Leo Varadkar announces abortion referendum

Loafing Oaf

Peregrinus wrote: »

And if the referendum is passed it won't be addressed again in any form for another ten years at the least.

Well that's debatable, but even if it was true there would at least be some de facto liberalisation of the abortion regime. I say debatable because if the legislation allowing abortion in cases of rape turns out to be unworkable in practice, it would be possible to amend it. At least there would be movement on the issue...So when it gets down to it I believe very few pro-choice people will vote against any liberalisation of the law.

Peregrinus

Well, time will tell.

My sense would be that, if the government were to propose a very slight relaxation (say, abortion as under the current regime, plus incest, plus fatal foetal abnormalities) and the electorate rejected it, most commentators would read that as "we know there's a desire for change, but not this change; something more far-reaching". And they would point to the outcome of the constitutional convention as evidence of that. And in that case it would be possible to maintain the pressure for further action.

Whereas, if the government proposes a slight relaxation and the citizens approve it, that creates much more of a sense of "Right, done and dusted. We can move on from this, and don't have to revisit it for another generation". No government has secured approval a change to the constitutional provisions dealing with abortion itself (as opposed to information/travel) since 1983, so if they do secure approval there'll be a widespread sense of "job done!" and a widespread relief that we don't have to talk about this any more.

In short, I think rejection at a referendum is less conclusive than approval at a referendum. No constitutional amendment approved in a referendum has ever been successfully revisited later on, whereas rejections have been revisited. And pro-choicers who are dissatisfied with a looser, but still anti-choice amendment may feel that for them it's a choice between two evils, but on balance they're going to hold out for choice.

(Of course, it's possible that the government will propose something more radical, such as deletion of the constitutional ban, and insert of a provision for the Oireachtas to legislate. I'm pretty certain that pro-choicers would go for that, even if the legislation proposed in the first instance were very restrictive.)

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course, it's possible that the government will propose something more radical, such as deletion of the constitutional ban, and insert of a provision for the Oireachtas to legislate. I'm pretty certain that pro-choicers would go for that, even if the legislation proposed in the first instance were very restrictive.

Absolutely. The key point for me is that legislation has no place in the Constitution. It has made a shambles of divorce in Ireland, and an even bigger shambles of pregnancy.

Loafing Oaf

Peregrinus wrote: »

(Of course, it's possible that the government will propose something more radical, such as deletion of the constitutional ban, and insert of a provision for the Oireachtas to legislate. I'm pretty certain that pro-choicers would go for that, even if the legislation proposed in the first instance were very restrictive.)

Oh right, this is what I'm assuming will happen, and my arguments are based on that.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem is that a complete repeal, giving the Oireachtas carte blanche to put any legislation in place, might not pass. And, of course, if it didn't, that puts the kibosh on the thing for another ten years or more.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And if the referendum is passed it won't be addressed again in any form for another ten years at the least.

So if the proposal is to amend the constitution to allow abortion not only in cases of real and substantial threat to the mother's life (as at present) but also in cases of incest and fatal foetal abnormality, but not otherwise, that's clearly not going to satisfy anyone who takes a pro-choice position. And rather than vote for, and lock in, that anti-choice abortion position, they might choose to vote against it, and keep campaigning.

Both of these scenarios represent a gamble. Different people will react differently when faced with a "winner takes all" choice, even people who share the same ultimate goal. Its human psychology. And as as mentioned earlier we had a civil war in this country, so we should know not to put ourselves in that kind of position again.

That's why IMO some kind of preferendum is the solution, as the outcome would be guaranteed, in advance, to satisfy most of the electorate. Thus taking the strategic gamble out of it. Afterwards the outcome of the preferendum would have to somehow be translated into a constitutional amendment, but I think that could be arranged.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

.. when it gets down to it I believe very few pro-choice people will vote against any liberalisation of the law.

It only takes a few to cause a complete reversal of the outcome. Note the result of the 25th amendment; 49.6% to 51.4%.
Very, very close.

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, time will tell.

My sense would be that, if the government were to propose a very slight relaxation (say, abortion as under the current regime, plus incest, plus fatal foetal abnormalities) and the electorate rejected it, most commentators would read that as "we know there's a desire for change, but not this change; something more far-reaching". And they would point to the outcome of the constitutional convention as evidence of that. And in that case it would be possible to maintain the pressure for further action.

Whereas, if the government proposes a slight relaxation and the citizens approve it, that creates much more of a sense of "Right, done and dusted. We can move on from this, and don't have to revisit it for another generation". No government has secured approval a change to the constitutional provisions dealing with abortion itself (as opposed to information/travel) since 1983, so if they do secure approval there'll be a widespread sense of "job done!" and a widespread relief that we don't have to talk about this any more.

