Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[Maguire01]

Revisionism? The proposed amendments were in the Good Friday Agreement. This is what was negotiated by all those parties to the talks. All those parties - and SF was a significant player in the talks - supported and urged the public to vote for the revised articles.

My point is not what the southern government did, but the fact that those changes wouldn't have been in the agreement if all parties to the talks hadn't agreed to them.

It follows therefore, that if these amendments constitute incompetence, then all parties who reached agreement and all parties who campaigned for a 'Yes' vote are liable.

Given the relative enormity of what the GFA encompassed (legislatively, and culturally), such minutiae as might have been missed or mangled with the Bunreacht may have slipped from the general public consciousness (and understandably so).

They should not, however, have slipped from the consciousness, and indeed responsibility, of the Oireachtas, they being the ultimate guarantors and custodians of the integrity of that same Constitution. They failed, and as the powers that were that is unforgivably remiss.

I'm not talking about the general public. I'm talking about the parties to the talks. That's the Irish and British governments and 8 political parties. To lay the blame at the Irish government alone is disingenuous. If this really is such a big failing, then one of those political parties, for example, Sinn Féin, should have spotted it. If they missed it, then surely they're just as incompetent.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

I'm not talking about the general public. I'm talking about the parties to the talks. That's the Irish and British governments and 8 political parties. To lay the blame at the Irish government alone is disingenuous. If this really is such a big failing, then one of those political parties, for example, Sinn Féin, should have spotted it. If they missed it, then surely they're just as incompetent.

In your opinion, not in mine.

Nothing deficient should have passed if the governing incumbents were doing their job properly, but sure we know well they weren't, which is why your stout defence of them is rather curious, to say the least.

[Hardy]

"Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed." End of argument, I would have thought.

[Maguire01]

I'm not talking about the general public. I'm talking about the parties to the talks. That's the Irish and British governments and 8 political parties. To lay the blame at the Irish government alone is disingenuous. If this really is such a big failing, then one of those political parties, for example, Sinn Féin, should have spotted it. If they missed it, then surely they're just as incompetent.

In your opinion, not in mine.

Nothing deficient should have passed if the governing incumbents were doing their job properly, but sure we know well they weren't, which is why your stout defence of them is rather curious, to say the least.

I'm not defending the government at all - just pointing out that they were but one party in the negotiations. In fact, I have no significant issues with the revisions to the constitution, and therefore feel no need to defend the then government at all.

But if you can see deficiencies, then surely such deficiencies would/should have been obvious to those political parties negotiating them.

Also, given your point about the role of the Oireachtas, surely SF's TD at the time is on record for scrutinising the legislation and raising relevant concerns as it went through?

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

I'm not defending the government at all - just pointing out that they were but one party in the negotiations. In fact, I have no significant issues with the revisions to the constitution, and therefore feel no need to defend the then government at all.

But if you can see deficiencies, then surely such deficiencies would/should have been obvious to those political parties negotiating them.

Also, given your point about the role of the Oireachtas, surely SF's TD at the time is on record for scrutinising the legislation and raising relevant concerns as it went through?

The GFA, and the legislation directly pertaining to it, is one thing, and the ancillary legislation (such as that concerning the Bunreacht) is another.

Regardless of the roles of other political parties, lesser or greater though they may have been, the government is the single sole guarantor and custodian of the integrity of the Bunreacht, and the Irish Government was deficient, in my opinion.

[lynchbhoy]

The use of northern Ireland as a middle ground has incorrectly given rise to it being an actual entity!

What are you talking about?! An entity is something that exists. Northern Ireland does exist. And it was recognised in the GFA, the subsequent Northern Ireland Act, the Northern Ireland Assembly... it's not a figment of someone's imagination.

I think the other issue here is simply the use of the word 'state' .
I believe everyone knows the present jurisdiction it falls under, but the word state does not solely apply to this definition. That's why I've chosen to use the word 'entity' but the same meaning can be applied to he use of the word 'state'.

Please share this alternative definition of state. I understood it to be a fairly objective word.

Northern Ireland is effectively a political escrow, a holding device until the policy matures and it can be realised or cashed - ie returned to its owner and reunified with the other 26 .

Unless I'm mistaken, the northern assembly doesn't actually have any power, its a sop to keep both sides happy and doing something until the final decision is taken.

Your use of the word 'state' makes it out to be a definitive political entity. It can be but not exclusively. It can also mean an entity.

[Maguire01]

The use of northern Ireland as a middle ground has incorrectly given rise to it being an actual entity!

What are you talking about?! An entity is something that exists. Northern Ireland does exist. And it was recognised in the GFA, the subsequent Northern Ireland Act, the Northern Ireland Assembly... it's not a figment of someone's imagination.

I think the other issue here is simply the use of the word 'state' .
I believe everyone knows the present jurisdiction it falls under, but the word state does not solely apply to this definition. That's why I've chosen to use the word 'entity' but the same meaning can be applied to he use of the word 'state'.

Please share this alternative definition of state. I understood it to be a fairly objective word.

Northern Ireland is effectively a political escrow, a holding device until the policy matures and it can be realised or cashed - ie returned to its owner and reunified with the other 26 .

Unless I'm mistaken, the northern assembly doesn't actually have any power, its a sop to keep both sides happy and doing something until the final decision is taken.

Your use of the word 'state' makes it out to be a definitive political entity. It can be but not exclusively. It can also mean an entity.

The limits of the Assembly's powers is irrelevant as to whether NI is an entity. If something exists, it's an entity.

In relation to 'state', you still haven't provided a proper definition for your alternative understanding. But there's little point in continuing this discussion if you've got your own meaning for words.

[Maguire01]

I'm not defending the government at all - just pointing out that they were but one party in the negotiations. In fact, I have no significant issues with the revisions to the constitution, and therefore feel no need to defend the then government at all.

But if you can see deficiencies, then surely such deficiencies would/should have been obvious to those political parties negotiating them.

Also, given your point about the role of the Oireachtas, surely SF's TD at the time is on record for scrutinising the legislation and raising relevant concerns as it went through?

The GFA, and the legislation directly pertaining to it, is one thing, and the ancillary legislation (such as that concerning the Bunreacht) is another.

Regardless of the roles of other political parties, lesser or greater though they may have been, the government is the single sole guarantor and custodian of the integrity of the Bunreacht, and the Irish Government was deficient, in my opinion.

What legislation are you talking about? What ancillary legislation? Is there something other than that Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1998?

[lynchbhoy]

The use of northern Ireland as a middle ground has incorrectly given rise to it being an actual entity!

What are you talking about?! An entity is something that exists. Northern Ireland does exist. And it was recognised in the GFA, the subsequent Northern Ireland Act, the Northern Ireland Assembly... it's not a figment of someone's imagination.

I think the other issue here is simply the use of the word 'state' .
I believe everyone knows the present jurisdiction it falls under, but the word state does not solely apply to this definition. That's why I've chosen to use the word 'entity' but the same meaning can be applied to he use of the word 'state'.

Please share this alternative definition of state. I understood it to be a fairly objective word.

Northern Ireland is effectively a political escrow, a holding device until the policy matures and it can be realised or cashed - ie returned to its owner and reunified with the other 26 .

Unless I'm mistaken, the northern assembly doesn't actually have any power, its a sop to keep both sides happy and doing something until the final decision is taken.

Your use of the word 'state' makes it out to be a definitive political entity. It can be but not exclusively. It can also mean an entity.

The limits of the Assembly's powers is irrelevant as to whether NI is an entity. If something exists, it's an entity.

In relation to 'state', you still haven't provided a proper definition for your alternative understanding. But there's little point in continuing this discussion if you've got your own meaning for words.

Absolutely not irrelevant - if this was a country or a gov with real legislative powers then you'd be correct. It is a halfway house and yes an entity or a state but not in the full political legislative sense.
I'd say it is possibly unique in the world - can only think of Hong Kong in any way similar - and it's been returned to its owners now.

As for the definition, you agreed earlier that its how people use terminology.
Eg the word state does not solely mean a self determining country.

[Applesisapples]

Northern Ireland is an entity, a jurisdiction and no amount of political contortion will change that. A majority of natioanlists in the north accept that, whether they like it or not is a moot point. SF have accepted that until a majority say otherwise that it exists. None of this makes it a country...it clearly isn't.
On another point all the political posturing that SF did over Sean Brady and President Gerry is quite happily covering up for the brother.

[deiseach]

With a Jesuit installed in the Vatican, it's appropriate that this thread should become an argument akin to how many angels can dance on a pinhead.

[ranch]

Northern Ireland is an entity, a jurisdiction and no amount of political contortion will change that. A majority of natioanlists in the north accept that, whether they like it or not is a moot point. SF have accepted that until a majority say otherwise that it exists. None of this makes it a country...it clearly isn't.
On another point all the political posturing that SF did over Sean Brady and President Gerry is quite happily covering up for the brother.

By testifying against him in court? Strange logic.

[Maguire01]

The use of northern Ireland as a middle ground has incorrectly given rise to it being an actual entity!

What are you talking about?! An entity is something that exists. Northern Ireland does exist. And it was recognised in the GFA, the subsequent Northern Ireland Act, the Northern Ireland Assembly... it's not a figment of someone's imagination.

I think the other issue here is simply the use of the word 'state' .
I believe everyone knows the present jurisdiction it falls under, but the word state does not solely apply to this definition. That's why I've chosen to use the word 'entity' but the same meaning can be applied to he use of the word 'state'.

Please share this alternative definition of state. I understood it to be a fairly objective word.

Northern Ireland is effectively a political escrow, a holding device until the policy matures and it can be realised or cashed - ie returned to its owner and reunified with the other 26 .

Unless I'm mistaken, the northern assembly doesn't actually have any power, its a sop to keep both sides happy and doing something until the final decision is taken.

Your use of the word 'state' makes it out to be a definitive political entity. It can be but not exclusively. It can also mean an entity.

The limits of the Assembly's powers is irrelevant as to whether NI is an entity. If something exists, it's an entity.

In relation to 'state', you still haven't provided a proper definition for your alternative understanding. But there's little point in continuing this discussion if you've got your own meaning for words.

Absolutely not irrelevant - if this was a country or a gov with real legislative powers then you'd be correct. It is a halfway house and yes an entity or a state but not in the full political legislative sense.
I'd say it is possibly unique in the world - can only think of Hong Kong in any way similar - and it's been returned to its owners now.

As for the definition, you agreed earlier that its how people use terminology.
Eg the word state does not solely mean a self determining country.

Well that's cleared that up. You had initially said NI wasn't an entity - now you acknowledge that it is.

[Maguire01]

Northern Ireland is an entity, a jurisdiction and no amount of political contortion will change that. A majority of natioanlists in the north accept that, whether they like it or not is a moot point. SF have accepted that until a majority say otherwise that it exists. None of this makes it a country...it clearly isn't.
On another point all the political posturing that SF did over Sean Brady and President Gerry is quite happily covering up for the brother.

By testifying against him in court? Strange logic.

He doesn't have much choice at this stage surely? I assume apples is referring to what happened before this case became public.

[lynchbhoy]

The use of northern Ireland as a middle ground has incorrectly given rise to it being an actual entity!

What are you talking about?! An entity is something that exists. Northern Ireland does exist. And it was recognised in the GFA, the subsequent Northern Ireland Act, the Northern Ireland Assembly... it's not a figment of someone's imagination.

I think the other issue here is simply the use of the word 'state' .
I believe everyone knows the present jurisdiction it falls under, but the word state does not solely apply to this definition. That's why I've chosen to use the word 'entity' but the same meaning can be applied to he use of the word 'state'.

Please share this alternative definition of state. I understood it to be a fairly objective word.

Northern Ireland is effectively a political escrow, a holding device until the policy matures and it can be realised or cashed - ie returned to its owner and reunified with the other 26 .

Unless I'm mistaken, the northern assembly doesn't actually have any power, its a sop to keep both sides happy and doing something until the final decision is taken.

Your use of the word 'state' makes it out to be a definitive political entity. It can be but not exclusively. It can also mean an entity.

The limits of the Assembly's powers is irrelevant as to whether NI is an entity. If something exists, it's an entity.

In relation to 'state', you still haven't provided a proper definition for your alternative understanding. But there's little point in continuing this discussion if you've got your own meaning for words.

Absolutely not irrelevant - if this was a country or a gov with real legislative powers then you'd be correct. It is a halfway house and yes an entity or a state but not in the full political legislative sense.
I'd say it is possibly unique in the world - can only think of Hong Kong in any way similar - and it's been returned to its owners now.

As for the definition, you agreed earlier that its how people use terminology.
Eg the word state does not solely mean a self determining country.

Well that's cleared that up. You had initially said NI wasn't an entity - now you acknowledge that it is.

Not quite - I was saying that I and others were referring to NI as an entity but not in the political sense.
I think you were getting your knickers in a twist by seemingly only believing eg the word 'state' could be used in a political sense.

As for the second part of your sentence- politically the six counties belong under the jurisdiction of the British gov- however while having an assembly, it has no real powers or cannot pass constitional laws afaik.

I wouldn't go as far to say that NI is illegal ( too long has passed for anyone to  campaign on that ticket- even though that may be factually correct) , but I'd say NI is politically incorrect and will be so until economy uplift and referendum etc