You Boys in Green Homepage YBIG Shop
Forum Home Forum Home : Other Forums : Whatever!
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Referendum 2024
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Referendum 2024
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 19>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
McG View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
SISAO? What the hell is SISAO?

Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Location: Christmas Island
Status: Offline
Points: 27003 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote McG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Referendum 2024
    Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:19pm
Lads, anybody willing to give a summary for those not in the know?

@Balf.airy, you'd be the man. What do these two votes mean to me and my family?
YBIG Table Quiz winner 2016 & 2017
AS YOU WERE McGx
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Online
Points: 32789 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baldrick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:28pm
Originally posted by McG McG wrote:

Lads, anybody willing to give a summary for those not in the know?

@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.  


Edited by Baldrick - 05 Mar 2024 at 7:43pm
AKA pedantic kunt
Back to Top
The GerK View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Razor you wanna pint?...2 minutes later

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Status: Online
Points: 20487 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The GerK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:40pm
Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by McG McG wrote:

Lads, anybody willing to give a summary for those not in the know?

@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 call carers rather than just mothers.   Some people are 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
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Online
Points: 32789 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baldrick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:42pm
Originally posted by The GerK The GerK wrote:

Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by McG McG wrote:

Lads, anybody willing to give a summary for those not in the know?

@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 call carers rather than just mothers.   Some people are 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.  
AKA pedantic kunt
Back to Top
lassassinblanc View Drop Down
Paul McGrath
Paul McGrath
Avatar
Cheese, it’s not just for eating

Joined: 27 Sep 2010
Location: Clairefontaine
Status: Offline
Points: 16470 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lassassinblanc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:42pm
I seen a No voter with a sign saying 

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 .
Back to Top
Borussia View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane
Avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Location: UK
Status: Online
Points: 10750 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Borussia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:45pm
Are there not some concerns about taking the onus away from the state caring for people and putting that back on families?
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Online
Points: 32789 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baldrick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:45pm
Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

I seen a No voter with a sign saying 

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.  
AKA pedantic kunt
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Online
Points: 32789 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baldrick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:46pm
Originally posted by Borussia Borussia wrote:

Are there not some concerns about taking the onus away from the state caring for people and putting that back on families?

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.  
AKA pedantic kunt
Back to Top
The GerK View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Razor you wanna pint?...2 minutes later

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Status: Online
Points: 20487 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The GerK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:52pm
Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

I seen a No voter with a sign saying 

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 .

Is that true though? Have seen many arguments that it simply recognises the role women play at home, which it should 
Back to Top
The GerK View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Razor you wanna pint?...2 minutes later

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Status: Online
Points: 20487 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The GerK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:53pm
Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

I seen a No voter with a sign saying 

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.  

Could there be a situation where children's allowance is taken away in the future, should it pass?
Back to Top
The GerK View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Razor you wanna pint?...2 minutes later

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Status: Online
Points: 20487 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The GerK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:56pm
Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by Borussia Borussia wrote:

Are there not some concerns about taking the onus away from the state caring for people and putting that back on families?

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.  

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 
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Online
Points: 32789 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baldrick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 7:57pm
Originally posted by The GerK The GerK wrote:

Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

I seen a No voter with a sign saying 

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.  

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

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. 


Edited by Baldrick - 05 Mar 2024 at 7:58pm
AKA pedantic kunt
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Online
Points: 32789 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baldrick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 8:01pm
Originally posted by The GerK The GerK wrote:

Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by Borussia Borussia wrote:

Are there not some concerns about taking the onus away from the state caring for people and putting that back on families?

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.  

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 


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.  
AKA pedantic kunt
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Online
Points: 32789 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baldrick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 8:03pm
Originally posted by The GerK The GerK wrote:

Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

I seen a No voter with a sign saying 

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 .

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

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.  


Edited by Baldrick - 05 Mar 2024 at 8:05pm
AKA pedantic kunt
Back to Top
nvidic View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 03 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 18997 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nvidic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 8:05pm
Despite everyone I'd traditionally disagree vehemently saying to vote no/no, I think I will.

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. 
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Online
Points: 32789 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baldrick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 8:07pm
Originally posted by nvidic nvidic wrote:

Despite everyone I'd traditionally disagree vehemently saying to vote no/no, I think I will.

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.  


Edited by Baldrick - 05 Mar 2024 at 8:09pm
AKA pedantic kunt
Back to Top
Saint Tom View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton


Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 9982 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Saint Tom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 8:08pm
Originally posted by Borussia Borussia wrote:

Are there not some concerns about taking the onus away from the state caring for people and putting that back on families?

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.


Edited by Saint Tom - 05 Mar 2024 at 8:12pm
My destination inchicore my next stop being kilmainham
Where patriots and super saints are the topics of conversation
Back to Top
nvidic View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 03 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 18997 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nvidic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 8:09pm
Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by nvidic nvidic wrote:

Despite everyone I'd traditionally disagree vehemently saying to vote no/no, I think I will.

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.  

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. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 19>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.00
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.