Should removing the primacy of the Irish text be the first Constitutional reform?

Cliste wrote: »

The problem there is that there are two versions of the constitution - one in Irish and one in English - and they can/do differ, so ultimately one version must be 'right' and another must be 'wrong'!

But bear in mind, it's Article 25 that states the primacy of the Irish text. What I'm saying is the starting point is to clearly state that the English version is the authoritative text. Deleting Article 8 (if that was what was agreed) would still leave an amended Article 25 stating that the English text is definitive.

WizardofOz wrote: »

Can I ask, if you moved to another European country and over time became a citizen of that same country would you not need to learn the language in order to understand the Constitution of that country? Why would it be any different here.

But the difference is that we haven't moved here. This is our native country, but the authoritative version of the Constitution is in a language that few of us can communicate in with fluency. We're not foreigners - that's half the point.

WizardofOz wrote: »

It is our native language ....

Well, no, for most of us it isn't. It's a language traditional to this part of the world, but the native language of most of us is English.

And the Constitution isn't really a tool for promoting social change. It's a document to set out the rights and obligations that we share. Within it';s framework, clearly anyone can advance an agenda for social change. But the political mechanisms should be neutral.

Cliste wrote: »

How often does the Irish and English versions deviate significantly anyway?

The point is I can't tell you. Very few people in Ireland can tell you want the Irish version means.

Paramite Pie wrote: »

All law in this country is interpreted and applied by the Courts anyways so I don't think there's a problem as the wording of legal jargon (even in English) is often very specific anyways and can be confusing to many of us.

Ah, come on, there's a complete difference between understanding specific legal concepts and the text being in a language that few can actually understand. I'll give a concrete example, taking a matter of current debate.

Most Irish people cannot tell you at all what this says

Admhaíonn an Stát ceart na mbeo gan breith chun a mbeatha agus, ag féachaint go cuí do chomhcheart na máthar chun a beatha, ráthaíonn sé gan cur isteach lena dhlíthe ar an gceart sin agus ráthaíonn fós an ceart sin a chosaint is a shuíomh lena dhlíthe sa mhéid gur féidir é.

So it's quite simply impossible to have any conversation about it. However, most Irish people can read this

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Now, it might involve quite a bit of legal argument to decide how this applies to embryo research, or other exotic topics. But people can read that English text, understand that it's establishing a principle that prohibits abortion and understand if a doctor or lawyer says that abortion is only allowed where there's a real risk to the life of the mother, because they can read "equal right to life of the mother" for themselves. So you can have a real conversation. Should the unborn have an equal right to life? Maybe yes, maybe no, but at least everyone can discuss it on the same terms.

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I don't see a problem with the primacy of the Irish text to be honest.

I think it's reasonable for Irish language enthusiasts to make a case to retain the present situation. Clearly, I don't agree with that view, but it's not Stalinist Russia so people can advocate whatever position they wish.

However, I do regard it as unreasonable for supporters of the status quo to pretend that having the authoritative text of our Constitution in a language that few can understand is not creating a problem for someone. You can argue that some good outweighs the problem. But I'm afraid I think that pretending it's no big deal is just obtuse.

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd leave it there after reading some of the judgements of the ECJ where they mentioning the effect of the different meaning of words in different languages on how certain laws/directives are interpreted and applied locally.

Have you a link to that material? I'd just be generally interested.

And I don't quite get your point. What exactly do you mean by "leave it there", and how would you see this help the situation in respect of the ECJ rulings?

antoobrien wrote: »

Good training for the legal bods.

Do you mean training in handling law where language conflict? Like most Irish people, I'd say my personal preference would be to avoid Irish and go straight to an international language. In this case, I'd say let the training be related to dealing with EU law - which is the actual challenge they have to meet. We don't need to turn the domestic legal system into a sandpit.

Does any single language have authority in the EU? If you reflect on it, I'm not sure there's any parallel.

antoobrien wrote: »

Which is precisely why we need to keep Irish, it makes training our people to think beyond a bastardised FrancoGerman language -the meaning of which changes at the whims of, well to be blunt, yokels - much easier.

I'm afraid I don't follow the point at all. Also, I think you are confusing the formal status of Irish with its actual status. In practical terms, there's nothing to keep.

antoobrien wrote: »

I'd disagree with you there because I use Irish. There are plenty of people that would use it if they knew other people did two, a few of my friends only speak English when there's foreigners around.

Grand, but you are part of a tiny minority. If you can't recognise that, you're in such a state of delusion that no conversation is possible.

antoobrien wrote: »

I dunno, none of us are from gaeltacht areas and it was surprising to find other people willing to talk a bit. Perhaps it's not as uncommon as we are lead to believe.

I'll leave that for others to take as they wish.

antoobrien wrote: »

Considering you can't see the blindingly obvious benefits to the fact that we have dual languages in a multi lingual legislative area, I'll take that as a compliment.

Ah, yeah, it's blindly obvious that the problems of managing a mult-lingual environment are reduced by introducing yet another language.

An Coilean wrote: »

The Constitution was not drafted in English first and then when a definitative English text was reached, translated into Irish, both versions were drafted in step with each other and the posibility that at least part of the English version is actually a translation from the Irish has also been suggested.

In fairness, I know this point is of fantastic interest to Irish language enthusiasts. But, in the real world, this is irrelevant. The drafting process wasn't something divinely inspired. A text was put to the people, in two languages. The only version most could read (overwhelmingly, in fact) was the English. And that's the same position to this day. The Constitution of Ireland, such as is and can be known to the overwhelming majority of the people to whom it applies, is the English version. It doesn't matter if the Irish version was translated into Latin to obtain Vatican clearance, before being translated again into English, or if it was found beside a burning bush. It is the only version that the overwhelming majority of Irish people are capable of reading.

An Coilean wrote: »

There is also the point that if the English text were made the authorative version, there would need to be several changes to correct mistakes that have been found in the English text that did not need to be changed until now as they were superceeded by the Irish verson which was accurate.

Again, you are displaying how this flawed idea of giving primacy to a language that most can't read disempowers the majority and lessens their capacity to be active citizens. The flaw with respect to the qualifying age for President is well-known. The point is that, if the English text has primacy, that would then be the definitive version.

You're sort of making my point for me. The basic law of the State shouldn't be written in a language that most can't understand.

Please make a case that demonstrates the benefit of the definitive text of the State being written in a language incomprehensible to most.