Adamcp898 wrote: » No, you're assuming that the 56% also would choose being a member of the EU over being part of the UK. That's the dangerous assumption to make.
Adamcp898 wrote: » But you're right, some of the seasons you listed above are exactly the reason why there should never be a border poll simply because the perceived nationalist majority ticks over to 51%, something which the same poster is advocating above. It would only serve to further polarise a highly polarisable situation.
Infini wrote: » 56% of NI voted to remain. Id's say that's more than assumption you know.
demfad wrote: » I am not suggesting there should be a poll. Just to point out that if a border poll succeeds it would by definition mean that only a minority wanted to maintain the Union with GB. In other words there cannot be a UI under the GFA against a Unionist majority. If you mean a "Protestant" majority or that ethnic group then that's different. My own view is that a border poll would be best instigated when a significant minority of the pro-UI vote are likely to be from this group. Looking for a "majority" of this group as a threshold would only encourage the DUP to continue sectarian politics knowing it only needs to keep it's "own" in tow. The best argument for keeping NI should be that Citizens have a better life there. The recent referendums in the ROI have no doubt caused cracks in support for the DUP. They cannot rely on National loyalty when many Liberal Protestants may have so much more in common with the social realities down south. If half of Protestants are required to vote for a UI the DUP can keep enough through fear. If only a significant minority are needed then you will see a liberalising NI needed to preserve the Union. That can't be bad?
Adamcp898 wrote: » I think you're making the assumption though that enough people want to be a member of the EU more than they want to be a member of the United Kingdom. An assumption that I'd be very wary of given how quickly we've watched the North become polarised again in the past two years after years and years of slowly moving towards a middle ground.
demfad wrote: » I am not suggesting there should be a poll. Just to point out that if a border poll succeeds it would by definition mean that only a minority wanted to maintain the Union with GB. In other words there cannot be a UI under the GFA against a Unionist majority.
Adamcp898 wrote: » You're advocating the merging of NI with the RoI against the current unionist majority. Hardly anything as noble as respecting the "consent of the NI electorate".
FreudianSlippers wrote: » I doubt that the DUP would go for it, but if N.I. became an independent nation and was allowed to remain in the EU, they could also remain in the commonwealth and have a trade deal with Great Britain - problem solved? (I mean obviously not, but just spit-balling)
Panrich wrote: » This is very funnyhttps://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1086264773149380608
Seabourne Freight shares the same registered Address, 59 Mansell Street, as the Maritime Law firm Campbell Johnson Clark whose Director is called Mark Bamford, ...Sir Antony Bamford of JCB is a huge Tory party donor, his brother is called Mark
Infini wrote: » There could be civil unrest and violence anyways if a Hard Brexit occurs. Remember one thing: When you take away things from people weather its their legal rights, their funding, their economic prospects and so forth people in general tend to react poorly. Northern Ireland is going to get hammered in a no deal Brexit scenario and the DUP are one of the KEY primary culprits in all this. Their own party has refused to bring about restoration of Stormount for example, I know we could turn around and blame Sinn Fein as well but the DUP is in a position of power in Westminster and it suits them perfectly fine to keep it shut while at the same time spout on they represent all of NI when in fact they only represent their own interest which is ironically the opposite of NI who voted 56% to remain. It's pure opportunism on their part. The problem is at some point people need to stop putting up with this carry on and start confronting them and their blatant lies. They talk about their union but their actions and their inability to grasp simple logic means they put their own self interests at risk. A United Ireland was decades away before Brexit and their actions by supporting Brexit a policy utterly self destructive to their own interests now means this could be a reality WITHIN a decade. It's that kind of illogical stupidity that shows you what kind of people you dealing with in that party. Lets also not forget about all those people who voted to remain as well as those unionist's buisnesses and farmers and such who are being thrown under the bus over this, a United Ireland isnt the perfect solution but right now it gives them an out from a British Government that is about to go down as the most incompetent and reckless in modern history.
Bambi wrote: » Nope, Any change to the status of NI has to be with the consent of the NI electorate I'm okay with that, you seem not be
Bambi wrote: » The problem with Northern Ireland is we've always been willing to let a minority have their way for fear of them wrecking the place otherwise. That nettle has to be grasped at some stage
Bambi wrote: » Nope, it's the minority that led to the creation of NI in the first place, we've seen various Irish politicians telling us that a 51% majority for a UI in a border poll is not enough. It's always coming back to keeping a subset of unionism from going Balubas a la Sunningdale.
J Mysterio wrote: » The DUP were offered NI in the EU single market while remaining part of UK and having full access to UK also. The last thing they want is Independence. This whole thing is about their not wanting to be seperate from the UK in amy way (other than all the backward ways that suit them).
J Mysterio wrote: » Newton Emerson coming up in Newstalk to tell us why 'the backstop backfired on Ireland'.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf
ARTICLE 1 Objectives and relationship to subsequent agreement 1. This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement regarding the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent, which provides that any change in that status can only be made with the consent of a majority of its people. 2. This Protocol respects the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. 3. This Protocol sets out arrangements necessary to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation, avoid a hard border and protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions. 4. The objective of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom. The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the Parties set out in Article 2(1). The provisions of this Protocol shall apply unless and until they are superseded, in whole or in part, by a subsequent agreement
Adamcp898 wrote: » No. The problem (not the only, just the major one) with what you've just outlined is that it would be an extremely antagonistic way to try and force a United Ireland and could lead to huge amount of unrest and violence.
Adamcp898 wrote: » But yet you're willing to advocate the same line of reasoning now? Anyway I'm not getting into a debate about the pros/cons of a UI. This is a discussion about Brexit, not wishful thinking :pac:
wiggle16 wrote: » It's actually maddening how shameless he is. In a f#cking JCB warehouse. Just so the reference to industry isn't lost on his dimmer supporters. Or if it is, they have all those big machines to gawp at. I withdraw my previous comment about feeling sorry for the English for being duped. If they buy this performance then they deserve every minute of him.
EdgeCase wrote: » Just to clarify something from further up the thread. The IDA has been around since 1949. It's almost impossible to describe any post war Irish economic policy or activity without referencing it in some way. It's probably the oldest organisation if it's type in existence and has been a template for many other countries' counterpart agencies. ... Actually some of the Brexiteers should take a look at 1930s Ireland for an idea of where a policy of economic isolationism and politically driven ideologies of absolute self-sufficiency gets you. It really wasn't until the T.K. Whitaker era that modern Ireland started to emerge. It took decades to get to where we are now, but that's where it started. So to say that Ireland had great trade links before the IDA era is just not fact at all.....
Adamcp898 wrote: » Which is currently a republican one, no? The North at the moment is polarised and dysfunctional enough as it is given the lack of a sitting assembly and any dialogue between the two largest parties. To suggest forcing a United Ireland on top of that would just be plain stupid.
MrMusician18 wrote: » I think it's for reasons such as this that the opprobrium directed towards Corbyn on the second ref is perhaps a little unfair.
RobMc59 wrote: » Just my opinion but the rhetoric seems to be becoming increasingly extreme by the hour-sniping at each other doesn't help the situation.
Seth Brundle wrote: » So the main opposition in the UK is as divided as the government. Apparently if Corbyn pushes for a second referendum, Labour could lose twelve from his frontbench because of fear of voter reprisals (linky). So what now? The government have no leadership and the members cannot unite on a single stance. Hopefully I'm wrong but I can't see May having a plan B ready for Monday. The opposition aren't united and facing in one direction. Is the UK just going to stumble it's way to March 29th?
Seth Brundle wrote: ). So what now? The government have no leadership and the members cannot unite on a single stance. Hopefully I'm wrong but I can't see May having a plan B ready for Monday. The opposition aren't united and facing in one direction. Is the UK just going to stumble it's way to March 29th?
