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

Reunification Vote Per County

12467

Comments

  • #92
    LoughNeagh2017
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭LoughNeagh2017


    This sort of thing won't work, Tyrone has a Catholic majority but there are still loyalist areas in it, Cookstown and Coagh for example, they are always plastered in union flags. Then there is co. Antrim, a Protestant stronghold but there are republican areas there too like Rasharkin, Toomebridge and the Glens of Antrim, I would say Toomebridge is one of the most republican areas in the country.

    The only way a unified Ireland (30 counties) will be achieved is by social engineering, social engineering created the country and social engineering is the only way it will end, a cross plantation of the Catholics of East Ulster into West Ulster and the Protestants of West Ulster into East Ulster, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, most unionists would give their lives to remain in the union.


  • #93
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »
    This sort of thing won't work, Tyrone has a Catholic majority but there are still loyalist areas in it, Cookstown and Coagh for example, they are always plastered in union flags. Then there is co. Antrim, a Protestant stronghold but there are republican areas there too like Rasharkin, Toomebridge and the Glens of Antrim, I would say Toomebridge is one of the most republican areas in the country.

    The only way a unified Ireland (30 counties) will be achieved is by social engineering, social engineering created the country and social engineering is the only way it will end, a cross plantation of the Catholics of East Ulster into West Ulster and the Protestants of West Ulster into East Ulster, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, most unionists would give their lives to remain in the union.

    They wouldn't. They think they would, but when push comes to shove there's very little in Unionism wrth defending or fighting for. It's why they are always so vocal about "showing off" their wares. Lest it be seen that it's all a load of conceited bollox.


  • #94
    Thomas_IV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 359 ✭✭Thomas_IV


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »
    This sort of thing won't work, Tyrone has a Catholic majority but there are still loyalist areas in it, Cookstown and Coagh for example, they are always plastered in union flags. Then there is co. Antrim, a Protestant stronghold but there are republican areas there too like Rasharkin, Toomebridge and the Glens of Antrim, I would say Toomebridge is one of the most republican areas in the country.

    The only way a unified Ireland (30 counties) will be achieved is by social engineering, social engineering created the country and social engineering is the only way it will end, a cross plantation of the Catholics of East Ulster into West Ulster and the Protestants of West Ulster into East Ulster, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, most unionists would give their lives to remain in the union.

    They wouldn't. They think they would, but when push comes to shove there's very little in Unionism wrth defending or fighting for. It's why they are always so vocal about "showing off" their wares. Lest it be seen that it's all a load of conceited bollox.

    I'd say that this hits the nail on the head.


  • #95
    Thomas_IV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 359 ✭✭Thomas_IV


    LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »
    This sort of thing won't work, Tyrone has a Catholic majority but there are still loyalist areas in it, Cookstown and Coagh for example, they are always plastered in union flags. Then there is co. Antrim, a Protestant stronghold but there are republican areas there too like Rasharkin, Toomebridge and the Glens of Antrim, I would say Toomebridge is one of the most republican areas in the country.

    The only way a unified Ireland (30 counties) will be achieved is by social engineering, social engineering created the country and social engineering is the only way it will end, a cross plantation of the Catholics of East Ulster into West Ulster and the Protestants of West Ulster into East Ulster, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, most unionists would give their lives to remain in the union.

    I don't think that this would work, rather that it'd bring more tensions. And I don't think myself to be deluded by being very sceptical on your suggestion.


  • #96
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,083 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »
    This sort of thing won't work, Tyrone has a Catholic majority but there are still loyalist areas in it, Cookstown and Coagh for example, they are always plastered in union flags. Then there is co. Antrim, a Protestant stronghold but there are republican areas there too like Rasharkin, Toomebridge and the Glens of Antrim, I would say Toomebridge is one of the most republican areas in the country.

    The only way a unified Ireland (30 counties) will be achieved is by social engineering, social engineering created the country and social engineering is the only way it will end, a cross plantation of the Catholics of East Ulster into West Ulster and the Protestants of West Ulster into East Ulster, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, most unionists would give their lives to remain in the union.

    And that means the idea is deluded, because that type of social engineering is anathema to a modern social democracy like ours, so it can never happen.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Taytoland


    Amazes me that people don't understand the terms of it. If it's won by one vote either way, that's it. All else is irrelevant. Two referendums would have to happen. Simple.


  • #98
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭Taytoland


    LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »
    This sort of thing won't work, Tyrone has a Catholic majority but there are still loyalist areas in it, Cookstown and Coagh for example, they are always plastered in union flags. Then there is co. Antrim, a Protestant stronghold but there are republican areas there too like Rasharkin, Toomebridge and the Glens of Antrim, I would say Toomebridge is one of the most republican areas in the country.

    The only way a unified Ireland (30 counties) will be achieved is by social engineering, social engineering created the country and social engineering is the only way it will end, a cross plantation of the Catholics of East Ulster into West Ulster and the Protestants of West Ulster into East Ulster, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, most unionists would give their lives to remain in the union.
    Irish Army in Loyalist areas is a wet dream for a lot of Loyalists for obvious reasons.


  • #99
    Thomas_IV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 359 ✭✭Thomas_IV


    blanch152 wrote: »
    LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »
    This sort of thing won't work, Tyrone has a Catholic majority but there are still loyalist areas in it, Cookstown and Coagh for example, they are always plastered in union flags. Then there is co. Antrim, a Protestant stronghold but there are republican areas there too like Rasharkin, Toomebridge and the Glens of Antrim, I would say Toomebridge is one of the most republican areas in the country.

    The only way a unified Ireland (30 counties) will be achieved is by social engineering, social engineering created the country and social engineering is the only way it will end, a cross plantation of the Catholics of East Ulster into West Ulster and the Protestants of West Ulster into East Ulster, anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded, most unionists would give their lives to remain in the union.

    And that means the idea is deluded, because that type of social engineering is anathema to a modern social democracy like ours, so it can never happen.

    Ruthly translated his suggestion appears to be some sort of 're-settlement' which bears the smell of something like 'ethnic cleansing' in majority areas to achieve a 50/50 balance.

    I really have come across various suggestions to bring the PULs around to agree to come into a UI, this 're-settlement' idea is never heard of. It goes beyond the heads of those who would be affected and it shows once again that when people decide over others without putting themselves in their shoes in the first place it all goes wrong and ends up in disaster.

    IMO, the key event to turn the PULs around to join a UI is the ultimate break up of the UK when they are left without a UK or British State to cling on, which financially supports them and turns its back on them. Then they will start to think again and try to make the best for themselves and their families on the grounds of the realities which will in a way of phrasing 'dictate' to them what it is to be and what else would be closer than to give their consent to join a UI. That would be the peaceful way into a UI, where the Unionists and Loyalists have make rational decisions for their own well being in the first place and cast away any ideological nonsense.

    Currently, the balance is a bit moving in regards of Brexit, the path to the break up of the UK by a no-deal Brexit which is more the real prospect than anything else (thanks to the time wasting behaviour of the May cabinet(s)). If the Brits get a second chance to vote on a BrexitRef2 and reverse Brexit, which means the UK to remain in the EU as a full member, a Scottish IndyRef2 gets a setback and the chances of a UI as well. It is not yet that clear whether there will be a BrexitRef2 before the UK officially leaves the EU at the end of March 2019, maybe there might be a snap GE before or around that date. It all hangs in the balance but the mood in the UK regarding Brexit appears to change into the remain direction as more people who voted for leave come to realise what really is at stake and what consequences they'll have to face if a hard Brexit takes place.


  • #100
    Thomas_IV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 359 ✭✭Thomas_IV


    Taytoland wrote: »
    Amazes me that people don't understand the terms of it. If it's won by one vote either way, that's it. All else is irrelevant. Two referendums would have to happen. Simple.

    It isn't that simple because first you have to convince a majority to win the two referendums, which means each in NI and the Republic of Ireland. The result between a UI poll in NI and a referendum on re-unification in both parts of the Island can be different as much as the turn out of voters would decide the differences. It could backfire if the first border poll is won by a majority of 50+1% in favour of a UI and the results of both referendums don't reach that majority on either or both sides.

    There is still the possibility that there are more people in the Republic who don't give a damn about NI and a UI because they either don't like them Nordies anyway (for various reasons) or cos they are indifferent to them because they have no Family or other social bounds to NI and just like to have nothing to do with them Unionist and Loyalist trouble makers. I have often read such comments by Irish people from the Republic and I can't tell how much representative these anti-UI comments from Republic residents are.


  • #101
    Sterling Archer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,252 ✭✭✭Sterling Archer


    Will we get new passports then :D


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Larbre34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,274 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Its all irrelevant, even if both Governments were satisfied there were the conditions for the border poll, neither would consider running it any differently than a straightforward referendum in each jurisdiction. The UK would never countenance a re-partition, it would be so expensive, inefficient and outright hassle as to be impossible. I mean where do you draw the line, pack all the Loyalists onto the Ards peninsula and give it a Gibraltar like status?

    Reunification is still about 50 years away and it has damn all to do with Brexit. It is about the time it will take for a) the realisation within Loyalism that neither Westminster nor the people of Britain really give two hoots about NI or Unionism or see it as anything other than a costly legacy irritation or a tool to gain some leverage when needed and discarded again without a thought and b) the realism within Unionism and Loyalism that unification with Ireland holds no threat to any aspect of their way of life or the daily existence of them and their kids. I

    Ironically, I have no doubt that an element of that is that at the moment is Loyalists know the Republic wouldnt support the economically disfunctional NI model and state underpinned lives that they lead. Maybe the one connection to Brexit that will be important will be the loss of social and cohesion funds to NI which folk in the province dont even realise is benefitting them massively.


  • #103
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    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.


  • #104
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,199 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    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.


    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?


  • #105
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #106
    Larbre34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,274 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #107
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭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?


  • #108
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,199 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #109
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,422 ✭✭✭✭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'.


  • #110
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭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.


  • #111
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,422 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭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.


  • #113
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,422 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #114
    Taytoland
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭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.


  • #115
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,422 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #116
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #117
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #118
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #119
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,422 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #120
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement