How long before Irish reunification?

blanch152

_blaaz wrote: »

Why do.you refuse to.acknowlege the people.who dont vote sinn fein but want a utd ireland?


Linking a utd ireland to the SF vote is very short sighted and narrow minded way to view things...why do it have to be a SF only thing,i wouldnt vote for em in a fit

To call a border poll, a Secretary of State needs evidence. A few screaming posters on a boards thread is not evidence, neither is an opinion poll that says 37% of the South would pay more tax, neither is an opinion poll that says a majority in the North would like a UI if the nationalist wet dream of a hard Brexit were to take place.

The only real hard evidence is votes. The reality, and the most frequent and shrill posters won’t like it, is that the combined nationalist vote in the North has been falling for the last few elections. If and when the SoS calls a vote, his decision can be challenged in the courts and subject to judicial review. He will need a lot more than a feeling in his bones or Francie saying it must be so to defend his call. That is why a poll is a long while away if ever, because no SoS will want to be embarrassed in Court.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

To call a border poll, a Secretary of State needs evidence. .

Not to stop you having your usual fulminations...but all that is required of the SOS is his/her 'opinion'.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

To call a border poll, a Secretary of State needs evidence. A few screaming posters on a boards thread is not evidence, neither is an opinion poll that says 37% of the South would pay more tax, neither is an opinion poll that says a majority in the North would like a UI if the nationalist wet dream of a hard Brexit were to take place.

The only real hard evidence is votes. The reality, and the most frequent and shrill posters won’t like it, is that the combined nationalist vote in the North has been falling for the last few elections. If and when the SoS calls a vote, his decision can be challenged in the courts and subject to judicial review. He will need a lot more than a feeling in his bones or Francie saying it must be so to defend his call. That is why a poll is a long while away if ever, because no SoS will want to be embarrassed in Court.

`BTW, Francie thinks that a Unionist trying to stop a Border Poll by legal action would be almost perfect for the cause of a UI.

So let them knock themselves out on that one. they have shown themselves not to be very 'wily' when it comes to backing horses...they tend to back themselves....into corners.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not to stop you having your usual fulminations...but all that is required of the SOS is his/her 'opinion'.

Won’t stop the judicial review if his/her opinion is as unsupported as the one in your post.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Won’t stop the judicial review if his/her opinion is as unsupported as the one in your post.

I asked this before when you posted this same point and you hightailed it without answering.

Where is it written that the SOS must present evidence of his/her opinion.

2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power
under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of
those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to
be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked this before when you posted this same point and you hightailed it without answering.

Where is it written that the SOS must present evidence of his/her opinion.

and any such decision is open to judicial review to ascertain on what basis it appeared likely.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and any such decision is open to judicial review to ascertain on what basis it appeared likely.

I asked: Where is the provision that requires the SOS to present 'evidence' for his/her view.

Any decision made by a SOS is open to judicial review. That is a given. The process of Judicial Review is to ascertain if a decision was 'lawful', therefore if a SOS in his/her opinion calls a Border Poll, what 'law' is being broken?

Or have you and blanch fallen for DUP bluster on this issue?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked: Where is the provision that requires the SOS to present 'evidence' for his/her view.

Any decision made by a SOS is open to judicial review. That is a given. The process of Judicial Review is to ascertain if a decision was 'lawful', therefore if a SOS in his/her opinion calls a Border Poll, what 'law' is being broken?

Or have you and blanch fallen for DUP bluster on this issue?

I've already answered you francie. I was quite clear as i know what you are like. They have to be able to show on what basis they made the decision. They can only call for a border if it appears likely that the majority want one. they would have to show in what way it appeared likely. I never mentioned the word 'evidence'. go throw that back at the person who said it.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I've already answered you francie. I was quite clear as i know what you are like. They have to be able to show on what basis they made the decision. They can only call for a border if it appears likely that the majority want one. they would have to show in what way it appeared likely. I never mentioned the word 'evidence'. go throw that back at the person who said it.

And the SOS says, 'I looked at the polling, and it appeared likely to me...etc etc.'

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the SOS says, 'I looked at the polling, and it appeared likely to me...etc etc.'

and if the SoS can show polls to that effect then all is well and good. btw i that would be called 'evidence'

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and if the SoS can show polls to that effect then all is well and good. btw i that would be called 'evidence'

Somebody taking a Judicial Review would be looking for 'evidence'.

The court could turn them down (as they did David Trimble's challenge to the backstop) and probably would on the basis that there is nothing anywhere that requires the presentation of evidence.

But as I said, let them do it by all means, it would be similar to Hunt stating he would not allow Scots a democratic vote. (these guys certainly have a track record of shooting the old foot )

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Somebody taking a Judicial Review would be looking for 'evidence'.

The court could turn them down (as they did David Trimble's challenge to the backstop) and probably would on the basis that there is nothing anywhere that requires the presentation of evidence.

But as I said, let them do it by all means, it would be similar to Hunt stating he would not allow Scots a democratic vote. (these guys certainly have a track record of shooting the old foot )

ah would you ever cop on and stop focusing on what word. Try to discuss things in a constructive manner. The SoS needs a basis to form an opinion. The judicial would test that basis.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Somebody taking a Judicial Review would be looking for 'evidence'.

The court could turn them down (as they did David Trimble's challenge to the backstop) and probably would on the basis that there is nothing anywhere that requires the presentation of evidence.

But as I said, let them do it by all means, it would be similar to Hunt stating he would not allow Scots a democratic vote. (these guys certainly have a track record of shooting the old foot )

Is that your considered legal opinion?

It is a basic feature of common law that such a decision could be reviewed both for its lawfulness and its reasonableness.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ah would you ever cop on and stop focusing on what word. Try to discuss things in a constructive manner. The SoS needs a basis to form an opinion. The judicial would test that basis.

Yes, the basis is...'if it appears likely to him/her'.

If you call for a judicial review you are looking for evidence for why it appeared 'likely' to him/her.

What else could you be looking for? :rolleyes:

_blaaz

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

neither is an opinion poll that says 37% of the South would pay more tax, neither is an opinion poll that says a majority in the North would like a UI if the nationalist wet dream of a hard Brexit were to take place

A poll in south has zero.to.do with north (or decision to hold one there?)...if you cant get basics right maybe yous shouldnt comment


Given that a hard brexit is a near inevitability,i believe a poll should be held since all evidence points to it passing?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Is that your considered legal opinion?

It is a basic feature of common law that such a decision could be reviewed both for its lawfulness and its reasonableness.

Yes, anyone can take a Judicial Review and many have and failed. But as we seen in Trimble's challenge it could be also be stopped from proceeding, in the case of a JR of the call for a border poll, because there is no requirement for the presentation of evidence. And there is no requirement as you have shown by your failure to point to one.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, the basis is...'if it appears likely to him/her'.

If you call for a judicial review you are looking for evidence for why it appeared 'likely' to him/her.

What else could you be looking for? :rolleyes:

well i'm glad you agree with me then.

_blaaz

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Is that your considered legal opinion?

It is a basic feature of common law that such a decision could be reviewed both for its lawfulness and its reasonableness.

Tbh mate....if evidence is there a border poll will pass and the british refuse to hold one,kinda impossible to condemn dissident attacks isnt it??


Why should nationlists support peaceful.means,if the british have no intention of holding a poll that has.possibility of passing??

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, anyone can take a Judicial Review and many have and failed. But as we seen in Trimble's challenge it could be also be stopped from proceeding, in the case of a JR of the call for a border poll, because there is no requirement for the presentation of evidence. And there is no requirement as you have shown by your failure to point to one.

what part of lawful and reasonable did you decide to ignore?

ohnonotgmail

_blaaz wrote: »

A poll in south has zero.to.do with north...of you cant get basics right maybe yous shouldnt comment


Given that a hard brexit is a near inevitability,i believe a poll should be held since all evidence points to it passing?

what evidence would that be?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what part of lawful and reasonable did you decide to ignore?

