Reasons to vote No/No

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 Is some of the language outdated?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.