As a grassroots organisation, The Countess has been campaigning hard for a No/No vote tomorrow since our campaign launch on the eighteenth of January. Our teams have canvassed across the country, our spokespeople have been on local radio stations, and we have written in local newspapers. We have been talking to people of all ages and all backgrounds and most are saying that these proposed amendments are not good enough. People are also very angry about the rushed process, with many saying they had little to no official information through the door. In the first few weeks of canvassing, a lot of people didn’t even know there was a referendum planned! This is in stark contrast to previous referendums, when the issues were clear and voters just wanted to hear arguments for/against.
On the Family amendment, while most people are sympathetic to single parents and co-habiting couples, and other families as well, they are also confused about the vague wording and the intent behind it. We have found ourselves in the odd position of doing the state’s work, explaining what we think they mean and what the possible outcomes might be. That’s even before we explain why we are asking people to vote No.
At a lively debate in Galway on Monday organised by Abortion Access Campaign West, Green Party Senator Pauline O’Reilly again suggested that this vagueness was not only deliberate but also desirable. I can tell you from conversations had on streets across the country that people are not buying it. A durable relationship could be anything they say. Yes we say, and then they ask why and we have to say, “We don’t know”. And we don’t. And that is deliberate. When Roderick O’Gorman says the people don’t need to know, the people should rightly say “Then it’s a No.”
The Care amendment has not brought the same confusion as the Family one, but we have had to correct a lot of misinformation about what Article 41.2 actually says, including Minster Catherine Martin’s famous “It’s not reflective of today’s society for our constitution to say that a woman’s place is in the home.” Most people, when they read the article wording, say yes this is fair enough. Some want it to include fathers, which is not unreasonable. Not many agree with its deletion. The Irish respect for women and mothers is alive and well, and Estelle Birdy was excellent at Monday’s event in Galway, in putting forward why this article is actually progressive in its recognition for women and mothers.
Most ordinary people have some experience in caring for sick, elderly, or disabled relatives and when the wording of the proposed Article 42B is discussed, they laugh at the word ‘strive’. They are well acquainted with the state’s idea of “striving.” People share Tom Clonan’s view, so passionately put forward in the Seanad and even more powerful in person, as I saw in Galway on Monday, that this proposal is insulting and unfeeling, placing the burden of care squarely within families, where it will mostly fall on the shoulders of women. Again, the questions come about the process – who asked for this they say; why remove it when it could be expanded? Again we say, we don’t know, but we also add, “if they haven’t convinced you of the need, Vote No.”
Everywhere we have been, people thanked us for the information, and many said how pleased they were to see canvassers. The old traditions of politicians talking to their constituents may have fallen out of favour but the people do appreciate it. Unfortunately, after the Galway event mentioned earlier, Green Party councillors Martina O’Connor and Niall Murphy and Senator Pauline O’Reilly declined to do this. They did not shake hands with their constituents and thank them for their contributions to the lively debate; instead, they left with almost unseemly haste. This was in stark contrast to Labour’s representative who, despite having to drive two hours home to speak on behalf of the Yes side in the Care Referendum, smiled and chatted before hitting the long (and presumably bumpy) road home. While we may disagree on many issues including both upcoming referendums, this was the behaviour I expected from public representatives at the meeting. Likewise Senator Tom Clonan who came all the way from Dublin stayed on to speak with the people who had attended.
We’ve all been told we can accept less than perfect, that it’s good enough, it will give a starting point, or “it’s as bad as what’s there already”. This is not what our Constitution is for, this is our foundational document, and it should be treated with respect. Those politicians holding it up as a prop saying it can’t contain everything we want are missing the point entirely. Thankfully the people on the street seem to understand this. The voters we speak to want recognition for families, parents and carers and they want disabled people’s rights enshrined, but most of all they want the democratic process respected. This referendum fails on all counts and a No/No vote would a clear signal that the government should strive for better next time.
Sorcha Nic Lochlainn is the Sports Spokeswoman for The Countess, a non-profit, volunteer-led organisation formed to promote the rights and interests of women and children in Ireland.