Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

dav3 · 28-05-2018 08:14AM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well it all depends on what they stand in the way of.

I can see the first piece of legislation being the 12 weeks etc, and that's fine, that's what the government promised.

But in a general election situation I can see that being hottly debated.

That's the next battleground, government, not the Constitution are now in charge, so I'd be surprised if it does not become an election issue from now on.

The politicians have all the data from the referendum in front of them.

The tactics used by the no side in terms of lobbying and intimidation will no longer work. The numbers are not there. They tried to give the impression that their numbers were greater than they actually were over the years during lobbying, the politicians know they have nothing to worry about in that regard after the referendum results.

What was quite telling over the years was how much the no side used to lie about the numbers at their marches. We now know that their figures were complete boll*cks, just like they were always told.

There is no grassroots organisation coming through on the no side. The over 65s were the most opposed to abortion. As the older generation dies off, the opposition to abortion will become less and less.

No right minded politician would stand in the way of legislation on this.

28-05-2018 08:30AM

dav3 wrote: »

Are you a bookies? How much money have you got to throw away on this?

After such an emphatic yes vote, it would be political suicide for the majority of no voting politicians to stand in the way of legislation.

Abortion is going to happen in Ireland.

Abortion all ready legally happened in Ireland under restricted terms of the 8th, even Eamon McGuinness stated that he performed some.

It was also legally available by proxy through the right the access information and to travel.

It also occurred illegally through the importation of pills.

The only thing that has changed since the vote on Friday is that the constitution will be amended and the government can enact legislation to allow it be more fairly accessed in Ireland.

seamus · 28-05-2018 08:42AM

dav3 wrote: »

No right minded politician would stand in the way of legislation on this.

Mattie McGrath was still coy about it on Saturday saying he'd need to see the legislation before he voted on it and that he had issues with parts of it.

He'll end up voting against whatever they put forward. But he's an independent and he's burned basically all bridges at this stage, so pretty inconsequential. He might have a future career in the backbenches of FF, but he might lose his seat at the next election for this.

Zubeneschamali · 28-05-2018 08:43AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Yeh the religious strawman argument has been bandied about a lot about No voters. Ie that practically all if not all No voters are religious.
Its been proven to be a lie.

I believe there are many people who voted no who no longer accept the authority of the Catholic Church, and some who no longer believe in God.

I do not believe there are any who can present an argument against abortion without some premise which sneaked into their heads from their religious education.

And that's OK. We all have unexamined nonsense in our heads since we were children.

Zubeneschamali · 28-05-2018 08:47AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There were a couple of moderate liberals and at least one prominent trade unionist on the No side and agreed they could have featured more prominately.

Are you saying moderate liberals and trade unionists are all godless atheists?

What are the names of these folks?

Zubeneschamali · 28-05-2018 08:49AM

tigger123 wrote: »

You'd love to think that the Iona Institute are getting the message at this stage, but I doubt they are.

What message do you expect them to get?

Their whole purpose is to hold Ireland back. They know they are on a long-term loser, but they are paid to hold the line as long as possible.

Zubeneschamali · 28-05-2018 08:54AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

I also believe that some voted no because they just have an issue with women and for some that goes as far as hatred.

I disagree that these posters just hate women.

I'm a man, a father, a taxpaying responsible citizen, and they hate me, too, because I don't hate women and immigrants.

erica74 · 28-05-2018 08:55AM

I have read that any politicians who supported a "no" vote have said they won't oppose the legislation. Realistically, what can these politicians do to stop the legislation being introduced? Genuinely asking this as someone who doesn't entirely understand the whole process. Is there anything these politicians can do which could actually stop the legislation?

28-05-2018 08:58AM

seamus wrote: »

Mattie McGrath was still coy about it on Saturday saying he'd need to see the legislation before he voted on it and that he had issues with parts of it.

He'll end up voting against whatever they put forward. But he's an independent and he's burned basically all bridges at this stage, so pretty inconsequential. He might have a future career in the backbenches of FF, but he might lose his seat at the next election for this.

So despite saying he was surprised at the size of the yes vote in Tipp and that he's not going to obstruct the legislation, he probably will.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tipperary-results-59-yes-vote-as-turnout-exceeds-marriage-referendum-1.3509903

Do you think FF will take him back into the fold

It wasnt me123 · 28-05-2018 08:59AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What message do you expect them to get?

Their whole purpose is to hold Ireland back. They know they are on a long-term loser, but they are paid to hold the line as long as possible.

On that and sorry if not part of the thread, but who pays IONA? How do you address the charity status of a particular group? I am yet to see any IONA person on a picket line for homelessness or hospital bed shortage. I am going to start lobbying my TDs, including Mattie McGrath and he is here for the long haul, he has a very strong base behind him, and I want to get my details correct. If anyone can direct me to a link etc I'd be very grateful.

Zubeneschamali · 28-05-2018 09:00AM

BenEadir wrote: »

Correct, that's what the people have voted for 2-1 so hopefully our elected politicians will get on with legislating for what the people have instructed them to facilitate.

Thanks to the No campaign for making it explicit that we were voting for abortion on demand.

The Yes campaign steered clear of that language in case it provoked a No vote, preferring to call it "abortion without restriction as to reason", and many yes posters here argued every time a No poster called it abortion on demand.

But the No campaign nailed their colours to the mast, we were voting for abortion on demand. So now they can stop bloody complaining about abortion on demand and trying to argue we shouldn't enact it. You told us what we were voting for, and we voted for it, end of:

https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/999059605060837377

Zubeneschamali · 28-05-2018 09:03AM

end of the road wrote: »

something along the lines of the current POLDPA i reccan would have been something i could support.

So, you would support no change at all. Thanks for admitting it.

pleas advice · 28-05-2018 09:13AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Thanks to the No campaign for making it explicit that we were voting for abortion on demand.

The Yes campaign steered clear of that language in case it provoked a No vote, preferring to call it "abortion without restriction as to reason", and many yes posters here argued every time a No poster called it abortion on demand.

But the No campaign nailed there colours to the mast, we were voting for abortion on demand. So now they can stop bloody complaining about abortion on demand and trying to argue we shouldn't enact it. You told us what we were voting for, and we voted for it, end of:

I thought that was all lies though?

Zubeneschamali · 28-05-2018 09:14AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

But yes Begg is the trade unionist.

David Begg supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and fatal fetal abnormality, so would have to vote Yes to get those. He has an issue with the 12 weeks provision.

We know this because he wrote it in... the Dominican publication Doctrine and Life

So I think we can have a guess at Mr. Begg's religious affiliation there.

28-05-2018 09:14AM

erica74 wrote: »

I have read that any politicians who supported a "no" vote have said they won't oppose the legislation. Realistically, what can these politicians do to stop the legislation being introduced? Genuinely asking this as someone who doesn't entirely understand the whole process. Is there anything these politicians can do which could actually stop the legislation?

It could be that when the lies of McGrath says they will not obstruct the will of the majority, that they will simply not try to question the outcome of Fridays vote given the large majority for yes.

Apart from this as far as I know. The legislation will be drawn up by the goverment and then will have to be voted on by the dail to be passed into law. By voting against the legislation put forward by the government would be a way to obstruct it, however as with any bote the number of votes against the legislation must be greater than those in favour to actually obstruct.

It wasnt me123 · 28-05-2018 09:18AM

It will also have to go to the Seanad and the likes of Ronan Mullen will oppose it but there will be enough yes voters to pass it. It was a great choice by FG/Simon Harris to put the legislation out there so that the No side can't say we didn't know what we were voting for. We all new exactly what we were voting for, including the 12 weeks, so they can't pretend they didn't know.

NuMarvel · 28-05-2018 09:21AM

seamus wrote: »

Mattie McGrath was still coy about it on Saturday saying he'd need to see the legislation before he voted on it and that he had issues with parts of it.

He'll end up voting against whatever they put forward. But he's an independent and he's burned basically all bridges at this stage, so pretty inconsequential. He might have a future career in the backbenches of FF, but he might lose his seat at the next election for this.

