Aontú – term ‘durable’ will lead to the courts
Peadar Tóibín urges ‘confused’ public to vote No-No
CONFUSION over the definition of proposed wording to change the Constitution on care and family will lead to a ‘solicitors’ paradise’, the Aontú leader has said.
Peadar Tóibín has claimed the majority of Irish people do not know the meaning of a durable relationship.
Aontú is the only political party advocating for a No-No vote in the referendum proposals.
Two referendums will be held on Friday proposing to change the Irish Constitution.
The family amendment proposes extending the meaning of family beyond one defined by marriage and to include those based on ‘durable’ relationships.
The care amendment proposes deleting references to a woman’s roles and duties in the home, and replacing it with a new article that acknowledges family carers.
Mr Tóibín said there will be consequences to the widening of the definition of a family to include those in a ‘durable’ relationship. He told a press conference in Dublin: ‘It’s an incredible situation that we have, just a couple of days before the referendum, that the majority people do not know what the meaning of a durable relationship is.
‘We have enormous confusion over that particular definition [durable] and that confusion will be a solicitors’ paradise.
He explained: ‘It will give the opportunity for many, many people to go to court to try to achieve their rights. And that’s what democracy is about. Democracy is about either the legislature or the people understanding exactly what they’re putting into the Constitution and then the courts deciding in each individual case how that law works out.’
He also claimed the care referendum will put ‘limits’ on the Government’s obligation to help carers, adding: ‘It seems to me that the care amendment was actually created by the Department of Finance because the objective of the care amendment is to put a ceiling on the rights of people to access care and the Government are insulating themselves from any responsibility to carers or people in need of care in terms of their rights. You look at one level, you see this glossy and marketing in relation to the care that they seek in society,’ he said. ‘Then you look at the reality, which is a million miles away from that marketing bumf. It is a disaster situation.
‘The worry that we have is that the Government is flying a flag of virtue, but the reality is failing families significantly and that won’t change in terms of this amendment so we’re asking people to vote No.’ He said while he believes single parents and cohabiting families should be recognised in the Constitution, he does not agree with the current proposed wording. ‘People pay big taxes... there should be a safety net. The only way you can achieve that [State care] is for a government accepting that it has an obligation and this amendment is two fingers to that obligation.’