Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 66

Thread: Cowen: "unintended consequences" of present Children's Referendum wording

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Cowen: "unintended consequences" of present Children's Referendum wording

    Brian Cowen has told the Dail that the present proposed-wording of the Children's Rights Referendum would have "unintended consequences" if accepted. SF's Caomhin O'Caolain says the govt has rejected the 'All Party' wording agreed by the Oireachtas Committee. Meanwhile, Newstalk is reporting that the Attorney-General has drafted new wording for the amendment, which is likely to delay a referendum.
    Quote Originally Posted by RTE
    In the Dáil today, Brian Cowen said the wording would have 'unintended policy and resource implications' if adopted.
    He said the drafting of the wording of the referendum is currently under way in the Attorney General's office and then has to go to Cabinet.
    Mr Cowen said it is a question of getting it right and said the Government is committed to holding the referendum that would enshrine the rights of children in the Constitution.
    This is excellent news given the wording (especially 'cherishing all the children of the State equally' )could have led to failed asylum-seekers having children or using their children to challenge their deportations by claiming it denies their children 'equality'. Congratulations to all on politics.ie who played such a central role in killing-off the vague-wording of the old amendment which would have re-created a baby-loophole in our asylum-law for the first time since the Citizenship Referendum.

    What should happen now. One of the following:

    - Either all the main parties agree to forget about this questionable proposition of holding a referendum on children's rights in the absence of wording to prevent abuse of the appeal's process by bogus asylum-seekers challenging their deportations on the basis of their having children with them in the State.

    Or:

    -The Government should amend the wording to prevent it being actionable in asylum-appeals cases and should then put it to a referendum.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Catalpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dublin West
    Posts
    10,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach View Post
    Brian Cowen has told the Dail that the present proposed-wording of the Children's Rights Referendum would have "unintended consequences" if accepted. SF's Caomhin O'Caolain says the govt has rejected the 'All Party' wording agreed by the Oireachtas Committee. Meanwhile, Newstalk is reporting that the Attorney-General has drafted new wording for the amendment, which is likely to delay a referendum.

    This is excellent news given the wording (especially 'cherishing all the children of the State equally' )could have led to failed asylum-seekers having children or using their children to challenge their deportations by claiming it denies their children 'equality'. Congratulations to all on politics.ie who played such a central role in killing-off the vague-wording of the old amendment which would have re-created a baby-loophole in our asylum-law for the first time since the Citizenship Referendum.

    What should happen now. One of the following:

    - Either all the main parties agree to forget about this questionable proposition of holding a referendum on children's rights in the absence of wording to prevent abuse of the appeal's process by bogus asylum-seekers challenging their deportations on the basis of their having children with them in the State.

    Or:

    -The Government should amend the wording to prevent it being actionable in asylum-appeals cases and should then put it to a referendum.
    Good News this!

    Other than this Site I heard no mention of these unintended consequences from the Establishment media

    - so it looks like we can put a feather in our caps on this one.

    Hopefully we have done the State some service.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member b.a. baracus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Breaking out of a high security stockade
    Posts
    2,222
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    This was discussed on the Late Debate on RTE Radio 1 last night. A number of "unintended consequences" of the wording were mentioned.

    The presenter Cormac O Hara mentioned that one of these unintended consequences was that the legislation could be used by asylum seekers or illegal immigrants to prevent their deportation. The wording in it's current format would make it difficult, if not impossible, to deport any child. If you can't deport a child then you cannot deport it's parent's either. If it goes through in it's current form we may aswell just throw our gates open to the world because you can be sure that within a few weeks adults with children will start arriving from every corner of the world claiming asylum, knowing that they can never be removed.

    By the way that moaning windbag Fergus Finlay said on the same show that the Department of Justice should not be deporting children anyway so the wording should stand. Good man Fergus - hope you will put up your share of those who arrive.
    I ain't gettin' on no plane

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by b.a. baracus View Post
    This was discussed on the Late Debate on RTE Radio 1 last night. A number of "unintended consequences" of the wording were mentioned.

    The presenter Cormac O Hara mentioned that one of these unintended consequences was that the legislation could be used by asylum seekers or illegal immigrants to prevent their deportation. The wording in it's current format would make it difficult, if not impossible, to deport any child. If you can't deport a child then you cannot deport it's parent's either. If it goes through in it's current form we may aswell just throw our gates open to the world because you can be sure that within a few weeks adults with children will start arriving from every corner of the world claiming asylum, knowing that they can never be removed.

    By the way that moaning windbag Fergus Finlay said on the same show that the Department of Justice should not be deporting children anyway so the wording should stand. Good man Fergus - hope you will put up your share of those who arrive.
    That's absolute lunacy from the Labour party, which should clarify whether it shares Fergus Finlay's stance on this question. It is irresponsible to grant an amnesty to every child that comes here, as - if passed into law - it would act as a magnet for people-traffickers and especially child-traffickers to lure children into their clutches, with potentially life-destroying consequences in Ireland or in transit to Ireland. Remember the dead trafficked-immigrants in Rosslare some years ago.

    One of the most irritating aspects of this debate is the lie that the 1916 Proclamation promised to 'cherish all the children of the nation equally". It did not. It merely promised to "cherish all the children of the nation". On this lie is Paragraph 1 of the proposed referendum-wording based.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    46,531
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach View Post
    That's absolute lunacy from the Labour party, which should clarify whether it shares Fergus Finlay's stance on this question. It is irresponsible to grant an amnesty to every child that comes here, as - if passed into law - it would act as a magnet for people-traffickers and especially child-traffickers to lure children into their clutches, with potentially life-destroying consequences in Ireland or in transit to Ireland. Remember the dead trafficked-immigrants in Rosslare some years ago.
    Labour don't have to clarify that, given that Finlay isn't an elected representative, or a Labour spokesman on anything.

    One of the most irritating aspects of this debate is the lie that the 1916 Proclamation promised to 'cherish all the children of the nation equally". It did not. It merely promised to "cherish all the children of the nation". On this lie is Paragraph 1 of the proposed referendum-wording based.
    Far more irritating is the belief some people hold that the reference to "the children of the nation" in 1916 actually means children (i.e minors) at all. It doesn't.
    "So how are things at the Campaign for the Freedom of Information, by the way?" "Sorry, I can't talk about that"

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member Sync's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    27,590
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    It was discussed in detail on Drivetime last night as well. Finlay's interview was quite odd in it. He was involved in the divorce referendum in the 90s, and they went into detail about how that took a while to write up as well, specifically because of concerns over unintended consequences. Bascially said it should go ahead as is because he was comfortable with the current wording.
    I'm living in America, and in America, you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now f***ing pay me.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    46,531
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach View Post
    This is excellent news given the wording (especially 'cherishing all the children of the State equally' )could have led to failed asylum-seekers having children or using their children to challenge their deportations by claiming it denies their children 'equality'. Congratulations to all on politics.ie who played such a central role in killing-off the vague-wording of the old amendment which would have re-created a baby-loophole in our asylum-law for the first time since the Citizenship Referendum.
    Politics.ie played no role, central or otherwise. Any view taken by Cowrn on this issue would have come from the Attorney General, who I'm fairly sure doesn't surf anonymous internet discussion boards in order to form legal opinions.
    "So how are things at the Campaign for the Freedom of Information, by the way?" "Sorry, I can't talk about that"

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Link to last night's "Late Debate" here. The referendum issue is approx 45 minutes in.
    Quote Originally Posted by hiding behind a poster View Post
    Politics.ie played no role, central or otherwise. Any view taken by Cowrn
    Cowen.
    on this issue would have come from the Attorney General, who I'm fairly sure doesn't surf anonymous internet discussion boards in order to form legal opinions.Labour don't have to clarify that, given that Finlay isn't an elected representative, or a Labour spokesman on anything.
    As a prospective Labour Presidential candidate, it is imperative that Labour clarify its position on this critical-matter of constitutional-change.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member TradCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    It was obvious that the referendum would have failed if there was any doubt on that issue. So would Finlay's preference be to lose the vote?

    Of course it is going to be very difficult to put rights for children in the constitution on the basis that they only apply to Irish children. Do we even want to do that? I wouldn't vote for a proposal that was racist. Nor would I vote for one that contained the risk of making Ireland even more of a target for bogus asylum seekers.

    I doubt we'll ever see this referendum.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    772
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    We won't see the referendum because they'd have to hold the byelections - Andrews has been sat on this so long it must be stuck to his arse.

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •