Articles 2 & 3
MCE...@zodiac.rutgers.edu
Subject: Articles 2 & 3
The Case For The Defense of Articles Two and Three
issued by the Irish National Congress/Chomhdhail na hEireann
**********
introduction:
Articles Two and Three did not cause the conflict in the North of
Ireland. Their deletion or dilution will do nothing to stop it.
The amendment of Articles Two and Three will strip both northern
nationalists and unionists of Irish citizenship and the rights an
protection it offers. It will eave the British claim set out in
Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act and Section One of
the Northern Ireland Constitution Act (among other places) as the
only claim to sovereignty. Amending Articles Two and Three would
be a statement by southern nationalists that the British claim to
sovereignty was valid and was uncontested by them. Such a change
would furthermore remove the very legal basis for Irish ministers
being involved in talks about the future of the North.
Weakening Articles Two and Three is not a concession to be
dangled in front of unionists to nudge them towards powersharing.
Diluting the articles will not save one life and will make no
concrete progress towards peace. This is not a question of
'generosity' or moving with the times. Articles Two and Three are
a crucial constitutional expression of Irish sovereignty. They
are fundamental to a legal expression of Irish identity for those
born in the 'Six Counties'. They are also the constitutional
provisions upon which their citizenship and the protection which
citizenship offers is based. Finally they point toward the
solution to the ongoing conflict which is supported by the vast
majority of Irish people and by a clear majority of the British
public. It is the removal of the British claim and the
fulfillment of Articles Two and Three which should be centre
stage at the present talks. In a post Cold War climate, it will
be criminal if, rather than progressing towards a peaceful
solution, we regress into political paths which can only lead to
continuing violence and injustice.
The unionists and British delegations have sought to focus the
debate on the present talks around Articles Two and Three. There
is an element of distraction tactics involved in this, to take
media attention away from their intransigence. Articles Two and
Three are also being used as a blocking device--constantly
raised, not for their own sake, but to block progress. There is
however a more important and underlying reason why Articles Two
and Three have been picked for this purpose. The British and
unionist delegations are seeking to shift blame on nationalism
for any breakdown of the talks process. By constantly raising
Articles Two and Three they have sought, unsuccessfully so far,
to create a climate whereby the southern electorate can be
convinced that in order to make progress in the North they must
abandon their pursuit of Irish unity and accept the British claim
to sovereignty over the North of Ireland.
This paper ia an attempt to look at the central issues in this
debate which to date has often lacked a basic foundation of
factual knowledge on the wording and implications of the
articles. It is hoped that it will add to the debate in a
positive way.
A Concession for Peace?
Central to a lot of comment on the present talks has been the
view that anything should be conceded if it will bring peace. Few
people could stand in the way of certain peace if all that was at
stake was a few meaningless constitutional articles written over
50 years ago. However, this argument is entirely bogus. Dropping
Articles Two and Three will not save a single life and the
articles have a crucial importance which should not be negotiated
away. There is no prospect of peace on the back of a deletion of
Articles Two and Three. The British claim to sovereignty would
still be in place as would British troops in Northern Ireland and
all of the conditions which perpetuate the conflict.
Northern nationalists who would have no vote in such a referendum
would lose their citizenship rights, and be face by a southern
public the majority of which had turned their backs on them. In
such a situation it is likely that the alienation of northern
nationalists from constitutional politics would grow rather than
decline,. Indeed there is every possibility that support for
political violence would increase as people felt constitutional
means towards Irish unity had been abandoned and the British
claim to sovereignty accepted.
The 30-40% of northern nationalists who vote Sinn Fein are not
only excluded from any referendum on the topic but their
representatives are excluded from the talks. They are highly
unlikely to readily accept the outcome of a talks process which
excluded their point of view. Indeed Sinn Fein have already
questioned the validity of any referendum held in conditions of
political censorship. Not only would Section 31 exclude their
perspective from broadcast discussion but if the president of the
Masstricht referendum were repeated large-scale government
funding of the 'Yes', without similar funding for the 'No'
campaign is likely.
Despite such misinformed media comment, the IRA, in so far as we
can ascertain, have never sought o use Articles Two and Three of
the constitution to justify their campaign which they say is
rooted in the militarized situation in the North and the British
claim. Given they have never used Articles Two and Three, it is
highly unlikely that their deletion would cause them to call a
ceasefire. All the reasons why so many northern nationalists
support the IRA campaign would continue. Indeed as has been
previously mentions, some who previously felt that
constitutional policies offered the best way forward might in the
event of a deletion of Articles Two and Three begin to believe
that constitutional means have been abandoned. This is a crucial
point given the likelihood of a referendum on Articles Two and
Three being portrayed as a peace referendum. The most likely
result of the passing of such a referendum is to alienate many
nationalists who until now have urged that constitutional means
could make peaceful progress towards Irish unity.
The amendment of Articles Two and Three will not save a single
life. It will not bring peace or progress. It is much more likely
that such a move would add to the present stalemate by sending a
signal to the British government and to unionists that their
position is secure and that constitutional moves towards Irish
unity had been abandoned. We do not need a deeper stalemate in
the North of Ireland. We need imaginative steps towards a
solution. Articles Two and Three are not part of the problem.
They are an expression of the solution favoured by the vast
majority of the Irish people and a clear majority of the British
public.
The Constitutional Imperative
The Irish Supreme Court in the McGimpsey case clearly states that
there was a "constitutional imperative" on the Irish government
to seek the reunification of the national territory. This was the
justices' interpretation of the constitution. It is of course in
line with the opinions of the vast majority of Irish people. As
recently as last June, in a survey conducted by the Research Unit
of the Department of Social Studies in St. Patrick's College,
Maynooth, 76% of the 26 County electorate proposed that the
solutions to the northern conflict lay in the ending of partition
and the reunification of Ireland. ALmost 90% found this to be an
acceptable solution. Yet the solution acceptable to 90% of the 26
Country population and some 40% of the Six County population is
not even seriously being placed on the political agenda by the
Irish government delegation--despite the Supreme Court judgement
in the McGimpsey case. If this constitutional imperative were
seriously taken up Articles Two and Three would become redundant
pieces of history as a new constitution was drawn up by
representatives of all the Irish people for a new unite Ireland.
Instead, if media reports are accurate the Irish government
delegation is on the verge of going completely against the
Supreme Court judgement and giving in to the British government
and unionist demands for the amendment of Articles Two and Three.
International Law
Articles Two and Three represent the assertion of sovereignty by
the Irish nation over national territory. A sovereignty which has
not yet been fully achieved. As such, Articles Two and Three are
a normal statement of national sovereignty such as can be found
in other national constitutions, but tailored of necessity to the
abnormal situation created by the British presence in Ireland.
The fact that the exercise of national sovereignty over all of
Ireland is a matter of dispute with the British government does
not put Articles Two and Three in a unique situation. They are
similar to Article 23 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of
Germany in limiting the applicability of the state's constitution
to those lands (or provinces) comprising the Federal Republic at
the time of its adoption in 1949. The relevant wording of Article
23 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic reads:
"For the time being, this Basic Law shall apply in the territory
of (naming those state comprising Federal Germany). In other
parts of Germany it shall be put into force on their accession."
In fact Articles Two and Three are a mild legal and
constitutional statement that the Irish people do not accept the
British claim to sovereignty. They are also essential in
international law. It is clear if these articles are removed or
weakened, the Irish people will be accepting the British claim to
Northern Ireland. The British claim is perhaps most forcefully
put in Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. It says:
"The supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, places
and things in {Northern} Ireland and every part thereof."
In comparison the wording of Articles Two and Three, worth
reprinting here, are a mild declaration of sovereignty and a
statement of fact regarding the national territory.
Article Two: "The national territory consists of the whole island
of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas."
Article Three: "Pending the reintegration of the national
territory, and without prejudice to the right of Parliament and
Government established by this constitution to exercise
jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted
by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of
application as the laws of Saor Stat Eireann and the like extra-
territorial effect." (i.e. the laws shall apply to the 26
southern counties.)
Articles Two and Three are certainly not a "territorial claim"--
the phrase which unionists have succeeded in introducing into
media commentary--unlike the British claim, which most certainly
is.
The Irish government could in fact adopt a much more rigorous
approach in contesting the British claim to sovereignty while
still keeping within accepted norms of international law. It
could for instance have the British claim raised at the United
Nations, perhaps at the U.N. Commission on Decolonisation. It
could bring the issue to the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe as the Spanish have done in the case of
Gibraltar. It could even request the EC to intervene. Clearly
Articles Two and Three are not only within the norms of
international law but the Irish government could legally adopt a
much stronger position on their implementation while remaining
firmly within internationally accepted constitutional behaviour.
Citizenship Rights
A less obvious but nonetheless immediate effect of renunciation
of Articles Two and Three will be the automatic withdrawal of the
Irish citizenship of all person born in the territory of
"Northern Ireland". The current legal basis of Irish citizenship
and the right to hold an Irish passport stems from the 'Irish
Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1956', which relies on Article
Two of the Constitution for its definition of the national
territory. Section Six of that Act states that 'every person born
in Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth.' In the section
"Ireland" is defined as "the national territory as defined in
Articles Two of the Constitution." Removing Article Two and the
entire legal basis of the citizenship of people born in the North
vanishes and with it the ancillary right to apply for and hold an
Irish passport. Christopher McGimpsey, the well known unionist
and one of the two plaintiffs in the action which sought to use
Articles Two and Three of the Constitution to attack the Anglo-
Irish Agreement, produced his Irish passport in the High Court in
1989 in defense of his locus standi as a citizen to bring the
action. (See McGimpsey v. Ireland 1990 ILRM 441). That is a right
that all unionists in the North share with all nationalists and
long may it continue to do so.But it can only continue as long as
Articles Two and Three remain in their present form. Article Two,
as decided by the Supreme Court in the McGimpsey case, is a
declaration of the extent of the national territory as a claim of
legal right.
No new article about the aspiration to Irish unity can overcome
this difficulty. Either the North of Ireland is part of the
national territory or not. The people born there have either been
born in the national territory and are automatically Irish
citizens or they are not. If we stat in our constitution that the
Irish people only aspire to a united Irish then the people in the
North of Ireland can only aspire to become Irish citizens or hold
Irish passports. They can not do so now.
The right to citizenship is a practical effect of Articles Two
and Three as presently worded. They are not only an
acknowledgement of the Irish birthright of people from the North
of Ireland they bestow the protection of the constitution on
everyone there. This allowed the McGimpsey brothers to take their
case. It allowed the Irish government in the 1970's to take a
case to the European court on behalf of Irish citizens who have
been tortured in interrogation centres by the RUC. It could
potentially offer similar protection to victims of shoot-to-kill
operations or to people affected by discharges from Sellafield.
It is not a right which should be withdrawn from any Irish
person. Indeed would Brian Keenan have been released from
captivity if he did not hold an Irish passport?
The question of citizenship is crucially important for northern
nationalists. It is not simply a question of the great reluctance
to hold British passports. It is an insistence that their Irish
birthright be legally recognized. It is an insistence that their
Irish birthright be legally recognized. It is also a desire for
constitutional expression of the equality which citizenship would
offer. Northern nationalists, under British rule, have been
treated as second class citizens--in most unionists' eyes not as
citizens at all. Nationalists rejection of British rule has out
them outside the rights of citizenry and has been used to justify
discrimination in areas such as unemployment. This is clear from
unemployment statistics which put the Catholic jobless rate at
two and a half times that of Protestants for men and 1.7 times
for women. Unionists have sought to justify these figures in
terms of nationalists' rejection of the British state and for
unionists the logical outcome of that is their exclusion from the
benefits of the state. The British government have for their part
shown, by the pitifully weak fair employment legislation, that
they will not use their authority to impose equality of
citizenship against the wished of unionists. If northern
nationalists are now to have their Irish citizenship removed they
will in effect become stateless persons--deprived of Irish
citizenship to appease unionists and the British government,
deprived of citizenship rights in the North because of their
political viewpoints.
Unionist Veto
The delation, weakening or undermining of Articles Two and Three
also has the implication of accepting a unionist veto on any
progress towards a settlement of the present conflict. Indeed
some commentators have gone so far as to say this veto, either
expressly or by implication should be written into the
constitution. Were this to be the case we would be aiding
unionists who wish to continue with the status quo and helping to
put a serious block on any progress. The British government has
been widely criticised for its continuing support for unionism.
It has been argued that as long as that support is there, then
there is no pressure on unionists to engage in any meaningful
discussions. It would be surely ironic if the Irish government
were now to join with the British government. This is not to say
that unionists do not have a democratic right to represent the
interests of their voters. Clearly they have a right to ensure
that their civil and religious rights are protected in the
constitutional arrangements of any new political unit. This
right, however, does not extend to blocking moves towards Irish
unity when that is the expressed wish of the vast majority of the
population of the entire island or Ireland and indeed the view of
a clear majority of the British public as expressed in successive
opinion polls.
Some commentators have sought to assert the unionist veto in a
more positive terms--as a right to self-determination. However,
this argument cannot be sustained. There are basically three
elements to unionists assertions of self-determination. Firstly
the right to religious and civil freedoms, which no one could
deny but which does not require British rule to ensure. Secondly,
there is undeniably an element of unionism which seeks to
establish their superiority over nationalists and seeks the
support of the British state, or at least its acquiescence for
polices of discrimination in employment, cultural rights,
security etc. This is a demand which no democratic state should
acceded to. Finally, unionism asserts its right to maintain the
North of Ireland as a part of the British state. There can be no
simple right to belong to the British state. If this right is
based on a right to local autonomy then by its own rules
nationalists in Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry City, South Down, South
Armagh, West Belfast etc should have the right to reject British
rule. No such right is, however, accorded to them. In fact when
they tried to leave 'Northern Ireland' and give their allegiance
to the Dail in 1922, these areas were militarily forced to remain
under British rule. If unionists demanded that the decision must
be made by the entire Six Counties as bloc then we must look at
how the boundaries of the unit came to be drawn. 'Northern
Ireland' did not emerge according to the criterion of self-
determination. It was a compromise forced on unionists by the
British, when the former were unable to frustrate totally the
national independence movement and was then used to dominate and
discriminate against northern nationalists. Its whole origin and
purpose was undemocratic and intended to limit Irish self-
determination. The internal majority it created has been used not
just to support British rule but to systematically discriminate
against nationalists.
The British Constitution
To a large extent the insistence by the unionists that Articles
Two and Three remain centre stage is a blocking tactic designed
to veto progress, to place the blame for failure on nationalists
and, failing that, to ensure that a high price is exacted from
nationalists for any new arrangements. Were nationalists to
engage in similar tactics they could, with total legitimacy,
insist on the removal of sectarian clauses from British
constitutional legislation. Nationalists are being asked to give
their loyalty to a state where the Head of State must be a
Protestant and where the Church of England bishops have seats as
of right in the House of Lords. John Hume put the case for
constitutional reform in Britain very succinctly in the 'Irish
Times' of 29 September 1992, when he said "Could you imagine if
the Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh had to be President of Ireland
or the Catholic archbishops had seats of right in the Seanad?"
Yet Catholics in the North of Ireland are expected to put up with
such sectarianism in the structures of the state which claims
sovereignty over them.
John Hume also made the very relevant point that when the
constitution was passed in 1937, there was not a single reference
to Articles Two and Three in the Stormont Parliament. On many
occasions since unionists have insisted that Articles Two and
Three are irrelevant. The conflict over sovereignty in the North
of Ireland has existed long before Articles Two and Three were
passed in 1937. It is the conflict over sovereignty which must be
resolved. The removal of Articles Two and Three will not resolve
that conflict. Rather it will send a signal to the British
government that they can simply allow the conflict to continue
without facing their responsibility to seek real progress.
The Right of the Irish Government to Intervene
One implication of a deletion or dilution of Articles Two and
Three is that it would remove the very constitutional basis for
Irish government ministers being represented at talks such as the
Brooke/Mayhew talks. With Irish citizenship being removed from
people in the North and the constitutional expression of
sovereignty ended what would be the legal basis for an Irish
government intervention in the affairs of the North?
It has always been accepted that the Irish government had a
constitutional duty to intervene in Northern Irish affairs. This
has been notable in cases of human rights abusers. Irish
government ministers have regularly demanded explanations from
the British government following instances of shoot-to-kill by
British forces, unrest in jails, evidence of collusion between
the British army/RUC and loyalist death squads. They have had the
legal authority to do this because of the provisions of Articles
Two and Three. Without these articles they would have no more
right to intervene that the French or German governments. The
Irish government has in fact a constitutional obligation to
pursue Irish unity, according to the Supreme COurt in the
McGimpsey judgement.
No Equivalence with Section 75
There is no democratic equivalence between Articles Two and Three
and the British claim as set out in Section 75 of the Government
of Ireland Act. The British claim is a territorial claim
asserting their 'supreme authority' over all 'persons, places and
things' in Northern Ireland. It is an undemocratic residue of
colonialism and serves to uphold unionism and British interests.
Articles Two and Three are an expression of the democratic wished
of the vast majority of the Irish people for national
reunification.
Sporting Teams
While raising this issue of sporting teams in the context of a
conflict which has claimed so many lives may seem trivial, it is
an important expression of the implications of a deletion or
dilution of these articles which has up to now been neglected. If
the right to hold Irish passports is to be removed from those
whose ancestry is firmly within the Six COunties, many of our
national sporting teams will lose athletes of note. Wayne
McCullough, for example, who represented Ireland so proudly in
the Barcelona Olympics, could not have boxed for Ireland without
the provisions of Article Two. What would be the legal basis for
an all-Ireland rugby team if the national territory is to stop at
Dundalk and Lifford? Sport can build be a bridge-builder when
other avenues of progress are blocked. Cross-border sporting
cooperation is something we should be seeking to extend, into
soccer for example, rather than ending the arrangements which
currently exist for this to happen.
Alternative Wordings
A number of specific redrafts of Article Two and Three have been
suggested from time to time. Indeed Fine Gael leader John Bruton
has regularly asserted that agreement was reached to change the
articles in 1967 in the Committee on the Constitution. In fact
the committee recommended no change to Article Two and, as the
report of the committee was not acted upon, we can only assume it
did not meet with the support of the government of the day or
with the support of the wider public.
The change proposed in Article Three would have change it to
read: "The Irish national hereby proclaims its firm will that its
territory be reunited in harmony and brotherly affection between
all Irishmen." While this wording seemed to assert that the
national territory is all of Ireland, the net effect according to
constitutional experts is to withdraw the claim to jurisdiction
over the whole of the national territory. Thus the British claim
to sovereignty would not be challenged and would by implication
be accepted by the Irish people.
More recently two suggestions have been made at amendments. The
British government suggested replacing Articles Two and Three
with Article 1a of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which reads:
"The two governments:
a. affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would
only come about with the consent of the majority of the people of
Ireland."
A bill proposed by the Workers Party in 1990 sought to insert a
stipulation of "unity by consent" (of a majority in Northern
Ireland) and to clearly specify that the state boundaries were
the 26 Counties and that we simply aspired to Irish unity.
Either of these proposals would abandon the sovereign claim and
definition of the extend of the national territory in order to
grant a permanent veto to unionists on Irish unity. Such
assurances of unionist' position would deepen the political
stalemate and make political progress towards a lasting
settlement more difficult. They would cut northern nationalists
out of the national territory and remove their citizenship and
passport rights. They would also remove from the Irish government
any legal or political entitlement to concern itself with the
internal affairs of Northern Ireland.
The Way Forward
The defence of Articles Two and Three is obviously not enough to
secure a lasting settlement in the North. It is however a crucial
starting point. If the articles are amended progress will become
much more difficult as unionists and the British government
consolidate their position and see no need for concessions or
consensus. There is, however, a way forward out of the current
stalemate. The key to such progress lies with removing their
support for the unionist veto and by repealing Section 75 of the
Government of Ireland Act and Section One of the Northern
Ireland Constitutional Act. Only when Britain declares that it
will at some future date withdraw will the stalemate be broken
and the conditions created for all the irish people to draw up
the constitutional and other arrangements for a new political
unit.
Conclusion
As the debate continues it is clear that the government accepts
that the people would at present reject any attempt to change
Articles Two and Three. This is confirmed by opinion polls, both
public and private. What is now more likely, should any attempt
at change be made, is that rather than holding a referendum on
Articles Two and Three, a referendum on a package will be put to
the people. This package would include changes to Articles Two
and Three and a proposal arising out of the northern talks. The
amendment or undermining of Articles Two and Three would not be
put to the people, as a major constitutional issue to be decided
in its own right, but as an integral part of that package.
Considerable moral pressure would thus be exerted on voters not
to reject change in Articles Two and Three as this would bring
down the agreement.
If an agreement is reached based on the amendment of Articles Two
and Three it will be built on sand. The government will be
setting up such an agreement for collapse and with it the talks
process. The Irish National Congress will oppose any attempt to
incorporate the amendment of Articles Two and Three into such an
agreement and will organize north and south to protect the
constitutional articles if a referendum is called. The arguments
which cab be made now in defense of Articles Two and Three are
equally valid in the event of a 'package' referendum. Irish
citizenship for people living in the north, the constitutional
expression of Irish unity and the need to legally counter
Britain's claim to Northern Ireland are essential elements of any
moves towards a sting settlement. They should not be given away
for any short-term benefit in negotiations.
The Irish government should give a firm commitment that Articles
Two and Three will not be conceded. Only then can the present
talks even begin to move towards discussion on the key issues
needed to resolve the conflict.
**********
The Irish National Congress
The Irish National Congress is a non-party political organization
working on issues of human and national rights. We believe the
reunification of Ireland is central to social, economic, cultural
and political progress. We support the right of people to live
and work in Ireland, to full equality between men and women and
to access to our culture of which the Irish language is central.
The INC opposes all sectarianism and believed partition has
fostered divisions in our country leading to denial of civil
rights to all traditions.
SINCE OUR FOUNDING IN 1990, THE INC:
*1969: Founded and sponsored the Reclaim the Spirit of 1969
organization which was behind the main celebrations of the 75th
Anniversary of Easter Rising right across the country.
*Cullyhanna Inquiry: Sponsored and helped organize the successful
public inquiry in to the shootings of Fergal and Michael Caraher.
*Border Roads: Supports the activities of community groups
involved in reopening cross-border roads closed by the British
army, through publicity, lobbying and running regular buses to
road openings.
* Sellafield: works with groups like Greenpeace to seek the
closure of Sellafield and protection of neutrality.
*Votes for Emigrants: campaigns for vote for emigrants.
*Teilifis Na Gaeilge: Tacaionn Comhdhail Maisiunta na hEireann
lesi an eileamh ar son Teilifis na Gaelige.
*Unemployment: has supported the campaigns of the Irish National
Organization for the Unemployed.
At present the priority work of the INC is seeking to build a
nationwide campaign to defend Articles Two and Three. We are
setting up branches in every corner of Ireland to help with this
work.
information? Contact:
Robert Ballagh, Chairperson
Irish National Congress
PO Box 2814,
Dublin 7
tel: 8210493 / 8202019 / 2883798
*****
DO YOU KNOW WHAT ARTICLES TWO AND THREE SAY?
Article 2: "The national territory consists of the whole island
of Ireland..."
Article 3: " Pending the reunification of the national territory
laws passed by the Dail will apply only to the 26 Counties."
We believe they are worth defending.
We reject the British claim that "supreme authority of the
parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and
undiminished over all person, matters and things in Northern
Ireland and every part thereof." (British Government of Ireland
Act, Section 75.)
Any change to Articles 2 & 3 will mean:
*Abandoning nationalists and part of Ireland to the "United
Kingdom" forever;
*Stripping people from the Six Counties of their citizenship and
their right to represent Ireland at sporting and cultural events;
*Accepting that the "United Kingdom" has the "supreme" and
superior right to rule in Ireland past, present and future;
*Conceding right not to unionists but to the British government;
*Remove the right of our government to intervene in the affairs
of the Six COunties and protect the basic human rights of our
people;
*Postponing the day of peace and reconciliation, any change to
Articles 2 and 3 will do nothing to end the conflict.
Help us defend Articles 2 and 3.
Cad is ciall le hAilt 2 & 3?
Alt 2: "Is e oilean na hEireann go hiomlan...na criocha
naisiunta."
Alt 3: "Go dti go ndeantar athchomhlanu ar na criocha
naistiunta...bainfidh na dlithe a achtofar ag an bParlaimint sin
lesi an limistear ceanna lenar bhain dlithe Shaorstat Eireann."
Dar linn gur fiu iad a chosaint.
Diultamid:
d'eileamh na Breataine, mar ata "the supreme authority of the
parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and
undiminised over all persons, matters and things in {Northern}
Ireland and every part thereof."
(The Government of Ireland Act, Section 75)
Cialloidh Aon Athru Ar Ailt 2 & 3:
*Treigean ma naisiunach agus geilleadh ar chuid de this na
hEireann go deo don 'Riocht Aontaithe';
*Saorantacht na hEireann agus an ceart cur ar son na hEireann o
thaobh spoirt agus cultuir a bhaint de mhuintir na Se Chonte;
*Glachad leis gur ag an 'Riocht Aontalthe' a bheadh uascheart
rialaithe in Eirinn san am a d'imigh, san am i lathair agus amach
anseo;
*Cearta a gheilleadh, ni d'aontachtoiri, ach do rialtas na
Breataine;
*Cealu ar cheart na rialtais seo againne ar bhaint a bheith acu
le gnotha na Se Chontae agus ar bhunchearta daonna ar muintire a
chosaint;
*Reiteach agus athmhuintearas a chur siar--ni chabhroidh athru ar
Ailt 2 & 3 puinn leis an tsiochain.
Cuidigh Linn Alit 2 & 3 a Chosaint.
Na lig doibh Ailt @ & 3 a athru. Glac pairt san fheachtas chuniad
a chosaint.
A thuilleadh eolais o:
Chomhdhail Naisiunta na hEireann
Bosca O.P. 2814,
Baile Atha Cliath 7
no cuir glaoch as 2824959.
Timothy Murphy
>The amendment of Articles Two and Three will strip both northern
>nationalists and unionists of Irish citizenship and the rights an
>protection it offers.
Is this true?
I don't see any connection between Irish citizenship
and Articles 2 & 3.
The Irish government is perfectly entitled to give citizenship
to anyone it chooses.
If it wants to give citizenship
to all people born on February 29th in Guatemala
it is quite free to do so.
The holding of dual citizenship is a matter for agreement
between the governments involved,
and again has nothing to do with Articles 2 & 3.
Some governments (particularly the US government in times past)
have been opposed to its citizens
having any other citizenship.
The UK & Irish governments
have always been civilized and tolerant in this area.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
cjb...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
> The amendment of Articles Two and Three will strip both northern
> nationalists and unionists of Irish citizenship and the rights an
> protection it offers.
It will eave the British claim set out in
> Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act and Section One of
> the Northern Ireland Constitution Act (among other places) as the
> only claim to sovereignty.
It is the removal of the British claim and the
> fulfillment of Articles Two and Three which should be centre
> stage at the present talks.
> The amendment of British claim will strip both northern
> nationalists and unionists of British citizenship and the rights an
> protection it offers.
CJ
Standard Disclaimer.
cjb...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
> Articles Two and Three did not cause the conflict in the North of
> Ireland. Their deletion or dilution will do nothing to stop it.
> The amendment of Articles Two and Three will strip both northern
> nationalists and unionists of Irish citizenship and the rights an
> protection it offers.
What is Irish citizenship - the right to be a citizen of Ireland.
As i understand it, you can only be a citizen of a country.
The country of Ireland does not exist - ( Ireland is an island, even
a nation ) - so Irish citizenship is the right to be a citizen of
something which does not exist, so it means nothing.
So articles 2 & 3 give you the right to nothing - so why have them.
CJ
Standard Disclaimer.
cjb...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
Amending Articles Two and Three would
> be a statement by southern nationalists that the British claim to
> sovereignty was valid and was uncontested by them.
>
Isn't the British claim bases on the fact that the majority of the
people in Northern Ireland what to be part of British. ( An Act of
Union may be a more Suitable claim however )
Such a change
> would furthermore remove the very legal basis for Irish ministers
> being involved in talks about the future of the North.
Legal basis - under what law.
CJ
Standard Disclaimer.
cjb...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
> From: MCE...@zodiac.rutgers.edu
> The Irish government could in fact adopt a much more rigorous
> approach in contesting the British claim to sovereignty while
> still keeping within accepted norms of international law. It
> could for instance have the British claim raised at the United
> Nations, perhaps at the U.N. Commission on Decolonisation. It
> could bring the issue to the Conference on Security and
> Cooperation in Europe as the Spanish have done in the case of
> Gibraltar. It could even request the EC to intervene. Clearly
> Articles Two and Three are not only within the norms of
> international law but the Irish government could legally adopt a
> much stronger position on their implementation while remaining
> firmly within internationally accepted constitutional behaviour.
So why don't they - so the issue can be sorted out.
CJ
Standard Disclaimer.
Aengus Lawlor..
says:
>
>MCE...@zodiac.rutgers.edu writes:
>
>>The amendment of Articles Two and Three will strip both northern
>>nationalists and unionists of Irish citizenship and the rights an
>>protection it offers.
>
>Is this true?
>I don't see any connection between Irish citizenship
>and Articles 2 & 3.
>The Irish government is perfectly entitled to give citizenship
>to anyone it chooses.
pass a law that gave it more flexibility than it has at the moment, but
that's not quite same thing. I'm sure there are many voters who would
be sufficiently pissed off if the government was seen to be passing out
Irish Passports whilly-nilly that they might make an issue of it.
>If it wants to give citizenship to all people born on February 29th in
>Guatemala it is quite free to do so.
I don't think even the very popular Michael Twee could get such a law
passed. And while Mr Boyd might argue that you can't devalue something
that's worthless, I think a lot of people would disagree.
>
>The holding of dual citizenship is a matter for agreement
>between the governments involved,
>and again has nothing to do with Articles 2 & 3.
What does dual citizenship have to do with anything? There are significant
numbers of people in Northern Ireland who very definitely do not want to
be British, and who are fully entitled to Irish citizenship as a right,
not as a gift from the Irish Government.
(It may seem like a semantic game, but I'm pretty sure that there are more
people in Northern Ireland who consider themselves "not British" than "not
Irish". Or put another way, if the poeple of Northern Ireland are split
into three camps, "Irish", "Irish and British" and "British", the third
would be the smallest).
[flame bait removed]
>--
>Timothy Murphy
>e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
>tel: +353-1-2842366
>s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Aengus
--
rby...@rohmhaas.com Aengus Lawlor
ala...@ejovax.enet.dec.com (who used to be ala...@dit.ie)
An bhfuil cead agam dul amok?
(For the record, neither Rohm & Haas nor DEC necessarily agree with me).
Aengus Lawlor..
>
>In article <01H574GS7...@zodiac.rutger>, MCE...@zodiac.rutgers.edu
>writes:
>
>> Articles Two and Three did not cause the conflict in the North of
>> Ireland. Their deletion or dilution will do nothing to stop it.
>> The amendment of Articles Two and Three will strip both northern
>> nationalists and unionists of Irish citizenship and the rights an
>> protection it offers.
>
>What is Irish citizenship - the right to be a citizen of Ireland.
>As i understand it, you can only be a citizen of a country.
>The country of Ireland does not exist - ( Ireland is an island, even
>a nation ) - so Irish citizenship is the right to be a citizen of
>something which does not exist, so it means nothing.
Another Unionist sticks his head in the sand and pretends that all's
right with the world.
If the country of Ireland doesn't exist, Mr Boyd, can you explain how
it came to be a member of the UN, and the EC, and how come the governments
of the United States and the United Kingdom exchange Ambassadors with it?
(The United Kingdom of course, isn't a country either, so I suppose it can
exchange ambassadors with whover it likes?)
>
>So articles 2 & 3 give you the right to nothing - so why have them.
If they're so meaningless, why do you have such a problem with them?
>
>CJ
>
>Standard Disclaimer.
(Translated: He's talking shite as usual).
Aengus Lawlor..
>
>In article <01H574GS7...@zodiac.rutger>, MCE...@zodiac.rutgers.edu
>writes:
>> From: MCE...@zodiac.rutgers.edu
>
> Amending Articles Two and Three would
>> be a statement by southern nationalists that the British claim to
>> sovereignty was valid and was uncontested by them.
>>
>Isn't the British claim bases on the fact that the majority of the
>people in Northern Ireland what to be part of British.
That's no problem. the Irish claim is based on the fact that the majority
of people in Ireland want a united Ireland. So we're even.
(If you're going to make petty arguements, CJ, at least follow them through
to their logical conclusion. 10 years before the Government of Ireland
Act was passed, you could have fairly said that the majority of people in
Dublin wanted to be British. But the statelet of Northern Ireland was
invented to create and artificial Unionist majority, with just enough
Nationalist areas thrown in to make it half way viable, but not enough
to seriously erode the Unionist majority. No other logic can explain the
inclusion of Armagh and Derry, and the exclusion of Donegal. The wishes
of the people didn't have all that much to do with it).
>( An Act of Union may be a more Suitable claim however )
>
>> Such a change
>> would furthermore remove the very legal basis for Irish ministers
>> being involved in talks about the future of the North.
>
>Legal basis - under what law.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement.
>
>CJ
>
>Standard Disclaimer.
Aengus Lawlor..
challenged the Irish Constitution. It would be a political gamble
with no guaranteed payoff, and most politicians are cowards.
Timothy Murphy
>>I don't see any connection between Irish citizenship
>>and Articles 2 & 3.
>>The Irish government is perfectly entitled to give citizenship
>>to anyone it chooses.
>No it's not. Of course, with a large and submissive majority, it could
>pass a law that gave it more flexibility than it has at the moment, but
>that's not quite same thing. I'm sure there are many voters who would
>be sufficiently pissed off if the government was seen to be passing out
>Irish Passports whilly-nilly that they might make an issue of it.
This is completely irrelevant to the point at issue,
which was whether the removal or modification of Articles 2 & 3
would deprive people in the North of Irish citizenship.
This has nothing at all to do with democracy;
it is a question of international law.
In any case the scenario you draw is completely unrealistic --
there is not the slightest chance that a majority
(or even a sizeable minority) of the electorate in the South
would wish to deprive those in the north of citizenship.
Why should they?
This citizenship, incidentally, does not entitle people
to vote in Southern elections,
unless they actually live in the South.
(In any case British citizens --
and I believe all EC or EU citizens --
who live in the South are entitled to vote there.)
>>The holding of dual citizenship is a matter for agreement
>>between the governments involved,
>>and again has nothing to do with Articles 2 & 3.
>What does dual citizenship have to do with anything?
Many people in the North hold dual citizenship
(were you not aware of this?)
so it is obviously a matter of some importance to them.
Thomas Bridge
>This is completely irrelevant to the point at issue,
>which was whether the removal or modification of Articles 2 & 3
>would deprive people in the North of Irish citizenship.
Fine, so in the bill calling for the abolition of articles 2 and 3 include a
clause saying that all those who were born in NI are entitled to an Irish
passport and citizenship.
>(In any case British citizens --
>and I believe all EC or EU citizens --
>who live in the South are entitled to vote there.)
Irish citizens can vote in referendums, European, Dail and local elections.
British citizens can vote only in European, Dail and local elections.
Other EC citizens in local and European elections, and all others in local
elections only (at least according to the blurb on the electoral form).
--
Thomas Bridge | Bray Wanderers AFC, FAI Cup Winners 1990 |
tho...@maths.tcd.ie| Division 1 Champions: 1986, 1994 |
-------------------| |
My opinions| The Irish soccer mailing list is now running. Mail me to join. |
Mark Riordan
>From: MCE...@zodiac.rutgers.edu
>Subject: Articles 2 & 3
[Many reasons for maintaining Articles 2&3 given]
I personally think we have to be very careful about Articles 2 & 3.
First of all I would state that I believe that we should move towards
the removal of any claims over the territory of NI which are not
tempered by the addition of suitable references to peaceful methods,
consent etc. I believe that we should therefore replace the articles
by a statement of our desire for the unity of all the Irish people in
common purpose to enhance our collective well-being (I am sure someone
else can draft it better). I don't think we have anything to be ashamed
about the articles they have just passed their sell-by date. They come
from times when the Irish viewpoint like the British was more strident
and less informed. We must also be very careful how we remove the
articles. There would be something distasteful about the Southern Irish
removing something held as very important by Northern Nationalists
against there wishes. This would be an equal affront to any caused to
unionists.
MARK
--
| rior...@cs.tcd.ie Mark Riordan, Computer Science Dept., |
| Mark.R...@cs.tcd.ie Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. |
| Tel: +353-(0)1-702 1335 Fax: +353-(0)1-677 2204 |
Mark Riordan
>In article <01H574GS7...@zodiac.rutger>, MCE...@zodiac.rutgers.edu writes:
>
>> Articles Two and Three did not cause the conflict in the North of
>> Ireland. Their deletion or dilution will do nothing to stop it.
>> The amendment of Articles Two and Three will strip both northern
>> nationalists and unionists of Irish citizenship and the rights an
>> protection it offers.
>
>What is Irish citizenship - the right to be a citizen of Ireland.
>As i understand it, you can only be a citizen of a country.
>The country of Ireland does not exist - ( Ireland is an island, even
>a nation ) - so Irish citizenship is the right to be a citizen of
>something which does not exist, so it means nothing.
Wrong again. Irish citizenship is just as valid as British citizenship
despite the fact that there is no country called Britain. (Its called
the UK) Now can you please think before you post.
MARK
PS Maybe someone could post him the megabytes of discussion on the name
of this country also.
Joe McConnell
Is the Irish constitution on-line somewhere? Or could someone post
the text of articles 2 and 3?
--
Joe McConnell | Opinions expressed are the | "Jack, you have debauched
mc...@erim.org | author's, not the employer's.| my sloth!" S. Maturin
Aengus Lawlor..
>Aengus Lawlor.. <RBY...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>
>>>I don't see any connection between Irish citizenship
>>>and Articles 2 & 3.
>>>The Irish government is perfectly entitled to give citizenship
>>>to anyone it chooses.
>
>>No it's not. Of course, with a large and submissive majority, it could
>>pass a law that gave it more flexibility than it has at the moment, but
>>that's not quite same thing. I'm sure there are many voters who would
>>be sufficiently pissed off if the government was seen to be passing out
>>Irish Passports whilly-nilly that they might make an issue of it.
>
>This is completely irrelevant to the point at issue,
>which was whether the removal or modification of Articles 2 & 3
>would deprive people in the North of Irish citizenship.
>This has nothing at all to do with democracy;
>it is a question of international law.
International law isn't the problem, Timothy. Despite all the blustering
by various people, Articles 2 & 3 are not in conflict with any international
laws. The only reason for fiddling with Articles 2 & 3 is to deal with
Unionist fears (whether real or imagined). But the feelings of Northern
Nationalists wrt Articles 2 & 3 are at least important, (and possibly more
so), as the feelings of Northen Unionists. And quite frankly, telling
Northern nationalists to fuck off and find a state of their own isn't
something that I think we should be contemplating.
(And yes, you are quite correct to state that the article specifically spoke
about loosing the right to citizenship. But I think that you miss the point
if you equate citizenship with the right to a passport. Citizenship can be
a state of mind. But if removing Articles 2 & 3 won't lessen Gerry Adams
right to call himself Irish, then why would repealing the UK Government of
Ireland Act affect Ian Paisleys right to call himself British?)
>
>In any case the scenario you draw is completely unrealistic --
>there is not the slightest chance that a majority
>(or even a sizeable minority) of the electorate in the South
>would wish to deprive those in the north of citizenship.
>Why should they?
There's more to citizenship than being entitled to a passport. If that was
all that was involved, then it would be even simpler to have the UK give
up it's claim, as it already has the legal apparatus for ex-pat voting
in place, for all those unionists who still want to vote in Westminster
elections. (Yes, that's a fatuous comment. Don't bother flaming it).
>This citizenship, incidentally, does not entitle people to vote in Southern
>elections,unless they actually live in the South.
>(In any case British citizens -- and I believe all EC or EU citizens --
>who live in the South are entitled to vote there.)
>
>>>The holding of dual citizenship is a matter for agreement
>>>between the governments involved,
>>>and again has nothing to do with Articles 2 & 3.
>
>>What does dual citizenship have to do with anything?
>
>Many people in the North hold dual citizenship (were you not aware of this?)
>so it is obviously a matter of some importance to them.
Yes, I am aware of it, and again I say so what? People who hold dual
citizenship obviously don't have a problem with Articles 2 & 3 the way they
are, (or they're just being expedient, and find it easier to get into the
US on a British passport).
I'm much more concerned about the reaction of the people who don't want to
hold dual citizenship (on both sides). They're the "problem" that needs to
be solved.
>
>--
>Timothy Murphy
>e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
>tel: +353-1-2842366
>s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Aengus
Aengus Lawlor..
McConnell) says:
>
>Is the Irish constitution on-line somewhere? Or could someone post
>the text of articles 2 and 3?
I recently scanned the constitution, and sent the .RTF format output to
some people in TCD who were putting a WEB server together. I haven't
seen it anywhere yet, though.
(If anyone knows at TCD knows John Walsh (z...@maths.tcd.ie) can they ask
him waht the story is?)
If anyone want's to spell check the .RTF files, drop me a line, and I'll
try and get them mailed to you. I also spoke with Liam Relihan, who's
running a WWW server at UL, and he'd be interested in putting it online
there, but I'd really like someone to volunteer to proof-read it first).
And if you've never heard of the World Wide Web and Mosaic, don't worry,
you will soon :-)
>--
>Joe McConnell | Opinions expressed are the | "Jack, you have debauched
>mc...@erim.org | author's, not the employer's.| my sloth!" S. Maturin
Aengus
Aengus Lawlor..
>the text of articles 2 and 3?
Article 1.
The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and
sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its
relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political,
economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.
Article 2.
The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its
islands and the territorial seas.
Article 3.
Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without
prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by
this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that
territory, the laws enacted by that parliament shall have the like area
and extent of application as the laws of Saorsta/t E/ireann and the like
extra-territorial effect.
>--
>Joe McConnell | Opinions expressed are the | "Jack, you have debauched
>mc...@erim.org | author's, not the employer's.| my sloth!" S. Maturin
Aengus
Thomas Bridge
According to the version handed out at last weeks NI debate at the Hist:
Article 2:
The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and
the territorial seas.
Article 3:
Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to
the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution
to excercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws
enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application
as the laws of Saorsta/t E/ireann and the like extra territorial effect.
If anyone does have an electronic text, could they please send it to me.
Timothy Murphy
>>This is completely irrelevant to the point at issue,
>>which was whether the removal or modification of Articles 2 & 3
>>would deprive people in the North of Irish citizenship.
>International law isn't the problem, Timothy. Despite all the blustering
>by various people, Articles 2 & 3 are not in conflict with any international
>laws. The only reason for fiddling with Articles 2 & 3 is to deal with
>Unionist fears (whether real or imagined). But the feelings of Northern
>Nationalists wrt Articles 2 & 3 are at least important, (and possibly more
>so), as the feelings of Northen Unionists. And quite frankly, telling
>Northern nationalists to fuck off and find a state of their own isn't
>something that I think we should be contemplating.
I wasn't concerned in what I wrote
with whether Articles 2 & 3 should or should not be changed,
but merely with the legal question of whether such a change
would have any effect on the Irish citizenship of people in the North,
as someone asserted.
I never suggested that Articles 2 & 3 were in conflict
with international law.
It's a pity that the simplest factual point
cannot be discussed rationally,
without rambling off into irrelevancies
about the supposed feelings of nationalists and unionists.
John Walsh
>In article <MCCON.93N...@ssdd475a.erim.org>, mc...@ssdd475a.erim.org (Joe
>McConnell) says:
>>
>>Is the Irish constitution on-line somewhere? Or could someone post
>>the text of articles 2 and 3?
>I recently scanned the constitution, and sent the .RTF format output to
>some people in TCD who were putting a WEB server together. I haven't
>seen it anywhere yet, though.
>(If anyone knows at TCD knows John Walsh (z...@maths.tcd.ie) can they ask
>him waht the story is?)
[stuff deleted...]
>And if you've never heard of the World Wide Web and Mosaic, don't worry,
>you will soon :-)
I have just put Articles 1 to 50 of the Irish Constitution on our
www server in the School of Mathematics in Trinity College.
As far as I know this is the first WWW server to have the constitution
on-line and should help discussions on Constitutional matters in this
newsgroup.
The document to open is "http://www.maths.tcd.ie/Const.html"
or opening the School of Mathematics home page
(http://www.maths.tcd.ie/index.html) will give you a link to it.
There are several other WWW server up and running in Ireland
(these include www.dsg.cs.tcd.ie,www.iona.ie,and www.scrg.cs.tcd.ie)
If anybody else would like the Constitution in HTML format for their www
server please mail me.
Thanks to Aengus Lawlor for scanning the Constitution into RTF format. The
conversion to HTML format was done by a program. However I made several
changes to ensure the consistancy of the formatting and to rid of errors.
If you do find any errors please mail me.
To find out more about www read the newsgroup comp.infosystems.www .
le meas,
zed
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Walsh, (z...@maths.tcd.ie) | "There are 40 people in the world
School of Mathematics, | and 5 of them are hamburgers."
Trinity College Dublin. | - Zappa
Sean V. Kelley
: I recently scanned the constitution, and sent the .RTF format output to
: some people in TCD who were putting a WEB server together. I haven't
: seen it anywhere yet, though.
: And if you've never heard of the World Wide Web and Mosaic, don't worry,
: you will soon :-)
A Chairde,
Many thanks to John Walsh and Aengus Lawlor for putting this on the web.
I should also mention one very interesting project that you can access
via the web, known as the CURIA project.
The Thesaurus Linguarum Hiberniæ is a joint project of the Royal Irish Academy and
University College Cork to provide an interactive on-line searchable database
archive of literary and historical materials in the various languages of early,
mediæval and modern Ireland.
The documents are scanned (in the main) from authoritative printed editions
(although some will be typed up from the original manuscript) and encoded in SGML
according to the recommendations of the Text Encoding Initiative. Access to the texts
is available via;
www
http://curia.ucc.ie/curia/menu.html
ftp
curia.ucc.ie
If you are reading news with ISO-8859-1, this should look alright....
This is the last paragraph of the Aisling Óenguso, which might look like this when
interpreted by SGML-sensitive software [using (for this example only) bold type
for proper names and numbers and italics for corrections and crossreferences]:
14. Is de sin ro boí cairdes in Maicc Óic ocus Ailella ocus Medbae. Is de sin
do-cuaid Óengus tricha cét, co Ailill ocus Meidb do tháin inna m-bó a
Cúailnge. Conid ``De Aislingiu Ó enguso maicc in Dagdai'' ainm in scéuil
sin isin Táin bó Cúailnge. Finit.
le meas,
Sean
--
===============================================================================
Seán V. Kelley "An rud is gaire don chroí, 'sé is gaire don bhéal"
ske...@tisl.ukans.edu Scríobh chugam i nGaeilge, más é do thoil é
===============================================================================
Telecommunications and Information Sciences Laboratory ( T I S L ) || K
The University of Kansas, Nichols Hall, Lawrence, Kansas 66045 USA || U
Barry Flanagan
: : I recently scanned the constitution, and sent the .RTF format output to
: : some people in TCD who were putting a WEB server together. I haven't
: : seen it anywhere yet, though.
: : And if you've never heard of the World Wide Web and Mosaic, don't worry,
: : you will soon :-)
Ireland On-Line is distributing the GNN here in Ireland, and will be
putting up our own stuff (and those of other irish sites) in the very near
future. Our home page is http://www.iol.ie/IOL-HOME.html - although right
now this is simply the GNN home page.
--
Barry Flanagan - <bar...@iol.ie>
----
| Ireland On-Line, West Wing, Udaras Complex, Furbo, Galway,Ireland
| Tel/Fax : +353 91 92727 / 26 * BBS : +353 91 92722 (4 Lines)
John Walsh
>Aengus Lawlor.. <RBY...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>>In article <MCCON.93N...@ssdd475a.erim.org>, mc...@ssdd475a.erim.org (Joe
>>McConnell) says:
>>>
>>>Is the Irish constitution on-line somewhere? Or could someone post
>>>the text of articles 2 and 3?
