The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What are you on about here Joe?

If a border poll is called, there will be a concurrent one here. It doesn't matter if Michael Martin wants one or not.

Technically, there is no requirement for one here as constitutionally we 'aspire to a UI' and have already answered the question at referendum.
But I think there should be one, if only to silence partitionists who would probably go all Trumpian.

Constitution requires a border poll as far as i can tell.

........recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, that is an interpretation of the constituional ammendment. But it is also valid to say that as long as we constitutionally aspire to a UI, then our acceptance is a given.

We can argue to the cows come home over that, but it is correct to say that no definitive demand is made that a referendum be held here in Schedule 1 of the GFA.

As I said, I believe one should be held and it will be, no matter what a particular government might say their desire is.

P.S. Where did Blaas call for a referendum without a roadmap? We don't do referendums like Brexit. Why would you assume we would?

He said that a referendum should be called now. I note that SF have called for plans for one in the future should begin but blaaz, as I interpreted wants one immediately.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Constitution requires a border poll as far as i can tell.

........recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island

As I said, that could be interpreted as being already given on this side. Constitutionally we aspire to a untied Ireland, it is our firm will.

But I agree, there will for practical reasons be concurrent polls. Not to have them concurrently would probably lead to legal challenges as sides would claim the outcome in the North affected the decision in the south or vice versa.

There is NO stipulation on a poll here in the GFA though.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, that could be interpreted as being already given on this side. Constitutionally we aspire to a untied Ireland, it is our firm will.

But I agree, there will for practical reasons be concurrent polls. Not to have them concurrently would probably lead to legal challenges as sides would claim the outcome in the North affected the decision in the south or vice versa.

There is NO stipulation on a poll here in the GFA though.

There is no stipulation on how the poll should be carried out but it is stipulated that it must be democratic consent and concurrent. No one has ever clearly shown how this is complied with without a new referendum. Also, as I said referendum will be required to update the constitution changes.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

There is no stipulation on how the poll should be carried out but it is stipulated that it must be democratic consent and concurrent. No one has ever clearly shown how this is complied with without a new referendum. Also, as I said referendum will be required to update the constitution changes.

There is NO stipulation that a poll happen here at all Joe. Twist all you want.

Nobody has tried to change the constitution since 1998 so it can be assumed our position remains the same - it is our firm will to achieve a UI....i.e. we would say yes to a UI if given the choice.

No argument on the constitutional changes referendum. I think that is what the concurrent referendum will ask here...just as the question on the GFA was framed as a change to articles 2 and 3.
Agreement to change articles 2 and 3 was taken as support for the GFA, likewise support for a UI will be framed as constitutional change here.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, that could be interpreted as being already given on this side. Constitutionally we aspire to a untied Ireland, it is our firm will.

But I agree, there will for practical reasons be concurrent polls. Not to have them concurrently would probably lead to legal challenges as sides would claim the outcome in the North affected the decision in the south or vice versa.

There is NO stipulation on a poll here in the GFA though.

This is the full sentence;

"It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. "

I would read it that the will to unite the country is dependent on consent in both jurisdictions. It couldn't happen without a vote as consent needs to be shown.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

This is the full sentence;

"It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite
all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the
diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland
shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a
majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in
the island. "


I would read it that the will to unite the country is dependent on consent in both jurisdictions. It couldn't happen without a vote as consent needs to be shown.

That is the proposed change to our constitution, that is not a provision of the GFA.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the proposed change to our constitution, that is not a provision of the GFA.

I know, but you said the constitution negated the need for a referendum. It doesn't. Consent needs to be shown.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, that could be interpreted as being already given on this side. Constitutionally we aspire to a untied Ireland, it is our firm will.

But I agree, there will for practical reasons be concurrent polls. Not to have them concurrently would probably lead to legal challenges as sides would claim the outcome in the North affected the decision in the south or vice versa.

There is NO stipulation on a poll here in the GFA though.

I would think that any citizen would win a case hands down in the Supreme Court for a referendum if any government tried to avoid one.

You see, while you might claim that there is no stipulation on a poll here in the GFA, there is settled constitutional law dating back to the Raymond Smith case that means a poll here is legally required.

Looking at the law solely through the lens of a GFA is limited and wrong.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I know, but you said the constitution negated the need for a referendum. It doesn't. Consent needs to be shown.

And consent on this side is there constitutionally, 'it is our firm will' - if the north consents = a UI.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is NO stipulation that a poll happen here at all Joe. Twist all you want.

Nobody has tried to change the constitution since 1998 so it can be assumed our position remains the same - it is our firm will to achieve a UI....i.e. we would say yes to a UI if given the choice.

No argument on the constitutional changes referendum. I think that is what the concurrent referendum will ask here...just as the question on the GFA was framed as a change to articles 2 and 3.
Agreement to change articles 2 and 3 was taken as support for the GFA, likewise support for a UI will be framed as constitutional change here.

I am not trying to twist anything. But can you please confirm how a position that was agreed decades ago can be considered a concurrent one. In effect you are saying that was decided two decades ago is the same as what would be decided now. So why do we bother to amend things at all.

The concurrent aspect of the GFA doesn’t fit in with your interpretation.

As a matter of courtesy, please don’t assert that I am trying to twist things if I give full reasoning for my interpretation.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And consent on this side is there constitutionally, 'it is our firm will' - if the north consents = a UI.

The rest of the sentence.....

recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. "

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And consent on this side is there constitutionally, 'it is our firm will' - if the north consents = a UI.

It’s not concurrent though. Are you honestly saying that something agreed over two decades ago is concurrent to any future Northern Poll.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

Its not a matter of if,but when it passes


Seems to me,theres a.majority there to support it,even those who oppose reunification in their refusal to support calls for border poll amounts to tacit admission its likely to pass imo

There is no empirical evidence to support your opinion.

All of the evidence from electoral data disagrees with you.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

I am not trying to twist anything. But can you please confirm how a position that was agreed decades ago can be considered a concurrent one. In effect you are saying that was decided two decades ago is the same as what would be decided now. So why do we bother to amend things at all.

The concurrent aspect of the GFA doesn’t fit in with your interpretation.

As a matter of courtesy, please don’t assert that I am trying to twist things if I give full reasoning for my interpretation.

What is the purpose of a constitution?

If somebody objects to article 2&3 they can change it by campaigning just as campaigners made constitutional changes before.

Is anybody campaigning to change Article 2&3?

I agree by the way that a concurrent referendum should be held. I don't agree that it is mandated by the GFA though, and it isn't.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is the purpose of a constitution?

If somebody objects to article 2&3 they can change it by campaigning just as campaigners made constitutional changes before.

Is anybody campaigning to change Article 2&3?

I agree by the way that a concurrent referendum should be held. I don't agree that it is mandated by the GFA though, and it isn't.

Does the GFA stipulate that there must be a concurrent Democratic consent on both parts of the island?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is the purpose of a constitution?

If somebody objects to article 2&3 they can change it by campaigning just as campaigners made constitutional changes before.

Is anybody campaigning to change Article 2&3?

I agree by the way that a concurrent referendum should be held. I don't agree that it is mandated by the GFA though, and it isn't.

It is mandated by settled constitutional law. The courts have found repeatedly that any attempt to extend the remit of the Constitution requires a referendum. Adding six counties does exactly that, and the Articles 2 & 3 provisions specifically provide for a democratically expressed will. You are arguing about angels on a pinhead, legally, notwithstanding whatever is in the GFA, there must be a referendum.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The rest of the sentence.....

recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. "

And as I say, it could be argued that we in this part have already democratically expressed 'our firm will to unite the island' and are awaiting consent from the northern part.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

It is mandated by settled constitutional law. The courts have found repeatedly that any attempt to extend the remit of the Constitution requires a referendum. Adding six counties does exactly that, and the Articles 2 & 3 provisions specifically provide for a democratically expressed will. You are arguing about angels on a pinhead, legally, notwithstanding whatever is in the GFA, there must be a referendum.

Yes, the technical aspects of incorporating the 6 counties would require constitutional change. We know this.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And as I say, it could be argued that we in this part have already democratically expressed 'our firm will to unite the island' and are awaiting consent from the northern part.

Legally, that doesn't stand up.

The same principle was tested in the Raymond Crotty case (I got his name wrong in an earlier post). There the Supreme Court found that enabling provisions such as the one that had us join the EU were not sufficient in themselves to avoid a referendum.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And as I say, it could be argued that we in this part have already democratically expressed 'our firm will to unite the island' and are awaiting consent from the northern part.

recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. "

It's written in the future tense.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And as I say, it could be argued that we in this part have already democratically expressed 'our firm will to unite the island' and are awaiting consent from the northern part.

Please show your argument that something voted over two decades ago could be considered concurrent to a future border poll rather than saying it could be argued. What arguments exist that a two decade old poll is concurrent with one at least two decades later.

jh79

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is this requirement stated

Here you go;

"recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland"

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, the technical aspects of incorporating the 6 counties would require constitutional change. We know this.

All the legal experts disagree with you.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/a-united-ireland-could-need-four-referendums-says-expert-1.4016125

Essentially two referendums are needed in the South, a referendum on the principle and a subsequent referendum on the Constitutional changes.

It is possible that these could be done in one go if everything is negotiated in advance, but that is an unlikely scenario given the requirement for concurrent expressions of will North and South.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Legally, that doesn't stand up.

The same principle was tested in the Raymond Crotty case (I got his name wrong in an earlier post). There the Supreme Court found that enabling provisions such as the one that had us join the EU were not sufficient in themselves to avoid a referendum.

Some experts reckon a UI could require up to 4 referendums. We know this blanch...constitutional change requires a referendum and that is how I think acceptance of a UI will be sought as a question on constituional changes. Exactly as thequestion on acceptance of the GFA was asked:

The GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT Ballot Paper wrote:

British-Irish Agreement

Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill?

Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Some experts reckon a UI could require up to 4 referendums. We know this blanch...constitutional change requires a referendum and that is how I think acceptance of a UI will be sought as a question on constituional changes. Exactly as thequestion on acceptance of the GFA was asked:

If you like you are completely free to outline what the four referendums will be and why those experts say the reason for each is.

Solutionking

Rep of Ireland can't afford the North, that is the only discussion point. Plus once the people in Ireland are told how much additional tax they will have to pay, or how much the people on social will lose lets see how many want to take on the mess.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Here you go;

"recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland"

Constitutionally we are in a permanent state of acceptance, 'it is our firm wil...etc etc etc.
We agreed 'concurrently' in 1998 in 2000 and in 2020 and until such time as those clauses change.

Otherwise, we may as well throw the constitution in the bin as meaningless

joeguevara

Solutionking wrote: »

Rep of Ireland can't afford the North, that is the only discussion point. Plus once the people in Ireland are told how much additional tax they will have to pay, or how much the people on social will lose lets see how many want to take on the mess.

It would appear that some people don’t want that information to be costed or presented or even a requirement that it’s voted on as they are calling for an immediate referendum, irrespective of the impacts.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Constitutionally we are in a permanent state of acceptance, 'it is our firm wil...etc etc etc.
We agreed 'concurrently' in 1998 in 2000 and in 2020 and until such time as those clauses change.

Otherwise, we may as well throw the constitution in the bin as meaningless

Our will is conditional is how i read it. Otherwise why add the rest of the sentence.

What in your eyes does the rest of the sentence mean?