Dáil Éireann

[badinage]

Would support from a largest minority suffice to legitimise your state?

interesting question. I suppose if the population were divided in 3, and all wanted different states, then none would really be legitimate. Civil war time - Bosnia style.

What's Risteard's concept of "legitimacy", by the way?

its an apostolic concept: a state with direct continuity from 1916-1922, passed down by the pure/true faithful (i.e. the deputies of the 2nd Dail, to the IRA Army Council, to the PIRA Army Council, to the Continuity Army Council to the CIRA Army Council)

[Danny Invincible]

Would support from a largest minority suffice to legitimise your state?

interesting question. I suppose if the population were divided in 3, and all wanted different states, then none would really be legitimate. Civil war time - Bosnia style.

What if one of these three groups made up 51% of the population and did support the existing state? Would that legitimise the state, even though the other two groups sought seperate states?

[badinage]

[quote=Danny Invincible]

Would support from a largest minority suffice to legitimise your state?

interesting question. I suppose if the population were divided in 3, and all wanted different states, then none would really be legitimate. Civil war time - Bosnia style.

What if one of these three groups made up 51% of the population and did support the existing state? Would that legitimise the state, even though the other two groups sought seperate states?[/quote:3ac8e6mr]

personally, I'd say yes. If any of the three groups formed a clear majority in a sufficently large area, then they could declare independence for that area, but I'd reluctantly say that a state where 51% of the population are failing to respect the rights of the 49% minorities is an immoral state in dire need to reform or destruction, but remains a 'legitimate' state. The UN could come in and overthrow it and replace it with a state which guaranteed minority rights, and I'd support that, but if 51% of the population were opposed to this UN-created state, and wanted their own evil state back, I'd reluctantly say the UN state is less legitimate than its predecessor state.

I realise that's not very convincing, and its very imperfect, but sin é. If you'd care to expand on it to come up with a definition which balances popular will with a respect for the rights of minorities, go ahead.

[Danny Invincible]

I realise that's not very convincing, and its very imperfect, but sin é. If you'd care to expand on it to come up with a definition which balances popular will with a respect for the rights of minorities, go ahead.

A codified Bill of Rights may well be a satisfactory option, although I am sceptical of the supposed inherently superior value reserved for a majority view over a minority one.

[Gladstone]

Your all nuts.

All hail our glorios leader!

rEGARDS...jmcc

[Skin]

This whole debate has the potential to run and run, in fact that is exactly what has happened in the real world. Aside from SF, the questions of recognising the when\where\how did the legitamacy of this state come into being could also be asked of FF, FG, and Ulster Unionists (I mean I dont recall a vote ever been taken to partition Ireland prior to the 1920 Government of Ireland Act. Before that Unionists or Whigs were quite content to govern all the people of Ireland). That is why this could run and run.
So, if possible, would it be possilel if the people of Ireland, through a common consenus, arrive at a situation where the majority of all the people endorse an agreement, through democratic and peaceful means, and then implement it.

[badinage]

So, if possible, would it be possilel if the people of Ireland, through a common consenus, arrive at a situation where the majority of all the people endorse an agreement, through democratic and peaceful means, and then implement it.

you mean implement the plan, but allow sufficiently large areas where a majority are opposed to it and wish to set up their own state or unite with the UK, to do so? Or implement it including forcing, say, 2 majority-Unionist counties in the north-east corner of the island to submit to it against their will?

[Skin]

quote="Skin"] So, if possible, would it be possilel if the people of Ireland, through a common consenus, arrive at a situation where the majority of all the people endorse an agreement, through democratic and peaceful means, and then implement it.[/quote]

you mean implement the plan, but allow sufficiently large areas where a majority are opposed to it and wish to set up their own state or unite with the UK, to do so?

Dont quite get what you are saying here, please elaborate

Or implement it including forcing, say, 2 majority-Unionist counties in the north-east corner of the island to submit to it against their will?

[/quote]

Against their will? i dont remeber 2 majority Unionist counites in the north-east ever being given a veto over the rest of the north. I dont remeber there ever being a separate vote taken for those two north-east counties. I thought it was supposed to be a democracy? ye know- all the people voting on the same issue with the majority vote being recognised as the legal vote. Next you will be saying that because a majority of farmers think they shouldn't pay tax then they shouldn't pay them. This is poor from you badinage, the law applies to all citizens and the law as it currently stands is the GFA as voted for in favour by a majority of people in the North. If the DUP want to get rid of the GFA they know where to go to bring it about - the Assembly.