2017 UK General Election - 8th June

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One that SF flouts every time they refer to coalition deals in the 26 counties.

You clearly don't understand what is involved here. I will leave discussing it with you as you just seem to want to make it all about SF.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You clearly don't understand what is involved here. I will leave discussing it with you as you just seem to want to make it all about SF.

I understand it perfectly well. SF are continuing their long standing disdain for democracy. They think they can discuss coalitions on one island, and even enter power sharing arrangements themselves, but they think it's unfair when it happens on the other island. Even though it's not clearly prohibited by the GFA, which they themselves negotiated. It's laughable logic.

Deleted User wrote: »

I understand it perfectly well. SF are continuing their long standing disdain for democracy. They think they can discuss coalitions on one island, and even enter power sharing arrangements themselves, but they think it's unfair when it happens on the other island. Even though it's not clearly prohibited by the GFA, which they themselves negotiated. It's laughable logic.

There are more than SF concerned about this. Park your obvious 'blame SF for everything attitude' and tell us what your opinion is of a powersharing deal organised by a government that is by dint of an international agreement, bound to be neutral?

Otherwise, I think you should open your own thread about SF's 'disdain'.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And with a bit of backbone he could have knocked this on the head from the get go. By simply stating that he will have nothing to do with it and that the Irish government CANNOT, by dint of the GFA, have anything to do with it.

Next move - the Tories.

Because diplomacy.

ThisRegard wrote: »

Because diplomacy.

What, the Tories might be cross with us?

Bambi wrote: »

In the middle of the campaign for leadership of FG Leo made a remark that a united Ireland would require more than a simple majority in NI.

And there's nothing wrong with that statement.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What, the Tories might be cross with us?

You're really trying to make this point? Are you so naïve to expect that government and diplomacy is all done through the media?

ThisRegard wrote: »

And there's nothing wrong with that statement.

So Leo taking it on himself to attempt to redefine a clause in the GFA (to try and annoy or get a divisive row from one side) is not 'wrong'.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So Leo taking it on himself to attempt to redefine a clause in the GFA (to try and annoy or get a divisive row from one side) is not 'wrong'.

What clause is he redefining?

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're really trying to make this point? Are you so naïve to expect that government and diplomacy is all done through the media?

So he's secretly trying to diplomatically stop this?

ThisRegard wrote: »

What clause is he redefining?

The one that says 'A simple majority is enough'. The one that the British, Irish and the various signatories agreed to when they signed the thing?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The one that says 'A simple majority is enough'. The one that the British, Irish and the various signatories agreed to when they signed the thing?

What's the clause?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are more than SF concerned about this. Park your obvious 'blame SF for everything attitude' and tell us what your opinion is of a powersharing deal organised by a government that is by dint of an international agreement, bound to be neutral?

Otherwise, I think you should open your own thread about SF's 'disdain'.

I think if such arrangements are specifically prohibited by the international agreement, then the grievance procedures in that agreement should be invoked. I believe some vague "but it's kinda unfair because it might be unfair" is not an argument, and least of all where the side advancing that argument refuses to participate in the forum where the arrangement takes place.

ThisRegard wrote: »

What's the clause?

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of
self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a
united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and
support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

In other words, if the people decide by majority vote...sin é

Grudaire

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are more than SF concerned about this. Park your obvious 'blame SF for everything attitude' and tell us what your opinion is of a powersharing deal organised by a government that is by dint of an international agreement, bound to be neutral?

Otherwise, I think you should open your own thread about SF's 'disdain'.

Ah shtop, IF the agreement to prop up the Tories results in anything that might unfairly influence the GFA then everyone would support what you're saying.

Otherwise this is a nonsensical complaint, and can only be overcome by removing NI's ability to elect MPs to Westminster :pac:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of
self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a
united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and
support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

In other words, if the people decide by majority vote...sin é

It says it right in your quote, introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation......

So yes, there's a lot more to it than a simple yes vote, he's not wrong.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of
self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a
united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

In other words, if the people decide by majority vote...sin é

So Leo is right. It will take more than a simple majority vote.

Edit: He's also right to bring it up at this time. The numerical situation in Westminster could have May's government (if this were to happen in the lifetime of this government) introduce and support such legislation but without the support of the DUP and the other parties, it would fail.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So Leo is right. It will take more than a simple majority vote.

Edit: He's also right to bring it up at this time. The numerical situation in Westminster could have May's government (if this were to happen in the lifetime of this government) introduce and support such legislation but without the support of the DUP and the other parties, it would fail.

So how could the British government make it a 'binding obligation' to introduce and support it, if they can't?
That is why in respect to the GFA they have to(or had to agree to) be neutral.
The current proposed arrangement makes the 'government' very clearly not neutral.

Do you see the problem here?

Jamiekelly

Labour MP Chris Leslie was on BBC radio 5 this morning hammering into Jeremy Corbyn for not being good enough to beat May. He claimed on his Twitter account after his win that his win was a "vote of confidence in myself" while nearly every single response to both that tweet and the BBC interview has been extremely negative. Many of his own constituents are reminding him that they voted for Corbyn and not him and that if he cared for his job in public service he would represent his constituency and party membership and not his own personal interests. Some are even claiming he acted like a narcissist during his door to door campaigning.

It really beggars belief that he has the knives out for Corbyn only 24 hours after Labours biggest polling victory in nearly 2 decades. It shows just how vitriolic the Labour party is behind the scenes.

From the looks of it, it appears that "New" Labour is dead and buried and some MPs won't bend the knee.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So how could the British government make it a 'binding obligation' to introduce and support it, if they can't?
That is why in respect to the GFA they have to(or had to agree to) be neutral.
The current proposed arrangement makes the 'government' very clearly not neutral.

Do you see the problem here?

Do you not see that their (and our) obligation starts and ends with introducing and supporting the bill. No agreement can bind a national parliament to a result. Apart from the fact that it's clearly not possible, it's also undemocratic.

In the normal run of politics, the chances of a government introducing and supporting a bill and the bill being subsequently rejected, are pretty small. The very fact of it being a government means it should have a majority. But as I said, that's not actually true of the current governments of Ireland and Britain. They are both minority governments.

Dyr

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So Leo is right. It will take more than a simple majority vote.

Edit: He's also right to bring it up at this time. The numerical situation in Westminster could have May's government (if this were to happen in the lifetime of this government) introduce and support such legislation but without the support of the DUP and the other parties, it would fail.

Why do people make arguments that own't stand up and then hope that some sort of pedantic wriggling will save their blushes?

The GFA laid out what was required for a united, a simple majority on both sides of the border to be in favour of it. That's what everyone signed up to

Leo decided to break ranks on that

CMOTDibbler

Bambi wrote: »

Why do people make arguments that own't stand up and then hope that some sort of pedantic wriggling will save their blushes?

The GFA laid out what was required for a united, a simple majority on both sides of the border to be in favour of it. That's what everyone signed up to

Leo decided to break ranks on that

The text of the article is pretty clear. It doesn't bind the governments to the result of the plebiscite, just binds them to introduce and support the legislation. It does not bind the respective parliaments, just the governments. Can you not see the difference?

Just like the Brexit referendum wasn't binding. It also had to be passed by parliament.

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Labour MP Chris Leslie was on BBC radio 5 this morning hammering into Jeremy Corbyn for not being good enough to beat May. He claimed on his Twitter account after his win that his win was a "vote of confidence in myself" while nearly every single response to both that tweet and the BBC interview has been extremely negative. Many of his own constituents are reminding him that they voted for Corbyn and not him and that if he cared for his job in public service he would represent his constituency and party membership and not his own personal interests. Some are even claiming he acted like a narcissist during his door to door campaigning.

It really beggars belief that he has the knives out for Corbyn only 24 hours after Labours biggest polling victory in nearly 2 decades. It shows just how vitriolic the Labour party is behind the scenes.

From the looks of it, it appears that "New" Labour is dead and buried and some MPs won't bend the knee.

In fairness, Chris Leslie made his views on Corbyn very clear long ago and his constituents had to be aware of it. He resigned from the front bench on Corbyn's election, so he has the courage of his convictions.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, Chris Leslie made his views on Corbyn very clear long ago and his constituents had to be aware of it. He resigned from the front bench on Corbyn's election, so he has the courage of his convictions.

The courage of his convictions would have been to resign from the LP and stand as an independent. He did not do that

Bambi wrote: »

Why do people make arguments that own't stand up and then hope that some sort of pedantic wriggling will save their blushes?

The GFA laid out what was required for a united, a simple majority on both sides of the border to be in favour of it. That's what everyone signed up to

Leo decided to break ranks on that

He didn't. You think that if there was a vote in which Yes was the result we'd simply become a united Ireland? That's when the real hard work begins.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

So if Sinn Fein were in a position that the only way to get a government arranged for now was to go into coalition or supply and demand arrangement with FG you would be opposed to it?

SF don't pretend they didn't play a part in the conflict. That is the difference here. They have members who were in the IRA.
They are also not religious fundamentalists depriving large amounts of people of the rights they have everywhere else in these islands.

Different animals and the British are finding that out, big time. Arlene shoots herself and her party in the foot again.

I hope Ruth Davidson exposes them for everything they are.

How has she shot herself in the foot? It's the DUP wildest dreams coming true. They can now play hardball with the Tories for economic investment.

A Little Pony

Bambi wrote: »

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So Leo is right. It will take more than a simple majority vote.

Edit: He's also right to bring it up at this time. The numerical situation in Westminster could have May's government (if this were to happen in the lifetime of this government) introduce and support such legislation but without the support of the DUP and the other parties, it would fail.

Why do people make arguments that own't stand up and then hope that some sort of pedantic wriggling will save their blushes?

The GFA laid out what was required for a united, a simple majority on both sides of the border to be in favour of it. That's what everyone signed up to

Leo decided to break ranks on that

Southern establishment don't want it. That's why.

ThisRegard wrote: »

He didn't. You think that if there was a vote in which Yes was the result we'd simply become a united Ireland? That's when the real hard work begins.

So, lets get this straight. You are saying that the GFA gives the British an opt out option in the event of the majority opting for a UI?

So the reality of that is that another clause in the agreement is also moot and a hoodwink;

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement
between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their
right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given,
North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that
this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and
consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

As I suspected, there are some here who know not what they talk about. :rolleyes:

Dyr

ThisRegard wrote: »

He didn't. You think that if there was a vote in which Yes was the result we'd simply become a united Ireland? That's when the real hard work begins.

ehh yes he did

"It is a return to a mindset in which a simple sectarian majority of 50pc plus one is enough to cause a change in the constitutional status of the North. "

i.e. he's refuted the core principle of the good friday agreement

"Bouncing Ulster Protestants into a unitary Irish state against their will would be as grievous a wrong as was abandoning a large Catholic minority in the North on partition"

You assume that given it was a speech rather than an interview that was'nt just Leo's tendency to run his lip without thinking. Although he might want to explain why anyone should respect the current democratic will of the people of NI when he's just dismissed a future decision by them