• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Fifty Plus One


Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,406
I had talked earlier with another poster about the issue of fifty plus one not being as clear cut as it might appear in terms of NI immediately being incorporated into the ROI. The article below discusses some of the issues involved. People with a better legal mind than mine may be able to summarise it into layman's terms. My reading is that a precedent has been set so that unionists having become a minority would still have rights under UK law and within the UK, which would mean that they could not simply be dumped out of the UK. I am open to education from anyone who can put a better interpretation on it. Republican trolls need not apply.

‘But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease
to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland,’. But has been
considered above, under section 1(1). The rest of the phrase simply repeats the point made in
section 1(1). This is to the effect that Northern Ireland would not cease to be part of the
United Kingdom ‘without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting
…’. The only addition is the limitation of the alternative to the status quo being a united
Ireland.
This may be politically realistic. But it means legally – just as it did under the Northern
Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972 – that support for consent in United Kingdom law, cannot be
translated readily into support for self-determination in international law. The United
Kingdom arguably has granted the right of internal self-determination to the people of
Northern Ireland: that is the meaning of devolution. It has certainly not granted the right of
external self-determination to that section of its people only. The exercise of such a right
could include a united Ireland, but it could also, in international law, mean a continuation of
the union, or independence, or some other constitutional arrangement.
‘the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as
may be agreed between His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the
Government of Ireland.’ The secretary of state, it may be assumed, is the secretary of state
for Northern Ireland. But, under section 5 and schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978,
secretary of state means one of her majesty’s principal secretaries of state (and this phrase is
used in commencement orders).
Shall lay before parliament is weaker than introduce and support in parliament from 1985,
and even arguably support in 1973.
Such proposals to give effect to that wish: wish refers back to the first wish in section 1(2).
Wish then clearly embraces consent, and is not simply a trigger for a border poll. Such
proposals is not, it would appear, legislation. And this explains the absence of support.
As may be agreed between indicates that section 1(2) is dealing, not with legislation at
Westminster, but with an international agreement. This is a new conception of legal cession
as regards Northern Ireland. The role of parliament is commensurately less, and that of the
Irish government greater than was envisaged in 1985. One possible explanation is: what
would happen if Northern Ireland voted to leave the United Kingdom, and the Republic of
Ireland did not – under Annex B – vote to accept Northern Ireland, or at least not
immediately? Legislation at Westminster would not get rid of Northern Ireland. Section 1(2)
leaves open the option.
This dovetails with an important decision of the Canadian Supreme Court mentioned in
Chapters 2 and 9, which – through the common law – could be highly persuasive in United
Kingdom law. Between 16 and 19 February 1998, as a result of a reference by the governor
in council, the supreme court considered a possible future secession of Quebec: Reference re
Secession of Canada [1998] 2 RCS 217. The date of the judgment is 20 August 1998 (four
months after the Belfast Agreement).
The first main question considered related to the constitutionality of unilateral secession by
the national assembly, legislature or government of Quebec.13 The Canadian Supreme Court
held that this would be unconstitutional. This was because the constitution was more than a
written text. It embraced other principles, including federalism, democracy, constitutionalism,
the rule of law and respect for minorities. ‘Those principles must inform our overall
appreciation of the constitutional rights and obligations that would come into play in the
event of a clear majority of Quebecers votes on a clear question in favour of secession.’14 The
Supreme Court held that such a vote required a principled negotiation. There was a
reciprocal duty – following such an expression of popular will – on the other participants in
the Canadian confederation to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to
change the constitutional order. (A unilateral secession, the Supreme Court held, even if
politically successful, and ultimately legal in international law through recognition,15 could
not be retrospectively legalized in Canadian law.)
It is highly arguable that Reference re Secession of Canada is applicable to Northern Ireland.
The principles of democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law and respect for minorites are
just as much a part of United Kingdom law. The house of lords, or the judicial committee of
the privy council, could well consider them relevant to the principled negotiation of the
London-Dublin agreement envisaged by section 1(2) of the NIA 1998, in the event of the
people of Northern Ireland, in a poll held under schedule 1, voting in favour of joining the
Republic of Ireland.
http://www.austenmorgan.com/Assets/PDFs/Belfast_Agreement.pdf
 


McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
17,153
Both the UK and Ireland laws are set in a European framework thus their is no issue just a simple single vote is sufficient to pass.
 
Last edited:

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,406
Both the UK and Ireland laws as set in a European framework thus their is no issue just a simple single vote is sufficient to pass.
Er, what?
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,406
The GFA set up under the "European Court of Human Rights" thus all that is needed in a vote is a simple majority.
Is it indeed? Your brief interpretation of the GFA is much appreciated, but can you give a summary on the article that I posted please? Preferably not a summary of what Jarry told you down at the local GAA hall.
 
J

Johnny Boy

It is a legal interpretation by a single barrister i.e. his own particualr spin. But then that is what barristers do for a living - effectively they are spin doctors for their clients, and, for example, those tasked with getting child murderers off the hook, will try their best to do so, and will not be troubled by the morality of doing so.
This is just a lawyer's spin. It wouldn't be too difficult to find another barrister to dismiss this as tripe, even a unionist one, if the fee was attractive enough.
The only way we will ever know is if a pro-Irish unity referendum is won by nationalists and they test it out in the courts. But realistically, if or when that ever comes to pass, the British government will be gratefully showing us the door, and were there to be a legal challenge, the PM would simply have a quiet word with the presiding judge suggesting that he sends the plaintiffs packing, with a seat in the Lords as the carrot for doing his bidding.:D
 

McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
17,153
can you give a summary on the article that I posted please?
The GFA agreement give equal status to British identity and Irish Identity.

Northern Ireland is only with the UK on the basis that it is assumed that their is a majority in the region who want it that way. This is an established bilateral agreement signed in a European context.

Thus the status and the terms of status change has already been agreed by all parties including the people of "Northern Ireland in a vote.
 

Protestant/Catholic=Irish

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
1,642
Is it indeed? Your brief interpretation of the GFA is much appreciated, but can you give a summary on the article that I posted please? Preferably not a summary of what Jarry told you down at the local GAA hall.
Jesus man, all the guy is doing is trying to help you. Just cos you don't like the simple fact of the matter doesn't mean you can give him abuse. 50 + 1% is what is needed. That is why republicans are so sure that they will win at some point.

Remember, republicans only need to win once. Unionists must continue to win in every single referendum without fail for the next God knows how many centuries.
 

between the bridges

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
45,670
what happens if there's a draw...
 

SgtBilko

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
7,400
Remember, republicans only need to win once. Unionists must continue to win in every single referendum without fail for the next God knows how many centuries.
Who's to say that there will ever be more than one Border Poll?

If Irish Nationalists get a bloody nose (as expected) and poll around 25%.....it'll be a long time before the matter ever raises it's ugly head again (if ever).
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,406
It is a legal interpretation by a single barrister i.e. his own particualr spin. But then that is what barristers do for a living - effectively they are spin doctors for their clients, and, for example, those tasked with getting child murderers off the hook, will try their best to do so, and will not be troubled by the morality of doing so.
This is just a lawyer's spin. It wouldn't be too difficult to find another barrister to dismiss this as tripe, even a unionist one, if the fee was attractive enough.
The only way we will ever know is if a pro-Irish unity referendum is won by nationalists and they test it out in the courts. But realistically, if or when that ever comes to pass, the British government will be gratefully showing us the door, and were there to be a legal challenge, the PM would simply have a quiet word with the presiding judge suggesting that he sends the plaintiffs packing, with a seat in the Lords as the carrot for doing his bidding.:D
So what argument would the other barrister be putting which would rebuff this guy?
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,406
The GFA agreement give equal status to British identity and Irish Identity.

Northern Ireland is only with the UK on the basis that it is assumed that their is a majority in the region who want it that way. This is an established bilateral agreement signed in a European context.

Thus the status and the terms of status change has already been agreed by all parties including the people of "Northern Ireland in a vote.
Try reading the opening post and considering the details contained therein. Then kindly give what you think is your argument against it. You will note that it is quite complicated and that your simplistic interpretation of the GFA is open to challenge on a number of points.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,406
Jesus man, all the guy is doing is trying to help you. Just cos you don't like the simple fact of the matter doesn't mean you can give him abuse. 50 + 1% is what is needed. That is why republicans are so sure that they will win at some point.

Remember, republicans only need to win once. Unionists must continue to win in every single referendum without fail for the next God knows how many centuries.
He, like you, is merely repeating the simpistic republican view o the GFA. I would be really grateful if someone would look at the points made in the article, if you want more please go the link, and tell me if they are valid (if not why not) and what the potential outcome might be in the event of a 50 plus 1 scenario.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,406

Just Jack

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
3,792
Surely he has been retired since 74? Or did I pick his accent up wrong? Retard since 74.
No Jamie, you'we cowwect. Mawtin did wetire in 74.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top