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

United Ireland discussion thread

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Imreoir2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    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?


  • Options
    #93
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #94
    Imreoir2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    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.


  • Options
    #95
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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.


  • Options
    #96
    10000maniacs
    Registered Users Posts: 4,808 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Donnielighto
    Registered Users Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭Donnielighto


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


  • Options
    #98
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    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".


  • Options
    #99
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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.


  • Options
    #100
    Mr.Nice Guy
    Registered Users Posts: 45,535 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    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.

    'It is better to walk alone in the right direction than follow the herd walking in the wrong direction.'



  • Options
    #101
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    blanch152 wrote: »
    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.

    So we should buy into loyalists threats to keep them from shooting up the place?

    Seriously, this has been going on for over a century.

    What about the long lasting implications that partition brought us, that the GFA tried to solve, and that is being undermined by Unionists right now?

    I'm sorry but the implications that you talk about are simply them facing the consequences of their (idiotic) actions.


  • Options
    #103
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    So we should buy into loyalists threats to keep them from shooting up the place?

    Seriously, this has been going on for over a century.

    What about the long lasting implications that partition brought us, that the GFA tried to solve, and that is being undermined by Unionists right now?

    I'm sorry but the implications that you talk about are simply them facing the consequences of their (idiotic) actions.


    Nope, that is not what I said. I made no mention of violence or threats of it.

    Doesn't matter what has being going on for over a century. What happened in the far distant past is for the far distant past.

    No unionist alive today had anything to do with partition.

    What is changing, and this is for the good, is the nature of consent, and how no one community can force change on the other.


  • Options
    #104
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Nope, that is not what I said. I made no mention of violence or threats of it.

    Doesn't matter what has being going on for over a century. What happened in the far distant past is for the far distant past.

    No unionist alive today had anything to do with partition.

    What is changing, and this is for the good, is the nature of consent, and how no one community can force change on the other.


    Well, unionists think they can reverse the GFA. They protested for years against a democratic decision by Belfast City Council to fly the Union flag on 18 days a year (as is done in the rest of the UK).


  • Options
    #105
    Imreoir2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    blanch152 wrote: »
    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.

    I don't think the DUP will be denied a veto by requiring a majority in both communities, I think the DUP will be denied a veto by requiring a simple majority overall without requiring a majority in either community.


  • Options
    #106
    Mr.Nice Guy
    Registered Users Posts: 45,535 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    The principle of consent, as understood since '98, was that the constitutional position of NI changes only if the majority of people in NI vote for it. There was no caveat or asterisk that this needed to have a majority of both unionists and nationalists. This principle will not change or be diluted. It is the same principle that applied to Scotland in the 2014 referendum.

    It is straw-clutching to suggest now that consent means there must be community majority too. If that were accepted as the new definition of consent then it would follow logically that the status quo should only remain in place with the consent of nationalists. So would unionists be content to leave the current arrangement with the UK and enter into Joint Sovereignty if a majority of nationalists make clear they do not give their consent to being in the UK? Would unionists be okay with a new official flag and anthem for NI on the basis the current ones don't satisfy nationalists? Or are we saying that an overall majority is okay in these particular instances, i.e. instances where unionists get their way?

    'It is better to walk alone in the right direction than follow the herd walking in the wrong direction.'



  • Options
    #107
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Imreoir2 wrote: »
    I don't think the DUP will be denied a veto by requiring a majority in both communities, I think the DUP will be denied a veto by requiring a simple majority overall without requiring a majority in either community.


    Let us see on that. There will be a price to pay for DUP to acquiesce to a customs union.

    Simple majorities may lose out.


  • Options
    #108
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »
    The principle of consent, as understood since '98, was that the constitutional position of NI changes only if the majority of people in NI vote for it. There was no caveat or asterisk that this needed to have a majority of both unionists and nationalists. This principle will not change or be diluted. It is the same principle that applied to Scotland in the 2014 referendum.

    It is straw-clutching to suggest now that consent means there must be community majority too. If that were accepted as the new definition of consent then it would follow logically that the status quo should only remain in place with the consent of nationalists. So would unionists be content to leave the current arrangement with the UK and enter into Joint Sovereignty if a majority of nationalists make clear they do not give their consent to being in the UK? Would unionists be okay with a new official flag and anthem for NI on the basis the current ones don't satisfy nationalists? Or are we saying that an overall majority is okay in these particular instances, i.e. instances where unionists get their way?

    You miss the point. The North is currently in the EU customs union. The suggestion, and it is coming from the Irish government, is that this cannot change without consent from both sides. So the principle becomes that change cannot happen without consent from both sides.


