Another election, another defeat for the globalist elite. No wonder Plato used to grumble about democracy: the son of old aristocracy just couldn’t stand the hoi polloi getting a say in running their own lives. Today’s elites are no less sour-pussed, when the filthy plebs reject yet another of their woke nostrums.
A dual referendum in Ireland, on redefining family and women’s roles in the constitution, has been “comprehensively” defeated.
Like the likewise comprehensively-defeated recent Australian referendum, the Brexit referendum, or the 2016 US presidential election, the elite establishment stood shoulder-to-shoulder to finger-wag the commoners. And the commoners gave them a great, big middle-finger in return.
The reforms, which the government and most opposition parties supported, had been intended to widen the definition of the family and clarify language about the duties of women in society that was considered outdated.
All the major political parties had supported a “Yes-Yes” vote and until recently polls had suggested a smooth passage for both on Saturday, International Women’s Day.
The votes were seen as the latest attempt to reflect the changing face of EU member Ireland, and the waning influence of the once dominant Catholic Church.
The result was even more devastating to the elite project than Australia’s referendum.
Referendum Ireland said on Saturday night (Sunday AEDT) that 67.69 per cent of 1.021 million voters had rejected the amendment on family.
While “progressive” elites might complain about the current wording of Ireland’s constitution, the proposed amendments were the typically vague, carefully non-worded guff which would have certainly been leveraged in an avalanche of woke lawfare had they passed. The Irish sensibly smelled the rat.
The change proposed expanding the definition of family from those founded on marriage to also include “durable relationships” such as cohabiting couples and their children.
The vote on care had aimed to replace old-fashioned language around a mother’s “duties in the home” with a clause recognising care provided by family members to one another. That was rejected by 73.9 per cent of voters.
The Australian
Here are the precise changes:
The Family Amendment
From:
In Article 41.1.1° “The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
In Article 41.3.1° “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.”
To:
Article 41.1.1° “The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”
Article 41.3.1° “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded,and to protect it against attack.”
The Care Amendment
From:
Article 41.2.1° “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”
Article 41.2.2° “The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
Replaced by:
“The State recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”
Ireland Electoral Commission
The No campaign argued, as they did in Australia’s referendum, that the very vagueness of the amendments was what made them so dangerous. Where terms are so poorly defined, there’s too much scope for lawyers and activist judges to run amok.
Niall Slaughter, a 40-year-old bank worker from Dublin, said he voted for the family amendment but not for the care amendment due to the poor wording of the question.
“I voted No for the second one because of the way it is worded, not that I think a woman’s place should be at home, just because it should have been more simple and straightforward,” he said.
Naturally, the “progressives” are sulking.
Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said the referendums had been “defeated comprehensively” on “a respectable turnout”.
“I think we struggled to convince people of the necessity or need for the referendum at all, let alone detail the wording,” he conceded.
“That’s obviously something we’re going to have to reflect on into the weeks and months ahead.”
Peadar Toibin, leader of the only parliamentary party to back a “No-No” vote – the conservative Aontu party – welcomed the result as “a significant victory”.
The government “sold these amendments as if they were progressive and kind of virtue-signalling changes to the constitution”, he said. “In reality, there was very little if any net benefit to people in terms of bread-and-butter support.”
The Australian
People around the world are fed up with the globalist elite playing their “progressive” games while immigration and cost-of-living crises are ignored, and the clouds of war are allowed to grow darker while world leaders fan the flames.
