Subscribe
On International Women’s Day, the Irish electorate voted on two government-sponsored amendments to the Constitution, and they rejected both by the largest and third-largest margins in the history of referendums in the state. For the government and its allies, particularly in various non-governmental organizations (NGOs), this outcome was nothing short of embarrassing. Now, almost three months later, the controversy surrounding these referendums continues to generate headlines and controversy.
One of the more recent developments in this ongoing saga comes from an article published by The Irish Times, a newspaper that bills itself as Ireland’s “paper of record.” The front-page story, which ran on June 6, detailed allegations of shady dealings and misinformation by government ministers in the run-up to the vote. The article focused on the government’s repeated assurances that the proposed amendments would have no implications for immigration laws. Notably, Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration, and Youth, Roderic O’Gorman, had claimed that the constitutional changes would have “no legal impact” on immigration matters. In particular, he had stated that while constitutional change might be cited in court cases, “there would be no impact on the law,” citing legal advice from the Attorney General’s office. According to O’Gorman, the advice had assured the government that immigration and international protection laws would remain unaffected.
However, documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request have cast doubt on the clarity and certainty of this advice. According to internal memos from the Department of Justice, which oversees immigration and related legislation, officials from numerous sections of the Department expressed concern that the amendments could indeed lead to legal uncertainty. One memo from Immigration Service Delivery noted that “legal uncertainty in various areas” could last for years as courts worked to establish new legal precedents. This delay, the officials warned, could result in more backlogs and delays in the immigration process. They further cautioned that expanding the definition of “family” in the Constitution could restrict the state’s ability to deport individuals, as more people might claim constitutional protections under the amended Article.
Another document highlighted the potential financial impact, noting that “substantial legal costs will be incurred by the Department of Justice and the State” as cases made their way through the courts. It predicted a significant increase in litigation, particularly in cases where individuals asserted new constitutional family or care rights. Furthermore, the proof of family relationships, a crucial element in many immigration cases, was expected to become more complex, requiring more intensive legal scrutiny.
This revelation about immigration is just one instance of the government’s potentially misleading claims during the referendum campaign. There was also a controversy about the amendments’ potential impact on taxation, a topic that was hotly debated at the time. Opponents of the amendments suggested that there could be tax implications if the definition of family was expanded, while the government flatly denied this possibility. The official line, as reported in The Irish Times at the time, was that “there would be no tax impact.” The government insisted, “The proposed amendment will not affect taxation, succession, or family law.”
However, once again, documents released through the Freedom of Information Act tell a different story. According to files from the Department of Finance, the Revenue Commissioners had expressed concerns about the lack of a clear definition for “non-marital family.” Without this definition, the commissioners warned, it was impossible to predict the impact on tax legislation. They pointed out that if the courts were left to define what constitutes a family, there could be a period of uncertainty while that definition was settled. This could require changes to tax law either immediately after the constitutional change or at some point down the line, depending on how the courts interpreted the amendments.
In today’s era of heightened concerns about “fake news” and misinformation, the revelations from these internal documents are troubling. It’s easy to dismiss this as just another case of politicians being economical with the truth—a story as old as politics itself. However, the issue goes deeper than that, especially when you consider the government’s professed commitment to fighting misinformation. Ireland has a robust framework in place to combat disinformation, including an Electoral Commission, a Referendum Commission, a Media Commission, and a Press Council. On top of this, the country is in the process of introducing new hate speech legislation and already has a police force that records “non-crime hate incidents.”
Given the government’s emphasis on combating disinformation, the fact that they may have misled the public during the referendum campaign is particularly striking. The most egregious example, according to critics, was the way ministers and government-backed advocates mischaracterized the content and importance of one of the constitutional articles they sought to amend. Despite being corrected multiple times by the overseeing Referendum Commission, they continued to misstate the facts, which many see as a deliberate attempt to misinform voters. This raises the age-old question: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”—Who will guard the guards themselves?
Adding another layer to this unfolding drama is the curious way the media handled the story. The June 6 article in The Irish Times prompted strong reactions from senior government backbenchers, many of whom expressed shock and called for an urgent response. At first glance, the newspaper should be commended for bringing such a significant story to light. However, it’s worth noting that a remarkably similar story had already been reported two months earlier by Gript Media, a relatively new and conservative online news platform. Gript had used Freedom of Information requests to uncover the government’s internal memos, but their story failed to receive the same level of attention.
Gript has positioned itself as something of a gadfly in the Irish media landscape, often taking a more critical view of the establishment than its competitors. Its conservative editorial stance has not endeared it to many in the Irish media, which tends to lean more progressive. It’s understandable that a rival news outlet might not want to credit Gript for breaking a significant story, but the fact that The Irish Times waited two months to report essentially the same information raises some troubling questions. Was the delay simply a matter of journalistic pride, or was there something more concerning at play? Are there other stories that don’t get covered at all because they don’t align with the mainstream media’s worldview?
The delay in reporting this story has left some wondering whether the media’s role as a watchdog for democracy is being compromised by ideological bias or inter-organisational competition. If the goal is to inform the public, then shouldn’t the source of the information matter less than the information itself? The fact that a major national newspaper held back on reporting a story of this magnitude for months, simply because a smaller outlet got there first, is troubling.
As the dust settles from these referendums, it’s clear that the issues they raised will continue to reverberate through Irish politics. The fallout from the revelations about the government’s handling of the campaign has added another layer of complexity to an already contentious issue. Questions about transparency, accountability, and media integrity are now front and centre, and the Irish public will be watching closely to see how their leaders—and their journalists—respond.