Hamsterchops wrote: » So in essence they would give up for form of unity (with GB) for another form of unity (with this state) Well that seems clear cut enough.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Sorry?
Hamsterchops wrote: » Not sure who's sorry? Am I sorry?
Fionn1952 wrote: » I don't think anyone is talking about what WILL happen post unification, Downcow. What is being discussed is what is guaranteed by the GFA. It is possible that a devolved NI, with entitlement to British citizenship in perpetuity will be the negotiated agreement reached by Britain and Ireland, but neither of those things are guaranteed by the GFA. I've been very clear that we don't know what the resulting settlement will be, very clear that I suspect the British government will continue to offer citizenship to the people of the area formerly known as Northern Ireland, and very clear that I would be disappointed for you and future generations from your community should this not happen. My point is purely that this is not guaranteed by the GFA, as the definition of, 'the people of Northern Ireland' as dictated by the agreement would not apply to people born there post unification. The Irish government must offer Irish passports going forward because of the GFA, up to the point of unification, at which point it must continue to offer Irish passports because those people would be part of a unified Irish state. The British government must offer British passports going forward because of the GFA up to the point of unification, at which point the definition which binds them to this in the GFA no longer applies. We all suspect, and I hope it will continue beyond this point (I for one wouldn't be against the idea of at least temporarily continuing with a devolved NI gradually integrating with Ireland, or a more federal arrangement for all of Ireland) but claiming that it is guaranteed by the GFA is erroneous, I'd imagine mostly wishful thinking on your part.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I don't know what you mean in that post.
downcow wrote: » Now maybe you would reference where i said that?? more fantasy
downcow wrote: » Originally Posted by FrancieBrady View Post So let me get this straight. If you lose the vote and a majority vote for a UI, YOU WANT a guarantee that NI will survive regardless of the the outcome of the vote and just carry on as a devolved entity? Have you any idea how unhinged that sounds? Are you going to evidence that you just did not make this up again by giving us a reference
Hamsterchops wrote: » I said > So in essence they would give up for form of unity (with GB) for another form of unity (with this state) Well that seems clear cut enough. In other words I was agreeing with you. They vote on the question of unity with the ROI....while leaving the UK at the same time.
downcow wrote: » I agree with most of what you say apart from the last bit i.e. your assumption that Northern Ireland would grow closer to the 26 counties as an ongoing process over the years after any hypothetical united Ireland. This is not impossible but it would buck the trend. I can think of dozens and dozens of regions that have separated and drawn further apart over the last few decades, but I am at a loss to think of any other than Germany who have actually joined and grown closer together - and of course they are very different as they were held apart against the wishes of the vast majority of both parts of Germany. Northern Ireland fits better with all those countries that were separating
FrancieBrady wrote: » ??? Is that not obvious?
Fionn1952 wrote: » One could apply the very same logic to the UK Downcow; with Scottish independence constantly front-and-centre, a post Brexit environment which has removed Scotland and NI from the EU against their will, the UK has certainly grown apart over the last few decades. Unification wouldn't fit with this, as by definition the majority on both sides have to want it; if it isn't wanted then it won't happen. Simple! For 20th Century examples of Unification, you could look at Canada and Newfoundland in 1948, Ukraine (1919) Australia (1901), Romania (1918), Hatay with Turkey in 1939, South Africa and the Bantustans in 1994, and quite a few more. Certainly they haven't always been successful, but then again one could say the same of an awful lot of countries. India also provides some interesting examples having experienced both partition with Pakistan and unification on multiple occasions (more accurately annexation to be honest). If Germany is a positive example of how unification could work, one couldn't say the same about India.
Hamsterchops wrote: » I was just questioning if there was a grey area like a Crown dependency. Neither part of this State or part of the UK anymore, an independent Northern Ireland. You have informed me that this a non runner.
downcow wrote: » Here is the problem plain to see. Bonnie is in his own world and just making your previous posts mean what he wants them to
“The standard procedure adopted to implement an international agreement involving legislative change in two dualist jurisdictions tends to be along lines involving 1. Firstly signature of a bilateral agreement, 2. Secondly the introduction and enactment in both jurisdictions of such legislation as may be necessary to implement it, 3. Thirdly the execution and delivery of instruments of ratification,
BonnieSituation wrote: » You ask or propose this (non-)solution every few weeks and then run away when it's laughed out of the place. An independent NI isn't an option on the table at present and almost NO-ONE has any interest in having one.
RobMc59 wrote: » FrancieBrady talking about whats going to be happening in a UI in the year 2525 .
FrancieBrady wrote: » Where have I done this? Not aware of mentioning that year and my last post actually references a document from 2018 where our CJ outlines what will happen after a successful border poll. You may be missing the growing discussion of this amid all the increasingly desperate handwaving away.
RobMc59 wrote: » The year was a reference to an old song(in the year 2525)which predicted what would happen far in the future. I also agree with Hamsterchops that the discussion(if it can be called that)just goes round in circles . it's obvious there will be no agreement with one set of people adamant there will be a UI,regardless of the current world situation and another set unconvinced of the possibility of a UI anytime soon. Nothing wrong with discussing that but no chance of any meeting of minds I'd say.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You will find that on any thread on politics. Srems to be a bugbear of our Unionist advocates. Maybe that has something to do with their fear of a border poll. They can't help trying to shut down discussion. Why is it only Unionists and partitionists make this complaint?
RobMc59 wrote: » I had posted about bonnie doing his usual party piece and shutting down meaningful discussion because he doesn't like people having a different opinion to his. I'm a British person who believes in the Union,I have no axe to grind particularly with anyone wanting a UI but do think some of those in favour of it happening(you included)aren't very practical about the unlikelyhood(imo)of it happening anytime soon.
jm08 wrote: » Whats so great about the Union? Sell it to us. Whats in it for someone from South Armagh?
RobMc59 wrote: » I'd like to add I think Ireland is also a fantastic place.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So Unionists have nothing to fear if we give Irish unity a go for 100 years so.
RobMc59 wrote: » Maybe not but aren't you concerned that NI does appear to have advantages now which could make the prospect of a UI less attractive to voters?
RobMc59 wrote: » Who says I have to sell it to anyone,I've grown up in the UK most of my life and it's a great place to be imo.The diversity and qualities of the different nations within it is unique,whats not to like? I'd like to add I think Ireland is also a fantastic place.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
