Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

gctest50 · 10-06-2018 04:19PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

I don’t follow.

Sorry laughing too much -

It's another "Nurse Noel" job from Save-the-8th

http://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/984378606653706240

.

ohnonotgmail · 10-06-2018 06:59PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Did anyone ever see this video Save The 8th released in response to the Together For Yes video featuring celebrities? Embarrassing stuff.

https://twitter.com/Savethe8thInfo/status/997560476614709248?s=20

I love that they picked somebody with a drink-driving conviction to present an ad that involves alcohol. Some of the others featured are a bit dubious as well.

_Dara_ · 10-06-2018 07:04PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I love that they picked somebody with a drink-driving conviction to present an ad that involves alcohol. Some of the others featured are a bit dubious as well.

And it was clearly hastily thrown together - very unpolished. And petty. No taking the high road there or concentrating on their campaign.

antiskeptic · 10-06-2018 09:10PM

Taytoland wrote: »

Losing the vote for the pro life side was the end. No coming back from this. They need to just move on now or move out of the country. The legislation once enacted will never be removed, the flood gates will have opened. Over 60% of the people don't want the old abortion laws, this can not be disputed or argued with. What's done is done.

Your absolutely right that 66% of the people don't want the old abortion laws. But neither, it seems are they particularly enamoured with abortion on request (aor) either.

As it happens, the government didn't seek a mandate for aor. They wrapped it up in all the rest and obtained a winner-takes-all result.

The only thing we have giving an indication of the electorates view on aor is the exit poll. Given it's accuracy, it is telling: no ringing endorsement of aor to be found in it.

This isn't insignificant, since aor will account for maybe 95% of abortions.

Fighting Tao · 10-06-2018 09:19PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your absolutely right that 66% of the people don't want the old abortion laws. But neither, it seems are they particularly enamoured with abortion on request (aor) either.

As it happens, the government didn't seek a mandate for aor. They wrapped it up in all the rest and obtained a winner-takes-all result.

The only thing we have giving an indication of the electorates view on aor is the exit poll. Given it's accuracy, it is telling: no ringing endorsement of aor to be found in it.

This isn't insignificant, since aor will account for maybe 95% of abortions.

The referendum was to do with repealing the 8th. Nothing more. They couldn’t list out a million different options for the constitution.

Laws are a different thing and if they were finalised then I’m sure they’d be discussing them in the Dail right now.

Overheal · 10-06-2018 09:44PM

As it is, the Dail has schedule abortion legislation for July 10, and expects to deliberate at least for a few days. Obviously that’s tentative and assuming that each of the three petitions fail to pass the litmus tests and aren’t moved on to more formal court proceedings. Reportedly the first abortions under the new law could happen as early as December.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/fasttrack-legislation-but-no-abortions-until-december-36956261.html

antiskeptic · 10-06-2018 09:50PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The referendum was to do with repealing the 8th. Nothing more. They couldn’t list out a million different options for the constitution.

Understood (although it has got to do with something more, permitting the government to legislate) - although I've found a lot of people don't understand that no direct mandate is given for the proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, back in realworld, the mandate achieved from the referendum is being parlayed into a mandate for the proposed legislation.

ohnonotgmail · 10-06-2018 09:52PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Understood (although it has got to do with something more, permitting the government to legislate) - although I've found a lot of people don't understand that no direct mandate is given for the proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, back in realworld, the mandate achieved from the referendum is being parlayed into a mandate for the proposed legislation.

Do pieces of legislation normally have a direct mandate

Fighting Tao · 10-06-2018 09:54PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Understood (although it has got to do with something more, permitting the government to legislate) - although I've found a lot of people don't understand that no direct mandate is given for the proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, back in realworld, the mandate achieved from the referendum is being parlayed into a mandate for the proposed legislation.

The mandate for legislation is given by voting the TDs in and if no clear majority, they decide who makes up the government.

antiskeptic · 10-06-2018 10:12PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Do pieces of legislation normally have a direct mandate

Not the humdrum stuff. A piece of legislation which is going to produce 95% of abortions after a once-in-a-generation referendum might be expected attract special treatment. Or at least, one would have thought the government would be interested in that - what with us being a democracy and all.

If the government can pull the requirement for a referendum, the referendum wording and proposed legislation, near unadulterated, out of the 99 citizens of the Citizens Assembly, it can surely take note of an accurate exit poll involving quite a few more citizens expressing their view on aor.

I dunno about this "once in never out gig. If the electorate isn't anywhere near behind aor as the overall referendum result indicates, and abortion rates start to climb from those "advertised" might you attract a certain amount of buyers remorse?

ohnonotgmail · 10-06-2018 10:16PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not the humdrum stuff. A piece of legislation which is going to produce 95% of abortions might be expected to quality though. Or at least, one would have thought the government would be interested in that.

If the government can pull the requirement for a referendum, the referendum wording and proposed legislation, near unadulterated, out of the 99 citizens of the Citizens Assembly, it can surely take note of an accurate exit poll involving quite a few more citizens expressing their view on aor.

66% of the population voted to allow the Dail to legislate. They even had a pretty good idea of what that legislation would entail. Let the dail do the job the people said it should do.

antiskeptic · 10-06-2018 10:20PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The mandate for legislation is given by voting the TDs in and if no clear majority, they decide who makes up the government.

Understood. But that's all very technical. The reality is you have an electorate which is not exactly doing backflips at the idea of aor12

gctest50 · 10-06-2018 10:20PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not the humdrum stuff. A piece of legislation which is going to produce 95% of abortions after a once-in-a-generation referendum might be expected attract special treatment. Or at least, one would have thought the government would be interested in that - what with us being a democracy and all.........

Your post is trying to present abortion as a "new thing" that is going to happen after the Yes vote to remove something from the Constitution that should never have been put in there in the first place

Only reason to object is if you have shares in an airline or ferry company

Overheal · 10-06-2018 10:21PM

Of which 52% of those polled were favorable to 12 weeks abortion on request (AOR12) to some degree or extent. Then there is the other matter of not whether people are thrilled with the law but whether the law will be robust and practical. Thus far there haven’t been really any proposals outside of what the government has already lain out that address ‘the hard cases’ that would also filter out ‘the trivial cases’ as some would have it - aka the cohort under discussion.

People might not particularly like AOR12 but alternatives are lacking. Those against it say it should really only be allowed for rapes and mental illnesses etc but that’s also largely how the UK tried to set their system up and it’s been pointed out how “abused” the loophole is for a ‘ground C abortion’ for mental illness. Point being even if you try and support a more strict-on-paper piece of legislation that doesn’t mean that regardless it wouldn’t still end up covering 95% of abortions or result in the same or a similar rate of abortions.

pitifulgod · 10-06-2018 10:22PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not the humdrum stuff. A piece of legislation which is going to produce 95% of abortions after a once-in-a-generation referendum might be expected attract special treatment. Or at least, one would have thought the government would be interested in that - what with us being a democracy and all.

If the government can pull the requirement for a referendum, the referendum wording and proposed legislation, near unadulterated, out of the 99 citizens of the Citizens Assembly, it can surely take note of an accurate exit poll involving quite a few more citizens expressing their view on aor.

I dunno about this "once in never out gig. If the electorate isn't anywhere near behind aor as the overall referendum result indicates, and abortion rates start to climb from those "advertised" might you attract a certain amount of buyers remorse?

I can confidently say that the legislation will pass comfortably. As pointed out elsewhere, we can't simply legislate for hard cases. Eg there's no humane way to give abortions to just those who have been raped. The public support allowing such abortions. Even defining what a hard case is, is difficult. There are plenty of people who are not in a circumstance where they can realistically raise a child.

