Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

blanch152 wrote: »

Wow, just wow, deny people their rights is the plan.

I have absolutely no doubt that in the extremely unlikely event of the unification of this island, there will be a continuing right for anyone born in the future in Northern Ireland to be British. That is at the heart of the GFA, that both traditions are recognised, protected and cherished.

Am I the British Government, Blanch? If you weren't looking for ways to feign offense, you'd see I've repeatedly stated that I would expect the British government would extend the offer of citizenship for at least a few generations, and I would be very disappointed for my British neighbours and their children should they not. My point has purely been that in the event that unification should come to pass, there will be no, 'people of Northern Ireland' born after this point as per the GFA definition of the people of NI. I'm not saying Britain WON'T extend the offer of citizenship post unification, but rather that the GFA does not automatically oblige them to do so.

More importantly, should this not come to pass, I would not be denying anyone a damn thing. I don't have a say in who the British government offer citizenship to.

Take your faux outrage off elsewhere and quit being a gobsh*te.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Literally explained this repeatedly. Northern Ireland would no longer exist in the event of unification, ergo there could be no legal obligations to people born in Northern Ireland post unification on account of it not existing.

You keep pointing out phrasing which shows that people born in NI pre Unification would not be able to have their citizenship invoked by the British government without breaking the GFA, you have yet to put forward any reasonable argument which suggests this obligation would continue after unification; I'll repeat that the definition of the People of Northern Ireland as expressed in the GFA would no longer apply to people born post unification.

Instead of repeating the same question over and over, if you disagree with the analysis put forward, point out the flaw in my reasoning.

I think the flaw maybe that it is referring to NI as an area rather than jurisdiction of the UK. In a paragraph after the one I previously quoted it reads "whether Northan Ireland remains part of the UK or forms part of a united Ireland" which again would make you believe they are referring to NI in a geographical sence rather than a legal justification of the UK.

I am not saying you are wrong but it definitely can be interpreted the way I have. It is ambiguous. That is why I would be interested in a legal expert giving an opinion on the matter.

ittakestwo wrote: »

I think the flaw maybe that it is referring to NI as an area rather than jurisdiction of the UK. In a paragraph after the one I previously quoted it reads "whether Northan Ireland remains part of the UK or forms part of a united Ireland" which again would make you believe they are referring to NI in a geographical sence rather than a legal justification of the UK.

I am not saying you are wrong but it definitely can be interpreted the way I have. It is ambiguous. That is why I would be interested in a legal expert giving an opinion on the matter.

It is a piece of legal text....phraseology is by definition in a legal sense. In the event of unification, Northern Ireland ceases to exist in a legal sense and in a geographical sense, like Yugoslavia no longer exists in either a legal or geographical sense

I've already explained what is meant by the phrase you've pointed out; those people who were born while NI existed would still be entitled to the rights contained within.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

It is a piece of legal text....phraseology is by definition in a legal sense. In the event of unification, Northern Ireland ceases to exist in a legal sense and in a geographical sense, like Yugoslavia no longer exists in either a legal or geographical sense

I've already explained what is meant by the phrase you've pointed out; those people who were born while NI existed would still be entitled to the rights contained within.

You have explained your subjective opinion after reading it... great., I came to a different one. Now unill we can get a definitive answer from a legal expert lets move on as we are going around in circles.

ittakestwo wrote: »

You have explained your subjective opinion after reading it... great., I came to a different one. Now unill we can get a definitive answer from a legal expert lets move on as we are going around in circles.

You won't get a definitive answer unless the British government decide not to offer citizenship to people born in the place formerly known as NI AND someone decides to challenge that in a court, both of which are fairly unlikely.

My reading of it depends on treating words in a legal text as legal.....yours depends on stretching them to within an inch of their life, and you still can't explain how you expect legal rights to apply to a place which no longer exists.

But sure if you want to go on ahead pretending they're two equally valid interpretations, you go on ahead.

ittakestwo wrote: »

I think the flaw maybe that it is referring to NI as an area rather than jurisdiction of the UK. In a paragraph after the one I previously quoted it reads "whether Northan Ireland remains part of the UK or forms part of a united Ireland" which again would make you believe they are referring to NI in a geographical sence rather than a legal justification of the UK.

I am not saying you are wrong but it definitely can be interpreted the way I have. It is ambiguous. That is why I would be interested in a legal expert giving an opinion on the matter.

It's not a 'flaw' it is very precise.

Try stating it any other way...'the bit at the top', the 6 counties' etc.

Natterjack from Kerry

blanch152 wrote: »

So silly notions of who would oppose a border poll in the South can be ignored because there is no prospect of one, probably for another decade at least.

I think 10 years might be in the minds only of those who have been so invested in the topic that it is part of their being and so are unable to face the fact that such a prospect is gone for ever.
It is passed the point of no return now. The circumstances for any serious consideration of a border poll both north and south, cannot arise again.

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

I think 10 years might be in the minds only of those who have been so invested in the topic that it is part of their being and so are unable to face the fact that such a prospect is gone for ever.
It is passed the point of no return now. The circumstances for any serious consideration of a border poll both north and south, cannot arise again.

You had me there for a while. Then I remembered that periodically we get a poster like yourself, intent on flaming the discussion. Seen it all before. Pass on engaging with you.

Natterjack from Kerry

TheValeyard wrote: »

It was most definitely a failed apartheid State for most of its existence.

Failed, in that it did not survive as one.

The failure of northern Ireland up to the last 20 years, of good Friday Agreement, followed by Brexit deal, is due to both internal and external factors, and so it stood little chance of succeeding as originally constructed:
- it was simply a legacy nuisance to London
- the south lay claim to it

- catholics there would not accept the outcome and its underbelly of unemployed thugs appropriated the issue as a justification for their criminality
- protestants tried to maintain their position of privilege, and were threatened by their precarious position on all side

A recipe for failure all round.

But the peace, and while for decades drawing the short straw, it has now won the lotto of European state relations, and the future is very bright, leaving it without anything to drive movement to change from its current status.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

But sure if you want to go on ahead pretending they're two equally valid interpretations, you go on ahead.

Genuinely not pretending. I have asked two other people and both came to the same interpretation as I.

If NI does not exist in case of a UI how can it form part of a UI? That paragraph in the GFA does not make sence then, does it?

downcow

ittakestwo wrote: »

Genuinely not pretending. I have asked two other people and both came to the same interpretation as I.

If NI does not exist in case of a UI how can it form part of a UI? That paragraph in the GFA does not make sence then, does it?

Not that I think there will ever be a United ireland, how do Francie and his fellow experts no for sure that there will not be a region of it comprising the six north eastern counties that would be called Northern Ireland ?

ittakestwo wrote: »

Genuinely not pretending. I have asked two other people and both came to the same interpretation as I.

If NI does not exist in case of a UI how can it form part of a UI? That paragraph in the GFA does not make sence then, does it?

The same way that the German Democratic Republic doesn't exist any more.....it formed part of Germany.

That paragraph makes perfect sense, as explained earlier; it is applicable to people born in Northern Ireland before unification; those rights can't be revoked in the event that the country is unified.

As pointed out already, the definition given of, 'the people of Northern Ireland' in the GFA would not apply to people born there post unification.

Taking isolated paragraphs with no context, one could imply ambiguity, but read in its entirety there really isn't any.

downcow wrote: »

Not that I think there will ever be a United ireland, how do Francie and his fellow experts no for sure that there will not be a region of it comprising the six north eastern counties that would be called Northern Ireland ?

Because it will be a poll on a 'UI' not partition in another guise. You can still call it 'wee Norn Ireland' with your mates down t'pub. Meanwhile others will get on with unification and moving forward as one island.

Beltby

downcow wrote: »

Not that I think there will ever be a United ireland, how do Francie and his fellow experts no for sure that there will not be a region of it comprising the six north eastern counties that would be called Northern Ireland ?

We have 4 provinces in Ireland. Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught. You would just be subsumed into Ulster.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The same way that the German Democratic Republic doesn't exist any more.....it formed part of Germany.

That paragraph makes perfect sense, as explained earlier; it is applicable to people born in Northern Ireland before unification; those rights can't be revoked in the event that the country is unified.

As pointed out already, the definition given of, 'the people of Northern Ireland' in the GFA would not apply to people born there post unification.

Taking isolated paragraphs with no context, one could imply ambiguity, but read in its entirety there really isn't any.

Thd idea that the GFA conferred British citizenship on anyone (Not just Unionists remember) born in NI in perpetuity and presumably gave them rights as such in a UI is fantasy level stuff.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thd idea that the GFA conferred British citizenship on anyone (Not just Unionists remember) born in NI in perpetuity and presumably gave them rights as such in a UI is fantasy level stuff.

Whether NI stays perpetually part of the UK the ROI will be obliged to offer citizenship to anyone born in NI. Why is it hard to believe a reciprocal case if NI forms part of a UI.

ittakestwo wrote: »

Whether NI stays perpetually part of the UK the ROI will be obliged to offer citizenship to anyone born in NI. Why is it hard to believe a reciprocal case if NI forms part of a UI.

Would you stop!

You have been told numerous times what that section refers to.

Ireland will have no power to confer UK citizenship on anyone never mind our citizens in Fermanagh, Armagh, Tyrone, Derry, Antrim and Down.

How would you ever think it does?

This is getting ridiculous now.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Would you stop!

You have been told numerous times what that section refers to.

Ireland will have no power to confer UK citizenship on anyone never mind our citizens in Fermanagh, Armagh, Tyrone, Derry, Antrim and Down.

How would you ever think it does?

This is getting ridiculous now.

I am saying the ROI is obliged to offer irish citizenship to anyone born in NI even in the event NI stays perpetually in the UK.

Why is hard to believe the GFA was a reciprocal agreement where the British would do the same in the event if NI forms part of a UI.

ittakestwo wrote: »

Whether NI stays perpetually part of the UK the ROI will be obliged to offer citizenship to anyone born in NI. Why is it hard to believe a reciprocal case if NI forms part of a UI.

Because it is Ireland, they were born in Ireland therefore entitled to Irish citizenship.

NI will no longer exist as a part of the UK.

Jaysus man.

ittakestwo wrote: »

I am saying the ROI is obliged to offer irish citizenship to anyone born in NI even in the event NI stays perpetually in the UK.

Why is hard to believe the GFA was a reciprocal agreement where the British would do the same in the event if NI forms part of a UI.

The British can offer what they like.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because it is Ireland, they were born in Ireland therefore entitled to Irish citizenship.

NI will no longer exist as a part of the UK.

Jaysus man.

But they were not born within the sovereign country of the ROI. Yet they will get citizenship to it. It is gift the ROI has to offer anyone in the 6 counties as part of the GFA. The UK will have to offer the gift of British citizenship if the 6 counties comes part of a UI, it seems by the GFA.

ittakestwo wrote: »

But they were not born within the sovereign country of the ROI. Yet they will get citizenship to it. It is gift the ROI has to offer anyone in the 6 counties as part of the GFA. The UK will have to offer the gift of British citizenship if the 6 counties comes part of a UI, it seems by the GFA.

You actually can't be serious?

Take for example my grandad, he was born in 1915, thus he wasn't born in ROI... but would be an Irish citizen (if he was alive today).

Is it sinking in yet or do you think you've found some loophole?

I'd suggest you brush up on jus sanguinis and jus soli wrt to citizenship and how successor States handle it.

I'd suggest you look at how we handled it from independence as the Free state and beyond to the Republic. That may give you a clue to how it will be handled come a UI.

Now move on. You're just posting interminable repetitive and uninformed guff.

jm08

ittakestwo wrote: »

But they were not born within the sovereign country of the ROI. Yet they will get citizenship to it. It is gift the ROI has to offer anyone in the 6 counties as part of the GFA. The UK will have to offer the gift of British citizenship if the 6 counties comes part of a UI, it seems by the GFA.

Republic always offered citizenship to anyone born on the island of Ireland - e.g., Brian Keenan though born in NI was regarded as a citizen of Ireland. Plenty of British born people who got into sticky situations in the Middle East often acquired Irish citizenship to help in negotiations.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Literally posted pages back that this isn't the case.

Citizenship was granted in the 1956 act.

@ittakestwo, it's clear reading posts to you isn't a strong suit.

So we'll try again...

The granting of UK citizenship after a UI is in the gift of the UK. No one else. You would imagine that the negotiations for a UI would have discussions on extending UK Citizenship rights for a period after a UI comes into force. This would mirror the situation that occured after the Irish Free State came into being right up until the Republic of Ireland Act in 1949.

Do you get it now?

jm08 wrote: »

Republic always offered citizenship to anyone born on the island of Ireland - e.g., Brian Keenan though born in NI was regarded as a citizen of Ireland. Plenty of British born people who got into sticky situations in the Middle East often acquired Irish citizenship to help in negotiations.

In case it was missed before.

ittakestwo wrote: »

But they were not born within the sovereign country of the ROI. Yet they will get citizenship to it. It is gift the ROI has to offer anyone in the 6 counties as part of the GFA. The UK will have to offer the gift of British citizenship if the 6 counties comes part of a UI, it seems by the GFA.

Without even touching the absolute clusterf*ck that is the rest of this post, the fact that Ireland chose to extend citizenship to the people of NI doesn't in any way oblige the British government to do anything.

ittakestwo wrote: »

But they were not born within the sovereign country of the ROI. Yet they will get citizenship to it. It is gift the ROI has to offer anyone in the 6 counties as part of the GFA. The UK will have to offer the gift of British citizenship if the 6 counties comes part of a UI, it seems by the GFA.

The island of Ireland never disappeared...NI will if there is a UI.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Without even touching the absolute clusterf*ck that is the rest of this post, the fact that Ireland chose to extend citizenship to the people of NI doesn't in any way oblige the British government to do anything.

The ROI are obliged to offer citizenship to anyone in NI as part of the GFA. If they dont they are breaking the GFA.

ittakestwo wrote: »

The ROI are obliged to offer citizenship to anyone in NI as part of the GFA. If they dont they are breaking the GFA.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

This is literal insanity.

ittakestwo wrote: »

The ROI are obliged to offer citizenship to anyone in NI as part of the GFA. If they dont they are breaking the GFA.

I was born in the North, and I've had Irish citizenship since long before the GFA; I've never held any other passport but my Irish passport.

Are you under the impression that the only reason I'm entitled to Irish citizenship is because of the GFA?! What's your actual angle here, like honestly are you enquiring about something, are you trying to work something out or are you just setting bait out on the aul fishing rod?