Can someone explain why of all the issues in the country this one deemed to need a referendum?
I think @Horsebox is the man to do this. He recently put me in my place on the sandwich thread & firmly put that weirdo @Kyle back in his box on the job interview one too. He’s taking no nonsense whatsoever lately & getting straight to the nub of matters.
Was that a dig at me or Julio?
Cos this is a handy and cheap win for the government and doing actual governing like fixing the hospitals or the state of the capital, or the border, or homelessness, or soaring costs etc are difficult and would take actual competence
it wouldve been had they just removed woman and put in parent//guardian and had prepared legislation which defined durable relationship. they didnt and are, as usual, making a clusterfuck of an open goal
Handy win? We’ll see.
Handier than making actual improvements to people’s lives
No & No
41.1.1 - Whilst I am not opposed to broadening the constitution to protect families whether founded on marriage or other forms of relationships the wording “durable relationship” is loose and undefined and open to exploitation.
41.2.1 - This article does need a rewording but not the one they’ve offered. Again the new proposal is wishy washy and I’d rather maintain my wife and 3 daughters rights to remain at home if they wish to
On the second one, do your female relatives currently have the option of staying home if they wish to?
If honestly have no idea of what this means in real life terms
What exactly are you voting no to preserve?
Why do you bother with the pretend routine?
We/you know where you stand on the vast majority of issues. Are you actually trying a neutral type act?
If your response is going to be, what schuks me, save it
I think my post above is fairly clear. If you don’t understand that then there’s no point in getting in to it
The bottom line is that these referendums are not necessary to achieve any policy goal; they bring damaging and costly uncertainty into whole swathes of law, from pensions, family law, tax law, migration law, residence, law and succession law to name but a few.
I keep coming back to this impression of the referendum, and that’s as someone who would fall into this new “durable relationship” bracket. It seems very badly thought-out, at best.
But sure the constitution isn’t where those terms are defined. That’s for legislation and case law.
e.g. The word “home” can have lots of nuances to it but nobody is saying it can’t appear in the constitution. This is about recognising longer term relationships outside or marriage in concept. And then legislation deals with how that is implemented.
Fran might have been an average striker on a very good Astro team back in the day but he’s wrong on this one.
Like taking your political beliefs from Jon Walters…
The Oireachtas has full power to do justice to single parents and to co-habitants by ordinary statute law. It can, in the case of co-habitants, establish clear criteria for relationships that give rise to maintenance and succession issues on their termination.
I know of no legal right that the Oireachtas cannot extend by ordinary statute to a single mother to put her on a par with a married mother or widowed mother.
Is McDowell wrong there?
There doesn’t appear to be a need for this referendum, and the harmful implications, most especially in relation to the family law courts haven’t been thought through