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

If it begins with the calling of a Border Poll, tell us what you think will convince a British SoS to call a border poll, because if we can't get to that stage, nothing else matters.

I'm.sure people of NI will be delighted with VRT on new and imported cars and paying for a GP visits & prescriptions if they don't hold a medical card.

And that is what I see happening too.
The production of a Plan by the government here will help people form a balanced view of what is on offer.

I was interested in what approach Unionism will take. Will they sit down with the UK government to produce a Plan too on what is on offer if people are to vote to remain?

Already well advanced and Dublin almost criminally sits twiddling it's thumbs. Essentially out of fear and a lack of ambition.

They can't do that, that would be interfering with the referendum.

I refer you to a long debate here with Blanch152 where it was shown that Britain's highest courts decreed that the SoS cannot be constrained in his/her decision making process and does not have to justify it. Simple political expediency is enough for him/her to call one.
Any judicial review would first have to overcome that judgement.
We have heard the Judicial Review bluster from belligerent Unionism before and we know how all that turned out.

The clause in the GFA was challenged in the highest court in the UK.

The court issued it's verdict - the SoS cannot be constrained.

Judicial Review away, but best of luck winning it.

IMO don't think GB will as a government openly advocate for either option. They will try a middle of the road, 'whatever choice the people make' approach.
Privately however and via back channels, the future will be made clear to all. Having seen all that has gone on since the GFA and the impossibility of pleasing belligerent Unionism, I can't see the messaging being positive for that cohort.

While I think the government will adopt a neutral approach I think you'll see key MPs state their personal views and that too might get interesting depending on the state of UK politics.

Fair enough, you don't understand the legalities of decision-making and judicial reviews.

As I said before, anyone can take a JR, winning it against the weight of previous decisions is the problem.

A judicial review doesn't stand or fall based on any previous decisions, it is a limited analysis of the facts.

Did the Minister have the power to make the decision?

Did the Minister act within the law (GFA) when making the decision?

Was the decision unreasonable or irrational?

Was the decision-making process fair, unbiased or breaching the rules of natural justice?

Nothing to do with any previous case. As I said already, you don't seem to understand the judicial review process.

What utter nonsense, are you saying that a barrister is not going to look to recent findings by the same court and advise a client wanting to take a JR accordingly? 😁😁

Also, there is no guarantee that leave to bring a JR would be granted as the claimant would have to demonstrate a 'breach of the law'.

The High Court of NI (where a JR would be heard) has already comprehensively set out the terms a SoS has to meet to take a legal decision. That will be the litmus test in a 'leave to bring a JR' assessment.

You do not have to demonstrate a breach of the law to bring a judicial review, that is utter nonsense, you just have to have locus standi. You are failing to understand the difference between bringing a judicial review and being successful in one.

The High Court hasn't set out any terms a SoS has to meet to take a legal decision, in fact, it did the opposite, it said that the SoS has the freedom to decide on the parameters for its decision and can't be constrained in advance. It said nothing about post-decision judicial review, because no decision had been made, so it couldn't say anything. That previous ruling has no precedential effect in any way on a JR.

The real difficulty for any challenger is that the court may rule that as the people will decide, it doesn't need to interfere.

It is clear now that you either haven't read the decisions, or do not understand the legal process.

I don't really want unification. I'd vote no in a referendum.

It's seems weird to say. I have always thought I would vote for a UI, my family was always nationalist, my grandfather was imprisoned during the War of Independence etc.

I just can't see what the benefit would be for the Republic? NI doesn't bring anything to the table. We'd have to deal with Unionists in our parliament, if they'd even take their seats. And they are super religious - could another abortion referendum happen? Could they align themselves with the tiny far right faction in Ireland. And the cost of them. Their standard of living would drop, as we wouldn't subsidise them like the UK does, and our standard of living would drop as they'd be a drain on our resources. And we all know what happens when standards of living drop - crime goes up, and the extremists jump in. And the threat of violence from the diehards…. Like, where is the benefit?

I think, hand on heart, a lot of nationalists in the North will vote no too. People aren't idiots. Romanticise all you want but what people care most about is the money in their back pocket. The whole reason nationalism rose in the North was because catholics were poorer. Take away the money issue and you'll find people aren't as nationalist as they think.