Printable View
At it's most complicated, and with no co-operation at all from the UK, it's a simple matter of using the existing register to allow registration from an additional 6 counties. Such work will need to be done in any event to facilitate northern voters in future Presidential electionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
1 Elections aren't simple. My Council has hundreds working at them without the added issues of NIQuote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
2 Those issues are a big reasons why you haven't yet been involved in the much simpler Pres poll
3 Will other parts of the Diaspora get a vote?
1. They aren't simple, but the awkward bit is the infrastructure and planning. The stuff that goes on between elections. In particular finding people who are capable of running an electoral office. But those people are already all in place, and the work is already on the agenda to be done. Liberia have just held their first democratic election in 70 years from a standing start. If they managed it I'm sure we can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
2. Partly that. Partly politics. But both have changed now. The last opportunity for this sort of thing was 1998, but technology makes this much easier now that it would have been back then (where have i heard that before).
3. No. That probably isn't really practical. This would be an example ofspecial statusa unique solution for NI post Brexit
Well you didn't really say much is the problem. They don't need to be intensely interested in the Irish border - they appear to agree it's not an issue so Narva is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Newton Emerson got in on our discussion...
https://vimeo.com/247237233
It's kind of odd (but not unexpected) to see the UK's establishment media pushing the line that Theresa May has been "redeemed" within the past fortnight when she effectively capitulated to, first, the Irish government and, then, the DUP (two relatively minor players in the grand scheme of things) to agree what is in reality a fudge deal that kicks the inherent contradictions and problems of Brexit down the path on a merely temporary basis, but that's politics and perception management for you. This notion of "redemption" and having "tenaciously proved the doubters wrong" seemed to be the consensus on This Week and the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg has also been pushing it. The tone has been in stark contrast to that of Fintan O'Toole who spelled out the reality of the situation without any bull**** whatsoever the other week.
The only reason May has been left hanging in there is because those on all sides who mightn't be entirely (or even remotely) supportive of what she's doing are too fearful of who or what might replace her. The hard Brexiteers within the Tory ranks would be fearful that any revolt by them might lead to Corbyn becoming PM and the Brexit "dream" completely evaporating into thin air, whilst those Tory Remainers who rebelled in the parliamentary vote last week might be fearful of an all-out revolt from their side leading to a hard Brexiteer taking the reigns.
It is also in the interests of those on the EU side who are looking for as soft a break as possible to lend the weak and compliant May some strength in visible shows of support because, if they were dealing with a much less moderate figure like Johnson, Gove or Rees-Mogg, they know things might be a little more difficult for them. The status quo seems like the safest bet for now for these competing factions.
The applause for May at the summit in Brussels last Thursday served a purpose towards those ends; it was a manifestation of the EU's desire now to frame May as brave, strong and respected, so as to help her domestically re-find her footing and shore up her position. It was a way of helping to keep her and the process on track. Once again then, you could say that May's impotence is actually what is enabling her to cling on to power; paradoxically, weakness is her strength, in other words.
I thought it was astonishing to hear from Nicholas Whyte on the BBC's The View (in the context of the enhanced all-island role of the Irish government in light of the lack of an executive at Stormont, whilst the Scottish and Welsh governments have reps in Europe making their perspectives heard) that a representative of the Scottish government in Brussels had informed him that they (the Scottish government) got more information on the Brexit process from Dublin than they do from their own central government in London.
George Parker of the Financial Times also said on the programme that he'd been speaking with someone from the UK treasury about the Irish border issue and how the UK was going to resolve it. Their response: "If you've got any ideas, can you put them in a letter and send them in." Not very reassuring.
'Why is Theresa May protecting the DUP's dirty little (Brexit) secret?': https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/bre...s-dirty-little
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Ramsay and Mary Fitzgerald
A brilliant and fascinating talk here by political scientist Mark Blyth essentially explaining the reason behind things like Brexit, the rise of Trump and economically-suicidal anti-immigrant politics through a detailed empirical look at economic evolution and developments over the past century:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsqGITb0W4A
He also suggests proper progressive economic policy solutions in contrast to those self-defeating policies (that appear superficially attractive to the many who feel left behind) offered by right-wing populists.
