Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Reunification Vote Per County

Options
12357

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,301 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    The idea that anything over a bare 50% would carry re-unification is just daft. As funkey monkey says, in practice there would need to be a substantial majority and goodwill towards the concept all round, both north and south. Otherwise it's a recipe for renewed civil war.

    If 51% is good enough to keep NI in the UK, then 51% is good enough to get it out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,301 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    breatheme wrote: »
    If there is a NI reunification referendum and the south doesn't consent, things might get... quite bad.

    the memes would be class though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    cgcsb wrote: »
    If 51% is good enough to keep NI in the UK, then 51% is good enough to get it out.


    Why do we need to repeat the mistakes of brexit?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Why do we need to repeat the mistakes of brexit?

    That's democracy. The will of the people. What do you think this is, the Lisbon treaty? ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,957 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Daithi_115 wrote:
    Instead of the entire population of the north should it be by each county eg. if 2/3s of Fermanagh want to unify with the south they can leave the union and join the south leaving the five counties to remain in the union.

    That would be like the UK taking the results of the brexit referendum of NI, Scotland, England and Wales separately. So they'd have NI & Scotland staying in the EU and England league Wales leaving. It would be unworkable.

    2/3s majority seems to be the log ways to go


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,301 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Why do we need to repeat the mistakes of brexit?

    Well like what's the alternative? saying the 49% was the right answer.
    So from now on whatever option you want in a referendum, vote the opposite, because the opposite will happen. Mad stuff Ted.
    Brexit was a mistake but it was made by the British people of their own free will. A UI may be a mistake but it's our decision.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,301 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    That would be like the UK taking the results of the brexit referendum of NI, Scotland, England and Wales separately. So they'd have NI & Scotland staying in the EU and England league Wales leaving. It would be unworkable.

    2/3s majority seems to be the log ways to go

    1/3 cannot tell 2/3 what to do I'm afraid, those days are over. If the union of NI and GB is so great let them persuade the voters of that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Allowing for the possibility of a 49%/51% vote will only lead to more decades of division.


    I say this in every thread on reunification, why the need to rush it? It will undoubtedly happen, anyone who questions that is deluded. However it should happen when both countries are ready and able to make a complete and utter success out of it.
    Having it happen and be a failure economically and socially leaving a mess to be cleaned up for years to come should not be something we ever consider an option.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Allowing for the possibility of a 49%/51% vote will only lead to more decades of division.


    I say this in every thread on reunification, why the need to rush it? It will undoubtedly happen, anyone who questions that is deluded. However it should happen when both countries are ready and able to make a complete and utter success out of it.
    Having it happen and be a failure economically and socially leaving a mess to be cleaned up for years to come should not be something we ever consider an option.

    There will always be people on either side unhappy with the result.
    The only shape division can honestly take is if the unionists get treated the way Catholics did. But I think Ireland, modern Ireland would not stoop so low institutionally as the British. Those days seem to be gone. Ireland is fast becoming more open and accepting of multiculturalism I can't see anyone getting a hard time because they consider themselves British. We are not that petty. They can have their Ulster Scots, although I believe it's simply an argument currently. If the argument is no more I can't see them pushing for it.

    Why the rush? What rush? It's 2018. Every year passes is a further shame on us IMO. You don't leave family out in the cold until the economics feel right.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Why the rush? What rush? It's 2018. Every year passes is a further shame on us IMO. You don't leave family out in the cold until the economics feel right.


    Resorting to emotional arguments is kind of pathetic


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 67,337 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Resorting to emotional arguments is kind of pathetic

    Are you sure your requirement that there be an arbitary (those instinctively against a UI seem to be those clamouring to up the numbers) percentage is not based on 'emotion'?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Resorting to emotional arguments is kind of pathetic

    So all your opinions are based on fiscal logic? How might we tackle repealing the 8th or rights for same sex couples, do the sums?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Taytoland wrote: »
    We can all wish or believe what we want but the facts remain nonetheless. It's emotion in your post about homeland and such rhetoric as this. The UN doesn't recognize it as an occupation because it simply isn't in law stated as such or in the GFA.

