Public has every right to be suspicious over motives for referenda
WHEN voting today the public would do well to reflect on past referendums and the unforeseen consequences they brought about.
To persuade the public to pass the second Nice Referendum – they rejected the first – there was a solemn promise given Ireland would always stay neutral.
To achieve this a device called the “Triple Lock” was put in place which meant 12 or more Defence Forces troops cannot be deployed overseas without approval from the Dail, the Government and UN authorisation.
Now Micheal Martin, who is pushing for a Yes/yes vote today, has stated the Government is scrapping the Triple Lock leading to fears that Ireland is on the road to joining NATO.
And who could forget the Children’s Referendum of 2012 which inserted clauses into the
Constitution giving youngsters more rights and putting an onus on the
State to take child protection measures? Certainly not the parents of scoliosis children listening to broken promises from health ministers as their sons and daughters wait years for treatment in agony.
Today the public are being asked to vote in two referendums that are neither needed nor wanted and which the public, and some government ministers, don’t fully understand.
The Government would have the public believe the Constitution states that a woman’s place is in the home which is untrue with one minister being rebuked for making this false claim.
What we do know is if the referendums are passed this country will have celebrated International Women’s Day by removing “woman” and “mother”from its Constitution.
With the outcome being announced on the eve of
Mother’s Day an outsider could be forgiven for thinking this is a country that really does not like or respect women or mothers.
When voters are being urged to insert words into their Constitution, which even ministers can’t define nor predict their consequences, there would also seem to be a similar lack of respect for the public.
Two amendments are on the ballot today, one proposes extending the meaning of family presently defined by marriage 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.
Unfortunately “durable” relationships could mean just about anything to anyone with Government ministers seemingly contradicting each other.
On Prime Time during the week, Micheal Martin floundered and flapped about like a fish on a hook and ended up being filleted by barrister and stay-athome mother Maria Steen.
She rightly pointed out, if passed, the referendums will lead to legislation having to be enacted in areas such as succession law, immigration law, social welfare law.
Also, whether you agree with her or not, Maria Steen is also a living example of how the Constitution as it stands does not limit women’s opportunities.
And she highlighted the potential case of a Muslim man seeking refuge in this country with two wives and asked Micheal Martin how this could not be considered a durable relationship if the amendment passes.
The Tanaiste answered bigamy or polygamy is against the law but she countered by stating laws can be changed, and would certainly have to be, if the courts ruled the man was in a durable relationship. Many of the country’s leading legal experts, including former Justice Minister Michael Mcdowell also believe the referendums will have serious implications for immigration law.
He pointed out that the claim of being in a durable relationship has already been used by a man attempting to keep two foreign women in the country.
When immigration is already such a controversial issue the potential widespread use of the courts to reunite families could have a destabilising effect on an already polarised society.
Because of the secrecy with the Government refusing to release cabinet discussion notes in the lead up to the referendums – the public has every right to be suspicious as to its motives for these unwanted referendums.
And looking back on the hidden consequences of other referendums, who can blame them?
‘Durable relationships’ can mean anything to anyone