I think you've misunderstood what the word polity means. Ireland has had legal and political structures since before the concept of a Westphalian state existed.

I'm afraid Wikipedia continues to let itself down badly in this regard. There's quite a history of editorial disputes about this page and sadly a reactionary fringe is very active in promoting use of the old colonial term in relation to Ireland.

No a modern map certainly wouldn't classify Ireland as part of the British Isles.

The government and people of Ireland don't recognise the term 'British Isles' as a description of the whole archipelago inclusive of Ireland. Modern maps reflect this.

Voting rights aren't universal human rights i.e. many human rights apply to everyone simply by virtue of being human. However, voting is typically restricted to citizens of a specific country or polity.

Nothing, apart from the European Union's own treaty law you mean.

🤔 Ireland isn't in the UK and we don't have any 'royals'.

Ireland isn't in the 'British Isles'.

That's a bit of a semantic rabbit hole 🤷 Ireland has been a polity in one form or another for well over a thousand years.

Also unclear why you've added the qualifier 'independent' but the Irish Republic (1919-22) and Irish Confederation (1642-52) were independent regimes for example.

... infrastructure the western world has in our routed through Ireland.

I'm not sure what Catholicism has to do with it - but certainly in a hypothetical scenario where Ireland was attacked by Russia I imagine the US and the rest of the NATO alliance would consider it an unacceptable incursion in their sphere of influence and a threat to the significant assets and...

I'm not sure what you mean, the UN Charter is one of the corner stones of international law.

The US doesn't have any defence agreements with Ireland. However, it is treaty bound to assist in the defence of the UK (i.e. Scotland) and Poland.

Yes, as I said further above, Article 2 of the Charter establishes the fundamental principles that govern the conduct of member states and the organization itself, which collectively form the legal basis for a sovereign state’s right to exist.

...to act in a certain way or receive specific treatment, backed by a corresponding legal duty imposed on others to respect.

A legal right is what is being referred to when people speak of a state's right to exist.

In this context the word 'right' means - an enforceable power, privilege, or interest held by individuals or entities, guaranteed by constitutions, statutes, or judicial precedents. It allows a party...

‘It didn’t matter whose child I rescued’: parents of Iran school bombing victims describe their worst day Hours before the world learned that a US missile had hit Shajareh Tayyebeh school, parents were already searching the rubble for their sons and daughters. In this exclusive report, four families descr...

An impressive and devastating piece of journalism. I would suggest some required reading for those who believe problems can be resolved by dropping bombs.

At least 160 children and teachers confirmed killed.

Go lonraí solas na bhFlaitheas oraibh.

#Iran #MiddleEastConflict #USIsraelWar

Ireland has been a Member State of the EU since 1973.

Northern Ireland's status has no bearing on that. If the people of Northern Ireland choose to rejoin Ireland, Ireland will continue to be an EU Member State.

Yes indeed, I should clarify that I'm not suggesting pooling of sovereignty in this specific area is impossible. It certainly is possible.

But I am suggesting that it's highly unlikely to happen i.e. securing political agreement from the Member States.

That's the primary purpose of an abstention in the UNGA.

I would also note that, although you're disappointed by Ireland's position, it is entirely consistent with its long-standing policies regarding UN resolutions.

Ah, no the abstention is signalling support for the broader substance. Otherwise it would have been a vote in opposition.

I imagine the EU Member State diplomats would point out the legal significance and potential future consequences of the language being used.

...that sense it's an intriguing one in the context of the diplomacy at play.

It's an interesting case, curious to see how it might develop further. There's a lot going on 'under-the-hood' so to speak. You might not be convinced by the rationale offered by the EU Member States - but it was entirely predictable and consistent with long-standing diplomatic positions.

So in...

... and trustworthiness on fundamental human rights law has been significantly weakened in the eyes of many Member States. Extending EU competence further into national citizenship law could ultimately prove to be dangerous.

I wouldn't agree with that at all, politically and legally speaking - the determination and granting of national citizenship are fundamental domains of the sovereign state.

Many Member States would also be keenly aware of the risks of pooling sovereignty in this area. e.g. the EU's credibility...

You might find this explainer thread of interest.

There's an important distinction to be made between immigration & asylum policy and citizenship law.

The common immigration and asylum policy is essentially a product of the Schengen agreement. And even then not all EU states participate in that (or all of these new efforts at asylum coordination).

I think you mean why couldn't the UK agree to the same deal with the EU?

It's highly unlikely that the Member States would be willing to agree to EU competence in that area of national sovereignty.

He may indeed destroy the UK, but that isn't my concern.

Neither Ireland nor the UK can "pull out" of the GFA. The treaty doesn't have a withdrawal mechanism. A UK under Farage (or any other leader) could breach the treaty - and that would lead to severe economic and diplomatic sanctions.

...legal principles that international legal experts point to when describing the legal basis of a state's right to exist.