Referendum on Gender Equality (THREADBANS IN OP)

Not remotely- such is the left wing echo chamber these people inhabit.

The McKenna principle states that public money cannot be used to advocate for a position on any referendum. That is of course quite correct, the State should not seek influence the public.

If public money was found to be in favour of a No vote then the Courts could determine that the vote was invalid and should be rerun.

If for example an NGO erected partisan posters it purchased with public money or was displaying partisan campaign material on a website funded by public money then it would be in breach of the rules.

I will strive to pay my TV licence.

The Ditch has published the AG’s advice on the referendums which the Government refused to publish. It looks genuine although not a perfect copy.

The AG argues that the Care amendment would have ‘real effects’, and give rise to much litigation. I don’t see why this should be so when mothers never benefited from virtually identical wording.

A point no one has noticed before now. The Irish language amendment for Article 42.B uses a phrase for “strive” which differs from the Irish version of “strive” in Article 45. Confusing ensues.

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/03/07/wording-for-referendum-proposals-would-have-real-effects-says-ag-in-unpublished-advice/

You mean you give up trying to dig yourself into a deeper hole. You still haven't outlined why no one has yet taken a Constitutional challenge about the level of support that's guaranteed by the government not being good enough either.

Sigh....What do you think the upcoming challenge in April is about?

When did i say they were strive to provide support outside the family? This what I posted earlier today.

I know, hence the reason i never said they did. As I said, the government will have a legal obligation to make some attempt to provide care for families who have a member who is disabled. That doesn't exist under the current Constitution.

The current Constitution and the proposed amendment provide no mention of the State providing any level of assistance to people with a disability outside the family.

And you will eventually, I hope, understand that is exactly why so many people are opposed to the proposed amendment.

Because this is what you said.

You've already ruled out any possible change because a government minister has said so. But the Court could very easily disagree with Norma Foley and the Government's decision on that. Also, given you said this early

It's great to see you've changed your turn and you now feel you can accurately predict the outcome of a Supreme Court Case!

What on earth are you trying to say here? I quite honestly can not make head nor tail of this.

I'm actually not going respond to the rest of your post. I apologise for that because it's a first for me to opt out of a debate but I'll just agree to disagree with you at this stage.

Is it though? They just seem like one big Mono-Party at this stage.

Lol, nailed it. The irony is feckin gas.

In law, "strive" means nothing; "must" is the word you have to see for something to be required.

The naivety of people supporting the care referendum is astounding. You have been played like a fiddle by the government. Initially referring to it as "A Referendum on Women's place in the home" sewed the idealist seed. Appeal to the progressive in all of us and then do a bait and switch on the wording.

Why wasn't the wording from the citizens assembly used? That would pass easily. The only correct course of action is to vote it down so they can improve the wording and run it again. If it is passed that opertunity is gone.

Whenever a government minister has taken part in a debate on radio or tv they have been schooled. So why do they keep punishing themselves when they know they are flogging a dead horse and when they also know they will be getting schooled time and time again.

I think it will be no. "If in doubt throw it out"...there is just too much uncertainty here as to how society could actually be affected by these changes in reality from inheritance to immigration.

It's too much of a risk to vote yes yes.

houses not bs distraction referendums