Yes
No
Don't Know/No Vote/Not going to Vote
Why, is Conor yet another FF head refusing to cooperate with a tribunal?Originally Posted by liamon
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
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
Agree that the numbers of "abuse" matter little cos who says 500 or 1000 or 10000 is too many?
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?
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?
Last edited by liamon; 10/06/2004 at 10:43 AM.
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.
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).
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
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.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
How does it concern you then? Won't effect you or your kids.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
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...
A slightly bizarre statement.
It's what it's being updated with is what concerns me.
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.
Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with ye, Conor.
Why this reverence for the Constitution? Can't understand where the idea that it should be changed as little as possible comes from.
Liamon, the Constitution itself is fatally flawed. Allow me to quote:
"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial...."
That's an absolute disgrace, to say the least.
I'd also take issue with the make-up of the Seanad and private property laws.
The Constitution, despite what some of ye may think, is not a sacred document, it is a living embarassment to our nation.
If I'd my way I'd burn the feckin thing and start afresh.
Have you ever won the treble?
How does it concern you then? My status of Irish citizenship is no different than any Irish citizen born in Ireland, apart from it initially costing my kids twice as much for their first passports and that I have to reside in the 26C - the same as Irish born ex-pats - to vote in elections or referendums. Your logic is that the people who will lose out from transfering a Ius Soli citizenship to one that centres on Ius Sanguinis, yet still allowing the right for outsiders to gain Irish citizenship AND retain their other citizenship aswell, are the only people entitled to vote.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
No, my point is that the change effects only people actually living in Ireland. In this particular referrendum it doesn't effect Ius Sanguinis, only Ius Soli, so it doesn't effect you.How does it concern you then? My status of Irish citizenship is no different than any Irish citizen born in Ireland, apart from it initially costing my kids twice as much for their first passports and that I have to reside in the 26C - the same as Irish born ex-pats - to vote in elections or referendums. Your logic is that the people who will lose out from transfering a Ius Soli citizenship to one that centres on Ius Sanguinis, yet still allowing the right for outsiders to gain Irish citizenship AND retain their other citizenship aswell, are the only people entitled to vote.
Should you have been able to vote on Divorce or Abortion which also doesn't effect you? You can divorced, your missus could get an abortion because you live in the UK. What gives you the right to dictate to those at home how they should live their lives?
Ditto Elections - if you're not living in the state, then you don't have to live under the Government that is elected. Conceivably the ex-pats could swing an election vote, so how is that fair on the people that have to pay taxes and live under that regime?
Basing it on residency is the only equitable way for the people that have to live under the conditions that result from the votes.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
The change affects people with no Irish blood. How does that affect you any more than me seeing that I pay the same 'tax' as you for my passport.
Ireland again seems to buck the trends with regards to other countries but as someone already said we don't want to follow anyone else's lead in case we have to gas Jews as well (while at the same time being brainwashed by a multitude of foreign newspapers, television and let's not forget, football).
It has got f*ck all to do with taxes or any other mundane matter. What about the people who have left after paying taxes whereas others that have stayed have not paid a cent in their lives, people with property and large-scale investment, the older gneration forced to move out through lack of jobs? As for living or not living under the regime, oh yeah I'm going to vote for the Irish Nazi Party because I'd really like to see the country go to the wall. The disenfranchising of Irish citizens when they leave Ireland is a damning reminder of Ireland's inability in the past to stem emigration. Bertie has gone on record (back in 1997) as saying more or less he's sh*t scared of such a scenario as you described. I would suggest that no other politician would be happy with it either (apart from Gerry maybe?)
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
[QUOTE=brendy_éire]
Liamon, the Constitution itself is fatally flawed. Allow me to quote:
"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, ......"
That's an absolute disgrace, to say the least.
The Constitution, despite what some of ye may think, is not a sacred document, it is a living embarassment to our nation.
[QUOTE]
You're going to hell, ya heathen.
Look, when it was written, we were a predominantly Catholic country and nearly everyone went to Mass. Even now, there are a lot of people arguing that the preamble to the proposed EU constitution (awful idea) should have a reference to God in it. So it's not that embarrassing. If you want to live in a secular world, move to France.
Aside from that, I agree that the constitution isn't perfect. But I don't think adding another flawed amendment is going to make it better.
We shouldn't follow other countries, just because they allow it to happen. I think it's perfectly valid to suggest that the people who have to live under the regime's should be the only one's able to vote, as they are directly effected by the result.
What impact does it have on you who's in Government in Ireland?
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
I'm sure a lot of other countries give the vote to ex-pats cos they won't make up a huge percentage. If we did the same & allowed those 10's of millions claiming irish citizenship in the US it would kinda screw up the political process here. Then again maybe the citizenship law would have to get stricter for them to prevent them having a vote?
That is of course your opinion, but most democratic countries do not have a problem with emigrants voting. Their influence in, taxation to and the repercussions from are the same as the Irish. Only difference is that the Irish emigrant block is in comparison to the resident block far greater. As for the impact of government, to me personally, nada. But what if I was planning to move to Ireland? What if I had property there? What if I was born and brought up in Ireland and had moved away through no choice but to get a job? The choice of government would be important. I could choose a government that is likely to improve the wealth and prosperity of the 26 county state and keep the value of my property steady, rather than one that is going to set it back to the eighties, begging the US government to make a special exception to the excess of the population. The choice of government here would, indeed does, have a significant impact on me.
The tens of millions in America you talk about would not be entitled to citizenship. Only third generation or their descendents if they had Irish citizenship on their birth. As for stricter citizenship, the only strictness is going to be towards aliens, not anyone with Irish blood (even at 5th/6th generation this often includes all the first generation of ancestors that were not born in the new land).
Personally it's immaterial to me as someone who hasn't lived in Ireland to get the vote but for those that grew up there I think it is laughable - although understandable - that they are denied it. However the political process would not be screwed up too much if there were seperate seats for the emigrant vote in either the Dail or the Seanad.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
I heard recently that there are 1.2million people of Irish BIRTH living abroad!
Fair solution would be that anyone who lived in the country & had a vote before they left would be able to retain it abroad - maybe they'd lose after 10 years depending on numbers. We'd probably need another referndum for this anyway?
The US constitution would appear to be one of the worst around. Theres virtually no amendments (last one in 50's or 60's i think) to it cos is so complicated to get an Amendment before the voters - need so many states to vote for the proposal first combined with variety of majorities in federal politicial houses. Apparently thats why they saying George Bush no hope of even getting a nationwide vote on banning gay marriages over there.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks