Border Poll discussion

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It’s nothing to do with my personal stake in the situation.

The tyranny of a majority is a real thing. Something that big shouldnt pass unless it has wide reaching support from a vast majority of people.

Ideally I wouldnt have a referendum at all. Just a vote in parliament. Referendums are silly. Ordinary ppl shouldnt be voting on public policy when they elected people to do just that. But if it was a referendum, I would favour a 2 thirds majority being needed.

Okay, so everyone can agree you think a 2/3rds majority should be required. In fact it'll not be required.

Also, the vast majority of unionists will agree with you and nationalists wont for obvious reasons.

But, again, it'll not ever be how the referendum will be set up.

Sean.3516

Avatar MIA wrote: »

If it's close and lies exposed that may have falsely swayed people then yes.

See, this is literally the problem with referendums.

It’s impossible to know when they’re binding, whether or not they’re illegitmate because ppl didnt have enough accurate information. Similar story if the turnout supposedly wasn’t high enough.

We elect legislators. Why don’t we let them legislate rather than put it in the hands of people who by your own admission can’t always ne trusted to vote based on correct information.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

See, this is literally the problem with referendums.

It’s impossible to know when they’re binding, whether or not they’re illegitmate because ppl didnt have enough accurate information. Similar story if the turnout supposedly wasn’t high enough.

We elect legislators. Why don’t we let them legislate rather than put it in the hands of people who by your own admission can’t always ne trusted to vote based on correct information.

Absolutely. It’s why the brexit referendum lead to a mess.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

We elect legislators. Why don’t we let them legislate rather than put it in the hands of people who by your own admission can’t always ne trusted to vote based on correct information.

In the case of Westminster the will of the people was out of step with the elected MPs. Badly so. And you don't elect an MP on a single issue. That would be stupid.

There's nothing wrong with referendums if they are done correctly.

A clever 4 year old with a purple crayon could have drafted a less moronic brexit referendum, which actually left what brexit actually meant ridiculously vague.

On the whole referendums in the ROI are far better organised.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

See, this is literally the problem with referendums.

It’s impossible to know when they’re binding, whether or not they’re illegitmate because ppl didnt have enough accurate information. Similar story if the turnout supposedly wasn’t high enough.

We elect legislators. Why don’t we let them legislate rather than put it in the hands of people who by your own admission can’t always ne trusted to vote based on correct information.

It's fairly clear that in this particular situation that one community does not trust the legislature that has control of them as they mandate a party not to take their seats again and again.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

See, this is literally the problem with referendums.

It’s impossible to know when they’re binding, whether or not they’re illegitmate because ppl didnt have enough accurate information. Similar story if the turnout supposedly wasn’t high enough.

We elect legislators. Why don’t we let them legislate rather than put it in the hands of people who by your own admission can’t always ne trusted to vote based on correct information.

If it was put to referendum certain criminals would be hung up by their legs and have their genitals cut off.
Referendum would lead us to a pretty inhumane society.

downcow wrote: »

Absolutely. It’s why the brexit referendum lead to a mess.

Where you not adamant that Brexit had to be delivered?

downcow wrote: »

If it was put to referendum certain criminals would be hung up by their legs and have their genitals cut off.
Referendum would lead us to a pretty inhumane society.

This discussion is being held in a civilised region. If you're posting from inside certain regions of Afghanistan, then yeah, referendums may be a little weird.

Avatar MIA wrote: »

This discussion is being held in a civilised region. If you're posting from inside certain regions of Afghanistan, then yeah, referendums may be a little weird.

So if the referendum was
Sex offenders should have the gentials cut off
Yes or no.
You think our civilised society would vote no??

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where you not adamant that Brexit had to be delivered?

Not going there till you start answering questions. There’s a simple one outstanding

downcow wrote: »

Not going there till you start answering questions. There’s a simple one outstanding

Fire away.

downcow wrote: »

So if the referendum was
Sex offenders should have the gentials cut off
Yes or no.
You think our civilised society would vote no??

Yes. Not ever being 100% sure they are being one reason. Have faith in your fellow man.

Plus parliament would never sanction it in the first place. You sure you know how referendums work? :P

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Yes. Not ever being 100% sure they are being one reason. Have faith in your fellow man.

Plus parliament would never sanction it in the first place. You sure you know how referendums work? :P

Well what is the point in referendums the gov won’t sanction.
That might work ok for uni qualified people like yourself but the ordinary guy expects a referendum to be implimented

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fire away.

This was it francie
“Would it be sectarian if you had an event in a gaa club where the crowd chanted ooh ah up the ra. Or a pub where they sang simply the best in reference to the uda. ??

jm08

downcow wrote: »

If it was put to referendum certain criminals would be hung up by their legs and have their genitals cut off.
Referendum would lead us to a pretty inhumane society.

Not sure about that. The reintroduction of the death penalty was removed by referendum in Ireland. RCs don't believe in the Old Testament eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth.

