Childrens Referendum 2012

Tom Young

How will you vote - or will you?

1. Yes;
2. No;
3. Not voting.

Skyfall

Voting no, children have too many rights as it is

CIARAN_BOYLE

voting no, there are too many things that are subject to legislation so a yes vote has massive potential to change things and I don't know if the changes will be for the better or for the worse

NoQuarter

Voting yes for two reasons (that I havent put much thought into admittedly).

1. I'd rather an Article that was given specific thought in 2012 than an Article that was drafted in 1937 along with 40 odd other Articles.

2. It *should* only affect bad parents. If your parenting skills are high, there will be no trouble.

Ashashi

I am voting yes, basically for the reasons NoQuarter

Our man in Havana

I shall be abstaining.

Hogzy

I am voting Yes, It is about time that the constitution recognises that children have specific needs therefore the regular enumerated and unenumerated rights are not adequate to apply to children.

Pat Mustard

The existing law already allows the state to intervene to protect children.

The problem is not with the law. The problem is with enforcement. The problem is with the state.

The answer is not to further empower the state.

The proposed amendment amounts to a well-meaning dog and pony show, at best.

I'm voting no.

FAUGH45568

After careful consideration I am voting No as well.

In "exceptional cases" when added to the following
"fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected"

is too loose.

Can exceptional cases and safety or welfare include when parents have money problems/ if marriage splits?

Can exceptional case include when a teenager has one of its 6-12 month long tantrums to get their own way and decides to tell lies and makes a complaint?

Can exceptional cases include your religious beliefs eg are you a practising catholic etc that goes to mass every Sunday. Can this be used against you if you dont go? Can the state see this as not in the best welfare of the child.

Will every little problem that the parents are having be brought up and used against you?

Too open IMHO when exceptional cases and safety and welfare are combined together. it is all about how the state interprets things and not how you interpret things. But the State does not even show us as parents the rules we are measured against.

Ill say it again show me in the legislation what exceptional cases and welfare or social means to the state.

Anyone that debates otherwise IMHO is ignorant of how those few words can be twisted and turned depending on who you face.

I dont agree with the notion that it should only affect "bad parents". Remember no parent is perfect for the whole life of the Child, every parent makes mistakes and every child has its bad weeks or months but all families realise this, make up and as time(many weeks - maybe years ?) goes by generally all is forgiven and forgotten both by the child and the parent.

For me to be comfortable with this legislation I need to see the list of exceptional cases you are measured against,
Also I need the safety or welfare defined when combined with exceptional cases..

I agree with Mustard the problem is with State Enforcement.

The protection is there already!

All this legislation does is gives the State more power...

Too many people dont do due diligence,

by not reading the legislation thoroughly 5-10 times , by doing their own thinking for themselves and then follow the herd!

The Legislation for 2012 is very badly written and the backup material to explain the wording is not there!

Too many questions for me need to be answered and in passing this legislation in its current form is showing how ignorant you really are!

You talk the talk but dont walk the walk!

EURATS

Are you going to vote to give the state more power over our children? With the states track record?

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

Are you going to vote to give the state more power over our children? With the states track record?

The state has a much better track record in regards to children than the type of families this legislation will apply to.

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

The state has a much better track record in regards to children than the type of families this legislation will apply to.

That's rich...considering what happened/happens to kids in state care.

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

That's rich...considering what happened/happens to kids in state care.

What exactly happens to them? Do you actually understand the injustices that happen children nowadays because parents are more concerned with their own situations and use their children for their advantage.

Yes, the state has screwed up at times. But i would rather have a child in state care than in an unsuitable home where there is a serious risk to their well being.

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

What exactly happens to them? Do you actually understand the injustices that happen children nowadays because parents are more concerned with their own situations and use their children for their advantage.

Yes, the state has screwed up at times. But i would rather have a child in state care than in an unsuitable home where there is a serious risk to their well being.

What happens to them? Frying pan into the fire!!

The state has screwed up so many times at this stage that they should never be allowed control over children again.
State homes have/are a serious risk to children. It is proven time and time again, and will continue to do so every time the horrors of them are exposed.

As a single father I have seen first hand how a parent can use a child to strengthen their position...and the legal system facilitates it. Shame on them!!!

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

As a single father I have seen first hand how a parent can use a child to strengthen their position...and the legal system facilitates it. Shame on them!!!

The courts have to because of the protection the constitution gives to the family as a whole. This referendum is going to change that to ensure children are treated as individuals instead bundling them in with "what is best for the family". Now the question will be, "what is best for the child".

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

The courts have to because of the protection the constitution gives to the family as a whole. This referendum is going to change that to ensure children are treated as individuals instead bundling them in with "what is best for the family". Now the question will be, "what is best for the child".

So the courts have to discriminate against fathers? I think the question always was in the guise of "what's best for the child". But really it's about facilitating the mothers use of the child in manipulation of the father.

Am I mistaken or would this referendum give the mothers new partner the right to adopt the child without the consent of the biological father?

Back on thread...I'd sooner leave my child to look after themselves than have them in state care..considering the past/present.

mapaco

so confused!!
i thought it was a given to vote YES but i'm concerned at the NO arguments about how open it is to interpretation.
being incredibly cynical i have to ask of both sides....what is the monetary benefit to the government/state to having a YES vote? i'm sure there must be one as thats what everything comes down to nowadays.......

i was arguing that YES would make it too easy to take children into state care..... but surely the state doesn't want to take children as it would cost too much????

i dont know

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

So the courts have to discriminate against fathers? I think the question always was in the guise of "what's best for the child". But really it's about facilitating the mothers use of the child in manipulation of the father.

Im not going to get into your personal situation but that is not what happens. You are approaching this with a seriously biased point of view.

Am I mistaken or would this referendum give the mothers new partner the right to adopt the child without the consent of the biological father?

. You are mistaken. Nobody has the right to adopt any child specifically. The mothers partner would have to have been a registered guardian before they could be given sole custody. This would only happen in cases where the childs father (unmarried) had not applied for guardianship prior to this scenario.

Back on thread...I'd sooner leave my child to look after themselves than have them in state care..considering the past/present.

This is a silly senstationist statement to make to be honest.

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

Im not going to get into your personal situation but that is not what happens. You are approaching this with a seriously biased point of view.




It's not just my personal situation. It is across the board where both parties don't get on. It is not a biased point of view!!




Quote hogzy:
. You are mistaken. Nobody has the right to adopt any child specifically. The mothers partner would have to have been a registered guardian before they could be given sole custody. This would only happen in cases where the childs father (unmarried) had not applied for guardianship prior to this scenario.





A new partner should have no standing whatsoever when the child's father is in the picture. Let them have their own kids!




Quote Hogzy:
This is a silly senstationist statement to make to be honest.

Nothing sensational about it. Wouldn't trust them to look after an adult...never mind a child.

Hogzy

mapaco wrote: »

so confused!!
i thought it was a given to vote YES but i'm concerned at the NO arguments about how open it is to interpretation.
being incredibly cynical i have to ask of both sides....what is the monetary benefit to the government/state to having a YES vote? i'm sure there must be one as thats what everything comes down to nowadays.......

i was arguing that YES would make it too easy to take children into state care..... but surely the state doesn't want to take children as it would cost too much????

i dont know

There is no monetary benefit, in fact there would be quite the opposite as the distressed children who are currently in their parents custody may be taken from them and put into state care. Therefore there may be an increase in children in state care.

Its never going to be easy for children to go into state care. The parents must have failed in their duties as a parent to a huge extent. People think that their children are going to be taken from them left right and center. That is totally false. The state will most likely only take over where the parent has totally failed in their duty. There would need to be a sufficiently high threshold of failure before custody is given to the state.

This would all have to go through a court aswell I would think.

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

There is no monetary benefit, in fact there would be quite the opposite as the distressed children who are currently in their parents custody may be taken from them and put into state care. Therefore there may be an increase in children in state care.

Its never going to be easy for children to go into state care. The parents must have failed in their duties as a parent to a huge extent. People think that their children are going to be taken from them left right and center. That is totally false. The state will most likely only take over where the parent has totally failed in their duty. There would need to be a sufficiently high threshold of failure before custody is given to the state.

This would all have to go through a court aswell I would think.

This is already the case. Just new criteria of levels of neglect? And what are they?


Also..what's the criteria for taking the kids off the state when they are being abused in state care???

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

This is already the case. Just new criteria of levels of neglect? And what are they?

There is no set criteria. If the child is being neglected then it is a question of fact. I would think that this referendum is lowering the level of neglect required for the state to step in. At the moment there is a stupidly high level required where the child's health is at a serious risk of deterioration.

If you are a good parent then you have nothing to worry about. Remember who the beneficiaries of this referendum are. Its not you or me, it is the most vulnerable people in our society who have nobody to protect them but the state.

mapaco

thanks Hogzy
what qualifies as failure though?
apart from the obvious....the NO side say not bringing catholic children to mass, a teenager in a bad mood, a neighbour with a grudge, etc.... could potentially see the state intervene.
it seems obvious to vote YES but i have to admit the NO arguments have me rattled..... for example-didn't 2 high courts completely disagree on the impartiality of the referendum booklet this week? given that a child possibly wouldn't be dragged through 2 different court judgements it is frightening how subjective a result can be.

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

There is no set criteria. If the child is being neglected then it is a question of fact. I would think that this referendum is lowering the level of neglect required for the state to step in. At the moment there is a stupidly high level required where the child's health is at a serious risk of deterioration.

If you are a good parent then you have nothing to worry about. Remember who the beneficiaries of this referendum are. Its not you or me, it is the most vulnerable people in our society who have nobody to protect them but the state.

I don't have anything to worry about(that I know of) but the state hasn't a good track record with the care of children. And giving them more responsibility considering this...is a sick joke

Hogzy

mapaco wrote: »

thanks Hogzy
what qualifies as failure though?
apart from the obvious....the NO side say not bringing catholic children to mass, a teenager in a bad mood, a neighbour with a grudge, etc.... could potentially see the state intervene.

Its very worrying to see people peddling this sort of thing. Its totally misleading and its absolutly rubbish. Totally untrue. A child doesnt need to go to mass, teenagers are always in a bad mood and it is very common for neighbours to have grudges. This is every day life and would in no way qualify a parent as being a bad parent.

However if the parent was beating the teenager because they were in a bad mood, or engaging in violent confrontations with their neighbour while in the company of their children then there would obviously be a case that the parent is unfit in their capacity to care for the child. Again there would have to be a certain degree of failure in the parents obligations towards their child.

it seems obvious to vote YES but i have to admit the NO arguments have me rattled..... for example-didn't 2 high courts completely disagree on the impartiality of the referendum booklet this week? given that a child possibly wouldn't be dragged through 2 different court judgements it is frightening how subjective a result can be.

This is merely trivial and is purely political. There is an arguement against the state, which has now gone to the Supreme Court, that the state used public money to support the yes side. This has nothing to do with the question of whether we should vote yes or no.

When it comes down to it, there is no hidden agenda that the government has with this referendum. There were arguements that there has been hidden agendas with the 3 previous referenda (Lisbon, Judges Pay, Oireachtas Investigations) but I cannot see there being any hidden agenda with this referendum. People are very cautious of the government (FF and FG) lately given how they have handled referenda in the passed. Lisbon referendum went through a second time and Judges Pay/Oireachtas Investigations were hidden behind the Presidential Election which majorly overshadowed the election (which IMO was very ver wrong).
I cant imagine the government have any vested interest in seeing this referendum go through apart from having vulnerable children given the care they so rightly deserve. And what rational human being doesnt want that?

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

I don't have anything to worry about(that I know of) but the state hasn't a good track record with the care of children. And giving them more responsibility considering this...is a sick joke

THat is the 3rd time now you have said this and have failed to back it up. Can you back it up? Show me proof on the scale you are claiming.

If you have one or two stories of such a scenario then that hardly amounts to a bad track record considering the amount of children that have passed through state care in recent years.

mapaco

Hogzy wrote: »

This is merely trivial and is purely political. There is an arguement against the state, which has now gone to the Supreme Court, that the state used public money to support the yes side. This has nothing to do with the question of whether we should vote yes or no.

When it comes down to it, there is no hidden agenda that the government has with this referendum. There were arguements that there has been hidden agendas with the 3 previous referenda (Lisbon, Judges Pay, Oireachtas Investigations) but I cannot see there being any hidden agenda with this referendum. People are very cautious of the government (FF and FG) lately given how they have handled referenda in the passed. Lisbon referendum went through a second time and Judges Pay/Oireachtas Investigations were hidden behind the Presidential Election which majorly overshadowed the election (which IMO was very ver wrong).
I cant imagine the government have any vested interest in seeing this referendum go through apart from having vulnerable children given the care they so rightly deserve. And what rational human being doesnt want that?

Rationally; every single one of the above would make me question the YES vote.
i dont know.

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

This is merely trivial and is purely political. There is an arguement against the state, which has now gone to the Supreme Court, that the state used public money to support the yes side. This has nothing to do with the question of whether we should vote yes or no.

When it comes down to it, there is no hidden agenda that the government has with this referendum. There were arguements that there has been hidden agendas with the 3 previous referenda (Lisbon, Judges Pay, Oireachtas Investigations) but I cannot see there being any hidden agenda with this referendum. People are very cautious of the government (FF and FG) lately given how they have handled referenda in the passed. Lisbon referendum went through a second time and Judges Pay/Oireachtas Investigations were hidden behind the Presidential Election which majorly overshadowed the election (which IMO was very ver wrong).
I cant imagine the government have any vested interest in seeing this referendum go through apart from having vulnerable children given the care they so rightly deserve. And what rational human being doesnt want that?

The state tried to pull a fast one using public money to pay for their agenda which is against the law and they knew it. They unfortunately got away with it for a time..but there are no real consequences for them doing this aside from a pat on the head and told not to do it again. The usual.

All the other referendums they encouraged the electorate to endorse...have done so much for the people of this country. Heaven on earth created by the state

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

THat is the 3rd time now you have said this and have failed to back it up. Can you back it up? Show me proof on the scale you are claiming.

If you have one or two stories of such a scenario then that hardly amounts to a bad track record considering the amount of children that have passed through state care in recent years.

Do u expect me to come up with one of that Kerry judges(wont name him) videos?

I'm not aware of any video documentaries of the abuse that went/goes on in state care..but there have been more than a few cases..maybe somebody on here who has experience on this issue can put you straight.

One or 2 cases of abuse in state care???...that statement takes the biscuit and shows how good an argument you have.

Hogzy

mapaco wrote: »

Rationally; every single one of the above would make me question the YES vote.
i dont know.

Do a bit of research and form your own opinion. Look at the wording of the constitutional amendment and find as many sources on the topic as you can. The Irish times has great stuff on it that is objectional on all counts. Its a great source.

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

Do u expect me to come up with one of that Kerry judges(wont name him) videos?

I'm not aware of any video documentaries of the abuse that went/goes on in state care..but there have been more than a few cases..maybe somebody on here who has experience on this issue can put you straight.

Can you not link me to any news articles. You are the one claiming that the government has failed children in state care on so many occasions so I dont see why you cannot explain to me. All of what you are saying seems like here say to be honest. If you make the claims that you have done thus far, then you should be able to back it up with evidence. So far all you have put forward is mere hear say.

EURATS wrote: »

One or 2 cases of abuse in state care???...that statement takes the biscuit and shows how good an argument you have.

Then show me, you are making statements left right and center about how the government have failed but cant detail one failure in particular. I cannot take you seriously unless you back up your arguement with objective facts and not sensationalist statements with no context.

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

Can you not link me to any news articles. You are the one claiming that the government has failed children in state care on so many occasions so I dont see why you cannot explain to me. All of what you are saying seems like here say to be honest. If you make the claims that you have done thus far, then you should be able to back it up with evidence. So far all you have put forward is mere hear say.



Then show me, you are making statements left right and center about how the government have failed but cant detail one failure in particular. I cannot take you seriously unless you back up your arguement with objective facts and not sensationalist statements with no context.

No offence intended but have You been living in a different dimension or something?
Try googling it to inform yourself. Is not my responsibility to do that.

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

No offence intended but have You been living in a different dimension or something?
Try googling it to inform yourself. Is not my responsibility to do that.

Like I thought, you cant.

Its not for me to back up your arguement, thats your job. You are either lazy or you cant back it up.

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

Like I thought, you cant.

Its not for me to back up your arguement, thats your job. You are either lazy or you cant back it up.

Eh..try "child abuse in Irish state care". I didn't need to google it to know it existed..but I can't read it for you.

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

Eh..try "child abuse in Irish state care". I didn't need to google it to know it existed..but I can't read it for you.

Anything that remotly applies to your arguement is from the institutions of the early 20th century. Which we all know is no longer happening in Ireland.

Do you have anything in particular to show me?

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

Anything that remotly applies to your arguement is from the institutions of the early 20th century. Which we all know is no longer happening in Ireland.

Do you have anything in particular to show me?

The early 20th century is the only time it happened...mother of god..

Is "deaths of children in Irish state care" any more help?

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

The early 20th century is the only time it happened...mother of god..

Is "deaths of children in Irish state care" any more help?

Show me the facts buddy, im not going to fight your arguement, thats your job.

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

Show me the facts buddy, im not going to fight your arguement, thats your job.

I'm not your buddy. And no it's not my job.

I'm not going to spoon feed you. Is up to you to inform yourself when you aren't aware of facts.

Hogzy

EURATS wrote: »

I'm not your buddy. And no it's not my job.

I'm not going to spoon feed you. Is up to you to inform yourself when you aren't aware of facts.

Im not aware of them, because they dont exist, now prove me otherwise.

You're just trolling now so Im not going to be responding to your comments unless you want to have a rational discussion about this referendum.

Pat Mustard

Hogzy wrote: »

Can you not link me to any news articles. You are the one claiming that the government has failed children in state care on so many occasions so I dont see why you cannot explain to me. All of what you are saying seems like here say to be honest. If you make the claims that you have done thus far, then you should be able to back it up with evidence. So far all you have put forward is mere hear say.



Then show me, you are making statements left right and center about how the government have failed but cant detail one failure in particular. I cannot take you seriously unless you back up your arguement with objective facts and not sensationalist statements with no context.

Why not look at it another way?

What is the defect in the current law that requires constitutional amendment?

Why doesn't the government point to some law that they wish to bring in, but are prevented from enacting by the constition?

I'll answer my own question. The State can already intervene where children are being neglected, abused, etc. The constitutional amendment isn't required.

If childrens' rights need to be brought to the fore, then why isn't that simply done by means of proper enforcement of the existing rights, instead of this constitutional change and overblown referendum?

To use the analogy in one newspaper article, if you have a puncture in your tyre, there's not much point in raising the saddle on your bike.

The judiciary have not been calling from the bench for a constitutional amendment to allow some change in the law.

I wonder if Frances Fitzgerald woke up one morning and thought: "Well, wouldn't it be nice if children were specifically mentioned in the Constitution."

All of this money is being spent on a referendum by well-meaning sycophants, seeking to change the constitution for a reason that has not been adequately explained, in some vague hope that this change will address the issues, but with no serious analysis of problems or how they should be solved.

It's a classic tactic with successive governments in this country. If there's a problem, don't look at an enforcement solution, look at some change in the law, bring in the change, and then proceed to enforce the new law in the same fashion as the previous one. It's pointless.

It's a waste of taxpayers' money at the least. At worst, it's an ill-conceived attempt to meddle with the constitution without good reason, and with no serious analysis of the unplanned changes that could potentially happen through consequent litigation on the basis of the amendment (if it is passed).

The government doesn't have clue what it is doing.

EURATS

Hogzy wrote: »

Im not aware of them, because they dont exist, now prove me otherwise.

You're just trolling now so Im not going to be responding to your comments unless you want to have a rational discussion about this referendum.

I have instructed you where to look. Is up to you to do so. I have already looked myself. They are there for all(the few that don't already know) to find.

Please don't tell me what to do. That's what the government are doing!! Is that you Enda?

FAUGH45568

Anyone's that votes Yes on a piece of legislation that does not provide a clear definition of what the State interpretation of Exceptional Cases and its relationship to Safety to welfare is not doing their due diligence in relation to their Children as a parent.

All the debates and information being thrown around by myself or anyone else would be all over if the above simple clarifications was done..

Beware of the side shows being run and stick to the actual issue..

Define "Exceptional Cases" in relation Safety welfare.

I am voting NO until I get this cleared up. I will do my due diligence when it comes to my son and not take the easy way out.!

Hogzy

The Mustard wrote: »

Why not look at it another way?

