Pogue Mahone
The caf's Camus.
Anyone voting? Don’t think I’ve ever cared less about exercising my constitutional rights.
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
Same same.nope
everytime I read about it I get bored after 2 lines and still dont fully know what its for
Conor McGregor wants everyone to vote "No" and "No" so this leads me to believe I would prefer two yes votes but I aint going to bother my hole
That’s what my wife said. But she couldn’t explain why.I think yes no is the way to as the wording for carer's is supposed to be shit
with it being an irish referendum, i can only imagine the second question is “are you sure?”Conor McGregor wants everyone to vote "No" and "No" so this leads me to believe I would prefer two yes votes but I aint going to bother my hole
Yeah I'm going Yes/No. I've no personal experience of it but Carers and those availing of Care are saying no on the second one so that's good enough for me.I think yes no is the way to as the wording for carer's is supposed to be shit
probably took 6 months of a 20 person committee to come up with that.Yes seems straightforward for the first one. Haven't a clue for the second.
I've read this a few times and can't make heads or tails of it.
https://www.electoralcommission.ie/...e-you-being-asked-to-decide-on/#CareAmendment
So the change will be from:
"We recognise that Irish stay at home Mams play an important role and we'll try not have you out working unless absolutely necessary"
To:
“The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”
What the feck does that even mean? Is it the same thing just in a gender neutral parlance?
twatwith it being an irish referendum, i can only imagine the second question is “are you sure?”
Well it's replacing "endeavour to ensure" so at least they're replacing like with like."strive to support" is weasly turn of phrase. It's essentially meaningless.
Yes non-commital"strive to support" is weasly turn of phrase. It's essentially meaningless.
Maybe it's just me but it sounds a lot weaker. To me 'endeavour to ensure' means you have a goal and are working towards it.Well it's replacing "endeavour to ensure" so at least they're replacing like with like.
Literally it's not meaningless but yeah, in context of our Government it basically means "will do feck all"."strive to support" is weasly turn of phrase. It's essentially meaningless.
As a non married father who ended up in the courts trying to get my kids protected from their mother, gender neutral is a huge leap forward.Yes seems straightforward for the first one. Haven't a clue for the second.
I've read this a few times and can't make heads or tails of it.
https://www.electoralcommission.ie/...e-you-being-asked-to-decide-on/#CareAmendment
So the change will be from:
"We recognise that Irish stay at home Mams play an important role and we'll try not have you out working unless absolutely necessary"
To:
“The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”
What the feck does that even mean? Is it the same thing just in a gender neutral parlance?
Anything that guy does should be automatically do the oppositenope
everytime I read about it I get bored after 2 lines and still dont fully know what its for
Conor McGregor wants everyone to vote "No" and "No" so this leads me to believe I would prefer two yes votes but I aint going to bother my hole
Anything that guy does should be automatically do the opposite
The implications are for us to investigate ourselves?I voted no to both. Unless it's crystal clear what implications changing the constitution will have how can I vote yes for anything?
Someone should have done a better job to explain what these changes will actually mean.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.
There must be a reason the constitution wants to be changed and the government hasn't made it clear what exactly these changes will mean in the future and exactly how the people effected will be impacted.The implications are for us to investigate ourselves?
You don't think the constitution should reflect societal change?
The first one is quite clear no? It no longer reflects the reality. So that's surely a bad thing?There must be a reason the constitution wants to be changed and the government hasn't made it clear what exactly these changes will mean in the future and exactly how the people effected will be impacted.
I had my doubts so voted no.
Article 41.2.1° “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”
Article 41.2.2° “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.”
Seems like a strange thing to have in a Constitution, not going to lie.
I am seeing Irelands new band of Alt-right weirdos and regular folks both say no and no though which is making me very confusedAll the new right wing loons are shouting No/No. They see the gender neutral wording as an attack of woke gender fluid communists.
I am seeing Irelands new band of Alt-right weirdos and regular folks both say no and no though which is making me very confused
maybe I should actually read about this thing
with it being an irish referendum, i can only imagine the second question is “are you sure?”
96% no in some areas the government made such a balls of this. Cost them €23m just to run it for feck sake.
It’s easy to see why the referendum on the definition of the family failed. ‘Durable relationships’ is a ridiculous term that would’ve led to a plethora of litigation, and given the feeling on immigration in the country it was never going to pass.Considering it seriously needs updating they really fecking messed up selling it.
It’s certainly of its time but it was also quite ‘progressive’ for its time, and in some respects still is. (I don’t really subscribe to this notion of ‘progress’)Article 41.2.1° “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”
Article 41.2.2° “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.”
Seems like a strange thing to have in a Constitution, not going to lie.
It’s easy to see why the referendum on the definition of the family failed. ‘Durable relationships’ is a ridiculous term that would’ve led to a plethora of litigation, and given the feeling on immigration in the country it was never going to pass.
It’s certainly of its time but it was also quite ‘progressive’ for its time, and in some respects still is. (I don’t really subscribe to this notion of ‘progress’)
I’m not sure why you keep mentioning this ‘drafted by a religious fundamentalist’ line. Were the defeated replacement provisions drafted by…secular capitalist fundamentalists?Oh yeah they made a balls of the wording.
The document was progressive for its time. But it was the 1930s and drafted by a religious fundamentalist.
The Irish electorate (or those who voted at least) is almost 70% McGregorite on the basis of this then.I have zero knowledge about Irish politics, but I guess it is easy. Do the exact opposite of what McGregor tells you to do.
Well because it's an archaic and ultra conservative take on family. Also the history of the church on women on this island is appalling, so quite relevant.I’m not sure why you keep mentioning this ‘drafted by a religious fundamentalist’ line. Were the defeated replacement provisions drafted by…secular capitalist fundamentalists?
Yeah, I agree it’s archaic.Well because it's an archaic and ultra conservative take on family.
Culture and standards are a tricky area to make judgements on. After all the stuff about the church started to come out in the late 90s I remember asking my grannies and others of their generation about life back then and what things were like. Life was hard but they didn’t report this state of oppression that modern Ireland depicts it as. Mind you…none had a child out of wedlock, so in that respect you’re bang on.Also the history of the church on women on this island is appalling, so quite relevant.
I was trying to think of an appropriate description. Secular liberal capitalist devotees perhaps?What's capitalism got to do with it.