NEXT REFERENDUM

AlmightyCushion · 25-05-2018 02:39PM

joe40 wrote: »

I assume every amendment requires a referendum.
If so the referendum was enacted in 1937, the 1st amendment was in 1939. (if you can say what it was for I'll be very impressed.)

If the 8th amendment was in 1983 (There has been a bit of talk about it recently) and the current referendum is the 38th amendment. That means there have been 30 referendums in the past 35 years.
As the young people say wtf!

Is it time to rip the damn thing up and start again.

All our laws are based on the constitution. Rip it up and start again and you risk invalidating some laws that are already in place and fúcking everything up. it's better to make small changes to something that already works for the most part as the changes and their impact would be more predictable.

seamus · 25-05-2018 02:40PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Have people forgotten we have 3 more referendums this year?

Tbh, I wasn't even aware of these until yesterday.

Assetbacked wrote: »

This will be an interesting clash between feminists.

How so? What makes you think that feminists will want to keep a constitutional article that effectively says "a woman's place is in the home"?

alchemist33 wrote: »

I'll regret asking this, but what's the story with "women's life within the home"?

Article 41.2, basically says that women have "duties" within the home and that they take precedence over other forms of labour.

It's relatively benign, I don't believe it's ever been invoked to do anything. But nevertheless it's an incredibly outdated, patronising and Catholic statement to include in a constitution.

I would expect some resistance from the usual lunatics, but like the blasphemy law, it was put in by Eamon DeValera who wanted Ireland to be a paragon of Roman Catholic self-hatred, suppression and flagellation. And it's frankly embarrassing to have either of these things in our national constitution.

Owryan · 25-05-2018 02:40PM

joe40 wrote: »

I assume every amendment requires a referendum.
If so the referendum was enacted in 1937, the 1st amendment was in 1939. (if you can say what it was for I'll be very impressed.)

If the 8th amendment was in 1983 (There has been a bit of talk about it recently) and the current referendum is the 38th amendment. That means there have been 30 referendums in the past 35 years.
As the young people say wtf!

Is it time to rip the damn thing up and start again.

Written at a time when Ireland was still a young country with values and beliefs that are at odds with the Ireland of today. As society has become more liberal so some elements of the constitution are no longer acceptable.

I think the religious references are next to go. But it would be an interesting project to draw up a new constitution and see what people want included.

Off the top of my head: rights to water, to a home are recent calls, neutrality was another even though it's not specifically mentioned in the current one.

elefant · 25-05-2018 02:41PM

amcalester wrote: »

Removing the preamble.

I wouldn't vote to remove it, but I think there's certainly merit to removing the references to Jesus and the Holy Trinity in it. I think a large (and getting larger) percentage of the population would prefer the foundation of sovereignty and rights in the state to have no reference to religion.

KrustyUCC · 25-05-2018 02:42PM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The voting public changed their vote the second time round.

True but after being effectively blackmailed for getting the wrong result the first time

HandsomeBob · 25-05-2018 02:44PM

If they'd give me a second vote at the Seanad I'd be voting a whole lot differently.

Don't think euthanasia will be a realistic referendum call anytime time soon.

Will be drug related, I'm certain about that.

For Forks Sake · 25-05-2018 02:44PM

Being frankly honest, the Constitution could do with a good tidy-up, hopefully today will be the beginning of the end of it being used as a dumping ground for difficult social issues that politicians of the past didn't have the balls to deal with.

Ush1 · 25-05-2018 02:46PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

True but after being effectively blackmailed for getting the wrong result the first time

Weren't amendments made to the treaty?

Owryan · 25-05-2018 02:47PM

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Don't think euthanasia will be a realistic referendum call anytime time soon.
.

Unless euthanasia is prohibited in the constitution we do not need a referendum, unless we want to include it and that won't happen. We tried that with abortion and look at the mess.

RobertKK · 25-05-2018 02:47PM

It will probably be a referendum about lowering voting age or blasphemy.

Owryan · 25-05-2018 02:47PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Weren't amendments made to the treaty?

Yeah, but don't let facts get in the way

KrustyUCC · 25-05-2018 02:47PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Weren't amendments made to the treaty?

Some alright but the EU had signalled that they would have gone ahead without Ireland anyway

seamus · 25-05-2018 02:48PM

joe40 wrote: »

I assume every amendment requires a referendum.
If so the referendum was enacted in 1937, the 1st amendment was in 1939. (if you can say what it was for I'll be very impressed.)

If the 8th amendment was in 1983 (There has been a bit of talk about it recently) and the current referendum is the 38th amendment. That means there have been 30 referendums in the past 35 years.
As the young people say wtf!

Is it time to rip the damn thing up and start again.

No, I think the volume of changes is just a recognition that a constitution should change relatively frequently. Society, its values and its morals are not static or absolute. The constitution should reflect the kind of country a society wants, and not the kind of society a country wants.

If we were to rip it up and write a new one, I'd be disappointed if that new constitution wasn't been tweaked on a regular basis.

Until the 90s there was a lot of homage paid to the original patriots. And people felt that amendments that made drastic changes were an insult to the Collinses and DeValeras. Of course, they're dead, and dead people can't be insulted. As we've matured as a society, we've realised that constitutional change is not only necessary, but good for society. It opens up national debates and encourages people to discuss issues of importance.

We should enshrine in law a requirement to hold referendums at least once, but ideally twice a year on matters put forward by a citizen's assembly.

Shurimgreat · 25-05-2018 02:48PM

I was in favour of divorce. I was in favour of marriage equality. I am against unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks and will be voting No. I am in favour of assisted dying for those who want it. I believe such a referendum would pass.

Owryan · 25-05-2018 02:49PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Some alright but the EU had signalled that they would have gone ahead without Ireland anyway

How? The treaty needed everyone to agree to it.

twinytwo · 25-05-2018 02:56PM

amcalester wrote: »

If you did that you'll probably find a similar pattern looking back in 50/60 years anyway.

Once written, a new constitution would reflect society's values at that time, as time passes though it would need to be changed and that rate of change will only increase. So we'd be back to where we are now.

Only thing I can think of is to make it easier to amend the constitution, but I don't see how that's practical/possible.

Making it easier to change the constitution would be a bad thing... can you imagine if the government of the day could change it without a vote?

Kiss goodbye to private property laws etc

Irish Guitarist · 25-05-2018 02:58PM

Tougher sentences for animal abuse. Or at the very least some kind of a sentence. And your 'culture' shouldn't let you off the hook for being barbaric.

No more ridiculous suspended sentences or short jail sentences for people with 90 previous convictions of violent crimes. I know someone who has been convicted of sexual assault numerous times and the longest sentence he's gotten is nine months. No more sob stories as a defence in court either. Just because you had a tough childhood shouldn't mean you don't get punished for sexually assaulting women or beating the crap out of pensioners.

alchemist33 · 25-05-2018 02:59PM

amcalester wrote: »

If you did that you'll probably find a similar pattern looking back in 50/60 years anyway.

Once written, a new constitution would reflect society's values at that time, as time passes though it would need to be changed and that rate of change will only increase. So we'd be back to where we are now.

Only thing I can think of is to make it easier to amend the constitution, but I don't see how that's practical/possible.

A twitter poll would suit a lot of people these days. Retweet for Yes, Like for No.

Thanks for the folks who answered my question on women in the home. Tis a bit archaic alright.

amcalester · 25-05-2018 02:59PM

elefant wrote: »

I wouldn't vote to remove it, but I think there's certainly merit to removing the references to Jesus and the Holy Trinity in it. I think a large (and getting larger) percentage of the population would prefer the foundation of sovereignty and rights in the state to have no reference to religion.

Fair point, maybe re-write it..

We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to those who have gone before us, who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Pixel Eater · 25-05-2018 03:08PM

The amount of TDs. Far too many for the size of the country, but under the constitution there must be one for every 30,000 people. Maybe have a referendum to up this amount to 40/50/60,000.

HandsomeBob · 25-05-2018 03:11PM

Owryan wrote: »

Unless euthanasia is prohibited in the constitution we do not need a referendum, unless we want to include it and that won't happen. We tried that with abortion and look at the mess.

Nice one for correcting me. Can the goveremt amend laws on drugs without a vote so.

seamus · 25-05-2018 03:17PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Proper rights for single fathers and men in general who are being punished in court because of the system nearly always favouring the mother.

Arguably removing the "women's place in the home" is a boost to this.

The argument could be made that in the event of a conflict between a working ex-husband and a non-working ex-wife, this article of the constitution could be invoked to force him to pay maintenance to her because telling her to go and get a job would be in breach of the constitution.

Something to think about...

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Nice one for correcting me. Can the goveremt amend laws on drugs without a vote so.

Technically yes, but there are other non-constitutional restrictions, international treaties etc that can complicate it.

whisky_galore · 25-05-2018 03:17PM

Owryan wrote: »

Off the top of my head: rights to water, to a home are recent calls, neutrality was another even though it's not specifically mentioned in the current one.

A right to a home? That would be fiercely resisted by any and all of the property interests, and likely anyone who is already a homeowner.

Neutrality is a fig leaf, it always was. I don't know why people cod themselves thinking it's a thing.

Owryan · 25-05-2018 03:19PM

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Nice one for correcting me. Can the goveremt amend laws on drugs without a vote so.

Referenda are only needed where it is a constitutional matter.

So unless there is a constitutional article that says drugs are illegal then it's a matter for government.

joe40 · 25-05-2018 03:26PM

In an earlier post when I mentioned a full re write of the constitution, I wasn't been particularly serious since it would be an impossible task.
But I do think the sheer number of referenda we have is ridiculous, but I don't know enough about political science to explain what is wrong if anything.

Is it the way it was originally written - too rigid and prescriptive - which meant that any major change in legislation could possibly be unconstitutional therefore requiring a constitional change to prevent subsequent challenge in the courts.
Referendums are a blunt tool for deciding policy. This may be counter intuitive but I don't think they are particularly democratic.
The question posed, by necessity must be short and with a yes/no answer, this removes any possibility of any nuance.

The SSM marriage was a perfect example, most other countries were able to enact legislation when elected government approved it.
We had to have a referendum which was bitter in many areas. Ultimately it passed but it should not have required a referendum. It could have failed.

Obviously the constitution can't be rewritten, but do people think it was badly written to start with.
I know societies change and maybe ours more than most over the last 50 years, but even with that 30 referendums since 1983 is a bit mad.

Shurimgreat · 25-05-2018 03:32PM

At what point would it be easier and cheaper to write a new constitution and vote for that in a referendum rather than continue to have many individual referenda to change the existing one?

Each of these referenda must cost tens of millions to hold.

biko · 25-05-2018 03:34PM

Whether people using all caps should be put to deaf

Ush1 · 25-05-2018 03:40PM

biko wrote: »

Whether people using all caps should be put to deaf

By thiring squad.

Chris_Heilong · 25-05-2018 03:45PM

Our prisions are over crowded and criminals are a growing problem, Bring back the Death penalty and chemical castration if you have been found guilty of rape or Child abuse.

seamus · 25-05-2018 03:45PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

At what point would it be easier and cheaper to write a new constitution and vote for that in a referendum rather than continue to have many individual referenda to change the existing one?

Each of these referenda must cost tens of millions to hold.

Writing a constitution when you don't have one and when you're not a sovereign nation yet is a lot easier than trying to replace the one you already have.

The constitution is in effect the document from which all our laws flow. Replacing it with something else entirely would require redrafting laws to fit it, or fitting it to the existing laws. A bit like trying to replace the foundation of a house without demolishing it.

Whatever about the cost of holding a referendum to approve it, the cost of legal professionals and clerical professionals to draft it in the first place would take many years and hundreds of million of euro. Then there's a chance it could be rejected and binned.

NEXT REFERENDUM

Comments