Are No Politicians Obliged to Now Support the Abortion Legislation?

Conor_Myers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,000
I note several reports in the media advising that given the landslide win for Yes that "No" politicians were indicating they would now support the governments legislation. There is a clear suggestion that those that don't or at the very least abstain would be being outrageously undemocratic.

Some points:

1. Many repealers suggested the vote was only on repeal - we weren't voting on legislation.
2. This is perhaps borne out by the RTE exit poll where only 52% of voters declared support for 12 weeks - with a margin of error of 1.5% by no means conclusive.
3. 1/3 of voters voted against repeal and they are also entitled to have their views represented in the legislative process.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0526/966120-eighth-amendment-referendum/

I would suggest therefore that, similar to any legislative proposals, "No" politicians are entitled to, if not duty bound to, vote for or against this legislation or constituent parts of it in accordance with what they personally believe to be the common good and that pressure to rubberstamp the legislation due to the size of the yes win is inappropriate and should be resisted.
 


Degeneration X

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
7,270
I note several reports in the media advising that given the landslide win for Yes that "No" politicians were indicating they would now support the governments legislation. There is a clear suggestion that those that don't or at the very least abstain would be being outrageously undemocratic.

Some points:

1. Many repealers suggested the vote was only on repeal - we weren't voting on legislation.
2. This is perhaps borne out by the RTE exit poll where only 52% of voters declared support for 12 weeks - with a margin of error of 1.5% by no means conclusive.
3. 1/3 of voters voted against repeal and they are also entitled to have their views represented in the legislative process.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0526/966120-eighth-amendment-referendum/

I would suggest therefore that, similar to any legislative proposals, "No" politicians are entitled to, if not duty bound to, vote for or against this legislation or constituent parts of it in accordance with what they personally believe to be the common good and that pressure to rubberstamp the legislation due to the size of the yes win is inappropriate and should be resisted.
FF and FG have conceded a free i.e non-whipped vote on the issue, the Independents are as always free to vote their conscience - so the vast majority of NO TD's and Senators are not bound to support the legislation.

However, with the pro-life movement now destroyed many No public reps are probably wondering what the point of any further obstruction could possibly be. I doubt the pro-life lobbyists hold much sway in Leinster House anymore - Mattie McGrath's immediate post-match reaction would suggest as much.
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
11,343
Are No Politicians Obliged to Now Support the Abortion Legislation?
I've removed the entirety of the Op's content to focus on the very specific question in the title.

To answer your question, No, they are not obliged to support anything they do not actually support unless they are part of a political party and the whip demands it. Even SF, who were actively pushing the Yes vote do not seem to have had an issue wit Peadar Toibins campaigning for a No vote in a personal capacity and I am glad there was no issue for him or SF for him to do so. It shows a measure of respect and understanding not always evident in politics.
 

Conor_Myers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,000
FF and FG have conceded a free i.e non-whipped vote on the issue, the Independents are as always free to vote their conscience - so the vast majority of NO TD's and Senators are not bound to support the legislation.

However, with the pro-life movement now destroyed many No public reps are probably wondering what the point of any further obstruction could possibly be. I doubt the pro-life lobbyists hold much sway in Leinster House anymore - Mattie McGrath's immediate post-match reaction would suggest as much.
Fair point.

What I was getting at, however, is the pressure there seems to be that to not support the legislation would be an affront to Democracy.

I would agree that the Pro-Life movement has taken a hammering here but if a "No" politician genuinely feels it's not the best legislation for society they shouldn't be criticised simply for opposing it.
 

Degeneration X

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
7,270
Fair point.

What I was getting at, however, is the pressure there seems to be that to not support the legislation would be an affront to Democracy.

I would agree that the Pro-Life movement has taken a hammering here but if a "No" politician genuinely feels it's not the best legislation for society they shouldn't be criticised simply for opposing it.
Then that's what they'll do but the whole business will quickly sort out the true believers from the opportunists - it will be interesting who will take the bullet now that the pro-life movement no longer has much to offer them electorally.
 

Shilts

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
208
All the No politicians must be fearful of losing their jobs at the next election (or the one after, as their core vote dies out).
I will certainly not vote for the backward looking ones in my constituency. Are you paying attention FF?
Some will try and curry favour by easing the legislation through the Dail, but we especially shouldn't forget the politicians who tried to stop the vote even taking place.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
All the No politicians must be fearful of losing their jobs at the next election (or the one after, as their core vote dies out).
I will certainly not vote for the backward looking ones in my constituency. Are you paying attention FF?
Some will try and curry favour by easing the legislation through the Dail, but we especially shouldn't forget the politicians who tried to stop the vote even taking place.
If they want to pander to a minority who will be dead in ten years, then they will have learned nothing from this vote.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
28,999
Twitter
No
To be honest I'm more worried about the potential impact on the prince harry and meghan markle marriage.

It must be under strain by now.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,083
Obliged no. Fundamentally anti democratic, yes.

The FF opportunists called it wrong. They will wriggle out of it. Butter and bread.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
I note several reports in the media advising that given the landslide win for Yes that "No" politicians were indicating they would now support the governments legislation. There is a clear suggestion that those that don't or at the very least abstain would be being outrageously undemocratic.

Some points:

1. Many repealers suggested the vote was only on repeal - we weren't voting on legislation.
2. This is perhaps borne out by the RTE exit poll where only 52% of voters declared support for 12 weeks - with a margin of error of 1.5% by no means conclusive.
3. 1/3 of voters voted against repeal and they are also entitled to have their views represented in the legislative process.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0526/966120-eighth-amendment-referendum/

I would suggest therefore that, similar to any legislative proposals, "No" politicians are entitled to, if not duty bound to, vote for or against this legislation or constituent parts of it in accordance with what they personally believe to be the common good and that pressure to rubberstamp the legislation due to the size of the yes win is inappropriate and should be resisted.
They are not obliged to, but as professional respecters of democracy and with a GE likely next year, they would be well advised to not block or disrupt legislation based on the emphatic will of the people. The scale of the Yes vote changes everything, basically.
Abstain, leave it at that.
 

Karloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
6,952
I note several reports in the media advising that given the landslide win for Yes that "No" politicians were indicating they would now support the governments legislation. There is a clear suggestion that those that don't or at the very least abstain would be being outrageously undemocratic.

Some points:

1. Many repealers suggested the vote was only on repeal - we weren't voting on legislation.
2. This is perhaps borne out by the RTE exit poll where only 52% of voters declared support for 12 weeks - with a margin of error of 1.5% by no means conclusive.
3. 1/3 of voters voted against repeal and they are also entitled to have their views represented in the legislative process.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0526/966120-eighth-amendment-referendum/

I would suggest therefore that, similar to any legislative proposals, "No" politicians are entitled to, if not duty bound to, vote for or against this legislation or constituent parts of it in accordance with what they personally believe to be the common good and that pressure to rubberstamp the legislation due to the size of the yes win is inappropriate and should be resisted.
Those caving in now were never really against abortion, just against not being re-elected.

Technically the mandate was for Repeal of the 8th (removal of something) not for abortion on demand (providing something), politicians are free to campaign and do whatever they want to with respect to future legislation - they are not bound in any way by the result. They can campaign for abortion at 8 months if they wish, they can campaign for human experimentation on 8 month unborn without anasthetic if they wish - the unborn baby has no Constitutional rights as of now. Technically it has the rights of a tumor now.
 

Lagertha

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
4,458
It must be very obvious to any politician that the people have made their wishes very clear and that if they have any hopes of being re-elected then they had better get with it and started doing what the people have voted to do. I for one will certainly not be voting for anyone who voted No.
 

Conor_Myers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,000
Then that's what they'll do but the whole business will quickly sort out the true believers from the opportunists - it will be interesting who will take the bullet now that the pro-life movement no longer has much to offer them electorally.
100% agree.
 

OrderoftheDragon

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
1,927
There are so many parties vying for the left and the centre, that there is plenty of room on the right for a conservative/traditional/nationalist party, please do not claim this is fg. They might be economically rightwing (looking after the bosses) but that is as far as their supposed rightwing credentials stretch.
 

OrderoftheDragon

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
1,927
It must be very obvious to any politician that the people have made their wishes very clear and that if they have any hopes of being re-elected then they had better get with it and started doing what the people have voted to do. I for one will certainly not be voting for anyone who voted No.
1/3 of the people who voted, voted no......you'd swear it was 95 - 5 the way some are going on.
 

Conor_Myers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,000
They are not obliged to, but as professional respecters of democracy and with a GE likely next year, they would be well advised to not block or disrupt legislation based on the emphatic will of the people. The scale of the Yes vote changes everything, basically.
Abstain, leave it at that.
But according to the exit poll the number actually supporting 12 weeks was almost 52% - hardly emphatic. On that basis shouldn't we expect robust debate and disagreement on that aspect in a functioning representative democracy.
 

Apple in Eden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,718
I note several reports in the media advising that given the landslide win for Yes that "No" politicians were indicating they would now support the governments legislation. There is a clear suggestion that those that don't or at the very least abstain would be being outrageously undemocratic.

Some points:

1. Many repealers suggested the vote was only on repeal - we weren't voting on legislation.
2. This is perhaps borne out by the RTE exit poll where only 52% of voters declared support for 12 weeks - with a margin of error of 1.5% by no means conclusive.
3. 1/3 of voters voted against repeal and they are also entitled to have their views represented in the legislative process.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0526/966120-eighth-amendment-referendum/

I would suggest therefore that, similar to any legislative proposals, "No" politicians are entitled to, if not duty bound to, vote for or against this legislation or constituent parts of it in accordance with what they personally believe to be the common good and that pressure to rubberstamp the legislation due to the size of the yes win is inappropriate and should be resisted.
They should vote with their beliefs. I assume they supported the No campaign because they did not believe in any form of abortion. Why if they are people of conviction(?) should they stand aside and allow the enactment of a liberal regime? They should do what they believe is the right thing and not pander to the masses. The same electorate can then decide their futures next year most likely.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
But according to the exit poll the number actually supporting 12 weeks was almost 52% - hardly emphatic. On that basis shouldn't we expect robust debate and disagreement on that aspect in a functioning representative democracy.
75% of those who might actually need an abortion supported 12 weeks. 75% of those who are too old to be affected, didn't.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top