How many of us think that unification is no longer a priority and don't really want unification ?

Now the descent into utter nonsense. Uprooting home and family would cost the price of a Easijet flight?

The sheer ridiculousness of the stuff you post is off the scale.

But we know your approach will be the same as meted out to northern nationalists and southern unionists at partition - abandon them and allow resentment and anger to fester.

A decade ago some would have said it was mad that the UK would leave the EU, and in time it's entirely likely that England will leave the UK.

The greatest concentrations of people who identify as British are in NI and first generation in big cities like Birmingham and London. Otherwise the vast majority of English are English first, likewise with Welsh in Wales and Scottish in Scotland.

A couple of things here. Firstly, London can't unload NI into a united Ireland without a referendum North and South, that is part of an international agreement they have signed up to. In theory, they could opt for a different option, offload Scotland and Northern Ireland into a new independent entity or entities, but that isn't going to happen either. There cannot be a united Ireland without those referenda.

Secondly, the concept of a "super majority" is already baked into the GFA where the British SoS has to deem a referendum likely to pass. If Manchester City were playing Manchester City from the mirror universe on Saturday, neither would be likely to win, but if Manchester City were playing Northampton Town at home then Manchester City would be likely to win. The stats would probably show that second match at 60:40, those are the type of odds for "likely" to pass.

This discussion was on VM -

United Ireland and Scotland? The nation of the Gaels? Greater Dalriada?

So what if it’s ‘challenged’?

How does that validate a requirement for a super majority?
A challenge and the wish for a super majority are just signs of fear or bitterness at a democratic outcome.

I won’t be planning a UI nor will a single political party.
A UI wiil be planned by the stake holders on it willing to sit down and contribute.

The only people too bitter not to contribute will be belligerents and partitionists. A minority on this island.
Majorities in both patitioned parts have already agreed to a transition in the GFA.

73% of the Irish people including those who identify as British have agreed to a transition. If there is no agreement to transition it goes without saying there is no need to invoke an agreement unless there is a transition.

As our ruling parties were never going to act on the constitutional claim it was no big deal to get shut of it.

Go back and read what the courts says, specifically the bit where it says the SoS ‘cannot be constrained’ and does NOT have to explain his/her reasoning.

Good luck to anyone and their money trying to overturn that.

Nor were they obliged to call a Scottish Ind referendum.

Why was one called? Pressure.

They were compelled to call one as a democracy when just 30% were in favour in the polls.

Let’s say that Lucid poll is only partially correct, that is the kind of event that creates it’s own pressure and other events will feed into that.

Of course you may be correct and the SoS might resist that pressure, who knows. But they would need to have a huge interest and care to resist and that has not been evident in decades.

As largest political party on the island I think SF woukd reject tgat assessment. Their growth is a pressure point in itself.
The idea they’d be listened to i WM is quite a fantastical idea notwithstanding.

The majority of people, inc those born in the N. Irish part of the UK but who identify as Irish, have agreed to the possibility of a transition. There will be no transition to a U.I unless and until a mojority in both jurisdictions want a U.I. That may very well never happen, in which case there will be no transition.

A United Ireland may have been closer in 1973 around the time of the last referendum, because if the referendum which was then held in N. Ireland voted for a U.I., the British government may have left N.I, sharpish, and without the consent of the people south of the border. Same as it left everywhere else in the world it was not wanted.

Now if a U.I. referendum passes north of the border, it must also pass south of the border for a U.I. to happen. There is no guarantee of course a majority would EVER vote for a U.I. on both sides of the border.

The British / English do care, they give tens of billions annually to N. Ireland. They base loads of public service jobs there. They allow it to have free access to both EU and UK markets. It is part of NATO, arguably the best defence pact in the world - the Swedes and Finnish made sure they joined it in the past few years. People in N.I. enjoy the benefits of the free NHS, not having to pay expensive doctors fees or VHI subscriptions.

It is not a drop in the ocean, tens of billions is a lot of money. One minute you say the Brits "colluded" with the unionists, then you say "they screwed them over so many times". Make up your mind, will you? Pick a position and try to stick to it!

For the record, the tens of billions the British mainlanders give the people of N. Ireland every year benefits both unionists and republicans there. As has happened since the seventies, there is no discrimination in who it is given to, what jobs are given to whom etc.

The British were always fair minded, as SDLP MP Gerry Fitt said. As a young man joining the merchant navy there, he was not asked his religion, nobody cared what religion he was.

I have read that judgement carefully, the court is quite clear, the British SoS is under no obligation to set out his reasons in advance of making a decision, they are free to use their judgement in whatever way they want. However, that does not preclude a challenge once the decision has been made. The decision can be challenged on the basis that it is irrational, flies in the face of the GFA. The courts did not make the decision immune from judicial review.