They voted "yes" to amend the abortion law, but I wonder if everyone knew what kind of amended law they wanted. It was such a close vote (when you take into account the people who didn't vote and those too young, who may be affected at a later date), maybe they should have another vote, or do a best of three.
If you know what I mean
Erm, except that they didn't, they voted "yes" to amend the Constitution..
Oh, and for the fact that everyone is aware of the legislation proposed to give effect to the result (because it was laid out in detail before the vote). Also, while it is entirely possible that at least some of those who did not vote would have been likely to vote no, in this case (because of the polling pre vote - when it was felt that there was a narrowing in the gap between the two sides, that seemed to favour the "No" campaign), it is actually less likely than for those who might have been tempted to vote yes, or who were not willing to vote at all (there was a worry that a percentage of men felt that they should not vote).
And, for what it's worth, yesterday was not the first referendum.
The Eighth Amendment was introduced following a referendum in 1983, and there have been efforts to amend/repeal in 1992, 2002 and yesterday.
It's a Constitutional requirement that amendments be subject to referendum. If it seems worthwhile to further amend the Constitution, there'll be further referendums.
So, maybe they will have another vote, because no-one is afraid of a referendum, properly constituted and debated, about matters of Constitutional importance.
If you know what I mean.... ;-)
Granted, it is not a topic I have been closely following but does it mean that NI women will be able to cross the border to ROI and take advantage of less regulation there than in NI ?
I would say yes, but there would be an expectation that they may well have to pay (unless the Irish Government were to legislate otherwise - in no way seeking to piss off the DUP). Health provision in Ireland is closer to what you will find in continental Europe than to the UK model.
Its a great comment I spent large parts of my childhood in Ireland and the transformation has been so visible and so quick I am proud of my heritage and even prouder that they have learnt and listened without compromising their faith to far
Its a great comment I spent large parts of my childhood in Ireland and the transformation has been so visible and so quick I am proud of my heritage and even prouder that they have learnt and listened without compromising their faith to far
The Ireland of my youth when on holiday, to the Ireland now is astonishing in the change, more so than here. It seems that Ireland had been kept back and now has catapulted pass the here in many ways.
Too many children are brought into this world because 2 people wanted a shag. Just because a women gets pregnant doesn't mean a child has to be born.
and I've got 3 kids so know excatly what amount of joy they bring....and been through miscarrisges as well & see scans at various ages of development.
ex wife was a midwife so know what is involved in an abortion & a d&c.
Worth reading chapter 4 in Freakonomics on the subject:
Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)
Certain states in the US repealed anti abortion legislation, and twenty (roughly?) years later there was a dramatic, sudden, reduction in the crime rate in those states. I guess the message is that wanted children are less likely to turn to crime than unwanted children.
Oh James you know I love and respect you but my hatred for Thomas Friedman knows no bounds!!!!!
I think this is a really spurious connection. To be fair, I don't know how much emphasis Friedman puts on, and I read at least some of that paper a very long time ago, but there are A LOT of factors that could lead to that reduction in crime. Better policing methods, more opportunities (ish, still not great) for women and minorities, an overall improvement in living conditions nationwide, and this one might sound out of left field but the removal of chemicals from everyday items, particularly the removal of lead from gasoline and paint in (some, because there are still a lot of homes with lead paint) homes. That's just top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing things.
I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting what Friedman or Donohue et al are putting forth, but this feels like a really classic example of "Correlation is not Causation."
Too many children are brought into this world because 2 people wanted a shag. Just because a women gets pregnant doesn't mean a child has to be born.
and I've got 3 kids so know excatly what amount of joy they bring....and been through miscarrisges as well & see scans at various ages of development.
ex wife was a midwife so know what is involved in an abortion & a d&c.
Worth reading chapter 4 in Freakonomics on the subject:
Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)
Certain states in the US repealed anti abortion legislation, and twenty (roughly?) years later there was a dramatic, sudden, reduction in the crime rate in those states. I guess the message is that wanted children are less likely to turn to crime than unwanted children.
Oh James you know I love and respect you but my hatred for Thomas Friedman knows no bounds!!!!!
I think this is a really spurious connection. To be fair, I don't know how much emphasis Friedman puts on, and I read at least some of that paper a very long time ago, but there are A LOT of factors that could lead to that reduction in crime. Better policing methods, more opportunities (ish, still not great) for women and minorities, an overall improvement in living conditions nationwide, and this one might sound out of left field but the removal of chemicals from everyday items, particularly the removal of lead from gasoline and paint in (some, because there are still a lot of homes with lead paint) homes. That's just top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing things.
I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting what Friedman or Donohue et al are putting forth, but this feels like a really classic example of "Correlation is not Causation."
Feakonomics was Levitt and Dubner wasn't it @SDAddick ? - I can't remember what Friedman's connection is to it?
I read the book way back (2006 maybe?) and only remember the chapter about the economics of crack dealing, and the one about purported abortion/crime link. I thought at the time the argument was quite well made, but I wasn't reading it too critically I suspect.
Ugh you're right, egg on my face! Why was I thinking Friedman????? I'm going to slink off in shame now.
One can only hope that elements of the pro-life lobby don't start their disgusting tactic of targeting protests at clinics and hospitals once this comes in to law. As if these women are not dealing with enough as it is.
They voted "yes" to amend the abortion law, but I wonder if everyone knew what kind of amended law they wanted. It was such a close vote (when you take into account the people who didn't vote and those too young, who may be affected at a later date), maybe they should have another vote, or do a best of three.
If you know what I mean
Erm, except that they didn't, they voted "yes" to amend the Constitution..
Oh, and for the fact that everyone is aware of the legislation proposed to give effect to the result (because it was laid out in detail before the vote). Also, while it is entirely possible that at least some of those who did not vote would have been likely to vote no, in this case (because of the polling pre vote - when it was felt that there was a narrowing in the gap between the two sides, that seemed to favour the "No" campaign), it is actually less likely than for those who might have been tempted to vote yes, or who were not willing to vote at all (there was a worry that a percentage of men felt that they should not vote).
And, for what it's worth, yesterday was not the first referendum.
The Eighth Amendment was introduced following a referendum in 1983, and there have been efforts to amend/repeal in 1992, 2002 and yesterday.
It's a Constitutional requirement that amendments be subject to referendum. If it seems worthwhile to further amend the Constitution, there'll be further referendums.
So, maybe they will have another vote, because no-one is afraid of a referendum, properly constituted and debated, about matters of Constitutional importance.
If you know what I mean.... ;-)
Granted, it is not a topic I have been closely following but does it mean that NI women will be able to cross the border to ROI and take advantage of less regulation there than in NI ?
I would say yes, but there would be an expectation that they may well have to pay (unless the Irish Government were to legislate otherwise - in no way seeking to piss off the DUP). Health provision in Ireland is closer to what you will find in continental Europe than to the UK model.
So, is the unregulated border between ROI and NI a bad thing if this is allowed to happen ? Folk being able to wander 100 metres and enjoy a different rule, without any hinderance, subject to available funds.
Also, aren't there some folk in NI with "dual" nationality anyway ?
Too many children are brought into this world because 2 people wanted a shag. Just because a women gets pregnant doesn't mean a child has to be born.
and I've got 3 kids so know excatly what amount of joy they bring....and been through miscarrisges as well & see scans at various ages of development.
ex wife was a midwife so know what is involved in an abortion & a d&c.
Worth reading chapter 4 in Freakonomics on the subject:
Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)
Certain states in the US repealed anti abortion legislation, and twenty (roughly?) years later there was a dramatic, sudden, reduction in the crime rate in those states. I guess the message is that wanted children are less likely to turn to crime than unwanted children.
Oh James you know I love and respect you but my hatred for Thomas Friedman knows no bounds!!!!!
I think this is a really spurious connection. To be fair, I don't know how much emphasis Friedman puts on, and I read at least some of that paper a very long time ago, but there are A LOT of factors that could lead to that reduction in crime. Better policing methods, more opportunities (ish, still not great) for women and minorities, an overall improvement in living conditions nationwide, and this one might sound out of left field but the removal of chemicals from everyday items, particularly the removal of lead from gasoline and paint in (some, because there are still a lot of homes with lead paint) homes. That's just top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing things.
I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting what Friedman or Donohue et al are putting forth, but this feels like a really classic example of "Correlation is not Causation."
Too many children are brought into this world because 2 people wanted a shag. Just because a women gets pregnant doesn't mean a child has to be born.
and I've got 3 kids so know excatly what amount of joy they bring....and been through miscarrisges as well & see scans at various ages of development.
ex wife was a midwife so know what is involved in an abortion & a d&c.
Worth reading chapter 4 in Freakonomics on the subject:
Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)
Certain states in the US repealed anti abortion legislation, and twenty (roughly?) years later there was a dramatic, sudden, reduction in the crime rate in those states. I guess the message is that wanted children are less likely to turn to crime than unwanted children.
Oh James you know I love and respect you but my hatred for Thomas Friedman knows no bounds!!!!!
I think this is a really spurious connection. To be fair, I don't know how much emphasis Friedman puts on, and I read at least some of that paper a very long time ago, but there are A LOT of factors that could lead to that reduction in crime. Better policing methods, more opportunities (ish, still not great) for women and minorities, an overall improvement in living conditions nationwide, and this one might sound out of left field but the removal of chemicals from everyday items, particularly the removal of lead from gasoline and paint in (some, because there are still a lot of homes with lead paint) homes. That's just top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing things.
I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting what Friedman or Donohue et al are putting forth, but this feels like a really classic example of "Correlation is not Causation."
Feakonomics was Levitt and Dubner wasn't it @SDAddick ? - I can't remember what Friedman's connection is to it?
I read the book way back (2006 maybe?) and only remember the chapter about the economics of crack dealing, and the one about purported abortion/crime link. I thought at the time the argument was quite well made, but I wasn't reading it too critically I suspect.
Ugh you're right, egg on my face! Why was I thinking Friedman????? I'm going to slink off in shame now.
I'm sure we can still be friends, eventually.
If, and when that happens you could become the BBC Addicks first honorary overseas member. You could join us for a pint via Skype.
They voted "yes" to amend the abortion law, but I wonder if everyone knew what kind of amended law they wanted. It was such a close vote (when you take into account the people who didn't vote and those too young, who may be affected at a later date), maybe they should have another vote, or do a best of three.
If you know what I mean
Erm, except that they didn't, they voted "yes" to amend the Constitution..
Oh, and for the fact that everyone is aware of the legislation proposed to give effect to the result (because it was laid out in detail before the vote). Also, while it is entirely possible that at least some of those who did not vote would have been likely to vote no, in this case (because of the polling pre vote - when it was felt that there was a narrowing in the gap between the two sides, that seemed to favour the "No" campaign), it is actually less likely than for those who might have been tempted to vote yes, or who were not willing to vote at all (there was a worry that a percentage of men felt that they should not vote).
And, for what it's worth, yesterday was not the first referendum.
The Eighth Amendment was introduced following a referendum in 1983, and there have been efforts to amend/repeal in 1992, 2002 and yesterday.
It's a Constitutional requirement that amendments be subject to referendum. If it seems worthwhile to further amend the Constitution, there'll be further referendums.
So, maybe they will have another vote, because no-one is afraid of a referendum, properly constituted and debated, about matters of Constitutional importance.
If you know what I mean.... ;-)
Granted, it is not a topic I have been closely following but does it mean that NI women will be able to cross the border to ROI and take advantage of less regulation there than in NI ?
I would say yes, but there would be an expectation that they may well have to pay (unless the Irish Government were to legislate otherwise - in no way seeking to piss off the DUP). Health provision in Ireland is closer to what you will find in continental Europe than to the UK model.
So, is the unregulated border between ROI and NI a bad thing if this is allowed to happen ? Folk being able to wander 100 metres and enjoy a different rule, without any hinderance, subject to available funds.
Also, aren't there some folk in NI with "dual" nationality anyway ?
Under the Good Friday Agreement the UK and Irish Governments agreed that people in Northern Ireland could identify themselves as British, Irish, or both (though I must stress that the vast majority of Irish Nationalists would never have had a UK passport); a recognition of the identity issued associated with a shared political space.
Whilst I have my doubts whether it will be possible (and I've seen a few articles questioning it), both sides in the negotiations have indicated a commitment to retain the Common Travel Area, which should allow for free cross border movement of British and Irish people, if not goods.
I don't think that free movement of people, including that of those having to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, is a bad thing.
Far from it and on a wider level, being conscious of my history and aware of the degree to which I live in a society where, for all its problems, we represent the "haves", I believe Ireland should do more to help the "have nots", whether through a welcoming refugee/immigrant policy or a parallel provision of targeted aid to areas of need.
For those interested, the Belfast Telegraph is full of articles discussing what might happen next. Vince Cable calling for the UK government to change things. He also highlights the "opportunity" to deliver change via direct rrule given that Stormont is not functioning.
