ideally no as we already aspire to it so the question has been answered as far as the ROI is concerned.
abolish the indirect subsidy to the irish pub known as MUP.
I agree. Constitutionally, proceeding with unity is legal.
The question on the ballot paper really should be along the lines of: 'If the outcome of the NI referendum is Yes to unity, do you think we should do it in:
1: A year
2: 2 Years
3: 5 years.
We just ignore the part where the 29% were voting for an option that involves remaining as part of the UK?
Who ignored it?
You don't know what way that 29% will break in a Yes/No referendum, ALL you know is that their preference right now is for alternative arrangements that could include anything up to joint authority.
If no alternative arrangements were to be found then 36% would favour a UI and 30% would favour remaining with the 29% votes to play for.
You are claiming those votes as Remain votes and you simply cannot do that.
yes i would agree with that being the question.
the majority answer would give the time frame in which what would be going to happen, will happen.
partitionists and all else would have no leg to stand on, not that they have as it is, and of course not to mention that their independent NI nonsense never got out of bed in the first place so that will be debunked by the people finally.
it's all to play for and i believe we will see a UI quite soon and i am looking forward to it and to the final knail for the exclusionary partitionists and beligerent unionism.
focusing on moderate unionism is the name of the game now.
No we have not.
We constitutionally aspire to a UI = fact.
Nope. We changed the constitution by the 19th amendment
that was to only remove our territorial claim.
however, we still aspire to a UI, so the question has been answered so a vote isn't actually required.
Who aspires to it? Not our constitution, which states that a United Ireland shall be brought about only with the majority of the people, democratically expressed by both jurisdictions on the island.
that is only one mention of the subject in the constitution, however ultimately the constitution does aspire to a UI according to the other mentions of it.
a UI is the end goal and that goal is going to be achieved.
Yes and it could be argued that by voting for the change to the articles, which enshrines our aspiration, that we have already democratically expressed our wish.
But, relax, I think we should have a referendum to silence those who would only fuss about it for eternity.
What other mentions?
Mentioned once in the constitution, as I outlined
Nope it really couldn't be any clearer, the articles in question were entered into the constitution after a referendum where we clearly voted to withdraw our territorial claims and inserted articles that make it a legal requirement for the majority to vote democratically for a United Ireland.
There is no need to have a referendum 'to silence those who would fuss' it is in our constitution that we must have a democratic vote, and of.
Where does it say 'we must have a referendum'? Correct...it doesn't. You can waste your time looking but you will not find it.
Like so many others here you are making an assumption.
It can be argued that we have already had our referendum and the 'until then' refers to 'until the north has it's referendum.
Irish unity referendum 'would not be needed in Republic of Ireland' - BBC News
It must be brought about by 'the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed,in both jurisdictions'
This is a legal obligation to hold a vote/referendum in both jurisdictions, under article 3.
Just because you don't see the word referendum, doesn't mean we don't need one🙄
And as I said (and legal minds have said too) it could be interpreted that a government could legally and constitutionally proceed with Unification after that democratic poll of all the people is completed with a referendum in the north.
You are assuming and cannot point to a clause as you claimed.
Two legal experts in your link, plenty of others say it is.
nobody has democratically expressed their wishes either way yet.
So it 'can be argued' and is. Which is what I claimed.
Your view is no more accurate than mine - but you have made a claim that a clause exists, which you haven't been able to back up. I haven't done that.
It's not a clause. It is in an article of our constitution.
you may have found two legal experts who try to put across some other point of view, but our constitution is king.
There is no 'clause' in the articles that stipulates we must have another referendum.
You can assume that if you wish, knock yourself out, but it simply isn't there.
Which means it could be argued that the government are already mandated to proceed on our constitutionally stated will/aspiration.
And until that is ruled on, you simply cannot say definitively> I would expect a challenge to it if a border poll is called in the north.
Look Francie you can deny what everyone else knows till your blue in the face, I'm not going to argue a ridiculous argument.
An article in the constitution doesn't need a 'clause' for anything. It is our highest source of law in the land and it is as written.
we have expressed our democratic wish for a UI by default.
the south as a nation want a UI, some individuals don't but they are ultimately going to lose.
Yes it is.
And you have yet to show where it says another referendum in the south has to be held.
Give us a shout when you find the wording.
"It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island."
Technicalities aside, its disingenuous to say a united ireland wouldn't require a vote in both jurisdictions. The government of the day would have to twist those word and propose that the referendum on the good Friday agreement was actually a referendum on uniting ireland, which it never was, it would be ludicrous.
This is so funny. Man spends hours and hours posting on the internet denying that a sizeable minority of people in Northern Ireland want a third option that doesn't involve a united Ireland. Suddenly, when it suits his argument, that sizeable minority are in play for a united Ireland.
Ignored, rejected and then embraced, the three stages of republican denial.
Oh lordy, had myself a good laugh.
Grand so, the people of the North democratically expressed their wish to remain in the UK sometime in the mid-1970s, so no need for a border poll, it was all settled back then.
The arrogance is stunning when you look at the irony.
It would be dis-ingenuous to say that we ever accepted partition. We have always constitutionally had the will to unite the island.
We can keep these interpretations up all day and week.
I presented legal opinions on the constitutional need for a referendum, my point was 'it could be argued....' and it can as we are all showing here.
Until it is challenged, none of us know what the outcome of that argument will be. You can pretend and assume but that is all it will be.
As I said, I favour two referendums any, for the reason I gave.
It could also be argued that the world is flat, but that also falls into a category of stupid arguments attempting to prove a fallacious point.
We have accepted partition, that is the meaning of dropping the territorial claim. A referendum is needed, that is also a fact.