Reasons to vote No/No

DUBLINIRL

I'm quite surprised at the percentage of the No/No vote with around 2 out of every 3 voters going for No in the referendum.

I'm curious to know why people voted the way they did if you wouldn't mind sharing with the class?

The terms "durable relationship" and "strive" were far too vague and wishy washy to be inserted into the constitution

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872021#Comment_121872021

This precisely. Nothing to do with dissatisfaction with the government. Just that the wording was too vague and added nothing to what already existed.

Itssoeasy

The care vote I was always more undecided on, and the AG advice that was leaked made me sure I couldn’t vote yes, so I voted no.

thegame983

Because the whole thing was f**king stupid & a waste of time.

Alexus25

Because I didn't understand it or properly read it

namloc1980

It was very poorly worded and framed. The Care one, carers and people who need care were thrown under the bus at the altar of ideology.

For the Family one, "durable relationships" was all sorts of problematic.

Dave_D_Rave

I didnt know there was a referendum until last week.

Didnt really have a clue what they were about to be honest, geerally I would keep up with current affairs.

893bet

Yes side couldn’t present an argument for change. Not one tangible advantage for any group could be described.

So No.

mikethecop

i dont believe that the government has its citizens best intreats at heart

it was framed as " we know best so do what we say"

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872037#Comment_121872037

Well we have plenty of history to tell us that the voters neither reward nor punish a government at a referendum. As to the reason it is always hard to say, it could be the wording - perhaps the concept is acceptable, just the timing is not right or something else. I expect some surveys in the coming weeks will tell us more.

gym_imposter

It was only ever important to those who dwell in NGO bubble land, it was those folks who lobbied the government to hold the referendums

People tend to say no to things they don't give a sh1t about

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872325#Comment_121872325

I was giving my reasons and they were far from hard to say. I honestly couldn't care less what a survey says, to be honest.

banie01

Absolutely awful drafting of the proposed amendments. In regards to the family amendment, inserting "durable relationship" without actually seeking to specify a frame of reference for what 1 is. Then when pressed on that?

Ministers replying that "the courts will decide". That's incredibly lazy drafting, and it ignores the role of the legislature.

Politicians make the law, their intent when drafting laws is always at the crux of any judicial review. Courts will often seek to interpret that intent in crafting rulings. If the intent of the legislation is to have the courts decide? Then what intent other than "virtue signalling" can a court interpret?

The most irksome thing regarding the definition of durable relationship IMO? Is that there already exists mechanisms to recognise same, be it marriage, civil partnership or the Cohabitation recognition as per the 2010 act.

Instead of making the hard legislative choices? The Govt punted and expected everyone to ignore the glaring issues with the proposed wordings and "be progressive"

On the care amendment, IMHO there was a huge opportunity to afford positive rights upon the disabled and those others affected by it. Rather than acknowledging the State's role and responsibility via meaningful wording? It instead chose "strive" which allows a wide degree of latitude in avoiding actual responsibility.

The State has a responsibility to support, defend and vindicate the rights of every citizen but, that responsibility is particularly important in ensuring the rights of the marginalised.

TLDR; Awful drafting and quite easily manipulated language. Vagueness and aspirational language are not suitable for constitutions.

Sam Russell

The word DURABLE is one I've heard in economics referring to HOUSEHOLD DURABLE GOODS like washing machines. If it is not defined in law, then it means nothing or anything.

STRIVE was OK if it meant that the Gov has to prove it took some positive action to right a failing of care.

Scoliosis is an example where the Gov has not kept up to its obligations under current status quo, so would this 'STRIVE' have made a difference? Obviously the voters thought not.

Furze99

1) The terms "durable relationship" was too open ended and lacking in any clarity as to what change you'd be voting for.

2) The reference to women/ mothers in the constitution is perfectly acceptable acknowledgment of their special role in society.

DUBLINIRL

I was unaware of the issue with the care referendum by those with a disability.

DUBLINIRL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872580#Comment_121872580

Regarding (2) I discussed this with a couple of young women recently and they were in favour of this change as they were both highly qualified professionals who felt that it was outdated and placed an expectation on them that they would take on more of the domestic and childcare duties than their male partners.

csirl

One argument I heard was that giving iadditional rights to people always comes with a financial cost to the government. An overtaxed squeezed middle suffering from a cost of living crisis will end up footing the bill.

DUBLINIRL

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872685#Comment_121872685

That is an interesting insight and I can see how it would sway people towards a No vote.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872325#Comment_121872325

Traditionally this is the case but have a government has rarely been as resoundingly defeated - the third largest ever defeat overall on family and largest ever defeat on care.

Some boxes in working class areas were almost entirely No, and there were strong no votes where AS accommodation is a difficulty. There is clearly more here than not being happy with the wording tbh.