That's pretty much why I say now that would vote No to any thing which amounted to a slight amendment.

I would rather that we had the same nonsense in the constitution and had to continue arguing about this for another decade, than insert something really weak and largely unhelpful into the constitution, and have politicians wash their hands of the issue until my children are my age.

It's worth noting that a "preferendum" isn't possible instead of a referendum under the constitution. The constitution requires that any amendment is approved by "a majority of the votes cast".

So if you have 3 options, and none of the options gets more than 50%, then the amendment is rejected.

A pre-referendum, preferendum may be possible, but really that's what the citizen's assembly was. A national vote to select the "best" approach would likely receive a lot of criticism and would fracture a lot of the final vote. Plus, you'd get people voting "No" just because they don't appreciate being asked to vote multiple times.

Christy42

seamus wrote: »

That's pretty much why I say now that would vote No to any thing which amounted to a slight amendment.

I would rather that we had the same nonsense in the constitution and had to continue arguing about this for another decade, than insert something really weak and largely unhelpful into the constitution, and have politicians wash their hands of the issue until my children are my age.

It's worth noting that a "preferendum" isn't possible instead of a referendum under the constitution. The constitution requires that any amendment is approved by "a majority of the votes cast".

So if you have 3 options, and none of the options gets more than 50%, then the amendment is rejected.

A pre-referendum, preferendum may be possible, but really that's what the citizen's assembly was. A national vote to select the "best" approach would likely receive a lot of criticism and would fracture a lot of the final vote. Plus, you'd get people voting "No" just because they don't appreciate being asked to vote multiple times.

I fear if they introduce some nonsense change then there can't be any progress for the pro choice until your children are your age. It will either be considered "settled" or evidence that the public is against even a small change.

Any nonsense change needs to be challenged before the referendum to have any hope of a victory for the pro choice side.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

A pre-referendum, preferendum may be possible, but really that's what the citizen's assembly was.

That's one approach, another would be to pre-amend the Constitution to allow the result of any future preferendum to count directly as an amendment. I'm sure with some creative thinking, there are various ways of doing it.

BTW I would not agree that the Citizens Assembly was similar to a preferendum. Do we know what selection criteria was used exactly to pick the delegates, or what list the names were taken from? We were told they were a "random sample". it seems more like a vox pop or a straw poll to me, and those are notoriously inaccurate because depending on where you get your "random sample" from, the outcome can vary a lot. Then you can have a situation as happens with jury duty, where a certain segment of the population excuses themselves from it, typically because they are too busy. Yet these same busy people tend to be conscientious voters, and are often of the more conservative type.

volchitsa

Christy42 wrote: »

I fear if they introduce some nonsense change then there can't be any progress for the pro choice until your children are your age. It will either be considered "settled" or evidence that the public is against even a small change.

Any nonsense change needs to be challenged before the referendum to have any hope of a victory for the pro choice side.

Yes, this is what's concerning me, going by how POLPD seems to be turning out - that the proposed changes, even if not ostensibly "nonsense" when proposed, will eventually be hollowed out at the various stages, so that whatever law we end up with is no better, and possibly even worse, than what we now have.

Loafing Oaf

seamus wrote: »

That's pretty much why I say now that would vote No to any thing which amounted to a slight amendment.

I would rather that we had the same nonsense in the constitution and had to continue arguing about this for another decade, than insert something really weak and largely unhelpful into the constitution, and have politicians wash their hands of the issue until my children are my age.

On what basis do you assume that 'further' liberalisation would happen sooner if the referendum was voted down? If a 'limited abortion' referendum is defeated, is not likely that both FF and FG at least would decide, right, no point touching this issue again for 20 years or whatever.

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

On what basis do you assume that 'further' liberalisation would happen sooner if the referendum was voted down? If a 'limited abortion' referendum is defeated, is not likely that both FF and FG at least would decide, right, no point touching this issue again for 20 years or whatever.

It's absolutely self evident to me that whatever the result, the fact of the referendum on abortion being held will make it extremely unlikely that there will be another one for a generation at least.

My point is that the proposed wording will have to be very verycarefully examined before it goes on the ballot paper at all, and the very worst possible interpretation will have to be assumed to be the correct one. Before the 8th, allegations that women could be stopped from travelling were dismissed as nonsense by Binchy and others, and before POLDP the idea that a woman could end up sectioned as a result of asking for an abortion on grounds of suicidality was similarly dismissed. Both subsequently went on to take place.

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

It's absolutely self evident to me that whatever the result, the fact of the referendum on abortion being held will make it extremely unlikely that there will be another one for a generation at least.

Some other re-runs:

Divorce: 10 years, from 86 to 96.

Suicide/abortion: 10 years, 92 to 02 (failed both times and now clearly not coming back).

