Your piece is spot-on, IF the reader decides, like you, to view the different wordings through green-coloured glasses.
That is, indeed, the beauty of the wording. I have a feeling a Unionist commentator would find it just as easy to write a similar piece showing just how much the Republic gave up from her Constitution with the new language.
At a glance, I'm thinking with Article 2, there is a clear shift from a strict definition of the territory of the Irish Nation to one where the definition is purely down how the individual chooses to define it.
The with article 3, you go from "the right...to exercise jurisdiction over the entire territory" to an actual acknowledgment of an existence of two jurisdictions.
Whatever way you spin it, if it led to the way things are to day, I'm glad both that the change happened and that there was enough political will throughout the island to eventually make the process work.
Good piece UI.
Another widely-believed myth is that the change to Articles 2 and 3 is the only thing the southern electorate voted for, and not the GFA itself. The likes of RSF say this repeatedly. It's not true - the first line in the constitutional amendment that was the subject of the 1998 referendum was "The State may consent to be bound by the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on the 10th day of April, 1998".
"Surely such a sentiment confirms that the Irish constitution still believes the island of Ireland to be the territory of the Irish nation?"
Nope, the claim by the Republic of Ireland to the territory of Northern Ireland was removed. This isn't semantics. It is actual and affirmed in law. Ireland conceded its claim to the territory of Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom.
By the way, Article 2 was ammended in 2004 by the twenty-seventh amendment subsequent to a Supreme Court ruling.
Lundy
"Nope, the claim by the Republic of Ireland to the territory of Northern Ireland was removed. This isn't semantics. It is actual and affirmed in law. Ireland conceded its claim to the territory of Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom."
Well done on completely missing the point! You could argue, as JL did above, that the vagueness of the wording leads to alternate perceptions...but how can anyone argue that the wording represents a removal on the territorial claim? Different wording, same intent.
The new wording still acknowledges the nation in geographical terms and sets out the conditions for nationhood within this island. Hardly a concession at all in my eyes.
"By the way, Article 2 was ammended in 2004 by the twenty-seventh amendment subsequent to a Supreme Court ruling."
This amendment did not alter the wording of Article 2 which still stands. It was simply to prevent those from abusing the rights of citizenship via the GFA.
I'm with UI on this one, it does not depart from the intent of the original Articles 2 and 3. I think it can be best be likened to adding in a 'please'.
UI, I understood your point, and it is very clever. However, Article 2 was amended to remove Ireland's territorial claim to Northern Ireland. Yes, the amendment states the right of those to be born in Northern Ireland to hold Irish citizenship, but when was it ever otherwise? That is mere smoke and mirrors to disguise the removal of Ireland's claim, thereby granting undisputed ownership of the territory to the United Kingdom. That is the position in law and practice. It is also the position of those who voted to amend it. Bunreacht na hÉireann is the pre-eminent legal document in Ireland. It is the authority by which the State may operate. As it is written so shall it be. Ireland's claim is removed. Get over it, and move on.
Do you really expect Sinn Fein cheerleaders like Wednesday to agree that her party sold-out their own voters on the issue and on the supporting issue of accepting the legitimacy Unionist Veto on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland? The Irish people have accepted that Northern Ireland is British. Sinn Fein have accepted that. Everybody has accepted that. The problem is that once you accept the legitimacy of something as profound as that, you can't change your mind about it. It becomes the norm and that's the way it will stay - and removed is the dynamic to unify with that which it is accepted is a thing apart.
Lundy,
Could you tell me where it states that Article 2 removed the territorial claim to NI?
I'm not trying to suggest something is there when it's not. On the contrary, I've using actual quotes to support my view.
I'd like you to do the same because it appears to me like you are believing something without actually observing what is in fact there. Kind of like the opposite of a 'Doubting Thomas'.
JL,
I'm glad both that the change happened and that there was enough political will throughout the island to eventually make the process work.
Interesting. What happened to
"THERE CAN BE NO PEACE PROCESS WITHOUT FIRST ENDING THE WAR PROCESS. STAND UP TO EXTREMISM FROM BOTH SIDES"
???
Very simple answer to that one, JG...the people of the island of Ireland DID stand up to Extremism from both sides and told both Unionists and Republicans what they wanted and what do you know, they delivered, even if it did take them a lot of time to do it. It was worth the wait, and so far, it seems to have worked.
I'm sure Adams and Paisley both love taking credit for the current situation, but the reality is, they just copped on to the real political will of the people and moved with it.
Blather.
By "extremism" you were referring to SF and DUP. It shows a stunning disregard for the concept of democracy and the will of the majority to ask the said majority to "stand up" to those they've freely chosen to represent them.
The UUP are a joke, the SDLP are nowhere. These "moderates" could in fact not do business together (Seamus Mallon and David Trimble hated each other's guts) and failed spectatularly to present a coherent programme to the electorate. Quite naturally, they were decimated at the polls.
the people of the island of Ireland DID stand up to Extremism from both sides and told both Unionists and Republicans what they wanted and what do you know, they delivered
How, specifically, did they stand up to "extremism"?
The "extremmists" are in power and you're glad about it. You were hostile to the peace process but now you've converted. Congrats on that but let's not pretend you haven't done a u-turn.
Commenting by HaloScan
