5 reasons for the landslide NO to constitutional changes to family and women

It was a resounding, emphatic, landslide: a double NO. The people couldn’t have spoken more clearly in opposing the deletion or amendment of the provisions in the Constitution which recognise the value of the work done by mothers at home, and the importance of the family.

The final results are quite astonishing: A 67% NO to changing the constitutional recognition of the family based on marriage, with every single constituency opposing except for the old remnant of the Pale, Dún Laoghaire, which managed a squeaky yes of 50.7%. It was, for a couple of hours, the largest NO vote in the history of the state.

But then the final vote from the referendum on care in the home were announced – and blew even that historical result out of the water, to set a new record. A massive 74% NO – reaching the dizzying heights of almost 84% in Donegal.

This was not the predicted outcome. All the major political parties and a host of establishment NGOs supported a Yes-Yes vote, and until recently polls suggested both referenda would pass easily. However, at least one of those earlier polls showed that voters felt they knew very little about the proposals. It seems that when the debates opened up, and people became more informed, they didn’t like what they heard. In fact, an Irish Times poll did indicate a month before the vote that “voters may be potentially up to twice or three times more likely to vote No in the referendums if they know a lot about them”.

Reams of ink have been spilt, or at least acres of online frontage filled, in analyses seeking to explain why the proposals got such a drubbing – much of it continuing to display that extraordinary arrogant attitude towards voters that landed the government in such hot water in the first place. The response that the electorate were too confused, or too disinterested, or just too ill-informed to realise that a YesYes should have been the answer, is not likely to win back voters.

In fact, Minister Mary Butler, far from being humbled by the 73% No on the care amendment in her constituency of Waterford, seemed outraged that the NoNo message wasn’t subject to a moratorium on social media. While recognising that the people had spoken, she said: “There’s no moratorium across social media and that’s something that we’re certainly going to have to look at going forward”. Seeking to restrict the message of your opponents isn’t a good look the day after losing a referendum by a walloping majority.

However, restricting the reach of campaign groups, isn’t likely to be the focus of Fianna Fáil or the other major parties – including Sinn Féin whose strange lapse into silence as the public mood swung towards a No all last week hasn’t gone unnoticed – who have been left licking their wounds.

The establishment would have you believe the huge No votes were a result of ‘lacklustre’ campaigns, or a failure to engage voters as to just how even more marvellous and progressive the changes would make Ireland, but that’s not the real story of how the amendments were lost.

1. Both amendments were bad proposals, and there was no significant public demand for change

This wasn’t just about “sloppy wording”, as Senator Michael McDowell pointed out, describing the referenda as being “all wokeism” and “demeaning window-dressing”. These were simply bad proposals: which were not brought forward because of any public clamour for changing the Constitution.

This is what happens when political parties and NGOs live in a bubble to the extent where they lose sight of what actually matters to the electorate, and feel that their well-heeled concerns are shared by people who are actually worried half to death about the startling rise in the cost of living, or the crisis in healthcare, or that their kids are emigrating because they can’t find housing or afford a family here.

But the amendments weren’t only largely irrelevant, it was argued by No campaigners that they were potentially harmful in a whole myriad of ways – and the Yes absolutely failed to reassure voters that wasn’t the case. Maybe because they couldn’t.

2. There was a strong resistance to “erasing” women, and to the contempt shown for mothers, 

The recent madness from the establishment seeking to redefine what a women is has fueled strong resistance from women from right across the political spectrum –  and from those who have never been politically engaged at all.

JK Rowling is the most famous example, but in this country a growing number of women have been speaking up against demeaning descriptions like “anyone with a cervix” (used to promote cervical cancer screenings!); against placing dangerous homicidal males in women’s prisons; against the push for gender neutral toilets in schools – despite evidence from other jurisdictions that could have horrific outcomes for girls; and against allowing biological males into girls’ sports and their dressing rooms.

Women are sick and tired of what they see as efforts to erase them, and to have them diminished in public spaces and public life. They pulled their boots on and hit the campaign trail for the NO, with the kind of genuine grassroots endeavours entirely missing from the NGO-led YES campaign.

In addition, as I wrote last week in the run-up to the referendums, one was a vote on removing mothers from the constitution. It was rightly seen by mothers as a move urged on by the state’s embrace of nebulous but pernicious gender identity ideology, where women are “chest-feeders” and mothering is belittled and demeaned. The current government and most in Oppositon seem wholly captured by this nonsensical ideology.

Women were told that references to the importance of mothers were “sexist” and “outdated”, often by men who showed no apparent understanding of the power of a fundamental human connection as old as time – a force running deep in blood and bone, love and sacrifice.

As one mother told Red FM – in a phone show dominated by women callers opposing the referendums – the constitution gives mothers acknowledgment, adding she felt the government’s proposal was an “attack on motherhood”, and that families were already unsupported by the state in having and raising children.

So much of this woke nonsense has real-world, harmful impacts on women, and the palpable anger and resistance from mná na hÉíreann was felt in the 3 to 1 rejection of removing the only reference to mothers and woman in the Constitution.

3.The government was caught out being untruthful – and clueless

It’s fair to say that before any referendum on social issues takes place in Ireland, most media platforms seem to line up the arguments in favour of what they’ve decided is the progressive view.

Thus, for years before the referendum, national media platforms, including RTÉ misled voters by saying that the Constitution told Irish women that their place was in the home, thus laying the basis for the proposed removal of the offending article.

But the claim was untrue – and various government ministers and NGOs were caught out and challenged in propagating a claim they should have known was untrue.

Responding to Ben Scallan of this platform, Supreme Court Judge and Chair of the Electoral Commission, Marie Baker, clarified the Constitution does not say “a woman’s place is in the home,” but merely that mothers provide an “important support” to society and shouldn’t “have to go out to work” due to “economic necessity.”

Supreme Court Judge and Chair of the Electoral Commission, Marie Baker, clarifies the Constitution does not say "a woman's place is in the home," but merely that mothers provide an "important support" to society and shouldn't "have to go out to work" due to "economic necessity." pic.twitter.com/DNpmnWraZ1

— gript (@griptmedia) January 26, 2024

The incorrect claim had been made by Yes campaigners such as the National Women’s Council of Ireland and by Ministers Roderic O’Gorman and Catherine Martin – with Martin being embarrassingly corrected in Community Notes on X in relation to her dogged persistence with a false assertion.

In addition, the government, in what many saw as a lazy and arrogant campaign, failed to provide voters with a definition of ‘durable relationships’ – and were perceived as being secretive about advice from the Attorney General on the referendums.

At a time when trust in government is low – with one study finding that 48% of Irish people surveyed saying they don’t trust the Government to be honest and truthful, and 58% thinking it communicates inaccurate and biased information – being caught out spreading misinformation does not inspire voter confidence.

Voters I spoke to in the last days in the run up to the vote also took issue with what they saw as a false claim being made about the Constitutional support for marriage. One young woman told me that while everyone wanted to see single parent families supported, that didn’t mean marriage wasn’t the gold standard. “If you make marriage unimportant, no-one will get married,” she said, adding that the most of those arguing for a Yes on this provision seemed to be enjoying the stability and benefits that marriage bring to individuals and to families.

It’s astonishing really that in the NGO bubble in which Ministers now exist, they had never stopped to consider things that clearly.

4. A backlash on issues such as immigration and woke politics 

The effect of the discontent and anger felt by voters on other issues is hard to measure, but its undeniable that people are upset and angry at the government’s chronic mishandling of immigration, with polls showing huge majorities believing that Ireland has taken in too many refugees.

Curiously enough, it was a government Minister who first brought immigration into the debate. Neale Richmond confidently asserted on Virgin Media’s The Tonight Show that the proposed constitutional change, if passed, would not only provide the constitution with “modern time vernacular,” but would have “serious consequences” regarding immigration.

“It has serious consequences, particularly when we think of immigration law, and proving that someone is a family member, or family reunification,” he said.

“This would allow that to be accommodated as well.”

When asked by the host if this was because the new definition of family would be based merely on the loose description of “durable relationships,” the Minister replied: “Absolutely, yeah.”

Richmond probably made the fatal error of speaking honestly on the likely effects of the referendum.  He was more or less flatly contradicted by his party leader who described warnings regarding the amendment leading to more immigration as “red herrings”:

But at that stage, the clip had gone viral. And Senator Michael McDowell assertion that he rejected completely the idea that the family referendum won’t impact immigration law – and that it would be “in the interest” of “economic migrants” to mount legal challenges regarding family re-unification was attracting huge attention.

Senator Michael McDowell, Ireland's former Attorney General, says he "rejects completely" the idea that the family referendum won't impact immigration law, and says it will be "in the interest" of "economic migrants" to mount legal challenges regarding family re-unification. pic.twitter.com/eyOjYNFDgG

— gript (@griptmedia) February 15, 2024

An anti-government vote will also have sought to send a message on housing, cost of living, the crisis in healthcare, and anger at an out of touch and indifferent government. But TDs right across the country will likely look at some really astonishing results, such as a 95% NO in Cherry Orchard, and massive rejections in areas like Finglas andDonegal, and understand this at least part of the vote was anger at the government’s immigration policies.

5. The quiet heroism of disability campaigners