nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Mod:

Continuation of the How long before Irish reunification? thread.

Please note that all mod warnings, actions and threadbans from the previous thread carry across to here.

I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).

Threadbanned Users:
blanch152
Randy Archer
Natterjack from Kerry
littlevillage

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yous will have to.ask him that....but they have admitted to having no self interest/stragic interest there....effectively a licence going to run it into the ground,have yous seen state of the roads and electric network about

Still no sign of this declartion of surrender it seems,keep saying it over and over,not gonna make it true

And that day,as per thread title is here.....imo its near impossible to condemn saoradh as the requirements to hold a border poll have been met,but the brits wont hold one.......why should irish people persue peaceful means for unity,when the brits wont

(Anyone,who honestly thinks the ira handed over all their guns/ammo is v.naive....they wont use em again either imo)

What conditions have been met? Is it not generally accepted that the majority want to remain part of the UK?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The conditions set out under the gfa

No....its not generally accepted the majority wish to remain.....its on a knife edge democratically and a bad winter/covid run riot in older generations would tip it 100% into reunification

Only the most extreme head-in-sand of unionist leadership,who demand any talk of this be shut down in unionism denies this........time and demographics have simply run out on unionism,its over

But the condition is that if the British think it is likely to succeed. 51 % isn't likely to succeed due to margin of error in opinion polls.

Gonna have to see at least 55% in favour before it will even be considered.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

51% is a majority in my eyes (its undemocratic to say otherwise)....brexit was carried by 52%

To.my eyes anyway,the requirements been met and a refusal to hold a poll only strengthens the position of dissidents republicans and id struggle to condemn their actions

So what poll are you basing this 51% on that with the margin of error could go either way?

Deleted User wrote: »

dissidents republicans and id struggle to condemn their actions

You would struggle to condemn dissident republicans. Oh dear. Would you say that to the faces of family of that wee girl that the same republicans murdered last year. (The journalist from Londonderry)

Fair plays to admitting that though. It’s clear a lot of the republican types on here get their rocks off on the IRAs murderous actions but they wouldn’t be as brazen as yourself and write it clearly down. You have no issue with republicans bombing and shooting people. Watch out they don’t bomb some one close to you though. They have history in killing their supposed “own kind”

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By your admission,this could go either way....therefore its as likely to pass as not

Just hold the poll and remove the strentghing position of dissidents,deal with outcomes as they fall.....either unity or build for another poll in 7 years

I didn't say it could go either way. You put forward the idea that 51% wanted it. 51% in a poll doesn't meet the conditions of the GFA as it is just as likely not to pass.

downcow wrote: »

I think we are getting to the core of the ira surrender/defeat now (with the Brit gov and the more progressive unionists giving them the fig leaf of the gfa)
Claims of ira success seems to have narrowed down here now to the uk giving up their strategic interest in ni - when every single person on here knows right well that uk has not had a strategic interest in ni for 50+ years.

It is clear the ira got nothing out of gfa, bar getting those imprisioned released, after a humiliating couple more years. At least the hunger strikers got their own clothes back and bigger sausage rolls

The reason why the truth should be defended even if you get accused of glorifying the IRA is all within the post above.

Triumphalism and lies and the kind of sad mockery of suffering and death unique to the belligerent Unionist.

The same poster who will turn the Covid crisis into a sick competition of us versus themuns.

jh79 wrote: »

I didn't say it could go either way. You lit forward the idea that 51% wanted it. 51% in a poll doesn't meet the conditions of the GFA as it is just as likely not to pass.

Again JH you need to defer to the truth.

Earlier in the thread I posted the outcome of a court challenge to the criteria for a border poll. The SoS only has to be of the opinion that it would pass...he/she does not have to back that opinion up.
The 'conditions are met' on his opinion therefore.

Do you seriously believe that the result of a BP would be ignored if it was only 51%?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again JH you need to defer to the truth.

Earlier in the thread I posted the outcome of a court challenge to the criteria for a border poll. The SoS only has to be of the opinion that it would pass...he/she does not have to back that opinion up.
The 'conditions are met' on his opinion therefore.

Do you seriously believe that the result of a BP would be ignored if it was only 51%?

I didn't say that.

An opinion poll of 51% doesn't meet the requirements of the GFA that the British will allow it if they think it is likely to pass.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

:rolleyes:

To me it deos meet the conditions for a border poll anyway....quite how/why you think 51% isnt a majority to pass a poll/referendum is beyond me anyway.....as a junior cert math student could tell you otherwise

51% with a margin of error of 3% means 48 to 54 % is possible. Just as likely not to pass.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By this logic at 48% its also in reems of possibility of passing??

Seems to me,its time to hold one so

You do know that all opinion polls have a margin of error? It's not a new concept.

The British Army concluded that they could not defeat the IRA

The IRA concluded that they were not capable of creating a United Ireland

They were both right.

Bambi wrote: »

The British Army concluded that they could not defeat the IRA

The IRA concluded that they were not capable of creating a United Ireland

They were both right.

So the IRA retired because they achieved their aim of getting SF into a partitionist government?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes....and as yous outlined from 48% up,its possible it could pass

Hold the poll

The GFA says it has to be likely to pass not possible.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To me 51% is likely to pass...

So where is this opinion poll that shows a 51% support for a UI?

timthumbni wrote: »

That’s a bit harsh. Without Sands and the others (No one knows the others names) SF could never have held 500 dollar a head slap up banquets in the US with gullible fat Irish Americans tucking into beef wellingtons. We will never forget you Jimmy Sands etc etc. Pass me the mustard please.

Awful lot of complaining about a park named after Ramond McCreesh when, 'nobody' knows who he is, Tim.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Quoting a 4 day old post,as youve run out of road in a conversation,

In an desperate attemt,to redirect conversation is a bit sad

Didn't even realise anyways back on topic.

Have you a link to this poll with 51 % support for a UI?

jh79 wrote: »

Blaaz, what was the British strategic interest in NI that Francie claimed they lost?

If it was a stalemate why did the IRA surrender only for their political wing to facilitate partition?

Essentially, SF became caretakers of NI on behalf on the UK until the people of NI say otherwise .

This 'strategic interest' thing? Funny you are following downcow's lead here.

The British were here, killing our people on the streets to shore up a sectarian bigoted state that Ian Paisley eventually admitted existed.

How do I know or care what their strategic interest was? Were they just here for target practice, the scenery, the fresh air?

What is wrong with you? Are you totally unaware of how they fortified the state they allowed to be built?

The British (Peter Brooke said it, in yet another milestone the Unionists rejected and railed against:)

'“no selfish, strategic or economic interest in remaining in Northern Ireland.”

Ask him what he meant, he said it at the behest of Hume-Adams when the historic initiative bore fruit.

A key element of this discussion was that Britain should be willing to allow the people of Ireland to decide their own political future. This meant that they had to be willing to accept the possibility of a united Ireland. Furthermore, they were to call on Britain to declare it had no "selfish, political, strategic, or economic interest in Northern Ireland" (O'Brien, 1995, p.290). This statement was in response to Peter Brooke's, then Northern Ireland Secretary of State, statement on 9 November 1991 which claimed that Britain had no "selfish, strategic, or economic interest in Northern Ireland."

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/peace/talks.htm

jh79 wrote: »

I didn't say that.

An opinion poll of 51% doesn't meet the requirements of the GFA that the British will allow it if they think it is likely to pass.

The only 'requirement' is the SoS 'opinion'. It does not require him/her to prove his/her opinion.

Read the court judgement in this landmark case...you really should know this before pontificating.

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/northern-ireland-secretary-not-required-to-publish-border-poll-policy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The only 'requirement' is the SoS 'opinion'. It does not require him/her to prove his/her opinion.

Read the court judgement in this landmark case...you really should know this before pontificating.

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/northern-ireland-secretary-not-required-to-publish-border-poll-policy

And what would he or she base that opinion on other than opinion polls? The hint here is the word opinion.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who anywhere said anything about opinion poll?

Lucidtalk have shown consistantly with undecided removed support to be for unity however.......my belief comes from the demographics,and that catholic majority to be likely before end of this year

(catholics out number by prodestants by upto 10% in workforce already,its only among pensioners,where prodestanta hold a majority anymore)........its a one way ticket as demographics have simply run out on the union

So there is no evidence that the majority want unification.

jh79 wrote: »

And what would he or she base that opinion on other than opinion polls? The hint here is the word opinion.

Why would you want the SoS to ignore opinion polls anyways? Really want another 7 years added to the 20+ .

jh79 wrote: »

And what would he or she base that opinion on other than opinion polls? The hint here is the word opinion.

It could be a 'political judgement' JH...you know the kind of judgements made when it is politically expedient to make them?

Read the fecking court judgement will ya...don't be so precious about staying unaware and uneducated. I posted it twice in this thread.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To my eyes there is....the fact you want to handwave away clear demographics is both disturbing and fasinating,

Ive siad lucidtalk polls show it....its clear from your reply to.francy yous dont read links

Plenty of catholic public servants who wouldn't fancy redundancy in a UI.

No doubt a few "Republican" families hoping to pass the MLA baton through the generations like landed gentry that wouldn't fancy it either.

jh79 wrote: »

Plenty of catholic public servants who wouldn't fancy redundancy in a UI.

No doubt a few "Republican" families hoping to pass the MLA baton through the generations like landed gentry that wouldn't fancy it either.

You campaigning now JH?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Meh....its a 98% corrolation on both religious sides as regards unionist/nationlist

Its notable youve stopped any/all.attempts at factual content within yous posts

You're basing the need for a referendum on a number you plucked out of thin air.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You campaigning now JH?

Jaysus no. Just find it interesting the skewed interpretation of reality on this thread.

The IRA planned it this way all along it seems!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except im not.....im basing it on demographics(along with several polls)

Which for reasons,only known to yous,you wish to ignore reality

,time has simply run out for their grubby lil colony on our island.......all this discussion is easily put to bed,hold the poll

Are you gonna share these polls? What's the correlation between catholism and the being prounification?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And that day,as per thread title is here.....imo its near impossible to condemn saoradh as the requirements to hold a border poll have been met,but the brits wont hold one.......why should irish people persue peaceful means for unity,when the brits won't.

Saoradh. Those are the muppets that murdered Lyra McKee and then strutted down O'Connell St to show how proud they were of it?!? Its actually pretty easy to condemn those dickheads.

Then you take a look at their other aims. A socialist republic? **** off. They would basically turn Ireland into a 3rd world ****hole. No thanks. I will happily condemn them. And laugh at them.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

From.the man who handwaves away a catholic majority as irrelevant to discussion on a border poll.....only one person with a skewed interpetation here

So all catholics will vote for a UI? Has the pope advised them to do so!

jh79 wrote: »

Jaysus no. Just find it interesting the skewed interpretation of reality on this thread.

The IRA planned it this way all along it seems!

Well you have ignored the evidence presented that the British acceded to a demand emanating from the Hume-Adams talks to tacitly withdraw from Ireland saying they 'have no selfish, strategic or economic interest in northern Ireland' anymore.
This likely came from Adams as Hume had never mentioned the need for Britain to say it before their initiative.

You have also ignored evidence presented that built into the agreement (GFA) is a mechanism for the SoS to call a border poll whenever he/she wishes to.
Unionists spotted that this was a danger to them as they could not 'veto' it by requiring the SoS to present evidence. Hence the court challenge which they lost.

So yeh, I do think the the above was 'planned' and more to the point 'achieved' by republican/nationalist negotiators.