I forget that there is a prime minister and an Irish president. Because this is a great photo.
That man is a national treasure.
This is one of the best things I’ve ever listened to. Short clip and well worth listening to. Michael D absolutely ripping apart some American tea party chap on a talk show.
For context, he lived in the US for a long time and loves the place. Mary Robinson who he refers to was previously our president and is also a national treasure. An absolutely amazing woman.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
This is one of the best things I’ve ever listened to
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Any Irish here to provide some context?
I’ll try. The vote was on two issues: wording to replace arcane references to women’s place in the home / definition of a family and responsibility of care.
On both the wording was badly thought out and left a lot of room for interpretation / future court cases. There were fairly hot debates among legal folks who then caused average folks to be wary.
The second one smelled like the state trying to wash it’s burden of care, particularly for the elderly.
I voted yes / no as did more or less everyone I know so I’m obviously in a little bubble as I expected the family one to pass based on my bubble.
I felt that while the wording on the family one was a bit shite it was still better than what’s currently in there and that it was important to recognise non-standard families as entirely legitimate. I expect a better worded version to come before the people in future (all constitutional changes require a vote).
The care one was an easy no for me and everyone else apparently. Highest no vote in any referendum in the history of the state.
For me, the lack of a definition of a durable relationship was the killer. How do you know if you’re in one? What if one person thinks they are and the other doesn’t? Do you have to break up every six months or so to avoid creating one?
And definitely the care referendum was just stupid. The state will “strive” to provide care? My dude I’m striving to levitate right now, but mysteriously fuck all seems to be happening in real life.
For me, the lack of a definition of a durable relationship was the killer. How do you know if you’re in one?
I was mostly OK with this. The constitution is broad strokes and legislation is to define the minutia with the courts as the final arbiters.
I did feel like that one was open to potential abuse by both legislation and court cases but I have enough faith in our senior judiciary to not fuck up the interpretation and I felt the current wording was really out of date so it swung me towards a yes, just about.
It definitely could have been worded better and I think it will come in a future vote. The current wording is very 1936 like.
Absolutely, I have no problem with the intent of the proposal, just the wording was lazy and too open to abuse.
The care one however was awful. That would need a total rework before I’d consider a yes.
It’s a massive failure of the government to not get these through. Recognising non-marriage based families and recognising women outside of the home are so easy to get voted in and yet they managed to fuck it up.
The wording was suspicious, they ignored the advice of the Attorney General, and the lack of communication about it all didn’t help. I don’t watch TV and all I got was one leaflet in the post, not really an education on it.
Then the Taoiseach went on TV and the clip circulated of him laughing at the idea the State should support and care for its citizens. I reckon any on the fence were pushed to No on that alone.
Then the Taoiseach went on TV and the clip circulated of him laughing at the idea the State should support and care for its citizens. I reckon any on the fence were pushed to No on that alone.
He really let the mask slip. It was disgusting to watch. The care vote was doomed in those 30 seconds.
He is a dickhead, he is the most obvious arse licking populist ever. He would ride his own mother if he thought it would put him in a positive light or give him a decent headline.
He has no spine. A gay man who opposed gays adopting until the popular vote showed the countrt supported it and then he was leading pride parades. Wanker.
These are all very interesting and good ideas, but I struggle to see why they need to be added to a constitution. A constitution is supposed to be a frame of government, and adding a bunch of ideals to it seems like just worthless lip service.
Yes, I recognise that it’s already filled with such statements, and I find the inclusion of such statements equally baffling.
Rights framed in a constitution are important.
The responsibility of the government is to uphold law and the rights that law protects.
But a legislator sets the law, so without rights being part of a constitution, the government gets no responsibility from a constitution.
The most important stuff is all pertaining to elections. How the government gets elected being in the constitution stops the government changing that before an election.
Then rights directly effecting elections. Speech, protest, anti-discrimination.
Can’t have those changed before the ballot.
Everything else can and should be part of a separate bill or constitution of rights.
