Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

non-Irish .. can they vote for Irish President?

Options
124

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    MichaelR wrote: »
    An exam was mooted when I was reaching the time for naturalization - and I was worried. Not because I don't know stuff but because I do know it and my opinions might not be in line with some particular policies. For example, I am very skeptical about the Easter Rising. Or if I am asked about Civil War, how am I supposed to know if I should say what I really believe (very Free Stater) or something else to any particular examiner? They don't wear party pins...

    I do wonder, now that I think about it, how similar issues are solved in the US Citizenship exams. What if one thinks George Washington was a slaveholding b*stard? Or that the Confederates should have been summarily hung - or, on the contrary, that they were a noble Lost Cause?

    I found a brief "sampling" of US Civics Test questions and immediately hit the issue. "What was the main concern of the United States during the Cold War?" The expected answer is "communism", but many people who know the history will sincerely believe it was unemployment - an answer present on the list and considered "wrong". Others will say it was civil rights - not present on the list.

    The issue is known to be contentious in Latvia, where many native-born Russian speakers are considered aliens but can be naturalized. The naturalization test requires them to admit to an "occupation", while many of them view the Soviet period in a different light.

    So if Ireland were to do anything like that, it might backfire in public debate.

    Obligatory Simpsons reference:
    (Apu is taking a US naturalisation test.)

    Examiner: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?

    Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter...

    Examiner: Wait, wait... just say slavery.

    Apu: Slavery it is, sir.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    No, you're not Irish, and never will be.

    Why don't you take a long walk off a short pier. My brother-in-law is from South Africa, at nearest opportunity after five years he took citizenship test and passed comfortably. He contributes his taxes here, but shure let's rage impotently against.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,119 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Cordell wrote: »
    I can't see where is my logic circular tbh.
    My reasoning is that the right to vote should be clearly defined, and not granted at state's discretion. You can disagree with my idea (tbh I'm not even that convinced myself), but my logic, there is nothing wrong with it :)
    Really, you don't see the flawed logic?

    You are saying they you should be allowed to vote, because it's your right*, and not a privilege for the state to grant**.

    The issue is, it's not your right. You are not a citizen, so you have no right to vote in these matters. The state don't decide on anyone right to vote. It's automatic, for all citizens (who can attend on the day).

    Your whole logic is based on a right that you don't possess. Therefore it's completely flawed. If you could apply your logic to the whole world, everyone has the right to vote, there fore everyone should be able to vote everywhere. Which is obviously nonsense.
    My reasoning is that the right to vote should be clearly defined,

    It is clearly defined. There is zero ambiguity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Nah, I think Cordell has a point here. Or, at least, there's a point buried in here somewhere.

    Back in post 75, Cordell says:
    Citizenship it's a privilege granted at the state's discretion, not a right. The right to vote it's a right, not a privilege.

    I'm going to quarrel with that. As a republican, I hold that, fundamentally, the state does not make citizens. Rather, citizens make the state. Political authority comes from the people, and is conferred on the state. The state does not confer political competence or authority on the people.

    Obviously, for practical reasons, there has to be a citizenship law, and the state has to enact and implement it. But this doesn't mean that the state has carte blanche to create its own citizenry. Basically, the purpose of the citizenship law is to identify the community from whom the state derives its authority and legitimacy, and if the citizenship law departs too radically from that, the citizenship law is defective, undemocratic and objectionable. So for example if the Iirish state passed a law that said Catholics could not be citizens, or that only Catholics could be citizens, we'd have a fundamental problem with that.

    All of which is by way of saying that citizenship is not a "privilege" conferred by the state. Citizenship is something that the state recognises and regulates, but it does have to hew pretty closely to the reality of the nation (i.e. the people) from which the state derives its authority and legitimacy.

    Right. Does the right to vote map exactly onto our concept of citizenship? Clearly not exactly, since we accord non-citizens the right to vote in local elections, in European elections (for EU nationals) and in general elections (for British citizens). Conversely, there are many citizens who we do not allow to vote (as they are not resident in the state). So, the criteria we apply to the question of who can vote are not the same as the criteria that we apply to the question of who is a citizen. And if somebody suggests that he should have a vote, I don't think you can refute the suggestion simply by pointing out that he is not a citizen. That's perhaps relevant, but certainly not conclusive.

    So, we ask ourselves, what are the criteria that determine whether someone should be granted a vote? "No taxation without representation!" was the cry of the American colonists. And, while I don't want to see voting rights become a mercantile transaction, in which you "buy" a vote with the taxes you pay, there is a point here. If I'm a citizen of country A, but I live in country B, it's the laws of country B that I must obey; it's the taxes of country B that I pay; if the police break down my door and take me away in the middle of the night it's the police of country B that will do that. It seems to me that country B is where I need a vote, and where I have the strongest democratic and moral claim to be entitled to one. If Country B is going to tie voting firmly to citizenship, then it needs to make citizenship readily accessible to all settled residents.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,119 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    All of which is by way of saying that citizenship is not a "privilege" conferred by the state. Citizenship is something that the state recognises and regulates
    That's a more detials way of looking at it. But it only further refutes his position, rather than backs it up.
    Clearly not exactly, since we accord non-citizens the right to vote in local elections, in European elections (for EU nationals) and in general elections (for British citizens).
    The topic was voting in presidential elections and referenda. And for now, that maps with citizenship.
    Conversely, there are many citizens who we do not allow to vote (as they are not resident in the state).
    Easily allowed for by expanding the requirements to "citizen AND resident in the state".
    So, the criteria we apply to the question of who can vote are not the same as the criteria that we apply to the question of who is a citizen. And if somebody suggests that he should have a vote, I don't think you can refute the suggestion simply by pointing out that he is not a citizen. That's perhaps relevant, but certainly not conclusive.
    That's misrepresents my post a bit.
    I wasn't refuting the suggestion that he should have a vote. That's a complex issue.
    I was refuting his claim he he currently has a right to vote. That's simply incorrect. It's black and white.

    Sayign they should have the right, is a different matter entirely. But the fact is they don't. So any argument based on the claim that they do in fact have that right is extremely flawed logic.
    If I'm a citizen of country A, but I live in country B, it's the laws of country B that I must obey; it's the taxes of country B that I pay; if the police break down my door and take me away in the middle of the night it's the police of country B that will do that. It seems to me that country B is where I need a vote, and where I have the strongest democratic and moral claim to be entitled to one.


    You earn income in B, you pay tax in B. You benefit from the infrastructure and state of B, you've paid taxes in B.
    It's in your interest to get a vote in country B. But I don't think there's any weight to the claim that you deserve a vote by virtue of paying tax. A backpacker on a working holiday pays tax.
    If Country B is going to tie voting firmly to citizenship, then it needs to make citizenship readily accessible to all settled residents.
    Agreed.
    I don't think Irish Citizenship is inaccessible for any residents.
    In my situation, residency was the difficult part. From there Citizenship was a breeze.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Mellor wrote: »
    The topic was voting in presidential elections and referenda. And for now, that maps with citizenship.
    Sure, for now. But there seems to be no fundamental reason why this has to be so.
    Mellor wrote: »
    That's misrepresents my post a bit.
    I wasn't refuting the suggestion that he should have a vote. That's a complex issue.
    Sorry, I wasn’t meaning to impute that view to you. I didn’t mean you, Mellor; it was more the generic “you”. But I didn’t make that clear. My bad.
    Mellor wrote: »
    I was refuting his claim he he currently has a right to vote. That's simply incorrect. It's black and white.

