Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AN ONLINE TOOLKIT to help employers to realise the the value of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender diversity in the workplace has been launched by the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network.
The kit, called Diversity in the Workplace, will help employers to assess how good their workplace is for their LGBT staff and to identify any barriers and ways to overcome them.
Sixty per cent of LGBT employees are not open about their orientation at work, according to recent Irish research, with many feeling that being out with their colleagues might damage their career, promotion prospects or professional relationships.
GLEN chairperson Kieran Rose said that equality and diversity are good not just for business, but for the economy as a whole. Accountancy firm Ernst and Young, which is helping to launch the toolkit, said that it is committed to fully endorsing the concept of inclusiveness.
Excellence in Diversity asks organisations a set of questions about their current practice and benchmarks that performance against best practice. It also allows the organisation to track its progress over time and gives guidance on how to improve effectiveness.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I’ll be voting NO. plainly because I do not trust the gov and am very weary of anything they suggest.
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.
‘Vote now on whether or not you’re the kind of person who votes’
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.
I would vote but I won’t be in the country on that day, I would like to see a change in the voting system to allow early voting. I pay all my taxes in this country but because most of my work is outside of the state, meaning I don’t get a say in how my taxes are spent.
Can you apply for a postal vote. Maybe not but look into it
“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.
I’ll be voting no.
Yes, I’m voting no.
Why?
why? because we live in an apparent democracy and he had chosen to vote no?
definitely no the state has failed far too many children already!it changes nothing
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.
According to Supreme Court Judge Harriman and High Court Judge O’Flaherty, this legislation already exists bar one part. The part that doesn’t just requires an amendment to the legislation. So this referendum is a complete waste of time and money. Without prejudice to children.
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.”
still waiting for the booklet ! i Will be voting NO. we can’t carry out what’s already there to protect children and erin want to change it! makes no sense !
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
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/
yes and ,,,,,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!
Wont be voing. Human and childrens rights are inherent under Common Law, people, parents, are required to claim their rights. If any government claim to be ‘granting’ you rights, its because really they are trying to gain further control over you.
Regarding this referendum, the idea that repeated governments, that cannot run a health service, have bankrupt the state, given Irish sovereignty to Germany and have reneged on plenty of election promises, not to mention slashing funding to education and special needs, the idea that these people know best for children in danger if frankly laughable. Judge a man by his character, the character of this and earlier goverments brings words such as corruption and incompent to mind.
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!
Post just arrived with the Childrens Referendum information book. it would be ok if I had an understanding of the constitution as it stands, I think most people dont, and the lack of a no side in this campain is a problem that may render the process undemacratic. I dont know how I will vote.
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 .
Sure if they get a “no” they’ll just do another one until they get a yes, Isn’t that what they do in the country! I’ll be voting no!!
Basically I feel this referendum is totally unnecessary and the only losers are parents and children’s rights.
Lets see how it goes in court today when the Government are taken to task on spending one million on the Yes campaign, I will be voting NO and the FG spinners that have appeared on the Journal comments the past week can give that feed back to HQ
I feel like we are being told “Vote Yes” just because it is good for children without any other real argument. I know the referendum booklet is out there, but I think the Yes side should be doing more to counter the arguments of the No side rather than relying on the mantra that it is good for children. I think there will be enough support for the yes side to win, but this Government really needs to learn how to run a referendum campaign that actually educates the public.
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!
Smokescreen set up
To take your attention off the budget etc. baahaa
Lets not be stupid and support a government that has told us countless lies in the past. The state will in effect become the new ‘parent’- a very scary one if I may say so. The proposed ammendment does not mention the family once, and it is both ignorant and decieving to suggest that this institution will be strenghtened by the proposed amendment. Decency, respect for family values, and common sense all cry for a No vote on november 10.
If you think the Children’s Referendum is innocuous read this legal analysis – Vote No – Because you care! http://www.scribd.com/GerryFahey
People fought for our right to vote and there are countries which don’t allow free voting..that is my reason why we should all vote.
Yes I will and I will be voting no as I care how children (under the age of 18)
No-one has answered the following scenario and what provisions of the referendum protects against it occurring.
It is a proven fact that parents caught up in a bitter divorce can and do blackmail their children to say untruths about the other parent(s). All children can be manipulated to do this to show their love for a parent (albeit a malicious one).
If this referendum is passed the added dimension arises that such parents can blackmail the child, to assert their now constitutional right, to personally give evidence in court. The Courts will not be in a position to deny the right of the child to do so.
Is this protecting the child (who maybe 17 years old)?
I’m not eligible to vote and as such haven’t bothered to form an opinion on how I would vote if I could, because I can’t.
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.
I’m voting ‘Yes’. I think it’s about time that children got listened to in this country. Hopefully, a ‘Yes’ vote will result in a catalyst of change in our support services. There are also more than 2,000 children that are in long-term foster care without any hope at the moment of being adopted.
