to expect significant support once you soften the extreme elements of the legislation.

Obviously far greater mandate. But not put forth.

Because a.o.r. is a political requirement (UN / amnesty/ seen as boggers arriving at euro meetings/liberal agenda/who knows what else)

You might like a Yes. But it was tricked out if you. Yes was played like a fiddle

antiskeptic

salmocab wrote: »

I’ve given you my thoughts on a few occasions

I'd prefer them in the context of background rather than just clinging to the referendum.

Post 85 gives relevant background. I don't recall you navigating that.

I'm hearing someone keener on the result than on how the result was won.

Its human nature. We want our cheap clothing but close our eyes as to how its made.