Hopefully. I know the regressive Fianna Failers vote like a religion. Those disillusioned by politics are the losers by not voting. The May 31st referendum was proof: 50% turnout mostly by FF voters resulted in a yes vote. That will have very serious ramifications for our services.

Can you apply for a postal vote. Maybe not but look into it

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/voting/registering_to_vote.html#leb892

“You may also be eligible for a postal vote if you cannot go to a polling station because:

Of a physical illness or disability
You are studying full time at an educational institution in Ireland, which is away from your home address where you are registered
You are unable to vote at your polling station because of your occupation
You are unable to vote at your polling station because you are in prison as a result of an order of a court.”

Looked into it before, it’s a none starter the list of occupations is restricted to the those in the Dept of Foreign Affairs and a few others. I do however have to do Jury Service which is nice.

I have two friends who are out of the country frequently due to their occupation. Both work in the private sectore and Both of them applied for and received a postal vote in the last referendum. They said it was quite easy to get.

A great idea would be online voting. It’s done very successfully in Estonia giving citizens the right to vote no matter where in the world they are.

I know we’re still reeling from the whole e-voting fiasco but It’d be great to trial it and it would be a great option for those who find themselves out of the country on polling day.

Pierce

Given your regular fierce criticism of the Government I’m surprised you are not more knowledgeable and particularly about postal voting.

We shouldn’t have a no side just for the sake of having one.

We should have a no side to generate debate David. Is there any chance you can do your campaigning somewhere other than challenging everyone’s posts?!

It is unfortunate that there is a lack of debate on behalf of the no side as people won’t understand the full consequences of a yes vote. It is essentially taking power away from parents and giving them to the government, similar to Communist policy of the Soviet Union. The booklet is very vague and I say when in doubt vote no! We know from previous campaigns how deceptive the government can be.

So Tomy even if most people agree with an idea, there should always be someone there to oppose it?

Did I say oppose? This is the constitution we’re talking about – do you think that people who disagree with you are not entitled to express their reasons for disagreeing?

Most people agree that we should have a government – does that mean that there should be nobody sitting on the other side questioning the intentions (whether intended or not) of their action/inaction?

If you are opposed to the idea of a no side then you have a lack of understanding around democracy.

If you are afraid of a No side to this particular amendment, why? If not, why do you like the idea of a one sided debate?

With any debate, there are points to be made by both sides which are not necessarily counter to each other – not necessarily opposing views. Other than a hardcore libertarian attitude which doesn’t believe in the concept of state-granted rights I think you’ll have a hard time finding anyone who has a problem with children having rights – but there are issues through which those rights are defined.

John Mulligan
http://www.constitution.ie/constitution-of-ireland/default.asp
You can down load the Constitution from this link.
” The Family
Article 41
1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and
fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution
possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent
and superior to all positive law. CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the
Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary
basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare
of the Nation and the State.
2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within
the home, woman gives to the State a support without which
the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that
mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to
engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the
home.
3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the
institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to
protect it against attack.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of
marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that
i. at the date of the institution of the
proceedings, the spouses have lived
apart from one another for a period
of, or periods amounting to, at least
four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a
reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers
proper having regard to the
circumstances exists or will be made
for the spouses, any children of either
or both of them and any other person
prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by
law are complied with.
3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under
the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid
marriage under the law for the time being in force
within the jurisdiction of the Government and
Parliament established by this Constitution shall be
capable of contracting a valid marriage within that
jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the
marriage so dissolved. CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN
Education
Article 42
1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural
educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect
the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according
to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual,
physical and social education of their children.
2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes
or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by
the State.
3. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their
conscience and lawful preference to send their children to
schools established by the State, or to any particular type of
school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common
good, require in view of actual conditions that the
children receive a certain minimum education, moral,
intellectual and social.
4. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall
endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private
and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public
good requires it, provide other educational facilities or
institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of
parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral
formation.
5. In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral
reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as
guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall
endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with
due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the
child. ”

John Mulligan
I will be voting No. I do think that the idea that a child of married people can not be adopted is the only good point in this change of wording but not enough to make me vote yes. I feel that people should read the current constitution and the new wording before they vote .

It’s not a waste of time to allow long-term foster parents to adopt their children. These families need to be recognised. That in itself is a reason to vote YES.

Some issues are already addressed in legislation but remember politicians can always change legislation. Putting Children’s rights in the constitution puts it beyond the reach of politicians. Only we the people can change the constitution.

Let’s make a statement that Children’s Rights are above legislation, they’re too important to be just on the statute books. They’re a part of our country and a part of our society. Only the constitution can make such a statement.

@David the proclamation laid out the ground rules, the constitution already had/has articles both as law and legislation to protect the “children of the nation”. The fact that these current laws are not upheld within a court system is where the problem lies. This referendum is not the solution to any and all problems with child care, adoption issues, or abuse cases. The laws are there already to protect our children they just have to be acted on.
From the letter to people of Ireland on the foundation of our state.
“The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.”

Why?

why? because we live in an apparent democracy and he had chosen to vote no?

Me too. I am very concerned that our government has come out with yet another woolly, poorly worded amendment to the constitution. Unfortunately it will pass, as people are very afraid that if they vote ‘No’ they are somehow child abusers. As per usual, the intent is good but the skills are lacking

Isn’t there sufficient published material for people to make an informed decision?
You have a bizzare opinion of the electorate that you would think it will pass because voters (in a secret ballot) fear being labelled child abusers!

Gagsy – Can’t agree that there is sufficient information. Lack of debate has characterised this referendum.

I’ll be voting no. I have yet to be convinced on several points pushed by the Yes (only) side:
why we need to identify anyone as anything but a citizen in a constitution
why we need a Yes vote in order to legislate (and many commentators appear to agree that the majority of intent is already legislated for)
that the intent of the change will not give rise to unforeseen problems that we won’t be privy to due to the private nature of family courts
that any forthcoming legislation will be any different to what can happen without the change

I understand that some of what I say above simply can’t be 100% locked in by an answer. It’s just my opinion as informed by debating with some people about it and doing my own reading. I just think that this is a case of getting a car serviced because you get a puncture – why not just fix the puncture? I also know that it’s likely the amendment will be passed. If so, I hope I am wrong and that the change facilitates the spirit of the change.

I do, however think that the reason we’re really having this is simply political. This is an opportunity for FG & Labour to say “look what we gave you” at election time. It also hands the responsibility to us to make a decision rather than the gov being criticised for putting in potentially unpopular legislation.

So, to me, it’s less about needing the amendment in order to protect children and more of a political masterstroke. They simply cannot lose.

@felicity what exact problems do you have with the wording?

Most of the text comes from an all-party committee on the issue some years ago and most analysts and academics view the wording as balanced and proportionate.

@ David Higgins; Article 42.A.i “In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such an extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.” Definitions of the following are completely open to interpretation: ‘exceptional cases’; ‘proportionate means’; ‘due regard’ ; ‘natural and imprescriptable rights’. In addition as this section stands a non-custodial parent who is separated from the custodial parent for what ever reason could by law be held to account for the actions of the custodial parent . As I said, the intent of the section is good, but the wording is woolly! Given that Ireland has a judiciary where fines are considered an adequate punishment for sexual assaults, I feel the currently proposed amendment is far too open to misinterpretation

@Felicity If you vote No then the amendment is not made and nothing changes. If you’re not happy with the wording then this is the default position and effectively says to the Government come back with a better worded amendment and I may support it. It’s your vote and nobody else’s – use it as you see fit!

Whereas the no side say vote no because they don’t like the government. Most no voters are voting no out of protest, not because of the issues.

I’ll be voting No Dave and while I don’t trust this government, the last government and can’t even imagine what kind of shambles our next government will be I’ll be voting no for reasons other than lack of trust.

Unfortunately, one of the single most important issues is that there isn’t really a no side to this. There’s more debate in this story than there is from the sources that should be providing the discussion.

People don’t like negative campaigning. The yes side is avoiding this and is explaining what the amendment does.

@Dave some percentage in all voting maters will vote in a particular way just as a form of protest, others will read up about it and make an informed decision to vote no.

@Dave – generating debate and examining it from any particular point of view is not negative campaigning. It’s critical appraisal.

The Yes side is presenting their point of view and given that it’s the Yes side, of course it will be presented in a positive light. That does not mean that all elements of the amendment are being inspected and presented by them. Not for this or any referendum.

Kieran – agreed!

Surely that would warrant some kind of a constitutional change?

Deborah

The State’s past failures as you put it are now to be compounded by your decision to vote NO?
Would you like to read that back and try to understand why it might make you look foolish or did we misunderstand what you said?

Colm, the state has failed many who are protected under the constitution. Constitutional change is not where the focus needs to be in so many of these cases – application and enforcement of existing law could address many of these issues.

It’s a complete red herring IMO that constitutional change is being presented as apparently the only vehicle through which the spirit of the intention of this amendment can be provided.

But then you should vote No but you should still vote.
By opting out you are effectively saying you don’t care whether the constitution is changed or not.
Isn’t your opinion above therefore irrelevant?

@Gagsy I have no interest in the constitution, they can add on and take away statutes and amendments all day long, inherent rights under Common Law still supersede any of that nonsense.
The poll is ‘Will you vote in the ref’ so obviously my opinion is relevant. Anyone who has an opinion which entails voting or not voting has a relevant opinion, I’d go as far to say any resident of this country has a valid opinion on any election or referendum.

Of course you can have an opinion on voting or not voting.
My point was that if you’re not voting then your opinion on the referendum issues itself are irrelevant. The effect of the referendum will last beyond the life of this government.

@Gagsy Thats a crazy thing to say, maybe people are not voting exactly because of their opinion on the issues of the referendum. I would argue my opinion on the referendum issues are the foundation, the bedrock of why I will not vote.

Have to agree with gaggsy, if you are entitled too but don’t vote your opinion is of no consequence. I share your opinion of distrust in the people who are supposed to lead the country but I will still vote. Haven’t decided which yet but I am leading towards a no but that may change after I research a bit.

@Shanners Of course my opinion is of no consequence to those who still think this system works, or to those who intend to stiffle free speech. Thankfully many people over the last few years have woken up to see the system of government is a proven failure, and of course many more believe in free speech and open debate on why it does not work and potential alternatives. Also with the addition of mine and other peoples view on why they are not voting, thankfully may help to inform others of why it is a pointless exercise.

So you are not going to vote, thereby giving them the power to continue in their incompetence.

On a related note, has anyone from the relative parties asked the permission of the children they have used as “models” on their posters? Have they considered the number of pedophiles at large in this country? Have they thought?

Good point Christine.
I must ensure that my children are never seen by anyone in case the pedophiles get them.

Jaysus!

Yeah eileen! And we should not have video referees in football because we can’t even enforce the existing rules there either

The content of the booklet is online

http://www.referendum2012.ie/

There’s no excuse for not knowing the issues when you’re commenting on an article directly related to it.

Bruce Arnold’s piece is interesting if you’d like to investigate the counter argument. There are some educated opinions amongst the comments that follow as well. http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/bruce-arnold-this-referendum-is-a-waste-of-time-and-will-do-nothing-at-all-for-childrens-rights-3277089.html

I quite like the website supported by ISPCC, Barnardos and Children’s Rights Alliance: http://www.yesforchildren.ie/getinformed/

Great attitude.

You could just try reading the proposal and making an informed decision based your own interpretation of it and the arguments put forward, rather than using a blanket “I don’t trust ‘nda and his buddies” tactic.

If Enda was giving out free money you’d take it, be honest.

I agree I notice the tin foil hats I use lately to stop the government stealing my thoughts aren’t working as well. The government are up to something! They’re after our tin foil!

@David, Enda gives out free money all the time! It just happens to be our money and he gives it to non secure bond holders!

i’m voting no, the rights of the child are already covered in the constitution. From what i’ve read of the proposed changes to the constitution, this seems to be giving the powers that be extra powers to “deal with” / take children away from pretty much anyone they see fit. I’m probably wrong and really hope i am, but is there really such a need for the change in the constitution?

I will be voting NO for the same reasons. This Govt have no concern about anyone other than themselves and their EU bosses. I am not taking parental power from families only to hand it to a corrupt Govt

Haven’t heard the shinners advocating a yes vote

Jim Buckley Barrett – yes. But why do people still vote and support those parties on the right? By voting FF / FG, people are effectively self-defeating their wishes.

@Buckwheat, Sinn Fein are advocating a yes vote. Must not be a fan of politics or even the news ehh. I hate terms like Shinners, Lefties…etc, There always used by loud temporary right wingers with wallets full of maxed out credit cards and no clue or interest in whats going on in the country.

By the way, I’m voting yes, its not a perfect bill, but there will never be on, it is impossible to appease everyone, what it does at the very least is give children a voice, it gives parents to option to give their children up for adoption and it helps long-term foster parents get closer to adoption.

I have read the current constitution , I have read the booklet on the refererendum from the referendum commission, I feel I will be voting No. to protect children from the state. It is because people who do not act professionally ,and do their jobs correctly ,children are at risk. The laws are already there only they are not acted upon.

What an entirely pointless comment.

Yours or mine?

Thanks for the update Damocles. Its very impolrtant that we are aware of your non-opinion on the issue.

Both.:-)

Both, but why go to the effort of saying you’re not eligible to vote so you haven’t bothered reading up on the issues? A simple no would have sufficed. If you’ve nothing of value to add then don’t bother.

I’m with Norman, both, but if my comment is so pointless why bother to even respond?

Damocles, one of the pleasures of this site is pointlessly pointing out the pointless.
Don’t take that way from us.

Do what you like, Gagsy, I’m just wondering why Rob decided to waste everyone’s time by forcing us all to have to go through this rather pointless discussion when he could be making some stunning and insightful comments on the importance of involving oneself in the democratic process. In fact I’d liek to apologise to everyone, on Rob’s behalf, for the time they may have wasted reading this entire exchange. You aren’t going to get that time back.

If people are eligible to vote I suggest that they educate themselves on the issue at hand and vote as their heart desires. Don’t disenfranchise yourselves.

You started it though with your original pointless comment, you can’t deny that.
I just couldn’t stop myself getting sucked in.
Its a weakness.