DUBLIN –
Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar conceded defeat on Saturday as two constitutional amendments he supported that would have expanded the definition of family and removed language about women’s role in the home headed toward rejection in early vote counts. votes.
Varadkar, who pushed for the vote to enshrine gender equality in the constitution by removing “very outdated language” and sought to recognize the realities of modern family life, said voters had dealt “two blows” to the government.
“We were clearly wrong,” he said. “While the old saying goes that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan, I think when you lose by this kind of margin, there are a lot of people who were wrong and I’m certainly one of them.”
Opponents argued that the wording of the changes to the constitution was poorly thought out, an argument that appeared to have gained traction in the final days of the campaign. Voters said they were confused by the questions and others said they feared the changes would have unintended consequences.
The referendum was seen as part of Ireland’s evolution from a conservative, overwhelmingly Catholic country, in which divorce and abortion were illegal, to an increasingly diverse and socially liberal society. The proportion of Catholic residents fell from 94.9 percent in 1961 to 69 percent in 2022, according to the Central Statistics Office.
The social transformation has been reflected in a series of changes to Ireland’s Constitution, which dates back to 1937, although the country was not formally known as the Republic of Ireland until 1949. Irish voters legalized divorce in a 1995 referendum, backed the same-sex marriage in a 2015 vote and repealed the abortion ban in 2018.
The first question concerned a part of the constitution that promises to protect the family as the primary unit of society. Voters were asked to remove the reference to marriage as the basis “on which the family is founded” and replace it with a clause saying that families can be founded “on marriage or other lasting relationships.” If approved, it would have been the 39th amendment to the constitution.
A proposed 40th amendment would have removed a reference to a woman’s place in the home offering a common good that the state could not provide and would have removed a statement that said mothers should not be forced to work out of economic necessity if that neglect his duties at home. It would have added a clause saying the state would strive to support “the provision of mutual care by family members.”
Varadkar said his side had not convinced people of the need for the vote, no matter how the questions were framed. Supporters and opponents of the amendment said the government had not explained why the change was necessary or mounted a robust campaign.
“The government misjudged the mood of the electorate and presented them with proposals that they did not explain and proposals that could have serious consequences,” Senator Michael McDowell, an independent who opposed both measures, told Irish broadcaster RTE.
Labor Party leader Ivana Bacik told RTE she supported the measures despite concerns about their wording, but said the government had run a lackluster campaign.
The debate was less charged than discussions about abortion and gay marriage. All of Ireland’s main political parties supported the changes, including centrist government coalition partners Fianna Fail and Fine Gael and the largest opposition party, Sinn Fein.
One political party that called for “no” votes was Aontu, a traditionalist group that split from Sinn Fein over the larger party’s support for legal abortion. Aontu leader Peadar Toibin said the government’s wording was so vague it will lead to legal disputes and that most people “don’t know what the meaning of a long-term relationship is.”
The Free Legal Advice Centres, a legal charity, expressed concern that the change to the section on care contained “harmful stereotypes such as the concept that the provision of care… is the private responsibility of unpaid family members without any guarantee of state support”. “
Some disability rights advocates argued that the emphasis on care treats people with disabilities as a burden, rather than as individuals with rights that should be guaranteed by the state.
Opinion polls had suggested support for the “yes” side in both votes, but many voters remained undecided as Friday’s vote, held on International Women’s Day, approached, with some saying they found the issue too confusing. or too hasty to change the constitution.
“I thought it was too hasty,” said Una Ui Dhuinn, a Dublin nurse. “I felt like we didn’t have enough time to think about it and read about it. So I felt, to be sure, ‘no, no,’ no changes.”
Caoimhe Doyle, a doctoral student, said she voted yes to the change in the definition of family but no to the caregiving amendment because “I don’t think it was explained very well.”
“There is concern that they are removing the burden on the state to take care of families,” he said.
Melley reported from London.