sinn fein are an inclusionary nationalist party, as are their supporters and 100% of them on boards are so.
they do not deny the right of people to identify as their nationality whether it be british or irish, but we will not entertain people trying to make out that more people identify as a nationality that don't, and which ultimately is not recognised by the vast majority of parties to the issue of irish reunification, an identity which is pushed by belligerent unionism and exclusionary partitionism.
Which part of the referendum was gerrymandered?
The rest of your post clearly demonstrates aspects of the ideology of exclusionary nationalism.
Unite the people.
Not the different jurisdictions.
Which will only be united when a majority of the people in both territories, consent, democratically expressed.
This has been explained on here many many times, but some appear deaf to it.
Your interpretation of it is clear and unequivocal. It is only those who want to tear down the GFA and fudge the principle of consent who deny it.
So when a Border Poll is called are you gonna mount a constitutional challenge on those grounds...that ought to be fun to watch.
'Ah your honour, we only wanna unite the people...feck this UI stuff'.
Honestly, if that is what it has come down to, I can see why partitionism has found no political voice or representation here.
What are you on about Francie?
The article clearly states that a united Ireland will only be brought about by democratic means. Why or how would I bring any constitutional challenge to anything?
And it can be argued (as I have shown it is) that we have already decided by dint of voting for that clause.
Going over old ground again.
You cannot express a 'will' to do something if it isn't there. And it is there...we voted by a massive majority to include it in our constitution.
This is the most pedantic rabbit hole you have gone down. We are truly in flat earth territory.
The "will" is conditioned by the later part of the same sentence that says "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."
That is a subsequent event to the expression of the will. The use of "a majority of the people" rather than a majority of the Oireachtas means a referendum. It is as simple as that, and not a single reputable politician or lawyer says differently.
gerrymandering took place within NI and was a very important part of it when it was a sectarian statelet.
therefore any votes during that period were set in favour of 1 side by default.
the rest of my post clearly demonstrates the full idea of inclusionary nationalism just like all my posts in relation to irish reunification and related issues.
Explain to me again in simple language how a referendum of all the people can be gerrymandered?
Ah, so it's 'reputable' lawyers now because they take your interpretation.
Ok.
Democratically esperessed could include a a vote in The Dáil. Regardless, after there's a pro-UI vote in the north it will be happening one way or another, it's the destination of this country. It'll be interesting to see who will ally with Unionists and nefarious elements within the British state who'd rather foment a civil war then see out the vision for our country.
But don't you know they make and break the rules but we have to hold to a higher standard.
I can see elements in FG pulling a Kenny and supporting it so poorly* they may as well be against it.
*see Abolish the Seanad.
Those elements will be the nearest thing we will hear re partitionism from politicians or parties. And even then it won't be full blown partitionism it will be just loads of pious warnings about the road ahead and negativity.
Eh no, democratically expressed wouldn't include a vote in the Dail in this case.
How would it not? The Government has made decisions under the mandate given to them in the GFA ref.
But the people haven't.
Edit: P.S. still waiting for any reputable politician or constitutional lawyer to be quoted who thinks we don't need a referendum.
You are waiting for a politician/lawyer you consider 'reputable' for the purposes of this particular excercise.
The government are mandated to act by our vote for the GFA by the way. As long as they act within the constitution then it is democratic...that's how it works blanch.
Well, yes, other than a few posters on here, I can't find anyone arguing the nonsense that a referendum in the South wouldn't be needed.
Links were posted to legal pro's arguing the case. Therefore stating that 'it could be argued' is entirely valid.
Weren't they along the lines of that an argument could be made blah blah blah, but it was likely to be nonsense?
I understand much more after engaging with posters on this site. I understand the huge gulf between wht some thought they were voting for in the GFA and what they actually were voting for.
We voted to change the constitution, removing a pointless claim (we weren't going to do anything about it anyway) on the partitioned part of Ireland to an expression of our 'will'.
You cannot express a will on behalf of the people unless the 'people' are agreeable to it, and we were by a massive majority.
We constitutionally want a UI blanch.
If somebody were to challenge the constitution then they have as much chance of winning as losing.
I was once fortunate enough, in 2018, to attend a round table discussion, in the 20th anniversary of the GFA, involving senior civil servants, some retired politicians and other authorities who were involved in the talks on the GFA, and subsequent referendums.
Very interesting, nice to get the history and information from the people involved.
I think you understand more about what you thought you were voting for.
For example, you never realised until recently that we had handed away the 1919 mandate clung to by Sinn Fein by conceding that the people of Northern Ireland have a veto on a united Ireland.
I voted for the primacy of the principle of consent regardless of any party blanch.
I read the GFA and consumed and dijested the debates on it
.
Seems a lot didn't. Like those talking of super majorities and Indy Nordie Ireland and other such exclusionary stuff.
The exclusionary stuff is coming from those with an Ireland from the Irish mentality, who want to reverse the plantations, who want to force people out of their homes, who want to create refugees to send to Britain, who deny the Northern Irish identity, who want to deny the right to a British identity, that is the real dangerous stuff.
Yeh sure blanch, those who want a united island as the only way to heal the divisions of partition (the original sin of exclusion) are the culprits, not those who seek to maintain an always divisive partition.
How can the divisions of partition be the original sin of exclusion? What about justice for the Fir Bolg?
We have been over this ground many many times. Your reliance on perceived historical injustices blinds you to the potential of the future. What a dark and dismal world you inhabit.
'Percieved'? 😁
I think the only one's 'afraid of the future' in the south is the diehard supporter of the power swap or bitter partitionists.
The future will be what the majority want it to be blanch. I am more than happy with that.
How many different futures have you concocted to avoid that 'one' decision a majority may make?
1. No border poll until your criteria are me.
2. a super majority (AKA a Unionist veto)
3. an independent NI (devil may care if that goes up in flames, you'll be for imposing it, even though nobody has asked for it)
4. and now throwing your weight behind the argument that we have not expressed a will to unite the two partitioned parts of Ireland.
And others are the 'exclusionary' ones???? The absolute gall and cheek tbh. 😁
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
