Francie didn't pay much attention to it at the time but having a Google about it and wiki etc wouldn't say they nearly won it.
They gained a lot of ground but there was only one poll showing a win for independence and there were a lot of polls done.
In the end the No vote was higher than that predicted in the polls. The gap dropped from 17 to 11%.
Looking at the Ashcroft poll that followed, the economy was an important factor as you would expect.
There was a huge push from Westminster at the end that saved the day with promises, that were subsequently broken made.
In a UI referendum the British will be neutral as a government, there won't be last minute titbits dangled in front of voters to enduce them to stay...in itself a tacit admission that they see NI as different and have withdrawn in spirit in the GFA.
At the moment, without a plan, a UI is showing massive support in my opinion, I expect it to gather huge momentum on the publication of a plan and to stay there.
I wonder if the EU will remain neutral so as not to be seen as interfering in the democratic process?
Would any commitment by the EU such as cheap loans etc would only come about after a successful poll?
Just a thought not basing it on anything imparticular.
The Unionist/Brexiteer propaganda that the EU is a sinister outside force ruling over minion nations, rears it's head. Oh dear, a bit revealing of your never ending quest for a negative slant.
WE are the EU jh79.
While it is possible the EU would remain neutral, the UK Government are bound to neutrality.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent the EU (of which Ireland is a member; it isn't some distant external force) from offering whatever it wishes to should a border poll pass. The UK government can't do that to encourage NI remaining part of the Union.
Jaysus Francie you find offence in everything.
I very much pro EU probably moreso than the average Republican certainly moreso than SF as a party.
It would be a referendum that also involves a non-EU state, I was thinking out loud that their policy might be to stay neutral. I respect the EU as an entity and believe they have principles.
I'm just asking if anyone thinks they will stay neutral until the vote is over given their track record?
Do you trust the British to stay neutral?
Lack of trust in the British would possibly drive more people towards Irish Unity in a potential border poll.
You are doing it again. The EU as 'they'.
We are the EU.
Northern Ireland should vote on independence from the UK.
If that vote succeeds then go join the EU. You'll have an open border then and the EU can fund everything for them. When that's all done then have a vote about a UI.
You can't expect the people of the Republic of Ireland to pay billions upon billions on NI.
I'm against a UI until a huge majority in NI want it, at least 75%. As a matter of fact I'm against it until the biggest political party up there is not unionist or nationalist.
If/When it happens I want to be certain there will be peace.
There is nothing stopping individual parties or politicians campaigning, the government can't dangle inducements.
Northern Ireland isn't and they'll be voting first.
The majority in NI want to be in the EU.
'Concurrent' meant nobody goes first when I were at school.
I'd suggest you get on with your campaign to replace the GFA if this is your desired outcome. As things stand, this can't and won't happen. I don't suspect you'll have much success convincing over 50% of the people of NI, 50% of the people of Britain and 50% of the people of Ireland that Unification should only proceed on the basis that 75% of people would support it.
All the ranting and raving about the potential social instability should a border poll pass by a small margin, but no concerns whatsoever at what could happen from telling people that if two thirds of them want something, the vote of a Unionist is worth over twice as much as theirs.
Francie this was covered in one of the Arins Project papers.
Concurrent doesn't mean the same time. If I remember correctly it just has to follow the same rules. I would of thought the same as you though prior to the paper.
I'll find the paper because i'm not explaining it properly.
Interesting piece on what role the EU might play.
This is the damage Brexit did to proper referendums.
'I want a vote but I also want to build a veto for one side into the vote just in case my side loses'.
Fantasy Island stuff, rather than United Island.
'Concurrent' - existing, happening, or done at the same time.
If you wait for even an exit poll from the NI referendum there would quite rightly be legal challenges to the result. Either side would be within their rights to be very angry about it.
Maybe read the paper first. I'll stick it up shortly.
I suspect Dr Clarkson alleviates some of your concerns raised about how we could pay for it then, JH? I'll be expecting to see you out campaigning for it now that's put to rest for you.
Joking aside, I think that the position Dr Clarkson holds out would be a very sensible approach from the EU; benevolent neutrality is a great phrasing. It is for the people of Ireland North and South to decide, and the EU would be overstepping by telling people what they SHOULD choose, but if we decide that way, they'll offer plenty of support.
“I think the EU would probably opt for a position of benevolent neutrality, set up the position that this is a matter for the island, but if Northern Ireland opts for integration in the EU in Ireland, the EU will not stand in the way,” Dr Clarkson said.
“I presume that they will smother Northern Ireland in EU cash to try to keep things quiet. A tried and tested EU method. And Northern Ireland’s integration into the EU system would be expedited. I don’t think that would be a difficult position to arrive at.”
Confident in my own position overall so have no problem putting stuff up that doesn't necessarily fit with my position.
I'm sure the EU will offer support as they always do. Will it be enough though.
It will be just an opinion and not an official position.
Take it that my opinion of what 'concurrent' meant was the dictionary definition of it. Why? Because it makes sense.
*Not particularly interested in another delve into an 'alternative' or FG, FF dictionary and the offence caused by perfectly clear descriptive words.
The paper was written by constitutional experts from what I can remember.
No offense but i'll put more weight to their claims then a lay person such as yourself.
Not sure what FF/FG have to do with it. It was just a recent academic paper.
Oran Doyle is the academic who said the polls need not occur simultaneously.
Will find the full paper later.
More weight behind a position you already agree with...seems to be your modus operandi.
Various academic go on about super majorities too, they are not automatically right jh79
Unionists/partitionists would rightfully claim that a pro UI vote in the north influenced the vote in the south. It's a recipe for disaster to allow one to take place before the other and you don't have to be an academic to see that.
Sure, 'constitutionally' it might possible to do it, but what democrat would?
This is your original claim, JH. NI will be voting first.
Your source claims that it would be constitutionally possible for them to not occur at the same time. That is a far cry from supporting your statement that it will happen that way.
Fair enough I think, and it is a possibility according to experts, that NI will go first.
If it's rejected in NI the Republic's is meaningless. Seems logical to me that they should go first.
As far as Fionn and Francie are concerned there is only one side that's right in this thing.
They don't give a hoot about unionists and other people in NI who don't want it, they don't care about the people in the ROI who don't want it either.
They are just the same as unionists with a different cap on.
Anything I've read from the academics about a Super Majority has been negative.
I am not a supporter of that line of thinking anyways. I've previously said I understand the logic but don't agree with it.
I just read the relevant section of Oran's paper and he just seems to be shooting the breeze on this and ends up saying more or less what I am.
Several prudential considerations apply in this context: If the North votes ‘yes’ but the South votes ‘no’, this would likely destabilise Northern Ireland. It would have expressed a desire to leave the United Kingdom but there would be nowhere to go. § If the South votes ‘yes’ but the North votes ‘no’, this would not displace the GFA requirement of dual-consent, but could aggravate North-South tension. § If the island as a whole voted ‘yes’ but one or other jurisdiction (more likely the North) voted ‘no’, this could undermine support for the GFA. § If North and South vote on different days, this might undermine the claim of the new or amended constitution to be a shared framework for the entire island. § If the referendums are sequenced, there is a risk that public attention in the second jurisdiction will only focus on the issues once the result in the first jurisdiction is known. This would be problematic if negotiations were to precede the referendums, but less problematic if negotiations were to occur after the referendums.
'Concurrent does not necessarily mean simultaneous but probably will as the tensions/problems it creates are not worth it. Ho hum for the academics.