Skip to main content

A country awaits.

Across the country, the ballot boxes are being closed in the referendum on the 36th amendment to the Irish constitution. The referendum will decide whether to retain or replace the 8th amendment to the constitution, which endows the unborn with the equal right to life of the mother. This amendment was introduced by referendum in 1983 in light of the liberalisation of other countries' abortion regimes. Following the seminal US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, there was a concern that the Irish Supreme Court could follow suit and legalise abortion in Ireland.

Here's an excellent video from the Irish Times chronicling how and why the amendment was introduced and its effects over the past 35 years.


Today it has been reported that the turnout in certain constituencies is remarkably high, and has eclipsed that in the marriage equality referendum. One affluent, young area near where I live is reported to have a turnout of 73%. In contrast, a constituency 40 minutes west of me was reported to have a turnout of just 36% at 7:30pm this evening. It will be interesting to see whether an urban-rural divide taints the results. Interestingly, the turnout for the 1983 referendum which introduced the 8th amendment to the Irish constitution was 53%. Today's higher turnout probably says a lot about our willingness to engage with this issue now, and the importance we now attach to this issue.

I've followed some excellent coverage in the Irish Times over the past number of weeks and months. The editorial has been impartial and comprehensive, and the Inside Politics Podcast with Hugh Linehan has distilled the campaign news of the week into an easily-digestible 30 minutes. Great journalism like this is certainly worth paying for.

I have been impressed by the media throughout the course of the campaign. Guidelines from the Broadcasting Authority did not require broadcasters to give equal time to each side of the debate, nor did it require a contribution from one side to be counteracted with a contribution from the other. These guidelines were adhered to pragmatically by broadcasters and there was healthy, fact-based debate. Broadcasters weren't afraid to stand their ground to ensure independence from pressure from either side, and presenters were quick to clarify matters which may have been incorrect.

The debates I listened to were largely respectful and civil. RTE redeemed itself in its second Claire Byrne debate, which was dignified in comparison to the first debate which featured insults from both sides, campaigners being labelled 'liars' and cheering from the audience.

Tonight we will see the exit polls on the referendum, and it is likely that we will have final results tomorrow afternoon.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Preference VS Protest: Democracy isn't a Competition.

 Shock and awe were evoked in Britons, among people across the European Union and in the greater world community today. The Brexit result left everyone in surprise. It was all very unclear as the polling stations closed last night. With a lack of exit polls, people were left to focus on odds set by bookmakers who ironically predicated the remain side winning. “I voted ‘no’ but I didn't foresee this outcome”   - the words of a bemused voter on the BBC this morning.   Almost with a tinge of regret, the man appeared to be piecing together the consequences of this landmark vote in his own mind as he answered the question. To him and many Britons, leaving the EU seemed so radical that it could never happen. Well I wonder if the thought crossed his mind that the government could take the Irish approach. That's the tactic which involves re-running a referendum and giving voters a little light encouragement to change their preference. It worked for us. But it see...
Post a Comment
Read more

Legal Process and Values

I was struck by a remark made by Jolyon Maugham QC in an interview with LBC's James O'Brien . Maugham is a high-flying tax lawyer turned Brexit crusader, leading a number of constitutional challenges to the English government's handling of matters since Art 50 was triggered. The conversation turned to how great lawyers are not innately good politicians (Keir Starmer's name was dropped with uncomfortable regularity). In fact, the two skillsets might be somewhat mutually incompatible. Maugham noted that lawyers are obsessed with process. By that he means not just the granular detail that the law requires, but a slavish focus on the rules as prescribed by the law and their application, as opposed to the substance or merit of those rules. Though this might seem a somewhat trite observation, it reminded me of a remark made by Michael Kirby, a former Australian High Court judge. Kirby J as he was identified in cases, was a senior judge for many years and was known colloquiall...
Post a Comment
Read more

The 'A Word'

"YOU support murdering children?"   It was a simple exchange. We were talking about faith in the modern world, and I foolishly dropped the 'A Word'. Hinting my feelings in relation to this controversial topic, I was immediately stopped in my tracks. My words had led to a judgement being made about my character and my personality. This headline from Waterford Whispers News summarises what has happened to the debate in Ireland: It's ironic, because since the debate has come into general public consideration in Ireland, it has almost become more of a taboo. A highly emotionally-charged debate, both sides will shoot the other down with provocative statements. People are afraid to open their mouths about it in case they are ridiculed for their views. This is exacerbated by the far-left and far-right musings on social media, suggesting that there is little or no middle-ground in this debate. Whatever side of the tracks you are on, or whether you have made ...
Post a Comment
Read more