United Ireland discussion thread

briany

blanch152 wrote: »

The cross-community consent is a double-edged sword. If I were the DUP, the question I would ask is whether cross-community assent should also apply to other constitutional issues affecting Northern Ireland.

I am sure that they would be happy to agree to a 66% requirement to leave the customs union if it also meant a 66% requirement to constitutionally leave the UK.

To be honest, I'd give them that. The last thing needed is ploughing on with the 'decisive' mandate of 51-49.

You support the things you support in a democracy, but if there's not a consensus around them, then they'll be sh*te even if you get them.

prawnsambo

blanch152 wrote: »

The 66% provision could be extended to the GFA referendum.

It would require changes or interpretations to the GFA (perhaps a protocol) but I don't think it would require a referendum to implement that change. Would be hard for the Irish government to resist if they are insisting on it for leaving the customs union.

The nationalist community would go nuts. It would mean forever being in the UK for them.

Russman

prawnsambo wrote: »

The nationalist community would go nuts. It would mean forever being in the UK for them.

Yeah, that's never going to happen, cross community support for a UI is a pipe dream (or nightmare). If there was cross community support for anything then arguably we would never have needed the GFA.
Totally different situation to Brexit IMHO.

trashcan

Winters wrote: »

if we were to take a particular lesson from the Brexit referendum it would be that.

Rolling out a United Ireland with a 51% result would be chaos.

Ruling it out with a majority in favour (even if it were “only” 51 % ) would be equally, if not more, troublesome, no ?

ToBeFrank123

It would need to be a minimum 55% for a UI vote. 65% etc is too high and would make a UI almost impossible.

Mr.Nice Guy

Winters wrote: »

if we were to take a particular lesson from the Brexit referendum it would be that.

Rolling out a United Ireland with a 51% result would be chaos.

This is nonsense.

If 51% support for remaining in the Union is enough for NI to remain in the Union, then 51% support for leaving it is enough to leave it. Unionists don't get to shift the goalposts once it looks like they're not getting their away. We've been down that road too many times.

What would be chaos would be telling Republicans - whose viewpoint would be a majority viewpoint in this particular scenario - hey lads, remember when we said you could achieve your objective of unity through democratic and peaceful means, provided there was consent for it? Yeah, we lied.

There are several lessons that can be learned from Brexit. One would be that a confirmatory second referendum is no bad thing - something Rees Mogg was supportive of as regards Brexit, years before the actual referendum happened.

There could be a situation where people north and are asked to give their consent for the government and other parties to enter into a process of negotiating reunification. And then at the end of this phase, when the details have been worked out and are presented in a document for people to read, the people north and south then vote on whether they approve. That at least deals with the concern that people might not know what they are voting for.

But the idea of raising the bar on what constitutes a democratic majority is a complete non-starter. That would effectively mean that a unionist vote carries more weight than a non-unionist vote. No chance.

votecounts

51% is a majority the last time I looked as is 50.000001%, so if in favour there would be a United Ireland and for those that did not want to live here could hop on a boat or plane to Britain, where I'm sure they would be welcomed with open arms:D

briany

10000maniacs wrote: »

No I certainly would not. It sets a precedent that the DUP would cling to for a border poll.

If you've seen nothing else in the last 3 and a bit years, you've seen what a political sh*tshow a very close referendum result can create. To be against a supermajority on the veto just because it would create a precedent for a border poll is just putting ideology over pragmatism imo, and that's a recipe for disaster.
If a border poll were to favour a UI, you'd want a fairly broad consensus on it. The alternative is a slippery slope to renewed violence on the island of Ireland.

BarryD2

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

This is nonsense.

If 51% support for remaining in the Union is enough for NI to remain in the Union, then 51% support for leaving it is enough to leave it. Unionists don't get to shift the goalposts once it looks like they're not getting their away. We've been down that road too many times.

It could very well be a disaster, no way I as RepIrl voter who aspires to a UI would vote for such a thing if it was clear there was not substantial support in NI for it. Who'd want 49% of the NI population if they were severely disaffected to the idea - no way. We don't want or need that hassle. Let them sort themselves out up there first, build bridges between the communities instead of trenches as they have been for the past few years. If people like you want a UI, you'll have to work for it by persuading our Unionist brethren that they'd be better off and have nothing to fear in a new state.

Fr Tod Umptious

votecounts wrote: »

51% is a majority the last time I looked as is 50.000001%, so if in favour there would be a United Ireland and for those that did not want to live here could hop on a boat or plane to Britain, where I'm sure they would be welcomed with open arms:D

Not picking out this poster as such, but this sort of thing really bugs me.

Many of the same people that decry the results of the Brexit referendum (52-48 or whatever) as being too narrow, not a true reflection, not a mandate etc etc are quite willing to proclaim that 50.05% would be a mandate in a United Ireland vote.

If we have learned anything from Brexit it is that close referendum are frought with danger.

If you think Brexit is bad imagine what a UI deal would be like to try and negotiate.

A UI vote will only be offered once a clear majority is ready for a UI.

votecounts

BarryD2 wrote: »

It could very well be a disaster, no way I as RepIrl voter who aspires to a UI would vote for such a thing if it was clear there was not substantial support in NI for it. Who'd want 49% of the NI population if they were severely disaffected to the idea - no way. We don't want or need that hassle. Let them sort themselves out up there first, build bridges between the communities instead of trenches as they have been for the past few years. If people like you want a UI, you'll have to work for it by persuading our Unionist brethren that they'd be better off and have nothing to fear in a new state.

Have the Unionists ever reached out to the nationalists to make them feel better in the UK,no unless of course you count internment, marching in area where they are not wanted, burning the irish flags, bonfires, colluding with security forces to kill them, singing f the pope and f the IRA, won't pass the irish language act, making sure schoolchildren could not go to school, putting universities in protestant areas,burning them out of their houses, i could go on but that is a small amount of things that they have done. So if it is a majority, they can like it like it or leave.

farmchoice

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not picking out this poster as such, but this sort of thing really bugs me.

Many of the same people that decry the results of the Brexit referendum (52-48 or whatever) as being too narrow, not a true reflection, not a mandate etc etc are quite willing to proclaim that 50.05% would be a mandate in a United Ireland vote.

If we have learned anything from Brexit it is that close referendum are frought with danger.

If you think Brexit is bad imagine what a UI deal would be like to try and negotiate.

A UI vote will only be offered once a clear majority is ready for a UI.

the problem with the brexit referendum wasn't that the outcome was 52-48 its that wat brexit was going to look like was undefined.


it would be like a vote in NI where the question was ''would you like to leave the UK.
and then those voting yes were promised by some they would go into a 32 county united Ireland tricolor and all, whilst others were promised a new federal union with the republic but mainlining the NHS and the queen, whilst others though the IRA were going to come back and take over.


before any referendum there would have to be a plan for the new state that would come into existence afterwards, a whole new constitution set out.

careless sherpa

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Not picking out this poster as such, but this sort of thing really bugs me.

Many of the same people that decry the results of the Brexit referendum (52-48 or whatever) as being too narrow, not a true reflection, not a mandate etc etc are quite willing to proclaim that 50.05% would be a mandate in a United Ireland vote.

If we have learned anything from Brexit it is that close referendum are frought with danger.

If you think Brexit is bad imagine what a UI deal would be like to try and negotiate.

A UI vote will only be offered once a clear majority is ready for a UI.

Not according to the GFA , which is essentially a peace treaty. Can't go rewriting it because 20 years down the road you don't like parts of it

VinLieger

votecounts wrote: »

Have the Unionists ever reached out to the nationalists to make them feel better in the UK,no unless of course you count internment, marching in area where they are not wanted, burning the irish flags, bonfires, colluding with security forces to kill them, singing f the pope and f the IRA, won't pass the irish language act, making sure schoolchildren could not go to school, putting universities in protestant areas,burning them out of their houses, i could go on but that is a small amount of things that they have done. So if it is a majority, they can like it like it or leave.

So your refusing to take the high road and would instead like to play in the mud with the DUP and use exactly the same tactics as them?

It may make you feel good for 5 minutes but the repercussions would be disastrous, think with your head not your heart.

briany

VinLieger wrote: »

So your refusing to take the high road and would instead like to play in the mud with the DUP and use exactly the same tactics as them?

It may make you feel good for 5 minutes but the repercussions would be disastrous, think with your head not your heart.

This is exactly what I'd be worried about - do to the British Unionists what they did to the Irish Nationalists and rest in the knowledge that turn about is fair play. That would be the easy path, though, and would only lead to problems. In a UI, you must have peace and reconciliation between both sides, otherwise there's no point to the thing. A UI is too high a price to pay if riots are kicking off in Belfast and bombs are going off in Dublin.

cameramonkey

VinLieger wrote: »

So your refusing to take the high road and would instead like to play in the mud with the DUP and use exactly the same tactics as them?

It may make you feel good for 5 minutes but the repercussions would be disastrous, think with your head not your heart.

We need to be fair and honest with the Unionist something they never were with Irish people in the six counties. If you continually back down to a bully they will continue to bully, until the Unionists realise that their sectarian bigotry is not acceptable they will continue. Its like the whites in South Africa until someone shouted stop they kept it up to the bitter end. Placating bad behavior means more of it.

cameramonkey

briany wrote: »

This is exactly what I'd be worried about - do to the British Unionists what they did to the Irish Nationalists and rest in the knowledge that turn about is fair play. That would be the easy path, though, and would only lead to problems. In a UI, you must have peace and reconciliation between both sides, otherwise there's no point to the thing. A UI is too high a price to pay if riots are kicking off in Belfast and bombs are going off in Dublin.

So you would prefer to give way to terrorist than respect the democratic right of people for a UI. fair enough.

blanch152

careless sherpa wrote: »

Not according to the GFA , which is essentially a peace treaty. Can't go rewriting it because 20 years down the road you don't like parts of it

Treaties are rewritten all the time.

The European Treaties have been rewritten several times, getting rid of unanimity and bringing in qualified majority voting being a similar example of changing the voting rules.

VinLieger

cameramonkey wrote: »

So you would prefer to give way to terrorist than respect the democratic right of people for a UI. fair enough.

Thats a pathetic strawman, nobody suggested such a thing, your the one bringing in terrorisim and saying we should be standing up to them cus they are bullies.

This exact kind of thinking will lead to the abject failure of a UI, they cant be the enemy you want them to be forever, someday you will have to accept them as your countrymen like it or not and until you can do that why should they?

Be the bigger person

votecounts

Not looking for any payback, just stating that if there is a majority in favour of a United Ireland, so be it. That's whats the GFA states or are going to rewrite this 21 year international agreement voted for by both parts of this Island just to apppease some unionists. If they are so fond of democracy especially when they were the majority as they claim to be, they will have to live with it.

marieholmfan

cameramonkey wrote: »

We need to be fair and honest with the Unionist something they never were with Irish people in the six counties. If you continually back down to a bully they will continue to bully, until the Unionists realise that their sectarian bigotry is not acceptable they will continue. Its like the whites in South Africa until someone shouted stop they kept it up to the bitter end. Placating bad behavior means more of it.

They are Irish people in the six counties.

VinLieger

votecounts wrote: »

Not looking for any payback,

Ohh really? You literally contradicted yourself in the same post

votecounts wrote: »

If they are so fond of democracy especially when they were the majority as they claim to be, they will have to live with it.

How have the last 3 years of brexit chaos not helped you to see a 51% majority in divisive issues like this could literally lead to the ruination of a country?

It shouldn't matter what the GFA says if it could lead to a disastrous result.

This is one thing i will never understand about ardent republicans who want a UI no matter the cost, instead of maybe thinking in the longterm and seeing the benefit of having it be a guaranteed success?

cameramonkey

marieholmfan wrote: »

They are Irish people in the six counties.

Most surveys indicate that the unionist consider themselves British not Irish. This is the basis for the ongoing problem, if they were Irish then the problem goes away.

votecounts

VinLieger wrote: »

Ohh really? You literally contradicted yourself in the same post



How have the last 3 years of brexit chaos not helped you to see a 51% majority in divisive issues like this could literally lead to the ruination of a country?

It shouldn't matter what the GFA says if it could lead to a disastrous result.

This is one thing i will never understand about ardent republicans who want a UI no matter the cost, instead of maybe thinking in the longterm and seeing the benefit of having it be a guaranteed success?

I was just stating that if a majority voted for a United Ireland, then they would have to live with democractic result. Surely you agree with democracy

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

Treaties are rewritten all the time.

The European Treaties have been rewritten several times, getting rid of unanimity and bringing in qualified majority voting being a similar example of changing the voting rules.

Forget it. You're not going to make a unionist vote worth more than a nationalist one. You're not going to get away with à la carte democracy now you see the writing on the wall as regards our future in Ireland.

You should be much more concerned with a rejection of a UI in the south because that will give us our very own version of Brexit chaos in the twenty six counties.

cameramonkey

briany wrote: »

A UI is too high a price to pay if riots are kicking off in Belfast and bombs are going off in Dublin.

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats a pathetic strawman, nobody suggested such a thing, your the one bringing in terrorisim and saying we should be standing up to them cus they are bullies.

This exact kind of thinking will lead to the abject failure of a UI, they cant be the enemy you want them to be forever, someday you will have to accept them as your countrymen like it or not and until you can do that why should they?

Be the bigger person

You need to read what I was responding to, unless you think that setting off bombs in Dublin is not a terrorist act.
I said we need to treat Unionsts fairly but that does not mean we should back down when they attempt sectarianism and bullying, unless you also think that is a legitimate position.

VinLieger

votecounts wrote: »

I was just staing that if a majority voted for a United Ireland, then they would have to live with democractic result. Surely you agree with democracy

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

briany

cameramonkey wrote: »

So you would prefer to give way to terrorist than respect the democratic right of people for a UI. fair enough.

I'd prefer peace on the island of Ireland, and the kind of peace that doesn't require more violence to achieve. A united Ireland in which close to a million of its citizens are disgruntled about the arrangement doesn't really sound all that united to me, and therefore not the greatest idea. Any new state would have to meet the reasonable folks on the British Unionist side halfway. Compromises would have to be made on each side.

VinLieger

cameramonkey wrote: »

You need to read what I was responding to, unless you think that setting off bombs in Dublin is not a terrorist act.
I said we need to treat Unionsts fairly but that does not mean we should back down when they attempt sectarianism and bullying, unless you also think that is a legitimate position.

You are the one invoking terrorism, nobody else mentioned it and your constant refrain of saying we should stand up to them instead of maybe just sit down with them is the attitude that will lead to terroroism

votecounts

VinLieger wrote: »

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

In the event of a majority wanting a United Ireland you want to oppose this to appease a few Unionists. Cannot happen if you are a democrat so what do you propose happens