nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

gctest50

ELM327 wrote: »

And were over since the referendum!

Be over quicker when some of the young athletes hanging around the streets learn the protesters have Go-Pros cameras hanging off them

......and they'd be deaadly craic for making swimming n underwater videos in Ibiza next year

Loafing Oaf

ELM327 wrote: »

And were over since the referendum!

Well these prospective clinic/surgery protestors would be the equivalent of Japenese soldiers holding out on Pacific islands long after WW2 was over. What remains to be seen is whether the great majority of militant pro-lifers recognise this and decide, on mature reflection, not to bother their arses...

gctest50

Those protesters will be like the tourist in trainspotting :

ArmaniJeanss

iguana wrote: »

Has there been any ruling on the High Court actions? I have been away for a few days and this is the most recent news I can find on them.

HC judgments on the petitions due at 2pm today.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/judge-to-rule-on-bids-to-challenge-abortion-referendum-result-tomorrow-856331.html

ELM327

Great. Hopefully this will stop the idiocy and bring an end to the last bastion of the pro birthers once and for all.

iguana

Doesn't seem to be any news on this yet?

Igotadose

iguana wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be any news on this yet?

Has anyone found the 'announcement at 2p.m.' on any other site than the examiner?

No news I can find. Not on RTE, you would think they'd be on this...

Fighting Tao

Igotadose wrote: »

Has anyone found the 'announcement at 2p.m.' on any other site than the examiner?

No news I can find. Not on RTE, you would think they'd be on this...

Breaking News also said 2pm today. As does the Irish Times.

Calina

one rejected anyway.

iguana

Both rejected but they are likely to appeal. Appeal ruling on the 27th.
http://www.thejournal.ie/eighth-referendum-challenges-4138424-Jul2018/

ELM327

Can we not just end this ridiculousness.

_Dara_

Not too much longer. Be grand.

Bredabe

I was reminded by a post on FB that I don't know what happened in NI after that Mp asked for the law to be extended to there. I heard that had a protest march lately so I assume it didn't happen. Would anyone let me know what happened between the two events?

*I can't find anything online and I don't want to spark off another sjw event by asking the girls.

VinLieger

iguana wrote: »

Both rejected but they are likely to appeal. Appeal ruling on the 27th.
http://www.thejournal.ie/eighth-referendum-challenges-4138424-Jul2018/

Yer wan jordan is the bitterest nimby in the country

alaimacerc

Bredabe wrote: »

I was reminded by a post on FB that I don't know what happened in NI after that Mp asked for the law to be extended to there. I heard that had a protest march lately so I assume it didn't happen. Would anyone let me know what happened between the two events?

It'd require primary legislation, so this isn't something that would have happened at the drop of a hat. And there was no abortion legislation on the parliamentary timetable, either.

One theory is that this might be enacted by amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill. But I believe that was being consulted on until relatively recently, and I don't think it's even had a first reading at Westminster.

(This is all google-grade research, so if anyone knows better, please get their speak in and I'll shut up.)

volchitsa

alaimacerc wrote: »

It'd require primary legislation, so this isn't something that would have happened at the drop of a hat. And there was no abortion legislation on the parliamentary timetable, either.

One theory is that this might be enacted by amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill. But I believe that was being consulted on until relatively recently, and I don't think it's even had a first reading at Westminster.

(This is all google-grade research, so if anyone knows better, please get their speak in and I'll shut up.)

The problem in NI is that we have no government. Stormont is suspended and Westminster is only care taking, so a controversial change like bringing in abortion is the last thing the Tories want to get involved in - and then there's the little matter of the religious, anti abortion, NI party they are in coalition with.

If Stormont hadn't collapsed I have no doubt we'd be well on our way to changing the law, and possibly now preparing to align ourselves at least with Ireland's 12 weeks if not the UK's 24 weeks.