Switzerland is governed by referenda - they are a very civilised society. In fact the courts recently decided that one referendum recently was invalid because the people were not fully informed on the consequnces of their vote. Think they have had about 300 refrenda to make decisions.

Here is a list of upcoming referenda in the Republic.
https://www.thejournal.ie/referendums-in-2019-ireland-4350135-Jan2019/

downcow wrote: »

This was it francie
“Would it be sectarian if you had an event in a gaa club where the crowd chanted ooh ah up the ra. Or a pub where they sang simply the best in reference to the uda. ??

Having the event would not be necessarily sectarian, no. People chant unsavoury stuff all the time.

Unless the event holder was sectarian themselves in their charter and constitution.

downcow wrote: »

It’s not what aboutery. I am simply baffled why you think it appropriate Martin continued to lead nationalism during that enquiry. Unless of course you think he wasn’t running around with a machine gun that day.
I don’t care who nationalism as as their leader but stop telling unionism who to have.
And that’s coming from someone who doesn’t have much time for Arlene.
Indeed I think she would have went if sf had not called for her to go.

It is the very definition of whataboutery.

You were asked about Arlene stepping aside and you straightaway asked but "what about Martin"!

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I know what they technically need but I’m saying that wouldnt be fair on the unionists and also they should’nt be deciding something like this in a referendum. I say this as someone from the Republic.

Wouldn't be fair on the Unionists? Why?

Surely in the event of a border poll that resulted in reunification, Unionism can only blame itself for failing to sell the Union to the people?

Hardly Nationalism's fault.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Having the event would not be necessarily sectarian, no. People chant unsavoury stuff all the time.

Unless the event holder was sectarian themselves in their charter and constitution.

Well there we have it. Francie says it is not sectarian to chant ooh ah up the ra or sing uda songs. I’m curious is there any other poster takes this view or is francie on his own?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

No. i’m saying that under the rules of the UK referendums ast they stand, you need a simple majority. That’s a fact not my opinion.

If a border poll would be held, i would favor greater majority being needed, as it’s too big a thing for a simple majority to decide.

Best you go renegotiate the GFA now so, to remove the 50%+1 stipulation.

downcow wrote: »

Well there we have it. Francie says it is not sectarian to chant ooh ah up the ra or sing uda songs. I’m curious is there any other poster takes this view or is francie on his own?

Here is what you asked:

“Would it be sectarian if you had an event in a gaa club where the crowd chanted ooh ah up the ra. Or a pub where they sang simply the best in reference to the uda. ??

And the answer is: No, having the event would not be sectarian because someody shouted or chanted something sectarian.

Maybe phrase your questions properly? :rolleyes:

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wouldn't be fair on the Unionists? Why?

Surely in the event of a border poll that resulted in reunification, Unionism can only blame itself for failing to sell the Union to the people?

Hardly Nationalism's fault.

So Bonnie you are then happy that nationalist can only blame thenselves for the fact there is only a small minority of people want a UI. They should sell it better. And a wee bit of pr around the benifits of an Irish language act would also help because clearly they can only blame themselves for the fact few people give a fiddlers xxxx about and Irish language act.
As I said, what’s good for the goose

downcow wrote: »

Well what is the point in referendums the gov won’t sanction.
That might work ok for uni qualified people like yourself but the ordinary guy expects a referendum to be implimented

Sanction as in allowing it to go to a referendum in the first place.

downcow wrote: »

So Bonnie you are then happy that nationalist can only blame thenselves for the fact there is only a small minority of people want a UI. They should sell it better. And a wee bit of pr around the benifits of an Irish language act would also help because clearly they can only blame themselves for the fact few people give a fiddlers xxxx about and Irish language act.
As I said, what’s good for the goose

There would be an Irish Language Act by consensus only a single party has blocked it.

downcow wrote: »

So if the referendum was
Sex offenders should have the gentials cut off
Yes or no.
You think our civilised society would vote no??

Why would we set such a referendum?

Sean.3516

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's fairly clear that in this particular situation that one community does not trust the legislature that has control of them as they mandate a party not to take their seats again and again.

You can’t complain about not being represented in the legislature if your party’s policy is to not participate in the legislature.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You can’t complain about not being represented in the legislature if your party’s policy is to not participate in the legislature.

The only one's who complain about SF's abstentionism are those who need to complain about SF.

SF voters know the deal.

downcow wrote: »

So Bonnie you are then happy that nationalist can only blame thenselves for the fact there is only a small minority of people want a UI. They should sell it better. And a wee bit of pr around the benifits of an Irish language act would also help because clearly they can only blame themselves for the fact few people give a fiddlers xxxx about and Irish language act.
As I said, what’s good for the goose

Then you've nothing to worry about.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You can’t complain about not being represented in the legislature if your party’s policy is to not participate in the legislature.

Yes you can and nationalists did and reached an international agreement with clearly defined routes to their desired future. Unionists in the main agreed with that and were happy to implement that agreement.
Now they and their support seem to be saying that they wish to change the terms because things are not suiting them. Not just on a UI poll either.