http://www.change.org/petitions/depa...-voting-rights
All Irish citizens in Ireland and abroad should have the right to vote in presidential elections. Sign if you wish and share on other forums, facebook, etc.
http://www.change.org/petitions/depa...-voting-rights
All Irish citizens in Ireland and abroad should have the right to vote in presidential elections. Sign if you wish and share on other forums, facebook, etc.
I'm torn on this one. I'm an emigrant, I doubt I'll ever return to Ireland to live. At least not for the next decade or two. I don't really have that much of a stake in who the president is. However, that doesn't mean I don't want to come back, and voting for the right people is one way of trying to make sure the Ireland of 2032 is one I'd like to come back to.
However, "all Irish citizens" is a bit broad, seeing as that would include anyone who has a grandparent who is also an Irish citizen. I would be seriously worried about seven million Irish-Americans trying to start some sort of Tea Party libertarian, or nutty religious-right movement over here with their new-found voting rights.
Perhaps all those born on the island of Ireland, and those currently resident there, would be a fair compromise.
I live in Japan now, and my daughter was born here, but my son was born in Ireland - we moved back here when he was 4 months old (it would have been 2 months except for the tsunami).
Even if neither of them set foot in Ireland again, he'd be entitled to vote but she wouldn't, under your suggestion. I get your point about people outside Ireland having a stake in what it could become, but there will be plenty of people with different ancestry/family/migration situations that could highlight the unfairness of any new voting eligibility criteria.
The current cut-off point for voting rights probably makes the most sense, in my opinion.
Also, you're only an Irish citizen from birth if your granparent was an Irish citizen born in Ireland. Otherwise, the citizenship must be applied for before the birth of the next generation family member - otherwise the chance is lost. I wonder how many of the Irish-Americans you mentioned have actually maintained the citizenship.
Ideally, the President should represent all members of the Irish nation, be they living on the island of Ireland or living abroad.
Surely it would be less unfair than the current situation though? Wouldn't that be an improvement, at least in so far as the notion of fairness is concerned?
Irish-born citizens living abroad should be able to vote. Diplomats, military personnel and those serving with the UN (or associated bodies) can, I'm not sure about the yahoos in the EU bodies. I'm loathe to allow Irish citizens from the irish tree voting rights. I saw personally how such a scheme completely and utterly messed up Croatia and the same could happen in Ireland. I have always tried to get home, if even for a day, to vote and would love nothing more than to go to the local Embassy to vote if the chance came. But again, not being born in Ireland, I don't see it as a good idea.
I'm inclined to invoke an old maxim in reverse here- no representation without taxation. I think the current set up is OK, but there should be far more allowance for postal voting. You shouldn't lose your vote because you happen to be away for a day.
Are you overstating the importance of the president by introducing the idea of it being fair/unfair?
Don't mind the idea of irish citizens abroad voting for the President. Its pretty much ceremonial so any attempt to 'hijack it' would be pretty pointless. I'd make it anybody with an Irish passport, and like here have a electoral register so they must apply for that vote first.
Don't want voting rights extended to other elections/referenda though
If they're serving Irish public servants working on posting/secondment abroad they can. IF they're irish and employed directly by EU, UN, European parliament etc they they're not eligible
President has little impact on what the state is like anyway, but it is important to how we are perceived abroad which can have a positive or negative effect on residents. Would we have got the (imo right) result we got the last time with the extra block? Or would we have McGuinness or even worse the bagman (due to postal votes having already gone)?
Personally, I'd prefer non resident citizens to have a 3 seat seanad constituency. A Dáil constituency has too much potential to hold the balance of power and get undue influence. And by undue influence I mean their constituents don't have to live with the consequences (Mr A's point). Where as in the Seanad they'd have a voice and a chance to initiate debate.
In democracy the result is the result. It's wrong to just assume that everyone in the north would automatically vote for ginger Marty. Though a lot probably would have in reaction to the way he was regularly ganged up on. Bizzare I know. I know I would have voted for Michael D.
