Tomás Ó Flatharta

A few final thoughts.

An Irish Times letter-writer offers good advice :

“The arguments made against the proposed constitutional amendments are akin to the owner of a 30-year-old banger, which keeps breaking down, refusing a 10-year-old car as a replacement because they were really hoping for a brand-new model.

When the perfect choice is not on offer, reasonable people take the best option available.

Vote Yes on March 8th to consign a few antiquated bangers to the scrapheap, where they belong. – Yours, etc,

JOHN THOMPSON,

Dublin 7.”

A number of left wing activists calling for a No vote in the Care Referendum are making a classic ultra-left mistake. They are not guided by a concrete analysis of the question on the ballot paper. As a result they advocate keeping reactionary, sexist, and partitionist wording in the Irish Constitution.

---

Comments which appeared on a Cedar Lounge Revolution Blog Discussion :

WorldByStorm :

I think for me it’s the fact the original wording is so grim that is problematic. It’s up to us to ensure we have politicians who’ll build the structures around care, a struggle that continues – but to have such blatantly sexist and reactionary language in the Constitution is deeply troubling. There’s also the Roe fallacy – as in in the US the US Constitution became a supposed bulwark for certain issues that were used as tools or levers when in fact it provided only tissue thin protections which had the focus been on state and other levels when Roe was overturned there would have been much stronger protections for women (as well as which the focus on Roe saw so much energy invested in that as workers and other rights were whittled away across decades). So I’ve a real hesitation about affording too much to a Constitution, any Constitution, to act as a lever in the way the care one is being suggested it might as against the clear evidence that the original wording acted as a drag (and worse) on women’s rights across decades (and arguably only EEC accession pushed back strongly, in areas like equal pay).

Tomás Ó Flatharta :

That is a very good political point. People on the left advocating a No Vote on the Care Referendum need to think again – they are offering the right a chance to use DeValera’s reactionary sexist and partitionist wording in the future.

WorldByStorm :

+1 Which they will take if given the opportunity.

---

A correspondent asked why the existing wording is described as “partitionist”. Here is a reply :

Tomás Ó Flatharta :

The existing wording is partitionist because it helped to make the constitution of the 26 county bit of Ireland a Catholic State for a Catholic People – an evil twin of the Protestant State for a Protestant People in the 6 county bit of Ireland. In 2024 the political power of the Catholic Church hierarchy in both bits of Ireland is shattered – that is largely because of the rising women’s movement which began in the late 1960’s. This Frankenstein monster could start to revive if the March 8 referendum result is a No/No. 

---

Images of the Irish Women’s Movement, Battering a Carnival of Reaction :

Link : Road to Repeal Blog Post

The implications of a possible No/No victory :

Correspondent A

“I think the media will portray a No vote as a victory for McDowell and religious fundamentalists, whether accurate or not.”

Correspondent B

“I agree, and a No vote will be a victory for the right.”

Correspondent A

“Yes, that’s the political reality of it. Symbolic wording in the constitution has been turned into a referendum on care, with yes/ yes voters being accused of leaving disabled people behind & ablism etc, even though neither form of wording will make things one bit easier for carers and disabled people. That will require a huge struggle for material resources. Typical of the useless Greens mucking this referendum up – they couldn’t even get that much right.”

John Meehan March 7 2024