Harkin: No-No referendum outcome always likely after voters were presented with “ambiguous and uncertain” proposals

LAST week’s referendum questions “let the State off the hook” insists Sligo-Leitrim TD Marion Harkin.

The Independent representative added that by presenting the electorate with “an uncertain and ambiguous proposal” a resounding ‘No’ vote was the likely result.

The referendum proposed two changes to the constitution.

The first one in relation to the family, would provide constitutional protection to both the family based on marriage and the family founded on “other durable relationships”.

The second change in relation to carers proposed that ‘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’.

A massive 67.7 per cent voted No to the family question on the ballot paper with 73.9 per cent voting against the carer proposal.

Deputy Harkin said: “The constitution is the people's document and they are not prepared to change it unless they believe the proposed change is positive, meaningful and legally sound.

“The people were presented with an uncertain and ambiguous proposal on extending the definition of family and, in the name of ‘getting rid of archaic language and modernising our constitution’ they they were presented with a deeply flawed article that would have left the State off the hook in regard to its responsibilities to people with disabilities, carers and those in need of care.”

Criticising the process that produced the proposed amendments Deputy Harkin accused the Government of treating the Dáil and Seanad with complete disregard by not having any pre-legislative scrutiny, by guillotining debate, and by refusing to take any amendments.

She added: “The refusal to release any information regarding the advice from the attorney general or the discussions with Government departments was highhanded, authoritarian and it angered many people.

“But the low turnout and the resounding ‘no’ vote goes far, far deeper than just the mishandling of the process.

“People informed themselves and looked carefully at the impact of the proposed amendments.

“While I believe many people would agree with extending the definition of family, they were never prepared to accept wording that was subjective and wide open to legal challenge.

“Two weeks ago, after questioning the Tánaiste in the Dáil during Leaders’ Questions about the meaning of ‘durable relationships’ and hearing his inadequate response, I was even more concerned that the term ‘durable relationships’ must have legal clarity, and this could only be achieved by having accompanying legislation.”

Deputy Harkin believes that had the family amendment been passed people would have found themselves in ludicrous situations.

She continued: “If there was a dispute, a person who thought they were in a durable relationship might find out they weren't, and a person who thought they were not in a durable relationship might find out they were, just because the court made that decision.

“This would have been untenable, in my view, and I am so pleased that the people said no to this proposal.

“I believe the care amendment had a positive aspect to it in that it recognized that 40 per cent of carers are men, according to the recent census, and that 67,000 carers are in fact young carers, but there the positivity stopped.

“The amendment would have had very significant negative outcomes for people with disabilities, especially those who want to live independently.

“It would also have removed a significant protection for women who wish to remain at home to care and replaced it with a much weaker text on striving to support care.

“In the first and only debate in the Dáil on the care amendment I strongly made the point that whoever is in government must walk the walk at budget time when it comes to supporting family carers and people with disabilities, this is what really matters.

“The Government has the chance to do this in the upcoming budget.

“I now believe there is an even greater onus on them to deliver for carers and people with disabilities.”