Ivor Bell arrested and charged in Jean McConville murder investigation

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which bit of 'For the moment' did you guys not get?

So you agree nothing is being 'deliberately stalled'? If so - what was your point exactly?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

My jury is still out on that one.
There have been several calls for the debate to begin, from the leaders of the party in joint leadership, representing a significant number of the electorate.
We'll see how long the Secretary of State depends on dubious polls and refuses to listen to those mandated.

SF were not mandated to judge the viability of a border poll. You do seem to have difficulty with what everyone signed up to in the GFA. How exactly have the various polls highlighting the overwhelming preference for the status quo been 'dubious'?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

SF were not mandated to judge the viability of a border poll. You do seem to have difficulty with what everyone signed up to in the GFA. How exactly have the various polls highlighting the overwhelming preference for the status quo been 'dubious'?

SF where mandated to talk on behalf of their electorate, if they make a call they should be listened to.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility here, and my jury is out on whether he is listening or not. We shall see.

p.s. I pay no attention to polls, because I believe they are dubious.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

SF where mandated to talk on behalf of their electorate, if they make a call they should be listened to.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility here, and my jury is out on whether he is listening or not. We shall see.

They were listened to, and rightly dismissed. The poll wouldn't stand any chance of passing.

Happyman42 wrote: »

p.s. I pay no attention to polls, because I believe they are dubious.

Kinda strange you're so needy for a border poll then.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

They were listened to, and rightly dismissed. The poll wouldn't stand any chance of passing.

There is a need for one within 5 years, or you will start to see drift from adherence to the agreement. It is a 'process' to be ignored at peril.
If Unionists are so sure of the desire for the 'status quo' they have nothing to fear.

Kinda strange you're so needy for a border poll then.

I have made calls for a border poll? Show me please.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is a need for one within 5 years, or you will start to see drift from adherence to the agreement. It is a 'process' to be ignored at peril.

There's no need until there's a point to the poll - anything beforehand is just an exercise in futility. Ignoring the desire of the majority is what would cause peril.

Happyman42 wrote: »

If Unionists are so sure of the desire for the 'status quo' they have nothing to fear.

Seemingly they don't - the DUP was happy enough to call SF's bluff on it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have made calls for a border poll? Show me please.

You haven't? What's this all about then?:

the longer a poll and the debate around that poll is denied the process is being deliberately stalled.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

You haven't? What's this all about then?:

Nice try Alastair. You know very well I was referring to a referendum and NOT a border poll. Have a look at your own next post referencing mine.
Sometimes your attempts at scurrilous accusations and insinuation fail your own high standards.
Very funny to witness.

Nothing is being deliberately stalled. The poll is only required when it stands any reasonable chance of passing - that's what everyone signed up to.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nice try Alastair. You know very well I was referring to a referendum and NOT a border poll. Have a look at your own next post referencing mine.
Sometimes your attempts at scurrilous accusations and insinuation fail your own high standards.
Very funny to witness.

Ehh, the border poll is the referendum. They're one and the same thing.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

We'll see how long the Secretary of State depends on dubious polls and refuses to listen to those mandated.

Happyman42 wrote: »

p.s. I pay no attention to polls, because I believe they are dubious.

Ah, that explains why you believe that there will be a border poll every seven years.

When the first one is defeated 85-15, you will come along in seven years and say we need another one because the previous one was dubious because [insert dubious explanation here].

When after sixteen polls, you finally get the answer you desire [probably by 51-49] when people either change their mind or get worn out by constant border polls, you will declare this result to be genuine and conclusive and requiring immediate implementation after all the others were dubious.

I now finally understand the SF/IRA mind on this.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Ehh, the border poll is the referendum. They're one and the same thing.

Godge wrote: »

Ah, that explains why you believe that there will be a border poll every seven years.

When the first one is defeated 85-15, you will come along in seven years and say we need another one because the previous one was dubious because [insert dubious explanation here].

