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.
THE LEAKING OF the Attorney General’s advice the night before polling day is “really frustrating”, according to Equality Minister Roderic O’Gorman.
Speaking to reporters in Dublin Castle today, the minister said it was a “a partial” leak of the Attorney General’s advice and was just one part “of a set of advices provided across the entire campaign”.
The Ditch published an article containing the leaked advice from Rossa Fanning on the proposed care and family amendments to O’Gorman on Thursday afternoon.
Senator Michael McDowell told RTÉ that he believes the leak came from someone within the government with a view to bolster the care referendum.
However, he said that it “backfired spectacularly”.
Meanwhile, Fine Gael Senator Regina Doherty said there are “real questions behind why the AG advice was leaked in the first place and we will have to get to the bottom of that”.
The leaking of the legal advice from the Attorney General on the wording of the government’s Family and Care referendums will likely be investigated, O’Gorman said today.
Questioned by The Journal as to whether the government should consider publishing AG advice in the run up to other future referendums, in a bid to avoid circumstances where it is leaked, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said it is “difficult” question to answer.
He said the nature of any legal advice is that it will set out what the vulnerabilities are in your case.
“A government would have to think very long and hard about publishing the strengths and weaknesses of its case,” he said, adding that the opposing side would not have to.
In the past, summaries of the AG advice have been provided in some cases, he said, adding: “I think I could see it being done again.”
However, he said the nature of independent legal advice would be impacted if the AG advice were published.
While McDowell said the AG advice, in his view, flatly contradicted what was said by government ministers, both the Taoiseach and O’Gorman stated that the AG advice supported the government’s Yes campaign arguments.
“He [the AG] did take the view that the term strive was a was a strong term,” said Varadkar.
O’Gorman said that despite what some campaigners claimed, the AG said extending the definition of family to other durable relationships, as was proposed, would be unlikely to have any particularly significant effect on immigration.
Fanning told the minister in the advice that the amendment to the Constitution would have little impact on immigration.
“As referenced above, it is foreseeable that the amended Article 41.1.1° will be relied upon in the context of immigration. However, in my view, it is unlikely that it will have any particularly significant effect in this area,” the AG said.
In his advice, dated 8 December, he also said that there is a risk that the phrase “durable relationships” could be “distorted by some commentators so as to argue that, for example, polygamous relationships are included within the scope of the provision, which is not the policy intention”.
O’Gorman said:
“Even if you look at the section that was leaked, it very clearly states that immigration decisions wouldn’t be changed by the family referendum, which is what government said, it very clearly says that.
“It also very clearly states in terms of that referendum on care, the proposed wording would have an impact, would be meaningful in [court] cases that people might take in the future where they’re arguing their constitutional rights. So notwithstanding, it’s hugely frustrating to have a leak at the end of the campaign.”
Varadkar told reporters that the AG “was very clear that this [the proposed wording] would not have had a significant impact on immigration law”.
“It is the case even now that we can deport non-national spouses of Irish citizens. There is no automatic right regarding people to receive family reunification and that’s under the existing provisions around marriage. So, you know, in my view it is evident that would not have had a significant impact on immigration,” he said.
The Taoiseach said the view expressed by the AG that you can’t be certain about how the Supreme Courts would interpret any wording is true of any wording.
“Had we used the alternative wording – ‘reasonable measures’ – there would have been uncertainty about that too,” said Varadkar.
The Taoiseach has conceded a “comprehensive” no vote, stating the government accept the vote result.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The AG was 100% on the money……. the wording was awful & would clog up the courts in perpetuity
@Ken Mc Carthy: Can we have a referendum on immigration next, please? I have a feeling on how it will go….. Or else just a brand new govt who uses taxpayers’ dosh to benefit said taxpayers… a novel idea, I know!
@Mike: there’s a referenda in the works for immigrants right to vote and also another on the right to housing. These 2 have been put on hold, while trying to get the wording right for each.
The officer in my centre yesterday told me he’d see me again in May for the next referendum vote.
Will they now accept the publics opinion and the AG advice on their proposed hate speech laws.
The AG’s advice shouldn’t have to be leaked. If the AG, who is paid by the taxpayer, gives advice to the government on proposed legislation or a referendum which affects the lives of citizens, that advice should be put into the public domain. There is no good reason for the members of the government being better informed than the citizens, who in this case had the responsibility of making the final decision.
If the word ‘woman’ needed to be removed, as the government intended, why not just add ‘woman and man…’ and ‘…mothers and fathers…..’.
@AnthonyK: because that’s not rainbow enough for our diverse leaders. They wont be happy until they to get to a point where actual genuine marriage between a man and a woman can be discriminated against and scoffed at.
Paltry excuses from poor politicians. Blaming the government for a bad campaign.
It’s simple…the people do not want these profound changes foisted upon them especially when it comes from outside our nation.
Utter rubbish the voters are not fools. all political parties were trying to fool us
They could have just kept the same wording as it is but just add a bit to it to make it more inclusive but nope they changed everything
Ah well unleaky then!!
A Yes result would mean a gravy train for the fat cats Legal eagles
Lots of people in the Civil Service on ordinary wages are sick to the teeth of O Gorman & this Govt, as they have done nothing but shat on those Irish taxpayers who get up for work every morning. Nobody in Dail Eirinn representing the Irish people, people want change & are mobilizing on the ground. Things will implode soon & those in various sectors of the Civil Service aren’t going to turn on their own when things turn.
Resign minister, you are a disgrace
Cowardous performance from Ireland there. The best team won.
@Argus Romsworth: wrong article? You watching the 6Nations? Edge-of-your-seat finale it was
Isn’t that the only place in the Irish constitution that references mothers?
And they wanted to remove it on women’s day? They really believe we are eeijit’s
Also why did the Journal mark this claim as false in a fact check? Women are mentioned elsewhere, but mothers are not so that’s partially false/partially true.
JLF
For England. Expoited irelands weak mentality
Rule Britannia
Britannia rules the waves
Bah bah ba ba ba ba ba ba bah
@Argus Romsworth: @Argus Romsworth: @Argus Romsworth: “So, roll on the Rodney, Repulse and Renown
You can’t say the Hood cause the *!$”€’s gone down”
And then the Japs sunk the Renown.
And the Prince of Wales.
Before Percival surrendered Singapore to a Japanese force that was out of ammunition.
‘Tis a long long time since Britannia ruled the waves, or much else.
have your say