"Yes" landslide

Victor

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

Now that is Freudian, get a room you two!

Originally posted by seamus
There can be no provisions made to deny Irish people citizenship.

Of course the are "no provisions made to deny Irish people citizenship", because this amendment is denying that these babies will be Irish.

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

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

Nation or country? Seeing as the Irish nation extends beyond boundaries of the country and now won't even have all those within the country?

Originally posted by chewy
this is what belies rockclimbers attitude... he thinks asylum seekers are teh reason waterford sin't getting proper cancer care...
we don't have proper health care must be asylum seekers fault thank you mcdowell junior

he said it

I didn't hear Rockclimber blame the asylum seekers at all,he suggested that the resources could be re-alligned to get a better more social outcome ie, provide reasonable accomadation for the assylum seekers and divert the savings into the cancer treatment.
Thats actually a very laudable idea.

Why do you have to resort to name calling?

If anything,it's the authorities that are to blame here for such a blatant waste of money.
Simple economics really,if money was spent more wisely in getting accomadation for these particular assylum seekers, then there would be more of it to be spent on Waterfords cancer care.

Victor

Originally posted by Earthman
I didn't hear Rockclimber blame the asylum seekers at all,he suggested that the resources could be re-alligned to get a better more social outcome ie, provide reasonable accomadation for the assylum seekers and divert the savings into the cancer treatment.

Why not remove the subsidies / tax breaks provided to property speculators "and divert the savings into the cancer treatment"

Originally posted by Victor
Why not remove the subsidies / tax breaks provided to property speculators "and divert the savings into the cancer treatment"

Yes thats another idea.
Lets do both and many,many more

MrPudding

Originally posted by Lioness
You didnt read my post. I will state again, its only natural that ireland should adopt a stance re. this issue that is similar to its E.U counterparts. I never said it was law or anything to do with the law. its about co-ordination, being united and in harmony.

Cool. Can we now harmonise taxes and legalise abortion please. What do you mean no? I thought you wanted unity and harmony.

MrP

arcadegame2004

Cool. Can we now harmonise taxes and legalise abortion please. What do you mean no? I thought you wanted unity and harmony.

Well on the tax-issue, no, because harmonising taxes within the EU would mean raising taxes, especially Corporation-Taxes, in Ireland, going up. That would not be in our interests.

Unless EU law requires harmonisation, we should only harmonise our laws if our previous urles place additional costs on our taxpayers, or harm the Irish national-interest in other ways.

Victor

Originally posted by MrPudding
Cool. Can we now harmonise taxes and legalise abortion please. What do you mean no? I thought you wanted unity and harmony.

And invade [strike]Czechoslovakia[/strike] Iraq....

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Unless EU law requires harmonisation, we should only harmonise our laws if our previous urles place additional costs on our taxpayers, or harm the Irish national-interest in other ways.

Whats the word I'm looking for ... oh, yes "selfish"?

arcadegame2004

I prefer the terminology "putting Ireland's interests first".

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I prefer the terminology "putting Ireland's interests first".

Ah, so much for a "Europe of equals".

Lioness

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

you have continusly displayed your dislike of the result of the referendum through your comments about the ref, not to mention your condemnation and mocking of the Irish people and their culture. :rolleyes:

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.

the whole tone of your posts throughout this thread says different.:rolleyes: Why would I bother looking at other boards/threads you post on??Oh i get it, you change your mind about the Irish people and culture, when it suits you. v.poor debate strategy.

What is it? That's what I want to know - you seem to know but you won't tell me

Its being Irish, born and bred. Simple.

This is really all I ever wanted to know from you

All i want to know from you, is what exactly would this country do, if we got a mass influx of foreigners? not a few hundred, not a few thousand, maybe a few hundred thousand. I mean a flood. i have yet to hear from you re. this. this is the whole issue. you have skirted around it with your peace talk, and your ramblings that all cultures are great.

(do they all eat cabbage?).

this made me laff!!

in my own experience, Irishness is extremely hard, if not impossible to define.

really? maybe its cos you abhor the actual place and what it stands for. :rolleyes:

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well on the tax-issue, no, because harmonising taxes within the EU would mean raising taxes, especially Corporation-Taxes, in Ireland, going up. That would not be in our interests.

Unless EU law requires harmonisation, we should only harmonise our laws if our previous urles place additional costs on our taxpayers, or harm the Irish national-interest in other ways.

Ahh, I see. Unity and harmony if it is good for us? We the Irish poeple believe in European Unity and harmony!*






*As long as it is to our advantage and we are sticking it to some other country. We do not care that other countries have to compromise cos we won't. No surrender. Terms and conditions apply.

arcadegame2004

Well we're more of a Europe of equals now that we have pretty much the same citizenship-rules as the other 24 countries.

Mr.Pudding, we are not "sticking it" to other EU countries by harmonising our citizenship-laws to an extent with theirs, unless by "sticking it" to them you mean making them face up to their Dublin Convention responsibilities by removing a major pull-factor for asylum-seekers to travel to Ireland through many of their national-boundaries.

We are breaking no EU rules by harmonising our citizenship laws as such, so I don't see how we are offending any other country.

MrPudding

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Mr.Pudding, we are not "sticking it" to other EU countries by harmonising our citizenship-laws to an extent with theirs, unless by "sticking it" to them you mean making them face up to their Dublin Convention responsibilities by removing a major pull-factor for asylum-seekers to travel to Ireland through many of their national-boundaries.

We are breaking no EU rules by harmonising our citizenship laws as such, so I don't see how we are offending any other country.

I never said we were. I believe it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that the Dublin Convention only applies to one European country and your continued use of the term must, at this stage, be designed to be intentionally misleading and is in effect a blatent lie.

What are we doing when we don't harmonise taxes?

Can we legalise abortion now?

If you want unity and harmonisation why be selective?

MrP

simu

you have continusly displayed your dislike of the result of the referendum through your comments about the ref, not to mention your condemnation and mocking of the Irish people and their culture.

I'm not very happy with the result but I accept it. I don't know why you think I mocked the Irish people.

the whole tone of your posts throughout this thread says different. Why would I bother looking at other boards/threads you post on??Oh i get it, you change your mind about the Irish people and culture,

No, I don't. I've already explained my views on Irish cultures - that it's a blend of different cultures. You're the one who is coming up with a stereotypical view of the Irish. I'm quoting what you said below:

nope I disagree. how about the Irish accent for one?? for your information I'll list a few things.. how about our culture of pubs, Irish dancing, Irish food-cabbage & bacon, stew, the Irish sense of humour, the friendlyness, Irish music?? I think it would be easy to spot a "real" Irish person among spainish or french or..

Do all Irish people eat cabbage and potatoes? Do all Irish people have Irish dancing and trad music in their lives? Do all Irish people have an Irish accent? Are all Irish people friendly? Do all Irish people like pub culture? No, no, no, no and no. I find your reductive view of Irish cultures insulting to the Irish people, I have to say.

Its being Irish, born and bred. Simple.

Ah, an answer at last! Don't you see a contradiction here? If being Irish is about being born and bred here, doesn't that also hold for children of foreigners born here?

All i want to know from you, is what exactly would this country do, if we got a mass influx of foreigners? not a few hundred, not a few thousand, maybe a few hundred thousand. I mean a flood. i have yet to hear from you re. this. this is the whole issue. you have skirted around it with your peace talk, and your ramblings that all cultures are great.

Well, the only way people arriving here could set a claim to living here would be to declare themselves as asylum seekers. The government would have to process their claims to see if they qualified as refugees and if they did not, they'd have to leave. It would be a problem in the unlikely event that hundreds of thousands of people started to come here because we wouldn't have the resources to deal with all the applications for refugee status quickly but the passing of the referendum doesn't prevent people from coming here. Neway, I don't think this is any more likely than hundreds of thousands of Irish-Americans suddnely deciding to move to Ireland because they were sick of Bush or something.

As for children being born here to non-nationals becoming Irish citizens, this did not give the childrens' parents the right to stay here so it's not that much of an incentive. Besides, the number of such births seems to has been low up to now. This does mean we could end up with a small number of children who hold Irish nationality living abroad and coming here to live when they become adults. I don't think that's as bad as people make it out to be - they might make valuable contributions to the country in the future. I know that a couple whose child is an Irish citizen is currently contesting their deportation and I don't know what the outcome of this case will be - I 'd be inclined to say that they ought not be given the right to live here unless their lives are in danger in their home country (in which case, they'd qualify for refugee status anyway).

It seems inevitable and desirable for us to attract immigrants to Ireland in the future and I wouldn't be surprised if Ireland eventually set up something similar to a Green Card lottery to attract skilled workers here. Even if we don't do this, we'll certainly see an increase in the number of cultural groups on this island in future and people have to get used to this. People assume that this will mean the death of "Irish culture" and "Irishness" but I don't think this is true. My main point is that Irish culture has never been a static thing and that people don't have to fear having their identities destroyed by new-comers. This isn't a trivial matter - it is crucial that people understand this if we are to stop xenophobia from taking root in this country.

chewy

firstly i agree with most of what simu says about being irish no-one and every one is irish.....

secondly back to rock climbers direct diversion of funds from asylum seekers to cancer treatment....

he did say that less money should be spent on asylum seekers and more on cacner treatment... to suggest this is to blame the asylum seekers for the poor state of the health system.....

seamus

Originally posted by Tuars
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?

Nope. It is a tad messy, but there are other similar, "Well, actually now that we've thought about it, that last thing we said isn't wholly correct" articles in the constitution.
It was probably something of a political excercise not to amend Article 2 instead, which would have been cleaner. Quite a lot of energy and debate went into that article, and I think they would have had a much harder time convincing people to vote yes.

Originally posted by Victor
Of course the are "no provisions made to deny Irish people citizenship", because this amendment is denying that these babies will be Irish.

Read my post again Victor, and stop being pedantic, thanks
He was arguing that this amendment leaves the door open to deny citizenship to other groups of people without another referendum. It doesn't.

Lioness

I don't know why you think I mocked the Irish people.

You did indirectly through your derogatory comments about the Irish culture.

I've already explained my views on Irish cultures - that it's a blend of different cultures.

nope. your comments stated basicaly that Irish culture was a blend of IRISH people, whom have different religion, income levels and living quaters. i dont think these variables constitute a different culture.

Yes you do change your mind about Irish culture. I'll refresh your memory:

I'm pretty enthusiastic about Irish cultures overall.

What heritage and culture is this, anyway? Watching Coronation St. and Friends and supporting Man United?

Says it all about your attitude really.

I find your reductive view of Irish cultures insulting to the Irish people, I have to say.

Well that IS the Irish culture. go anywhere in the world, Japan, Spain etc. and ask them what their perceptions of Irish culture are. And you would get similar things that I spoke about.. hey, Riverdance any1?:D
I find your hypocritical view of Irish culture insulting to the Irish people. See above.

doesn't that also hold for children of foreigners born here?

of course it does. Any child who is born here, and within constitution rules, is Irish.

the passing of the referendum doesn't prevent people from coming here.

I think you'll find it would prevent a number of pregnant women comming here...

As for children being born here to non-nationals becoming Irish citizens, this did not give the childrens' parents the right to stay here so it's not that much of an incentive.

erm I think your confused..the new cons, states that if a child is born here 1 of the parents must be Irish if the child is to claim citizenship. 1 of the parents would be a non-national but would end up staying here..

they might make valuable contributions to the country in the future.

MIGHT is the key word... or else they might scrounge off the state, cause trouble... etc

attract skilled workers here.

yes it is desirable to attract a number of SKILLED workers here. Immigrants who have something to offer this country and will contribute to its wealth.

people don't have to fear having their identities destroyed by new-comers.

Irish identity would not be destroyed but would be lost and undistinguishable if a mass influx of varied ethnic groups and cultures came here. Its logical.

pete

my stormfront sense is tingling

simu

erm I think your confused..the new cons, states that if a child is born here 1 of the parents must be Irish if the child is to claim citizenship. 1 of the parents would be a non-national but would end up staying here..

That's why I used the past tense. Read my post again.

of course it does. Any child who is born here, and within constitution rules, is Irish.

That's not what you said - you said that any child "born and bred" here is Irish.

Well that IS the Irish culture. go anywhere in the world, Japan, Spain etc. and ask them what their perceptions of Irish culture are. And you would get similar things that I spoke about.. hey, Riverdance any1? I find your hypocritical view of Irish culture insulting to the Irish people. See above.

Ah, so culture is the stereotypes foreigners who know little about a country have of that country. Gee, I'd better toora-loora laddy me way to the hairdressers tomorrow and get me ole hair dyed red.

MIGHT is the key word... or else they might scrounge off the state, cause trouble... etc

Most people don't scrounge, why would these people be any different?

nope. your comments stated basicaly that Irish culture was a blend of IRISH people, whom have different religion, income levels and living quaters. i dont think these variables constitute a different culture.

No, it was a blend of people who have different religions, languages, music, customs etc - go and read again, I'm not repeating myself.

You did indirectly through your derogatory comments about the Irish culture.

