"Yes" landslide

keu

mmmmm..potatoes and cabbage

Hobbes

Originally posted by Rock Climber
I am talking about my landlords other tennants who are getting their houses Rent free

Up until the Asylum process goes through.

Would you prefer them to be living on the street until that happens, or should they pay and if so how do you suggest they pay? Work?

It also sounds like your being gouged with your rent.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
What I meant was reaching a conclusion regarding why these children were born here, i.e. foreign workers having children here or "citizenship tourists"

Foreign workers having children here? You make them sound like transients.

If a child is a member of a family that has made their home here, then their citizenship should be (and is) based upon residence not location of birth. If they are illegal or transient (in effect tourists) then the same should apply.

I would consider being born here enough reason to call someone Irish, but I guess we have different opinions regarding that.

Yes. Apparently I have a higher opinion of the concept.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
No doubt you’d prefer a permanent government. That’s Freudian.

You do realise that your responce doesn't make any sense in relation to the bit of my post you quoted, or for that matter, to any of my entire post? Did you actually both to read my post?

Come on TC, at least attempt to engage in me in what I actually write.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
When you can even come close to demonstrating (let alone proving) that point I’ll take you seriously.

If you need proof how about you actually read the amendment :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Yes I would. And guess what it does. Let’s not change anything in the Constitution shall we for fear than an adverse and rare anomaly may occur. Makings of a good policy - or are you suggesting that your scenario is a common occurrence?

How about; lets not mess up the Constitution so that we create anomalys that will occur in the future that will deny citizenship to Irish people?

Or we could say; lets mess with the Constitution all we like and then say ah but the odds are kinda small and after all I don't really give a s**t.

Kinda glad you didn't write the Constitution.

Originally posted by The Corinthian

FUD - Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

Fear of the Constitution begin messed up with loopholes and contradictions being introduced - Check

Uncertainty about how this constitutional change will effect the right of future Irish people to be granded citizenship - Check

Doubt about the need for this change at all, especially in the messy and rushed manner it was introduced - Check

Yup I would say I am pretty fearful and uncertain about how this will effect out country. But as you seem to have said above, s**t happens.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Yet you’ve failed to supply anything other than extreme and improbable cases otherwise.

I gave cases that will cause problems with citizenship. The odds of these happening are unknown and rather immaterial. If they can happen they probably will happen, sooner or later. The only responce you can give is s**t happens. What kind of a responce is that. Irish people will be denied citizenship, but s**t happens. Are you serious?

You seem to be talking as if there was no choice in the matter, that this exact change was something we just had to suck up and take.

The amendment didn't have to be structured or writen the way it was. It didn't have to be rushed through with no thought for long term effects. It didn't have to be introduced right now at all.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
No what you’re saying is an unfounded paranoia - and guess what, it still is.

TC read the amendment! It is not unfounded, the loopholes are there. The issue of citizenship has been put in the hands of the Dail. This has happened. Your only reply to this seems to be that you don't care. Fine and dandy for you, you are already a citizen (I assume)

Personally I don't think that the issue of foreign babies having EU passports is that big a deal. The objections I would have would be on the side of protecting the health of the mother and child, rather than screaming that they are abusing our system.

But even IF I DID, I would still have voted no because (and listen carefully) this was a terrible terrible amendment.

People seem to think this was the only way to change the issue of citizenship, that is was CHANGE IT THIS WAY NOW OR YOU WILL NEVER GET THE CHANCE AGAIN!! issue. It wasn't. Even if you believed in denying citizenship to foreign babies was important, this wasn't the way to do it!

Why do you and every other Yes voter think this had to be done now, and that this was the only way??

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Foreign workers having children here? You make them sound like transients.

Erm, I don't see how? If by transient you mean stay here for a brief period of time then I guess you could say yes. Some foreign people just live here for a few years to work then they go home. It's not totally irrational to say that some have children while here is it?
All I'm saying is that no-one here knows what that 7% of non-national births actually translates into, i.e. the motivations behind the parents who had the child here, the same motivations other posters are bringing into question (i.e. citizenship tourism)
I'm guessing what your getting at is that none of these 7% were entitled to citizenship which is fair enough. I'm not talking about that however, what I'm talking about is the reasoning behind the children being born here.
The Yes side of the arguement would imply that most were just doing it for a passport for their child, and that the numbers were huge.
The numbers aren't exactly staggering and like I said, we don't know the motivation the mothers had.

Yes. Apparently I have a higher opinion of the concept.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Mosney is fine though,It's actually very fine given that many of these people are actually flee'ing persecution and are thankfull for it as a restbite.

But do you want to see asylum seekers coming here at all?

Originally posted by dathi1
This is a left over from the early years whereby most people coming in where granted housing on the top of the waiting list.

When was the last time someone was housed in one of these?

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Hobbes
Would you prefer them to be living on the street until that happens, or should they pay and if so how do you suggest they pay? Work?

somewhere more frugal,but then you read me saying that already didn't you

It also sounds like your being gouged with your rent.

I don't know where you live, but €1100 is pretty standard for a 4 bed house here.

I have my own en suite room and share with three others, so it works out a good bit less than €300 a month... again I don't know where you live but I think thats pretty reasonable for what it is and it's miles above the apartment I used have
So I don't know where you are getting the gouged from...
I get a tiny amount of rent relief but still pay as much in tax ast he land lord gets for renting his houses out to the asylum seekers.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Rock Climber
somewhere more frugal,but then you read me saying that already didn't you

Define frugal? Away from you? €1100 is pretty frugal (for Dublin at least).

I don't know where you live, but €1100 is pretty standard for a 4 bed house here.

Yes that is a pretty good price, however your original post you made out as if all the people in the house were each paying €1100 (after looking back due to misreading).

I get a tiny amount of rent relief but still pay as much in tax as the land lord gets for renting his houses out to the asylum seekers.

What does the landlord get for renting out the house to Asylum seekers? More or less then what he gets from you guys?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
You do realise that your responce doesn't make any sense in relation to the bit of my post you quoted, or for that matter, to any of my entire post? Did you actually both to read my post?

You referenced the danger of legislation on the matter by a temporary government. All it seemed to do was highlight your distain for the present ‘temporary’ government. I suggested you might prefer a permanent one instead.

If you need proof how about you actually read the amendment :rolleyes:

I have and I saw none. Apparently I don’t have your imagination.

Fear of the Constitution begin messed up with loopholes and contradictions being introduced - Check

Because there were no loopholes there to begin with? Oh, wait, there were...

Uncertainty about how this constitutional change will effect the right of future Irish people to be granded citizenship - Check

You mean you don’t know and are just assuming the worst.

Doubt about the need for this change at all, especially in the messy and rushed manner it was introduced - Check

Messy and rushed manner? How do you define that then? Or is this simply your opinion (and of not doubt ‘right thinking’ people)?

Yup I would say I am pretty fearful and uncertain about how this will effect out country. But as you seem to have said above, s**t happens.

Ever considered you’re just being paranoid?

I gave cases that will cause problems with citizenship. The odds of these happening are unknown and rather immaterial.

Those odds are perfectly relevant. You seem to think that, to begin with, it makes prefect sense to base our laws upon extreme cases - it doesn’t. You further assume that such anomalies will not be dealt with through appropriate legislation - if anything the amendment has made this more and not less possible.

If they can happen they probably will happen, sooner or later. The only responce you can give is s**t happens. What kind of a responce is that. Irish people will be denied citizenship, but s**t happens. Are you serious?

Take off the tin foil hat for a minute and stop with the paranoid rant. You’ve still failed to supply anything other than extreme and improbable cases.

You seem to be talking as if there was no choice in the matter, that this exact change was something we just had to suck up and take.

No I was talking as if this was a necessary change that was long overdue.

The amendment didn't have to be structured or writen the way it was. It didn't have to be rushed through with no thought for long term effects. It didn't have to be introduced right now at all.

Why? Why? Why? Your entire argument has been based upon nothing more substantial than FUD.

TC read the amendment! It is not unfounded, the loopholes are there.

I have. Stop making the idiotic assumption that everyone would have the same paranoid reaction to the amendment as you. What is different now is that it is in the hands of the Dail, which you neither trust nor like.

Had you considered that perhaps it is not a question my not caring, but you overreacting?

But even IF I DID, I would still have voted no because (and listen carefully) this was a terrible terrible amendment.

Explain why, with reference to the amendment itself, it is a terrible amendment, how it will (apparently) be abused and how it would present serious issues with citizenship in the future, that we will be unable to deal with.

Otherwise, quit shovelling the FUD.

Why do you and every other Yes voter think this had to be done now, and that this was the only way??

I could tell you, but I doubt you’d hear.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I'm guessing what your getting at is that none of these 7% were entitled to citizenship which is fair enough. I'm not talking about that however, what I'm talking about is the reasoning behind the children being born here.

Fair enough, but I don’t really see how that makes any difference.

The numbers aren't exactly staggering and like I said, we don't know the motivation the mothers had.

7% of total births is a staggering figure.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by The Corinthian
7% of total births is a staggering figure.

If it was all births to "citizen tourists" then it would be, but as there are more non-nationals living and working here we can hardly be surprised that the birth rates amongst them will rise, can we?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
If it was all births to "citizen tourists" then it would be, but as there are more non-nationals living and working here we can hardly be surprised that the birth rates amongst them will rise, can we?

I never said that they were all "citizen tourists" - what I said was that “at 7% of the annual birth rate, that’s a pretty large figure to appear, out of the blue, as brand new citizens, per annum.”

I never said that this was their parent’s intention or even that they would ever take up their citizenship (in fairness I may have implied that, which was wrong), only that the potential for such a large proportion of new babies was quite disconcerting.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I never said that they were all "citizen tourists" - what I said was that “at 7% of the annual birth rate, that’s a pretty large figure to appear, out of the blue, as brand new citizens, per annum.”

I never said that this was their parent’s intention or even that they would ever take up their citizenship (in fairness I may have implied that, which was wrong), only that the potential for such a large proportion of new babies was quite disconcerting.

My bad too, I directing the "questioning of motives" thing to people who had been suggesting large numbers of these births were for the sole purpose of getting citizenship for mother/parents as well as their new born.
Another thing though, without knowing the percentages from previous years, that 7% still can't be put in proper context.
I think it would make things easier if this information was just provided openly to people (preferrable before referendums being called) rather than Pat Rabbitte having to read out letters that he gets.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Hobbes
Define frugal? Away from you? €1100 is pretty frugal (for Dublin at least).

Whats with this away from you comment?
Is that a vain attempt at another misrepresentation of my posts in an effort to tag me as rascist.
Clearly you haven't been reading my posts at all as I've already said that these areluxury four bed houses
I've already stated that frugal means no luxury 4 beds and more cost effective.
There is plenty of accomadation available where I live for well less than €1100 a month and it's not dingey.
We picked this and are willing to pay for it ourselves, why should asylum seekers have top notch accomadation rent free when they could have ok accomadation instead and let the money saved be spent on a more worthwhile cause like cancer care in Waterford...

What does the landlord get for renting out the house to Asylum seekers? More or less then what he gets from you guys?

At the Res assoc he said it was at the open market rental with steady guaranteed tennants.

MadsL

How many people in this family living in this supposed lap of luxury?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Rock Climber
At the Res assoc he said it was at the open market rental with steady guaranteed tennants.

Just curious, was this meeting only about the 4 families living in these houses?
Also, I don't think anyone's misrepresenting what you're saying to make you look like a racist. Allot of your posts are pretty ambiguous and seem to be implying cretins things

Hobbes

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Whats with this away from you comment?
Is that a vain attempt at another misrepresentation of my posts in an effort to tag me as rascist.

Your the one mis-representing yourself.

I've already stated that frugal means no luxury 4 beds and more cost effective.

How do you know it is luxury? Have you been in those houses? What furniture do they have? Do they have a TV? VCR/DVD player? Washing machine?

The only thing you have said is the house is a luxury house, but then you appear to only be basing that on the house you live in. Prehaps you can expand a bit more?

There is plenty of accomadation available where I live for well less than €1100 a month and it's not dingey.

But your earlier comments seemed to suggest that the 1,100 shouldn't even go to the Asylum seekers, it should all go to cancer research? Again misrepresenting yourself prehaps?.

We picked this and are willing to pay for it ourselves, why should asylum seekers have top notch accomadation rent free when they could have ok accomadation

How do you know it is ok accomadation? Considering they only get 20 quid a week pocket money and can't work and are turfed out of said homes when there process goes through, what defines top notch?

instead and let the money saved be spent on a more worthwhile cause like cancer care in Waterford...

Again mispresenting I guess. Your implying that Asylum seekers are a waste of money, we should just let die somewhere or put them up in a hovel somewhere? Expand on that.

At the Res assoc he said it was at the open market rental with steady guaranteed tennants.

Which means nothing. For all you know the landlord could charging more then 1,100 or less (because he has a steady income of tenants).

You don't know.

MadsL

So to be clear Rock Climber, you are saying that these families with babies and toddlers should be housed somewhere 'more frugal' - what would you like to see - put them in an overcrowed B&B all in one room? A hotel? Ship them back to Mosney?

They are very friendly you say, ain't it a shame that the local population wishes they would p*ss off as they are a 'waste of money'. A lot of good that friendliness did them.

TBH my attitude to this is that whilst I can see Govt policy has been direct provision, it is clear that in some areas it might be necessary to provide accomodation as well as direct provision. To categorise this as a 'waste of money' ignores far wider 'waste' in goverment. Why do you feel that giving babies somewhere decent to live is such a waste anyway. A few years ago it was teenagers getting pregnant that were supposed to be getting all this 'free houses'... now we have one more minority to blame for your own lack of success. Nation of begrudgers??

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You referenced the danger of legislation on the matter by a temporary government. All it seemed to do was highlight your distain for the present ‘temporary’ government. I suggested you might prefer a permanent one instead.

All government is temporary, and that is the reason for the Constitution, to protect rights of citizens from meddling of temporary governments that can change something and them be gone, leaving others to fix the mess.

You probably have complete faith in all our elective officals, now and all future ones, so you don't feel things like citizenship need to be clearly protected by the Constitution, but excuse me for not being quite so niave about the process of law making. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I have and I saw none. Apparently I don’t have your imagination.

Did you even notice the most glaring one; the contraction that now exists between Article 2 and Article 9?

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Because there were no loopholes there to begin with? Oh, wait, there were...

There were no loop holes that mean Irish people can now be denied citizenship.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You mean you don’t know and are just assuming the worst.

I mean; I don't know, it is not clear at all from the messy amendment, and eventually the worst will happen. A constitution of a country has to be clear and cover all bases.

What fantasy world do you live in TC? Nothing bad ever happens in TC La-La Land .. sounds nice :rolleyes:

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Messy and rushed manner? How do you define that then? Or is this simply your opinion (and of not doubt ‘right thinking’ people)?

The amendment is messy, you yourself admit that under it it is possible that Irish people can be denined citizenship. It was rushed, there wasn't even a government body set up to examine it, like there is for most amendments.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Ever considered you’re just being paranoid?

Ever considered coming out of la-la land and living in the real world, where things go wrong all the time

Simple question - Can you tell me this won't happen?

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Those odds are perfectly relevant. You seem to think that, to begin with, it makes prefect sense to base our laws upon extreme cases - it doesn’t. You further assume that such anomalies will not be dealt with through appropriate legislation - if anything the amendment has made this more and not less possible.

WHat are you on??

I think that the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland should be clear and cover all eventualities. You disagree with that obviously.

You have absolultly no idea how extreme these anomalies will or will not be. What you can't say is that they cannot happen. And people not living in TC La-La land know that if something bad can happen, it eventually will.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Take off the tin foil hat for a minute and stop with the paranoid rant. You’ve still failed to supply anything other than extreme and improbable cases.

What are you basing the extremness on. You have statistics saying it is very unlikely that they will ever happen? Or are you just making it up because you don't like to think about it?

I don't know what the likely hood of the event arising. What I find worrying is that it can happen (but not obviously in La-La land where nothing bad ever happens.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I have. Stop making the idiotic assumption that everyone would have the same paranoid reaction to the amendment as you. What is different now is that it is in the hands of the Dail, which you neither trust nor like.

Are you really that naieve? The right of citizenship in now in the hands of the Dail, instead of the constitution, which you think is a good idea. Where have you been for the last 50 years?? Do you not read the paper/watch TV news?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
You probably have complete faith in all our elective officals, now and all future ones, so you don't feel things like citizenship need to be clearly protected by the Constitution, but excuse me for not being quite so niave about the process of law making. :rolleyes:

You’re right; they’re all out to get you. They’re watching you right now... :rolleyes:

Did you even notice the most glaring one; the contraction that now exists between Article 2 and Article 9?

Not at all, or did you miss the “notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution” bit?

There were no loop holes that mean Irish people can now be denied citizenship.

Nice blanket statement based on nothing.

What fantasy world do you live in TC? Nothing bad ever happens in TC La-La Land .. sounds nice :rolleyes:

Obviously not the same episode of the X-Files as you, it would appear.

Simple question - Can you tell me this won't happen?

I also can’t guarantee that Lichtenstein won’t invade us either.

I think that the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland should be clear and cover all eventualities. You disagree with that obviously.

Of course I disagree. If it was clear and covered all eventualities we wouldn’t have referenda, would we?

You have absolultly no idea how extreme these anomalies will or will not be. What you can't say is that they cannot happen. And people not living in TC La-La land know that if something bad can happen, it eventually will.

Wasn’t that the argument used during the Cold War to prove that a Nuclear Holocaust between the US and the USSR was inevitable?
What are you basing the extremness on. You have statistics saying it is very unlikely that they will ever happen? Or are you just making it up because you don't like to think about it? [/B][/QUOTE]
Where do you get off inventing worst case scenarios, without a shred of evidence, and then demand that others should disprove your paranoid fantasies?

I don't know what the likely hood of the event arising. What I find worrying is that it can happen (but not obviously in La-La land where nothing bad ever happens.

Something bad may happen, but if it does, we’ll deal with it.

Are you really that naieve? The right of citizenship in now in the hands of the Dail, instead of the constitution, which you think is a good idea. Where have you been for the last 50 years?? Do you not read the paper/watch TV news?

Nice rant.

seamus

Originally posted by Wicknight
There were no loop holes that mean Irish people can now be denied citizenship.

I would like people to go back and re-read the amendment. There can be no provisions made to deny Irish people citizenship. The clause that allows legislation deals with exceptions to the rule of who is not allowed have citizenship.

Governments can only legislate exceptions which increase the availability of citizenship, not restrict it further.

For all intents and purposes, the amendment contains a double negative, which seems to be confusing people.

Lioness

No, I'm not patriotic at all. I happy that I speak Irish and I'm fascinated by Irish literature but I don't think it's wise to "love" abstract entities such as nationstates (that's what patriotism is)

patriotism is "loving" abstract entities? bit of a goofy definition. patriotism is being inspired by love for your country. inspired through its language and literature for one :rolleyes:

the ideals they proclaim to stand for can change considerably over the years and I worry that the ethos of the Irish state is becoming inward-looking and mean.

oh you mean ideals change when a referendum (vote of the people takes place) and you worry when you dont like the result. Well referendums take place in every country. you will not always like the result. you'll just have to get used to it.

I don't see why they wouldn't all be able to co-exist happily

I do see why they ALL wouldnt be able to co-exist peacefully. as i've stated before.

My point is that if you try to find one cultural interest common to all these groups, it will be something banal like Man. Unt. or Friends.

nope. that wasnt what you said earlier! :rolleyes: you critised the IRISH culture along those lines. Why exactly would there be a need to find a cultural interest common to all those groups??!! you have effectively argued my point!! all those cultures/ethnic groups are too different as you say and Ireland's culture will be lost among them..

you seem to have a very stereotypical view of Irish people indeed.

yeah, i probably do. but you seem to have a very negative view of Irish people, and a very naive view of foreigners.

The things you mention are superficial,

i disagree. you asked for things that makes our culture and I gave you a list. Simple.

You obviously didn’t pick up on the connotations of what I was saying regarding people wearing emblems etc (National Socialism)

no. i didnt. your continual repetition and accusations about racism and facism led me to believe you were talking about jews and the star of david.

mmmmm..potatoes and cabbage

nope. i said cabbage and bacon.:D

simu

patriotism is "loving" abstract entities? bit of a goofy definition. patriotism is being inspired by love for your country. inspired through its language and literature for one

Patriotism: Love of and devotion to one's country.From here A country is a an abstract entity - a bunch of people draw an imaginary line around a piece of land and declare that it is a country. As for loving your country because of its language and literature - every group of humans has language and literature and I have an equal respect for all languages and literatures of the world. Language and literature are things that give me a sense of wonder at the human imagination rather than inspiring me to love a demarcated piece of land inside which some of these languages are spoken and inside which some of this literature is written.

oh you mean ideals change when a referendum (vote of the people takes place) and you worry when you dont like the result. Well referendums take place in every country. you will not always like the result. you'll just have to get used to it.

I accept that the ideals of a country change over time, whether through referenda, government policy, external circumstances or whatever. My point is that it is better to keep a critical eye on these changes rather than accepting them without further ado because you "love your country".

I do see why they ALL wouldnt be able to co-exist peacefully. as i've stated before.

We're all human beings, despite superficial differences, we all have the same hopes, fears and so on - if people remember this, it's possible for us all to live peacefully together. Reality is of course a lot messier and conflicts arise between different groups but we only have the one planet to live on and I think that it is more useful to emphasise our similarities and give people an opportunity to see these than give up all hope and keep groups of people that are considered to be different from one another apart.

nope. that wasnt what you said earlier! you critised the IRISH culture along those lines. Why exactly would there be a need to find a cultural interest common to all those groups??!! you have effectively argued my point!! all those cultures/ethnic groups are too different as you say and Ireland's culture will be lost among them..

I asked you in a tongue in cheek manner what this Irish culture you keep going on about consisted of. It ought to have been obvious that I know that there are more cultural artefacts circulating in Ireland than Man Unt. and Friends. I don't think it is necessary to find common cultural interests accross different groups that live in Ireland - you're the one who insists on this. You keep going on about "Ireland's culture", some culture you suppose all people in Ireland share and that will be lost on new people who come here. My point is that, even if you take all the foreigners who have arrived here in, say, the last twenty years, out of the picture, you're still left with diverse groups of people. They may all look similar but if you examine their lives closely, you'll see that say, Irish travellers, Protestant people of Anglo Irish descent, Irish speakers from the Aran Islands, County Meath farmers, Ulster Unionists, dwellers of urban sink estates, emigrants that have returned from England and America etc etc have hugely different lifestyles and outlooks on life. There is not and never has been a uniform Irish culture shared by everybody on this island - cultures are far more complicated than that - they are always shifting and changing and influencing one another.

but you seem to have a very negative view of Irish people, and a very naive view of foreigners.

I don't think the Irish are any better or any worse than any other groups of people.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Not at all, or did you miss the “notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution” bit?

Er, that is the contraction!

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You’re right; they’re all out to get you. They’re watching you right now... :rolleyes:

Nice blanket statement based on nothing.

Obviously not the same episode of the X-Files as you, it would appear.

I also can’t guarantee that Lichtenstein won’t invade us either.

Wow! You have nothing, do you? Not a thing to show that I am wrong, miss-informed or lying. All you have is insulting me and comparing our Constiution to the X-Files. Wow.

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Of course I disagree. If it was clear and covered all eventualities we wouldn’t have referenda, would we?

Again, wow! You think we shouldn't try and make the Constitution clear and covered because then we would have no need for referendums. And what, all those election officals would be out of work?

The point of referenda is not to fix mistakes the constitution. They are a method to change it. That change is supposed to be as clear and all covering as the original constitution section it replaces! This is fundamental.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Wasn’t that the argument used during the Cold War to prove that a Nuclear Holocaust between the US and the USSR was inevitable?

No, amoung other instances that argument was used by a farmer near the reactor at Three Mile Island. When the reactor was being build a spokesperson for the company building it, went to the local population to talk to them about how safety of Nucler Power is. The farm stood up and ask a very simple question "What is the worst that could happen?" He said he asked the question because sooner or later the worst thing that can happen does happen. The spokes person refused to answer. You do know what happened at 3 Mile Island don't you.


Where do you get off inventing worst case scenarios, without a shred of evidence, and then demand that others should disprove your paranoid fantasies?

