Legal group say ‘Yes’ vote would have “long term consequences”

Senator Michael McDowell has launched ‘Lawyers for No’ in opposition to the upcoming referendums on article 41.2 of the Constitution and the proposed carers’ amendment.

The group was set up in order to “spread awareness” of the legal consequences of a ‘Yes’ vote passing, with members of the panel at today’s meeting saying there is “vast confusion” among the public about what exactly they are being asked to vote on. 

Senator McDowell heavily criticised the government’s behaviour saying that the referendum bills had been pushed through “in a matter of hours”, and without “pre-legislative scrutiny”. He said Minister Roderic O’Gorman’s department’s decision to not publish the minutes of 16 meetings held between interdepartmental groups was “absolutely extraordinary”.

McDowell said the government was in effect saying that it is “in the public interest to keep the public in the dark” on the consequences of the constitutional amendments it is keeping until after votes have been cast. 

The group’s executive summary says that the “proposal to extend the constitutional family to “other durable relationships” is “unnecessary and introduces huge uncertainty into our fundamental law.”

They say the “rejection by the Government” of wording that would permit the Oireachtas to define the meaning of “other durable relationships” will create “major uncertainties for everyone in short term relationships.”

The proposed constitutional amendments would also cause the “proper protection” provision afforded  by Article 41.3 to be “avoided by spouses leaving the home to form new constitutional unmarried families based on durable relationships. 

TD Michael McNamara said that the erasure of marriage as the cornerstone of society would lead to a “ridiculous” situation where litigants would be submitting  “Christmas cards” as evidence before the courts to establish “durable relationships”.

Cormac O Dúlacháin BL said that the erasure of the legal significance of marriage before the law would render it as no more valuable to society than relationships between “boyfriends and girlfriends”. 

The group says that this lack of legal certainty of the definition of terms would open the door to “concurrent and successive families with multiple partners”, and that this would have “long term consequences for family law, family property rights, succession law, pension law, tax, law, welfare law, as well as migration and residence law.”

Laoise de Brún BL of The Countess said that the ‘Yes’ campaign were relying on people’s ignorance of the legal consequences of ‘Yes’ votes by focusing only on terms that sound “good and progressive” without addressing the “real-world consequences” of removing “the only acknowledgment of the work that women do in the home” and the “value that this contributes to society”. 

Journalist and Barrister, Brenda Power, said the timing of the referendum was “suspect” given that it is scheduled to take place only a matter of weeks before the Supreme Court hears the case of a mother who is the full time carer of her 18-year-old son who has “profound disabilities”.

Power said that the article which the government seeks to delete from the constitution was the basis of this woman’s ability to seek legal redress before the courts after her carers allowance was redacted after her partner’s salary exceeded 45,000 euro per annum. 

Lawyers for No says there is “no truth whatsoever” in “repeated Government statements” that article 41.2 says that “women’s place is in the home” the article “give advantages and no disadvantages” to women. 

The group says that the “proposed amendments to the constitution and their likely effects” contain  “uncertainties and contradictory language” and that the  amendments are “utterly vacuous” in respect of Care.

They say they are “strongly of the view that there is no legal or constitutional argument for acceptance of these amendments” and that they “urge the citizens of Ireland” to vote no to both referendums.