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.
Blindboy: ‘I left my first day of school feeling great shame. The pain of that still rises up in me’
What time is the Katie Taylor v Amanda Serrano fight? Irish start time, Netflix details and all you need to know
Gladiator II review: Don’t blame Paul Mescal but there’s no good reason for this jumbled sequel to exist
Spice Village takeaway review: Indian food in south Dublin that will keep you coming back
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