  • Options
    #109
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    blanch152 wrote: »
    You miss the point. The North is currently in the EU customs union. The suggestion, and it is coming from the Irish government, is that this cannot change without consent from both sides. So the principle becomes that change cannot happen without consent from both sides.


    Is it not based on a majority in NI voting to remain in the EU in the Referendum in the first place? That didn't have a majority from both communities.


  • Options
    #110
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    jm08 wrote: »
    Is it not based on a majority in NI voting to remain in the EU in the Referendum in the first place? That didn't have a majority from both communities.


    The question was asked of the UK, not of the Northern Ireland minority, so once again the principle that the overall majority is sacrosanct is being discarded.


  • Options
    #111
    Imreoir2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Let us see on that. There will be a price to pay for DUP to acquiesce to a customs union.

    Simple majorities may lose out.

    That would require agreement from the Irish government and that is not going to happen. Giving unionism a veto over the constitutional future of NI is unacceptable, would destabelise the peace process and would in effect prove that the disidents were correct in their view that the British would never live up to the GFA.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Imreoir2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    blanch152 wrote: »
    You miss the point. The North is currently in the EU customs union. The suggestion, and it is coming from the Irish government, is that this cannot change without consent from both sides. So the principle becomes that change cannot happen without consent from both sides.


    Where are you getting this from? I only saw such an option suggested in a British newspaper, I have seen no confirmed reports that this suggestion is coming from our government.


  • Options
    #113
    Dubh Geannain
    Registered Users Posts: 3,393 ✭✭✭Dubh Geannain


    Regarding Scotland which has been sidelined for the most part in the Brexit debate.

    Say Scotland ceded from the United Kingdom.

    It may sound daft but has it been mentioned at all in recent times about the formation of a United Republic? Most of the Ulster Unionist bloodline are of Scots origin so they could be joined by their cousins.

    It'd also be a way of Scotland re-entering the EU.


  • Options
    #114
    Imreoir2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    Dubh Geannain wrote: »
    Regarding Scotland which has been sidelined for the most part in the Brexit debate.

    Say Scotland ceded from the United Kingdom.

    It may sound daft but has it been mentioned at all in recent times about the formation of a United Republic? Most of the Ulster Unionist bloodline are of Scots origin so they could be joined by their cousins.

    It'd also be a way of Scotland re-entering the EU.

    No. I really don't think it's feasable, there is no history of political union between Scotland and Ireland. The concept only ever came up back in the late 19th century in the form of Pan-celticism which includes the other celtic nations aswell, but it never gained much traction. You would scarcely get a few percent of the population in either country to support a political union like that.


  • Options
    #115
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    Imreoir2 wrote: »
    No. I really don't think it's feasable, there is no history of political union between Scotland and Ireland. The concept only ever came up back in the late 19th century in the form of Pan-celticism which includes the other celtic nations aswell, but it never gained much traction. You would scarcely get a few percent of the population in either country to support a political union like that.




    Ever heard of the act of union 1801?


  • Options
    #116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    Ever heard of the act of union 1801?

    That's a stretch. Considering it was a few corrupt Irish politicians that brought that about, and even then it was a union dominated by English MPs.

    But, the very term Scotland comes from the invading Scotti tribes from Ireland.

    But, no, can't see it happening.


  • Options
    #117
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,370 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    Ever heard of the act of union 1801?

    No more snide comments please. Post constructively or not at all.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #118
    Imreoir2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    Ever heard of the act of union 1801?

    Well then why dont we all become provinces of India in that case, former subjucation to the same empire is not the basis for future political unity. That union was not dremt up or supported by the people of either Scotland or Ireland.


  • Options
    #119
    marieholmfan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    Imreoir2 wrote: »
    Well then why dont we all become provinces of India in that case, former subjucation to the same empire is not the basis for future political unity. That union was not dremt up or supported by the people of either Scotland or Ireland.
    At that time nobody asked the people what they thought. That's totally anachronistic.


    And is it a matter of fact that a million of the people of Ireland and about three million of the people of Scotland support it to this day.


  • Options
    #120
    eire4
    Registered Users Posts: 6,637 ✭✭✭eire4


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    At that time nobody asked the people what they thought. That's totally anachronistic.


    And is it a matter of fact that a million of the people of Ireland and about three million of the people of Scotland support it to this day.

    Recent polls would suggest that a majority of Scots favour independence and not the union. If brexit does finally go through I would say there is a very good chance that within a short few years one of its consequences will be Scottish independence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    eire4 wrote: »
    Recent polls would suggest that a majority of Scots favour independence and not the union. If brexit does finally go through I would say there is a very good chance that within a short few years one of its consequences will be Scottish independence.

    No. Recent polls show that an Indy Ref would not pass. Albeit with a reduced majority


Advertisement