‘WHAT IF THERE’S no Surrealing in the Years column this week?’
Fear not, reader. You are reading this column on a Sunday morning as opposed to in its usual Saturday slot because it’s been a big week with big news. The kind of news with far-reaching implications for much of the public, hinging upon rapidly moving parts that can only be coherently written about after the fact.
I am referring, of course, to the nightclub legislation being pushed back again. Again! Since the legislation was first floated in 2019 (that’s five years ago, by the way), efforts to update Ireland’s old licensing laws so that pubs can stay open past midnight and clubs can stay open even later again have continually stalled.
Speaking this week, Leo Varadkar said that the measures, which were originally intended to be introduced in summer 2023, will not be implemented a whole year later. It feels like a notable lack of urgency in aiding an industry that Minister for Justice Helen McEntree said was “dying on its feet” as far back as October 2022.
By way of explanation, Varadkar said this week that McEntee had many other important priorities in her role as Minister for Justice. A likely story.
What are they hiding from us? What are they so scared of? What about the right of an online-only columnist to demand a DJ play Wagon Wheel for the third time at 5am? It’s stunning that the conspiratorial types haven’t jumped on this one.
These infringements upon our right to party go well beyond the risks associated with 15-minute cities or whatever it is they’re concerned about now.
And what about all the battle-hardened government critics, who love to pounce on any sniff of inefficiency. Were they busy with something else this week?
Okay…
Fine.
You’ve humoured me long enough. Let’s get on with it. Let’s talk about the nation’s real messiest pastime: referendums.
Friday’s referendums marked the fortieth time that the Irish public has voted on an amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann since 1937. Can you believe it? Our ruby amendment. What a testament to our country’s tumultuous love affair with direct democracy. The land of saints, scholars and amateur talliers. The Yanks have baseball, the Brits have Yorkshire puddings, and we have this.
Some referendums grab the public’s attention with force – dealing with social issues that resonate not just amongst Irish voters but the world over. We’ve had a few of those in the last few decades, referendums that yield celebrations, dancing in the street, the kind of thing you’d be happy to see a nice commemorative coin minted for.
Friday’s twin referendums on references to family and women/care in the Constitution are of a different sort – the kind of referendum where, along with listening to your heart, you also need to listen to several barristers, numerous elected representatives, various NGOs, and, of course, anyone who stands to be personally affected by the outcome of the referendum.
Many people with disabilities, for example, pointed out the referendum on care – which would have removed the infamously antiquated reference to women’s and mothers’ “duties in the home” – posed the risk of failing to adequately replace the current provision with a State guarantee to provide care for those who otherwise have limited access to it.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar did little to dispel these fears with an appearance on Virgin Media’s Six O’Clock Show ahead of the final week of campaigning. A clip in which he gave his view on the State’s responsibilities in relation to care was later widely shared online.
In the edit of the clip shared most widely he said he thought care was “very much a family responsibility – but families deserve the support of the State, and that’s really what this article will say, this new part of the Constitution”.
Asked by The Journal this week to respond to the online criticism of his comments he said he was of the “very firm view that people have responsibilities and the state has responsibilities too” – adding that “you can say something in 40 seconds and somebody can take 10 seconds of the 40 seconds and totally misrepresent it”.
What role the viral clip played in the final vote will be dissected in the coming days and weeks and it seems likely that countless diagnoses will be rendered as to what put paid to both Yes campaigns. Opposition parties who campaigned for a Yes-Yes have already begun to distance themselves from the government, blaming the failure of both amendments on poor wording and poor messaging.
Yes, this was one of those referendums. Messy, frustrating, and painfully democratic. Widespread uncertainty over what the consequences of either a Yes or No vote would entail and a paltry turnout in many areas.
Green Party leader Eamon Ryan, in what may strike some as an admission of his own political mortality, has already conceded updating the Constitution with respect to family, care, and indeed the status of women, will be a job for the next government — the most parliamentary way possible of saying “We’ve just spent millions of euro on two referendums, been humiliated, and I don’t want to talk about it anymore.”
So it was and so it shall be. We will remain locked in this dance. Ireland is constitutionally bound to have a referendum every time we want to change Bunreacht na hÉireann. Says who? Why, Bunreacht na hÉireann, of course. That crafty old badger, always two steps ahead.
Except of course where it refers to women’s duties in the home, in which case it is many, many decades behind.
We should do something about that, actually.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say