United Ireland Poll - please vote

blanch152 wrote: »

It isn't pedantry to point out that you are making a different point now to the one you made earlier. Grandiose statements built on falsehoods will be called out.

I think it was you who didn't realise that the principle of consent is the core of the GFA.

Every right enshrined in it is based on consent of the majority. Goes without saying mostly, until somebody wants to be timewastingly pedantic

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I believe the GFA was the British admitting defeat on NI and tacitly withdrawing.

They don't care anymore downcow, we've been trying to tell Unionists that for a long time, but they will never learn it seems.

Now, that is funny.

Last I checked, nearly 25 years later Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, and support for Irish unity in the North is declining.

If it was a tactical short-term withdrawal, it was one to sucker-punch the PIRA and win the overall battle.

blanch152 wrote: »

Now, that is funny.

Last I checked, nearly 25 years later Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, and support for Irish unity in the North is declining.

If it was a tactical short-term withdrawal, it was one to sucker-punch the PIRA and win the overall battle.

No, it's still in limbo. Heard of the Protocol at all?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it was you who didn't realise that the principle of consent is the core of the GFA.

Every right enshrined in it is based on consent of the majority. Goes without saying mostly, until somebody wants to be timewastingly pedantic

Again that isn't true.

The GFA contains many rights that are not based on consent of the majority. For example, consider the following right:

"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to
identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they
may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both
British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would
not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland."

If a majority of people or parties or whatever wish to change that right, they will fail. Some rights are not based on consent of the majority, they just exist. So your claim is without merit.

I won't comment any more on your digging on this one as you have nearly dug that hole to Australia.

ittakestwo

downcow wrote: »

So are you seriously saying that if there was no gfa today and if there was a clear majority of ni that wanted to break away from U.K. and form a UI, that U.K. would hold on to ni? What are you drinking tonight? You are clearly 100% wrong. U.K. does not ave the deep love for ni that you seem to think

No. But if the majority of NI wanted to join a UI but lets say the majority of Antrim and Down wanted to stay part of the UK they could not form a new NI consisting of Down and Antrim. That would be breaking the GFA. So there will be no gerrymandering of Ireland again to keep a unionist jurisdiction. This was obviously important given that is what the london did in 1921. But the GFA excepts that has happened but wont allow another boundary change to keep a unionist jurisdiction on the island. If unionists get outnumbered in NI there is no more unionist jurisdiction on Ireland.

ittakestwo wrote: »

No. But if the majority of NI wanted to join a UI but lets say the majority of Antrim and Down wanted to stay part of the UK they could not form a new NI consisting of Down and Antrim. That would be breaking the GFA. So there will be no gerrymandering of Ireland again to keep a unionist jurisdiction. This was obviously important given that is what the london did in 1921. But the GFA excepts that has happened but wont allow another boundary change to keep a unionist jurisdiction on the island. If unionists get outnumbered in NI there is no more unionist jurisdiction on Ireland.

The unionists are already outnumbered in Northern Ireland, just like their fellow exclusionary nationalists on the other side.

There are three minorities in Northern Ireland now, one who foolishly thinks that they are British, one who foolishly thinks they are Irish, and a growing middle that realises they are truly Northern Irish and proud of it.

ittakestwo

blanch152 wrote: »

The unionists are already outnumbered in Northern Ireland, just like their fellow exclusionary nationalists on the other side.

There are three minorities in Northern Ireland now, one who foolishly thinks that they are British, one who foolishly thinks they are Irish, and a growing middle that realises they are truly Northern Irish and proud of it.

How is a person from Ireland who know they are Irish a fool?

That was the stupidest post I have read on this thread

blanch152 wrote: »

Again that isn't true.

The GFA contains many rights that are not based on consent of the majority. For example, consider the following right:

"recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to
identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they
may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both
British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would
not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland."

If a majority of people or parties or whatever wish to change that right, they will fail. Some rights are not based on consent of the majority, they just exist. So your claim is without merit.

I won't comment any more on your digging on this one as you have nearly dug that hole to Australia.

A Unionist gerrymandered state could change that 'right' and elements would in a heartbeat. But they can't because consent is now the principle right.

ittakestwo wrote: »

How is a person from Ireland who know they are Irish a fool?

That was the stupidest post I have read on this thread

Agree.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

So are you seriously saying that if there was no gfa today and if there was a clear majority of ni that wanted to break away from U.K. and form a UI, that U.K. would hold on to ni? What are you drinking tonight? You are clearly 100% wrong. U.K. does not ave the deep love for ni that you seem to think

I saw a bit of an Oxford Union debate about Northern Ireland which featured Michael Gove (who didn't support the GFA and wrote a phamphlet opposing it I think). From what he said in that debate it was clear he couldn't give a toss about NI and that his only concern was what a poor look for the UK to be seen to be giving into the demands of the IRA! Absolutely no interest or concern for peace in NI.

guy2231

blanch152 wrote: »

The unionists are already outnumbered in Northern Ireland, just like their fellow exclusionary nationalists on the other side.

There are three minorities in Northern Ireland now, one who foolishly thinks that they are British, one who foolishly thinks they are Irish, and a growing middle that realises they are truly Northern Irish and proud of it.

Someone born in Ireland foolishly believing that they are Irish? You must be on the wind up.

Anyway if they are not British and are apprently not Irish either then what the hell are they?

guy2231 wrote: »

Someone born in Ireland foolishly believing that they are Irish? You must be on the wind up.

Anyway if they are not British and are apprently not Irish either then what the hell are they?

Northern Irish.

Just like Yugoslavia broke up, just like Czechoslovakia broke up, Northern Ireland's future path is to independence, much more so than any other option.

guy2231

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Irish.

Just like Yugoslavia broke up, just like Czechoslovakia broke up, Northern Ireland's future path is to independence, much more so than any other option.

Northern Irish? That's still bloody Irish.

CaoimhinCong

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Irish.

Just like Yugoslavia broke up, just like Czechoslovakia broke up, Northern Ireland's future path is to independence, much more so than any other option.

Are you saying those who identify as irish or British under the terms of the GFA are wrong?

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Irish.

Just like Yugoslavia broke up, just like Czechoslovakia broke up, Northern Ireland's future path is to independence, much more so than any other option.

BUAHAHAHA still peddling this one, Blanch? The option that peaked at barely creeping into double figure support is your great hope? As usual, entirely dependent on your complete lack of actual real life knowledge of NI society and either misconstruing or intentionally misrepresenting a Northern Irish identity as supporting NI Separatism no matter how many times you're corrected. Next you'll be back to telling us the Alliance Party are on board with your plan again.

So the future path, much more than either of the two options enshrined in the GFA is the one that would require a majority in Ireland, NI and the UK all to agree to discard the GFA before it would even be in a position to be voted on?

For a man so concerned with pedantry and telling us all that Unification will never happen because all the details aren't there right now, you've an awful brass neck to keep pushing this agenda that is completely lacking in support, economically much less viable than any other option and also would require the renegotiation of an international treaty to even be on the table.

Care to lay out your plans for just how that one will work, ideally with the level of detail you continually request from those in favour of Unification?

John Doyle's paper is out today.

UK subvention to North irrelevant to debate on Irish unity

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uk-subvention-to-north-irrelevant-to-debate-on-irish-unity-1.4587773?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fuk-subvention-to-north-irrelevant-to-debate-on-irish-unity-1.4587773

Haven't seen the paper yet but according to the article the subvention is probably around 3bn and would initially require a 5% increase in taxes.

Hopefully the full paper has something on the true cost.

The final paragraph should excite those interested in the welfare and future prosperity of the island rather than scare anyone.

A subvention of €2.8 billion does not present a significant barrier to Irish unity and the economic debate on unity needs to move on to the more important questions of the policy decisions necessary to support sustainable economic growth to maximise the benefits of a larger and integrated all-island economy and to support improved public services in health, welfare, education and infrastructure. These will be the real issues that will shape the costs and benefits of a united Ireland and they will be central in the future referenda debates. Compared with those decisions the subvention is irrelevant.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The final paragraph should excite those interested in the welfare and future prosperity of the island rather than scare anyone.

Fitzgerald's paper will cover the cost of fixing NI and should be out soon enough. We'll get to see what he considers to be "dramatic" tax increases.

Not sure why you think anybody in the Republic would be excited? Only NI will see a benefit, we'll be lucky to get 1.3% over 8 years according to Hubner.

jh79 wrote: »

Fitzgerald's paper will cover the cost of fixing NI and should be out soon enough. We'll get to see what he considers to be "dramatic" tax increases.

Not sure why you think anybody in the Republic would be excited? Only NI will see a benefit, we'll be lucky to get 1.3% over 8 years according to Hubner.

...

should excite those interested in the welfare and future prosperity of the island

ittakestwo

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Irish.

Just like Yugoslavia broke up, just like Czechoslovakia broke up, Northern Ireland's future path is to independence, much more so than any other option.

You know the UK is a time bomb. So when it falls apart your hope turns to a NI independence to save you from a UI.

A call for NI independence is from unionists who are not really bothered about staying in the union but more concerned about not seeing a UI. Being brought up in this apartheid has taken its toll. They dont want unity and will come up with any idea to prevent it.

NI is part of the Irish nation. It is the part of the Irish nation that was gerrymandered into staying within the union. But when it leaves the union or the union collapse it will become like it was before part of the one irish nation jurisdiction.

Shebean

blanch152 wrote: »

Northern Irish.

Just like Yugoslavia broke up, just like Czechoslovakia broke up, Northern Ireland's future path is to independence, much more so than any other option.

This is a surreal opinion.

The economic basket case that will cripple us with taxes and cost a fortune that is of no benefit to anyone, should become independent? It would be like Liberia or some other third world 'state'.
This sounds like an anything but a united Ireland scenario. Would you sacrifice the wellbeing of the Northern Irish to avoid a united Ireland? I would expect hard core unionists would.

Yugoslavia broke up because it had two religiously divided factions. It ended bloody. Nothing to aspire to no matter how much you might hate the idea of a U.I.

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-boris-johnson-repeats-threat-to-suspend-northern-ireland-protocol-amid-sausage-trade-row-12330972

That buffoon johnson says " the eu needs to understand that the u.k is one country.did that idiot even go to school?

downcow

droidman123 wrote: »

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-boris-johnson-repeats-threat-to-suspend-northern-ireland-protocol-amid-sausage-trade-row-12330972

That buffoon johnson says " the eu needs to understand that the u.k is one country.did that idiot even go to school?

I think it’s maybe you that needs to go back to school. Did you skip the geography, history and politics classes?

downcow

Shebean wrote: »

This is a surreal opinion.

The economic basket case that will cripple us with taxes and cost a fortune that is of no benefit to anyone, should become independent? It would be like Liberia or some other third world 'state'.
This sounds like an anything but a united Ireland scenario. Would you sacrifice the wellbeing of the Northern Irish to avoid a united Ireland? I would expect hard core unionists would.

Yugoslavia broke up because it had two religiously divided factions. It ended bloody. Nothing to aspire to no matter how much you might hate the idea of a U.I.

Blanch is correct that your plan to unite the two countries bucks the trend.
Can you give me a wee list of the number of countries who united in last 30 years and I’ll list the ones that divided. See who wins

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Blanch is correct that your plan to unite the two countries bucks the trend.
Can you give me a wee list of the number of countries who united in last 30 years and I’ll list the ones that divided. See who wins

Ireland is one country. Your former Protestant/Unionist enclave is not a country.

downcow wrote: »

I think it’s maybe you that needs to go back to school. Did you skip the geography, history and politics classes?

So are you saying the uk is a single country too?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ireland is one country. Your former Protestant/Unionist enclave is not a country.

He has been told that many times but it just wont sink in

eire4

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ireland is one country. Your former Protestant/Unionist enclave is not a country.

No it is not but it sure did a good imitation of Apartheid South African for quite a while there.

downcow

droidman123 wrote: »

So are you saying the uk is a single country too?

This is one of those occasions when everyone can see how apt ‘ourselves alone’ is for some posters on here.

Often you try to shout down my factual posts but times like this the mask slips.

You can google any reputable site and you will see that YOU ARE WRONG (again)
United Nations, EU, etc. Here is one often quoted on here https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/

You guys need to stop living in fantasy land and folk songs. The world has moved on