@Balf.airy, you'd be the man. What do these two votes mean to me and my family?

If you are married the family one makes no difference to you now but it does recognise a family for those that are not married.  The family has a special place in the constitution so opening

Up the meaning with include those who have families where the parents are not married.  

The second item is do with replacing the wording which gives special place for women staying at home to care for their family.  This opens it up to all carers rather than just mothers.   Some people are in not in agreement with it and say it doesn’t go far enough so they are voting no and others are just fundamentally against it as they come from a catholic conservative background.   Without knowing the ins and out of your situation I suspect at the moment neither will have a massive impact on your life.  

The second one will write that the Government will 'strive' to support those with disabilities. Very A lot of carers I know are wholeheartedly against it

Yeah the argument is that it doesn’t go far enough.  There are other carers who said it’s not perfect but it’s better than no recognition at all.  Remember if you vote no, it doesn’t get replaced with something better it just stays as it is.  So that’s a judgement call.  Tom Clonan who is a senator and a very sensible commenter or defence and disability issues is voting no for that reason that it doesn’t place the responsibility on the state but on the family.  

Jesus loves family vote No

So I'm voting Yes for that one at least. 

As Baldrick says the other one isn't really worded great but again it's kind of an outdated wording currently there , that a woman should stay at home to mind kids .

To be fair the old wording doesn’t say that either.  It’s more recognises the role of women in bringing up families at home and that there should not be an economic necessity to go out to work.  In reality other than children’s allowance there is nothing tangible flowing from this as it currently stands.  It’s outdated wording though.  

It doesn’t take anything away as there is nothing there for carers as is.  The argument is that it doesn’t go far enough to put the onus on the state. But it’s not taking it away as it’s not there to begin with.  

Is that true though? Have seen many arguments that it simply recognises the role women play at home, which it should 

Could there be a situation where children's allowance is taken away in the future, should it pass?

The clip below is enough to raise suspicion. Plus, by voting yes does that not give the Government leg room to 'strive' rather than actually doing anything? It would be like an acceptance from the people and embedded in the constitution 

That’s always a possibility even now but that’s a policy decision that a government would be crazy to introduce.  They would have to not mention it in their manifesto and then bring it in.  The chances of it passing the Dail are close to zero as everybody would get them out at the next election.  We had a government fall on VAT on children’s shoes so can you imagine what would happen over children’s allowance.  The fact children’s allowance is paid to mothers and not fathers is influenced by the constitution. 

But voting no means there is no reference to carers in the constitution so there is even less as things stand.  It depends how you see it, if it’s not perfect then it should be rejected which leaves a worse situation.   A no vote does not mean they come come back with a better option next year or the year after.  They are not more likely to “improve” it if it’s rejected.  There is nothing to stop a future gov putting an amendment in the future to a yes vote.  

Should it not also recognise the role men play at home too or carers too.   Why give special mention for the role mothers play in 2024.  It doesn’t do any favours to women and leaves out many people who care for people who are not mothers to those they care for.  It’s a archaic reference based on Irish 1950s lifestyle.  

I don't like that 'durable relationship' will be left to the judiciary to decide. It also doesn't sit right that the government won't release fhe opinion of the attorney general on both, why not? The fact I've tried reading on what the outcome will mean in practice, I've found nothing that can say definitively of its a yes on either. 

A shame they didn't just have a straight referendum on removing the women in the home article without the care being added in. 

There will be even less protection for those of us in durable relationships if this gets a no vote.  As Voltaire said perfect is the enemy of the good.  

It’s obvious that two people living together with kids will be a durable relationship and therefore a family.  

The family one changes what defines the family to "whether founded on marriage or other durable relationship" and also removes "marriage, on which the family is based" from various clause around the family.

Id be minded to support it although it's far from perfect around defining durable relationships.

The care one changes various references to the mothers obligation to care and to their place in the home and that they ought not need to work at the expense of caring. In its' place it refers to a more generic obligation of families to care for one another.

Critics say it puts a burden on family members while not going far enough on the state to provide such care.

Personally I would be happy with both scenarios to be removed without a replacement.

Can the government not just legislate for extra protections? Genuine question, I'm not sure, but I believe they can. 

The supreme court recently gave a widowers pension to someone not married as well. 