Sure usually if it's not the right result you's just do it again.
I would like ALL citizens no matter how tenuous their relationship to this country as they are citizens and they should be afforded the right to be able to vote in their Presidential elections.
I would like 1 Dáil seat reserved for, how should I say, non-Free state constituency to voted for by ALL citizens that do not reside in the State.
I would like the Seanad to be reduced in size and have an overseas cohort also.
I don't see why they can't arrange consulates and embassies to be set up as polling stations for the period like Australia and Sweden do. And for postal votes for registered overseas Irish to be forwarded to the nearest embassy.
Feel yer pain Aidan, but don't confuse irritation about the route of the border with freedom. You get to vote for district councillors, fools on the Hill and abstentionist MPs. Hardly a democratic deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan Heaney of Omagh United Kingdom commenting on that petition
Not everyone born in Ireland being automatically entitled to citizenship might prove a problem?
Many would disagree that it's ideal, whether because of 'no representation without taxation' thats others mentioned, or that hundreds of thousands who don't identify with the state/ nation could theoretically be involved.
You could make it 100% ceremonial (trivial?) if it's 99% already. Just have a phone-in to a premium line hosted by Louis Walsh and Tuathlisa. President Martin Sheen might follow, but would that be such a bad thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
If you're going to charge people €80 (many may not have a current passport, or use one from another state), they might reasonably expect the right to vote in other elections or referenda?Quote:
I'd make it anybody with an Irish passport, and like here have a electoral register so they must apply for that vote first. Don't want voting rights extended to other elections/referenda though
Frankly, I’d rather we got our house in order at home first before giving votes to millions living overseas. It’s rather pathetic that, despite having seven candidates and a highly public campaign, the presidential election achieved a 56% turnout. Since 1990 turnout has not exceeded 70% of the electorate in any general election.
We need to sort this out before we start looking at overseas voting. What makes us think that Irish citizens are any more likely to vote when they leave the country? If they’re working in Dublin and can’t travel to Roscommon for a Thursday vote (or haven’t gotten round to changing their constituency), are they any more likely to travel halfway across another country to the nearest embassy or legation, or even to a post office to send off their ballot, which they would probably have to apply for in the first case?
Emigrant voting is something of a romanticised notion, but it has far less to commend it than online petitions suggest.
I'd take a bottom-up approach EG. 56% taking the trouble is encouraging, not disappointing. It's nearly three times the turnout for local councillors in my area, btw.
Even if nothing, is that relevant? Giving a vote to expats, permanent emigrants, diaspora descendants or even N*rd**s can be justified in its own terms, even if a lot less than 56% of them bother.Quote:
What makes us think that Irish citizens are any more likely to vote when they leave the country?
EG, you've pointed out something that is very pertinent, low voter turnout. I know that as Irish people we love failing traditions - the LOI being one of them - though I have been really aware of the plight of many people (students in particular) who weren't able to vote to a certain degree as they were in Uni in Dublin and couldn't get home and back on a Thursday to vote. Now in saying that, they usually went on the tear Thursday night and didn't go to class on Friday, but that's beside the point. The last 3 general elections were held on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Why can't elections be held on a weekend? Sunday's for example. It's nothing as radical as a single division in the LOI, but it might get more of a vote out.
From my own point of view, the last Presidential election suffered as a result of the nation being rid of candidates and the media dictation as to who was worthy of the retirement home in the Park. Then again I'm cynical.
Pretty much ceremonial I said. Important enough distinction IMO
If "Irish abroad" don't want an irish passport then I don't think they should vote. If they have a passport, and want to vote, I don't see why they can't keep local embassies/consulates aware of their address so they can send them ballots etc. You want the embassies to just send out ballots to anyone?Quote:
If you're going to charge people €80 (many may not have a current passport, or use one from another state), they might reasonably expect the right to vote in other elections or referenda?
