Costs of Irish unification.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

It has absolutely everything to do with a UI.....it's ridiculous to think that communities steeped in violence will suddenly give it up the day after 51% of the society in which they are based votes them out of the construct they work so hard to demonstrate they are a part of.

If UI happens anytime in the next 20 years, it will be messy and we'll be picking up a never ending tab for it. Then when we're finished paying for it, our kids will be paying for it.

Why, what is going to happen in 20 years?

We know there is violence, there always was. Some cannot turn their backs on that and ignore it. That is when it breeds more.

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

It has absolutely everything to do with a UI.....it's ridiculous to think that communities steeped in violence will suddenly give it up the day after 51% of the society in which they are based votes them out of the construct they work so hard to demonstrate they are a part of.

If UI happens anytime in the next 20 years, it will be messy and we'll be picking up a never ending tab for it. Then when we're finished paying for it, our kids will be paying for it.

the amount we would pay would be affordible to the country.

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

the amount we would pay would be affordible to the country.

Not too familiar with the concept of opportunity cost, are you?

Of course we could generate the €10 billion or so NI needs to function.....that's not the issue.....the issue is what we'll have to forego to pay to keep the lights on there.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why, what is going to happen in 20 years?

We know there is violence, there always was. Some cannot turn their backs on that and ignore it. That is when it breeds more.

Well, it's over 20 years since the GFA and the 12th is still as contentious as ever......the appetite for violent protest and dysfunctional politics seems not to have waned......if anything it has become more tribal and polarised with the squeezing out of the moderate parties.

Likewise, the required economic convergence has not taken place. The proportion of the economy in NI dependent on fiscal transfers from the centre is twice what it is here.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's as preposterous as asking for a guarantee that not doing anything will ensure no more deaths.
The future of the island is unresolved. The GFA is a process...not an end. You kinda need to understand that.

No! You see the GFA as part of an inexorable process leading to a UI. I don't. Brexit has cast doubt on the status quo but Brexit may well end up being so soft that the status quo is effectively preserved, in which case all this UI talk will die down as a huge sigh of relief is breathed by the majority on both sides of the border.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, it's over 20 years since the GFA and the 12th is still as contentious as ever......the appetite for violent protest and dysfunctional politics seems not to have waned......if anything it has become more tribal and polarised with the squeezing out of the moderate parties.

Likewise, the required economic convergence has not taken place. The proportion of the economy in NI dependent on fiscal transfers from the centre is twice what it is here.

Nothing like what it was pre GFA. No amount of fantasizing will make it seem that way either.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

No! You see the GFA as part of an inexorable process leading to a UI. I don't. Brexit has cast doubt on the status quo but Brexit may well end up being so soft that the status quo is effectively preserved, in which case all this UI talk will die down as a huge sigh of relief is breathed by the majority on both sides of the border.

Well, it was delivered as a process. As an agreement to deliver many things, including equality. There is no specific clause to deliver a UI but the right to consider it is most definitely there.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, it was delivered as a process. As an agreement to deliver many things, including equality. There is no specific clause to deliver a UI but the right to consider it is most definitely there.

So you accept a UI may never happen?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

So you accept a UI may never happen?

Of course. I am a democrat, I will live with what the people decide, if they are let decide.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing like what it was pre GFA. No amount of fantasizing will make it seem that way either.

Not exactly going in the right direction though......

Understanding productivity in Northern Ireland

Over the last decade, NI’s GVA per capita grew by 2.3% per annum, which was the weakest of the UK regions. The result is that NI’s relative income now lags further behind the UK average and the gap is greater than at any point during the last decade

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

Not exactly going in the right direction though......

Understanding productivity in Northern Ireland

I was referencing the Orange violence part of your post.

Combined with the disaster of Brexit the graph you posted will hasten a consideration of a UI rather than deter it.
A northern Ireland in tatters economically will be a cost to us too.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

To what ends?

Independence? Forget it.
To force the British back? Forget it.
To re-partition the northeast? Forget it.
For UVF controlled enclaves? They'd be welcome to them.