Nice Treaty: 1 year.

Lisbon Treaty: 1 year.

All in all, I think a generation is pessimistic, especially if it fails.

And we all know that within a year of a new law (say it is rape, incest and FFA) there will be a horrible corner case in all the papers, more shock that this can happen in Ireland etc. etc., and new pressure for a less restrictive regime.

seamus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

On what basis do you assume that 'further' liberalisation would happen sooner if the referendum was voted down? If a 'limited abortion' referendum is defeated, is not likely that both FF and FG at least would decide, right, no point touching this issue again for 20 years or whatever.

A few bases. For a start, a "successful" amendment would take the wind out of the sails of any campaign - the question has been asked and approved, even if it was a compromise. Any politicians giving campaigns their backing would drop away to move onto the next big thing.

Any campaign who appears a few months after winning the referendum demanding "more", will be seen as malcontents by politicians and the population and will be banished to the fringes of society for 10-15 years.

If campaigns rally behind a "No" and say "this isn't good enough", the momentum will remain and their calls for a better referendum have more legitimacy.

Additionally, governments hate to lose referenda. They're used as point scorers. A government who wins a referendum is a good one. A government who loses is a bad one. If a FG government were to lose a referendum because they asked the wrong question, a FF government would be more than happy to use that as a stick to beat FG with, and even though they wouldn't immediately call a new referendum, it would remain somewhere on their agenda; to prove just how out of touch FG are and how much a "party of the people" FF are.

Loafing Oaf

volchitsa wrote: »

It's absolutely self evident to me that whatever the result, the fact of the referendum on abortion being held will make it extremely unlikely that there will be another one for a generation at least.

A generation, like 30 years or so? No way. I'm confident there will be a clear pro-choice majority in Ireland in 15 years at the very most. Once that becomes evident from opinion polls, a referendum or legislation or whatever is required to give it effect will be passed without fuss, even by a FF-led government.

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

A generation, like 30 years or so? No way. I'm confident there will be a clear pro-choice majority in Ireland in 15 years at the very most. Once that becomes evident from opinion polls, a referendum or legislation or whatever is required to give it effect will be passed without fuss, even by a FF-led government.

I really hope you're right.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Some other re-runs:

Divorce: 10 years, from 86 to 96.

Suicide/abortion: 10 years, 92 to 02 (failed both times and now clearly not coming back).

Nice Treaty: 1 year.

Lisbon Treaty: 1 year.

All in all, I think a generation is pessimistic, especially if it fails.

And we all know that within a year of a new law (say it is rape, incest and FFA) there will be a horrible corner case in all the papers, more shock that this can happen in Ireland etc. etc., and new pressure for a less restrictive regime.

There's one more to add to that list: In 1959 the Fianna Fail government held a referendum to replace the single transferable vote electoral system with a first-past-the-post system (as used in the UK). The proposal was rejected. They held a second referendum on the subject in 1968; it was rejected again.

There's a clear distinction between re-visiting an issue when a referendum on the subject has been rejected, which as your list shows is relatively common, and revisiting it when a referendum has been accepted, which seems to be pretty well unheard of. And I think that will encourage those who find Varadkar's proposed wording to not go far enough to think about voting "no". History suggests that rejecting the proposal will keep the question alive, and able to be revisited, in a way that accepting it will not.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

That's one approach, another would be to pre-amend the Constitution to allow the result of any future preferendum to count directly as an amendment. I'm sure with some creative thinking, there are various ways of doing it.

This is a more radical change than you may realise. The current amending provision says that an amendment has to be first of all passed by the Oireachtas as a Bill, and only then put to the people for approval. So there's a double-lock there; an amendment will only happen if both the parliament and the electorate think it should.

For your "preferendum", the Oireachtas would either have to (a) be dropped entirely from the mechanism, or (b) pass a series of inconsistent amendments ("We want them all!"). Either way, the Oireachtas is largely or entirely taken out of the process; an approval can be made even if the Oireachtas doesn't think it's the one that should be made, or hasn't formed or expressed any view on which amendment should be made.

I think there's merit in the double-lock; the Oireachtas does have a responsibility here, and they shouldn't be allowed to abdicate it. Indeed, the particular amendment I would favour would largely leave legislating on abortion up to the Oireachtas, but if I trust the Oireachtas on that why would I want to freeze them out of the process of whether the Constitution should be amended?

It seems to me that identifying the optimal amendment is an exercise that should be gone through before the referendum. It's a bad idea for any government to ask the electorate to approve anything which the government itself does not approve or is not committed to. (Just ask David Cameron!). The government should choose an amendment which (a) it wants to operate, and (b) it thinks the people will approve, and it should put that to the people. Choosing what amendment that should be may well involve conducting research or consultation to find out which of several options attracts the most support (or the most objections) and making use of that information in deciding exactly what to put to the people, but that kind of policy formation is basically a government's core job. The Oireachtas, and the government, should be involved in this decision so that they, as well as the people, will be committed to the outcome. They're the ones who are going to have to implement it, after all.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a clear distinction between re-visiting an issue when a referendum on the subject has been rejected, which as your list shows is relatively common, and revisiting it when a referendum has been accepted, which seems to be pretty well unheard of. And I think that will encourage those who find Varadkar's proposed wording to not go far enough to think about voting "no". History suggests that rejecting the proposal will keep the question alive, and able to be revisited, in a way that accepting it will not.

Good morning,

Yes, it will but I'm having difficulty understanding how a 'no' vote indicates a pro-choice outcome to the referendum. Surely a no vote could also be from hard core pro-lifers who object to further liberalisation of termination law in Ireland?

In short - what makes people think a no vote actually agitates for pro-choice change?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Yes, it will but I'm having difficulty understanding how a 'no' vote indicates a pro-choice outcome to the referendum. Surely a no vote could also be from hard core pro-lifers who object to further liberalisation of termination law in Ireland?

In short - what makes people think a no vote actually agitates for pro-choice change?

That's something they'll have to make a judgment about. The problem with a 'no' vote - and this applies to all issues, not just to abortion - is that it gives you limited information. You know what people don't want or won't accept, but you don't know what they do want or will accept. (They're currently finding this out the hard way in the UK.)

So, in this context, if the government proposes a certain wording and the people vote "no", viewed in isolation that could mean either "we like the wording just the way it is, thanks" or "we want a change, but not this change". And, realistically, for some 'no' voters it will mean the former and for some it will mean the latter.

Fortunately, there's a lot of other information out there about what people want or don't want. You've got public debate, you've got discussion in the newspapers, you've got discussion in the Oireachtas, you've got opinion polls, and changes in opinion polls over time, you've got what TDs report they are hearing in the constituency, you've got the discussions and decisions in the Constitutional Convention. You've got the issues that came up in the campaign, and the public response they received. Hey, you've even got what's said on Boards.ie. None of it, obviously, has the clarity or authority of a referendum result, but all of it can be useful when it comes to interpreting the referendum result. So the government will use all these sources of information, and more besides, to try to make an assessment if the whether the "no" vote mostly represents people who want no change, or mostly represents people who want a different/more radical change, or is more or less evenly split between the two views.

Equally, they'll be asking themselves to what extent the minority "yes" vote represents people who think the amendment offered to them is the optimal one, and to what extent it represents people who want something more, but decided at least to take what they could get. (The latter group, obviously, might also vote "yes" to a different/more radical amendment, if put to them.)

Reading the public mood this way is more an art than a science, but it's an art that politicians - the successful ones, anyway - get pretty skilled at. Essentially, they'll be asking themselves "would a differently-worded amendment secure a 50% 'yes' vote?" If they think the answer is 'yes', they might (after a while!) bring forward a second referendum seeking approval for a differently worded amendment. If they think the answer is 'no', they won't. Whichever they think, they could be wrong but, hey, that's politics.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is a more radical change than you may realise....

For your "preferendum", the Oireachtas would either have to (a) be dropped entirely from the mechanism, or (b) pass a series of inconsistent amendments ("We want them all!").

OK, well now that you focus the microscope over it the idea of making the preferendum result count directly as in (a) above is unrealistic because if you take the Oireactas out of it, who is going to propose and organise the preferendum/referendum? I can't see the county councils doing it.
and (b) above is also a non-runner.

But that still leaves us with the other option of "the pre-referendum preferendum". This would be a kind of plebiscite, with a gereral acceptance that the results would be translated into the wording of the actual Dail bill and referendum, which would proceed immediately afterwards.

So it would have a similar legal effect to the Brexit referendum in the UK; ie not legally binding, but generally agreed that the result would be respected.
But different to Brexit referendum in that the result of the preferendum would also provide a clearly defined road map on what exactly the people had agreed upon, and how to proceed with it.

Peregrinus

No, I remain hesitant to put an array of policy options before the people, with the legislature and the executive basically saying "we'll do any of these! Just tell us what you want!" This would be to encourage precisely the kind of craven abdication of responsibility that got us into this mess in the first place.

The political establishment has a duty to evaluate the options and put a definite proposal to us having considered (a) what they think we will accept, and (b) what they think is practicable, effective, etc and (c) what they are willing do do.

