Referendum - confusing wording?

oscarBravo

I don't know whether it's the proposed referendum that's confusing me, or the Commission's booklet. Bear with me for a minute.

THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION AND THE PROPOSED CHANGE

The Constitution of Ireland currently has the following provisions dealing with citizenship:

Article 2

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

Article 9

1.

1. On the coming into operation of this Constitution any person who was a citizen of Saorstát Éireann immediately before the coming into operation of this Consititution shall become and be a citizen of Ireland.
2. The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be determined in accordance with law.
3. No person shall be excluded from Irish nationality and citizenship by reason of the sex of such person.

2. Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens.

So far, so good. Now, the proposed amendment to article 9:

2.

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.
2. This section shall not apply to persons born before the date of the enactment of this section.

Here's what's bothering me: there's no proposed amendment to Article 2. That means that there will be mutually contradictory statements in the Constitution, relieved only by the disclaimer "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution..."

Am I alone in thinking that this leaves the Constitution in a rather sloppy state? I remember having issues with the divorce referendum for a similar reason: it seemed to me that legislation was being written into the Constitution, which is not the place for it.

Villain

It says

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution

Does not mean all other related articles are over powered by this ammendment???

Maybe I'm wrong but thats how I read it

oscarBravo

Originally posted by irish1
Does not mean all other related articles are over powered by this ammendment???

Maybe I'm wrong but thats how I read it

That's pretty much how I read it too. What's confusing to me is that that qualification is obviously there to resolve the conflict with Article 2 - so why not simply amend Article 2 at the same time?

I'm sure it's legally sound as it stands, but it's untidy. If the amendment passes, it won't suffice to read Article 2 on its own; it will be necessary to read the entire document looking for "notwithstanding" clauses.

Maybe it's already structured that way - I'm not really as familiar with it as I should be - but it seems messy to me.

Trebor

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I'm sure it's legally sound as it stands, but it's untidy. If the amendment passes, it won't suffice to read Article 2 on its own; it will be necessary to read the entire document looking for "notwithstanding" clauses.

cause if they amend article two they are changing the GFA, at the moment they are trying to get around this by amending article 9 this is why it's so confusing.

arcadegame2004

Trebor you seem to be accepting then that the GFA isn't breached, thus contradicting yourself on the Citizenship referendum thread.

I don't think the wording is confusing.

Some say that saying that someone is entitled to be part of the nation but is not a citizen seems contradictory.

I disagree. The US suspended Charlie Chaplin's citizenship for example, though he was obviously part of the American nation.

Trebor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Trebor you seem to be accepting then that the GFA isn't breached, thus contradicting yourself on the Citizenship referendum thread.

i never said that it was breached, i said that Paisley believes that it can be changed by the irish govt and if he still believes this then talks will stall again and he will have another excuse to try and renegotiate it

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I disagree. The US suspended Charlie Chaplin's citizenship for example, though he was obviously part of the American nation.

Charlie Chaplin was never a US citizen, never applied for citizenship and was born in the UK where he lived until he was 23 (in 1912, though lots of biographies get it wrong and say 1910). He described himself as a "paying visitor" to the US. He was denied re-entry into the US in 1947 after travelling to London for the premiere of Limelight. Not being a US citizen (and never having been one despite what you said above, though he was a resident there for the middle 35 of his 88 years) he buggered off to Switzerland where he died in 1977.