Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Page 4 of 4 pages « First  <  2 3 4

1. Gari,

   Surely not raising objections to the normalisation of relations with the British Monarachy for the sake of some possible converts that don’t hold the same values would be just be repeating the mistakes of other groups?

   If you are a Republican Socialist party, objecting to Imperialism, Monarchy and the British presence in Ireland is bound to be a defining characteristic.

   Rather than adopting a populist approach, trying to build popular support for your position is the road of integrity. And as is made clear, this isn’t a protest against the GAA, IRFU or rugby it is focused on the ‘normalisation’ of the British monarchy’s role in Ireland.

   Adopting a Republican stance doesn’t exclude the taking of Socialist stances as the conviction of two éirígí activists over rejecting the exploitation of natural resources during the week demonstrates.

   My only concern is if I join the protest it will interfere with my normal enjoyment of the six nations over a few pints.

   Posted by  on Feb 21, 2008 @ 07:21 PM

2. Greenflag

   Billy P’s post was indeed very good but it wasn;t accurate - the right to a fair trial was not the deciding factor in the extradtion hearings it was whether the offences were political or not a definition which conveniently was flexible to suit the individuaol concerned and the prevailing political climate. It is no coincidence that nothing was deemed political post AIA = thanks for the lecture on the Irish constitution interesting if completely irrelevant....

   Posted by  on Feb 21, 2008 @ 07:22 PM

3. Mark,

   Leaving aside the signgifance or otherwise of the Crown for British government, and Anglo-Irish relations, it’s not a question of hiding principles for the sake of recruits, but a question of how to appear a realistic and serious alternative to the target audience in C21st Ireland.

   Why are there not similar protests everytime a British Parliamentarian or minister comes to the south? After all, there is no doubt that Parlimaent (or for the last century or so more specifically the House of Commons) is the holder of power and sovereignty over NI.

   I’m not saying this isn’t a demonstration of integrity. I’m just wondering if it’s the right battle to pick to forward the overeall agenda.

   Posted by  on Feb 21, 2008 @ 09:40 PM

4. As someone who is a Scottish Unionist may I make a comment about the original debate . I visit the Republic on a regular basis through work and find the vast majority of people very welcoming and hospitable even though they know I am a Rangers supporter.Many of them have a lot of respect for the Royal family even though they do not wish to have one themselves. I think that respect was shown when the English rugby team played at Croke Park. When the British national anthem was played you could have heard a pin drop ,that tells you a lot about the Irish people .Princess Anne is the patron of Scottish rugby and I know she will get the respect from the majorty of the Irish people but if republicans want to demonstrate that is their right in a democracy ,but times have changed and what does it matter. I personally never thought I would see an ex IRA man in a Scottish parliment but dialogue is the way forward not hate and killing so I dont know what all the fuss is about its only a rugby game.

   Posted by  on Feb 22, 2008 @ 01:11 AM

5. Billy Pilgrim

   But extradition is still a legal matter that must be decided by the courts.

   Obviously. So is sentencing. So if the Southern government is being given credit for terrorists being sentenced to prison, it should also be debited for failing to extradite.

   Clearly in a number of cases Irish courts were not satisfied that UK courts could meet these requirements. But this was a legal judgement, and remember that in the Republic of Ireland, unlike the UK, the supreme power of the land is vested in the people and codified in a written constitution. There are no circumstances in which an Irish Minister for Justice has the power to override the courts, unlike a British Home Secretary. RoI has a separation of powers.

   I’m not sure that that is an accurate recollection of the reasons for non-extradition, as Peter Brown has pointed out. 

   PS. Just to update you, the UK also has separation of powers and the Home Secretary cannot intervene in the courts.

   Greenflag

   Not true . The Government proposed an amendment to the Constitutional law prohibiting abortion which was then put to the people in a referendum . Had the amendment not been accepted by referendum it would not have become law .

   So the law was changed!  That was the point!

   The Republic has a written Constitution which limits the ‘sovereignty ‘ of Parliament . The UK is different . Technically the UK Government could pass a law mandating the sterilisation of all adult males over the age of 10 in Northern Ireland and if passed by Parliament that would be Her Majesty’s law !  We prefer our written Constitution .

   Your point is irrelevant. Whether the law was changed by a referendum or by Parliament is not material to the point that the law was changed as the result of a court ruling.

   (Incidentally, the UK Parliament could not pass such a law as it would be contrary to the ECHR.)

   Posted by  on Feb 22, 2008 @ 10:08 AM

6. ‘Incidentally, the UK Parliament could not pass such a law as it would be contrary to the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)’

   Just as well the UK is a member of the European Union then eh ?  So you admit then that prior to Britain’s membership of the European Union passing such a law would have been ‘constitutionally’ possible at Westminster.

   ‘thanks for the lecture on the Irish constitution interesting if completely irrelevant’

   In any discussion of extradition or any other laws which can impinge on the rights of an individual to a fair trial what the Constitution states is paramount . As Britain does not have a written Constitution this consideration may have eluded you!

   Now back to the rugby I’ll forecast a 27 to 9 Irish win !

   Posted by  on Feb 22, 2008 @ 01:03 PM

7. As Britain does not have a written Constitution this consideration may have eluded you!

   As someone whose University dissertation was about the possibility of a written constitution for the UK it may not - actually the UK does have a written constitution its just not all in one document but enough about that

   Where is extradition referred to in the Irish Constitution? Nowhere! The Irish Courts extradition decisions were based on national statutes and international law so the Constituion is irrelevant - as for cherry picking this and ignoring the flexible attitude to extradition I’ll leave everyone to draw their own conclusions....

   Posted by  on Feb 22, 2008 @ 01:17 PM

8. Greenflag

   Just as well the UK is a member of the European Union then eh ?

   The UK’s membership of the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with it being bound by the ECHR.

   So you admit then that prior to Britain’s membership of the European Union passing such a law would have been ‘constitutionally’ possible at Westminster.

   See above.

   But it’s not a case of “admitting” to anything. I have never claimed that the UK had a body of constitutional law superior to ordinary law.

   Posted by  on Feb 22, 2008 @ 02:16 PM

9. ‘I dont know what all the fuss is about its only a rugby game.’

   This would be the view of 99.99999 % of the people of Ireland -South and North .) The exception these ‘eirigi ‘ eejits are the exception not the norm .

   Look on the bright side though . Scotland at least got over the Irish line . Better luck next time !

   Posted by  on Feb 24, 2008 @ 04:09 PM

10. ‘and ignoring the flexible attitude to extradition I’ll leave everyone to draw their own conclusions’

    The conclusion that most people on the island of Ireland draw is that when it comes to ‘flexibility’ the past ‘judgements’ of the courts in Northern Ireland are such a model of justice that it has resulted in millions of pounds of British taxpayers money going to undo the injustices of the NI legal process!  Why has HMG yet to devolve the powers of justice to the the new Northern devolved government ?

    The problem facing any Irish Government ‘extraditing ‘ people from the Republic to Northern Ireland in the past was the probability that ‘injustice’ would be done . Justice and the law were distant cousins for most of Northern Ireland’s self governing history. When it came to dealing with what were called ‘political ‘ offences i.e waving an Irish tricolour, being a known Republican/Taig/Fenian etc or speaking Irish in court -then justice and the law in Northern Ireland were not only distant cousins but not even on speaking terms .

    We’ll see what happens when ‘justice’ is eventually devolved to the new Government . Hopefully it will be an improvement on the past and hopefully Irish people in Northern Ireland will be able to give their full support to the law.

    I’m afraid a simple black and white mentality as regards the law works best in countries which have overwhelming support for the Government and ‘constitution’ of the State . That was never the case in Northern Ireland and thus your black and white mentality leads nowhere except back to the past which is where you are probably most comfortable anyway .

    The rest of us meanwhile look forward to a more flexible and just future !

    Posted by  on Feb 24, 2008 @ 04:32 PM

11. ‘I have never claimed that the UK had a body of constitutional law superior to ordinary law.’

    Fair enough . Perhaps it’s something they might consider ? Maybe at some future time when the British ‘subject’ is raised to the status of ‘citizen ‘

    Posted by  on Feb 24, 2008 @ 04:36 PM
Page 4 of 4 pages « First  <  2 3 4

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.