Loafing Oaf

volchitsa wrote: »

If Stormont hadn't collapsed I have no doubt we'd be well on our way to changing the law, and possibly now preparing to align ourselves at least with Ireland's 12 weeks if not the UK's 24 weeks.

But do the DUP not effectively have a veto on progress one way or another?

alaimacerc

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem in NI is that we have no government. Stormont is suspended and Westminster is only care taking, so a controversial change like bringing in abortion is the last thing the Tories want to get involved in - and then there's the little matter of the religious, anti abortion, NI party they are in coalition with.

The government likely doesn't, but many Tory backbenchers do, and lots more in the opposition. So if it's added as an opposition amendment, the gov. is in a very awks position either way.

The theory is that one doesn't "undevolve" abortion for NI as such, or bring in a new one-off NI-specific law, one that just repeals existing UK-wide legislation. Then Stormont would have to a) manage to actually sit, then b) get a majority to pass local abortion legislation, and indeed c) not have it fall to a petition of concern.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But do the DUP not effectively have a veto on progress one way or another?

In Westminster, they're in a situation of Electoral Chicken with the Tories. Which of them is the more scared of a general election? But if abortion legislation comes in on a cross-party party basis, rather than being government business as such, it seems an especially tough call for the DUP to pull the rug and bring the whole thing down, when it's not even in their confidence and supply agreement. Maybe they just complain lots, and get bunged a few more million.

In Stormont, they'd have get some support from other MLA to manage a Petition of Concern. Which they might be able to do.

Annasopra

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But do the DUP not effectively have a veto on progress one way or another?

Maybe not for long with Paisley Junior is possibly forced to resign

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

The government likely doesn't, but many Tory backbenchers do, and lots more in the opposition. So if it's added as an opposition amendment, the gov. is in a very awks position either way.

The theory is that one doesn't "undevolve" abortion for NI as such, or bring in a new one-off NI-specific law, one that just repeals existing UK-wide legislation. Then Stormont would have to a) manage to actually sit, then b) get a majority to pass local abortion legislation, and indeed c) not have it fall to a petition of concern.

In Westminster, they're in a situation of Electoral Chicken with the Tories. Which of them is the more scared of a general election? But if abortion legislation comes in on a cross-party party basis, rather than being government business as such, it seems an especially tough call for the DUP to pull the rug and bring the whole thing down, when it's not even in their confidence and supply agreement. Maybe they just complain lots, and get bunged a few more million.

In Stormont, they'd have get some support from other MLA to manage a Petition of Concern. Which they might be able to do.

The DUP have a habit of quietly backing down on their NEVER NEVER redlines if it doesn't suit them.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP have a habit of quietly backing down on their NEVER NEVER redlines if it doesn't suit them.

But in a bad way, of course. Whereas as and when SF do the very same thing, it's because they're courageous visionary peacemakers.

Maybe we'd be in a better place overall if we'd more "quietly backing down", and less attempts to dance on political graves when people do so.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

But in a bad way, of course. Whereas as and when SF do the very same thing, it's because they're courageous visionary peacemakers.

Maybe we'd be in a better place overall if we'd more "quietly backing down", and less attempts to dance on political graves when people do so.

SF don't routinely block rights though, as far as I can see.

Loafing Oaf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The DUP have a habit of quietly backing down on their NEVER NEVER redlines if it doesn't suit them.

well this is the thing, I'm sure the sharper tools among them realise their stance on the issue can only lose them votes in the long run. So it would probably be in their interests to see the law liberalised while protesting loudly as it happens...
So what they comes down to a question of what the balance is in the party between 'sincere' pro-lifery and cyncial gombeenism. I think I have a fair idea what that balance is within FF down here but I'm not so up to speed with our friends in the north....

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF don't routinely block rights though, as far as I can see.

Oh, well, that's all right then, as we all agree what "rights" should be, and-- no, wait.

As it happens I agree with SF on all the issues involved (well, 2.75 out of 3, at least). But if you've been paying the slightest bit of attention to the last two referendum campaigns here, you should have noticed that almost any issue can be, and indeed is, framed as opposed, competing rights.

alaimacerc

Bredabe wrote: »

I was reminded by a post on FB that I don't know what happened in NI after that Mp asked for the law to be extended to there. I heard that had a protest march lately so I assume it didn't happen. Would anyone let me know what happened between the two events.

Stella Creasy was on the BBC this morning being interviewed about this. Didn't say anything about when and how it might come up in parliament, but did reiterate that her approach would be to repeal two sections of the Offences Against The Person Act, across the whole of the UK. (Only recently repealed here too, of course, by the POLDPA.)

Another indication of the potential difficulty here for the government, and indeed for the DUP. The presenter asked a question in passing about this of another guest, Nadine Dorries. Not only is she a Tory, she'd be seen as being firmly on the "anti-abortion social conservative headbanger" wing of the party -- wants lower term limits, restrictions on grounds, etc. But even she indicated that in "early pregnancy", it should be down to the woman's choice.

(Short item on RTE radio news about this right now, incidentally.)

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

Oh, well, that's all right then, as we all agree what "rights" should be, and-- no, wait.

As it happens I agree with SF on all the issues involved (well, 2.75 out of 3, at least). But if you've been paying the slightest bit of attention to the last two referendum campaigns here, you should have noticed that almost any issue can be, and indeed is, framed as opposed, competing rights.

You compared SF and the DUP on the subject of rights, there is no comparison frankly and the sooner people stop making one that isn't there the better.

The DUP need to be isolated as the blockers of an equal society here.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You compared SF and the DUP on the subject of rights, there is no comparison frankly and the sooner people stop making one that isn't there the better.

No, you made that comparison. In attempt to shore up your initial claim about how the DUP were simultaneously intransigent, but weak and cowardly. I merely offered the observation that if SF did the same -- and they regularly do -- that'd be respectively principled, and going the extra mile for pluralism.

The DUP need to be isolated as the blockers of an equal society here.

This thread needs to be shared your usual worst possible spin on unionism, shameless apologia for republicanism routine, when it adds nothing at all to the issue at hand.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, you made that comparison. In attempt to shore up your initial claim about how the DUP were simultaneously intransigent, but weak and cowardly. I merely offered the observation that if SF did the same -- and they regularly do -- that'd be respectively principled, and going the extra mile for pluralism.

This thread needs to be shared your usual worst possible spin on unionism, shameless apologia for republicanism routine, when it adds nothing at all to the issue at hand.

And where do SF block rights?

You were wondering what the DUP might do viz a viz abortion. I offered my opinion based on past behaviour as to what they might do. But you couldn't resist lumping a go at SF in there too. :rolleyes:

*We equally know the tired agenda to portray everyone in the north as 'the same'.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And where do SF block rights?

I'm not repeating myself on a tangent I've more than covered already.

You were wondering what the DUP might do viz a viz abortion. I offered my opinion based on past behaviour as to what they might do. But you couldn't resist lumping a go at SF in there too. :rolleyes:

You didn't so much offer your opinion as to what they'd do, as slag them off in advance for backing down. While covering yourself by simultaneously slagging them off if they stick to "NEVER NEVER".

As I already pointed out, I'm not at all critical of SF on this -- other than being slow reproductive rights learners, but not as slow as the other three main single-community parties. I mention them only in the light of the hilarity of how you would gloss SF "quietly backing down", or sticking to their "NEVER NEVER redlines".

It's pretty much your single transferable post.

Loafing Oaf

alaimacerc wrote: »

being slow reproductive rights learners.

I could never understand how SF could get away with their position on this issue while posing as a left-wing party. I guess no-one else in the North was making an issue of it, bar fringe Trotskyists etc. Bit surprising that their competitors for the left vote in the Republic didn't bring it up more in recent years though...