The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

jh79 wrote: »

Constitution requires a border poll as far as i can tell.

........recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island

As I said, that could be interpreted as being already given on this side. Constitutionally we aspire to a untied Ireland, it is our firm will.

But I agree, there will for practical reasons be concurrent polls. Not to have them concurrently would probably lead to legal challenges as sides would claim the outcome in the North affected the decision in the south or vice versa.

There is NO stipulation on a poll here in the GFA though.

joeguevara wrote: »

There is no stipulation on how the poll should be carried out but it is stipulated that it must be democratic consent and concurrent. No one has ever clearly shown how this is complied with without a new referendum. Also, as I said referendum will be required to update the constitution changes.

There is NO stipulation that a poll happen here at all Joe. Twist all you want.

Nobody has tried to change the constitution since 1998 so it can be assumed our position remains the same - it is our firm will to achieve a UI....i.e. we would say yes to a UI if given the choice.

No argument on the constitutional changes referendum. I think that is what the concurrent referendum will ask here...just as the question on the GFA was framed as a change to articles 2 and 3.
Agreement to change articles 2 and 3 was taken as support for the GFA, likewise support for a UI will be framed as constitutional change here.

jh79 wrote: »

This is the full sentence;

"It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite
all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the
diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland
shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a
majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in
the island. "


I would read it that the will to unite the country is dependent on consent in both jurisdictions. It couldn't happen without a vote as consent needs to be shown.

That is the proposed change to our constitution, that is not a provision of the GFA.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I said, that could be interpreted as being already given on this side. Constitutionally we aspire to a untied Ireland, it is our firm will.

But I agree, there will for practical reasons be concurrent polls. Not to have them concurrently would probably lead to legal challenges as sides would claim the outcome in the North affected the decision in the south or vice versa.

There is NO stipulation on a poll here in the GFA though.

I would think that any citizen would win a case hands down in the Supreme Court for a referendum if any government tried to avoid one.

You see, while you might claim that there is no stipulation on a poll here in the GFA, there is settled constitutional law dating back to the Raymond Smith case that means a poll here is legally required.

Looking at the law solely through the lens of a GFA is limited and wrong.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is NO stipulation that a poll happen here at all Joe. Twist all you want.

Nobody has tried to change the constitution since 1998 so it can be assumed our position remains the same - it is our firm will to achieve a UI....i.e. we would say yes to a UI if given the choice.

No argument on the constitutional changes referendum. I think that is what the concurrent referendum will ask here...just as the question on the GFA was framed as a change to articles 2 and 3.
Agreement to change articles 2 and 3 was taken as support for the GFA, likewise support for a UI will be framed as constitutional change here.

I am not trying to twist anything. But can you please confirm how a position that was agreed decades ago can be considered a concurrent one. In effect you are saying that was decided two decades ago is the same as what would be decided now. So why do we bother to amend things at all.

The concurrent aspect of the GFA doesn’t fit in with your interpretation.

As a matter of courtesy, please don’t assert that I am trying to twist things if I give full reasoning for my interpretation.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And consent on this side is there constitutionally, 'it is our firm will' - if the north consents = a UI.

It’s not concurrent though. Are you honestly saying that something agreed over two decades ago is concurrent to any future Northern Poll.

joeguevara wrote: »

I am not trying to twist anything. But can you please confirm how a position that was agreed decades ago can be considered a concurrent one. In effect you are saying that was decided two decades ago is the same as what would be decided now. So why do we bother to amend things at all.

The concurrent aspect of the GFA doesn’t fit in with your interpretation.

As a matter of courtesy, please don’t assert that I am trying to twist things if I give full reasoning for my interpretation.

What is the purpose of a constitution?

If somebody objects to article 2&3 they can change it by campaigning just as campaigners made constitutional changes before.

Is anybody campaigning to change Article 2&3?

I agree by the way that a concurrent referendum should be held. I don't agree that it is mandated by the GFA though, and it isn't.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is the purpose of a constitution?

If somebody objects to article 2&3 they can change it by campaigning just as campaigners made constitutional changes before.

Is anybody campaigning to change Article 2&3?

I agree by the way that a concurrent referendum should be held. I don't agree that it is mandated by the GFA though, and it isn't.

It is mandated by settled constitutional law. The courts have found repeatedly that any attempt to extend the remit of the Constitution requires a referendum. Adding six counties does exactly that, and the Articles 2 & 3 provisions specifically provide for a democratically expressed will. You are arguing about angels on a pinhead, legally, notwithstanding whatever is in the GFA, there must be a referendum.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is mandated by settled constitutional law. The courts have found repeatedly that any attempt to extend the remit of the Constitution requires a referendum. Adding six counties does exactly that, and the Articles 2 & 3 provisions specifically provide for a democratically expressed will. You are arguing about angels on a pinhead, legally, notwithstanding whatever is in the GFA, there must be a referendum.

Yes, the technical aspects of incorporating the 6 counties would require constitutional change. We know this.

blanch152 wrote: »

Legally, that doesn't stand up.

The same principle was tested in the Raymond Crotty case (I got his name wrong in an earlier post). There the Supreme Court found that enabling provisions such as the one that had us join the EU were not sufficient in themselves to avoid a referendum.

Some experts reckon a UI could require up to 4 referendums. We know this blanch...constitutional change requires a referendum and that is how I think acceptance of a UI will be sought as a question on constituional changes. Exactly as thequestion on acceptance of the GFA was asked:

The GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT Ballot Paper wrote:

British-Irish Agreement

Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill?

Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998

Solutionking wrote: »

Rep of Ireland can't afford the North, that is the only discussion point. Plus once the people in Ireland are told how much additional tax they will have to pay, or how much the people on social will lose lets see how many want to take on the mess.

It would appear that some people don’t want that information to be costed or presented or even a requirement that it’s voted on as they are calling for an immediate referendum, irrespective of the impacts.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Some experts reckon a UI could require up to 4 referendums. We know this blanch...constitutional change requires a referendum and that is how I think acceptance of a UI will be sought as a question on constituional changes. Exactly as thequestion on acceptance of the GFA was asked:

Francie, that is the second of the two referenda required in the South, a confirmatory referendum in effect. We have to concurrently and democratically express the will to unite first.

That is the clear legal position whether you like it or not.