The "pre-referendum" you speak of is just a huge and expensive opinion poll, but it's unlikely to produce materially more reliable information about what the public wants than (much cheaper) opinion polling conducted in the usual way employing stratified sampling and other statistical techniques. Making it universal and labelling it as a "non-binding preferendum" or the like so that the politicians could in fact regard themselves as bound by it, and so abdicate their own responsibilities here, would be a bad, bad idea.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

.. so that the politicians could in fact regard themselves as bound by it, and so abdicate their own responsibilities here, would be a bad, bad idea.

Bearing in mind that their ultimate responsibility is to represent the people, would they not be fulfilling their responsibilities?

Sure, the politicians could avoid any blame or negative fallout attaching to themselves by simply respecting the result of a preferendum, but I don't see that as a problem, except maybe for the media pundits and newspaper headline writers.

The added bonus is that it should be clear to ordinary people which way they should vote in the actual referendum. It would take the gamble out of it, so if somebody was pro-choice I assume they would realise that there was no point in voting No on the basis that better wording might come along under the next Taoiseach.
Maybe some of those posting on this thread (who already expressed that kind of view) would care to comment on whether that is correct? If the wording was the result of a democratic preferendum, as opposed to the musings of Leo Varadkar, would you accept that it was your "once in a generation" chance to progress in the direction you want to go?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Bearing in mind that their ultimate responsibility is to represent the people, would they not be fulfilling their responsibilities?

No, it wouldn't. "Representing the people" is not simply a matter of finding out what is most popular and doing it. (Arguably, it's that approach that got us into this mess in the first place with the Eighth Amendment.) A legislator's job is to pass laws which serve the common good, which among other things means that the laws should be practicable and effective, and not simply popular.

recedite wrote: »

Sure, the politicians could avoid any blame or negative fallout attaching to themselves by simply respecting the result of a preferendum, but I don't see that as a problem, except maybe for the media pundits and newspaper headline writers.

And for the women who may suffer (and occasionally die) under the abortion regime that secures popular preference, if it turns out to be as crapulous as the one that secured popular endorsement in the three referenda we've had so far on this subject. Up to now, we have criticised politicians for their failure to act to remedy these problems. You're proposing a system under which politicians no longer have any responsiblity to do so.

Do you not see that as a problem? Or do you not at least see why others would?

recedite wrote: »

The added bonus is that it should be clear to ordinary people which way they should vote in the actual referendum. It would take the gamble out of it, so if somebody was pro-choice I assume they would realise that there was no point in voting No on the basis that better wording might come along under the next Taoiseach.
Maybe some of those posting on this thread (who already expressed that kind of view) would care to comment on whether that is correct? If the wording was the result of a democratic preferendum, as opposed to the musings of Leo Varadkar, would you accept that it was your "once in a generation" chance to progress in the direction you want to go?

The reason we keep revisiting this is that the abortion rules we have written into the Constitution in the past turn out to have unintended consequences. But there's no guarantee that whatever wins the preferendum, if written into the Constitution, won't also have unintended consequences, and therefore we'll have to revisit it again. There's therefore no reason to think that this system will result in a good-for-a-generation decision.

Zubeneschamali

I think gay marriage is an interesting example.

In 2004 David Norris tabled a civil union bill in the Senate. In 2006, the Supreme Court found against Katherine Zappone, ruling that marriage in the Constitution was between a man and a woman. The Labour Party took up Civil Unions in 2006. The Greens got it into the Programme for Government in 2007. Cowen faced down maybe 30 conservative FF TDs, telling them that Civil Unions would not affect the Constitutional status of traditional marriage, and the law was passed in 2010.

Activists promptly said "Thanks very much" and moved on to campaigning for an Amendment to allow for Same Sex Marriage. Opponents of civil unions like the Iona institute immediately moved from "Civil unions are the worst!" to "You already have wonderful civil unions, why should we give you marriage?". They did not for a moment try to continue opposing civil unions or roll them back.

Nobody said "That struggle is over for a generation", or at least, no-one who was taken seriously.

By the end of 2013, just 3 years later, the referendum was agreed, and it passed in 2015.

I think this is how abortion is likely to go - even if the next constitutional change is some chickensh!t half-measure, success will just build momentum.

Campaigners will take any step, however small, bank it, and keep campaigning. Whatever step is conceded, there will be no energy behind rolling it back, Iona & co. will have to step backwards and defend against the next move.

And they will lose again.

Loafing Oaf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think gay marriage is an interesting example.

Or abortion itself: look at the surge in pro-choice activism since the passage of the POLDPA. Obviously the link is not entirely causal, but as Aodhan O'Riordain observed in that notorious bugged conversation, nothing could be done on the issue until X-case legislation was passed. It's almost served as the starting gun for a broader repeal the 8th campaign. I'm sure 'hard case' legislation will serve as another step on the road...

volchitsa

I think there's another aspect too, which is true of gay marriage, but even more so for abortion, which is that once the silence is broken around the whole issue, it becomes necessary for those arguing for the status quo to actually defend that position. That's a new and uncomfortable position for traditionalists in Ireland.

So IMO it's not that passing POLDP has led to more activism, but more that a number of events meant increasing numbers of women were moved to speak out about their own experiences, and this has led to more people discovering with shock just how barbaric the current law actually is.

Oddly enough I think POLDP could have made things a lot harder for prochoice activists, if it had been a courageous law actually increasing access for the sorts of cases that most people are in agreement on. Instead it does the opposite, which shows that the legislators were out of touch and too much influenced by the most repressive parts of society. Or else that the 8th as it stands cannot be made to work humanely.

For decades the official narrative was "Move along, nothing to see here" and most people pretty much accepted that because the pro life line has been so deeply embedded in society with education etc. Very little explanation or defence of real life cases was required because of the silence around them.

That has changed, and that dam can't be rebuilt I think.

Loafing Oaf

volchitsa wrote: »

I

So IMO it's not that passing POLDP has led to more activism, but more that a number of events meant increasing numbers of women were moved to speak out about their own experiences, and this has led to more people discovering with shock just how barbaric the current law actually is.

.

On this same topic, Amnesty, the UN, European courts etc. have been calling out our abortion laws much more in the last few years than before. Now presumably those laws are no more egregious to them now than they were 10 or 20 years ago, so this must be to some extent a tactical move, facilitated by POLDP and other developments, i.e. there is a point to Amnesty campaigning for abortion law reform now because it might actually be achieved.

BlinkingLights

I think the biggest issue that's changed is a realisation that a silent conservative majority simply does not exist. The state lived in fear of it it for a long time. Turns out it's either died off or it was juar a bogie man.

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

On this same topic, Amnesty, the UN, European courts etc. have been calling out our abortion laws much more in the last few years than before. Now presumably those laws are no more egregious to them now than they were 10 or 20 years ago, so this must be to some extent a tactical move, facilitated by POLDP and other developments, i.e. there is a point to Amnesty campaigning for abortion law reform now because it might actually be achieved.

I suppose it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, but the ECHR (and possibly the UN?) can only get involved when a case is taken by a citizen. Mindsets had to get to the point where that was a realistic possibility, first. That took years after the 8th amendment to even be possible. Plus, some of those court cases have themselves been in the pipelines for years. So to my mind it's about the media coverage they got recently, where in the past they would have been seen as not really suitable for public discussion.

Basically IMO the main change has been that people are no longer being shamed into silence, and that has only really happened in the last few years. I'd identify Savita Halappanavar as the turning point, though in reality it was more of a cumulative effect than that. But that death broke the dams I think.

(Also it occurs to me that there has probably been a change in views of abortion everywhere, it didn't used to be seen as a human rights issue, but as a purely female concern. I think that has made it easier for people outside a country to feel able to criticize them for what is now seen as a human right to control over one's own body and not some odd thing that women want.)

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

On this same topic, Amnesty, the UN, European courts etc. have been calling out our abortion laws much more in the last few years than before. Now presumably those laws are no more egregious to them now than they were 10 or 20 years ago, so this must be to some extent a tactical move, facilitated by POLDP and other developments, i.e. there is a point to Amnesty campaigning for abortion law reform now because it might actually be achieved.

I think there's probably a couple of aspects to that. Firstly, organisations like Amnesty have, with the advent of social media and ubiquitous connectivity, a much broader reach than when they relied on print and news coverage to get their message out. So anyone with a vague interest in a particular message is now seeing much more of it moreso than that message in particular is getting more focus from the organisation. Secondly, Ireland's involvement in Europe has grown significantly, and Europe itself as a structure has also grown significantly. So the European courts haven't suddenly started focusing on specific rights issues; they've become a significant feature of the legal landscape for every European country (hence the prominence of the ECHR subject in Brexit discusssions). And the UNHRC has been pillorying jurisdictions with restrictive abortion regimes for as long as the membership has been composed of individuals from jurisdictions with liberal abortion regimes; no surprise there. I don't think many would dispute that their opinions in that regard consistently extend beyond the scope of the Treaty obligations member States have agreed to.

I think the salient feature of all this is that people now have a great deal of information fed to them which is in line with their own biases, and that leads them to think that some things have a greater national/world significance than they necessarily do. Those obsessed with Trump think everyone is talking about Trump, gamers think all the news is about E3, Catholics think all the news is about the latest Papal pronouncement, etc etc. I suspect the truth is the information age is subtly making us all even more parochial in our information consumption, they're just virtual parishes now.

recedite

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think gay marriage is an interesting example.

In 2004 David Norris tabled a civil union bill in the Senate....
Nobody said "That struggle is over for a generation", or at least, no-one who was taken seriously.