I was just exploring the implications, if we agree that it's ceremonial tending to completely so. One of the most obvious is to abolish the office. You already have a Taoiseach as head of government, a speaker in Dail Eireann and similar positions in the judiciary and other institutions. Maybe you don't need someone to open supermarkets and chat up sports teams, any more than we need a replacement for Mrs Windsor.
That doesn't answer the basically opposite point I made. They may well want the passport, but it needs to be worth the money. Even €80 should get more than one ballot paper in 14 years.Quote:
If "Irish abroad" don't want an irish passport then I don't think they should vote
Er, no. Did I suggest that? Registration with an embassy seems sensible. My parents worked abroad for 25 years (for the British Foreign Office) while continuing to vote through their Belfast North address.Quote:
If they have a passport, and want to vote, I don't see why they can't keep local embassies/consulates aware of their address so they can send them ballots etc. You want the embassies to just send out ballots to anyone?
I think it's as well to have a figurehead and representative of Ireland at home and abroad. In theory, sitting members of government like the Taoiseach should be too busy actually running the country to engage in that sort of shenanigans.
I suppose my reasoning stemmed simply from the fact that Irish citizenship is something conferred by birth (or immediate ancestry) rather than residence.
Out of interest, what exactly happened in Croatia? Could you elaborate? Cheers.
I didn't introduce the idea of it being fair or unfair; merely suggested in response to osarusan that, whilst still relatively unfair because arbitrary cut-off points naturally have to discriminate in some way or another, the new proposal would surely be more fair rather than less fair compared to the current situation.
There's an interesting argument I often hear in relation to the potential unionist bloc north of the border (theoretical citizens who don't identify with the Irish state/nation) attaining a vote and GR alluded to it above. Those who are entitled to Irish citizenship and who claim the legal status of an Irish citizen are to be either considered Irish citizens or they're not and, like any other Irish citizen, would/should be entitled to vote however they wish. Any Irish citizen with an already-existing vote can "hijack" the election in much the same way as the scaremonger will suggest a northern unionist might, be they sympathetic to unionism (and there is a significant enough Protestant minority community in Donegal and around the southern border regions who would variously identify as traditional unionists or as of British or Ulster-Scots heritage anyway), anarchism, communism or whatever. All votes are to be treated with equal seriousness though in the eyes of the law, right?Quote:
Don't mind the idea of irish citizens abroad voting for the President. Its pretty much ceremonial so any attempt to 'hijack it' would be pretty pointless.
The "right result" is surely the result supported by the democratic majority (or the result achieved by way of whatever democratic electoral system is to be used over the agreed electorate body). If voting had been extended to all Irish citizens resident on the island of Ireland and McGuinness had been elected last time out, that wouldn't make it the "wrong result" just because it wasn't to your fancy. You're only one Irish citizen yourself, after all.
In light of Leo Varadkar's recent comments on extending voting rights to the Irish diaspora, I thought this was an interesting perspective on the possibility of a northern unionist bloc having a say in Irish elections: http://judecollinsjournalist.blogspo...it-to-leo.html
Of course, I presume they'd first have to acknowledge a conferral of Irish citizenship in order to be eligible to vote in Irish elections, but, rather than "hi-jacking" such elections or making a mockery of them, would potential unionist voters see it as advantageous to take a serious or strategic interest in them were the right to vote to be extended to Irish citizens born north of the border?Quote:
Leo Varadkar, the south’s Transport Minister, is generally regarded as seriously right-wing. So I’m not sure what he was thinking of when he told journalists that he was in favour of votes for the Irish diaspora. “I like the idea of the President being the President of the Irish people and the Irish nation. We would like to extend voting rights to all Irish citizens”.
He then added two highly significant points. “I would favour it for people who are only out of the country for a short period of time - maybe say they’re gone a year or two, But I don’t think people who are gone a long time should vote for our parliament.”
...
Then there’s the unionist factor (which Leo diplomatically doesn’t mention either). Had people in the north been allowed to vote for who should be President of Ireland, would they have abstained with disdain? Or would they have voted to make sure that McGuinness didn’t get the job? Alternatively, would they have voted so he did get the job, since it’s generally acknowledged that McGuinness is one of the most popular politicians in the north, and not just among republicans.
And finally, supposing Leo’s dream became reality and “all Irish citizens” had a vote for Dail Eireann. Would that swell or diminish the ranks of Sinn Féin in the Dail? I think you know the answer to that one. But even more intriguing is, what would unionists do? At first glance, you might think they’d declare they didn’t vote in foreign elections and ignore the whole thing. Maybe better take a second glance. The kind of government south of the border has always been important for the north, whether it’s tourism or ‘terrorism’ that’s at issue. There’d be several good reasons why unionists should cast a vote that would make the complexion of the Dail closer to their taste. On the other hand, that would mean unionists when they voted for the Dail were part of an all-Ireland electorate. Which would leave one big question: whither Stormont?
Well first I'm sure they would have to "take up" their Irish citizenship. And that's where that would stop.
Not sure what Jude's on about there. Unionists aren't that bothered about the make-up of Dail Eireann, for various reasons. The big parties aren't that different in their attitude to NI- in itself largely as a result of their lack of real contrasting ideology. Those same parties (understandably) like to keep prolems like sectarianism at arms length; and ultimately the Irish Republic is a small country with limited political and economic clout.
All that said, many of us would be amused if Marty and co. eventually held the balance of power with say 10-15 TDs.
Unionists would be even less interested in electing a ceremonial who opens supermarkets and chats up rugby players, as I mentioned above. Which is the only election likely to be opened to those outside the state, surely?
Pragmatism has superseded principle in the past. The McGimpsey brothers' case is one example of this.
It would also be naive to think that only nationalists sought to take advantage of the Scottish university fees exemption for Irish passport holders (non-UK/EU students) before the Scottish government eventually closed what they viewed as a loophole.Quote:
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the dismissal on the 25th July, 1998, by order of the High Court made by Barrington J. of their claim for a declaration that the "Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom" made on the l5th November, 1985 (the Anglo-Irish Agreement) is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
The parties
2. The plaintiffs are two brothers, each of whom was born in Northern Ireland, and each of whom now resides in Northern Ireland.
3. In the course of his judgment Barrington J. described the political ambitions and activities of both the plaintiffs in the following words:-
"Both plaintiffs are members of the Official Unionist party of Northern Ireland. Both are deeply concerned about the present state of Northern Ireland and of all Ireland. Both reject any form of sectarianism and both have been involved in peace movements working to accommodate people of various traditions who live on the island of Ireland. Both gave evidence before the New Ireland Forum and, in oral and written submissions, attempted to explain to the Forum how the problem appeared to men fully committed to unionism but interested in finding a peaceful solution to the problem of Northern Ireland and of Ireland.
Both believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has aggravated the problem and instead of solving the problem, has become part of it."
Post-nationalist, post-schmuck. I'm not convinced that such a position really exists. When did it begin?
At some point between Ireland achieving independence and joining the EC, I would have thought. I always thought of the Progressive Democrats and similar types as post-nationalists. I never got the impression Fine Gael had ending partition atop the party's list of priorities either. As for Fianna Fáil, they are "The Republican Party" in name only.
I think we may be talking about two separate trends here. Yes, at some point after 1922 Southern parties' priority changed from ending partition to lobbying for the interests of NI nationalists. You could argue that this happened quite quickly- the boundary discussions were abandoned in 1925. Or you could point to 1945 (Britain surviving WW2) or 1973 as you suggest.
Trouble is, for 25 years after the latter date the South continued with the fantasy of control over NI, and even now is aspires to a united Ireland which could still theoretically leave a large hostile minority opposed to the state even if the border goes. All that basically contradicts 'post-nationalism', even though we all know any future PD-like party, let alone FG, FF and even SF would all sh*t themselves at any more than a notional possibility of a united Ireland next Tuesday.
From my brief glancing over that, the McGimpseys never expressed their acception that they "were" Irish Citizens. Barrington J. merely assumed for the purposes of the case that as they were born in the north of Ireland that they are entitled to Irish Citizenship and therefore the case proceeded on that basis.
That they were arguing against the Anglo-Irish Agreement was in contravention of Article 2, which as Unionists, makes no sense, is irrelevant.
I see your point; the constitution certainly cannot be described as a post-nationalist document so long as the explicit aspiration to see the island united remains codified within it.
However, as a unionist, wouldn't you rather have a party like Fine Gael, who are, at the very least, post-nationalist in practice and quite content to maintain the status quo, in power or having greater influence south of the border rather than a fundamentally-republican party like Sinn Féin, who would undoubtedly ensure that an imminent end to partition remained top of the political agenda and within the public consciousness, be that in the form of pushing for border referenda, simply giving the idea greater airtime in public discourse or whatever?
For example, Labour in the UK always seemed more sympathetic to engaging and negotiating with republicans/nationalists in the north than the more-resolutely-unionist Conservatives, so you might say Labour being in power in the UK was preferable from such a perspective.
Perhaps I'm overplaying any potential substantive effect of such scenarios in light of the Good Friday Agreement, but the constitutional position of NI is still open-ended and negotiable, as far as its wording is concerned.
I understand one of them had attained an Irish passport. Was possession of Irish citizenship a prerequisite to the granting of locus standi in this instance? (Is citizenship a necessary prerequisite to the right to bring a case to the Irish courts in all circumstances? I'm not completely sure on that.) It appears it was in this case at least though. Otherwise, I see no reason for the chief justice to deliberate over the issue, as if to acknowledge the plaintiffs had satisfied some necessary criteria. On that basis, presumably, the case could not have proceeded if neither were Irish citizens, or if either had denied they were Irish citizens. It was in light of their "not [seeking] to vary the finding of the learned trial judge" in relation to the assumption of Irish citizenship that the chief justice proceeded.
Anyway, even on the latter matter relating to the content of article 2, I still think their case demonstrated that unionists would be prepared to overlook their strictest principles if being paradoxically pragmatic about matters in a "foreign" jurisdiction and pertaining to a document, or the upholding of articles within it, in which they had no genuine ideological interest, was more preferable to their ultimate aspirations.
Well you must generally have an interest in the outcome of a case in order to bring one to court.
When it comes to the Constitution, generally speaking, it is only of interest to citizens and is only in their interest that cases are brought, ie. a Zulu warrior chief is unlikely to bring a case against the State due to some contravention. And if he were he would have to satisfy the presiding judge that it is in his interest and in the interest of all citizenry that it is brought.
Barrington J's interpretation of the McGimpseys' status was merely a way to circuvent the needless process of which we already knew that they were entitled to citizenship by virtue of their birth in Ireland.
No, as said above I honestly don't think it makes any real difference to most Unionists whether FG or someone else (obviously most often FF in the past) leads the government in the South. All the main parties remain nationalist in principle whatever they do in practice. I'll accept that a hypothetical situation with SF as the biggest Southern party would be a change, but can't see it happening in the politically foreseeable future (ie at least a generation).
All the Southern parties bar Sinn Fein have accepted the status quo for decades, as discussed above.
Also, Ulster unionism is just one (single) issue I support. I don't judge any outside party purely or even mainly on their attitude to it.
Not sure whether you're being serious here. British Labour's long-term attitude to NI has been not merely another fantasy (that the single-issue nationalist SDLP acts as local 'sister' party), but is actually quite vindictive: any local aspiring activists aren't merely ignored, but barred. On the other hand, the extent of their engagement is limited- in recent years just throwing money at the devolved overgrown local council.Quote:
For example, Labour in the UK always seemed more sympathetic to engaging and negotiating with republicans/nationalists in the north than the more-resolutely-unionist Conservatives, so you might say Labour being in power in the UK was preferable from such a perspective
As for the Tories, they're not really better or wose on the NI issue. Or many others. Mrs THatcher would have blanched at some of the right-wing crap Miliband and co are coming up with nowadays.
I think that- like a lot of Southern commentators- you overstate the GFA's significance, maybe because a formal constitution and referenda are so important in your system. The Agreement is important, but not neccesarily long-lasting: if it ever becomes seriously unattractive to Unionists, they'll just reject it.Quote:
Perhaps I'm overplaying any potential substantive effect of such scenarios in light of the Good Friday Agreement, but the constitutional position of NI is still open-ended and negotiable, as far as its wording is concerned
Of course. I wasn't necessarily suggesting it would be the only issue of concern to you.
Would issues such as the peace process culminating in the signing of the GFA, the granting of devolution and the establishment of the (albeit delayed) Saville Inquiry have progressed as they did had the Conservatives been in power in Britain at the time? With Thatcher's remark about "Northern Ireland [being] as British as Finchley" in mind, the Conservatives always struck me as being more trenchant and less open to negotiating the constitutional status of NI, never mind publicly entertaining the interests and concerns of republicans, but perhaps it's just a perception and I'm open to correction.Quote:
Not sure whether you're being serious here. British Labour's long-term attitude to NI has been not merely another fantasy (that the single-issue nationalist SDLP acts as local 'sister' party), but is actually quite vindictive: any local aspiring activists aren't merely ignored, but barred. On the other hand, the extent of their engagement is limited- in recent years just throwing money at the devolved overgrown local council.
Why do you suppose Labour are ignorant/vindictive in their attitude? Do you perceive it as a witting vindictiveness?
From time to time, I suppose I do forget that democracy was never a long-standing unionist tradition. :pQuote:
I think that- like a lot of Southern commentators- you overstate the GFA's significance, maybe because a formal constitution and referenda are so important in your system. The Agreement is important, but not neccesarily long-lasting: if it ever becomes seriously unattractive to Unionists, they'll just reject it.
The peace 'process' started well before 1998: it was a genuine priority for John Major, who was PM for seven of the previous eight years.
I think devolution might have progressed more or less similarly had the Tories got back into government in 2001 or 2005. I mean, it suits them being able to park a lot of issues in the Holyrood long grass ;)
Dunno about Saville. I'm no Tory but they have a point that spending hundreds of millions to tell us what we already largely know iisn't necessarily a politically sensible use of resources. See also the Finucane case.
You overstate a throwaway line. Thatcher was a senior member of the govt which parleyed with the IRA in the early 70s. Five years later the most 'hardline' NI minister of the lot was Labour's Roy Mason. Like all parties, Labour and Tory are more trenchant in public than private.Quote:
With Thatcher's remark about "Northern Ireland [being] as British as Finchley" in mind, the Conservatives always struck me as being more trenchant and less open to negotiating the constitutional status of NI, never mind publicly entertaining the interests and concerns of republicans, but perhaps it's just a perception and I'm open to correction
I didn't say they were ignorant: they don't really think SDLP are a socialist party. They've being deliberately obtuse and dishonest, partly to park the issue as above, partly to keep the largely Irish Catholic union wing of the party happy with a titbit.Quote:
Why do you suppose Labour are ignorant/vindictive in their attitude? Do you perceive it as a witting vindictiveness?
As for actively banning local activists in NI aye, that's deliberately vindictive. Fcuk 'em.
Very droll. How does rejecting (by voting against) a previous political decision contradict democracy? Surely the reverse. Unionists are under no obligation to do anything simply because not doing it would oblige the South to go through the hassle of another referendum, or whatever.Quote:
From time to time, I suppose I do forget that democracy was never a long-standing unionist tradition. :p
And would that Unionists interfere with the affairs of a "foreign" country...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0104/bel...nion-flag.html
The equation of City Hall with Leinster House is quite something. Would they not be better off heading to Monaghan or Dundalk to protest at equivalent and more "local" Council offices.Quote:
Originally Posted by RTE
God save our senses.