Gerry Adams to run for President ?

Happyman42

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

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

I think we all know why the Southern establishment don't want to give ex-pats a vote.:) But that's a whole different thread.

oscarBravo

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

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

Do they have different voting rights depending on how close they live to a border with Latvia?

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

I'd argue with you, except you seem to be busy arguing with a straw man. When you actually want to discuss the points others are making, come back to me.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Of course it does, why mention him otherwise

I am really beginning to think you don't understand English.

The same issue was coming up in the overseas voting rights thread.

Article 2 describes how one is a citizen. Once a citizen, it doesn't matter how you are one (and that includes naturalised citizens) you can only vote if you are resident in Ireland (the 26 Counties for the avoidance of doubt).

You cannot distinguish between how you became a citizen and there is no special status accorded by Article 2. If you are living in Ireland you get the vote if you are a citizen.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

I am really beginning to think you don't understand English.

The same issue was coming up in the overseas voting rights thread.

Article 2 describes how one is a citizen. Once a citizen, it doesn't matter how you are one (and that includes naturalised citizens) you can only vote if you are resident in Ireland (the 26 Counties for the avoidance of doubt).

You're ignoring the possibilities opened up in Article 3.

Godge wrote: »

You cannot distinguish between how you became a citizen and there is no special status accorded by Article 2. If you are living in Ireland you get the vote if you are a citizen.

I cant understand English? I dropped out of this conversation because you and Oscar Bravo are just repeating the same thing over and over again no matter what is put to you.
We're both clearly coming away with very different interpretations of articles two and three. They're quite broad and I'm reading them with an open mind to all the possibilities they contain. You and oscar are reading them and moulding the words so they fit into you narrow partitionist view.
This is going round in circles and I'm bored of it.

oscarBravo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You're ignoring the possibilities opened up in Article 3.

Article 3 doesn't mention, imply, suggest, or open up the possibility of voting rights for Irish citizens living in another country. I know I'm repeating myself, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in: wanting an article of the constitution to mean something doesn't make it mean that, no matter how much you want it.

I cant understand English? I dropped out of this conversation because you and Oscar Bravo are just repeating the same thing over and over again no matter what is put to you.

That's because all that's being put to us is the proposal that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland be given a completely new set of rights that are unique to them and over and above the rights afforded to all other citizens of Ireland, and what we're repeating in response to that is "no thanks".

We're both clearly coming away with very different interpretations of articles two and three. They're quite broad and I'm reading them with an open mind to all the possibilities they contain.

They don't contain the possibility of voting rights for Irish citizens abroad. You can either keep waving your hands and talking about how nice it would be if they contained that possibility, or you can explain how the three short paragraphs in question could be interpreted to create a special class of citizen with additional voting privileges.

You and oscar are reading them and moulding the words so they fit into you narrow partitionist view.

There's no moulding required. Articles 2 and 3 don't confer the right to vote on Irish citizens in Northern Ireland until they become resident in the Republic.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You're ignoring the possibilities opened up in Article 3.

There are no possibilities in Article 3.

Article 3 enshrines the status quo until otherwise changed by a majority of the population both north and south. That status quo is that the Queen is the equivalent for Northern Ireland of the President for Ireland. There is no bit of Article 3 that creates the dreamy sensation that the President is for the whole island.

Article 3 (2) 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."

That section enables institutions with executive powers to be created - North/South bodies in other words. Now a President is something different - s/he is a Constitutional office. Where does Article 3 allow for the extension of the powers of a Constitutional office?

Nowhere. Article 3 does not allow us to establish constituencies for election to the Dail in Northern Ireland, neither does it allow our judges exercise jurisdiction unilaterally over Northern Ireland because those are not institutions with executive powers. Legal language is quite precise and doesn't allow for reading with an open mind.

There is no government that will suggest a change to Articles 2 and 3 without a GFA type agreement with the UK.

Crooked Jack

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.

Ok, are you with me so far?

That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland.

See, if people in the north were just citizens the same way that someone with an Irish passport living overseas is, then why specifically mention the north (ie - the island of Ireland) at all in the very first line. This makes it quite clear that people in the north are considered by the constitution to be more than just passport holders.

Article 3
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.

Now are you seriously suggesting, now that the constitutional convention has voted overwhelmingly to extend voting rights to the north, that members of the Dail could use this to interpret either the role of the president or functions of the president as having an all Ireland dimension and therefor meaning people in the north would be entitled to a vote.

This is not hand waving or wishful thinking. Academic and legal experts at the constitutional convention spent two days debating this issue and overwhelmingly came to the conclusion that it was not only possible but desirable.

https://www.constitution.ie/NewsDetails.aspx?nid=90acb1d8-4d29-e311-96d5-005056a32ee4

You'll forgive me if I take the word of experts with access to all the information over the narrow interpretation of some fanatical partitionists on the internet.
The constitution is deliberately vague on these issues to allow these type of changes and movements as the situation in the north progresses.

oscarBravo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

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.

Ok, are you with me so far?

Yup.

That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland.

See, if people in the north were just citizens the same way that someone with an Irish passport living overseas is, then why specifically mention the north (ie - the island of Ireland) at all in the very first line. This makes it quite clear that people in the north are considered by the constitution to be more than just passport holders.

You're tripping over your own circular logic. Article 3 defines the right of anyone born on the island to be an Irish citizen. It needs to enumerate that right very specifically, because there's a jurisdiction on the island that isn't part of the Republic of Ireland, and - as such - in the absence of Article 3, people born in Northern Ireland wouldn't be entitled to Irish citizenship.

Now, you say that such people are "more than just passport holders" - true; they are natural-born citizens of this Republic, just as my brother is. They also live in the United Kingdom, just as my brother does. It has yet to be explained to me why they should become a class of super-citizen and be granted the right to vote while not resident in the Republic, while my brother is denied that privilege.

Article 3
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.

Now are you seriously suggesting, now that the constitutional convention has voted overwhelmingly to extend voting rights to the north, that members of the Dail could use this to interpret either the role of the president or functions of the president as having an all Ireland dimension and therefor meaning people in the north would be entitled to a vote.

First, you're so busy bolding part of the text that you've skipped the part to which it refers. Institutions may be established by the governments of the UK and of Ireland, and they make exercise powers and functions. It may have escaped your notice, but the Presidency has already been established, and it doesn't fall under the remit of Article 3.2.

Second - you think the Dail gets to interpret the role of the President? Seriously?

This is not hand waving or wishful thinking. Academic and legal experts at the constitutional convention spent two days debating this issue and overwhelmingly came to the conclusion that it was not only possible but desirable.

https://www.constitution.ie/NewsDetails.aspx?nid=90acb1d8-4d29-e311-96d5-005056a32ee4

You'll forgive me if I take the word of experts with access to all the information over the narrow interpretation of some fanatical partitionists on the internet.

It's a pretty clear sign that you know you're on weak ground when you can't help but call people who disagree with you names. Fanatical? For not wanting our democracy undermined just to suit your narrow republican agenda? Please.

The constitution is deliberately vague on these issues to allow these type of changes and movements as the situation in the north progresses.

It has clearly escaped your notice that the purpose of the Constitutional Convention is to propose changes to the constitution. If you're so all-fired certain that Northern Ireland residents have the right to vote today, why are you pointing to the conclusions of a group who have suggested a constitutional amendment to allow it to happen?

Also, have you noticed that the Convention recommended extending the vote to all citizens living abroad, as opposed to your insistence that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland be granted extraordinary voting privileges?

Finally, as you'd know if you were paying attention, I'm perfectly aware that it's possible to amend the constitution to allow non-residents to vote. I'm making the point that there are arguments against such an amendment, some of which the Convention didn't trouble themselves to address.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup. You're tripping over your own circular logic. Article 3 defines the right of anyone born on the island to be an Irish citizen. It needs to enumerate that right very specifically, because there's a jurisdiction on the island that isn't part of the Republic of Ireland, and - as such - in the absence of Article 3, people born in Northern Ireland wouldn't be entitled to Irish citizenship.

Now, you say that such people are "more than just passport holders" - true; they are natural-born citizens of this Republic, just as my brother is. They also live in the United Kingdom, just as my brother does. It has yet to be explained to me why they should become a class of super-citizen and be granted the right to vote while not resident in the Republic, while my brother is denied that privilege. First, you're so busy bolding part of the text that you've skipped the part to which it refers. Institutions may be established by the governments of the UK and of Ireland, and they make exercise powers and functions. It may have escaped your notice, but the Presidency has already been established, and it doesn't fall under the remit of Article 3.2.

Second - you think the Dail gets to interpret the role of the President? Seriously? It's a pretty clear sign that you know you're on weak ground when you can't help but call people who disagree with you names. Fanatical? For not wanting our democracy undermined just to suit your narrow republican agenda? Please. It has clearly escaped your notice that the purpose of the Constitutional Convention is to propose changes to the constitution. If you're so all-fired certain that Northern Ireland residents have the right to vote today, why are you pointing to the conclusions of a group who have suggested a constitutional amendment to allow it to happen?

Also, have you noticed that the Convention recommended extending the vote to all citizens living abroad, as opposed to your insistence that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland be granted extraordinary voting privileges?

Finally, as you'd know if you were paying attention, I'm perfectly aware that it's possible to amend the constitution to allow non-residents to vote. I'm making the point that there are arguments against such an amendment, some of which the Convention didn't trouble themselves to address.

You say all this, despite the fact that the question about NI citizens rights was discussed and voted on as a 'separate' issue.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

You say all this, despite the fact that the question about NI citizens rights was discussed and voted on as a 'separate' issue.

Not entirely. The numbers in favour of allowing citizens in Northern Ireland to vote are broadly in line with the numbers in favour of allowing citizens outside the state to vote. Well, duh: if you're supportive of allowing citizens to vote even if they're not resident in the state, you can't exactly exclude citizens in Northern Ireland, can you?

If the results had been markedly different between those polls, you might have a point.

All of which is tangential to the point that the Convention is just a small group of people who have discussed the issue and arrived at a conclusion. I happen to disagree with them, and I somehow doubt you'd be citing them as an authority if they had arrived at a conclusion that was at odds with your views. Apart from anything else, they waved aside the actual practical aspects of how the voting would take place - a question that seems to generate rather a lot of hand-waving.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not entirely. The numbers in favour of allowing citizens in Northern Ireland to vote are broadly in line with the numbers in favour of allowing citizens outside the state to vote. Well, duh: if you're supportive of allowing citizens to vote even if they're not resident in the state, you can't exactly exclude citizens in Northern Ireland, can you?

If the results had been markedly different between those polls, you might have a point.

All of which is tangential to the point that the Convention is just a small group of people who have discussed the issue and arrived at a conclusion. I happen to disagree with them, and I somehow doubt you'd be citing them as an authority if they had arrived at a conclusion that was at odds with your views. Apart from anything else, they waved aside the actual practical aspects of how the voting would take place - a question that seems to generate rather a lot of hand-waving.

So that is just another way of saying the proverbial No, No No.
It was discussed as a separate and special case and a vote was taken. What is it you are looking for?
The next step is a proposal to be formed by the government and it should them be put to the people to decide like the Seanad Referendum today.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

So that is just another way of saying the proverbial No, No No.

Lazy caricature.

It was discussed as a separate and special case and a vote was taken. What is it you are looking for?

I've answered this already. If you like, I'll answer it again and give you another opportunity to ignore it.

The next step is a proposal to be formed by the government and it should them be put to the people to decide like the Seanad Referendum today.

