Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Bannasidhe

Annabella1 wrote: »

I see minister Harris is proposing free access to termination for the whole female population
I find it ironic that couples unable to conceive needing ivf face hugh bills and zero state support !

I used to find it ironic back in the 80s how the boats to England carried women and girls who had crises pregnancies while living in a country that banned contraception and abortion and women who were pregnant and afraid that their wanted children would be taken off them while they themselves would be incarcerated in a 'home' and forced to work for no pay.

Funny old world isn't it.

Yourself and Minister Harris need not worry about me requiring a free termination. Menopause has put me on the zero cost list - along with a lot of the rest of the female population.

Neyite

Annabella1 wrote: »

A vague maybe promise for 2019
Why isn’t the state equally supportive for those who want a pregnancy

They are.


I had umpteen hospital appointments when trying to get pregnant - all on the public system and free. I had 2 HSG X-rays, countless scans, a referral to an endocrine consultant, and prescriptions of fertility drugs given to me -capped at the €144 per month as the cost of them run into thousands and that extra was picked up by the state.


Many infertility issues are actually gynaecological issues so are covered under the public system. There is a point where a couple need to go to a private clinic to continue their conception journey, but the public system can do a lot of the diagnostics before they need to pay.

gctest50

paw patrol wrote: »

the state is broke or acts like it.
Plenty of hospitals in heap and operations cancelled etc....obligatory mention of the homeless...

but the state find the pennies and cough up for young Mary's mistake during rag week....

priorities?

paw patrol wrote: »

Plenty of hospitals in heap and

That's because this sort of thing goes on in all shapes and forms :

Using a machine past it's end of life - it'll end up costing multiples of the replacement cost

"The echocardiography unit, as you know, has an end of life certificate from March 2016.

In the latest email, Dr Thomas cites one case of discrepancy where he says the machine in question showed the presence of aortic stenosis (valve disease problem) but missed it in a repeat study. A clarification on a new machine confirmed aortic stenosis.


In a series of older emails from May 30, 2016, to May 2, 2017, the consultant cardiologist asked for replacement machine saying that the continued use of the machine was "morally unethical".


https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/hse-say-no-reason-to-recall-patients-despite-consultants-concerns-over-obsolete-ecg-machine-871862.html

The anti-choice scum just have the hump because shocked they failed to keep the place in the dark ages

Loafing Oaf

http://www.thejournal.ie/peter-fitzpatrick-resigns-4263614-Oct2018/

Fine Gael TD Peter Fitzpatrick resigns from the party over 'the old abortion', as Declan Lynch calls it. Presumably he would otherwise have defied the whip over the abortion legislation and been expelled from the party.

Don't see too many more in FG or FF following his lead...

amcalester

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/peter-fitzpatrick-resigns-4263614-Oct2018/

Fine Gael TD Peter Fitzpatrick resigns from the party over 'the old abortion', as Declan Lynch calls it. Presumably he would otherwise have defied the whip over the abortion legislation and been expelled from the party.

Don't see too many more in FG or FF following his lead...

That was more about getting re-elected than anything else. The selection convention took place in the last few weeks and even though he said he wasn't interested in running again, he said the same before GE16 but changed his mind.

I don't think many in the party were too happy about that.

ELM327

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/peter-fitzpatrick-resigns-4263614-Oct2018/

Fine Gael TD Peter Fitzpatrick resigns from the party over 'the old abortion', as Declan Lynch calls it. Presumably he would otherwise have defied the whip over the abortion legislation and been expelled from the party.

Don't see too many more in FG or FF following his lead...

Interestingly that puts the government + Independent Alliance at 55 votes, with 57 needed to outvote the rest in a FF abstention.


That could make the budget, not to mention the abortion bill very difficult to pass.Can't see FF as a party supporting it. Some of the independents like halligan may vote against. What happens then, in a ridiculous situation when the government of the day can not enact legislation to reflect the will of the people as polled? GE?

Loafing Oaf

ELM327 wrote: »

Interestingly that puts the government + Independent Alliance at 55 votes, with 57 needed to outvote the rest in a FF abstention.


That could make the budget, not to mention the abortion bill very difficult to pass.

No risk to the abortion bill;the vast majority of TDs are committed to supporting it.

ELM327

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

No risk to the abortion bill;the vast majority of TDs are committed to supporting it.

Playing devil's advocate - In the event of a likely FF abstention (per confidence + supply agreement), do they have 57 confirmed supporters though?

Loafing Oaf

ELM327 wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate - In the event of a likely FF abstention (per confidence + supply agreement), do they have 57 confirmed supporters though?

Well FF have a free vote and AFAIK most of those who have declared their intentions have said they will vote yes. But even if you leave them aside, nearly every other TD in the Dail, bar a handful of Healy Rea types, is committed to supporting the legislation.

Hotblack Desiato

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Don't see too many more in FG or FF following his lead...

FF have a free vote. Don't see anyone else in FG lining up to "do a Renua".

amcalester

ELM327 wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate - In the event of a likely FF abstention (per confidence + supply agreement), do they have 57 confirmed supporters though?

Confidence and Supply is in relation to Finance Bills and votes of No confidence and perhaps some other specifically mentioned bills, it's not the default position that FF will abstain on all votes.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

FF have a free vote.

I know, but I don't think there will be too many of them actually voting against the legislation, when push comes to shove, although there could be a fair few abstentions.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/many-anti-repeal-tds-now-set-to-back-abortion-legislation-1.3510570

Fianna Fáil TDs James Browne, John Brassil, John McGuinness, Seán Fleming, Willie O’Dea, Charlie McConalogue, Eamon Scanlon, Darragh O’Brien, Declan Breathnach, Marc MacSharry and Jackie Cahill all indicated they would now support the legislation.

Loafing Oaf

So the abortion bill has been 'introduced' in the Dail.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/dail-set-to-debate-abortion-legislation-proposals-37384973.html

Anyone know if the whole thing will be done and dusted today?

Hotblack Desiato

No chance.

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I know, but I don't think there will be too many of them actually voting against the legislation, when push comes to shove, although there could be a fair few abstentions.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/many-anti-repeal-tds-now-set-to-back-abortion-legislation-1.3510570

Apols if I've just missed it, but has anyone mentioned Harris' weasely behaviour yet?

After having attended the March for Choice last week he has now introduced a whole bunch of obstacles and restrictions in his bill :

He has for example tightened up the right to abortion from 'harm to the woman' to 'serious harm to the woman', extended criminalization, actually widened 'conscientious objection' to potentially include institutions, omitted legislation for safe zones around hospitals and surgeries.

Harris said he would legislate based on the recommendations from the Citizens' Assembly - but the actual legislation he's proposing is far more restrictive than both the Citizens Assembly report and the Oireachtas report.

This is beginning to remind me of the NMH and St Vincent's debacle. You can't take your eyes off these fkers for an instant. :mad:

Loafing Oaf

volchitsa wrote: »

omitted legislation for safe zones around hospitals and surgeries.

I think this is intended to be separate legislation.

Also, in fairness to the minister, he said this legislation would be based on the draft legislation which was published before the referendum. I know the 'serious harm' bit, for instance, was in that. I don't think he can reasonably be criticised unless he is making significant changes from those proposals.

volchitsa

Assuming that separate legislation ever actually happens, that still leaves a lot of extra obstacles and restrictions that the CA and the Dáil committee did not advocate.

What the hell is Harris playing at? Just put forward the bill as it was proposed before the referendum!

bloodless_coup

Mattie McGrath, the only man of integrity in the Dail.

Wrongway1985

doylefe wrote: »

Mattie McGrath, the only man of integrity in the Dail.

Sure :D:D

Pherekydes

doylefe wrote: »

Mattie McGrath, the only man of integrity in the Dail.

His first loyalty is to the Vatican.

There's a word for that...

Fighting Tao

doylefe wrote: »

Mattie McGrath, the only man of integrity in the Dail.

When’s your first stand up show?

uptherebels

doylefe wrote: »

Mattie McGrath, the only man of integrity in the Dail.

We will see if his integrity stretches to supporting the democratic will of the Irish people

uptherebels

Pherekydes wrote: »

His first loyalty is to the Vatican.

There's a word for that...

Sad?
Indoctrinated?

bloodless_coup

uptherebels wrote: »

We will see if his integrity stretches to supporting the democratic will of the Irish people

I suppose you have no issue with the likes of Ruth Coppinger pushing for massively more liberal legislation than what was presented to the people when they voted.

endacl

doylefe wrote: »

I suppose you have no issue with the likes of Ruth Coppinger pushing for massively more liberal legislation than what was presented to the people when they voted.

I wouldn't.

Wrongway1985

doylefe wrote: »

I suppose you have no issue with the likes of Ruth Coppinger pushing for massively more liberal legislation than what was presented to the people when they voted.

We were voting on access to abortion services we don't vote on legislation silly.

So Ruth Coppinger has integrity too for being upfront just as Mattie had, is what your saying?

uptherebels

doylefe wrote: »

I suppose you have no issue with the likes of Ruth Coppinger pushing for massively more liberal legislation than what was presented to the people when they voted.

I do have issue with that, the legislation should represent what the people were shown before voting, no changes either way.

Just to add that I personally don't agree with the 3 day waiting period.

Pherekydes

uptherebels wrote: »

Sad?
Indoctrinated?

Treasonous?

alaimacerc

doylefe wrote: »

I suppose you have no issue with the likes of Ruth Coppinger pushing for massively more liberal legislation than what was presented to the people when they voted.

What do you mean by "pushing for", exactly? Are you suggesting that a TD should vote other than what was in their manifesto, and what they campaigned on?

If she -- or anyone else -- were to filibuster, obstruct, or otherwise make a holy show of enactment of legislation in line with the published heads of bill, I'd certainly "have an issue" with that.

alaimacerc

Sofiztikated wrote: »

The ones that make that argument think they are 2 separate groups, with no overlap. That there's going to be hapes of young want having babies to milk the system, and others having hapes of abortions to milk the system.

It's probably a quantum mechanical phenomenon, not unlike Schrödinger's Immigrant.

Hotblack Desiato

uptherebels wrote: »

I do have issue with that, the legislation should represent what the people were shown before voting, no changes either way.

Just to add that I personally don't agree with the 3 day waiting period.

But the draft legislation just reflected what the Dail committee wanted. It doesn't necessarily reflect what the Dail wants or what the people want.

Also if you take that line, should any attempt to amend the legislation in the future have a referendum first?

We decided in the referendum to allow the Dail to legislate, and not set down conditions on what the Dail can do - quite the opposite.

If a Dail majority supports any change to the draft legislation, then so be it.

alaimacerc

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Also if you take that line, should any attempt to amend the legislation in the future have a referendum first?

I'm getting flashbacks to the FF/PD "solution" to this: embed the "McDowell Thought" Act in the constitution itself.

Obviously that wouldn't be required, unless the Dáil was especially keen on some "advisory referendum" way of ducking their own direct responsibility. But I'd expect that future change be put before the country in party manifestos. Which is of course going to be in fairly broad-strokes terms, not "here's every comma of the new bill".

Igotadose

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm getting flashbacks to the FF/PD "solution" to this: embed the "McDowell Thought" Act in the constitution itself.

Sorry, what's the McDowell Thought act?

seamus

uptherebels wrote: »

I do have issue with that, the legislation should represent what the people were shown before voting, no changes either way.

That's not realistic, to be fair. Any legislation presented to the people beforehand is a draft, it's hasn't be rigorously debated nor examined. And it can't be until the referendum on which it's dependent, has been carried.

So there will always be revisions necessary afterwards. I agree in principle that a deliberate bait-and-switch is a problem. But rigidly sticking to the draft text is also a problem. Legislators should always be prepared to alter legislation where any relevant data or information indicates that the text as drafted is flawed.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well FF have a free vote and AFAIK most of those who have declared their intentions have said they will vote yes. But even if you leave them aside, nearly every other TD in the Dail, bar a handful of Healy Rea types, is committed to supporting the legislation.

What did I tell y'all?:P

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-bill-passes-to-next-stage-by-102-votes-to-12-with-seven-abstentions-1.3673079

the second stage of the legislation was passed by 102 votes to 12 with seven abstentions and it now goes to committee stage.

