Border Poll discussion

McMurphy

facehugger99 wrote: »

Given the history of IRA violence against their own community, it's pretty obvious which demographic would feel under the most pressure to answer 'correctly' to some pollsters' questions - I know that's what I'd do if I was unfortunate enough to find myself living under those conditions.

Ok - let's take this post at face value.

The problem I have with believing it is that during the height of the trouble's, it was the SDLP who were the party nationalists continued to vote for, returning them as the largest party time and again.

It was after the republican ceasefire and decommissioning that seen Sinn Fein turn the tables on the SDLP, and become the most popular party in the North representing nationalists.

You see the trouble with posting unsubstantiated nonsense now I presume, yeah?


(Of course if you have any examples of the IRA intimidating nationalists into answering pollsters with particular answers, I'm all ears.)

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

(Of course if you have any examples of the IRA intimidating nationalists into answering pollsters with particular answers, I'm all ears.)

I would like to see the poll that showed 90% in favour of unity too.

Junkyard Tom

facehugger99 wrote: »

If it was a gambling man and the poll was carried out tomorrow, I'd put support in the low 30s, maybe even less.

You don't get it do you? A border poll kicks off the 'game' and the first loss is one - nil. The problem for you is that you have to keep winning but those seeking a UI only need to win once. This is a one-way-street and at the end is a UI.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you have almost 25% of the electorate undecided, it is churlish and self serving to describe the motion as 'rejected'.
It is just another poll, don't get your hopes up too much. The real game changer hasn't happened yet.

You see this is the problem with one-sided interpretation of polls is that on the one hand we are expected to accept that the Northern Irish public reject the DUP position given the lack of support, yet on the other hand, we are supposed to reach the exact opposite conclusion in the face of very similar findings in respect of the SF position.

Ditto with Arlene Foster and Michelle O'Neill. Despite both having abysmal ratings, one can be excused, the other not.

Completely baffling. Completely inconsistent.

After all, only this morning, the poll was telling us some very important things.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109619492&postcount=1166

blanch152

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You don't get it do you? A border poll kicks off the 'game' and the first loss is one - nil. The problem for you is that you have to keep winning but those seeking a UI only need to win once. This is a one-way-street and at the end is a UI.

It is a mistaken belief that there is a need for further polls once the first one has been defeated. All the GFA says is that there must be at least seven years between polls. It doesn't say there must be a second one.

If the first one is heavily defeated, and there is no real change in sentiment, there is no need to hold a second one. In fact, the SoS would have no status for their belief.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you have almost 25% of the electorate undecided, it is churlish and self serving to describe the motion as 'rejected'.
It is just another poll, don't get your hopes up too much. The real game changer hasn't happened yet.

I'd agree - publish the costs of unification and we'll see what the polls say then.:cool:

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You see this is the problem with one-sided interpretation of polls is that on the one hand we are expected to accept that the Northern Irish public reject the DUP position given the lack of support, yet on the other hand, we are supposed to reach the exact opposite conclusion in the face of very similar findings in respect of the SF position.

Ditto with Arlene Foster and Michelle O'Neill. Despite both having abysmal ratings, one can be excused, the other not.

Completely baffling. Completely inconsistent.

After all, only this morning, the poll was telling us some very important things.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109619492&postcount=1166

You are the one who said SF support was around 30% and the vote for unity mirrored that.

So SF support held. 23% are undecided.

So it is bull**** to present that as a 'rejection'. You are just slanting things here.

I asked an admitted Unionist about something specific about the findings. What is the problem with that.

You must have missed the post where I agreed that O'Neill is not a great leader so far.

Don't let it stop you trying to shift the narrative to this being about SF.

Junkyard Tom

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a mistaken belief that there is a need for further polls once the first one has been defeated.

The whole United Ireland thing isn't going away. I'd say a lot of people are aware that the first border poll could be defeated but that's not the point - it creates a precedent and normalises the concept of a future UI in the public consciousness.

As the UK retreats into itself post-Brexit while Ireland continues to look outwards, combined with changing demographics in the northeast of Ireland, we can expect the pro-UI desire to strengthen.

Kermit.de.frog

A UI is best achieved slowly and by stealth building on all island structures, economy, and the likes of the backstop rather than an actual vote IMO.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'd agree - publish the costs of unification and we'll see what the polls say then.:cool:

Any sign of that poll showing 90% support for unity?

janfebmar

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The whole United Ireland thing isn't going away. I'd say a lot of people are aware that the first border poll could be defeated

It is not the first border poll. There was one in the seventies in N. Ireland and voter turnout was about the same or even higher than we get in referendums and elections here. 99% voted to stay with the UK.

RobMc59

janfebmar wrote: »

It is not the first border poll. There was one in the seventies in N. Ireland and voter turnout was about the same or even higher than we get in referendums and elections here. 99% voted to stay with the UK.

Certain posters went berserk when I mentioned that a few weeks ago!:)

Junkyard Tom

janfebmar wrote: »

It is not the first border poll. There was one in the seventies in N. Ireland and voter turnout was about the same or even higher than we get in referendums and elections here. 99% voted to stay with the UK.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Posters went berserk when I mentioned that a few weeks ago!:)

It was boycotted by Nationalists so had no legitimacy.

Kermit.de.frog

janfebmar wrote: »

It is not the first border poll. There was one in the seventies in N. Ireland and voter turnout was about the same or even higher than we get in referendums and elections here. 99% voted to stay with the UK.

Nationalists boycotted it.

RobMc59

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It was boycotted by Nationalists so had no legitimacy.

If people don't vote they can't belly ache after-it's the same with those who don't participate in Westminster then gripe about it.

janfebmar

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It was boycotted by Nationalists so had no legitimacy.

It was not boycotted by all natonalists if 1.1% voted for a united Ireland. Voting was free and open to all over 18 years of age.

Voter turnout was about the same or even higher than we get in referendums and elections here

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

It was not boycotted by all natonalists if 1.1% voted for a united Ireland. Voting was free and open to all over 18 years of age.

Voter turnout was about the same or even higher than we get in referendums and elections here

Yes, we have been here before.

Let's just say, it is time for another border poll.

McMurphy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It was boycotted by Nationalists so had no legitimacy.

Remember a poster called maryishere used to post this meaningless stat consistently whenever he or she was around.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

If people don't vote they can't belly ache after-it's the same with those who don't participate in Westminster then gripe about it.

Who is bellyaching about it? It didn't change a thing.

It is time for another border poll.


If it passes and a UI results, then Unionists can have another poll if at any time it looks like they would win. Fair is fair like. :cool:

janfebmar

RobMc59 wrote: »

Certain posters went berserk when I mentioned that a few weeks ago!:)

Certain posters do not like being reminded of it all right!

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who is bellyaching about it? It didn't change a thing.

It is time for another border poll.


If it passes and a UI results, then Unionists can have another poll if at any time it looks like they would win. Fair is fair like. :cool:

I thought you said now isn't the time?And what if there was a poll and the same people didn't vote?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I thought you said now isn't the time?And what if there was a poll and the same people didn't vote?

A border poll is the next step in the GFA process, is what I meant.

Nationalists/republicans didn't vote? Why wouldn't nationalists/republicans vote?

janfebmar

In the referendum in 1973 on a United Ireland extremist Republicans presumably did not vote - you say they boycotted it and anyways it appears they were busy setting off bombs and running away. Did Republicans express real remorse for murdering people like in Bloody Friday, when the ballot box was open to them?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

In the referendum in 1973 on a United Ireland extremist Republicans presumably did not vote - you say they boycotted it and anyways it appears they were busy setting off bombs and running away. Did Republicans express real remorse for murdering people like in Bloody Friday, when the ballot box was open to them?

The conflict/war is over.
This is about the process laid down in the peace agreement called the GFA.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A border poll is the next step in the GFA process, is what I meant.

Nationalists/republicans didn't vote? Why wouldn't nationalists/republicans vote?

They'd have no excuse this time(if it happens),especially following Ireland and the World recognising NÌ as part of the UK.
Don't get me wrong,I've said what I think about a UI but if one group is too mardy to vote then they miss a golden opportunity.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The conflict/war is over.

It was a terrorist campaign, not a war, and the terrorists surrendered their weapons / had them put beyond use.

You have not answered the question, "Did Republicans express real remorse for murdering people like in Bloody Friday, when the ballot box was open to them?"

janfebmar

After all if you think it was justifiable for extremists on one side to bomb and kill and not use the ballot box (even though it was open and available to them) in 1973, then to be consistent you must think it would also be justifiable for extremists on the other side to bomb and kill and not use the ballot box in the future?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

They'd have no excuse this time(if it happens),especially following Ireland and the World recognising NÌ as part of the UK.
Don't get me wrong,I've said what I think about a UI but if one group is too mardy to vote then they miss a golden opportunity.

Republicans shunned the sham referendum in the middle of an ongoing conflict/war. The 'Union' continued regardless. If Unionists boycott a referendum, I am sure our posters, claiming the 1973 one was significant, will be crying foul because unionists didn't take part. They don't seem to get 'ironic'.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Republicans shunned the sham referendum in the middle of an ongoing conflict/war. The 'Union' continued regardless. If Unionists boycott a referendum, I am sure our posters, claiming the 1973 one was significant, will be crying foul because unionists didn't take part. They don't seem to get 'ironic'.

How can you say that when SF are against the GFA which would make a border poll possible and has brought peace to Ireland?-or would they change their tune if there was a poll now?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

After all if you think it was justifiable for extremists on one side to bomb and kill and not use the ballot box (even though it was open and available to them) in 1973, then to be consistent you must think it would also be justifiable for extremists on the other side to bomb and kill and not use the ballot box in the future?

I didn't want any violent conflict ever. So, no, I don't think anyone, who signed up to an outstanding breakthrough peace agreement like the GFA should be threatening violence, if what they signed up to, comes to pass.