Gerry Adams to run for President ?

Crooked Jack

Painted Pony wrote: »

How it might be done is besides the point. Where would the logic be in affording Northern Irish people a vote in a meaningless election for president but denying them a more important vote?

None whatsoever. but i suppose we just have to take it one step at a time. as a largely symbolic move, presidential votes are a good start

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

The constitution allows people born in Ireland to be Irish citizens. It doesn't make Northern Ireland part of the Republic. As much as it suits your agenda to ram your head firmly in the sand on this point, you're proposing that we create a situation where Irish citizens who are resident in a different country are allowed to vote in our elections, unless that country happens to be on a different land mass, in which case they can get knotted.

I have a problem with creating a special class of non-resident citizen, and I'm not alone.

That makes them citizens. It doesn't make them eligible to vote, any more than it makes my brother - who was born in the Republic of Ireland - eligible to vote, as he now lives outside the jurisdiction. Irish citizens in Northern Ireland live in a different country. If you'd stop trying to push the ludicrous notion that this isn't the case, we might be able to have a sensible discussion on the topic.

As it stands, the immediate topic is whether a referendum to allow non-resident citizens to vote would pass. If your ideology requires you to believe that the Irish electorate are lining up to allow non-residents to vote, fair enough; you may find yourself bitterly disappointed if and when it goes to a vote.

You are ignoring the special case the GFA makes of NI. Read it again and you will see how it is perfectly feasible to include Irish citizens (living in a state that is only British by dint of a majority of one side of the community wishing it to be) in an election on the ISLAND OF IRELAND. You would not be making a 'special class', they are already a 'special class' as are Unionists- a 'special class' of British citizen until they majority makes them non resident British citizens.
That's the complexities that you are rather neatly missing.

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's kind of hilarious that you think that the border that divides the Republic of Ireland from the United Kingdom is somehow less real than any other line on a map.

Kind of hilarious? You're easily amused.

Where did I say it was less real?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are ignoring the special case the GFA makes of NI. Read it again and you will see how it is perfectly feasible to include Irish citizens (living in a state that is only British by dint of a majority of one side of the community wishing it to be) in an election on the ISLAND OF IRELAND. You would not be making a 'special class', they are already a 'special class' as are Unionists- a 'special class' of British citizen until they majority makes them non resident British citizens.
That's the complexities that you are rather neatly missing.

I have read it many times and I don't see anywhere how you can reach your fantasy conclusion - maybe you could point me to the specific clause that facilitates irish citizens in northern Ireland voting in a presidential election?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I have read it many times and I don't see anywhere how you can reach your fantasy conclusion - maybe you could point me to the specific clause that facilitates irish citizens in northern Ireland voting in a presidential election?

There isn't one but what is there is many statements which give them the right to be Irish citizens and we (the Irish government) accept that. Should the Irish Government allow Irish citizens the right to cast a vote for president of an island we (the Irish government) desire to be unified, then that will not be a problem. As Unionists also signed up to the agreement they can have no objection and won't be allowed to, because it doesn't concern them as British citizens.
The existence of the internationally recognised GFA means N.I. is a special case, (it isn't in any shape or form the same as the rest of the UK) because it has failed, you and others need to face that fact.

Karl Stein

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Why do you care whether people in the north want to vote for the President or not?

What's it to you?

Why have you not answered this Manassas61?

Karl Stein

oscarBravo wrote: »

No disrespect, but I'd be surprised if you did.

Ah the good old 'but-head'.

Have you ever really considered the lesser spotted but-head?

No disrespect? I'm not fooled.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why would a southern Irishman or woman have an objection to a fellow Irish person (they did massively endorse that identification in the GFA referendum) voting in our presidential elections? How would they articulate that objection? Care to give it go?

Not so sure how a Corkonian (southern Irish) would iterate it.
I would iterate it as follows, you do not reside and are not domiciled in the jurisdiction covered by the Irish Constitution, therefore you have no grounds to expect to vote in elections held in said jurisdiction.

Happyman42

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Not so sure how a Corkonian (southern Irish) would iterate it.
I would iterate it as follows, you do not reside and are not domiciled in the jurisdiction covered by the Irish Constitution, therefore you have no grounds to expect to vote in elections held in said jurisdiction.

