What kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?

nw1dqsv7amx026

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Government said prior to the referendum that they would allow for abortion up to 12 weeks without medical necessity.

The No campaign lied and advertised falsely to the public that repeal of the 8th amendment would mean abortion up to 6 months.

In light of the above facts, the people voted in a significant majority to repeal the 8th amendment. That leads me to believe that (1) some people believed the government and (2) some people believed the no campaign, yet they voted yes.


This is not a problem for the Government either way, particularly given there is no election.

The government should deliver exactly what they said they would. Exit polls are irrelevant.it was a massive yes. I voted no based on the proposed law but it was a yes. I don't have a huge problem with the 12 weeks. However, I don't believe the no side were lying/wrong about potential abortion up to 6 months. I checked the UK law and it is very similar to what is proposed now. Swap '24 weeks' with 'viability' and I don't see any difference.

antiskeptic

“I think what you will see now is the Government moving quickly on the legislation and the Opposition will support that too. I think there will be very few people in the Dáil who will try to frustrate what is now the clear will of the vast, vast majority of the Irish people,” he said.

Clear will of the vast majority of the people. But 50/50 isn't a clear will on the matter of abortion on demand. And the legislation he refers to included abortion on demand.

Here's an example of a politician using the momentum gained to drive his agenda through. It has nothing to do with the will of the people. Rather the will of the people expressed in one way is being used in another way.

Doubtlessly, the game of politics knows that this is the way you do it - heck, whenever I wanted money for some pet project in industry, I waited until an opportune time and rode in on the back of something else.





It's not so much sore loser (although the loss hurts) as someone who has become intrigued with the way things (on both sides) are done. I've not paid much attention to politics and the like,until recently.

I've noted for example, my own picking up of the term "abortion on demand", realising that demand leans towards the pejorative. Realising that someone fed me that line.

It's interesting to watch and wonder upon: how it is we are manipulated and directed.

The "will of the people" is just a cog in a political wheel. It can be shaped and moulded by people who know how to shape and mould it. Whatever side they are on

BarleySweets

antiskeptic wrote: »

Were it that simple. Whilst polls mean nothing, exit polls are pretty accurate. How accurate we will soon find out.

You suddenly don't seem so eager that the will of the people be expressed.

Some democrat!

Remember too, the government would like to get reelected. Are we to suppose that they would simply ignore the express wishes of 50% of the electorate on a matter as seismic as this?

All people voted for was repeal and allow the government to legislate. At least, that's all that was written on the top of my polling paper

What are you on about? There is no 50% of the electorate who oppose this. The OP detailed an exit poll that declared 52% support for abortion on demand. 52% beats 48% in a democracy.

Some democrat you are yourself!

antiskeptic

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The exit poll which was very accurate also showed that both yes and no voters didn't rate religious influence very much in their decision.

It also looks like election posters will be an integral part of campaigning for some time to come.

It also showed that abortion on demand up to twelve weeks is much more contentious. An election has been mooted as FF only have support for three budgets so if legislation is dragged out till the end of the year then it could become an issue.

Interestingly, any campaign to have 50% of the electorate's rejection of abortion on request listened to would be freed from it's being tethered to "Catholic Ireland" / the Iona Institute / the 8th.

A third of the electorate could be construed so. Not half.

antiskeptic

BarleySweets wrote: »

What are you on about? There is no 50% of the electorate who oppose this. The OP detailed an exit poll that declared 52% support for abortion on demand. 52% beats 48% in a democracy.

Some democrat you are yourself!

1. It was an exit poll not a vote. It gives an indication and the government might wish to take account of (for self-interested reasons)

2. There is a thing called margin of error on such polls

3. It is sufficiently close to cause some to consider whether this business is over.

Amidst the splash headlines, there is this slightly inconvenient truth. There has been landslide support for the Trojan Horse of difficult cases. Landslide support for the wrapping paper.

Not so for the contents. And it's the contents which form the substantial numbers of abortions.

hatrickpatrick

What makes this interesting is the potential prospect of a general election within the next year.

Before I try and analyse what might happen can I ask a side question - what happens to legislation which has already begun its journey to the statute books, if there is a general election and the entire makeup of the Dáil changes?

For instance, if a bill has already made it as far as committee stage, and the committee has already considered let's say half of the subsections and a whole bunch of amendments, but still has to consider the rest of the bill - if the government and oireachtas membership fundamentally changes during this process, what happens? Can the new government withdraw the bill altogether? Can they re-initiate it for the new Oireachtas to go through all five stages in each house from scratch? Does the bill simply continue from where it already was, completely indifferent to the fact that the people considering it are an entirely new group of individuals? Can they revisit some stages but not others?

I've always been curious as to how that would work, and if there's an election before the bill passes but after it has been initiated, it could become a very relevant scenario to consider.

Personally I hope that whatever happens, this bill gets passed as quickly as possible and that abortion without a stated reason during the first trimester makes it to our statute books without being compromised or watered down.

antiskeptic

It seems to me that most of the replies thus far aren't actually interested in democracy.

You have a country seemingly split down the middle on the matter of abortion on demand - the most significant element of the recent referendum.

And an express desire that that national view be railroaded.

antiskeptic

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What makes this interesting is the potential prospect of a general election within the next year.

Before I try and analyse what might happen can I ask a side question - what happens to legislation which has already begun its journey to the statute books, if there is a general election and the entire makeup of the Dáil changes?

For instance, if a bill has already made it as far as committee stage, and the committee has already considered let's say half of the subsections and a whole bunch of amendments, but still has to consider the rest of the bill - if the government and oireachtas membership fundamentally changes during this process, what happens? Can the new government withdraw the bill altogether? Can they re-initiate it for the new Oireachtas to go through all five stages in each house from scratch? Does the bill simply continue from where it already was, completely indifferent to the fact that the people considering it are an entirely new group of individuals? Can they revisit some stages but not others?

I've always been curious as to how that would work, and if there's an election before the bill passes but after it has been initiated, it could become a very relevant scenario to consider.

That's the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Thanks.

Certainly, a new government wouldn't be forced into fulfilling a promise made previously. They could easily take account of the 50/50 split

Personally I hope that whatever happens, this bill gets passed as quickly as possible and that abortion without a stated reason during the first trimester makes it to our statute books without being compromised or watered down.

See my comment in the post above. How do you feel democracy is served by your view?

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What makes this interesting is the potential prospect of a general election within the next year.

Where is everyone getting this idea?

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seems to me that most of the replies thus far aren't actually interested in democracy.

You have a country seemingly split down the middle on the matter of abortion on demand - the most significant element of the recent referendum.

And an express desire that that national view be railroaded.

There has been an overwhelming majority who voted for these issues to be handled by the Oireachtas and that is exactly what will happen. If you have an issue with the proposed legislation (which is what will be put forward) take it up with your TD. The Oireachtas doesn't legislate based on opinion polls.

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

There has been an overwhelming majority who voted for these issues to be handled by the Oireachtas

Indeed

and that is exactly what will happen.

And so it ought - for that was the democratic will of the people. 2:1 being a healthy demoractic majority.

If you have an issue with the proposed legislation (which is what will be put forward) take it up with your TD. The Oireachtas doesn't legislate based on opinion polls.

The question is whether the Oireachtas is interested in the views of the people, such as to legislate in a way which reflects that view.

Or not.

If it's not, then fine, we don't live in a democracy (or we live in a lesser version of it).


How the Oireachtas establishes the will of the people on a particular matter is neither here nor there - so long as they establish it.

They have a pretty good clue regarding the need to look further however.

antiskeptic

Anyone for the thought experiment:

If the exit poll said 75% of people not in favor of a.o.r. up to 12 weeks, ought the government proceed with the introduction of a.o.r. up to 12 weeks

Come all ye demo-crats, joyful and triumphant!

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Where is everyone getting this idea?

This year's budget is the cut-off point for the confidence and supply arrangement, after that it's ultimately the opposition's call as to when to collectively pull the plug and pass a no confidence motion calling for a new election. Not saying it's necessarily likely to happen, but it becomes a genuine possibility once the budget goes through.

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

If it's not, then fine, we don't live in a democracy (or we live in a lesser version of it).

You clearly don't understand the definition of our democracy if you think that. What is going to happen is precisely what the referendum result suggested should happen.

The Oireachtas does not legislate on the basis of opinion polls or exit polls. And the will of the people is determined at the ballot box in general elections. It is not required (or even desirable) for the Oireachtas to test the waters on everything they intend to legislate.

hatrickpatrick

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's the kind of discussion I was hoping for. Thanks.

Certainly, a new government wouldn't be forced into fulfilling a promise made previously. They could easily take account of the 50/50 split

Right, and how does that work in the technical sense? As in, can they choose to proceed with the bill as-is at the stage it was already at, or would they be required to re-submit it to go through all five stages in each house, to take the new membership into account? How does any of that work?

See my comment in the post above. How do you feel democracy is served by your view?

As far as I'm concerned, the size of the yes vote gives the government a mandate to proceed with the legislation that they promised before the vote - and from a personal point of view, I obviously support abortion on request up to twelve weeks so I hope it passes just from a personal point of view. We can't quite dance on the grave of sexual authoritarianism until it does, IMO, and that's something I've spent most of my life waiting for the chance to do.

hatrickpatrick

Podge_irl wrote: »

You clearly don't understand the definition of our democracy if you think that. What is going to happen is precisely what the referendum result suggested should happen.

The Oireachtas does not legislate on the basis of opinion polls or exit polls. And the will of the people is determined at the ballot box in general elections. It is not required (or even desirable) for the Oireachtas to test the waters on everything they intend to legislate.

I would disagree with this, personally I think it'd be great if they did indeed test the waters on most bills. Where I differ with Antiskeptic is the belief that a majority of the people wouldn't support the liberal regime if it was put to them - had the referendum been a close call I would be more reserved in saying that, but it's very difficult to argue with an almost 70/30 split.

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

The Oireachtas does not legislate on the basis of opinion polls or exit polls. And the will of the people is determined at the ballot box in general elections. It is not required (or even desirable) for the Oireachtas to test the waters on everything they intend to legislate.

But politicians are very much concerned with opinion polls. And politicians are the ones do decide on what they'll legislate for

Try a twist on my thought experiment last post. If the exit poll gave those results, would you suppose the government affected by them?

Inquitus

Abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, is the legislation we should expect, and the legislation that the Government should implement.

irishrebe

antiskeptic wrote: »

The RTE exit poll suggests that only 52% of voters on all sides are in favour of abortion on demand. 73% on all sides are in favour of legislation to deal with "hard cases"

Given margins for error, we could be looking at a 50/50 split on the subject of abortion on demand.


What does this mean for the shape of forthcoming legislation on the matter? All we've done is vote to repeal the 8th afterall.

Are we straight back into campaigning on both sides?

Does this mean some kind of restrictions on abortion up to 12 weeks?

Given this is only an exit poll, do we need another referendum to ascertain the actual split among the electorate. Or how else is the national view obtained?

I personally can't stand the phrase 'abortion on demand'. It's demonising language used to paint a picture of women who have abortions as evil harlots who abort babies for fun because they couldn't be bothered to use a condom. There are plenty of valid reasons to have an abortion which aren't covered by the 'in case of rape/incest' legislation or whatever it is that might come in. Is it that hard to just let women decide for themselves whether or not they are mentally, emotionally and physically capable of going through with a pregnancy and birth?

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

But politicians are very much concerned with opinion polls. And politicians are the ones do decide on what they'll legislate for

Try a twist on my thought experiment last post. If the exit poll gave those results, would you suppose the government affected by them?

I imagine they would give some serious thought to their position. Of course, that is not remotely the actual scenario and your contention that it is somehow anti-democratic to continue as planned or that it is incumbent upon them to revisit to the proposed legalisation is fundamentally incorrect.

antiskeptic

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I would disagree with this, personally I think it'd be great if they did indeed test the waters on most bills. Where I differ with Antiskeptic is the belief that a majority of the people wouldn't support the liberal regime if it was put to them - had the referendum been a close call I would be more reserved in saying that, but it's very difficult to argue with an almost 70/30 split.

All we can tell from the referendum is that people rejected the 8th with the limitations it imposed on legislating for abortion. They felt it was too restricted - to the tune of 2 or more to 1.

The only comment we have on the degree to which they support the proposed liberalization is the exit poll.

And that indicates high support for liberalisation in hard cases. And a 50/50 split on the most significant (in terms of numbers potentially availing) and liberal element of the bill.

There is absolutely no reason to suppose other than 50/50 support for the most liberal element of the bill.

-


The question is whether you want a.o.r. more than you want democracy. To chose the former over the latter is a very dangerous road to go down. One that is sure to come back and bite you in the arse at some future point

BarleySweets

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. It was an exit poll not a vote. It gives an indication and the government might wish to take account of (for self-interested reasons)

2. There is a thing called margin of error on such polls

3. It is sufficiently close to cause some to consider whether this business is over.

Amidst the splash headlines, there is this slightly inconvenient truth. There has been landslide support for the Trojan Horse of difficult cases. Landslide support for the wrapping paper.

Not so for the contents. And it's the contents which form the substantial numbers of abortions.

Hilarious. You’re lieing to yourself and proclaiming doom to the rest of us who you expect to kowtow to your lies.

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

I imagine they would give some serious thought to their position. Of course, that is not remotely the actual scenario and your contention that it is somehow anti-democratic to continue as planned or that it is incumbent upon them to revisit to the proposed legalisation is fundamentally incorrect.

You are talking about the most significant element of the bill resulting in a 50/50 split. Numbers-availing wise, the remainder of the bill deals with a drop in the ocean.

Is democracy simply not able to establish what people want when it comes to one of the most significant issues of living memory?

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are talking about the most significant element of the bill resulting in a 50/50 split. Numbers-availing wise, the remainder of the bill deals with a drop in the ocean.

Is democracy simply not able to establish what people want when it comes to one of the most significant issues of living memory?

A 52/48 split in an exit poll. It has no standing whatsoever and whatever standing you think it has would be in favour of the proposed bill anyway.

You may as well change government after every opinion poll by the same logic.

antiskeptic

BarleySweets wrote: »

Hilarious. You’re lieing to yourself and proclaiming doom to the rest of us who you expect to kowtow to your lies.

Are you a creative-writing 'bot in development.

Gotta put a captcha on my posts!

Leonard Hofstadter

I expect them to do what they said they would.

The Government will get crucified if they don't at any subsequent election, such is the size of the mandate for yes.

I don't think there will be a problem getting the legislation passed, FF deputies (even on the 'no' side) will not block the passage of the legislation through the Dáil.

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

A 52/48 split in an exit poll. It has no standing whatsoever and whatever standing you think it has would be in favour of the proposed bill anyway.

A split would tend to water down the a.o.r. legislation so as to represent both views.

It's standing is that it is the only view we have on the issue of a.o.r. The referendum didn't establish that.

Ought the government be interested in the nations view of a.o.r.

I'd have thought so.

antiskeptic

captainspeed wrote: »

The Government will get crucified if they don't at any subsequent election, such is the size of the mandate for yes.

The mandate is to legislate. If 50% of the electorate is contra- abortion on request, then the government might expect to get crucified by that cohort. They are facing people who might resent not being given an option to deal with the hard cases only. People who were forced into a difficult decision. It's only 20% more crucifixion that is already coming their way.

Since they are damned if they do legislate for a.o.r. as advertised and damned if they don't, might they figure out a way to extract most votes by watering down?

Remembering that it's most votes that matter to them. How could they get most votes.

I don't think there will be a problem getting the legislation passed, FF deputies (even on the 'no' side) will not block the passage of the legislation through the Dáil.

There's a while to go yet. Certainly, you have the basis of a campaign aimed at influencing the outcome.

There's little doubt people were torn: they wanted the hard cases dealt with but wavered on a.o.r. Many fell down on the YES side.

Would these be happy to have their cake and eat it: hard cases / late term difficult cases dealth with and watered down a.o.r.?

RayCun

The leaders of the main parties have said they will legislate for abortion according to the outline explained before the referendum. The referendum passed by a 2:1 majority, of voters who were well aware of those proposals.

It might have made electoral sense for Michael Martin to oppose the referendum, but now that it has passed by such a majority, it makes no sense for him to oppose the legislation.

If the referendum had been lost, there might have been anti abortion challenges to Varadkar, Martin, or McDonald. But it passed, with a massive majority. No one is going to challenge them on abortion now.

Similarly the TDs who were on the No side are going to back away from that, because they don't want to define themselves as single issue candidates for the losing side.

For Varadkar, Martin, and McDonald, there is no advantage in renegotiating the legislation. Debate can only raise tensions in their parties.

The only people who want to change the legislation are the people who just got hammered in a referendum. They can delay and obstruct, but they don't have the political means to make changes.

blanch152

antiskeptic wrote: »

A split would tend to water down the a.o.r. legislation so as to represent both views.

It's standing is that it is the only view we have on the issue of a.o.r. The referendum didn't establish that.

Ought the government be interested in the nations view of a.o.r.

I'd have thought so.

Give it up, let it go, whatever, you are clutching at thin straws.

This has been a landmark decision in Irish history.

We were told repeatedly by the NO campaign again and again that a YES vote means "abortion on demand" in their words. Now that they have lost the hypocrisy I predicted has come to the fore, the lies that were told are all now clear.

If they had any shame at all, they would slink back into the dark caves that they come out of everytime there is a social issue on the table.

Nody

antiskeptic wrote: »

The mandate is to legislate. If 50% of the electorate is contra- abortion on request, then the government might expect to get crucified by that cohort. They are facing people who might resent not being given an option to deal with the hard cases only. People who were forced into a difficult decision. It's only 20% more crucifixion that is already coming their way.

It is way less than 50% that is against the proposal as the vote has shown; in fact I'd say more people fell on the caution over yes side which would make the mandate even bigger.

Since they are damned if they do legislate for a.o.r. as advertised and damned if they don't, might they figure out a way to extract most votes by watering down?

Nope; the vote was very clear and if you feel sour grapes now you'll be greatly disappointed in the years to come as when the old guard keeps dying the new guard will keep dragging Ireland kicking and screaming into the 21st century in line with rest of Europe.

here's little doubt people were torn: they wanted the hard cases dealt with but wavered on a.o.r. Many fell down on the YES side.

Would these be happy to have their cake and eat it: hard cases / late term difficult cases dealth with and watered down a.o.r.?

If the vote had gone the other way around you'd be on here crowing about how how this is democracy etc. and would not even consider touching the amendment. Now because you lost by a landslide suddenly there should be compromises? Sorry not going to happen and expect legislation to be further liberated in the years to come in other areas as well until every Catholic influence has been removed and brought Irish law in line with how a modern society works today.

ArmaniJeanss

After weeks of being told the only poll that matters is the one in the ballot box, it seems pretty weird to be putting sudden faith in a tag-along question on an exit poll.

A question that wasn't on the ballot, wasn't directly debated, and that we have no idea of the context it was asked in (specific text/tone of a poll question and the previous layer of questions all have an influence on answers).

hatrickpatrick

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

After weeks of being told the only poll that matters is the one in the ballot box, it seems pretty weird to be putting sudden faith in a tag-along question on an exit poll.

A question that wasn't on the ballot, wasn't directly debated, and that we have no idea of the context it was asked in (specific text/tone of a poll question and the previous layer of questions all have an influence on answers).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Truest thing ever.

antiskeptic

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

After weeks of being told the only poll that matters is the one in the ballot box, it seems pretty weird to be putting sudden faith in a tag-along question* on an exit poll.

A question that wasn't on the ballot, wasn't directly debated, and that we have no idea of the context it was asked in (specific text/tone of a poll question and the previous layer of questions all have an influence on answers).

* The 'question' referred to above appeared in RTE's Referendum Exit Poll results. It sought to find out whether people (on all sides) were in favour of abortion-on-request. Only 52% said they were. In other words, the nation is seemingly split down the middle on this, the most significant (in terms of numbers of abortions attaching to it) element of the Constitutional amendment and the Government's proposed legislation.

You are right to say the question wasn't on the ballot. You are right to say it wasn't directly debated. There is a reason why such a key issue wasn't attended to during the campaign, why it was buried like a piece of bad news on the day of an earthquake.

Read on.




The Ballot Box as a means to a pre-defined end

The only people who were saying the "ballot box is the only thing that matters" were the people who wanted a "Yes" answer and gave us a ballot box by which to deliver it. In other words: the political top brass.


Let's look as some facts outside the vote, as best we know them:

- in the midst of this process, it became fairly clear that a lot of people, whilst believing there ought be legislation to deal with hard cases, were torn on the matter of abortion on request.

- although pre-voting polls are/were inaccurate, the exit poll managed to nail the result more or less on the head. Although it may not be bang-on accurate, it does give us the only indication we have regarding the peoples view on abortion on request.


It is not the fault of the people that a view expressed during the campaign and exit poll, couldn't be expressed in the ballot. Indeed, it appears the people were to be considered sheeple, for the purposes of this referendum. That a "Yes" vote was the answer required by political top brass.




How does one influence a poll?


Government/political leaders are the ones sitting at the starting point of all this of this. They are the ones who decide if and when a referendum is to be put to the people. That is but one string that can be pulled. But of course, it doesn't look well to be seen to be pulling strings: hence the idea of not campaigning as a party, to allow a "vote of conscience", etc.

Whatever about such fig leafs, strings do need to be pulled. So they ship the question "offshore" to a non-elected, non-representative "Citizen's" Assembly.

"Citizen's Assembly??" you ask. "Where the heck did the idea of a Citizen's Assembly come from? And who decided that that was a democracy-enabling tool??"

Well Citizen, the motion to constitute a Citizens Assembly (back in 2016) was put forth by Fine Gael Senator Jerry Buttimer. It's task, ostensibly, was to set about dealing with Five Big Issues.

Note which issue is top of the list - for first up gives you a big clue as to why the "Citizens" Assembly was being constituted at all - if one is inclined towards suspicion.

(i) the eighth amendment of the Constitution;

(ii) how we best respond to the challenges and opportunities of an ageing population;

(iii) fixed term parliaments; and

(iv) the manner in which referenda are held; and

(v) how the State can make Ireland a leader in tackling climate change;

Did you spot the bonus clue? Read Citizens Assembly Very Important Priority Task No. 4 again. Yup: task No. 4 should have been task No.1 - not least to establish whether a Citizens Assembly was appropriate to "the manner in which referenda are held".

By now you should be formulating the notion that Nail The 8th was what this was all about. That the other 4 Big Issues have been pulled randomly from a hat in order to act as wrapping paper for the actual motive.

If not, read on...



Who is this Jerry Buttimer anyway?

Well, he's a high ranking Fine Gael Senator who goes on to campaign for Repeal the 8th, is who he is. Back in 2014 though, Jerry is giving us insight into his embryonic thinking. Blue sky thinking which ultimately births his motion for a "Citizens" Assembly.

Jerry-the-Democrat? wrote:

"What is clear now is that we have to have a proper national debate around this and to hold that debate in a mature, clear, and focused manner, devoid of politics.”

A national debate "devoid of politics" becomes a "Citizen's" Assembly of a mere 100 people. Now Jerry is very taken with his low birthweight brainchild. So is everyone else apparently.

They decide that there is no need to let this new, Wunderkind aid to democracy crawl, then toddle, then walk. Not a bit of it! Jerry's wax n' feathers version is going land on the Sun itself. It is going to be set to work on one of the most contentious issues facing the country - wearing the asbestos suit of political imperative.

(If ever there was an idea that ought to be subjected to abortion on request up to 12 weeks, then Jerry's idea is it. Except there was no request from political top brass. They dearly wanted this child to be born - even if, one suspects, it can't be expected to survive for very long after birth)



Getting the right answer

Having been around the block in a few referenda, where the wrong answer was given by the electorate, the way to deal with this "Citizens" Assembly is well known. It's simple: keep on balloting until you get the answer you want.

In the first ballot, 87% of the members voted that Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution should not be retained in full. (Strike 1)

In the second ballot, 56% of the Members voted that Article 40.3.3 should be amended or replaced. (Strike 2)

In the third ballot, 57% of the Members recommended that Article 40.3.3 be replaced with a Constitutional provision explicitly authorising the Oireachtas to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and any rights of the pregnant woman. In other words, it would be a matter for the Oireachtas to decide how to legislate on these issues. (Home Run!)

One wonders how one hundred everyday individuals (ranging from doctors to bin men) manage to independently arrive at such a complex series of ballot options. Without their being led by the nose in that direction by people far more conversant in matters political than they are.




Anyway...

The (sonorously titled) "Citizens" Assembly is interesting in the context of your post. We have an RTE referendum exit poll of 4000 people in the setting of their just-having-voted. The exit poll goes on to nail the final result so can be seen as a guide of sorts.

"Pooh-pooh" you say.

Yet you seem content that 100 people(!) form a representative sample fit to establish:

a) the basis of the wording on the referendum voting slip

b) the basis of the legislation proposed by the Government.


You are not alone:

TDs and Senators have been urged to treat the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly on abortion “with the respect and due consideration they deserve” by chairwoman Ms Justice Mary Laffoy.

And the political top brass, surprise, surprise, trip over themselves to oblige. In a further nod to offshore politics they establish an Oireachtas Joint Committee to soberly reflect on the output of the Citizens Assembly. Sounds impressive doesn't it. Just like 'Citizens Assembly' sounds impressive.

That last bastion of neutral journalism - The Irish Times wrote:

‘Pro-choice’ senator elected chair of abortion committee

Fine Gael Senator Catherine Noone has been elected chairwoman of the Oireachtas abortion committee, which met for the first time on Wednesday in private. The committee will meet again in two weeks. Ms Noone was the only nominee.

Only nominee? By a whisker. There's that Yes-man popping up again (my parentheses)

Fine Gael’s Senator [Pro-Choice]Jerry Buttimer had been tipped to become chairman, partly because he led the Oireachtas [Joint] committee that held hearings on the [abortion liberalizing]Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill four years ago.

If you find the 2013 shoe fits, then you simply rinse and repeat.

However, to have Jerry-The-Democrat chair this Joint Committee would be to join some of the dots on a child's puzzle, making the picture all to too clear to anyone inclined to look. So the committee is duly established with Jerry II at the helm (with Jerry-The-Democrat thrown a bone in being made a member of it).

Members Pro-Choice: 15
Members Pro-life = 6

Conveniently, if democratically stacked, it's function:

One of the main tasks of the the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, chaired by Senator Catherine Noone of Fine Gael, will be to formulate the wording of the referendum to be held next year.

.

..having paid due consideration and respect to Jerry-the-Democrat (a.k.a. The "Citizens" Assembly)



-


"Yes" set the agenda and, via not-so circuitous route, brought about a form of words to the people. That form of words sidestepped the possibility of an answer on the most significant issue of the entire campaign: whether or not abortion on request.

In so far as there was a true Citizens Assembly, it voiced it's concerns all the way though the campaign and outed those concerns in the exit poll. This particular Citizens Assembly was exposed to the fullest array of issues: opinions from medics, ethicists, lawyers, people directly impacted, religious leaders, lobby groups, politicians, society around them, the world outside. It had an exhaustive (and exhausting) chance to reflect. And reflect it did in an ultimately telling way: split on the issue of abortion on request.

Democracy would have been interested in taking account of them. Democracy would looked for a middle road between the two extremes.



The only indication of this Great Deception? A question asked, per chance, by the our national broadcaster, RTE (about the only remotely neutral media outlet operating during this entire process).

scorching hemorrhoids

captainspeed wrote: »

I expect them to do what they said they would.

Did you come down in the last shower?
A Government sticking to it promises?
It might be the first time in the history of the state

ArmaniJeanss

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only people who were saying the "ballot box is thing that matters" were the people who wanted a Yes answer and brought it to the ballot box. That's the political top brass.

Eh, you said it yourself.
"A viewpoint not expressed in the polling station doesn't count towards victory."

This 52% figure wasn't expressed in the polling station, so it's very inconsistent to suddenly want it to matter.

---

I didn't quote the rest of your post but in general I do agree that you have every right to push for the legislation you desire (it was a point I repeatedly made here during the campaign when pushing for a Yes vote). I just don't believe the supposed 52% should suddenly become a 'thing' when opinion polls were continually rejected over the course of the campaign.

antiskeptic

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Eh, you said it yourself.
"A viewpoint not expressed in the polling station doesn't count towards victory

The question is whether there was a victory for a pre set political agenda. Or victory for democracy.

You seem in favour of the former.


If however the latter, would you see merit in the stitch-up argument presented. And that as a valid way to oppose the legislation proposed with malice aforethought?

RayCun

The thread title is "what kind of abortion legislation ought we expect?"

It is very clear what kind of legislation we can expect - the legislation that was proposed before the referendum.

It isn't the legislation you want, tough ****.

antiskeptic

RayCun wrote: »

It is very clear what kind of legislation we can expect - the legislation that was proposed before the referendum.

It isn't the legislation you want, tough ****.

For a brief synopsis of the thinking of the political top brass (see post #85 above) when they conspired their way to the result of the 25th May 2018, I point you to the above sentiment.

RayCun

Isn't there a Conspiracy Theories forum on boards? You'd clearly feel more at home there.

antiskeptic

RayCun wrote: »

Isn't there a Conspiracy Theories forum on boards? You'd clearly feel more at home there.

A conspiracy theory (e.g. the US government blew up the twin towers) has the characteristic of something outlandish taking the place of something that is as obvious as day.

Post 85 points out something that is as obvious as day.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107111234&postcount=85


Perhaps you've got a better suggestion as to how the country managed to vote by a 2:1 majority when the main subject to hand a) didn't even arise as an option b) only managed to achieve a 50/50 split?

Accident?

RayCun

Aliens. Definitely aliens.

