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

That AG advice should surely settle the care vote as it seems not only is there serious concerns from the AG whether it would stand up. There’s issues with the Irish version.

No to both.anything being proposed by the most dangerous minister in the history of this state,O’Gorman should be enough too prompt people to get up off their arses and vote.

Strive quite clearly isn't nothing. From the advice...

I doubt it. Exit polls are expensive and no one seems to give a **** about this.

While no-no seems to have the momentum and the leak seems to vindicate the no-no stance most people will have made their mind up already. No voters tend to be more vocal online too, so there's that bias to be aware of.

Personally think they are too close to call. There may be a natural yes inclination in the electorate but this could be countered by a more motivated no vote. It won't pass imo if turnout is below 40%

A no-no vote I think will be a bellwether for an absolutely disastrous local and European election for established parties. If either pass, then there is an appetite for the status quo.

It was a calculated leak. Sent to a small disliked outlet late, after the moratorium, it is a political insurance policy. Leaked late so it is unlikely to influence the vote, but at the same time if the referendums fail to get carried, it puts the blame squarely on O'Gorman and puts him in the firing line.

I have a strong suspicion of which office this came from.

With the Attorney General advising against the wording, it has to be a solid No / No. Any legal professional worth their salt who is unbiased and clearly not following an agenda or afraid to upset advertisers for their employer are advising to vote no. This whole vote seems to be rushed through far too quickly without proper opportunity for scrutiny to make an informed decision.

I was open to voting yes for both

BUT - having read up on it, watched and listened to debates, and considering the very lacklustre campaign by Govt parties (very few posters, NO canvassing in my area) -

I will vote NO NO - too much uncertainty and a sense of a rush job for whatever reason...

And yet here you are.

I would bet most Boards posters like myself voted yes on many previous referenda like SSM.

As has been noted previously I had not one canvasser from a govt party. I don’t think many of their own foot soldiers had much confidence it it, which is in itself unsurprising with the performance and increasing arrogance of the present government. (Which I voted for).

Additionally I must express my Admiration for Peadar Tobin...

He was a first class opposition politician....shinners are pathetic opposition

I haven't been up to speed with this at all, I don't really watch TV or listen to the radio, but when I first heard about these amendments I was yes/yes in principle. Now having genuinely spent a few hours yesterday and this morning trying to understand it all I'm very much leaning towards No/No simply because I haven't been convinced by anyone that Yes/Yes is a good change. The No side have presented some clear and compelling reasons for their opinion, while the Yes side have simply not given me the same degree of certainty and clarity.

I'm far from anti-government or anti-establishment, and would consider myself to be quite progressive and liberal minded overall, but the uncertainty around these changes and the potential for unintended consequences is too high.

Lots of well thought out, well constructed and well considered arguments here from the No-No posters.

And lots of personal insults and spite from the Yes-Yes posters.

And a miaow to you too x

This is exactly where I'm at. Not opposed to the sentiment being put forward but everything is so vague. As for the headbangers going for a no-no therefore people should go yes-yes, that's a mad way to look at it. The cranks would vote against this if it guaranteed them a million euro at the end of the year because it's some sort of government conspiracy.

I'm assuming, and this is where the issue is, that the concept of a durable relationship would need to be legislated for. I don't know if that's the case or if it's just some vague term to imply a long term (how long??) living arrangement.

EDIT: Just to note, my other half just went off on one about this. Basically any provisions in the Consitution are already largely ignored since there are no extra financial supports for single income families to actually hold up;

“The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”

Basically, women who want to stay at home with their families are effectively coerced into working because the cost of not doing so makes staying at home prohibitive for many along with there being absolutely no support in the form of childcare when there are 2 working parents.