Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Options
1…162163165167168…334

Comments

  • Options
    #4922
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,962 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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:

    Francie, that is the second of the two referenda required in the South, a confirmatory referendum in effect. We have to concurrently and democratically express the will to unite first.

    That is the clear legal position whether you like it or not.


  • Options
    #4923
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,074 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    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

    Please show how a vote over two decades ago is considered concurrent with a future northern poll. This is all you have to do. Answer the question, with the words they reason why I consider a vote over two decades ago is concurrent with a future border poll is ........, also if you are able to define concurrent as well.


  • Options
    #4924
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,003 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    joeguevara wrote: »
    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.

    It isn't hard to work out, there will be changes to flag and anthem etc and technical change that will require referendums. Could all be done at once who knows.

    I'll guarantee the first one here will not be phrased as a Yes or No to a UI, as the GFA one wasn't.
    It will be 'do you agree to the constitutional change to article X, Y,'.
    Therefore closing a legal challenge on the basis that the constitution already states our agreement or will.


  • Options
    #4925
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,003 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Please show how a vote over two decades ago is considered concurrent with a future northern poll. This is all you have to do. Answer the question, with the words they reason why I consider a vote over two decades ago is concurrent with a future border poll is ........, also if you are able to define concurrent as well.

    You didn't answer the question I asked, 'What is the constitution'?

    At the time of a Border Poll agreement must be concurrent i.e. both sides must agree concurrently. 'Presently' only one side agrees.


  • Options
    #4926
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,074 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It isn't hard to work out, there will be changes to flag and anthem etc and technical change that will require referendums. Could all be done at once who knows.

    I'll guarantee the first one here will not be phrased as a Yes or No to a UI, as the GFA one wasn't.
    It will be 'do you agree to the constitutional change to article X, Y,'.
    Therefore closing a legal challenge on the basis that the constitution already states our agreement or will.

    Whether referenda can be combined is not the question.

    The one of concurrent Democratic consent is. You have previously stated that I twisted the words of the GFA. You still cannot show your work on how something over two decades ago is concurrent to a future poll.

    Do you know what concurrent means?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4927
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,962 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It isn't hard to work out, there will be changes to flag and anthem etc and technical change that will require referendums. Could all be done at once who knows.

    I'll guarantee the first one here will not be phrased as a Yes or No to a UI, as the GFA one wasn't.
    It will be 'do you agree to the constitutional change to article X, Y,'.
    Therefore closing a legal challenge on the basis that the constitution already states our agreement or will.

    Wrong, and won't survive a legal challenge. Unless a poll takes place North and South at a time which is concurrent, the GFA will be breached.

    Subsquently, a second referendum in the South will be required to implement the final legal changes. The two polls in the South could take place months apart (if a lot of the detail was agreed in advance - but that would mean a border poll is close to a decade away), but there will be two.


  • Options
    #4928
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I will be voting no to a UI.


  • Options
    #4929
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,074 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You didn't answer the question I asked, 'What is the constitution'?

    At the time of a Border Poll agreement must be concurrent i.e. both sides must agree concurrently. 'Presently' only one side agrees.

    The Change in the constitution is something that was Democratically consented to over two decades ago. It does not satisfy the concurrent requirement stipulated in GFA.

    Now show me how it does.

    FYI it may be an idea to start with a definition of concurrent.


  • Options
    #4930
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,003 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    joeguevara wrote: »
    The Change in the constitution is something that was Democratically consented to over two decades ago. It does not satisfy the concurrent requirement stipulated in GFA.

    Now show me how it does.

    FYI it may be an idea to start with a definition of concurrent.

    The Constitution remains valid until such time as it or clauses within it are challenged. Otherwise we may as well bin it.

    Concurrent means at the same time - agreement must be concurrent. 'Presently' agreement is constitutionally provided for here but not in the north. That would be the purpose of a border poll in the north.


  • Options
    #4931
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    Found this on google.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/irish-reunification

    According to the British we need 2 polls.

    The Good Friday Agreement does not specify a parallel mechanism for triggering a border poll in the Republic of Ireland. The country’s constitution does however contain a provision for two types of referendum: a constitutional referendum and an ordinary referendum.

    It came up before how the SoS would decide when a poll is necessary. The same website says;

    It is not clear exactly what would satisfy this requirement. The Constitution Unit suggests that a consistent majority in opinion polls, a Catholic majority in a census, a nationalist majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly, or a vote by a majority in the Assembly could all be considered evidence of majority support for a united Ireland. However, the Secretary of State must ultimately decide whether the condition has been met.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4932
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,074 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    jh79 wrote: »
    Found this on google.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/irish-reunification

    According to the British we need 2 polls.

    The Good Friday Agreement does not specify a parallel mechanism for triggering a border poll in the Republic of Ireland. The country’s constitution does however contain a provision for two types of referendum: a constitutional referendum and an ordinary referendum.

    It came up before how the SoS would decide when a poll is necessary. The same website says;

    It is not clear exactly what would satisfy this requirement. The Constitution Unit suggests that a consistent majority in opinion polls, a Catholic majority in a census, a nationalist majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly, or a vote by a majority in the Assembly could all be considered evidence of majority support for a united Ireland. However, the Secretary of State must ultimately decide whether the condition has been met.

    I had referenced this in a previous post but it was ignored by the assertion that something voted n over two decades ago is concurrent. Notwithstanding that every expert outlined that it was not.


  • Options
    #4933
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    Irish perspective is the same

    https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/ireland_and_the_uk/good_friday_agreement.html

    Before the Agreement, the Irish Constitution maintained a territorial claim to Northern Ireland. The new provisions approved by referendum state that, while it is the firm will of the Irish nation to unite the island, such changes can only be brought about by consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island


  • Options
    #4934
    Solutionking
    Closed Accounts Posts: 678 ✭✭✭Solutionking


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I will be voting no to a UI.

    Suggest you read the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Northern_Ireland


  • Options
    #4935
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,003 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I had referenced this in a previous post but it was ignored by the assertion that something voted n over two decades ago is concurrent. Notwithstanding that every expert outlined that it was not.

    It clearly says there Joe that 'The Good Friday Agreement does not specify a parallel mechanism for triggering a border poll in the Republic of Ireland.'

    I know it is a British interpretation but do you now accept that I was right when I said there is no stipulation in the GFA on a border poll here?


  • Options
    #4936
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,074 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The Constitution remains valid until such time as it or clauses within it are challenged. Otherwise we may as well bin it.

    Concurrent means at the same time - agreement must be concurrent. 'Presently' agreement is constitutionally provided for here but not in the north. That would be the purpose of a border poll in the north.

    One agreement was decided twenty years ago. That is not concurrent with any future poll. Show me one recognised international or constitutional law expert that agrees with your assertion based on precedent, case law and reasoned argument.

    It is not acceptable to counter an argument that you have called twisted words, where I and others have shown the jurisprudence with your bizarre assertion that something twenty years old is concurrent.


  • Options
    #4937
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,074 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It clearly says there Joe that 'The Good Friday Agreement does not specify a parallel mechanism for triggering a border poll in the Republic of Ireland.'

    I know it is a British interpretation but do you now accept that I was right when I said there is no stipulation in the GFA on a border poll here?

    Not a parallel mechanism I.e. Secretary of State mandatory obligation to call it, but it does still require a concurrent vote to satisfy the GFA. Not he question being asked but nice try.


  • Options
    #4938
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It clearly says there Joe that 'The Good Friday Agreement does not specify a parallel mechanism for triggering a border poll in the Republic of Ireland.'

    I know it is a British interpretation but do you now accept that I was right when I said there is no stipulation in the GFA on a border poll here?

    It's a bit disingenuous on your part. The GFA required the constitutional changes that now mean a referendum is required in the Republic to obtain an UI.


  • Options
    #4939
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,003 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jh79 wrote: »
    Irish perspective is the same

    https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/ireland_and_the_uk/good_friday_agreement.html

    Before the Agreement, the Irish Constitution maintained a territorial claim to Northern Ireland. The new provisions approved by referendum state that, while it is the firm will of the Irish nation to unite the island, such changes can only be brought about by consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island

    Again, that is an interpretation...there is no word 'While' in the constitutional clause.

    Article 3
    1. 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. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by
    this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the
    laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the
    coming into operation of this Constitution.

    What is missing is the 'majority' consent of the people in the other jurisdiction.


  • Options
    #4940
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Again, that is an interpretation...there is no word 'While' in the constitutional clause.

    Article 3
    1. 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    . Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by
    this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the
    laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the
    coming into operation of this Constitution.

    What is missing is the 'majority' consent of the people in the other jurisdiction.

    What do you think the underlined means, especially the part about both jurisdictions and the use of the future tense with the word "shall"?


  • Options
    #4941
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,962 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It clearly says there Joe that 'The Good Friday Agreement does not specify a parallel mechanism for triggering a border poll in the Republic of Ireland.'

    I know it is a British interpretation but do you now accept that I was right when I said there is no stipulation in the GFA on a border poll here?

    How many times do I have to explain to you that the Raymond Crotty judgement means that a referendum is required. The GFA didn't stipulate it, no more than it stipulated that we would have to change legislation, because those are accepted legal premises.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4942
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,003 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jh79 wrote: »
    What do you think the underlined means, especially the part about both jurisdictions and the use of the future tense with the word "shall"?

    That a UI will not happen if the majority in both jurisdictions don't want it.
    Presently the majority in NI don't want it...therefore it won't happen. I thought that was kind of obvious.

    Again, I agree a referendum should be held here as well. I don't agree it it technically necessary though unless the constitution is a pointless thing.


  • Options
    #4943
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,074 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Again, that is an interpretation...there is no word 'While' in the constitutional clause.

    Article 3
    1. 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. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by
    this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the
    laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the
    coming into operation of this Constitution.

    What is missing is the 'majority' consent of the people in the other jurisdiction.

    Ok, well start again as you are refusing to clearly answer what has been asked.

    Does the GFA stipulate that both parts of Ireland must agree and Vot concurrently.

    Now if you have answered yes to the above, please show precedence that a vote over 20 years ago is considered a concurrent vote for the future.

    Please don’t base your own argument on your own assertion. You cAnt prove your own work in constitutional or international law.


  • Options
    #4944
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,003 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    How many times do I have to explain to you that the Raymond Crotty judgement means that a referendum is required. The GFA didn't stipulate it, no more than it stipulated that we would have to change legislation, because those are accepted legal premises.

    How many times do I have to say that a referendum asking us if we wish to make the connotational changes X,Y,Z will be held, perhaps several?

    I will have a wager with you though that we will not be asked if 'we agree with a UI or not'.


  • Options
    #4945
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    That a UI will not happen if the majority in both jurisdictions don't want it.
    Presently the majority in NI don't want it...therefore it won't happen. I thought that was kind of obvious.

    Again, I agree a referendum should be held here as well. I don't agree it it technically necessary though unless the constitution is a pointless thing.

    You ignoring the rest of the sentence is hardly the people who wrote it fault!


  • Options
    #4946
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,074 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    That a UI will not happen if the majority in both jurisdictions don't want it.
    Presently the majority in NI don't want it...therefore it won't happen. I thought that was kind of obvious.

    Again, I agree a referendum should be held here as well. I don't agree it it technically necessary though unless the constitution is a pointless thing.

    No one has ever said that the constitutional is a pointless thing. However just because something is in the constitution does not mean that it is the concurrent Democratic vote twenty years later.


  • Options
    #4947
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,074 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    How many times do I have to say that a referendum asking us if we wish to make the connotational changes X,Y,Z will be held, perhaps several?

    I will have a wager with you though that we will not be asked if 'we agree with a UI or not'.

    How about a wager that you won’t answer any question asked to you about concurrent.


  • Options
    #4948
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,003 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Ok, well start again as you are refusing to clearly answer what has been asked.

    Does the GFA stipulate that both parts of Ireland must agree and Vot concurrently.
    NO JOE! It does not say anywhere that we MUST hold a vote.

    Read the British interpretation. There is no mechanism stipulated.

    Jesus!


  • Options
    #4949
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    NO JOE! It does not say anywhere that we MUST hold a vote.

    Read the British interpretation. There is no mechanism stipulated.

    Jesus!

    As i said disingenuous on your part. The GFA changed our constitution to say a democratic vote is required to unite Ireland.


  • Options
    #4950
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,074 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    How many times do I have to say that a referendum asking us if we wish to make the connotational changes X,Y,Z will be held, perhaps several?

    I will have a wager with you though that we will not be asked if 'we agree with a UI or not'.

    Francie, instead of stonewalling everyone and accusing someone of twisting words, how about you rebut every part of paragraph labelled 4. On the below.

    https://sharedireland.com/questions-arising-around-unity-referendums-by-the-constitutional-conversations-group/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4951
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,003 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    joeguevara wrote: »
    How about a wager that you won’t answer any question asked to you about concurrent.

    I did answer you.


    Concurrent = at the same time.

    Presently only the south 'has a firm will to unite'.

    If the North votes for a UI then agreement will be concurrent. Again...read the answers given, I already said this.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement