Why are we having a referendum on Women in the Home?

Peter Flynt

FF/FG are running a dysfunctional health service, an education system that is 36th out 36 OECD countries in terms of investment as a % of GDP, housing (enough said), voting against rent controls and ending eviction bans, immigration out of control, a joke of a public transport system, roads clogged with rush hours lasting 3-4 hours in some cases.......and what are they sitting at the cabinet table talking about - Women in the Home.

Help me understand this!

Why are we having a referendum on Women in the Home?

Peter Flynt

According to today's Indo the issues among people surveyed include:

Housing: 53% of those interviewed, Cost of living: 28%, Immigration: 25%, Healthcare: 24%, Rise of the far right: 13%, Government corruption/incompetence: 11%, Crime and Drugs: 10%, Climate Change: 9%, Poverty & Inequality: 8%, Israel war: 6%, The economy: 5%.....

Where is women in the home there?

Geuze

Often instead of tacking difficult issues, the Govt distract you with silly minor issues.

Sam Russell

I suspect that the difficult issues are being tackled like housing and health.

Health problems are being tackled by the HSE and other agencies. Of course lack of staff makes solving the problem difficult. And working conditions due to lack of staff means many current staff quit to go elsewhere for a better life. So staff are recruited abroad - immigrants. Oh dear - another problem.

Housing is caused by lack of supply due to planning problems, lack of construction workers, etc. Of course lack of workers would be solved by more immigration. Oh no, not again.

Cost of living is due to international issues, like war in Ukraine. Gov are handing out lots of dosh in once off payments. Inflation is coming down. Way to go yet.

The last election threw up retirement age out of nowhere. It became a big issue despite the obvious time bomb of an ageing population with longer life expectancy. Oh dear, we need younger people in the workforce. I know - how about some immigrants could solve it.

Immigration appears to be everywhere.

So where does the definition of the family come in?

thegame983

It's an easy win.

The self congratulatory bollix we're going to have to listen to after it passes will be nauseating.

hamburgham

I’m female but I will be voting against as a protest vote. The result either way will not make a blind bit of difference to anything. No one was asking for this. It is a complete waste of money. They won’t propose a referendum on something meaningful like the maximum number of constituents a TCD can represent.

Feets

My theory is that if you remove the wording around the burden of economics upon the wife means the govt can stop paying child benefit.

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583492#Comment_121583492

Vote against it so.

hamburgham

It also does nothing to recognize the difficulties single people often face, including the near impossibility of buying a home and unfair inheritance tax rules.

Pauliedragon

If I was to guess I would say vote buying.

tikka16751

Neil Richmond said why, it’s about immigration.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583557#Comment_121583557

To whom, though?

Its largely pointless and virtue signalling.

Women can work if they want to and men can stay home and look after the kids if they want to.

We dont need a referendum to sanction a law that already exists.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583505#Comment_121583505

The max no. of constituents per TD is already in the constitution. Read it, that is why we will have more TDs next time out.

This referendum is to redefine the position of people in non-marital families - like single mothers, or unmarried couples with children, or families of grandparents looking after their grandchildren. It will also remove the assumption mothers stay at home and fathers go out to work.

I would prefer a referendum to limit the number of TDs to 160.

And a second referendum to redress the property rights to give tenants security of tenure - so they cannot be evicted without cause. If the property is to be sold, then the tenant is unaffected.

I am sure there are a few other pressing issues in the constitution that needs attention.

Hungry Burger

I’ll be voting No as a protest anyway and everyone I talk to seems to be in the same boat.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583623#Comment_121583623

How can you constitutionally change an assumption?

Either a person believes something, doesn't belive, or is undecided/uninterested.

Holding a successful Referendum (one that results in a Yes motion) isn't going to change anyones opinions or assumptions.

The bottom line is women can goto work if they want to and men can stay home if they want to.

The law already allows it.

I agree about the TD cap as the population is only going to keep growing.

Unrestricted tenant protections in private rentals is an infringment on landlords right to sell their own property (and would result in fewer private rental homes hitting the market and so more homelessness), but I agree that those conditions should be in place for govt owned housing.

Podge_irl

Cause its an incredibly regressive, out-dated and somewhat offensive clause that doesn't belong in our Constitution.

Personally I'm happy it will (likely) no longer be there.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583628#Comment_121583628

It's protesting nothing and a stupid way to use your vote (doubly so as there has to be a general election within the year). Housing and health being problems doesn't mean that nothing else happens, the council and European elections are also happening, should they be cancelled as well?

Sam Russell

Quote [How can you constitutionally change an assumption?]

You change an assumption in the constitution with a referendum. There are many assumptions in the constitution - like the assumption of innocent until convicted.

It was an assumption that marriage was between a man and a woman. That was changed with a referendum - remember? Now, marriage is between two people of any gender.

The definition of 'family' needs to be changed to favour the new forms of family because of the social and legal changes over the nearly 90 years since the original constitution was passed into law. Unmarried couples with children, ans single parents are now an accepted norm, so they need the same level of constitutional protection afforded marital families.

Why are women to be singled out for special mention to be 'in the home'?

PeadarCo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583623#Comment_121583623

The situation around renting doesn't need a constitutional change. That can be done with legislation. The problem with Irish residential leases that they are of de facto unlimited duration with certain exceptions. All that needs to be done is to allow fixed term leases ie Lease for X years and at the end both sides move on or renegotiate unless both sides come to a mutual agreement to terminate the lease beforehand. Basically something very similar to the commercial market is needed with the nuances of the residential market factored in. Or put another way Irish residential rental laws assume relatively short renting periods and not the long term renting we are now currently seeing. Again that can be tackled with legislation. There is nothing in the constitution stopping the changes required.

Stuff that can be handled via normal legislation should not end in the constitution as it is difficult to change. Everything in the OP is for normal legislation which can be done at the same time as this referendum. Hundreds of people work for the government and Dail in general they can do more than one thing at once.

Be right back

Safe to say, if this Government wants a yes, I will be voting no.

Jizique

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583623#Comment_121583623

I really don't think you are correct, all those issues have been or can be dealt with by legislation.

This govt can't even decide on the definition of a woman.

Ezeoul

Why are we having a referendum on Women in the Home?

We're not.

Jesus wept.

pixelburp

It's a regressive bit of our constitution that amounts to a small degree of of institutional housekeeping. It's no more complicated than that, and has no effect on the ongoing problems in the country. Those problems will still exist in the morning after, and this referendum is scarcely gonna paper over those problems either.

And thankfully that's how our constitution works; wanna change it, gotta ask the electorate. It's a great system, and ensures our broad laws reflect the intent of the people.

Witcher

People thinking they're 'protesting' by voting no, lol

While

A. Wasting their vote

B. Sending a terrible message to the women of Ireland

C. Making us look backward internationally

Idiotic. If you want to vote no, vote no because you don't agree with what's being asked, fair enough, don't engage in some moronic 'protest' because in reality the government couldn't give a fck either way. The referendum is only being held because of the result of a Citizen's Assembly on the matter.

Sam Russell

The problem with the current property rights is they are 100% in favour of the landlord, and this is cited as to why the no-fault eviction had to be abandoned. There is clearly a problem with this part of the constitution.

All it needs is an amendment that affirms the rights of tenants, and limits certain of owner rights.

Fixed term leases would go some way, and rental property sales should be 'tenant unaffected' as a normal. Refurbishments should only be required between tenancy terms.

Once, the tenant rights are in place within the constitution, then legislation could be enacted to solve all the other issues.

osarusan

if you wanted a thread on how absurdly and pointlessly right-wing contrarian boards has become, this is a decent shout.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583628#Comment_121583628

Protesting hoe? You think this being shot down is going to have any quantitative effect on the government's viability? What part of the cabinet has pinned its reputation on this bit of constitutional housekeeping?

This would have been changed years ago but our constitution requires consent by the people. It's a bit of social red tape all right for the "small stuff", and if you think this is bread and circuses for the government trying to pull the wool over the electorate, then I think you're kinda insulting the people at the same time. Nobody's gonna be fooled

Protest where and when it matters, at the local or national elections. Anything else is just impotent fist shaking

nachouser

Even to the first line of the post, why would you go OECD in search of a stat?

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eda/educationalattainmentthematicreport2023/irelandtheeuandeducationalattainment/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2084%25%20of%20all,Figure%204.1%20and%20Table%204.1.

Guess what, some of them are probably women. Gosh!

Pauliedragon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583580#Comment_121583580

Theres more to it than that the thread title is actually a bit misleading. Women in the home is only one aspect. At the monent if a couple live together with kids but they are not married the constitution doesn't recognise them as a family until they get married.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584280#Comment_121584280

Hopefully they will get the financial benefits to match also.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584156#Comment_121584156

I'll be voting No - who'd buy a pig in a poke. What is a 'durable relationship'? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584507#Comment_121584507

 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

This is very much broken.

thomas 123

It will make a lovely news segment for a week or so.

there’s the lads now smiling, Leo and Micheal, some lads. What an achievement.

there’s the token working class female there now - this changes everything.

ah and heres Micheal D, poetic.

chrisd2019

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058330100/why-are-we-having-a-referendum-on-women-in-the-home

To deflect the gullible media and the public away from real issues. And to pass the time in the lead up to the next General Election.

hotmail.com

No idea why it couldn't be held on the same day of the Local and European Elections in June.

Turnout will be shocking and a no vote is likely given the current anti government sentiment.

They should have held it in June when a higher turnout will surely mean a Yes vote.

beggars_bush

Women and men shouldn't be distinguished between in the constitution

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584536#Comment_121584536

 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

I see absolutely no problem with above, this is credit where credit is due. It does not exclude women who have a work and a home life. It does exclude men who have a work and a home life and work also to the common good. I think men can live with that, though the phrase 'In particular' implies that others are also valued for their work towards the common good.

The second part is aspirational 'endeavour to ensure' and has always been interpreted as aspirational.

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584582#Comment_121584582

Or mothers and fathers.

beggars_bush

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584634#Comment_121584634

Agreed

PeadarCo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584163#Comment_121584163

But property rights don't favour landlords. It can take 2 plus years for a landlord to get a property back from a tenant that doesn't obey the rules. Governments can legislate for eviction bans in certain instances for at least a limited period of time. That's not favouring landlords.

While tenants can only be evicted under certain criteria they have defacto a lease of unlimited duration and also in practice can have up to 2 years notice to leave if they dig their heals in. That incredibly generous given that they don't own the property. All this is even before we talk about rent caps.

What they don't have is certainty of when their lease ends but that's due to the nature of the law around residential tenancies in Ireland. Anyone who has had to deal with business/corporate leases will know the law is very different precisely because companies lease building for long periods and moving a companys operations of any size to a different location is a very big deal. For better or worse the residential tenancies market hasn't faced these same issues until recent years. There is nothing in the constitution stopping this government or any future government bringing the laws around residential tenancies more in line with the leases of other assets. The issue is a lack of political will and putting something into the constitution won't change that.

And you also have to consider what happens if your plan backfires and leads to less landlords and therefore less places to rent and an even worse rental crisis. You would suddenly need a referendum to reverse it. The current proposed referendum shows exactly the dangers of putting hobby horses into the constitution. As another poster has said this is just a tidy up exercise however because it's the constitution it requires a referendum.

Sam Russell

The property rights that favour landlords in the constitution is cited as the reasons for the inability to prevent evictions.

The reason this has occurred is the failure of successive governments to build social houses since the 1980s. It is reckoned that 30% of houses need to be social. Fix that, and the problem goes away.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584156#Comment_121584156

To be fair, (and playing a bit of devil's advocate) some people want to vote no because they don't want the wording changed but they don't want to publicly say that so are using the "government" as an excuse.

Are any parties campaigning against the amendment? Most political debate has been about making it more specific and forceful language, but I haven't seen any party say it should stay as is (and a future government could hold a referendum if they want to change it further).

foxsake

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121584536#Comment_121584536

how is it broken? only mothers (only women are mothers) have kids and the state recognises their contribution. And says they shouldn't be forced to work at the detriment to working in the work

Seems fair to me .

If anything the current and most recent government(s) - since maybe Year 2000- have failed in this as many women who would like to work in the home are forced to seek paid employment elsewhere out of economic necessity.

I cant see anything wrong in that wording. No coercion just recognition of those that chose a path in life.

you'd need major mental gymnastics to find offence in that wording.

Sleepy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583509#Comment_121583509

You say that like it's a bad thing. Child Benefit is a total waste of time and money: replacing it with equivalent tax credits and increases to dependent child welfare rates would save millions in administrative costs. The only argument made in favour of keeping it is that those administrative costs are largely staff wages and the office is based in Donegal which is a bit of an employment black spot.

hamburgham

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121583623#Comment_121583623

I know the max. no. of constituents is already in the Constitution. My point is that a referendum on increasing this so that we could have fewer TDs would be meaningful. This number was set before the days of electronic communication. Instead we have a virtue signalling, waste of time and money referendum which no one wanted.

Jizique

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121585707#Comment_121585707

Child benefit is paid to the mother - this was, i understand, to ensure the mother had money for the kids if her hubby was too busy down the pub or with other interests.

Not 100% sure what happens when a mother passes away, how the transfer to paying the father works.

Sleepy

Yes, CB is usually paid to the mother but not always and not trusting fathers to support their children, or mothers to ensure the tax credits/increased welfare is used for the benefit of the kids rather than to support an imagined alcohol problem is no justification for the waste of millions of euros of taxpayers money.

The Constitution no longer reflects the status quo of the majority of the citizens. It certainly needs the citizens to have a reconsideration of the relevant aspects of it.

hamburgham

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121585816#Comment_121585816

I see there is no campaign to change the fact that CB is generally paid to the mothers. This reflects the reality that it is mothers who do most of the heavy lifting in looking after children. Another reason not to change the constitution. If we're pretending tha child care is split equally between the mother and father, shouldn't there also be a debate on who should receive the CB.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121585911#Comment_121585911

Lord no, you won't find any enthusiasm for that idea here!

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121585698#Comment_121585698

It is not true that only mothers "have kids". Nor does a woman have any particular "duties in her home". Suggesting the common good can not be achieved without women essentially being housewives is both ridiculous and implies those that do not so are somehow failing to contribute to the "common good".

It's an utterly ridiculous clause.