Given how wrong they got it, I have to wonder if some of the current FF backbenchers have careers in the backbenches of FF.

erica74 wrote: »

I have read that any politicians who supported a "no" vote have said they won't oppose the legislation. Realistically, what can these politicians do to stop the legislation being introduced? Genuinely asking this as someone who doesn't entirely understand the whole process. Is there anything these politicians can do which could actually stop the legislation?

In reality, there's not much they can do. Given the size of the Yes vote, the legislation will be supported by most politicians, including those who were coy about whether they supported it or not.

They can still propose changes to it when it's going through the Dail and Seanad, but I don't see that happening in the first place. And even if they did this, unless they're highlighting an unforseen problem, their proposals won't have enough support to be carried.

Zubeneschamali · 28-05-2018 09:27AM

erica74 wrote: »

Genuinely asking this as someone who doesn't entirely understand the whole process. Is there anything these politicians can do which could actually stop the legislation?

Well, the current Government is unusual in that they don't have a majority in the Dail - they depend on Fianna Fail in opposition to vote with them and keep them in power. Fianna Fail are extremely shaky on abortion, and their TDs might vote No.

But it looks as if SF will back the Government on this one, they would be delighted to be the opposition party helping enact this, and leave FF to irrelevance.

Ultimately, the numbers are not there in the Dail to block this. I am sure the No campaign will make some TDs in No-leaning constituencies a bit uncomfortable, but I expect that the whole thing will have evaporated by the next General election.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Fianna Fail offer quietly to extend the life of the current government to give some time for folks to forget how anti FF were.

Igotadose · 28-05-2018 09:29AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Fianna Fail offer quietly to extend the life of the current government to give some time for folks to forget how anti FF were.

Cool idea. I can really see FF becoming less of a factor finally in Irish politics if their TD's rally against the proposed legislation. Now if the same would be true for some Independents, especially Healy-Rae's. And I live in Kerry and would love to see the back of that mob once and for all.

Zubeneschamali · 28-05-2018 09:30AM

pleas advice wrote: »

I thought that was all lies though?

Did you? Do you want me to go looking for what you actually said in these threads?

28-05-2018 09:31AM

In airport waiting for flight after being home to vote, ( am entitled before anyone says anything!!)
Was happily surprised with the support for yes. Was worried going home as boards was my only link to the referendum at home.

I'm delighted the amendment is gone & I am so happy that the men of Ireland supported all the women in their fight for equal treatment.
Thanks all

Fighting Tao · 28-05-2018 09:45AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It would have allowed different legislation to be proposed, and another referendum.

In 35 years not one person could come up with an alternative change to the constitution. The laws couldn't be written because they would have been unconstitutional due to the 8th. Does that not say it all?

Deleted User wrote: »

That statement is deeply offensive. You believe that statement to be true.
Yet I doubt very much if you referred to your unborn child as either an embryo or a foetus before it was born.

The truth is offensive? I did not call him a baby until I saw him. Why? Because he wasn't. There is plenty of scientific information out there about the development from sperm and egg to OAPs. Worth a read rather than false propaganda from the No side.

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I take the view that my dayghter lost her baby. My Grandchild.
If an embryo or foetus were not alive - there would be no need for abortion.
Dress that up with whatever makes you feel comfortable with your choice of vote. The fact remains - if human life did not exist, there would be no need for abortion.

You can have whatever view you want but it does not make you correct. Abortions are not limited to humans.

Deleted User wrote: »

Who said they could word it for the Constitution. It would take quite a few referenda - or, one more referendum, with provision being made in legislation for the hard cases.

They couldn't word it for the constitution and so the 8th had to be repealed to deal with what you refer to as hard cases. That is a fact.

Deleted User wrote: »

What we're getting is abortiion on demand.

Nope, it suspected that abortion with restrictions is what we are getting because the vast majority voted for repeal. The final legislation hasn't been put forward yet so we don't know exactly what it will be. We do have a good rough idea from the draft and that is what the majority are happy with.

Deleted User wrote: »

HAve you ever stopped to consider that abusive partners, or families have been known to force women to have abortions?

Evidence please! No one can force another person to have an abortion. There is no forced abortion at present, and there will not be once the change to constitution is made.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's before we consider that certain cultures have a very high rate of abortion for female babies?

Do we live in a country that has a one child per family policy? I must have missed that legislation passing. You are being a little hysterical mentioning this.

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is the proposed counseeling service that ensures this will not happen?

Do I look like a phone book? I presume that you know how to use Google if you are online.

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is the additional emergency support for a woman who will find hereself homeless, or battered, if she refuses to have an abortion?

There are plenty of women refuges around the country. Pity there is not many for men that are abused, homeless, or battered. Yet again Google is your friend. However, why punish 99.99999% of women for the 0.00001% that you are so concerned about?

Deleted User wrote: »

I would rather that she and her partner get to make a choice, without the unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. That was the real decider for me, although I'd have been interested to hear exactly what constitutes an "emergency" that allows abortion up to birth. That would be a particular concern, since two of my children were premature.

She wouldn't get to make a choice. She would die because of the status the foetus has under the 8th. Look at the Savita case. That could have been your daughter/wife/sister/granddaughter. Repealing the 8th is saving the lives of women. It is raising their status in Ireland. It is protecting them.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd have been interested to hear exactly what constitutes an "emergency" that allows abortion up to birth. That would be a particular concern, since two of my children were premature.

There are many premature babies born successfully. Do you have a picture of all premature babies being aborted? If so, clean your mind. There is no way it will be like that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah! That old turnip. Do you really think you're so superior that you know how I feel? That's more than a little presumptuous, tbh.

You are a stranger on the internet. How you feel about women doesn't bother me. However, unless you were misguided then a vote No was a vote against women.

Deleted User wrote: »

I voted "No" precisely because I didn't believe any amount of lobbying would change the proposed legislation, and, lo and behold, in todays papers there are comments from politicians about how the people knew what they were voting for. Are you still trying to say that lobbying would have changed that attitude?

So you want to punish all women because of a small minority? Your colours are starting to show.

Deleted User wrote: »

Legislation needed to be introduced to cater for the hard cases. Instead, the hard cases were used to introduce abortion on demand.

It couldn't be introduced because of the 8th. It is not possible to implement legislation that goes against the constitution. Also, each hard case is different. Legislative changes wouldn't have been able to keep up and more women would die waiting for the law to change in order for their lives to be saved. Changing legislation is a slow process particularly when there are so many contrarians elected.

Again it is not abortion on demand.

Deleted User wrote: »

What makes you the judge of who has a right to live, and who should die?

I never proposed killing people. I never proposed forcing people to abort foetuses. Hell, I never said I was a judge either. The people of Ireland have spoken and they wanted the 8th repealed. It's the problem of living in a democracy, we all have laws we like and dislike.

nozzferrahhtoo · 28-05-2018 09:48AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Aye, which is why I said: A wrong does not become right simply because a majority support it.

And a right does not become a wrong just because you dislike it. A right would become a wrong if you constructed an argument indicting the morality of it. This you have yet to do. Certainly not by over inflating the importance of what you are calling a heartbeat.

We have done the right thing here by far. The next step is to support all the initiatives that ensure women never find themselves with a crisis pregnancy, and those that ensure they have options other than abortion when they do.

And that will be a fight worth having too. A fight against the people who think that young children should not be given a comprehensive and detailed and useful early sexual education for example. Or a fight against the kind of people we saw debating in recent weeks that women should not be getting social welfare or single parent allowances and should in fact be kept poor and pregnant because that is the only way to motivate people in lower social classes to better themselves.

There is still a war to fight here, and one worth the fighting. The battle you lost here was not even worth the winning, and there are infinitely more useful battles still to come.

Leroy42 · 28-05-2018 09:49AM

I think the overwhelming nature of the vote will leave any TD looking to derail the legislation on very sticky ground.

It is very clear that the people of Ireland want this out of the constitution and therefore the dail has a duty to legislate.

I was wondering why FG put forward the heads of bill prior to announcing the ref date as it gave the No side something else to attack but in hindsight it puts them in a very strong position. They can rightly claim that people were aware of the proposal and, though I think there will be some amendments around the edges, the legislation will be much the same as was proposed.

