Does it? I don't see how.
I always felt that the Shinners regarded this country as foreign. They only recognised our sovereignty recently. In fact they regarded our police and army as legitimate targets until recently.
How long can the forming of a government take?
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
Ah, you're making the mistake of interpreting nation as synonymous with state. They're very different things. A nation is conceptual, refers to a grouping of people, it has no territory. A sovereign state on the other hand generally has territory, a government, internationally recognised borders, etc..
That's some leap. The GFA watered down the previous wording of re-integration being a target to being something that might happen only if the majority of both jurisdictions wanted it.
What I might wish for has little bearing on what constitutes a country under international law. So I do recognise it as a separate state, as do our own government, and most of the world. Is there a country that does not recognise it as such?
Because it suggests it is to happen? And because it was in the constitution, an Irish government could not, legally, take a position contrary to it.
It might be of interest to know why, since partition and until after the GFA, that there was never an official Head of State visit between Ireland and Britain, was because no Irish government could permit its Head of State to visit the Head of State while the government of Britain was occupying illegally the territory of the country. Ditto, the British Government, it could not sanction a visit of its Head of State to Ireland while Ireland made, in its view, an illegal claim to administer law in what it claimed to be its territory.
What the GFA has done, is remove the dispute over the right of administering law in NI, but it has not removed the territorial claim, laid out now is aspirational manner - as is, its 'for the people to decide', rather than government being obligated.
Its is political obfuscation at its best.
In the end, it is all a matter of interpretation. Do you consider NI as foreign? I do not.
I don't get that. The Shinners are as Irish as you or me. How Irish people can be regarded as foreign, or regard other Irish people, in their own country is beyond me.
We can dispute the legitimacy of the State, as in the Civil War, but we are all still Irish.
Last edited:
There is no territorial claim over Northern Ireland in our constitution. There is an aspiration, but no claim.
I aspire to sleep with Anne Hathaway, I make no claim that it will happen and if I meet her I won't attempt to coerce her into sleeping with me.
The people living there may see themselves as Irish or British and that's fair enough, but they live in the UK which is foreign
I agree
Clearly this nation does, when it refers to its islands and seas?
I dont see how? I seem to recall Unionists getting quite vexed over it for that exact purpose that every Irish government was bound under Bunreacht na hEireann to effectively pursue re-integration of NI with the South.
I didn't ask what you 'wish' for, I asked you what you thought. Do you think NI is a foreign country?
I also recognise NI as a separate State to the Irish State. I do not recognise it as a foreign country. It is part of the country and nation of Ireland, no different to Cork, Galway or Dublin. It is legally administered by foreign State (btw I do not consider British people to be foreign either, but rather its State to be a foreign State - but lets not go down that rabbit hole!)
The Irish State has ceded its right to administer law and order in that jurisdiction to another State. However, the Nation, it being all its people on this island, and further afield, are not foreign, they are Irish (if they so wish to be), and that in itself cannot be ceded by any Irish government (the inalienable, indefeasible and sovereign right as set out in the constitution).
As the Proclamation stated, it cannot be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people.
So yes, its all aspirational rather than legally set, but its significance should not be underestimated. The Emma De Souza case is a good example of this.
So if a political party, like the Greens, constitute themselves for all-ireland membership, I cannot see any difficulty in anyone who, under Bunreacht na hEireann, would qualify as being part of the Irish Nation (whether they themselves want to be or not) excercising an opinon on the internal political affairs of the party that they are members of.
Yes, but you can claim it did happen and will happen again (pending your re-integration with Anne Hathaway) ....which I suspect may invoke the ire of Anne Hathaway herself (as our territorial claim did with Unionists).
Aspiring to be part of unified communion with Anne Hathaway, through exclusively peaceful and consentual means, is your perogative and I will stand in unison with you, wherever you go, to uphold the right to hold that aspiration.
And you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. My opinion is that only those who are entitled to vote in this country should have a say in what is done by our elected members of parliament.
While I could claim that is would, alas, be factually incorrect to do so and may well cause indue and unjust stress and upset to the other party.
I appreciate your support; we can all dream.
If I join FF or FG and move to Liverpool to live, do I relinquish my right to have a say in the affairs of the political party as a paid member?
No idea and it's not the point I am making. If you move to Liverpool you are still Irish but you are living in a foreign country.
Firefly, you seem to suggest that a persons nationality is the issue, not necessarily where they live? Purple was suggesting that where a person lived, and not necessarily their nationality, was the primary issue.
There is little more to be gained here. I can be an American citizen living in Ireland and join most political parties, or I can be Irish and living in America and join most Irish political parties. I can be Nigerian and living in Italy and still join most Irish political parties - if that is what their constitutions allow them to do. There is no impact on our electoral processes. The vote was taken and counted, that is not changing until the next election.
The real scope of this issue can be measured in the traction it is gaining in the media in general. Which is zero. Its not an issue.
I'm suggesting that only people who are entitled to vote in an election should then get to decide what their elected representatives do. I don't want people from China or Russia or the USA or the UK having a say in our political process.
Even if they live and work and pay taxes here?
I accept my last comment about Nigerians in Italy was a little too flippant. I would imagine most political parties have some restrictions in place for party membership. Being resident in Ireland, or an Irish citizen I would imagine being the basic criteria for party membership.
Excluding people who are not yet entitled to vote would be undemocratic. A foreign national living here without a right to vote is still affected by the laws administered here, such a person should be allowed a political channel to voice their concerns. Party membership allows that.
As for NI, most political parties have policies set on relations, political, economic that may have direct impact on the people living there. I think its only reasonable then that those residing in NI have a say in the decision making processes of those political parties here.
As the constitution recognises, they are not foreign, but part of the Irish Nation. They may be governed by a foreign state, but they are not foreigners in their own country.
The easy answer to your issue is, to allow those residing in NI to have Dáil representation.
I'm not saying there is any issue, perhaps read my posts again.
No thanks. There is an issue, Purple has highlighted it. I'll stick to that , rather than involve me in your non-issue then, if that's ok.
Where does the nation claim the islands and seas as sovereign territory?
Obviously they wanted to go further and have any notion of the possibility of, or more importantly machanism for the re-unification to be removed.
I know for sure it is considered as a separate state by our own government and I'm not aware of any foreign government who think otherwise. Now of course I'm sticking to context and taking the strict definition of country as being a state, sovereign state, or nation state. The good folks of Ballyhoura call their region 'Ballyhoura Country', just like people talk about various regions as 'Wine Country', calling them country does not make them a separate state.
Yes, because it's simply a notion, it isn't tangible.
It doesn't explicitly claim it, but implicitly it does. It removes the administration of law by Irish government, by the Irish State (typically a hostile act if another State lays claim to a territory), and instead invokes the rights of the people to lay claim to all of the territory, including islands and seas, by virtue of birthright, born on the island of Ireland - as recognised internationally, the whole thing, not just the 26-county republic.
I consider NI a separate State. It is governed by a foreign State and is the creation of a foreign State. I don't consider the people living there as separate. Or foreign. I consider them every bit as much Irish as anyone else. Some of them may choose otherwise. That is their perogative. Legally, they have the exact same right to invoke their national identity as anyone else.
My question to you was, do you think NI is a foreign country?
Absolutely. As is being Irish itself, or British, or Japanese or whatever. A totally artificial, abstract human construct developed in the mind.
It is important though, when it comes to politics of identity, profoundly so. Much more profound, in my opinion, than the machinations of any particular State.
You are conflating law and aspiration.
Sure, when that aspiration becomes a reality (and the bombs start going off in Dublin).
Never surrender to the terrorists.
- Status