What?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

quote simple francie. You decided to completely ignore the post you replied to. as per.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

quote simple francie. You decided to completely ignore the post you replied to. as per.

Could you debate intelligibly? I have asked you to clarify what you are saying.

_blaaz

10-15 years

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what evidence would that be?

Ask thersea may at height of brexit madness last year,she told rees mogg she was of the opioion that they would lose a border poll in NI


https://amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/theresa-may-not-confident-unionists-would-win-irish-border-poll-reports-36908576.html



Imo the requirement to hold a poll is met,if the british prime minister is of opioion the requirements have been met?

The union is finished mate,filibuster all yous wamt with increasing dubious arguements,but the requirement to hold a poll.has been met.....i wouldnt condone dissidents in this envirnoment...but i find it dishonest and hypocritical to outright condemn them aswel

markodaly

Can we change the thread title, as it's incorrect?

Ireland was never united under Irish rule, so the term 're'-unification is incorrect.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, anyone can take a Judicial Review and many have and failed. But as we seen in Trimble's challenge it could be also be stopped from proceeding, in the case of a JR of the call for a border poll, because there is no requirement for the presentation of evidence. And there is no requirement as you have shown by your failure to point to one.

Which bit of judicial review proceedings do you not understand?

SOS wakes up some morning and decides to hold a poll for no reason and with no evidence. John Unionist trots into court and seeks judicial review on the basis that the SOS decision was unreasonable because there was no evidence to back it up. In support of his case, he points to the lack of a majority in the Stormont Assembly in favour of a poll, let alone in favour of a yes vote. Court asks Sos to explain. S/he says it just felt like the right time. Court upholds judicial review and quashes poll decision, telling SOS that a legal officer’s opinion must be based on evidence rather than conjecture, in accordance with common law principles.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Could you debate intelligibly? I have asked you to clarify what you are saying.

intelligibility is as much a function of the person reading as the person writing. hence the problem you seem to be having.

I'll try to make it as simple for you as I can. One of the grounds for a judicial review is unreasonableness. The decision taken by the minister must be reasonable. To test that a JR would look at the basis for making the decision. It is not enough for a minister to say "well i think so, so that should be enough". There has to be something behind the decision. They cannot just wake up one morning and decide to have a poll.

_blaaz

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

Can we change the thread title, as it's incorrect?

Ireland was never united under Irish rule, so the term 're'-unification is incorrect.

Yeah....sure we'll ignore the gratten parliments of the 1700s??


By your logic ireland unuited couldnt been subject to act of union??


Perhaps the british owe us reparations for their actions here since then(1801),until the gfa replaced it in 1998?....since by your logic all actions occured here were illegal?

ohnonotgmail

_blaaz wrote: »

Ask thersea may at height of brexit madness last year,she told rees mogg she was of the opioion that they would lose a border poll in NI


https://amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/theresa-may-not-confident-unionists-would-win-irish-border-poll-reports-36908576.html



Imo the requirement to hold a poll is met,if the british prime minister is of opioion the requirements have been met?

The union is finished mate,filibuster all yous wamt with increasing dubious arguements,but the requirement to hold a poll.has been met.....i wouldnt condone dissidents in this envirnoment...but i find it dishonest and hypocritical to outright condemn them aswel

I couldn't give a monkeys about the union. I'm not a unionist. I just dont want anything to do with that lot north of border. The longer it is put off the better.

_blaaz

10-15 years

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I couldn't give a monkeys about the union. I'm not a unionist. I just dont want anything to do with that lot north of border. The longer it is put off the better.

Meh.....explains your unusal brand of filibuster so....but those of us with friends and relatives there retain an interest?(and dont want to be going through checkpints/needing passport to visit em)


Kudos for honesty anyway