Virtue signalling? None in my post.
Ad hominem attack? None in my post.
Art resorting to his checklist of generic distractions: plenty.
1 Like
How many people read the policy paper would you think?
1 Like
No / no for me.
2 Likes
The newspapers all reported on it and summarised it. I’d say it played a large part in people being comfortable around the parameters that would be allowed for in the abortion legislation the referendum provided for.
"spurious,nonsensical, ridiculos, absurd, waffling " plus the total misrepresentation of my position on havng a saver to define durable relationship
BS.
now kindly answer the questions i originally put to you. how is durable relationships definied in EU law?
1 Like
I’m not sure you’re understanding this.
The reason for that was - we wanted to introduce legislation legalising abortion.
We don’t want to introduce new legislation here. So there is one to be seen.
This “where’s the legislation?” argument is baffling. And fairly unique to TFK for some odd reason.
I’d disagree with you on that. I’d say that’s exactly the plan - to complete the move to tax individualisation.
1 Like
Maybe check the definition of ad hominem before you try to learn new terms like “durable relationships.” I have ridiculed your fabricated arguments on their merits. Your character is of no importance to me.
1 Like
Any lad getting divorced or separated now would be wise to provide that spousal maintenance expires once the former spouse enters into a durable relationship (that may or may not require co-habitation)
So the problem is (i) the perception of the language, and then (ii) the perceived perception of “how most people view the family”
The necessity would appear to be purely aesthetic. The consequences haven’t been considered or thought through.
We’ll figure that stuff out later
youve ridiculed nothing and you still havent provided a definition. clearly, youve nothing in the tank but to try and demean anyone with an alternative view to yourself
1 Like
Why would you think the consequences haven’t been thought through?
Do you think the Citizens’ Assembly and the Joint Oireachtas Committee and the various civil service departments involved didn’t bother to think about what this might mean?
Apology accepted.
If they have, they’re doing a terrible job of explaining it
Have a read
there was no apology and theres still no definition. youre not good at this debate malarkey.
so from rocko’s link
"In the High Court, Mr Justice Barrett Barrett J) found that the Citizens’ Directive had not been
properly transposed into Irish law and held that the test applied by the Minister concerning the
examination of “durable relationship” requirement was vague and unclear.
81 Barrett J accepted the
argument that the 2015 Regulations failed to define the concept of “durable relationships duly
attested” and the lack of legislative guidance as to how the test should be applied, or proofs
needed to satisfy the test, means the law does not offer an effective means by which to exercise
the rights provided by the Citizens’ Directive."
but there’s no need for legislation, go figure
1 Like
Potential considerations: Interpretation of proposed Article 41
If this Bill is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas and the question put to the People is agreed
to, then Article 41 of the Constitution of Ireland will be amended and “other durable relationships”
will be inserted Article 41.1.1 of the Constitution of Ireland. Given the primacy of the Constitution,
all law and policy within the State must align with the Constitution and where issues arise,
applications may be made to the Superior Courts. The Superior Courts will then be tasked with
interpretation of the Constitution. As outlined above, different interpretations of Article 41 have
emerged over the years and a case dealing with questions which may emerge in the context of the
proposed Article 41 stands referred to the Supreme Court. In light of this, it may be of interest to
note that the leading Constitutional law textbook, Kelly, states:
“Courts have noted that the context in which a constitutional amendment was passed is
‘important and relevant’ to its interpretation”.
85
As mentioned above, it should be noted that the Irish language version of the constitutional text
“has primacy in the event of conflict with the version in the other official language.”86 The content of
both texts is subject to constitutional interpretation by the Superior Courts, which has adopted five
different approaches to interpretation, namely literal interpretation; the ‘broad’/purposive approach;
the doctrine of harmonious interpretation; the historical approach; and the natural law approach.
Is this is the part that explains it? Zero explanation of the consequences there, other than (once again) - let the courts figure it out
I’ll leave it there for tonight
The anals of history and the future of our nayjin is at steak, so vote No, says fascist Andy Heasman
A very quick reminder that the main part of this referendum is about immigration and hitting targets for same. Very silly for people to deliberately ignore this.
Durable Relationship is a term born from the WEF.
2 Likes