Northern Ireland 2125?

you are talking total nonsense francie. Here is Jamie laying out the facts. He really has run rings around sf on this one :

𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐧 𝐅𝐞𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐯𝐞𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐡

In recent weeks it has become increasingly apparent that Sinn Fein have completely misled the Irish language lobby.

The statutory process agreed as part of New Decade New Approach and now in law enshrines a complete unionist veto in respect of the imposition of Irish language.

Firstly, it is clear that the Irish language lobby somehow fail to appreciate that the statutory obligation to produce an Irish language strategy, found in section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’), is subject to a unionist veto.

There can be no Irish language strategy without unionist consent; the Irish language activist groups can go to Court as many times as they want, but none of this can ever lead to an order forcing unionist Executive Ministers to agree any particular content within such a strategy.

Therefore, whatever is within any Irish language strategy can only be included with unionist consent.

Secondly, and most fundamentally perhaps, the Irish language lobby do not understand that the Irish Language Commissioner, once appointed, is entirely toothless and is unable to do anything without unionist consent. There is, again, a veto on all core functions of this Commissioner.

It seems from recent public commentary that the Irish language lobby, and their nationalist activist legal advisors, believe that the Irish Language Commissioner will set best practice standards (such as imposing Irish language signage) and this will thereafter bind all public bodies, including for example Translink.

They are very much mistaken. The starting point is to look at section 78L of the 1998 Act:

1. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵—

(𝘢)𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩, 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 78𝘔 𝘢𝘯𝘥 78𝘕, 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴…

It seems elementary to point out that the publication of Irish language standards is subject to section 78M and 78N.

Section 78M of the 1998 Act provides:

(1) 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵—

(𝘢)𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 (“𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴”), 𝘢𝘯𝘥

(𝘣)𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳.

(2) 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘔𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘫𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 (1) 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴.

(3) 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 (2).

The following emerges: (i) the Commissioner must prepare best practice standards and then submit them to the First and Deputy First Ministers (section 78M (1) (a) and (b));

(ii) The First and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, may (not must or shall) approve best practice standards (section 78M (2));

(iii) the Commissioner must publish best practice standards, approved under subsection (2) (section 78M (3)).

Put simply, the only way best practice standards are published, and thus enter into force, is if they are approved by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly. They are not required to approve such standards, but in fact may (or may not). Therefore, in the absence of approval from Emma Little-Pengelly, there will be no best practice standards.

Section 780 (1) of the 1998 Act then requires a public authority to have due regard to any published best practice standards. As set out above, in the absence of cross-community approval, there will be no published best practice standards and therefore section 780 (1) becomes a purely phantom duty.

It should also be pointed out, particularly for those hoping the Irish Language Commissioner will recommend standards applicable to Grand Central Station, that the definition of ‘public authority’ is set out in 78Q (1) of the 1998 Act.

It is those public bodies listed in Schedule 3 to the Public Services Ombudsman Act (NI) 2016. It may surprise the Irish language lobby to find that Translink is not listed within Schedule 3 to the 2016 Act, therefore even if there were any published best practice standards, they would have no application to Grand Central Station.

The only way Translink could be added to the list of public authorities is if the First and Deputy First Ministers, acting jointly, decided to do so. Therefore, again, this is subject to a unionist veto.

Finally, legal representatives for the Irish language lobby- and nationalist activist groups such as CAJ- have repeatedly parroted the legally illiterate line that Irish language must be imposed because it is a “human right”. There is no such human right, and this is simply another example of nationalism cloaking their political objectives in the language of ‘rights’ and proceeding on the basis that if you subjectively describe a political demand as a “human rights issue” then that is a trump card. It isn’t.

Somewhat surprisingly, KRW law also made the absurd assertion that the international instrument the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages which includes general and non-specific provisions, imposes a “duty” on Executive Ministers to implement Irish language signage.

The most elementary point is that international treaties have no effect, much less impose any obligations or duties, in domestic law. This is pretty basic stuff. It is somewhat odd that nationalist activists, particularly those in the legal profession, continue to repeat erroneous reference to “duties” under international law.

It will come as a significant shock to the Irish language lobby to find that the statutory scheme embeds a unionist veto at every angle when it comes to the Irish language.

Therefore, it would be in the interests of the Irish language lobby to try and seek consensus with unionism, rather than trying to aggressively force Irish language down the throats of our community. The reality is, there will be no Irish language provision at all save for the grace and favour of unionism. This may not be welcome news to nationalism, but it is the statutory process Sinn Fein signed up to and delivered. If you have a problem, take it up with them.

Gary Middleton names the bigots.
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/army-jobs-row-first-minister-offended-by-everything-and-ashamed-of-nothing-says-dup-mla-5320979?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR4bnEsQHYArKT0HE8rzMQcOansKLxKomFB5v90zRtlL6GkNr_UP15sy5kjygQ_aem_6qdgRSMS3aOvDEHcv0Q90A#oczzr01topp2upucsr56zaglfg0lz61bm