Reunification Vote Per County

James Brown

VinLieger wrote: »

Why? I feel the entire country has a right to vote on the facts, like how much more in tax will I have to pay to bring NI in line with us and for how long? Will it effect our economy and again for how long? What are the very real security threats we can expect to face?


Why do you feel i and every other citizen of the republic of Ireland should be denied a democratic decision based on those and other very critical questions?

I think it's shameful for anyone to question it. If the occupied territory wishes to return to unite the country, that's it decided. That's my opinion. The vote is to give the option to those who don't see themselves as Irish and or wish to remain under British rule.
I don't see how anyone could reasonable decide they don't want the occupied portion of Ulster for any decent reason. I'd love to see the 'No' campaign posters and how elements within, I assume FG, would run it.

Larbre34

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There only needs be a referendum held in the part of Ulster currently under British rule.
There should be none held in the rest of Ireland. The idea is ridiculous and a waste of money.

Your reason is, that many in the rest of Ireland may consider the financial burden of reunifying, at a time the Republic is itself still recovering from a huge economic shock, itself a waste of money.

Taytoland

Matt Barrett wrote: »

VinLieger wrote: »

Why? I feel the entire country has a right to vote on the facts, like how much more in tax will I have to pay to bring NI in line with us and for how long? Will it effect our economy and again for how long? What are the very real security threats we can expect to face?


Why do you feel i and every other citizen of the republic of Ireland should be denied a democratic decision based on those and other very critical questions?

I think it's shameful for anyone to question it. If the occupied territory wishes to return to unite the country, that's it decided. That's my opinion. The vote is to give the option to those who don't see themselves as Irish and or wish to remain under British rule.
I don't see how anyone could reasonable decide they don't want the occupied portion of Ulster for any decent reason. I'd love to see the 'No' campaign posters and how elements within, I assume FG, would run it.

Occupied, it's nonsense like that which is why the rest of Ireland laughs at Irish Republicanism. What is occupied about it?

VinLieger

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think it's shameful for anyone to question it. If the occupied territory wishes to return to unite the country, that's it decided. That's my opinion. The vote is to give the option to those who don't see themselves as Irish and or wish to remain under British rule.
I don't see how anyone could reasonable decide they don't want the occupied portion of Ulster for any decent reason. I'd love to see the 'No' campaign posters and how elements within, I assume FG, would run it.

So what you are saying is the ends justify the means, not really surprising coming from someone so stridently republican

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Occupied, it's nonsense like that which is why the rest of Ireland laughs at Irish Republicanism. What is occupied about it?

This is funny and a bit head in the sand-ish.

If the majority vote for unification it will be because they want rid of the present occupants of government.

So we can say that those already convinced that unification is the way forward see their jurisdiction as 'occupied'.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Occupied, it's nonsense like that which is why the rest of Ireland laughs at Irish Republicanism. What is occupied about it?

This is funny and a bit head in the sand-ish.

If the majority vote for unification it will be because they want rid of the present occupants of government.

So we can say that those already convinced that unification is the way forward see their jurisdiction as 'occupied'.

It doesn't say it is occupied in the GFA or any international organization which recognizes it as such. So it's a nonsense term factually. Of course you are entitled to any beliefs or ideals you hold if you so wish but factually wrong.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

It doesn't say it is occupied in the GFA or any international organization which recognizes it as such. So it's a nonsense term factually. Of course you are entitled to any beliefs or ideals you hold if you so wish but factually wrong.

Which is not what I said. :rolleyes:

Any territory which requires an international agreement between two sovereign governments after a 40 year conflict/war and which was created as a result of a temporary partition of an existing country will have many who rightly believe it to be occupied. And that is the reality of the situation pertaining on this island right now.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

It doesn't say it is occupied in the GFA or any international organization which recognizes it as such. So it's a nonsense term factually. Of course you are entitled to any beliefs or ideals you hold if you so wish but factually wrong.

Which is not what I said. :rolleyes:

Any territory which requires an international agreement between two sovereign governments after a 40 year conflict/war and which was created as a result of a temporary partition of an existing country will have many who rightly believe it to be occupied. And that is the reality of the situation pertaining on this island right now.

Some assumptions in this post. The fact is in international law it is not occupied. It mentions nothing about occupation in the GFA and no international organization recognizes it as such. You could use the term occupation for Palestinian territories/settlements and fine, some organizations do recognize that fact.  

It's one thing to have an opinion but facts have to override all emotion and feelings.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Some assumptions in this post. The fact is in international law it is not occupied. It mentions nothing about occupation in the GFA and no international organization recognizes it as such. You could use the term occupation for Palestinian territories/settlements and fine, some organizations do recognize that fact.  

It's one thing to have an opinion but facts have to override all emotion and feelings.

International law will matter not when it comes down to deciding if you want the occupier to stay in place or go.

On a sidenote: When your occupier has a veto at the UN the chances of having them designated an 'occupier' would be very slim. The reality is that a very significant proportion of those living in northern Ireland believe that they are partitioned from their natural homeland and therefore occupied.

It is, as previously noted, head in sand thinking to believe anything else.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Some assumptions in this post. The fact is in international law it is not occupied. It mentions nothing about occupation in the GFA and no international organization recognizes it as such. You could use the term occupation for Palestinian territories/settlements and fine, some organizations do recognize that fact.  

It's one thing to have an opinion but facts have to override all emotion and feelings.

International law will matter not when it comes down to deciding if you want the occupier to stay in place or go.

On a sidenote: When your occupier has a veto at the UN the chances of having them designated an 'occupier' would be very slim. The reality is that a very significant proportion of those living in northern Ireland believe that they are partitioned from their natural homeland and therefore occupied.

It is, as previously noted, head in sand thinking to believe anything else.

We can all wish or believe what we want but the facts remain nonetheless. It's emotion in your post about homeland and such rhetoric as this. The UN doesn't recognize it as an occupation because it simply isn't in law stated as such or in the GFA. 

The rest is wishes, fantasy, hope, ideals, ideology and so on, it doesn't dispute a single thing I have said when disputing the term which hasn't got the law backing it up.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

The rest is wishes, fantasy, hope, ideals, ideology and so on,

You could say the same thing about Irish people who want to be British.

James Brown

Larbre34 wrote: »

Your reason is, that many in the rest of Ireland may consider the financial burden of reunifying, at a time the Republic is itself still recovering from a huge economic shock, itself a waste of money.

If your brother was homeless would you leave him lying on the street until you got a raise?

VinLieger wrote: »

So what you are saying is the ends justify the means, not really surprising coming from someone so stridently republican

What's a Republican? I'd like your definition.

Taytoland wrote: »

Occupied, it's nonsense like that which is why the rest of Ireland laughs at Irish Republicanism. What is occupied about it?

It's part of Ireland under British rule. Did I miss the referendum on joining the UK?

BonnieSituation

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think it's shameful for anyone to question it. If the occupied territory wishes to return to unite the country, that's it decided. That's my opinion. The vote is to give the option to those who don't see themselves as Irish and or wish to remain under British rule.
I don't see how anyone could reasonable decide they don't want the occupied portion of Ulster for any decent reason. I'd love to see the 'No' campaign posters and how elements within, I assume FG, would run it.

No campaign? Cmon now.

James Brown

BonnieSituation wrote: »

No campaign? Cmon now.

I would assume the whole point of a referendum in the south would be for people to choose 'yes' or 'no'. Therefore it would stand to reason that somebody would be interested in voting 'No' therefore there would be a campaign of sorts. Or might it be pointless? I think there is an element would vote 'No' but you always get such people in anything.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would assume the whole point of a referendum in the south would be for people to choose 'yes' or 'no'. Therefore it would stand to reason that somebody would be interested in voting 'No' therefore there would be a campaign of sorts. Or might it be pointless? I think there is an element would vote 'No' but you always get such people in anything.

Who of any political note or weight in the south would campaign for a No, you'd have to ask.

BonnieSituation

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I would assume the whole point of a referendum in the south would be for people to choose 'yes' or 'no'. Therefore it would stand to reason that somebody would be interested in voting 'No' therefore there would be a campaign of sorts. Or might it be pointless? I think there is an element would vote 'No' but you always get such people in anything.

Sure. I think only Renua (and perhaps the PDs) weren't pro-UI. That wasn't to say that they were anti-UI but they never had it has part of their platform.

It would be political suicide to campaign for a no vote.

What's the argument? We can't afford it? That all you got?

James Brown

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Sure. I think only Renua (and perhaps the PDs) weren't pro-UI. That wasn't to say that they were anti-UI but they never had it has part of their platform.

It would be political suicide to campaign for a no vote.

What's the argument? We can't afford it? That all you got?

You are assigning another posters inference to me. I never said anything about affording it. I said it was a waste of money. Especially considering the idea of anyone campaigning against it committing political suicide. That's pretty much my point. It is already an unquestionable done deal IMO, it's to be a step above the British and give the democratic choice to the people concerned in that region. The idea of the West Germans saying 'hang on a minute look at the economy' when faced with reunification would have been just as odd. Mind with the current political ethos the economy seems to be more important than the people funding it. That type will always be looking after 'their own' self interest.

cgcsb

BarryD2 wrote: »

The idea that anything over a bare 50% would carry re-unification is just daft. As funkey monkey says, in practice there would need to be a substantial majority and goodwill towards the concept all round, both north and south. Otherwise it's a recipe for renewed civil war.

If 51% is good enough to keep NI in the UK, then 51% is good enough to get it out.

cgcsb

breatheme wrote: »

If there is a NI reunification referendum and the south doesn't consent, things might get... quite bad.

the memes would be class though.

VinLieger

cgcsb wrote: »

If 51% is good enough to keep NI in the UK, then 51% is good enough to get it out.

Why do we need to repeat the mistakes of brexit?

James Brown

VinLieger wrote: »

Why do we need to repeat the mistakes of brexit?

That's democracy. The will of the people. What do you think this is, the Lisbon treaty?

Sleeper12

Daithi_115 wrote:

Instead of the entire population of the north should it be by each county eg. if 2/3s of Fermanagh want to unify with the south they can leave the union and join the south leaving the five counties to remain in the union.

That would be like the UK taking the results of the brexit referendum of NI, Scotland, England and Wales separately. So they'd have NI & Scotland staying in the EU and England league Wales leaving. It would be unworkable.

2/3s majority seems to be the log ways to go

cgcsb

VinLieger wrote: »

Why do we need to repeat the mistakes of brexit?

Well like what's the alternative? saying the 49% was the right answer.
So from now on whatever option you want in a referendum, vote the opposite, because the opposite will happen. Mad stuff Ted.
Brexit was a mistake but it was made by the British people of their own free will. A UI may be a mistake but it's our decision.

cgcsb

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That would be like the UK taking the results of the brexit referendum of NI, Scotland, England and Wales separately. So they'd have NI & Scotland staying in the EU and England league Wales leaving. It would be unworkable.

2/3s majority seems to be the log ways to go

1/3 cannot tell 2/3 what to do I'm afraid, those days are over. If the union of NI and GB is so great let them persuade the voters of that.

VinLieger

Allowing for the possibility of a 49%/51% vote will only lead to more decades of division.


I say this in every thread on reunification, why the need to rush it? It will undoubtedly happen, anyone who questions that is deluded. However it should happen when both countries are ready and able to make a complete and utter success out of it.
Having it happen and be a failure economically and socially leaving a mess to be cleaned up for years to come should not be something we ever consider an option.

James Brown

VinLieger wrote: »

Allowing for the possibility of a 49%/51% vote will only lead to more decades of division.


I say this in every thread on reunification, why the need to rush it? It will undoubtedly happen, anyone who questions that is deluded. However it should happen when both countries are ready and able to make a complete and utter success out of it.
Having it happen and be a failure economically and socially leaving a mess to be cleaned up for years to come should not be something we ever consider an option.

There will always be people on either side unhappy with the result.
The only shape division can honestly take is if the unionists get treated the way Catholics did. But I think Ireland, modern Ireland would not stoop so low institutionally as the British. Those days seem to be gone. Ireland is fast becoming more open and accepting of multiculturalism I can't see anyone getting a hard time because they consider themselves British. We are not that petty. They can have their Ulster Scots, although I believe it's simply an argument currently. If the argument is no more I can't see them pushing for it.

Why the rush? What rush? It's 2018. Every year passes is a further shame on us IMO. You don't leave family out in the cold until the economics feel right.

VinLieger

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why the rush? What rush? It's 2018. Every year passes is a further shame on us IMO. You don't leave family out in the cold until the economics feel right.

Resorting to emotional arguments is kind of pathetic

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Resorting to emotional arguments is kind of pathetic

Are you sure your requirement that there be an arbitary (those instinctively against a UI seem to be those clamouring to up the numbers) percentage is not based on 'emotion'?

James Brown

VinLieger wrote: »

Resorting to emotional arguments is kind of pathetic

So all your opinions are based on fiscal logic? How might we tackle repealing the 8th or rights for same sex couples, do the sums?

jm08

Taytoland wrote: »

We can all wish or believe what we want but the facts remain nonetheless. It's emotion in your post about homeland and such rhetoric as this. The UN doesn't recognize it as an occupation because it simply isn't in law stated as such or in the GFA.

The rest is wishes, fantasy, hope, ideals, ideology and so on, it doesn't dispute a single thing I have said when disputing the term which hasn't got the law backing it up.

If borders are so irrelevant as to how a nation should feel, why are some unionists so concerned about having a customs border in the Irish Sea which would separate British citizens from their homeland?

jm08

VinLieger wrote: »

Allowing for the possibility of a 49%/51% vote will only lead to more decades of division.

I say this in every thread on reunification, why the need to rush it? It will undoubtedly happen, anyone who questions that is deluded. However it should happen when both countries are ready and able to make a complete and utter success out of it.
Having it happen and be a failure economically and socially leaving a mess to be cleaned up for years to come should not be something we ever consider an option.

Who are you referring to hear? Ireland and the UK?


It is already a failure both socially and economically, so whats the point in continuing down this route? Do you expect something to change?

Taytoland

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Larbre34 wrote: »

Your reason is, that many in the rest of Ireland may consider the financial burden of reunifying, at a time the Republic is itself still recovering from a huge economic shock, itself a waste of money.

If your brother was homeless would you leave him lying on the street until you got a raise?

VinLieger wrote: »

So what you are saying is the ends justify the means, not really surprising coming from someone so stridently republican

What's a Republican? I'd like your definition.

Taytoland wrote: »

Occupied, it's nonsense like that which is why the rest of Ireland laughs at Irish Republicanism. What is occupied about it?

It's part of Ireland under British rule. Did I miss the referendum on joining the UK?

Based on this logic anyone who isn't Native American should be thrown out and the landmass given back to the Native Americans. Again fantasy argument nonsense which you tend to get on here.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Based on this logic anyone who isn't Native American should be thrown out and the landmass given back to the Native Americans. Again fantasy argument nonsense which you tend to get on here.

The Native Americans ceded their interest many many moons ago.
Ireland has always been in dispute however. Take any period of history you like.

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Based on this logic anyone who isn't Native American should be thrown out and the landmass given back to the Native Americans. Again fantasy argument nonsense which you tend to get on here.

The Native Americans ceded their interest many many moons ago.
Ireland has always been in dispute however. Take any period of history you like.

Plenty of Native Americans would like the landmass taken off from them back, many of them go on about it often actually. From living on the great plains to living in some of the most poor places in America on the reservations.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Plenty of Native Americans would like the landmass taken off from them back, many of them go on about it often actually. From living on the great plains to living in some of the most poor places in America on the reservations.

That may be. But they did not fight over the centuries and achieve an internationally binding agreement/roadmap to unification.

So an entirely different case and will not save unionists in the event of a majority vote.

James Brown

Taytoland wrote: »

Based on this logic anyone who isn't Native American should be thrown out and the landmass given back to the Native Americans. Again fantasy argument nonsense which you tend to get on here.

Sorry, you are making up your own stuff here and arguing against it.
Part of Ireland remains partially occupied what ever Hello Magazine Kate's dress spin you want to afford it.
Now we're talking a democratic referendum on the matter, something never given to the people there.
Nobody is throwing anyone off anything, not since the Ulster Scots sold out their own for stolen land in the north of Ireland anyway

Taytoland

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Plenty of Native Americans would like the landmass taken off from them back, many of them go on about it often actually. From living on the great plains to living in some of the most poor places in America on the reservations.

That may be. But they did not fight over the centuries and achieve an internationally binding agreement/roadmap to unification.

So an entirely different case and will not save unionists in the event of a majority vote.

They did fight for centuries over it. What are you talking about? They just got slammed into the ground and ended up as we see today.  

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Based on this logic anyone who isn't Native American should be thrown out and the landmass given back to the Native Americans. Again fantasy argument nonsense which you tend to get on here.

Sorry, you are making up your own stuff here and arguing against it.
Part of Ireland remains partially occupied what ever Hello Magazine Kate's dress spin you want to afford it.
Now we're talking a democratic referendum on the matter, something never given to the people there.
Nobody is throwing anyone off anything, not since the Ulster Scots sold out their own for stolen land in the north of Ireland anyway

No legal basis for what you say whatsoever. It's just not based on facts.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Part of Ireland remains partially occupied what ever Hello Magazine Kate's dress spin you want to afford it.

Is that a fact, if so could you provide evidence to support your case?

James Brown

Taytoland wrote: »

They did fight for centuries over it. What are you talking about? They just got slammed into the ground and ended up as we see today.  

No legal basis for what you say whatsoever. It's just not based on facts.

For what? Anyway what's legal about occupying by force? There may be a referendum on a united Ireland, not sure what legal basis you're on about.

James Brown

Aegir wrote: »

Is that a fact, if so could you provide evidence to support your case?

Ulster is a province in Ireland. Part of the Island of Ireland is under British rule. What do you need explaining? Just look for the flegs.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

They did fight for centuries over it. What are you talking about? They just got slammed into the ground and ended up as we see today.  

No legal basis for what you say whatsoever. It's just not based on facts.

Why have they signed a roadmap to leave it then?

They are going to abandon land they think is theirs?

Nope, don't think so. If they feel they own it they send warships to protect it and take it back.

Not happening here.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Ulster is a county in Ireland. Part of the Island of Ireland is under British rule. What do you need explaining? Just look for the flegs.

Pretty sure Ulster is a province onthe island of Ireland. I guess as people live there it could be called occupied in as much as it isn’t empty, is that what you mean?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why have they signed a roadmap to leave it then?

They are going to abandon land they think is theirs?

Nope, don't think so. If they feel they own it they send warships to protect it and take it back.

Not happening here.

There is no roadmap to leave, there is a mechanism for that to happen if the majority want it, but no roadmap.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

There is no roadmap to leave, there is a mechanism for that to happen if the majority want it, but no roadmap.

It is a roadmap to a UI to which leaving is incidental.
There is also the ancillary statement that Britain has 'no strategic interest' here anymore which outlines precisely what they see it and always did see it as - a handy outpost to secure Britain.
Unionism refuses to publicly acknowledge what this means, even though their behaviour since shows that privately they are all too aware of it.

cameramonkey

VinLieger wrote: »

Allowing for the possibility of a 49%/51% vote will only lead to more decades of division.


I say this in every thread on reunification, why the need to rush it? It will undoubtedly happen, anyone who questions that is deluded. However it should happen when both countries are ready and able to make a complete and utter success out of it.
Having it happen and be a failure economically and socially leaving a mess to be cleaned up for years to come should not be something we ever consider an option.

The 6 counties are an utter failure economically, politically, religiously and socially leaving us with a mess that needs to be cleaned up.


The sooner we start the business of cleaning up the better, the best way is through a UI.

Junkyard Tom

Aegir wrote: »

There is no roadmap to leave, there is a mechanism for that to happen if the majority want it, but no roadmap.

It's a mechanism with no reverse gear. The GFA doesn't call for ever-greater union of the northeast of Ireland with Britain. The GFA facilitates moving the political centre-of-gravity away from London and towards Ireland.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is a roadmap to a UI to which leaving is incidental.
There is also the ancillary statement that Britain has 'no strategic interest' here anymore which outlines precisely what they see it and always did see it as - a handy outpost to secure Britain.
Unionism refuses to publicly acknowledge what this means, even though their behaviour since shows that privately they are all too aware of it.

Only in the aspirations of republicans. Most people accept it for what it is, a simple recognition of the unique status if Northern Ireland.

The only roadmap the GFA is to, is to continued peace.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It's a mechanism with no reverse gear. The GFA doesn't call for ever-greater union of the northeast of Ireland with Britain. The GFA facilitates moving the political centre-of-gravity away from London and towards Ireland.

How can there be greater union? Can Cork have ever greater union with Ireland?

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

Only in the aspirations of republicans. Most people accept it for what it is, a simple recognition of the unique status if Northern Ireland.

The only roadmap the GFA is to, is to continued peace.

Oh, it's 'unique' now?
It isn't actually, it is just another in a long line of territories that the British have been forced/persuaded to leave after centuries of conflict and strife.
The only reason they are not gone from Ireland is that it isn't PC to abandon your colonies/acquisitions anymore. They have done the next best thing, set up an agreement where the citizens decide for themselves. They saw the writing on the wall and unionism has been outmaneuvered.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

How can there be greater union? Can Cork have ever greater union with Ireland?

How can you ask sensible intelligent people to pretend that the 'union' is safe when we seen the shennanigans over a notional border (that would have given northern Ireland a sweet deal and an actual 'unique' place in the world) in the Irish Sea????
The union is hanging by a thread.