So the reality is, we are going to start accommodating women who were previously forced to travel. The government have been clear on this. A massive protest movement over legislating has not developed. There's some extremists such as the ICBR, that's it. You had a mass movement against water charges but the reality is no such substantial movement exists against legislating. A substantial movement does exist for legislating including the 12 week allowance.

So I think moving on and supporting pregnant women whatever their choice is far more important.

ohnonotgmail · 10-06-2018 10:22PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Understood. But that's all very technical. The reality is you have an electorate which is not exactly doing backflips at the idea of aor12

If by technical you mean how our democracy operates then, yes, yes it is

Overheal · 10-06-2018 10:24PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Understood. But that's all very technical. The reality is you have an electorate which is not exactly doing backflips at the idea of aor12

But they still voted. Ostensibly we could argue they have them a mandate to legislate - a mandate for them to make those final decisions about the details of the legislation. Like I keep saying, if there’s a better solution, there is certainly no campaigning going on for one.

ArmaniJeanss · 10-06-2018 10:28PM

@antiskeptic
It's like you believe there should be some sort of constitutional block on abortion legislation such that a majority of the country need to vote on it.
16 days after the people specifically voted to remove any such block.

Overheal · 10-06-2018 10:29PM

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Achasanai · 10-06-2018 10:39PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But surely the brighter bulbs among them must know they haven't a prayer of achieving any of this and are focusing on what (if anything) can be achieved outside of the political process.

I guess they can do both. I haven't seen the backstabbing that was present after the SSM referendum, so maybe they're more united on this matter than they were back then, or at least have more backing from American anti-abortion groups. I think they'll take each step as it comes, but we definitely haven't heard the last of them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your absolutely right that 66% of the people don't want the old abortion laws. But neither, it seems are they particularly enamoured with abortion on request (aor) either.

As it happens, the government didn't seek a mandate for aor. They wrapped it up in all the rest and obtained a winner-takes-all result.

The only thing we have giving an indication of the electorates view on aor is the exit poll. Given it's accuracy, it is telling: no ringing endorsement of aor to be found in it.

This isn't insignificant, since aor will account for maybe 95% of abortions.

It's funny, because during the referendum campaign, we were told by the No side that we weren't just repealing the 8th, we also had the legislation that would be enacted if the 8th was repealed. Now that it has been repealed, and by a 2 to 1 majority, we are being told that this wasn't the case at all.

But seeing as you keep beating that drum, the most important thing to keep in mind is the 66 to 33 that voted in favour of repealing the 8th.

Don't worry about exit polls, particularly on people's feelings regarding abortion up to 12 weeks: you don't know the minds of these people, for example how many of those who answered that they were against this, but actually allowed for the fact that any attempt to legislate for cases involving rape and incest would be near impossible without the 12 weeks. Regardless of the fact that 52% were in favour of the 12 weeks.

Fighting Tao · 10-06-2018 10:46PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Understood. But that's all very technical. The reality is you have an electorate which is not exactly doing backflips at the idea of aor12

Is aor12 and 95% of abortions the No sides new BS lingo?

gctest50 · 10-06-2018 10:59PM

Achasanai wrote: »

I guess they can do both. I haven't seen the backstabbing that was present after the SSM referendum, so maybe they're more united on this matter than they were back then, or at least have more backing from American anti-abortion groups. ...........

Renua's latest effort - plenty from American anti- groups :

https://www.gopetition.com/signature-map/ireland-forward-together.html

Loafing Oaf · 10-06-2018 11:50PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

N
I dunno about this "once in never out gig. If the electorate isn't anywhere near behind aor as the overall referendum result indicates, and abortion rates start to climb from those "advertised" might you attract a certain amount of buyers remorse?

Who is 'advertising' what abortion rates will be under the new regime? At what level?

gctest50 · 11-06-2018 01:32AM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Who is 'advertising' what abortion rates will be under the new regime? At what level?

A few of the anti-choice still be like Drumm :

'I'm going to keep asking the thick question'

- excerpts from the Anglo Tapes that Drumm's team tried to stop jury hearing

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/im-going-to-keep-asking-the-thick-question-excerpts-from-the-anglo-tapes-that-drumms-team-tried-to-stop-jury-hearing-36990488.html

Igotadose · 11-06-2018 02:29PM

The applications to bring judicial review to the challenges filed by Jordan, Tracey, and Byrne will be heard on 26 June. Not sure when the Judges will rule on these applications: https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0611/969737-high-court-referendum-challenge/

Nothing new here, just a date, 15 days out.

RobertKK · 11-06-2018 02:59PM

Unless Simon Harris thinks women are very backwards, and can’t use the internet, it should be an opt in for doctors who want to carry out abortions. Not asking doctors opposed to abortion to be part of the referral process instead.

Ignore this is this is a Renua tweet, instead read the article.

https://twitter.com/renuaireland/status/1005823977925808128?s=21

seamus · 11-06-2018 03:02PM

Igotadose wrote: »

The applications to bring judicial review to the challenges filed by Jordan, Tracey, and Byrne will be heard on 26 June. Not sure when the Judges will rule on these applications: https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0611/969737-high-court-referendum-challenge/

Nothing new here, just a date, 15 days out.

The key part is this:

A petition can only be brought if the court considers the applicant has provided prima facie evidence the issues being complained about materially affected the 25 May referendum result.

In effect they will have to show that any of the things they're claiming could have "added" 700,000 yes votes, or caused 350,000 people to change their vote from a "No" to a "Yes"

If any of these petitions are allowed to proceed, I'd be quite surprised.

Igotadose · 11-06-2018 03:11PM

The National Association of GP's adopted motions Saturday saying GP's should opt-in to abortion and not be required to provide referrals. Simon Harris rightfully took them to task about it:
“The idea of a woman in crisis sitting in front of her doctor & her doctor refusing to refer flies in face of care & compassion & is not reflective of doctors I know. People spoke & want women to be cared for. Conscientious objection -yes. No referral or info -no.”

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-nagp-simon-harris-4063947-Jun2018/

RobertKK · 11-06-2018 03:17PM

Igotadose wrote: »

The National Association of GP's adopted motions Saturday saying GP's should opt-in to abortion and not be required to provide referrals. Simon Harris rightfully took them to task about it:
“The idea of a woman in crisis sitting in front of her doctor & her doctor refusing to refer flies in face of care & compassion & is not reflective of doctors I know. People spoke & want women to be cared for. Conscientious objection -yes. No referral or info -no.”

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-nagp-simon-harris-4063947-Jun2018/

It is very dogmatic to think an opt in system wouldn't work.

A list of doctors on the internet willing to carry out abortions makes sense. Simon would rather women go to their doctor and be charged €50+ for a consultation only to be told they will be referred to another doctor who will charge a consultation fee the first day and whatever the abortion procedure costs the next day.
Opt in would be cheaper for the woman.

seamus · 11-06-2018 03:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Unless Simon Harris thinks women are very backwards, and can’t use the internet, it should be an opt in for doctors who want to carry out abortions. Not asking doctors opposed to abortion to be part of the referral process instead.

Ignore this is this is a Renua tweet, instead read the article.

Yes, read the article. This was a poll of a "rebel" GP trade union (i.e. one which is not recognised), which is less than half the size of the official IMO trade union. The poll was also carried out by a directory/advertising website, so whether the poll used any kind of methodology is questionable.

Nevertheless there's an interesting disconnect in that poll between conscientious objection and a refusal to provide services.

And this is nothing to with abortion, and everything to do with arguments over fee payment.

A huge chunk of GPs refuse to engage with free GP care for under fives. This is not because they have a moral objection to children, but because they don't believe the government is paying them fairly.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments