Northern Ireland- a failure 99 years on?

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

Joining the dots is not your stong point I take it.

Both referendums therefore both the same?

Your reasoning/logic is really poor.

Up your game.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Christ, you still don't get it do you.

50%+1 does win a referendum, but as we have seen with Brexit there is a hell of a lot more to it than just 'winning' a referendum.

We, the Irish people have to think long and hard about this. Brexit is a wake-up call to reject fancilful notions about a UI, easy soundbites and slogans don't unify a nation, nor pay for it.

The very same posters mocking the UK and their political class for being so stupid over Brexit are the very same people frothing at their mouths at the prospect of sneaking in UI poll win.

Long before Brexit we did referendums properly.

This 'what about Brexit' is a crutch. Stop please. We are not the UK

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you only figuring that out yourself? Why or what made you think any different?

We are sovereign we can choose whatever we want to be or join. Fairly obvious I would have thought.

As i said earlier, i got the impression from your replies to Downcow that the GFA was some sort of final destination for Ireland. His suggestions, while unlikely, could be achieved without breaking the GFA with the correct approach. That is all.

jh79

Not often i agree with Francie and Co but self determination is the freedom to make a choice whether good or bad.

Anyways, Brexit was the result of a fractured society not the cause. Denying democracy based on a subjective view of a good or bad outcome is wrong.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Both referendums therefore both the same?

Your reasoning/logic is really poor.

Up your game.

Two very contentious, close-fought referendums that would have huge repercussions on how each country operates for the next generation or two.

We had a trial run with Brexit and saw it tear the country apart with constitutional crisis one after the other... and its still not finished as a no-deal is still on the table

I would like to avoid that poison happening in Ireland.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Long before Brexit we did referendums properly.

This 'what about Brexit' is a crutch. Stop please. We are not the UK

Yes, we in the South are not, but since the border poll in question will be in NI, which is part of the UK, yes, we are talking about the UK...

So 'the We' are actually the UK!

:D

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Two very contentious, close-fought referendums that would have huge repercussions on how each country operates for the next generation or two.

We had a trial run with Brexit and saw it tear the country apart with constitutional crisis one after the other... and its still not finished as a no-deal is still on the table

I would like to avoid that poison happening in Ireland.

'Brexit' was a symptom of what was happening in the UK and not the cause of what WAS happening.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

So why are you against a border poll?

Did I say I was against it

Zebra3

markodaly wrote: »

Christ, you still don't get it do you.

50%+1 does win a referendum, but as we have seen with Brexit there is a hell of a lot more to it than just 'winning' a referendum.

We, the Irish people have to think long and hard about this. Brexit is a wake-up call to reject fancilful notions about a UI, easy soundbites and slogans don't unify a nation, nor pay for it.

The very same posters mocking the UK and their political class for being so stupid over Brexit are the very same people frothing at their mouths at the prospect of sneaking in UI poll win.

The Brexit referendum has nothing to do with this. A referendum like most British GEs manipulated by the Murdoch media.

And "we, the Irish people" don't have to think long and hard about it.

The poll will take place within the six counties and will be called by the British.

You seem to have very little understanding of how this will work while trying to make pompous statements.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

Twoverycontentiousclosefoughtreferendumsthatwouldhavehuge
repercussionsonhoweachcountryoperatesforthenextgeneration
ortwoWehadatrialrunwithBrexitandsawittearthecountryapartwith
constitutionalcrisisoneaftertheotheranditsstillnotfinishedasanodeal
isstillonthetableIwouldliketoavoidthatpoisonhappeninginIreland.

An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another.

ittakestwo

markodaly wrote: »

Joining the dots is not your stong point I take it.

I already said a NI border poll will be divisive. But there is no piont in pretending NI sitting in the UK and not being part of UI is not also devicive. NI will probably be a divisive place for a long time to come whether is stays in the UK or leaves.

But you can deluded yourself that this can stop a border poll. 50%+1 is enough for a UI. This is not my subjective opinion this is a fact of the GFA.

Granadino

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's a long and interesting listen whatever you think of the contributors.

Good listen. No way Ireland would run itself like the Swiss...

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another.

You are wrong because they are both relevant to each other as an example of how not to run a referendum and thus a warning shot to those wanting to simply a very complex question down to a pure majority no matter how small.

Not sure why you are going down that road yourself because you, yourself stated something similar to my position some months back in relation to a UI poll.

markodaly

ittakestwo wrote: »

50%+1 is enough for a UI. This is not my subjective opinion this is a fact of the GFA.

50%+1 may be enough for a landgrab, but its anything but Untied.

Hint: The key is in the name 'United'

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Brexit' was a symptom of what was happening in the UK and not the cause of what WAS happening.

The same end result will ensue here.

Misty eyed nationalism and patriotism aside, won't butter parsnips.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

You are wrong because they are both relevant to each other as an example of how not to run a referendum and thus a warning shot to those wanting to simply a very complex question down to a pure majority no matter how small.

Not sure why you are going down that road yourself because you, yourself stated something similar to my position some months back in relation to a UI poll.

These objections were relevant when the GFA was being formulated.

Funny that there are all sorts of problems now with AGREED mechanisms within a certain cohort - partitionists and some Unionists

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

These objections were relevant when the GFA was being formulated.

Funny that there are all sorts of problems now with AGREED mechanisms within a certain cohort - partitionists and some Unionists

In fairness, the "likely to pass" part while vague is due to what Mark is saying.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

The same end result will ensue here.

Misty eyed nationalism and patriotism aside, won't butter parsnips.

Nonsense and I think you know it.

It's as easy to say the 'status quo won't butter parsnips' if you want to be trite and emotive.

ittakestwo

markodaly wrote: »

50%+1 may be enough for a landgrab, but its anything but Untied.

Hint: The key is in the name 'United'

But then the UK (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is not United despite it being in its official name. It's not united as almost half the people of NI dont want to be there. At least in a UI the country will just be called Ireland and we wont be pretending to the world its united by putting it in the official name.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

In fairness, the "likely to pass" part while vague is due to what Mark is saying.

Unionists would have had no truck and would have walked if there was any formal right given to the Irish Gov. having a role in deciding a poll.

As the challenge taken by McCord showed, the SoS's hands can not be tied on what criteria is used to make a decision.

I think that clause was just a way of hiding the inevitable involvement of Dublin.

A border poll will be called as the result of consultation between London and Dublin. 'A political decision'.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

These objections were relevant when the GFA was being formulated.

Funny that there are all sorts of problems now with AGREED mechanisms within a certain cohort - partitionists and some Unionists

Well Francie, you still have not answered my previous question about the Treaty.
You stated clearly that Ireland should have done 'Whatever it took', so I presume you advocated the invasion of the North, and/or a full-on conflict with the Ulster Volunteers? With the result being of course in the balance with the only definite being more lives lost? But sure, arm-chair soldering is fun I guess.

Why are you angry and vexatious about the compromise of the Treaty yet want us all to embrace the compromise of the GFA when the latter cement's NI's position in the Union?

markodaly

ittakestwo wrote: »

But then the UK (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is not United despite it being in its official name. It's not united as almost half the people of NI dont want to be there. At least in a UI the country will just be called Ireland and we wont be pretending to the world its united by putting it in the official name.

The UK is the status quo and has been for 300 years now, well 200 odd, if you include Ireland. Anyway, that is their business.

As I said, people need to think what a UI is.
Is it a landgrab, or a genuine case to try and unite its people.

Also, in a UI, everything is up for grabs, there is no guarantee that Ireland will still be called Ireland, as it may have a different name come the 'compromise'.

Needless to say, arm chair republicans will be disappointed at the outcome, kinda like Brexiters.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Well Francie, you still have not answered my previous question about the Treaty.
You stated clearly that Ireland should have done 'Whatever it took', so I presume you advocated the invasion of the North, and/or a full-on conflict with the Ulster Volunteers? With the result being of course in the balance with the only definite being more lives lost? But sure, arm-chair soldering is fun I guess.

Why are you angry and vexatious about the compromise of the Treaty yet want us all to embrace the compromise of the GFA when the latter cement's NI's position in the Union?

I did answer...they should have done 'whatever it took'. Lives were lost either way.

Zebra3

Hard to believe the hatred for the people of the north on here.

It's an economic backward. The British Establishment want rid of it.

And yet some want the people there to "enjoy" the status quo.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

The same end result will ensue here.

Misty eyed nationalism and patriotism aside, won't butter parsnips.

What need you, being come to sense,
But fumble in a greasy till
And add the halfpence to the pence
And prayer to shivering prayer, until
You have dried the marrow from the bone;
For men were born to pray and save;
Romantic Ireland's dead and gone,
It's with O'Leary in the grave.

downcow

Interesting. Not a single answer to my question as to why there should be some sort of default position that this land mass has some divine right to be one voting entity but the land masses to the east and west do not.

It would be good to scupper this belief once and for all and remove the old oirish arrogance on the matter.

Zebra3

downcow wrote: »

Interesting. Not a single answer to my question as to why there should be some sort of default position that this land mass has some divine right to be one voting entity but the land masses to the east and west do not.

It would be good to scupper this belief once and for all and remove the old oirish arrogance on the matter.

There is no divine right and nobody claimed that.

Divine would suggest from god.

The days of religious nonsense dominating the landscape here are thankfully dead and buried.

downcow

Zebra3 wrote: »

There is no divine right and nobody claimed that.

Divine would suggest from god.

The days of religious nonsense dominating the landscape here are thankfully dead and buried.

Since you are being pedantic, let’s put it another way, Is there any particular reason that this land mass should be automatically seen as one political entity?. And if so, would that same logic apply to the land masses to the east and west?

ittakestwo

downcow wrote: »

Interesting. Not a single answer to my question as to why there should be some sort of default position that this land mass has some divine right to be one voting entity but the land masses to the east and west do not.

It would be good to scupper this belief once and for all and remove the old oirish arrogance on the matter.

The land mass to the east being the island of Great Britain is in one jurisdiction and land mass to the west which is the combined land mass of North and South America? Unlike Ireland nobody there believes or identifys in a country of north and south America. If they did, probably a county would exist.

James Brown

downcow wrote: »

Interesting. Not a single answer to my question as to why there should be some sort of default position that this land mass has some divine right to be one voting entity but the land masses to the east and west do not.

It would be good to scupper this belief once and for all and remove the old oirish arrogance on the matter.

It was divided without consent that might figure into it.
I feel it's very gracious of us to be willing to have a referendum at all. We didn't have one on partition.
Also considering the history I can see the concern, but we've a higher lever of equality and tolerance than there was in the north.