I stated that there is no such thing as an "Irish culture" but rather "Irish cultures" (note the plural form of the noun). Quoting myself: "What heritage and culture is this, anyway? Watching Coronation St. and Friends and supporting Man United?" - These were questions not statements. I asked you to define this "Irish culture" you keep talking about and asked if it would have anything to do with English soccer teams or American sit-coms as these are things that seem to be popular right accross the country (and the world, even). I fail to see what's derogatory about this.

yes it is desirable to attract a number of SKILLED workers here. Immigrants who have something to offer this country and will contribute to its wealth.

But won't these people bring their cultures too? Could they not also "swamp" Irish culture as well?

Irish identity would not be destroyed but would be lost and undistinguishable if a mass influx of varied ethnic groups and cultures came here. Its logical.

I disagree.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
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.

I have proved my assertions ... the amendment proves my assertions ... listen very carefully .... this can now happen ... that is my assertion

Your responce to that was either

1 - It can happen, but only in very very rare circumstances (of course you have no real idea about the odds of it happening, you are just making that bit up)

2 - But if it does happen you don't care ("s**t happens")

You can't prove it cannot happen ... you can't even prove that it would be unlikely .. you have nothing at all to base your statements, other than constantly saying I am paraniod which seems a really cheap way to attempt to express a point (do you even understand what that word means?) ... and I would remind you that you responsed to me, not the other way round. I would kindly ask you not to responde to my posts in such a rude manner unless you actually have something to back up your statements.

So I ask, do you actually have any proof/evidence/point to your posts other than your own opinion that you believe this is unlikely or that you don't care if it does happen.

If not maybe you should wait till you actually have something intelligent to add to the debate.

Zombrex

Originally posted by seamus

He was arguing that this amendment leaves the door open to deny citizenship to other groups of people without another referendum. It doesn't.

I was actually arguing that this new "definiton" of "Irish" leave the door open for true Irish people to be denied citizienship on technicalities

seamus

Originally posted by Wicknight
I was actually arguing that this new "definiton" of "Irish" leave the door open for true Irish people to be denied citizienship on technicalities

If they can be denied citizenship, then they can't be "true Irish". I think Victor said that.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
I have proved my assertions ... the amendment proves my assertions ... listen very carefully .... this can now happen ... that is my assertion

“I’ve proved it because I say so” - there’s a crock of ****, if I ever heard one.

You’ve not proved anything, you’ve not even tried. All you’ve come out with is paranoid instances and expected everyone else to disprove them. It’s like arguing that we must defend against an invasion from Lichtenstein and when challenged expecting others to disprove your assertion. It doesn’t work that way.

I would kindly ask you not to responde to my posts in such a rude manner unless you actually have something to back up your statements.

Practice what you preach, ducky.

So I ask, do you actually have any proof/evidence/point to your posts other than your own opinion that you believe this is unlikely or that you don't care if it does happen.

Again, you’ve managed to avoid any proof or even semblance of a case and have turned the onus on my disproving your spurious assertions. Very clever.

Originally posted by pete
my stormfront sense is tingling

My witch-hunt sense is tingling...

Automatically assuming that any argument that defends nationalism or patriotism and it’s components - culture, ethnic identity, history, Guinness - is simply a by-product of racism would tend to demonstrate a fundamental lack of effort on the accusing poster’s part. Or a sub-normal IQ. I’ve not decided which.

pete

Originally posted by The Corinthian
My witch-hunt sense is tingling...

Automatically assuming that any argument that defends nationalism or patriotism and it’s components - culture, ethnic identity, history, Guinness - is simply a by-product of racism would tend to demonstrate a fundamental lack of effort on the accusing poster’s part. Or a sub-normal IQ. I’ve not decided which.

Zed zed zed. Am i supposed to be insulted?

Go back and read lionesses post. Look at the tone, the language & the phraseology used. Now go read some posts on the stormfront ireland board - you'll see the similarities for yourself.

I'm starting to believe that a number of user accounts have been set up here by certain racist individuals in an attempt to create a more acceptable / legitimate front for their views.

It's only a slight change to what was a fairly common tactic. In the past, they'd appear on a message board and post as an anti-racist of some description. Then a racist would show up with some "evidence" to show them the error of their ways and the "anti racist" changes their mind. I can show you actual examples of it happening elsewhere if you like.

Yes, I know it sounds paranoid and is all a bit tin foil hat, but our emptyheaded revisionist pal even suggests "INFILTRATE THIS GROUP" of the boycott ireland (i think) campaign on his website...

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
“I’ve proved it because I say so” - there’s a crock of ****, if I ever heard one.

You’ve not proved anything, you’ve not even tried.

Sigh ...

what part of it is in the amendment do you not understand??

