United Ireland discussion thread

marieholmfan · 11-10-2019 3:57pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

We need to be fair and honest with the Unionist something they never were with Irish people in the six counties. If you continually back down to a bully they will continue to bully, until the Unionists realise that their sectarian bigotry is not acceptable they will continue. Its like the whites in South Africa until someone shouted stop they kept it up to the bitter end. Placating bad behavior means more of it.

They are Irish people in the six counties.

VinLieger · 11-10-2019 4:00pm

votecounts wrote: »

Not looking for any payback,

Ohh really? You literally contradicted yourself in the same post

votecounts wrote: »

If they are so fond of democracy especially when they were the majority as they claim to be, they will have to live with it.

How have the last 3 years of brexit chaos not helped you to see a 51% majority in divisive issues like this could literally lead to the ruination of a country?

It shouldn't matter what the GFA says if it could lead to a disastrous result.

This is one thing i will never understand about ardent republicans who want a UI no matter the cost, instead of maybe thinking in the longterm and seeing the benefit of having it be a guaranteed success?

cameramonkey · 11-10-2019 4:02pm

marieholmfan wrote: »

They are Irish people in the six counties.

Most surveys indicate that the unionist consider themselves British not Irish. This is the basis for the ongoing problem, if they were Irish then the problem goes away.

votecounts · 11-10-2019 4:05pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Ohh really? You literally contradicted yourself in the same post

How have the last 3 years of brexit chaos not helped you to see a 51% majority in divisive issues like this could literally lead to the ruination of a country?

It shouldn't matter what the GFA says if it could lead to a disastrous result.

This is one thing i will never understand about ardent republicans who want a UI no matter the cost, instead of maybe thinking in the longterm and seeing the benefit of having it be a guaranteed success?

I was just stating that if a majority voted for a United Ireland, then they would have to live with democractic result. Surely you agree with democracy

Junkyard Tom · 11-10-2019 4:06pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Treaties are rewritten all the time.

The European Treaties have been rewritten several times, getting rid of unanimity and bringing in qualified majority voting being a similar example of changing the voting rules.

Forget it. You're not going to make a unionist vote worth more than a nationalist one. You're not going to get away with à la carte democracy now you see the writing on the wall as regards our future in Ireland.

You should be much more concerned with a rejection of a UI in the south because that will give us our very own version of Brexit chaos in the twenty six counties.

cameramonkey · 11-10-2019 4:07pm

briany wrote: »

A UI is too high a price to pay if riots are kicking off in Belfast and bombs are going off in Dublin.

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats a pathetic strawman, nobody suggested such a thing, your the one bringing in terrorisim and saying we should be standing up to them cus they are bullies.

This exact kind of thinking will lead to the abject failure of a UI, they cant be the enemy you want them to be forever, someday you will have to accept them as your countrymen like it or not and until you can do that why should they?

Be the bigger person

You need to read what I was responding to, unless you think that setting off bombs in Dublin is not a terrorist act.
I said we need to treat Unionsts fairly but that does not mean we should back down when they attempt sectarianism and bullying, unless you also think that is a legitimate position.

VinLieger · 11-10-2019 4:08pm

votecounts wrote: »

I was just staing that if a majority voted for a United Ireland, then they would have to live with democractic result. Surely you agree with democracy

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

briany · 11-10-2019 4:11pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

So you would prefer to give way to terrorist than respect the democratic right of people for a UI. fair enough.

I'd prefer peace on the island of Ireland, and the kind of peace that doesn't require more violence to achieve. A united Ireland in which close to a million of its citizens are disgruntled about the arrangement doesn't really sound all that united to me, and therefore not the greatest idea. Any new state would have to meet the reasonable folks on the British Unionist side halfway. Compromises would have to be made on each side.

VinLieger · 11-10-2019 4:11pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

You need to read what I was responding to, unless you think that setting off bombs in Dublin is not a terrorist act.
I said we need to treat Unionsts fairly but that does not mean we should back down when they attempt sectarianism and bullying, unless you also think that is a legitimate position.

You are the one invoking terrorism, nobody else mentioned it and your constant refrain of saying we should stand up to them instead of maybe just sit down with them is the attitude that will lead to terroroism

votecounts · 11-10-2019 4:12pm

VinLieger wrote: »

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

In the event of a majority wanting a United Ireland you want to oppose this to appease a few Unionists. Cannot happen if you are a democrat so what do you propose happens

VinLieger · 11-10-2019 4:14pm

votecounts wrote: »

In the event of a majority wanting a United Ireland you want to oppose this to appease a few Unionists. Cannot happen if you are a democrat so what do you propose happens

Ugh if your going to keep straw manning then there's not much point in engaging with you.

Let me know when you learn how to discuss a topic without using fallacious reasoning.

votecounts · 11-10-2019 4:17pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Ugh if your going to keep straw manning then there's not much point in engaging with you.

Let me know when you learn how to discuss a topic without using fallacious reasoning.

So, no proposals, just a unionist veto forever over a United Ireland, some things never change.

briany · 11-10-2019 4:20pm

cameramonkey wrote: »

You need to read what I was responding to, unless you think that setting off bombs in Dublin is not a terrorist act.
I said we need to treat Unionsts fairly but that does not mean we should back down when they attempt sectarianism and bullying, unless you also think that is a legitimate position.

Of course bombs going off in Dublin would be a terrorist act, but one of the best ways to prevent this type of action is not to radicalise individuals into it in the first place. We can see the timeline of how the Troubles came about, and how the IRA grew in support. The same mistakes should not be repeated in the event of a UI.

Junkyard Tom · 11-10-2019 4:21pm

VinLieger wrote: »

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

A rejection by referendum is potentially much worse as it may open up a schism in the body politic in the south. What happens to the flag, anthem, the vision of the 1916 proclamation? What happens when the inevitable claims arise that the above are being appropriated by a partitionist interlopers?

VinLieger · 11-10-2019 4:27pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A rejection by referendum is potentially much worse as it may open up a schism in the body politic in the south. What happens to the flag, anthem, the vision of the 1916 proclamation? What happens when the inevitable claims arise that the above are being appropriated by a partitionist interlopers?

I think that's a bit of an over reaction as any potential rejection in the south would be the result of a weighty referendum campaign with obvious reasons for such a rejection.

briany · 11-10-2019 4:28pm

In a United Ireland, NI would be an autonomous region. If a UI had to be decided by a simple majority, then the easiest way to salve tensions would be to continue to leave them to it. Dublin would be supreme, but would make legal assurances to remain as a neutral arbiter on contentious issues, and allow Stormont to legislate on these things instead.

votecounts · 11-10-2019 4:34pm

briany wrote: »

In a United Ireland, NI would be an autonomous region. If a UI had to be decided by a simple majority, then the easiest way to salve tensions would be to continue to leave them to it. Dublin would be supreme, but would make legal assurances to remain as a neutral arbiter on contentious issues, and allow Stormont to legislate on these things instead.

How would that work in relation to the parades issue for example assuming stormont was even in operation. Neither nationalist party would agree that parades should be held where thay are not wanted.

briany · 11-10-2019 4:47pm

votecounts wrote: »

How would that work in relation to the parades issue for example assuming stormont was even in operation. Neither nationalist party would agree that parades should be held where thay are not wanted.

Parades Commission can rule on parade issues, as that's what it was set up to do.
Other issues would revert to Dublin in the event that Stormont wouldn't sit, although this would not be ideal. An idea would be for Ireland and the UK to propose alterations to the GFA (subject to a referendum) whereby more commissions were created to rule on the contentious issues in the North, or a have a way to prevent the easy collapse of power-sharing while still retaining power sharing.

Fr Tod Umptious · 11-10-2019 4:48pm

careless sherpa wrote: »

Not according to the GFA , which is essentially a peace treaty. Can't go rewriting it because 20 years down the road you don't like parts of it

I'm not suggesting that the GFA be rewritten.

I'm suggesting that in order to call a UI vote the British government would be wise to wait until they are sure it would pass by a reasonable majority.

blanch152 · 11-10-2019 5:08pm

votecounts wrote: »

So, no proposals, just a unionist veto forever over a United Ireland, some things never change.

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

careless sherpa · 11-10-2019 5:09pm

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the GFA be rewritten.

I'm suggesting that in order to call a UI vote the British government would be wise to wait until they are sure it would pass by a reasonable majority.

That in itself is undermining the treaty and impeding the aspirations of nationalists. The treaty as laid down was to call a referendum when it was believed a majority would be in favour of unification. Anything else is obstruction

11-10-2019 5:12pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

When has it ever been about whether it would be a good idea or not ever been important? You're expecting something like the constitutional question to be a rational decision. That's a ridiculous proposal.

Fionn1952 · 11-10-2019 5:52pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

If it is an impossible task to convince 50%+1 of the people of Northern Ireland of the merits of remaining part of the UK, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

votecounts · 11-10-2019 6:44pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

I am just saying that if a majority vote for a United Ireland, then so be it. You know like every proper democracy in the World. Why should unionists have a veto in this case?

blanch152 · 11-10-2019 7:33pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If it is an impossible task to convince 50%+1 of the people of Northern Ireland of the merits of remaining part of the UK, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

votecounts wrote: »

I am just saying that if a majority vote for a United Ireland, then so be it. You know like every proper democracy in the World. Why should unionists have a veto in this case?

Except many people on here are crying foul because a simple majority could take Northern Ireland out of the customs union.

Fionn1952 · 11-10-2019 8:03pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If it is an impossible task to convince 50%+1 of the people of Northern Ireland of the merits of remaining part of the UK, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

votecounts wrote: »

I am just saying that if a majority vote for a United Ireland, then so be it. You know like every proper democracy in the World. Why should unionists have a veto in this case?

Except many people on here are crying foul because a simple majority could take Northern Ireland out of the customs union.

People are crying foul because the majority of people of Northern Ireland did not vote for it.

For the record, I'd like to see more than 50%+1 vote for a UI, I'd like to see a significant number of those from a Unionist background vote for it, but I certainly wouldn't agree with telling Nationalists that their votes are worth less than those of Unionists by legislating for a greater majority than already agreed.

Imreoir2 · 11-10-2019 9:46pm

VinLieger wrote: »

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

Preventing a UI that has gained majority support is also liable to be catastrophic. When in doubt, go with the majority.

Imreoir2 · 11-10-2019 9:50pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

If you can't convince 50% of the people of Northern Ireland that staying in the UK is a good idea, then you have to consider wheather traping them in a union they no longer want to be part of is a good idea at all. If you can achieve your aims by peaceful democratic means, what options remain?

Imreoir2 · 11-10-2019 9:52pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Except many people on here are crying foul because a simple majority could take Northern Ireland out of the customs union.

People are crying foul becasue a Unionist veto might be able to overturn the majority will, which is what you are also suggesting on the issue of unification. Why not just be a democrat and abide by the will of the majority?

votecounts · 12-10-2019 10:42am

Democracy only suits certain people when it goes their way. Typical

12-10-2019 11:25am

Imreoir2 wrote: »

People are crying foul becasue a Unionist veto might be able to overturn the majority will, which is what you are also suggesting on the issue of unification. Why not just be a democrat and abide by the will of the majority?

NI is different due to the almost 50/50 sectarian nature of the politics, you know, what with the killing of people and all, and that's why the GFA style arrangements were set up.

However, I'd be happy with a simple majority for NI element of Brexit consent, simply because Nationalists would vote to maintain the no border scenario and more than enough unionists would vote for no border for business reasons, particularly farmers. Actually similar to the NI GFA referendum which had an overall majority, nationalist majority, and a large (estimated) minority unionist yes vote.

ancapailldorcha · 12-10-2019 12:26pm

votecounts wrote: »

Democracy only suits certain people when it goes their way. Typical

No more of this please. Next time, it'll be a ban.

dabestman1 · 12-10-2019 12:52pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Preventing a UI that has gained majority support is also liable to be catastrophic. When in doubt, go with the majority.

Some posters obviously disagree with this.

VinLieger · 12-10-2019 8:07pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Preventing a UI that has gained majority support is also liable to be catastrophic. When in doubt, go with the majority.

Fair enough but triggering the border poll when its possible the result could be 51%/49% either way is a recipe for disaster, it needs to be done when it can be shown the result will be resounding one way or the other.

The only people calling for a border poll when this is a potential result are doing it for entirely selfish reasons imo and refusing to consider the lon term implications. Also again ill never understand why these people cannot see the wisdom in waiting till a point when it can be assured to be a resounding success instead of just leading to decades more conflict and strife

Imreoir2 · 12-10-2019 8:16pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough but triggering the border poll when its possible the result could be 51%/49% either way is a recipe for disaster, it needs to be done when it can be shown the result will be resounding one way or the other.

The only people calling for a border poll when this is a potential result are doing it for entirely selfish reasons imo and refusing to consider the lon term implications. Also again ill never understand why these people cannot see the wisdom in waiting till a point when it can be assured to be a resounding success instead of just leading to decades more conflict and strife

That would be against the terms of the agreement. It is very important that the GFA is upheld in all its parts. Peace is fragile, playing fast and loose with the peace treaty would be highly irrisponsible.

VinLieger · 12-10-2019 10:29pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

That would be against the terms of the agreement. It is very important that the GFA is upheld in all its parts. Peace is fragile, playing fast and loose with the peace treaty would be highly irrisponsible.

And having a border poll of 51% for a UI wouldnt affect the peace?

Also the GFA is actually kinda vague when it comes to the NI Sec triggering it.

Imreoir2 · 12-10-2019 11:14pm

VinLieger wrote: »

And having a border poll of 51% for a UI wouldnt affect the peace?

Also the GFA is actually kinda vague when it comes to the NI Sec triggering it.

What is to prevent a confirmatory referendum when the transfer arangements have been agreed?

L1011 · 12-10-2019 11:25pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What is to prevent a confirmatory referendum when the transfer arangements have been agreed?

Not in the GFA. GFA is incredibly blunt on this; unlike how unclear it is on the grounds for it.

Imreoir2 · 12-10-2019 11:30pm

L1011 wrote: »

Not in the GFA. GFA is incredibly blunt on this; unlike how unclear it is on the grounds for it.

What about the post GFA agreement setting out the new arangements, should the result be close, what is to prevent this new agreement including arangements for NI to have another border poll to rejoin the UK should it ever seem likely that such a poll would pass?

Fionn1952 · 12-10-2019 11:38pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

L1011 wrote: »

Not in the GFA. GFA is incredibly blunt on this; unlike how unclear it is on the grounds for it.

What about the post GFA agreement setting out the new arangements, should the result be close, what is to prevent this new agreement including arangements for NI to have another border poll to rejoin the UK should it ever seem likely that such a poll would pass?

Theoretically I can't see anything preventing that, but in the event of a vote passing, there would have to be a majority vote passed in the new 32 county Ireland AND in the UK to agree to those terms, followed by said vote actually carrying through to vote yes on it rather than just an openness to the idea. I'd call it unlikely at best, with the greatest of respect.

Imreoir2 · 12-10-2019 11:43pm

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Theoretically I can't see anything preventing that, but in the event of a vote passing, there would have to be a majority vote passed in the new 32 county Ireland AND in the UK to agree to those terms, followed by said vote actually carrying through to vote yes on it rather than just an openness to the idea. I'd call it unlikely at best, with the greatest of respect.

It would not require a public vote in the UK as their system is one of parlimentary democracy, Brexit notwithstanding. I think it is likely that the British parliament would be open to such an arangement. If it were put to a public vote in the UK and the British public voted against allowing NI back into the UK, then what would be the point of Loyalist violence?

L1011 · 12-10-2019 11:46pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What about the post GFA agreement setting out the new arangements, should the result be close, what is to prevent this new agreement including arangements for NI to have another border poll to rejoin the UK should it ever seem likely that such a poll would pass?

If its not in the GFA its not happening basically. You aren't going to get chances or codicils at this stage

The process is set in stone now.

Imreoir2 · 13-10-2019 12:11am

L1011 wrote: »

If its not in the GFA its not happening basically. You aren't going to get chances or codicils at this stage

The process is set in stone now.

Not true at all, the GFA is silent on the arangements that follow a successful border poll. There would have to be a future arangement that either ammends or replaces the GFA to administer the changed relationship after a successful border poll.

L1011 · 13-10-2019 12:14am

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Not true at all, the GFA is silent on the arangements that follow a successful border poll. There would have to be a future arangement that either ammends or replaces the GFA to administer the changed relationship after a successful border poll.

You selectively read stuff, and I've no intention of getting in to the circular arguments that causes like recently in LD.

Its not happening.

10000maniacs · 14-10-2019 7:52pm

The declining profit margins caused by tarrifs on agrifoods will swing the provence to a united Ireland in the event of no deal, but 55/45 or closer will be divisive. Sinn Fein should give it 18 months after the census in 2021 to demand one. They are way too keen to have one now.

Donnielighto · 14-10-2019 7:56pm

It should be a supermajority of some form to change stays quo on this.

BonnieSituation · 14-10-2019 8:04pm

Donnielighto wrote: »

It should be a supermajority of some form to change stays quo on this.

It absolutely should not be.

Funny how it's imperative to have a super majority now. No one cared from 1998-2019 about the 50%+1 majority.

It's not like the status quo is so wonderful.

It's been 100 years of bigotry and failure. Why should it be so much harder to change it for those Nationalists who would like to move on from partition. Other than "cos you think so".

blanch152 · 14-10-2019 10:34pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It absolutely should not be.

Funny how it's imperative to have a super majority now. No one cared from 1998-2019 about the 50%+1 majority.

It's not like the status quo is so wonderful.

It's been 100 years of bigotry and failure. Why should it be so much harder to change it for those Nationalists who would like to move on from partition. Other than "cos you think so".

It is coming up on both sides of the debate.

In relation to Brexit, there has been a continuous refrain over the last week or so that one community shouldn't have a veto over a constitutional development such as staying in the customs union. That will have long-term implications.

Mr.Nice Guy · 14-10-2019 10:56pm

blanch152 wrote: »

In relation to Brexit, there has been a continuous refrain over the last week or so that one community shouldn't have a veto over a constitutional development such as staying in the customs union. That will have long-term implications.

Notice how unionists didn't make this argument in relation to nationalists not wanting Brexit.

Whenever it was put to the DUP and the Jim Allisters of the world that NI voted remain, the continuous refrain was: 'it was a UK wide vote and the views of the majority must be respected.'

Had it been claimed that Brexit should not apply to NI on the basis that one side of the community hadn't consented to it, the response would have been uproarious laughter.

This is just another example of unionists wanting to change the goalposts when the game is not going their way. Not going to happen this time. The rules have been established and written into an international treaty that is lodged in the UN. There will be no requirement for a unionist majority in a border poll which would be tantamount to stipulating that a unionist vote carries more weight than a non-unionist vote.

blanch152 · 14-10-2019 11:17pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Notice how unionists didn't make this argument in relation to nationalists not wanting Brexit.

Whenever it was put to the DUP and the Jim Allisters of the world that NI voted remain, the continuous refrain was: 'it was a UK wide vote and the views of the majority must be respected.'

Had it been claimed that Brexit should not apply to NI on the basis that one side of the community hadn't consented to it, the response would have been uproarious laughter.

This is just another example of unionists wanting to change the goalposts when the game is not going their way. Not going to happen this time. The rules have been established and written into an international treaty that is lodged in the UN. There will be no requirement for a unionist majority in a border poll which would be tantamount to stipulating that a unionist vote carries more weight than a non-unionist vote.

Brexit is a game-changer in many ways.

If the DUP are denied the ability to veto a customs union because of a requirement for a majority in both communities, that will have long-lasting implications.

United Ireland discussion thread

Comments