Lawyers for No confident public will reject repeal of Eighth Amendment

The Irish people will reject the Government’s proposal to repeal the Eighth Amendment because they feel uncomfortable with it paving the way for abortion on demand, a leading lawyer campaigning for a No vote has predicted.

Barrister Benedict O Floinn BL of the Lawyers for No group said if it was any other issue other than abortion, the matter would have been settled by now. He expressed confidence the referendum would be defeated, the Government will accept the result and the issue will not trouble the Irish people again.

“I’m tempted to say if it was any other issue and we had not voted on it in 2002 and voted on it in 1992 and put it into the Constitution in 1983, if it was any other bundle of rights, we would take it as a settled issue,” said Mr O Floinn.

"I hope the Government will respect the outcome. There was a concern when Regina Doherty unfortunately did seem to suggest there will be another referendum and another referendum until they got the answer they wanted, but the Taoiseach has indicated the outcome will be accepted."

Emotional Klopp says thoughts of Liverpool FC with injured Irish fan’s family

---

‘Stuffed anteater’ picture stripped of wildlife photography award

---

Student loans ‘off the table’ for lifetime of current Government

---

Paschal calls on our inner German

---

Speaking at a press conference in Cork where the Lawyers for No revealed that they had received the backing of another 50 members of the legal profession to add to the 100 names unveiled last week in Dublin, Mr O Floinn expressed confidence that the referendum would be defeated.

Asked about opinion polls which showed a majority in favour of repealing the Eighth Amendment, Mr O Floinn said that he interpreted the opinion polls as being quite favourable to the No campaign in that support for repeal has dropped over recent months.

“What I take from the opinion polls is that there has been a consistent drop in the number of people who are supporting the radical proposition that is being put forward by the Government. There has been no opinion poll that has shown anything but a drop in support for the Government position.

“My sense is that the opinion polls understate the extent that people are not really comfortable with this proposal from the Government and they are set to reject it and reject quite emphatically and in those circumstances, I don’t think it’s a matter that’s going to be troubling people into the future.”

Removal of rights

He said the Government’s proposal to remove the rights of the unborn from the Constitution was clearly unjust. Mr O’ Floinn said that it was evident from the fact that if the Government was proposing to remove any other protections from the Constitution, the matter would not even be up for debate.

“If I said to anybody in this room, let’s take away your right to private property in the Constitution, the Government will pass legislation and protect you, nobody in this room would support that as a sensible way to go, nobody would even say there was a logic to such a debate.

"So why then do we single out the unborn child and say uniquely in relation to this category of human being that what the Supreme Court says will happen if we vote for repeal - we will sweep away their rights but it's alright because the Government will take charge of this into the future?"

Asked about how representative Lawyers for No are within the legal professions, Mr O Floinn said he believed there were more lawyers inclined to share their view than those in favour of repealing the Eighth, though he conceded that there are pro-choice lawyer groups as well.

“It doesn’t get defined as right or wrong simply if one side has more people than the other side. The key difference is when you get people in a reasoned way, standing over a legal analysis, coming to a conclusion and signing their names to it. That’s a world of difference to marching behind a slogan.”

Mr O Floinn predicted there would be more solicitors and barristers supporting their position over the next month and he was keen to stress this would happen, as has happened to date, from lawyers hearing about their analysis and supporting their position rather than being actively recruited.