What is the defect in the current law that requires constitutional amendment?

Why doesn't the government point to some law that they wish to bring in, but are prevented from enacting by the constition?

I'll answer my own question. The State can already intervene where children are being neglected, abused, etc. The constitutional amendment isn't required.
If childrens' rights need to be brought to the fore, then why isn't that simply done by means of proper enforcement of the existing rights, instead of this constitutional change and overblown referendum?

The only place where we are given our rights is in the constitution. We do not have a right to anything bar what is in the constitution and what has developed under the unenumerated rights. Therefore if children are going to have rights as children (and not as citizens) then we need to enact a constituional right through referendum.

FAUGH45568 wrote: »

Anyone's that votes Yes on a piece of legislation that does not provide a clear definition of what the State interpretation of Exceptional Cases and its relationship to Safety to welfare is not doing their due diligence in relation to their Children as a parent.

All the debates and information being thrown around by myself or anyone else would be all over if the above simple clarifications was done..

Beware of the side shows being run and stick to the actual issue..

Define "Exceptional Cases" in relation Safety welfare.

I am voting NO until I get this cleared up. I will do my due diligence when it comes to my son and not take the easy way out.!

All constitutional rights are inherently vague, it allows for courts and the legislature to flesh them out. No constitutional provision is sufficiently certain (bar Dail election and voting). Everything is vague to a certain extent. Look at the constitution. You will see the terms "in accordance with law" and "subject to the common good" in most articles that confer a right of some sort. Nearly every article in the constitution requires interpretation of some extent. The argument that the amendment is not detailed enough shouldnt weigh heavily on whether the amendment can seek to further the interests of children.

Pat Mustard

Hogzy wrote: »

The only place where we are given our rights is in the constitution. We do not have a right to anything bar what is in the constitution and what has developed under the unenumerated rights. Therefore if children are going to have rights as children (and not as citizens) then we need to enact a constituional right through referendum.

Not true. Rights can and should be given effect through legislation. For instance, the state can intervene to protect childrens' rights under the Childcare Act. If there is some problem with the Childcare Act, it can be amended by legislation.

Hogzy wrote: »

All constitutional rights are inherently vague,.

This is precisely my point. Why do people believe that it is acceptable to bring in something which is inherently vague?

Without a need to amend the constitution, we are inviting change without understanding the consequences of that change.

It does not make sense.

goz83

Will be a No Vote here. While I agree that children need more recognition in the constitution and need to be heard.....I am totally against the half arsed, rushed approach, with open to interpritation wording. I am also completely against the fact that the leaflets and website, biught and paid for with tax payers money was a one way argument for a yes vote, with no balance. I think a no vote will make sure it's done properly next time.

I'm shocked by the ignorance of minister Fitzgerald brushing very valid arguments to the side. I thought she was better than that.

looksee

I cannot see how the amendment and Article 41 as it stands can exist together.

Phrases like 'inalienable and imprescriptible rights' in relation to the family and marriage contradict 'regardless of their marital status'.

Emotionally I would say, yes, lets make sure children are protected, but this could surely be achieved with legislation?

In the existing Article 42.5 it refers to parents failing in their duty, it doesn't say 'except where they are married'.

Kanye

This is another example of the "need for change" fallacy. As other posters have pointed out, the Constitution stands as it is and enables the State to intervene where necessary.


The facts are that the State is failing in its Constitutional duties and that's what needs to change. The political response is to be seen to do something to address the problem. Here, the proposed amendment goes too far in allowing the State to substitute itself in place of parents "in the best interests" of a child. [Definition needed.] It also does not go far enough in that it does not compel the State to treat children in a particular way, nor does it assign any specific rights to children.


Also, playing around with the constitution is akin to playing around with the registry on your computer. It might work out ok but you could really make a mess of things you don't know what you're doing.


I think the overall tenor of the constitutional amendments from the current government has been suspect insofar as the changes purport to give the executive more and more power over the other organs of the State. People should always be wary of megalomania.

Pat Mustard

Kanye wrote: »

Also, playing around with the constitution is akin to playing around with the registry on your computer.

Great analogy.

Kanye

Btw, it's, "Níl a fhios agam." /Pedantry.

Tom Young

Fixed. Thanks for the pedantry.