The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

But the according to the constitution our "will" is conditional on a democratic vote.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

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/

Again, that is a 'view' and it even states that it is an interpretation and a view here:

No. The Agreement, properly interpreted, envisages concurrent referendums on reunification to mirror the votes which occurred on the 22nd May 1998 across the island of Ireland. In our view, this requires simultaneous votes.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Go way out of that. You were requested to provide precedent for the complete incorrect interpretation that you have continued to paste. You are not an authority on your own assertion. Back it up or admit that you have no idea on the constitutional requirements for the Republic of Ireland to satisfy the concurrent vote requirements of the GFA.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But the according to the constitution our "will" is conditional on a democratic vote.

No, it is conditional on a majority in both jurisdictions agreeing. The first part of the article states that it is already our will.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again, that is a 'view' and it even states that it is an interpretation and a view here:

Yes. Expert view. Not the view of someone that can’t use any precedent or expert to back his point.

Do you see how I and others use authority as proof rather than the expert stonewalling of you,

Solutionking

Are you really having a discussion for a number of page with someone who doesn't think the Rep need a poll to bring a unified Ireland?

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Go way out of that. You were requested to provide precedent for the complete incorrect interpretation that you have continued to paste. You are not an authority on your own assertion. Back it up or admit that you have no idea on the constitutional requirements for the Republic of Ireland to satisfy the concurrent vote requirements of the GFA.

Wait a minute Joe, you were the one arguing a vote in the south was mandated in the GFA and you are lecturing me on what I know or don't know.

The constitutional requirement will be to 'change the constitution' to accommodate the whole island.

And it is my bet that is how any referendum will be phrased here.

joeguevara

Solutionking wrote: »

Are you really having a discussion for a number of page with someone who doesn't think the Rep need a poll to bring a unified Ireland?

I am only continuing as I was accused of twisting the words of the GFA and also being told I was wrong again. Notwithstanding every expert and authority showing that the poster doesn’t understand the requirements, it continues with no rebuttal apart from the posters opinion.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Yes. Expert view. Not the view of someone that can’t use any precedent or expert to back his point.

Do you see how I and others use authority as proof rather than the expert stonewalling of you,

What 'precedent' did your 'experts' quote?

I quoted the GFA ballot paper question as back up to my assertion that we won't be asked Yay or Nay, we will be asked if we wish to make the constitutional change to facilitate a UI. Because asking that question that way will leave the government open to legal challenge based on Article 3.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wait a minute Joe, you were the one arguing a vote in the south was mandated in the GFA and you are lecturing me on what I know or don't know.

The constitutional requirement will be to 'change the constitution' to accommodate the whole island.

And it is my bet that is how any referendum will be phrased here.

You don’t know what a concurrent Democratic vote is. You dismiss all authority and have nothing to back it up. For someone who continually loves saying that unless evidence or proof exists of something then you will not believe it. But when expert opinions, authority and proof is shown, you dismiss it in favour of your misinformed assertion.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

I am only continuing as I was accused of twisting the words of the GFA and also being told I was wrong again. Notwithstanding every expert and authority showing that the poster doesn’t understand the requirements, it continues with no rebuttal apart from the posters opinion.

DO you accept you were wrong and that the GFA DOES NOT stipulate a vote here or the mechanism for a vote?

You were wrong on that Joe, stop trying to pretend you weren't.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What 'precedent' did your 'experts' quote?

I quoted the GFA ballot paper question as back up to my assertion that we won't be asked Yay or Nay, we will be asked if we wish to make the constitutional change to facilitate a UI. Because asking that question that way will leave the government open to legal challenge based on Article 3.

No precedent and case law was shown to you. I have seen it all now. I will not continue this discussion as you don’t have the good grace to admit that you have no rebuttal for every expert, authority and precedent shown other than a wager, a two decade old ballot and good old fashioned denial of facts.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

You don’t know what a concurrent Democratic vote is. You dismiss all authority and have nothing to back it up. For someone who continually loves saying that unless evidence or proof exists of something then you will not believe it. But when expert opinions, authority and proof is shown, you dismiss it in favour of your misinformed assertion.

I don't dismiss all authority, I recognise it for what it is and what it freely admits it is - 'A view'.

I am giving my view.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

DO you accept you were wrong and that the GFA DOES NOT stipulate a vote here or the mechanism for a vote?

You were wrong on that Joe, stop trying to pretend you weren't.

It stipulates a concurrent Democratic vote. Another example of how you are being disingenuous.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, it is conditional on a majority in both jurisdictions agreeing. The first part of the article states that it is already our will.

So explain what the rest of the sentence means so...

The constitution recognises that in the future both jurisdictions need to hold a democratic vote is my take.

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: »

I don't dismiss all authority, I recognise it for what it is and what it freely admits it is - 'A view'.

I am giving my view.

Back up your view. As everyone else has.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

No precedent and case law was shown to you. I have seen it all now. I will not continue this discussion as you don’t have the good grace to admit that you have no rebuttal for every expert, authority and precedent shown other than a wager, a two decade old ballot and good old fashioned denial of facts.

Joe, scroll back there lad. I have said that I think there should be a vote and that the government here will not 'as you first suggested, be able to decline one here, no matter what Michael says.

