Ms Pauline O'Reilly:

We are against an amendment to Article 45.2 instead. I think it has been fairly clear from last week that Article 45.2 is non-justiciable. I do not think it will take much for us to hash that out in public to make it clear. I think deletion versus retention is probably much more dangerous politically than anything else. Voters would go into a polling station and have the two options, one of which is about care and one, as I think I outlined there, about removal. Child benefit has been spoken about a couple of times this year. It is very fresh in the minds of those who care in the home that removal of this article without putting something in creates a fear for people. We would then have to go into the polling station and balance how we feel about gender equality, which is a no-brainer, and how we feel about our families. If, however, we are in the polling station and we see the option to retain something that is clearly sexist versus amending it with something that values us, it is a no-brainer. That is what I would say from a political perspective. I take the point that the Constitution is a legal document - I myself have been a solicitor in the past - but it also has a non-legal basis, which we all recognise, and political decisions are made on the basis of what it says in the Constitution, which is only right.