View Full Version : Referendum Vote
Hows foot.ie gonna vote on firday...or not...?
tiktok
08/06/2004, 3:20 PM
I'm probably going to vote Yes, although I'm not certain yet.
The argument which was made to me over the weekend that we'll deny someone born in the country citizenship at the same time as we bend over backwards to give an eighteen year old Scot a passport because he can put a football in the net pretty much stopped me in my tracks.
I do believe that the current system needs looking at, but I'm just not sure that the alternative offered is what the country needs either.
As usual the government have done a slap up job in getting information on the vote out to the masses :rolleyes:
Peadar
08/06/2004, 3:35 PM
As usual the government have done a slap up job in getting information on the vote out to the masses :rolleyes:
The Referendum Commission (http://www.refcom.ie/RefCom/RefComWebSite.nsf/pagecurrent/378423F8F0C94AD080256E990046A35C?opendocument&p=101) are responsible for providing information, not the government. Every member of the electorate should have this information by now.
tiktok
08/06/2004, 3:39 PM
fair enough, then the referendum commision have done a poor job
tetsujin1979
08/06/2004, 4:01 PM
I really do want to vote NO because I think that everyone born in Ireland should be eligible for an Irish passport. However, the amount of people that are taking advantage of the situation means I will be voting YES. If you have a genuine desire to stay in the country and qualify for a passport then it's not going to change anything for you.
ger121
08/06/2004, 4:19 PM
Got to be a no vote for me. I feel anybody born here has the right to citizenship however i don't believe in abusing the system. However I feel that this referendum is to extreme. According to the Government one of your perents has got to be resident here for 3 of the preceding 4 years. However the Referendum Commision say that one of your parents has got to be an Irish citizen as stated below:
People born in the island of Ireland after the constitutional amendment takes effect will not have a constitutional right to be Irish citizens, unless, at the time of their birth, one of their parents is an Irish citizen or is entitled to be an Irish citizen.
Therefore in affect the Government is lying as basically you have to be born to an Irish Citizen therefore anybody not (and this applies to all countries ) with an Irish parent will not be entitled to Citizenship. That to me is wrong and is why I'm voting no.
has McDowell any figures for the ampunt of Irish born children of non-national parents?
Does he ****... He's basing this referendum on anecdotal evidence and reacting to the shabby, practically rascist, tabloid journalism that forces this issue.
WeAreRovers
08/06/2004, 4:29 PM
However, the amount of people that are taking advantage of the situation means I will be voting YES.
Exactly how many? Come on, tell us. Not one Yes campaigner has come up with a figure. Right wing scaremongering is all I've heard so far.
Even if there were thousands of such births every year (which there aren't) it wouldn't be a good enough reason to fundamentally change our definition of Irish citizenship.
KOH
WeAreRovers
08/06/2004, 4:59 PM
So far, I just haven't heard any reason for not changing it.
So far I haven't heard any reason for changing it. Surely it's up to the proposers of the amendment to provide reasons for change and not the other way around?
KOH
The argument which was made to me over the weekend that we'll deny someone born in the country citizenship at the same time as we bend over backwards to give an eighteen year old Scot a passport because he can put a football in the net pretty much stopped me in my tracks.
If he does get an Irish passport it'll be because either his mother or father is Irish and there's no other way he can get one. Don't know how exactly he qualifies to play for us but think it's his grandparents which means he won't get an Irish passport.
I've a postal vote so I've cast my vote already
Beavis
08/06/2004, 8:44 PM
They should have decided on what amendment will be made if there is a YES vote before the referendum.I don't want to vote YES and have some drastic legistation brought in which I don't agree with.If I've been misinformed I open to correction..
lopez
08/06/2004, 10:31 PM
If he does get an Irish passport it'll be because either his mother or father is Irish and there's no other way he can get one. Don't know how exactly he qualifies to play for us but think it's his grandparents which means he won't get an Irish passport.He can have an Irish passport with Irish-born grandparents (my kids all have Irish passports) and Irish parents born abroad. You just have to have a foreign birth's certificate (around €70). This will also, so I was told by a consulate official, ensure that if my grandchildren are born outside Ireland with a foreign other parent, they too if they, or their parents wish, can have Irish citizenship.
As for the change in citizenship law, as long as residents are entitled to obtain citizenship after a reasonable period then what's the problem? This law has been in operation in Britain for 20 years and is simply bringing Ireland into line with the rest of Europe. As far as I'm concerned it merely pinpoints that a person is primarily a product of his/her parents not the bed he/she was dropped onto.
brendy_éire
08/06/2004, 10:50 PM
The Govt won't admit it, but this is all because of EU pressure. It creates problems when other states attempt to deport parents with a child holding an EU passport.
It's pointless to vote no, the referendum will just be held again and again until it's a yes vote. It's called capitalist democracy. :(
corkharps
08/06/2004, 11:13 PM
It wasn't that long ago that you could buy an Irish passport,wheres Albert these days anyway? :rolleyes:
The Govt won't admit it, but this is all because of EU pressure. It creates problems when other states attempt to deport parents with a child holding an EU passport.
For EU, read British. It's all about the Chang Case. So all the yes voters are basically endorsing an amendment proposed by the British.
WeAreRovers
09/06/2004, 10:13 AM
For EU, read British. It's all about the Chang Case. So all the yes voters are basically endorsing an amendment proposed by the British.
Chen case Macy. ;)
Even the British Law Lords and British constitutional experts have admitted that the Chen case doesn't effect British law. This referendum is a bum steeer if ever there was one.
We are effectively doing Blair's dirty work for him while riding roughshod over the Nationalist community in the North again. Look how annoyed even the mild-mannered SDLP are over this.
KOH
The British have not proposed anything. I understand there has been no contact from any other EU country, because AFAIK the decision has not yet been made, the European Court of Justice has only issued its preliminary ruling (which are usually endorsed inb the decision, but not always).
But one of the reasons given for the proposed admendment was pressure from other EU Countries!?!?!
WAR - Oops, a bit PDish of me.
liamon
09/06/2004, 10:55 AM
So a few babies are born here and get citizenship. Big deal. It's not a problem. It's certainly not a major issue which would justify a change to our constitution. If it is a problem, someone post the figures up here. How many babies. What costs? What problem? If we can't quantify the problem, then we shouldn't be trying to solve it in this drastic manner. And any change toour most important legal document is a drastic manner.
Also, I don't like the change. It means that in future, the citizenship issue can be decided by legislation. Well, do you trust future politicians to decide something as important as this? I know I don't.
Plus, I've not seen sufficient debate on the issue to believe this issue has been fully investigated. 6 months ago, there was no sign of this on the horizon. We shouldn't be changing the constitution in such a rushed manner.
If our legislation is a problem for our beloved EU partners - that's their problem. Let them legislate their way around it. I certainly don't see why we should change our constitution to facilitate extradition of people from the UK/Fance/etc back to the misery of the third world.
PS, I'm voting "No", despite my right wing political tendencies.
Then again, it won't matter what the result is. Knowing FF, they'll just keep re-running the referendum until we, the people, do our democratic duty and obey our political masters. Democracy?
WeAreRovers
09/06/2004, 11:37 AM
I'm still waiting for the 15 people who say they're voting yes to give me 1 good reason why we should fundamentally change what it means to be Irish.
This is a huge issue and yet people seem to be voting yes without any rhyme or reason.
KOH
Dodge
09/06/2004, 11:38 AM
Reasons to vote No
1) Lack of information. They have no statistics about how many people this affects. Kneejerk reaction to bad immigration laws...
2) I think this is scare mongering of the highest order from McDowell et al. Definitely LCD politics... This has to opposed.
3) Would this referendum over ride the Good Friday agreement which guarentees people born in the 6 counties, the right to Irish citizenship
4) Non EEA parents of an Irish child are still not eligible for Irish citizenship (apart from the naturalisation laws) so they can still be dealt with accordingly
5) On something as serious as citizenship, do we really want politicians (of wither sides) changing the law to suit whatever policies they may be pursueing
It's not about EU pressure or doing britain's dirty work.
Why not have a referendum on whether the family should be so protected in the consitution and leave citizenship alone. It would have the same effect
Most the politicians are saying that voting Yes is legally sound so i'm going with their greater knowledge.
Maters little how many people are "abusing" the system as I don't belive anyone is entitled to automatic citizenship. If your parents are irish faur enough or you been in country long enough to naturalise then you've put your time in. Why should anyone be able to enter on holiday visa & then stay just cos they gave birth to "irish citizen" ?
liamon
09/06/2004, 12:36 PM
Why should anyone be able to enter on holiday visa & then stay just cos they gave birth to "irish citizen" ?
They don't. We routinely deport people under these circumstances. However, the child was born in Ireland and still holds Irish citizenship.
Dodge
09/06/2004, 12:41 PM
They don't. We routinely deport people under these circumstances. However, the child was born in Ireland and still holds Irish citizenship.
Exactly... and in the case of the Czech couple who initially brought the case to the high cour, they didn't require visas to enter in the first place...
liamon
09/06/2004, 12:57 PM
Most the politicians are saying that voting Yes is legally sound so i'm going with their greater knowledge.
.. ?
Politicians...greater knowledge....When will the good poeple of Ireland learn to think for themsleves? Doing what you are told by the political parties is not democracy. :mad:
Oh God, I think I'm beginning to sound like Brendy_eire. Maybe I'll vote yes afterall. :rolleyes: ;)
WeAreRovers
09/06/2004, 1:38 PM
Most the politicians are saying that voting Yes is legally sound so i'm going with their greater knowledge.
Don't know whether to laugh or cry at the above statement. By politicians I assume you mean the three amigos of FF,PDs and FG. SF, Labour and the Greens are all against it.
Simple rule of thumb - if the right wing parties agree on something it's bad for the rest of us. ;)
KOH
Well i've politicians have got legal advise which good enough for me.
Not sure why labour against it & can never really make the Greens out as they got strange collection of policies. IMO just too left wing for their own good (SF will get that vote anyway) & if moved to the centre a bit could pick up a lot more support. Greens alwasy support Europe but then want us to vote against any EU referendums etc... :confused:
btw also good idea to vote opposite to SF.
Simple rule of thumb - if the right wing parties agree on something it's bad for the rest of us. ;)
KOH
Yea true the right wing partys are promting it but the main left of centre party in Ireland is also supporting a yes vote;) :D:p
I really cant decide how to vote on this. I believe that Dev and those who drew up our Consitution wanted to give Citizenship to everyone born here but then they were different times where they would never have expected women ready to pop to hop off planes.
The thing that is swaying me is the docs themselves coming out against it.
The thing that is swaying me is the docs themselves coming out against it.
Not the fact that the Government said it was the Doctors asking for it, and then the Doctor's coming out against it?
liamon
09/06/2004, 2:37 PM
Well i've politicians have got legal advise which good enough for me.
Not sure why labour against it & can never really make the Greens out as they got strange collection of policies. IMO just too left wing for their own good (SF will get that vote anyway) & if moved to the centre a bit could pick up a lot more support. Greens alwasy support Europe but then want us to vote against any EU referendums etc... :confused:
btw also good idea to vote opposite to SF.
FF/FG/PD are in favour.
Labour/Greens/etc against. Both sides have received legal advice, so that's not a reason to vote yes/no.
Voting along the lines of left wing/right wing is also not a good reason.
The only reason to vote yes/no is to look at the facts and decide for yourself if this is an issue that justifies changing our constitution. The doctors don't think so. The FF/PD governemnt says we need this to sort out, but they can't tell us how big a problem this is. Are we talking about 30 babies per annum? If so, that's tiny and can be ignored. We don't have the necessary info. We can't change our most improtant legal document without knowing this. If the people who are proposing this change can't justify it with numbers, then vote no.
WeAreRovers
09/06/2004, 3:17 PM
Yea true the right wing partys are promting it but the main left of centre party in Ireland is also supporting a yes vote;) :D:p
I'm going to completely ignore that bait, as tempting as it is to swallow it hook, line and sinker. :)
KOH
paudie
09/06/2004, 3:43 PM
One of the reasons I'm voting no is that the govt say they're really worried that Irish citizenship is being abused and they mentioned women arriving late in pregnancy.
However its at least as big an abuse to give Irish citizenship to someone whose only qualification is that one grandparent was born in Ireland.
That means the grandchild of someone born in Ireland, whose family moved abroad when they were a month old is entitled to Irish citizenship.
Thats not just a theoretical case. A South African athlete will probably run for Ireland in the Olympics after getting citizenship in that way.
I saw an interview with him. He's never been to Ireland and knows nothing about the country.
Some (white) South Africans use this method to get residency in the EU but the govt don't seem to mind this devaluation of our great nations citizenship. The No campaign should be highlighting this double standard more.
Despite what the govt say there is a racist undertone to what they're proposing.
...However its at least as big an abuse to give Irish citizenship to someone whose only qualification is that one grandparent was born in Ireland.
