Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

doylefe wrote: »

I suppose you have no issue with the likes of Ruth Coppinger pushing for massively more liberal legislation than what was presented to the people when they voted.

What do you mean by "pushing for", exactly? Are you suggesting that a TD should vote other than what was in their manifesto, and what they campaigned on?

If she -- or anyone else -- were to filibuster, obstruct, or otherwise make a holy show of enactment of legislation in line with the published heads of bill, I'd certainly "have an issue" with that.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

The ones that make that argument think they are 2 separate groups, with no overlap. That there's going to be hapes of young want having babies to milk the system, and others having hapes of abortions to milk the system.

It's probably a quantum mechanical phenomenon, not unlike Schrödinger's Immigrant.

uptherebels wrote: »

I do have issue with that, the legislation should represent what the people were shown before voting, no changes either way.

Just to add that I personally don't agree with the 3 day waiting period.

But the draft legislation just reflected what the Dail committee wanted. It doesn't necessarily reflect what the Dail wants or what the people want.

Also if you take that line, should any attempt to amend the legislation in the future have a referendum first?

We decided in the referendum to allow the Dail to legislate, and not set down conditions on what the Dail can do - quite the opposite.

If a Dail majority supports any change to the draft legislation, then so be it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Also if you take that line, should any attempt to amend the legislation in the future have a referendum first?

I'm getting flashbacks to the FF/PD "solution" to this: embed the "McDowell Thought" Act in the constitution itself.

Obviously that wouldn't be required, unless the Dáil was especially keen on some "advisory referendum" way of ducking their own direct responsibility. But I'd expect that future change be put before the country in party manifestos. Which is of course going to be in fairly broad-strokes terms, not "here's every comma of the new bill".

Igotadose

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm getting flashbacks to the FF/PD "solution" to this: embed the "McDowell Thought" Act in the constitution itself.

Sorry, what's the McDowell Thought act?

seamus

uptherebels wrote: »

I do have issue with that, the legislation should represent what the people were shown before voting, no changes either way.

That's not realistic, to be fair. Any legislation presented to the people beforehand is a draft, it's hasn't be rigorously debated nor examined. And it can't be until the referendum on which it's dependent, has been carried.

So there will always be revisions necessary afterwards. I agree in principle that a deliberate bait-and-switch is a problem. But rigidly sticking to the draft text is also a problem. Legislators should always be prepared to alter legislation where any relevant data or information indicates that the text as drafted is flawed.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well FF have a free vote and AFAIK most of those who have declared their intentions have said they will vote yes. But even if you leave them aside, nearly every other TD in the Dail, bar a handful of Healy Rea types, is committed to supporting the legislation.

What did I tell y'all?:P

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-bill-passes-to-next-stage-by-102-votes-to-12-with-seven-abstentions-1.3673079

the second stage of the legislation was passed by 102 votes to 12 with seven abstentions and it now goes to committee stage.

Eleven men and one woman voted against the legislation. Two Fianna Fáil TDs, Eamon O Cuív and Marc MacSharry voted against the Bill

Sean Canney, Minister of State, voted against a Government bill - a sacking offence surely?

ArmaniJeanss

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sean Canney, Minister of State, voted against a Government bill - a sacking offence surely?

He's an independent isn't he, so isn't part of any whip.
Just has to vote with the government on budgets and conf motions etc.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sean Canney, Minister of State, voted against a Government bill - a sacking offence surely?

Not sure. I'm wondering if Peadar Toibin's second strike on this issue merits expulsion from SF.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

He's an independent isn't he, so isn't part of any whip.
Just has to vote with the government on budgets and conf motions etc.

He's not just a backbench independent who supports the government, though, that's the point. He holds a government office.

I wonder will some figleaf amendment to the bill be accepted that will enable those abstaining FF TDs to say their concerns have been addressed and the legislation was now fine and dandy...

Why on earth would the government want to do that?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why on earth would the government want to do that?

As long as it’s something trivial, effectively meaningless. Ensure support for the legislation across all the main parties is overwhelming, make opponents look like s handful of malcontents.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sean Canney, Minister of State, voted against a Government bill - a sacking offence surely?

Doubtless we'll now discover he's just a Confidence and Supply Junior, or something along those lines.

Not sure it's in the programme for government, and of course no party whip. Pretty arsey behaviour, all the same.

Igotadose wrote: »

Sorry, what's the McDowell Thought act?

The Michael McDowell stroke in coalition with FF, to try to embed his own bill in the constitution in its entirety. I was attempting a humorous comparison between that and the likes of "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics". (i.e., constitution now says "I'm in charge, do what I say.")

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As long as it’s something trivial, effectively meaningless. Ensure support for the legislation across all the main parties is overwhelming, make opponents look like s handful of malcontents.

They are a handful of malcontents.

It suits FG to have FF split on an issue like this especially one with overwhelming public support and which has no prospect of bringing down the government. SF and the small left parties will support the bill provided it is not watered down.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They are a handful of malcontents.

It suits FG to have FF split on an issue like this especially one with overwhelming public support and which has no prospect of bringing down the government. SF and the small left parties will support the bill provided it is not watered down.

i'm looking at the broader picture of building a pro-choice consensus in society, encouraging pro-lifers to give up the ghost, not leaving them with the lingering hope that there is a significant cohort within FF on their side.

Anyway, this is all academic; I'm pretty sure most/all of those abstaining FFers will end up voting for the final legislation; they just want to be seen to express their DEEP CONCERN at this stage of proceedings.

ohnonotgmail

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

i'm looking at the broader picture of building a pro-choice consensus in society, encouraging pro-lifers to give up the ghost, not leaving them with the lingering hope that there is a significant cohort within FF on their side.

Anyway, this is all academic; I'm pretty sure most/all of those abstaining FFers will end up voting for the final legislation; they just want to be seen to express their DEEP CONCERN at this stage of proceedings.

We already have a pro-choice consensus. Some pro-lifers will never give up the ghost. No sense in trying to placate them.