Letters to the Editor: Your view on family and care referendums

'The decisive no-no should be a wake-up call those in this Government, and those who wish to see themselves in Government, that you do not take the electorate for granted.' Picture: Sasko Lazarov/RollingNews.ie

Let’s just get rid of the Constitution

The bitter, divided, and expensive referendum campaign to amend our 1937 Constitution with its plethora of provisions both new and old is over thank God. Every time we try to amend our Constitution it causes much division among our people and one might argue we should have a referendum to get rid of the old yoke entirely.

Irrespective of the current attempt by the Government to amend certain provisions and the result, the 1937 document has been a source of great controversy and accused of moral and religious bias, as well as being very expensive to amend.

We had one of the lowest turnouts for a referendum in the history of the State and yet the result is deemed to be the will of the people? Decisions are not really taken by the majority of the people, but by the majority of the minority voting. Whether it be referenda or elections in this country, voter turnout is dropping and dropping overall.

However, any decision made is meant to be a good reflection of the will of the people in very angry and hard fought debates about our constitutional yoke.

Maurice Fitzgerald, Shanbally, Co Cork

Left is losing touch

The proposed amendment referring to “other durable relationships” was ridiculously unqualified. That could easily have been rectified if it had been stipulated, as was suggested beforehand, that such relationships would be defined by law — an approach which prevails in other parts of the Constitution.

Instead, we were left with the courts — rather than the elected representatives — to sort out the situation, or perhaps some legislation at a future date, with no indication now of the same.

The left was then confronted with the question of advocating for yes or no votes.

Obviously, those sharing the outlook of the Catholic bishops would vote no for doctrinal reasons.

So, if the left voted no to deficient amendments and effectively go back and redraft, they would be balloting the same way as the religious right.

Yet again, as with previous referendums on citizenship and the Seanad respectively, the left opted for the imagined politically correct stance instead of a genuine progressive one.

The sad thing about it all is that the left (along with some armchair liberals), is increasingly losing touch with the people.

Naturally, one should seek to give a lead when one sees the people being courted by reaction.

However, one also has to be wary of being seduced by trendy sham-left nonsense that poses as political correctness and failing to see when the people may actually have got it right.

It is no surprise then that another issue on which the left is muddled and self-regarding is that of immigration, where legitimate concerns about appropriate policies, taking account of both humaneness and what we can be reasonably expected to do, are dismissed.

At this rate of going, the prospect of any sort of a left Government being elected in the near future is fast receding.

Daltún Ó Ceallaigh, Rathmines, Dublin

Wake-up call

The decisive no-no should be a wake-up call those in this Government, and those who wish to see themselves in Government, that you do not take the electorate for granted.

Treating the electorate as a rubber stamp without adequately explaining the reasons for changes to the constitution, at great cost to the taxpayers of this country, shows a lack of care by those in charge.

From the off there was negative commentary, backed up by legal reasoning, that what was to be included in this referendum was opaque and badly worded and excluded certain sections of society, like those with disabilities and carers.

Excluding the word “woman” on Mothers Day weekend, was to exclude my mother, and many others, who by economic necessity, and with large families, was to wipe out their contributions and sacrifices in order that we could fulfil our dreams.

The lack of proper effective communication on the rollout of these amendments to the constitution was the Achilles heel for the Government and opposition parties.

Maybe next time those elected officials will think twice before they ask the electorate to vote on amendments to the Constitution, before explaining what it is they want to change and why?

Christy Galligan, Letterkenny, Co Donegal

Lack of clarity

The electorate has decisively rejected the Government’s proposals on family and care.

While much of the blame will understandably be directed at the Government parties, it is essential for all political entities — including the opposition — to engage in introspection.

Sinn Féin, a party positioning itself as an agent of change, has raised eyebrows by supporting the referendums despite not fully agreeing with the wording — a silent yes! This herd mentality, lacking a principled stance, raises concerns about the party’s commitment to genuine transformation.

It is disheartening to witness a lack of clarity on crucial issues, which may impact voters’ trust in the upcoming elections.

The analogy of Sinn Féin’s approach to Irish unity prompts contemplation. Would their stance have been different if the referendum concerned Irish unity?

The lackadaisical approach and the attempt to remain unnoticed on the fence may not resonate well with voters seeking authenticity and conviction.

Additionally, the party must confront its own historical issues, as highlighted by Operation Kenova.

While Sinn Féin may claim to have evolved, the sins of the past continue to cast a shadow, and addressing this murky history is crucial for building trust with the electorate.

As we approach local, European, and general elections, voters will be looking for representatives who demonstrate unwavering principles and a genuine commitment to positive change. It is my hope that political parties, including Sinn Féin, take this opportunity for self-reflection and redefine their approach to better serve the interests of the people.

Oliver Doyle, Carlow, Co Carlow

Loyalty over facts

If anyone needs even more proof of what happens when misguided loyalty is preferred over rather obvious facts and common sense, the outcomes of two referendums and the scoreline at Twickenham should be more than enough to convince everyone that the results are always going to end in disaster.

Alas, it’s a lesson that seems to be always ignored.

Liam Power, Dundalk, Co Louth

Public not easily led

While the result of the referenda may have been a disappointment for some, albeit a remarkable minority, there is surely something very positive for all voters — including those who did not vote this time — in the final outcomes.

It is obvious that the Irish electorate will not be easily “led and said” and is possessed of both a shrewd, reflective, and unconstrained outlook, very healthy indicators for democracy in our society.

There are numerous candidates in this year’s many elections in democratic countries worldwide, including the biggest on our planet, who would not survive here.

I suggest that our politicians — especially those in major parties — have been given a positive result, despite so many ballot papers having been marked níl against their recommendations.

Michael Gannon, Kilkenny city

‘Strive’ proved to be the last straw

I would love to know who was responsible for the wording in the recent referendums. Before I received the information/flyer through the letterbox, I intended to vote yes on the two constitutional changes.

However, after reading the leaflet word for word, I changed my mind. What a mess! And the word “strive” was the final straw!

It’s hard to believe that a country that prides itself on having great writers, playwrights, and four Nobel Prize winners for literature could produce such a dog’s dinner and serve it up to the voters.

Greta Kelly, Clonakilty, West Cork

Past time to reflect

In light of the referendum results, more nonsense words from the Government on “reflecting”.

Some might argue that the time to reflect would be prior to throwing €23m down the drain?

As for the Taoiseach’s capacity in this area, I suspect the only reflection he is interested in is the one that greets him in the mirror every morning.

D Leonard, Corbally, Limerick

Incredible margins

I suspect that most people, including myself, who voted no in both referendums thought they would end up on the losing side or — at best — would win by a narrow margin.

It is absolutely incredible that two referendums, which all parties supported (except Aontú), were defeated by such high margins.

Despite being told time and time again that the emperor was wearing beautiful clothes, the silent majority could clearly see he was as naked as the day he was born.

Tommy Roddy, Ballybane, Galway

Money not wasted

A civilised, conscientious national debate has been had and three things are clear:

• The language offered was vague and confusing.
• The debate highlighted a plethora of legislative deficits and issues affecting the daily lives of people. So the time and money spent on these referenda was not wasted.
• The aftermath is an opportunity for our legislators to repair certain deficits and issues with legislation, where appropriate.

Senator Michael McDowell was right about many things.

Michael Deasy, Bandon