Fighting Tao · 28-05-2018 09:51AM

Graces7 wrote: »

Wanna bet?

You sound like one of those head cases that will resort to intimidating women outside medical facilities.

Graces7 wrote: »

Oh no it isn't

It is outdated and dying off. The majority does not adhere to the same belief system any more. I hear the barman calling last orders as this is the last big battle in the war and the old guard have lost the war.

Overheal · 28-05-2018 09:52AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the overwhelming nature of the vote will leave any TD looking to derail the legislation on very sticky ground.

It is very clear that the people of Ireland want this out of the constitution and therefore the dail has a duty to legislate.

I was wondering why FG put forward the heads of bill prior to announcing the ref date as it gave the No side something else to attack but in hindsight it puts them in a very strong position. They can rightly claim that people were aware of the proposal and, though I think there will be some amendments around the edges, the legislation will be much the same as was proposed.

It also put a damper on ridiculous arguments that they were planning to bring in late term abortions without restrictions or whatever. It also represents the kinds of laws that could be passed to regulate abortions that could not have been constitutional with the 8th in place.

robarmstrong · 28-05-2018 09:57AM

Graces7 wrote: »

No bitterness or anger here and I have not seen or heard any. Modernity indeed!!!!!!!

We aren't all graced with selective eyesight/hearing. There is a lot of bitterness and anger from the No side that they have lost by a landslide. Which it was by the way, (66.6% if I'm not mistaken, *insert number of the beast pro-religious nonsense here*), despite what you may say or believe.

Graces7 wrote: »

The real issues are only just starting of course.

What are the real issues? Women no longer being seen as nothing more than mere vessels to be impregnated and carry that pregnancy to term regardless of her thoughts, feelings or desires? It was an absolute disgrace that across what, 40,000+ posts how the majority of No voters on Boards viewed women as untrustworthy abortion-seeking sluts essentially.

Don't get started on defending the RCC and their "say" in the matter, they really should have kept quiet as they are hardly a shining example of anything to do with children.

If altar-boys could get pregnant abortion would have been legalized here decades ago.

Movementarian · 28-05-2018 09:59AM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The "You lost" immature response. It wasn't me who lost. I have quite a happy life.
Those who lost are the victims of unrestricted abortion. They lost.

Nice tolerance there

captbarnacles · 28-05-2018 10:00AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And a right does not become a wrong just because you dislike it. A right would become a wrong if you constructed an argument indicting the morality of it. This you have yet to do. Certainly not by over inflating the importance of what you are calling a heartbeat.

We have done the right thing here by far. The next step is to support all the initiatives that ensure women never find themselves with a crisis pregnancy, and those that ensure they have options other than abortion when they do.

And that will be a fight worth having too. A fight against the people who think that young children should not be given a comprehensive and detailed and useful early sexual education for example. Or a fight against the kind of people we saw debating in recent weeks that women should not be getting social welfare or single parent allowances and should in fact be kept poor and pregnant because that is the only way to motivate people in lower social classes to better themselves.

There is still a war to fight here, and one worth the fighting. The battle you lost here was not even worth the winning, and there are infinitely more useful battles still to come.

They won't and we all know they won't because it is not really about having less abortions for them unless it's limited to abstinence....

Calina · 28-05-2018 10:00AM

Overheal wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the overwhelming nature of the vote will leave any TD looking to derail the legislation on very sticky ground.

It is very clear that the people of Ireland want this out of the constitution and therefore the dail has a duty to legislate.

I was wondering why FG put forward the heads of bill prior to announcing the ref date as it gave the No side something else to attack but in hindsight it puts them in a very strong position. They can rightly claim that people were aware of the proposal and, though I think there will be some amendments around the edges, the legislation will be much the same as was proposed.

It also put a damper on ridiculous arguments that they were planning to bring in late term abortions without restrictions or whatever. It also represents the kinds of laws that could be passed to regulate abortions that could not have been constitutional with the 8th in place.

Didn't stop them trying with the six month's element of the no campaign.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments