They really should define this before we change the god damn constitution
I think at a minimum, it has to be IP67 rated and withstand a 1 metre drop test.
I am always of the belief you should always cast your vote but Ive no idea what these referendums are actually about. Turnout will probably be in low to mid 30’s
Sounds good
Why should a religious ceremony determine what a couple is
I’m not entirely sure why the criticism of it being vague is all that relevant. That’s kind of the point. It’s a broader definition of family than what currently exists in the constitution and can be applied to a broader range of people.
“Durable partner” already exists in Irish law and hasn’t seemed to have caused much issue. “Durable relationship” is a term that exists in EU law as well as in other statutory bodies. So there is precedent for how it’s been applied.
You typically don’t define these things in a constitution. There wasn’t even any constitutional definition provided for marriage. We still had courts and legislators decide what marriages they would and wouldn’t accept.
This notion that if something without a rigid definition appears in the constitution, you’ll suddenly owe half your house to your dog doesn’t hold all that much water.
I want to vote on Friday because it’s my first chance to do so but I genuinely have no clue what this referendum is about, haven’t gotten the promised info pack yet either
To me a durable relationship is demonstrable by an established pattern of mutual assistance.
3 years minimum
Wasn’t there a court case already that decided an unmarried couple had a durable relationship for the purposes of welfare or whatever.
Surely we can’t be the first country to figure this out?
It’s cranium 74ft extension tabulated amidst the yearning of 1967
voting No and No to this bullshit. No one wanted this referendum, there was and is no problme it addresses. It’s the pet project of some busy-body.
The article does go on to give a general idea into what we could expect.
If the logic behind the complaints about the “vagueness” of this term were applied to the rest of Irish legal text then our legal system would collapse.
The focus on defining this term reeks of people who aren’t aware of how common it is for the courts to make these decisions or how legally problematic have a concrete definitions for every key term being riled up by a bad-faith No campaign.
As if the wording isn’t undefined _by design_, or there’s actual risk of our courts suddenly taking the wildest possible interpretations they can in a way they don’t do with anything else.
Which is why I will be voting no.
I love the concept of giving more support to non-traditional families, but Im not doing it if I don’t know who it will affect or how.
The yes vote have done a terrible job at explaining their side of the issue.
Anyone who hates that our constitution isn’t incredibly detailed and specific and 2000 pages long should clearly move to England where written constitutions aren’t a thing.
I saw balls on Instagram (posted by some of my more credulous and uncritical acquaintances) that this referendum will issue in a legal acceptance of paedophilia.
What is going on in this country? Seems a worrying number of folk have gone doolally with Paddy Holohan level conspiracy rubbish.
I think everyone is faux confused. It just means that you now have a family defined outside of marriage. The vagueness of definition is on purpose and will be up to courts to decide.
The Irish Times reported recently that as people become more informed, they’re more likely to lean No on both
I think the referendum on women in the home would likely pass if it was held by itself but perhaps people will be reluctant to vote on the carer referendum if they don’t understand it, and they won’t go to the polling station to vote on one and ignore the other. Therefore I think the No/No people will swing it
It’s all fine being wooly and vague in the name of a similarly vague sense of progressiveness, until you fall afoul of the bi-product of such vagueness. I really feel the ‘yes’ campaign is trying to heavily lean on that same vague sense of virtuousness following several subsequent successfully passed referendums in recent years without any reasonable substance behind the curtain.
There have been many descriptions and explanations, including those by the ‘Lawyers for No’ campaign which clearly detail the hazardous products of approaching a constitutional change so haphazardy, including legal inheritance, probate, tax, etc.
I listened to a debate on Today FM between Michael McDowell, Brenda Power, Karen Kieran and Fiona Kildare, and legitimately the only case that could be made on the ‘yes’ side by the end of the debate was ‘this is about love and showing who we are as a society’. To no surprise, they also couldn’t define the ‘durable relationship’ definition, because, of course, they don’t know. Not good enough.
For comparison with other European nations and European law, the below screenshot is an excerpt taken from the German constitution, which far more solidly define these definitions, and reflect proper consideration given to the topic. Rather in Ireland we’re told ‘vote yes because it’s the “right thing to do”.TM and accept vagueness and haphazard approach because we can ‘deal with it down the road’. Classic Irish approach, ad-hoc change and complain about the repercussions later.
Finally, the fact that Roderic O’Gorman willfully denied the release of the minutes from those meetings discussing legal impacts of this referendum, is 1. A perversion of the rights of the public to be informed in voting 2. A clear indication that they either don’t understand the impacts themselves, or they’re severe enough that it’s more advantageous for the ‘yes’ campaign to not release them.
Half the discussion around the No crowd in this referendum has been the result of people not understanding how our government works, what a referendum is or even the point of a constitution. The constitution is the basis of our laws, *it’s suppose to be vague*, so that it can be interpreted and contextualised by the courts. Currently our values do not reflect our constitution, and so it needs to be changed to give us a firm base from which to create new legislation.
From the same article:
“While we don’t know exactly how a durable relationship will be defined, current Irish and European legislation can provide some guidance.
The phrase “durable relationship” is found in the 2004 EU Citizens’ Rights Directive. In these guidelines, the European Commission states that people attempting to prove they are in a durable relationship “may be required to present documentary evidence”.
“The requirement of durability of the relationship must be assessed in the light of the objective of the Directive to maintain the unity of the family in a broad sense.
“National rules on durability of partnership can refer to a minimum amount of time as a criterion for whether a partnership can be considered as durable.
“However, in this case national rules would need to foresee that other relevant aspects (such as for example a joint mortgage to buy a home) are also taken into account.”
The Government may also pull from the European Convention of Human Rights when drawing up the relevant legislation. The ECHR covers the protection of “de facto families” as well as marital families.
As set out by the Electoral Commission here, the Irish Government’s interpretation of durable relationships may not be the same as the EU Directive’s interpretation of the phrase. However, the Government may refer to case law related to the Directive when drawing up new legislation.
The concept of durable relationships is also similar to the concept of “qualified cohabitants” in Part 15 of the Cohabitants Act 2010.
For example, to qualify as a cohabiting couple under this current Irish law, a person must show they lived in “an intimate and committed” relationship with their partner. This includes proving the couple lived together for at least five years, or for two years if the couple have any dependent children.”
Jesus knows
The government fucked up this referendum. They should have just asked one question and made it much clearer. But the gist it just wants to update the constitution so that it’s more respectful to women, and to families that aren’t based on marriage.
I’m kind of baffled at how people don’t understand how the constitution works. It just says what the country is meant to be about, it doesn’t lay out any specific laws.
Why is the idea of a “durable relationship” so scary? What is so threatening about that?
If you’re afraid your husband’s mistress is going to take your kid’s inheritance, then challenge the specific law that would allow it. Don’t get worked up about our national identity becoming more open and accepting.
Edit: don’t just downvote, tell me why I’m wrong. Clowns.
I will be voting no for this reason.
Considering that:
A) The referendum change could have been so much better by adding wording rather than changing it, and.
B) That there are so many other issues that ignite fire in people that compel them to want to vote ahead of this.
I am saying No.
I don’t know if you want the benefits of marriage, just commit to it and get married if it really is a ‘durable relationship ‘
The thing about marriage is you can prove it. Like
“I’m his wife”
“I don’t believe you”
“Here’s the marriage cert”
With durable relationships, can anyone just say anything now? Let’s say you have a lodger for 5 years, could they suddenly turn around and say actually we were fucking the whole time and now that I’ve broken up with them I’m entitled to a portion of the house? And since “durable relationship” is so vague, what could you do to disprove it?
I have always voted the opposite to what the politicians say.
Are you going to give someone a blank cheque with a signature?, No.
They never have our interest at heart.
No on this lazy nonsense
Is a durable relationship a man and six of his wives?
I’m still not sure why I’d be inclined to vote yes to something I don’t understand the implications of and something that nobody seems to want to clarify in any meaningful detail.
Vote No
In what context would courts ever need to interpret this? 😅 All that is needed here is to modernise the language and that in essence is what this change will do
Due to the vagueness and the fact that the current Government are an untrustworthy shower of bastards its a no from me.
Durable needs to be properly defined and not left open to interpretation. Then it will likely be a yes from me.
How much are those shies?
Don’t worry, just bring them home, I’ll send you the bill later!
It could be people you share a house with, random friends, people who claim to have had sex with you regularly – everybody will be trying it on at the courts trying to get other people’s money.
How about we bring in a law banning the government from forcing any responsibility towards others or rights over us without a mutual legally signed contract.
A relationship between three people could conceivably qualify as a durable relationship. Beware the unintended consequences!
ELI5 : IF I VOTE
#1. **NO** : Will anything change ?
#2. **YES** : What is going to change ?
If you could please explain it like I’m 5 and NOT like you’re applying for some spin-doctor / word salad job in the government. Thanks.
I think breaking the emergency glass and bringing out McAleese pushing for a Yes/Yes vote, shows that the government might be a tad bit worried they’ll lose it.
42 comments
The Journal article:
[https://www.thejournal.ie/what-are-we-voting-on-in-the-march-referendums-6305465-Mar2024/](https://www.thejournal.ie/what-are-we-voting-on-in-the-march-referendums-6305465-Mar2024/)
They really should define this before we change the god damn constitution
I think at a minimum, it has to be IP67 rated and withstand a 1 metre drop test.
I am always of the belief you should always cast your vote but Ive no idea what these referendums are actually about. Turnout will probably be in low to mid 30’s
Sounds good
Why should a religious ceremony determine what a couple is
I’m not entirely sure why the criticism of it being vague is all that relevant. That’s kind of the point. It’s a broader definition of family than what currently exists in the constitution and can be applied to a broader range of people.
“Durable partner” already exists in Irish law and hasn’t seemed to have caused much issue. “Durable relationship” is a term that exists in EU law as well as in other statutory bodies. So there is precedent for how it’s been applied.
You typically don’t define these things in a constitution. There wasn’t even any constitutional definition provided for marriage. We still had courts and legislators decide what marriages they would and wouldn’t accept.
This notion that if something without a rigid definition appears in the constitution, you’ll suddenly owe half your house to your dog doesn’t hold all that much water.
I want to vote on Friday because it’s my first chance to do so but I genuinely have no clue what this referendum is about, haven’t gotten the promised info pack yet either
To me a durable relationship is demonstrable by an established pattern of mutual assistance.
3 years minimum
Wasn’t there a court case already that decided an unmarried couple had a durable relationship for the purposes of welfare or whatever.
Surely we can’t be the first country to figure this out?
It’s cranium 74ft extension tabulated amidst the yearning of 1967
voting No and No to this bullshit. No one wanted this referendum, there was and is no problme it addresses. It’s the pet project of some busy-body.
https://freemovement.org.uk/who-qualifies-as-a-durable-partner-under-the-eu-settlement-scheme/#:~:text=What%20does%20%E2%80%9Cdurable%20partner%E2%80%9D%20mean,nonetheless%20in%20a%20committed%20relationship.
Is the red highlight your own?
The article does go on to give a general idea into what we could expect.
If the logic behind the complaints about the “vagueness” of this term were applied to the rest of Irish legal text then our legal system would collapse.
The focus on defining this term reeks of people who aren’t aware of how common it is for the courts to make these decisions or how legally problematic have a concrete definitions for every key term being riled up by a bad-faith No campaign.
As if the wording isn’t undefined _by design_, or there’s actual risk of our courts suddenly taking the wildest possible interpretations they can in a way they don’t do with anything else.
Which is why I will be voting no.
I love the concept of giving more support to non-traditional families, but Im not doing it if I don’t know who it will affect or how.
The yes vote have done a terrible job at explaining their side of the issue.
Anyone who hates that our constitution isn’t incredibly detailed and specific and 2000 pages long should clearly move to England where written constitutions aren’t a thing.
I saw balls on Instagram (posted by some of my more credulous and uncritical acquaintances) that this referendum will issue in a legal acceptance of paedophilia.
What is going on in this country? Seems a worrying number of folk have gone doolally with Paddy Holohan level conspiracy rubbish.
I think everyone is faux confused. It just means that you now have a family defined outside of marriage. The vagueness of definition is on purpose and will be up to courts to decide.
The Irish Times reported recently that as people become more informed, they’re more likely to lean No on both
I think the referendum on women in the home would likely pass if it was held by itself but perhaps people will be reluctant to vote on the carer referendum if they don’t understand it, and they won’t go to the polling station to vote on one and ignore the other. Therefore I think the No/No people will swing it
It’s all fine being wooly and vague in the name of a similarly vague sense of progressiveness, until you fall afoul of the bi-product of such vagueness. I really feel the ‘yes’ campaign is trying to heavily lean on that same vague sense of virtuousness following several subsequent successfully passed referendums in recent years without any reasonable substance behind the curtain.
There have been many descriptions and explanations, including those by the ‘Lawyers for No’ campaign which clearly detail the hazardous products of approaching a constitutional change so haphazardy, including legal inheritance, probate, tax, etc.
I listened to a debate on Today FM between Michael McDowell, Brenda Power, Karen Kieran and Fiona Kildare, and legitimately the only case that could be made on the ‘yes’ side by the end of the debate was ‘this is about love and showing who we are as a society’. To no surprise, they also couldn’t define the ‘durable relationship’ definition, because, of course, they don’t know. Not good enough.
For comparison with other European nations and European law, the below screenshot is an excerpt taken from the German constitution, which far more solidly define these definitions, and reflect proper consideration given to the topic. Rather in Ireland we’re told ‘vote yes because it’s the “right thing to do”.TM and accept vagueness and haphazard approach because we can ‘deal with it down the road’. Classic Irish approach, ad-hoc change and complain about the repercussions later.
Finally, the fact that Roderic O’Gorman willfully denied the release of the minutes from those meetings discussing legal impacts of this referendum, is 1. A perversion of the rights of the public to be informed in voting 2. A clear indication that they either don’t understand the impacts themselves, or they’re severe enough that it’s more advantageous for the ‘yes’ campaign to not release them.
Not good enough for me, sorry, voting No.
https://preview.redd.it/lb1fszvhxxlc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=77e824035935420a31d7c59b4bed65be1ac8acaf
On this one.
Half the discussion around the No crowd in this referendum has been the result of people not understanding how our government works, what a referendum is or even the point of a constitution. The constitution is the basis of our laws, *it’s suppose to be vague*, so that it can be interpreted and contextualised by the courts. Currently our values do not reflect our constitution, and so it needs to be changed to give us a firm base from which to create new legislation.
From the same article:
“While we don’t know exactly how a durable relationship will be defined, current Irish and European legislation can provide some guidance.
The phrase “durable relationship” is found in the 2004 EU Citizens’ Rights Directive. In these guidelines, the European Commission states that people attempting to prove they are in a durable relationship “may be required to present documentary evidence”.
“The requirement of durability of the relationship must be assessed in the light of the objective of the Directive to maintain the unity of the family in a broad sense.
“National rules on durability of partnership can refer to a minimum amount of time as a criterion for whether a partnership can be considered as durable.
“However, in this case national rules would need to foresee that other relevant aspects (such as for example a joint mortgage to buy a home) are also taken into account.”
The Government may also pull from the European Convention of Human Rights when drawing up the relevant legislation. The ECHR covers the protection of “de facto families” as well as marital families.
As set out by the Electoral Commission here, the Irish Government’s interpretation of durable relationships may not be the same as the EU Directive’s interpretation of the phrase. However, the Government may refer to case law related to the Directive when drawing up new legislation.
The concept of durable relationships is also similar to the concept of “qualified cohabitants” in Part 15 of the Cohabitants Act 2010.
For example, to qualify as a cohabiting couple under this current Irish law, a person must show they lived in “an intimate and committed” relationship with their partner. This includes proving the couple lived together for at least five years, or for two years if the couple have any dependent children.”
Jesus knows
The government fucked up this referendum. They should have just asked one question and made it much clearer. But the gist it just wants to update the constitution so that it’s more respectful to women, and to families that aren’t based on marriage.
I’m kind of baffled at how people don’t understand how the constitution works. It just says what the country is meant to be about, it doesn’t lay out any specific laws.
Why is the idea of a “durable relationship” so scary? What is so threatening about that?
If you’re afraid your husband’s mistress is going to take your kid’s inheritance, then challenge the specific law that would allow it. Don’t get worked up about our national identity becoming more open and accepting.
Edit: don’t just downvote, tell me why I’m wrong. Clowns.
I will be voting no for this reason.
Considering that:
A) The referendum change could have been so much better by adding wording rather than changing it, and.
B) That there are so many other issues that ignite fire in people that compel them to want to vote ahead of this.
I am saying No.
I don’t know if you want the benefits of marriage, just commit to it and get married if it really is a ‘durable relationship ‘
The thing about marriage is you can prove it. Like
“I’m his wife”
“I don’t believe you”
“Here’s the marriage cert”
With durable relationships, can anyone just say anything now? Let’s say you have a lodger for 5 years, could they suddenly turn around and say actually we were fucking the whole time and now that I’ve broken up with them I’m entitled to a portion of the house? And since “durable relationship” is so vague, what could you do to disprove it?
I have always voted the opposite to what the politicians say.
Are you going to give someone a blank cheque with a signature?, No.
They never have our interest at heart.
No on this lazy nonsense
Is a durable relationship a man and six of his wives?
I’m still not sure why I’d be inclined to vote yes to something I don’t understand the implications of and something that nobody seems to want to clarify in any meaningful detail.
Vote No
In what context would courts ever need to interpret this? 😅 All that is needed here is to modernise the language and that in essence is what this change will do
Due to the vagueness and the fact that the current Government are an untrustworthy shower of bastards its a no from me.
Durable needs to be properly defined and not left open to interpretation. Then it will likely be a yes from me.
How much are those shies?
Don’t worry, just bring them home, I’ll send you the bill later!
It could be people you share a house with, random friends, people who claim to have had sex with you regularly – everybody will be trying it on at the courts trying to get other people’s money.
How about we bring in a law banning the government from forcing any responsibility towards others or rights over us without a mutual legally signed contract.
A relationship between three people could conceivably qualify as a durable relationship. Beware the unintended consequences!
ELI5 : IF I VOTE
#1. **NO** : Will anything change ?
#2. **YES** : What is going to change ?
If you could please explain it like I’m 5 and NOT like you’re applying for some spin-doctor / word salad job in the government. Thanks.
I think breaking the emergency glass and bringing out McAleese pushing for a Yes/Yes vote, shows that the government might be a tad bit worried they’ll lose it.