Aontú reps scathing of government over referendum
Local Aontú representatives have delivered a scathing rebuke of the government in relation to the amendments put to the people at this referendum.
Counting of votes where Irish citizens have been asked to vote in two referendums to change our Constitution is about to get under way at Cavan Leisure Centre. The changes relate to language in Bunreacht na hÉireann, first ratified by the Irish people in 1937 and is the fundamental law of the State.
The amendments relate to ‘women in the home’ and the definition of what constitutes a family.
Aontú's Sarah O'Reilly and local election candidate for the Ballyjamesduff area have just arrived at the Cavan Count Centre.
Cllr O'Reilly says she was “incredibly emotional” to vote in these referenda on International Women's Day.
“I didn't embrace the day until I could be sure that the Irish people respected and knew how important it was to retain references in the constitution. I didn't realise how important this vote was until the campaign started and references were being made the Dáil and the Seanad.
“If anything the potential outcome of these referenda send message that we must listen to the people. The government are so far removed from that the people actually want and need. Its jaw dropping. There was little legislative scruitney on these referenda. I believe there are powerful NGOs in this country who have the ear of government and this really needs to be addressed."
Ms McPhillips, a local primary school principal, stunned by the seeming lack of interest shown by other political parties in these referenda. She believes that Aontú have been fully engaged throughout the process, and party leader Peadar Tobín has campaign strongly for a 'No' vote on both.
“The constitution being the fundamental legal document of our country, its no place for poorly written and thought out amendments. The untold consequences of these amendments passing, if these were to pass, would play havoc on the systems of this country. The whole area of 'durable relationship' would have created complexities in our courts, never mind what consequences it could have had on taxation, succession, family law, social welfare and others aspects.
“Also, the deletion of the word 'woman', to be inclusive the important is to add to, rather than remove.”