Referendums on 8th of March

I completely agree @Purple, and that is more or less what I said above.

The people I mentioned thought the Care amendment a load of nonsense and worse.

They would have no right to demand essential assistance from the State.

They felt that, if anything, the amendment reinforced the indispensability of family carers, regardless of their circumstances, while giving the State an out.
 
My point is that we can put any wording we like into the constitution and it will not make an iota of a difference. The people you talked to can be armed with the strongest wording possible and the State can be compelled to do anything and everything and it will make no difference. The problem isn’t a lack of good intention or money or desire. The problem is a lack of competence and willingness to acknowledge that the structures are not fit for purpose and the fault for that lies to a large extent with people who think they are heroic and blameless and until the self aggrandisement and emotive nonsense stops nothing will really be fixed.

The constitutional amendment on carers, and any like it, is utterly pointless.
 
As a former part time carer and remembering the almost war we had with the HSE to get a care package in place to allow my mother to get out of hospital and some of the complete and utter bureacratic nonsense we had to wade through. (My favourite being that the sign off form could not be signed for 3 weeks as the person with the authority to sign was on holidays and her boss wouldn't sign it off as it was not his job) On that basis, as far as I was concerned, the Govt could stick their "strive" where the sun doesn't shine and I know most people who I know are caring for family members felt the same. So much in the Health System could be fixed by a bit of cop on rather then a referendum.

€20 million supposedly spend on the referendums, that would employ 400 nurses or 800 home helps and that would make a far better impact on caring then "strive" ever would have
 
thedaddyman said:
€20 million supposedly spend on the referendums, that would employ 400 nurses or 800 home helps and that would make a far better impact on caring then "strive" ever would have
Click to expand...
There aren't 400 nurses or 800 home help to hire. Money is not the constraint, people are. Wasting people's time is a bigger problem than wasting money.
 
Purple said:
My point is that we can put any wording we like into the constitution and it will not make an iota of a difference.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that, in a practical sense, this is 100% true for the "strive" amendment.

Any challenge to the state's adequacy in striving to compensate "voluntary" carers (a complete misnomer, I know, since family/friends are the last ditch for all of us) is bound to end up in legalistic definition and how good an impression of governmental concern their SC can make in the Supreme Court - arts the present government and civil service upper echelons have mastered well over the last 20 years.

I only voted yes on the back of late claims from Bacik and others that the present state of affairs continuing would be worse still and further changes later demanded this change now.

I should really have asked a neighbour who's been caring for his elderly mother and aunt for the last 4 years which way to vote. He's on half-time (20 hours a week) from his job in pharmatech so he can claim the carer's benefit and keep on the career wagon. His mother died after Xmas. Yet even if the aunt only lives another few years it will likely do irreversible damage to his career progression, earnings and pension. I guess to him, "striving" would be legislation to provide compensation for lost earnings and non-discrimination for the plateau in his work input while caring if he later competes with non-carers for promotion. I haven't heard any pol talk about these measures.
 
I see roderic o gorman in more trouble over withholding information from electorate. Apparently he was informed by legal advice to insert word "strive" into ammendment in order to limit state financial liability. So that word was highly significant and was deliberate consideration, however in the debates he pretended that it had no particular significance
 
arbitron said:
A lot of people who voted No/No want it to be re-run with better wording and a more informative campaign.
Click to expand...
What’s a “better wording”

The fact is that no one could say for sure what rights the current wording restricted and what rights the proposed wording would create. The case law is sparse.

There are many hypothetical variations of the proposed wordings and all would have had the same problem. What exactly does the current wording prevent?

In every referendum I’ve ever voted on I could tell you what the tangible, short-term effect of a Yes vote was going to be. Not on this one.
 
It seemed to come down of how much scope of a 'blank cheque' you were willing to give the courts to decide what you actually voted for... total cop out by the government and resigning levels of deceit from Minister O'Gorman.
 
in the recent referendum polls from irish independent /ireland thinks on march1-2 had
Yes 42
No 23
Unsure 35

the referendum result was
Yes 23.3
No 67.7

yet no discussion, no investigation about how they got it completely wrong. Now the media are reporting on these election polls as if nothing happened and as if they have authority to do it ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register