Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

markodaly

Zebra3 wrote: »

So you don't want 50+1 but 50-1 to be declared the winner?

The current situation has been hugely contentious for almost a century so why should that be allowed continue?

I'm just waiting for you to spout Unionist Fears™.

If people really really believe that a border poll that gives us a 50%+1 result is really a good result and mandate for a UI, then they are simply cracked.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

If people really really believe that a border poll that gives us a 50%+1 result is really a good result and mandate for a UI, then they are simply cracked.

What does the great democrat think is going to happen if a 50+1 is rejected?

Fionn1952

markodaly wrote: »

Well first of all the Anglo - Irish treaty was not a referendum, it was voted on in the Dail.

Second, you answered your own question there.

With such a hugely contentious question, do you really think its healthy to just try and squeeze out a 50%+1 majority even though we have seen the results of this from Brexit and even the contentious vote on the Treaty?

We should learn from history, not repeat it. Those looking at a border poll ASAP and then try to squeeze out a victory are fanatics not interested in unifying the Island, they are only interested in a land grab.

As to your last point, we can all play that game.
Why don't we get each county to vote for a UI? Sure, we can subsume Tyrone and Fermanagh easily enough, but what about the other 4 counties?

I'll note you totally ignored my question - why would you support a basic 50%+1 (in a Dail vote) as justification for partitioning a country, but not 50%+1 (in a referendum) as justification for ending partition?

I certainly don't think a 50%+1 outcome on a referendum would be ideal, but I think it would be even more problematic to ignore it in favour of a 50%-1 vote.

As to my last point, that's precisely my point, it shouldn't have been done on a county by county basis, Ireland should have either stayed or left as a whole. Partition itself was wrong and anti-democratic - it was not supported by the majority of this island.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I've already answered this, Downcow. It is literally in the post you've replied to;



I think Ireland finds a good balance between representative and direct democracy myself, as we have a constitution to protect us from the whims of the government of the day, but not a full direct democracy that means we have to have referenda on a very regular basis. It isn't perfect and sometimes results in the electorate having to try and answer questions that many don't fully understand.

It does beat the alternative, like certain issues in the North which had a clear majority support among the general population but were blocked by one party.

As a full supporter of representative democracy, I take it that you would support Irish unification when the majority of elected representatives in the North would vote for it rather than when a referendum passes? That is a surprising one to me, as I think that point is much closer than the point which over 50% would vote for it in a referendum. The latest Westminster election already has parties that absolutely support unification at 50% of all seats, so a one seat drift and you'll be all aboard for unification.....or are you only in favour of representative democracy when it gives you the outcome you want? Or is it just when you have a gerrymandered majority in place already?

you'll find i try to be consistent.
I did say that i dont like referendum but adhere to their outcome.
that 'internationally binding agreement' lol, ties us in to one on UI. So either we do it that way or we rescind the agreement.
Thanks are due to the Shinners and John Hume for arranging it. Had they not, then you are correct, we would be starring at the precipice, but the shinners came to the rescue again. Thanks Gerry you securing another 100 years of Northern Ireland

downcow

markodaly wrote: »

The people are sovereign Francie, you seem to forget that. A treaty was voted on in the Dail and was passed.

Just because you seem to have a problem with it does not mean the majority was willing to follow you into the trenches and fight a more bloody war for a few more crumbs.

Fanaticism is a dangerous game.

Markodaly, my irish history is not good. are you telling me that the division of the island was agreed in the Dail. sorry if that is a naive question but i am really interested. I really only learnt the history of my country

Zebra3

markodaly wrote: »

If people really really believe that a border poll that gives us a 50%+1 result is really a good result and mandate for a UI, then they are simply cracked.

So you are opposed to democracy and opposed to the GFA.

That's fine.

At least we know where you stand.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Markodaly, my irish history is not good. are you telling me that the division of the island was agreed in the Dail. sorry if that is a naive question but i am really interested. I really only learnt the history of my country

That's quite sad in a way, Downcow. Why would you only learn the history of 'your' country, and ignore the massive shared history you have with your neighbouring country, the one that in recent times (by historic standards at least) was the same country? It's a fundamental part of how your country came about, I would've thought that culturally of some importance?

Nevermind the fact that you seem to wear your insularism as a badge of honour. Never read anything on the history of France? China? Italy? The Roman Empire?The Byzantine Empire that followed? Greece? Persia? Alexander the Great? Ghengis Khan?! Naw, just good aul Protestant history in NI and the British Empire is plenty of history! Sure what more could you learn?!

FrancieBrady

Zebra3 wrote: »

So you are opposed to democracy and opposed to the GFA.

That's fine.

At least we know where you stand.

Running scared like a few others. A majorty is not a majority anymore because they know it is going to be close.

Not a clue of the consequences of telling 51% sorry...we can't ask Unionists to be democrats at this time...take a seat, shut up and wait for democracy that we are happy with.

I think Mark reckons that is what Nationalists should have done in 69 too.

Zebra3

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Running scared like a few others. A majorty is not a majority anymore because they know it is going to be close.

Not a clue of the consequences of telling 51% sorry...we can't ask Unionists to be democrats at this time...take a seat, shut up and wait for democracy that we are happy with.

I think Mark reckons that is what Nationalists should have done in 69 too.

I remember watching one of the Nordie political tv programmes a number of years ago, and one of the DUP nutjobs was on about "our queen" and how great she was.

He was asked why a member of a political party that referred to themselves as democratic wanted an unelected head of state.

There was an uncomfortable silence followed.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

If people really really believe that a border poll that gives us a 50%+1 result is really a good result and mandate for a UI, then they are simply cracked.

If people think they're going to move the goalposts then they're off their tiny minds.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

That's quite sad in a way, Downcow. Why would you only learn the history of 'your' country, and ignore the massive shared history you have with your neighbouring country, the one that in recent times (by historic standards at least) was the same country? It's a fundamental part of how your country came about, I would've thought that culturally of some importance?

Nevermind the fact that you seem to wear your insularism as a badge of honour. Never read anything on the history of France? China? Italy? The Roman Empire?The Byzantine Empire that followed? Greece? Persia? Alexander the Great? Ghengis Khan?! Naw, just good aul Protestant history in NI and the British Empire is plenty of history! Sure what more could you learn?!

That would tell me that Downcow is British through and through.
You seem reasonably even handed Fionn so surely you can understand he sees things from a British perspective.I`m sure you are also aware some posters criticising British people`s love and loyalty to the Queen is highly offensive to us,there are many countries with Royal families and it is viewed as a serious insult to disrespect them.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

That would tell me that Downcow is British through and through.
You seem reasonably even handed Fionn so surely you can understand he sees things from a British perspective.I`m sure you are also aware some posters criticising British people`s love and loyalty to the Queen is highly offensive to us,there are many countries with Royal families and it is viewed as a serious insult to disrespect them.

A HUGE number of my British friends would be horrendously offended to be told that being British through and through means being totally insular and unaware of any world history beyond British history, so no Rob, I don't buy it.

Monarchy and royalists tend to confuse me. I don't understand it, I genuinely don't get what there is to love and respect about someone being born into an inherited position with no merit whatsoever. That being said, the current Queen seems relatively inoffensive as far as my general opinion of royalty goes. That being said, I rarely go out of my way to insult people intentionally, so it rarely appears in my firing line.

As a counterpoint, you should apply much the same respect to people who aren't Monarchists and people who aren't British. Much of the ire your Queen gets in NI isn't anything directly to do with her - it's backlash against phraseology like being told we're paid 'the Queens Shilling' for our days work, being told about, 'the Queen's Highway' when we object to a triumphalist march blocking us in our houses. I would highlight that you've engaged in some of this yourself with regards to elected SF MPs taking, 'the Queens Shilling', which is just as serious an insult and just as disrespectful to staunch Republicans as what you're complaining about being on the receiving end of.


Maybe we could all do with being a bit less provocative at times.


As a brief postscript, I got a bit of a chuckle at you describing me as reasonably even handed when a few weeks ago you told me you were blocking me for my unreasonableness....no harm, no foul, just thought a bit of brevity would help.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

are you telling me that the division of the island was agreed in the Dail.

Agreed? It literally caused a civil war in the South, a political schism that continues to this day, and another rebellion against British/Unionist misrule in the North 50 years later.

So, forgive us, if your thinly veiled threats of Unionist trouble in the event of a United Ireland don't really concern most of us.

Unionists' best bet is to get into a UI and work on keeping British/Irish relations as close/smooth as they possibly can, they will have plenty of allies in the south.

Zebra3

Fionn1952 wrote: »

That being said, the current Queen seems relatively inoffensive as far as my general opinion of royalty goes.

That's kinda true, but this is what she allows to happen.

I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

That's the House of Commons oath of allegiance.

MPs elected by the people must swear an oath of loyalty to her and not to the people who elected them.

This is the sort of crap that exists because of her privileged position. And it's an democracy.

Yet, the main parties in Britain and unionists love it.

The FFFGers here bitch about SF apparently not being a democratic party, yet complain when they make a stand against an insult to democracy.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

A HUGE number of my British friends would be horrendously offended to be told that being British through and through means being totally insular and unaware of any world history beyond British history, so no Rob, I don't buy it.

Monarchy and royalists tend to confuse me. I don't understand it, I genuinely don't get what there is to love and respect about someone being born into an inherited position with no merit whatsoever. That being said, the current Queen seems relatively inoffensive as far as my general opinion of royalty goes. That being said, I rarely go out of my way to insult people intentionally, so it rarely appears in my firing line.

As a counterpoint, you should apply much the same respect to people who aren't Monarchists and people who aren't British. Much of the ire your Queen gets in NI isn't anything directly to do with her - it's backlash against phraseology like being told we're paid 'the Queens Shilling' for our days work, being told about, 'the Queen's Highway' when we object to a triumphalist march blocking us in our houses. I would highlight that you've engaged in some of this yourself with regards to elected SF MPs taking, 'the Queens Shilling', which is just as serious an insult and just as disrespectful to staunch Republicans as what you're complaining about being on the receiving end of.


Maybe we could all do with being a bit less provocative at times.


As a brief postscript, I got a bit of a chuckle at you describing me as reasonably even handed when a few weeks ago you told me you were blocking me for my unreasonableness....no harm, no foul, just thought a bit of brevity would help.

British people in general don`t know much about Irish history and it`s not really taught in school although general world history is well known.
The only person I usually aim stuff at likely to irritate is Francie who can be infuriatingly annoying at times although I do believe his hearts in the right place.I agree perhaps we could probably all be less provocative.
As a footnote,I would never disrespect those who I know are revered by Irish people(Padraic Pearse and his comrades for example)

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

British people in general don`t know much about Irish history and it`s not really taught in school although general world history is well known.
The only person I usually aim stuff at likely to irritate is Francie who can be infuriatingly annoying at times although I do believe his hearts in the right place.I agree perhaps we could probably all be less provocative.
As a footnote,I would never disrespect those who I know are revered by Irish people(Padraic Pearse and his comrades for example)

My issue wasn't that Downcow knew nothing of Irish history (though I think that's quite foolish considering anything over 100 years ago, it was his history, so he has a pretty short term view of history really), my issue was that he stated that he knew no history except his own- hence why I highlighted a great deal of potentially interesting history that would be largely considered common knowledge.

The exact quote from Downcow was

I really only learnt the history of my country

You should consider that perhaps much of the sleights on your monarchy that you hear(or read) may be coming from the same position as you - intentionally trying to irritate you as it pushes your buttons, in response to your own provocation. We can all be guilty of it, but it's a touch hypocritical to complain when engaging in it yourself.

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

British people in general don`t know much about Irish history and it`s not really taught in school although general world history is well known.
The only person I usually aim stuff at likely to irritate is Francie who can be infuriatingly annoying at times although I do believe his hearts in the right place.I agree perhaps we could probably all be less provocative.
As a footnote,I would never disrespect those who I know are revered by Irish people(Padraic Pearse and his comrades for example)

I have mentioned here before a podcast called The Irish Passport which is aimed at educating those eligible for an Irish Passport about Irish history, customs etc. In one of the episodes called ''The Knowledge Gap'' they looked at the British Schools History syllabus and their text books. They were astounded that the Irish War of Independence was barely mentioned, but shocked that the United Kingdom losing about 1/4 of its territory wasn't discussed (i.e., the breakup of the United Kingdom of GB & Ireland). They also said that the text books were just not accurate.


https://www.theirishpassport.com/podcast/the-knowledge-gap/

FrancieBrady

Some hard hitting facts in this piece.

ittakestwo

markodaly wrote: »

If people really really believe that a border poll that gives us a 50%+1 result is really a good result and mandate for a UI, then they are simply cracked.

50%+1 It is a is a mandate for a UI. Just like 50%+1 was enough for a Brexit Mandate.

Are you delusional to what a border poll majority means?

Zebra3

ittakestwo wrote: »

50%+1 It is a is a mandate for a UI. Just like 50%+1 was enough for a Brexit Mandate.

Are you delusional to what a border poll majority means?

No, he's just against it when it doesn't give the result he likes.

Capt'n Midnight

downcow wrote: »

It may be worth clarifying a few points which I think are very basic and everyone accepts, but now I am starting to doubt.

Is there anyone on here who does not accept that there is an internationally recognised national border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

The internationally recognised national border is between Ireland and the UK. Though the border in Lough Foyle is disputed.

And that's a Dublin - Westminster discussion. Stormont can of course use it's limited influence in Westminster...

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What does the great democrat think is going to happen if a 50+1 is rejected?

'Whatever it took'
I see you ignored my other post! :P

markodaly

Zebra3 wrote: »

So you are opposed to democracy and opposed to the GFA.

That's fine.

At least we know where you stand.

That line has been trotted out daily by UKIP and BNP supporting types anytime Brexit has come up. '

Ohhh, think about DEMOCRACY!!!'

Now we all know where YOU stand! On the side of demagogues and populists.

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I'll note you totally ignored my question - why would you support a basic 50%+1 (in a Dail vote) as justification for partitioning a country, but not 50%+1 (in a referendum) as justification for ending partition?

I certainly don't think a 50%+1 outcome on a referendum would be ideal, but I think it would be even more problematic to ignore it in favour of a 50%-1 vote.

As to my last point, that's precisely my point, it shouldn't have been done on a county by county basis, Ireland should have either stayed or left as a whole. Partition itself was wrong and anti-democratic - it was not supported by the majority of this island.

I answered that question. We should learn from history, not repeat it.
A 50%+1 result would be a disaster for a UI, I don't think anyone would deny that.

It is easier and less disruptive to keep the status quo than to change it, it has always been the case.

As to your last point, say the Treaty was rejected, or as Francie would say to whatever it took and never compromise... what then? More war?
It's easy in theory to state these things without looking at the result of what it actually means.

markodaly

ittakestwo wrote: »

50%+1 It is a is a mandate for a UI. Just like 50%+1 was enough for a Brexit Mandate.

Are you delusional to what a border poll majority means?

And how is that going at the moment... :)

*case closed*

Fionn1952

markodaly wrote: »

I answered that question. We should learn from history, not repeat it.
A 50%+1 result would be a disaster for a UI, I don't think anyone would deny that.

It is easier and less disruptive to keep the status quo than to change it, it has always been the case.

As to your last point, say the Treaty was rejected, or as Francie would say to whatever it took and never compromise... what then? More war?
It's easy in theory to state these things without looking at the result of what it actually means.

I know exactly what it means, Mark. I lived through it.

I didn't ask you why you don't support unification in the event of a 50%+1 outcome though, I asked you about the hypocrisy of supporting a basic majority as a justification for partition (which certainly couldn't be described as the status quo), but holding my community to a different standard to achieve our desired outcome?

If you think keeping the status quo in the event of a majority voting for a United Ireland would be less disruptive than proceeding with what people voted for.....well I don't share your same outlook, and I have no wish to live through that again.

Perhaps you were more insulated from things, but your attitude reeks of pulling the ladder up. I have still never heard a convincing argument as to why a British/Unionist vote should be worth more than an Irish/Nationalist vote, which is essentially what you're arguing for.

markodaly

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I know exactly what it means, Mark. I lived through it.

I didn't ask you why you don't support unification in the event of a 50%+1 outcome though, I asked you about the hypocrisy of supporting a basic majority as a justification for partition (which certainly couldn't be described as the status quo), but holding my community to a different standard to achieve our desired outcome?

If you think keeping the status quo in the event of a majority voting for a United Ireland would be less disruptive than proceeding with what people voted for.....well I don't share your same outlook, and I have no wish to live through that again.

Perhaps you were more insulated from things, but your attitude reeks of pulling the ladder up. I have still never heard a convincing argument as to why a British/Unionist vote should be worth more than an Irish/Nationalist vote, which is essentially what you're arguing for.

You didn't answer my last question, what should Ireland have done, in the event the treaty was rejected? In fact its a question that is dodged more times than not as bares waste to the nice theoretical claims of easy solutions.
Francie appears to argue we should have fought on till the bitter end, scorched earth style.
What is your position?

I think you misunderstand my position. I am not saying, if a 50%+1 result was achieved we should ignore it, all I am saying is that we should wait for a border poll when we know that there is sizeable support for it. In otherwords we should delay it until we know for sure.

There are those among us who would love a border poll this year, or heck every year until they get that 50%+1 result and then run home with their ball, claiming victory. That is idiotic.

Do you not think Brexist has taught us anything or if there are any lessons to be learned from it?

Jump_In_Jack

markodaly wrote: »

You didn't answer my last question, what should Ireland have done, in the event the treaty was rejected? In fact its a question that is dodged more times than not as bares waste to the nice theoretical claims of easy solutions.
Francie appears to argue we should have fought on till the bitter end, scorched earth style.
What is your position?

I think you misunderstand my position. I am not saying, if a 50%+1 result was achieved we should ignore it, all I am saying is that we should wait for a border poll when we know that there is sizeable support for it. In otherwords we should delay it until we know for sure.

There are those among us who would love a border poll this year, or heck every year until they get that 50%+1 result and then run home with their ball, claiming victory. That is idiotic.

Do you not think Brexist has taught us anything or if there are any lessons to be learned from it?

Your line of thinking is what’s idiotic.
Peace was achieved by agreeing the current system, as soon as a majority is likely a border poll should be carried out and the process of unification should start.
There’s no way around that now without calling for the peace agreement to be torn up which could give rise to more violence, or at the very least a lot of anger from the majority.

Fionn1952

markodaly wrote: »

You didn't answer my last question, what should Ireland have done, in the event the treaty was rejected? In fact its a question that is dodged more times than not as bares waste to the nice theoretical claims of easy solutions.
Francie appears to argue we should have fought on till the bitter end, scorched earth style.
What is your position?

I think you misunderstand my position. I am not saying, if a 50%+1 result was achieved we should ignore it, all I am saying is that we should wait for a border poll when we know that there is sizeable support for it. In otherwords we should delay it until we know for sure.

There are those among us who would love a border poll this year, or heck every year until they get that 50%+1 result and then run home with their ball, claiming victory. That is idiotic.

Do you not think Brexist has taught us anything or if there are any lessons to be learned from it?

If the treaty was not the wishes of the majority of the people of the island of Ireland, then no, it shouldn't have been accepted. If that meant a continued war, then so be it.

Why was war totally acceptable to you up until the point your part of the country got what it wanted, but the people left behind by that decision would be adapting a scorched earth approach if they continued with the same thing that was totally fine in your mind a few months earlier? Why are you so comfortable with Irish lives being sacrificed for your freedom, but somehow Francie is being irrational by suggesting the same for my freedom?

Your appeal to emotion and dramatic language doesn't actually change anything, Mark. By your logic, since Irish independence was achieved through war, and cost lives, it should've never happened and we should've all just sat patiently and just hoped the British decided to magnanimously grant independence to Ireland.

Would you have made the same argument for a 17 county Ireland? Sure you got most of it.....should you fight to the bitter end, scorched earth style?

There has to be a line somewhere that a treaty is acceptable and a line where it is not, otherwise your proposed solution is to just accept whatever scraps you're given from the master's table.

I'll add, to avoid complicating things, or allowing for obfuscation that this hypothetical discussion is purely back dropped in the War of Independence and in no way relates to later PIRA activities, or indeed even later dissident activities.


Regarding your position on unification, whatever way you slice it, you're clearly stating that the opinion and rights of someone of a Unionist persuasion should trump the opinions and rights of a Nationalist person. While I would think a hypothetical 50%+1 vote would be problematic, I think ignoring the right to self determination for the people of NI, as enshrined in the GFA by creating new and unagreed standards raises more problems than your solution solves. Let me be clear, I do not want a vote for unification to pass by 50%+1, but if 50%+1 of the people of NI support unification then I would be totally opposed to any efforts to block it, including by denying a voice to express that will. Your solution creates at least as many problems as it solves.

Also to be clear, no one is calling for a border poll every year. As per the GFA, it can happen at most once in every seven years. Have you actually read it?!

ittakestwo

markodaly wrote: »

And how is that going at the moment... :)

*case closed*

Not arguing Brexit has gone well or if it was a good idea. Particularly it was bad for everyone in NI.

But 50%+1 was enough to make Brexit happen and it has now happened. 50%+1 is also enough for UI to happen.

I think it is naive to think NI will be or has been anything but divisive regarding being part of the UK or forming a UI. But that is not an excuse to stop a border poll if the majority wants it.