That means the grandchild of someone born in Ireland, whose family moved abroad when they were a month old is entitled to Irish citizenship.
Thats not just a theoretical case. A South African athlete will probably run for Ireland in the Olympics after getting citizenship in that way.
I saw an interview with him. He's never been to Ireland and knows nothing about the country.Maybe you should ask the question why they moved away in the first place.
On the other hand of your spurious example, what about fifth and sixth generation Irish - Americans whose ancestors all came from Ireland and actively took part in Irish politics, (I'm thinking of the period 1970 to 1998) and know more than the Irish average school leaver about their own country. Do you think they're more entitled to Irish citizenship than someone who's popped into a hospital not even in the 26C state and now has a child with a passport from the only country in Europe that would allow such an abuse?
There are abuses of what is called Ius Sanguinnis throughout Europe. Germany has a huge 'Russian' community that have German names and granparents that were Nazi party members even though they themselves were descendents of 19th century migrants to Southern Russia and what is now Kazahkstan. These migrants all got German citizenship on very dubious connections while 2nd and 3rd generation migrants of foreign countries are denied access to citizenship altogether.
Ireland's rule on this is simple. One granparent (or the line continues further if this grandparent's descendents actively take part in Irish citizenship - no excuses for not knowing where Ireland is then) and your entitled to citizenship. If you want to blame this athlete's ignorance of Ireland (he's not the first one) then blame his parents, not the system. As for those who were born in Ireland of foreign parents then provided we don't go down the road of Germany and Austria in denying citizenship altogether to foreign nationals born in Ireland (which as some of you point here is possible if we can't see the legislation itself), then I'm all for it.
liamon
09/06/2004, 5:09 PM
Conor, congrats on yet again following the party line. Don't ever try to think for yourself, or the shock might hurt you.
Right, couple of questions
1. If this is such a big problem that it need urgent attention, then where are the figures to back it up?
2. If it's such a problem for our health service, why are the doctors against the referendum?
3. As a nation, we have travelled abroad and claimed citizenship based on children being born in the new state of residence. Why should we refuse that right to others who now travel here in tiny numbers? (Don't give me the line that it's what every other EU state does - if everyother state started killing Jews, should we follow? We have to decide our own status).
4. Why leave the future definition of Irish citizenship open to vague and uncertain changes in legislation?
5. Why is this being rushed through with minimal debate and preparation? This is a major change to our constitution and must be openly debated. Rushing into such a change may be something we'll regret.
If I can get convincing answers to these questions, I'll vote yes. Otherwise....
WeAreRovers
09/06/2004, 5:27 PM
Seriously Conor, answer Liamon's questions or Dodge's or any of the No voter's points. I'm still waiting and I reckon I'll be waiting as I walk into the polling station on Friday to vote No.
KOH
Metrostars
09/06/2004, 5:36 PM
It seems to me from my distant vantage point that this is a lot of hoopla over something minor. There are more important things to fix instead of this. Here in the US, this happens all the time but I think you are a citizen automatically once your are born here.
The ones they should be penalizing are the parents of the child. The child has done nothing wrong. And it is the child's citizenship is what's at stake. It's like if my father steals your car but I'm the one to go to jail. For a country that prides itself on protecting the unborn child, and then tells some children born in the same country that they don't have the same constitutional rights as others smacks of pure hypocrisy.
Duncan Gardner
09/06/2004, 5:42 PM
Lopez- in your first post above, are you implying that changing Ireland's arrangements to match Britain's is a good thing- or at least neutral or inevitable? If so, that ain't the tan-bashing we all know and love on here :)
Had my interview for part-time law degree at London Uni yesterday btw...
Duncan Gardner
09/06/2004, 5:47 PM
Which was his point surely- not really to do abortion or any other issue.
Metrostars
09/06/2004, 5:51 PM
I believe in the US they put people in Guantanemo to deprive them of their Constutional rights...
You miss the point. The Constitution protects citizens. The referenda seeks to clarify who can and cannot be a citizen. It will not change the depth of Constitutional protection, but the people it extends to.
Re-read what I said:
... tells some children born in the same country that they don't have the same constitutional rights ...
What I said his that they are still born in the same country as all other children are. They should be afforded the same rights as others.
Lopez- in your first post above, are you implying that changing Ireland's arrangements to match Britain's is a good thing- or at least neutral or inevitable? If so, that ain't the tan-bashing we all know and love on here. Had my interview for part-time law degree at London Uni yesterday btw...It is if it switches the emphasis of citizenship onto blood rather than soil. This of course mirrors my own outlook: the British changed the law in the early eighties and put into law that nationality lies with the family (although Thatch probably never had that in mind). As for tan-bashing, you're getting jingo-regionalism-cum-faux nationalism mixed up with a country that has many good points about it (hence why I remain). Good luck with the interview: Hope you didn't use that brick to iron your shirt this time. ;)
What I said his that they are still born in the same country as all other children are. They should be afforded the same rights as others.The situation in Ireland is different from the US. There is a melting pot where a conflict of cultures come together in a new nationalism that is equally inclusive of both the new and the old. Being Irish or British (no matter what people say) is not like that. Being born in Britain does not make me feel British: It didn't make my schoolmates - more exclusively native than most Dublin schools - think I was British. It just makes a good few eejits in Ireland - some on this board - who cling to a notion that you are where you are born - primarily because everyone born in Ireland had to be Irish, whether, like Duncan above, you liked it or not - think that I am or should be British.
3. As a nation, we have travelled abroad and claimed citizenship based on children being born in the new state of residence. Why should we refuse that right to others who now travel here in tiny numbers?Quite a statement but utterly false. Irish people claimed citizenship on their own terms, like the rest of the world, where it was a. obtainable and b. beneficial. My father never obtained British citizenship (there was nothing beneficial in switching). My mother - who is Spanish - despite being in Britain the majority of her life, rather remained disenfranchised than take either Irish or British citizenship (which was beneficial). Her sister got my cousin's birth registered at the London Spanish Consulate and my mate's parents did likewise to protect their kids Spanish citizenship. As Connor says - and it's been a long time since I agreed with him (or more precise put it into print ;) ) - there is always something more significant to nationality than mere birthplace.
liamon
10/06/2004, 9:19 AM
Those of us who take the Yes side have no opinions. .. you fellows who swallow the No argument of Messrs. Rabbitte and Adams are, somehow, blessed with your own powers of acute analysis and observations... :rolleyes:
I certainly don't listen to the inane rantings of any of that left wing mob and would never support them at the polls. I was merely pinting out your inability to devaite from the FF line on any topic.
Onto the main points:
1. WHy change?
Contact the Mater or Rotunda if you love figures so much.
The government say we need to change the law as a problem exists. Where is the problem? It's up to them to prove that a problem exists if they want to change the law.
2. Doctor's support and the need for change?
Do you always wait until someone else holds your hand and tells you what to do?
Poor argument there Conor and coming from you, it's priceless. :p :D Basically, this is a follow up to point one - where is the huge problem that requires drastic changes? The medical people say it's not there. This all started because the PDs claim the doctors want it. They don't. No basis for a change to our constitution exists.
3. Double standards
As pointed out above, did the children of Irish people in London become cockneys, because i suspect many will tell you something completely different. As for the reference to killing Jews, real cheap and silly.
Not all of them, but some did accept Brit citizenship. And why not, seeing as they live there? Loads of US and Canadian born kids became US citizens.
The Jew reference is silly, but I was merely trying to point out that we shouldn't change our laws just coz everyone else does, as this was an argument that people were putting forward early on.
4. Legislative versus constitutional right.
Ah yes, like the Constitution is famous for its accuracy and clarity?
No, it's not, but at least we can read it now and evaluate it's limitations. The change being proposed is open to legasilative alterations and that's dodgy as hell. I'm not willing to vote away citizenship rights without knowing what future legislation will be. This is really my main concern. My other 4 points are less important in my eyes. If the alteration stated that the constitution would be ammended to allow citizenship in clearly defined circumstances, then I might buy in. But, instead the governemnt wants free reign to alter the terms and conditions as they see fit in future without consulting the people. Not acceptable to me, as it's a step away from true democracy.
5. Rushing the change without debate.
Or it may be something we don't regret.
Maybe, but it's not an urgent problem (points 1 and 2), so why rush in to this change? You're not answering the question, Mr FF.
Are you Royston in disguise?
Are you Royston in disguise?
Why, is Conor yet another FF head refusing to cooperate with a tribunal?
I still haven't heard any good reason why someone who could give birth ona holiday visa should entitle that child to irish citizenship. Heard William Binchy on the radio opposing the amendment yesterday but hes a pro-lifer so he'd probably grant citizenship to any child concieved in Ireland too :rolleyes:
Agree that the numbers of "abuse" matter little cos who says 500 or 1000 or 10000 is too many?
I still haven't heard any good reason why someone who could give birth ona holiday visa should entitle that child to irish citizenship.
I haven't heard any good reason why it shouldn't.
I haven't heard good enough reason to go changing our constitution.
p.s. shouldn't this thread be locked for today?
liamon
10/06/2004, 10:14 AM
This isn't anti-FF stuff. I've already stated that the Jew thing is silly, and it wasn't meant to be viewed as otherwise. Hell, I even voted for the FF-PD government last time out.
The Royston remark was my limited attempt at humour, deriving from my view that you were not debating the points I put forward. Instead, you utilised evasion and bluff.
You dismiss my first 2 points without explaining the reason why we need this ammendment. Still waiting for a comeback on point 3 - We've frequently taken US citienship when we could get it, so why can't others take Irish citizenship under the same conditions. Point 5 - you haven't explained why we are rushing this. "it may be something we don't regret" is not an answer.
And now my biggest worry:
Point 4 is critical and this is the one I really want an answer on. Why leave the issue open to vague, future legislative change? Why not change it to something that is clear and focussed. If the current ammendment is passed, then our citizenship is open to future alteration without the consent of the people. Is this acceptable to you?
Ha, so one of you calls me 'Royston' and talks about killing Jews, the other mentions the Tribunals, and hey presto folks you have an argument against the referendum...or maybe it's just the usual anti-FF stuff...guess it all just tends to blur for many who hawk the Labour line...
I apologise to everyone for letting Conor avoid the real issues around the referendum. Of course, it's only Labour supporters that tow the party line. :rolleyes:
1) Where's the evidence that this is needed? Please don't repeat the same line about the No side finding it out - it's up to the Yes side to prove that the change is needed, not the other way round.
2) Why the rush? Could it not have been debated fully and held later in the year?
3) Who's pushing the rush job? Apparently it's not Masters of the Maternity Hospitals, or other EU Countries, so is it anyone bar the extreme right of both Government Parties?
4) Why not propose the "solution" to the "problem" as an amendment to the constitution rather than the open ended legislation route? Or isn't there enough time?
Believe it or not, I can see that the current situation is an anomaly to a certain extent (although FF have taken enough credit for the GFA, that they have to shoulder some of the blame if it is a problem). However, rushing through a referendum, with no concrete proposal for the change, with no debate, with no figures to back the case makes it impossible for me to support this amendment. A properly reasoned proposal, with all the issues properly debated and there may be a chance of support from the left (including me).
lopez
10/06/2004, 11:36 AM
Heard William Binchy on the radio opposing the amendment yesterday but hes a pro-lifer so he'd probably grant citizenship to any child concieved in Ireland too.I heard once that the Chinese calculate your age from conception. Anyway, you've got a point here. If Ireland is pro-life surely this should come into the equasion. BTW, I also find it hard to believe that after the case Fajujonu v. Minister for Justice of 1987, which utilised the constitution to protect the family, the consitution has been ridden roughshod over (i.e. no changes to it regardign the family) with recent deportations/taken into care of Irish citizens.
Anyway as an Irish citizen I would like a vote on the matter. Can't be argued that as someone living in another country it doesn't concern me.
Anyway as an Irish citizen I would like a vote on the matter. Can't be argued that as someone living in another country it doesn't concern me.
How does it concern you then? Won't effect you or your kids.
Vote yes because:
- Irish citizenship should be worth more than people getting it automatically just cos they born here. many people like myself would have had parents in UK in the 70's - just cos i was born there why should i have a right to British citizenship?
- Constitution is old & no harm updating it a lot more. The Dail is elected in the present so should represent the irish people more than 65 year old document. The french are currently on their 5th (1958) Constitution which proves don't need to stick with just because...
- Constitution is old & no harm updating it a lot more.
A slightly bizarre statement.
It's what it's being updated with is what concerns me.
liamon
10/06/2004, 4:53 PM
Agree that it's a ood thing to update the constitution, when necessary.
But this alteration is not necessary and I think it's flawed.
It allows a future government to define citizenship through legislation without consulting the people. Why is it necessary to transfer this right from the people to the legislators? Conor, I'm still waiting for an answer on this point.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.