Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
MORE EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS for severe cases of sickness during pregnancy could be on the horizon after researchers discovered the reason why some pregnant women suffer worse than others.
Academics from the UK, US and Sri Lanka said the condition is caused by exposure to the hormone GDF15 being produced by babies in the womb, with the severity of illness resting on how sensitive the mother is to the hormone.
It is hoped the discovery could help treat severe cases of the condition, which is known as hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), which can result in hospitalisation.
Previous studies have suggested sickness and nausea in pregnancy could relate to GDF15 being produced by the placenta, but researchers said the “full mechanistic understanding is lacking”.
To better understand the condition, the team analysed data from women recruited to various studies, including at the Rosie Maternity Hospital in Cambridge.
They found the level of nausea experienced by women in pregnancy related to the amount of GDF15 produced by the fetal part of the placenta.
The level of sickness also rested on how much of the hormone the woman had been exposed to prior to pregnancy.
Professor Stephen O’Rahilly, director of the Medical Research Council metabolic diseases unit at the University of Cambridge, said:
“Most women who become pregnant will experience nausea and sickness at some point, and while this is not pleasant, for some women it can be much worse – they’ll become so sick they require treatment and even hospitalisation.
“We now know why: the baby growing in the womb is producing a hormone at levels the mother is not used to.”
GDF15 is made at low concentration in most of the body’s organs. A woman with lower levels in her blood outside of pregnancy may be at a higher risk of developing severe morning sickness in pregnancy, known as HG, researchers said.
HG can lead to prolonged periods of vomiting, dehydration and weight loss. Treatments include anti-sickness medicines and steroids, but some women may require hospitalisation and intravenous fluids.
The professor added: “The more sensitive she is to this hormone, the sicker she will become. Knowing this gives us a clue as to how we might prevent this from happening.
“It also makes us more confident that preventing GDF15 from accessing its highly specific receptor in the mother’s brain will ultimately form the basis for an effective and safe way of treating this disorder.”
Studies in which mice were exposed to high levels of GDF15 showed a loss of appetite, while mice given a long-acting form of GDF15 did not show the same symptoms when exposed to similar levels of the hormone.
The team said building up a tolerance prior to getting pregnant could prevent sickness.
Researchers also said women with the inherited blood disorder thalassemia, which causes higher levels of GDF15 outside of pregnancy, experienced little to no nausea or vomiting when pregnant.
The findings, published in Nature, could help find better treatments for HG, according to co-author Dr Marlena Fejzo, of the department of population and public health sciences at the University of Southern California.
She added: “When I was pregnant, I became so ill that I could barely move without being sick. When I tried to find out why, I realised how little was known about my condition, despite pregnancy nausea being very common.
“Hopefully, now that we understand the cause of hyperemesis gravidarum, we’re a step closer to developing effective treatments to stop other mothers going through what I and many other women have experienced.”
Women in Ireland have only in the last year been approved for reimbursement of a drug called Cariban which is prescribed to ease the severe sickness during pregnancy.
The drug was previously unavailable on the drugs payment scheme or medical card.
A major campaign was pushed forward by women impacted by severe vomiting – calling for the State to reimburse expenses, which can cost up to €3,000 over the course of a pregnancy.
While changes were made for the costs to be covered under the scheme, the new system has been widely criticised by women suffering from the illness, GPs, consultant obstetricians and pharmacists.
Campaigners have queried the rationale behind the HSE requiring a consultant having to initially provide the prescription to women.
Since the onset of complaints when the new system opened in January, Health Minister Stephen Donnelly initiated a review into the scheme to see if issues could be overcome. The review is completed but has not been published.
With reporting by Christina Finn
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
And not a shit was given!
Really disappointed by this.
The blame lies squarely with the government – the “Yes” campaign for this was non existent. No televised debates, no posters – it was as if they didn’t want it in the first place. Why propose a change and then not back it?