Possibly but the constitutional change will compel them to do so. That’s the crucial difference.  There is a massive lack of protection for those families where the parents are not married.  This change will mean the state recognises them as family and compels the government of the day to change policies to reflect the constitutional change.  Leaving it as is will mean they may or may not change it. 

It doesn't say that. New wording is:

"The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision."

Fwiw I think the government have made a balls of this by ignoring some elements of the Citizens assembly outcome and the poor new wording of the clauses that have to go in a modern society.

So vote yes and get have a chance of claiming it instead

Tom that’s being said from the position of being married.  

Of course a pension should be given to someone who has been in a durable relationship right up to death.  If I passed away in the morning my partner and kids would need my pension and they would deserve it and should not be prevented from

It because I am not married.   The same for the tax treatment.  When you are living together with kids I think it’s pretty obvious the relationship is durable ffs.  

Stupid reason 

This is opening a minefield of potential costs for the state.

I don't trust the judiciary to get this right.

That's my thinking. The Government's handling of this hasn't helped at all

Should I not get to vote as a married person so? How do you know my position wasn't the same before hand? Very presumptive.

I'm marginally minded to support a yes vote because of the unacceptable nature of the status quo, but I have serious issues with how it will play out in practice.

Of course you should get a vote.  Everyone should get a vote.  The point I am making is that this will benefit lots of people who are married but are currently families in reality but not recognised by the state through the constitution.  

My view would be the more families that this can help the better.  This has zero impact on anyone who is currently married and only helps those that are not.  So it’s an

Empathetic thing to do to help others and use your vote to do so.  

There are always people who like to confuse a pretty simple change with all sorts of bogus reasons for maintaing their own prejudices.  There is the Ioana crowd who have been on the wrong side of every referendum for one.  They have and never will be proven right as their views are loaded with judgement and divisiveness. 

Are you trying to suggest it's only the likes of the Ioana crowd who are advocating a no/no?

No I didn’t say that.  Read what I said and you will get a decent idea of what I said rather than inventing what you think I said.  

You may have forgotten my previous post which references Tom Clonan and his  views.  

No need to get cranky.

No need to get conspiracy 😀

All right there Conor McGregor

Grand Tucker

What you mean? 

It's probably with logic like that you somehow ended up supporting Russia and Palestine simultaneously.

Took a bit of a kicking 

Or maybe look at the arguments on either side, process them, and think for yourself you gobsh*te. 

If I could vote, I'd be voting Yyes/No.

The wording "strive" doesn't place any legal obligation on the state, even though it's being presented that way. "Strive" is only used on one other occasion in the constitution, and it's a specifically chosen word as it doesn't create any legally binding obligation for the state to provide care. 

Marie Baker said that "strive" would mean a "positive obligation to try hard". Sure any one can try hard and still not achieve the desired outcome. It's language for the government to hide behind. 

Eoin Daly, lecturer in constitutional law and legal theory, and Tom Clonan, who you mentioned earlier, are worth a listen to in terms of the wording being used.

Did in the first debate... The barrister spoke very well for that. She didn't in the second debate. She made it more personal to her circumstances as mentioned religion then. I was hoping the yes side could add a bit of clarity to everything but MM made me believe they don't know what the amendments are about themselves and they are just being done to be seen to be progressive without actually thinking of the ramifications 

I wouldn't be wrong so would I? The far right are generally Nazi's and fascists and they are calling for a NO/NO vote. Rat lickers like yourself will side to the extreme right hence why your call for a NO/NO vote.

 

I'm happy with my support and defense of Palestine and never once have I said I supported Russia but I did communicate the Russian and neutral side to the war instead of the biased pro west that you cant take your blinkers off to. 

Trust me I have, and have done so with Baldrick in private and I even raised a question that ST raised above. He maybe a pedantic bollox  but Baldrick I think is spot on with his understanding of the referendum.  But the compelling factor for me was when you see every scumbag from the far right and Conor McGregor looking for a NO/NO vote then that just made up my mind completely. 

But there is even less there if you vote no.  It’s a choice between the wording you are not happy with and even less than that. As I said should perfect be the enemy of the good.  

Now I am questioning myself 😀😀

Yea she went off a bit in second but then MM went personal ar her and had his facts all wrong. That's all people will remember from the second debate. 

You do realise how ridiculous this reads?

The ref. 

The results of the votes will be very interesting, twitter would have me believing that no/no can't be beaten by the amount of people voting for it and the amount of people casually voting no/no just to protest against the government appears to be pretty high. If either are a no there should nearly be a general election called right after.  

Inform themselves more and if still can’t choose do a spoiled vote.  However not caring is pretty mad considering this could have fundamental improvements to peoples lives.  Is the person you refer to without any emotional empathy and they only see the world through the prism of their own specific needs in the here and now.  

Referendums make changes that are far beyond the gov of the day.  

But if younger people don’t turn up they can hardly give out. 

Far too much self interest nowadays and a huge lack of emotional empathy. We need more people actually envisioning the lives of others and putting themselves in the shoes of others.  To be fair we had a huge amount of that for the marriage referendum but it seems to have been lost and I think there has been a backlash to those liberal referendums but that could be just online and the reality may not be the case.  

It’s like the ultra conservatives regrouped after two heavy defeats in referendums and took to scare tactics and false flags etc.  

Anyway let’s hope common sense and emotional empathy prevail. 

I agree with Het Field 

Pathetic way of thinking 

Feeling much more informed after reading thanks to Baldrick 

I read that a group of Lawyers are calling for a No vote due to serious implications and lack of definitions of the change.

Perhaps it's self interest I don't know I haven't looked into it but it's not the first time I've read people are worried about the wording. 

Like the divorce referendum in the mid 80s and mid 90s the farmers groups are out against it and come up with nightmare scenarios.  They were wrong in the mid 80s and mid 90s and they are wrong again.  The same with the conservative lawyers ( other lawyers calling for a yes) group headed up by MMcD and the other conservative groups.  They have been consistently wrong on every referendum that has been held over the last 30-40 years and they will be shown to be wrong again.  They always come up with these nightmare scenarios in order to protect the status quo.  If they had their way we would be stuck in DeValera’s 1937 and be dancing at the crossroads with comely maidens.  Time for 1 millions families to be recognised and given proper standing by the state. 

Well at least I outline my thoughts in some sort of cogent manner rather than sniping with no substance at all.  

🤡 

I was asked by McG and a couple of posters have been appreciative of a few of my posts. You are free to outline your thoughts and views. But sure it’s easier just to snipe.  

When if I read it right is completely false 

These lads work backwards. They start with fear of foreigners and work themselves all the way back to whatever is new in society and that’s how they join the dots.   

They didn't consult their own members, many of whom have spoken out against it

That the point. Many lawyers are for it and some are against it. You would expect that in a healthy democracy.  All lawyers are people with values and opinions and they bring them to

Their profession and you have very conservative lawyers and very liberal ones just like you would have in any cross section of society.  As a result it’s not a surprise or a shock that you will have those that are for and those that are against it.  Same happened with divorce referendums and the marriage one.  

They never do consult us to be fair, Ger. The council is elected every year on behalf of the profession to represent all solicitors. 

Wonder will turnout top 40%?

Helen McEntee admitted on VMTV last night that it will have consquences for immigration law. 

Same as this

What would those consequences be? 

I'm not doubting it won't but not to the extent of immigrant allowed in, now their entire family is entitled too which is what some have been claiming 

One for example, as admitted by Helen McAntee last night is the consequence on immigration law. I also don't like the fact that the special recognition of a mother will be removed.

There are a long list of reasons and potential consequences to vote no:
http://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/lawyers-for-no-document-family-and-care-referendume.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.michaelmcdowell.ie/lawyers-for-no-document-family-and-care-referendume.html

"We believe that widening the constitutional definition of the family will inevitably have serious consequences in family law, family property rights and division, pensions law, welfare law, tax law, and immigration law."

Changing the constitution is such a big deal.

Re first vote, there’s too much ambiguity for me for when cases go to court, so I’ll be voting no.

Re second vote, alot of carers seem to have serious problems with it - and carers really are unsung heroes tbh and they get very little government help. I’ll be voting no for this too.

Expect it to be a very low turn out and wouldn’t be surprised to see 2 no votes passed as a result 

Why should a mother who stayed at home with her kids get special recognition  over and above a dad who does the same.  What about a Dad who is widowed and has 2 kids with a disability against a mother who is married to a multi millionaire and spends her days in swimming pools and saunas.  Should she get special recognition over and above the dad who looks after his two kids.  It’s absolute nonsense to pick one gender over another.  Anyone who cares whether they are a mother daughter grandmother Dad cousins or whoever should be supported and acknowledged.  This arachaic language was out of step in 1994 never mind 2024. 

That’s a very conservative position to start with.  I.e that the status quo is the assumed position and you need to be convinced to move away from that. A more enlightened  position is to compare the status quo with the new paradigm post referendum and ask which is more preferable.  The status quo could be the worst option of all. 

You fail to say many carers are in support of it and many are not.  Are one group more deserving than others or more heroes than others.  No they just have different opinions which is fine.

Quoting McMcD one of the most conservative politicians the state has seen.  

Why not add to it as opposed to removing the reference? That is only a very minor point out of everything I said. I see you couldn't pick holes in anything else so wrote a paragraph in response to a sentence. 

What is your issue with changing it from mothers to include all carers.  By the way it is the view of many legal experts that it’s not all mothers either but married mothers.  How can you defend that sort of language and that it should be kept unless you are a fundamentalist catholic.  

The word 'strive' will cause all sorts of issues

https://www.ontheditch.com/attorney-general-advice/" rel="nofollow - https://www.ontheditch.com/attorney-general-advice/

This gives them a safety net to ay they tried. There is no legal obligation for them to help carers with this wording. Why don't they change word to oblige?  

Why vote for something that does nothing but cause chaos in the courts?

But Ger there are two options.  It’s a binary decision. There is no 3rd option on the ballot that is somehow better than option B. It’s Option B or a far worse situation I.e the status quo.  The politics of it can be debated but they are a distraction. 

Option A. Status quote with no mention of carers other than specifically married mothers.  There is zero obligation on the state for carers in general. 

Option B imperfect wording which has mention of carers and what obligations or places on the state is debatable.  

Those are the two options.   As I said one shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.  

Would the referendum be better if it involved adding the word father alongside mother rather then remove it? Have it on father's Day and announce it's a fight for sexism against men. 

Edit: just seen your other replies. Personally I think a no vote is best here. The government should run another referendum and do better then the word strive. But all carers would be fine. Actually why not just write mother's, father's and all carers. Not that hard. 

It's me belief that this has been sold as a lie. They didn't reveal the AG's advise and are all over the shop with their messaging

Gov say carers will get more than what they currently get. As per AG, strive doesn't men that at all. Will they 'strive' to maintain current supports? 

What's to stop them reducing care support because they 'strived' but ultimately did not?

New wording may as well state there is no obligation on the state to support people with disabilities.

If article stay as it is, this poor women may win her case and not be means tested because her husband earns 45k.

If vote is passed, the government will 'strive' and she won't win the case. 

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2023/11/16/supreme-court-to-hear-mothers-appeal-over-means-testing-of-carers-allowance/" rel="nofollow - https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2023/11/16/supreme-court-to-hear-mothers-appeal-over-means-testing-of-carers-allowance/

Leo said the quiet part out loud

https://twitter.com/DrHaroldNews/status/1764705340610781225" rel="nofollow - https://twitter.com/DrHaroldNews/status/1764705340610781225

   

So do you think situation (no mention of carers at all) is better for carers than the proposed wording and if so what evidence have you got to back that up. 

Centre right party believe in individual responsibility shock horror.  Not my way of thinking by the way but we shouldn’t be shocked when centre right parties express the view that the state is not responsible for lots of things.  That’s their world view.  I would have the polar opposite and believe the state should be far more involved in our life from child care to nursing homes to housing etc etc.  not everyone shares that view either and like private enterprise more.  These are ideologies and one is not right or wrong it’s just a world view. 

Quick Google says they're a left leaning political investigative website. Very mainstream. 

Obviously the current situation is enough for that lady to get to the supreme Court. 

The wording would make it very doubtful. That's not my opinion, it's the Attorney General's. 

A no vote would mean that case is heard and whole can of worms may open 

Hard left site that have dug up some decent stories