The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Bishop of hope

Old history being revisited, this could have the potential to throw a spanner in the works if charges are brought.

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/belfast-arrest-over-1974-birmingham-pub-bombings-39761770.html

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Old history being revisited, this could have the potential to throw a spanner in the works if charges are brought.

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/belfast-arrest-over-1974-birmingham-pub-bombings-39761770.html

What 'works'?

blanch152

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Old history being revisited, this could have the potential to throw a spanner in the works if charges are brought.

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/belfast-arrest-over-1974-birmingham-pub-bombings-39761770.html

Good news that this is still being followed up.

blanch152

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!

Well, we have reached an all-time high today. Francie puts forward a British interpretation of the Irish Constitutional requirement as his argument.

Just for that, I might be prepared to accept it.

joeguevara

I had quoted from this fully referenced legal opinion drafted by Justice Humphreys which fully discusses the legal and constitutional requirements for Irish Reunification. From page 9 it outlines a fully referenced and detailed analysis of the requirement to hold a democratic concurrent vote. It outlines the different ways that the Republic could implement a referenda that is required by the GFA. It clearly outlines how each is compliant. Not once in the whole article, or any of the references does it suggest or assert, or even propose that the current constitution as amended decades ago is sufficient for the concurrent vote requirement.

If anyone wants to explain why Justice Humphreys, and every single reference is incorrect then i would be delighted.

https://senatormarkdaly.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/section-6-referendum-as-provided-for-under-the-good-friday-agreement.pdf

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, we have reached an all-time high today. Francie puts forward a British interpretation of the Irish Constitutional requirement as his argument.

Just for that, I might be prepared to accept it.

Another of your misconceptions quashed blanch, my my.

joeguevara

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, we have reached an all-time high today. Francie puts forward a British interpretation of the Irish Constitutional requirement as his argument.

Just for that, I might be prepared to accept it.

Except that he didn’t even understand what the British interpretation said. It determines that a parallel mechanism is not stipulated but doesn’t conclude that an Irish referendum is not required.

The meaning of this is that we don’t have a similar trigger like the SOS one for us to mandatorily require a referendum. But we still need one for a UI and to comply with the GFA.

blanch152

joeguevara wrote: »

Except that he didn’t even understand what the British interpretation said. It determines that a parallel mechanism is not stipulated but doesn’t conclude that an Irish referendum is not required.

The meaning of this is that we don’t have a similar trigger like the SOS one for us to mandatorily require a referendum. But we still need one for a UI and to comply with the GFA.

I would envisage the sequence as being the SoS calling a border poll based on the GFA, and our Oireachtas following up with legislation to hold a poll around the same time.

A second referendum would be required at least in the South to approve the terms of any deal and have the Constitution changed. A second referendum in the North would probably be politically necessary as well.

In many ways, it is an academic exercise at the moment as the conditions for a border poll are not likely to be met for at least a decade if the voting trends of the last decade continue.

joeguevara

blanch152 wrote: »

I would envisage the sequence as being the SoS calling a border poll based on the GFA, and our Oireachtas following up with legislation to hold a poll around the same time.

A second referendum would be required at least in the South to approve the terms of any deal and have the Constitution changed. A second referendum in the North would probably be politically necessary as well.

In many ways, it is an academic exercise at the moment as the conditions for a border poll are not likely to be met for at least a decade if the voting trends of the last decade continue.

Just read an article that a majority wants a border poll but unfortunately a bigger majority is against a United Ireland so it appears that would be premature.

One thing that is becoming clearer is that reliance of religion or even party as the basis of determining whether a majority of people want to leave the U.K. and join a UI is becoming more and more outdated. There are Protestants who traditionally have voted unionist parties but believe membership of the E.U. is more beneficial. Equally you have catholic’s who would traditionally vote Nationalist parties but consider the Health System, benefits and tax system is more beneficial to them than being part of a UI.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Except that he didn’t even understand what the British interpretation said. It determines that a parallel mechanism is not stipulated but doesn’t conclude that an Irish referendum is not required.

The meaning of this is that we don’t have a similar trigger like the SOS one for us to mandatorily require a referendum. But we still need one for a UI and to comply with the GFA.

Joe..look, I understand if you find it hard to accept.

You argued that the GFA mandated we have a referendum. It didn't then and it doesn't now.

I, as I said several times, think we should have one. That is also the 'view' of the Shared Island Unit.

Now that is all that was claimed and I gave my reasons for having that view. Your initial view was wrong and that is why I objected. Your initial view was wrong on two counts actually. Michael Martins view about when a Border Poll will be acceptable counts for naught and the SoS in under no mandate as to when he calls a BP. Even if it was obvious that 100% were in favour of a UI he could still decide not to have a poll and be within his rights. This was actually tested in the courts (see the McCord case)

McMurphy

What political party(s) from D.E do people envisage campaigning for a no vote in any potential upcoming unity referendums btw?

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

What political party(s) from D.E do people envisage campaigning for a no vote in any potential upcoming unity referendums btw?

Fianna fail

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What 'works'?

The GFA perhaps.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Fianna fail

The republican party?

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

What political party(s) from D.E do people envisage campaigning for a no vote in any potential upcoming unity referendums btw?

Depends, they might adopt a neutral stance on it.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The GFA perhaps.

Why would it have an effect on the GFA? There have been many arrests since the GFA.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Fianna fail

Michael might want to but would Michael have the cahonas? The man waiting in the wings Jim O'Callaghan would have the opposite view.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2020/10/28/news/fianna-fa-il-future-leadership-contender-jim-o-callaghan-says-get-ready-for-a-border-poll-2111778/

Martin's Unity Unit reminds me of one of John Hume's earnest but ultimately futile efforts. It will fail because it will be more or less ignored as a foot note on the road to an actual poll. Events, dear boy, as they say.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Joe..look, I understand if you find it hard to accept.

You argued that the GFA mandated we have a referendum. It didn't then and it doesn't now.

I, as I said several times, think we should have one. That is also the 'view' of the Shared Island Unit.

Now that is all that was claimed and I gave my reasons for having that view. Your initial view was wrong and that is why I objected. Your initial view was wrong on two counts actually. Michael Martins view about when a Border Poll will be acceptable counts for naught and the SoS in under no mandate as to when he calls a BP. Even if it was obvious that 100% were in favour of a UI he could still decide not to have a poll and be within his rights. This was actually tested in the courts (see the McCord case)

Francie not listening to you continue to base your incorrect opinion on....wait for it...your incorrect opinion. So I am going to leave you with, renowned constitutional scholar and respected judge, justice Humphreys to explain what concurrent democracy vote actually means. You will note that Justice Humphreys has actually referenced this article. I note that your opinion is not referenced. You will also note that Justice Humphreys does not rely on just himself.

https://senatormarkdaly.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/section-6-referendum-as-provided-for-under-the-good-friday-agreement.pdf

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

The republican party?

Who tweet encouraging people to watch the crown on netflix

a very cool kid

Won't a UI not cost an arm and a leg? Realistically the British government are not going to pay for it (what's the point in being independent if you have to have the begging bowl handy at all times?).

What spending do the good Republicans on the thread think should be cut and also what level should income taxes be set at? Applying taxes to a narrow group won't work here and neither will increasing dependency on corporate tax receipts (in a downturn we'd be screwed if either of these went South).

Much as I'd love a UI how do we placate the people not happy with this setup? Or do we just treat Unionists like second class citizens again (to paraphrase Brexit, we won, you lost get over it!)

Solutionking

You had people running against abortion and against same-sex marriage. Both are a lot more controversial topics to a poll on All-Ireland.

You will find plenty of companies will want to stop it, Parcel Motel etc who's whole business is built on the border. Construction companies who can undercut Rep of Ireland companies because they are based in North etc etc etc.

To get the poll the initial question asked by everyone will be how much this will cost and how will Ireland pay for it. Those are the basic questions which will stop the whole discussion. It might be grand for lads who have the day to sit on boards but the rest of us have to earn a living, pay for kids, mortgages etc. Taking another chuck out of wages with the risk of bombings to follow soon after is not really that appealing.

It's not like you can thrust SF, as soon as it goes to s**t they will just say "It's not our fault"

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Francie not listening to you continue to base your incorrect opinion on....wait for it...your incorrect opinion. So I am going to leave you with, renowned constitutional scholar and respected judge, justice Humphreys to explain what concurrent democracy vote actually means. You will note that Justice Humphreys has actually referenced this article. I note that your opinion is not referenced. You will also note that Justice Humphreys does not rely on just himself.

https://senatormarkdaly.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/section-6-referendum-as-provided-for-under-the-good-friday-agreement.pdf

All prefaced by the caution that it is in the 'view' of. It is not a definitive Legal opinion.
I gave my view too, which you can take or leave.

Which in no way gets you out of the two claims you made. That the GFA mandates a poll here - it doesn't and that has been proved beyond doubt at this stage. And that the SoS is mandated to call a poll if there is visible evidence of a majority, He/her is simply not under any obligations in that regard. There is an actual Legal opinion on that.

FrancieBrady

a very cool kid wrote: »

Won't a UI not cost an arm and a leg? Realistically the British government are not going to pay for it (what's the point in being independent if you have to have the begging bowl handy at all times?).

What spending do the good Republicans on the thread think should be cut and also what level should income taxes be set at? Applying taxes to a narrow group won't work here and neither will increasing dependency on corporate tax receipts (in a downturn we'd be screwed if either of these went South).

Much as I'd love a UI how do we placate the people not happy with this setup? Or do we just treat Unionists like second class citizens again (to paraphrase Brexit, we won, you lost get over it!)

Why would we treat them like second class citizens?
Unionist who agreed to the GFA have already agreed to abide by the wishes of the majority. Just as nationalists did.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Who tweet encouraging people to watch the crown on netflix

Seen that, I'd say that councillor soon regretted it too, went down like a lead balloon tbh.

FrancieBrady

Solutionking wrote: »

You had people running against abortion and against same-sex marriage. Both are a lot more controversial topics to a poll on All-Ireland.

What political party is going to campaign against it? Sure you will have people like Peter Casey trying to court votes opportunistically. But there isn't a single political party here that will be opposed.

It will be fascinating to see partitionists allying with belligerent unionism to try and win a poll.

joeguevara

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All prefaced by the caution that it is in the 'view' of. It is not a definitive Legal opinion.
I gave my view too, which you can take or leave.

Which in no way gets you out of the two claims you made. That the GFA mandates a poll here - it doesn't and that has been proved beyond doubt at this stage. And that the SoS is mandated to call a poll if there is visible evidence of a majority, He/her is simply not under any obligations in that regard. There is an actual Legal opinion on that.

Again, the opinion of a renowned constitutional law expert and respected judge is a legal opinion. What do you want? Rum pole of the bailey.

He concludes that the GFA does mandate a concurrent referendum in the the south for a UI.

Now Francie, take it up with Justice a Humphreys. You are making a show of your self. I note that not one other person has backed you up. Not one Francie. Well, except yourself of course.

a very cool kid

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would we treat them like second class citizens?
Unionist who agreed to the GFA have already agreed to abide by the wishes of the majority. Just as nationalists did.

It's hard to see a militant Sinn Féin government making 12th July a national holiday!

What about money?

Solutionking

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What political party is going to campaign against it? Sure you will have people like Peter Casey trying to court votes opportunistically. But there isn't a single political party here that will be opposed.

It will be fascinating to see partitionists allying with belligerent unionism to try and win a poll.

So everyone that has a job and wants to pay a mortgage is now either a partitionist or a belligerent unionist?

All the people who will be fired from government jobs in the North if its a unified Ireland are they under those names? the people are are working in DPD/Parcel Wizard etc who will lose their job? the list can go on here.

Its ok for some to sit on the social and say they want a unified Ireland because they are not the ones that have to pay for it. The people who are out working crazy hours, trying to keep food on table, paying off mortgages, pay childcare. They are the ones who will be hit with the tax to pay for some pipe dream.

But sure who cares about them, they are just partitionist and belligerent unionist!

Solutionking

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would we treat them like second class citizens?
Unionist who agreed to the GFA have already agreed to abide by the wishes of the majority. Just as nationalists did.

Everyone to you is a belligerent unionist unless they agree with you. So just even reading these threads would give a good idea of what would happen if a unified Ireland happened.

Ireland doesn't need a Unified Ireland, hasn't since the Good Friday. It's only the belligerent catholics who want it.

FrancieBrady

joeguevara wrote: »

Again, the opinion of a renowned constitutional law expert and respected judge is a legal opinion. What do you want? Rum pole of the bailey.

He concludes that the GFA does mandate a concurrent referendum in the the south for a UI.

Now Francie, take it up with Justice a Humphreys. You are making a show of your self. I note that not one other person has backed you up. Not one Francie. Well, except yourself of course.

Where does he 'conclude that the GFA 'mandates' a poll here? He doesn't. He actually states at one point,

It is certainly true that if the secretary of state for Northern Ireland decided to hold
a poll in Northern Ireland and if it was decided by the government to hold a poll
simultaneously in this part of the island, legislation to facilitate such a poll could be
rushed through the Oireachtas on an urgent basis.

The government won't decide not to have a poll but he is clearly of the opinion that they have a choice.


Also pay attention to this passage.

“It should be noted that just as the secretary of state is not under an obligation to make
an order for the taking of a poll save where he is of opinion that majority will vote for a
united Ireland and no previous poll has been held within the preceding seven years, the
Irish Government is not under any express obligation to conduct a simultaneous poll in
Ireland. However, given that the purpose of the prevision of the agreement relating to
the matter is to vindicate the inherent right of self-determination of the Irish People, it
would seem to be an implicit obligation on the Irish Government to hold a simultaneous
poll where it was of opinion that the result of the poll in Northern Ireland would be likely
to be supportive of a united Ireland.

He is actually off the same opinion as me, there is no obligation or mandate but they will have one.