If you believe that that is not true ... that the amendment is not proof that situations can arise where a vaild Irish person can be denied citizenship ... they why did you agree only a couple of posts ago (your rather distasteful "sh*t happens" statement).

Are you really going to start contracticting yourself just to attempt to win an argument?

Zombrex

Originally posted by seamus
If they can be denied citizenship, then they can't be "true Irish". I think Victor said that.

That a bit of funny logic

A person born in Ireland with an Irish parent can be still be denied Irish citizienship under this amendment if the person cannot, for what ever reason, prove the parent is a vaild Irish citizen.

Which comes first, being "Irish" or having a piece of paper that says you are "Irish."

seamus

Originally posted by Wicknight
That a bit of funny logic

A person born in Ireland with an Irish parent can be still be denied Irish citizienship under this amendment if the person cannot, for what ever reason, prove the parent is a vaild Irish citizen.

Which comes first, being "Irish" or having a piece of paper that says you are "Irish."

In that case, my sentiments here echo what Corinthian has been saying.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by pete
Zed zed zed. Am i supposed to be insulted?

I don’t care. It got your attention though

Go back and read lionesses post. Look at the tone, the language & the phraseology used. Now go read some posts on the stormfront ireland board - you'll see the similarities for yourself.

You’re jumping to conclusions. It’s akin to arguing that if you hold a meeting with an Irish flag prominently at it, you must be a chucky.

I’ve always considered race theory to be rather weak beyond a superficial level - most racists, or racialists (I think they call themselves), seem to very transparently extrapolate their theories using inductive reasoning, for example.

However, that is not to say that there should be a moratorium on debate, or that racial differences don’t exist. Asians / Mongoloids suffer from alcohol and lactose intolerance, compared to Whites / Caucasians. Blacks / Negroids suffer from sickle cell anaemia more so (indeed, almost exclusively) than the other races. These are medical facts, demonstrating that differences do exist, even if they are largely superficial ones. Of course, I could be branded as racist simply by saying so, and there lies one of Societies problems.

A good few years ago (pre-Celtic Tiger) I was at a student debate in UCD on the topic of allowing a halting site for travellers in Belfield. One by one the usual student debaters fell over each other to defend travellers’ rights to have the halting site, with the only opponents arguing that they should not allow a halting site in Belfield, because it wasn’t good enough for them.

Throughout this, the usual hacks congregated at the back and quietly cracked knacker jokes, even though they had defended their rights moments before. I can’t remember which way the motion went in the end, but it was - surprisingly, considering how one sided the debate was - close enough to require a hand count.

It’s probably the only time in my life where even my well-matured cynicism couldn’t deal with the hypocrisy.

In the present day; the vast majority of people did not understand the referendum, regardless of whether it was good or bad, and I suspect most voted with xenophobia in mind, even though they’d never say anything in public.

The problem is though; just making it politically incorrect does not stop it happening. You can only change views through argument and open debate, not by burying them and allowing them to fester unchallenged. You won’t convert fanatics; by you’ll show them up in front of anyone who might be swayed by them. Censor them and their assumptions will go unchallenged, or worse people will suspect that there must be some truth to them because they are being censored.

Just because you don’t like something someone says, does not make them a racist. And even if they are racist, you do more ill by censoring them than debunking their views.

Zombrex

Originally posted by seamus
In that case, my sentiments here echo what Corinthian has been saying.

What? "Sh*t Happens?"

Seriously though, do you not agree that it would have been much better to structure the amendment in a much more tight iron manner that won't create headaches down the road.

This amendment is badly worded and structured, and it was rushed through with hardly any consideration of long term effects.

I always though it ironic that an amendment meant to close a "loophole" had the poential to open so many more.

People don't seem to get that one can vote no on an amendment even if they agree with principle behind it

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
what part of it is in the amendment do you not understand??

If you believe that that is not true ... that the amendment is not proof that situations can arise where a vaild Irish person can be denied citizenship ... they why did you agree only a couple of posts ago (your rather distasteful "sh*t happens" statement).

Are you really going to start contracticting yourself just to attempt to win an argument?

You’re still using the “it’s true, because it just is - you disprove it” argument.

I understand the amendment, but, just to humour you, let’s say I don’t. Now will you point out proof from the amendment where such cases as you have described, that would differ significantly from the pre-referendum scenario, that cannot be dealt with in legislation? Stop bluffing.

You’ve not done so, you’re not doing so and I suspect you cannot do so. You’re simply clinging to the same argument and obfuscating the discussion with it.