They reside on an island where the government (the people) enshrine their right to be Irish in the constitution, if the people (the government) give them the right to vote in the election of a President of an electorate that aspires towards untiy, what Irish man or woman could have a legitimate objection to that? You can't selectively exclude or cherrypick aspects of the agreement like that without risking it's collapse, look at the damage Unionist cherrypicking does to the spirit of the agreement.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

...if the people (the government) give them the right to vote in the election of a President...

The government can't give them that right. Only the people can give them that right, and if the people give them that right in a referendum, so be it.

But you're arguing from your conclusion. You're basically arguing that we should let Northern Ireland residents vote in Republic elections, because if we change the constitution to let them vote, it will be OK to let them vote. Which isn't even an argument.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

There isn't one but what is there is many statements which give them the right to be Irish citizens and we (the Irish government) accept that. Should the Irish Government allow Irish citizens the right to cast a vote for president of an island we (the Irish government) desire to be unified, then that will not be a problem. As Unionists also signed up to the agreement they can have no objection and won't be allowed to, because it doesn't concern them as British citizens.
The existence of the internationally recognised GFA means N.I. is a special case, (it isn't in any shape or form the same as the rest of the UK) because it has failed, you and others need to face that fact.

So there isn't anything in the GFA to make it perfectly feasible to include Irish citizens in an election on the Island of Ireland unlike what you said earlier.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are ignoring the special case the GFA makes of NI. Read it again and you will see how it is perfectly feasible to include Irish citizens (living in a state that is only British by dint of a majority of one side of the community wishing it to be) in an election on the ISLAND OF IRELAND. You would not be making a 'special class', they are already a 'special class' as are Unionists- a 'special class' of British citizen until they majority makes them non resident British citizens.
That's the complexities that you are rather neatly missing.

What you have failed to address is that the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 as a result of the GFA actually reduce the status of Irish citizens in Northern Ireland to the status of Irish citizens elsewhere when it comes to Irishness.

Look at the new Article 2:

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

Where in any of that section is there a special case for Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

So there isn't anything in the GFA to make it perfectly feasible to include Irish citizens in an election on the Island of Ireland unlike what you said earlier.

You do understand the word 'feasible' don't you?
The entire spirit of the agreement makes the proposal 'feasible'.

What you have failed to address is that the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 as a result of the GFA actually reduce the status of Irish citizens in Northern Ireland to the status of Irish citizens elsewhere when it comes to Irishness.

Look at the new Article 2:

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

Where in any of that section is there a special case for Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland?

The very existence of an internationally ratified agreement makes NI a special case.

If the Irish Nation accords Irish citizens living on the island a right to vote in a presidential election then that (as OscarBravo and others say) should not be a problem. Unionists would have no veto on that because to deny those that identify themselves as Irish would be to go against the spirit of the Agreement. Not to mention that Unionists no longer have a veto of any kind anyway.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

If the Irish Nation accords Irish citizens living on the island a right to vote in a presidential election then that (as OscarBravo and others say) should not be a problem.

Not the Irish Nation (which is a pretty vague concept); the Irish electorate (which isn't).

Brass tacks: if Irish citizens in Northern Ireland could vote, how would they do so? The Department of the Environment can't exactly set up polling stations in a different country.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

You do understand the word 'feasible' don't you?
The entire spirit of the agreement makes the proposal 'feasible'.






The very existence of an internationally ratified agreement makes NI a special case.

If the Irish Nation accords Irish citizens living on the island a right to vote in a presidential election then that (as OscarBravo and others say) should not be a problem. Unionists would have no veto on that because to deny those that identify themselves as Irish would be to go against the spirit of the Agreement. Not to mention that Unionists no longer have a veto of any kind anyway.

The GFA theoretically makes the reunification of this island feasible. But it does not make it realistic. There is a huge difference.

Article 2 makes no distinction between those who have citizenship as a result of being born in Northern Ireland and those who have citizenship as a result of ancestry.

You cannot separate out the two and include one group in a Presidential election.

Crooked Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not the Irish Nation (which is a pretty vague concept); the Irish electorate (which isn't).

Brass tacks: if Irish citizens in Northern Ireland could vote, how would they do so? The Department of the Environment can't exactly set up polling stations in a different country.

Why not? Countries all over Europe do it. Lithuanian and Polish citizens can cast their votes for elections at home in the consulate in Newry.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

The GFA theoretically makes the reunification of this island feasible. But it does not make it realistic. There is a huge difference.

Article 2 makes no distinction between those who have citizenship as a result of being born in Northern Ireland and those who have citizenship as a result of ancestry.

You cannot separate out the two and include one group in a Presidential election.

The GFA very clearly lays out the proceedures for unificaion when a majoity vote for it. Nothing theorethical about it, action by the British gov and the Irish gov must be taken when that event occurs. As we know from these forum the reality of that occuring is a matter of opinon. But it is very clear that it is the decision (without impediment from outside) of the people of 'the island of Ireland'. That's makes it a special case in my book.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

The GFA theoretically makes the reunification of this island feasible. But it does not make it realistic. There is a huge difference.

Article 2 makes no distinction between those who have citizenship as a result of being born in Northern Ireland and those who have citizenship as a result of ancestry.

You cannot separate out the two and include one group in a Presidential election.

It doesnt need to though, it already recognises that being born in the north entitles you to citizenship and to be a part of the nation. So someone born in the north, whose whole family is and was from the north, with no links to anyone from down south, wouldnt have any Irish ancestory under your ridiculous parameters, but would still be entitled to citizenship. How can you not see that this alone illustrates that the north is indeed a special case and that this indicates that the constitution already considers those in the north to be Irish, whether they choose to embrace that or not. Somebody from Kent, with no link to Ireland, would not be entitled to citizenship in this way. Similarly, somebody from, for example, China, with no link to Ireland, could have a kid in the north and that kid would be entitled to Irish citizenship, but the same couldnt be said for that child if it were born in England, Scotland or Wales.
It's clearly a special case.

Article 3 also states:

Institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between those jurisdictions may be established by their respective responsible authorities for stated purposes and may exercise powers and functions in respect of all or any part of the island.

Surely along these lines the presidency, or at least certain duties of the presidency, could be seen to constitute an all Ireland element, therefor entitling people to a vote.
You also need to step back from the letter of the law, so to speak, and look at the spirit of it. The president, regardless of what the constitution may hint at, has always been seen as and acted as the President of the entire nation and country. Not in a hostile or threatening manner to unionism, but in a way recognising the realities of Ireland's current state and the affinity the position holds with nationalists in the north. To ignore these aspects of the presidency and its power is to ignore reality.

oscarBravo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Why not? Countries all over Europe do it. Lithuanian and Polish citizens can cast their votes for elections at home in the consulate in Newry.

Does Ireland have a consulate in Northern Ireland?

Happyman42 wrote: »

The GFA very clearly lays out the proceedures for unificaion when a majoity vote for it.

Sure. And when unification happens, Northern Ireland residents will automatically qualify for voting rights in the same way as everyone else in the Republic. Until then, they are Irish citizens living in a different country, and should have the same rights as Irish citizens living in a different part of that country.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It doesnt need to though, it already recognises that being born in the north entitles you to citizenship and to be a part of the nation.

...but not to vote.

Somebody from Kent, with no link to Ireland, would not be entitled to citizenship in this way.

But somebody born here, but living in Kent, is entitled to citizenship - but not, in your scenario, to vote. So you're asking to selectively enfranchise citizens living abroad in order to further your political agenda.

Which is fair enough as far as it goes, but don't naively assume that everyone else buys into that agenda.

Surely along these lines the presidency, or at least certain duties of the presidency, could be seen to constitute an all Ireland element, therefor entitling people to a vote.

You're missing a huge chunk of logic in there. Entitlement to vote doesn't arise from your desire for such an entitlement.

The president, regardless of what the constitution may hint at, has always been seen as and acted as the President of the entire nation and country.

Sure. The President is also the president of the country of which my brother in Kent holds a passport. That doesn't mean he gets a vote.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Does Ireland have a consulate in Northern Ireland?

Could be done in a number of ways, postal votes, selected polling stations. All depends on the co-operation of the Assembly.

Sure. And when unification happens, Northern Ireland residents will automatically qualify for voting rights in the same way as everyone else in the Republic. Until then, they are Irish citizens living in a different country, and should have the same rights as Irish citizens living in a different part of that country.

...and it is proposed to give them a vote in the Irish presidential election on foot of a referendum here. I am still waiting to hear legitimate objections to that, not objections to holding the poll. Take it as a given that the poll is going ahead. Why would you deny a selected group of Irish citizens on the Island a vote in the election of a president they see as theirs?
Your brother in Kent not getting the same priviledge is not a legitimate answer. Did he get to vote in the GFA referendums from Kent?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could be done in a number of ways, postal votes, selected polling stations. All depends on the co-operation of the Assembly.

The co-operation of the Assembly? What dreamworld are you inhabiting?

Happyman42 wrote: »

...and it is proposed to give them a vote in the Irish presidential election on foot of a referendum here. I am still waiting to hear legitimate objections to that, not objections to holding the poll. Take it as a given that the poll is going ahead. Why would you deny a selected group of Irish citizens on the Island a vote in the election of a president they see as theirs?
Your brother in Kent not getting the same priviledge is not a legitimate answer. Did he get to vote in the GFA referendums from Kent?

Article 2 does not distinguish between the brother in Kent and the person born in Belfast. They have equal rights under our constitution.

Amending Article 2 to give the person born in Belfast greater rights, either in terms of voting or anything else, could be seen as a breach of the GFA.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

It doesnt need to though, it already recognises that being born in the north entitles you to citizenship and to be a part of the nation. So someone born in the north, whose whole family is and was from the north, with no links to anyone from down south, wouldnt have any Irish ancestory under your ridiculous parameters, but would still be entitled to citizenship. How can you not see that this alone illustrates that the north is indeed a special case and that this indicates that the constitution already considers those in the north to be Irish, whether they choose to embrace that or not. Somebody from Kent, with no link to Ireland, would not be entitled to citizenship in this way. Similarly, somebody from, for example, China, with no link to Ireland, could have a kid in the north and that kid would be entitled to Irish citizenship, but the same couldnt be said for that child if it were born in England, Scotland or Wales.
It's clearly a special case.

Yes, the north is a special case but it is a special case whereby people born in Northern Ireland have equal rights with people of Irish descent when it comes to citizenship. Article 2 says they are the same and they are citizens.

Therefore you cannot discriminate between the two groups.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Article 3 also states:



Surely along these lines the presidency, or at least certain duties of the presidency, could be seen to constitute an all Ireland element, therefor entitling people to a vote.
You also need to step back from the letter of the law, so to speak, and look at the spirit of it. The president, regardless of what the constitution may hint at, has always been seen as and acted as the President of the entire nation and country. Not in a hostile or threatening manner to unionism, but in a way recognising the realities of Ireland's current state and the affinity the position holds with nationalists in the north. To ignore these aspects of the presidency and its power is to ignore reality.

The Presidency is a constitutional office set out in certain articles. Therefore what it is or can be is limited by those provisions.

So it is not possible to say that because some people believe the Presidency can be seen as something it is not that translates into a right to vote for it.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could be done in a number of ways, postal votes, selected polling stations. All depends on the co-operation of the Assembly.

Postal voting? So not only do we create an elite class of foreign-resident citizen, we create an elite class of voter that has voting privileges over and above that of the average Irish citizen - all the while undermining the sanctity of the secret ballot? No thanks.

The alternative is asking the government of another country to administer an election on our behalf. Yeah, not an attractive option either.

Take it as a given that the poll is going ahead. Why would you deny a selected group of Irish citizens on the Island a vote in the election of a president they see as theirs?

Because they live in a different country, and we don't allow citizens living in different countries to vote, and I don't hold Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland in higher esteem than Irish citizens living in other parts of the UK.

Your brother in Kent not getting the same priviledge is not a legitimate answer. Did he get to vote in the GFA referendums from Kent?

That's not a legitimate counter. The GFA referendum in Northern Ireland wasn't restricted to Irish citizens. He didn't get to vote in a GFA referendum, and NI residents didn't get to vote for the Mayor of London.

Crooked Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

...but not to vote. But somebody born here, but living in Kent, is entitled to citizenship - but not, in your scenario, to vote. So you're asking to selectively enfranchise citizens living abroad in order to further your political agenda.

You are ignoring the already well established fact that the north is different and is indeed a special case. The constitution says so, the GFA says so. You're the only one being selective here.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Entitlement to vote doesn't arise from your desire for such an entitlement.

This is a pretty pathetic way of debating, pick out the bit you find easiest to defend against and ignore everything else. I mentioned this after I'd pointed out that the constitution could indeed be used to argue that the presidency or duties of the presidency have an all Ireland dimension and therefore, as it directly affects them, people in the north would be entitled to a vote on that basis.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The President is also the president of the country of which my brother in Kent holds a passport. That doesn't mean he gets a vote.

Again, you're ignoring the plain fact that the north is not treated the same as Britain. It is very, very different.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

Article 2 does not distinguish between the brother in Kent and the person born in Belfast. They have equal rights under our constitution.

Of course it does, why mention him otherwise

oscarBravo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You are ignoring the already well established fact that the north is different and is indeed a special case. The constitution says so, the GFA says so. You're the only one being selective here.

The Constitution says that people born in Northern Ireland get to be citizens. That's all it says. You can hand-wave to your heart's content about how that clearly means that they are an extra-special type of citizen with privileges over and above all other citizens, but wishing - even wishing really, really hard - won't make it so.

This is a pretty pathetic way of debating, pick out the bit you find easiest to defend against and ignore everything else. I mentioned this after I'd pointed out that the constitution could indeed be used to argue that the presidency or duties of the presidency have an all Ireland dimension and therefore, as it directly affects them, people in the north would be entitled to a vote on that basis.

People in the north are entitled to vote on the basis set out in the constitution and legislation. You can use anything you want to argue that people in Northern Ireland are entitled to vote, but you'll still be wrong.

Again, you're ignoring the plain fact that the north is not treated the same as Britain. It is very, very different.

It certainly is - in a great many ways. I'm not convinced that those differences amount to a reason to create a class of super-citizen with extra special electoral privileges, and you're not convincing me. You're just repeating that Northern Ireland is different, therefore people living there magically get something you just happen to want them to have.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Of course it does, why mention him otherwise

It doesn't mention him in any context to do with voting.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

The alternative is asking the government of another country to administer an election on our behalf. Yeah, not an attractive option either.

But not impossible either given new arrangements.

Because they live in a different country, and we don't allow citizens living in different countries to vote,

Again, it is proposed to give them a vote in the presidential elections because of their special status under the GFA. If that special status is given would you have any further objections, if so, what would they be?

That's not a legitimate counter. The GFA referendum in Northern Ireland wasn't restricted to Irish citizens. He didn't get to vote in a GFA referendum, and NI residents didn't get to vote for the Mayor of London.

Exactly, selecting a constituency amongst 'Irish citizens' is not without precedent. It's no different here, if a Unionist wishes to have a vote then they can, by applying for citizenship.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Constitution says that people born in Northern Ireland get to be citizens. That's all it says. You can hand-wave to your heart's content about how that clearly means that they are an extra-special type of citizen with privileges over and above all other citizens, but wishing - even wishing really, really hard - won't make it so. People in the north are entitled to vote on the basis set out in the constitution and legislation. You can use anything you want to argue that people in Northern Ireland are entitled to vote, but you'll still be wrong. It certainly is - in a great many ways. I'm not convinced that those differences amount to a reason to create a class of super-citizen with extra special electoral privileges, and you're not convincing me. You're just repeating that Northern Ireland is different, therefore people living there magically get something you just happen to want them to have.

It doesn't mention him in any context to do with voting.

Which bit of 'it is proposed to give them the privledge' do you not understand?

pablomakaveli

I'm also an Irish citizen living in the UK. Will i get a vote too?

I suppose given i'm in the wrong part of the UK i'd say no, not that i think i should have a vote anyway.

Giving people in NI a vote is ridiculous. It would see the tribal politics of NI being dragged into the Republic and the only party that would benefit is Sinn Fein which is why republicans are pushing hard for this.

There is no reason to give them a vote. The only arguments seem to be wishy washy romantic nonsense. They don't pay tax in the South, they're not resident in the South and they will not be affected as much by the results as people living in the South.

Tramps Like Us

I wonder how latvians all over the world manage to vote.

The partitionist mentality some have is rather funny, the mere suggestion that Irish people be treated as such infuriates them - they are best ignored, they are a very small minority

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

But not impossible either given new arrangements.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying I wouldn't vote for a proposal to either give citizens in a different country an automatic postal vote, or to let the government of a different country run an election on behalf of our country.

Again, it is proposed to give them a vote in the presidential elections because of their special status under the GFA. If that special status is given would you have any further objections, if so, what would they be?

They don't have a special status under the GFA, other than the right to be citizens. They are still citizens living in a different country, and I wouldn't vote for a proposal to create tiers of foreign-resident citizens.

Exactly, selecting a constituency amongst 'Irish citizens' is not without precedent. It's no different here, if a Unionist wishes to have a vote then they can, by applying for citizenship.

You just said "exactly", and then said something directly contradictory to what I just said. The doublethink is breathtaking.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which bit of 'it is proposed to give them the privledge' do you not understand?

Which bit of "I would vote against that proposal" are you refusing to understand?