Coveney an unlikely poster boy for repeal
People like certainty and vote no in referendums for that reason — or so the old theory goes, writes Eoin O’Malley
‘The status quo bias isn’t against action: it’s laziness’
IF you don’t know, vote no — that’s a mainstay of referendum campaigns, and one many people believe works to thwart proposed changes to the status quo. The idea is that people like certainty, and if they’re uncertain about what a proposed change will bring, they will prefer what they know, the status quo, to some uncertain alternative.
It looks like it will be used by opponents of repealing the Eighth Amendment currently prohibiting abortion in almost all circumstances. They will seize on Tanaiste Simon Coveney’s announcement that while he’ll vote to repeal the Eighth Amendment, he is uneasy with and will not support the legislation that the Government is likely to propose enabling the Oireachtas committee’s recommendation that abortion be allowed unrestricted by circumstances up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. The suggestion by the second most-senior ranking politician in the country that it is too liberal for him might give others pause for thought.
Then we are being asked to vote for something that is still not revealed. And so voters lack certainty, and so they will vote to retain. That’s the standard line. It’s also probably wrong. The ‘if you don’t know, vote no’ line was used recently in the Australian same-sex marriage referendum, where it didn’t gain traction. It was also used in the referendums on the Nice Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, the Seanad abolition and Scottish independence.
Opponents to change often appeal to confusion about proposals, and paint a bleak picture of the future under a new regime. Life without the Seanad was going to be nasty, brutish and short under Enda Kenny’s jackboot dictatorship. The 1995 referendum to enable divorce was going to see men leave litters of abandoned families strewn all over the country. The decision to word that constitutional amendment very tightly was designed to give certainty and reassurance to those who feared such a terrible vista.
There’s science behind the desire for certainty. What behavioural psychologists call the status quo bias shows that in some situations, people will prefer the status quo to an alternative, even if that alternative might be better.
We didn’t see the status quo bias at work in the Brexit referendum. ‘Project Fear’ tried it, but it didn’t work. That was in part because of the decision on the wording of the referendum question. The decision to use ‘remain’ and ‘leave’ as options was in part because some thought a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ option would bias in favour of the status quo. But we also didn’t see it because of the way the pro-Brexit side framed the debate. They suggested that leaving the EU would allow Britain to ‘take back control’. The ‘back’ here is important because it suggests in voters’ minds that leaving would return them to some status quo ante.
However, what we see happening where an alternative is rejected is apathy. The status quo bias isn’t about certainty, but is a bias against action. It’s laziness. The initial decisions in the Lisbon and Nice Treaties were overturned when we were asked again, not because people changed their minds, but because more went out to vote the second time.
Usually the people who vote are the ones who care about a topic. The supposed truism of ‘if you don’t know, vote no’, is actually ‘if you don’t care, you won’t vote’. We see that people who are passionate about a topic are more likely to vote. Those that are passionate rarely hold the same views as the majority.
What does this mean for the forthcoming referendum? There are groups on both sides that are passionate about both repeal and retention of the Eighth Amendment, but they are both small. To win, each side needs to appeal to the majority for whom this is not a big issue. The conservative side will try to whip up the passions with fears of ‘abortion on demand’, a position that polls show a majority is opposed to. This is why Leo Varadkar sought to reassure people with the Clintons’ line that abortion should be ‘safe, legal and rare’.
Coveney’s intervention makes clear that the likely legislation that will be passed by the Oireachtas will look quite different to what starts in the Dail. It seems that a majority of Fianna Fail TDs will oppose the legislation based on the recommendations of the Oireachtas Committee. There is a sizeable number of Fine Gael TDs who have broadly similar views to Coveney, and all Sinn Fein TDs will be obliged to reject the legislation — unless their Ard Fheis votes to change the party’s position. Add to this the rural independents and it will be hard to see Simon Harris get his legislation through without significant amendments.
But the uncertainty of what the legislative position will be post-repeal shouldn’t make repeal less likely.
While there may be uncertainty about what will happen post-repeal, it is certain that the eventual regime won’t be more liberal than the proposed 12 weeks. So anyone happy with the 12-week limit should be able to support repeal, even if they are likely to be disappointed by the conservatism of the Oireachtas.
For the many people who agree that the current situation is intolerable, but feel queasy about 12-week unre- stricted access to abortion, Coveney’s ‘pro-life and pro-repeal’ intervention will be welcome. These are the group whom the anti-repeal side was going to target with Facebook ads outlining the threat of ‘abortion on demand’. They could have been easily swayed.
Their fears might be assuaged by the diminishing likelihood that 12 weeks’ unrestricted access will be what the Oireachtas agrees. The ‘pro-life and pro-repeal’ line could be more effective than Varadkar’s ‘safe, legal, and rare’. Coveney could be the unlikely poster boy for repeal — presenting a conservative face in favour of repeal.