March 8th - What’s your vote? **Mod Note In Post #677**

I think some might pay attention to the debates to sway them.

Originally I thought this was going to very simple Yes vote by a large majority but I don't feel this is the case anymore.

I'm fairly sure of voting No on the care referendum now. Still not certain on the family referendum.

I'm surprised at the official poll results. The majority of people I know are voting No to both and they are mostly FFG voters who are definitely not protest voters and definitely not supporters of Iona etc. I've never experienced this before where all the people I know who are usually in line with the mainstream official viewpoint, are going against it.

The Catholic Church has come out looking for a No vote.

I find it very easy to choose when the Catholic Church lets me know how they want me to vote in ANY referendum.

So, it’s a YES-YES from me.

I want you to refute to us the "rambling nonsense" of Micheal McDowell. Clearly you know better than him.

You have already said that people voting no have not read or understand the proposed changes to the constitution - again clearly we all below your level of understanding.

This is now my 4th time of asking - justify your comments.

Anything that suggests the idea of giving the government and/or courts more power over us should always necessitate a big fat "NO"

Even if purely ceremonial, the government are clearly using the constitution as political fodder. Just wait for the next election, if it gets passed it will be thier prize pig in all the debates.

I'm not going to spend the next hour typing out definitions for common words/phrases - it is glaringly obvious the game you are trying to play 😉

You seem to struggle to understand what is a very basic idea, it cannot really be that hard for you - if you do not know what morality is you can look it up. (perhaps you should as you are obviously struggling with this as well) You will understand 98% of the context in which it can be used. This is not possible for "durable relationship" - once again, this is nothing but a place holder. You expect people to vote for something that currently has absolutely no meaning.

Comical is nice word to use, not only are you so narrow sighted that you cant see the impact of inserting such an ambiguous term into the constitution will have and the amount of trouble it will cause but you are now going to try second guess the supreme court.

I won't be voting.

I can't put into words how uninterested I am in it.

So you still can't provide definitions. Good to know. The fact you are struggling to provide definitions says it all. Again, most people are fully able to grasp the meaning of durable relationship, its doesn't exactly require a rocket scientist to figure it out.

It's not about second guessing the Supreme court. Its about looking at judgments they have made in the past and determining what likely judgments they will make in the future.

Same, anyone I’ve talked to who is engaged with it is saying NO NO or...no interest whatsoever and confusing it with an election even....

But as always the way - The major parties will get their vote out to bloc vote for yes - no major party (afaik) are pushing for a NO NO vote?

I am not voting. This year our local council asked us to take a day off work to allow a company to come and inspect our rented accommodation. I don't have the extra time now to come and vote in this junk. I always vote but have no appetite to vote. Enrages me to see signs around the neighbourhoods that I cannot afford to buy in. I think the amount of abstentions will be a real eye opener to them.

If the amendments are carried then "they" won't care if only 12 people voted.

And if the amendments aren't carried then they'll have the excuse that the turnout was surprisingly low, but "the people have spoken".

Either way, "they" will have fulfilled the commitment in the Programme for Government to hold the referenda (as recommended by the Citizens Assembly) and "they" will cheerfully continue drawing their salaries and grandstanding about RTE, Ukraine and Gaza. Heads they win, tails we lose.

No and no. These are getting even more rushed and shambolic. It’s like they don’t even read these themselves and scratch their head when someone asks for clarification.

I'm voting no on both proposals. I don't trust this government and I'm deeply suspicious of Roderic O'Gorman and what his vision is for Ireland. I was very impressed with Michael McDowell's interview, didn't always like his politics but he made a strong case for a No vote, in my opinion.

"Again, most people are fully able to grasp the meaning of durable relationship"

I must be absolutely thick so. For my education and other puzzled voters, please explain exactly what is the meaning of 'durable relationship'.

And give clear examples of what is a 'durable relationship' and what isn't a 'durable relationship'.

Thank you.

Don't put yourself down Furzee. I'm confident you'll be well able to do. We will give it a bash.

What do you think the term durable means?