    Sayign they should have the right, is a different matter entirely. But the fact is they don't. So any argument based on the claim that they do in fact have that right is extremely flawed logic.
    I think we use the word “right” in (at least) two senses. As a statement of what the current law allows, it would clearly be wrong to say that Andy has a right to vote in Irish presidential elections. But if we understand it as the assertion of a political or moral claim, the statement makes sense. (We may or may not agree with it, but that’s a separate issue.)
    Mellor wrote: »
    You earn income in B, you pay tax in B. You benefit from the infrastructure and state of B, you've paid taxes in B.
    It's in your interest to get a vote in country B. But I don't think there's any weight to the claim that you deserve a vote by virtue of paying tax. A backpacker on a working holiday pays tax.
    As I say, I don’t like reducing it to tax. Or even to personal interests. It’s more that, if you’re entrenched as part of the community, if you’re making your contribution to the public welfare and sharing the fortunes and misfortunes of the nation, then you should have the same right to (and duty of) political participation as other members of the community.
    Mellor wrote: »
    I don't think Irish Citizenship is inaccessible for any residents.
    In my situation, residency was the difficult part. From there Citizenship was a breeze.
    I pretty much agree with you. The certification fee charged in Ireland is steep, but it’s not out of line with what other countries charge. And the principle here is cost recovery. If, in the context of other state services, citizens pay fees which reflect the principle of cost recovery, then it’s entirely compatible with my philosophy outlined above that an applicant for naturalisation should be expected to pay fees based on the same principle.

    I, too, became first a resident in and then a citizen of Australia and, as with yourself, residence was the big drama. I forget the fees I paid in connection with my citizenship application - it was a good few years ago - but it was certainly much less than the fees for residence. And the citizenship process, though bureaucratic, was a model of speed and efficiency compared to what I had to go through to get residency.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,119 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Sure, for now. But there seems to be no fundamental reason why this has to be so.
    Yeah, I don't think there has to be a reason.

    But get a strong feeling that it stems from "our country, our rules". They have no issue with non-citizens living here and contributing to society. They aren't ok with non-citizens changing the laws. A bit moot with more countries moving in a similar direction in regards rights. But can you imagine if people form the UK were allowed to affect the outcome of an abortion referendum in the 80s or 90s.
    It's a dated mentality.
    Sorry, I wasn’t meaning to impute that view to you. I didn’t mean you, Mellor; it was more the generic “you”. But I didn’t make that clear. My bad.
    All good. I took it as me specificaly as I specifically disputed it.
    I, too, became first a resident in and then a citizen of Australia and, as with yourself, residence was the big drama. I forget the fees I paid in connection with my citizenship application - it was a good few years ago - but it was certainly much less than the fees for residence. And the citizenship process, though bureaucratic, was a model of speed and efficiency compared to what I had to go through to get residency.
    The fee for the citizenship test is $285 currently. Sounds cheap at first glance compared to Ireland. As we pointed out, it's residency that's the big ticket in Australia. Background checks, medicals and visa fee of $3,800.
    The real cost of Australian citizenship is more like $5k in total.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    MichaelR wrote: »
    An exam was mooted when I was reaching the time for naturalization - and I was worried. Not because I don't know stuff but because I do know it and my opinions might not be in line with some particular policies. For example, I am very skeptical about the Easter Rising. Or if I am asked about Civil War, how am I supposed to know if I should say what I really believe (very Free Stater) or something else to any particular examiner? They don't wear party pins...

    To be clear what I was thinking is a written consensual and fact based questionnaire with basic questions on history and the electoral system. Obviously nothing too political. The goal being to ensure the applicant understands English of Irish and has a minimum interest in Ireland and understanding of its electoral system. Not testing their political opinions.

    Things like “who is currently the head of state of Ireland?”, “which year did Ireland become an independent state from the UK?”, “what is the role of Dáil Éireann?”, “who was the first Taoiseach of Ireland?”.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Bob24 wrote: »
    To be clear what I was thinking is a written fact based questionnaire with basic questions on history and the electoral system. Obviously nothing too political.

    Things like “who is currently the head of state of Ireland?”, “which year did Ireland become an independent state from the UK?”, “what is the role of Dáil Éireann?”, “who was the first Taoiseach of Ireland?”.
    Your problem here is that a fair sprinkling of native-born citizens could not reliably answer some of those questions, and this doesn't appear to be an impediment to their participation in society or the effective discharge of their civic duties. So what is the case for saying that such a test is necessary or desirable? What is it supposed to acheive?

    There is such a test in Australia. (I passed it!) It focuses more on a citizen's rights and duties (e.g. jury service, voting) than on political history. But, to be honest, it mainly functions as a language test - success in the test is closely correlated to the candidate's proficiency in English. But, as we in Ireland know well, citizenship does not require even a basic mastery of the first official language so, again, even if you face up to reality and substitute a test ostensibly on political history with one that is openly a language test, I question the relevance.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,902 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    unfortunately is true ... i think from memory it ran out in 1998 or something , that was a UK one - then at that time Ryanair were just accepting an Irish driving licence for flying from Ireland to Luton ... then they ditched that and said you need a passport .. and then (i think it was FlyBe) were still taking Irish driving licence but flew to Birmingham so I had to do that and hire car in UK - last time I flew to UK from Ireland was 2014 I think and that was Knock to heathrow I think it were aer lingus and they accepted driving licence ... I dont know what the score is these days if i want to get there with no passport - maybe they still take drivers licence (some of the airlines) I dont think Ryanair do any more at all .

    Everyone *except" Ryanair takes driving licences to the UK as was exlained in detail when you asked elsewhere.

    You can't go anywhere else though


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Your problem here is that a fair sprinkling of native-born citizens could not reliably answer some of those questions, and this doesn't appear to be an impediment to their participation in society or the effective discharge of their civic duties. So what is the case for saying that such a test is necessary or desirable? What is it supposed to acheive?

    I would say the problem if some people can’t answer thoses is more a failure of the education system. Which is an issue on its own and to be addressed separately.

    It doesn’t preclude setting a minimum knowledge standard for people who want to become citizens. If the argument not to do so is that you can’t expect from applicants things which are not expected from existing citizens, you could similarly say resfusing citizenship due to criminal convictions doesn’t make sense either because that standard (not having convictions) is not expected for all existing citizens - but hopefully everyone agrees not setting that standard for applicants with a strong criminal background would be a bad idea.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 482 ✭✭badtoro


    As a green poll clerk a long time ago I gave a Presidential (I believe) ballot to a French man. The officer in charge repeatedly ignored my questions as to whether he was allowed such a vote, as he was too busy talking to a neighbour. A couple of days later he rang me giving out stink, apparently the returning officer had rang him & ate him about it. He wasn't impressed with my version of events, but sure both myself and the French man were happy, I got paid and he got a vote he shouldn't have had.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,517 ✭✭✭matrim


    EdgeCase wrote: »
    then you could be moved to a Seanad Irish Abroad panel with maybe 3 senators, similar to the NUI or Trinity panel setup.

    How about instead of opening up Seanad voting to people abroad we open it up to all the people in Ireland first. As a start we could follow the democratic will of the people and allow graduates of other universities to have a vote.
    As a green poll clerk a long time ago I gave a Presidential (I believe) ballot to a French man. The officer in charge repeatedly ignored my questions as to whether he was allowed such a vote, as he was too busy talking to a neighbour. A couple of days later he rang me giving out stink, apparently the returning officer had rang him & ate him about it. He wasn't impressed with my version of events, but sure both myself and the French man were happy, I got paid and he got a vote he shouldn't have had.

    Who are you to decide if that person can vote? If they are on the register and have appropriate ID then they should be allowed to vote.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Bob24 wrote: »
    I would say the problem if some people can’t answer thoses is more a failure of the education system. Which is an issue on its own and to be addressed separately.

    It doesn’t preclude setting a minimum knowledge standard for people who want to become citizens. If the argument not to do so is that you can’t expect from applicants things which are not expected from existing citizens, you could similarly say resfusing citizenship due to criminal convictions doesn’t make sense either because that standard (not having convictions) is not expected for all existing citizens - which hopefully everyone agrees would be a bad idea.
    I think I'm looking for a reasoned case as to why something like being able to identify Eamon de Valera as the first Taoiseach should be a relevant qualification for naturalisation. Some candidates might plausibly confuse the office of Taoiseach with that of President of the Executive Council and offer W.T. Cosgrave as an answer; others might offer Michael Collins, the first Chairman of the Provisional Government,and some could even offer Cathal Brugha, the first Príomh Aire of Dáil Éireann, which was effectively the post of chief executive of the republican ministry during the War of Independence. Are those who give these answers really unfit to be citizens?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 482 ✭✭badtoro


    matrim wrote: »
    EdgeCase wrote: »
    then you could be moved to a Seanad Irish Abroad panel with maybe 3 senators, similar to the NUI or Trinity panel setup.

    How about instead of opening up Seanad voting to people abroad we open it up to all the people in Ireland first. As a start we could follow the democratic will of the people and allow graduates of other universities to have a vote.
    As a green poll clerk a long time ago I gave a Presidential (I believe) ballot to a French man. The officer in charge repeatedly ignored my questions as to whether he was allowed such a vote, as he was too busy talking to a neighbour. A couple of days later he rang me giving out stink, apparently the returning officer had rang him & ate him about it. He wasn't impressed with my version of events, but sure both myself and the French man were happy, I got paid and he got a vote he shouldn't have had.

    Who are you to decide if that person can vote? If they are on the register and have appropriate ID then they should be allowed to vote.

    You know, there are ways to ask things and talk to people, you may stay wondering.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think I'm looking for a reasoned case as to why something like being able to identify Eamon de Valera as the first Taoiseach should be a relevant qualification for naturalisation. Some candidates might plausibly confuse the office of Taoiseach with that of President of the Executive Council and offer W.T. Cosgrave as an answer; others might offer Michael Collins, the first Chairman of the Provisional Government,and some could even offer Cathal Brugha, the first Príomh Aire of Dáil Éireann, which was effectively the post of chief executive of the republican ministry during the War of Independence. Are those who give these answers really unfit to be citizens?

    Like any such evaluation test it wouldn’t be perfect (and I never said the bar should be set super high and everyone should get 100% answers right :-)). But it would confirm everyone has reached a minimum bar.

    As I said it would serve multiple purposes:
    - make sure the applicant understands English or Irish
    - make sure they demonstrate a minimum interest and have a minimum knowledge of the country they are going to become a citizen of (if they don’t already know the basics to pass the test, spending a couple of hours preparing for it would be a minimum proof of interest, not bothering a proof they are not that involved in the process)
    - put them in a position whereby they have a basic understanding of the democratic process they will take part of (and again maybe some people will forget about it overtime, but that is no excuse for not aiming at empowering people with that understanding and pushing them a bit to reach that stage - as the education system should also have done for citizens who grew up in Ireland)

    So to answer your question, if someone gets confused about who the first Taoiseach was, it doesn’t necessarily discard them as a citizen, but if they get most answers wrong in my view it does demonstrate they not only haven’t gained minimum knowledge naturally over time, but also haven’t shown the will to spend a couple of hours to acquire that knowlege in order to become a citizen. And this should question their level of integration in Irish society and their dedication to becoming a citizen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Well, if we decide an understanding of Irish or English is necessary, a simply language test should suffice. As for having a "mimimum interest in and knowledge of" the country, you can be passionately intereste in Ireland, the Irish people and Irish culture without knowing or caring about what some might regard as trivia of political history. And I have to say that spending a couple of hours learning off facts by rote would not be a proof of interest in Ireland or in understanding the democratic system; just a proof of interest in becoming an Irish citizen. (And I think that's already proven by their willingness to pay the not-trivial fees involved.)

    Regardless of the specific questions on the test, we know the effect of them is to favour candidates who come from English-speaking cultures/backgrounds, and who come from countries whose political structures are already similar to our own, and correspondingly to disadvantage candidates from other backgrounds. I'm struggling to see why this would be a good idea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34,173 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Bob24 wrote: »
    “which year did Ireland become an independent state from the UK?”

    That could be 1919 (First Dail), 1922 (Treaty), 1948 (Republic of Ireland Act, ending the role of the British Crown) or possibly even 1979 (break with sterling)!
    “what is the role of Dail Eireann?”

    Too many jokes there.
    “who was the first Taoiseach of Ireland?”.

    Another tricky one. President of the First Dail - De Valera but he was in jail so Cathal Brugha held it provisionally, first head of government after the treaty WT Cosgrave, first one to be called Taoiseach - de Valera again (1938.)


    Reminds me of the old gag that whenever Lloyd George thought he was getting close to the answer to the Irish question, the Irish changed the question!

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,757 ✭✭✭✭Andy From Sligo


    Bob24 wrote: »
    ...

    Things like “who is currently the head of state of Ireland?”, “which year did Ireland become an independent state from the UK?”, “what is the role of Dáil Éireann?”, “who was the first Taoiseach of Ireland?”.


    right I havent brushed up on this and I know I should know this off the top of my head seeing as I have lived here for 27 years but here goes:

    michael D Higgins is the head of state of Ireland (at present as I write this but can all change Friday)

    Ireland became independent from UK in 1916

    the role of Dáil Éireann is to pass laws , deliver Budgets , cut budgets and services , award money to different departments among other things ... the equivalent of the houses of parliament in UK ?

    This is tough one without reading up on it ... but was the first Taoiseach of Ireland eamonn de-valera ?

    how did I do? - did I pass? :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,757 ✭✭✭✭Andy From Sligo


    L1011 wrote: »
    Everyone *except" Ryanair takes driving licences to the UK as was exlained in detail when you asked elsewhere.

    You can't go anywhere else though

    sorry - cannot remember asking it elsewhere or forgot what the answer was ... - you know me better than i do :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 803 ✭✭✭MichaelR


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Things like “who is currently the head of state of Ireland?”, “which year did Ireland become an independent state from the UK?”, “what is the role of Dáil Éireann?”, “who was the first Taoiseach of Ireland?”.

    You mean the actual First Taoiseach of Ireland who is, by convention, considered the Second Taoiseach of Ireland, because the first President of the Executive Council retains the honorary number one? ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    last time I flew to UK from Ireland was 2014 I think and that was Knock to heathrow I think it were aer lingus and they accepted driving licence ... I dont know what the score is these days if i want to get there with no passport - maybe they still take drivers licence (some of the airlines) I dont think Ryanair do any more at all .

    Driving licence is copper-bottomed for those that don't insist on passport. You can potentially even get away with other photo ID. I managed that once. Have no d/l, had messed up and had to fly in a "gap" in my passport renewal, was sweating buckets as to whether it'd be OK. Was, but Would Not Recommend.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34,173 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    How about going to Belfast Andy and flying from there?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,757 ✭✭✭✭Andy From Sligo


    How about going to Belfast Andy and flying from there?

    yes, if I get a UK passport I might try that route.

    I shall have to try and find a correct details of how much it costs applying for a UK passport but resident in ROI - I think I checked it once and it came to around 250euro and present myself to UK embassy up in Dublin ... but I might have got it wrong


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You have been told this before Andy.
    Apply online, it's approx 180 ish I believe.
    They will post it to you in a couple of weeks.
    Not difficult


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,757 ✭✭✭✭Andy From Sligo


    bubblypop wrote: »
    You have been told this before Andy.
    Apply online, it's approx 180 ish I believe.
    They will post it to you in a couple of weeks.
    Not difficult

    I cant help it if I have a shocking memory and forget things - might happen to you one day :) . Whats the harm repeating the info anyway


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,757 ✭✭✭✭Andy From Sligo


    Strange in the sense that I can freely vote in general and local elections but cannot vote for president and in referendums . general and local elections and referendums and which president we have all have an impact on me, being resident in Ireland


  • Registered Users Posts: 34,173 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    yes, if I get a UK passport I might try that route.

    But if you get a UK passport, you could just as easily fly from here.

    The point is that Belfast to Britain is a domestic flight. (Although I believe Ryanair insist on a passport even for those!)

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Strange in the sense that I can freely vote in general and local elections but cannot vote for president and in referendums . general and local elections and referendums and which president we have all have an impact on me, being resident in Ireland

    I think it's fair, someone working & or living here even for a few years deserves representation in government.
    However, if those people are not citizens, then they may not be staying. So I don't believe those people should have a vote in a referendum that will change the countries constitution. That's far more wide then voting for a government that will be in power for a few years.
    Presidential votes? Meh, can't see it makes too much difference, but it makes sense that only citizens vote for the head of state. I wouldn't mind if they changed that though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Cordell


    However, if those people are not citizens, then they may not be staying
    I think there are more Irish citizens living abroad than non-Irish citizens living in Ireland.


Advertisement