A United Ireland. Opening up the discussion.

Started by winghalfback, May 27, 2015, 03:16:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

smelmoth

Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:57:38 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:49:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:30:42 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:26:18 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:22:24 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 03:16:12 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 03:03:42 PM
In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it.

Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism. Obviously not all politicians are d**kheads

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915

"...Northern Ireland also voted in favour of remain, and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South, which is outside the UK and remains in the EU..."

What point are you making here?

You said: "In Stormont the Shinners avoid any mention of a border poll and in the Dail the government reject any notion of it."

Yet: "Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of the Sinn Fein party, has called for a referendum on reuniting the North with the South"
I'm fully aware to the fact that several shinners have called for a border poll. I am drawing attention to the fact that they have not done so in the specially convened debate in Stormont. It has been mentioned in the Dail debate (also onging) but only to reject it outright

;D ;D

Why?

To keep it a secret from Unionists?

Maybe that is why they are keeping hush on it now? Maybe you have it? Maybe your are the chief SF strategist?

Or possibly they have grown up and decided to stop shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring?

They are keeping a hush on it by announcing it to the media? I've heard it all now.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I realise that you are probably not as infantile as you are pretending to be.

The issue is why have they gone quiet on it (having previously been candid on the point) and why did they not mention in in the open debate today?

Adams, McGuinness and Mary Lou have all raised it in the media since Friday, so saying 'they have gone quiet on it' is not representing the reality at all.

As for not mentioning in the debate today in Stormont, who knows? Stormont will have no say in what happens next, so maybe that is why they are saying it publicly elsewhere, who knows how they see it.

You might have a point if they were dismissing the stormont debate altogether. But they specifically are involved in the debate and specifically not mentioning (or exposing to debate) the very thing that they were tripping over themselves to get out as their first up reaction to the Brexit vote.

muppet

You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?
MWWSI 2017

smelmoth

#647
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have gone quiet in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

muppet

Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.
MWWSI 2017

smelmoth

Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.

You disagree that SF should avoid putting us all through unnecessary turmoil?

muppet

Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.

You disagree that SF should avoid putting us all through unnecessary turmoil?

No, I agree that if they raise the issue of a border poll publicly, but duck the issue in open debate, then it would be cowardice.
MWWSI 2017

smelmoth

Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.

You disagree that SF should avoid putting us all through unnecessary turmoil?

No, I agree that if they raise the issue of a border poll publicly, but duck the issue in open debate, then it would be cowardice.

And specifically on the issue of raising it at all just to stir the pot?

armaghniac

Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:03:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 27, 2016, 03:55:17 PM
The latest analogy for the wee 6, reverse Greenland. Not a sexual position under a polar bearskin, but referring to the fact that Greenland is part of Denmark but is not in the EU. Reverse Greenland would place NI in the EU, but still under British rule.

We have a dysfunctional economy but not quite as narrowly based as Greenland. If the NI population could all fit in Kilkeel and Ardglass and the rest was just an icefield then maybe we could sit out the rest of UK

The issue is a devolved region having a different EU status from its sovereign, not the nature of its economy.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

muppet

Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.

You disagree that SF should avoid putting us all through unnecessary turmoil?

No, I agree that if they raise the issue of a border poll publicly, but duck the issue in open debate, then it would be cowardice.

And specifically on the issue of raising it at all just to stir the pot?

Bad idea.

I said that at the very start after Adams came out with his border poll proposal.
MWWSI 2017

smelmoth

Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:57:51 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:18:50 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on June 27, 2016, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 27, 2016, 04:14:17 PM
You seem to be congratulating them for not saying it in Stormont: "Political stability considered more valuable than political opportunism.", but ignore the fact that they are saying it in the media. Does it somehow not count when they say it in the media? Will Unionists not be listening?

I'm pointing out that they have quite in the last hour. If this means that they have decided to step back from putting this through unnecessary turmoil then I do congratulate them (i only wished that some maturity could have been displayed on other occasions).

If they go on to revive the issue but just duck in open political debate then I would not congratulate their cowardice

I can agree with your view on that.

You disagree that SF should avoid putting us all through unnecessary turmoil?

No, I agree that if they raise the issue of a border poll publicly, but duck the issue in open debate, then it would be cowardice.

And specifically on the issue of raising it at all just to stir the pot?

Bad idea.

I said that at the very start after Adams came out with his border poll proposal.

Then we are in agreement. Unfortunately I know too many who think that anything that causes consternation in unionism is automatically a good thing.

heganboy

Interestingly the GFA (actual text here  http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf) does not explicitly require the UK remain in the EU as some (including myself) thought. There are however very implicit references, the agreement rests on the Council of Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe), and very heavily on the shoulders of the European Court of Human Rights. If the UK steps away from the ECHR then the agreement requires that a NI Human Rights Charter supersedes it.

For the points below, there is a fundamental difference in the language of the agreement between obligations ("will meet") and recommendations ("may discuss" or "could consider") I have covered only the obligations below:

There is a clause relating to EU relationships relating to the Stormont Assembly
QuoteTerms will be agreed between appropriate Assembly representatives and the Government of the United Kingdom to ensure effective co-ordination and input by Ministers to national policy-making, including on EU issues

Where it gets significantly more interesting is around the North/ South Ministerial Council, including requiring meetings on the EU
QuoteThe Council to meet in different formats:
(i) in plenary format twice a year, with Northern Ireland representation led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the Irish Government led by the Taoiseach;
(ii) in specific sectoral formats on a regular and frequent basis with each side represented by the appropriate Minister;
(iii) in an appropriate format to consider institutional or cross-sectoral matters (including in relation to the EU) and to resolve disagreement.

Not only that but 
QuoteThe Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.

I'm not sure how you can have the implementation of EU policies and programs in the EU framework with NI out of the EU.

But I think that the kicker, and the reason that there is a lot of consternation in Dublin, London and Stormont regarding the legality of the GFA outside of the framework of Northern Ireland being excluded from the EU is one of the 5 principles outlined in the Introduction to the agreement:

QuoteThe British and Irish Governments:
1. Welcoming the strong commitment to the Agreement reached on 10th April 1998 by themselves and other participants in the multi-party talks and set out in Annex 1 to this Agreement (hereinafter "the Multi-Party Agreement");
2. Considering that the Multi-Party Agreement offers an opportunity for a new beginning in relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands;
3. Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
4. Reaffirming their total commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence which have been fundamental to the multi-party talks;
5. Reaffirming their commitment to the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect and to the protection of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights in their respective jurisdictions;

On May 22nd the referendum asked : "Do you support the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?"

One for the constitutional and international agreement lawyers to argue and for us punters to discuss (or offer pontifications- a rather annoying speciality of mine), if we are no longer partners in the European Union, is the result of the referendum still valid, and does the GFA still hold?

Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

armaghniac

Quote from: heganboy on July 12, 2016, 02:49:51 PM
But I think that the kicker, and the reason that there is a lot of consternation in Dublin, London and Stormont regarding the legality of the GFA outside of the framework of Northern Ireland being excluded from the EU is one of the 5 principles outlined in the Introduction to the agreement:

QuoteThe British and Irish Governments:
1. Welcoming the strong commitment to the Agreement reached on 10th April 1998 by themselves and other participants in the multi-party talks and set out in Annex 1 to this Agreement (hereinafter "the Multi-Party Agreement");
2. Considering that the Multi-Party Agreement offers an opportunity for a new beginning in relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands;
3. Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
4. Reaffirming their total commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence which have been fundamental to the multi-party talks;
5. Reaffirming their commitment to the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect and to the protection of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights in their respective jurisdictions;

On May 22nd the referendum asked : "Do you support the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?"

One for the constitutional and international agreement lawyers to argue and for us punters to discuss (or offer pontifications- a rather annoying speciality of mine), if we are no longer partners in the European Union, is the result of the referendum still valid, and does the GFA still hold?

I think that nationalists, ideally with the help of the US, should interpret this as meaning that the UK has unilaterally reneged on the GFA. There should be no smoothing over of this issue. Having reneged on the existing agreement, if the British want another one then the various requirements discussed elsewhere of e.g. no border control, no passports, no customs, no mobile phone roaming charges, companies being able to tender for public projects throughout the island etc must be written into a cast iron new agreement before anyone declares things fixed.

I'm concerned that the useless politicians will just roll over.  Too much political work went into the GFA for it to be discarded lightly.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

seafoid

Quote from: armaghniac on July 12, 2016, 02:58:48 PM
Quote from: heganboy on July 12, 2016, 02:49:51 PM
But I think that the kicker, and the reason that there is a lot of consternation in Dublin, London and Stormont regarding the legality of the GFA outside of the framework of Northern Ireland being excluded from the EU is one of the 5 principles outlined in the Introduction to the agreement:

QuoteThe British and Irish Governments:
1. Welcoming the strong commitment to the Agreement reached on 10th April 1998 by themselves and other participants in the multi-party talks and set out in Annex 1 to this Agreement (hereinafter "the Multi-Party Agreement");
2. Considering that the Multi-Party Agreement offers an opportunity for a new beginning in relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands;
3. Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
4. Reaffirming their total commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence which have been fundamental to the multi-party talks;
5. Reaffirming their commitment to the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect and to the protection of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights in their respective jurisdictions;

On May 22nd the referendum asked : "Do you support the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?"

One for the constitutional and international agreement lawyers to argue and for us punters to discuss (or offer pontifications- a rather annoying speciality of mine), if we are no longer partners in the European Union, is the result of the referendum still valid, and does the GFA still hold?

I think that nationalists, ideally with the help of the US, should interpret this as meaning that the UK has unilaterally reneged on the GFA. There should be no smoothing over of this issue. Having reneged on the existing agreement, if the British want another one then the various requirements discussed elsewhere of e.g. no border control, no passports, no customs, no mobile phone roaming charges, companies being able to tender for public projects throughout the island etc must be written into a cast iron new agreement before anyone declares things fixed.

I'm concerned that the useless politicians will just roll over.  Too much political work went into the GFA for it to be discarded lightly.
the level of sterling depends on how well the Brits negotiate with Europe. If they get a deal like the outline of EU membership, sterling goes to 1.45 vs the dollar
If they don't , it goes between 1.20 and 1.30
the last time they negotiated trade seriously was 1973
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpoCR3N2T1I


I bet they drop Brexit
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

bcarrier


Quotethe level of sterling depends on how well the Brits negotiate with Europe. If they get a deal like the outline of EU membership, sterling goes to 1.45 vs the dollar
If they don't , it goes between 1.20 and 1.30
the last time they negotiated trade seriously was 1973

I bet they drop Brexit

They will probably be happy with a lower exchange rate which can offset effect of any tariffs.

The only thing they probably really want to hold onto is passporting for financial services.



LeoMc

Quote from: bcarrier on July 13, 2016, 10:59:00 AM

Quotethe level of sterling depends on how well the Brits negotiate with Europe. If they get a deal like the outline of EU membership, sterling goes to 1.45 vs the dollar
If they don't , it goes between 1.20 and 1.30
the last time they negotiated trade seriously was 1973

I bet they drop Brexit

They will probably be happy with a lower exchange rate which can offset effect of any tariffs.

The only thing they probably really want to hold onto is passporting for financial services.

The Passporting it he biggest leverage the EU have on them. Paris / Frankfurt / Dublin would all love a share of that. Not just the 000's of jobs but the tax take.

The lower exchange rate does nothing positive for anyone bringing in raw materials from outside the Country, Tarrifs would be a double whammy.