It's up to the Oireachtas to decide whether to refer it to the people. Before they do, they'd better put a damn sight more thought into the practical implications of it than the Convention did (and than you seem prepared to do), and even then I reserve the right to oppose the move, just as you have the right to support it.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Lazy caricature. I've answered this already. If you like, I'll answer it again and give you another opportunity to ignore it. It's up to the Oireachtas to decide whether to refer it to the people. Before they do, they'd better put a damn sight more thought into the practical implications of it than the Convention did (and than you seem prepared to do), and even then I reserve the right to oppose the move, just as you have the right to support it.

So that is a No No No and a threat then?

Is it not a bit arrogant to assume that only you have thought it through?

The practicalities are surmountable and are being used as a red herring.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

So that is a No No No and a threat then?

Threat?! What in the name of the Teapot are you wittering on about now?

Is it not a bit arrogant to assume that only you have thought it through?

It certainly would be an arrogant thing to assume. You should berate that straw man of yours very severely for his arrogance.

The practicalities are surmountable...

That's the very archetype of hand-waving.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apart from anything else, they waved aside the actual practical aspects of how the voting would take place

Ah come now oscar, I think you're manufacturing problems for the purposes of this particular discussion.

You can vote when even not on the planet! Texas state law addresses this issue with regards to particular US citizens not within the jurisdiction on election day.

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=N&p_rloc=82071&p_tloc=&p_ploc=1&pg=3&p_tac=&ti=1&pt=4&ch=81&rl=35

An encrypted electronic ballot is beamed up to the space station. A separate email with credentials for authentication is sent to each astronaut that will be voting. The astronauts input their credentials, fill out their ballots and beam it back to mission control. Mission control delivers the ballots to the county clerks office where they are decrypted and counted.

http://www.openideo.com/open/voting/inspiration/voting-from-space

Deedsie

Quite the hornets nest I stirred here the other night when I revived this thread. I am in favour of extending voting rights for Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland and abroad for the President of the Irish nation. Why waste space on the constitution at all mentioning the island or the diaspora? If we don't fulfil the blueprint of our country, what is the point of it?

Happyman42

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ah come now oscar, I think you're manufacturing problems for the purposes of this particular discussion.

You can vote when even not on the planet! Texas state law addresses this issue with regards to particular US citizens not within the jurisdiction on election day.

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=N&p_rloc=82071&p_tloc=&p_ploc=1&pg=3&p_tac=&ti=1&pt=4&ch=81&rl=35

An encrypted electronic ballot is beamed up to the space station. A separate email with credentials for authentication is sent to each astronaut that will be voting. The astronauts input their credentials, fill out their ballots and beam it back to mission control. Mission control delivers the ballots to the county clerks office where they are decrypted and counted.

http://www.openideo.com/open/voting/inspiration/voting-from-space

I didn't mention 'technlogy' as it might not be understood by the posters.

Manassas61

Will this just be for the Irish President and not normal elections?

SeosamhNYC

If I'm reading the arguments correctly, because 2 and 3 grant those born on the island of Ireland Irish citizenship, this should therefore allow those citizens residing in Northern Ireland (as has been pointed out and despite what many of us may want, still a separate country) a vote in Irish Presidential elections? I don't think that was what the framers had in mind at all. The original article 2 defined the "national territory" as the entire island of Ireland and the original article 3 spoke to the fact that until the entire national territory was reintegrated (i.e.; unification), laws enacted by the government would only impact the 26 counties, notwithstanding the definition of the national territory as the whole island. When they were scrapped, you would have to have addressed whether and how those in the North could be citizens as previously, by virtue of being born in the "national territory" (the whole island) they would have been entitled to citizenship. Once that was gone, the national territory was only the 26 counties and then, the citizenship rules would apply to the North - birth in the "national territory" (26 counties) or descent from an Irish born parent or grandparent. There was nothing special about it - it was tying up one of the loose ends that resulted from doing away with 2 and 3.

As has been stated, you cannot set of tiers of citizenship - 1st tier resident citizens; 2nd tier citizens residing in the North; 3rd tier the rest of us. Not to mention native born vs. citizen by parent or grandparent or marriage, etc..

