"Modernism", "Elitism", and "The Working Classes"

[jean]

(But whatever the intention, the discussion then became restricted to Marxism. Though the Marxists probably didn't recognise that as a restriction.)

[Richard Barrett]

(But whatever the intention, the discussion then became restricted to Marxism. Though the Marxists probably didn't recognise that as a restriction.)

Well no Jean, if you look at what happened after my #178, the discussion then became more or less restricted to Brexit.

[Lat-Literal]

Which constitutionally is pretty much what it is. As I said, what impressed me about the Irish referendum was that the government listened to the 'advisory' views of the pre-referendum panel of voters who had weighed up and discussed the issues on what was - as jean pointed - out, a relatively straightforward YES-NO. Where there were areas of potential doubt, it published its proposals based on the views that had emerged from the discussion.

The AV referendum was an unsatisfactory choice imposed by those who were opposed to change. An interesting piece of research showed that as the campaign continued, people became progressively more persuaded to believe the misinformation than to believe the truth.

I just find it all very confusing.

EU

I argue vehemently for sticking to a Brexit of any doable kind because, flaws and all, 52% who voted did vote for it. That's my definition of democracy and I believe that democracy comes first. I fully recognise that there are other valid interpretations. Remember that I was going to vote for Remain then Leave then abstain. Finally I had to push myself into the polling booth to vote Remain through gritted teeth because what I wanted was an option for a 1980s EEC which couldn't and wouldn't ever be delivered yet I was not a Leaver per se.

And now I'm persuaded by my own updated reasoning rather than what other people have said that we might as well have Brexit in any form any way. This runs in tandem with a let's not flam-flam but just move on rather like when having taken an unexpected turning towards a destination and deciding to find a route through. I'm just really not keen in sitting in a picnic area for several years feeling afraid that we might on any continuing hit some ocean and regretting that we didn't use a satnav before we left home. But that's more an attitude.

AV

So that's that one. Do you know. I just can't remember how I voted on AV. I'm a lifelong supporter of a fuller PR so I could have voted in favour as a halfway house and I probably did but equally I could have voted against because of irritation that the full deal wasn't being offered. Actually I must have voted for it - but what all of this shows is that it's rarely either/or.

IRELAND

I don't know the detail put in ahead of the Irish referendum. Don't they tend to re-run theirs if the outcome isn't right? Perhaps that was what brought people out in force for a decisive vote. They just couldn't stand more money being chucked at a pretence and just provided the result expected of them. Beyond that obvious cynicism, I would like to see what the electorate was given because I believe that abortion should be available in the case of rape and where the health of the mother would be at serious risk if she proceeded with pregnancy.

I think I believe it should be available where a child would be so severely challenged that he could not survive without a quality of life but I am not keen on it being used routinely in circumstances like Downs Syndrome unless the parents really feel that they couldn't cope. I am very probably in favour of it being made available to underage women so long as that policy is supported by a huge promotion of contraception. As for the rest, I'd certainly want a staunch and yet realistic low target on the number of national abortions per year so that it doesn't rise interminably and I'd have strong views on the number of weeks issue. From a British point of view, I'd also like to see how much extra money we'll now have for the NHS.

That is at least half a dozen questions/options and not a yes/no.

With those safeguards, I would have been a yes. Without those safeguards, I might well have had to have been a no.

As it was, it seems to me that the fundamental distinction that was being permitted/promoted alongside the actual yes/no was religion v secularism at their greatest points of polarity.

[Richard Barrett]

That is at least half a dozen questions/options and not a yes/no.

Yes but the question put to the electorate was whether or not to repeal the 8th Amendment of the Irish Constitution ("The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right"), not what it should be replaced with. The question was indeed very simple.

[french frank]

(My reference to class warfare was actually tongue in cheek by the way, obviously enough I thought. )

I did think of posting that anyone who declared that discussion on Brexit was tedious and could we please return to class warfare, had a sense of humour.

[french frank]

Yes but the question put to the electorate was whether or not to repeal the 8th Amendment of the Irish Constitution ("The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right"), not what it should be replaced with.

Exactly. And for those whose immediate thought was, Yes, but what would it be replaced with, the government published its proposals in order to inform decision.

[Lat-Literal]

Yes but the question put to the electorate was whether or not to repeal the 8th Amendment of the Irish Constitution ("The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right"), not what it should be replaced with. The question was indeed very simple.

Is the penultimate word - "that" as in "and vindicate that right" - a reference to the right to life of the unborn or the right to life of the mother or both?

[Richard Barrett]

I did think of posting that anyone who declared that discussion on Brexit was tedious and could we please return to class warfare, had a sense of humour.

Quite!

[Lat-Literal]

Quite!

Anyhow, this then is a case in point.

I don't agree at all with the door being kept closed but I would have even greater problems if the alternative was the possibility of it always being left wide open.

Consequently, I'd have had to have voted for an ongoing closed door even though I strongly disagree with it.

That question to me is "which of these two options is the least atrocious to you?"

That's not great in my opinion.

To put this in the reverse way, imagine being asked in Britain "should abortion cease?" I think there should be stricter limits - that too is not a referendum style option.

It will be interesting to see in Ireland if there is the same sort of "were they voting for a soft or hard Brexit?" style argy-bargy as in here "were they voting for soft or hard approaches to abortion and in what percentages?". My position there, rationally, would not be for analysing those figures to the nth degree but saying "we are where we are now" and "let's sit down and establish guidelines which reflect the will of the majority and can be agreed upon by whoever has to decide as humane". I doubt in a yes/no the extent of victory should matter. But much will depend on the "soft politics" of the experts chosen and, in observing that Supreme Court way, voters who don't like it can show their feelings at the next general election.

[jean]

Well no Jean, if you look at what happened after my #178, the discussion then became more or less restricted to Brexit.

I was thinking of what had happened long before your #178, in the course of the first five pages of the discussion.

Arguably, it was your #141 which first mentioned the Irish referendum, and in doing so gave permission for the discussion of whatever other referendums sprang into people's minds:

On the power of elites and the media: Irish people are to be congratulated for the decisive result of their referendum a couple of days ago...

[ahinton]

Anyhow, this then is a case in point.

I don't agree at all with the door being kept closed but I would have even greater problems if the alternative was the possibility of it always being left wide open.

Consequently, I'd have had to have voted for an ongoing closed door even though I strongly disagree with it.

That question to me is "which of these two options is the least atrocious to you?"

That's not great in my opinion.

To put this in the reverse way, imagine being asked in Britain "should abortion cease?" I think there should be stricter limits - that too is not a referendum style option.

All of these problems and to-ings and fro-ings could have been dispensed with at a stroke in all cases had the governments concerned actually put the issues up for internal debate and voiting rather than subjecting them to plebiscite.

[Lat-Literal]

All of these problems and to-ings and fro-ings could have been dispensed with at a stroke in all cases had the governments concerned actually put the issues up for internal debate and voiting rather than subjecting them to plebiscite.

Well, yes.

Why didn't they in this instance?

Was it that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael felt that to have the policy in a manifesto would be detrimental to their chances of forming a Government?

That seems unlikely.

I have been trying to locate to no avail the Irish Government's literature on this matter as has been alleged to have been made available in this thread. No signs of it. What I have found is that all media and lobby groups had an angle, there were confusing allegations about Coveney changing his mind during the campaign about 12 week access and a fair bit of fake news - for example, the "need for a two thirds majority". This is not to quibble about outcomes but to highlight the nature of the game. From vague memory, it wasn't like this in '75.

[ahinton]

Well, yes.

Why didn't they in this instance?

Was it that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael felt that to have the policy in a manifesto would be detrimental to their chances of forming a Government?

That seems unlikely.

I have been trying to locate to no avail the Irish Government's literature on this matter as has been alleged to have been made available in this thread. No signs of it. What I have found is that all media and lobby groups had an angle, there were confusing allegations about Coveney changing his mind during the campaign about 12 week access and a fair bit of fake news - for example, the "need for a two thirds majority". This is not to quibble about outcomes but to highlight the nature of the game. From vague memory, it wasn't like this in '75.

I don't know why this was not done in any of the instances that he been referred to here and believe that it would have been far better if they had been.

That said, there was a dire need for the Irish one and arguably sufficient interest on the pat of the Scottish electorate in the Scottish one but scant realistic and reasonable evidence to justify the UK/EU one.

The Irish one, whilst of course most welcome, endorses the introduction of policies that will still bemore restrictive than those applicable in UK and elsewhere but, as I wrote earlier, I have little doubt that, in time, the conditions will be brought broadly into line with those; it does, however, leave NI's even more entrenched (i.e. no same sex marriage either) position very exposed and I have no doubt that there will be increasing pressure to force NI into line with the rest of Europe, especially now that its citizens will be able to pop across the border into the republic to have an abortion if reqiured rather than having to travel to England for it (and, in so saying, I do not seek to trivialise the traumatic experience that abortion is).

You mention the notion of a "two-thirds majority" which, had it been a condition of the UK/EU referendum (along with a minimum turnout of 75%, although the actual one was not far short of this) as I believe it should have been at the very least, Remain would have prevailed and the majority outcome would have been deemed far more acceptable.

[french frank]

I have been trying to locate to no avail the Irish Government's literature on this matter as has been alleged to have been made available in this thread. No signs of it.

Don't know where to find the final publication (which I assume was or will be, published after the result), but these were the 21 clauses covered, reported in the short policy paper, published on 9 March:

http://www.thejournal.ie/simon-harris-abortion-3894092-Mar2018/

[jean]

...We stand here knowing the tragedy which befell Savita Halappanavar and her family...

Few can have forgotten her terrible story; it may indeed have acted as a catalyst for the referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/23/ireland-abortion-referendum-savita-father-galway