March Referendums

On another thread you said you live in Switzerland the last 15 years n might never be back to visit Ireland again.

Sure as s#@t ain't gonna be your taxes used by government to house the world and it's mother.

Ground drying up at all over there in Switzerland Jim?

No, no for myself and herself.

Durable relationship, I spend more time talking to the postman than my wife, he has a nice sound, south facing piece of ground. He is a bachelor, he's after getting worried about himself lately because of all the young people dieing because of the vaccine. Could I have a claim if he konks, or do we have to be doing the naughty business with eachother???

Oh. Did you miss the comments aimed at me?

Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (The Family) Bill 2023 Bill No. 91 of 2023 Patrice McDonnell, Senior Parliamentary Researcher (Law) Dr. Etaoine Howlett, Senior Parliamentary Researcher (Social Science) 13 December 2023 Abstract The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the amendment of Article 41 of Bunreacht na hÉireann in response to recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality concerning the definition of the family. 

page 23 - refers to "Durable relationships"

“Durable relationships” The legal concept “durable relationship” is to be found in European Union (EU) law regarding the rights of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the EU. This language has not previously been recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly or the Committee. Freedom of movement and residence constitutes one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU.(77) This right is enshrined in article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter).(78) This right is conferred directly on every EU citizen by Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Directive 2004/38/EC on the Right of Citizens of the Union and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Territory of the Member States, OJ L/158 (the Citizens Directive) aims to inter alia (among other things) codify Community standards to simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all EU citizens and to also grant to their family members, irrespective of nationality, the right to reside with them. The right of family members to enter and reside in a Member State is not an automatic one. The decision whether entry and residence could be granted to such persons is examined by the host Member State on the basis of its own national legislation taking into consideration matters including the person’s relationship with the Union citizen.(79) The Citizens’ Directive was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015 (2015 Regulations) and entered into force in February 2016.  

Regulation 5(1)(b) of the 2015 Regulations concerns ‘permission for permitted family member to enter State’ and includes within the definition of ‘permitted family’ a person who “is the partner with whom a Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested.” Where a person can demonstrate that they are in a durable relationship with an EU citizen, they can seek liberty to enter and remain in the State under the 2015 Regulations. The Supreme Court The Supreme Court considered the interpretation and application of the Citizens’ Directive and the 2015 Regulations in Muhammad Uzair Pervaiz v. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General [2020] IESC 27.80 Mr Pervaiz, a non-EU citizen, had sought liberty to enter and remain in the State on the basis that he and Ms L (an EU citizen) were in a “durable relationship”. Mr Pervaiz made an application for liberty to reside in the State in 2017. The Minister refused his application, finding that Mr Pervaiz had failed to demonstrate that he and Ms L were in a durable relationship. The refusal was upheld by an internal review and Mr Pervaiz then sought judicial review. In the High Court, Mr Justice Barrett (Barrett J) found that the Citizens’ Directive had not been properly transposed into Irish law and held that the test applied by the Minister concerning the examination of “durable relationship” requirement was vague and unclear.(81) Barrett J accepted the argument that the 2015 Regulations failed to define the concept of “durable relationships duly attested” and the lack of legislative guidance as to how the test should be applied, or proofs needed to satisfy the test, means the law does not offer an effective means by which to exercise the rights provided by the Citizens’ Directive. In 2020, the Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Minister for Justice and Equality concerning the High Courts’ decision in Pervaiz regarding the interpretation of the 2015 Regulations. Ms Justice Marie Baker (Baker J) held that the High Court had erred in their findings and that Regulations 2015 “permit a plain reading and do not lack clarity or sufficient precision”.(82) On the language of the legislation, Baker J said: “The language of legislation is, by its nature, almost always general, and that is because, as a general rule, the Oireachtas would intend that the legislation not require amendment on a frequent basis and be sufficiently flexible and broad to permit application in cases which can be anticipated at the time of its enactment and those the concrete facts of which were not necessarily anticipated as being likely at the time of its enactment. Legislation must be sufficiently general not to leave a lacuna in application, and general language can often be resilient and capable of meeting a number of factual circumstances, and of providing flexibility in application.”(83) On the term “durable”, Baker J said: ‘“Durable” does not mean “permanent”, and a test that required permanence in that sense would be an impossible burdensome hurdle, and would not be in accordance with any modern understanding of intimate relationships. What is meant, it seems to me, is that the relationship be one which has continued for some time and to which the parties are committed, with an intent that the commitment continues, one, therefore, which carries the indicia of commitment such that, at the present time, each of the parties to the partnership would express a view and a hope that the relationship will continue for the foreseeable future. (74). Thus, a durable partnership will tend to be one of some duration, but that is not to say that the duration of the relationship is, in itself, a defining feature. The length of a relationship will be an important, and sometimes compelling, index of the degree of commitment between the couple, but it is perfectly possible for a committed long-term, what is often called a “serious” relationship, to exist between persons who have known one and other for a short time. Indeed, that profile, while it is not common, is found in persons who marry after a short relationship, and the duration of the relationship is not, therefore, always a useful indicator of its durability. (75). Duration, therefore, is an important factor, but not always an essential one. Durability is not measured only, or even always, by duration, but a durable relationship is often one which has endured, such that the duration may illustrate its durability. […] (77). While all of the elements of a durable partnership might not be easy to list, it is probably true to say that most persons would be aware when their friends, acquaintances, or family members are in a durable partnership. For that reason, it seems to me that the language of the 2015 Regulations can readily be understood in its plain terms as connoting a committed personal interconnectedness which is recognised and recognisable between the couple and by the members of their circle or broader acquaintances, whether social or business, and which is anticipated as being likely to continue for the foreseeable future.”(84) Baker J also assessed the argument that the examination process engaged by the Minister of the personal circumstances of the applicant was flawed. Baker J concluded that the trial judge was incorrect in his conclusion that the Citizens Directive has not been properly incorporated into Irish law, and in his conclusion that the test applied by the Minister concerning durable relationships was vague and uncertain. Should the proposal to amend the Constitution be approved by the People it will be for the legislature and the courts to legislate and interpret the parameters that might exist in the context of those that claim to be in a “durable relationship”.

information of a Supreme Court challenge by a Lebanese man looking to have both his wives recognised so both could claim citizenships here. He has children with both. And part of the argument is Ireland discriminates against Muslims because it doesn’t recognise their right to polyamory. A man can have multiple wives but a woman can’t have multiple husbands.

without definition of Durable relationships- in this case alone, how many people would be claiming asylum.

Do you go around telling everyone that you and your postman are a family? I hope he doesn't know that!

Nothing is ever defined in the Constitution.

If they have been living together for a year then the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 could apply to the partner. This Act provides for a partner to apply to the courts for portion of their estate.

If they haven't been living together for a year the Succesion Act 1965 will come into and people in a durable relationship aren't included included in that so it would go to the brother and sister.

Yew, damn those lefties on the Supreme Court defining for defining terms in the Constitution like they have always done.

but instead of spending their energy on trying to solve problems- they are looking at the constitution and a change that some claim will change nothing, i believe it will change thing for the worse.

So why not use the word parent or guardian-

i personally don’t like the term family member. It’s too broad.

Sorry my bad- members of a family.

but they haven’t defined a Family.

When The likes of Michael McDowell and FLAC are saying the terminology is too loose, I tend to agree with them.

regarding the €20m- if they didn’t run the unnecessary referendum- it wouldn’t have been spent.

In a sense the Constitution does define a family, it states it must be founded on marraige.

When have FLAC said the terminology is too loose? FLAC are advocating for a Yes vote on article 41 so you clearly don't agree with them that much. 😉 Michael McDowell also thinks a reason to vote No is because of the cost of the referendum. For an allegedly intelligent man, that was one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.

But they did run the referendum.

They do for sure. I disagree with them on that. Unless durable relationship is defined properly.

an example I give- if a situation not dissimilar to that of Martin Cahill- 8 children from two sisters (allegedly) - married to one- upon his death-could his sister in law claim a durable relationship and then a widows pension?

what’s your opinion on the example from the Supreme Court that I posted previously- the claim to bring a second wife in for citizenship and all of the children.