Fair enough if you don’t believe that someone aged 21-34 is mature enough to be president, but if so all you have to do was not vote for them.
This result denies young people the opportunity to participate. If you’re old enough to vote, you should be allowed to run.
I accept the result is democratic, but as you say Stephen, so few cared. Maybe more would have cared if any sort of an effective campaign was run.
No a great result , we let a turkey represent us at Eurovision, we keep voting in the most corrupt governments , we are daft enough to vote in one of the jedwards , daft referendum , didn’t deserve a debate
I agree. Its very disappointing especially with everyone harping on about equality but only for gay people. Im 34 this month next moth I am 35 and can run for president. I don’t miraculously mature on the eve of my 35th birthday.
Everyone of voting age should be eligible to beca presidential candidate. Not enough attention was given to this campaign.
For everyone who voted NO for the age of presidential candidates age and YES for gay marriage on the basis of equality YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.
*I voted yes for both.
Why stop at 21 so? It’s not an equality issue as far as I’m concerned.
Tbh I would have preferred 18. But that wasn’t on the cards. 18 year olds can vote and are classed as adults not children.
Why 35? Why not 40 or 30?
Just because they are a candidate doesn’t mean you have to vote for them. There are some very inspirational under 35s.
So Lily if a 21 year old did make president , you think it’s ok for him or her to get a fat presidential pension at 28 ?? While the rest of us work on to 68
That’s easily amended.
But it shouldn’t be about money. It should be about who is right for the role, who is best for the job.
If you are worried about money only vote for a person aged 80+
Lily, I 100% agree with all of your points. Well said.
Lily:
Nonsense.
We need a senior statesman for the office of president not a junior.
Most people agree with you John.
But do we really need to eliminate even the possibility of having someone younger?
Well 21 is too young. On average, most people are not mature until they reach the age of about 27. If they brought it down to 30 to round it off, I might have voted yes. I know how I was at age 21, and my friends too. We thought we were awesomely mature people but I know different now.
We need someone who has lived a bit of life before they become a representative of the entire country.
I voted Yes on one and No one the other and I defend my right to do so without being called a hypocrite.
Have a nice day.
My comment was directed at Lily btw
While the Constitutional Convention voted by 50% to change the presidential age, the CC also voted by 83% to bring the concepts of Direct Democracy into government yet they decided to run with the presidential age.
It’s an awful hypocrisy today. Equality for all, we’ll maybe not. Am I to understand that a former terrorist and supposed murderer is a fine candidate because he was older? Or would some Eurovision credentials ensure other European leaders would respect us?
If the above clowns are entitled to try and run, I feel it ridiculous that a well intentioned, learned 34 year old or even 22 year be forbidden. I think we mismanaged this particular vote to ensure attention was given to the priority (fair eniugh), but I feel we as a society didn’t think about this vote enough as a result.
I probably wouldn’t vote for them, but I’d defend their right to run against terrorists and Eurovision singers as equal candidates.
‘Former’ terrorist ??
I was considering voting yes to amend the age, but with the thought of Jedward 1 or 2 perhaps running for it, it dawned on me that voters their age would vote them in just for the craic, I quickly changed my mind and voted no. They are the example. In ten years time the candidate could be 21 and a lot worse.
And if youre old enough to vote you should vote but this demographic apart from this referendum have not been strong voters so who is going to put them in office?
The minute I heard Jedward were interested in running if they dropped the age I decided no there and then…. Imagine!
I voted yes for both on the basis that we have to vote them in anyway, no matter there age.
However, I did think if it was 30 rather than 21 there would have been a stronger likelihood of it passing.
It shows an astonishing lack of confidence in today’s youth though. A real shame that the country feels that people under the age of 35 don’t provide a good representation of the nation.
A presidential pension should not kick in until they are of retirement age.
Mary Robinson is costing the state a huge pension since 1997. Mary Mc Aleese joined her. Many ex TD’s are on phenomenal pensions since they retired in the ’80′s & ’90′s. Money is an issue we cannot afford those pensions Lily. People lost jobs & wages were cut cut cut during the recession. Many now working on a pittance to pay those pensions to fat cats.
Pensions are surely a separate issue, the same would apply to a 21 year old Taoiseach or Minister who would get a pension after 5 or is it 3 years? I do think it was clever by the govt to have this issue as somethig people could say NO to while saying YES to the other one. On this clause Michael Collins and Jesus Christ could never have been president and it actually adds to the idea that the office is a bit of a retirement gig althougj I think it was originally copied from the US constitution. Btw has the term of a president not been reduced to 5 years or was that my imagination?
SO…… only equality if you’re gay. The hypocricy stinks the place out. And we moan about the wonderful people in the Dail.
I also voted yes for both because I do believe in equality, I think I am quite mature for my age and to be honest the president doesn’t make the decisions in this country unlike in the UK or US, so I don’t understand why it was met with a big no, I think people who are not mature won’t even make the cut to run for presidency, over 35s have ruined this country for decades because they were very greedy.
Exclude 25% of the population from the democratic process and we say it was a great day for equality. What happened to the proclamation guarantee of equal opportunities for all its citizens
Gay baby president now.
You’re calling into question your belief of democracy. Nothing else …
All good from here. Whose ur man in the tracksuit
….lol x
Lily you are totally right about calling people hypocrites who voted YES in the Gay Marriage referendum but voted NO in the presidential one. It’s either equality as a principle or not…..
Uk dont have a president
Why was such a young age decided on? It might have gained traction at 30 or so, but 21?
If anyone has half a brain they would vote no! What Irish 21 year old wants that responsibility. I’m 33 and I know I’m far from mature enough!
Well you shouldn’t run then. But other people might be more mature than you
Equating your *right* to become president to equality for gay people is deeply narcissistic Lily. There are probably multiple reasons why you couldn’t be president if age wasn’t an issue, you would need millions to run a campaign, oh, and people would have to vote for you. Good luck with that.
@Buy Say It on iTunes – the UK doesn’t have a president. You might be mature for your age, but you don’t have a clue about politics. This is just one of the reasons why high office should be the reserve of a more mature person, not just one who is mature “for their age”.
Nice name calling there Lily. Seems at 34 guy still have some maturing to do…. kinda gives voice to not having really young ppl running for President.
Its a fact.
Don’t like it?
Tough. ..
The truth hurts….
There’s something very Irish about 4.5 million people collectively agreeing not to give a shite about something.
Only 3 million eligible to vote.
Dylan, then the hypocrisy of the “anti-discrimination” brigade is evident for all to see now.
Life experience is necessary as head of state!
Then why is it possible to be Taoiseach at 18years old?
Because it doesn’t take much to be
Smarter than,Enda Kenny
When has their ever been an 18 year old Taoiseach?
Ah yes, just like how Martin McGuinness’ life experience definitely qualified him to run in the last presidential election.
That’s a shame. Just cause she lowered doesn’t mean someone age of 21 would have been voted in. But would have been good if they were seen as good enough to run for it. Cause obviously if someone younger did get voted in that means the people voted for him or her and is good enough for the position. And those who say why should someone age 27 get big fat pension so young. Easily sorted. Bring in a rule that they couldn’t claim their pension till retired in life from all work.
But I think you miss the fact that really the Irish office for president is designed as a mostly ceremonial role to represent the country and have some constitutional knowledge , it’s not designed for younger profiles who lets be honest if they do display great ability At something then why not have them excel at that rather than effectively “retire” them too young which becoming a president would kinda do
Surely the fact that it is largely ceremonial would mean age is much less important?
If you can be elected a TD and potentially become a minister or even Taoiseach in your 20s, it seems very inconsistent to say that we trust you with real power but not with “ceremonial” power.
Just doesn’t make sense to me so disappointing, but so very many more important issues that should have been decided ahead of this.
Is there some sort of biological determinant that means people under 35 can’t develop constitutional expertise? Does that change at 36? It’s just ageism.
I agree 35 is maybe unduly high. But arguably 21 was too early.
I can’t understand how voters didn’t want people to be descriminated against due to sexuality but it’s fine to discriminate by age. Michael Collins was 31 when he died. He would have been a great president.
All the arguments against seem to be centred around immature 21 year olds. If an immature person stood no one would vote for them. Straightforward.
Exactly, I don’t even think they would make it to the first round, I don’t understand why people don’t see certain things for what they are, ageism in ireland seems to be directly affecting young people, If you try and apply for jobs they want over 25 year olds, so you’re supposed to stay on social welfare until then lol
It’s an awful thing that most of the other recommendations put forward by the constitutional convention are ignored by the government
21 or 35 year old Atheists not allowed to be President of Ireland, not allowed to be a judge and not allowed be on council of state. Unless they take a religious oath to an imaginary god.
Some equality work done today, more to do. Atheists now the only group the state legally discriminates against.
Athiests and unmarried father’s.
Current president didn’t swear in a bible.
And single parent families. They also deserve constitutional recognition and protection.
There is no secular alternative oath for president, judges, nor council of state. If there was it would be less of an issue.
Swearing an oath with your hand on the Bible for an atheist is similar to having your hand on a copy of woman’s way from 2007. An oath to the people of Ireland who your swear to represent to the best of your abilities and duties should be good enough.
Pointless proposal really the government couldn’t justify a Referendum on just the age thing.
That’s a pretty disgraceful result.
The country has been campaigning heavily for equality on the marriage referendum but have gleefully voted to retain an article of the constitution that discriminates on the basis of age. Where is the equality for young people?
The arguments about experience and the pension are separate issues and as much a red herring as the surrogacy and adoption arguments seen in the marriage referendum. Those issues are legislated for separately.
Someone who is in their early twenties would do well to win a nomination and almost certainly wouldn’t win in an election but why are we restricting their right to run?
It seems the country wanted equality for some but not for others.
Exactly, the hypocrisy is surreal.
Yes campaigners for SS marriage claimed people who wanted to vote no for redefining marriage supporting discrimination.
Yet, ON THE SAME DAY, the majority voted to support age discrimination. It’s disgusting.
@small retort (and others). An injustice was righted for ssm. There’s no injustice on the presidential age. One CAN run we merely upheld the decision to have some world experience before you do.
World experience? What world experience do the majority of our elected TDs have? How many TDs are actually qualified to run a govt dept? The country’s youth brings other qualities like positivity, energy, enthusiasm, and innovation. Why do you think the world’s greatest entrepreneurs start in their teens/early twenties?
Is it not age discrimination to stop any one over 18 to run for president.
Is it not age discrimination to stop anyone under the age of 18 running for president?
It is age discrimination to stop anyone over 18 to run for president
Emily at 18 one is classed as an adult and can vote. At 17 they are still a child. Its not rocket science. ..
Joseph,
Why not 10 then?
Rory, at 18 your an adult. At 10 you aren’t.
Why not
Why aren’t you an adult at 10??? I wonder if you would ask that stupid question if you were on a jury with someone being charged with molesting a 10 year old. “but judge, why isn’t the 10 year old being treated as an adult?”
At 10 you’re legally regarded as responsible for your own actions and can therefore be convicted of a crime. We draw these lines. It doesn’t make sense to call some of them discrimination and not others. The question is whether the discrimination is right or wrong.
This vote in the presidential age shows that equality is a word the Irish don’t fully understand yet.
At least we understand that gay people are the same as anyone else. It’s a start I suppose.
@niall. Have to disagree. It would have no impact unless the method of selecting presidential candidates was changed. Why vote in favour of something which will result in absolutely no meaningful change whatsoever?
I totally agree with you Niall. We voted to not discriminate on sexuality but to discriminate on age.
Rubbish Niall. I think the Irish understand it well. Being prevented to marry was an injustice that needed to be righted. And it was.
There’s no similar injustice in having an age limit on a candidate. If they are presidential material at 21 they will still surely be at 35… and aren’t banned from running when they reach that age.
The sovereign people of this country have overwhelmingly spoken. Please accept it.
The red herring, one of the least important proposals of the convention, supported by the least of the convention members of the 3 presidential proposals, put to referendum when we has so much more important issues to vote on.
Utterly contemptible.
Nope, you’re contemptible. It was a proposal, it was enacted on. It failed.
I would’ve ‘yes’ – for a minimum height requirement.
Michael D wouldn’t be too happy if he heard about this!
The Presidential age referendum was a red herring. Fine Gael and Labour did not want to give the people of Ireland the referendum the vast majority of people wanted – keeping Ireland’s water in public ownership, so they threw in this pointless referendum with the marriage one just to make up the numbers.
It should have been to limit the age at the other end. No one over 60 on the 1st Jan in a Presidential Voting Year. It would stop the Aras from becoming an old folks home.
That would be ageism.
Which is exactly what the over 35 requirement is as well..
It’s hard to believe that people can’t see the difference. The general opinion is “When I was 21, I wasn’t mature”, but it’s not about YOU. Not all 21 year olds are immature, and some are inspired because they haven’t had the life sucked out of them by the system.
I was 11 when Mary McAleese was elected Irish president. That was when I first heard about the age limit on running for president. Since then I’ve harboured the opinion that the age requirement was too high.
Irish people can be daft at times. Voting yes to gay marriage and for equality. Why not continue with this sense of equality and reduce the age for presidential candidates. A 21 year old would most likely not be voted for but it would be good if you could apply irrespective of your age. We could of killed two birds with one stone yesterday in the name of equality.
Other referendum ? Oh yeah right that age thing !
Fool
What a crushing right hook.
I’ll never get up from that. What a devastating arsenal of intellect you must harbour.
People seemed to think straight away that passing this would mean that all presidents would be still in college and wouldn’t have a clue about the world, when in reality, this referendum was really for the 34 year olds out there who are just as qualified to be president, but instead have to wait until next time to put themselves in. Maybe if it was a more reasonable age like 25 or 28 people wouldn’t have been so closed minded towards ur.
*towards it
Equality and all that jazz
I voted yes because a small number of young people are presidential material. However I understand why people voted no.
Irish Druid, yet if you vote no for redefining marriage you are supporting discrimination?
Please explain how everyone who voted no isn’t supporting age discrimination?
Ridiculous referendum…there should have been one on our water more importantly.
We dont even need a president. Waste of money
The chance for a political party to make a difference was far greater in this referendum than in ssm. SSM ref was already getting so much media coverage, so much support from influential people and organisations, that the parties couldn’t contribute much more. Had one of them thrown their weight behind the presidential ref, explained the issues, they could’ve actually influenced the outcome.
Proof that politicians prefer to be seen doing something than actually doing something? Maybe
We should have included a vote on the minimum height of the president .
We dont need a president!
Especially one being paid €250,000. Put him on minimum wage and open up the Arus for the homeless
At the risk of being ridiculed!! When i was 21 i walked into a tattoo shop and got a pink playboy bunny tattooed to the back of my neck. This is why a 21 year old should not be running our country. Of course now im in my 30′s im much more mature and wiser too! ;)
21 year olds can run the country – you can be Taoiseach at 21.
The reality is that with the nomination process and the cost, no 21 year old would have run, but while we were all patting each other on the back about our push for equality, we promptly told 25% of the electorate that they can’t be involved in the democratic process, simply because they don’t have experience or maturity. This of course, after 14% of people voted for Martin McGuinness in the last presidential election, whose experience is quite literally, running the IRA. Also – Dana:
Hypocrites! Vote yes for quality, and not two seconds later deny equality to those aged 21-34 in an act of ageism. Alexander the great by age 32 years old and on his deathbed he conquered and carved out an great empire. William Pitt the younger was British prime minister age 24 and went on with his friend William Wilberforce to outlaw slavery under the nose of a reluctant Westminster.
King Baldwin iv who saved the kingdom of Jerusalem at age 16 while suffering from leperacy, out thinking the great Muslim king Saladin and Sueliman the magnificent 26 became sultan and lead the great Ottoman empire. Not to mention the likes of Augustus Cesar who took control of the Roman empire by age 18 he marched 3, 000 troops to Rome to run Cesars assassin’s out of the city. There have been many young fantastic leaders throughout history and yet we are content to pick OAP’s who bring very little to the role of first citizen.
Baldwin IV and Augustus gained their positions because they were born into the right families, not because of ability – hardly comparable to an elected office. Most kings or emperors who attained their thrones when they were young proved to be disastrous – Richard II or Henry VI of England? Caligula?
I’m also pretty sure the President pf Ireland won’t be expected to run anyone’s assassins (no apostrophe by the way) out of the city, it’s a ceremonial office.
Not sure any of the “leaders” you listed were particularly fantastic either.
My point was their young age, and achievements as leaders. Not their social status royal family or not. I know that the position is ceremonial. Brian cowan, Bertie ahern, Tony Blair, George Bush. There is a list of leaders over 35 who were absolute disasters. Age doesn’t guarantee competence either. The role of the president is a glorified diplomat, who signs bills, and refers things to supreme court on the off chance that it’s not constitutional. I am not saying that I would want to be president, but I should at least have the right to run.
Ageist Hypocrites!!
Darn it they could have a gay President who could make his boyfriend the car driver?
And still be married lol.
It was an empty political gesture anyways. The people still have no power to nominate a candidate.
Sad that the people who will be working to pay the pensions will be excluded from the democratic process. What ever happened to the proclamations guarantee of equal opportunities to all its citizens.
Not surprises there as everybody I talked to seemed to think that we were all going to vote in 21 year olds. They obviously forgot that all the presidental canditates are put before the nation and we have the right to choose. Someone who is 34 but not 35 yet is still not eligible to stand as president. Makes no sense to me. Canditates should be chosen on their merit not on their age ! .
Woohoo!! Yes!!! Can’t believe it, it’s a momentous day, thanks to everyone who travelled home to defeat this. You’re all heroes!
A load of bull a CHIELD of 21being President of the Country is really really a bad idea. Show me a kid of 21 who is so sensible boring that can be a President Nooooooooo
Thirty years is not a kid
Age discrimination …. What have the older political figures ever done for this country? Mary McAleese was one of the most memorable presidents this country had, and she is pro youth. Younger generations are better educated and more socially aware. They are the future of government.
I actually think it would be unfair to a young person if they became President as the rest of their life would be scrutinised and commented on, they could never make a mistake or let their hair down as it would be seen as embarrassing for the Country if an ex president was behaving in a unpresidential manner. Hey would be like child actors or pop stars with a brief glimpse of glory, where do you go from there. The post would turn out to be a millstone around their necks.
It just proves how equality works in reality.
I genuinely voted no by mistake on this referendum due to a lack of coverage anywhere across the media…. I thought it was a proposal to put the rule in place not abolish it….. The ballot paper wasn’t much help either!!!
It was just there to allow voters to give the government a kick Stop them using the MRef to do the same thing
Why not allow all adult citizens to run for president? If you can manage to get the nomination then you’re probably worthy of consideration by the electorate- and if not the electorate should be capable of spotting that. If not we have other problems…
So we vote to give people equality except for 21 year olds ?
Most stupid referendum in the history of the state
Initially I intended to vote NO on this because I strongly believe you need life experience and maturity to hold such a position. Our President represents us on the International stage and I don’t believe that just any 21yr old would be taken seriously at home or abroad, it requires a certain gravitas. It didn’t matter that this vote would give access to some incredible people aged 21-34yrs; we all just focussed on the 21.
I put some thought into my decision and reminded myself what I was like at 21. I was both responsible and irresponsible in equal measure, but I had a very responsible job (in my chosen field) and made some very mature decisions in my work and personal life and took those decisions and potential consequences very seriously. I had the maturity and life experience to that and my employers and people that knew me also felt that way. Remembering that me at 21, I believe any 21yr old ballsy enough to put themselves forward for such a role is going to have something behind them driving them to want it. Maybe they are a community leader, strongly involved in social justice campaigns, a social entrepreneur, an educator etc. We certainly have plenty of them in Ireland aged 21 upwards!
In my current employment I manage staff all ages 18+, focussing on the younger amongst them some are absolute idiots others are incredible! They work hard, they study, they volunteer, they campaign, they are politically active, they are single parents, they are careers (all while holding down part time jobs, in some cases 2 jobs), they have experienced good and bad, some are mature far beyond their years and would definitely hold their own in a more mature group and I would not hesitate to vote for those exceptional young people. So I voted Yes.
I think this referendum was always going to fail though, I don’t consider it an equality issue or an ageist issue just lack of interest. If it had been 25yrs it would have had a better chance because that seems a more mature age because everyone over 21 remembers what they were like at 21 and the big difference from 21 to 25. But it was never going to be given the attention it deserved and I think the Govt should have put some work into it, as we all have something to gain from people regardless of their age, young or old.
I am disappointed for the wonderful young people who feel let down by today’s result and I ask them to please don’t be too disheartened. Please continue to keep doing what you are doing because it wasn’t about you personally it was just about a number, 21.
Not surprised, stupid idea.
Basically it was a silly referendum to be honest but here one that maybe might have been a better one. ……why don’t we vote for the MAXIMUM age for a candidate. ….like say 60 and then only be allowed serve one term if voted in at 60…..Pres Higgins maybe be the nicest guy going but unfortunately for me at least he doesn’t look the part and therefore, for me at least ,doesn’t represent a Ireland like I think he should, but then again it’s really not up the me but just my opinion.
The government to the easy option.
Why didn’t they offer a referendum on changing the political system that was overwhelmingly voted for at the constitutional convention at 85%?
That we could have the direct democratic system was completely ignored.
I wonder why?
Absolute joke.. the yes vote gets passed and thats great news for all the people that life’s will be changed for the better going forward in Ireland. However, a man of 34 cannot run for president as he is deemed ineligible because of his age?? People of Ireland are left with egg on their face here and left looking like a shower of hypocrites. We have been talking about equality for the last number of months/years and in the same day and referendum contradict everything the country has been striving for? Unbelievable result. Do people think we just “mature” over night when we age from 34 to 35? If people dont want to vote for a 21 year old, then dont, its simple, but dont take away the potential right for a person aged between 21 and 34 to run for the position.
Stupid referendum in the first place.
I voted yes. I’m aged 46. I voted yes because I wanted people aged 30 allowed to vote and as of now they aren’t allowed so I thought they should be allowed at 30 and even at 21 it might add a bit of colour to the vote and debating. Didn’t mean they’d get in but on a day I was voting for equality it was hypocrisy to say no, in fairness.
This particular referendum was basically a “mudguard” to give the people the opportunity to vent their feelings against the government. I find it extremely unbelievable that the young would vote against this basically what I am saying their is something rotten here.
I said it before and I’ll say it again. To be a president you need more than anything else life experience. You can’t say you have life experience at 21 or even 31 come to think of it. A president should be a very wise and knowledgeable about world affairs. It’s not a clowns job. Or a job to be taken lightly.
have your say