Surely they’ve come up with better recommendations than let’s have a vote lads…?
I look forward to the constitutional challenges to any new development, housing or otherwise, once that’s slotted in there.
Is this really needed? Could see it being used by any Nimby group against any development.
Presume the government can pretty much just ignore these recommendations anyway.
All the YIMBY’s will hate this one.
Oooff. Not sure how I feel about this. Biodiversity needs to be protected but it’s so broad and vague it can be used by just about anyone to stop things like housing, railways, roads, Bus Connects and cycle lanes. By stopping those things it just leads to things like urban sprawl which does more harm to our biodiversity than the actual housing schemes.
Green belts around our cities will do more to protect biodiversity than a residents committee using Brent geese as an excuse to block thousands of affordable apartments.
Citizens assemblies can be great but part of me wonders why we’re electing Councillors, Senators, TDs and MEPs when they’re putting this back on a citizens assembly.
When we needed to break deadlock and literally needed a national conversation on abortion, the CA was fantastic. They’re the space for building broad consensus. But there’s no disagreement on protecting biodiversity. 100% of people will agree that we need to protect biodiversity but everyone will have a different opinion on because deep down no one wants it to affect their own lives if they can help it.
The only way I could see this working is providing some constitutional framework for legislation that provides for the purchase and/or designation of lands specifically as natural reserves. I’m not sure how that would add to existing legislation or powers, however, other than perhaps apply a constitutional onus on the Government to preserve a natural bank. A general constitutional statement about protecting biodiversity would be an ongoing legal disaster.
I see a few people commenting on how 83% support it being added, I’m fully in favour of the referendum, but not in favour of it being added, so he’s for a referendum doesn’t mean yes in the referendum.
Take it from a Brit.
Holding a referendum on a specific policy? Sure.
Holding one on a vague, desired outcome? Maybe not…
That sounds like one of those good in theory but noone knows how to put it in practice recommendations.
Absolutely useless. Will fall into the aspirational points of the Constitution. Feel good vote, get out of responsibility card for govt. Ireland Ireland oh Ireland.
Very aspirational and while there will be a lot look into in this and I would I would need to see the recommendations, it feels very, very vague. Does biodiversity trump private property rules? I want to see biodiversity improve but actually doing that is hard. It sort feels like blame farmers for trying to make a living, don’t blame urban sprawl at all.
Might as well have held a twitter poll
Oh no, another reason for people to use so we can’t build any new housing…
Who needs biodiversity?
……all of us to survive.
This question is rather vague. Anyone have a report outlining any specific recommendations by the CA? As people mentioned already very hard to see an implementation as the specific of such procreation and also how should government convey the measures to the public.
Talk about fucking useless ideas.
I know one of the guys who sat on the Citizens Assembly’s – he’s an extremely insufferable, overly opinionated, politically motivated bore. I thought they were to take a small section of objective Citizens.
17 comments
Surely they’ve come up with better recommendations than let’s have a vote lads…?
I look forward to the constitutional challenges to any new development, housing or otherwise, once that’s slotted in there.
Is this really needed? Could see it being used by any Nimby group against any development.
Presume the government can pretty much just ignore these recommendations anyway.
All the YIMBY’s will hate this one.
Oooff. Not sure how I feel about this. Biodiversity needs to be protected but it’s so broad and vague it can be used by just about anyone to stop things like housing, railways, roads, Bus Connects and cycle lanes. By stopping those things it just leads to things like urban sprawl which does more harm to our biodiversity than the actual housing schemes.
Green belts around our cities will do more to protect biodiversity than a residents committee using Brent geese as an excuse to block thousands of affordable apartments.
Citizens assemblies can be great but part of me wonders why we’re electing Councillors, Senators, TDs and MEPs when they’re putting this back on a citizens assembly.
When we needed to break deadlock and literally needed a national conversation on abortion, the CA was fantastic. They’re the space for building broad consensus. But there’s no disagreement on protecting biodiversity. 100% of people will agree that we need to protect biodiversity but everyone will have a different opinion on because deep down no one wants it to affect their own lives if they can help it.
The only way I could see this working is providing some constitutional framework for legislation that provides for the purchase and/or designation of lands specifically as natural reserves. I’m not sure how that would add to existing legislation or powers, however, other than perhaps apply a constitutional onus on the Government to preserve a natural bank. A general constitutional statement about protecting biodiversity would be an ongoing legal disaster.
I see a few people commenting on how 83% support it being added, I’m fully in favour of the referendum, but not in favour of it being added, so he’s for a referendum doesn’t mean yes in the referendum.
Take it from a Brit.
Holding a referendum on a specific policy? Sure.
Holding one on a vague, desired outcome? Maybe not…
That sounds like one of those good in theory but noone knows how to put it in practice recommendations.
Absolutely useless. Will fall into the aspirational points of the Constitution. Feel good vote, get out of responsibility card for govt. Ireland Ireland oh Ireland.
Very aspirational and while there will be a lot look into in this and I would I would need to see the recommendations, it feels very, very vague. Does biodiversity trump private property rules? I want to see biodiversity improve but actually doing that is hard. It sort feels like blame farmers for trying to make a living, don’t blame urban sprawl at all.
Might as well have held a twitter poll
Oh no, another reason for people to use so we can’t build any new housing…
Who needs biodiversity?
……all of us to survive.
This question is rather vague. Anyone have a report outlining any specific recommendations by the CA? As people mentioned already very hard to see an implementation as the specific of such procreation and also how should government convey the measures to the public.
Talk about fucking useless ideas.
I know one of the guys who sat on the Citizens Assembly’s – he’s an extremely insufferable, overly opinionated, politically motivated bore. I thought they were to take a small section of objective Citizens.