Opinions on Irish identity

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unionists have accepted that a UI is what will happen when a majority decide.

Are you saying the GFA has a built in option for them to change their minds?
You are not making much sense here in fairness.

You just don't understand what I'm saying is what I would say ;-)

The GFA is quite clear in this respect. If 51% of northerners and 51% of southerners vote for a UI then a UI it shall be.

I personally and I believe the southern electorate in general however would not vote for a UI if it barely got over the line in NI and essentially all unionists were opposed to it. It's just pragmatism. Once you can convince at least half of unionists that a UI is in their best interests I think a UI can work in practice.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

You just don't understand what I'm saying is what I would say ;-)

The GFA is quite clear in this respect. If 51% of northerners and 51% of southerners vote for a UI then a UI it shall be.

I personally and I believe the southern electorate in general however would not vote for a UI if it barely got over the line in NI and essentially all unionists were opposed to it. It's just pragmatism. Once you can convince at least half of unionists that a UI is in their best interests I think a UI can work in practice.

And what that says to Nationalists is 'sorry, because Unionists are uncomfortable you have to withdraw your wishes and wait'.

What do you think will happen in that event?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What do you think will happen in that event?

I'm guessing "terrorism" is the implied answer.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And what that says to Nationalists is 'sorry, because Unionists are uncomfortable you have to withdraw your wishes and wait'.

What do you think will happen in that event?

Nationalists will try harder to convince unionists that a UI would be a good home for them and in the process would make NI a less divided place, right? Or did you mean something else?

Chips Lovell

Nothing happens. If you don't get a majority in both, the status quo remains.

murphaph

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Nothing happens. If you don't get a majority in both, the status quo remains.

Yip. Nationalists would be welcome to reach out to unionists to convince them that they would be better off in a UI but if nationalists can't even convince 50% of unionists that this is the right path then something is wrong with the product!

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Yip. Nationalists would be welcome to reach out to unionists to convince them that they would be better off in a UI but if nationalists can't even convince 50% of unionists that this is the right path then something is wrong with the product!

If I signed a deal/agreement which sets out that x will happen if and when y happens and then suddenly the ante was upped when y happens I would be telling you were to put your agreement tbh
And without an agreement northern Ireland cannot function.
I wonder who will lead that campaign (to reject unity because the numbers are not right) in the south?
FG? FF?

The Golden Miller

murphaph wrote: »

Yip. Nationalists would be welcome to reach out to unionists to convince them that they would be better off in a UI but if nationalists can't even convince 50% of unionists that this is the right path then something is wrong with the product!

So even when nationalists obtain a democratic majority they should continue to be ignored, yet unionists, regardless of whether they are in a minority or majority, should always be listened to and pacified? So in effect, the one's pontificating democracy until it doesn't suit, believe it's one rule for unionists and another for nationalists

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I signed a deal/agreement which sets out that x will happen if and when y happens and then suddenly the ante was upped when y happens I would be telling you were to put your agreement tbh
And without an agreement northern Ireland cannot function.
I wonder who will lead that campaign (to reject unity because the numbers are not right) in the south?
FG? FF?

The ante isn't being upped. Both referenda must pass with 51% as before.

People aren't stupid. There will be much debate in the republic before any vote takes place. There will be many opinion pieces written in many newspapers.

Brexit has shown that even when all the major parties advocate a particular outcome it can go the other way.

murphaph

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So even when nationalists obtain a democratic majority they should continue to be ignored, yet unionists, regardless of whether they are in a minority or majority, should always be listened to and pacified? So in effect, the one's pontificating democracy until it doesn't suit, believe it's one rule for unionists and another for nationalists

Two referenda must pass for there to be a UI.

The Golden Miller

murphaph wrote: »

Two referenda must pass for there to be a UI.

Aren't we debating this under the premise that both pass?

murphaph

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Aren't we debating this under the premise that both pass?

No. If if both pass we have a UI.

I'm hypothesising that even if the NI referendum passes that the RoI referendum may not.

The Golden Miller

murphaph wrote: »

No. If if both pass we have a UI.

I'm hypothesising that even if the NI referendum passes that the RoI referendum may not.

If that's what you're left clutching to, then you'll be bitterly disappointed.

Also, the premise was that both passed and that it simply would not be viable unless over half of unionists accepted it

The Golden Miller

murphaph wrote: »

The ante isn't being upped. Both referenda must pass with 51% as before.

People aren't stupid. There will be much debate in the republic before any vote takes place. There will be many opinion pieces written in many newspapers.

Brexit has shown that even when all the major parties advocate a particular outcome it can go the other way.

In Brexit, there was a surge in nationalism. I doubt you are going to get the same surge in southern unionism in Ireland, wouldn't you think?

The main media outlets here are little more than mouthpieces for FF/FG, and will toe the party line. We will be hearing alot more about the positives of a United Ireland.

Chips Lovell

Not wanting unification with Northern Ireland doesn't equate to unionism though. You could be completely agnostic about what happens to it as long as it isn't incorporated into Ireland, e.g. independence, union with an independent Scotland, or something else entirely.

The Golden Miller

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not wanting unification with Northern Ireland doesn't equate to unionism though. You could be completely agnostic about what happens to it as long as it isn't incorporated into Ireland, e.g. independence, union with an independent Scotland, or something else entirely.

Well I'd disagree but it's an aside really, because you are not going to see a surge of "partitionism" in the south, in the way nationalism manifests itself

View

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not wanting unification with Northern Ireland doesn't equate to unionism though. You could be completely agnostic about what happens to it as long as it isn't incorporated into Ireland, e.g. independence, union with an independent Scotland, or something else entirely.

Well I'd disagree but it's an aside really, because you are not going to see a surge of "partitionism" in the south, in the way nationalism manifests itself

People assumed the same in Cyprus but the people of “official” Cyprus voted to reject their re-unification agreement a few years back. And there are probably a lot less “loonies” in the two parts of Cyprus then there are in the two divided communities in Northern Ireland, so people in the Republic are likely to be far more cautious than you might expect.

The Golden Miller

View wrote: »

People assumed the same in Cyprus but the people of “official” Cyprus voted to reject their re-unification agreement a few years back. And there are probably a lot less “loonies” in the two parts of Cyprus then there are in the two divided communities in Northern Ireland, so people in the Republic are likely to be far more cautious than you might expect.

Maybe, but generally people's minds will be made up with the information they are supplied. The Irish government are co-guarantors of the GFA, so will have to be seen to support any unification bid if the majority in the north decides so. Already when we compare the governments attitude to the north from a few years back there is a stark contrast, FF and FG have both come out and said in the last year there could be benefits to it. Whereas before this, it was how we couldn't afford it. This row back is only going to grow, and the media will pedal whatever they support

Chips Lovell

Varadkar signaled a couple of weeks ago that FG wouldn't be keen on unification if it only passed by a narrow margin in Northern Ireland:

In relation to a united Ireland, Mr Varadkar said he “wouldn’t like us to get to the point whereby we are changing the constitutional position here in Northern Ireland on a 50 per cent plus one basis”.

“One of the best things about the Good Friday Agreement is that it did get very strong cross-Border support, that’s why there was a 70 per cent vote for it. I don’t think that there would be a 70 per cent vote for a united Ireland in the morning, for example, or anything remotely to that. And I really think we should focus on making the agreement that we have work.”

FF would probably be a wishy washy yes.

I think as a guarantor, the Irish government's obligations extend to holding a referendum. They're not obliged to campaign for a particular outcome.

The Golden Miller

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Varadkar signaled a couple of weeks ago that FG wouldn't be keen on unification if it only passed by a narrow margin in Northern Ireland:



FF would probably be a wishy washy yes.

I think as a guarantor, the Irish government's obligations extend to holding a referendum. They're not obliged to campaign for a particular outcome.

Varadaker is one person. It will not be the party position. I could be wrong, but didn't another member of FG come out and disagree with that? If they are not going to support the will of the majority of the north, then what is the point of them being co-guarantors of something they will not guarantor. On top of that it's political suicide, because even if they did oppose it and the south accepted anyway, they are finished, as you'll have near 2 million people who will never vote for them

blackwhite

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Varadaker is one person. It will not be the party position. I could be wrong, but didn't another member of FG come out and disagree with that? If they are not going to support the will of the majority of the north, then what is the point of them being co-guarantors of something they will not guarantor. On top of that it's political suicide, because even if they did oppose it and the south accepted anyway, they are finished, as you'll have near 2 million people who will never vote for them

The GFA provides for a referendum in the North and a referendum in the South.

You seem to be under the illusion that the GFA obliges the South, or the Irish Government, to blindly follow whatever result is achieved in the North.

The Govt are a guarantor of the GFA obliges them to hold a referendum when the conditions in the GFA are met.
There's nothing in the GFA that obliges any of the guarantors to try and influence the results of the referenda (North or South).

Chips Lovell

That's my reading of it too.

View

The Golden Miller wrote: »

View wrote: »

People assumed the same in Cyprus but the people of “official” Cyprus voted to reject their re-unification agreement a few years back. And there are probably a lot less “loonies” in the two parts of Cyprus then there are in the two divided communities in Northern Ireland, so people in the Republic are likely to be far more cautious than you might expect.

Maybe, but generally people's minds will be made up with the information they are supplied. The Irish government are co-guarantors of the GFA, so will have to be seen to support any unification bid if the majority in the north decides so. Already when we compare the governments attitude to the north from a few years back there is a stark contrast, FF and FG have both come out and said in the last year there could be benefits to it. Whereas before this, it was how we couldn't afford it. This row back is only going to grow, and the media will pedal whatever they support

I would disagree with that. The main issue will be “Could this blow up in our faces?” and the next will be “Can we afford it?”. Unless people are really convinced that the North won’t blow up in our faces, the affordability issue will be a secondary one at best.

Like it or not, the two communities in the North contain more than their fair share of loonies and it only takes some fool to wave a “red rag” at one or other set of those loonies before they go charging off at high speed like an enraged bull.

murphaph

The Golden Miller wrote: »

If that's what you're left clutching to, then you'll be bitterly disappointed.

Also, the premise was that both passed and that it simply would not be viable unless over half of unionists accepted it

I'm not clutching to anything. I'd like a UI but I wouldn't vote for one if it looked like it was more trouble than it's worth. I don't know why people who are cautious about a UI are painted as unionists. Since Brexit the less we have to do with the UK the better IMO. I certainly would never want to see us rejoin that union of increasingly inward looking people.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Yip. Nationalists would be welcome to reach out to unionists to convince them that they would be better off in a UI but if nationalists can't even convince 50% of unionists that this is the right path then something is wrong with the product!

If I signed a deal/agreement which sets out that x will happen if and when y happens and then suddenly the ante was upped when y happens I would be telling you were to put your agreement tbh  
And without an agreement northern Ireland cannot function.
I wonder who will lead that campaign (to reject unity because the numbers are not right) in the south?
FG?  FF?

That is part of the GFA, if the Southern people don't want a UI, then it isn't happening. End of story. Those are the rules. What you said about a process was very interesting. Why is it a process for Nationalists but it can't be for Unionists? Why can't Unionism use the GFA to strengthen the Union, get more supporters on side, build up a mixed identity between Irishness and Britishness in NI? It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

James Brown

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is part of the GFA, if the Southern people don't want a UI, then it isn't happening. End of story. Those are the rules. What you said about a process was very interesting. Why is it a process for Nationalists but it can't be for Unionists? Why can't Unionism use the GFA to strengthen the Union, get more supporters on side, build up a mixed identity between Irishness and Britishness in NI? It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Currently we have partition, with the North under British jurisdiction. Unless there's a push for an independent state-let?
I would expect that when a United Ireland happens, the GFA will be no more. At that point Unionists could push for a separation of Ulster from the rest of the country, but I don't know under what grounds. Ulster is as much of Ireland as Munster or Leinster, partition or no.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is part of the GFA, if the Southern people don't want a UI, then it isn't happening. End of story. Those are the rules. What you said about a process was very interesting. Why is it a process for Nationalists but it can't be for Unionists? Why can't Unionism use the GFA to strengthen the Union, get more supporters on side, build up a mixed identity between Irishness and Britishness in NI? It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Who said it was'nt vailable for unionism to progress?
Unionism has stalled the process by refusing to deliver rights agreed under the GFA.
It isn't a 'cake and eat it deal'.
It has to deliver

murphaph

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is part of the GFA, if the Southern people don't want a UI, then it isn't happening. End of story. Those are the rules. What you said about a process was very interesting. Why is it a process for Nationalists but it can't be for Unionists? Why can't Unionism use the GFA to strengthen the Union, get more supporters on side, build up a mixed identity between Irishness and Britishness in NI? It seems perfectly reasonable to me.

This is a valid point. Nationalists see it all as an inexorable process towards a UI. It might go another way though if NI so decides.

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

I don't know why people who are cautious about a UI are painted as unionists.

Because you're either with us or you're agin us.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

This is a valid point. Nationalists see it all as an inexorable process towards a UI. It might go another way though if NI so decides.

An inexorable process to a UI poll and another and another.

I have no idea what unionism wants but the present DUP don't want a Taig about the place.
And will once again be taught they don't run the show anymore.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An inexorable process to a UI poll and another and another.

I have no idea what unionism wants but the present DUP don't want a Taig about the place.
And will once again be taught they don't run the show anymore.

Yep as I thought. Nationalists think the GFA is guaranteed to deliver a UI some day. It may not though. Brexit will have much more influence than anything else. It'll wrestle NI more firmly into the UK or out of it depending on what's agreed.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Yep as I thought. Nationalists think the GFA is guaranteed to deliver a UI some day. It may not though. Brexit will have much more influence than anything else. It'll wrestle NI more firmly into the UK or out of it depending on what's agreed.

Did you not read that properly?

I said nationalists expect a UI poll and are prepared to work for it again and again. That is the deal/agreement.

There has been no resetting of the terms of an international agreement to accommodate uncomfortable Unionism.
You neither want to be called 'unionist by default' nor accept the simple fact that if that happens(a campaign to appease Unionists) the situation will not stay the same.
Think about what you are saying. If a major government party in the south campaigns on that basis, they become 'unionist by default' and will certainly be seen as such by any pragmatic and honest nationalist.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you not read that properly?

I said nationalists expect a UI poll and are prepared to work for it again and again. That is the deal/agreement.

There has been no resetting of the terms of an international agreement to accommodate uncomfortable Unionism.
You neither want to be called 'unionist by default' nor accept the simple fact that if that happens(a campaign to appease Unionists) the situation will not stay the same.
Think about what you are saying. If a major government party in the south campaigns on that basis, they become 'unionist by default' and will certainly be seen as such by any pragmatic and honest nationalist.

I honestly don't understand this.

Nationalists can agitate for a poll again and again but if they have to it's because a UI is only going to be approved by the skin of its teeth in NI and this (and the Taoiseach has stated as much!) would not form the basis of a genuinely workable UI so the south may well reject it until the NI poll is much more convincing.

I think it's better for Northern nationalists to make any border poll a resounding success rather than drag it over the line. It's like your pet cat killing a bird and bringing it to you for approval. Don't be surprised if the south is not impressed!

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I honestly don't understand this.

Nationalists can agitate for a poll again and again but if they have to it's because a UI is only going to be approved by the skin of its teeth in NI and this (and the Taoiseach has stated as much!) would not form the basis of a genuinely workable UI so the south may well reject it until the NI poll is much more convincing.

I think it's better for Northern nationalists to make any border poll a resounding success rather than drag it over the line. It's like your pet cat killing a bird and bringing it to you for approval. Don't be surprised if the south is not impressed!

The inherent stupidity of partition was recognised in the GFA.
By all means Unionists can agitate for re-unification with the UK in the future.

There is sadly nothing I can do about the ridiculousness of that, but there is always the option.

If Varadkar or FG want to campaign on that basis of (not enough of a majority) there is nothing I can do to stop them tbh, but it is a cowardly(is that a suprise) abandonment once again and will be seen as such.
Did someone mention divisiveness?

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The inherent stupidity of partition was recognised in the GFA.
By all means Unionists can agitate for re-unification with the UK in the future.

There is sadly nothing I can do about the ridiculousness of that, but there is always the option.

If Varadkar or FG want to campaign on that basis of (not enough of a majority) there is nothing I can do to stop them tbh, but it is a cowardly(is that a suprise) abandonment once again and will be seen as such.
Did someone mention divisiveness?

A UI is a one way street and we all know that. The British would never take NI back for a start.

You and I see the world through different glasses Francie.

You see what happened in 1921 as a cowardly act. I don't see that but I also recognise that had home rule been granted for the whole island back then, there's every chance we'd be in Scotland's position now, scratching its head wondering what to do next! There is absolutely no guarantee that home rule (devolution) would have led to full independence for the island.

You will need to recognise that many of your fellow Irish citizens will ponder deeply the implications of a dragged in dead bird UI and may well be not to pick it up and caress it as you might like them to!

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

A UI is a one way street and we all know that. The British would never take NI back for a start.

You and I see the world through different glasses Francie.

You see what happened in 1921 as a cowardly act. I don't see that but I also recognise that had home rule been granted for the whole island back then, there's every chance we'd be in Scotland's position now, scratching its head wondering what to do next! There is absolutely no guarantee that home rule (devolution) would have led to full independence for the island.

You will need to recognise that many of your fellow Irish citizens will ponder deeply the implications of a dragged in dead bird UI and may well be not to pick it up and caress it as you might like them to!

Well stop pretending you want one then.

Because either way it will take bravery. And IMO there are still plenty of people like that in Ireland, who will see that in order to bring lasting peace, prosperity and a future with integrity, we have to rid the island of the curse of partition.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well stop pretending you want one then.

Because either way it will take bravery. And IMO there are still plenty of people like that in Ireland, who will see that in order to bring lasting peace, prosperity and a future with integrity, we have to rid the island of the curse of partition.

Ah yes. As soon as someone points out some issues with a UI they don't want one. Listen..some of us are just not that into the idea that we would take big risks with the economy to do it. It's nice in theory and if things look promising I'll vote for a UI but not at any price and not with a big Brexit like leap of faith that you think we should all be prepared to make. We're not. Everyday life is much more important than a UI to most people.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

Ah yes. As soon as someone points out some issues with a UI they don't want one. Listen..some of us are just not that into the idea that we would take big risks with the economy to do it. It's nice in theory and if things look promising I'll vote for a UI but not at any price and not with a big Brexit like leap of faith that you think we should all be prepared to make. We're not. Everyday life is much more important than a UI to most people.

To mirror your cat metaphor , it's a bit like constantly getting the 'No, I have a headache' answer to the 'Any chance' question.
Sooner or later you have to wonder, is she not interested anymore.

murphaph

You have to imagine it as a spectrum. Not a black and white thing. You're way over towards the end that would vote for a UI regardless of the consequences. I'm much further towards the other end and require much more convincing that it won't Bea disaster but there are people even further along than me that would never vote for a UI under any circumstances

View

FrancieBrady wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Ah yes. As soon as someone points out some issues with a UI they don't want one. Listen..some of us are just not that into the idea that we would take big risks with the economy to do it. It's nice in theory and if things look promising I'll vote for a UI but not at any price and not with a big Brexit like leap of faith that you think we should all be prepared to make. We're not. Everyday life is much more important than a UI to most people.

To mirror your cat metaphor , it's a bit like constantly getting the 'No, I have a headache' answer to the 'Any chance' question.
Sooner or later you have to wonder, is she not interested anymore.

I would presume that many Unionists would argue that they have been making it very clear for decades that they are not interested and that despite this they keep getting pressed to do something they aren’t interested in and that there has never been the slightest attempt to “romance” them, but rather that the assumption appears to be that if they are pestered enough they’ll change their minds. In a dating situation that sort of repeated behaviour would be called sexual harassment.

FrancieBrady

They

View wrote: »

I would presume that many Unionists would argue that they have been making it very clear for decades that they are not interested and that despite this they keep getting pressed to do something they aren’t interested in and that there has never been the slightest attempt to “romance” them, but rather that the assumption appears to be that if they are pestered enough they’ll change their minds. In a dating situation that sort of repeated behaviour would be called sexual harassment.

I honestly don't think the unionist vote would be a straightforward no in the current circumstances.
And if they become permanent circumstances then what?
You have 20% of former unionists wanting a UI.

Would people be brave enough then?

Like those who quake about unionist/loyalist violence, I see violence either way. I think the greater good is going with the option that will remove the threat of violence permanently.
That's the brave option.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They

I honestly don't think the unionist vote would be a straightforward no in the current circumstances.
And if they become permanent circumstances then what?
You have 20% of former unionists wanting a UI.

Would people be brave enough then?

Like those who quake about unionist/loyalist violence, I see violence either way. I think the greater good is going with the option that will remove the threat of violence permanently.
That's the brave option.

It's easy to make yourself out to be brave on the internet. I readily admit (in fact I see it as a positive human trait) that I would reject a UI if there was a good chance of loyalists bombing Dublin again. The blood of the dead would be too high a price to pay to see a line moved on a map.

I already answered your question for myself...I believe once 50% of unionists have been converted to the idea of a UI then we'd be good enough to go.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

It's easy to make yourself out to be brave on the internet. I readily admit (in fact I see it as a positive human trait) that I would reject a UI if there was a good chance of loyalists bombing Dublin again. The blood of the dead would be too high a price to pay to see a line moved on a map.

I already answered your question for myself...I believe once 50% of unionists have been converted to the idea of a UI then we'd be good enough to go.

So you'd be happy to send those who identify as Irish the message,- it matters none that you signed an agreement - and expect the situation to stay the same.
With the greatest respect, that is completely delusional.
Extremist unionism (which happens to be in power) would goad nothern Ireland into a bloodbath imo.

Junkyard Tom

View wrote: »

I would presume that many Unionists would argue that they have been making it very clear for decades that they are not interested and that despite this they keep getting pressed to do something they aren’t interested in and that there has never been the slightest attempt to “romance” them but rather that the assumption appears to be that if they are pestered enough they’ll change their minds. In a dating situation that sort of repeated behaviour would be called sexual harassment.

Reading that you'd think there are only unionists in the northeast which we all know is not true. Also it's unionists that have to 'romance' the majority that UK jurisdiction is the best option and they're doing a truly woeful job of it.

Far from 'romancing' non-unionists Unionists have been sneering, bigoted and not acting in the spirit of the GFA. The simple fact remains that it's not unionists that need to be convinced of the merits of a United Ireland.

Junkyard Tom

View wrote: »

I already answered your question for myself...I believe once 50% of unionists have been converted to the idea of a UI then we'd be good enough to go.

You think that would make a difference? There is a percentage of unionists who will never accept a UI even if 80% of them voted in favour of it. Whether it's 10% or 70% it doesn't make a jot of difference.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You think that would make a difference? There is a percentage of unionists who will never accept a UI even if 80% of them voted in favour of it. Whether it's 10% or 70% it doesn't make a jot of difference.

I am certain it is a minority view, but it is incredible to read Irish people saying to other Irish people, we will abandon you again to keep unionists happy.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am certain it is a minority view.

According to a poll cited in the Irish Times Only 8% of people from the 26 counties are against a UI down from 16% during the troubles in 1987. Also support for a UI is growing among younger people.

I'd say a considerable number of the 8% who are against a UI are probably against SF adding voters from the northeast rather than a UI itself.

Having said that I think that the nationalist vote could fracture in the event of a UI because people would have a wider choice and the us-versus-them politics of the north would become a lot less relevant.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you'd be happy to send those who identify as Irish the message,- it matters none that you signed an agreement - and expect the situation to stay the same.
With the greatest respect, that is completely delusional.
Extremist unionism (which happens to be in power) would goad nothern Ireland into a bloodbath imo.

We signed an agreement too. The RoI gets an independent vote on the matter where it's citizens get to weigh up the pros and cons of a UI. If the cons outweigh the pros in the electorate's minds then it will not happen. Or do you think the RoI electorate should merely rubber stamp the decision of the NI electorate?

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

We signed an agreement too. The RoI gets an independent vote on the matter where it's citizens get to weigh up the pros and cons of a UI. If the cons outweigh the pros in the electorate's minds then it will not happen. Or do you think the RoI electorate should merely rubber stamp the decision of the NI electorate?

Yes. And your vote will send a message.

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. And your vote will send a message.

Then why bother with the RoI referendum part of the GFA?