The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

You said only a few posts back you would vote no if called tomorrow!

Because ending partition has to be prepared for. I don't want to mimic the irresponsibility that caused the problem in the first place.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have to justify anything, nor does the SoS. That's the point.

We've been here before. The GFA as written didn't achieve true self determination for the people of NI. Republican aspirations are still at the mercy of the British establishment. But at least there are MLA salaries and pension to soften the blow.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because ending partition has to be prepared for. I don't want to mimic the irresponsibility that caused the problem in the first place.

I agree and am looking forward to seeing ,even though skeptical, how we intend to approach it.

My issue is your claim the we should have a poll once the preparations are done. That is fantasy stuff. We can prepare to the nTH degree but if the consensus is that it is not likely to pass then it should not happen as per the GFA.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/british-government-declines-to-set-out-criteria-for-a-border-poll-1.4457745

Francie won't like this bit;

The letter states that the secretary of state must “have regard to reasonable factors and make a judgement based on objective, reliable and emperical evidence”.

Correct me if I am mistaken but opinion polls are empirical evidence!

And the journalist, had he taken his time to research would NOT like this segment from the court's assessment.

The Court said the assessment involves an evaluative judgment as to a likely outcome. It considered
this would be essentially a political judgment to be performed by the respondent, a politician who is
to form an assessment as to the political views of others: “The political judgment as to the likely
outcome of a border poll is not a simple empirical judgment driven solely by opinion poll evidence.
It is also not a simple judgment based purely on perceived religion. The judgment depends on what
are the prevailing circumstances at any given time. For instance a likely outcome may involve an
evaluation as to whether there are other factors which will impact on voting intentions crossing
traditional party or perceived religious lines and if so as to their impact.

https://www.judiciaryni.uk/sites/judiciary/files/decisions/Summary%20of%20judgment%20-%20In%20re%20Raymond%20McCord%20%28Border%20Poll%29.pdf

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/british-government-declines-to-set-out-criteria-for-a-border-poll-1.4457745

Francie won't like this bit;

The letter states that the secretary of state must “have regard to reasonable factors and make a judgement based on objective, reliable and emperical evidence”.

Correct me if I am mistaken but opinion polls are empirical evidence!

I'm asking the question from a legal perspective; I suspect that the SoS will make a judgement based on those sort of criteria, but what actual legislative obligations are on the SoS to do so? I don't think a letter saying that the SoS must do something is legally binding, particularly when the same article says;

"However, the letter concluded by stressing that the British government did not need to set out the evidence it would use to call such a poll."

It seems very clear to me that when a border poll is called, the British government will not provide the specific criteria they used to come to that decision, so on what basis could it be legally challenged? Even should every single poll point to it being unlikely to pass, as far as legally defending the decision to call a poll, it seems to me that if challenged, the SoS could just say, 'I felt that it was likely to pass', provide absolutely zero supporting evidence for that and the legal obligations from the GFA would be met.

Theoretically, should the UK decide that it is to their benefit to jettison NI, what legal grounds could be used to challenge the following? UK government decides they want shot of NI, SoS says (s)he feels like a border poll is likely to pass, providing no justification beyond that, UK introduces some egregious legislation to the detriment of NI (but not directly connected to a border poll for plausible deniability) to push sentiments further towards Unification, border poll passes.....what part of the agreement has not been upheld?

I obviously think the above would be an incredibly damaging way to achieve Unification, but ethical and legal sometimes aren't the same thing.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'm asking the question from a legal perspective; I suspect that the SoS will make a judgement based on those sort of criteria, but what actual legislative obligations are on the SoS to do so? I don't think a letter saying that the SoS must do something is legally binding, particularly when the same article says;

"However, the letter concluded by stressing that the British government did not need to set out the evidence it would use to call such a poll."

It seems very clear to me that when a border poll is called, the British government will not provide the specific criteria they used to come to that decision, so on what basis could it be legally challenged? Even should every single poll point to it being unlikely to pass, as far as legally defending the decision to call a poll, it seems to me that if challenged, the SoS could just say, 'I felt that it was likely to pass', provide absolutely zero supporting evidence for that and the legal obligations from the GFA would be met.

Theoretically, should the UK decide that it is to their benefit to jettison NI, what legal grounds could be used to challenge the following? UK government decides they want shot of NI, SoS says (s)he feels like a border poll is likely to pass, providing no justification beyond that, UK introduces some egregious legislation to the detriment of NI (but not directly connected to a border poll for plausible deniability) to push sentiments further towards Unification, border poll passes.....what part of the agreement has not been upheld?

I obviously think the above would be an incredibly damaging way to achieve Unification, but ethical and legal sometimes aren't the same thing.

Given that the current SoS has claimed steadfastly that there is 'no border in the Irish Sea' he/she could say they called a poll because Ian Paisley Jnr's farts smell of coriander and get away with it.

FrancieBrady

A thread echoing some of the stuff we have been discussing. Particularly liked this dismissal of Bruton and those like him.

The likes of John Bruton "otherising" Irish nationalists in the North is really just an internalised coping mechanism to abdicate responsibility for abandoning us to live in the orange state that subjugated people who were/are as Irish as him.

https://twitter.com/EmmaL_R90/status/1374379614156460044

tikkahunter

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's all fluff talk by SF. Once a serious debate gets underway and northerners really start to think about losing their NHS in favour of the HSE, moderate nationalists will happily stay with the status quo.

There's no chance we can provide the equivalent of the NHS here. It's simply unaffordable with our cost base and unions unwilling to restructure.

Plenty in the republic will have no interest in a UI once they see how much it will cost them

Brendan Bendar

tikkahunter wrote: »

Plenty in the republic will have no interest in a UI once they see how much it will cost them

Amen to that, big dog

Plenty have already seen the light.....

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'm asking the question from a legal perspective; I suspect that the SoS will make a judgement based on those sort of criteria, but what actual legislative obligations are on the SoS to do so? I don't think a letter saying that the SoS must do something is legally binding, particularly when the same article says;

"However, the letter concluded by stressing that the British government did not need to set out the evidence it would use to call such a poll."

It seems very clear to me that when a border poll is called, the British government will not provide the specific criteria they used to come to that decision, so on what basis could it be legally challenged? Even should every single poll point to it being unlikely to pass, as far as legally defending the decision to call a poll, it seems to me that if challenged, the SoS could just say, 'I felt that it was likely to pass', provide absolutely zero supporting evidence for that and the legal obligations from the GFA would be met.

Theoretically, should the UK decide that it is to their benefit to jettison NI, what legal grounds could be used to challenge the following? UK government decides they want shot of NI, SoS says (s)he feels like a border poll is likely to pass, providing no justification beyond that, UK introduces some egregious legislation to the detriment of NI (but not directly connected to a border poll for plausible deniability) to push sentiments further towards Unification, border poll passes.....what part of the agreement has not been upheld?

I obviously think the above would be an incredibly damaging way to achieve Unification, but ethical and legal sometimes aren't the same thing.

The court case ultimately failed because there is no criteria set out in advance on which a potential decision is based.

However, once a decision is made to hold a poll, the legal position changes. In that situation a SOS has made an actual decision based on evidence that a poll is likely to be passed. That decision could be subject to judicial review on the basis that it was unjust because the evidence didn't support the holding of a poll.

There is a way around that. There is nothing stopping a SOS announcing a border poll saying that he hasn't made a call under the GFA, but is holding an indicative poll outside the terms of the GFA. If Sinn Fein were clever, this is the type of poll that they would be calling for, firstly, because it would be a hypothetical situation it would be more likely to be passed, and secondly, if successful, it would have to trigger serious negotiations on a united Ireland that would then be put to the electorate under a GFA border poll. Even so, there is a huge risk to this approach which is probably why SF don't go down it. If such an indicative hypotethical poll was defeated, it would shut down discussion of a united Ireland, possibly for decades.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A thread echoing some of the stuff we have been discussing. Particularly liked this dismissal of Bruton and those like him.




https://twitter.com/EmmaL_R90/status/1374379614156460044

Once I see a commentator using the pejorative term "partitionist", they can be dismissed as biased.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

The court case ultimately failed because there is no criteria set out in advance on which a potential decision is based.

However, once a decision is made to hold a poll, the legal position changes. In that situation a SOS has made an actual decision based on evidence that a poll is likely to be passed. That decision could be subject to judicial review on the basis that it was unjust because the evidence didn't support the holding of a poll.

There is a way around that. There is nothing stopping a SOS announcing a border poll saying that he hasn't made a call under the GFA, but is holding an indicative poll outside the terms of the GFA. If Sinn Fein were clever, this is the type of poll that they would be calling for, firstly, because it would be a hypothetical situation it would be more likely to be passed, and secondly, if successful, it would have to trigger serious negotiations on a united Ireland that would then be put to the electorate under a GFA border poll. Even so, there is a huge risk to this approach which is probably why SF don't go down it. If such an indicative hypotethical poll was defeated, it would shut down discussion of a united Ireland, possibly for decades.

But what obligation does the SoS have to declare the criteria he or she used to decide that he or she felt it was likely? If there are no specific criteria required and no obligation for the SoS to even disclose what criteria was used, how could a legal challenge proceed?

Surely SoS could just say, 'I felt it was likely to pass', and even if all the evidence you're looking at suggests otherwise, the SoS isn't under any obligation to consider that evidence, or tell you the reason they came to the opinion that it was likely to pass, so you haven't contradicted the fact that the SoS felt it was likely, and the obligation under the GFA has been met?

I'm not disputing that it would be a horribly messy, divisive and ultimately foolish way to proceed, just trying to get pointed towards anything that would actually legally prevent it, or anything in legislation that would mean that the SoS has to present the evidence used to come to the conclusion that it is likely which would enable that criteria to be challenged.

You're stating the legal position changes, I'm just asking you to present the legislation which supports that assertion as I haven't come across anything that suggests it changes anything; the SoS feels that it is likely to pass is the only criteria I've seen.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

But what obligation does the SoS have to declare the criteria he or she used to decide that he or she felt it was likely? If there are no specific criteria required and no obligation for the SoS to even disclose what criteria was used, how could a legal challenge proceed?

Surely SoS could just say, 'I felt it was likely to pass', and even if all the evidence you're looking at suggests otherwise, the SoS isn't under any obligation to consider that evidence, or tell you the reason they came to the opinion that it was likely to pass, so you haven't contradicted the fact that the SoS felt it was likely, and the obligation under the GFA has been met?

I'm not disputing that it would be a horribly messy, divisive and ultimately foolish way to proceed, just trying to get pointed towards anything that would actually legally prevent it, or anything in legislation that would mean that the SoS has to present the evidence used to come to the conclusion that it is likely which would enable that criteria to be challenged.

You're stating the legal position changes, I'm just asking you to present the legislation which supports that assertion as I haven't come across anything that suggests it changes anything; the SoS feels that it is likely to pass is the only criteria I've seen.

That's exactly what the judgment said, there can be no constraints or onus to ex plain on the SoS.

As I said earlier that cuts both ways. A judicial review would fail because it would be effectively a veto..for either side.

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

But what obligation does the SoS have to declare the criteria he or she used to decide that he or she felt it was likely? If there are no specific criteria required and no obligation for the SoS to even disclose what criteria was used, how could a legal challenge proceed?

Surely SoS could just say, 'I felt it was likely to pass', and even if all the evidence you're looking at suggests otherwise, the SoS isn't under any obligation to consider that evidence, or tell you the reason they came to the opinion that it was likely to pass, so you haven't contradicted the fact that the SoS felt it was likely, and the obligation under the GFA has been met?

I'm not disputing that it would be a horribly messy, divisive and ultimately foolish way to proceed, just trying to get pointed towards anything that would actually legally prevent it, or anything in legislation that would mean that the SoS has to present the evidence used to come to the conclusion that it is likely which would enable that criteria to be challenged.

You're stating the legal position changes, I'm just asking you to present the legislation which supports that assertion as I haven't come across anything that suggests it changes anything; the SoS feels that it is likely to pass is the only criteria I've seen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law#:~:text=Judicial%20review%20in%20English%20law%20is%20a%20part%20of%20UK,often%20by%20a%20public%20body.&text=When%20creating%20a%20public%20body,must%20use%20to%20make%20decisions.

In essence, for a judicial review application to succeed, there must be a decision. A non-decision is not a decision. Therefore, once the decision is made to hold a poll under the GFA, "A person who feels that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court (a division of the High Court) for a court to decide whether a decision followed the law."

The particular grounds that I can see for judicial review would be around irrationality:

"Under Lord Diplock's classification, a decision is irrational if it is "so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at it." This standard is also known as Wednesbury unreasonableness, after the decision in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, where it was first imposed.

Unlike illegality and procedural impropriety, the courts under this head look at the merits of the decision, rather than at the procedure by which it was arrived at or the legal basis on which it was founded. The question to ask is whether the decision "makes sense". In many circumstances listed under "illegality", the decision may also be considered irrational."

So, if say, Sinn Fein's vote continues to fall in Northern Ireland and a SOS suddenly turns around and says I am having a border poll, that could be challenged on the basis that the facts made the decision irrational. On the other hand, if you read the law around judicial review, you will see that the British government have been careful not to leave themselves open to various forms of challenge e.g. duty to give reasons, or legitimate expectations. Therefore, the grounds for a challenge would be quite narrow and difficult to succeed, but they are there.

As a result, a SOS will tread carefully in that regard, hence my suggestion in my earlier post that the safest way for the SOS to proceed would be to announce an indicative poll that (if positive) would pave the way for a formal poll under the GFA once the prospective arrangements for a united Ireland have been hammered out. Very difficult to see how that could be challenged and succeed.

maccored

tikkahunter wrote: »

Plenty in the republic will have no interest in a UI once they see how much it will cost them

i assume you think you already know the costs?

wicklowstevo

maccored wrote: »

i assume you think you already know the costs?

more than it is right now ???

Brendan Bendar

maccored wrote: »

i assume you think you already know the costs?

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2019/09/17/news/united-ireland-would-cost-up-to-30-billion-a-year-and-collapse-north-s-economy--1714127/



Hmmmm

jh79

maccored wrote: »

i assume you think you already know the costs?

Well we know the GDP of both countries and therefore know how much NI lags behind. We know what we invest as a % of GDP and therefore can estimate what we would need to invest to harmonize the two countries.

Even if the subvention is "only" 5bn we still have to invest billions extra per annum to match what we do in the Republic.

There is a previous research paper on this and the same guy is doing another one as part of that Liverpool University (i think) unification group.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Well we know the GDP of both countries and therefore know how much NI lags behind. We know what we invest as a % of GDP and therefore can estimate what we would need to invest to harmonize the two countries.

Even if the subvention is "only" 5bn we still have to invest billions extra per annum to match what we do in the Republic.

There is a previous research paper on this and the same guy is doing another one as part of that Liverpool University (i think) unification group.

It isn't a 'cost'. NI will be a contributing region just like Connacht or Munster. If you 'invest' in either of those regions you get a 'return'.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It isn't a 'cost'. NI will be a contributing region just like Connacht or Munster. If you 'invest' in either of those regions you get a 'return'.

so how much is NI contributing verses costing the brits to run at the moment ?

FrancieBrady

wicklowstevo wrote: »

so how much is NI contributing verses costing the brits to run at the moment ?

We don't know the full figures. That's why of you see studies based on the subvention as it currently stands you should get the salt out.

James Brown

The cost doesn't matter to me one bit TBH. We've been rode ragged for decades by political parties looking after 'their own', High time we looked after ours IMO.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We don't know the full figures. That's why of you see studies based on the subvention as it currently stands you should get the salt out.

soon as there is a word wide demand for large ships and 2nd rate whiskey NI will be worth investing in ,

the NI economy is in a laughable state propped up by the brits , helped greatly by the party's in power there as we all know

wicklowstevo

James Brown wrote: »

The cost doesn't matter to me one bit TBH. We've been rode ragged for decades by political parties looking after 'their own', High time we looked after ours IMO.

No need to get personal

FrancieBrady

wicklowstevo wrote: »

soon as there is a word wide demand for large ships and 2nd rate whiskey NI will be worth investing in ,

the NI economy is in a laughable state propped up by the brits , helped greatly by the party's in power there as we all know

Brilliant workforce and a blank canvas for investment. Huge opportunities.
Not everyone is a negative 'I'm alright Jack' about their country and fellow country men and women.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Brilliant workforce and a blank canvas for investment. Huge opportunities.
Not everyone is a negative 'I'm alright Jack' about their country and fellow country men and women.

the negatives massively outweigh the positives as well you know , francie

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A thread echoing some of the stuff we have been discussing. Particularly liked this dismissal of Bruton and those like him.

https://twitter.com/EmmaL_R90/status/1374379614156460044

Point 1: I don't think people were saying that unionist consent was a requirement, more that the bigger the buy in from unionist s the easier it will be. Some like Campell will never be accepting of a UI.

Also, not all Catholics will vote for a UI so it is a bit short sighted to think the demographics will mean we don't have to talk to them. The last opinion poll had 25% of Catholics against a UI.

Point 2: Where is the preferential treatment and who is saying 50+1% will be ignored? It certainly wouldn't make things easy but noone has said what she is claiming.

Point 3: As above the greater the majority the easier it would be to facilitate. The program was about how we would like it to turn out not about redefining the GFA.

Point 4: The division is a consequence of the communities and there political representatives. Both the DUP and SF have done nothing but make it worse. That's on them. Whether we lap it up is irrelevant ye cause the division. It's a factor voters in the Republic have to consider.

Point 5: Fair enough, they might never accept the hand of friendship and there might never be a UI and she'll just have to accept the democratic will of the majority.

Point 6: Missed what Bruton said. I'm not obliged to do anything. I'll use my vote as I see fit.

Points 7/8/9: Not sure what point she is making so no comments on them.

Points 10/11: Her personal want for a UI is not justification for a border poll. The planning can happen without a date being set. She might see it as advantageous for her position but that isn't a justification to ignore the current public opinion

FrancieBrady

wicklowstevo wrote: »

the negatives massively outweigh the positives as well you know , francie

They certainly don't. The consequences of partition have had a heavy toll on this entire island.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Point 1: I don't think people were saying that unionist consent was a requirement, more that the bigger the buy in from unionist s the easier it will be. Some like Campell will never be accepting of a UI.

Also, not all Catholics will vote for a UI so it is a bit short sighted to think the demographics will mean we don't have to talk to them. The last opinion poll had 25% of Catholics against a UI.

Point 2: Where is the preferential treatment and who is saying 50+1% will be ignored? It certainly wouldn't make things easy but noone has said what she is claiming.

Point 3: As above the greater the majority the easier it would be to facilitate. The program was about how we would like it to turn out not about redefining the GFA.

Point 4: The division is a consequence of the communities and there political representatives. Both the DUP and SF have done nothing but make it worse. That's on them. Whether we lap it up is irrelevant ye cause the division. It's a factor voters in the Republic have to consider.

Point 5: Fair enough, they might never accept the hand of friendship and there might never be a UI and she'll just have to accept the democratic will of the majority.

Point 6: Missed what Bruton said. I'm not obliged to do anything. I'll use my vote as I see fit.

Points 7/8/9: Not sure what point she is making so no comments on them.

Points 10/11: Her personal want for a UI is not justification for a border poll. The planning can happen without a date being set. She might see it as advantageous for her position but that isn't a justification to ignore the current public opinion

You can tweet those questions back to her. I quoted the tweet because it echoed some of what we were saying here. Which I have already dealt with.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They certainly don't. The consequences of partition have had a heavy toll on this entire island.

you do understand that prior to partition the north west of Ireland was not a nice place either don't you ?


the consequences of unification for several generations at least would destroy both country's