Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

United Ireland Poll - please vote

19798100102103132

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,292 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    So you fool people into a united Ireland? Is that what you are saying?

    Don't tell them what it will look like because they might vote against?



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ Waylon Stale Transient


    I was giving examples of high level achievable points that could be put into a framework document .... I wasn't, you know, actually writing the list. Big picture.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    No blanch that wouldn't be possible.

    A UI referendum that creates a time limited process of constitutional change as a new republic is defined.

    All options on the table.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,292 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Nobody is looking for detailed answers to every single situation, but when the proponents of a united Ireland don't have the first clue as to what will happen anywhere, why would anyone vote for that pig in a poke?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Utter nonsense and never evidenced by you despite being asked.

    Any decision by anyone in government can be challenged by judicial review, because of what they court ruled in the McCord case it wouldn't have a chance though because the court implacably said that an SoS cannot be constrained.

    And even if it hadn't found that, you nonsense that calling for a poll is anti the GFA is just spectacular exclusionary rhetoric and waffle.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,292 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Nonsense. Nothing in the court judgement precludes a judicial review. I have been clear from the start on that.

    The court case was an attempt by the plaintiff to set constraints on the SoS in advance of any decision.

    I can tell you that Sinn Fein will be first in the door of the Court if an SoS refuses a border poll having been requested by a majority of the Assembly to hold one.

    A border poll hasn't a chance of passing in Northern Ireland. If anything, support for it is declining up there.



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ Waylon Stale Transient


    Normally replies follow on logically from the previous comment, but good for you for trying something different.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    It's ok blanch, we know that you are against a UI. There is no magic formula of details in a UI framework that you would vote for. We get it.

    You can go now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Wait a minute...you are agreeing that the court found that a SoS can decide whenever they want but that because there may or may not be a judicial review of a SoS decision that this is why anyone calling for a border poll is breaking the GFA?

    This is talking yourself into a cul de sac of epic proportions



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,292 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Nope, that isn't what I am saying, or have been saying since the day of the court outcome.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    So an SoS can make a decision unconstrained, at any time.

    What could possibly be against the GFA by calling for a poll?


    Wall of cul de sac about to be hit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,719 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    So are you expecting people to vote for a UI without any idea of how much it will cost, how it will be governed, what the handover will look like, what are the UK on the hook for vs what Ireland/EU are on the hook for etc etc. Voting it through blindly and work the rest out later?

    I think it would be madness to go down that road - there would obviously be a time-limited transition period where the finer details are worked out, but any referendum would need some set of guiding principles at least.

    IMO - the "Yes" side (which would include all large parties in Ireland) would have to find some common ground and present a vision for what a UI would look like. If nobody can put down a vision for what a UI Ireland would look like in practice then what exactly are we voting on?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The government of the day will be making the case and framing the question that will be asked, mandated by the aspiration in our constitution. It is envisaged it will take the form of a white paper after consultations and discussions as to what a UI would look like.

    I would expect a Border Poll would take place in 2 years from the point the SoS calls for one, same as what happened in Scotland.

    In Scotland incidentally, the Yes vote only mustered 32% when a Ref was called and only surged after the White Paper was published.

    That is why polls here are not really indicative because there is no 'plan/White Paper' yet. I would think polling would change dramatically when a WP/Plan is arrived at.

    Maybe that explains the fear and attempts to exclude a Border Poll being called in the first place? Try kill the discussion getting started.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    May I be the first to welcome Barbados to the family of Republics. May many more former colonies follow.




  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    its called being realistic. and i qualified it by saying people who think its just around the corner are being naive. and also those who think a 50 plus 1 will be smooth sailing. it won't be as we have seen in Brexit. i'm not arguing that it won't happen as per GFA. but whatever, believe what you want to believe. i'd make a bet with you that we won't see a United Ireland within the next 15 years.

    and on one hand you recognise the need for olive branches, and in the next breath your thumping chests over Republics and colonies. the likely scenario is that any new Ireland might not use the word Republic in its official name. these are all the nuances that will have to be worked out.

    basically it boils down to ”You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”

    – Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird. 



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    If it was 80+ there would be a small minority of belligerents and partitionists who would never be happy with it.

    Unless you can come up with a reason for denying the wishes of a majority that is better than 'it might be difficult' then that super majority argument is doomed.

    You cannot pretend to be a democratic while denying a majority their wish, ESPECIALLY after enshrining it in an internationally binding agreement and further, that minority respecting the 'wishes of a majority' for the last 25 years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    yeah really bitter ones id imagine. it could be ugly.

    i'm not denying anything. I'm saying the simplistic notions around a United Ireland (not by anyone here or SF) mean it is doomed unless there is robust debate and information. but yeah if the numbers allow it it will go ahead. but its not a sure thing at all. and no democracy often is flawed. the idea that it is flawless leads to the divisions we have today. i mean theres no better system, but it can go tits up as we are witnessing in the US and the UK.

    Again we need a few more years and the slow ebbing away of hardliners. its not that simple to get my point. i'm mainly saying patience is a virtue. whats another few years in a battle thats taken 500 odd years.

    you guys are in a mad dash to push it over the line. i don't get it.

    We need a few more years of better intergration, the walls gone, religion dead and the old hardliners in the ground and then yeah its all on the table. its clear to see middle class unionists would be wobbly on a UI. the lumpen proles will be a different story, but who knows. clearly SF on both governments would be another push as well. Their change up from fix housing to 100 per cent UI will be funny to watch tho.

    Im not saying i'd reject any 50 plus 1. i'm saying its naive to think its clear cut. and its dangerous not to lay all the cards on the table regarding it.

    Thats it. infer whatever. im slightly different to Blanch i think. maybe i'm not, i dunno.

    YOu can't change the terms of it i agree. if it was changed to some super majority there will be conflict. damned if you do, damned if you don't. but again its a hugely complex situation and when i really envision a UI, i see years of chaos and anger as men and women weep for Republics and Unions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    There will always be hardliners...Jamie Bryson is still in his 30's.

    There isn't an excuse to wait any longer. We constitutionally aspire to it and we should be planning for it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,767 ✭✭✭eire4


    The official name of Ireland right now is just that Ireland at least in English Eire obviously in Irish. We already do not use the word Republic in our official name.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,292 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    That isn't what I said, that isn't what the court said. You know that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,292 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    This is what I have been saying for months, and it is falling on deaf ears.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Blanch you plainly said that in calling for a Border poll, SF are in breach of the conditions regarding such.

    These are your words: "You and SF are calling for a border poll now in breach of those conditions - FACT"

    But the fact is, the only "condition" about a border poll is that the British SoS decides if one should be held. There is absolutely nothing wrong nor any breach of anything, for SF or anybody else calling for a border poll.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,292 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Let's be clear, the GFA says that the SoS should call a poll when he believes that a majority would vote for it.

    Now, unless he is completely brainless and confused, there is no way on earth that he can reach that conclusion. In calling for a border poll now, Sinn Fein are not only going against the GFA, but they are unnecessarily stirring up tension in the North. If it was a discussion board, they'd be banned for trolling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The SoS could think like me...that a border poll will be won when an Irish GOvernment presents a WHite Paper on how it would work.

    The FACT here blanch is you have once again been caught out, putting a personal opinion about your boggeymen and women across as some kind of fact.

    There is NOTHING resembling a breach of the GFA in calling for a border poll. It just scares the bejayus out of insecure partitionists and belligerent Unionists.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    If there's nothing in it for them they'll usually skedaddle. I would like to see how many British people know the status of NI. I can't see most brits caring about a part of Ireland that confuses most of them as to why they are connected at all.

    If the tories don't see an advantage from unionist votes, they'll lose interest sharp. All we need is the unionist vote to flounder and that's looking good.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭Brucie Bonus


    Thanks for broadening your meaning of 'exclusionary nationalism'.

    What is your 'nationalism but...' idea?

    80% +1?

    Nothing exclusionary about wanting the majority to have their democratic voices heard.

    We were not asked when it was created. We had no say when the electoral boundaries were changed to fix elections. I think seeking 50+1 is mighty swell of us.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    A United Ireland is a necessity for this island.

    Peace is not just the absence of war but is also establishing conditions which will ensure a lasting peace. This means eradicating the root cause of the conflict by gaining national self-determination, which in turn lays the foundation for justice, democracy and equality - the safeguards of lasting peace.

    Britain claims that the main reason for staying in Ireland is not to maintain its own interests but primarily to safeguard democracy; however, to protect its own interests in Ireland, Britain has given power of veto over national independence to a pro-British unionist minority which is in direct contravention of the principle of national self-determination and is therefore a denial of democracy itself.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,318 ✭✭✭✭Ha Long Bay




  • Registered Users Posts: 663 ✭✭✭Fr D Maugire


    Now that is funny, reading that poster across various threads, I got the impression they were trolling. Kinda confirms it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Harryd225


    That post was actually copied and pasted from the Sinn Féin website, what do you think is trolling about it?



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    everybody bar hardline republicans will want to know exactly what a United Ireland will look like, and will work like, before they vote for it.

    no-one will vote for something if they don't know how it will work! That's obvious.



  • Registered Users Posts: 663 ✭✭✭Fr D Maugire


    Yeah, what is the acceptable figure? Will it be when all Unionists accept the idea of a United Ireland as that is unlikely to ever happen? I also find it ironic that there is great focus on inclusion and democracy when partition itself was the very definition of non-inclusion and anti-democratic. Is Blanch actually admitting partition was a huge mistake which we should be now learning from?

    Blanch has claimed that Unionists don't want to be Irish no more than Nationalists want to be British. Whilst that may be true, I feel there is very big differences in the reasons why, considering the Irish lived under Britih rule and got to experience the full effect. Religious persecution, dispossession, Cromwell, penal laws, famine, suppression of Irish culture, numerous broken promises, partition. Is it any wonder, the Irish psyche is not exactly favourable to being British. Even in modern times as someone who lived in the UK, the superiority complex is still there. If we were still in the UK, the average Brit would still view Ireland the same way they view NI as in they couldn't give a toss.

