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

Do all Catholics in the six counties want a united Ireland?

Options
1…1819212324…31

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    SirHenryGrattan wrote: »
    djpbarry wrote: »
    I meant that Northern Ireland, which you referred to as "the far north-east of the country", is in fact a different country.
    The term "Great Britain" comes from "Greater Brittany" the original home of the Norman invaders and was used in the same way as "Greater London" or "Greater Manchester"

    The United Kingdom represents the Kingdoms of Ireland, Scotland and England(which includes Wales) with Scotland joining in 1706 and Ireland joining in 1800. The United Kingdom lasted until 1922 when the The Irish Free State came into existence. In 1927 the United Kingdom became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    Technically people born in NI are not British because they don't come from the British mainland. They are Irish. Why? Because Ireland was a unitary state for hundreds of years before partition so carving it up into two bits does not suddenly make one part British. Obviously some Unionists disagree which is why some want NI absorbed into the UK i.e. permanent direct rule from London.
    I’m not sure why you felt the need to indulge in a Junior Cert history lesson? My point still stands.


  • Options
    #603
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    luckyfrank wrote: »
    ... it seems taboo around here to talk about prodestants wanting out of a united kingdom
    Says who? I think you’ll find that most posters ‘round here don’t tend to define people based on their religion.
    shqipshume wrote: »
    A united Ireland, who wouldn't want it who are true Irish!
    I couldn’t give a toss one way or another.
    shqipshume wrote: »
    yes we have that all over never once heard anyone Irish say they didn't want united Ireland have you?
    Yes. Do you think a United Ireland should be obtained at any cost? I don’t.


  • Options
    #604
    Serenity Now!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭Serenity Now!


    shqipshume wrote: »
    You continued with tribalism.yes we have that all over never once heard anyone Irish say they didn't want united Ireland have you?
    I've hear Irish people say that they didn't give a sh*te anymore about it and also saw the referendum results where a massive majority here voted for peace via dialogue and compromise.


  • Options
    #605
    RiverWilde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭RiverWilde


    I've said this before, probably in this thread. Some 'patriots' (I use that term very loosely) would see a united Ireland at any cost. This isn't the 17th century or the 18th etc etc. This is the 21st century where in Europe at least, political questions are solved at the ballot box. At the moment the majority of people in the North want to be part of the UK and frankly I don't blame them. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people in the south are happy with that arrangement as well.

    If and when that changes I'm sure we'll reconsider it. Until then as far as I'm concerned the issue is moot.

    Riv


  • Options
    #606
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    SirHenryGrattan wrote: »
    Technically people born in NI are not British because they don't come from the British mainland. They are Irish.

    In which case, you are back to square one again (pre 1998) :rolleyes:
    SirHenryGrattan wrote: »
    Ireland was a unitary state for hundreds of years before partition so carving it up into two bits does not suddenly make one part British. Obviously some Unionists disagree which is why some want NI absorbed into the UK i.e. permanent direct rule from London.

    NI cannot be absorbed into the UK (its already part of the UK) unless you dont believe in devolution? which would mean that Scotland NI & Wales are not part of the UK either. "permanent direct rule from London does not equate with being part of the UK".
    SirHenryGrattan wrote: »
    There is no such thing as a British Passport. There is a UK & NI passport.

    There is no such thing as a UK & NI passport.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Camelot wrote: »
    There is no such thing as a UK & NI passport.
    He's technically right - and wrong at the same time. The UK is officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, however as this is obviously a bit of a mouthful and so the terms Britain or British are used.

    The UK is not alone in this regard; citizens of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago are typically called Trinidadian (and occasionally Tobagonian), Koreans are termed as either North or South Koreans, even though neither state has either term in their official names. Even citizens of the United States of America are erroneously referred to as Americans (given that any citizen of a state in the Americas is technically an American).

    Such departures from logical naming conventions are accepted, and thus while one can argue that they are inaccurate, they are also correct because of this acceptance.

    The reason this point of pedantry tends to be brought up in reference to NI is as a form of point scoring against the unionist claim of being British. While technically correct (and incorrect at the same time) it is done for pretty infantile reasons.


  • Options
    #608
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    He's technically right - and wrong at the same time. The UK is officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, however as this is obviously a bit of a mouthful and so the terms Britain or British are used.

    I presume "He's technically right" means Camelot is technically right, in which case 'Thank You' I think ? > but then you say I am wrong at the same time . . . . ? So just to clarify what I mean again, a Brtish Passport is the Passport of the United Kingdom of "Great Britain & Northern Ireland" (GB & NI).

    Far too many people here in the South talk about the "UK & Northern Ireland" as if NI was not part of the UK > when in actual fact NI is just as much part of the UK as Scotland or Wales - and indeed some might say that NI is far more part of the UK than Scotland is.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Such departures from logical naming conventions are accepted, and thus while one can argue that they are inaccurate, they are also correct because of this acceptance.

    I think you are saying that its OK to call people with British Passports 'British'? in which case I agree with you again I think?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The reason this point of pedantry tends to be brought up in reference to NI is as a form of point scoring against the unionist claim of being British. While technically correct (and incorrect at the same time) it is done for pretty infantile reasons.

    I perfectly agree about the infantil point scoring on both sides of the divide, although being British is correct Technically, Politically, & Culturally, there is no 'incorrect' about it.


  • Options
    #609
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Camelot wrote: »
    I presume "He's technically right" means Camelot is technically right, in which case 'Thank You' I think ? > but then you say I am wrong at the same time . . . . ? So just to clarify what I mean again, a Brtish Passport is the Passport of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, unless of course one obtains an Irish Passport.
    The short answer is; who cares?

    The longer answer is that technically both have valid arguments, but ultimately the entire question is one of pointless pedantry.


  • Options
    #610
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    The reason this point of pedantry tends to be brought up in reference to NI is as a form of point scoring against the unionist claim of being British. While technically correct (and incorrect at the same time) it is done for pretty infantile reasons.

    But it is a valid point and hardly infantile? When you ask a Northern Unionist why they done want a United Ireland they will say they dont want to wake up one morning and not be British.
    This is a mistake because they are not British to start with! The problem is a religious one and while people hide behind supra-national identities the religious problem wont be dealt with.

    If its pedantry then the whole Northern problem is based on pedantry.


  • Options
    #611
    SirHenryGrattan
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭SirHenryGrattan


    Camelot wrote: »


    NI cannot be absorbed into the UK (its already part of the UK) unless you dont believe in devolution? which would mean that Scotland NI & Wales are not part of the UK either. "permanent direct rule from London does not equate with being part of the UK".

    There is no such thing as a UK & NI passport.

    Fact: There are two political entities, the UK(England, Scotland, Wales) and NI. That's not my idea. That's just the way it is.

    Fact: The cover of my passport says UK & NI not just UK.

    Does any of this matter? Yes. NI can vote itself out of the Union by referenda. Scotland and Wales cannot vote themselves out of the Union without Royal assent i.e. a bill passed at Westminster by a majority of MPs most of whom are English. Even if every Scot wanted independence Westminster could still refuse. Constitutionally that's a huge difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I'll be sure to mention that to my British-Irish-Pakistani wife, i.e. that two of her passports are not valid.

    Some peolple have lived in different countries and naturally identify themselves accordingly. However the vast majority of people who claim Britishness in NI have never lived in Britain.
    Who are you to tell people what they can or cannot be?

    Some things you cant be. You cant be a bicycle can you?
    What difference does it make anyway? I could decide tomorrow that I'm going to be Fijian - what difference would it make to anyone?

    Not much probably unless you managed to partition the country over then it would obviously.
    It makes a difference to Irish affairs if people who are Irish are claiming to be British in order to maintain partition.


    Really? So why has Scotland not seceded from the union then? Why is there still no clear support for independence?
    Are they? Well, the same question applies - why are they not independent?

    Well, one step at a time. Is it possible by referendum for Wales or Scotland to secede from the Union. If it is, its only since devolution. So to answer your question they have not seceded because until recently it was not possible for them to do so. They are devolved independence will follow at some stage.



    I doubt it. How many is "a lot"?
    I meant that Northern Ireland, which you referred to as "the far north-east of the country", is in fact a different country.

    A different state, not country.
    They are called British because Northern Ireland is under the jurisdiction of the British government
    No, No. Northern Ireland is under the juristiction of the UK government.
    They may be called British but they are British
    But anyway, I really don't care what anyone wants to call themselves.
    I do if it is an attempt to justify partition.

    I think you’ll find that it is quite possible to be both Irish and British.
    I'm guessing there is a sizeable number of people on these the two islands that are entitled to both passports.
    All people in Northern Ireland are eligible for both passwords. That doesnt make them British.
    That's a rather simplistic statement and quite inaccurate too. The Anglo-Saxon influence in Britain is often overstated - it was relatively confined to the south-east of the country.
    But the placenames, peolpes names, Germanic language and customs?
    Where are any traces of Celtic names and custom, language in England (except Cornwall).
    The countries Wales and England were formed as the demarcation between the British and Anglo-Saxons. No amount of revisionism will alter that.
    Ireland has a lot more in common with Britain than you seem to think. Bear in mind that, throughout history, virtually all migration to Ireland came from Britain, including, most likely, the very first settlers.
    Based on what?

    Everybody in Europe came from the east as they say. We have plenty in common with Britain as we have with the rest of Europe.
    There wasnt that big a migration of Anglo-Saxons into Ireland, which (bar language) would limit our commonness with the English.


  • Options
    #613
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    T runner wrote: »
    When you ask a Northern Unionist why they done want a United Ireland they will say they dont want to wake up one morning and not be British.
    You don't think that's being just a tad dismissive?
    T runner wrote: »
    If its pedantry then the whole Northern problem is based on pedantry.
    A significant chunk of it is, yes, as is evidenced by this thread.
    SirHenryGrattan wrote: »
    Fact: There are two political entities, the UK(England, Scotland, Wales) and NI.
    No, that is not a fact. England, Scotland and Wales constitute (Great) Britain. Britain and Northern Ireland constitute the UK.

    Yet more pedantry...


  • Options
    #614
    SirHenryGrattan
    Registered Users Posts: 108 ✭✭SirHenryGrattan


    djpbarry wrote: »
    No, that is not a fact. England, Scotland and Wales constitute (Great) Britain. Britain and Northern Ireland constitute the UK.

    Moderator; can you validate please?


  • Options
    #615
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    He's technically right - and wrong at the same time. The UK is officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, however as this is obviously a bit of a mouthful and so the terms Britain or British are used.
    That is not the reason, you made that up didnt you? Is It more likely the same reason why the 'Irish' culture was completely supressed in NI until recently? It is a serious matter when you are not allowed to be defined as Irish or Northern Irish by your ruling government. Why not British and/or Northern Irish? Then you could call the British what the are and the Irish what they are.
    The UK is not alone in this regard; citizens of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago are typically called Trinidadian (and occasionally Tobagonian),
    Trinidad and Tobagans: They can be called either Trinidadians or Tobagons. Not a good example really. This might be a correct way of calling people from the UK. British, Northern Irish.
    Koreans are termed as either North or South Koreans, even though neither state has either term in their official names.
    Yes they are all Koreans, whether North or South.
    Such departures from logical naming conventions are accepted
    , But there was no official departure from logical naming convention bar the UK/British example.
    and thus while one can argue that they are inaccurate, they are also correct because of this acceptance.

    The only inaccurate one you listed was the UK example.
    The reason this point of pedantry tends to be brought up in reference to NI is as a form of point scoring against the unionist claim of being British. While technically correct (and incorrect at the same time) it is done for pretty infantile reasons.

    If the protestants in Northern Ireland accepted that their differences were based on religion and that the rest of Ireland were not infact foreigners, we would be a lot closer to sorting the relationships out in Ireland.

    In Ireland, we are divided not be Nationality but be Religion. Pedantics doesnt come into this at all. The people who are calling themselves British are not doing it for pedantic reasons. They are trying to justify partition.

    The fact that they are Irish is extremely important. If you think this is pedantics and infantile then you are showing a lack of understanding of the situation or else you are trying to be antagonistic which is actually infantile in itself.


  • Options
    #616
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    SirHenryGrattan wrote: »
    Fact: There are two political entities, the UK(England, Scotland, Wales) and NI. That's not my idea. That's just the way it is.
    Firstly; England, Scotland and Wales are three, not two. Secondly the name of the blasted country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which refers to a united kingdom of "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" rather than a "united kingdom of Great Britain" and Northern Ireland.
    Fact: The cover of my passport says UK & NI not just UK.
    It doesn't - it says United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Please learn to read.


  • Options
    #617
    Serenity Now!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭Serenity Now!


    SirHenryGrattan wrote: »
    Moderator; can you validate please?

    Yes, its bang on the money. The UK is composed of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.


  • Options
    #618
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    T runner wrote: »
    But it is a valid point and hardly infantile?
    If it was valid, sure, but it's not.
    When you ask a Northern Unionist why they done want a United Ireland they will say they dont want to wake up one morning and not be British.
    This is a mistake because they are not British to start with!
    Please refer to my earlier explanation of the usage of the term.
    If its pedantry then the whole Northern problem is based on pedantry.
    Well, that I don't disagree with.
    T runner wrote: »
    That is not the reason, you made that up didnt you? Is It more likely the same reason why the 'Irish' culture was completely supressed in NI until recently?
    No. The universe does not revolve around an agenda of suppressing the identity of those in NI.
    But there was no official departure from logical naming convention bar the UK/British example.
    Look, I pointed out a few and you've chosen not to accept them or simply ignored them (in the case of America). If it makes you feel happy to redefine how the English language is used to suit your ends, feel free.
    The fact that they are Irish is extremely important.
    Then get an Irish passport and stop whinging.


  • Options
    #619
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You don't think that's being just a tad dismissive?
    Please explain
    A significant chunk of it is, yes, as is evidenced by this thread.
    I dont think it is, do you?
    No, that is not a fact. England, Scotland and Wales constitute (Great) Britain. Britain and Northern Ireland constitute the UK.

    Yet more pedantry...
    The British government has defined laws dividing these two entities. For example if you are suspected of terrorist activities you can be barred from entering GB from NI. The fact that you cannot enter all parts of a state by definition means that you cannot be protected by that state.
    It appears that the British State have no difficulty identifying people as Irish. But only when it suits them.......


  • Options
    #620
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If it was valid, sure, but it's not.

    You certainly havent shown that
    Please refer to my earlier explanation of the usage of the term.

    You earlier explanation was a fabrication.


    No. The universe does not revolve around an agenda of suppressing the identity of those in NI.

    The Irish identity was most certainly suppressed in NI.
    Look, I pointed out a few and you've chosen not to accept them or simply ignored them (in the case of America). If it makes you feel happy to redefine how the English language is used to suit your ends, feel free.

    (I notice you are not able to prove me wrong with example.)
    In all your examples the Official nationality of the countries represented all its members. This is not the case in the UK situation where part of GB is not included. If you think Im twisting the language to prove my point then develop one of your examples to prove me wrong.

    It seems to me that this is symptomatic of the general oppression of people who claimed Irishness in the North.


    Then get an Irish passport and stop whinging.

    Now! Now! Dont throw the toys out of the pram. Thats not a very honourable way to go on.

    Maybe you misunderstood the post? I was referring to the protestants of NE Ireland. If the problem is recognised as religious not National it becomes easier to manage.


  • Options
    #621
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    T runner wrote: »
    I was referring to the protestants of NE Ireland. If the problem is recognised as religious not National it becomes easier to manage.

    But of course the 'problem' is that two tribes inhabit Northern Ireland, one tribe wishes Northern Ireland to remain within the UK (mostly Protestants, but not all), and Irish Nationalists (mostly RCs) who want Northern Ireland to leave the UK & become part of the Republic ..............

    Northern Ireland will only leave the UK (if & when) the inhabitants of NI say so, as per the crieteria laid down in the Good Friday Agreement.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    Camelot wrote: »
    But of course the 'problem' is that two tribes inhabit Northern Ireland, one tribe wishes Northern Ireland to remain within the UK (mostly Protestants, but not all), and Irish Nationalists (mostly RCs) who want Northern Ireland to leave the UK & become part of the Republic ..............

    Northern Ireland will only leave the UK (if & when) the inhabitants of NI say so, as per the crieteria laid down in the Good Friday Agreement.

    As per the results of a survey that appeared on this thread:

    If you are born a protestant you have no chance of being a nationalist.
    If you are born a catholic you have no chance of being a unionist.

    "A protestant state for a protestant people". Not long ago really.

    Your religion determines your political opinion therefore the problem is one of religion, not nationality.(They are all Irish)

    If people start saying that they are in a different tribe because they are "British" then this distorts the nature of the argument and ensures it will be resolved later rather than sooner.


  • Options
    #623
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    T runner wrote: »

    Your religion determines your political opinion therefore the problem is one of religion, not nationality.(They are all Irish)

    Geographically yes but that's about as important up here as saying everyone from Spain & Portugal is Iberian.
    If people start saying that they are in a different tribe because they are "British" then this distorts the nature of the argument and ensures it will be resolved later rather than sooner.

    It doesn't distort the argument, It IS the argument! What would you suggest fro someone who's born of mixed marriage?


  • Options
    #624
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    T runner wrote: »
    ... the vast majority of people who claim Britishness in NI have never lived in Britain.
    But if they claimed to be UK-ish, that would be ok?
    T runner wrote: »
    Some things you cant be. You cant be a bicycle can you?
    The problem here is that you seem to think that nationality is a definitive concept, when it is anything but. I used the example of my wife as she is a relatively extreme case, but there are plenty of people who were born in a different country to one or more of their parents (or grandparents). For them, nationality is a little less clearly defined.
    T runner wrote: »
    It makes a difference to Irish affairs if people who are Irish are claiming to be British in order to maintain partition.
    But claiming to be UK-ish would be perfectly valid, no?
    T runner wrote: »
    Well, one step at a time. Is it possible by referendum for Wales or Scotland to secede from the Union. If it is, its only since devolution. So to answer your question they have not seceded because until recently it was not possible for them to do so.
    You certain about that? You think the only thing stopping the break-up of the union is the lack of a mechanism by which to do so? I’m not sure that such a mechanism is not already in place, by the way.
    T runner wrote: »
    They are devolved independence will follow at some stage.
    Does that apply to Northern Ireland too?
    T runner wrote: »
    A different state, not country.
    ...
    No, No. Northern Ireland is under the jurisdiction of the UK government.
    More pedantry.
    T runner wrote: »
    I do if it is an attempt to justify partition.
    You think the only reason that Northern Ireland is still part of the UK is so some people can refer to themselves as British? You don’t think that’s just a touch simplistic?
    T runner wrote: »
    All people in Northern Ireland are eligible for both passwords. That doesnt make them British.
    UK-ish, British, Elizabethan, Westminster-ites, whatever the hell you want...
    T runner wrote: »
    There wasnt that big a migration of Anglo-Saxons into Ireland...
    Did I say that there was?
    SirHenryGrattan wrote: »
    Moderator; can you validate please?
    You’ve got to be kidding?!?


  • Options
    #625
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    T runner, now that we all agree that the UK currently includes 'Northern Ireland' & that the UK Passport says on its front cover "The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland", can we now start to straighten out some other fallacies!
    T runner wrote: »
    Your religion determines your political opinion therefore the problem is one of religion, not nationality.(They are all Irish)

    Yet again, the above Religious, Political, & National Identity statements are all incorrect :rolleyes:
    T runner wrote: »
    If people start saying that they are in a different tribe because they are "British" then this distorts the nature of the argument and ensures it will be resolved later rather than sooner.

    The majority of people in Northern Ireland claim to be 'British' > they hold British Passports, and the other main Tribe up North claim to be 'Irish' which does not distort anything ~ its just the way things are in that region of the UK ....................


  • Options
    #626
    Deedsie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,272 ✭✭✭Deedsie


    Camelot wrote: »

    The majority of people in Northern Ireland claim to be 'British' > they hold British Passports, and the other main Tribe up North claim to be 'Irish' which does not distort anything ~ its just the way things are in that region of the UK ....................

    So when the majority of people in Northern Ireland claim to be Irish, and hold Irish passports will that become part of Ulster in a 32 county Republic of Ireland?


  • Options
    #627
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Yes indeed, but only as per the crieteria laid down in the Good Friday Agreement.


  • Options
    #628
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Deedsie wrote: »
    So when the majority of people in Northern Ireland claim to be Irish, and hold Irish passports will that become part of Ulster in a 32 county Republic of Ireland?

    Not going to happen in your lifetime. The slight majority are British at present & you'd need about 80% seeing themselves as fully Irish to win a referendum. Even then there'd be a threat of violence from Loyalists and that could be used to make the voters in ROI vote against it, amongst many other things.


  • Options
    #629
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Being under British jurisdiction is not the same as being "British" which is a generic/collective/umbrella term with no distinct cultural or ethnic basis.

    Being called "British" does not not mean anything. It is a sterile concept.

    You are either English, Scottish, Welsh and rwith great pain add Irish Unionist. Each has distinct cultural, linguistic and racial traits.

    N Ireland is under British jurisdication and is part of the political and soverign entity that is the UK. The is an undisputable fact.

    NI was created by London with a majority Unionist population in 1922. The Treaty delegation were asked to accept partition under the threat of an "immediate and terrible war"- Churchill.

    Now I do not recoginse NI as being "British". I do not accept the right of London/Britain/UK to claim jurisdcation over Ireland.
    I regard NI it as Irish and part of Ireland. .

    Yes it is under British jurisdication and this will continue for the foreseeable future. The majority (albeit decreasing) wish to remain under Bristish jurisdiction.

    I hope to see the day that both parts of this island are united as one.


  • Options
    #630
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Not going to happen in your lifetime. The slight majority are British at present & you'd need about 80% seeing themselves as fully Irish to win a referendum. Even then there'd be a threat of violence from Loyalists and that could be used to make the voters in ROI vote against it, amongst many other things.

    I thought you only needed 50% + 1 to win a referendum. And maybe I'm wrong but under the Good Friday conditions if the majority of the people in the North vote to join the Republic, then thats all that is required for a United Ireland and there will be no vote in the Republic as the government has already signed up to the agreement. Any clarification on this?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    I thought you only needed 50% + 1 to win a referendum. And maybe I'm wrong but under the Good Friday conditions if the majority of the people in the North vote to join the Republic, then thats all that is required for a United Ireland and there will be no vote in the Republic as the government has already signed up to the agreement. Any clarification on this?
    I suspect you're wrong, precisely because we voted in favour of the nineteenth amendment to the constitution, which removed our claim over Northern Ireland. In order for that territorial claim to be reinstated, we'd need to re-amend articles 2 & 3 - particularly article 3.1, which seems to explicitly exclude Northern Ireland from the remit of the Irish parliament.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement