NI Dec 22 Assembly Election

Peregrinus

[The Commitment to the Irish Language Act is in the St. Andrew's Agreement, to which the DUP is a party.]

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119918870#Comment_119918870

You seem under informed. I suggest you try to understand what 'the GFA and ancillary agreements' means.

In 2006 as part of the St. Andrews Agreement the British Government agreed to legislate in Westminister for an Irish Language Act to safeguard the rights of Irish Speakers, promising,

“The Government will introduce an Irish Language Act reflecting on the experience of Wales and Ireland and work with the incoming Executive to enhance and protect the development of the Irish language.”

The British Government failed to legislate for an Irish Language Act.

The DUP blocked the passage of the legislation in Stormont. Meaning the Westminster government had the onus on it to go above their heads as they have on the other rights the DUP were undemocratically(undemocratic in the sense that a majority of MLA's were in favour) blocking. It's not rocket science.

On the Petition of Concern. This is from your own government. You can see the concerns addressed here as to how it was being misused and needed to be reformed.

Report

The Petition of Concern (PoC) is a mechanism whereby 30 MLAs can petition the Assembly requiring a matter to be passed on a cross-community1 rather than a simple majority basis. Under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, it is one of the ‘safeguards’ in Strand One as a mechanism “to ensure key decisions [in the Assembly] are taken on cross-community basis”.

The requirement to enable a PoC is given effect in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and in the Assembly’s standing orders. Over recent years the use of this mechanism has led to concern that it was being used in a way that departs from its intended purpose as a crosscommunity safeguard as envisaged in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.

In light of these concerns, the parties committed in the New Decade, New Approach deal (NDNA) to reduce the use of the Petition of Concern, and return it to its intended purpose. The parties are committed to tabling or supporting Petitions of Concern only in the most exceptional circumstances and as a last resort, having used every other available mechanism. The parties agreed to a number of reforms to the Petition of Concern in NDNA. These included:

 A new 14-day period of consideration between a valid petition being lodged and any vote on the matter concerned  Ensuring the mechanism cannot be used to prevent a Bill proceeding past its Second Stage

 Ensuring every petition includes a statement of the grounds and rationale upon which it is being tabled and that it be signed in person

 Preventing the Speaker and the three Deputy Speakers from signing a petition

 Ensuring a petition can only be triggered by members from two or more parties

 Preventing the mechanism from being applied to standards motions under Standing Order 69B, or motions and questions which have no express legal or procedural effect

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119918819#Comment_119918819

Lied about it's effects?

https://www.economicsobservatory.com/update-what-has-been-the-economic-impact-of-the-northern-ireland-protocol

"That said, the contrast between the recent performance of food, drink and tobacco (predominantly food processing), which has most likely benefited from the trade diversion effects of the Protocol, and that of electrical engineering, which is heavily reliant on inputs from Great Britain, is striking (Duparc-Portier and Figus, 2021).

It is also worth noting that if a structural shift is happening, it is one from sectors that generally have high productivity levels – for example, branches of engineering – to ones that are generally lower value added per person, such as food products (Forth and Aznar, 2018)."

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119919284#Comment_119919284

Yes they did lie...see the DUP's retraction of the claim on medical proceedures...it actually supported the value of the Protocol.

See their claims about transport...the company they used had an increase in profits as a direct result of the Protocol.

See their lie about the 'principle of consent'. Read Justice Colton's ruling. The 'Principle of Consent' in the GFA applies only to a vote on the constitutional position, and it was ruled the WA and the Protocol did not infringe the constitutional position of NI.

jh79

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/unionists-call-for-cross-border-investigation-into-allegations-against-sinn-fein-leader-mary-lou-mcdonald-42172162.html

Wonder how British SF will deal with the serious allegations against MLMD in the forth coming elections?

Furze99

We can't or shouldn't discuss ongoing court cases. But I do hope every voter is listening to the details of recordings made by Gardai that are currently being played in court and being reported on.

jh79

MLMD isn't on trial though. She's just collateral damage.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119918989#Comment_119918989

Could you show me where the ni parties signed up to ILA at any point?? I stand to be corrected but I understand the proposed ILA was a commitment by the British government

you make my case for me. You even say it yourself that it was a Westminster agreement. Hence sf done exactly what dup have done ie stayed out on a Westminster issue.

as for PoC, it’s hard to find the info, but I see the shinners tried to block the ‘Crime and Courts Act (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order ‘ with it. Hardly a surprise. They must have suspected what was coming down the road

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119919337#Comment_119919337

You gotta feel sure for them. It has been a great few days. Goings on in court, couldn’t fill the tiny ulster hall for Irelands future, MON fumbling condemning (and not condemning at the same time) the ‘up the ra’ chant at Arlene etc etc

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119919350#Comment_119919350

Actually, the case is going through the Special Criminal Court before three judges, who are deemed to be above influence, so it should be OK to discuss it.

Moreover, the recordings are being played before it being decided whether they can be admitted into evidence - which could not happen in a case before a jury.

So, discuss away, the judges will not be listening anyway.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119919460#Comment_119919460

where the ni parties signed up to ILA at any point?

See the St. Andrews Agreement which all parties agreed and signed.

The St Andrews Agreement   is an agreement between the British and Irish governments and Northern Ireland's political parties in relation to the devolution of power in the region. The agreement resulted from multi-party talks held in St Andrews in Fife, Scotland, from 11 to 13 October 2006, between the two governments and all the major parties in Northern Ireland, including the two largest, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Sinn Féin.

See also the New Decade New Approach and the DUP blocking the introduction of legislation.

It's quite clear that the DUP have an arbitrry and selectivce approach to democracy. Abundantly clear.

Nobody claimed that SF hadn't used the PoC in a way it wasn't intended. However, the DUP have used it multiple times more than any other party, thus leading to the concerns and reforms of it's use.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119919521#Comment_119919521

Well, what I took from the reports was detail revealing what many have alleged. The close ties between at least some parts of Sinn Féin, the Provos, the dissidents/ continuity IRA etc and gangland warfare ultimately related to the control of drugs distribution. A very heady cocktail and in recent enough years.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119919953#Comment_119919953

SF have deep roots in NI, and the hidden forces that lie deep in the troubles.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119919953#Comment_119919953

They haven't gone away you know. There is more to come from this. For the political implications, it doesn't matter whether the evidence is admissible or not, it cannot be unheard.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920304#Comment_119920304

Evidence?

😁😁

jh79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920321#Comment_119920321

Could you explain the conspiracy here? They knew they were being recorded and purposely implicated her! Is that it?

C'mon Francie, even for you this is a stretch .

Dowdall was close with MLMD. Hutch is the leader of a crime gang. They say the money he provided should have led to her presence at the funeral .

Which bits are you disputing and why would either lie?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920453#Comment_119920453

Hutch and Dowdall aren't disputing the veracity of the evidence.

What is in dispute is its admissability to the particular court case. If the evidence is ruled out of the court case, that makes no comment on its veracity.

jh79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920499#Comment_119920499

I know that. Just curious what convoluted conspiracy Francie needs to invent.

Like all of us, I'm sure the Monk knows were his money is being spent

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920453#Comment_119920453

I am not disputing anything they said.

If the musings of two alleged crims about what Mary Lou 'should have done' is 'evidence' now, we are in a pretty extrtaordinary place.,

jh79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920583#Comment_119920583

It's evidence of wrong doing rather than proof. Up to the PSNI/Gardai/CAB now to investigate.

jh79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920583#Comment_119920583

Ignoring what she should have done can you explain why both men think that she or the party received money from the family? Surely a Hutch would know who benefits from their ill gotten gains?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920598#Comment_119920598

Dowdall's donation didn't achieve much, he had to resign from the party and seek the assistance of dissidents for whatever his aims were. What evidence is there that money from other dodgy sources achieved anything for them? She called them 'scumbags' did she not? Or so these guys claimed in the recordings.

jh79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920607#Comment_119920607

She had plausible deniability with Dowdall contribution not so much with the infamous Hutch family

Given the Hutch /Kinahans once being the same gang, the red carpet for the MTK / Feile Na Pobail sports washing is far more sinister now

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920621#Comment_119920621

Dowdall 'claimed' she used the Hutch family for money.

Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and an 'allegation'?

What has to happen now is finding proof that what he claimed is true. Then you can askk questions.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920537#Comment_119920537

I think the position is that evidence is only true if it is admissable and leads to a conviction.

We had the same act and rigmarole with the Mairia Cahill case.

jh79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920638#Comment_119920638

Why would Hutch lie to someone close to Mary Lou , someone who would know if it was BS. Secret recording after all

It's a case for CAB or the Gardai without doubt

jh79

Francie, would you at least agree it should be investigated by the authorities?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920676#Comment_119920676

It's still a 'claim'.

It isn't evidence of anything.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920664#Comment_119920664

The 'rigmarole' is the same as now. Allegations have to be tested in court. You or I are not judge and jury. Be a democrat!

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119920712#Comment_119920712

That is complete nonsense. Who said that Gerry Hutch giving money to MLMD was a crime? Nobody, so how will that be tested in court?

The web you weave always entraps you.