The Irish Times view on the referendums: Government pays for poor decisions and a lacklustre campaign

The Government may be shocked, but it should not be surprised at the result of the two referendums. The timing was rushed, the rationale unclear, the propositions confusing and the campaigning lacklustre. It was an accident waiting to happen.

It is hard to focus the blame anywhere but with the Government. Few people would disagree with the view that the gendered language in the Constitution referring to women’s role in the home should be changed, with recognition given to carers, and that the definition of the family should be broadened to include those not based on marriage.

But the wordings chosen by the Government did not satisfy sufficient numbers of voters. A crucial mistake was not allowing enough time for scrutiny of the proposed wording as the Government rushed the required legislation through the Oireachtas earlier this year. This resulted from a failure of the Government to put forward its wording in good time last year and a desire to have the vote on International Women’s Day. Both of these mistakes could have been avoided.

The tide turned against the Government as the debate took shape. Some disabilities groups and campaigners felt the provisions on care were insufficient, insulting even; the question of what is a durable relationship was never definitively answered. Had the Government published draft legislation on the durable legislation issue it would surely have left voters better informed on this point.

Poll analysis: Housing and immigration are making the headlines, but other topics are becoming more prominent

---

Do Peadar Tóibín and Aontú have their finger on the public pulse?

---

Official records show costs row over care referendum wording

---

Simon Harris fears patent court referendum would be ‘rushed’ if held on June 7th

---

‘Two wallops’ for Government as No-No vote emerges strong

Listen | 31:39

Scared of being nailed by either side, the Government simultaneously argued that what was on offer represented a big change in the Constitution – but also that it wouldn’t change all that much legally at all. Trying to steer a middle course, the Government fell foul of people on all sides of these debates, and crucially failed to build a consensus, middle-ground position. Too often during the campaign its explanations were unclear and the case it made unconvincing.

Many senior ministers were notable by their absence from the debate. The Opposition and NGOs supporting the referendums also failed to convince. The result has been a clear rejection by voters. The anachronistic wording on women and families will remain in the Constitution and this is now territory which any government will be nervous to revisit.

The severe embarrassment of the result is a significant political setback to this Government. Whether it has any lasting political effects, though, is another matter. Many governments have lost referendums and gone on to survive politically. Likely when the next election comes, the attention of voters will be elsewhere. But if the poor judgment that gave us an anaemic campaign on sketchy proposals remains in evidence the prospects for the Coalition will not be rosy.