That's unlikely to happen seeing as the Tories are propped up by the DUP but opens up a new front in Westminster politics.
They voted "yes" to amend the abortion law, but I wonder if everyone knew what kind of amended law they wanted. It was such a close vote (when you take into account the people who didn't vote and those too young, who may be affected at a later date), maybe they should have another vote, or do a best of three.
If you know what I mean
Erm, except that they didn't, they voted "yes" to amend the Constitution..
Oh, and for the fact that everyone is aware of the legislation proposed to give effect to the result (because it was laid out in detail before the vote). Also, while it is entirely possible that at least some of those who did not vote would have been likely to vote no, in this case (because of the polling pre vote - when it was felt that there was a narrowing in the gap between the two sides, that seemed to favour the "No" campaign), it is actually less likely than for those who might have been tempted to vote yes, or who were not willing to vote at all (there was a worry that a percentage of men felt that they should not vote).
And, for what it's worth, yesterday was not the first referendum.
The Eighth Amendment was introduced following a referendum in 1983, and there have been efforts to amend/repeal in 1992, 2002 and yesterday.
It's a Constitutional requirement that amendments be subject to referendum. If it seems worthwhile to further amend the Constitution, there'll be further referendums.
So, maybe they will have another vote, because no-one is afraid of a referendum, properly constituted and debated, about matters of Constitutional importance.
If you know what I mean.... ;-)
Granted, it is not a topic I have been closely following but does it mean that NI women will be able to cross the border to ROI and take advantage of less regulation there than in NI ?
I would say yes, but there would be an expectation that they may well have to pay (unless the Irish Government were to legislate otherwise - in no way seeking to piss off the DUP). Health provision in Ireland is closer to what you will find in continental Europe than to the UK model.
So, is the unregulated border between ROI and NI a bad thing if this is allowed to happen ? Folk being able to wander 100 metres and enjoy a different rule, without any hinderance, subject to available funds.
Also, aren't there some folk in NI with "dual" nationality anyway ?
Under the Good Friday Agreement the UK and Irish Governments agreed that people in Northern Ireland could identify themselves as British, Irish, or both (though I must stress that the vast majority of Irish Nationalists would never have had a UK passport); a recognition of the identity issued associated with a shared political space.
Whilst I have my doubts whether it will be possible (and I've seen a few articles questioning it), both sides in the negotiations have indicated a commitment to retain the Common Travel Area, which should allow for free cross border movement of British and Irish people, if not goods.
I don't think that free movement of people, including that of those having to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, is a bad thing.
Far from it and on a wider level, being conscious of my history and aware of the degree to which I live in a society where, for all its problems, we represent the "haves", I believe Ireland should do more to help the "have nots", whether through a welcoming refugee/immigrant policy or a parallel provision of targeted aid to areas of need.
Yes, that's a noble idea, but it comes with baggage.
On the foreign aid front - this has to be "super targetted" otherwise a donor nation can end up with the paradox of India, where there is poverty, overseas aid from UK, while the nation has a "space project" costing millions. Overseas Christian (or Western) backed aid could be seen as buying converts, but in general I agree with you that properly managed foreign aid (e.g. disaster relief) is a good thing.
On the subject of refugee/immigrant policy - I guess you know what I am going to say. Germany has invited any number of these folk, but with free movement they will eventually be able to go to any EU country. So in effect ROI could take a number of refugees that eventually walked across the border into the UK while we are in the free movement area - unlikely as this may seem, it cannot be ruled out, and since UK population growth is my main concern, I am against it.
Ireland certainly is changing and once the eu exit goes through properly Dublin will Be swamped roughly an 8 mill population and 4.2 mill live in Dublin a lot of firms there and a lovely city but it’s getfing busier and busier
I voted remain, and I agree with this law change, but I am sure that there would be all sorts going on demanding another vote etc if this had gone the other way.
Too many children are brought into this world because 2 people wanted a shag. Just because a women gets pregnant doesn't mean a child has to be born.
and I've got 3 kids so know excatly what amount of joy they bring....and been through miscarrisges as well & see scans at various ages of development.
ex wife was a midwife so know what is involved in an abortion & a d&c.
Worth reading chapter 4 in Freakonomics on the subject:
Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)
Certain states in the US repealed anti abortion legislation, and twenty (roughly?) years later there was a dramatic, sudden, reduction in the crime rate in those states. I guess the message is that wanted children are less likely to turn to crime than unwanted children.
Oh James you know I love and respect you but my hatred for Thomas Friedman knows no bounds!!!!!
I think this is a really spurious connection. To be fair, I don't know how much emphasis Friedman puts on, and I read at least some of that paper a very long time ago, but there are A LOT of factors that could lead to that reduction in crime. Better policing methods, more opportunities (ish, still not great) for women and minorities, an overall improvement in living conditions nationwide, and this one might sound out of left field but the removal of chemicals from everyday items, particularly the removal of lead from gasoline and paint in (some, because there are still a lot of homes with lead paint) homes. That's just top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing things.
I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting what Friedman or Donohue et al are putting forth, but this feels like a really classic example of "Correlation is not Causation."
Too many children are brought into this world because 2 people wanted a shag. Just because a women gets pregnant doesn't mean a child has to be born.
and I've got 3 kids so know excatly what amount of joy they bring....and been through miscarrisges as well & see scans at various ages of development.
ex wife was a midwife so know what is involved in an abortion & a d&c.
Worth reading chapter 4 in Freakonomics on the subject:
Chapter 4: The role legalized abortion has played in reducing crime, contrasted with the policies and downfall of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu (Levitt explored this topic in an earlier paper entitled "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," written with John Donohue.)
Certain states in the US repealed anti abortion legislation, and twenty (roughly?) years later there was a dramatic, sudden, reduction in the crime rate in those states. I guess the message is that wanted children are less likely to turn to crime than unwanted children.
Oh James you know I love and respect you but my hatred for Thomas Friedman knows no bounds!!!!!
I think this is a really spurious connection. To be fair, I don't know how much emphasis Friedman puts on, and I read at least some of that paper a very long time ago, but there are A LOT of factors that could lead to that reduction in crime. Better policing methods, more opportunities (ish, still not great) for women and minorities, an overall improvement in living conditions nationwide, and this one might sound out of left field but the removal of chemicals from everyday items, particularly the removal of lead from gasoline and paint in (some, because there are still a lot of homes with lead paint) homes. That's just top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing things.
I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting what Friedman or Donohue et al are putting forth, but this feels like a really classic example of "Correlation is not Causation."
Feakonomics was Levitt and Dubner wasn't it @SDAddick ? - I can't remember what Friedman's connection is to it?
I read the book way back (2006 maybe?) and only remember the chapter about the economics of crack dealing, and the one about purported abortion/crime link. I thought at the time the argument was quite well made, but I wasn't reading it too critically I suspect.
My favourite book of all time. I was always a bit on the fence about abortion, but understanding that free and accessible abortions will result in a reduction of scummy shitbags being born is what swung it 100% for me.
I struggle with the moral side of things, but on the societal/practical side of things, I couldn't be more in favour.
My mum is currently selling her house, and is getting seriously mugged off, I want her to read the estate agents chapter...
They voted "yes" to amend the abortion law, but I wonder if everyone knew what kind of amended law they wanted. It was such a close vote (when you take into account the people who didn't vote and those too young, who may be affected at a later date), maybe they should have another vote, or do a best of three.
If you know what I mean
Erm, except that they didn't, they voted "yes" to amend the Constitution..
Oh, and for the fact that everyone is aware of the legislation proposed to give effect to the result (because it was laid out in detail before the vote). Also, while it is entirely possible that at least some of those who did not vote would have been likely to vote no, in this case (because of the polling pre vote - when it was felt that there was a narrowing in the gap between the two sides, that seemed to favour the "No" campaign), it is actually less likely than for those who might have been tempted to vote yes, or who were not willing to vote at all (there was a worry that a percentage of men felt that they should not vote).
And, for what it's worth, yesterday was not the first referendum.
The Eighth Amendment was introduced following a referendum in 1983, and there have been efforts to amend/repeal in 1992, 2002 and yesterday.
It's a Constitutional requirement that amendments be subject to referendum. If it seems worthwhile to further amend the Constitution, there'll be further referendums.
So, maybe they will have another vote, because no-one is afraid of a referendum, properly constituted and debated, about matters of Constitutional importance.
If you know what I mean.... ;-)
Granted, it is not a topic I have been closely following but does it mean that NI women will be able to cross the border to ROI and take advantage of less regulation there than in NI ?
I would say yes, but there would be an expectation that they may well have to pay (unless the Irish Government were to legislate otherwise - in no way seeking to piss off the DUP). Health provision in Ireland is closer to what you will find in continental Europe than to the UK model.
So, is the unregulated border between ROI and NI a bad thing if this is allowed to happen ? Folk being able to wander 100 metres and enjoy a different rule, without any hinderance, subject to available funds.
Also, aren't there some folk in NI with "dual" nationality anyway ?
Under the Good Friday Agreement the UK and Irish Governments agreed that people in Northern Ireland could identify themselves as British, Irish, or both (though I must stress that the vast majority of Irish Nationalists would never have had a UK passport); a recognition of the identity issued associated with a shared political space.
Whilst I have my doubts whether it will be possible (and I've seen a few articles questioning it), both sides in the negotiations have indicated a commitment to retain the Common Travel Area, which should allow for free cross border movement of British and Irish people, if not goods.
I don't think that free movement of people, including that of those having to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, is a bad thing.
Far from it and on a wider level, being conscious of my history and aware of the degree to which I live in a society where, for all its problems, we represent the "haves", I believe Ireland should do more to help the "have nots", whether through a welcoming refugee/immigrant policy or a parallel provision of targeted aid to areas of need.
Yes, that's a noble idea, but it comes with baggage.
On the foreign aid front - this has to be "super targetted" otherwise a donor nation can end up with the paradox of India, where there is poverty, overseas aid from UK, while the nation has a "space project" costing millions. Overseas Christian (or Western) backed aid could be seen as buying converts, but in general I agree with you that properly managed foreign aid (e.g. disaster relief) is a good thing.
On the subject of refugee/immigrant policy - I guess you know what I am going to say. Germany has invited any number of these folk, but with free movement they will eventually be able to go to any EU country. So in effect ROI could take a number of refugees that eventually walked across the border into the UK while we are in the free movement area - unlikely as this may seem, it cannot be ruled out, and since UK population growth is my main concern, I am against it.
Gone off thread topic, I know (sorry).
Strictly IMHO, you understand...
Even without the rise of AfD, Merkel's humanitarian decision in 2015 was only ever likely to be a once off, to prevent people spending months in transit, and experiencing the dubious "hospitality" afforded them by people such as Viktor Orban.
While she is not old enough to remember it herself, I have no doubt that the memory of the expulsions of whole populations during and after the Second World War (including several million Germans) helped influence her decision.
Whilst I think it was the right decision, given the circumstances that faced us all at the time, I have no doubt that the good she did will come back to haunt her - because those who wish to frame the public debate along lines of the "German people" being swamped (with not too subtle echoes of arguments from the past of preserving the purity of the race) will endeavor to keep it in the public eye.
What Merkel did not do was grant unlimited leave to remain, she simply allowed refugees to come to Germany to have their claims assessed, rather than at the overwhelmed German Embassies.
Strictly speaking, freedom of movement, for labour, only deals with EU citizens. If the refugees seek to become naturalised and meet the requirements (by which time they will have generally have become established in Germany), they may well come to Ireland under freedom of movement, but they constitute a tiny proportion of the overall EU population, and relatively few of them have moved.
But, international conventions regarding refugees make clear that anyone can claim asylum in any country - if they really want to come to Ireland, they will.
There are efforts to ease the burden on countries receiving the largest numbers of refugees by sharing across the EU. Ireland has taken, and continues to take, refugees under this program, with a lot less whinging about it than some EU countries.
Ireland certainly is changing and once the eu exit goes through properly Dublin will Be swamped roughly an 8 mill population and 4.2 mill live in Dublin a lot of firms there and a lovely city but it’s getfing busier and busier
What? 4.77m people in the Republic of Ireland, the population of the Dublin metropolitan area is 1.35 million, though greater Dublin is 1.9m. You are expecting our population will double?
Ireland certainly is changing and once the eu exit goes through properly Dublin will Be swamped roughly an 8 mill population and 4.2 mill live in Dublin a lot of firms there and a lovely city but it’s getfing busier and busier
What? 4.77m people in the Republic of Ireland, the population of the Dublin metropolitan area is 1.35 million, though greater Dublin is 1.9m. You are expecting our population will double?
Like @el-pietro I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from @palarsehater Current estimates have population growth to 5.8m in 2050 and I am not seeing anything that would go too far off that.
Ireland certainly is changing and once the eu exit goes through properly Dublin will Be swamped roughly an 8 mill population and 4.2 mill live in Dublin a lot of firms there and a lovely city but it’s getfing busier and busier
What? 4.77m people in the Republic of Ireland, the population of the Dublin metropolitan area is 1.35 million, though greater Dublin is 1.9m. You are expecting our population will double?
Like @el-pietro I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from @palarsehater Current estimates have population growth to 5.8m in 2050 and I am not seeing anything that would go too far off that.
Unless some of the 76m Turks that Boris has "saved us from" end up in the Republic instead of the UK!!
Apologies lazy estimating on my behalf, I was giving the opinion which family and the Mrs family members expressed, who are all Irish residents.
I see the links attached but does that take into account the cast iron border the U.K. is supposedly having? To completely stop eu immigration as Ireland will be the only primary English speaking eu country.
There have been a few interesting articles in The Irish Times and The Irish Examiner since the referendum trying to explain the reason for the outcome.
Ireland certainly is changing and once the eu exit goes through properly Dublin will Be swamped roughly an 8 mill population and 4.2 mill live in Dublin a lot of firms there and a lovely city but it’s getfing busier and busier
What? 4.77m people in the Republic of Ireland, the population of the Dublin metropolitan area is 1.35 million, though greater Dublin is 1.9m. You are expecting our population will double?
Equally, population hasn't even got to the level it was at before the Great Hunger.
Ireland certainly is changing and once the eu exit goes through properly Dublin will Be swamped roughly an 8 mill population and 4.2 mill live in Dublin a lot of firms there and a lovely city but it’s getfing busier and busier
What? 4.77m people in the Republic of Ireland, the population of the Dublin metropolitan area is 1.35 million, though greater Dublin is 1.9m. You are expecting our population will double?
Like @el-pietro I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from @palarsehater Current estimates have population growth to 5.8m in 2050 and I am not seeing anything that would go too far off that.
Unless some of the 76m Turks that Boris has "saved us from" end up in the Republic instead of the UK!!
Apologies lazy estimating on my behalf, I was giving the opinion which family and the Mrs family members expressed, who are all Irish residents.
I see the links attached but does that take into account the cast iron border the U.K. is supposedly having? To completely stop eu immigration as Ireland will be the only primary English speaking eu country.
No worries pal. That link seems to be as "live" as these things possibly can be.
I honestly can't comment on whether they expect a huge influx if/when the UK impose a hard border. My mum and her family are in Tipp, da's family in Belfast. I have a number of friends out on the West/North West coast and a good few in Dublin. In all honesty, you would expect Dublin to bear the brunt of any influx and I know my own business (banking) and a number of my clients (law/accounting) are expanding there. However, we are looking at employing locals for the most part, as are my clients, rather than sending people across and the job numbers are in the 10s rather than the 100s/100s.
Perhaps, if these new businesses grow as a result of Brexit, then they may have to look at who will fill those jobs and where they come from. I can't see that in the near future though.
Fintan O'Toole gets his own posts (admittedly partly because one article is behind a paywall).
Fintan O’Toole: Abortion result shows democracy can rise above hysteria and hate
Ireland has voted No to tribalism and fear in overwhelming decision to remove the Eighth
So Ireland voted overwhelmingly No.
No to the tribalism that would divide it into mutually exclusive clans of male and female, rural and urban, young and old. No to Constitutional body-shaming. No to “feck off to England”.
No to holier-than-thou. No to the condescension of knowing more about what a woman must do than she is allowed to know herself.
No to the politics of fear, misrepresentation and manipulation that have given the English-speaking world Brexit and Donald Trump.
No to the Ireland of As If.
No to the self-declared Moral Majority that is now emphatically a minority whose notion of morality cannot be enforced by the State.
This referendum was a collective act of letting go, the end of a very long goodbye. Three years ago, when the results of the same sex marriage referendum came in, it felt like a big Irish wedding.
This time, it feels more like a wake - albeit one of those wakes where most people do not bother to hide their disdain for the deceased. For something has undoubtedly died.
End of Irish exceptionalism This is the end of Irish exceptionalism. The Ireland of absolutes is dead and gone, and with the Eighth Amendment in its grave. An Ireland of complexities, of ambiguities and uncertainties has taken its place.
The light in the beacon of holiness that Ireland once imagined itself casting on the world has been turned off for good. Instead, we have turned the light onto our millions of intricate, convoluted, open-ended all-too-human selves. Ireland is an ordinary place now and must find its nobility in that ordinary humanity. There is no great cause for euphoria in that, but there is room for a deep sense of relief.
At wakes, after all, there is sometimes a quiet joy that a life that had gone on far too long and become too painful to bear has ended at last. Even for many of those who voted No there must be some tacit sense of release.
The Eighth Amendment was never much loved by the people at a large even in 1983 when most of them either did not vote or voted against it. For its most passionate supporters, it turned sour in 1992 when the Supreme Court ruled in the X case that it did not mean what they thought (and insisted) it meant.
And after the referendums of 1992 inserted the rights to information and to travel, the whole thing ceased to be any kind of statement of moral principle and became a mere matter of geography. The only Irish exceptionalism it pointed to was an exceptional hypocrisy.
The Eighth became mere Constitutional nimbyism. And yet it stalked on like a zombie, not really alive but undead.
Sheer scale The sheer scale of the vote to end it, and the way that choice was made in every part of Ireland, shows a determination to finish this thing off once and for all. It has already had a 26-year afterlife since 1992 and we have made plain to the political system that we do not want it to have another.
There is no great glee in laying such a creature to rest and no call for wild dancing on its grave. There has been too much grief, too much hurt. Too many women have been made to feel small, contemptible, shameful, unwanted. Too many families have had bad situations made infinitely worse.
The abortion bomb is packed with visceral emotions, ancient prejudices, religious doctrines and deep anxieties about meaning and identity
For all the courage of those who spoke out and told their most intimate stories, too many people still carry silences within them that will go with them to their graves: the unexpectedly high vote showed that there are still silent Yeses. Too many vicious things have been said in the campaign, things that will be harder to forget than to forgive.
And yet, even if outright triumph would not be appropriate to the occasion, we are surely entitled to at least three cheers.
Three cheers The first cheer is for democracy.
What the Irish political system and the Irish people have just done is very hard. Planting a bomb in the Constitution was relatively easy in the atmosphere of 1983. But defusing a bomb takes skill and nerve and courage.
Even though the cultural and social context has changed radically, the abortion bomb is still explosive. It is packed with visceral emotions, ancient prejudices, religious doctrines and deep anxieties about meaning and identity.
To defuse it you have to get right into the wiring of those forces, to touch the rawest of nerves without setting the whole thing off.
The timing, too, was inauspicious. Ireland was undertaking this delicate political process at a time when democratic politics have seldom been more indelicate. It was raising deep questions of national identity at a time when a wave of reactionary identity politics is washing over the democratic world.
It was conducting an open democratic exercise at a time when the online techniques for subverting democratic choice have been honed and proved in the Brexit referendum in the UK and the Trump campaign in the US. It was trying to embrace complexity at a time when simplistic sloganeering is in the ascendant.
And all of this gave the No side huge advantages. In referendums it is always easier to be negative. The positive proposition has to be clear and coherent. The assaults on it can be as wild, untruthful and as self-contradictory as they are self-serving.
Soft repealers The Yes side played with its cards turned up - the proposed legislation was published and even though there was in reality no workable alternative to what it envisages, those proposals were a shock to many soft repealers.
Exit polls show that significant numbers of Yes voters had to overcome their own unease.
But the No side did not merely not have to show its cards. It could play from different decks at the same time, insisting both that all abortion is murder and (especially in the last week) that if the Eighth was retained it would come up with some unspecified solutions for the “hard cases”.
Irish democracy withstood all this. It stuck to a thoughtful deliberative process through the Citizen’s Assembly and the Oireachtas committee. Most TDs and party leaders took their duties seriously and gave responsible leadership. Civil society groups showed tremendous commitment, resilience and skill.
The much-maligned mainstream media broadly succeeded in holding open a public arena for truthful information and civilised debate.
And this is not just an Irish achievement. It has global significance. It shows democracy itself can still hold fast, that decent politics and a serious-minded citizenry can rise above hysteria, hate and manipulation.
The second cheer is for civic engagement, especially by the young. There were plenty of old-timers around the Repeal campaign and many undaunted veterans who have endured the hard times.
New generation (It is important to remember that The Irish Times exit poll shows us that in absolute terms more Yes voters were over 65 than under 25.)
But this campaign has been largely won by a generation that had good reason to give up on Ireland. It is the generation of 2008, the generation that was handed a massive bank debt, that was told there were no jobs, that had its wages and welfare payments cut, that was informed, in so many words, that it would be greatly appreciated if it would kindly remove itself to somewhere else.
Yet it’s a generation that cared enough about Ireland to want not to be ashamed of it any more.
And to do something about it.
A generation caricatured as snowflakes went out and took the heat on the doorsteps and did not melt. Young people who are supposed to live in echo chambers went out to talk and listen face to face, to take the abuse, to try to answer the hard questions, to engage with people superficially very different from themselves.
This is what patriotism really looks - not flag-waving xenophobia but real belief in the possibilities of a better Ireland. And we find ourselves, astonishingly, with a new generation of patriots.
Blow against misogyny The third cheer is one that can be just a little bit raucous. It’s for the big blow that has been struck against misogyny. The equation in the Eighth of a woman to her ovum at the exact moment of fertilisation was not just about abortion.
It was an act of profound belittlement. And of stark division - women’s right to life and health were qualified and made conditional in ways that could never be applied to men. So long as those words were in the Constitution, women could never be equal citizens. But they could be, in their childbearing years, objects of suspicion and bearers of shame.
We have taken a giant step towards taking gender out of Irish citizenship. This is good for all citizens. A citizenship that is qualified and hedged around, that is uneven and unequal, is devalued for everyone who holds it. It was moving to see so many women posting pictures of themselves with their Éire/Ireland passports as they arrived home to vote or showed up at polling stations.
There will no longer be a kind of invisible asterisk on the passports of Irish women - Nationality: Irish (*but female). Women will no longer have to read the Constitution of their own republic and turn their eyes away from Article 40. Belonging has become that bit easier for all of us.
But even as we toast the deceased with these three cheers, we must know that this end is also a beginning. A huge space has been cleared. The Eighth and the struggle against it has filled too many rooms in our heads and in our public arenas.
Energy It has forced the body and its intimacies into places where they should not be - there has been too much body in the Irish body politic. It has siphoned off 35 years of energy that might have been devoted to child poverty, to housing, to health, to education. It has kept people apart who should be united on many of these things, creating false tribes of liberals and conservatives and weakening the possibilities of a broad consensus for social justice. We refused on Friday to be identified with these tribes.
Now we can go on to be part of a real republic.
After the wake, we can bury, along with the delusions of Irish exceptionalism, the anger, the frustration, the bitterness.
All the wasted energy that went into the politics of pointless gestures can be unleashed into something more constructive. We have decided not to be the holiest place in the world but we can still be a country to be proud of.
We have decided not to think in black and white anymore. Now we have to decide whether to subside into greyness or to replace that old monochrome with new colours of justice, decency and inclusion.
Comments
Folk being able to wander 100 metres and enjoy a different rule, without any hinderance, subject to available funds.
Also, aren't there some folk in NI with "dual" nationality anyway ?
If, and when that happens you could become the BBC Addicks first honorary overseas member. You could join us for a pint via Skype.
Whilst I have my doubts whether it will be possible (and I've seen a few articles questioning it), both sides in the negotiations have indicated a commitment to retain the Common Travel Area, which should allow for free cross border movement of British and Irish people, if not goods.
I don't think that free movement of people, including that of those having to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, is a bad thing.
Far from it and on a wider level, being conscious of my history and aware of the degree to which I live in a society where, for all its problems, we represent the "haves", I believe Ireland should do more to help the "have nots", whether through a welcoming refugee/immigrant policy or a parallel provision of targeted aid to areas of need.
That's unlikely to happen seeing as the Tories are propped up by the DUP but opens up a new front in Westminster politics.
On the foreign aid front - this has to be "super targetted" otherwise a donor nation can end up with the paradox of India, where there is poverty, overseas aid from UK, while the nation has a "space project" costing millions. Overseas Christian (or Western) backed aid could be seen as buying converts, but in general I agree with you that properly managed foreign aid (e.g. disaster relief) is a good thing.
On the subject of refugee/immigrant policy - I guess you know what I am going to say.
Germany has invited any number of these folk, but with free movement they will eventually be able to go to any EU country. So in effect ROI could take a number of refugees that eventually walked across the border into the UK while we are in the free movement area - unlikely as this may seem, it cannot be ruled out, and since UK population growth is my main concern, I am against it.
Gone off thread topic, I know (sorry).
Be swamped roughly an 8 mill population and 4.2 mill live in Dublin a lot of firms there and a lovely city but it’s getfing busier and busier
I believe in democracy, My favourite book of all time. I was always a bit on the fence about abortion, but understanding that free and accessible abortions will result in a reduction of scummy shitbags being born is what swung it 100% for me.
I struggle with the moral side of things, but on the societal/practical side of things, I couldn't be more in favour.
My mum is currently selling her house, and is getting seriously mugged off, I want her to read the estate agents chapter...
Even without the rise of AfD, Merkel's humanitarian decision in 2015 was only ever likely to be a once off, to prevent people spending months in transit, and experiencing the dubious "hospitality" afforded them by people such as Viktor Orban.
While she is not old enough to remember it herself, I have no doubt that the memory of the expulsions of whole populations during and after the Second World War (including several million Germans) helped influence her decision.
Whilst I think it was the right decision, given the circumstances that faced us all at the time, I have no doubt that the good she did will come back to haunt her - because those who wish to frame the public debate along lines of the "German people" being swamped (with not too subtle echoes of arguments from the past of preserving the purity of the race) will endeavor to keep it in the public eye.
What Merkel did not do was grant unlimited leave to remain, she simply allowed refugees to come to Germany to have their claims assessed, rather than at the overwhelmed German Embassies.
Strictly speaking, freedom of movement, for labour, only deals with EU citizens. If the refugees seek to become naturalised and meet the requirements (by which time they will have generally have become established in Germany), they may well come to Ireland under freedom of movement, but they constitute a tiny proportion of the overall EU population, and relatively few of them have moved.
But, international conventions regarding refugees make clear that anyone can claim asylum in any country - if they really want to come to Ireland, they will.
There are efforts to ease the burden on countries receiving the largest numbers of refugees by sharing across the EU. Ireland has taken, and continues to take, refugees under this program, with a lot less whinging about it than some EU countries.
Like @el-pietro I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from @palarsehater Current estimates have population growth to 5.8m in 2050 and I am not seeing anything that would go too far off that.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ireland-population/
Unless some of the 76m Turks that Boris has "saved us from" end up in the Republic instead of the UK!!
I see the links attached but does that take into account the cast iron border the U.K. is supposedly having? To completely stop eu immigration as Ireland will be the only primary English speaking eu country.
There have been a few interesting articles in The Irish Times and The Irish Examiner since the referendum trying to explain the reason for the outcome.
https://irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/terry-prone/polls-skewed-hope-for-no-side-in-an-inevitable-win-for-yes-campaign-471177.html?&session=VFUuySF28ZyLYLK86CC9cU/vgpaiOdzHD8vLgIPvDto= (you may have to register for this one, but registration is free and simple).
https://irishexaminer.com/ireland/we-made-this-country-better-for-everyone-471156.html
https://irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/eighth-campaign-lessons-vote-showed-real-powerof-coalitions-845591.html
https://irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/how-the-yes-and-no-sides-won-and-lost-the-abortion-referendum-1.3509924
https://irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/yes-campaign-s-outreach-to-middle-ground-delivered-the-landslide-1.3510338
https://irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/how-the-tide-turned-against-saving-the-eighth-1.3510419
https://irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/anne-enright-personal-stories-are-precious-things-and-they-made-the-difference-1.3510189
https://irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/una-mullally-referendum-shows-us-there-is-no-middle-ireland-just-ireland-1.3509905
A couple of articles that offer a splash of cold water for those who view the result as a sudden throwing off of religious belief (Irish Catholicism historically, even up to the Nineteenth Century, when Government support for Ultramontanism helped entrench a reactionary hierarchy, was relatively heterodox, and this tradition may not, despite the best efforts of people like Cardinal Cullen, have disappeared): https://irishtimes.com/opinion/rite-reason-why-irish-catholics-voted-to-remove-eighth-1.3511336 and https://irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/description-of-yes-result-as-an-end-to-catholic-ireland-greatly-exaggerates-1.3511868.
I honestly can't comment on whether they expect a huge influx if/when the UK impose a hard border. My mum and her family are in Tipp, da's family in Belfast. I have a number of friends out on the West/North West coast and a good few in Dublin. In all honesty, you would expect Dublin to bear the brunt of any influx and I know my own business (banking) and a number of my clients (law/accounting) are expanding there. However, we are looking at employing locals for the most part, as are my clients, rather than sending people across and the job numbers are in the 10s rather than the 100s/100s.
Perhaps, if these new businesses grow as a result of Brexit, then they may have to look at who will fill those jobs and where they come from. I can't see that in the near future though.
Fintan O’Toole: Abortion result shows democracy can rise above hysteria and hate
Ireland has voted No to tribalism and fear in overwhelming decision to remove the Eighth
So Ireland voted overwhelmingly No.
No to the tribalism that would divide it into mutually exclusive clans of male and female, rural and urban, young and old. No to Constitutional body-shaming. No to “feck off to England”.
No to holier-than-thou. No to the condescension of knowing more about what a woman must do than she is allowed to know herself.
No to the politics of fear, misrepresentation and manipulation that have given the English-speaking world Brexit and Donald Trump.
No to the Ireland of As If.
No to the self-declared Moral Majority that is now emphatically a minority whose notion of morality cannot be enforced by the State.
This referendum was a collective act of letting go, the end of a very long goodbye. Three years ago, when the results of the same sex marriage referendum came in, it felt like a big Irish wedding.
This time, it feels more like a wake - albeit one of those wakes where most people do not bother to hide their disdain for the deceased. For something has undoubtedly died.
End of Irish exceptionalism
This is the end of Irish exceptionalism. The Ireland of absolutes is dead and gone, and with the Eighth Amendment in its grave. An Ireland of complexities, of ambiguities and uncertainties has taken its place.
The light in the beacon of holiness that Ireland once imagined itself casting on the world has been turned off for good. Instead, we have turned the light onto our millions of intricate, convoluted, open-ended all-too-human selves. Ireland is an ordinary place now and must find its nobility in that ordinary humanity. There is no great cause for euphoria in that, but there is room for a deep sense of relief.
At wakes, after all, there is sometimes a quiet joy that a life that had gone on far too long and become too painful to bear has ended at last. Even for many of those who voted No there must be some tacit sense of release.
The Eighth Amendment was never much loved by the people at a large even in 1983 when most of them either did not vote or voted against it. For its most passionate supporters, it turned sour in 1992 when the Supreme Court ruled in the X case that it did not mean what they thought (and insisted) it meant.
And after the referendums of 1992 inserted the rights to information and to travel, the whole thing ceased to be any kind of statement of moral principle and became a mere matter of geography. The only Irish exceptionalism it pointed to was an exceptional hypocrisy.
The Eighth became mere Constitutional nimbyism. And yet it stalked on like a zombie, not really alive but undead.
Sheer scale
The sheer scale of the vote to end it, and the way that choice was made in every part of Ireland, shows a determination to finish this thing off once and for all. It has already had a 26-year afterlife since 1992 and we have made plain to the political system that we do not want it to have another.
There is no great glee in laying such a creature to rest and no call for wild dancing on its grave. There has been too much grief, too much hurt. Too many women have been made to feel small, contemptible, shameful, unwanted. Too many families have had bad situations made infinitely worse.
The abortion bomb is packed with visceral emotions, ancient prejudices, religious doctrines and deep anxieties about meaning and identity
For all the courage of those who spoke out and told their most intimate stories, too many people still carry silences within them that will go with them to their graves: the unexpectedly high vote showed that there are still silent Yeses. Too many vicious things have been said in the campaign, things that will be harder to forget than to forgive.
And yet, even if outright triumph would not be appropriate to the occasion, we are surely entitled to at least three cheers.
Three cheers
The first cheer is for democracy.
What the Irish political system and the Irish people have just done is very hard. Planting a bomb in the Constitution was relatively easy in the atmosphere of 1983. But defusing a bomb takes skill and nerve and courage.
Even though the cultural and social context has changed radically, the abortion bomb is still explosive. It is packed with visceral emotions, ancient prejudices, religious doctrines and deep anxieties about meaning and identity.
To defuse it you have to get right into the wiring of those forces, to touch the rawest of nerves without setting the whole thing off.
The timing, too, was inauspicious. Ireland was undertaking this delicate political process at a time when democratic politics have seldom been more indelicate. It was raising deep questions of national identity at a time when a wave of reactionary identity politics is washing over the democratic world.
It was conducting an open democratic exercise at a time when the online techniques for subverting democratic choice have been honed and proved in the Brexit referendum in the UK and the Trump campaign in the US. It was trying to embrace complexity at a time when simplistic sloganeering is in the ascendant.
And all of this gave the No side huge advantages. In referendums it is always easier to be negative. The positive proposition has to be clear and coherent. The assaults on it can be as wild, untruthful and as self-contradictory as they are self-serving.
Contd...
Soft repealers
The Yes side played with its cards turned up - the proposed legislation was published and even though there was in reality no workable alternative to what it envisages, those proposals were a shock to many soft repealers.
Exit polls show that significant numbers of Yes voters had to overcome their own unease.
But the No side did not merely not have to show its cards. It could play from different decks at the same time, insisting both that all abortion is murder and (especially in the last week) that if the Eighth was retained it would come up with some unspecified solutions for the “hard cases”.
Irish democracy withstood all this. It stuck to a thoughtful deliberative process through the Citizen’s Assembly and the Oireachtas committee. Most TDs and party leaders took their duties seriously and gave responsible leadership. Civil society groups showed tremendous commitment, resilience and skill.
The much-maligned mainstream media broadly succeeded in holding open a public arena for truthful information and civilised debate.
And this is not just an Irish achievement. It has global significance. It shows democracy itself can still hold fast, that decent politics and a serious-minded citizenry can rise above hysteria, hate and manipulation.
The second cheer is for civic engagement, especially by the young. There were plenty of old-timers around the Repeal campaign and many undaunted veterans who have endured the hard times.
New generation
(It is important to remember that The Irish Times exit poll shows us that in absolute terms more Yes voters were over 65 than under 25.)
But this campaign has been largely won by a generation that had good reason to give up on Ireland. It is the generation of 2008, the generation that was handed a massive bank debt, that was told there were no jobs, that had its wages and welfare payments cut, that was informed, in so many words, that it would be greatly appreciated if it would kindly remove itself to somewhere else.
Yet it’s a generation that cared enough about Ireland to want not to be ashamed of it any more.
And to do something about it.
A generation caricatured as snowflakes went out and took the heat on the doorsteps and did not melt. Young people who are supposed to live in echo chambers went out to talk and listen face to face, to take the abuse, to try to answer the hard questions, to engage with people superficially very different from themselves.
This is what patriotism really looks - not flag-waving xenophobia but real belief in the possibilities of a better Ireland. And we find ourselves, astonishingly, with a new generation of patriots.
Blow against misogyny
The third cheer is one that can be just a little bit raucous. It’s for the big blow that has been struck against misogyny. The equation in the Eighth of a woman to her ovum at the exact moment of fertilisation was not just about abortion.
It was an act of profound belittlement. And of stark division - women’s right to life and health were qualified and made conditional in ways that could never be applied to men. So long as those words were in the Constitution, women could never be equal citizens. But they could be, in their childbearing years, objects of suspicion and bearers of shame.
We have taken a giant step towards taking gender out of Irish citizenship. This is good for all citizens. A citizenship that is qualified and hedged around, that is uneven and unequal, is devalued for everyone who holds it. It was moving to see so many women posting pictures of themselves with their Éire/Ireland passports as they arrived home to vote or showed up at polling stations.
There will no longer be a kind of invisible asterisk on the passports of Irish women - Nationality: Irish (*but female). Women will no longer have to read the Constitution of their own republic and turn their eyes away from Article 40. Belonging has become that bit easier for all of us.
But even as we toast the deceased with these three cheers, we must know that this end is also a beginning. A huge space has been cleared. The Eighth and the struggle against it has filled too many rooms in our heads and in our public arenas.
Energy
It has forced the body and its intimacies into places where they should not be - there has been too much body in the Irish body politic. It has siphoned off 35 years of energy that might have been devoted to child poverty, to housing, to health, to education. It has kept people apart who should be united on many of these things, creating false tribes of liberals and conservatives and weakening the possibilities of a broad consensus for social justice. We refused on Friday to be identified with these tribes.
Now we can go on to be part of a real republic.
After the wake, we can bury, along with the delusions of Irish exceptionalism, the anger, the frustration, the bitterness.
All the wasted energy that went into the politics of pointless gestures can be unleashed into something more constructive. We have decided not to be the holiest place in the world but we can still be a country to be proud of.
We have decided not to think in black and white anymore. Now we have to decide whether to subside into greyness or to replace that old monochrome with new colours of justice, decency and inclusion.
And here's the article you can read more easily: https://irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/fintan-o-toole-repeal-supporters-must-not-treat-no-voters-as-freaks-1.3511618
I would say sorry for the length of the post, but I make no apology for the quality of the writing.