GUEST COLUMN: Aontú’s Paul Lawless on the case for a ‘No, No’ vote

A ‘No, No’ vote on March 8 is crucial to prevent reducing our Constitution to vague obfuscation with ill-defined amendments.
The Irish Constitution outlines the fundamental rights of citizens and defines the responsibilities of the State. Any amendment installed must be subject to diligent legal scrutiny before being considered to be installed. The wording in Bunreacht na hÉireann is crucially important as it must be clear enough to stand up to legal challenges with clear definition when in the courts of law.
I do agree some of the language in the relevant articles is archaic and it should be updated. We would have welcomed a common-sense update to reflect a modern Ireland. However, the Government’s amendments do not remedy this concern. It actually opens the constitution up to further legal challenges with outcomes many of the greatest legal minds of the country are unsure of. The wording used in the amendments is vague and poorly written.
For example, no one is sure what a ‘durable relationship’ is. Ms Justice Marie Baker from the Election Commission has stated that a ‘durable relationship’ could be defined by a couple getting a Christmas card or a couple being invited to a wedding together. We do not know what it means in terms of social welfare, taxation, succession, immigration, family law, and beyond.
The amendment could have enormous implications for family homes, farms and property. Marriage revokes a will. Will a durable relationship revoke a will too? If it does, when will a will be revoked, after three months, nine months of the ‘durable relationship’? At what point does a casual relationship turn into a ‘durable relationship’?
Ministers were told that the constitutional addition of the phrase ‘durable relationships’ could lead to an increase in people seeking reunification with relations who have emigrated to Ireland.
It’s not at all clear that families headed by single parents will be included in this definition. Marie Baker from the Election Commission has stated that a ‘durable relationship’ could be defined by a couple getting a Christmas card or a couple being invited to a wedding together. At what date does a casual relationship turn into a durable relationship?
The uncertainty surrounding the term ‘durable relationship’ presents a huge problem with unpredictable outcomes. Even the Government is unable to answer these basic questions, instead they have asked us to leave it to the courts to define.
This is a reverse of a functioning democracy. In a democracy it is up to the people to decide the law clearly. It’s then the job of the judge to apply the law to society. The Constitution is far too important for definition-free amendments.
The 40th amendment of the constitution shows just how disconnected this government is from the people that they are meant to serve. Parents are forced through economic necessity, cost of living crisis and sky-high mortgages and rents to drop their children to a child minder, commute, work a long day, rinse and repeat. Many parents complain that out of economic necessity, they hardly see their children during the week at all.
The Government states that ‘a woman’s place is where she wants to be’. We agree wholeheartedly, but because of this government, so many parents who want to spend time caring for very young children can’t. The 40th amendment actually reduces protections for parents in this regard.
Care in Irish society has never been as devalued. Child Care providers are closing almost on a weekly basis. Nursing Homes are closing. Children in state care are being put into unregulated emergency care. People who provide care for elderly or people with disabilities have been treated shockingly by this government. This amendment disrespects people with disabilities and it codifies care as a responsibility of the family instead of the Government who shirk their responsibility to people with disabilities. The wording of the 40th amendment limits care to the family. This insulates the Government even further from their responsibilities in providing care. This will do nothing for so many people in great need.
This Government has a track record in trying to delete the word woman from legislation, healthcare and education. Now they are trying to do it from the constitution. Incredibly the Government tried to delete the word woman from maternity legislation. The HSE has started using terms such as a ‘person with a cervix’ instead of the word woman. Teachers have been advised on ‘in service’ days not to use the word mother or father or boy or girl, as they are not considered inclusive. But inclusion does not mean deletion and this government seeks to delete one of the few references to woman in the constitution.
Update the language of the constitution, for sure, but do not weaken families’ constitutional rights and insert definition free terms with unknown consequences. Vote No and No.

• Paul Lawless is Peace Commissioner for the Claremorris area and an Aontú representative for Mayo.