It's my view that there is a significant element of anti government/establishment sentiment in the No vote. Government and indeed mainstream politics in general are worried about what this will translate to in the locals and Europeans.

Manach

Chesterton's Fence: if you don't know what something does, think very carefully before you decide to amend it. The government "Yes" campaign failed that test with the constitutional changes.

gym_imposter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872673#Comment_121872673

Luxury beliefs - issues, vast majority have more important concerns in their lives

Those women are certainly out there but not at all typical

kippy

I'd echo a lot of what was said above.

Some of my thoughts/opinions were backed up by certain things that were said by either side in the past while.

I don't know how widely covered this interview was (and I appreciate the channel linked to isn't widely "liked" in certain quarters) but minute 1 to minute 3ish on this clip was of interest to me and if there is ANY level of truth to that story the political establishment need to be brought to task on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxl4gU4Ts-s

There was a piece from Steen V Martin on Prime time also where steen pointed out that a change to the constitution could easily have major impact on existing laws (making them unconstitutional) - Martin wasn't able to answer that, as well as the confusion around "durable relationship" which really didnt help the Yes argument.

On the opposite side,

The entire content of this clip from last week and specificilly these lines from McEntee:

"There'll always be an attempt to confuse information when it comes to referendums"

and

"The only unintended consequences we will have if we vote no on Friday is that the 1 million plus people in this country, the children that you refer to will wake up and will be told by everyone else in this country will be told that their relationship is not a family relationship......if we wake up on saturday morning having missed this opportunity to tell these families that they are as important as families based on marriage"

McDowells retort was telling also - to be fair to him.

https://www.virginmediatelevision.ie/player/show/1294/216800/0/The-Tonight-Show?searchTerm=tonight

People have to remember that the majority of these politicians aren't specialists or indeed have any base level of intelligence. There's no real "test" that they have, apart from "getting votes". When they try and convice indivituals to do things, its not necessarily because they know what they are talking about.

I wasn't in it to "kick" the government or indeed other political parties who were for Yes. It was simply the wishy washy nature of what we were being asked to amend/change and the implications of same.

SuperBowserWorld

I definitely think the government is pretty much hated around the country. For oh so many reasons. You'd have to be blind or wallowing in the property market not to see that.

dmakc

The wording, but I'd be lying if the thought of Roderick O'Gorman sipping on victorious champagne last night didn't also influence me.

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058339839/reasons-to-vote-no-no

There was a whole load of reasons- I simply didn’t like the wording- too ambiguous and was going to open the floodgates. Senior FG ministers admitted it would allow all kinds of family reunification to untold numbers: no way straight off.

I value women’s place in the family and society- it doesn’t compel women to stay at home at all- there is a difference in genders and in my experience women are the primary caregivers in the home. It’s just reality.

Also immigration issues and durable relationships were a huge factor in my No vote. We need to tighten the rules not expose the state and taxpayer to countless liabilities.

The cherry on the top was the opportunity to give the left wing government and their NGO media establishment a good drubbing- they’ve had it coming a long time. No No was a no brainer and had settled on that weeks ago.

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058339839/reasons-to-vote-no-no

On reflection I know only two people voting yes and one of them was to only one of the amendments. There was a big surge on Friday to vote no and when I think of all the Nos I spoke to it’s not surprising now.

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121873751#Comment_121873751

This government is far too dictatorial and arrogant. They do absolutely nothing for the middle income earner like me- I’ve zero goodwill towards them

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872037#Comment_121872037

Dissatisfaction with the government was a factor but the dodgy proposals in themselves were more than enough to cement a No.

Seth Brundle

Mod: I'll remind posters to read the Politics forum charter before posting here.

Two below standard posts deleted.

baldbear

I voted no because I thought it would be mad to add something to the constitution that had no definition.

I felt then referendum date was rushed to coincide with international women's day in a cynical move by the government for some international PR.

Also, when Neale Richmond said it would have an impact on immigration it alarmed me.

I didn't trust this government. I believe they are out of touch and i listened to what Michael McDowall had to say.

I am really disappointed that party's who stated they did not agree with the wording advocated for a yes vote (Sinn fein).

zell12

Catherine Connolly TD, trained barrister and clinical psychologist recommended a No No vote. Last week, she gave incredibly compelling reasons why they were flawed proposed insertions. Ambiguous wording, potential ramifications in the future, etc. After the vote:

Speaking at the count centre for Galway West, Ms Connolly said: "They used propaganda to push two changes to our constitution in a manner that was patronising and patriarchal, and that women’s groups joined in and used that type of language is very upsetting for me. Is some of the language outdated? Absolutely, would I change some of the language? Yes." https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0309/1436882-referendum/

pinkfloyd34

I was going to vote no as a protest vote over the mess they are making of immigration, when they have to camp on the streets of Dublin then something is wrong and they let in 60% without passports which i thought is illegal.

Then we see this is related to the immigration issue so that really nailed in the no vote for me.

I am a single father and got guardianship and custody through the courts and receive childrens allowance, domiciliary allowance for a child with special needs etc so the laws and recognition are already there in my view.

ELM327

As a no/no voter, I had multiple reasons for my vote:

• Change of the constitution should be done only when necessary and not willy-nilly
• The wording of the amendments were, similar to when the 8th amendment was voted in, an example of badly thought out law and should not be in the constitution.
• The amendments to marriage protection were rendered unnecessary as all folks be they gay or straight can now be married and receive the same entitlements. If there were no marriage equality I would have considered voting yes as it would be needed.
• I'm quite liberal, being pro choice and pro marriage equality (and voting as such), but the role of the mother within the family structure is very important and can not and should not be diminished.

Ultimately, there was no reason for the change, it was unclear and introduced vague undefined terminology, and seemed like an attempt to legislate morality via the constitution - which should never be done.

ArrBee

I couldn't see any poistive reason to change what was there already. Sure, there were positive reasons "suggested", but I couldn't see how changing the constitution would suddenly make them possible. I believe that if the government wanted to, they could update law to provide extra benefit around care and/or families without updating the constitution.

On the other hand, I could see that changing to the proposal might lead to negative outcomes.

So, I saw no "net gain" in changing it.

blanch152

I remember the 1983 amendment on the right to life of the unborn. I was against it back then, but even the people I knew who were for it, were appalled when it resulted in a pregnant 16-year old being denied the right to travel to the UK. There are unforseen consequences to ambiguous language. The term "durable relationships" reminded me so much of that 1983 amendment. If the amendment had said "durable relationships as provided by law", at least the Oireachtas would have the power to correct any wild misinterpretations by the Courts. It didn't have that, so I voted no.

On the care referendum, it was clear that the NGOs saw this as a way to bind future governments to financial commitments that they might not want to prioritise. The inclusion of the word "strive" saw to that. I don't think that is democratic. Future governments should not be bound in that way financially. I was also wary of the language as it seemed to give financial priority to carers above those who they were caring for. If you are recognising and financially rewarding those caring for the elderly or the disabled, a government short of money might have to cut pensions and disability benefit to pay for that. Across the world, there are rising levels of disability, both physical and mental, possibly caused by Covid, (though some studies show it predates this), and should future taxpayers be burdened in this regard? I don't think so. Again, lack of definition of terms could lead to the courts deciding who is a carer, who is disabled, and public policy and democracy should take a place behind. To me, these issues belong to party manifestos and to be voted on democratically in general elections, they are not matters for a constitution.

That being said, if both referenda had suggested deleting the articles and nothing more, I would have voted Yes/Yes. I would favour a slimmed down Constitution that deals with the powers of the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, that delineates those, that enumerates rights, but makes them subject to social responsibility and affordability provisions.

road_high

Had a ton of reasons but the main ones were;

1 I didn’t want to delete the references to women and their important roles in caring and society. Working women and women in the home need more support. Not deletion. I see how hard my own sister works with 4 kids and holding down a career also. I wasn’t going to disrespect her, my own mother and grandmothers and all they had done for me.

2 Durable relationships and a Pandora’s box surrounding migration. Absolutely no way.

3 The state and people with disabilities/needing care and putting that back onto families

4 All the above was more than enough for me but the opportunity to give this lot a good kicking was more than enough incentive for me and in my opinion that was a huge factor in the higher than expected No vote. I really enjoyed the weekend listening to them squirm - their out of touchness is simply breathtaking

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872037#Comment_121872037

Dissatisfaction with the government really drove turnout for the No side though.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121886207#Comment_121886207

Where is the actual evidence for this (not facebook posts)?

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121886338#Comment_121886338

Purely anecdotal like most of these observations- but we can draw a few conclusions- the turnout was predicted to be very low but it was actually pretty decent for these kinds of referendums- the No side was multiples of what polls were saying. For me personally it was an added bonus and I’m sure many felt the same

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121886207#Comment_121886207

So you say. The OP asked why we voted No. I simply gave my reason and dissatisfaction with the government was certainly not the reason for my particular vote or for voting at all. You're making a potential error of assuming something with no evidence what so ever.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121886360#Comment_121886360

So you, and people you talk to, think vonting on amendments to our constitution are an appropriate way to express dissatisfaction in the government?

Seriously, some people shouldn't be allowed the vote!

road_high

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121886831#Comment_121886831

The amendments proposed were complete rubbish also as discussed already many times. The opportunity to clobber a useless out of touch administration in the process was just too much of a combo to resist. There’s nothing complicated about it really.

Good loser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121889930#Comment_121889930

Well there is because your two reasons are totally unrelated to one another. Where the divide is between the two and any of the myriad of many other reasons there might have been, is unknowable, as of yet. The political scientists will figure it out in time, no doubt.