IRA violence was pointless, it gained nothing, ruined the North's economy, lasted 20 years and ended up with Sunningdale for slow learners yet you believe violence needs a purpose?

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

IRA violence was pointless, it gained nothing, ruined the North's economy, lasted 20 years and ended up with Sunningdale for slow learners yet you believe violence needs a purpose?

Made the north ungovernable

Do you honestly think without mi5 to supply 95% of there intelligence loyalist paramilitaries can make ireland ungovernable???


Seriously why deos this nonsense even get entertained by rational people?


Do you have that little faith in capacity of gaurds to handle them??

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

Made the north ungovernable

Do you honestly think without mi5 to supply 95% of there intelligence loyalist paramilitaries can make ireland ungovernable???


Seriously why deos this nonsense even get entertained by rational people?


Do you have that little faith in capacity of gaurds to handle them??

The unarmed gardai? With their extensive intelligence in East Belfast?

Seriously?

noodler

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I appreciate that concern, but it's how you view it. As we were in the process of borrowing billions during the most recent crash, cost wasn't an issue. The powers that be decided on a figure, we borrowed it and went back to business as usual. It's possible that we may or may not be heading in mostly the same direction, domestically anyway, but some people give reunification a lot my leeway and regard than was given to propping up our economic circus.
In short, if we can get ourselves into generational debt to set up the same bowling pins, why not do so, if that's actually the case, to reunify the country? It's about your priorities. Bail out failed economic cartels/reunify the country. One is certainly more appealing than the other, depending on your view.

Problem here is that these wouldn't be one off costs.

You'd be talking about an extra 10bn a year. Permanently.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

IRA violence was pointless

The PIRA's goal was to remove the British state from the northeast of Ireland which was at least conceivable. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary this was written in the early 90's I believe.



The PIRA/BritishGov had the UDA so worried they planned to re-partition the north and go on ethnic cleansing rampage if the British pulled out.

it gained nothing

In the earlier years it most certainly prevented pogroms and ethnic cleansing.

ruined the North's economy

That was definitely a goal of the PIRA but it could be argued that it actually created a 'war dividend', at least for the Unionist community, as the British pumped billions of GBP into security and 'Ulsterisation' in an attempt to defeat the Provos.

Sunningdale

Ah yes, the agreement that Paisley and the UVF brought down. Shame that didn't work out alright because it might well have taken the steam out of the conflict.

you believe violence needs a purpose?

It needs ends to work towards or it is pointless.

I've been posting on these boards a few years now and have never once read a cogent response to my questions as to what ends Unionist violence would be.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

The unarmed gardai? With their extensive intelligence in East Belfast?

I would imagine in the event of a pro-UI vote that much would remain in place with the PSNI, parades commission, etc.

Also the salient point is that when there's a pro-UI vote both British and Irish security concerns align so there would be deep cooperation between the two governments to make it work.

end of the road

blanch152 wrote: »

IRA violence was pointless, it gained nothing, ruined the North's economy, lasted 20 years and ended up with Sunningdale for slow learners yet you believe violence needs a purpose?

a lot was gained out of the troubles as unfortunate as they were. removal of the 1 party sectarian statelet, equal opportunity for all, and a full democratic system. those would not have been achieved via peaceful means as britain wanted the status quo to remain. the north hadn't got an economy for a long time before the violence began.
at least now it is getting some investment and things are beginning to slowly improve. there is a long way to go but without some sort of struggle the place would still be a place of dereliction with everything ran into the ground.
britain burying it's head in the sand was totally to blame, they could have avoided 30 years of violence by forcing through the necessary reforms and talking with the civil rights movement.

blanch152 wrote: »

The unarmed gardai? With their extensive intelligence in East Belfast?

Seriously?

i have good news for you, we have some armed gardai. they are called the emergency responce unit, and to their credit they are now a very good and well respected unit. i'd also assume upon reunification, any armed officers of the PSNI would be subsumed into the gardai's armed responce unit and trained accordingly to our processes.

dok_golf

noodler wrote: »

Problem here is that these wouldn't be one off costs.

You'd be talking about an extra 10bn a year. Permanently.

Not necessarily. UK would continue to subvent the north on a decreasing basis but even if this doesn't happen, you would also have an extra million odd taxpayers. Also, the north would get a lot of investment from the Euro Investment Fund and Bank to kick start the northern economy. You would have more foreign investment as the corporate tax rate would then be 12.5%

blanch152

end of the road wrote: »

a lot was gained out of the troubles as unfortunate as they were. removal of the 1 party sectarian statelet, equal opportunity for all, and a full democratic system. those would not have been achieved via peaceful means as britain wanted the status quo to remain. the north hadn't got an economy for a long time before the violence began.
at least now it is getting some investment and things are beginning to slowly improve. there is a long way to go but without some sort of struggle the place would still be a place of dereliction with everything ran into the ground.
britain burying it's head in the sand was totally to blame, they could have avoided 30 years of violence by forcing through the necessary reforms and talking with the civil rights movement.



i have good news for you, we have some armed gardai. they are called the emergency responce unit, and to their credit they are now a very good and well respected unit. i'd also assume upon reunification, any armed officers of the PSNI would be subsumed into the gardai's armed responce unit and trained accordingly to our processes.

All of the above were achieved by the early 1970s, mostly thanks to the civil rights movement and the pressure applied by politicians committed to peaceful resolution. Nothing was achieved post-Sunningdale by the activity of the IRA and too many people died needlessly.

noodler

dok_golf wrote: »

Not necessarily. UK would continue to subvent the north on a decreasing basis but even if this doesn't happen, you would also have an extra million odd taxpayers. Also, the north would get a lot of investment from the Euro Investment Fund and Bank to kick start the northern economy. You would have more foreign investment as the corporate tax rate would then be 12.5%

You misunderstand.


The reported cost for Westminster is around 7bn pounds per annum.

This is the gap that needs to be filled, additional taxpayers are already accounted for.

I don't see why multinationals would be going to. Northern Ireland. Main issues are access to EU markets, they'd have that in the north free of brexit issues.

dok_golf

There were equal rights post Sunningdale??????

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

All of the above were achieved by the early 1970s

Utter fantasy and I find it fascinating that you can come to this conclusion when in 2017 the DUP/UUP are still blocking rights enjoyed by people in Britain and Ireland,

Unionists are trying to frustrate investigations into collusion between unionist murder gangs and British security.

The British state is 'losing' documents that would give us an insight into the dirty war they pretended they weren't fighting and the Irish Government had to take the British to the ECHR on behalf of the 'Hooded Men'.

Away up the garden.

Roger_007

dok_golf wrote: »

There were equal rights post Sunningdale??????

Sunningdale was brought down by the loyalists.They collapsed Sunningdale by violence and intimidation because they didn't want any 'interference' by the 'Free State' in their affairs. Anyone who thinks they would meekly accept a full-blown United Ireland would need to think again.

dok_golf

Thats where a new constitution comes in. I don't think anyone believes the Unionists will actively support reunification but the way things are going, the UK will break up and if that happens then the north is both too small and ill prepared to go independent. It will also polarise the centrists which polls show favour a UI under such circumstances. A new constitution where the rights and culture of Unionists are enshrined ( and probably a health degree of autonomy ) is the best deal they will get.

Fr Tod Umptious

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Look at where they have been in power maybe?

Who in that partnership would you rationally fear with regard to your rights?

Who has stood firm on equal rights for all?

SF have never been in power, except for possibly Dublin City Council right now, when all we hear about is a homeless crisis getting worse and plans to fly Palestinian or CCCP flags.

Being the second biggest party in forced coalition in NI is not being in power.

Equal rights for all is all well and good when you are the ones looking for the rights, as SF are usually in NI.

What's their opinion on Ulster Scots and the unionists rights to their traditions ?

Sidey

tomwaterford wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

IRA violence was pointless, it gained nothing, ruined the North's economy, lasted 20 years and ended up with Sunningdale for slow learners yet you believe violence needs a purpose?

Seriously why does this nonsense even get entertained by rational people?

Well, it doesn't. Most of this insane nonsense only exists in the pages of the Sindo, and on online forums. A lot of the people on this thread really don't have a clue what they are talking about, but they've been raised on a steady diet of 1970s-era Cruiser/Harris hysteria. Out in the really real world the sort of paranoid yelping about the eleventy bazillion a week subvention, 80% of the population of the North are on the dole, the insatiable hordes of the Loyalpocalypse will kill us all blah blah blah just doesn't exist.
For some it is simple ignorance, they've never been anywhere near the north or even met an actual real live Nordie, and simply Believe all sorts of wacky myths they get from either their parents of the likes of the Sindo. Others are just another specifically-Irish mutant variant of the alt-right trolls that infest everywhere online these days.
A proper rational national debate on the nuts-and-bolts practicalities and timescales of a unification process will soon shut them up and expose them for what they are.

end of the road

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

SF have never been in power, except for possibly Dublin City Council right now, when all we hear about is a homeless crisis getting worse and plans to fly Palestinian or CCCP flags.

Being the second biggest party in forced coalition in NI is not being in power.

Equal rights for all is all well and good when you are the ones looking for the rights, as SF are usually in NI.

What's their opinion on Ulster Scots and the unionists rights to their traditions ?

the unionists rights to their traditions are upheld and are in place. the undemocratic unionist party on the other hand are refusing to recognise irish traditions.

Fr Tod Umptious

dok_golf wrote: »

By the same argument, you could well see the Unionists combine with e.g. FF to keep SF out of power. I would think that SF, after an initial bounce will settle roughly at the level they now occupy. Once a UI comes about, their raison d'etre is much diminished.

SFs raison d'etre is a socialist republic, long way to go on that front yet.

Consider it Venezuela without the oil.

dok_golf

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

SFs raison d'etre is a socialist republic, long way to go on that front yet.

Consider it Venezuela without the oil.

Thats why I said diminished rather than eliminated

Fr Tod Umptious

end of the road wrote: »

if i were you i'd fear the undemocratic unionist party rather then sf. sf are far from perfect but they have for the most part modernised. people like arleen foster don't care about you. those of us who support a UI on the other hand do care about you and will welcome you if you vote to join us.
we want you to come join us and help us to build a bigger better country where we can all be equal. britain doesn't care about you and has been keeping NI a wellfare dependant basket case which does nothing for nobody. it's time for change, you deserve better. don't settle for low grade, demand better.



he was driving at the behaviour and views of the extremist party that is the undemocratic unionist party. how they do not believe in equality.

I live in Ireland, not NI.

I will never have to o fear Foster or the DUP, they will never be in power in the jurisdiction I live in.

SF on the other had may, and that's something that should be feared.

blanch152

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

SF have never been in power, except for possibly Dublin City Council right now, when all we hear about is a homeless crisis getting worse and plans to fly Palestinian or CCCP flags.

Being the second biggest party in forced coalition in NI is not being in power.

Equal rights for all is all well and good when you are the ones looking for the rights, as SF are usually in NI.

What's their opinion on Ulster Scots and the unionists rights to their traditions ?

You know the answer - Ulster Scots is not a language and they are not entitled to their flags or parades.

Fr Tod Umptious

blanch152 wrote: »

You know the answer - Ulster Scots is not a language and they are not entitled to their flags or parades.

Exactly.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

You know the answer - Ulster Scots is not a language and they are not entitled to their flags or parades.

Rather curiously the GFA deosnt refer to ulster Scots as a language....

All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland.’

(For those that struggle with comprehension, it should read language after ulster Scots)

Surly the question should be asked as to why it was never heard of or included as a language option in census in the 6 counties??


Its a piss take and a road block brought about the dup to hide behind so they wouldn't hold up their agreement on an irish language act....the fact people are taken in and lap up this suggests they aren't the best at critical thinking/politically aware and choose to hide behind pedantics

FrancieBrady

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

SF have never been in power, except for possibly Dublin City Council right now, when all we hear about is a homeless crisis getting worse and plans to fly Palestinian or CCCP flags.

Being the second biggest party in forced coalition in NI is not being in power.

Equal rights for all is all well and good when you are the ones looking for the rights, as SF are usually in NI.

What's their opinion on Ulster Scots and the unionists rights to their traditions ?

SF have shared power in NI for 20 years.

Who is blocking rights, the granting of which are enshrined, in the GFA and are enjoyed by the rest of the people of these islands?

As far I can see SF have no problem with the recognition of Ulster Scots and unionist tradition as long as it isn't inflammatory or confrontational.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You know the answer - Ulster Scots is not a language and they are not entitled to their flags or parades.

They are not entitled to displays of the flag outside of the norms everywhere else and they are not entitled to parade where they are not wanted.

This has been achieved and accepted by unionism now, what is your problem with it specifically?

end of the road

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I live in Ireland, not NI.

fair enough.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I will never have to o fear Foster or the DUP, they will never be in power in the jurisdiction I live in.

agreed, the undemocratic unionist party will never be in power here, they will be dead and buried soon.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

SF on the other had may, and that's something that should be feared.

i don't agree. the worst that can happen is that they turn out to be another ffg.

Sam Russell

I cannot see the UK Gov agreeing to a border poll unless at least 50% of Unionists were agreeable to it. It would be highly irresponsible to go for such a poll if it would only get 51% approval, or worse, be lost by 51%. Such a small margin would re-kindle the troubles again. They need to be sure of at least 60% approval before even suggesting it.

At the moment, they will not even stop the MLAs from getting their generous pay even though the assembly has been closed for the last year. Stopping the pay might concentrate minds a little.

KellyXX

Do the 26 counties gets to vote on whether to take them?
Because that would be a resounding no I would imagine.

tomwaterford

Sam Russell wrote: »

I cannot see the UK Gov agreeing to a border poll unless at least 50% of Unionists were agreeable to it. It would be highly irresponsible to go for such a poll if it would only get 51% approval, or worse, be lost by 51%. Such a small margin would re-kindle the troubles again. They need to be sure of at least 60% approval before even suggesting it.

At the moment, they will not even stop the MLAs from getting their generous pay even though the assembly has been closed for the last year. Stopping the pay might concentrate minds a little.

So we ignore a majority decision of 50%+1 to appease unionists??



If a 50%+1 vote passed in a referendum and they refused to hand It over....how could anyone argue againest the ira returning to violence

What's point in peaceful and democratic means....if we're willing to piss all over them to appease unionists??...

.have we learned fcuk all since people were pulled off the road in Drumcree in 95 for protesting vs facing down loyalist paramilitaries??

Sam Russell

KellyXX wrote: »

Do the 26 counties gets to vote on whether to take them?
Because that would be a resounding no I would imagine.

Yes they do - both parts have to agree.

I think, depending on the terms, it would always be a yes but perhaps not so strong a yes if NI were to be a severe burden on the state - so depends on how much it costs us. I think the EU would help with regional funding and the UK Gov would continue its subvention, but on a tapering basis. The main thing is that we do not get any of the UK National Debt.

KellyXX

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes they do - both parts have to agree.

I think, depending on the terms, it would always be a yes but perhaps not so strong a yes if NI were to be a severe burden on the state - so depends on how much it costs us. I think the EU would help with regional funding and the UK Gov would continue its subvention, but on a tapering basis. The main thing is that we do not get any of the UK National Debt.

There is absolutely no doubt that it would be a burden, and a burden for a long long time to come. Not a chance of the 26 counties taking the 6.

tomwaterford

KellyXX wrote: »

. Not a chance of the 26 counties taking the 6.

Recent polling data suggests otherwise?

KellyXX

tomwaterford wrote: »

Recent polling data suggests otherwise?

Yeah. Polls have been great on these issues where there is a difference in what they think publicly and privately.

Sam Russell

tomwaterford wrote: »

So we ignore a majority decision of 50%+1 to appease unionists??



If a 50%+1 vote passed in a referendum and they refused to hand It over....how could anyone argue againest the ira returning to violence

What's point in peaceful and democratic means....if we're willing to piss all over them to appease unionists??...

.have we learned fcuk all since people were pulled off the road in Drumcree in 95 for protesting vs facing down loyalist paramilitaries??

There will not be a democratic decision unless a poll actually occurs. That will not happen unless the UK Secretary for NI (and him alone) decides to hold a referendum because he believes a majority were in favour. He is unlikely to be so minded unless the result is a forgone conclusion that it will carry easily, particularly with Unionist backing.

If he does decide to hold such a referendum, I would imagine it will be after consultation with the Irish Gov. The Irish Gov would not back such a referendum if they considered that the vote would not be carried here by a thumping majority - over 75%.

tomwaterford

Sam Russell wrote: »

There will not be a democratic decision unless a poll actually occurs. That will not happen unless the UK Secretary for NI (and him alone) decides to hold a referendum because he believes a majority were in favour. He is unlikely to be so minded unless the result is a forgone conclusion that it will carry easily, particularly with Unionist backing.

If he does decide to hold such a referendum, I would imagine it will be after consultation with the Irish Gov. The Irish Gov would not back such a referendum if they considered that the vote would not be carried here by a thumping majority - over 75%.

So no actual facts???only conjecture


You begin by saying the sec of state alone decides to hold the referendum and then further on you say he'll consult dublin??

Your all over the place....it's legally mandated to hold it once it looks like possibility of it passing??and in great irish referendum traditional every 7 years there after until it's over the line




As an aside.....brexit passed with <52% yes.....why do irish nationlists all of sudden require a 75% rate for their referendums to gain a mandate.....what planet are you living on??


Few if any irish referendums reach your mind numbing magic figure of 75%....are they to be discounted now aswell?

FrancieBrady

Sam Russell wrote: »

There will not be a democratic decision unless a poll actually occurs. That will not happen unless the UK Secretary for NI (and him alone) decides to hold a referendum because he believes a majority were in favour. He is unlikely to be so minded unless the result is a forgone conclusion that it will carry easily, particularly with Unionist backing.

If he does decide to hold such a referendum, I would imagine it will be after consultation with the Irish Gov. The Irish Gov would not back such a referendum if they considered that the vote would not be carried here by a thumping majority - over 75%.

What are you basing the last bit on?

I would imagine that politics will dictate when a poll happens.
If somebody can exert pressure, look or need to be given a favour, it will happen.
I.E. it could be a dividend for SF agreeing to go into a coalition, or back into an executive. It could be in return for Irish support in some aspect of Brexit. Who knows. Events dear boy, events.
*look at why the Brexit referendum happened in the first place had nothing to do with a desire to leave Europe.

Fr Tod Umptious

tomwaterford wrote: »

So we ignore a majority decision of 50%+1 to appease unionists??



If a 50%+1 vote passed in a referendum and they refused to hand It over....how could anyone argue againest the ira returning to violence

What's point in peaceful and democratic means....if we're willing to piss all over them to appease unionists??...

.have we learned fcuk all since people were pulled off the road in Drumcree in 95 for protesting vs facing down loyalist paramilitaries??

If there was a referendum and the chance of a vote for reunification in NI was 51% then there would be a lesser chance of it passing in the republic.

The people of the republic would be far less likely to vote for reunification if they thought that 49% of the people in NI did not want it.

The only way a referendum is called is when there is a clear and sustained evidence that well over 50% would vote for reunification.

There has to be strong support for reunification before it will even put to the people.

tomwaterford

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If there was a referendum and the chance of a vote for reunification in NI was 51% then there would be a lesser chance of it passing in the republic.

The people of the republic would be far less likely to vote for reunification if they thought that 49% of the people in NI did not want it.

The only way a referendum is called is when there is a clear and sustained evidence that well over 50% would vote for reunification.

There has to be strong support for reunification before it will even put to the people.

There only has to be a chance for it to pass....for legally requirement to put it to the people


This thing of needing well over 50% is a white herring. ...a majority of 1 person is all it'll take??anything else is suggesting we piss all over democratic decisions


Struggle to believe the free state wouldn't vote to correct the 2nd worst political mistake of the 20th century.

Your essentially saying the free state shouldn't accept the wishes of the majority of 6 counties??

tomwaterford

] the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.

Nothing in there to say anything about 75% or over whelming majority....or upholding a unionist veto??


Myths shouldn't take root when the info is freely available like??