The evidence that these can happen is the amendment. Before you start screaming at me, maybe you have some evidence that this won't happen? No, didn't think so.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Something bad may happen, but if it does, we’ll deal with it.

How exactly will we deal with it?? You have evidence we will deal with it? :rolleyes:

Lioness

Patriotism: Love of and devotion to one's country.

oh good. you found the proper def of it, good to see you havent distorted it this time with your own fairy language:p

A country is a an abstract entity - a bunch of people draw an imaginary line around a piece of land and declare that it is a country.

I didnt take that meaning. your continual criticisim of what you see as the ever changing culture and ideals of this country, and then your mention of "abstract entities" led me to infer this as a general criticism of the country being unclear of its values i.e an abstract entity.

My point is that it is better to keep a critical eye on these changes rather than accepting them without further ado because you "love your country".

well erm, you can keep a "critical eye" all you want on changes but once a referendum has taken place, the public has spoken, the constitution will be changed. YOU WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT IT WITHOUT FURTHER ADO whether you luv the country or not. sorry to rain on your parade.

We're all human beings, despite superficial differences, we all have the same hopes, fears and so on - if people remember this, it's possible for us all to live peacefully together. Reality is of course a lot messier and conflicts arise between different groups but we only have the one planet to live on and I think that it is more useful to emphasise our similarities and give people an opportunity to see these than give up all hope and keep groups of people that are considered to be different from one another apart

waffle. This thread isnt about peace in our time:rolleyes: Its about the consequences of the changing constitution re. foreigners entering this country and their citizenship. your rhetoric would be more suited for a peace rally.

It ought to have been obvious that I know that there are more cultural artefacts circulating in Ireland than Man Unt. and Friends I don't think the Irish are any better or any worse than any other groups of people.

really? your continual degrading of Ireland and the mocking of its culture leads me to believe otherwise. Empty vessels make most noise.

Irish travellers, Protestant people of Anglo Irish descent, Irish speakers from the Aran Islands, County Meath farmers, Ulster Unionists, dwellers of urban sink estates, emigrants that have returned from England and America etc etc have hugely different lifestyles and outlooks on life.

yep. they have different religions, different income, different living quaters. but what is the 1 thing they have in common. hmm, let me think :rolleyes:

There is not and never has been a uniform Irish culture shared by everybody on this island

I disagree, you seem to be getting culture mixed up with other things such as religion, income level, etc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
Er, that is the contraction!

No it’s a qualification.

Wow! You have nothing, do you? Not a thing to show that I am wrong, miss-informed or lying. All you have is insulting me and comparing our Constiution to the X-Files. Wow.

This from the person who repeatedly referred to TC La-la-land? It’s a bit late to turn around and whinge about others allegedly insulting you.

You are the one saying that it the amendment was disastrous and full of holes. Yet all you have managed to supply are unsubstantiated generalizations, improvable assertions and, what I can only describe as, paranoid fantasy.

You state that loopholes will inevitably be found and abused, yet fail to substantiate the claim.

You announce that Irish citizens will be denied citizenship, yet fail to substantiate your gloomy prophecy.

And to cap it all off, your only attempt at proof is to demand that I disprove what you say.

The onus is on you to prove your assertions, all of which seem to be based upon a conspiratorial distrust of politics, and you have not managed to do so in a single case to date.

seamus

Originally posted by Wicknight
Er, that is the contraction!

Contradiction or contraction? (Not being pedantic here, the two words may have very different meanings in the context.)

I'll assume you mean contradiction, since you used it before.

I fail to see one. The admendment is an addendum, a sort of "However" clause to Article 2, hence the "Notwithstanding".

Article 2 essentially says "All persons born in Ireland or her seas are entitled to citizenship."

The Amendment (Article 9) will essentially state: "In spite of anything else that may be said in this constitution about citizenship, anyone who does not have one Irish parent at the time of their birth is not automatically entitled to citizenship, unless law is passed saying otherwise."

I don't see the contradiction.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Hobbes
Your the one mis-representing yourself.

Why did you use the words "away from yourself" when asking me to define frugal.
That could have had only one meaning,ie you suggested I had a problem with asylum seekers living locally.
How many times do I have to emphasise this...theres loads of relatively nice places that these asylum seekers could be put up besides in a luxury 4 bed house.
And that would be for a fraction of the cost without cramming them in anywhere.
I am objecting to the cost of this when other alternatives would free up financial resources for causes like cancer care in Waterford.

How do you know it is luxury? Have you been in those houses? What furniture do they have? Do they have a TV? VCR/DVD player? Washing machine?

I live on the estate,I have eyes.

But your earlier comments seemed to suggest that the 1,100 shouldn't even go to the Asylum seekers, it should all go to cancer research? Again misrepresenting yourself prehaps?.

I never said all,I never even implied all.
As above I only implied that they should be put up somewhere more frugal, thereby releasing more precious funds for causes such as cancer care in Waterford.

How do you know it is ok accomadation? Considering they only get 20 quid a week pocket money and can't work and are turfed out of said homes when there process goes through, what defines top notch?

Again I live in the estate,I have eyes and ears.

Your implying that Asylum seekers are a waste of money, we should just let die somewhere or put them up in a hovel somewhere? Expand on that.

A complete exageration and total misrepresentation of what I said.
I've already had to repeat what I said in earlier posts to underline that what you say I'm posting is a total mis representation of what I'm actually posting.
Theres absolutely no ambiguity in relation to what I said and I certainly did not say that all of the €1100 should be spent elsewhere and ergo that the asylum seekers should be thrown on the streets to die.
To show that I said that you would have to show me a post of mine stating that they shouldn't have accomadation...
Given that I was arguing for some rent to be paid and stated that the authorities could get nice accomadation locally for much less... I most certainly wasn't saying what you are saying,Isaid...
It's all there in black and white.

Which means nothing. For all you know the landlord could charging more then 1,100 or less (because he has a steady income of tenants).
You don't know.

But I clearly told you here in English and not mandarin chinese... that (and I'll quote what I said in that post so there can be absolutely no doubt)again...

At the Res assoc he said it was at the open market rental with steady guaranteed tennants.

chewy

The lack of cancer care facilities at Waterford regional and the equivalance between the sum of my taxes and these asylum seekers rent being a case in point.
I'd rather that €4,400 was spent on cancer care.

this is what belies rockclimbers attitude... he thinks asylum seekers are teh reason waterford sin't getting proper cancer care...
its nothing to do with the chronic underfunding of the helath care system by succesive governments that even the recent increase in money can hope to cathc up with...? no?

we don't have proper health care must be asylum seekers fault thank you mcdowell junior

he said it

Tuars

Originally posted by seamus
Article 2 essentially says "All persons born in Ireland or her seas are entitled to citizenship."

The Amendment (Article 9) will essentially state: "In spite of anything else that may be said in this constitution about citizenship, anyone who does not have one Irish parent at the time of their birth is not automatically entitled to citizenship, unless law is passed saying otherwise."

I don't see the contradiction.

Not sure why because if I paraphrase the above I get:

Article 2 states: born in Ireland = citizen.

Article 9 amended states: Hang on a sec, maybe not.

Am I missing something?

sceptre

Originally posted by Lioness
You didnt read my post.

Of course I read your post. You prattled on about the purpose of the EU and I said you left all the good bits out. Then I said we could have a similarity or difference in our citizenship law if we damn well pleased, as we do on other things.

simu

well erm, you can keep a "critical eye" all you want on changes but once a referendum has taken place, the public has spoken, the constitution will be changed. YOU WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT IT WITHOUT FURTHER ADO whether you luv the country or not. sorry to rain on your parade.

I do accept it. Did you see me calling for a second referendum?

really? your continual degrading of Ireland and the mocking of its culture leads me to believe otherwise. Empty vessels make most noise.

One tongue in cheek remark. If you look at other boards that I post on, you'll see that I'm pretty enthusiastic about Irish cultures overall.

yep. they have different religions, different income, different living quaters. but what is the 1 thing they have in common. hmm, let me think

What is it? That's what I want to know - you seem to know but you won't tell me (do they all eat cabbage?). This is really all I ever wanted to know from you - you seem to have a really clear one-size-fits-all idea of what Irishness is yet, in my own experience, Irishness is extremely hard, if not impossible to define.