Eleven men and one woman voted against the legislation. Two Fianna Fáil TDs, Eamon O Cuív and Marc MacSharry voted against the Bill

Hotblack Desiato

Sean Canney, Minister of State, voted against a Government bill - a sacking offence surely?

ArmaniJeanss

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sean Canney, Minister of State, voted against a Government bill - a sacking offence surely?

He's an independent isn't he, so isn't part of any whip.
Just has to vote with the government on budgets and conf motions etc.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sean Canney, Minister of State, voted against a Government bill - a sacking offence surely?

Not sure. I'm wondering if Peadar Toibin's second strike on this issue merits expulsion from SF.

Hotblack Desiato

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

He's an independent isn't he, so isn't part of any whip.
Just has to vote with the government on budgets and conf motions etc.

He's not just a backbench independent who supports the government, though, that's the point. He holds a government office.

Loafing Oaf

I wonder will some figleaf amendment to the bill be accepted that will enable those abstaining FF TDs to say their concerns have been addressed and the legislation was now fine and dandy...

Hotblack Desiato

Why on earth would the government want to do that?

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why on earth would the government want to do that?

As long as it’s something trivial, effectively meaningless. Ensure support for the legislation across all the main parties is overwhelming, make opponents look like s handful of malcontents.

alaimacerc

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sean Canney, Minister of State, voted against a Government bill - a sacking offence surely?

Doubtless we'll now discover he's just a Confidence and Supply Junior, or something along those lines.

Not sure it's in the programme for government, and of course no party whip. Pretty arsey behaviour, all the same.

alaimacerc

Igotadose wrote: »

Sorry, what's the McDowell Thought act?

The Michael McDowell stroke in coalition with FF, to try to embed his own bill in the constitution in its entirety. I was attempting a humorous comparison between that and the likes of "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics". (i.e., constitution now says "I'm in charge, do what I say.")

Hotblack Desiato

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As long as it’s something trivial, effectively meaningless. Ensure support for the legislation across all the main parties is overwhelming, make opponents look like s handful of malcontents.

They are a handful of malcontents.

It suits FG to have FF split on an issue like this especially one with overwhelming public support and which has no prospect of bringing down the government. SF and the small left parties will support the bill provided it is not watered down.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They are a handful of malcontents.

It suits FG to have FF split on an issue like this especially one with overwhelming public support and which has no prospect of bringing down the government. SF and the small left parties will support the bill provided it is not watered down.

i'm looking at the broader picture of building a pro-choice consensus in society, encouraging pro-lifers to give up the ghost, not leaving them with the lingering hope that there is a significant cohort within FF on their side.

Anyway, this is all academic; I'm pretty sure most/all of those abstaining FFers will end up voting for the final legislation; they just want to be seen to express their DEEP CONCERN at this stage of proceedings.

ohnonotgmail

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

i'm looking at the broader picture of building a pro-choice consensus in society, encouraging pro-lifers to give up the ghost, not leaving them with the lingering hope that there is a significant cohort within FF on their side.

Anyway, this is all academic; I'm pretty sure most/all of those abstaining FFers will end up voting for the final legislation; they just want to be seen to express their DEEP CONCERN at this stage of proceedings.

We already have a pro-choice consensus. Some pro-lifers will never give up the ghost. No sense in trying to placate them.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1101/1007991-td-suspension/

Peadar Toibin sentenced to another six months on the naughty step. Surprised it wasn't longer for a second offence.

Igotadose

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1101/1007991-td-suspension/

Peadar Toibin sentenced to another six months on the naughty step. Surprised it wasn't longer for a second offence.

He's still in the Dail, though. Too bad he wasn't removed.

And, as much as I want him gone from the Dail, I don't want another election anytime before the first round of legislation is law.

Still, that's another conscienceless wanker gone. Hopefully more to follow.

Loafing Oaf

Igotadose wrote: »

He's still in the Dail, though. Too bad he wasn't removed.

And, as much as I want him gone from the Dail, I don't want another election anytime before the first round of legislation is law.

Still, that's another conscienceless wanker gone. Hopefully more to follow.

Is he 'gone' though? I don't think there will be an election in the next six months, and if he sees out his suspension presumably he's back in the party and all is forgiven and forgotten.