Politics

No voters have their say: ‘I came to understand the care referendum was just fluff’

We asked readers who voted No in last week’s family and care referendums why they rejected the proposed changes to the Constitution

A citizen casts her vote on Gola Island, off the Donegal coast, in last week's family and care referendums. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP

Jade Wilson
Thu Mar 14 2024 - 19:00

The referendums proposing changes to the constitutional definition of family and on the issue of care were comprehensively defeated on Saturday, with the latter rejected by a record margin at 73.9 per cent.

In the ballots, the Government proposed expanding the definition of family in the Constitution to recognise “durable relationships”, such as cohabiting couples and their children, and replacing the language around “women in the home” with language recognising care within families.

It became clear early on as the ballot boxes were opened on Saturday morning that the proposals were going to be rejected by voters, despite having the backing of three Government parties, as well as Sinn Féin, and most of the Opposition.

The Irish Times asked readers to share their opinions on the proposals, and which way they voted.

READ MORE

While Paul Roche, from Co Dublin, agreed with “the spirit of both amendments”, he was ultimately “dissatisfied with the wording of both”.

“The fact that ‘durable relationships’ was undefined, and was to be left up to the courts to define, was a ridiculous proposition. The courts are not legislators. If durable relationships was to mean unmarried couples with children, why not include ‘romantic, monogamous relationships’. Why not have prepared draft legislation to define it, as was the case with repealing the Eighth?” Roche said.

He was also concerned with what he described as “contradictory messaging from the Government”.

“This uncertainty from the very people who drafted and proposed the amendment left me with no confidence,” he added.

The amendment on care in the home “would have removed a firm financial commitment to mothers and replaced it with a flimsy commitment to ‘strive’ to support carers”, Roche felt.

“One could argue that the government is already striving to support carers, through the carers allowance, carers tax credit, and HSE provided respite care. As such, this amendment may have had no benefit to those who provide care, whether to children nor the disabled or infirmed.”

Ian Walsh, from Co Dublin, shared a similar perspective, in the sense that he too felt there was “a lack of clarity over the proposed amendments” and an “uninspired, mute campaign with a failure to respond clearly to any of the valid issues raised by No voters”.

Walsh was frustrated with a “failure to listen to the advice given by the Citizens’ Assembly, as well as leaders more intent on point scoring than realising how little the campaign was resonating with the public”.

Wording “didn’t go far enough on both, particularly on care”, and Walsh would have preferred for it to cement “the State’s commitment to people, rather than family reliance”.

Walsh felt this showed “that this coalition is highly out of touch and is unfit to continue after the next election”.

“All the major parties will now need to conduct an in-depth postmortem and hopefully learn that listening to the concerns of the public and prominent rights activists is not just optional and that a Yes vote can’t be taken as a given in 21st century Ireland,” he said.

Helen Keogh, from Co Dublin, was “surprised” to find herself voting No and No, “as over a long lifetime, I’ve taken a liberal stance on social and other issues up for discussion and constitutional change in Ireland,” she said.

“But, after more reading and discussion than I ever devoted to previous amendments to the Constitution, I couldn’t accept the sloppy wording of the proposed amendments,” she said.

Keogh was “put off by the lack of rigour on the part of many Government and Opposition spokespersons, particularly in relation to the so-called ‘the place of a woman is in the home’ clause”.

Having discussed the proposals “with everyone” she could, including young people, her family, and her partner, Keogh felt “everyone was a bit unsure”.

“I took a deep breath, tried to ignore my bedfellows and voted No and No in protest. I was tempted not to vote at all but I consider casting a vote to be one’s democratic duty,” she added.

The sentiment that the proposals were poorly worded or too complicated was a common one, and Mickey Whelan, from Co Waterford, said it meant people “couldn’t see the advantage” of the changes.

“The proposals did not reflect the Citizens’ Assembly recommendations. The care proposal was a disgrace, changing the wording from ‘oblige’ to ‘strive’ was absolving the government of their responsibility.

“The family proposal was too complicated. I thought it was a step in the right direction, but when they used the term ‘durable relationships’, some people I spoke to, like single mothers, couldn’t see the advantage. It just seemed they didn’t explain properly what they meant,” he said.

Áine O’Malley, from west Dublin, also found it “difficult to get clarity” on the wording of the amendments.

“After listening to advocates, I decided to vote no to the carers clause, as I firmly believe we are a society that should provide support when needed,” she said.

“For the family clause, I was less sure and initially was voting yes with the view that the proposed wording was ‘less bad than the current version’. I was also not comfortable with the far right agenda to vote no,” she said, adding that since the results, it “hasn’t been sitting well with me that the far right are claiming it as a win”.

After discussing it in more detail with friends and family, O’Malley decided to vote No on both amendments, and felt “much happier that it was the right decision”.

“By changing the Constitution, it’d take a long time to go back to a vote again, so I thought it was better to vote no now and have them re-do the wording if they want to change it later.”

Orla Purcell, from Co Dublin, initially felt it was “a straightforward case of yes and yes” but was then influenced by “the lived experience” of disability advocate and senator Tom Clonan, who advocated for a No vote on the care amendment.

“Having cared for my own elderly mother before she died, I came to understand the care referendum was just fluff. Equally, legal experts, especially Michael McDowell and Alan Shatter, got me to think more deeply about the implications of the family referendum and the avalanche of potential litigation and work for the courts. So I voted no and no,” Purcell said.

There was a feeling that the changes would have “no real practical value to anyone”, Daniel Duggan, from Co Louth, said.

“I voted No and No in the referendums because the changes proposed are petty,” he said.

Duggan felt the benefits were “very uncertain” and the wording was “vague as to what a durable relationship was in the family amendment”.

“I voted Yes to gay marriage and other progressive issues, but I felt this one was just a waste of my taxpayer’s money”, he said.

“Irish political parties need to forget about promoting woke issues and focus on the issues which are actually relevant to Irish people such as housing, health system, cost of living, and removing the additional personal taxation imposed during the global financial crisis,” Duggan added.

For others, the referendum contributed to a loss of faith and trust in the Government. Gerry Ryan, from Co Dublin, said: “There is an arrogance in this Coalition Government that reeks of untouchable . . . This referendum is a perfect example of that arrogance. They paid no heed to committees, no disabled representation in wording, pushed it through Dáil and did not campaign for it. They presumed it was a given. They have no idea of the anger out there in middle Ireland in all age groups towards them.”

Ryan voted No and No in the referendums, because she felt it would be “a strong message of dissatisfaction with the government”.

“Our Constitution is not something to be fiddled with carelessly,” she added.

Jade Wilson

Jade Wilson

Jade Wilson is a reporter for The Irish Times

LATEST STORIES