>The document to open is "http://www.maths.tcd.ie/Const.html"
This document has now been replaced by
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/Constitution/index.html
>or opening the School of Mathematics home page
>(http://www.maths.tcd.ie/index.html) will give you a link to it.
The home page remains the same.
zed.
Aengus Lawlor..
says:
>
>Aengus Lawlor.. <RBY...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>
>>>This is completely irrelevant to the point at issue,
>>>which was whether the removal or modification of Articles 2 & 3
>>>would deprive people in the North of Irish citizenship.
>
>>International law isn't the problem, Timothy. Despite all the blustering
>>by various people, Articles 2 & 3 are not in conflict with any international
>>laws. The only reason for fiddling with Articles 2 & 3 is to deal with
>>Unionist fears (whether real or imagined). But the feelings of Northern
>>Nationalists wrt Articles 2 & 3 are at least important, (and possibly more
>>so), as the feelings of Northen Unionists. And quite frankly, telling
>>Northern nationalists to fuck off and find a state of their own isn't
>>something that I think we should be contemplating.
>
>I wasn't concerned in what I wrote
>with whether Articles 2 & 3 should or should not be changed,
>but merely with the legal question of whether such a change
>would have any effect on the Irish citizenship of people in the North,
>as someone asserted.
I may have been a bit vehement in my followups, but you seem to be intent
on making a semantic arguement based on a very narrow understanding of
what Irish citizenship entails.
From a purely legal point of view, somebody born and brought up in Seattle
can be an Irish citizen. I don't think it's difficult to see that there
are ways in which such a person isn't "Irish". Modifying the constitution
to allow people in NI a legal right to citizenship will basically put them
on the same footing as the guy in Seattle. Legally, it won't make any
difference, but it will definitely affect people's perceptions about
their "Irishness".
>I never suggested that Articles 2 & 3 were in conflict
>with international law.
Mea Culpa, that was the Rev Ian. But you did suggest that the question of
citizenship was a matter for international law. In Message-ID
<2c6knj$1...@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie> you said:
->This is completely irrelevant to the point at issue,
->which was whether the removal or modification of Articles 2 & 3
->would deprive people in the North of Irish citizenship.
->This has nothing at all to do with democracy;
->it is a question of international law.
>It's a pity that the simplest factual point cannot be discussed rationally,
>without rambling off into irrelevancies
>about the supposed feelings of nationalists and unionists.
Well, I guess this is the crux of the matter. I don't think they are
irrelevancies. I think if more attention was paid to the real motivations
of ordinary people, we wouldn't have seen 3,000 people die in the Troubles.
>--
>Timothy Murphy
>e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
>tel: +353-1-2842366
>s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Aengus
Aine.McManus
This citizenship, incidentally, does not entitle people
to vote in Southern elections,
unless they actually live in the South.
(In any case British citizens --
and I believe all EC or EU citizens --
who live in the South are entitled to vote there.)
EC/EU citizens may vote in local and Da/il elections, if they live in
the Republic. They can't vote in Presidential elections, I don't
believe they can vote in referenda, and I'm not sure about EC
elections.
Aine
--
*******************************************************************************
* , * *
* Aine McManus, * Ph: +61-6-249-4988 (w) *
* School of Mathematical Sciences, * *
* Australian National University, * Email: mcm...@pell.anu.edu.au *
* ACT 0200, Australia. * *
* * *
*******************************************************************************
Thomas Bridge
>EC/EU citizens may vote in local and Da/il elections, if they live in
>the Republic. They can't vote in Presidential elections, I don't
>believe they can vote in referenda, and I'm not sure about EC
>elections.
This is wrong. EC citizens can only vote in local and EC elections, unless
they are British citizens when they can vote in Da/il elections as well.
Thomas
Aengus Lawlor..
In article <2cb5dd$s...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>, z...@maths.tcd.ie (John Walsh)
says:
>Aengus Lawlor.. <RBY...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>>In article <MCCON.93N...@ssdd475a.erim.org>, mc...@ssdd475a.erim.org
>>(Joe McConnell) says:
>>>
>>>Is the Irish constitution on-line somewhere? Or could someone post
>>>the text of articles 2 and 3?
>
>>I recently scanned the constitution, and sent the .RTF format output to
>>some people in TCD who were putting a WEB server together. I haven't
>>seen it anywhere yet, though.
>
>www server in the School of Mathematics in Trinity College.
>As far as I know this is the first WWW server to have the constitution
>on-line and should help discussions on Constitutional matters in this
>newsgroup.
>
>The document to open is "http://www.maths.tcd.ie/Const.html"
>or opening the School of Mathematics home page
>(http://www.maths.tcd.ie/index.html) will give you a link to it.
when I select it from the main menu.
(If you're not sure how to specify a URL, maybe you can point to CERN,
look for a list of W3 Servers, and look under Ireland. This will point
at 5 servers in Ireland).
>
>Thanks to Aengus Lawlor for scanning the Constitution into RTF format. The
>conversion to HTML format was done by a program. However I made several
>changes to ensure the consistancy of the formatting and to rid of errors.
>If you do find any errors please mail me.
A couple of people have asked me for the .RTF documents recently, I'll
try to get them out to you tomorrow.
>
>le meas,
> zed
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Walsh, (z...@maths.tcd.ie) | "There are 40 people in the world
>School of Mathematics, | and 5 of them are hamburgers."
>Trinity College Dublin. | - Zappa
Aengus
matt...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
> In article <1993Nov14.145955.1@ucsvax>, cjb...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu says:
>>
>>In article <01H574GS7...@zodiac.rutger>, MCE...@zodiac.rutgers.edu
>>writes:
>>> From: MCE...@zodiac.rutgers.edu
>>
>> Amending Articles Two and Three would
>>> be a statement by southern nationalists that the British claim to
>>> sovereignty was valid and was uncontested by them.
>>>
>>Isn't the British claim bases on the fact that the majority of the
>>people in Northern Ireland what to be part of British.
>
> That's no problem. the Irish claim is based on the fact that the majority
> of people in Ireland want a united Ireland. So we're even.
>
> (If you're going to make petty arguements, CJ, at least follow them through
> to their logical conclusion. 10 years before the Government of Ireland
> Act was passed, you could have fairly said that the majority of people in
> Dublin wanted to be British. But the statelet of Northern Ireland was
> invented to create and artificial Unionist majority, with just enough
> Nationalist areas thrown in to make it half way viable, but not enough
> to seriously erode the Unionist majority. No other logic can explain the
> inclusion of Armagh and Derry, and the exclusion of Donegal. The wishes
> of the people didn't have all that much to do with it).
> Just a note--I went to a lecture yesterday by Tim Pat COogan, and
the reason he gave that Donegal was not included in the improperly
named "Ulster" is that, when the unionists demanded its creation, the
six counties were all it could control (militarily and
administratively, I assume) Kelly--...@guvax.georgetown.edu