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

Gerry Adams to run for President ?

Options
1…89111314…18

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    There is not a snowball's chance in hell of this getting to the ballot paper for a referendum.

    This is a discussion forum, we have heard the logistical argument ad nauseum, lets move it on a bit, go on and have a go at the question you where asked.


  • Options
    #303
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    This is a discussion forum, we have heard the logistical argument ad nauseum, lets move it on a bit, go on and have a go at the question you where asked.
    It's not really an argument. It's not going to happen, there's nothing to discuss.


  • Options
    #304
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'm not sure that "if you had no objections, would you be in favour?" is a useful basis for an intelligent discussion.


  • Options
    #305
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It's not really an argument. It's not going to happen, there's nothing to discuss.

    You Unionists are even scared of hypotheticals. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #306
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You Unionists are even scared of hypotheticals. :rolleyes:
    1. To be a unionist I'd have to call for the South to rejoin the UK.
    2. That by definition is hypothetical. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    1. To be a unionist I'd have to call for the South to rejoin the UK

    I wouldn't put it past you! :pac:


  • Options
    #308
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    This is a discussion forum, we have heard the logistical argument ad nauseum, lets move it on a bit, go on and have a go at the question you where asked.


    I assume the following is the question you mean.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    In the event of it happening, what, if any, would be the objections of Unionists?
    t


    I really don't care what the objections of Unionists if any would be.

    I object as a citizen of Ireland to people outside the State being given a vote. I firmly believe that you have to be resident in Ireland for tax purposes (you don't have to pay tax, social welfare recipients resident here are resident for tax purposes) in order to have a vote.

    I don't see any reason for Denis O'Brien or Martin McGuinness or Tony Cascarino to be allowed have a vote here. They have no connection to the everyday events on the ground that happen in this country.

    I make no apologies for this view.


  • Options
    #309
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    I assume the following is the question you mean.

    t


    I really don't care what the objections of Unionists if any would be.

    I object as a citizen of Ireland to people outside the State being given a vote. I firmly believe that you have to be resident in Ireland for tax purposes (you don't have to pay tax, social welfare recipients resident here are resident for tax purposes) in order to have a vote.

    I don't see any reason for Denis O'Brien or Martin McGuinness or Tony Cascarino to be allowed have a vote here. They have no connection to the everyday events on the ground that happen in this country.

    I make no apologies for this view.

    The starting point is, After we have decided to give the vote. Your objections have been noted but you have been defeated in a referendum, what objections do you think would come from Unionists and indeed The British?

    You do understand how hypothetical questions work?


  • Options
    #310
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The starting point is, After we have decided to give the vote. Your objections have been noted but you have been defeated in a referendum, what objections do you think would come from Unionists and indeed The British?

    You do understand how hypothetical questions work?
    If Irish citizens in Northern Ireland (and elsewhere) were allowed to vote, who cares what unionists think?

    Contrary to what often comes across as an extremely monochromatic worldview on your part, the world isn't divided into nationalists and unionists. I'm not interested in Irish unification; that doesn't mean I give a damn what unionists (or the British, or the French, or the Koreans) think about how my country is run.


  • Options
    #311
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If Irish citizens in Northern Ireland (and elsewhere) were allowed to vote, who cares what unionists think?

    So other than having qualms about the logistics you have no objection, if the constitution where changed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The starting point is, After we have decided to give the vote. Your objections have been noted but you have been defeated in a referendum, what objections do you think would come from Unionists and indeed The British?

    You do understand how hypothetical questions work?

    I do understand how hypothetical questions work.

    Example: If man gets the ability to fly, will I still get the bus to work or use the car?

    The problem with hypothetical questions is that if the first part of the question is illogical, fanciful, unrealistic etc., then the second part, no matter how logical is irrelevant.

    Your hypothetical question falls into that category. The chances of a referendum on a vote for people in Northern Ireland even getting to the start line are extremely remote as the current political parties in power realise that it would only work to favour SF. Then you have the chances of the referendum actually being passed which are small. All of these unlikely things have to happen before your hypothetical question even gets asked.

    As I said already it doesn't matter what the unionists say. Why would anyone in the South be concerned about that? We would only be interested in how outsiders would vote in our elections.

    I don't think it matters what the British say either. But you might want to look at international law. No sovereign country has ever allowed another run an election on their territory for good reasons. Where someone has a right to vote, it is exercised through their Embassy or Consulate.

    Now I have seen a few people suggest that we establish a consulate in Belfast. That is also interesting. Establishing a consulate in a state (or part of a state) explicitly recognises under international law the right of that state to exist. For example, you can only have an embassy in China or in Taiwan, not both because of the conflicting territorial claims e.g. the UK have a trade and cultural office in Taipei, not an embassy. The result is that if we established a consulate in Belfast, we would be explicitly recognising under international law the right of Northern Ireland to be part of the UK. This would be equilavent to relinquishing the rights gained under the GFA. If we wanted to establish a trade and cultural office, the UK would have to agree. Not likely, given we have an embassy in London and certainly used to have a consulate in Edinburgh.

    I don't know why I am wasting time explaining this as it makes no difference to you that

    (1) The referendum won't be put to the people,
    (2) It won't be passed even if put,
    (3) There are insurmountable practical difficulties in arranging an election.


  • Options
    #313
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    So other than having qualms about the logistics you have no objection, if the constitution where changed?
    It's just a tad disingenuous to describe my objections to "qualms about logistics", given that my objection is to the idea that an electorate approximately the size of our existing one would be tacked on, using voting methodologies that we have eschewed here for very sound practical reasons.

    It's a bit like me asking you: other than qualms about governance, you have no objection to Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK, if the GFA were scrapped? It's a ridiculously loaded question, and disrespectfully dismissive of my views.


  • Options
    #314
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »

    As I said already it doesn't matter what the unionists say. Why would anyone in the South be concerned about that? We would only be interested in how outsiders would vote in our elections.

    I don't think it matters what the British say either. But you might want to look at international law. No sovereign country has ever allowed another run an election on their territory for good reasons. Where someone has a right to vote, it is exercised through their Embassy or Consulate.

    That's all I wanted to know.

    p.s. it's not their territory, they are there because the majority want them to remain. Once that majority shifts then they'll be off. that's what makes NI a 'special case'.


  • Options
    #315
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's just a tad disingenuous to describe my objections to "qualms about logistics", given that my objection is to the idea that an electorate approximately the size of our existing one would be tacked on, using voting methodologies that we have eschewed here for very sound practical reasons.

    It's a bit like me asking you: other than qualms about governance, you have no objection to Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK, if the GFA were scrapped? It's a ridiculously loaded question, and disrespectfully dismissive of my views.

    Someone else who doesn't understand 'hypothetical'. As I said to Godge, your starting point is 'a constitutionally changed ROI offering NI the vote in presidential elections.


  • Options
    #316
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Someone else who doesn't understand 'hypothetical'. As I said to Godge, your starting point is 'a constitutionally changed ROI offering NI the vote in presidential elections.
    Hypothetically, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

    Hypothetically, if it became clear that the people of Northern Ireland would be better off to remain permanently part of the United Kingdom, would you abandon support for a united Ireland?

    It's a stupid question, and being hypothetical doesn't make it less so.


  • Options
    #317
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    Hypothetically, if it became clear that the people of Northern Ireland would be better off to remain permanently part of the United Kingdom, would you abandon support for a united Ireland?

    Yes.

    Hypothetical questions frequently may sound stupid but their answers can be very revealing.


  • Options
    #318
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    That's all I wanted to know.

    p.s. it's not their territory, they are there because the majority want them to remain. Once that majority shifts then they'll be off. that's what makes NI a 'special case'.

    It is their territory now and without a referendum that brings about a union, they won't be allowing elections to a post in the South to take place on their territory.

    Let me ask you a question. Can you find one other example of where State 1 allowed State 2 to run an election on the territory of State 1 for election as Head of State for State 2?


  • Options
    #319
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    It is their territory now and without a referendum that brings about a union, they won't be allowing elections to a post in the South to take place on their territory.

    Let me ask you a question. Can you find one other example of where State 1 allowed State 2 to run an election on the territory of State 1 for election as Head of State for State 2?

    People resident in NI have always elected members of the ROI's Seanad.
    Again, the logistics are not insurmountable here.
    The fact that it has never happened elsewhere is moot too, the GFA makes NI Ireland fairly unique and the realtionship between the two governments unique.


  • Options
    #320
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    never would he become president


  • Options
    #321
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Again, the logistics are not insurmountable here.
    Again, merely repeating this won't make it true.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Again, merely repeating this won't make it true.

    No system of voting is perfect, many places have accepted compromises to get stuff done and to include all in the system.
    Scaremongering about widescale dimunition in 'integrity' is just that, scaremongering. It may be an issue, but a big enough one to make results void?


  • Options
    #323
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    No system of voting is perfect, many places have accepted compromises to get stuff done and to include all in the system.
    Scaremongering about widescale dimunition in 'integrity' is just that, scaremongering. It may be an issue, but a big enough one to make results void?
    Just because something isn't perfect it doesn't qualify making it worse.


  • Options
    #324
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    No system of voting is perfect, many places have accepted compromises to get stuff done and to include all in the system.
    Scaremongering about widescale dimunition in 'integrity' is just that, scaremongering. It may be an issue, but a big enough one to make results void?
    Wow, you sound like Bertie Ahern. He couldn't see any problems with electronic voting either.

    Tell me this: how accurate were the results returned by the voting machines in the one election in which we used them?


  • Options
    #325
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Just because something isn't perfect it doesn't qualify making it worse.

    It would be a simple trade off to achieve a greater good, has been done loads of times in our history on other issues, the GFA itself being a case in point.


  • Options
    #326
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It would be a simple trade off to achieve a greater good, has been done loads of times in our history on other issues, the GFA itself being a case in point.
    It's not for the greater good though.


  • Options
    #327
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It's not for the greater good though.

    That's simply your opinion....or vice versa ;)


  • Options
    #328
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Wow, you sound like Bertie Ahern. He couldn't see any problems with electronic voting either.

    Tell me this: how accurate were the results returned by the voting machines in the one election in which we used them?

    Where did I say it would have to be electronic? For a 7 yearly Presidential election, that would be impractical. Think about it for goodness sake. ;)


  • Options
    #329
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Where did I say it would have to be electronic? For a 7 yearly Presidential election, that would be impractical. Think about it for goodness sake. ;)
    OK, let's try this then: there is an argument for getting rid of all ballot boxes and replacing them with universal postal votes (which is how the Seanad is currently elected).

    Would you be in favour of doing this if you were asked to vote on it in the morning?


  • Options
    #330
    waterworld87
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17 ✭waterworld87


    your in my back garden and i want you out


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    People resident in NI have always elected members of the ROI's Seanad.
    Again, the logistics are not insurmountable here.
    The fact that it has never happened elsewhere is moot too, the GFA makes NI Ireland fairly unique and the realtionship between the two governments unique.


    Electing six fairly useless loudmouths to the Seanad is very different to electing the Head of State who is the face of Ireland to the world.


Advertisement