Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

"Irrespective of Northern Ireland's constitutional status within the United Kingdom, or part of a united Ireland"

The above sentance from the GFA can only be inferred that NI will exist as an entity even after a UI and that people born there even after a UI have the right to British citizenship.

Fair play ittakestwo. We have disagreed often but I respect you ability to examine this objectively

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which is a long way short of NI surviving as an entity. It's status will change.

They will be allowed to identify as British and hold British citizenship when that happens, is all that says.
Presents no issues whatsoever.

I like your use of “they”. I shoes you regard yourself as different from northerners. So stop pretending that ireland is an entity

downcow

The only problem with where this debate is now is that it is assuming that some day in the future there will be a united ireland. The polls etc would suggest that is a pipe dream

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I like your use of “they”. I shoes you regard yourself as different from northerners. So stop pretending that ireland is an entity

'They' as in those Irish people who wish to identify as British.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

I like your use of “they”. I shoes you regard yourself as different from northerners. So stop pretending that ireland is an entity

Former Unionists should be allowed to retain their right to British citizenship, maybe it could be incorporated into an expanded Common Travel Area agreement. It's conceivable that in the future (United) Ireland might want to join the Shengen Area which would probably require former Unionists to show their passports to get into Britain.

ittakestwo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Irish in NI only secured a 'birthright' in 1998'

I.E. it's in the gift of the British to bestow that to NI citizens and there is no onus on them to bestow it if NI no longer exists.

So I am reading the GFA wrong? Another part says "whether NI stays part of the UK or forms part of a united Ireland" which apears they are referring to NI in geographical sence rather than a jurisdiction.

Is it accepted that the GFA does not guarantee British citizenship to people born in NI in the case of a UI?

Fionn1952

ittakestwo wrote: »

So I am reading the GFA wrong? Another part says "whether NI stays part of the UK or forms part of a united Ireland" which apears they are referring to NI in geographical sence rather than a jurisdiction.

Is it accepted that the GFA does not guarantee British citizenship to people born in NI in the case of a UI?

In the case of unification, there is no longer such a place as Northern Ireland. Like I said, it would be akin to expecting countries to still be subject to international agreements made with Yugoslavia when there is no longer any such place.

FrancieBrady

ittakestwo wrote: »

So I am reading the GFA wrong? Another part says "whether NI stays part of the UK or forms part of a united Ireland" which apears they are referring to NI in geographical sence rather than a jurisdiction.

Is it accepted that the GFA does not guarantee British citizenship to people born in NI in the case of a UI?

It doesn't deal with and has no provisions for a UI. How would that be acceptable in any scenario? Preordained legal clauses befre anything is negotiated.

What it says that if there is a UI both governments have committed to making that happen via negotiation.
British citizenship for those born up to now in Ireland won't be an issue. It will be up to Unionists themselves to negotiate with the British for rights after that.

ittakestwo

Fionn1952 wrote: »

In the case of unification, there is no longer such a place as Northern Ireland. Like I said, it would be akin to expecting countries to still be subject to international agreements made with Yugoslavia when there is no longer any such place.

What I am really asking. Has a lawyer confirmed that the GFA does not allow British citizenship for people born in the area that was NI in case of a UI. From reading it it can be interpreted both ways. Is it official that as it stands they cant claim British citizenship in the case of a UI?

FrancieBrady

ittakestwo wrote: »

What I am really asking. Has a lawyer confirmed that the GFA does not allow British citizenship for people born in the area that was NI in case of a UI. From reading it it can be interpreted both ways. Is it official that as it stands they cant claim British citizenship in the case of a UI?

It is in the gift of the British...it's nothing we can influence in any legal way.

ittakestwo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is in the gift of the British...it's nothing we can influence in any legal way.

We're going around in circles here. They might be bound to it by the GFA which they signed.

You and Fionn definitely believe they are not bound to by the GFA. I am reading in a way that I think they are bound to offer citizenship to people born in what was known as NI in the case of a UI.

Is there an official legal yes or no answer to this.

Capt'n Midnight

Meanwhile in Gibraltar the UK gets to say 'Sovereignty' while on the ground major EU rules apply with Spain being the enforcer.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Spain effectively gains a condominium role in Gibraltar, as the new treaty's terms are detailed:

https://english.elpais.com/brexit/2021-01-11/deal-between-spain-and-uk-plans-to-eliminate-gibraltar-border-checkpoint.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

FrancieBrady

ittakestwo wrote: »

We're going around in circles here. They might be bound to it by the GFA which they signed.

You and Fionn definitely believe they are not bound to by the GFA. I am reading in a way that I think they are bound to offer citizenship to people born in what was known as NI in the case of a UI.

Is there an official legal yes or no answer to this.

It neither concerns or bothers me, so maybe ask a Unionist do they know and can they link to legal opinion.

Just reading the Brexit thread and it seems the British have negotiated a new treaty for Gibraltar. Nothing is set in stone. They can be negotiated and re-negotiated if both sides agree.

Fionn1952

ittakestwo wrote: »

What I am really asking. Has a lawyer confirmed that the GFA does not allow British citizenship for people born in the area that was NI in case of a UI. From reading it it can be interpreted both ways. Is it official that as it stands they cant claim British citizenship in the case of a UI?

To bring back your previous quote from the GFA;

'The people of Northern Ireland are all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence’

Those already born at the time of unification would meet these standards. As Northern Ireland would no longer exist, anyone born afterwards would not be born in Northern Ireland (they would be born in Ireland and no longer meet the definition above), so what exactly would bind the British to giving citizenship to someone born in the area that was formerly Northern Ireland?

Nothing is official in the sense that no one has saw fit to challenge it in a court, nor would I expect anyone to unless the British come out and say they won't extend an offer of citizenship to those born in the area formerly known as Northern Ireland post unification (an outcome that would greatly surprise me).

I genuinely don't see how one could interpret an agreement as binding when it is defined around a place that no longer exists.

jm08

ittakestwo wrote: »

We're going around in circles here. They might be bound to it by the GFA which they signed.

You and Fionn definitely believe they are not bound to by the GFA. I am reading in a way that I think they are bound to offer citizenship to people born in what was known as NI in the case of a UI.

Is there an official legal yes or no answer to this.

GFA isn't set in stone for good. Both parties to the agreement (Irish and British Gov) can decide to nullify or change the agreement.

ittakestwo

jm08 wrote: »

GFA isn't set in stone for good. Both parties to the agreement (Irish and British Gov) can decide to nullify or change the agreement.

It's an international peace agreement. One side can not unilaterally change it without agreement from the other. Given the constitution of the ROI the Irish government may not even be able to change it without it going to a public vote.

Of course one country can walk out of it but it would be seen as breaking an international peace agreement and could cause serious repercussions for the offender. We saw with Brexit how the UK had to respect the GFA or was threatened by both the EU and US of not getting a trade agreement in the future.

downcow

We have had several people on this thread using the grim UK covid figures and ambulances crossing the border as evidence that ni is a failure.
I did say these were phases that come and go and countries are not like for like.

Unfortunately I have just heard that Roi has now the worst 7-day figure for new cases in the world. It also says vaccine situation is ‘dire’ as over 80s won’t get them until at least February.

I genuinely feel for you. These are difficult times for vulnerable people. Ni is having major issues in hospitals currently and doesn’t seem in any position to provide assistance atm. Hopefully if we can get the vaccine rolled out here we may be in a position to return help at the tail end of your crisis in return for help we have recently got from Roi during our worst points in this.

This is no longer just about covid but rather anyone now ill will struggle.

FrancieBrady

ittakestwo wrote: »

It's an international peace agreement. One side can not unilaterally change it without agreement from the other. Given the constitution of the ROI the Irish government may not even be able to change it without it going to a public vote.

Of course one country can walk out of it but it would be seen as breaking an international peace agreement and could cause serious repercussions for the offender. We saw with Brexit how the UK had to respect the GFA or was threatened by both the EU and US of not getting a trade agreement in the future.

Nobody said that 'one side change it'. It has to be agreed between the two, but it can be changed.

We never voted on the 'agreement' as such, what we did was consent to a constitutional change committed to as a 'part' of the GFA.

Open to expert opinion on this, but I don't think we would need to vote on changes as long as they didn't have any effect on the constitution. Addendums such as St. Andrew's have been agreed to subsequent to the GFA without a vote.

FrancieBrady

Interesting. Things moving at a pace now.

‘Private polling carried out by Fine Gael and Sinn Féin before Christmas show it ranking now as the second or third most important issue.’

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/questions-around-irish-unity-referendum-to-be-examined-in-new-initiative-1.4455633

droidman123

downcow wrote: »

We have had several people on this thread using the grim UK covid figures and ambulances crossing the border as evidence that ni is a failure.
I did say these were phases that come and go and countries are not like for like.

Unfortunately I have just heard that Roi has now the worst 7-day figure for new cases in the world. It also says vaccine situation is ‘dire’ as over 80s won’t get them until at least February.

I genuinely feel for you. These are difficult times for vulnerable people. Ni is having major issues in hospitals currently and doesn’t seem in any position to provide assistance atm. Hopefully if we can get the vaccine rolled out here we may be in a position to return help at the tail end of your crisis in return for help we have recently got from Roi during our worst points in this.

This is no longer just about covid but rather anyone now ill will struggle.

This is the most disingenuous post i have read on this thread

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Interesting. Things moving at a pace now.



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/questions-around-irish-unity-referendum-to-be-examined-in-new-initiative-1.4455633

About time something like the arins project was set up. I see the guy from Trinity that wrote the paper highlighted the cost and pitfalls of unification is involved.

A lot of works needs to be done to get the finances in order if a UI is to be achieved.

The University of Liverpool Northern Ireland General Election Survey, conducted in January 2020, found that when asked what the most important issue was for respondents, a mere 5 per cent stated constitutional issues, compared with more than 80 per cent choosing education, health, jobs and the economy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/interdependence-is-the-antidote-to-northern-irish-politics-1.4454668

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

About time something like the arins project was set up. I see the guy from Trinity that wrote the paper highlighted the cost and pitfalls of unification is involved.

A lot of works needs to be done to get the finances in order if a UI is to be achieved.

The University of Liverpool Northern Ireland General Election Survey, conducted in January 2020, found that when asked what the most important issue was for respondents, a mere 5 per cent stated constitutional issues, compared with more than 80 per cent choosing education, health, jobs and the economy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/interdependence-is-the-antidote-to-northern-irish-politics-1.4454668

Needs to be said that the Trinity paper was based on the full 11 billion subvention being replaced by Dublin, which is not a credible place to begin from, as we now know.

jh79

Fitzgerald again giving us an idea of the massive financial implications of an UI.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/irish-unity-poses-greater-risks-to-northern-ireland-than-brexit-does-1.4016373

However, even with this lower sum, if Ireland had to take over funding services in the North, it would reduce gross national income (GNI) in Ireland by over 3 per cent and would reduce Irish consumption by about 8 per cent. This reduction in the Irish standard of living could leave the standard of living in the North around 20 per cent higher than in the South, sustained by transfers from poorer southern households, possibly giving rise to resistance to the idea of unification.

This would only be the start of the economic problems. If welfare payments in the North were brought to Irish levels, this would probably add another 50 per cent to the cost of supporting the North

Because the weakness of the Northern Ireland economy is due to its poor human capital, even if action were taken tomorrow, this could take decades to repair. This means that the costs of unification would continue for many years.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Needs to be said that the Trinity paper was based on the full 11 billion subvention being replaced by Dublin, which is not a credible place to begin from, as we now know.

No France, the Trinity paper had nothing to do with the subvention. The subvention was mentioned as background info and the paper stated the only verifiable figure. That was just you jumping on a perceived anomaly because you didn't want to discuss the financial cost of an UI.

If I'm wrong explain how the subvention affected the modelling in the paper?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

No France, the Trinity paper had nothing to do with the subvention. The subvention was mentioned as background info and the paper stated the only verifiable figure. That was just you jumping on a perceived anomaly because you didn't want to discuss the financial cost of an UI.

If I'm wrong explain how the subvention affected the modelling in the paper?

The costs in that paper where set against the subvention as it currently stands without making the reductions we know exist but still don't know the extent of.

You need to know this information when looking at it's findings. It will be like the report SF were attached to in the States, it will contain interesting info but will be by no means authoritative because of that anomaly. Like the SF one, another dust catching report outstripped by more pertinent information. Only mentioned now by partitionists eager for bias confirmation.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The costs in that paper where set against the subvention as it currently stands without making the reductions we know exist but still don't know the extent of.

You need to know this information when looking at it's findings. It will be like the report SF were attached to in the States, it will contain interesting info but will be by no means authoritative because of that anomaly. Like the SF one, another dust catching report outstripped by more pertinent information. Only mentioned now by partitionists eager for bias confirmation.

Did you even read the paper? What is the effect on your claimed anomaly on the predicted outcomes in the paper? What figure should he of used and have you a citation for it?

The research needs to be updated to include the impact of the Brexit agreement. Seems he has more research coming out on the true cost via the Arins Project.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Did you even read the paper? What is the effect on your claimed anomaly on the predicted outcomes in the paper? What figure should he of used and have you a citation for it?

The research needs to be updated to include the impact of the Brexit agreement. Seems he has more research coming out on the true cost via the Arins Project.

What figure?

The one that outlines what it actually costs.

Yes I did read it at the time and have it on a bookmark here along with the other 'dust catchers'.

This is from the abstract and shows what I said...it assumes that we replace the subvention (called 'transfers' here)

Another option, Irish unity, if it involved ending transfers to Northern Ireland, would produce a dramatic fall in the standard of living there. Alternatively, unification, where Ireland took over responsibility for the transfers to Northern Ireland, would necessitate a major cut in the standard of living in Ireland of 5% to 10% in order to allow Northern Ireland to maintain a standard of living between 10% and 20% above the Irish standard of living.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What figure?

The one that outlines what it actually costs.

Yes I did read it at the time and have it on a bookmark here along with the other 'dust catchers'.

This is from the abstract and shows what I said...it assumes that we replace the subvention (called 'transfers' here)

So want is the actual cost, where are you getting that figure from? The SF figure (2.6bn)has already been fact checker as false (does that mean i can dismiss all subsequent SF publications?).

Just to be sure we are on the same page, is this the report;

https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/TEP/2019/tep0619.pdf

Could you give specific examples where the percieved anomaly has an impact?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So want is the actual cost, where are you getting that figure from? The SF figure (2.6bn)has already been fact checker as false (does that mean i can dismiss all subsequent SF publications?).

Just to be sure we are on the same page, is this the report;

https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/TEP/2019/tep0619.pdf

Could you give specific examples where the percieved anomaly has an impact?

You can (and I have) confidently ignore any report based on a false starting point, if it comes from SF or Trinity.


The anomaly is presuming we will be 'replacing' the transfer as it currently is and extrapolating from that.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can (and I have) confidently ignore any report based on a false starting point, if it comes from SF or Trinity.


The anomaly is presuming we will be 'replacing' the transfer as it currently is and extrapolating from that.

That's exactly what I'm asking, which sections of the report are extrapolated from the subvention/transfer rather than figures such employment levels in NI versus other regions of the EU?