People who don’t trust the state.

People who look at the collusion of this state with the Church in the setting up of the Industrial Schools.

People who don’t like the state being the one to decide what’s the in best interest of their children.

People who have read about courts in England taking children from their parents for the flimsiests reason (one example, a father was not allowed to see his daughter because someone made an unidentified woman made sexual abuse claims against him but the thing is, he wasn’t allowed to know who his accuser was because she suffered mental problems! Beyond believe. Guilty until proven innocent).

(Oh, I’m Undecided by the way)

Undecided my sweet fanny adams. You’re a no vote.

Colm, the fact that SaintRuth has given some reasons which may explain that there may be an argument at all for a no vote is no reason to assume what her vote will be (and effectively call her a liar.

I’m looking forward to this debate. There certainly is a line somewhere in terms of the State’s involvement in any citizen’s affairs but so far it seems any discussion which may cast even the slightest shadow on a yes vote is met with silly assumptions.

Nobody is against children having rights. Those who look below the surface of any referendum though are interested in how the wording that grants those rights could actually reduce the standing of others (in this case the family).
Don’t make the assumption that every time a child exercises their rights it means that the family are abusive.

The children are the future unless we stop them now!

It’s not due to the Kilkenny case. It’s a UN directive dating back 20 years. Lie no 1 from the Yes side. We all want our children to be safe but as a judge pointed out in the Times today, these provisions already exists but are never invoked, also as Cathy Sinnott said on the Pat Kenny show, it’s more about what’s been taken out.

Phillipa – I don’t mean to sound snide, but there is no such thing as a UN directive.

Conner I have two kids and another on the way so I have red thumbed your “down with children” comment now grow up.

Conner I have two kids and another on the way so I have red thumbed your “down with children” comment now grow up.

Conor, I too have two children and in the interest of balance I green thumbed your comment.;)

Conor and Ronan , I have 3 children too and I can’t believe how insensitive you guys are being , wont somebody please think of the children ;)) the irony of yelling ye grow up

I have no kids and want to know why my taxes are being spent on childrens’ allowance for you lot!?

Tomy Iona, because you were a kid too once. now give something back for the greater good of society, they will be paying your pension when you get older

I was actually kind of joking but then as a kid, I didn’t have that choice. As adults we all do have that choice – as my parents did. And while it’s off topic I can’t understand how people will moan and moan about those who have a “career” on the social welfare then follow it up by expecting people to pay for their choice to have children. If taxes should be relative to pay they should also be relative to your situation.

Don’t get me wrong, kids are great and it’s just not the right time for me but you can’t deny the contradiction of taking children’s allowance and then complaining about the “welfare state”.

I know you specifically aren’t doing so, it just makes me laugh….

I dont think anyone expects the people to pay for their kids. But if they are entitled to it then why not claim it. It’s no different from tax relief on mortgages, bin collection, rent, health care ect.
You would hope that most people will be tax payers at some point in their lives, and some will be tax payers all their lives. surely you are entitled to claim what is rightfully yours on a system you pay into.

“But if they are entitled to it then why not claim it.”

Do you think the same about TD’s expenses, bonuses for bankers after they’ve been bailed etc?!?

I know what you’re saying – I’m not trying to have a dig at you – just saying that there is a lot of contradiction when it comes to children’s allowance.

Yes because Enda Kenny, chair of the party who brought the referendum forward, is going to advocate a no vote. Seriously?
Get a copy of the referendum from your post office, read it, and make up your mind that way. Listen to the debates, and form your opinion on the content instead of on the fact that the people who wrote the yoke actually might stand up for what they wrote.

I’d happily vol. to be the hangman for every Govt. TD over the last 20 years if the opening came up but I disagree with your logic my manga friend. A good man can do bad things, a bad man can do good things. Politics is never black and white. This is good legislation, this Govt. is bringing many good piece of legislation forward, certainly more than the last group of criminals in FF however they are not addressing the 1 major fault of Irish politics, how the few are constantly put ahead of the many and the good of the country.

Our Constitution does not see us all as equal, children of Ireland have no specific Constitutional rights. Children of unmarried parents are not equal to children of married parents. Women are undermined.

This is not legislation, Brian. It’s a Constitutional Amendment.

That’s some statement!

Sinn Fein are looking for a yes vote.

How do you mean? Like sticking something onto it last minute? The text is widely available in the public forum, on the Internet, to change it would attract widespread negative publicity – something I’m sure they wouldn’t be overly keen on give their existence of late.

No, they cannot do that. What might happen is that the courts might interpret something that was unforeseen in the original wording. E.g. like the previous wording giving rights for everyone born here to citizenship.

So here’s 2 questions about the best interests of the child should be the paramount in legal proceedings:
1) does that mean no immigrant under 18 can ever be deported from Ireland? What if it’s in his interests that his granny and second cousin twice removed come to live with him.
2) How will this affect the “unborn” as the constitution states. Are the rights of the unborn now more important than those of the mother?