I don't think any non-resident citizen - including myself - should have a vote. I may whinge and moan here about how a vote turned out, but no doubt, I'd be doing that anyway if I was at home. I'm not living there, the laws, policies, etc. enacted or not likely won't impact me or those in the North or in Dubai or in Kent, so why should I or any non-resident citizen have the right to vote? But having said this, if there is some movement to give voting rights to those citizens residing in the North, you can be sure myself and many, many other citizens living abroad will insist on the same.

By the way, as this thread started as a discussion on Adams for President, for what it is worth, I'd vote NO. No to him or McGuinness. We all know they're lying through their teeth about the roles they played in the army and I for one still wonder how two men who held some of the highest ranks/offices in the army and SF have managed to live such charmed lives. That's just my thinking anyway.

Deedsie

Manassas61 wrote: »

Will this just be for the Irish President and not normal elections?

Wouldn't be feasible to be for any other elections than Presidential. Perhaps an all island civic forum could be implemented eventually and that could be an all island vote... But this would be a toothless entity if it ever did get set up.

I would personally vote against citizens living outside Ireland (RoI) in any other elections.

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ah come now oscar, I think you're manufacturing problems for the purposes of this particular discussion.

I'm not inventing problems; you're inventing solutions that are at odds with our current electoral system, which mandates a private ballot held in a public place, for very good reasons.

You can vote when even not on the planet! Texas state law addresses this issue with regards to particular US citizens not within the jurisdiction on election day.

If we're holding up the US as a model for how to run elections, my "no" vote becomes somewhere between a "hell, no" and an "over my dead body".

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't mention 'technlogy' as it might not be understood by the posters.

I'm always fascinated by the fact that it tends to be the people who best understand technology that are most wary about it being offered as a panacea.

It may have escaped your notice, but we tried using technology in elections in this country. It was an unmitigated catastrophe. Suggesting that you don't need to worry about the details of voting outside the jurisdiction because technology innit indicates that you either haven't thought the problem through, or don't have the requisite knowledge to do so.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not inventing problems; you're inventing solutions that are at odds with our current electoral system, which mandates a private ballot held in a public place, for very good reasons. If we're holding up the US as a model for how to run elections, my "no" vote becomes somewhere between a "hell, no" and an "over my dead body".

I'm always fascinated by the fact that it tends to be the people who best understand technology that are most wary about it being offered as a panacea.

It may have escaped your notice, but we tried using technology in elections in this country. It was an unmitigated catastrophe. Suggesting that you don't need to worry about the details of voting outside the jurisdiction because technology innit indicates that you either haven't thought the problem through, or don't have the requisite knowledge to do so.

All we need to do is appoint somebody competent. people vote from outside juristictions all the time. It isn't an insurmountable problem regardless of you clinging to it as one.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

All we need to do is appoint somebody competent. people vote from outside juristictions all the time. It isn't an insurmountable problem regardless of you clinging to it as one.

/handwave

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

you're inventing solutions that are at odds with our current electoral system, which mandates a private ballot held in a public place, for very good reasons.

Solutions that are needed if voting here for Irish citizens living outside the state becomes a reality.

If we're holding up the US as a model for how to run elections, my "no" vote becomes somewhere between a "hell, no" and an "over my dead body".

There haven't been any "hanging chads" yet discovered in the example I gave. I was highlighting the technology of a particular form of voting itself, not it's origins.

but we tried using technology in elections in this country. It was an unmitigated catastrophe.

So you're a "paper and pencil" man regardless then?

Suggesting that you don't need to worry about the details of voting outside the jurisdiction because technology innit indicates that you either haven't thought the problem through, or don't have the requisite knowledge to do so.

If the Irish electorate vote for this, then will such concerns stop the process being implemented?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Solutions that are needed if voting here for Irish citizens living outside the state becomes a reality.