The best arguments I’ve heard so far are from adults who were denied a stable home environment in their childhood. For anyone who is arguing over the failure of the state in the past as a reason to vote no, surely allowing for permanent adoption for children in state care would be preferable to them spending a childhood institutionalised? I’m voting yes.
Save the Children, Vote NO. |
Vote NO for Democracy and Freedom and to save the children from the State.
The Irish Government , with the support of all the Irish political parties including all the opposition , are running a national referendum in Ireland on Saturday next November 10th to give the State more control over the children of Ireland in opposition to existing parental rights, even though the Irish Constitution already protects children , where the State has always dismally failed to do so.
Those of us concerned citizens opposing this are being overwhelmed by mass organisation, mass media and postering across Ireland right now by ALL the Irish political parties with all the politicians ganging up on the people, we feel that this is the final solution by the State and the politicians to all dissenting voices in Ireland.
Thus we the people , with no organisation, no political party left, are fighting to the finish for Democracy and Freedom of Choice to be maintained in a Free Ireland, and that our children be saved from State despotism and Dictatorship.
Save the Children, Vote NO.
@ G, all you non-voters should get together and make a non-voting party, you could put yourselves forward and base your popularity on the amount of people that don’t vote for you. I am sure it would be very popular and think of all the changes you wont be able to make, or all the discussions your opinions wont count in. you could start a separate state where no-one does anything, they just sit around all day talking shite to each other…
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.
If the political parties are all Yes then the interest groups opposed should be given the air time to put their side forward. I think a televised debate would be a good way of helping people make up their mind and should be required for all referendums.
@SeanNorris- Fostering is not mentioned in the proposed change. Forced adoptions is a good thing???
To all those sitting on the fence or saying that they are voting against the government because they made a mess of things in the past, check out the debates on Primetime tonight, Vincent Brown tomorrow night or Frontline next week to see both sides before making up your minds. This isn’t about the Government past or present, this is about children and what is the right thing to do. Check out http://www.yesforchildren.ie or read this article by a former foster child: http://www.thejournal.ie/author/wayne-dignam. This amendment isn’t going to change things for the majority of children in Ireland today but for a small number that are vulnerable this could mean a second chance at a childhood.
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.
ARE YOU AWARE ,THAT IN 1992, THE STATE RATIFIED THE UN, ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD. THEY KNOW ITS WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BUT WAY A HEAD WITH IT. SO NOW WE HAVE TWO SYSTEMS ,SIDE BY SIDE, THE CONSTITUTION ,THE OTHER EU/UN. WE HAVE BEEN LIED TOO. LIKE LISTBON,YES FOR JOBS,THE SAME FOR THE CHILDREN ,YES TO THEM. LOOK OUT , FG.LAB.FF AND SF ARE OUT AGAINST THE PEOPLE. THE NO SIDE HAS NO MONEY BUT THE YES SIDE ,HAS MILLIONS.
Despite having worked here for 13 years, being married to an Irish man with 2 children I am not allowed to vote in a referendum as I am British. If I did I would vote yes though.
As off today I voted with my postal ballot. Typical as I still feel illinformed as to the pros and cons no matter how much reading about it I have done. And that was general consensus too amongst us all.
I will be voting but have not yet made up my mind. Looking at the elements of the amendment the aspects dealing with fostering and adoption which are new from what I can make out would not appear to be the points that are generating debate in the referendum and if they were put forward on their own I would think there would be little or no dissent on the adoption of them.
On the other hand 42A 1 seems to be the one that is generating most controversy as it would appear to be the one that seems to be already substantially there in the present constitution. While at face value it appears to be in order it is written in a sufficiently open way that an unintended interpetation could arise from it
The decision in my mind is do we for the sake of adopting the adoption and fostering situations bring this piece along and take our chances that it will not come back to bite us in some unintended way or is it of such fundamental importance in its own right that we reject the amendment including the “good” parts dealing with adoption and fostering. No easy decisions here!
i would like to see a debate on this,
i am finished rearing children, but i am thinking of my own children becoming parents and their rights, so i dont know what way i will be voting,
Now try it, you just try to run all that is proposed here without reference to the special case of the Traveller families, you can’t , not even with a solid YES vote on Saturday November 10th – and this is why this referendum is a complete and total Confidence Trick because no legislation that will work , without provision for the Traveller families can actually work, and such provision can’t work either as everybody must be equal under law.
So if Frances Fitzgerald gets her Yes Vote she still cannot legislate as laid out for the purposes of this referendum with no mention of the Travellers anywhere, but even if she now produced legislation to make them exceptions to the rule it can’t be done anyway as we all have to be treated the same under law.
Any or all legal eagles here must by now realise that it is all a Sham and a Confidence Trick of being asked to vote for something that can’t be done without that Traveller exception , that can’t be done either!
Come on the Travellng People your existence has not now only shattered the Government but all Irish political parties in Dail Eireann as well and exposed them all as Fakers and Charlatans.
Thanks for your help, Lads:-)
have your say