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; } } }

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

[Deleted User]

I will vote yes.

I am mainly only interested in the part regarding “durable relationships” as my partner and I are not currently married, we do have kids though.

I’m understanding the changes to suggest I could claim tax credits for my partner and our kids that I can’t unless we’re married at the moment.

The other half I have no major issue with either and will vote yes. I’ve read some suggestions and heard from people this is the beginning of the end for Stay at home Mammys but I really think that’s crazy to believe. Child benefit won’t be cancelled.

Interested to hear what others think and maybe I’ve misunderstood the first part and what changes would follow as a result. If it really just means some text changes in the constitution with no real world effect (ie the tax credits) I would probably just not bother to vote at that stage.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861225#Comment_121861225

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

realdanbreen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861005#Comment_121861005

Although it's worth noting that Peader has been very careful about reigning in his pro life, anti abortion rants during these media appearances.

KevMayo88

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861443#Comment_121861443

“There is a lack of guidance from the courts on how the word ‘strive’ will be interpreted. Although the term is used in Article 45.1 of the Constitution in relation to the promotion of the welfare of the people as a whole, this forms part of the Directive Principles of Social Policy, which are expressly stated to be non-justiciable. There is therefore uncertainty as to the likely meaning and effect of an obligation to 'strive' to support the provision of care in a new Article 42B and whether, in its interpretation by the courts, it would be regarded as imposing a more onerous obligation than an obligation to ‘endeavour’”

AG Rossa Fanning written advice to O'Gorman, published today in The Ditch.

keeponhurling

Yes for the care one. Both genders should be treated exactly the same as careers under the constitution.

No for the family / "durable relationships" one. It will lead to confusion and I can't really see the point. Surely marriage is still an important thing, we spent long enough fighting for gay marriage. But mostly No due to the confusing and loose definition.

whisky_galore

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.

realdanbreen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861774#Comment_121861774

So how would you word a referendum on housing, or health for that matter?

whisky_galore

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121862006#Comment_121862006

Again, not my job.

realdanbreen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121862015#Comment_121862015

But you suggested there should be a " clear cut referendum on housing or healith", how would that work?

Hippodrome Song Owl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861416#Comment_121861416

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.

Montage of Feck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121861498#Comment_121861498

He is really the only coherent opposition figure in the dail as far as I'm concerned, if only they'd drop the pro life line.

[Deleted User]

https://twitter.com/TonightVMTV/status/1765507194588385377?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1765507194588385377%7Ctwgr%5E0927557b69665cb44b3e5809f74ae0bf723d4e05%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Ftv-debate-family-care-referendums-6319272-Mar2024%2F

The face on the Minister here, as McDowell absolutely rinses her 😂😂

realdanbreen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121862234#Comment_121862234

But his whole party, for what there is of it, is built on pro life pro church.

Kurooi

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.

AllForIt

I think it will be a No/No.

I don't sense any kind of critical mass of enthusiasm for a yes/yes. If anything the No/No has it.

I think those who would vote no are more enthused to bother to get out that those who would vote yes.

I think most who decided to vote no for the care amendment will vote no for the family amendment as well, just because.

And O'Gorman isn't very popular is he, which doesn't help.

Tin Foil Hat

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.

combat14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121791669#Comment_121791669

then why why vote yes

baldbear

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.

Photobox

4 No & No's from this house now. Two more polling cards arrived a few days ago.

KevMayo88

Get out and vote tomorrow everyone, don't let apathy take hold- let's get give Roderic an International Women's Day to remember.

[Deleted User]

No to both

H_Lime

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.

KevMayo88

In recent hours it emerged that the Attorney General advised that it is “difficult to predict with certainty” how the Irish courts would interpret the concept of “durable relationships'. That has to be the end of that. Such a pity this leak occurred on the final day of the campaign, after the moratorium.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121863146#Comment_121863146

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.

KevMayo88

To those who suggested Michael McDowell an exaggerated scaremonger in his critcism of the amendments, do you still feel the same after seeing the AG's advice?----- McDowell has been fully vindicated.

freshpopcorn

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

Itssoeasy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121863692#Comment_121863692

That AG advice should surely settle the care vote as it seems not only is there serious concerns from the AG whether it would stand up. There’s issues with the Irish version.

tom1ie

It’s a No No + No No household here.

I don’t like the whole heather humphries trying to buy the yes vote by insinuating she’ll get more money at budget time for carers if a yes goes through- this extra money should be there for carers anyway!

Also what’s a durable relationship? The courts don’t have a definition on it, so would a Polygamous relationship be deemed a durable relationship by the courts?

Also sec 41.2 states, “the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved” and

“mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”.

Ok so what’s wrong with this if a woman chooses to stay at home and not enter the workplace? The above statement hasn’t stopped women from entering and excelling in the workplace has it?

Why are we now putting the emphasis of care on the family and giving the government a more hands off approach by saying they’ll “strive to support” these carers:

The referendum proposes replacing this with article 42B, which recognises the support given to society by “the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them”, and says that the state “shall strive to support” these carers.

So at the moment we have:

Women will not have to work if they don’t want to because the state will support her to stay at home- ie if the women would have to get a job to cover costs of caring etc well then the state is obliged to step in.

The proposed is:

whoever is in the family giving care is recognised by the state and the state will strive to help.

Have I got this right? It doesn’t seem like a great deal to me tbh.

Coolcormack1979

No to both.anything being proposed by the most dangerous minister in the history of this state,O’Gorman should be enough too prompt people to get up off their arses and vote.

Itssoeasy

Will there be an exit poll thread tomorrow ? There normally is.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121863265#Comment_121863265

Strive quite clearly isn't nothing. From the advice...

there can be little doubt that the obligation on the state to ‘strive’ to support the provision of care will have real effects which will be enforced by the courts, and that it will be relied upon in a very wide range of contexts in support of claims that the constitution requires the state to provide, and/or support the provision of care”.

This could have the effect of drawing the courts further into questions of resource allocation than is currently the case and could result in declaratory orders against the state with significant financial implications.