"Yes" landslide

seamus

Originally posted by Wicknight
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.

The consitution isn't watertight. There are loopholes everywhere. As loopholes go, what you mention is a decidedly rare combinations of events, and it's just as easy to legislate to fill in the gaps, as they do with most of the rest of the constitution. I don't forsee any major headaches, maybe one or two people left in a tight spot. "Sh*t happens" as the man says.
There are only two ways to make a constitution watertight - Have a massive tome consisting of thousands, if not millions of possibilities, and get-out clauses. A series of if-then-else blocks for each facet of life, if you will.
Or, you could make a small set of principles, which must rigidly be stuck to, devoid of context, and devoid of taking circumstances into account.
Obviously both are flawed, and the current system of an interpretable consitution, open to have legislation added to fill in gaps, or update the situation is ideal imo.

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

I agree its positioning and wording could have been integrated better into the constitution, but as I mentioned before, I believe that was a political tactic to avoid amending article 2 (again).

Unpossible

out of curiosity (sp), what is the position taken by other countries?
A german friend tried to get me to argue on the refferendum before it happened, her argument was that it was in the Irish constitution that children born here should be Irish, Im not familiar with all the ins an outs of the amendment (and couldn't vote being in a different country), but still had to tell her that, that wasn't much of an argument to put up.
From what I gathered from her though is that with germany you get your parents citizenship (maybe worded wrong but a citizenship of your parents country). Also im told in finland you get your mothers.

Zombrex

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

TC you agreed it was true 5 posts ago, you just said either it was too unlikely (I was paraniod) or you didn't care ("S**t happens") ... now you are completely changing you view point and you want me to go along with it :rolleyes:

If you know it is possible, why are asking me too prove it is possible again ... just look back to what ever it was that convinced you the first time -

Originally posted by The Corinthian

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?

Dealt with in legislation?!? Are you serious?? You just drop that in now and expect me to talk the bait ... very clever TC :rolleyes:

Would you please go an look up Constitution in even the most basic of law books, because I am very quickly beginning to realise you do not have a clue what the Constitution is supposed to protect.

If every piece of legistlation dealt properly with fundamental rights, we wouldn't need a constitiution would we!

Will you please state, in your own words, what you believe the point of the Constitution is, because I am think you don't believe it has a point.

One of my major problems in my original post was that power for citizenship has been placed into legislation, and now you are attempting to use that fact to disprove my objections? Seriously, you have nothing do you.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
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.

I am "clinging" to the argument that so far still holds true, this amendment is messy and produces serious loop holes. You cannot get a way from that so you

• Call me paraniod, saying never going to happen
• Admitt it can happen, but you don't care
• Say they are only extreme cases
• Call for proof (really didn't get that one, do you not read your own posts)
• Continously demand proof for my statemenst which you already accepted where true, while refusing to provide any basis for your own statements.
• Change to talking about "legisaltion", showing a fundamental lack of understanding what a Constitution is for
• Continually mention X-Files (again, what?)

For those just joining us here is what the Human Rights Commission thought about the Amendment -

Qualification for citizenship makes the enjoyment of constitutional rights certain, whereas denial of citizenship leads, in some cases, to legal uncertainty and possible exclusion from these same rights...

...It is not apparent to the Commission that a comprehensive consideration of the human rights consequences of the proposed constitutional amendment has taken place...

...The Commission believes that if the proposed referendum is passed it is not clear what will be the significance, if any, of the rights set out in Article 2 of the Constitution regarding the ‘entitlement and birthright to be part of the Irish Nation’, or how the courts might interpret the entitlements under Article 2 of persons who are part of the Irish Nation, but not considered under statute to have any entitlement to Irish citizenship or nationality...

...The Commission is concerned that the “notwithstanding any other provision of the Constitution” aspect of the proposed amendment may impact on the fundamental rights provisions in Articles 40-44...

...As exclusion from Irish citizenship could nullify or impair the enjoyment of fundamental rights at a constitutional level, any initiative by Government to amend the citizenship laws to restrict the qualification for citizenship gives rise to legitimate human rights concerns...

... The Commission notes that other sources of citizenship, such as citizenship by descent, can also lead to persons becoming citizens who have very little connection with this country. The Commission believes that the selection of one particular category of such persons for restriction of their rights might constitute unacceptable discrimination in the absence of objective ...

... The Commission believes that there is at least an arguable case as to the potential impact of the proposed amendment on the Good Friday Agreement. ..

... The Commission believes that the data so far provided by the Government to justify the proposed amendment has not been adequately researched or analysed and that much of the evidence offered in support of the proposed amendment seems to be anecdotal in nature and inconclusive...

... The Commission believes that the Government has not demonstrated that all other means of addressing the matter of public concern identified which would be less detrimental to the rights of children have been exhausted and has not demonstrated any justification for singling out one category of citizens with “no substantial connection to Ireland” upon which to impose restrictions as to citizenship entitlements....

Zombrex

Originally posted by seamus
The consitution isn't watertight.

But it was pretty water tight, with relation to citizenship, and it has been replaced with a very messy amendment (see my quotes above from the HRC)

The truth is, despite what TC says, we don't know how this is going to effect future citizens. Very little long term effect analsys was carried out on the amendment, which is mind boggling considering the importance of it.

Simple the fact that a large responsibility of citizenship has been placed in legisation raises a huge area of uncertainty. Before this referendum I could say that my child will be Irish. Now I can say my child will be Irish, if I manage to prove I am also Irish, and if the future legislation I know nothing about, allows my child to be Irish.

I would have been possible to create a better amendment, but the government didn't even try.

I assume you voted Yes, so do you believe it was necessary that it was done in this exact manner?

seamus

Originally posted by Wicknight
One of my major problems in my original post was that power for citizenship has been placed into legislation, and now you are attempting to use that fact to disprove my objections? Seriously, you have nothing do you.

But power for citizenship has been in legislation since the constitution was born. Very little has *actually* changed.

But it was pretty water tight, and it has been replaced with a very messy amendment (see my quotes above from the HRC)

I would have been possible to create a better amendment, but the government didn't even try.

I assume you voted Yes, so do you believe it was necessary that it was done in this exact manner?

The HRC God bless them, do good work, and have an important role, but sometimes they get too goody-goody and PC. I also don't believe citizenship is a human rights issue.
As I say, not that much has actually changed, IMO. The consitution is as leaky as it's always been. It was messy, but it won't do any damage. I voted Yes, and don't necessarily think that this was the only way it could have been written, but why vote no and go to the expense of committees and planning meetings just to get them to say the exact same thing in a different way?

Zombrex

Originally posted by seamus
But power for citizenship has been in legislation since the constitution was born. Very little has *actually* changed.

But the legislation was under the restraints of the constitution, it couldn't go against the notion of citizenship (born in Ireland = Irish)

Now the legislation is given much freer reign to be much further away from the ideals of the constitution

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
TC you agreed it was true 5 posts ago, you just said either it was too unlikely (I was paraniod) or you didn't care ("S**t happens") ... now you are completely changing you view point and you want me to go along with it :rolleyes:

I agreed it was a possibility. It’s also a possibility that Lichtenstein will invade. I certainly never agreed it was a certainty.

If you know it is possible, why are asking me too prove it is possible again ... just look back to what ever it was that convinced you the first time –

You’ve proved nothing; where have you proved anything - point to the post.

Dealt with in legislation?!? Are you serious?? You just drop that in now and expect me to talk the bait ... very clever TC :rolleyes:

No. Stop trying to worm out of it. Go on; put up or shut up.

Lioness

my stormfront sense is tingling. 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 are treading on v.thin ice. You know f. all about me. Now don't ever make an assumption about me like that again.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I agreed it was a possibility. It’s also a possibility that Lichtenstein will invade. I certainly never agreed it was a certainty.

You’ve proved nothing; where have you proved anything - point to the post.

No. Stop trying to worm out of it. Go on; put up or shut up.

Sweet Enola Gay son!!!

If you agree it can happen what do you want me to prove??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

seamus

Originally posted by Wicknight
But the legislation was under the restraints of the constitution, it couldn't go against the notion of citizenship (born in Ireland = Irish)

Now the legislation is given much freer reign to be much further away from the ideals of the constitution

But this ideal was only put in place on December 2nd 1999. The same country who voted this time, voted last time.
Anyway, all legislation can do is add exceptions to the "No Irish Parent = not a citizen" rule. Legislation has no reign over further tightening restrictions, which isn't necessarily going against the ideal of Article 2.

They should have replaced Article 2 completely, but as I say, that would have been a major headache, in terms of securing a vote. It's also very likely that doing so would have upset the British-Irish agreement, possibly even setting back the peace process 6 years, which is something we definitely wouldn't want.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
Sweet Enola Gay son!!!

If you agree it can happen what do you want me to prove??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

And I agree that Lichtenstein could invade us too. Are you even listening?

Now again:

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?

pete

Originally posted by The Corinthian
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.

<snip>

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.

First of all, I consider it "forming an opinion" rather than "jumping to conclusions".

Secondly, where did I suggest censorship? I firmly believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by pete
First of all, I consider it "forming an opinion" rather than "jumping to conclusions".

I read what she posted and I'd consider it "jumping to conclusions".

Secondly, where did I suggest censorship? I firmly believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves.

Sure and suggesting she was Stormfront Nazi wasn't inviting a PC witch-hunt then? :rolleyes:

pete

Originally posted by Lioness
you are treading on v.thin ice. You know f. all about me. Now don't ever make an assumption about me like that again.

Oooh veiled threats. Nice.

What I know about you is what i've gleaned from your posts - nothing more, nothing less.

pete

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I read what she posted and I'd consider it "jumping to conclusions".

Obviously you are privy to the inner workings of my brain.

Sure and suggesting she was Stormfront Nazi wasn't inviting a PC witch-hunt then? :rolleyes:

Eh, no.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
And I agree that Lichtenstein could invade us too. Are you even listening?

Now again:

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?

I will with everything apart from the "with in legislation" because you dropped that in 2 posts ago to attempt to salvage your argument nose driving, and it was never part of my inital point. In fact one of my inital points was that it is bad to have to fix the constitution with legislation because -

a) we are not guaranteed that it will happen
b) we are not guaranteed that it won't be changed again

Also, what legislation? You want me to disprove legislation that doesn't exist yet!... this is like arguing with a 5 year old.

• What happens if the mother dies before birth?
• What happens if an non-national mother and Irish father have child together in Ireland but out of wedlock and the mother dies or refuses to acknowledge the father. The child is not Irish?

Under old rules -

1 - Child is still Irish
2 - Child is still Irish

BTW these two events happen all the time

Lioness

you said that any child "born and bred" here is Irish.

yes. and any child born within the new cons. amendement is aswell.

so culture is the stereotypes foreigners who know little about a country have of that country.

culture of a country is what distinguishges it from other countries. Yes, cultures here and abroad are general, but they EXIST. plain and simple. you have failed to prove otherwise and thus, are reduced to making snide comments. I wont bother quoting u as your argument is pretty dead in the water anyway.

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

All i will say is that there are probably thousands scrounging off the state be it foreigners or not. you are being v.naive if you believe otherwise.

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

yes. thats what i said. but they are all Irish. Simple. All you are doing is differentiating people of one culture according to variables such as religion, income and living quaters. You don't seem to know there is a name for this. Demographics.

"What heritage and culture is this, anyway? Watching Coronation St. and Friends and supporting Man United?These were questions not statements."

nope. Just snide sarcasm.

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 told you what I see Irish culture as. every1 likes soccer teams or sitcoms. So what? However Irish people would be more inclined to support the Irish soccer team and would watch say, Fr.Ted. remember Italia '90 everyone?

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

you didnt read my post, I said a No. of skilled workers..

I disagree.

Why is that?? What will happen otherwise??

simu

Originally posted by Lioness
you are treading on v.thin ice. You know f. all about me. Now don't ever make an assumption about me like that again.

I don't think you're from Stormfront and I don't think it was fair for you to be labelled like that.

The two of us have radically different views on the issues we discussed and I don't find your argument as to what constitutes "Irishness" very convincing but you have the same right to post here as anyone else.

pete

Originally posted by simu
you have the same right to post here as anyone else.

Are you implying that I suggested otherwise?

edit: for clarification purposes

Last night I read a series of posts in which i saw similarities of opinion, tone, language and arguing style with posts i've seen on stormfront ireland. I posted a (slightly) tongue in cheek "my stormfront sense is tingling" (ref: spiderman / spidersense), and in return I was accused of attempting to stir up a witch hunt. This is simply not true. It was not an accusation - it was an observation.

I have explained why I thought there were similarities, and tried to explain why what i was suspicious of wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility.

In return, I have been accused of censorship (twice!), even though at no time have I suggested that people should be banned, threads should be locked or posts deleted.

To those who think it's a completely crackers suggestion, I suggest you spend a little time reading the threads on stormfront ireland dealing with infiltrating other causes, political parties and internet communities / message boards. Read about how they want to manipulate other issues to meet their own agenda. Read about how the moderators are pleading with people to be careful not to use racist language in case they "feed the media".

Oh and Lioness - if in fact you're not a racist bigot, please accept my apologies.

simu

No, I was adressing Lioness.

pete

Originally posted by simu
No, I was adressing Lioness.

sorry - the auld paranoia, y'know?

Lioness

I don't think it was fair for you to be labelled like that.

thats what the likes of him/her/it do when they have nothing constructive to say. They make half wit accusations. Basically they talk through their @rse. :rolleyes:

The two of us have radically different views on the issues we discussed and I don't find your argument as to what constitutes "Irishness" very convincing.

I dont find your argument for the no vote, v.convincing either.

simu

Well, first you tried to define Irishness by culture but failing to provide any example of an Irish culture that applies to all Irish people, you decided Irishness would be based on whatever the constitution decides it is - that's a bit inconsistent.

All i will say is that there are probably thousands scrounging off the state be it foreigners or not. you are being v.naive if you believe otherwise.

I don't deny the existence of scroungers - I said there are fewer scroungers than non-scroungers in any group of people.

All you are doing is differentiating people of one culture according to variables such as religion, income and living quaters. You don't seem to know there is a name for this. Demographics.

Did I mention income and living quarters? No. And religion is cultural as it has a huge effect on the way you inderstand life.

However Irish people would be more inclined to support the Irish soccer team and would watch say, Fr.Ted. remember Italia '90 everyone?

So would foreigners who came to live here - once you start living in new place, you start to pick up local habits.

Why is that?? What will happen otherwise??

There will be more Irish cultures - Irish-Nigerians, Irish-Russians, Irish-Moldovans (in fact, there already are). And as for the Irish people whose ancestors came here longer ago, are they suddenly going to drop all the cultural activities they take part in and change the way they behave if new people arrive? No.

As I said before, I don't find your arguments convincing, you obviously don't frind mine convincing either so now that we've both stated our views on this more than once, I don't much point in going on and repeating ourselves tbh.

Trebor

Lioness just looking for some clarification, are you saying that you believe that what makes someone irish is that they are born and bred here? i.e. they are born here and then raised here? or do you mean born to already irish citizens and raised here?

simu some clarification from you also, are you saying that what makes someone irish is the fact that they live in ireland?

as far as i am concerned i would tend to agree simu if that is the case as i see it if you contribute to society then you should be part of that society. and before anyone mentions social welfare spongers they still spend their dole on products which are taxed which help society

bobbyjoe

Google search for the definition of an Irish person.

Definitions of an irish person on the Web:
a native or inhabitant of Ireland

Definitions of inhabitant on the Web:
a person who inhabits a particular place

Definitions of inhabit on the Web:
make one's home or live in;
be present in; be inside of
live or dwell in.
To dwell or live in; occupy.
live in or on, as in: Many rare animals inhabit the island.
to live somewhere.

Looks like Simu's definition to me and I'd agree with him or her.

Lioness

Well, first you tried to define Irishness by culture but failing to provide any example of an Irish culture that applies to all Irish people

erm, I did. about 2pgs ago...

Irishness would be based on whatever the constitution decides

No. Irish citizenship rights will be based on the cons. I didnt say Irishness.

Did I mention income and living quarters? No

You mentioned travellers and people from "sink housing estates". so you did indirectly.

And religion is cultural as it has a huge effect on the way you inderstand life.

That depends on how strongly you adhere to the particular religion.

Irish people ancestors

I dont see what Irish ancestors have to do with it.

are they suddenly going to drop all the cultural activities

drop? No. They will probably be lost...
yes we have both stated our views enough.

Definitions of irish person on the Web:a native or inhabitant of Ireland

native You forgot to look up this. :rolleyes:
the quality of belonging to or being connected with a certain place or region by virtue of birth or origin. ( Taken from the freedictionary.com.)

simu

simu some clarification from you also, are you saying that what makes someone irish is the fact that they live in ireland?

Well, I wouldn't exclude people of Irish ancestry or people with Irish passports who have not yet been here, either.

Lioness

are you saying that you believe that what makes someone irish is that they are born and bred here? i.e. they are born here and then raised here? or do you mean born to already irish citizens and raised here?

yes to both Q's.
i don't think its correct to say that just because you live in a country, therefore you are a true citizen of that country. If I go and live in France do I become French? Or vice versa? It doesnt make sense.

bobbyjoe

Lioness: native You forgot to look up this.
the quality of belonging to or being connected with a certain place or region by virtue of birth or origin. ( Taken from the freedictionary.com.)

The first definition said or

Anyway I see native includes "connected with a certain place or region by virtue of birth "

Lioness: If I go and live in France do I become French? Or vice versa

If you were born in France wouldn't you feel some connection to it even if both your parents were Irish?

sceptre

Originally posted by Lioness
Definitions of irish person on the Web:a native or inhabitant of Ireland
native You forgot to look up this. :rolleyes:
the quality of belonging to or being connected with a certain place or region by virtue of birth or origin. ( Taken from the freedictionary.com.)

Assuming you're all happy to run with dictionary definitions then, anyone else want to explain the difference between a logical OR and a logical AND to Lioness?

I'n going away to Galway for the weekend and I'm going now so I've no time to draw nice little Venn diagrams.