Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Your claim that the Constitution(read as a whole document) guarantees the State must do as much as possible to ensure woman don't work is wrong. I'm happy to leave at that.

Except that is the exact opposite of what I said! The state will do as much as they can to ensure they DON'T HAVE TO work outside the home due to financial need is what the Constitution says.

You are just continuing the misrepresentation that the Constitution says a women's place is in the home and they have no choice in the matter.

There will be an obligation on the government to strive to support the provision of care by family members. There is currently no obligation on the government to do that. The woman taking the current case would be in a position to take the case on whether the State is vidicating its Constitutional obligation to do that. But it will go further, by allowing people beyond mothers take a case.

The government will have no legal obligation under the Constitution to provide care in the home. The word "home" will no longer be in the Constitution in relation to care.

I was wondering where the Green Party had gone. As far as I can see they have not debated this at all in public? Does anyone even know who the Green Party member responsible for overseeing the referendum campaign is?

edit: Looking forward to that debate!

Marie Baker is excellent on the current state of the law but she has to prevaricate on the effects of the family amendment - "that may have to be looked at again" and "probably" i.e. can't definitively rule out hypothetical scenarios. She missed the point about the "available care" question - the HSE will reduce the level of home help if there is a family member available to provide care. There's a simple answer is to this, and to all other practical questions about the care amendment - this amendment will not help you in any way.

She did make one definite mistake, surprising for the Head of our Electoral Commission. When asked about the legality of the rushed referendum process (at 12:30), she says "the Bills have been through the Oireachtas, signed by the President and the date was fixed". In fact, Referendum Bills are not signed by the President until they are approved by the People in a referendum. If the People vote No, these Bills will have no legal effect whatever and no "afterlife". If the Government want to re-run the referendums, they have to go through the whole Oireachtas process again.

I always said that the Yes, Yes side were aiming for a very low turnout because these amendments are patent nonsense so apathy is their only friend. But Pat says the queries were "flooding in" and he had a "huge number" about having two relationships at the same time. I think we will see a decent turnout tomorrow (>30%). Even if the Yes side squeaks home, the politicians will get a strong message from the absolute number of NO votes.

Prob a relief for the “Yes” side- the less they say the less damage they can do to their campaign.

I reckon it’s headed No now. The past few days have really cemented the No side

Here's hoping 🤞

Normally this would be true but the politicians will be knocking on doors in May and June asking for votes. They will hate the idea that masses of voters went to the polls to give the politicians a kicking for proposing nonsense amendments to the people's Constitution.

Peader Tobin very clear , concise , eloquent he is wiping the floor with OGorman.

OGorman doesn't even know what his own referendum is about. We have coalition contradicting each other Left right and centre when a micro phone is put in front of them.

Yes voters be careful what you vote for.

I think it applies from .midday today

65/35 would be a massive (and well-earned) kick in the pants for our politicians as a class. I could count on the fingers on one hand the politicians who have called for No.

Turnout will be crucial - the higher the better for No, No.

It's amazing the number of people who think politicians don't care about voters. Politicians care above all about getting votes.

If this is defeated, there will be serious post-mortems in all the political parties. Officially, of course, they'll say "we just wanted to get rid of sexist language but we accept the verdict of the People. We must consider again how our Constitution should reflect our values and our society".

Behind closed doors, the rank and file will say to the party leaders

"WTF!!! We have local and European elections coming up and now we've pissed off our voters for nothing!! We worked for years to help families and carers but you landed us with these BS amendments out of the blue and dragooned us into the voting lobbies in Leinster House."

The party leaders will think "You went quietly into the voting lobbies and then betrayed the party because you never went out to canvass". But the leaders will say to their party members "People will forget this quickly because we will drop it like a hot potato and all the other parties will do the same. The media will play along. Aontú might pick up some first preferences from us but they'll come back to us in the later counts." (that last bit might not work for Mary Lou at the SF Ard Comhairle 😏)

In the back of their minds, all the parties will think - Let's sort Michael McDowell when we square the Supreme Court on the University seats."

What do you mean you never claimed the State will do as much as possible? This is what you said yesterday.

You have then subsequently said the state haven't honoured that guarantee. I'm confused.

They will. This is the proposed amendment

It provides that the State shall strive to support the provision of care by families. It is the first time the State will have a Constitutional obligation to involve themselves in striving to provide care.

The current definition states

The current Constitution clearly states that provision of care within the family is the sole responsibility of the mother(or father). The only responsibility on the State is to ensure they endeavour to provide some level of money for that.

There's no responsibility for the State to strive to provide support to for medical help, for money for adaptive accomodation changes, educational supports etc. The proposed amendment opens the door for cases to be taken by family members to push for those kinds of support.

Finally, the current definition only covers a parent caring for their child. Care provided by married couples without kids, brother and sisters, parents to their grandparents etc are all excluded but with the new proposed amendment they would be included.

Plus resorting to emotional blackmail , will someone think of children if its a No vote .