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question is whether there was a victory for a pre set political agenda. Or victory for democracy.

You seem in favour of the former.


If however the latter, would you see merit in the stitch-up argument presented. And that as a valid way to oppose the legislation proposed with malice aforethought?

I'm sorry, but last time I checked 52% was larger than 48%. Therefore, even if we give any credence to the core principal of your point (which I do not), the majority still want abortion on request. You have no leg to stand on with this argument.

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

I'm sorry, but last time I checked 52% was larger than 48%.

You're missing the point (and clinging to a ridiculous lifeline).

Therefore, even if we give any credence to the core principal of your point (which I do not),

Normally, on a discussion forum, you give a reason for the position you hold. Now if you have a contention with anything I say, by way of the way this thing can be easily stitched together, then by all means.

the majority still want abortion on request.

A referendum gives the country what it votes for: repeal and the government legislate

An opinion poll gives politicians a guide to how to legislate. They are neither bound by the referendum. Nor need they decide they are going to please either side 100%.

They are entitled to find a middle ground, if wanting to give a bit to both.

RayCun

antiskeptic wrote: »

They are entitled to find a middle ground, if wanting to give a bit to both.

They proposed outline legislation before the referendum.

The referendum passed with a massive majority.

The middle ground have spoken.

The government have already said they are going to move on the legislation outlined before the referendum.

antiskeptic

RayCun wrote: »

They proposed outline legislation before the referendum.

The referendum passed with a massive majority.

The middle ground have spoken.

The government have already said they are going to move on the legislation outlined before the referendum.

All of which has a kind of stick-fingers-in-ear / cling-like-pooh-to-a-shovel feel about it.

The question of post 85 is whether the electorate were manipulated up the garden path to a result the government wanted.

Now I realise that you like the result. That's fair enough.


The question however, is whether you give a fig that the electorate were led down the garden path to that result. If the result is more important to you than the means by which it was obtained, then fair enough - you're not a democrat (which is your democratic right)

RayCun

lol

Podge_irl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're missing the point (and clinging to a ridiculous lifeline).
Normally, on a discussion forum, you give a reason for the position you hold. Now if you have a contention with anything I say, by way of the way this thing can be easily stitched together, then by all means.

A referendum gives the country what it votes for: repeal and the government legislate

An opinion poll gives politicians a guide to how to legislate. They are neither bound by the referendum. Nor need they decide they are going to please either side 100%.

They are entitled to find a middle ground, if wanting to give a bit to both.

How am I clinging to a ridiculous lifeline? You are the one contending that a massive sweeping majority is not sufficient to bring in legislation that was announced before the referendum on the basis of an exit poll that shows a majority of people in favour of that legislation. The Citizen's Assembly, the Oireachtas committee, the referendum and even your beloved exit poll all had a majority in favour of what is about to happen.

Can you please explain why they should not move forward with the path they had outlined prior to the referendum that was carried with a massive majority? An exit poll showing also showing a majority in favour of it doesn't seem like a great reason.

antiskeptic

Podge_irl wrote: »

How am I clinging to a ridiculous lifeline?

The lifeline was 52% is sufficient support for a particular aspect of legislation.

The Citizen's Assembly,

Did you read about what the Citizen's Assembly was, who brought it about and why? Are you impressed by it's impressive sounding title. Or have you actually looked at what it was. A piddly little group of 100 citizens.

You've been remarkably silent on the idea that the referendum was stacked by the political top brass from the very outset. What have you to say about that - given you're pretty tight on the idea of democratic majorities of a percent or two

the Oireachtas committee,

Did you read about the Oireachtas Committee: the fact it was stacked, the fact that the chair is pro choice, the fact that they were following the recommendations of the aforementioned Assembly.

The Oireachtas Committee was like After Hours. An echo chamber for a preset view.

the referendum

Poo in > poo out?

Have you read post post 85? Do you object to it's basic conclusions?

and even your beloved exit poll all had a majority in favour of what is about to happen.

Clinging to a 52/48 split? I've heard of the resounding landslide of support. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen to attach itself to the most significant element of this whole affair.

Just for the hell of it. Let's suppose the 1.6% stated margin of error tends towards the No side (seeing as the RTE poll overshot the YES vote).

And it's now 50.4 / 49.6

Still full bore legislation because the majority of the electorate support it

:rolleyes:

fritzelly

Great how the No side are now trying to spin this as people didn't vote to allow abortion

They will just not give it up.