And if there is a constitutional challenge then you will be on that side of the argument that thinks a referdum is constitutionally mandated. The court may find in your sides favour or it may not.
Not sure I can help you, after that.
that is because there is no sizeable minority of people in Northern Ireland who want a third option that doesn't involve a united Ireland.
there is a tiny minority who might want that option but they are insignificant and they are not going to get what they want because an independent NI just isn't viable, as has already been shown by its decades of effectively being independent from the uk.
abolish the indirect subsidy to the irish pub known as MUP.
factually incorrect, as that vote was based on gerrymandering and prevention of 1 side from voting.
you are once again incorrect, dropping the territorial claim is not an excepting of partition.
Why you continue to argue for something that has never had more than an absolutely insignificant level of support (entirely from the most hardline end of the Loyalist community) and try and present it as a reasonable position with any support from moderates genuinely perplexed me, Blanch. No matter how many times actual figures are presented to you, you continue to wilfully misinterpret absolutely anything to try and claim support for something that practically no one in NI outside some fringe lunatics actually wants.
Oh lordy, a good laugh indeed.
It's peculiar alright. I think it's petrifying fear of what is coming that causes people like blanch to argue these points to the nth degree, he did the same thing with the SoS's decision to call a Border Poll, even though the court's ruling on the challenge (I expect a similar one on the need for a ref here) was presented again and again in black and white.
Maybe accepting this stuff might weaken resolve?
How exactly have we done that?
As I pointed out to you already, the word referendum does not need to appear in the constitution. Not even sure why you think it should.
' democratically expressed ' what do you think that means?
Well, I am sorry, but the handing over of control and decision-making to the people of Northern Ireland in the first instance is a default (now where did I hear that word before) acceptance of partition.
You can add mathematics to the list of things that you don't understand. Based on the population census, even if every adult in Northern Ireland who didn't vote that day had voted against the referendum, it still would have passed by a huge majority. If you can claim that the constitution remains the democratically expressed wish of the South in perpetuity, then the same can be said of that referendum.
It seems that it is only exclusionary nationalists who are applying different rules to different sides these days.
It would take a lot to throw the Crotty judgement out all these years later when it has been relied on several times.
This is a nonsense.
There is provision within the GFA for the SoS to call a referendum. He/she may do that or they may elect not to.
There is no such provision in the GFA for the south. The SoS certainly cannot call one in the south and there is no onus put on anyone in the south to call one.
That is why the need for a referendum here can be argued for and against.
A government acting on a constitutionally expressed 'will' is acting 'democratically.
Agreed, it is. However the 'will' is to unite people, not territories.
The consent of the majority of the people, democratically expressed, is required to unite both jurisdictions on the island. I'm not sure how this can be explained any clearer for you. There has been no 'democratically expressed' consent given by anyone.
See when we voted to say it was our 'will' to unite?
What do you think we were expressing democratically?
Please come up with something new, this is getting tiresome fast.
There is established jurisprudence that says you are talking nonsense. A referendum is required for a united Ireland, end of.
Man says the world is flat, when challenged he says look out there at the edge (pointing to the horizon). Challengers explain patiently again to him that he is wrong. Man says please come up with something new, this is getting tiresome fast. Challengers just walk away quietly, leaving man with delusion.
Wrong, there is an argument to b made that a ref is not required here and we have seen legal experts make that argument.
You are just fretting that legal argument might win.
I am not fussed either way as I have said. I would prefer a referendum just to show how many favour it here.
you can't as the vote was based on gerrymandering which is illegal.
there is no such thing as exclusionary nationalism, nationalism by it's nature is inclusionary by virtue of the fact that it allows for all identities to be expressed.
That's not what it says Francie, read it properly.
What gerrymandering in a referendum??????
Plenty of scholarly articles on exclusionary nationalism.
This is from a partitionist who has posited the idea of 'a super majority' and 'an independent NI' nobody wants in order to exclude what would be the will of the majority if a Border Poll were to pass.
People in glasshouses ...etc etc.
Are you excluding the bit that says it?
Where was the gerrymandering in the referendum? A simple question, no need to go off on something about me.
If the GFA removing the claim is valid, so to is the aspiration for a UI.
For the first time we have a road map to a UI. Thanks to the GFA.
Why not ask the person who said it?
gerrymandering was a very important part of the protestant state for a protestant people, and the hard line government that ran it from the partition of our country.
even if exclusionary nationalism was to exist, it is not practiced in this country or believed in by the vast vast majority, the practicing and belief in it would be by such a tiny minority that it is irrelevant.
inclusionary nationalism is what is practiced within the 32 county republic by nationalists.
there are however exclusionary partitionists who are willing to ignore the majority because of their dislike of sf, and your article simply talks about covid conspiricy loons who should always be ignored i think we can agree.
Can you not read Francie or are you being deliberately obtuse?
How was the referendum gerrymandered? Obfuscation and diversion into other issues is meaningless.
Sinn Fein are an exclusionary nationalist party. Many of their supporters on here are even more so. Some deny the right of people in Northern Ireland to express themselves as British or as Northern Irish.
I have never heard of an exclusionary partitionist. Maybe you could link to some academic discussion in relation to same.