Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Ireland |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Art 41.1: needs to be changed, its completely out of date, it states a woman's place is in the home, this was drafted 80/90 years ago and is based on the Catholic church's influence on the state. It has to be changed. New proposed language is essentially, a woman's place is wherever she wants it to be. New language is recognising women have agency over their own lives, they are not family service people. That ll be a yes from me. Second one: I m not so sure of the changes, I think it ll be a yes from me. It will recognise the care and support provided by family members (support people are usually the women). Recognising the community value of care givers is a good thing, recognising that, rather than it being a silent, undervalued, expectation. Seems good to me. " The problem with these things is that you get "two sides" campaigning, the usual suspects in the culture war. But in this referendum, you need to look above that. First of all, nowhere in our constitution does it say "a woman's place is in the home." That's not true. This Ref is not about equality. It's more to do with making the constitution gender neutral. I find it hard to see it as anything other than an erosion of the rights of a mother. Other wording could be added or used to add further carers without removing the rights of the mother. It's a No from me, for now, until the wording is revised. On the second, having listened to many carers female and male and considering the wording being proposed, Im sceptical of changing "Shall" to "Strive". Is it an attempt to further reduce the responsibilities of the state towards carere. It’s a straight No from me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If it receives a majority yes vote could the proposed changes to Article 41.1.1, to include the words "other durable relationships", be seen as a possible tacit nod of approval for non monogamy, polyamory, throuples, quadruples and any other combinations that form part of the swing lifestyle. Swing enshrined in the constitution....... a very modern and pluralistic society indeed. " Have started to look up this and some people are saying that if this gets voted in then people already here can bring in a lot of extended family members or extra wives as part of a durable relationship Thats from Michael McDowell yesterday | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd add also, in my opinion, that this referendum also ignores or looks down it's nose at stay-at-home-mothers and their place and rights in our society. " But stay at home father's deserve the same protections no? Surely going gender neutral is a fairer approach. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Art 41.1: needs to be changed, its completely out of date, it states a woman's place is in the home, this was drafted 80/90 years ago and is based on the Catholic church's influence on the state. It has to be changed. New proposed language is essentially, a woman's place is wherever she wants it to be. New language is recognising women have agency over their own lives, they are not family service people. That ll be a yes from me. Second one: I m not so sure of the changes, I think it ll be a yes from me. It will recognise the care and support provided by family members (support people are usually the women). Recognising the community value of care givers is a good thing, recognising that, rather than it being a silent, undervalued, expectation. Seems good to me. The problem with these things is that you get "two sides" campaigning, the usual suspects in the culture war. But in this referendum, you need to look above that. First of all, nowhere in our constitution does it say "a woman's place is in the home." That's not true. This Ref is not about equality. It's more to do with making the constitution gender neutral. I find it hard to see it as anything other than an erosion of the rights of a mother. Other wording could be added or used to add further carers without removing the rights of the mother. It's a No from me, for now, until the wording is revised. On the second, having listened to many carers female and male and considering the wording being proposed, Im sceptical of changing "Shall" to "Strive". Is it an attempt to further reduce the responsibilities of the state towards carere. It’s a straight No from me. " I believe having two sides debating is not an issue. The very nature of a referendum requires the need for thought and from thought discussion followed by debate followed by decision. Living in Spain I am not able to vote, so it's hard for me to get into this debate. However if everyone truly thinks about things not just listen to the sound bites of the vocaly organised, then we should get a result truly representative of the majority. I find weakness myself in both the current and proposed amendments. I also find good advances in both, and personally would like a revised more complete amended referendum. The best way for this is to say no (at the risk of being conservative), because I believe the change is like a train it won't stop until it arrives in the station, but we could prepare better for it by holding it up for just a little while. Now I really hope everyone truly comes to their own informed decision. Cheers all in fab | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm still genuinely undecided to be honest. I worry that they are watering the wording down so much that they are actually removing protections for people instead of widening them to be more inclusive. I definitely need to do more research before I make a decision. " This is my fear aswell, and also the opinion of many actual carers that I've read. I agree with all the above on changing to allow for our modern, dynamic society. However, and I'm no legal eagle, some of the wording is suspect to me. Its ambiguous, debatable and not sure how it would stand up in court. I was also surprised by OGormans comments last week of how it might give carers the provision to sue the state....They don't want that, they want help and services! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If it receives a majority yes vote could the proposed changes to Article 41.1.1, to include the words "other durable relationships", be seen as a possible tacit nod of approval for non monogamy, polyamory, throuples, quadruples and any other combinations that form part of the swing lifestyle. Swing enshrined in the constitution....... a very modern and pluralistic society indeed. Have started to look up this and some people are saying that if this gets voted in then people already here can bring in a lot of extended family members or extra wives as part of a durable relationship Thats from Michael McDowell yesterday " Extra wives isn't going to be a thing as the law on bigamy would over rule it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm still genuinely undecided to be honest. I worry that they are watering the wording down so much that they are actually removing protections for people instead of widening them to be more inclusive. I definitely need to do more research before I make a decision. This is my fear aswell, and also the opinion of many actual carers that I've read. I agree with all the above on changing to allow for our modern, dynamic society. However, and I'm no legal eagle, some of the wording is suspect to me. Its ambiguous, debatable and not sure how it would stand up in court. I was also surprised by OGormans comments last week of how it might give carers the provision to sue the state....They don't want that, they want help and services!" On the non-specific wording, it is purposely drafted that way to give the Court and State the ability to write and vary the laws over time with out the need for a referendum. For example, the Divorce provision had the time limits specifically called out in it. This was the only way that the referendum passed. But when we wanted to reduce the limit from 5 years to 2 years, we needed another referendum. The State doesn’t want to be hung up like that again because ultimately that impacts us all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm still genuinely undecided to be honest. I worry that they are watering the wording down so much that they are actually removing protections for people instead of widening them to be more inclusive. I definitely need to do more research before I make a decision. This is my fear aswell, and also the opinion of many actual carers that I've read. I agree with all the above on changing to allow for our modern, dynamic society. However, and I'm no legal eagle, some of the wording is suspect to me. Its ambiguous, debatable and not sure how it would stand up in court. I was also surprised by OGormans comments last week of how it might give carers the provision to sue the state....They don't want that, they want help and services! On the non-specific wording, it is purposely drafted that way to give the Court and State the ability to write and vary the laws over time with out the need for a referendum. For example, the Divorce provision had the time limits specifically called out in it. This was the only way that the referendum passed. But when we wanted to reduce the limit from 5 years to 2 years, we needed another referendum. The State doesn’t want to be hung up like that again because ultimately that impacts us all. " The benefit of having a constitutional democracy is that we can vote to change the basic ruling principles if the majority so wish and we elect government to legislate day to day within the framework of the constitution. We need to cherish this long fought for and hard won freedom of self-determination of our destiny. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm still genuinely undecided to be honest. I worry that they are watering the wording down so much that they are actually removing protections for people instead of widening them to be more inclusive. I definitely need to do more research before I make a decision. This is my fear aswell, and also the opinion of many actual carers that I've read. I agree with all the above on changing to allow for our modern, dynamic society. However, and I'm no legal eagle, some of the wording is suspect to me. Its ambiguous, debatable and not sure how it would stand up in court. I was also surprised by OGormans comments last week of how it might give carers the provision to sue the state....They don't want that, they want help and services! On the non-specific wording, it is purposely drafted that way to give the Court and State the ability to write and vary the laws over time with out the need for a referendum. For example, the Divorce provision had the time limits specifically called out in it. This was the only way that the referendum passed. But when we wanted to reduce the limit from 5 years to 2 years, we needed another referendum. The State doesn’t want to be hung up like that again because ultimately that impacts us all. " The danger there is that if the government can change laws without the need for a referendum we are losing the only real power we have as citizens. The only person that can interpret the constitution is the Attorney General and they're appointed by the Taoiseach. Im always wary of getting involved in discussions like this because they always end up in an argument... mainly because people believe that politicians are honest and want what's best for us! In relation to the referendum in March,I'll decide which way to vote if wording is put in place that is clear and not open to interpretation! But I highly doubt that will be the case. I certainly won't be voting to allow government change/make laws without putting it to the people first! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have the power to elect TD’s, County Councillor, the President, MEP’s, vote on referendums, we can take actions on the Court system. Judges, the DPP, the AG, Ministers, both houses of the Oireachtas and many more people all interpret and protect and uphold the Constitution on a daily basis. It is misleading to say that voting in a referendum is our only power as citizens. " The only person that can interpret the constitution is the Attorney General...that's a fact! We have the power to elect our representative's and that's a fact too. But we don't change the government every 5 years. We only change the Executive! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have the power to elect TD’s, County Councillor, the President, MEP’s, vote on referendums, we can take actions on the Court system. Judges, the DPP, the AG, Ministers, both houses of the Oireachtas and many more people all interpret and protect and uphold the Constitution on a daily basis. It is misleading to say that voting in a referendum is our only power as citizens. The only person that can interpret the constitution is the Attorney General...that's a fact! We have the power to elect our representative's and that's a fact too. But we don't change the government every 5 years. We only change the Executive! " No, that’s not a fact. I don’t know what you are basing that on. I’m gonna leave it there before this gets heated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We have the power to elect TD’s, County Councillor, the President, MEP’s, vote on referendums, we can take actions on the Court system. Judges, the DPP, the AG, Ministers, both houses of the Oireachtas and many more people all interpret and protect and uphold the Constitution on a daily basis. It is misleading to say that voting in a referendum is our only power as citizens. The only person that can interpret the constitution is the Attorney General...that's a fact! We have the power to elect our representative's and that's a fact too. But we don't change the government every 5 years. We only change the Executive! No, that’s not a fact. I don’t know what you are basing that on. I’m gonna leave it there before this gets heated. " It certainly won't get heated! I'm basing it on article 30 of the constitution. "There shall be an Attorney General who shall be the adviser of the government in matters of law and legal opinion". As for the executive part of my comment,the government is made up of 3 parts. The executive,the judiciary and the legislative! The only part that changes every 5 years is the executive. The politicians! The other 2 thirds are always there! As for referendums being our only real power,they absolutely are. We get no say in how the country is run other than a referendum,regardless of what we think. We can express disapproval, protest and kick up a stink all we want but it changes nothing if politicians don't want it to change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Art 41.1: needs to be changed, its completely out of date, it states a woman's place is in the home, this was drafted 80/90 years ago and is based on the Catholic church's influence on the state. It has to be changed. New proposed language is essentially, a woman's place is wherever she wants it to be. New language is recognising women have agency over their own lives, they are not family service people. That ll be a yes from me. Second one: I m not so sure of the changes, I think it ll be a yes from me. It will recognise the care and support provided by family members (support people are usually the women). Recognising the community value of care givers is a good thing, recognising that, rather than it being a silent, undervalued, expectation. Seems good to me. " The trouble here is that the two changes you mention are both in the one referendum. There's another referendum on the inclusion of marriage in the definition of family. So the removal of the "woman's place" is contingent on the insertion of a "carer's place". But if the State only has to "strive" to help carers it means the HSE's failing health and social care system will only need to demonstrate in court that it "strived" to help someone. While I respect the need to fix the outdated wording relating to woman, this might really impact carers - many of whom struggle with providing care for very disabled or elderly people. Allowing the HSE off the hook in this manner is disingenuous and the referendum lacks transparency | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well it’s a no brainer for people in the Lifestyle or at least should be. Getting rid of Dev’s social ethos of women confined to home working as a chatel of her husband and sole carer. Some will say it doesn’t go far enough but social progress is incremental " It doesn't say that though, that's another issue around this. Words matter, and some of the words used by RTE and O'Gorman have been deliberately misleading. Trying to whip up a womens rights narrative, while stripping their rights at the same time. I don't know why they're doing that, but I feel it will cost them in this referendum. There is no need for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Art 41.1: needs to be changed, its completely out of date, it states a woman's place is in the home, this was drafted 80/90 years ago and is based on the Catholic church's influence on the state. It has to be changed. New proposed language is essentially, a woman's place is wherever she wants it to be. New language is recognising women have agency over their own lives, they are not family service people. That ll be a yes from me. Second one: I m not so sure of the changes, I think it ll be a yes from me. It will recognise the care and support provided by family members (support people are usually the women). Recognising the community value of care givers is a good thing, recognising that, rather than it being a silent, undervalued, expectation. Seems good to me. The trouble here is that the two changes you mention are both in the one referendum. There's another referendum on the inclusion of marriage in the definition of family. So the removal of the "woman's place" is contingent on the insertion of a "carer's place". But if the State only has to "strive" to help carers it means the HSE's failing health and social care system will only need to demonstrate in court that it "strived" to help someone. While I respect the need to fix the outdated wording relating to woman, this might really impact carers - many of whom struggle with providing care for very disabled or elderly people. Allowing the HSE off the hook in this manner is disingenuous and the referendum lacks transparency " That's my main issue in the whole thing, why is "shall" being removed and replaced with the very watery word "strive". It's easy understand why many carers have concerns. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, I m starting to get a bit sceptical now about the motives behind the changes aimed at carers. We have an aging population, a shite medical service, and endless closures of nursing homes. Will these changes be made to accommodate the expectation of more at home caring, with patchy support. I definitely need to look into this more. " Please do. I strongly suspect that it is presented as a woman's rights issue, but is covertly eroding the provision of care by the State. That amendment is really two unrelated amendments on the back of one vote. But there is also the second vote on the definition of family. So three amendments on the back of two votes... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be a yes yes from me. I'm this day and age the notion that family can only exist through a marraige is thoroughly outdated and incorrect. The current Constitution gives no mention of the work men do at home, as father and as carers. That's not right. To point out, the word "shall" isn't being removed from the proposed article on the carers amendment either. I don't where people are getting the idea it is. This is the proposed wording “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." " It's changed from "the state shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers should not be obliged by economic necessity" To "gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be a yes yes from me. I'm this day and age the notion that family can only exist through a marraige is thoroughly outdated and incorrect. The current Constitution gives no mention of the work men do at home, as father and as carers. That's not right. To point out, the word "shall" isn't being removed from the proposed article on the carers amendment either. I don't where people are getting the idea it is. This is the proposed wording “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." It's changed from "the state shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers should not be obliged by economic necessity" To "gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision." " Yep, they have changed the word "endeavour" to "strive". I don't think there is a significant difference in meaning between those two words personally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't one of them to do with the hate bill? I'll be saying no to that one anyway! We have a right to protest etc..... if we say yes to the hate bill, we would be giving up that right.... So I will be definitely be saying no to the hate bill. " No, as that doesnt require a constitutional amendment it does not require a referendum | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't one of them to do with the hate bill? I'll be saying no to that one anyway! We have a right to protest etc..... if we say yes to the hate bill, we would be giving up that right.... So I will be definitely be saying no to the hate bill. No, as that doesnt require a constitutional amendment it does not require a referendum" Oh right, picked things up wrong then from my sister! But I think there's more to it than just being able to protest though! Need to educate myself more on this! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isn't one of them to do with the hate bill? I'll be saying no to that one anyway! We have a right to protest etc..... if we say yes to the hate bill, we would be giving up that right.... So I will be definitely be saying no to the hate bill. No, as that doesnt require a constitutional amendment it does not require a referendum Oh right, picked things up wrong then from my sister! But I think there's more to it than just being able to protest though! Need to educate myself more on this! " the hate bill as its being called doesnt stop the right to protest either. I know alot has been shared online about it but its not whats being said on twitter etc. Its not nearly as controversial as those worried about it on twitter claim. Its having its third reading in the senate at moment so will be law | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
To everyone, in the run up to this referendum please be careful of the misinformation out there. Check reliable news sources, Irish Times, Breaking News ie, Irish Independent etc and the Referendum commission website.
Contact your local Councillor or TD about this change too if you’ve questions.
Stuff on Facebook, telegram etc is completely unreliable, it’s not backed by research. An editor hasn’t given it a review and approval. And you can’t be sure of the motivation of the person sharing it.
We are very lucky in this country that our Constitution is written down in a single book, unlike the UK. It’s freely available online from Irish Statute Book website too.
It’s easy to read, not in legalese or anything.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"
To everyone, in the run up to this referendum please be careful of the misinformation out there. Check reliable news sources, Irish Times, Breaking News ie, Irish Independent etc and the Referendum commission website.
Contact your local Councillor or TD about this change too if you’ve questions.
Stuff on Facebook, telegram etc is completely unreliable, it’s not backed by research. An editor hasn’t given it a review and approval. And you can’t be sure of the motivation of the person sharing it.
We are very lucky in this country that our Constitution is written down in a single book, unlike the UK. It’s freely available online from Irish Statute Book website too.
It’s easy to read, not in legalese or anything.
" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"
To everyone, in the run up to this referendum please be careful of the misinformation out there. Check reliable news sources, Irish Times, Breaking News ie, Irish Independent etc and the Referendum commission website.
Contact your local Councillor or TD about this change too if you’ve questions.
Stuff on Facebook, telegram etc is completely unreliable, it’s not backed by research. An editor hasn’t given it a review and approval. And you can’t be sure of the motivation of the person sharing it.
We are very lucky in this country that our Constitution is written down in a single book, unlike the UK. It’s freely available online from Irish Statute Book website too.
It’s easy to read, not in legalese or anything.
"The sources you name have their own bias. Just note there are two referendums but three proposed amendments. 1. To remove part of A41 2. To insert A.42B 3. To change wording in A41.1 & A41.3 Why won't there three vote? Why will A.42B reduce the obligation on the HSE to provide adequate care considering the HSE is pretty bad already? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"
To everyone, in the run up to this referendum please be careful of the misinformation out there. Check reliable news sources, Irish Times, Breaking News ie, Irish Independent etc and the Referendum commission website.
Contact your local Councillor or TD about this change too if you’ve questions.
Stuff on Facebook, telegram etc is completely unreliable, it’s not backed by research. An editor hasn’t given it a review and approval. And you can’t be sure of the motivation of the person sharing it.
We are very lucky in this country that our Constitution is written down in a single book, unlike the UK. It’s freely available online from Irish Statute Book website too.
It’s easy to read, not in legalese or anything.
The sources you name have their own bias.
Just note there are two referendums but three proposed amendments.
1. To remove part of A41
2. To insert A.42B
3. To change wording in A41.1 & A41.3
Why won't there three vote?
Why will A.42B reduce the obligation on the HSE to provide adequate care considering the HSE is pretty bad already?"And to prove my point, this is the kind of ‘copy and paste’ nonsense and whataboutery we will all encounter. If you are passionate about voting no on either article, write a valid argument for all to read and let’s discuss. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"
To everyone, in the run up to this referendum please be careful of the misinformation out there. Check reliable news sources, Irish Times, Breaking News ie, Irish Independent etc and the Referendum commission website.
Contact your local Councillor or TD about this change too if you’ve questions.
Stuff on Facebook, telegram etc is completely unreliable, it’s not backed by research. An editor hasn’t given it a review and approval. And you can’t be sure of the motivation of the person sharing it.
We are very lucky in this country that our Constitution is written down in a single book, unlike the UK. It’s freely available online from Irish Statute Book website too.
It’s easy to read, not in legalese or anything.
The sources you name have their own bias.
Just note there are two referendums but three proposed amendments.
1. To remove part of A41
2. To insert A.42B
3. To change wording in A41.1 & A41.3
Why won't there three vote?
Why will A.42B reduce the obligation on the HSE to provide adequate care considering the HSE is pretty bad already?
And to prove my point, this is the kind of ‘copy and paste’ nonsense and whataboutery we will all encounter.
If you are passionate about voting no on either article, write a valid argument for all to read and let’s discuss. "Not necessarily whataboutery, tbf. Countless times in the last few weeks RTE, in particular, have stated that our constitution stated that the women's place is in the home. That's just not true. I agree totally that people should always be aware of those with motives and most social media are not reliable sources at all. As far as I am aware, there will be a few debates on tv this week, which should definitely provide some accurate information on the whole topic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A comment above mentioned that people should only get their information from pier reviewed or reputable sources such as the Irish Times or RTE etc.. I acknowledge that they are openly in the public domain, but would point out that they are all full of thier own biases. It is worth checking out what those biased are....in fact everyone and every institution has thier biases. These biased affect the information they use. So take the time to check up how these referendum amendments if passed will affect both yourselves and everyone else. If you like that effect then vote yes, if you don't like it then vote no. I am personally thinking a no is overall, as I think on how it would affect my aging parents and currently the state (the collective of us all) has a duty to care for them. It seems to me this duty will be watered down with a yes. But this is not nailed on in my my understanding yet." Problem is in a referendum like it is.almost impossible to tell what the effect will be as that will depend on what the government of the day want to achieve. At best one should determine their vote on the likely or potential impact on the proposed amendments. I've yet to see any good argument that there is the potential to make any significant change either way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A comment above mentioned that people should only get their information from pier reviewed or reputable sources such as the Irish Times or RTE etc.. I acknowledge that they are openly in the public domain, but would point out that they are all full of thier own biases. It is worth checking out what those biased are....in fact everyone and every institution has thier biases. These biased affect the information they use. So take the time to check up how these referendum amendments if passed will affect both yourselves and everyone else. If you like that effect then vote yes, if you don't like it then vote no. I am personally thinking a no is overall, as I think on how it would affect my aging parents and currently the state (the collective of us all) has a duty to care for them. It seems to me this duty will be watered down with a yes. But this is not nailed on in my my understanding yet. Problem is in a referendum like it is.almost impossible to tell what the effect will be as that will depend on what the government of the day want to achieve. At best one should determine their vote on the likely or potential impact on the proposed amendments. I've yet to see any good argument that there is the potential to make any significant change either way. " If there's no good argument either way, then would you be passive about the outcome or say no? Still lots to think about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A comment above mentioned that people should only get their information from pier reviewed or reputable sources such as the Irish Times or RTE etc.. I acknowledge that they are openly in the public domain, but would point out that they are all full of thier own biases. It is worth checking out what those biased are....in fact everyone and every institution has thier biases. These biased affect the information they use. So take the time to check up how these referendum amendments if passed will affect both yourselves and everyone else. If you like that effect then vote yes, if you don't like it then vote no. I am personally thinking a no is overall, as I think on how it would affect my aging parents and currently the state (the collective of us all) has a duty to care for them. It seems to me this duty will be watered down with a yes. But this is not nailed on in my my understanding yet. Problem is in a referendum like it is.almost impossible to tell what the effect will be as that will depend on what the government of the day want to achieve. At best one should determine their vote on the likely or potential impact on the proposed amendments. I've yet to see any good argument that there is the potential to make any significant change either way. If there's no good argument either way, then would you be passive about the outcome or say no? Still lots to think about." In a year full of elections it's the least important one and the American election is more important in terms of potential impact on Ireland. But I still wouldn't necessarily say I'd be passive about a no result. I think a no result would still be disappointing. I don't think having the foundation of family being based on marraige is a positive message to sent to kids who are born outside of marraige. Given Ireland history in how we treated unmarried mothers and children born out of wedlock it is time we firmly moved beyond the attitude that having children outside of marraige should be given a different, lesser, status in the Constitution. And for the second amendment. The Constitution doesn't recognise the work a man does in the home, either as a stay at home father or as a carer. I don't think that is a positive message to be sending to anyone either. There's really nothing good or positive I can think of that a no vote would actually bring. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A comment above mentioned that people should only get their information from pier reviewed or reputable sources such as the Irish Times or RTE etc.. I acknowledge that they are openly in the public domain, but would point out that they are all full of thier own biases. It is worth checking out what those biased are....in fact everyone and every institution has thier biases. These biased affect the information they use. So take the time to check up how these referendum amendments if passed will affect both yourselves and everyone else. If you like that effect then vote yes, if you don't like it then vote no. I am personally thinking a no is overall, as I think on how it would affect my aging parents and currently the state (the collective of us all) has a duty to care for them. It seems to me this duty will be watered down with a yes. But this is not nailed on in my my understanding yet." RTE and the Oirish Times, reputable LMFAO When rte will have a debate between o'gorman and mcdowell,I will tune in but i doubt it will happen any time soon. As a parent of a child with a disability, I find it dispicable that this govt have attempted to tie Disability funding to a yes vote rather than proper information | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The constitution is clear in that it allows the Supreme Court interpret wordings of legislation and the constitution itself. It may take an application by an individual or the state to get that interpretation but that’s the reason it exists. Even the meaning of words has changed over time. It is a pretty effective system " I won't be voting yes in a referendum that interpretation of wording will be decided after the event. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Jesus. The misinformation and conspiracy theories being expressed here are scary. It's a very simple attempt to remove some very old-fashioned sexist language on the role of women from the constitution." You better do some research. Removing that from A41 is conditional on inserting A42B which many senators, FLAC and charities are pleading with people not to bring in. Even on basic transparency that should be two separate votes as it's two seperate issues | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