By the end of 2013, just 3 years later, the referendum was agreed, and it passed in 2015.

I think this is how abortion is likely to go -

There was only ever one referendum on this issue. Politicians waited until they thought society was ready to pass that referendum before holding it.

Abortion is a different thing altogether. There have been numerous referendums around the issue, so the people have already spoken. Very few politicians believe that a referendum in line with the recent Citizens Assembly recommendations would succeed, as yet. Which is why they are very unlikely to hold one making those proposals.

recedite

BlinkingLights wrote: »

I think the biggest issue that's changed is a realisation that a silent conservative majority simply does not exist. The state lived in fear of it it for a long time. Turns out it's either died off or it was juar a bogie man.

Speaking of which, Des Hanafin got into the news for the last time during the week. Perhaps an omen?

He was deeply conservative and was one of the key people behind the promotion of the Eighth Amendment. He also opposed the divorce referendum in 1995 and mounted an unsuccessful challenge in the Supreme Court to overturn it.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. "Representing the people" is not simply a matter of finding out what is most popular and doing it. (Arguably, it's that approach that got us into this mess in the first place with the Eighth Amendment.) A legislator's job is to pass laws which serve the common good, which among other things means that the laws should be practicable and effective, and not simply popular.

Hmmm.. well I think a TD's primary job is to represent the people, and when making laws, to reflect the wishes of the people. In theory, this also means passing laws for the common good.

I notice that your comments above are quite undemocratic. You seem to lament the fact that TD's hands have been tied by the Constitution and by the wishes of the people. What can I say. Maybe you are right, but if so, that is an elitist and an undemocratic position to take.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Up to now, we have criticised politicians for their failure to act to remedy these problems. You're proposing a system under which politicians no longer have any responsiblity to do so.

Do you not see that as a problem? Or do you not at least see why others would?

I haven't criticised TDs for for failing to make good abortion laws. Its not their remit. Their remit is to make laws within the Constitution, and in line with the peoples wishes, and in line with what they personally believe to be "for the common good" ... strictly in that order.
They deserve criticism for taking 20 odd years to legislate for the x-case, but not for anything else. They had no other function in this, other than to propose another referendum whenever they felt it was time to take another gauge of public opinion.

That's a constitutional democratic republic for you. It may not be a perfect system, but I haven't seen a better one anywhere else.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

There have been numerous referendums around the issue, so the people have already spoken.

Ah, here. The last referendum was thirty six years ago. There are people now eligible to vote whose parents weren't born the last time the people spoke on this issue.

recedite wrote: »

I notice that your comments above are quite undemocratic. You seem to lament the fact that TD's hands have been tied by the Constitution and by the wishes of the people. What can I say. Maybe you are right, but if so, that is an elitist and an undemocratic position to take.

Do we really need to explain the difference between a representative republic and a direct democracy all over again?

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, here. The last referendum was thirty six years ago. There are people now eligible to vote whose parents weren't born the last time the people spoke on this issue.

Far too long ago. But it does not alter the fact that the TD's hands are tied in terms of legislating on the issue, until/unless the people change the constitutional position (as already expressed by a previous generation).

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Far too long ago. But it does not alter the fact that the TD's hands are tied in terms of legislating on the issue, until/unless the people change the constitutional position (as already expressed by a previous generation).

That's a large part of the point of Constitutional provisions; to prevent the legislature from acting contrary to the will of the people. It's a feature not a bug, as they say.

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, here. The last referendum was thirty six years ago. There are people now eligible to vote whose parents weren't born the last time the people spoke on this issue.

To be fair; the last referendum on the subject was fifteen years ago; the twenty fifth amendment. The first referendum on the subject was almost thirty four years ago; the eight amendment. Anyone not born the first time the people spoke would have to have borne children at the age of fifteen for them to be eligible to vote now, anyone not born the last time the people spoke won't themselves be eligible to vote until 2020, never mind their children. I suspect there are very very few people now eligible to vote whose parents weren't born the last time the people spoke on this issue, almost certainly far far less of them than there are people who voted in the first, never mind the last, referendum on the subject.

Muahahaha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Yes, it will but I'm having difficulty understanding how a 'no' vote indicates a pro-choice outcome to the referendum. Surely a no vote could also be from hard core pro-lifers who object to further liberalisation of termination law in Ireland?

In short - what makes people think a no vote actually agitates for pro-choice change?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I agree with this. In fact if you are pro-choice and the wording of the ref. is too restrictive then the way to vote would be to spoil your vote. If there are several hundred thousand spoiled votes that sends a clear message that people arent happy with what they are being asked to vote on. It is a much better option for the pro-choicer to spoil their vote than voting No- all voting No does is give even more legitimacy to the pro-life side, it doesnt achieve anything except maintaining the status quo and it allows the pro-life side to claim in the aftermath that they have majority support and the issue will be kicked to touch for another generation.

Shadowstrife

It never really occurred to me until this year, that the wording of it would be a huge issue.

If I vote Yes to a poorly articulated referendum, will that hamper the pro-choice side in the long run?

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

To be fair; the last referendum on the subject was fifteen years ago; the twenty fifth amendment.

Which was a referendum to make things more restrictive.
And it was rejected.
I'm in my forties & I have never had a chance to vote on abortion or on the 8th amendment.

Means Of Escape

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm not looking forward to the campaigns on both sides in the run up to the referendum. It will get ugly.

Ugly ?
Remember the oul dear shouting at those seeking divorce akin to Sodom and Gomorrah

Zubeneschamali

Shadowstrife wrote: »

If I vote Yes to a poorly articulated referendum, will that hamper the pro-choice side in the long run?

No.

The people saying that it will be settled for a generation are dreaming. It won't be settled for longer than the victory party takes.

volchitsa

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No.

The people saying that it will be settled for a generation are dreaming. It won't be settled for longer than the victory party takes.

Oh I don't think a poor result (by which I mean an amendment that leads to unworkable abortion law or a refusal to amend significantly) will settle the argument for longer than it takes the next awful case to come along.

But the time for a new referendum, that I suspect could take years if not decades. Despite more cases piling up regularly. Much as now really.

As you said though, it's noticeable that the conservative side, when it loses, inevitably drops its objections and moves on to man the barricades on the next last stand. It's obviously more about defending the status quo, whatever that may be, than the importance of whatever principle is currently being defended.

Loafing Oaf

Shadowstrife wrote: »

It never really occurred to me until this year, that the wording of it would be a huge issue.

If I vote Yes to a poorly articulated referendum, will that hamper the pro-choice side in the long run?

No, indeed I'd argue it could be a case of 'the worse the better' for pro-choice (though of course not better for women affected by cumbersome legislation). If it becomes clear within a couple of years that legislation to allow rape victims access to abortion is unworkable, then the pressure for a broader liberalisation of abortion regulation could become irresistible. Whereas a referendum to introduce 'liberal abortion' next year would quite likely be defeated, meaning the issue is shelved for a decade or more...

Dare I suggest our new taoiseach is machiavellian enough to recognise this...

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

You want a serious look at yourself if you vote againest abortion in cases where the baby wont live any length/be still born

But this is the problem with the referendum.

They will authorise the extreme cases like above and add a pile of administrative obstacles and then put it to a referendum.

Only after its passed will another sad case come to light when people will realise that what they voted was far too restrictive and we will need yet another referendum in 10 years.

The only valid solution is to take it out of the constitution entirely and leave it up to normal legislation.

benjamin d

I think for this to actually go away for the government we have to provide legislation that is at least exactly equal to that of Britain. If our system leaves any possible connotation where someone has to travel to England for an abortion, abortion as an issue in Ireland will never be put to rest.

Because at its heart the main aim for politicians here is for people to stop talking about abortion entirely. It's politically toxic and always will be.

BlinkingLights

The English legislation is very badly constructed. We should be looking at something that's a lot more straight forward and honest.

Absolam

bubblypop wrote: »

Which was a referendum to make things more restrictive. And it was rejected. I'm in my forties & I have never had a chance to vote on abortion or on the 8th amendment.

Indeed, but it was the last referendum on the subject, it did directly affect the 8th amendment, and you did have a chance to vote on it. The forthcoming referendum will likely be the 36th Amendment and will almost certainly also affect the 8th, and you'll be voting on that, not the 8th.

pilly

BlinkingLights wrote:

The English legislation is very badly constructed. We should be looking at something that's a lot more straight forward and honest.

In what way?

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

No, indeed I'd argue it could be a case of 'the worse the better' for pro-choice (though of course not better for women affected by cumbersome legislation). If it becomes clear within a couple of years that legislation to allow rape victims access to abortion is unworkable, then the pressure for a broader liberalisation of abortion regulation could become irresistible. Whereas a referendum to introduce 'liberal abortion' next year would quite likely be defeated, meaning the issue is shelved for a decade or more.
Dare I suggest our new taoiseach is machiavellian enough to recognise this...

I think it's already perfectly obvious to everyone that legislation to allow rape victims access to abortion is unworkable if it's based on their actually being rape victims rather than simply saying they are rape victims. I can't see any attempt being made to frame that idea either in the Constitution or legislation. Permitting abortion on the basis of a preceding criminal act is unworkable, as it takes to long to prove the criminal act. More likely potential liberalisation will be based on immediately demonstrable criteria such as ffa, where the right to life exists but cannot be vindicated by any action of the State.