How long before Irish reunification?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

And I ask you again, to present the provision where the SOS has to present 'evidence for his/her' opinion?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

This power of the SOS has already been the subject of a Judicial Review and the judge said this when denying the case, he said the court was:

wholly unpersuaded by the argument that the Secretary of State be bound by a policy detailing the way in which that flexible and politically sensitive power is bound to be exercised.

...

The statutory framework does not specify the matters which must be taken into account or left out of account in deciding whether a border poll is or is not appropriate. In essence it must be for the Secretary of State to decide what matters should be taken into account on the political question of the appropriateness of a poll.

Seems to me, that he/she can indeed 'wake up one morning and decide'.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/victims-campaigner-loses-legal-challenge-over-border-poll-1.3546835

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0628/973836-northern-ireland-border-poll-challenge/

blanch152

_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

Even the link you quote does not back you up.


Theresa May allegedly saying in private that she is not confident that she would win a border poll does not equate to matching the conditions set out in the GFA.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Even the link you quote does not back you up.


Theresa May allegedly saying in private that she is not confident that she would win a border poll does not equate to matching the conditions set out in the GFA.

What conditions, other than it 'seeming likely'.

_blaaz

10-15 years

blanch152 wrote: »

Theresa May allegedly saying in private that she is not confident that she would win a border poll does not equate to matching the conditions set out in the GFA.

Hoe deos it not it reach the criteria for being of the opioion that a border poll would pass


Filibuster all yous want....just irrational to argue black is white mate

facehugger99

Any border poll in NI would, in reality, need to be preceded by plenty of evidence of the likelihood of a ROI rejection, for example the recent poll showing only 37% willing to pay for it.

It would be important for NI voters to know we wouldn’t be taking on the sugar daddy role for them before they vote.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Any border poll in NI would, in reality, need to be preceded by plenty of evidence of the likelihood of a ROI rejection, for example the recent poll showing only 37% willing to pay for it.

It would be important for NI voters to know we wouldn’t be taking on the sugar daddy role for them before they vote.

37% willing to pay for it....and 26% undecided.


You are nearly there in telling the truth about the figures!

Strazdas

10-15 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Any border poll in NI would, in reality, need to be preceded by plenty of evidence of the likelihood of a ROI rejection, for example the recent poll showing only 37% willing to pay for it.

It would be important for NI voters to know we wouldn’t be taking on the sugar daddy role for them before they vote.

NI as part of an entity that is 20 times bigger and part of an island of 7 million people would be two completely different things though. Their role in the new all island state would be very different to the last 90 years.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This power of the SOS has already been the subject of a Judicial Review and the judge said this when denying the case, he said the court was:


Seems to me, that he/she can indeed 'wake up one morning and decide'.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/victims-campaigner-loses-legal-challenge-over-border-poll-1.3546835

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0628/973836-northern-ireland-border-poll-challenge/

Requiring a SOS to justify a decision through judicial review is very different from requiring a SOS to take a decision in accordance with fixed pre-conditions, so you are talking apples and oranges again and confusing legal principles.

That court case has zero relevance to the discussion; quoting it only adds to the feeling that you haven’t a clue about the legal issues.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

As the brexit circus gets more and more bizarre as the days go by and the clock ticks down to the 31st, it looks increasingly likely there’ll be a border poll and soon.
Say it all does go badly and a hard brexit, Can the PM instruct privately or otherwise, the SoS to put the poll on?
The DUP are going to made to suffer by the Tories at some point. They are the sticking point in all this holding everything up and making it infinitely more difficult than it needed to be. Johnson Hunt etc might court them for the votes now but the back benchers aka the majority of the party and the membership are all seething angry with them.
We have some interesting times ahead.

The marriage equality vote and abortion vote yesterday were both wonderful examples of the train coming inevitably down the tracks and the DUP strapped to the rails ahead

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

37% willing to pay for it...

Nope.

37% say they’re willing to pay for it.

An actual poll would struggle to get over 20%.

The Nordies will need this explained to them in advance of any border poll.

The smart ones already know of course.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

I mean look. If this isn’t ‘sort your sh!t out or else’ I don’t know what is

https://twitter.com/fotoole/status/1148637078349066241?s=21

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Requiring a SOS to justify a decision through judicial review is very different from requiring a SOS to take a decision in accordance with fixed pre-conditions, so you are talking apples and oranges again and confusing legal principles.

That court case has zero relevance to the discussion; quoting it only adds to the feeling that you haven’t a clue about the legal issues.

So show us where the requirement to present evidence exists?

BTW, the provision in the GFA works both ways: The SOS can deny a poll even if polls indicate that a poll would pass.

No Judge in a Judicial Review will try to dictate to an SOS what they believe to 'be likely'.

There is no change in British Gov powers in the GFA in respect to calling a poll, they always had that right over and above what the citizens think. See 1973 and the 1972 Act.

The big change in the GFA is the commitment to honour the result of that poll, which was changed. Before this they could ignore a result if they so wished.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Nope.

37% say they’re willing to pay for it.

An actual poll would struggle to get over 20%.

The Nordies will need this explained to them in advance of any border poll.

The smart ones already know of course.

Guesswork again from a biased position. Ah well. :rolleyes:

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

Correct me if I’m wrong but the DUP are perfectly happy if it went back to direct rule right? Somehow solidified their Britishness?

FrancieBrady

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Correct me if I’m wrong but the DUP are perfectly happy if it went back to direct rule right? Somehow solidified their Britishness?

I think the DUP are the most confused political entity on these islands at the moment and that is saying something!

markodaly

_blaaz wrote: »

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?

My comment was a factual observation on the thread title.

Ireland was never united under Irish rule.
I don't need to take lectures on history and facts from someone who thinks NI is not part of the United Kingdom

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So show us where the requirement to present evidence exists?

BTW, the provision in the GFA works both ways: The SOS can deny a poll even if polls indicate that a poll would pass.

No Judge in a Judicial Review will try to dictate to an SOS what they believe to 'be likely'.

There is no change in British Gov powers in the GFA in respect to calling a poll, they always had that right over and above what the citizens think. See 1973 and the 1972 Act.

The big change in the GFA is the commitment to honour the result of that poll, which was changed. Before this they could ignore a result if they so wished.

Oh dear, not going over this again.

The GFA did change things. You are correct in one respect, up until the GFA, the British government could call a border poll at any time for any reason. Now, since the GFA, the SOS must form an opinion that it is likely that such a poll would pass. Having put that into the agreement, it becomes subject to judicial review as a decision on that basis must pass the common law test of reasonableness.

It’s the law of unintended consequences at work again

Fionn1952

15-20 years

There is some amount of intellectual dishonesty and cherry picking going on on both sides of this discussion.

From picking up tangentially related statements and suggesting this translates to a legal position on the pro-unity side, through to using one breath to try to use polling data to support your point and totally undermining it and substituting in your own numbers based on supposition and arm waving from the pro-partition side.

Honestly, what's the point on having such a low standard debate? The question of Irish unity isnt going to be decided based on who, 'wins' an argument on boards.ie, it'll ultimately be decided by the significant middle ground of people who will decide based on their pocket rather than cultural or political identity.

The only way to actually discuss this with any sort of rigour is to try and pull raw data for the full UK budget. From this, how much is the actual deficit in the budget of the North, establish which parts of this will remain, and which will not (for example, obviously NI contributions to the armed services currently make up a portion of the budget deficit, which would no longer be part of their budget if no longer part of the UK).


The problem is that anyone interested in this data is trying to selectively present it as everything from unification costing eleventy gazillion euro a week, to being a tidy little earner that will have us all swimming in money.

It grows ever more tedious watching people try and argue that only THEIR numbers are the right ones and everyone elses are biased.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, not going over this again.

The GFA did change things. You are correct in one respect, up until the GFA, the British government could call a border poll at any time for any reason. Now, since the GFA, the SOS must form an opinion that it is likely that such a poll would pass. Having put that into the agreement, it becomes subject to judicial review as a decision on that basis must pass the common law test of reasonableness.

It’s the law of unintended consequences at work again

Any decision by the SOS is subject to judicial review.
The question is on what basis could a justifiable review be granted. And there is no onus on a SOS to quantify his/her decision either way. Whether to hold a poll or to not hold a poll.
No judge is going to dictate to a SOS what he/she believes to be 'likely'.

You are indulging in Unionist bluster. Same as David Trimble did and Raymond McCourt and one of those was thrown out and the other not allowed to even proceed.

There is a test therefore before a JR is even allowed. So show us were it is neccessary for the SOS to be 'reasonable' in his/her decision and by what means they can show their 'reasonableness' either way.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

Anyone bringing the case for judicial review would see it backfire spectacularly I reckon. It would have the opposite of the intended effect in the public’s view.
You know it would be some staunch unionist and they are adept at one thing only. Shooting themselves in the foot. Frequently.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

There is some amount of intellectual dishonesty and cherry picking going on on both sides of this discussion.

From picking up tangentially related statements and suggesting this translates to a legal position on the pro-unity side, through to using one breath to try to use polling data to support your point and totally undermining it and substituting in your own numbers based on supposition and arm waving from the pro-partition side.

Honestly, what's the point on having such a low standard debate? The question of Irish unity isnt going to be decided based on who, 'wins' an argument on boards.ie, it'll ultimately be decided by the significant middle ground of people who will decide based on their pocket rather than cultural or political identity.

The only way to actually discuss this with any sort of rigour is to try and pull raw data for the full UK budget. From this, how much is the actual deficit in the budget of the North, establish which parts of this will remain, and which will not (for example, obviously NI contributions to the armed services currently make up a portion of the budget deficit, which would no longer be part of their budget if no longer part of the UK).


The problem is that anyone interested in this data is trying to selectively present it as everything from unification costing eleventy gazillion euro a week, to being a tidy little earner that will have us all swimming in money.

It grows ever more tedious watching people try and argue that only THEIR numbers are the right ones and everyone elses are biased.

I have certainly never presented a UI as a 'tidy little earner etc'.

I have presented it as a way to fix the problems caused by a partition that was wrongheaded and divisive.
That is worth more than money in my opinion.
I see no reason why a unified Ireland cannot survive economically as we do now, once initial costs and waste are put right.

FrancieBrady

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Anyone bringing the case for judicial review would see it backfire spectacularly I reckon. It would have the opposite of the intended effect in the public’s view.
You know it would be some staunch unionist and they are adept at one thing only. Shooting themselves in the foot. Frequently.

I said this earlier. Akin to Hunt telling the Scots they will not be allowed a vote. The reaction would be completely counterproductive. But the DUP and cul-de-sacs seem to be the way at the moment so who knows.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

The one thing putting me off a UI would be having the DUP involved in our politics. They’d be about as relevant as SF which is to say not very.

I’d say the most likely way forward is a United ireland but keep Stormont running and let the parties involved remain in running the show.

FrancieBrady

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The one thing putting me off a UI would be having the DUP involved in our politics. They’d be about as relevant as SF which is to say not very.

I’d say the most likely way forward is a United ireland but keep Stormont running and let the parties involved remain in running the show.

That would be just a can kicking excercise and intolerable on many levels for all concerned.

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That would be just a can kicking excercise and intolerable on many levels for all concerned.

That podcast on Irish times recently with Mary Lou and a lady from the UUP Ithink? She said it would be the only palatable way most unionists would go for it.
I don’t know how a United ireland with one separate assembly would work but we’d be rewriting the entire constitution anyways most likely so I’m sure they’d find a way

Stop moaning ffs

10-15 years

*she also made a brilliant point that’s been lost in the debate. Unionists always fought against a UI cos they saw it as being ruled from Rome.
That’s demonstratably not the case any more. There’s far more practical benefits for everyone up there to have a UI than there are negatives for them.
The younger demographic and moderates(who I believe are in the majority)
Already realise that.

_blaaz

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

My comment was a factual observation on the thread title.

Despite your refusal to acknowlege the parliments of the 1700s...how is that??
Ignoring facts isnt a factual observation mate

don't need to take lectures on history and facts from someone who thinks NI is not part of the United Kingdom

And where anywhere have i said anything appraoching this??

Why are you making stuff up?

markodaly

_blaaz wrote: »

Despite your refusal to acknowlege the parliments of the 1700s...how is that??
Ignoring facts isnt a factual observation mate

Were we or were we not under British dominion then?
The answer to your question lies in your own answer to that question.

Why are you making stuff up?

I confused you with another Shinnerbot, ye all sound the same to me.

_blaaz

10-15 years

markodaly wrote: »

Were we or were we not under British dominion then?
The answer to your question lies in your own answer to that question.

Except we were ruled by ourselves entirely (ie utd)....why you want to change goalposts is your own issue to deal with mate

I confused you with another Shinnerbot, ye all sound the same to me.

The ultimate irony being i wouldnt vote for sinn fein....but keep.lashing labels on people to run away from debate