Only if Southern voters foolishly vote to amend the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
I've not seen any polling but given it has the backing of every major political party in the state it would be a fairly massive surprise were it not to pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by BelfastCrusader
Such an amendment wouldn't even be a contest. The only debate would be over how big the turnout would be.
Is there an argument that there ought to be a provision allowing the constitution to be amended without a referendum if a suitable super-majority can be achieved in the Dail? A full national referendum on this seems a little superfluous.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
No, under no circumstances. Once admitted as a principle I'm certain the powers would be extended gradually until referendums were only available for inconsequential issues. There'd be a hollowing out of constitutionalism and two particularly undesirable scenarios: firstly, TDs handcuffed to the iron discipline of the whip system would not buck the party leadership so the referendum would not be the will of the people but the diktat of political elites; and, secondly, TDs would be beholden to whatever local interest groups best offers them a chance of re-election - opening up the possibility of higly mobilised lunatic fringes pulling the puppet strings.
The best way to deal with superfluous votes is not to hold them in the first case, but politicians aren't going to pass up the chance of a populist easy win to take our minds off hospital overcrowding, homelessness and the cost of housing, etc etc.
I wish I'd a higher opinion of the qualities and intellectual capacity of the average Dáil, but for a hundred and one reasons (maybe that should be a hundred and fifty eight!) I keep getting my hopes dashed.
I recall there was once talk of a referendum/constitution day, where a bunch of house keeping votes that were expected to pass easily would all take place at once (woman's place in the home, etc). I think the Oireachtas Committees defeat put the kibosh on that idea, as that was seen as something that should have been an easy win by TDs. The closeness of children's rights too, and the low turnout of that vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall
I totally share your concerns. I wouldn't trust the *****s as far as i would throw them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
What about if there was a unanimous vote in the Dail? It would mean the people conceding power to the *****s in Leinster House, but it could potentially save a lot of ****ing about with referendums that will obviously pass, and would allow the state to react quicker in a crisis.
I can't imagine any change to the constitution, no matter how minor, would pass unanimously. Even something like "women in the home" would find some maniac.
Ireland in line to get two more MEP's after Brexit: https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2018/0123/935359-meps/
It's noted there that there is good feeling towards idea of NI citizens having right to EU citizenship as an inherent part of GFA. Could those two extra slots for us become NI MEP's in exile?
Probably not becauseQuote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
1) FG and FF haven't yet made any plans to run in NI so
2) any poll in NI alone would presumably return only SF MEPs which
3) would hardly suit FF and FG so
4) they'd prefer the extra members to be elected in the South- maybe in a larger number of smaller seats to squeee the small fry generally
I'd assume 1 SF, 1 SDLP & 1 Alliance/UUP would be elected if we retained the 3. Can't imagine the DUP would run but the UUP have hinted they would run if the possibility were there. Financially they are pretty dependent on the allowances Jim Nicholson brings in by virtue of their seat in the European Parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I'd say based on those reserve seats being held back, and being specifically mentioned int he resolution, that the battle for the north to retain it's MEPs is long way from being lost.Quote:
The committee noted that although Brexit is to take Northern Ireland out of the EU, Northern Ireland citizens, under the Belfast Agreement and the likely Brexit divorce settlement, would retain a right to Irish and therefore EU citizenship.
The committee also made provision for up to 46 seats to be allocated either to potential new members, or, for the first time, to a pan-EU list to be voted on throughout the union.
I should have added a #2.1 above- ie that even if there was a NI constituency in the 2019 Euro poll I doubt that any Unionist would run. DUP as their 2 main convictions are anti-Dublin and Brussels; UUP because it would drain their support to the DUP. The off-chance of keeping Jim Nicholson's expenses pales by comparison. As there would be only 2 seats not 3, SF might well get close to 2 quotas on the 1st countQuote:
Originally Posted by backstothewall