The implementation of a broadcast media airstop on the upcoming referendums will start tomorrow. This concludes my busy involvement with various forms of media, both domestic and international, over the past few weeks. This will give voters a tranquil interval of political truce to contemplate their voting decision.
I have several points to consider. The first being that the entire process seems to have been hasty. The Houses of the Oireachtas were not given the chance to partake in pre-legislative scrutiny, a procedure that enables legislators to call in concerned parties, including state departments and experts, to assess the probable outcomes of any proposed legislative modifications.
What prompted such a rush, leading to the use of a guillotine motion backed by party whip imposition to close off debate on the published wordings? Was the objective to synchronise the referendum with International Women’s Day, as speculated?
Alternatively, was it to prevent a Supreme Court appeal hearing on a “systemically important” issue revolving around full-time carers? This appeal partly relied on interpreting words now suggested for removal from Article 41.2, and was scheduled for hearing on April 11th.
There is widespread ignorance among voters about the content of these referendums, as reported by the media. Who should be held accountable? Is it fair to ask anyone to adjust our Constitution without comprehending the changes involved? Isn’t it logical to reject any modification that hasn’t been adequately explained?
The ambiguity of the familial amendment concerning “other durable relationships”, making its real implications dependent on court decisions in “complex cases”, has provoked proponents to claim it will bring minimal change. They argue that these changes are mostly “symbolic”, yet bear the virtue of being “inclusive”.
However, it’s certain that elevating “durable relationship” families to a constitutional level will have noteworthy impacts in the long term, as court decisions will determine the outcomes of future contentious cases.
When a person who has shared a lengthy and enduring relationship with another individual, who has not left a will upon their death, does not receive any part of the deceased’s estate, it’s likely to raise questions about the existing intestacy laws and the provisions under section 173(5) of the Cohabitants Act 2010. Even if the deceased was legally married to someone else they were estranged from for many years, the cohabitant may find themselves without any financial support.
Such a challenge would rest on the constitutional acknowledgement of non-married families and the individual’s equal rights as outlined in Article 40.
In a similar vein, consider a situation where a couple have lived together for two decades and the man, owning the family home and a garage business, passes away – leaving his business and estate to his partner via his will. Under current regulations, the woman’s inheritance would be hit with a potential 33 per cent inheritance tax, which could be financially crippling.
Furthermore, if she has even a minor stake in another property, she stands to lose the tax relief applicable to the primary family home.
Post the O’Meara case, isn’t it conceivable she could utilise her family’s constitutional rights, her children’s rights under Article 42A, and Article 40’s equality rights, to argue that the current laws discriminate her as compared to a similar married family in an identical situation?
The fact that these issues are managed by statute doesn’t remove the court’s authority to declare an outcome unconstitutional – a precedent set by the O’Meara Supreme Court case involving social welfare entitlements for the bereaved.
Therefore, it seems unlikely that the claims by some ministers or non-practicing academics suggesting that these alterations will not have serious consequences, could be considered credible.
Not just the intestacy or taxation laws are potentially under scrutiny, other areas of law, like family law, disputes linked to binding relationships, pensions and welfare, and legalities connected to the removal of family members might also be impacted.
Regarding families with a single parent, it appears that the suggested family amendment doesn’t provide substantial alterations to their rights. Similarly, the rights of caregivers and those requiring care, especially disabled adults, aren’t positively impacted by the proposed care amendment. Something to ponder over, isn’t it?