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  <1234 19>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Mush Cassidys Donkey View Drop Down
Kevin Kilbane
Kevin Kilbane


Joined: 16 Feb 2024
Status: Offline
Points: 379 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mush Cassidys Donkey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 8:13pm
It's a yes yes vote for me. When you see every scumbag from the far right looking for a no no vote then It's a no brainer for me. 
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
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 8:13pm
Originally posted by nvidic nvidic wrote:

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. 

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. 
AKA pedantic kunt
Back to Top
Reildogg View Drop Down
500 Club la la la
500 Club la la la


Joined: 12 Feb 2016
Location: Limerick
Status: Offline
Points: 519 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reildogg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 8:15pm
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

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."
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 8:16pm
I don't agree that a widowers pension or married person tax treatment etc should be extended to non married couples. I'm no conservative but there has to be some bar to durable relationships. Do obligations after break ups then apply to non married couples? Can't have one without the other imo.

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.


Edited by Saint Tom - 05 Mar 2024 at 8:18pm
My destination inchicore my next stop being kilmainham
Where patriots and super saints are the topics of conversation
Back to Top
The GerK View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Razor you wanna pint?...2 minutes later

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
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 8:19pm
Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

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. 

So vote yes and get have a chance of claiming it insteadLOL
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
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 8:19pm
Originally posted by Saint Tom Saint Tom wrote:

I don't agree that a widowers pension or married person rqx treatment etc should be extended to non married couples. I'm no conservative but there has to be some bar to durable relationships. Do obligations after break ups then apply to non married couples? Can't have one without the other imo.

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.

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.  


Edited by Baldrick - 05 Mar 2024 at 8:20pm
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: Offline
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 8:20pm
Originally posted by Mush Cassidys Donkey Mush Cassidys Donkey wrote:

It's a yes yes vote for me. When you see every scumbag from the far right looking for a no no vote then It's a no brainer for me. 

Stupid reason Thumbs Down
Back to Top
FrankosHereNow View Drop Down
Roy Keane
Roy Keane
Avatar
I like Klopp

Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Location: El Sadar
Status: Offline
Points: 12168 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FrankosHereNow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 8:21pm
I normally see what the Iona institute are advocating and do the opposite. They’re pushing a No/no vote so yes/yes is what I’d go for. I’ve got an early flight on Friday morning so won’t be able to vote. CryCry
YBIG Quiz Champion 2016, 2017 & 2018.

As You Were
Three in a row
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 8:24pm
Don't agree with you Baldrick. Where is the bar?having kids, moving in (after how long??). Do families get one parent family after the break up? Where there's imbalance in incomes, are they obliged to maintain their family (including romantic partner) if they break up? Seems like wanting all the benefits without the obligations.

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

That doesn't mean you are not a family. I would just prefer the constitution was changed and all definitions removed to let the government legislate.

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


Edited by Saint Tom - 05 Mar 2024 at 8:26pm
My destination inchicore my next stop being kilmainham
Where patriots and super saints are the topics of conversation
Back to Top
The GerK View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Razor you wanna pint?...2 minutes later

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Status: Offline
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 8:25pm
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. 

That's my thinking. The Government's handling of this hasn't helped at all
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 8:30pm
Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by Saint Tom Saint Tom wrote:

I don't agree that a widowers pension or married person rqx treatment etc should be extended to non married couples. I'm no conservative but there has to be some bar to durable relationships. Do obligations after break ups then apply to non married couples? Can't have one without the other imo.

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.

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.  

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.


Edited by Saint Tom - 05 Mar 2024 at 8:32pm
My destination inchicore my next stop being kilmainham
Where patriots and super saints are the topics of conversation
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
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 8:34pm
Originally posted by Saint Tom Saint Tom wrote:

Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by Saint Tom Saint Tom wrote:

I don't agree that a widowers pension or married person rqx treatment etc should be extended to non married couples. I'm no conservative but there has to be some bar to durable relationships. Do obligations after break ups then apply to non married couples? Can't have one without the other imo.

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.

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.  

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.  


Edited by Baldrick - 05 Mar 2024 at 8:36pm
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: 16469 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lassassinblanc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Mar 2024 at 8:44pm
After reading through responses I'm even more confused LOL
Back to Top
Baldrick View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Peyton-tly Pedantic

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
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 8:48pm
Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

After reading through responses I'm even more confused LOL

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. 
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: Offline
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 8:54pm
Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

After reading through responses I'm even more confused LOL

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

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
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 8:58pm
Originally posted by The GerK The GerK wrote:

Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

After reading through responses I'm even more confused LOL

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.  


Edited by Baldrick - 05 Mar 2024 at 8:59pm
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: Offline
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 9:00pm
Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by The GerK The GerK wrote:

Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

After reading through responses I'm even more confused LOL

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

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
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 9:01pm
Originally posted by The GerK The GerK wrote:

Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by The GerK The GerK wrote:

Originally posted by Baldrick Baldrick wrote:

Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

After reading through responses I'm even more confused LOL

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 😀
AKA pedantic kunt
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 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.