    The rest is wishes, fantasy, hope, ideals, ideology and so on, it doesn't dispute a single thing I have said when disputing the term which hasn't got the law backing it up.


    If borders are so irrelevant as to how a nation should feel, why are some unionists so concerned about having a customs border in the Irish Sea which would separate British citizens from their homeland?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Allowing for the possibility of a 49%/51% vote will only lead to more decades of division.

    I say this in every thread on reunification, why the need to rush it? It will undoubtedly happen, anyone who questions that is deluded. However it should happen when both countries are ready and able to make a complete and utter success out of it.
    Having it happen and be a failure economically and socially leaving a mess to be cleaned up for years to come should not be something we ever consider an option.


    Who are you referring to hear? Ireland and the UK?


    It is already a failure both socially and economically, so whats the point in continuing down this route? Do you expect something to change?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Taytoland


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    Your reason is, that many in the rest of Ireland may consider the financial burden of reunifying, at a time the Republic is itself still recovering from a huge economic shock, itself a waste of money.

    If your brother was homeless would you leave him lying on the street until you got a raise?
    VinLieger wrote: »
    So what you are saying is the ends justify the means, not really surprising coming from someone so stridently republican

    What's a Republican? I'd like your definition.
    Taytoland wrote: »
    Occupied, it's nonsense like that which is why the rest of Ireland laughs at Irish Republicanism. What is occupied about it?

    It's part of Ireland under British rule. Did I miss the referendum on joining the UK?
    Based on this logic anyone who isn't Native American should be thrown out and the landmass given back to the Native Americans. Again fantasy argument nonsense which you tend to get on here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,337 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Taytoland wrote: »
    Based on this logic anyone who isn't Native American should be thrown out and the landmass given back to the Native Americans. Again fantasy argument nonsense which you tend to get on here.

    The Native Americans ceded their interest many many moons ago.
    Ireland has always been in dispute however. Take any period of history you like.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Taytoland


    Taytoland wrote: »
    Based on this logic anyone who isn't Native American should be thrown out and the landmass given back to the Native Americans. Again fantasy argument nonsense which you tend to get on here.

    The Native Americans ceded their interest many many moons ago.
    Ireland has always been in dispute however. Take any period of history you like.
    Plenty of Native Americans would like the landmass taken off from them back, many of them go on about it often actually. From living on the great plains to living in some of the most poor places in America on the reservations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,337 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Taytoland wrote: »
    Plenty of Native Americans would like the landmass taken off from them back, many of them go on about it often actually. From living on the great plains to living in some of the most poor places in America on the reservations.

    That may be. But they did not fight over the centuries and achieve an internationally binding agreement/roadmap to unification.

    So an entirely different case and will not save unionists in the event of a majority vote.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Taytoland wrote: »
    Based on this logic anyone who isn't Native American should be thrown out and the landmass given back to the Native Americans. Again fantasy argument nonsense which you tend to get on here.

    Sorry, you are making up your own stuff here and arguing against it.
    Part of Ireland remains partially occupied what ever Hello Magazine Kate's dress spin you want to afford it.
    Now we're talking a democratic referendum on the matter, something never given to the people there.
    Nobody is throwing anyone off anything, not since the Ulster Scots sold out their own for stolen land in the north of Ireland anyway ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Taytoland


    Taytoland wrote: »
    Plenty of Native Americans would like the landmass taken off from them back, many of them go on about it often actually. From living on the great plains to living in some of the most poor places in America on the reservations.

    That may be. But they did not fight over the centuries and achieve an internationally binding agreement/roadmap to unification.

    So an entirely different case and will not save unionists in the event of a majority vote.
    They did fight for centuries over it. What are you talking about? They just got slammed into the ground and ended up as we see today.  
    Taytoland wrote: »
    Based on this logic anyone who isn't Native American should be thrown out and the landmass given back to the Native Americans. Again fantasy argument nonsense which you tend to get on here.

    Sorry, you are making up your own stuff here and arguing against it.
    Part of Ireland remains partially occupied what ever Hello Magazine Kate's dress spin you want to afford it.
    Now we're talking a democratic referendum on the matter, something never given to the people there.
    Nobody is throwing anyone off anything, not since the Ulster Scots sold out their own for stolen land in the north of Ireland anyway ;)
    No legal basis for what you say whatsoever. It's just not based on facts.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Part of Ireland remains partially occupied what ever Hello Magazine Kate's dress spin you want to afford it.

    Is that a fact, if so could you provide evidence to support your case?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Taytoland wrote: »
    They did fight for centuries over it. What are you talking about? They just got slammed into the ground and ended up as we see today.  

    No legal basis for what you say whatsoever. It's just not based on facts.

    For what? Anyway what's legal about occupying by force? There may be a referendum on a united Ireland, not sure what legal basis you're on about.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Aegir wrote: »
    Is that a fact, if so could you provide evidence to support your case?

    Ulster is a province in Ireland. Part of the Island of Ireland is under British rule. What do you need explaining? Just look for the flegs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,337 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Taytoland wrote: »
    They did fight for centuries over it. What are you talking about? They just got slammed into the ground and ended up as we see today.  

    No legal basis for what you say whatsoever. It's just not based on facts.

    Why have they signed a roadmap to leave it then?

    They are going to abandon land they think is theirs?

    Nope, don't think so. If they feel they own it they send warships to protect it and take it back.

    Not happening here.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Ulster is a county in Ireland. Part of the Island of Ireland is under British rule. What do you need explaining? Just look for the flegs.

    Pretty sure Ulster is a province onthe island of Ireland. I guess as people live there it could be called occupied in as much as it isn’t empty, is that what you mean?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Why have they signed a roadmap to leave it then?

    They are going to abandon land they think is theirs?

    Nope, don't think so. If they feel they own it they send warships to protect it and take it back.

    Not happening here.

    There is no roadmap to leave, there is a mechanism for that to happen if the majority want it, but no roadmap.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,337 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    There is no roadmap to leave, there is a mechanism for that to happen if the majority want it, but no roadmap.
    It is a roadmap to a UI to which leaving is incidental.
    There is also the ancillary statement that Britain has 'no strategic interest' here anymore which outlines precisely what they see it and always did see it as - a handy outpost to secure Britain.
    Unionism refuses to publicly acknowledge what this means, even though their behaviour since shows that privately they are all too aware of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Allowing for the possibility of a 49%/51% vote will only lead to more decades of division.


    I say this in every thread on reunification, why the need to rush it? It will undoubtedly happen, anyone who questions that is deluded. However it should happen when both countries are ready and able to make a complete and utter success out of it.
    Having it happen and be a failure economically and socially leaving a mess to be cleaned up for years to come should not be something we ever consider an option.


    The 6 counties are an utter failure economically, politically, religiously and socially leaving us with a mess that needs to be cleaned up.


    The sooner we start the business of cleaning up the better, the best way is through a UI.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Aegir wrote: »
    There is no roadmap to leave, there is a mechanism for that to happen if the majority want it, but no roadmap.

    It's a mechanism with no reverse gear. The GFA doesn't call for ever-greater union of the northeast of Ireland with Britain. The GFA facilitates moving the political centre-of-gravity away from London and towards Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It is a roadmap to a UI to which leaving is incidental.
    There is also the ancillary statement that Britain has 'no strategic interest' here anymore which outlines precisely what they see it and always did see it as - a handy outpost to secure Britain.
    Unionism refuses to publicly acknowledge what this means, even though their behaviour since shows that privately they are all too aware of it.

    Only in the aspirations of republicans. Most people accept it for what it is, a simple recognition of the unique status if Northern Ireland.

    The only roadmap the GFA is to, is to continued peace.


Advertisement