March 8th - What’s your vote? **Mod Note In Post #677**

I think part of the reason the government are so bloody awful in these debates is that they probably didn't anticipate either referendum being this close i.e. why even need defend it?

People have an unconditional bias towards voting "Yes" without having a clue on what they're voting for (as a poster here just admitted) - "change is good" / "progress" / fixing something that was broken etc. etc., I reckon this bias gives "Yes" a +5% advantage out the gate, so if a No even edges it, this should be considered an absolute hiding to this shambles of a government.

Looking at the opposite though, will passing this mean supports being removed? Or preventing supports being added?

Screw the church and their No stance. But also screw the govt and "progressive" posers pushing Yes.

I don't care enough to dive into the pros and cons, and I don't have a background in legal practice. Not my job. Maybe have a clear cut referendum on housing or health.... you know things that matter. No, thought not.

So still staying out of this and having a few pints instead.

Again, not my job.

Currently there is no reference to care by anyone or for anyone in the constitution. Many are unhappy that there is no reference to care or recognition of carers in the constitution.

This proposed article refers to family members providing care for each other by reason of the bonds between them, and thus providing a support to Society which is in the common good, (and so the state will strive to support that provision of care).

Many, particular carers and people needing lifelong care, are unhappy that the constitution's only reference to care will be one of expectation that families manage care. This is at odds with international disability rights best practice models, where people with disabilities should be supported by the state to access professional care in order to live independently where desired. Rather than framing people needing care as objects of charity and family members as having a responsibility to provide care regardless of the financial, physical, emotional consequences of that.

Varadkar's statement this week that he thinks care is the responsibility of the family and not the state confirms the fear that this may make accessing state support for independent professional care more difficult. His reference to ensuring his family would "be cared for" if the need arises also speaks to his privileged financial position where he won't be giving up his income and surviving on Carer's Allowance (after a battle to get it) should such a scenario arise.

What a waste of time and money.... Could ask citizens many better questions - refugee crisis, rent control, right to housing, inflation control, nato membership, military spending, EU membership, homeless provisions....

But no. Lets focus on some cohabitating couples who aren't ready to be married, but want to be treated like they're married. It was too clear to have them just commit on paper and pay a €220 one off fee, no, if we make "Durable relationships" subjective then imagine how much money solicitors and tax accountants can suck off people then! And of course it's all in line with the current ideology shift to remove "women" and pretend that every relationship is functional.

A No/No would teach the government a very valuable lesson about putting words and phrases into legislation and refusing to define what they mean by them.

It should be the end of McEntee's 'Incitement to Hatred' nonsense and, hopefully, McEntee herself.

Just read the attorney generals letter of advice to the government and it is absolutely outrageous the government have pressed ahead with this referendum.

No wonder Roderic O'Gorman suppressed information from meetings.

The word "strive" and durable relationships mean nothing. A shambles.

My feeling is it's going to be no no.

There's widespread mistrust of this govt, for good reason. The fact they've...

1, Hid the minutes of how this referenda was born.

2, Silenced political debate by guillotining the motion.

3, Willfully misinformed the public despite correction from qualified legal persons.

3, Intentionally omitted actual definitions of what they want us to vote on.

4, Purposefully left loopholes for distancing state obligations.

...means it's actually a very sloppy and lazy grift and its my opinion they need their arses handed to them.

Lastly, the hate speech bill in light of all of the above should have you very concerned and nervous.

If it fails it could precipitate an election. If that happens then McEntees hate bill falls and the next govt. would have to initiate it again.

What ever your view on this is. I like this card.