Border Poll discussion

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Very selective reading of the word 'also'.

For instance saying that 'Liverpool scored against Man U and also drew with Arsenal' is perfectly acceptable grammar and use of the word 'also' if it is said in the context of winning the league.
Context is everything.

Are you claiming on behalf of cgcsb that neither report exists, both reports exist or only one report exists?

In the case of both or one report existing, I'd be interested to see that report. If the claim is that the IMF "rubbished" something outside of a report, I'd be interested to see where they did so and where, in the history of the IMF, they have made claims outside of an official report.

FrancieBrady

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Are you claiming on behalf of cgcsb that neither report exists, both reports exist or only one report exists?

In the case of both or one report existing, I'd be interested to see that report. If the claim is that the IMF "rubbished" something outside of a report, I'd be interested to see where they did so and where, in the history of the IMF, they have made claims outside of an official report.

All I am saying is that he/she didn't say there was an IMF report.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

We have a few Friends of Sinn Fein reports which say it will be all right on the night, just like Brexit. The FDI that will flow into Northern Ireland sounds a lot like the great trade deals that will be done when the UK escapes the stranglehold of the EU.

We have another report from two respected Irish economists who say that unification will lead to a 15% drop in living standards for people down South.

I know which one I believe.

If you believe that unification would lead to a 15% drop in living standards for people living down south, this can only mean that you believe that the Irish government would choose in practice do noting to reform the NI economey post unification to bring it in line with the republics successful economic strategy. I would suggest that this is an absurd position to hold.

In fact I recall one of the authors of the report specifically stating when questioned on the findings that the purpose of the report was to make it clear that Unification with no plan and simply continuing on the same policies as the British would not work. That report gives us an insight into what might happen in one, in my opinion very unlikely, scenario. Pretending that it shows what would happen in any scenario is not a credible position.

Snickers Man

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

d I think we should get on with Brexit and dealing with that without even bothering with a border poll for a long long time

I agree with this. I don't think such an issue should be forced and the beauty of the GFA was that it allowed it to be put on a very long finger while still allowing practical unity, in as much as such features as an invisible border, all-island collaborative bodies on issues such as tourism, animal safety and even health were allowed to grow and deliver.

But what Mr Drea is saying is different. He is saying we should "welcome" a "formalised partition" and by implication forget about ending it.

This is the whole problem with Brexit from an Irish point of view: somebody in Northern Ireland has to lose now. Either the nationalists or the unionists. The GFA, if sympathetically viewed, was a win win.

Marching season is going to be fraught this year.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All I am saying is that he/she didn't say there was an IMF report.

So how did the IMF "rubbish" anything then... sky-writing, carrier pigeon? I think it's safe to assume from the history of the IMF and the post in question that there is an implication that there is an IMF report and, frankly, I don't understand your aim here other than to provoke an argument over semantics?

MrMusician18

blanch152 wrote: »

The €5-7bn comes from the Friends of Sinn Fein reports.

https://sluggerotoole.com/2015/11/21/when-is-an-independent-study-on-irish-unification-not-independent/


A more interesting take on the possibility of unification here:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/03/12/a-united-ireland-is-not-inevitable-here-is-why/

"There are hundreds of questions for Nationalists to address before they can put a case for Northern Ireland seceding from the Union with the UK to join with the Republic of Ireland under the rule of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

What happens to the NHS – will we see GP & presciption charges? (€40-€65 to see your doctor in the Republic)

What of EU inspired water and bin charges based on usage/weight?
Would a United Ireland be a unitary State or would there still be a devolved Stormont?
What happens to Northern Irish civil servants, firemen, police officers etc?
What happens on pensions and benefits?
What about the subvention Northern Ireland receives – could the South afford it?
Will the Union flag be hoisted alongside the Tri Colour on the Dail in the name of parity and equality?
Will we get a new agreed all-Ireland flag?
Will we get a new agreed all-Ireland National Anthem?
Will we be entitled to dual British & Irish citizenship and passports?
What happens to the cross-border bodies?
Will mandatory powersharing be implemented in the Dail with D`Hondt?
Will their be an all-Ireland parades commission?"

Of course, we could just have a referendum like the Brexit one in the UK, where we vote based on sentiment and promises and lies.

Some silly questions there.
Leaving aside the silly questions about symbolism (no there wouldn't be a new anthem, flag and the Union flag wouldn't fly in the Dail) a unified Ireland would function pretty much the same as it does today, only non devolved matters would be handled by Dublin not london.

And obviously cross border bodies would remain the same only they would no longer be cross border.

There are good arguments to be made against unification, but the majority of the questions you post above are spurious issues.

Snickers Man

seamus wrote: »

It's a bit of a stretch to equate an article by a contrarian economist twice removed from Fine Gael, as being official Fine Gael policy, or having been at all written with the assent or co-operation of the government.
.

He represents a think tank attached to the EU parliamentary grouping of which FG is an affiliate. It is not at all impertinent to ask whether this is a line of argument likely to find favour with that grouping and by implication whether Fine Gael will be inveigled, with or without internal protest, to promote it.

Just asking. You can tell by the question mark in the title of the OP

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There will be a certain amount of risk in embarking on a UI and that is fine.

It's not fine with me and hundreds of thousands of other private sector taxpayers that are expected to take on these so-called 'risks'.

FrancieBrady

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

So how did the IMF "rubbish" anything then... sky-writing, carrier pigeon? I think it's safe to assume from the history of the IMF and the post in question that there is an implication that there is an IMF report and, frankly, I don't understand your aim here other than to provoke an argument over semantics?

You claiming he/she was saying there was a Report is the semantic activity.

What he/she was alluding to I guess (stress 'guess') is an IMF official involved in German Reunification repudiating the crutch of the 9-12 billion subvention that partitionists and unionists fall back in. You can Google that as anyone with an actual genuine interest in the possibility of a UI or not, would.

Imreoir2

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's not fine with me and hundreds of thousands of other private sector taxpayers that are expected to take on these so-called 'risks'.

I suggest that you should probably speak for yourself. There will be a referendum here should NI ever support Unification, you will have your chance then to voice your opposition. I for one expect a landslide in favour of unity when the time comes, but perhaps I am wrong.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's not fine with me and hundreds of thousands of other private sector taxpayers that are expected to take on these so-called 'risks'.

Well then you are taking the continued risk of an absurd partition that has cost huge money and lives.
Horses for courses and I would think, given a prospect of a better outcome, you will be in the minority tbh

Dyr

Certain parties will either dismiss or endorse these studies solely on the basis of whether or not the report bolsters their opposition to UI. My opinion is that all of these reports are based on so many assumptions that they all should come with health warnings.

If Brexit has shown us anything is that you need to call out bad actors at source rather than indulge their arguing in bad faith. These lads wouldn't want a UI even if it was totally cost neutral. They don't want a UI full stop. Start from that point and work back.

FrancieBrady

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

While I don't think the piece is in any way supposed to be representative of Fine Gael policy, at the same time you'd want to be seriously deluded to think that they're in favour of a united Ireland.

None of the major political parties, barring SF and a few of the more traditional element of FF, are serious about wanting one. It's something you pay lip service too rather than actively pursue, because there's nothing politically to be gained from actively opposing.

If a border poll was ever on the cards, expect most of them to try and edge away from it, something along the lines of "We're in favour in principle, but now is not the right time etc..."

FF would edge away from a UI? Are you serious? It would effectively finish them off and finish off their fledgling move into northern Ireland.

I can see FG being wishy washyily silent, but again, I cannot see them being actively against it, no matter how they spin.

Chips Lovell

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FF would edge away from a UI?

I can see the Eamon O'Cuiv wing being all for it. But I'd say it would bring Micheal Martin out in hives.

Imreoir2

Bambi wrote: »

Certain parties will either dismiss or endorse these studies solely on the basis of whether or not the report bolsters their opposition to UI. My opinion is that all of these reports are based on so many assumptions that they all should come with health warnings.

If Brexit has shown us anything is that you need to call out bad actors at source rather than indulge their arguing in bad faith. These lads wouldn't want a UI even if it was totally cost neutral. They don't want a UI full stop. Start from that point and work back.

The same is true in reverse of course, there are plenty of people who will dismiss any report outlining dificulties as the will support Unification come what may.

It is important that we recognise that any report will analyse a certain scenario or set of scenarios and it is important to take the finding of the report in that context. It would be misleading to suggest that the findings of a report will hold true if we do not believe the conditions it has stipulated will happen or moreso if you do not support those conditions happening.

The Brexit debate has seen this happening many many times, with Brexiteers suggesting that some report shows that x outcome is possible and that this would be a good thing while they are also working to ensure the conditions that x outcome is based upon do not come about.

It would be wrong for example to claim that every NI civil servant can expect to to retain their job and enjoy an increased salary in line with their southern counterparts, while also claiming or promoting that the cost of the bloated NI public sector bill can be slashed post unification. It's one or the other, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

FrancieBrady

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I can see the Eamon O'Cuiv wing being all for it. But I'd say it would bring Micheal Martin out in hives.

Sorry, I just cannot in my wildest imagination see Michael Martin actively discouraging unity if there is a poll imminent. I am no fan of FF or believe for a minute it's leadership believe in anything but self preservation but it is outlandish to suggest they would do that.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, I just cannot in my wildest imagination see Michael Martin actively discouraging unity if there is a poll imminent. I am no fan of FF or believe for a minute it's leadership believe in anything but self preservation but it is outlandish to suggest they would do that.

If FF don't go for the jugular on FG after Brexit then I don't think Martin will be leader of FF for much longer.

FrancieBrady

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

If FF don't go for the jugular on FG after Brexit then I don't think Martin will be leader of FF for much longer.

My point stands for any leader of FF.

topmanamillion

I don't think unification is even on the agenda or will be any time soon.

The North will be looking to batten down the hatches and weather the economic hit of Brexit. There'll be zero appetite for heading into more of the unknown.

There is one nation listed with the UN - Ireland. It just so happens to have two states controlled by two different governments.

The simple fact is if a high percentage majority of catholics/republican identifing citizens in the North strongly wanted unification, it would lead to a border poll. The fact there's no such push says it all.

Chips Lovell

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, I just cannot in my wildest imagination see Michael Martin actively discouraging unity if there is a poll imminent. I am no fan of FF or believe for a minute it's leadership believe in anything but self preservation but it is outlandish to suggest they would do that.

To be clear, I don't think they'll officially come out against it, it'll just be mealy mouthed, wishy-washy support along the lines of "yes, but...."

Nobody wants to look like Scrooge but, at the end of the day, turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

topmanamillion wrote: »

I don't think unification is even on the agenda or will be any time soon.

The North will be looking to batten down the hatches and weather the economic hit of Brexit. There'll be zero appetite for heading into more of the unknown.

There is one nation listed with the UN - Ireland. It just so happens to have two states controlled by two different governments.

The simple fact is if a high percentage majority of catholics/republican identifing citizens in the North strongly wanted unification, it would lead to a border poll. The fact there's no such push says it all.

Both Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are listed as UN members.

johnnyskeleton

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

While I don't think the piece is in any way supposed to be representative of Fine Gael policy, at the same time you'd want to be seriously deluded to think that they're in favour of a united Ireland.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "United Ireland", and what you mean by "in favour" as well. The most recent spat was over the question as to whether a 50% +1 majority in Northern Ireland for a United Ireland was the appropriate time for a border poll. Varadkar said that more than that was required, his reasoning being that you have to carry along all the people of Northern Ireland:

I think, at the outset, a United Ireland worth having, is one whereby people are united, whereby everyone in the country would feel they're part of the country, a country in which nobody feels they've been left out and that's one thing I would always think when people talk about United Ireland in the traditional sense, bringing Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland together into a 32 county state.

I would not like to visit on unionists in Northern Ireland what, I believe, was visited on nationalists and Catholics in Northern Ireland - people feeling that this wasn't their state, that they weren't really part of it, that they were bounced into it or left in it against their will., and if we have seen anything from Brexit it's that anything important decided on a tight margin is going to be a disaster.

He was immediately criticised by Sinn Fein of having a partitionist mentality etc:

Sinn Fein's senior negotiator Conor Murphy has insisted that the 1998 Good Friday Agreement is "absolutely clear" that "if a simple majority vote in favour of reunification, both governments are then obliged to legislate for it".
Mr Murphy has argued that there's "an onus on the Irish government to plan for unity, to become a persuader for unity, to build the maximum agreement and to secure and win a referendum on unity.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41655699

But yet Sinn Fein's own policy documents are much closer aligned to what Varadkar said:

Sinn Féin is seeking a new, agreed and united Ireland. We want to build a just, fair and equal Ireland, an economically prosperous and socially and culturally inclusive Ireland. We want to protect our most vulnerable, the elderly, children, the ill, the ethnic minorities, those with disabilities – and ensure that equality is the touchstone upon which all policies are formulated.
The republican vision of a united Ireland is based on the principles of equality, inclusion and sovereignty. There can be no place for sectarianism, exclusion or discrimination.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/a-republic-for-all-policy

And their leader Mary Lou:

She said: “Obviously, our unionist brothers and sisters need to be part of planning a new Ireland, their first option, of course, is to maintain the union with Britain and we respect that, but as one ex-leader of the DUP put it, they need to start now planning for all eventualities and unionism needs a Plan B.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/prepare-for-a-united-ireland-sinn-féin-tells-unionists-1.3780337

I really don't see the difference between what either party is saying, with the exception that FG have said that a 50% +1 result would be a bad outcome, whereas SF avoid the question directly. But all are clear that it can't be a divisive or forceful unification, and that the Unionist population must be part of it.

None of the major political parties, barring SF and a few of the more traditional element of FF, are serious about wanting one. It's something you pay lip service too rather than actively pursue, because there's nothing politically to be gained from actively opposing.

I would say they all are, and all have similar views, it's just that SF talk about it more and get upset when other parties mention it. What does being serious about wanting one actually mean in practical terms? If all parties agree that both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland must be respected and brought along with the process, then you could argue that SF are the least serious about wanting it.

We have a situation where FG and FF reach out to the Unionists and try to work with them. SF meanwhile criticise FG and FF for this, making the Unionists nervous about what would happen to them in a United Ireland. If SF were serious about it, they would stop making cheap political points about "partitionist mindsets" etc. But they can't, because that is what they use to differentiate themselves from the other parties.

If a border poll was ever on the cards, expect most of them to try and edge away from it, something along the lines of "We're in favour in principle, but now is not the right time etc..."

Well do you think now is the right time for a border poll? the demographic split is closer than ever and the opinion polls show that the difference in opinion is very tight. But it is still majority remain part of the UK. A lot of the increase in Catholics in Northern Ireland are from Eastern Europe, so it is not clear if they can vote. And looking at the Scottish Independence vote, we can see how people tend to shy away from the moves when they get closer to the voting day, as practical matters trump the essential principle.

So now is not the right time if you want to actually get a 50% +1 vote in favour of a United Ireland. Let's say next year you did, however; would that be ideal? I suspect a narrow victory will lead to violence, only it is the Irish Army vs Unionist Paramilitants.

Chips Lovell

This is kind of what I'm talking about. Varadkar can say the right time is "one whereby people are united, whereby everyone in the country would feel they're part of the country, a country in which nobody feels they've been left out ..." etc. because he knows that that time is never going to come.

FrancieBrady

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I guess it depends on what you mean by "United Ireland", and what you mean by "in favour" as well. The most recent spat was over the question as to whether a 50% +1 majority in Northern Ireland for a United Ireland was the appropriate time for a border poll. Varadkar said that more than that was required, his reasoning being that you have to carry along all the people of Northern Ireland:




He was immediately criticised by Sinn Fein of having a partitionist mentality etc:



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-41655699

But yet Sinn Fein's own policy documents are much closer aligned to what Varadkar said:



http://www.sinnfein.ie/a-republic-for-all-policy

And their leader Mary Lou:



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/prepare-for-a-united-ireland-sinn-féin-tells-unionists-1.3780337

I really don't see the difference between what either party is saying, with the exception that FG have said that a 50% +1 result would be a bad outcome, whereas SF avoid the question directly. But all are clear that it can't be a divisive or forceful unification, and that the Unionist population must be part of it.



I would say they all are, and all have similar views, it's just that SF talk about it more and get upset when other parties mention it. What does being serious about wanting one actually mean in practical terms? If all parties agree that both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland must be respected and brought along with the process, then you could argue that SF are the least serious about wanting it.

We have a situation where FG and FF reach out to the Unionists and try to work with them. SF meanwhile criticise FG and FF for this, making the Unionists nervous about what would happen to them in a United Ireland. If SF were serious about it, they would stop making cheap political points about "partitionist mindsets" etc. But they can't, because that is what they use to differentiate themselves from the other parties.



Well do you think now is the right time for a border poll? the demographic split is closer than ever and the opinion polls show that the difference in opinion is very tight. But it is still majority remain part of the UK. A lot of the increase in Catholics in Northern Ireland are from Eastern Europe, so it is not clear if they can vote. And looking at the Scottish Independence vote, we can see how people tend to shy away from the moves when they get closer to the voting day, as practical matters trump the essential principle.

So now is not the right time if you want to actually get a 50% +1 vote in favour of a United Ireland. Let's say next year you did, however; would that be ideal? I suspect a narrow victory will lead to violence, only it is the Irish Army vs Unionist Paramilitants.

And typical of Varadkar, he fails to address what vista he will create if he ignores a 51% in favour result, for fear of annoying some unionists.

Imreoir2

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So now is not the right time if you want to actually get a 50% +1 vote in favour of a United Ireland. Let's say next year you did, however; would that be ideal? I suspect a narrow victory will lead to violence, only it is the Irish Army vs Unionist Paramilitants.

50% +1 is hardily ideal, but it would be far worse to maintain the union with the UK when that union has lost the consent of the majority of the people of NI. To fail to disolve the Union should a majority, even a narrow majority, support doing so would be to destroy the GFA. To fail to hold a referendum when a majority, even a narrow majority, support unification again would be to stab at the heart of the peace agreement. Would that be ideal? Would proving the disidents right not run an equal or even greater risk of a return to violence?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And typical of Varadkar, he fails to address what vista he will create if he ignores a 51% in favour result, for fear of annoying some unionists.

Well, we wouldn't want to create a situation like the UK where a 51% vote is taken to mean the most extreme form of Brexit is the default.

There is a lot to be said for bringing the vast majority of people along with you when addressing a significant constitutional issue such as Brexit or a united Ireland. Relying on a 50% +1 vote is not the best thing to do as we have seen over the last two years.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, we wouldn't want to create a situation like the UK where a 51% vote is taken to mean the most extreme form of Brexit is the default.

There is a lot to be said for bringing the vast majority of people along with you when addressing a significant constitutional issue such as Brexit or a united Ireland. Relying on a 50% +1 vote is not the best thing to do as we have seen over the last two years.

If the majority in the UK are happy to leave the UK, I have nothing against that.

If they are looking for cake at everyone in the EU's expense...they can sling their hook. They are as equally empowered to cancel the whole thing.

That is what is happening, the UK is in chaos, not the EU.

You are setting pre-conditions that mean your choice prevails. A recipe for chaos and strife.

Dytalus

Imreoir2 wrote: »

50% +1 is hardily ideal, but it would be far worse to maintain the union with the UK when that union has lost the consent of the majority of the people of NI. To fail to disolve the Union should a majority, even a narrow majority, support doing so would be to destroy the GFA. To fail to hold a referendum when a majority, even a narrow majority, support unification again would be to stab at the heart of the peace agreement. Would that be ideal? Would proving the disidents right not run an equal or even greater risk of a return to violence?

This is my primary fear over the whole thing.

I'm for a United Ireland...eventually. I kind of see it as an eventuality. But it's going to be a bloody mess if it's not handled very carefully. Leaving aside the economic side of things, if NI turns violent in response (well within the realms of possibility if it's handled poorly) the Republic doesn't really have the personnel (army or Gardaí) to properly police the whole region safely.

But if a border poll is held and found to have passed - by whatever small majority - and then isn't acted upon? Now not only have the more extreme parts of the unionist side been riled up due to the vote even taking place (I can imagine some fringe elements getting aggressive, if not quite outright violent, in response to the referendum being held), but you've pissed off the nationalists too by ignoring their requests and smashing up the GFA in the process. If a border poll is called and passes, not taking steps towards reunification has (in my opinion) at least an equal chance of leading to violence as reunification does.

briany

Bambi wrote: »

The concerns and scrutiny of the voters I assume. Or do you mean the concerns and scrutiny of a small set in the Republic who are four square set against a UI regardless of the potential benefits or pitfalls? Because I'm not worried about wasting time on them

It's not really an either/or situation. The concerns of experts can be put under scrutiny by the general voting public, and the concerns of the general voting public can be put under scrutiny by experts. Ideally you would have a two-way conversation held between these groups in good faith, and the voting public can arrive at a conclusion based on the evidence and arguments presented.

johnnyskeleton

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

This is kind of what I'm talking about. Varadkar can say the right time is "one whereby people are united, whereby everyone in the country would feel they're part of the country, a country in which nobody feels they've been left out ..." etc. because he knows that that time is never going to come.

I guess ultimately that comes down to what you believe his unspoken intentions are. Do you think that he doesn't want a United Ireland under any circumstances, and that trying to appeal across the communities is just a way of putting off the evil day?

I just can't see how anyone, other than the most dyed in the wool Unionist would not want a United Ireland that was rich, peaceful and prosperous for all its citizens and if a United Ireland had economic benefits without any risk to peace, I would imagine all parties fully support this. Equally, I can't imagine anyone other than the most dyed in the wool Republican would want a United Ireland whereby we were all thrust into a second civil war type scenario and everyone was poorer as a result.

In between these two extremes, it seems to me that all the parties and politicians have very subtle differences on where on the scale they lie and what would be acceptable to them. Sure, you might get a lot of FG voters who eschew the possibility of having to pay an additional €8-10bn per annum as the cost of reunification, but equally SF's answer is to largely ignore the question and talk about a glorious era ahead where everyone will prosper.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And typical of Varadkar, he fails to address what vista he will create if he ignores a 51% in favour result, for fear of annoying some unionists.

He didn't say he would ignore a 51% vote in favour, he said that that we should work towards a consensus. He never said that he would disregard the Good Friday Agreement in the event that there was a vote in the morning with 50% +1 in favour of a United Ireland.

SF also agree that it would not be ideal to win on a narrow basis and that they should active cross community support. Indeed, you can see from my post above that I have set out exactly what they have said on this issue in their party documents, and what their party leader says. So everyone should be agreed that we should work towards a United Ireland that won't have problems or alienate anybody.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that FG would breach the GFA, nor are there any major political parties who are insisting on rail roading a United Ireland in.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

50% +1 is hardily ideal, but it would be far worse to maintain the union with the UK when that union has lost the consent of the majority of the people of NI. To fail to disolve the Union should a majority, even a narrow majority, support doing so would be to destroy the GFA. To fail to hold a referendum when a majority, even a narrow majority, support unification again would be to stab at the heart of the peace agreement. Would that be ideal? Would proving the disidents right not run an equal or even greater risk of a return to violence?

The idea would be to hold the border poll at a point in time that is likely to result in the largest possible majority support. SF seem to think that will be connected to Brexit, and maybe it is. You might never have DUP supporters accepting a United Ireland, but after Brexit their support might dwindle, and the Alliance Party and UUP might engage with how a United Ireland would look.

In 1973, a border poll was held and Nationalists/Republicans boycotted it. It was felt that they could not win and that the poll would be used to justify the status quo. So there is clearly precedent from Northern Irish Nationalists and Republicans that they accept that you don't just randomly have a border poll but instead it must be done at a time and in a manner that might actually produce a reliable result.