Border Poll discussion

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Yes, here in Ireland. Frances Fitzgerald stepped down as Tanaiste and a Minister over the Garda Whistleblower case.



https://www.thejournal.ie/frances-fitzgerald-resigns-3719887-Nov2017/

She was cleared of any wrong doing afterwards.

Peter Robinson also stepped aside as revelations about his wife and her financial dealings engulfed him.
The Assembly allows this mechanism and he asked Arlene Foster to replace him.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

I doubt if any Assembly in the world would get away with pulling a Petition of Concern stunt as much as the DUP have in Stormont.

I doubt if any Parliament in the world has such a ridiculous system. It’s destined to failure. Either of the two big parties can throw their toys out any time they want.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I doubt if any Parliament in the world has such a ridiculous system. It’s destined to failure. Either of the two big parties can throw their toys out any time they want.

The UUP, the SDLP, the Alliance party and SF all called on her to step aside.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

I doubt if any Parliament in the world has such a ridiculous system. It’s destined to failure. Either of the two big parties can throw their toys out any time they want.

Well, the old Stormont Parliament didn't exactly work with "majority rule".

Do you ever wonder why the set up in the assembly is how it is?

downcow

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

The.deliberately misspelling of his name aside, what in under jaysis would Martin McGuinness have stepped aside from and why?

Their was an enquiry into Bloody Sunday in the big side and he was running about the big side that day with a sub machine gun trying to kill people.
Flip that around If during the enquiry into loughinisland it became evident Arleen was there that day with a sub machine gun, do you think it would be appropriate that she would continue leading the dup and progress to first ministers office.
What’s good for the goose

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Their was an enquiry into Bloody Sunday in the big side and he was running about the big side that day with a sub machine gun trying to kill people.
Flip that around If during the enquiry into loughinisland it became evident Arleen was there that day with a sub machine gun, do you think it would be appropriate that she would continue leading the dup and progress to first ministers office.
What’s good for the goose

What are you on about?

There's whataboutery and there's this nonsense.

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Well, the old Stormont Parliament didn't exactly work with "majority rule".

Do you ever wonder why the set up in the assembly is how it is?

It would not be difficult to have a weighted majority voluntary coalition that required say at least 30% of each community to pass things. Then dup could stop equal marriage and sf could bring it all to a halt as the UUP or SDLP could supply necessary numbers if anyone was playing silly buggers

downcow

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What are you on about?

There's whataboutery and there's this nonsense.

It’s not what aboutery. I am simply baffled why you think it appropriate Martin continued to lead nationalism during that enquiry. Unless of course you think he wasn’t running around with a machine gun that day.
I don’t care who nationalism as as their leader but stop telling unionism who to have.
And that’s coming from someone who doesn’t have much time for Arlene.
Indeed I think she would have went if sf had not called for her to go.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Indeed I think she would have went if sf had not called for her to go.

The UUP, the SDLP, the Alliance party and SF all called on her to step aside.

downcow

Folks a number of people keep trying to pull this thread back to the same old same old anti-unionist diatribe.
It’s a shame because the original poster asked the question on unification in such a positive non threatening way.
Unfortunately it should be evident to you all that there are some nationalists with huge chips on their should who can’t let go of the past and move forward respecting each other.
Let’s hope they aren’t representative of ordinary nationalists.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Folks a number of people keep trying to pull this thread back to the same old same old anti-unionist diatribe.
It’s a shame because the original poster asked the question on unification in such a positive non threatening way.
Unfortunately it should be evident to you all that there are some nationalists with huge chips on their should who can’t let go of the past and move forward respecting each other.
Let’s hope they aren’t representative of ordinary nationalists.

There is only one poster here defending the DUP by referencing something that happened in the past.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is only one poster here defending the DUP by referencing something that happened in the past.

This was never meant to be an anti dup thread. Why are people so infatuated by the OO and the dup

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

This was never meant to be an anti dup thread. Why are people so infatuated by the OO and the dup

Because they will have to change somewhat to be acceptable in a new society.

They actually need to change now.

Sean.3516

Last I checked the majority of folks in the North wish to remain with the UK.

Border Poll?
What about self-determination?

Avatar MIA

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Last I checked the majority of folks in the North wish to remain with the UK.

Well done, called to every house in NI in a single day?

FrancieBrady

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What about self-determination?

Northern Ireland self determined to stay in the EU, but a certain party is out in Brussels telling out and out lies that Unionists want Brexit to happen. It is quite clear that many of them don't, not to mention other citizens.
They are able to do this because a Tory government ignored their promise to be impartial and give a single party power.
Power they have abused in the past to get their sectarian goals.

Sean.3516

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Well done, called to every house in NI in a single day?

Poll quote in an irish times article from last november showed around mid fifties in favour of staying in UK.

And honestly I think you should need at least a 2 thirds majority for reunification, I mean to prevent a the tyranny of the simple majority deciding that unionists and nationalists who’ve lived in the UK for generations suddenly upending that whole setup.

Sean.3516

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Northern Ireland self determined to stay in the EU, but a certain party is out in Brussels telling out and out lies that Unionists want Brexit to happen. It is quite clear that many of them don't, not to mention other citizens.
They are able to do this because a Tory government ignored their promise to be impartial and give a single party power.
Power they have abused in the past to get their sectarian goals.

Emm, last I checked the UK has country wide majoritarian voting when it comes to referendums. So NI can’t just self determine to leave the EU.

Yes many Unionists don’t want to leave. The question is: Do they want to remain so bad that they’re willing to leave the UK?

I can’t respond to the rest of what you’ve written because it’s incoherent.

Avatar MIA

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Poll quote in an irish times article from last november showed around mid fifties in favour of staying in UK.

And honestly I think you should need at least a 2 thirds majority for reunification,

Equally as honest, that's not how it works. 50% + 1 (technically 50% + 0.5 may suffice ) is what has been agreed.

FrancieBrady

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Emm, last I checked the UK has country wide majoritarian voting when it comes to referendums. So NI can’t just self determine to leave the EU.

Yes many Unionists don’t want to leave. The question is: Do they want to remain so bad that they’re willing to leave the UK?

I can’t respond to the rest of what you’ve written because it’s incoherent.

So they have to Brexit because a majority voted for it. But in a UI poll it has to be 2/3rd's majority.

Yep, not hard to guess the type of democracy you favour.

Sean.3516

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Equally as honest, that's not how it works. 50% + 1 (technically 50% + 0.5 may suffice ) is what has been agreed.

I know what they technically need but I’m saying that wouldnt be fair on the unionists and also they should’nt be deciding something like this in a referendum. I say this as someone from the Republic.

Sean.3516

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So they have to Brexit because a majority voted for it. But in a UI poll it has to be 2/3rd's majority.

Yep, not hard to guess the type of democracy you favour.

No. i’m saying that under the rules of the UK referendums ast they stand, you need a simple majority. That’s a fact not my opinion.

If a border poll would be held, i would favor greater majority being needed, as it’s too big a thing for a simple majority to decide.

Avatar MIA

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I know what they technically need but I’m saying that wouldnt be fair on the unionists and also they should’nt be deciding something like this in a referendum. I say this as someone from the Republic.

The fairness to unionists will be ensuring they are treated equally as everyone else. A 2/3rd majority would be grossly unfair to nationalists. Have you any empathy for them? Or do you only see through an orange lens?

downcow

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Equally as honest, that's not how it works. 50% + 1 (technically 50% + 0.5 may suffice ) is what has been agreed.

Sure if we follow the views of most on here we will be able to have a second referendum before we implement it 😀

Avatar MIA

downcow wrote: »

Sure if we follow the views of most on here we will be able to have a second referendum before we implement it ��

If it's close and lies exposed that may have falsely swayed people then yes.

FrancieBrady

Sean.3516 wrote: »

No. i’m saying that under the rules of the UK referendums ast they stand, you need a simple majority. That’s a fact not my opinion.

If a border poll would be held, i would favor greater majority being needed, as it’s too big a thing for a simple majority to decide.

That is just nonsense. Brexit could be utterly life changing for some in the north.

downcow

Avatar MIA wrote: »

The fairness to unionists will be ensuring they are treated equally as everyone else. A 2/3rd majority would be grossly unfair to nationalists. Have you any empathy for them? Or do you only see through an orange lens?

I think the last 10 pages evidence that if the posters on here had anything to do with it it will be a case of ‘accept the old wafer on the tounge and be thankful we are not putting you all to the sword’

FrancieBrady

Avatar MIA wrote: »

If it's close and lies exposed that may have falsely swayed people then yes.

Or the government cannot make up it's mind what it wants, or is too afraid of what it claims it wants.

Avatar MIA

downcow wrote: »

I think the last 10 pages evidence that if the posters on here had anything to do with it it will be a case of ‘accept the old wafer on the tounge and be thankful we are not putting you all to the sword’

There may also be soup

Sean.3516

Avatar MIA wrote: »

The fairness to unionists will be ensuring they are treated equally as everyone else. A 2/3rd majority would be grossly unfair to nationalists. Have you any empathy for them? Or do you only see through an orange lens?

It’s nothing to do with my personal stake in the situation.

The tyranny of a majority is a real thing. Something that big shouldnt pass unless it has wide reaching support from a vast majority of people.

Ideally I wouldnt have a referendum at all. Just a vote in parliament. Referendums are silly. Ordinary ppl shouldnt be voting on public policy when they elected people to do just that. But if it was a referendum, I would favour a 2 thirds majority being needed.