Who didnt vote for the Good Friday Agreement?

Muahahaha

Just watching Reeling in the Years and they covered the referendum for the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.



94% of voters in the south voted in favour. Who was the 6% who voted no? Was there any politicians or public figures campaigning against it at the time and if so what were their viewpoints?

Quantum Erasure

Me, I was too young at the time

Bonniedog

Most who opposed it were republicans. I seem to recall that former FF minister Kevin Boland voted against?

Also the Irish National Congress which opposed on grounds of ditching of Articles 2 and 3. Finian McGrath was member.

In hindsight, it made no difference to constitutional position, so they had a point. Anyone arguing against it was about as popular as a fart in a space suit.

statesaver

I think the real question is, why did 28.9% of the voters in the country of Northern Ireland where 99% of the violence was happening vote against the agreement ?

Didn't affect 98% of the population in this country.

An Ri rua

statesaver wrote: »

I think the real question is, why did 28.9% of the voters in the country of Northern Ireland where 99% of the violence was happening vote against the agreement ?

Didn't affect 98% of the population in this country.

Of course it did, that's a bonkers statement. Did you grow up during the Troubles?

statesaver

An Ri rua wrote: »

Of course it did, that's a bonkers statement. Did you grow up during the Troubles?

Yes I did. Terrorism in Northern Ireland did not affect the vast majority here outside of the Dublin Monaghan bombings.

The majority here were not affected.

Grab All Association

They got this all screwed up

joe40

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just watching Reeling in the Years and they covered the referendum for the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.



94% of voters in the south voted in favour. Who was the 6% who voted no? Was there any politicians or public figures campaigning against it at the time and if so what were their viewpoints?

I think there were some hardcore republican who saw the removal of the our claim to the 6 counties from the constitution as a major sticking point.

statesaver

joe40 wrote: »

I think there were some hardcore republican who saw the removal of the our claim to the 6 counties from the constitution as a major sticking point.

Republican Sinn Fein

L1011

statesaver wrote: »

I think the real question is, why did 28.9% of the voters in the country of Northern Ireland where 99% of the violence was happening vote against the agreement ?

Didn't affect 98% of the population in this country.

The No vote in NI was on the assumption that they could continue the status quo and somehow deal with the violence via the same methods that had been so exceptionally successful since the late 60s.

For a subset there, any change from direct Westminster rule is unacceptable as it becomes an implicit recognition that they're not just part of the UK. They were OK with Stormont when it was gerrymandered, and with the local authorities not having universal suffrage.

Down here, the IRSP - the political wing of the INLA - opposed it. Don't know if any other party that has had representatives did so (it hasn't had representatives for a long time)

EmmetSpiceland

The “good republicans”.

StackSteevens

I voted against it.

The idea of voting in favour of freeing the terrorist vermin convicted of some of the most evil and depraved actions ever to have taken place on these islands stuck in my craw. And that was long before any of us became aware of the signed "get out of jail free" letters that war criminal Bliar had given to the IRA.

Odhinn

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just watching Reeling in the Years and they covered the referendum for the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.



94% of voters in the south voted in favour. Who was the 6% who voted no? Was there any politicians or public figures campaigning against it at the time and if so what were their viewpoints?

I voted for it. The ones that didn't were doubtless hard core republicans and the like.

Bonniedog

Only real difference GFA made was to reconstitute Stormont except with Catholic power sharing rather than majority rule.

It made no difference to the constitutional position of the north so those who opposed it on non violent republican grounds were within their rights.

It was actually rather amusing to see those who the shinners had used in the campaign to "Save Articles 2 and 3" being unceremoniously dumped once Adams had decided that they would go for a partitionist solution with them on verge of becoming the main Catholic party.

RandomViewer

Orange order

RandomViewer

StackSteevens wrote: »

I voted against it.

The idea of voting in favour of freeing the terrorist vermin convicted of some of the most evil and depraved actions ever to have taken place on these islands stuck in my craw. And that was long before any of us became aware of the signed "get out of jail free" letters that war criminal Bliar had given to the IRA.

You clapped for Michael Stone on the Late Late show?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

The people who voted against it in the north would have mostly been unionists. Many were strongly opposed to any deal with the IRA, or even to any form of power sharing with nationalists.

L1011

StackSteevens wrote: »

I voted against it.

The idea of voting in favour of freeing the terrorist vermin convicted of some of the most evil and depraved actions ever to have taken place on these islands stuck in my craw. And that was long before any of us became aware of the signed "get out of jail free" letters that war criminal Bliar had given to the IRA.

It was a bribe to get a permanent ceasefire. Probably wasn't any easier way to get one at the time.

Junkyard Tom

Mostly Unionists voted against it. A lot of Unionists, and a few oddballs in the south, would have sacrificed every last British soldier, and pound in Her Majesty's Treasury, rather than have a Fenian about the place.

They must be absolutely twisted with bitterness at the rise of SF while the British/DUP have undone the decades long project in the south to demonise Republicanism and rehabilitate the British state in the Irish public consciousness.

StackSteevens

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They must be absolutely twisted with bitterness at the rise of SF while the British/DUP have undone the decades long project in the south to demonise Republicanism and rehabilitate the British state in the Irish public consciousness.

Not in the least. As a homeowner with a septic tank in my garden, I am well aware that, given enough time, crap will always float to the top.

JohnnyFlash

Most of the loony left parties at the time opposed it in the Republic.

banie01

There was a cohort of Nationalists here who believed that by amending articles 2 and 3 that they were giving up on a united Ireland.

That removing the stated aspiration of a 32 county whole island Ireland was the abandonment of one of the founding tenets of the nation.

I knew quite a few who campaigned and voted against the amendments.
They were wrong then, and it's borne out in the changing society of Ireland.

The removal of those articles didn't diminish Ireland, and it removed an implied threat that our nation made to those of the unionist tradition.

It was a simple change that has allowed the GFA and the peace process to in the main, flourish.


My biggest fear for Ireland is that political showboating in N.I by the new generation of political leaders is leading to new polarization.
Too many have grown forgetful of where polarization led the north for far too long.

The worrying thing about the children of peace, is that sometimes they only the good times.
The sacrifice and efforts made for that peace can all too easily be forgotten.
Masked by platitudes and reminiscing, rather than treasured for what it saved and what it cost.

kingbhome

Bonniedog wrote: »

.

It was actually rather amusing to see those who the shinners had used in the campaign to "Save Articles 2 and 3" being unceremoniously dumped once Adams had decided that they would go for a partitionist solution with them on verge of becoming the main Catholic party.

What's wrong with this! It's called negotiating, you where you have to give aswell as benefit. Nothing amusing about that

StackSteevens

L1011 wrote: »

It was a bribe to get a permanent ceasefire. Probably wasn't any easier way to get one at the time.

Absolutely.

However, I found myself wholly unable to embrace the moral ambivalence that was required to support certain aspects of the GFA.

RandomViewer

By county

https://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/fref98.htm

Kerry had the highest No

Bonniedog

kingbhome wrote: »

What's wrong with this! It's called negotiating, you where you have to give aswell as benefit. Nothing amusing about that

They surrendered. If that's your idea of negotiating!

Long gone past caring, and supported the ceasefire on basis that armed struggle was never going to bring about a united Ireland.

Neither will GFA, but at least there's one being killed or killing for no reason any more.

joe40

https://youtu.be/KEq3c0nbkkg

I think it is fair to say Ruth Patterson of the DUP wasn't a supporter of the GFA

alchemist33

I was in Australia, but would have voted yes if I was home

mr_fegelien

Was three months before I was born

Muahahaha

RandomViewer wrote: »

By county

https://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/fref98.htm

Kerry had the highest No

Thats interesting. Kerry North the highest No (7.21%) and Cork East the lowest no (3.66%). Not much between the all of the southern counties though, everyone was on the same page really.

- Yes No Total 94.39 5.61 Cork East 96.34 3.66 Dun Laoghaire 95.8 4.2 Dublin South 95.75 4.25 Dublin North 95.72 4.28 Kildare North 95.44 4.56 Galway East 95.43 4.57 Dublin South-East 95.26 4.74 Mayo 94.95 5.05 Meath 94.92 5.08 Galway West 94.74 5.26 Carlow-Kilkenny 94.72 5.28 Dublin West 94.68 5.32 Dublin North-Central 94.54 5.46 Dublin North-East 94.54 5.46 Kildare South 94.41 5.59 Clare 94.4 5.6 Sligo-Leitrim 94.4 5.6 Limerick West 94.32 5.68 Longford-Roscommon 94.32 5.68 Waterford 94.28 5.72 Tipperary South 94.22 5.78 Limerick East 94.19 5.81 Westmeath 94.12 5.88 Wicklow 94.11 5.89 Cork South-West 94.1 5.9 Dublin South-West 94.02 5.98 Dublin Central 93.99 6.01 Louth 93.98 6.02 Laoighis-Offaly 93.97 6.03 Cork South-Central 93.95 6.05 Tipperary North 93.92 6.08 Cork North-West 93.87 6.13 Donegal South-West 93.87 6.13 Kerry South 93.82 6.18 Dublin North-West 93.78 6.22 Dublin South-Central 93.63 6.37 Cavan-Monaghan 93.59 6.41 Wexford 93.28 6.72 Donegal North-East 93.05 6.95 Cork North-Central 92.79 7.21 Kerry North 92.79 7.21

coolbeans

Was too young to vote.

James Brown

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

The “good republicans”.

Like Lab/FG Senator Maria Cahill?

Another question would be why of those who supported it and posed for photos talk like it never happened when asked questions about policy.

Conall Cernach

statesaver wrote: »

Republican Sinn Fein

Actually Republican Sinn Féin opposed it on the grounds that that the Irish Republic of Easter Week 1916, ratified in 1918, is inalienable and non-judicable. The GFA puts the independence and unity of Ireland entirely in the hands of the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and even then requires a border poll to be passed in each jurisdiction. Republican Sinn Féin held at the time that no new vote was required as the British had already been told to leave by the Irish people acting as a unit in 1918.

BattleCorp

I voted against it too.

I had two main reasons.

1. I didn't want to give up our constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. As far as I'm concerned, it should be part of Ireland.

2. I didn't want people who carried out atrocities on both sides released after serving fcukall time for their crimes.

Was I right or wrong to vote that way, I don't know but c'est la vie.

Bonniedog

Well you were correct about the united Ireland part.

Everyone knows it is not going to happen under GFA.

Not a chance the Brits will call a border poll, and if they do it will be beaten.

Shinners just like to pretend that this is possible as they get on with becoming another boring middle of the road partitionist party.

James Brown

Bonniedog wrote: »

Well you were correct about the united Ireland part.

Everyone knows it is not going to happen under GFA.

Not a chance the Brits will call a border poll, and if they do it will be beaten.

Shinners just like to pretend that this is possible as they get on with becoming another boring middle of the road partitionist party.

'Shinners' aren't the only people looking forward to a united Ireland. Myself and Enda Kenny for example.

Junkyard Tom

Bonniedog wrote: »

Well you were correct about the united Ireland part. Everyone knows it is not going to happen under GFA.

In essence the GFA is a flowchart that loops back to a border poll until a UI is voted in favour of.

Bonniedog

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

In essence the GFA is a flowchart that loops back to a border poll until a UI is voted in favour of.

Read the section on the poll and consent (otherwise known as the Unionist veto.)

There is no current basis for a poll never mind any chance it would be for unity.

How long do you reckon yourself?

In 1994, the IRA was told Brits would be gone by 2000. Then just before it was disbanded the date had moved to 2016. Not sure what time the snake oil salesmen put on it now.

FrancieBrady

Bonniedog wrote: »

Read the section on the poll and consent (otherwise known as the Unionist veto.)

There is no current basis for a poll never mind any chance it would be for unity.

How long do you reckon yourself?

In 1994, the IRA was told Brits would be gone by 2000. Then just before it was disbanded the date had moved to 2016. Not sure what time the snake oil salesmen put on it now.

The Brits are gone in spirit. It's been reeled back in slowly and inexorably.

The only basis for a poll (adjudicated on by the courts) is the 'opinion' of the SoS with no onus on him/her to back up their opinion...it can be a political decision or even based on opinion polls...doesn't matter.

Junkyard Tom

Bonniedog wrote: »

Read the section on the poll and consent (otherwise known as the Unionist veto.)

I've read the GFA a good few times and there is no Unionist veto. There would be no GFA if there was a unionist veto.

How long do you reckon yourself?

I used to think it was way off, maybe three generations, I revised that down to a second border poll that I would estimate is about 10 to 15 years away. Now? Fuck knows. A United Ireland could a be a rescue mission in a couple of years time.

Regardless this is all heading in one direction, aided by the gradual weaving together of Ireland north-south economically, socially, and psychologically.

facehugger99

I was a big supporter of it - it removed the constitutional claim and in effect, gave a de facto veto to ROI voters to any unification proposals.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

I was a big supporter of it - it removed the constitutional claim and in effect, gave a de facto veto to ROI voters to any unification proposals.

I am begining to think there may be a challenge to the need for a referendum here at all.
We already constitutionally aspire to a UI. That has been decided already as recently as 1998.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am begining to think there may be a challenge to the need for a referendum here at all.
We already constitutionally aspire to a UI. That has been decided already as recently as 1998.

incorrect.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am begining to think there may be a challenge to the need for a referendum here at all.

It's an interpretation. A referendum in the south is not explicitly mentioned but a:

majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions

[Article 3. 1.]

Regardless, I say let a referendum take place to see who lines up where. The worst thing that could happen for southern partitonists is that they win because Ireland as we know it would cease to be anyway.

Bass Reeves

It was not my preferred solution. I have much preferred that we dug a drain from Lough Foyle around to Carlingford lough. When that was done ideally push the whole area up towards Iceland. However we never have managed to squeeze it beyond Scotland, they could have it if they liked.

A wall was my second preferred solution. However Israel and Trump have given walls a bad name. There has been a few good ones historically, the Great Wall of China and Hadrians Wall in the UK.

I voted for it I half sorry now

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's an interpretation. A referendum in the south is not explicitly mentioned but a:

majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions

[Article 3. 1.]

Regardless, I say let a referendum take place to see who lines up where. The worst thing that could happen for southern partitonists is that they win because Ireland as we know it would cease to be anyway.

Oh yes...looking forward to a referendum and watching who will represent partitionists politically. Then watching them try and separate themselves from belligerent unionism.

Bonniedog

The only basis for a border poll would be an election showing that a united Ireland might get a majority.

The united Ireland vote even if you count the SDLP has barely shifted in 25 years.

The notion that they the Brits will call one on the basis of an opinion poll is ludicrous,

So only hope is to outride the Prods for 20 years. Ironic that the most pro abortion party is reduced to this, even accepting that they give a fart any longer about unity,

I wouldn’t have. I was too young at the time though.

Giving them the automatic right to a passport was the line.
-

LuasSimon

More and more people in England would give the 6 counties back in the morning and would prefer if the Government spent money on jobs in Northern England or Cornwall than pumping money into security in Armagh or Tyrone that dont want to be under British rule.

Id say East Derry, County Antrim and North Down are the only clear Unionists majority parts left in the 6 counties .

RandomViewer

17000 spoiled votes in the referendum, must have been some weird crap written on them

Galwayguy35

I voted for it but the country should never have been divided in the first place, a civil war would have happened but it would have been no worse than the one that did actually happen.

100 years later I'm not sure a border poll would pass, people down here probably reckon we couldn't afford it and who wants to have to put up with loyalists.