Reunification Vote Per County

blanch152

Riskymove wrote: »

anyone I have spoken to seems to view it as simply the North becoming part of the current State and nothing else changing

I think it will be a lot more complicated than that

Unfortunately, not a single one of those who are calling for a border poll are able to give a single idea of what the future State would look like. They seem to have a belief that it will be all right on the night - not the best way to make serious constitutional decisions.

ArthurDayne

Matt Barrett wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

Setting aside the likelihood of the Republic rejecting reunification, I think you would need a substantial majority of the North in favour for it to be in anyway workable -  over 70% at an absolute minimum, which in reality is simply not going to happen.

It would be nice but not necessary. There will always be a side unhappy with any result. We'd need move on and deal with the situation what ever the result may be. Once business can function relatively as per usual, (the lights stay on, the sky doesn't fall) most will simply get on with it.

I do get what you're saying but it's also very important to remember that Northern Irish Unionists are staunchly proud British people with a deep-rooted loyalty to the Union and the Crown.  They have always traditionally reacted to any perceived threat to their British citizenship or identity by falling into a full political phalanx which is very, very difficult to break down.  For all the criticisms I throw in the direction of their ideology, and all the intransigence that comes with it, their sheer determination and ability to quickly form a class-transcending unified political force -- which punches above its weight -- are remarkable and perhaps even somewhat unique in Western Europe.

I think pushing through a United Ireland on 50+1 basis would risk underestimating just how much disruption the northern unionist community could cause to a United Ireland.

James Brown

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I do get what you're saying but it's also very important to remember that Northern Irish Unionists are staunchly proud British people with a deep-rooted loyalty to the Union and the Crown.  They have always traditionally reacted to any perceived threat to their British citizenship or identity by falling into a full political phalanx which is very, very difficult to break down.  For all the criticisms I throw in the direction of their ideology, and all the intransigence that comes with it, their sheer determination and ability to quickly form a class-transcending unified political force -- which punches above its weight -- are remarkable and perhaps even somewhat unique in Western Europe.

I think pushing through a United Ireland on 50+1 basis would risk underestimating just how much disruption the northern unionist community could cause to a United Ireland.

I take your concerns and an overwhelming result one way or the other would be preferable, but you cannot rig a democratic vote like that. If the majority vote for it, or do not, that's the result.
The Unionist element will never be happy. They would however be treated equally and likely be allowed use their Ulster Scots, deny climate change, dislike science, gays, fly the national flag of Botswana if they like.

facehugger99

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The Unionist element will never be happy. They would however be treated equally and likely be allowed use their Ulster Scots, deny climate change, dislike science, gays, fly the national flag of Botswana if they like.

It's that kind of attitude that assures most Unionists that they would never be considered equal in a UI.

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's that kind of attitude that assures most Unionists that they would never be considered equal in a UI.

How so? Are you saying they'll never accept equality?

An Ciarraioch

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's that kind of attitude that assures most Unionists that they would never be considered equal in a UI.

They will still have the same rights to march in Orange parades, retain British citizenship, fly the Union Jack, probably retain Stormont in a federal republic, and in all likelihood see a new Irish flag and anthem, so if that wouldn't satisfy them, it's hard to see what would.

seamus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

They will still have the same rights to march in Orange parades, retain British citizenship, fly the Union Jack, probably retain Stormont in a federal republic, and in all likelihood see a new Irish flag and anthem, so if that wouldn't satisfy them, it's hard to see what would.

You could use the same logic to show that nationalists should be happy with their equal rights in the North, and if they're not satisfied they must be just a pack of entitled whingers.

An Ciarraioch

seamus wrote: »

You could use the same logic to show that nationalists should be happy with their equal rights in the North, and if they're not satisfied they must be just a pack of entitled whingers.

Then it's up to unionists to join the debate in the Republic, when the issue of how to accommodate their concerns would be discussed.

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

You could use the same logic to show that nationalists should be happy with their equal rights in the North, and if they're not satisfied they must be just a pack of entitled whingers.

This is where the republican logic fails.

If they can't accept the current democratically agreed constitutional position in the North, why should unionists accept any future different constitutional position?

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

This is where the republican logic fails.

If they can't accept the current democratically agreed constitutional position in the North, why should unionists accept any future different constitutional position?

So we should limit Northern nationalist ambitions with a shrug of our soulders and say "that's the constitutional situation dear boy. Now off ya pop."?

Tell me where Unionist logic doesn't fail?

Charles Babbage

seamus wrote: »

You could use the same logic to show that nationalists should be happy with their equal rights in the North, and if they're not satisfied they must be just a pack of entitled whingers.

No, you could not, nationalists live in a colony, not a place brought about by agreement.

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

You could use the same logic to show that nationalists should be happy with their equal rights in the North, and if they're not satisfied they must be just a pack of entitled whingers.

They don't as yet, have equal rights in the north. Equal rights to all of northern Irish society is denied and blocked.
It is unique in these islands in that respect - a failed state.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So we should limit Northern nationalist ambitions with a shrug of our soulders and say "that's the constitutional situation dear boy. Now off ya pop."?

Tell me where Unionist logic doesn't fail?

Didn't say that, what I mean is the republican presumption of outbreeding to produce 50% plus 1 and the unionists should just suck it up is an extremely short sighted philosophy that doesn't bring around an agreed Ireland, just a different disagreed Ireland to the one we have now.

A more broadly based inclusive approach sees an agreed Ireland with a buy in from all three communities including those of us down South who are going to have to pick up the bill is the only workable long term solution. The focus on having a vote as soon as we get to 50% plus one is a hindrance to a lasting solution. It is one of the reasons why SF are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Didn't say that, what I mean is the republican presumption of outbreeding to produce 50% plus 1 and the unionists should just suck it up is an extremely short sighted philosophy that doesn't bring around an agreed Ireland, just a different disagreed Ireland to the one we have now.

A more broadly based inclusive approach sees an agreed Ireland with a buy in from all three communities including those of us down South who are going to have to pick up the bill is the only workable long term solution. The focus on having a vote as soon as we get to 50% plus one is a hindrance to a lasting solution. It is one of the reasons why SF are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Everybody, bar what is a tiny minority of opinion on this island, signed up to the GFA. Everyone who did knew that the 'outbreeding' was imminent and still voted for it.

A tiny minority now wish to raise the bar.
Would you call them democrats in any sense of the word?

breatheme

blanch152 wrote: »

This is where the republican logic fails.

If they can't accept the current democratically agreed constitutional position in the North, why should unionists accept any future different constitutional position?

Because they'd get gay marriage and abortion, NI is falling behind not just economically but also socially.

ArthurDayne

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Everybody, bar what is a tiny minority of opinion on this island, signed up to the GFA. Everyone who did knew that the 'outbreeding' was imminent and still voted for it.

A tiny minority now wish to raise the bar.
Would you call them democrats in any sense of the word?

I would agree that 'raising the bar' on an official legal level would be unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst -- the terms of the Good Friday Agreement must be respected. I'm not arguing that we raise the 50+1 requirement. I'm a northerner myself with nationalist leanings, but my concern is for the people of this island as a whole -- northern nationalists, northern unionists, and the people of the Republic. My desire to see the country united is secondary to my desire to ensure the people's overall welfare.


If it comes to the point where polls show a slight majority for a United Ireland, jumping into a referendum immediately would present two possibly tricky outcomes : (i) the vote does not actually pass; or (ii) there is a small winning majority and reunification comes with the added burden of dealing with a very large community of people who have no desire to be part of an Irish state and who may react to that in any number of ways. It is likely that they would have reasonable representation in the Oireachtas and any perception that their culture, identity or religious liberty are under threat will very possibly be met with the old unionist phalanx which blends constitutional unionism and loyalist violence.


Ireland is a small country with a vulnerable economy -- risking the status of an imperfect but lasting peace, poking at northern sores which are slowly healing, and underestimating the costs involved (political and financial) of governing a still very divided north are things which one should not leap towards without careful reflection. A 50+1 majority must be respected if it wins -- but I would question our wisdom in diving into a referendum if that is the result we might expect.

FrancieBrady

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I would agree that 'raising the bar' on an official legal level would be unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst -- the terms of the Good Friday Agreement must be respected. I'm not arguing that we raise the 50+1 requirement. I'm a northerner myself with nationalist leanings, but my concern is for the people of this island as a whole -- northern nationalists, northern unionists, and the people of the Republic. My desire to see the country united is secondary to my desire to ensure the people's overall welfare.


If it comes to the point where polls show a slight majority for a United Ireland, jumping into a referendum immediately would present two possibly tricky outcomes : (i) the vote does not actually pass; or (ii) there is a small winning majority and reunification comes with the added burden of dealing with a very large community of people who have no desire to be part of an Irish state and who may react to that in any number of ways. It is likely that they would have reasonable representation in the Oireachtas and any perception that their culture, identity or religious liberty are under threat will very possibly be met with the old unionist phalanx which blends constitutional unionism and loyalist violence.


Ireland is a small country with a vulnerable economy -- risking the status of an imperfect but lasting peace, poking at northern sores which are slowly healing, and underestimating the costs involved (political and financial) of governing a still very divided north are things which one should not leap towards without careful reflection. A 50+1 majority must be respected if it wins -- but I would question our wisdom in diving into a referendum if that is the result we might expect.

I get the point Arthur. But who sets the bar here?

You will never reach a point where it is accepted by everyone and it will not be a light switch unification. Even if it is voted for, it will take time for it to happen. And that is right as well.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Serious discussion only please. Post deleted.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This is where the republican logic fails.

If they can't accept the current democratically agreed constitutional position in the North, why should unionists accept any future different constitutional position?

Isn't the whole issue around the northern part of Ireland being under foreign rule since being illegally obtained and ruled over by force (and the native peoples thrown off said land) up until very recently by historical standards? Isn't that the whole thorny issue? Democracy now, sure.
You paint it like a law abiding land deal now possibly up for redrafting.
A whole Ireland is the natural state. It's in the name Northern Ireland. How we go about it is the only debate IMO.

Junkyard Tom

The minute a 50 +1 vote happens in the north there'll be no going back. The British may pretend to be unhappy about it, for optics, but they'll be delighted.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The minute a 50 +1 vote happens in the north there'll be no going back. The British may pretend to be unhappy about it, for optics, but they'll be delighted.

Indeed. It will be interesting to see the reaction north of the border when fellow Brexit supporting ministers turn firmly on to the unification of Ireland side. For their own selfish reasons of course, not from any love or interest in Ireland.

blanch152

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I would agree that 'raising the bar' on an official legal level would be unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst -- the terms of the Good Friday Agreement must be respected. I'm not arguing that we raise the 50+1 requirement. I'm a northerner myself with nationalist leanings, but my concern is for the people of this island as a whole -- northern nationalists, northern unionists, and the people of the Republic. My desire to see the country united is secondary to my desire to ensure the people's overall welfare.


If it comes to the point where polls show a slight majority for a United Ireland, jumping into a referendum immediately would present two possibly tricky outcomes : (i) the vote does not actually pass; or (ii) there is a small winning majority and reunification comes with the added burden of dealing with a very large community of people who have no desire to be part of an Irish state and who may react to that in any number of ways. It is likely that they would have reasonable representation in the Oireachtas and any perception that their culture, identity or religious liberty are under threat will very possibly be met with the old unionist phalanx which blends constitutional unionism and loyalist violence.


Ireland is a small country with a vulnerable economy -- risking the status of an imperfect but lasting peace, poking at northern sores which are slowly healing, and underestimating the costs involved (political and financial) of governing a still very divided north are things which one should not leap towards without careful reflection. A 50+1 majority must be respected if it wins -- but I would question our wisdom in diving into a referendum if that is the result we might expect.

We are watching very closely a constitutional situation on our neighbouring island where there was a bare majority for a fundamental change in their situation. And some people want us to follow the same path?

An Ciarraioch

blanch152 wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I would agree that 'raising the bar' on an official legal level would be unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst -- the terms of the Good Friday Agreement must be respected. I'm not arguing that we raise the 50+1 requirement. I'm a northerner myself with nationalist leanings, but my concern is for the people of this island as a whole -- northern nationalists, northern unionists, and the people of the Republic. My desire to see the country united is secondary to my desire to ensure the people's overall welfare.


