In recent weeks the “vibe”, for want of a better word, both in Leinster House and amongst those who follow these things from afar, has been that the Government’s dual March 8th constitutional referenda on the definition of family and the removal of the reference to women in the home are in a bit of trouble.
The conventional wisdom case for why both referenda might well be defeated is so straightforward that the average political analyst could recite it in their sleep: This is an unpopular government, pushing referenda that nobody really thinks are massively significant, and where the YES campaign is destined to be lacklustre almost by default. The political parties are unlikely to invest great sums in posters or leaflets, and most of the campaigning will be left to NGOs like the national women’s council whose appeal might be charitably described as “niche”.
The voters are in a rebellious mood, according to almost every poll. The proposals themselves are vague and unclear, and the benefits of a yes vote could charitably be described as “intangible”. The mood of the country, and the structure of the campaign, should make things much more straightforward for the “NO” side.
In the event that the “NO” side wins, the “what went wrong for the Government” pieces will be very easy to write. But what if the “YES” side wins? What should we take away from that result about the state of the country?
It’s worth thinking about it, because with just over a month to go, the yes side has a comfortable, if not exactly commanding, lead:
POLL — 39th Amendment (Family):
‘Which way do you intend to vote … which seeks to extend the definition of the family to one that is founded on “marriage or other durable relationships”?’
Yes: 47%
No: 29%
Unsure: 24%Via @ireland_thinks
2 Feb ‘24
S: ~1,300#Ireland pic.twitter.com/59AGuP92o6— Ireland Votes | #Vote2024 (@Ireland_Votes) February 4, 2024
POLL — 40th Amendment (Care):
‘Which way do you intend to vote … which seeks replace the recognition of a woman’s life within the home with … care by members of a family to one another?’
Yes: 49%
No: 27%
Unsure: 24%Via @ireland_thinks
2 Feb ‘24
S: ~1,300#Ireland pic.twitter.com/yWykdLTv1Y— Ireland Votes | #Vote2024 (@Ireland_Votes) February 4, 2024
If these referendums pass, in this current environment, what might be the things we could point to that made the result foreseeable in hindsight. Here are three things I think we should be cognizant of:
In almost every opinion poll published in recent times, attention has been drawn to the number of people now pointing to immigration as their number one political issue. Yet this does not necessarily imply a wider political shift to the right on other issues. The country remains starkly politically liberal, in many ways even more liberal than the political class. Recall for example that in October 2021, an opinion poll showed that a clear majority of voters favour legalising assisted suicide or euthanasia. In 2023, a clear majority favoured cannabis legalisation. On many issues, the Irish political establishment remains slightly to the right, rather than to the left, of the public as a whole.
One can argue the reasons for this, and there are fair arguments to be made that Irish liberalism is bolstered by low-information voters expressing casual opinions based on the coverage of a relentlessly one-sided media when it comes to social issues – but even at that, you don’t get results like those without a very strong dose of liberalism in the population. Once a particular proposal becomes identified with liberal or progressive change in Ireland, it can expect an automatically favourable reception from a large swathe of voters. This is an enormous mountain for any “No” campaign to climb, when victory requires fully half of those who cast a vote to side with you. It was much too high a mountain for the better funded and better organised “No” campaigns in the marriage and abortion referendums, and it may well be too high a summit for the relatively less prominent “No” campaigns this time.
It may well be overlooked, but it’s a fact that the YES campaigns have one very good, and simple argument, which also has the helpful benefit of being true: The constitution’s language about women in the home is, indeed, both outdated and sexist. It also doesn’t accomplish much for women, however much the NO side might try to dress it up.
For a lot of low-information voters who just look at the basic facts of what is being proposed, this may well be enough. While article 41.2 does not say “a woman’s place is in the home” in direct language, it very much sounds as if that is what it means. “To the neglect of her duties in the home” is what it says, which very much makes it sound like the Irish constitution is telling women that if they work outside the home, they are neglecting said “duties”.
For a lot of voters, that will be enough, and they won’t need to hear any more. If, for those voters and others like them, the referendum boils down to “do we keep outdated language about women’s duties”, then the “NO” campaign will find winning those votes to be very tough sledding.
As yours truly has written on these pages before, Michael McDowell’s arguments about the potential impact of the “durable relationships” wording in the family referendum are both correct and prescient. The problem is this: They may not pass the credulity test with voters.
What I mean by this is that a very large number of people will simply refuse to believe that the Government truly intends to legalise polygamy, or that the Irish courts would do so. It sounds a little bit like a wild hypothetical – on a par with the “what’s next, men marrying their dogs?” arguments that some on the fringes of the “NO” campaign on same-sex marriage advanced.
Credulity is always a problem in these campaigns, because what tends to happen is that all of the most trusted organs of the state – the media, the political parties, the NGOs, the celebrities – are lined up on one side and a motley crew of usually unelected people are on the other side. For the casual voter, an argument that sounds complicated and based on hypotheticals is harder again to accept when it’s coming from people who they don’t really know.
We’ll find out in just over a month what ends up happening – and it should be noted that the YES side’s lead is by no means impressive. It’s very easy to see a scenario where both referenda are defeated on a lowish turnout simply because “NO” voters are angrier and more motivated to vote. But in the event that you’re shocked by a “YES” win, it might be worth bearing the above factors in mind.