Yes. Such solutions will damage the integrity of the electoral process. That's the trade-off we're being asked to make. If the only thing that matters is letting people in Northern Ireland vote, then sure: the integrity of the electoral process is a price you'll be willing to pay.

There haven't been any "hanging chads" yet discovered in the example I gave. I was highlighting the technology of a particular form of voting itself, not it's origins.

Tell you what: if voting abroad involves everybody having to use a single computer that's managed by an organisation that does mission-critical software better than almost anybody in the world, then I'll be happy with the integrity of that solution.

So you're a "paper and pencil" man regardless then?

It's the best way to implement our electoral system, so why not?

If the Irish electorate vote for this, then will such concerns stop the process being implemented?

If such concerns haven't been addressed in advance of a referendum, I'll be loudly leading the charge for a "no" vote.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

/handwave

What does that ^ even mean, only that you have run out of credible argument.
Just because an incompetent TD and an incompetent dept. messed up doesn't negate the benefits of what technology has to offer. Unless you want to insist on being a Neanderthal.
Again I say it's just a petty argument to mask a No, No, No Never political philosophy, that is devoid of progressive thought.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. Such solutions will damage the integrity of the electoral process. That's the trade-off we're being asked to make. If the only thing that matters is letting people in Northern Ireland vote, then sure: the integrity of the electoral process is a price you'll be willing to pay.

.............that's managed by an organisation that does mission-critical software better than almost anybody in the world, then I'll be happy with the integrity of that solution.

How, if it's of NASA level standards?

PeadarCo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How, if it's of NASA level standards?

What Oscarbravo is saying computers can be hacked. Pen and paper combined with independent observers is far harder to interfere with. Look at Adobe last week. Any computer can be hacked given enough time and resources.

Mr Cumulonimbus

PeadarCo wrote: »

What Oscarbravo is saying computers can be hacked. Pen and paper combined with independent observers is far harder to interfere with. Look at Adobe last week. Any computer can be hacked given enough time and resources.

Yes, but as an issue on its own should it stop absentee voting, especially considering many countries currently operate such procedures? UK citizens for example can vote for 15 years after leaving the UK in UK & EU parliamentary elections.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

What does that ^ even mean, only that you have run out of credible argument.

Are you asking because you genuinely don't know what I mean by the term, and can't be bothered looking it up, or are you - ironically - engaging in even further hand-waving?

Just because an incompetent TD and an incompetent dept. messed up doesn't negate the benefits of what technology has to offer. Unless you want to insist on being a Neanderthal.

Sorry, but that just demonstrates that you don't understand the issues involved in designing a secure electronic voting system. It's pretty much an insurmountable problem.

Now, you'll almost certainly engage in yet more hand-waving about how electronic voting is one of those minor details we can figure out later, but that just demonstrates that you haven't thought about the problem - and believe me, I have.

Again I say it's just a petty argument to mask a No, No, No Never political philosophy, that is devoid of progressive thought.

And that's just a lazy ad-hominem attack to avoid having to contemplate the idea that anyone who doesn't subscribe completely to your single-minded political philosophy is a "neandarthal", a "partitionist", and whatever other names you feel the need to call people who disagree with you.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How, if it's of NASA level standards?

This may come as a shock to you, but NASA wouldn't be implementing an electronic voting system for us.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Yes, but as an issue on its own should it stop absentee voting, especially considering many countries currently operate such procedures? UK citizens for example can vote for 15 years after leaving the UK in UK & EU parliamentary elections.

Let's bring this back yet again to first principles. Happyman42 believes that a referendum to allow people in Northern Ireland to vote would unquestionably pass, because there couldn't possibly be any conceivable objection to such a proposition. I've pointed out that there are, in fact, conceivable objections to the proposition. Now, I've never claimed that the objections are insurmountable - that's just one of a number of straw men that get ushered into the fray any time anyone has the temerity to challenge the gospel of united Ireland republicanism - I've simply pointed out that it's not a foregone conclusion that people would vote for the proposition, as hard as that concept may be for some to wrap their heads around.