The form that vote will take, I wager, will not be a Yes or No question, for the reasons already stated.
You were wrong on the GFA stipulating a vote here and you are also wrong in your original contention that Michael Martin saying that there won't be a border poll in 5 years was anything other than partitionist bluster. It won't be up to him.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Joe, scroll back there lad. I have said that I think there should be a vote and that the government here will not 'as you first suggested, be able to decline one here, no matter what Michael says.

The form that vote will take, I wager, will not be a Yes or No question, for the reasons already stated.
You were wrong on the GFA stipulating a vote here and you are also wrong in your original contention that Michael Martin saying that there won't be a border poll in 5 years was anything other than partitionist bluster. It won't be up to him.

Is it bluster for MLD to say there will be a border poll within 5 years of SF getting power seeing as it is at the whim of the SoS?

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Back up your view. As everyone else has.

You backed it up with someone else's view.

I backed it up by quoting Article 3 of the Constitution. Which says nothing about a vote being required either. It states that agreement by majorities n both jurisdictions is required.

That s what a border poll will decide, whether there is agreement in both parts concurrently. Presently, there is a firm will to unite here.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Joe, scroll back there lad. I have said that I think there should be a vote and that the government here will not 'as you first suggested, be able to decline one here, no matter what Michael says.

The form that vote will take, I wager, will not be a Yes or No question, for the reasons already stated.
You were wrong on the GFA stipulating a vote here and you are also wrong in your original contention that Michael Martin saying that there won't be a border poll in 5 years was anything other than partitionist bluster. It won't be up to him.

Yawn.

Good man Francie.

You said that there is no requirement for a referendum here to be concurrent with a NI Poll as an historical vote satisfies that.

Then you blabbered on about a wager.

Then you dismissed every expert over your own uncorroborwted opinion.

And then circle back on a completely different argument.

You are priceless.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Is it bluster for MLD to say there will be a border poll within 5 years of SF getting power seeing as it is at the whim of the SoS?

Agree, it is. Both leaders electioneering.

Where/when did she say that?

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You backed it up with someone else's view.

I backed it up by quoting Article 3 of the Constitution. Which says nothing about a vote being required either. It states that agreement by majorities n both jurisdictions is required.

That s what a border poll will decide, whether there is agreement in both parts concurrently. Presently, there is a firm will to unite here.

This is how persuasive argument works. You back up your view with experts who have documented the reasons for their opinion. And also with case law. And also with views of lawyers. How do you think legal argument works.

The GFA is international law and must be complied with.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Agree, it is. Both leaders electioneering.

Where/when did she say that?

I thought she / SF did. I'll have a google.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Yawn.

Good man Francie.

You said that there is no requirement for a referendum here to be concurrent with a NI Poll as an historical vote satisfies that.

Then you blabbered on about a wager.

Then you dismissed every expert over your own uncorroborwted opinion.

And then circle back on a completely different argument.

You are priceless.

I didn't dismiss any expert. You presented someone's self admitted view as 'expert'. I pointed it out that it was 'their' view, which they are entitled to as I am to mine.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't dismiss any expert. You presented someone's self admitted view as 'expert'. I pointed it out that it was 'their' view, which they are entitled to as I am to mine.

I showed the view of a group of professors, lawyers and constitutional authority who wrote this paper. If you are going to dismiss Ireland’s leading law scholars, at least don’t use yourself as an authority.

I also quoted many other articles as reasoning for my view.

Just for completeness who did you rely upon.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

This is how persuasive argument works. You back up your view with experts who have documented the reasons for their opinion. And also with case law. And also with views of lawyers. How do you think legal argument works.

The GFA is international law and must be complied with.

And the GFA does NOT mandate a vote here. Are you still maintaining it does?

Again, I think there will be a vote here and there should be one.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Agree, it is. Both leaders electioneering.

Where/when did she say that?

First one i found. She made it a prerequisite of going into government even though it's up to the SoS.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/sinn-fein-says-border-poll-pre-condition-a-necessity-for-entering-government-38914094.html

I have said very clearly that I believe that we should have a border poll within the next five years and more importantly that preparations for constitutional change need to start.

“This shouldn’t be written up as some sort of exotic red line for Sinn Fein, this is an absolute necessity

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the GFA does NOT mandate a vote here. Are you still maintaining it does?

Again, I think there will be a vote here and there should be one.

Are you for real.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

I showed the view of a group of professors, lawyers and constitutional authority who wrote this paper. If you are going to dismiss Ireland’s leading law scholars, at least don’t use yourself as an authority.

I also quoted many other articles as reasoning for my view.

Just for completeness who did you rely upon.

I don't dismiss it. I recognise it as a view, as it does itself.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

First one i found. She made it a prerequisite of going into government even though it's up to the SoS.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/sinn-fein-says-border-poll-pre-condition-a-necessity-for-entering-government-38914094.html

I have said very clearly that I believe that we should have a border poll within the next five years and more importantly that preparations for constitutional change need to start.

“This shouldn’t be written up as some sort of exotic red line for Sinn Fein, this is an absolute necessity

Nice try jh but that is not her saying

there will be a border poll within 5 years of SF getting power

Pushing for a border poll is slightly different thing.