The referendums which it has now been confirmed will be held in March are the first to take place in almost five years, a lengthy interregnum by modern Irish political standards. As they prepare to campaign in favour of the changes proposed for articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution, the Government parties may be casting a nervous look back at how similar proposals have fared in the past.
The proposed amendments remove references to the “life of the woman in the home”, add an acknowledgment of the important role of carers and expand the definition of the family beyond that based solely on marriage. The changes have been the subject of debate for many years, including at a Citizens’ Assembly in 2021. But the wording which finally emerged from Cabinet in early December has received an unenthusiastic response from many of the NGOs and advocates for change.
Their criticism centres on the fact that the proposed amendment does not follow more closely the recommendations of the assembly, which called for a more legally robust assertion of the rights of carers in the family home. Several of those organisations have reserved their positions for the moment. It would be surprising if any were to end up expressing outright opposition, but even tepid support could damage the prospects of the amendments being voted through.
It remains to be seen how these dynamics develop as the campaign gathers momentum in the new year. Previous referendums have shown that significant swings in voter sentiment can take place within a few weeks if a particular narrative takes hold. A substantial minority of socially conservative voters are likely to vote against change, as they did on the marriage equality and abortion amendments. Another cohort may be inclined to do the same simply to give the Government a bloody nose. While the proposed wording sidesteps current controversies over definitions of gender, these might yet rear their head. And apathy or confusion can depress turnout, which, based on past experience, is likely to be below 50 per cent.
‘No place to hide’: Trapped on the US-Mexico border, immigrants fear deportation
Mark O'Connell: The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
TV guide: the best new shows to watch, starting tonight
Face it: if you’re the designated cook, there is no 15-minute Christmas
History suggests that constitutional amendments can sometimes prove more complex and fraught than anticipated. These particular proposals arise from a widespread and justified view that the current wording is anachronistic and objectionable. But it should be noted that, in the 86 years since the Constitution was introduced, this particular passage has proved to be entirely symbolic. The same would now appear to be true of the new text which the Government has now devised. Given that fact, it seems reasonable to ask whether it would have been clearer and more straightforward simply to delete the offending article and leave it at that.
With all to play for, the first opinion polls will be awaited with great interest.