If it comes to the point where polls show a slight majority for a United Ireland, jumping into a referendum immediately would present two possibly tricky outcomes : (i) the vote does not actually pass; or (ii) there is a small winning majority and reunification comes with the added burden of dealing with a very large community of people who have no desire to be part of an Irish state and who may react to that in any number of ways. It is likely that they would have reasonable representation in the Oireachtas and any perception that their culture, identity or religious liberty are under threat will very possibly be met with the old unionist phalanx which blends constitutional unionism and loyalist violence.


Ireland is a small country with a vulnerable economy -- risking the status of an imperfect but lasting peace, poking at northern sores which are slowly healing, and underestimating the costs involved (political and financial) of governing a still very divided north are things which one should not leap towards without careful reflection. A 50+1 majority must be respected if it wins -- but I would question our wisdom in diving into a referendum if that is the result we might expect.

We are watching very closely a constitutional situation on our neighbouring island where there was a bare majority for a fundamental change in their situation. And some people want us to follow the same path?

Alliance voters may well be amenable to the economic argument post-Brexit, and it's fair to say that DUP supporters will never be convinced. As for Ulster Unionists, they're probably more akin to the latter than the former, but the question of cultural guarantees, which has been raised throughout this thread, could assuage the fears of liberal Protestants.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

We are watching very closely a constitutional situation on our neighbouring island where there was a bare majority for a fundamental change in their situation. And some people want us to follow the same path?

Do you want to do away with referendums entirely or just the ones where you fear the outcome?

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

We are watching very closely a constitutional situation on our neighbouring island where there was a bare majority for a fundamental change in their situation. And some people want us to follow the same path?

False equivalence. A pro-UI vote would be a vote to undo partition and reverse a sort of Brexit-induced re-partition in Ireland, very different.

If Britain left the EU and then voted to rejoin it would be more analogous to a pro-UI vote.

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

False equivalence. A pro-UI vote would be a vote to undo partition and reverse a sort of Brexit-induced re-partition in Ireland, very different.

If Britain left the EU and then voted to rejoin it would be more analogous to a pro-UI vote.

I don't consider it equivalent, just analagous, which makes it a fair comparison.

Thomas_IV

blanch152 wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

You could use the same logic to show that nationalists should be happy with their equal rights in the North, and if they're not satisfied they must be just a pack of entitled whingers.

This is where the republican logic fails.

If they can't accept the current democratically agreed constitutional position in the North, why should unionists accept any future different constitutional position?

Because Brexit will bring a different constitutional position to them, whether they like it or not. Once the English cease to flow the money to NI, their position becomes very unstable. The DUP is backing up a policy which is clearly totally against the wish of the majority of the people in NI which voted for remain in the BrexitRef. But that doesn't concern the DUP as they are about to have NI crashing out of the EU as part of the UK with a hard Brexit that the present UK govt persuits with the DUP breathing down her neck and threaten them to break up the backing up of them if there is any special status for NI to remain in the SM and the CU.

A hard Brexit means the break up of the UK, I am sure about that because the negative effects that will hit all the people in the UK (probably except the rich ones who know how to bring their assets and money to safe heavens) will be the main reason for the formal fraction (the real one within the society is already there among the population).

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

False equivalence. A pro-UI vote would be a vote to undo partition and reverse a sort of Brexit-induced re-partition in Ireland, very different.

If Britain left the EU and then voted to rejoin it would be more analogous to a pro-UI vote.

Not sure I'd agree. In that case a pro-UI vote would also be analogous to a vote for Ireland to rejoin the UK.

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

Not sure I'd agree. In that case a pro-UI vote would also be analogous to a vote for Ireland to rejoin the UK.

We never joined Britain/UK voluntarily in the first place and were prevented from leaving by the threat of terrorism against the Irish people. Britain joined the EC/EU voluntarily and is leaving voluntarily.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We never joined Britain/UK voluntarily in the first place and were prevented from leaving by the threat of terrorism against the Irish people. Britain joined the EC/EU voluntarily and is leaving voluntarily.

If we had a vote now to rejoin the UK I said. That would clearly be voluntarily.

Anyway, as usual these NI threads go around in circles and this one is heading the same way so I'll bow out and leave you to it.