Basic details are provided to the healthcare providers only AFTER someone takes up the job. Never at application stage. That conversation happens with HR and not the line manager who does not get access to marriage status or dependency information.
Referendums on 8th of March
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,448
Well expressed Purple. This is it.
Dr Strangelove
Registered User
- Messages
- 653
He has about twelve arguments. Maybe four of them are valid but it’s hard to know which four.
His scattergun approach does himself no favours.
I see the ministers have all been rolled out over the last few days to try and push the yes campaign over the line. Very difficult task and they not able to successfully counter the no campaign arguments which are very straight forward. Leo varadker resorted to saying " oh the law society are for the yes side" but sure of course they are onside, this will be a bonanza for them, it's like voting for Christmas. The already backlogged courts will have years of cases before them, loads of moolah
thedaddyman
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,057
Interesting to see even some of the Govt TD's are no-no. John McGuiness in Kilkenny has said he is a no no for example
In fact "they" are not. There is huge disquiet within the membership of the Society about their public position. I know anecdotally and it was written about also.
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-la...societys-council-for-yes-vote-in-referendums/
How so?
My head is semi melted by this, I've gone full circle from No, No to Yes, No to Yes, Yes an now back again to No. No
Am now thinking why is it such a hard decision to make, surly these things should be easy to explain and decide upon
After watching the Six One news the last couple nights debating about this I'm no nearer a decision
What's really bothering me is the Yes side seem to be saying "although not perfect it's a step in the right direction"
Is that a good enough reason to vote Yes Yes??
Am now thinking why is it such a hard decision to make, surly these things should be easy to explain and decide upon
After watching the Six One news the last couple nights debating about this I'm no nearer a decision
What's really bothering me is the Yes side seem to be saying "although not perfect it's a step in the right direction"
Is that a good enough reason to vote Yes Yes??
No no. No no no no. No no no no. There's no limit!
(saw this in a spoof twitter account about the refs)
imo it is not , if you're not sure, you vote no.
Last edited:
I am with Michael McDowell on this and he is saying NO NO with significant arguments.
One that puzzles me is that given that you can marry who you like now (except maybe the dog) then if you are in a relationship should it not be formalised as a 'marriage' something like a licence for a car - have what ever car you want - but you need licence to drive. Then if you don't 'marry' you are not committed. Black and white.
I am concerned at this citizens assembly b/s - more coming up.
One that puzzles me is that given that you can marry who you like now (except maybe the dog) then if you are in a relationship should it not be formalised as a 'marriage' something like a licence for a car - have what ever car you want - but you need licence to drive. Then if you don't 'marry' you are not committed. Black and white.
I am concerned at this citizens assembly b/s - more coming up.
McDowell lost a lot of credibility when he began praising John Charles McQuaid's contribution to the Constitution...! The mind boggles.
Families, relationships, etc. are often not black and white and not everyone is in a position to marry.
Someone could be separated and going through a lengthy divorce. They start a new relationship, have a baby, but can't get married again until the divorce is finalised. They are in a legal limbo.
People can have multiple families, e.g. someone who has children with their first spouse, gets divorced, and has children with the 2nd spouse. Both relationships are families and need to be acknowledged in some way other than a married/not married binary.
Widows, widowers, single parents, blended families, foster families, etc. etc. all deserve to be accommodated too.
Confusion / disputes as to the legal implications of 'strive' in leaked advice from Attorney General:
www.thejournal.ie
Attorney General's advice to minister leaked ahead of referendums
The Ditch published an article containing the leaked advice from Rossa Fanning on the proposed care amendment to Roderic O’Gorman this afternoon.
www.thejournal.ie
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
I don’t think there would be as much confusion if other forms of “family” relationship were acknowledged under a new article/ subsection, with their own forms of protection and without reference to marriage.
For instance, an elder/eldest sibling who has the care of a younger sibling/siblings on the death of their parents could be considered a family.
I think that lumping every possible family-type of relationship in articles that refer solely to marriage is the main cause of confusion.
Citizens assembly are not democratically selected, they are hand picked. I heard of a guy selected based on a response he gave a pollster, that's another can of worms, how polls are conducted
Citizens assembly members are randomly selected. The guy you heard of may have been confused by the fact that a polling company is used to carry out the selection process on behalf of the government.
jasdpace@gmail.
Registered User
- Messages
- 191
FWIW, it's good enough for me.
We have a choice today between the old wording and the new wording. The old is badly flawed, the new is definitely flawed but less so. Sometimes decisions are not what's the best but what's the least worst.
Thought experiment: Imagine the new wording was in the Constitution - would anyone seriously consider or advocate inserting the old wording in its/their place now?! That would be really silly!
Laurel and Hardy couldn't have come up with a finer mess than what's proposed.
jasdpace@gmail.
Registered User
- Messages
- 191
Good man Firefly,
I applaud the use of pronouns in describing your daughter's partner - the proposed amendments are similarly, in part, about modernising the language of the Constitution.
Last edited: