Referendum 2024

[backinatracksuit]

I genuinely don’t understand the point of that article as it is and as it has been,
Maybe it’s grand in theory but what is it for? Like what does the government do to provide for women to stay at home currently? It’s pretty pointless to me, I am completely neutral currently on that proposal

[Cheasty]

“A durable relationships”.

FFS sake.

This fella thinks he understands the implications of constitutional changes and he doesn’t even understand basic grammar.

[TheUlteriorMotive]

@backinatracksuit

Like what does the government do to provide for women to stay at home currently?

Constitution arguably stops full tax individualisation and stops a divorced woman being required go back to work

[artfoley]

@Rocko

That’s for legislation

And where is that legislation? Surely if you want people to understand the implications then you have draft legislation ready to go

[SlippyStevie]

McDowell is the finest legal mind of his generation.

[Cheasty]

@SlippyStevie

McDowell is the finest legal mind of his generation.

Or Michael of the family McDowell as he likes to be called

[Little_Lord_Fauntleroy]

He is such a dick and would put people off voting no

[Cheasty]

Elon Musk and Conor McGregor are shouting from the rooftops for a No vote.

Neither of them even know there are two separate votes.

Not sure either could even point out Ireland on a map.

[PasqualePaoli]

Is there a betting market for no?

I would love to have a successful election bet in a similar mould to my successful punt on Peter Casey earning over a certain percentage of the vote.

[Batigol]

@PasqualePaoli

Is there a betting market for no?

I think Boyles have one yeah

[glasagusban]

McDowell, McGregor and Musk telling you to vote no no. I don’t even need to read the fucking thing to know which way to vote.

[artfoley]

@glasagusban

McDowell, McGregor and Musk telling you to vote no no. I don’t even need to read the fucking thing to know which way to vote.

Well that certainly marks you as a moron.

[Jahan]

Has tightened over last few days.

[Batigol]

That’s a silly reason to vote.

[Batigol]

Are they allowing doubles? I’d say either both will pass or both will fail

[pulpfiction]

That was never in doubt

[Jahan]

@Batigol

Are they allowing doubles?

Don’t think so.

[Fran]

@Rocko

Fran might have been an average striker on a very good Astro team back in the day but he’s wrong on this one.

[Bugsy_Malone]

So it’s a No No here.
“Durable Realtionship” is an absolute abomination of a phrase and should be nowhere near the Constitution of our land. If the Government had any respect for the electorate we would have properly worded legislation presented to us prior to the vote. Instead we have the narrative, it will be for the courts to decide on the definition of same.

On the the Carers amendment my reading is the state are abdicating their role in the provision of support to carers. Again, the wording is so hopelessly vague, the only winners in the long run are going to be in The Four Courts.,

My heart sinks when I think of the standard of person we have in this country enacting legislation. This was an open goal, and they’ve somehow managed to make a bollixs of it.

[Rocko]

@Bugsy_Malone

So it’s a No No here.
“Durable Realtionship” is an absolute abomination of a phrase and should be nowhere near the Constitution of our land. If the Government had any respect for the electorate we would have properly worded legislation presented to us prior to the vote. Instead we have the narrative, it will be for the courts to decide on the definition of same.

On the the Carers amendment my reading is the state are abdicating their role in the provision of support to carers. Again, the wording is so hopelessly vague, the only winners in the long run are going to be in The Four Courts.,

My heart sinks when I think of the standard of person we have in this country enacting legislation. This was an open goal, and they’ve somehow managed to make a bollixs of it.

1. Durable relationships is a term already used in EU law. We didn’t invent it.

2. There is no legislation to be presented prior to the vote or after the vote because there is no legislation required. Nobody is proposing any legislation in this space.

3. There are protections afforded to the “marital family” in the constitution. Those protections can in future include other types of family if a democratically elected government decides to legislate that way. There are no planned changes to pensions or tax law etc and none will be impacted by these changes.

4. The special status for marriage is retained, meaning there can be no erosion of rights for families established through marriage.

5. The family amendment is not controversial at all. It is updating outdated text and it requires a few huge leaps to find a way to be offended by it.