    Unionists have developed a similar fear to living under Irish rule, which they have never done, so what exactly is the big underlying fear? In the past it was the Catholic Church, but that is less of a relevancy than ever and compared to what the Irish endured under the Crown, pales into insignificance. Throw into the mix the fact that many Protestants already considered themselves as Irish and pro Republic some 200+ years ago, its an interesting mindset.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭Dazler97


    I live in carrick on Shannon and my boyfriend lives in Omagh I'm up most weekends and wow you can feel the divide up there, goy called a few names as I was from "down south", I would love to see a united ireland



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,857 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    It was inevitable...... unless you wanted to invade the North in 1921 to stop partition and kill loads of Unionists..... oh wait, that is EXACTLY what you called for...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It was inevitable if you had your eyes on dividing the spoils of independence between you, the church and the other party of the upcoming power swap.

    The descendants of the people left behind and abandoned to their fate are at the gate Mark and they want their country back.


    *By the way, you cannot 'invade' your own country, that's a misnomer or maybe you thought Irish people were living in somebody else's country?



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Only for the shinners ye would all be bowing to the queen right now



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,418 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    The Brexit referendum contradicts your last sentence.

    But yes i understand that some people will want to know the details right down to the minutiae. I caution against embarking something like this because while you can create an extensive list of changes, pages upon pages in fact; the obstructionist will hunt and peck for one single sentence they strongly object to and rubbish the whole thing. Which is why it's better to offer a UI in general terms, leaving details to be worked out afterward.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,857 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    "Their country"....... what a right wing nationalist view you have on the world.

    Maybe I am mistaken, but by the virtue of the GFA, but Unionists have rights too.


    But anyway, I would love for you to tell us how exactly we could have prevented partition.....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Yeh Mark...Unionists couldn't 'invade' their own country either.🙄



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,857 ✭✭✭✭markodaly




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady




  • Registered Users Posts: 11 Fergall


    The question asked was had two countries successfully and peacefully merged. Obvious answer was Germany. You're introducing a different issue regarding nationality which wasn't asked in the original question.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,857 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Why so?

    You claim that there was some magical fairytale way that the island could not be partitioned. This is a United Ireland thread after all....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,292 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    There was also the fantasy of a 1970 invasion, looking for China and the USSR to protect us in the United Nations when we invaded a NATO member at the height of the Cold War. We would have ended up worse off than Cuba.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,292 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    This is the whole problem with exclusionary nationalism. They see territory as theirs, they see others as outsiders.

    National identity doesn't need territory, we can be equally Irish in Dublin, London or Belfast.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Guys, you CANNOT invade your own country.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,857 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Dancing on a pin in regards words. Ireland as in the Republic of Ireland is a country. Northern Ireland is not part of the Repub

    You advocating the old IRA go into Ulster to fight and defeat the Ulster Volunteers, and to hell with the death and destruction that would have caused.

    You also advocated the Irish Defence Forces invade the North the help Nationalists, but the problem with that of course is that the UK is a NATO member and countries like the US would have to step in to help. Not that the UK would have needed it from a military point of view.


    It seems you default action is always more war..... Maybe step away from xbox as war is not nice or pretty or glorious.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I never advocated an invasion Mark, that is a spurious lie from you again.

    I did advocate a humanitarian mission to protect Irish people though as the place went up in inevitable flames.

    Regarding Partition, it really is evidence of your British/Ulster Unionist-centric views...you CANNOT INVADE your own country.


    And Mark...we got more war/conflict. Almost 4000 deaths worth of war/conflict and 100 years of division and toxic relationships and on it goes.

    But of course FG/FF were able to ignore that in their wee morally superior heads. 'Nowt to do with us'.

    Well those you abandoned and left behind to their fates are at the gates...what you gonna do now mucker?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,292 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Yeah, didn't Germany invade Austria on a humanitarian mission? Or was that Poland or Belgium? Can't remember, but I am sure that it was seen as such by them at the time. Certainly the Russians used that excuse to invade Afghanistan back in the day, before the US also used it to take it back.

    Sure, Francie, a "humanitarian mission" to invade Northern Ireland back at the heights of the Cold War would have been welcomed by China and Russia before we would have been crushed and become a NATO Protectorate, impoverished for decades. The fantasy warmongering dreams are thankfully no longer a real threat.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,906 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You cannot 'invade' your own country blanch. Constitutionally we regarded it as Ireland and the British as the invaders.

    Tough luck on this one, you cannot be spouting about the constitution on one thread and ignoring it on another.


    No surprise you would jump to sensationalist examples of 'humanitarian missions' that turned out not to be. You are getting fairly desperate.

    Ireland has made many humanitarian missions, nobody would have confused a move to protect had it been done through the proper channels.

    And you can witter on in reply about what the British might have done but that will be just more of your hat doffing and fearful reverence. There is no way in hell the British government would have wiped out a signaled humanitarian move from the Irish, in fact it would more likely have embarrassed them into quelling the aggression from Loyalists (and the police & security forces) they were colluding with against nationalists.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement