The referendum clause

Hobbes

Ignore the other post for a second, or if you have a comment that is related to the other post put it there.

This is more about the clause at the end...

"unless provided for by law."

What does this mean?

It means that the constitution part that was changed can be overturned by any law that is later introduced, or currently exists (eg. Child cannot become stateless under EU law).

It also means the constitution can be changed again without a referendum. This means for people who voted yes, the no voters could get a look in later, or it could swing further beyond the yes vote depending on who is in power.

This thread is not for getting your point across about babies, asylum seekers, nigerian mafia gangs stealing passports or who gets free houses.

Based on your vote you took, did you actually realise about this part of the constitution?

I'll be honest and say I was voting yes for the referendum when it all started (although Arcade seriously gave me doubts). The reason being it is a law which is in almost every other country. But when I read the clause I could only vote no as I was giving my vote away to any later group in power.

Hobbes

Tumbleweed? You mean everyone who voted yes had no problem voting the clause in as well which could remove your vote at a later stage.

Or no one has a problem that they law could be changed (without referendum) to deny a child Irish citizenship even if they have one Irish parent?

Am I the only one who finds this is wrong?

aodh_rua

I don't have the wording to hand, but that sounds like a typical constitutional clause whereby the constitution states a minimum that can't be changed without a referendum and then delegates further decisions to the Oireachtas.

Essentially, no group other than the people can change the right to citizenship if you have one Irish parent or held citizenship before the amendment. The government of the day can then extend that right to whoever they deem appropriate via legislation - eg children of non-nationals who have been legally resident for 3 years. By voting 'Yes' you have not given the government a completely free hand to define citizenship according to their whim.

gom

Originally posted by Hobbes
"unless provided for by law."

I voted NO more or less for the reason that it gives the Dail why too much power to define who is Irish.
The only constitutionally protected people who are entitled to Citizenship must have a Irish Parent or Person entitled to Irish citizenship by decent(e.g Irish Americans whos Grand Father is Irish).


As far as it stands they are the only people Constitutioanlly entitled to citizenship.

"unless provided for by law" means that Citizenship can also be confered on others. But the law can change easily to NO ONE ELSE if some Far Right government comes in to power(its always possible)

gom

Originally posted by aodh_rua
eg children of non-nationals who have been legally resident for 3 years. By voting 'Yes' you have not given the government a completely free hand to define citizenship according to their whim.

But by voting YES we also have no no protection for non-nationals. The Resident for 3 out of 4 year law hasn't even come in yet?????

Therefore we have babies being born today to parents who could have been here for 10-15 years and still their child is not an Irish citizen.
I think the Legislation should have been fixed to the Ammendment at the very least. But I am aware that it isn't possible to do so as Dail Eireann has the sole right to introduce legislation and not the people... We don't have direct democracy or citizenhip iniatives here like in Switzerland or California... Perhaps the EU constitution will include such a measure??

aodh_rua

Originally posted by gom
But the law can change easily to NO ONE ELSE if some Far Right government comes in to power(its always possible)

Well if that did happen it'd be democracy, and if they did change the rules to no-one else, well sad as that would be, it would be the will of the people.

In general the constitution deliberately avoids prescriptive clauses and the vast majority of rights etc, are implemented via legislation. Indeed citizenship prior to the Belfast Agreement was handled in the way it is now for seventy-odd years. If everything was exhaustively included in the constitution it would make it very difficult to run the country.

Meh

Originally posted by gom
But by voting YES we also have no no protection for non-nationals. The Resident for 3 out of 4 year law hasn't even come in yet?????

Therefore we have babies being born today to parents who could have been here for 10-15 years and still their child is not an Irish citizen.

No. All babies born on the island of Ireland are at the moment entitled to Irish citizenship, even after the referendum. The referendum simply returned us to the pre-1998 situation -- it gave the Dáil back the right to change this for children born of non-Irish parents. The Dáil hasn't passed any such law (yet), so the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 2001 still applies. This law says that all babies born on this island are still entitled to citizenship, no matter who their parents are:

6.�(1) Every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen.

gom

Originally posted by aodh_rua
Well if that did happen it'd be democracy, and if they did change the rules to no-one else, well sad as that would be, it would be the will of the people.

What is the Will of the People?? I think that Democracy is only ever present at a Referendum and Election time. The rest of the time its supposedly representiative. Coalitions don't always act in the majority interest. The PD influence on government is a perfect example(most people like some form of public services).
As for democracy Hitler was democratically elected by the people for the people.

Constitutions Exist to provide the basic Law. Citizenship is a fundemental as a Citizen is the only person with the right to excerise democracy within the state. If the government can define who is a Citizen, it effects who can vote. Which in turn effects who the government is...
Its not a made, crazy senario. Its the reason we are an independent country today

aodh_rua

What I meant is that a population who elects a far-right government is expressing a certain political stance. Tight citizenship laws would be consistent with that stance. It doesn't have to be right to be democratic, that's part of the imperfection in the system.

Hobbes

Originally posted by gom
f the government can define who is a Citizen, it effects who can vote. Which in turn effects who the government is...

Exactly and this such thing happened in America. Felons are not allowed vote in some states (eg. Florida). A large number of people were marked by "Accident" as felons in Florida and were denied the right to vote.

What I meant is that a population who elects a far-right government is expressing a certain political stance.

The majority vote is not the majority of the population. It is the majority that could and did vote. Big difference.

seamus

You left out the crucial part of the clause, Hobbes:

not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.

This means that as a general rule, anyone who doesn't have one Irish parent at their time of birth is not entitled to citizenship, but exceptions can be made in law to allow certain people this citizenship.

Read it again.

The clause doesn't say
x = y UNLESS z
it says
x = !y UNLESS z
Important distinction.

aodh_rua

Originally posted by Hobbes
The majority vote is not the majority of the population. It is the majority that could and did vote. Big difference.

Not really - a choice not to vote still expresses an opinion. Again democracy is imperfect and if people choose not to vote and allow others to speak on their behalf then they would have to accept the consequences.

sceptre

Originally posted by Hobbes
Based on your vote you took, did you actually realise about this part of the constitution?

I'm not being a deliberate smartarse but it was there in black and white so I'd have to say I did.