Recognising “durable relationships” in the Constitution would result in a “solicitors’ paradise”, according to Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín.
Mr Tóibín, whose party is advocating a “No-No” vote in the two referendums, also argued that the amendment proposed in the second vote on care was an “empty husk”.
In Friday’s referendums the Government proposes – in two votes – expanding the definition of family in the Constitution to recognise “durable relationships”, such as cohabiting couples and their children, and replacing the language around women’s “duties in the home” with language recognising care within families.
Mr Tóibín was joined by Aontú local election candidates as the party held its final referendum campaign press conference in Dublin. He described the wording on “durable relationships” as a “definition-free phrase”, and suggested its inclusion in the Constitution would have “major implications” when it came to issues such as succession, taxation, social welfare, immigration and family law.
Diwali takeaway review: Nepalese vegetarian specialties shine but meat dishes fail to impress
Tiny bowls are the secret to happiness. There’s little in life they don’t improve
I need to book a restaurant for Christmas dinner with friends. Am I too late?
The top 25 women’s sporting moments of the year: 25-16 revealed with Vikki Wall, Lara Gillespie and Ireland Sevens featuring
He added: “We have enormous confusion over that particular definition, and that confusion will be a solicitor’s paradise. It will give the opportunity for many, many people to go to court to try to achieve their rights. And that’s not what democracy is about. Democracy is about either the legislature or the people understanding exactly what they’re putting into the Constitution and then the courts deciding in each individual case and how that law works out.”
In the care referendum the Government is proposing to recognise care within families and insert further new wording that the State “shall strive to support such provision”. Many on the No side have argued this wording does not go far enough in placing an obligation on the State to support care, and criticised how it does not recognise care in wider society.
Mr Tóibín said: “It seems to me that the care amendment was actually created by the Department of Finance” as he argued that “the objective of the care amendment is actually to put a ceiling on the rights of people to access care”.
He accused the Government of “insulating themselves from any responsibility to carers or people in need of care in terms of their rights”.
Mr Tóibín said he had seen “a very strong shift and move towards the No vote” as he had been canvassing. “People as they get to know more about the craziness of these particular amendments are definitely more likely to reject it.”
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