When after sixteen polls, you finally get the answer you desire [probably by 51-49] when people either change their mind or get worn out by constant border polls, you will declare this result to be genuine and conclusive and requiring immediate implementation after all the others were dubious.

I now finally understand the SF/IRA mind on this.

Apologies, that should have read 'opinion poll' not 'border poll'.

And you know I was referencing 'opinion polls' Alastair, which is all we have to go on when judging demand for a poll. Stop being a silly boy and wasting mine and others time.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Apologies, that should have read 'opinion poll' not 'border poll'.

And you know I was referencing 'opinion polls' Alastair, which is all we have to go on when judging demand for a poll. Stop being a silly boy and wasting mine and others time.

Wasting time? Aren't you the man who's looking for a pointless border poll (you're pretty confused in your posts, but it certainly reads that way)? Seems like that would be rather more of a waste of people's time and money. You've yet to clarify why polls are 'dubious' though - perhaps because they tell a story you don't want to hear?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Wasting time? Aren't you the man who's looking for a pointless border poll? Seems like that would be rather more of a waste of people's time and money. You've yet to clarify why polls are 'dubious' though - perhaps because they tell a story you don't want to hear?

No, they are dubious in general imo. And I pay little attention to them.
Polls conducted in an instance like this are slightly different as they can be tainted by leading questions and subsequently misunderstood.
Sometimes those conducting them, want them misunderstood. e'g. asking questions like 'If there was a referendum tomorrow would you vote for...'

Of course Unionists willingly misunderstood the question and made dubious inferences as a result.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sometimes those conducting them, want them misunderstood. e'g. asking questions like 'If there was a referendum tomorrow would you vote for...'

Of course Unionists willingly misunderstood the question and made dubious inferences as a result.

It's a pretty straightforward question, with little room for misunderstanding.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's a pretty straightforward question, with little room for misunderstanding.

Totally agree.

But the way the answers where used was dubious in the extreme. Not wanting something tomorrow is not the the same as not wanting something ever.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

Totally agree.

But the way the answers where used was dubious in the extreme. Not wanting something tomorrow is not the the same as not wanting something ever.

Here's a question I would really like an answer to if you would oblige me, with the benefit of hindsight would you rather N.I had been ruled by the corrupt Dublin government over the last decade, the children of N.I carrying the same debt? Ho would it have been any better? Better health care? Education? Any tangible benefits?

I know a lot of Republicans on here believe the whole system will be changed in the event of a U.I, making my point about the people of N.I from both community's not seeing any improvement being ruled by the Irish government moot and to be honest I think that's a sage argument and I can see the sense in that, the way you guys describe it it will be a socialist paradise! Who wouldn't want to be a part of it?

So here is my question, why not start with changing the system? Why not have the likes of me, as a unionist looking enviously over the boarder instead of looking down with disgust and fear? Why does it have to be United Ireland then socialist paradise instead of socialist paradise followed by a U.I?

I know we all have entrenched mindsets on these issues, but would you ever consider that your romantic idea of a U.I is a stronger desire that what's actually best for the people of N.I. ? I know you are no fan of the corrupt political set up in the republic so why do you focus your energy on drawing us down as well instead of forcing change first? Would you have been happy if Bertie and his cowboys got to rule the north? Would it have been any better?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, they are dubious in general imo. And I pay little attention to them.
Polls conducted in an instance like this are slightly different as they can be tainted by leading questions and subsequently misunderstood.
Sometimes those conducting them, want them misunderstood. e'g. asking questions like 'If there was a referendum tomorrow would you vote for...'

Of course Unionists willingly misunderstood the question and made dubious inferences as a result.

To be fair to the opinion pollsters, they have been within the margin of error for all of the recent referenda down South. There have been no surprises in the last few years.

Explain to me how they can get this one so wrong? Or is it wishful thinking on your part.

I go back to my previous post - the only ones calling for a referendum are random young internet posters like yourself.

Karl Stein

gallag wrote: »

Here's a question I would really like an answer to if you would oblige me, with the benefit of hindsight would you rather N.I had been ruled by the corrupt Dublin government over the last decade, the children of N.I carrying the same debt? Ho would it have been any better? Better health care? Education? Any tangible benefits?

It wouldn't have been NI it would have been a 32 county Ireland. In simple terms 1-in-5 people on the island would have been of the unionist tribe which means that approximately 1-in-5 people making decisions would have been unionist, 1-in-5 profiting from the pyramid would have been unionist and 1-in-5 suffering from the consequences would have been unionist.

So here is my question, why not start with changing the system? Why not have the likes of me, as a unionist looking enviously over the boarder instead of looking down with disgust and fear? Why does it have to be United Ireland then socialist paradise instead of socialist paradise followed by a U.I?

Are you saying that when the Celtic pyramid was in full swing you thought you'd be okay with a UI and might even have voted for it? I know Junder has said that many he knows would rather be poorer and within the UK than better off and in a UI.

gallag

Karl Stein wrote: »

It wouldn't have been NI it would have been a 32 county Ireland. In simple terms 1-in-5 people on the island would have been of the unionist tribe which means that approximately 1-in-5 people making decisions would have been unionist, 1-in-5 profiting from the pyramid would have been unionist and 1-in-5 suffering from the consequences would have been unionist.



Are you saying that when the Celtic pyramid was in full swing you thought you'd be okay with a UI and might even have voted for it? I know Junder has said that many he knows would rather be poorer and within the UK than better off and in a UI.

What you need to understand is if I prescribe to a 32 county Ireland I will no longer be a unionist, I will by default be a republican. The only one argument the more level headed republicans on here made that piped my interest is that in a 32 county Ireland it would not be ireland absorbing N.I, it would be a new system, new non nepotism corruption riddled government, no Vatican grip and a new world class secular education without dead language classes taking up the day, world class free health care, new flag and anthem, new tax systems with the goal of wealth distribution instead of the Irish children picking up the tab, new legal, justice and policing systems etc etc etc.

Basically ripping up the book and starting again, if you are now telling me I picked that up wrong and the best this new Ireland has to offer me and my children is a rerun of the few years of boom of the Celtic tiger, where a few got rich to the detriment of the next generation I.e if you get your way my children then we have nothing more to discuss.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Totally agree.

But the way the answers where used was dubious in the extreme. Not wanting something tomorrow is not the the same as not wanting something ever.

And who claimed that it was?

How does that make the poll 'dubious'? Stating that you wouldn't vote yes in a poll tomorrow, is the best measure of whether there's any taste for a break with the union currently. The difference between the answer to 'how would you vote tomorrow' and 'how might you vote ten years from now' is essentially the 'sh1t or get off the pot' question, and far more useful in gauging the pragmatic mandate.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

where a few got rich to the detriment of the next generation.

That's what your monarchical class system and inherited privilege has been doing to you for centuries.That's what Orange men are aping when they run around in their bowler hats. :rolleyes: Seeing the wood for the trees springs to mind.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

And who claimed that it was?

How does that make the poll 'dubious'? Stating that you wouldn't vote yes in a poll tomorrow, is the best measure of whether there's any taste for a break with the union currently. The difference between the answer to 'how would you vote tomorrow' and 'how might you vote ten years from now' is essentially the 'sh1t or get off the pot' question, and far more useful in gauging the pragmatic mandate.

It is dubious because of the way in which the results where used. Here is the headline the BBC itself used. Says it all really.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-21345997

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is dubious because of the way in which the results where used. Here is the headline the BBC itself used. Says it all really.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-21345997

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity

The headline is completely accurate. There's no other way of interpreting the poll findings. As I suspected - you just don't like what it's telling you.

gallag

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's what your monarchical class system and inherited privilege has been doing to you for centuries.That's what Orange men are aping when they run around in their bowler hats. :rolleyes: Seeing the wood for the trees springs to mind.

To be honest I was hoping for a better answer. You failed to address any points or answer any questions and just went on a rant about orange men, of which I am not.

alastair

gallag wrote: »

To be honest I was hoping for a better answer. You failed to address any points or answer any questions and just went on a rant about orange men, of which I am not.

This is part and parcel of Happyman's campaign of 'winning hearts and minds' to his cause.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The headline is completely accurate. There's no other way of interpreting the poll findings. As I suspected - you just don't like what it's telling you.

It is not accurate.

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity if the poll was held tomorrow.

That is accurate.

I would expect that answer and it would be the one I would have to give myself if the question was asked that way as the time (which is critical imo) is not right.
'Liking' or 'disliking it doesn't come into it.

alastair

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is not accurate.

Oh, but it is.

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity if the poll was held tomorrow.

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is accurate.

That's accurate too. It doesn't undermine the truth and accuracy of the first headline

Happyman42 wrote: »

I would expect that answer and it would be the one I would have to give myself if the question was asked that way as the time (which is critical imo) is not right.
'Liking' or 'disliking it doesn't come into it.

I believe it does - if it blinds you to the accuracy of the headline. You're not a NI voter in any case, so it doesn't matter what answer you would give.

Happyman42

gallag wrote: »

To be honest I was hoping for a better answer. You failed to address any points or answer any questions and just went on a rant about orange men, of which I am not.

We tried and failed to build a real republic here. It failed for many reasons, one of which was because the island was divided and a civil war mentality that didn't disappear for a long time. Par for the course for an island that is still divided.
A 'new' republic and a proper functioning republic can only be built after unity. It is nonsense to attempt again to build one without removing the impediments that brought the last one down.
It is galling to hear somebody who comes from a tradition (downtrodden even if it doesn't realise it itself) that has never even attempted to throw off the shackles of monarchy and privilege, criticise what we still fundamentally have.
They died in their thousands for it and even when the British say they will walk away from them when the time comes, they still cling to it, and still see themselves as servants to a monarchical system (ala the bowler hats, a direct reference to the class that serve the aristocracy).
I am convinced that fact is slowly sinking in though and genarational change will see a shift in attitude among Unionists, the Orange Order active numbers are slowly falling, which is as good an indicator as you can get of a mindset change.

At least we tried, and had a vision. We may have failed but the potential of what we have is many times better, and many of us still have that vision.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

We tried and failed to build a real republic here. It failed for many reasons, one of which was because the island was divided and a civil war mentality that didn't disappear for a long time. Par for the course for an island that is still divided.
A 'new' republic and a proper functioning republic can only be built after unity. It is nonsense to attempt again to build one without removing the impediments that brought the last one down.
It is galling to hear somebody who comes from a tradition (downtrodden even if it doesn't realise it itself) that has never even attempted to throw off the shackles of monarchy and privilege, criticise what we still fundamentally have.
They died in their thousands for it and even when the British say they will walk away from them when the time comes, they still cling to it, and still see themselves as servants to a monarchical system (ala the bowler hats, a direct reference to the class that serve the aristocracy).
I am convinced that fact is slowly sinking in though and genarational change will see a shift in attitude among Unionists, the Orange Order active numbers are slowly falling, which is as good an indicator as you can get of a mindset change.

At least we tried, and had a vision. We may have failed but the potential of what we have is many times better, and many of us still have that vision.

Oh dear. That's some fragile republic you have in mind there, if it necessitates a complete landmass before it can kick in. File under SF woo.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Oh, but it is.



That's accurate too. It doesn't undermine the truth and accuracy of the first headline


I believe it does - if it blinds you to the accuracy of the headline. You're not a NI voter in any case, so it doesn't matter what answer you would give.

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity if poll was held tomorrow.

Indicates to me that people are thinking about Unity and the timing of it and are not necessarily opposed to it.

Opinion poll indicates NI voters would reject Irish unity

indicates to me that people would reject Unity.

It's a dubious, misleading use of a headline. And plenty of other, including some on here used the info for exactly the same dubious purposes.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear. That's some fragile republic you have in mind there, if it necessitates a complete landmass before it can kick in. File under SF woo.

Now it's my turn to ask...is that the best you can come up with? :rolleyes: