FabSwingers.com > Forums > Ireland > Upcoming vote
Upcoming vote
Jump to: Newest in thread
The durable relationship can't find a clear definition for it: a Dom/sub several months/years, person with control over finance; findom, a fwb partner, a party couple profile here etc, what's enough? Durable relationship could leave this world open for issues, what's durable? Define relationship because there are sexless marriages out there where partners still have separate accounts does that make it less of a relationship and if that's acceptable what's acceptable under durable relationship. Head tried to figure what way to vote and I started wondering how it might affect here, could certain things on here/lifestyle be considered durable relationships?
I've gone through booklet and website but they don't define. I can find definitions elsewhere but that doesn't mean that's what Irish government meant for and one party implies X while another y.
What are people's thoughts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There are many undefined vague terms used in the constitution. It's up to the courts/political system to interpret the constitution into policy and law. They will interpret it. The question is do you trust them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The durable relationship can't find a clear definition for it: a Dom/sub several months/years, person with control over finance; findom, a fwb partner, a party couple profile here etc, what's enough? Durable relationship could leave this world open for issues, what's durable? Define relationship because there are sexless marriages out there where partners still have separate accounts does that make it less of a relationship and if that's acceptable what's acceptable under durable relationship. Head tried to figure what way to vote and I started wondering how it might affect here, could certain things on here/lifestyle be considered durable relationships?
I've gone through booklet and website but they don't define. I can find definitions elsewhere but that doesn't mean that's what Irish government meant for and one party implies X while another y.
What are people's thoughts "
I imagine it to mean a relationship with shared assets built up over time, as distinct from friendships which may be shared interest, but not assests.
but as you say it's ill-defined and I don't like that either |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago
|
I think from me it will be a no on both votes. They language used in the amendments is to vague and open to interpretation. They should have taken the time to debate both amendments properly and use clearly defined terms. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago
|
The amendments are attempting to recognise the changed reality of our society. So do nothing and ignore the fact that families are not exclusively a man a woman married with children and care can be given by more than a mother. So what wording would capture every scenario? The constitution was written to allow the Supreme Court interpret wordings. The meanings of words change over time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The amendments are attempting to recognise the changed reality of our society. So do nothing and ignore the fact that families are not exclusively a man a woman married with children and care can be given by more than a mother. So what wording would capture every scenario? The constitution was written to allow the Supreme Court interpret wordings. The meanings of words change over time. "
Ya, initially I would have been No/No...but have moved to Yes/No. Where I'll be next week is anyone's guess!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Personally think they could of put a third vote up for decision...
Blur or Oasis ."
Blur-red wins hands down as the vast majority of voters do not have a clear understanding of the vote is even about |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The amendments are attempting to recognise the changed reality of our society. So do nothing and ignore the fact that families are not exclusively a man a woman married with children and care can be given by more than a mother. So what wording would capture every scenario? The constitution was written to allow the Supreme Court interpret wordings. The meanings of words change over time.
Ya, initially I would have been No/No...but have moved to Yes/No. Where I'll be next week is anyone's guess! "
All they needed to do on the 40th amendment was to replace the "woman's role at home" with the "homemaker's role at home". What they are doing instead only legitimise the HSE striving (but failing) to provide a success health and social care system.
As for the 30th amendment - the vague lawyers will keep many a barrister in wealth as the courts define it....
It's a No-No from me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Anything that says caring work is "women's work" gets a no from me.
I have seen for myself, men who have been stepping up and providing vital caring work, who were made to feel like a failure of a man because he was doing "women's work". It's backwards and it needs to go.
WHo stays home with kids is a personal decision, not the obligation of women only. Caring work in gender neutral.
As regards to the family. I see no downside of a broad definition of a durable relationship - its not going to harm anyone to be inclusive. Using marriage as the only definition is clearly outdated.
So it's a resounding yes/yes from the two of us.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Idk, to me it feels like a lot of arguing about semantics that will make zero difference to the reality of people's daily lives. "
This exactly, which begs the question the Goverment haven't really clarified, why the change at all? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anything that says caring work is "women's work" gets a no from me.
I have seen for myself, men who have been stepping up and providing vital caring work, who were made to feel like a failure of a man because he was doing "women's work". It's backwards and it needs to go.
WHo stays home with kids is a personal decision, not the obligation of women only. Caring work in gender neutral.
As regards to the family. I see no downside of a broad definition of a durable relationship - its not going to harm anyone to be inclusive. Using marriage as the only definition is clearly outdated.
So it's a resounding yes/yes from the two of us.
"
It's an interesting one, I have no real issue with the wording around women and have seen many single mothers and "stay at home" mothers strongly disagree with removing their recognition from our constitution.
I'm very suspicious of O'Gorman and also RTE around this and the misinformation they initially gave out. There is no doubt they've tried to piggyback this on the progressive referendums on abortion and marriage.
But the "why" is not being answered for me! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilderMan 37 weeks ago
dublin |
I agree with people's concerns about leaving definitions up to the courts but they've been doing that for decades and meanings change over time so they're expected to take heed of those changes.
The fact that Michael McDowell is supporting a no is helping to push me in a yes / yes direction tbh 
I hear we were all supposed to be posted an information document, I never got that, just my poling card. Hopefully it will arrive by Friday. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think the Why, is to jolt people out of a culture of mysogyny where mothering is a competitive sport and judgment of women is a GAA style committee of mysigynistic begrudgers.
Blended families are also families.
I think it's to take the married family and the married SAHM off the pedestal. All families, all parents are equal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *habMan 37 weeks ago
Boomtown |
I'm old enough to remember the last time we were told not to worry about the courts interpretation of wordings and look where that got us, X case and Savita Halappanavar just to name 2.
I'm No/No |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *affa31Woman 37 weeks ago
Galway |
"
The fact that Michael McDowell is supporting a no is helping to push me in a yes / yes direction tbh
"
This! Add in Conor McGregor for a no/no and it’s certainly pushing me to a yes/yes.
I’m decided on the first yes, unsure about the second at this moment in time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago
|
"
The fact that Michael McDowell is supporting a no is helping to push me in a yes / yes direction tbh
This! Add in Conor McGregor for a no/no and it’s certainly pushing me to a yes/yes.
I’m decided on the first yes, unsure about the second at this moment in time. "
I'll probably just go onto Gript and whatever they say I'll do the opposite. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago
|
To be honest this smacks of the Nice Treaty all over again people were confused then and it was used against them they voted no then back to the polling stations weeks later when they re worded it the majority voted yes so no matter what way its voted on we will be back in a couple of weeks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The fact that Michael McDowell is supporting a no is helping to push me in a yes / yes direction tbh
This! Add in Conor McGregor for a no/no and it’s certainly pushing me to a yes/yes.
I’m decided on the first yes, unsure about the second at this moment in time. "
That's the worst part of it all. If No wins, the likes of them lads will be claiming some sort of victory in their own heads!
That would definitely embolden them and be a blow to the current government, with an election later this year. The whole reason for this Ref, in my opinion, was to try build some positive momentum like they got from previous Refs, prior to an election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It seems clear to me that there isn't any "secret agenda". But nowadays people are so distrustful of the government and it's become so easy to whip up hysteria.
So on this case, there really isn't any way this could hurt women or families rights. It can only help support us.
But the fact that there really isn't anything more to say on it, has left so many people claiming they have been "uninformed". Meaning the No side has been able to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and we all know you can't prove a negative.
People feel they are not being told the consequences of a yes voted b cause their really aren't any.
When we campaigned for a Yes vote in the abortion referendum, we always talked about how removing the gendered language from the constitution was a goal, that's not sneaky government. That's us. It's women's rights campaigners who have been calling for this for years.
I'm not "helped" in anyway by a constitution that says caring work is more my job and not equally the responsibility of my husband. "Special" has always been the euphemism used to limit women to specific roles.
You just can't have an equal society where the Constitution assigns gendered roles, and unmarried parents are denied the same recognition.
I know people are uneasy about the wording, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better wording that deals with both of these issues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *habMan 37 weeks ago
Boomtown |
"It seems clear to me that there isn't any "secret agenda". But nowadays people are so distrustful of the government and it's become so easy to whip up hysteria.
So on this case, there really isn't any way this could hurt women or families rights. It can only help support us.
But the fact that there really isn't anything more to say on it, has left so many people claiming they have been "uninformed". Meaning the No side has been able to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and we all know you can't prove a negative.
People feel they are not being told the consequences of a yes voted b cause their really aren't any.
When we campaigned for a Yes vote in the abortion referendum, we always talked about how removing the gendered language from the constitution was a goal, that's not sneaky government. That's us. It's women's rights campaigners who have been calling for this for years.
I'm not "helped" in anyway by a constitution that says caring work is more my job and not equally the responsibility of my husband. "Special" has always been the euphemism used to limit women to specific roles.
You just can't have an equal society where the Constitution assigns gendered roles, and unmarried parents are denied the same recognition.
I know people are uneasy about the wording, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better wording that deals with both of these issues. "
Just for legal clarification, can you define what a woman is, Catherine Martin and the govt haven't |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm old enough to remember the last time we were told not to worry about the courts interpretation of wordings and look where that got us, X case and Savita Halappanavar just to name 2.
I'm No/No "
At the risk of re-opening that can of worms ....
Savita Halappanavar by law was entitled to a termination. It was medical misadventure that caused her death, the medical staff got it very wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems clear to me that there isn't any "secret agenda". But nowadays people are so distrustful of the government and it's become so easy to whip up hysteria.
So on this case, there really isn't any way this could hurt women or families rights. It can only help support us.
But the fact that there really isn't anything more to say on it, has left so many people claiming they have been "uninformed". Meaning the No side has been able to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and we all know you can't prove a negative.
People feel they are not being told the consequences of a yes voted b cause their really aren't any.
When we campaigned for a Yes vote in the abortion referendum, we always talked about how removing the gendered language from the constitution was a goal, that's not sneaky government. That's us. It's women's rights campaigners who have been calling for this for years.
I'm not "helped" in anyway by a constitution that says caring work is more my job and not equally the responsibility of my husband. "Special" has always been the euphemism used to limit women to specific roles.
You just can't have an equal society where the Constitution assigns gendered roles, and unmarried parents are denied the same recognition.
I know people are uneasy about the wording, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better wording that deals with both of these issues. "
Can't hurt us.. I've just seen an interview with Leo saying that it's 'the families " responsibility to care for their elderly parents, or nieces, nephews, if something happens & it should not be government responsibility.. so by that token a sister/brother, etc would be responsible for their disabled sibling even the parents die & government can wash their hands completely.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iseekingbiCouple 37 weeks ago
N ireland and West Midlands |
I dont know which collection of eejits drafted the wording but theyve done a grand job in creating ambiguity and blank cheques for lawyers for a decade- whilst the courts have to sort out the legal interpretations. They and the inept cabal in the Dail should be ashamed of themselves. Embarrassing.
Is there an option on the form
"SEND THE AUTHORS BACK TO DO THEIR JUNIOR CERT"? That'd be the one for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I dont know which collection of eejits drafted the wording but theyve done a grand job in creating ambiguity and blank cheques for lawyers for a decade- whilst the courts have to sort out the legal interpretations. They and the inept cabal in the Dail should be ashamed of themselves. Embarrassing.
Is there an option on the form
"SEND THE AUTHORS BACK TO DO THEIR JUNIOR CERT"? That'd be the one for me."
This 100%, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 37 weeks ago
Dublin |
"I dont know which collection of eejits drafted the wording but theyve done a grand job in creating ambiguity and blank cheques for lawyers for a decade- whilst the courts have to sort out the legal interpretations. They and the inept cabal in the Dail should be ashamed of themselves. Embarrassing.
Is there an option on the form
"SEND THE AUTHORS BACK TO DO THEIR JUNIOR CERT"? That'd be the one for me.
This 100%, "
No No
You are welcome |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 37 weeks ago
Dublin |
"It seems clear to me that there isn't any "secret agenda". But nowadays people are so distrustful of the government and it's become so easy to whip up hysteria.
So on this case, there really isn't any way this could hurt women or families rights. It can only help support us.
But the fact that there really isn't anything more to say on it, has left so many people claiming they have been "uninformed". Meaning the No side has been able to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and we all know you can't prove a negative.
People feel they are not being told the consequences of a yes voted b cause their really aren't any.
When we campaigned for a Yes vote in the abortion referendum, we always talked about how removing the gendered language from the constitution was a goal, that's not sneaky government. That's us. It's women's rights campaigners who have been calling for this for years.
I'm not "helped" in anyway by a constitution that says caring work is more my job and not equally the responsibility of my husband. "Special" has always been the euphemism used to limit women to specific roles.
You just can't have an equal society where the Constitution assigns gendered roles, and unmarried parents are denied the same recognition.
I know people are uneasy about the wording, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better wording that deals with both of these issues.
Just for legal clarification, can you define what a woman is, Catherine Martin and the govt haven't "
If they can't define what a woman is, cannot trust then with much else, nevermind amendments to the constitution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems clear to me that there isn't any "secret agenda". But nowadays people are so distrustful of the government and it's become so easy to whip up hysteria.
So on this case, there really isn't any way this could hurt women or families rights. It can only help support us.
But the fact that there really isn't anything more to say on it, has left so many people claiming they have been "uninformed". Meaning the No side has been able to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and we all know you can't prove a negative.
People feel they are not being told the consequences of a yes voted b cause their really aren't any.
When we campaigned for a Yes vote in the abortion referendum, we always talked about how removing the gendered language from the constitution was a goal, that's not sneaky government. That's us. It's women's rights campaigners who have been calling for this for years.
I'm not "helped" in anyway by a constitution that says caring work is more my job and not equally the responsibility of my husband. "Special" has always been the euphemism used to limit women to specific roles.
You just can't have an equal society where the Constitution assigns gendered roles, and unmarried parents are denied the same recognition.
I know people are uneasy about the wording, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better wording that deals with both of these issues. "
Nicely put. This is exactly how is feel   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I dont know which collection of eejits drafted the wording but theyve done a grand job in creating ambiguity and blank cheques for lawyers for a decade- whilst the courts have to sort out the legal interpretations. They and the inept cabal in the Dail should be ashamed of themselves. Embarrassing.
Is there an option on the form
"SEND THE AUTHORS BACK TO DO THEIR JUNIOR CERT"? That'd be the one for me."
Nail on the head there. I think both amendments have the best of intentions but the family one in particular is too vague for my liking. I'm leaning to yes on the care on but if it's taking any onus of care off of the government they can forget about it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *affa31Woman 37 weeks ago
Galway |
"It seems clear to me that there isn't any "secret agenda". But nowadays people are so distrustful of the government and it's become so easy to whip up hysteria.
So on this case, there really isn't any way this could hurt women or families rights. It can only help support us.
But the fact that there really isn't anything more to say on it, has left so many people claiming they have been "uninformed". Meaning the No side has been able to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and we all know you can't prove a negative.
People feel they are not being told the consequences of a yes voted b cause their really aren't any.
When we campaigned for a Yes vote in the abortion referendum, we always talked about how removing the gendered language from the constitution was a goal, that's not sneaky government. That's us. It's women's rights campaigners who have been calling for this for years.
I'm not "helped" in anyway by a constitution that says caring work is more my job and not equally the responsibility of my husband. "Special" has always been the euphemism used to limit women to specific roles.
You just can't have an equal society where the Constitution assigns gendered roles, and unmarried parents are denied the same recognition.
I know people are uneasy about the wording, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better wording that deals with both of these issues.
Just for legal clarification, can you define what a woman is, Catherine Martin and the govt haven't "
Are you as concerned over the definition of a man? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 37 weeks ago
Dublin |
"It seems clear to me that there isn't any "secret agenda". But nowadays people are so distrustful of the government and it's become so easy to whip up hysteria.
So on this case, there really isn't any way this could hurt women or families rights. It can only help support us.
But the fact that there really isn't anything more to say on it, has left so many people claiming they have been "uninformed". Meaning the No side has been able to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and we all know you can't prove a negative.
People feel they are not being told the consequences of a yes voted b cause their really aren't any.
When we campaigned for a Yes vote in the abortion referendum, we always talked about how removing the gendered language from the constitution was a goal, that's not sneaky government. That's us. It's women's rights campaigners who have been calling for this for years.
I'm not "helped" in anyway by a constitution that says caring work is more my job and not equally the responsibility of my husband. "Special" has always been the euphemism used to limit women to specific roles.
You just can't have an equal society where the Constitution assigns gendered roles, and unmarried parents are denied the same recognition.
I know people are uneasy about the wording, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better wording that deals with both of these issues.
Just for legal clarification, can you define what a woman is, Catherine Martin and the govt haven't
Are you as concerned over the definition of a man?"
For some bizarre reason there doesn't appear to be as much ambiguity regarding the definition of a man. However, if you do insist: an adult male.
Now then, can you define a woman? Surely an easy question for someone who, based on your Fab profile, recognises as a woman. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago
|
I think the main problem is that since the whole thing is confusing and unclear there's the feeling that the government are trying to do something by stealth.
I'm not saying they are but trust in government is not that high right now.
Or as one man on Primetime said last night:
We can keep this or have that. Well we know what this is...but we don't know what that is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *affa31Woman 37 weeks ago
Galway |
"It seems clear to me that there isn't any "secret agenda". But nowadays people are so distrustful of the government and it's become so easy to whip up hysteria.
So on this case, there really isn't any way this could hurt women or families rights. It can only help support us.
But the fact that there really isn't anything more to say on it, has left so many people claiming they have been "uninformed". Meaning the No side has been able to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and we all know you can't prove a negative.
People feel they are not being told the consequences of a yes voted b cause their really aren't any.
When we campaigned for a Yes vote in the abortion referendum, we always talked about how removing the gendered language from the constitution was a goal, that's not sneaky government. That's us. It's women's rights campaigners who have been calling for this for years.
I'm not "helped" in anyway by a constitution that says caring work is more my job and not equally the responsibility of my husband. "Special" has always been the euphemism used to limit women to specific roles.
You just can't have an equal society where the Constitution assigns gendered roles, and unmarried parents are denied the same recognition.
I know people are uneasy about the wording, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better wording that deals with both of these issues.
Just for legal clarification, can you define what a woman is, Catherine Martin and the govt haven't
Are you as concerned over the definition of a man?
For some bizarre reason there doesn't appear to be as much ambiguity regarding the definition of a man. However, if you do insist: an adult male.
Now then, can you define a woman? Surely an easy question for someone who, based on your Fab profile, recognises as a woman. "
I don’t think the reason is bizarre. To me, it’s very much rooted in transphobia towards trans women.
To answer your question, Cambridge dictionary defines a woman as an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth. Similarly, it defines a man as an adult who lives and identifies as male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This will give migrants who have 6 or 7 wife's to scam the state with there least we're only allowed one some have a few it will open up a whole can of worms ."
The current laws around bigamy prevent this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iscuits8Man 37 weeks ago
Meath / Dublin / Birmingham |
"This will give migrants who have 6 or 7 wife's to scam the state with there least we're only allowed one some have a few it will open up a whole can of worms ."
What in the name of god are you blabbing on about, jaysus |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iseekingbiCouple 37 weeks ago
N ireland and West Midlands |
"This will give migrants who have 6 or 7 wife's to scam the state with there least we're only allowed one some have a few it will open up a whole can of worms .
What in the name of god are you blabbing on about, jaysus"
We like to use the block button when headers like that out themselves. He is blocked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *og-ManMan 37 weeks ago
somewhere |
"Vote no and keep defeating the government,Leo's destroyed Ireland with unvetted male migrants,don't let him destroy the constitution to."
Those bastards that caused the riots in Dublin ....all the unvetted males .....sorry they were Irish so they don't count I presume
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asual777Man 37 weeks ago
i travel all over |
"I'm old enough to remember the last time we were told not to worry about the courts interpretation of wordings and look where that got us, X case and Savita Halappanavar just to name 2.
I'm No/No
At the risk of re-opening that can of worms ....
Savita Halappanavar by law was entitled to a termination. It was medical misadventure that caused her death, the medical staff got it very wrong."
I think that’s a reductive summary . In 2017, Arulkumaran , the lead expert of the inquiry commented that a significant contributing factor to Halappanavar's death was Ireland's restrictive abortion laws |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 37 weeks ago
Dublin |
"It seems clear to me that there isn't any "secret agenda". But nowadays people are so distrustful of the government and it's become so easy to whip up hysteria.
So on this case, there really isn't any way this could hurt women or families rights. It can only help support us.
But the fact that there really isn't anything more to say on it, has left so many people claiming they have been "uninformed". Meaning the No side has been able to make all kinds of outlandish claims, and we all know you can't prove a negative.
People feel they are not being told the consequences of a yes voted b cause their really aren't any.
When we campaigned for a Yes vote in the abortion referendum, we always talked about how removing the gendered language from the constitution was a goal, that's not sneaky government. That's us. It's women's rights campaigners who have been calling for this for years.
I'm not "helped" in anyway by a constitution that says caring work is more my job and not equally the responsibility of my husband. "Special" has always been the euphemism used to limit women to specific roles.
You just can't have an equal society where the Constitution assigns gendered roles, and unmarried parents are denied the same recognition.
I know people are uneasy about the wording, but I have yet to see anyone suggest a better wording that deals with both of these issues.
Just for legal clarification, can you define what a woman is, Catherine Martin and the govt haven't
Are you as concerned over the definition of a man?
For some bizarre reason there doesn't appear to be as much ambiguity regarding the definition of a man. However, if you do insist: an adult male.
Now then, can you define a woman? Surely an easy question for someone who, based on your Fab profile, recognises as a woman.
I don’t think the reason is bizarre. To me, it’s very much rooted in transphobia towards trans women.
To answer your question, Cambridge dictionary defines a woman as an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth. Similarly, it defines a man as an adult who lives and identifies as male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth. "
It is unnerving knowing that a proportion of the electorate for the upcoming referendum must resort to a dictionary to define a man/woman. What a time to be alive!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago
|
"This will give migrants who have 6 or 7 wife's to scam the state with there least we're only allowed one some have a few it will open up a whole can of worms .
What in the name of god are you blabbing on about, jaysus
We like to use the block button when headers like that out themselves. He is blocked."
I do the very same. And did in this case too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *am74Man 37 weeks ago
inbetween north west ,sligo ,galway |
"This will give migrants who have 6 or 7 wife's to scam the state with there least we're only allowed one some have a few it will open up a whole can of worms .
What in the name of god are you blabbing on about, jaysus
Couldn't give a hoot to this
We like to use the block button when headers like that out themselves. He is blocked.
I do the very same. And did in this case too."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *am74Man 37 weeks ago
inbetween north west ,sligo ,galway |
"This will give migrants who have 6 or 7 wife's to scam the state with there least we're only allowed one some have a few it will open up a whole can of worms .
What in the name of god are you blabbing on about, jaysus
I couldn't give a hoot what you do ,I don't make a choice for you.i don't believe I have ever looked yous up ,why would I want to.
We like to use the block button when headers like that out themselves. He is blocked."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
At the minute if an EU citizen marries a non EU citizen the non EU citizen can stay in Ireland/EU though in the past there has been a bit of a crackdown on these sham marriages for the purposes of gaining residency within the EU.
If a yes vote is returned they won't need to get married, in fact I could have a multitude of non EU citizens claim to be in a poly relationship with me and thus be allowed to stay here as they are in a durable relationship with me. There will be a lot of people taking the absolute piss with this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *am74Man 37 weeks ago
inbetween north west ,sligo ,galway |
"At the minute if an EU citizen marries a non EU citizen the non EU citizen can stay in Ireland/EU though in the past there has been a bit of a crackdown on these sham marriages for the purposes of gaining residency within the EU.
If a yes vote is returned they won't need to get married, in fact I could have a multitude of non EU citizens claim to be in a poly relationship with me and thus be allowed to stay here as they are in a durable relationship with me. There will be a lot of people taking the absolute piss with this."
Thats what I was trying to explain, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago
|
What is a durable relationship? Who knows!!
Wait until the auld family farms are being split between 40 durable relationships..there is no definition for it so all your past partners could in theory prove durability..."we got a puppy together", "we were shagging for 3 years"...
And dont get me started on the carers bit...
Its a No/No from me
(Mrs) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What is a durable relationship? Who knows!!
Wait until the auld family farms are being split between 40 durable relationships..there is no definition for it so all your past partners could in theory prove durability..."we got a puppy together", "we were shagging for 3 years"...
And dont get me started on the carers bit...
Its a No/No from me
(Mrs) "
I get you, no explanation on the carers section, don't think anything is going to change there tbh... Don't know which way to vote now.... I will vote but it's going to be a tough one.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 37 weeks ago
Dublin |
"What is a durable relationship? Who knows!!
Wait until the auld family farms are being split between 40 durable relationships..there is no definition for it so all your past partners could in theory prove durability..."we got a puppy together", "we were shagging for 3 years"...
And dont get me started on the carers bit...
Its a No/No from me
(Mrs)
I get you, no explanation on the carers section, don't think anything is going to change there tbh... Don't know which way to vote now.... I will vote but it's going to be a tough one.... "
Why would you give them the benefit of the doubt if you are unsure about the proposed amendments? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This will give migrants who have 6 or 7 wife's to scam the state with there least we're only allowed one some have a few it will open up a whole can of worms .
The current laws around bigamy prevent this. "
The constitution trumps legislation so you can bet your bottom dollar that the legal profession will be challenging this if a yes vote goes through. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
All those advocating for a No vote in the media I have heard so far are Michael McDowell and Brenda Power both prominent legal professionals while those advocate of a yes vote seem to be appealing on an emotional level.
My mind is made up No & No |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This will give migrants who have 6 or 7 wife's to scam the state with there least we're only allowed one some have a few it will open up a whole can of worms .
The current laws around bigamy prevent this.
The constitution trumps legislation so you can bet your bottom dollar that the legal profession will be challenging this if a yes vote goes through."
We'll see but I'm seeing that argument from numerous dopes who haven't a clue and I've seen several well known legal professionals say the bigamy laws would prevent this. As I said we shall see. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *affa31Woman 37 weeks ago
Galway |
"All those advocating for a No vote in the media I have heard so far are Michael McDowell and Brenda Power both prominent legal professionals while those advocate of a yes vote seem to be appealing on an emotional level.
My mind is made up No & No "
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At the minute if an EU citizen marries a non EU citizen the non EU citizen can stay in Ireland/EU though in the past there has been a bit of a crackdown on these sham marriages for the purposes of gaining residency within the EU.
If a yes vote is returned they won't need to get married, in fact I could have a multitude of non EU citizens claim to be in a poly relationship with me and thus be allowed to stay here as they are in a durable relationship with me. There will be a lot of people taking the absolute piss with this."
Other countries manage it. Eg Australia, have systems to extend visas based on a non-married relationship. It's not easy to take the piss of. Easier to get married probably! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 37 weeks ago
|
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church."
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People who are mentioning laws that protect potential outcomes of a Yes/Yes vote, do yous not know the constitution trumps any law "
Correctly stated it's the Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution that takes precedence over legislation set forth by the Oireachtas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
"
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ermbiMan 37 weeks ago
Ballyshannon |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
"
And they are entitled to their view whether it be conservative or not or aligned with any faith or none. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 37 weeks ago
Dublin |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking. "
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 37 weeks ago
Dublin |
"All those advocating for a No vote in the media I have heard so far are Michael McDowell and Brenda Power both prominent legal professionals while those advocate of a yes vote seem to be appealing on an emotional level.
My mind is made up No & No
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church."
And...?
You have imaginery progressive views, which if you are entitled to then why aren't those with conservative views. To shun someone's views solely because you believe they "align with the Catholic church" reeks of someone who is ill informed.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking.
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
"
To shun someone's opinion because you believe they aren't well enough informed reeks of someone who is arrogant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking.
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
"
To call someone names because they were voting a different way to you speaks volumes about you as a person. I've debated with numerous people both on social media and in my workplace about this referendum in the last few weeks and not once have I insulted them because their view on this was different to mine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking.
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
To call someone names because they were voting a different way to you speaks volumes about you as a person. I've debated with numerous people both on social media and in my workplace about this referendum in the last few weeks and not once have I insulted them because their view on this was different to mine. "
I quote your reply to my response that the constitution trumps legislation:
"We'll see but I'm seeing that argument from numerous dopes who haven't a clue and I've seen several well known legal professionals say the bigamy laws would prevent this. As I said we shall see."
So does this comment of yours apply to you too, considering you even used the same derogatory term as the poster above?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking.
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
To call someone names because they were voting a different way to you speaks volumes about you as a person. I've debated with numerous people both on social media and in my workplace about this referendum in the last few weeks and not once have I insulted them because their view on this was different to mine.
I quote your reply to my response that the constitution trumps legislation:
"We'll see but I'm seeing that argument from numerous dopes who haven't a clue and I've seen several well known legal professionals say the bigamy laws would prevent this. As I said we shall see."
So does this comment of yours apply to you too, considering you even used the same derogatory term as the poster above? "
The dopes I was referring to there were far right loons. I call them dopes regularly. And usually worse. Especially the hypocritical ones. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 37 weeks ago
Dublin |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking.
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
To call someone names because they were voting a different way to you speaks volumes about you as a person. I've debated with numerous people both on social media and in my workplace about this referendum in the last few weeks and not once have I insulted them because their view on this was different to mine. "
Well done you! Now re-read and TRY to understand my post again.
Ireland has spoken... NO NO
Fantastic news!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking.
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
To call someone names because they were voting a different way to you speaks volumes about you as a person. I've debated with numerous people both on social media and in my workplace about this referendum in the last few weeks and not once have I insulted them because their view on this was different to mine.
Well done you! Now re-read and TRY to understand my post again.
Ireland has spoken... NO NO
Fantastic news! "
Not for some it's not. A lot of single parent family were relying on a yes vote. I can see the usual bigots celebrating this as a win and that's unfortunate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 37 weeks ago
Dublin |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking.
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
To call someone names because they were voting a different way to you speaks volumes about you as a person. I've debated with numerous people both on social media and in my workplace about this referendum in the last few weeks and not once have I insulted them because their view on this was different to mine.
Well done you! Now re-read and TRY to understand my post again.
Ireland has spoken... NO NO
Fantastic news!
Not for some it's not. A lot of single parent family were relying on a yes vote. I can see the usual bigots celebrating this as a win and that's unfortunate. "
Kleenex is your friend..
My commiserations go out to you.. NOT |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking.
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
To call someone names because they were voting a different way to you speaks volumes about you as a person. I've debated with numerous people both on social media and in my workplace about this referendum in the last few weeks and not once have I insulted them because their view on this was different to mine.
Well done you! Now re-read and TRY to understand my post again.
Ireland has spoken... NO NO
Fantastic news!
Not for some it's not. A lot of single parent family were relying on a yes vote. I can see the usual bigots celebrating this as a win and that's unfortunate.
Kleenex is your friend..
My commiserations go out to you.. NOT"
Again your choice of words speak worlds about you. Enjoy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 37 weeks ago
Dublin |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking.
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
To call someone names because they were voting a different way to you speaks volumes about you as a person. I've debated with numerous people both on social media and in my workplace about this referendum in the last few weeks and not once have I insulted them because their view on this was different to mine.
I quote your reply to my response that the constitution trumps legislation:
"We'll see but I'm seeing that argument from numerous dopes who haven't a clue and I've seen several well known legal professionals say the bigamy laws would prevent this. As I said we shall see."
So does this comment of yours apply to you too, considering you even used the same derogatory term as the poster above? "
Thank you for sharing this. Double standards is a terrible thing
@_ildarekinksters I guess we are as bad as each other. You must be living in an echo chamber with
"not once have I insulted them because their view" on social media or the workplace comment. However, when you disagreed with someone other matters, you used the same term I did. If that speaks volumes about me, what does it say about you...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Both have very conservative views, aligned with the Catholic Church.
Peadar Toibin is another no vote campaigner and his views would be aligned with conservative catholics, if I remember he campaigned for a no vote in the abortion referendum too
He is just anti-government, regardless of the subject being discussed.
One thing I've noticed on social media, is people voting one way because such and such is voting another. Its so immature, and reeks of privilege. People have become so lazy around these things, they're incapable of critical thinking.
Social media and modern day life in general has made people thick. Anyone who was unsure AND voted Yes is one such example of not giving the referendum the importance it deserved, treating it like trying to between a Balti and Tikka Masala from a local Indian.
Dopes!
To call someone names because they were voting a different way to you speaks volumes about you as a person. I've debated with numerous people both on social media and in my workplace about this referendum in the last few weeks and not once have I insulted them because their view on this was different to mine.
I quote your reply to my response that the constitution trumps legislation:
"We'll see but I'm seeing that argument from numerous dopes who haven't a clue and I've seen several well known legal professionals say the bigamy laws would prevent this. As I said we shall see."
So does this comment of yours apply to you too, considering you even used the same derogatory term as the poster above?
Thank you for sharing this. Double standards is a terrible thing
@_ildarekinksters I guess we are as bad as each other. You must be living in an echo chamber with
"not once have I insulted them because their view" on social media or the workplace comment. However, when you disagreed with someone other matters, you used the same term I did. If that speaks volumes about me, what does it say about you...
"
Only because they were hypocrites. For example I've called one guy who was calling for a no no vote to protect women as he put it a dope because he was a hypocrite who beat his pregnant girlfriend at the time with a Hoover, is barred from seeing his kids and admitted to selling narcotics to kids. Also it was only after he wished harm on my fiancee and kids he was called a lot worse then dope. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"How many social houses could have been built with the money spent on this referendum or additional medical cards issued  "
just think how many social house's could be built if we go rid of the wasters who refuse to work 44500x205x52=
475500000
That would work out at 1850 house's per year . So don't be moaning about a referendum when the are way more Leach's to society.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eth TVTV/TS 36 weeks ago
Mid Meath |
I voted yes yes but in the main I can’t blame the majority of voters who went with No on either ballot.
The campaign for a Yes vote was non existent but then again it was something that the parties in government were clearly not massively bothered with, nor indeed were the opposition. Equally the No campaigner were weak and fractious, so the public had little to go on besides a few fearmongers, alt types and a few of the right wing types. The lack of posters can tell us all how little they all cared to spend, and with three large votes on the way can you blame them? Not to mention no live coverage of the count, and we can’t blame RTÉ budget cuts here.
While it’s definitely a defeat for the sitting government, there’s little gain from it for the opposition in the long run be cause of the lower turnout. And as such it’s less easy to take much read other than it being a badly descriptive campaign. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
The government pushed yes yes all over social media, radio and television!
Simply, the people voted and the result NO/NO
I voted NO/NO! There was no need to change it, Irish woman who are mothers have never been held back by the constitution, only protected! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *affa31Woman 36 weeks ago
Galway |
"The government pushed yes yes all over social media, radio and television!
Simply, the people voted and the result NO/NO
I voted NO/NO! There was no need to change it, Irish woman who are mothers have never been held back by the constitution, only protected!"
Did mother and baby homes go completely over your head?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 36 weeks ago
|
Society let those people down. If people understood law and could afford it they could have used the constitution to stop all that.
It also states people have a constitutional right to earn a living, so if a woman wanted to work she can use that law to enter the workplace. Nobody asked for this referendum and it certainly wasn't to benefit anybody only a self-serving government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The government pushed yes yes all over social media, radio and television!
Simply, the people voted and the result NO/NO
I voted NO/NO! There was no need to change it, Irish woman who are mothers have never been held back by the constitution, only protected!
Did mother and baby homes go completely over your head? "
The Magdalene laundries will give a clear picture....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Over the last few weeks, as time went on and more scrutiny came, it should have been everybody's default position to be no/no.
Nobody in government promoted yes with enthusiasm or knowledge, Micheal Martin and Helen McEntee failing miserably on tv shows to do so. They looked genuinely disinterested.
Some supporting yes while trying to relate it to previous referendums, where yes was the obvious correct choice, need to move out of that echo-chmaber.
My query from day one has always been: Who called for this Ref, who lobbied for it, and why?
They've obviously tried to hijack the emotions of previous Refs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I voted yes yes but in the main I can’t blame the majority of voters who went with No on either ballot.
The campaign for a Yes vote was non existent but then again it was something that the parties in government were clearly not massively bothered with, nor indeed were the opposition. Equally the No campaigner were weak and fractious, so the public had little to go on besides a few fearmongers, alt types and a few of the right wing types. The lack of posters can tell us all how little they all cared to spend, and with three large votes on the way can you blame them? Not to mention no live coverage of the count, and we can’t blame RTÉ budget cuts here.
While it’s definitely a defeat for the sitting government, there’s little gain from it for the opposition in the long run be cause of the lower turnout. And as such it’s less easy to take much read other than it being a badly descriptive campaign."
I agree, this will have little impact on the government or most political parties in the long run. As much as far-right groups would like it to.
However, I do think the Non-government organisations are going to come under considerable scrutiny, particularly from right-leaning groups!
These organisations and the sheer quantity of them, have had way too much influence on government as the self promoted voice of the people. That's been blown out of the water this weekend. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I voted yes yes but in the main I can’t blame the majority of voters who went with No on either ballot.
The campaign for a Yes vote was non existent but then again it was something that the parties in government were clearly not massively bothered with, nor indeed were the opposition. Equally the No campaigner were weak and fractious, so the public had little to go on besides a few fearmongers, alt types and a few of the right wing types. The lack of posters can tell us all how little they all cared to spend, and with three large votes on the way can you blame them? Not to mention no live coverage of the count, and we can’t blame RTÉ budget cuts here.
While it’s definitely a defeat for the sitting government, there’s little gain from it for the opposition in the long run be cause of the lower turnout. And as such it’s less easy to take much read other than it being a badly descriptive campaign."
A lot of the carers associations and carers themselves weren't happy with the wording of the care referendum so they were pushing for a no vote on it. I agree with your assertion of alt types looking for a no vote on both using fear mongering though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *runchMan 36 weeks ago
Dublin |
Convincing the electorate in favour of the proposed amendments was the government's responsibility. Instead they insulted the Irish people by no canvassing in the weeks leading up to, resorting to waving the imaginery progressive flag in a futile attempt get a Yes/Yes majority. It was an abject failure on their part.
So proud of the Irish people for pushing back with an convincing NO/NO
Now Leo and co., back to actual issues
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eth TVTV/TS 36 weeks ago
Mid Meath |
"
A lot of the carers associations and carers themselves weren't happy with the wording of the care referendum so they were pushing for a no vote on it. I agree with your assertion of alt types looking for a no vote on both using fear mongering though. "
Certainly a good amount of them were calling for a no, and they had some real life experience as well to tell. I still contend that it was still not a united front from them; if they had have been tighter bound it could have been a different insofar an even more heavy No vote.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ermbiMan 36 weeks ago
Ballyshannon |
"Given the government were so utterly out of touch with the people in this issue its is safe to assume the same about many other issues. There needs to be a general election "
A general election with the prospect of Sinn Fein in government. No thanks! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Given the government were so utterly out of touch with the people in this issue its is safe to assume the same about many other issues. There needs to be a general election
A general election with the prospect of Sinn Fein in government. No thanks!"
This referendum will have little to no effect on any GE. Certainly not for me anyway as I dont vote for the Greens.
It is O'Gorman and the Greens that have questions to answer over this. From their love-in with the NGOs who lobbied them to their hiding of the AG's advice.
But otherwise its inconsequential in GE terms. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eth TVTV/TS 36 weeks ago
Mid Meath |
"Given the government were so utterly out of touch with the people in this issue its is safe to assume the same about many other issues. There needs to be a general election "
Says the man who lives 14,000 miles away  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Given the government were so utterly out of touch with the people in this issue its is safe to assume the same about many other issues. There needs to be a general election
A general election with the prospect of Sinn Fein in government. No thanks!
This referendum will have little to no effect on any GE. Certainly not for me anyway as I dont vote for the Greens.
It is O'Gorman and the Greens that have questions to answer over this. From their love-in with the NGOs who lobbied them to their hiding of the AG's advice.
But otherwise its inconsequential in GE terms."
Indeed, the Greens have sat in Government twice. On both occasions they have proven themselves 100% incompetent.
That said, there's two experienced men at the helm who appear unable to control the dimmest of green whims.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ombikerMan 36 weeks ago
the right side of the river |
"Given the government were so utterly out of touch with the people in this issue its is safe to assume the same about many other issues. There needs to be a general election
A general election with the prospect of Sinn Fein in government. No thanks!"
I doubt SF will get any benefit from an election, I think the complete opposite. In fact I think the independents will be the main winners as most of the main parties have completely displayed themselves as incompetent and just looking after their personal situations and not acting in the best interest of the people of Ireland |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *habMan 36 weeks ago
Boomtown |
"Given the government were so utterly out of touch with the people in this issue its is safe to assume the same about many other issues. There needs to be a general election
A general election with the prospect of Sinn Fein in government. No thanks!
I doubt SF will get any benefit from an election, I think the complete opposite. In fact I think the independents will be the main winners as most of the main parties have completely displayed themselves as incompetent and just looking after their personal situations and not acting in the best interest of the people of Ireland "
What is in the Best Interest of the people because sure as hell, none of the government parties have acted in that way |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Given the government were so utterly out of touch with the people in this issue its is safe to assume the same about many other issues. There needs to be a general election
A general election with the prospect of Sinn Fein in government. No thanks!
I doubt SF will get any benefit from an election, I think the complete opposite. In fact I think the independents will be the main winners as most of the main parties have completely displayed themselves as incompetent and just looking after their personal situations and not acting in the best interest of the people of Ireland
What is in the Best Interest of the people because sure as hell, none of the government parties have acted in that way "
I agree and what do the Independents have that they can throw on the table to make us want to vote for them? Are they strong enough on their own even?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
