Why do they not say what the specific lines in the constitution actually say in this article, they only reference the article number? Because the actual lines state that the government is open to a lawsuit at the moment for not upholding the requirement that a family shouldn’t be required to be duel income by economic necessity, I.e. this is very much looking to me like an attempt to skirt around the whole obligation to deal with the cost of living crisis thing.
“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. 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.”
Also I really don’t see why Article 40.1 is an issue?
“All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.” –
how is that a problem, it’s not remotely gendered at all?
Iona institute preparing for the call from RTE.
[deleted]
This will really make no difference to anyone. The government has ignored this particular article of the constitution for years anyway. It’s already the case that families are penalised for choosing to have one parent at home with kids.
Governments which are as unpopular as this one shouldn’t hold referendums. People will vote against the proposal just to kick the government up the hole.
Seems a waste of a referendum. I don’t see how the wording in any way ties the governments hands. Seems to be a symbolic change of wording and nothing more.
Which absolutely should be done, but surely it could just be included as a secondary question in a future vote instead of committing all the resources to that. Seems very inconsequential and I don’t see people really opposing the change so it could easily be just slapped in with another vote
I feel like this would be better attached on to another referendum. It’s not big enough on its own
Interestingly there could be an argument made that the cost of living/housing crisis is unconstitutional at the moment as its made it unaffordable for single income households
Like throwing meat to a pack of angry lions. Let the public get distracted with nonsense while important issues get ignored.
Why are the government so hell bent on changing the entitlement to the woman within the home? You think they would be more hard pressed on other referendums.
My spidey senses are tingling on this one.
There must be a reason that will screw people over, and save the state some cash down the line.
It’s usually the people dependant on it who get screwed all while the government says, “yeah but you voted for it”.
25% of families are single parent families? That seems extremely high
Why not focus on something that matters? Isn’t their some sort of healthcare or housing crisis maybe they could look into.
Pointless virtue signalling from MM trying to go after votes he’s never getting
Roscommon votes NO! lol
Anyone else looking forward to the absolute head the balls who are going to be asking people to vote against removing 41.2?
This is pretty cool
Would gladly vote for the change.
They should just delete it rather than change the wording.
18 comments
Why do they not say what the specific lines in the constitution actually say in this article, they only reference the article number? Because the actual lines state that the government is open to a lawsuit at the moment for not upholding the requirement that a family shouldn’t be required to be duel income by economic necessity, I.e. this is very much looking to me like an attempt to skirt around the whole obligation to deal with the cost of living crisis thing.
“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. 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.”
Also I really don’t see why Article 40.1 is an issue?
“All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.” –
how is that a problem, it’s not remotely gendered at all?
Iona institute preparing for the call from RTE.
[deleted]
This will really make no difference to anyone. The government has ignored this particular article of the constitution for years anyway. It’s already the case that families are penalised for choosing to have one parent at home with kids.
Governments which are as unpopular as this one shouldn’t hold referendums. People will vote against the proposal just to kick the government up the hole.
Seems a waste of a referendum. I don’t see how the wording in any way ties the governments hands. Seems to be a symbolic change of wording and nothing more.
Which absolutely should be done, but surely it could just be included as a secondary question in a future vote instead of committing all the resources to that. Seems very inconsequential and I don’t see people really opposing the change so it could easily be just slapped in with another vote
I feel like this would be better attached on to another referendum. It’s not big enough on its own
Interestingly there could be an argument made that the cost of living/housing crisis is unconstitutional at the moment as its made it unaffordable for single income households
Like throwing meat to a pack of angry lions. Let the public get distracted with nonsense while important issues get ignored.
Why are the government so hell bent on changing the entitlement to the woman within the home? You think they would be more hard pressed on other referendums.
My spidey senses are tingling on this one.
There must be a reason that will screw people over, and save the state some cash down the line.
It’s usually the people dependant on it who get screwed all while the government says, “yeah but you voted for it”.
25% of families are single parent families? That seems extremely high
Why not focus on something that matters? Isn’t their some sort of healthcare or housing crisis maybe they could look into.
Pointless virtue signalling from MM trying to go after votes he’s never getting
Roscommon votes NO! lol
Anyone else looking forward to the absolute head the balls who are going to be asking people to vote against removing 41.2?
This is pretty cool
Would gladly vote for the change.
They should just delete it rather than change the wording.