FrancieBrady wrote: » Moderate Unionism wants no part of it either, which is why Unionism is in turmoil and imploding There is no Carson or Paisley going to emerge to lead them either. All they can muster is a Poots/Allister/Aitken/Bryson. People on this thread need to get real.
Marine Layer wrote: » Moderate unionism and stupid unionism ignited those riots
costacorta wrote: » Don’t think he is saying Unionists not accepting democracy more like dissidents like you have at the moment the likes of the real IRA etc . As I once said it would be great If you could get the DUP and SF and their bigoted supporters to just F Off to somewhere and let the ordinary folk live in peace ..
Marine Layer wrote: » Moderate unionism and stupid unionism ignited those riots They'll cop on and next you'll see is them promoting a new improved protocol,that they will promote as a concession to save the union Its a double edged sword for nationalists Loyalists don't fill in catholics on the depth of their hate Back in the 80's and 90's they wrren't as under pressure demographically as today Pretending they'll lie down and projecting jingoistic flagism on them,which is way divorced from the reality of feelings in the Republic anyway is a mistake that medium term will cost lives
jm08 wrote: » Live are going to be lost anyway - basically what loyalism is facing is being either ''under the thumb'' of Sinn Fein in NI or ''under the thumb'' of Dublin. Both equally bad option as far as they are concerned, wouldn't you think, so will kick off anyway!
walshb wrote: » BBC1 21:00 hours tonight. The Heist: hour long documentary on the North’s bank robbery.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Susan McKay, journalist from a Unionist background sums up the pickle Unionism/Loyalism finds itself in and IMO there is little sign of a saviour for them, in my opinion, the time is approaching fast for the governments to act, or be responsible for bloodshed again.
jh79 wrote: » Last two opinion show a drop in support for a UI. What action should be taken considering a UI currently isn't wanted?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I keep telling you this but you blithely ignore it. Support for a UI is way ahead of where support for Scottish Independence was when it's Referendum was called. Support there massively increased once a plan was published. There is zero reasons to think it won't here as well. All we are waiting for is when the SoS reckons it is time to fulfil the spirit of the GFA and give nationalists their chance to convince. That could come at any moment if for instance Unionists pull down Stormont or the Scots get their second referendum. It is now irresponsible for us not to plan for it and have very real top level conversations about it.
jh79 wrote: » The GFA has nothing in it saying to give nationalists a chance to convince. Support is dropping again and there has never been a majority in favour. It has never been likely to pass and as per the GFA a poll shouldn't take place.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Again...the Scots would never have been given a chance had decisions been based on opinion polls taken in the absence of a plan. A great deal of what has happened since the GFA has been based on the 'spirit' of the GFA. Is allowing nationalists a chance to persuade in the 'spirit' of the GFA? I think it is, in equality and parity of esteem contexts. you have to ask again...what are partitionists and unionists afraid of if they are so confident in these polls?
jh79 wrote: » How is giving more weight to the nationalist vote in opinion polls parity of esteem?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Because the absence of a proposal/plan unfairly weights the status quo...stands to reason.
jh79 wrote: » Not a chance Unionist would participate with such a blatant breaking of the GFA. Won't happen anyways but the GFA is clear.
FrancieBrady wrote: » How would it 'break' the GFA? The SoS can decide on whatever grounds he/she wants, and is not under any constraints.
jh79 wrote: » If a number of opinion polls showed a majority for unification and the SoS refused a border poll would you consider that breaking the GFA?
FrancieBrady wrote: » The SoS can't actually break the GFA in deciding. It is his/her decision and it is not constrained. Would he/she be criticised in the above scenario...certainly would.
jh79 wrote: » Either scenario is breaking the spirit of the GFA. It clearly says likely to pass. Just because that has no legal basis doesn't change that. It's a weakness in the GFA but can't see either side tolerating opinion polls being ignored.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Perfectly reasonable to think it is likely to pass if there is a proper plan. Allowing people to achieve what they aspire to democratically is core to the spirit of the GFA.
jh79 wrote: » They don't aspire to it in NI. It's the minority position presently. Think you are really clutching here. Not a chance it will happen that way.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 44% in the north want a Border Poll, 39% don't and 17% are undecided. 69%, 19% and 17% in the south. Are you going to ignore that?
jh79 wrote: » The numbers that would actually vote for a UI are on a downward trend. It wouldn't pass. Are you going to ignore that given "likely to pass" is written in the GFA?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Because there is no plan/proposal. I believe there would be a much closer vote if there was. You have to pay attention to that fact and that the status quo will always be favoured without an actual vision for what a UI will be. The majorities now want a poll...how long can that be denied is the question.
jh79 wrote: » Nothing stopping any party from coming up with a plan now. As John Doyle said the subvention is not the true cost of unification. There is no secret economic info to come from the British that is required for a plan. The required data is already available.
jh79 wrote: » The plan could easily push votes in the other direction. Your subjective opinion that a plan will shorten the gap is hardly justification for placing more worth on nationalist votes in opinion polls. Far from parity of esteem.