How long before Irish reunification?

ELM327

15-20 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

So if there is ever a so called "border poll" and it comes up short, will there be another in quick succession? Or maybe the best of three?

I think the Republican/Nationalist side would have to be certain that they'd win convincingly, otherwise a finely balanced vote (like Brexit) would make more problems & cause a lot of headaches for a very long time to come, with an angry hard-line Loyalist demographic wedded to (an histiric version of the Crown), wedded to King Billy & the Orange Order, wedded to Scotland & wedded to anarchy if needs be!

For sure, it's a once in a generation poll, have to be sure not to waste it and set us back another 20+ years waiting for another... like Scotland did!

ELM327

15-20 years

jm08 wrote: »

There can be a vote every 7 years.



The issue with polls/surveys in NI, is that people are suspicious of them and who conducts them. People are going to be reticent when asked these questions in NI bearing in mind the history of the place. The only honest answer will be under the privacy of the ballot box.

There can be a vote every 7 years, same as there can be a scottish vote every week.


In practicality everyone knows they are offered once in a generation.
We're just over 20 years since the GFA, so it makes sense that we should have a poll within 5 years. Once we are reasonably sure of course that it won't be defeated.

Yeah_Right

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Explain then, why you think the GFA brought an end to the conflict?

What was in the GFA that saw ceasefires and an acceptance of the agreement?

Its 20 odd years since I looked at it but from memory (and very simply) they negotiated and both sides made compromises. The UK gave up their claim to the island of Ireland and Ireland gave up their claim to the north. The political wings of the terrorist organisations got a seat at the table and were allowed to be involved in governing (and what a great job they've done :rolleyes:). Rights were guaranteed and terrorists were let out of prison. There was an agreement that some time in the future the people who live in the 2 countries would get to decide their future at the ballot box without having to worry about some prick shooting them or blowing them up.

I think that because there was such huge public support for the GFA on both sides, the terrorists finally realised the game was over. They could no longer spout their crap about fighting for the people when the vast majority of people clearly said they should stop.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You are right, I am a kiwi and in 1998 I was in university in NZ. I had actually studied Irish history for a semester in high school so I was very interested in the GFA and what it would mean.

I honestly don't understand why it has to be so either this or that. Why can't I support the majority of the GFA but disagree with some parts? Why does the fact I think that this island isn't ready for a UI vote yet suddenly mean that I am against the entire GFA?

It has to be "this or that" because that's how it was voted on.

Nationalist support was so high because of the contents of the Agreement. Same down South.

You can't just decide that part of it doesn't suit you now.

That's not how these things work.

Hamsterchops

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Its 20 odd years since I looked at it but from memory (and very simply) they negotiated and both sides made compromises. The UK gave up their claim to the island of Ireland and Ireland gave up their claim to the north. The political wings of the terrorist organisations got a seat at the table and were allowed to be involved in governing (and what a great job they've done :rolleyes:). Rights were guaranteed and terrorists were let out of prison. There was an agreement that some time in the future the people who live in the 2 countries would get to decide their future at the ballot box without having to worry about some prick shooting them or blowing them up.

I think that because there was such huge public support for the GFA on both sides, the terrorists finally realised the game was over. They could no longer spout their crap about fighting for the people when the vast majority of people clearly said they should stop.

Very good summation, in a nutshell.

Yeah_Right

jm08 wrote: »

I'd say that you have a very limited understanding of what happened in the troubles and how catholics/nationalists were treated in the Northern Ireland state.

Unionists have a huge difficulty with accepting pariety of esteem which is one of the main pillars of the GFA. Natonalists accepted the GFA because they were given the hope that they could have a vote on a UI.

And some people want to deny them that? Its only a vote, not a UI. The democratic wish of the people will be accepted.

Maybe I have a more nuanced understanding of the Troubles because I didn't have a dog in that fight. As neutral from another country, I wasn't blinded by hatred and I wasn't raised to only believe one particular side. Ever think of that?

If there is a vote for a UI, I will participate but my belief is that at this time a referendum on this issue will lead to violence before and after it takes place.

Sinbad_NI

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Maybe I have a more nuanced understanding of the Troubles because I didn't have a dog in that fight. As neutral from another country, I was blinded by hatred and I wasn't raised to only believe one particular side. Ever think of that?

If there is a vote for a UI, I will participate but my belief is that at this time a referendum on this issue will lead to violence before and after it takes place.

I think another thing that’s often forgotten is that a pol won’t be called by the SOS until there’s a clear majority in favour. To rubber stamp it if you like. Sorry going from memory here, can’t remember the exact sentence.

Hopefully this leads to a larger majority than the brexit split fiasco, or frequent pols every 7 years causing instability to economy and politics.

Yeah_Right

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It has to be "this or that" because that's how it was voted on.

Nationalist support was so high because of the contents of the Agreement. Same down South.

You can't just decide that part of it doesn't suit you now.

That's not how these things work.

Sorry but I really don't understand that logic. Why can't I generally support it but disagree with parts of it? Do you follow that same logic with political parties? If you vote for them then you agree with everything that their representatives say and do? I don't subscribe to that theory.

jm08

20-30 years

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Maybe I have a more nuanced understanding of the Troubles because I didn't have a dog in that fight. As neutral from another country, I was blinded by hatred and I wasn't raised to only believe one particular side. Ever think of that?

If there is a vote for a UI, I will participate but my belief is that at this time a referendum on this issue will lead to violence before and after it takes place.

I didn't have a dog in the fight and a huge amount of sympathy for the innocent people on both sides. I would have been quite happy if the GFA had worked out, but it just hasn't. Pariety of Esteem is not accepted by loyalists.

Sounds like you believe that there will be violence anyway bearing in mind the history of NI.

munsterlegend

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

I think another thing that’s often forgotten is that a pol won’t be called by the SOS until there’s a clear majority in favour. To rubber stamp it if you like. Sorry going from memory here, can’t remember the exact sentence.

Hopefully this leads to a larger majority than the brexit split fiasco, or frequent pols every 7 years causing instability to economy and politics.

That’s actually incorrect. A SOS can call such a poll whenever he/she wants. There is nothing to stop him/her from doing so.

munsterlegend

munsterlegend wrote: »

That’s actually incorrect. A SOS can call such a poll whenever he/she wants. There is nothing to stop him/her from doing so.

However he is obliged/shall call a poll if he believes a majority are in favour of leaving the UK.

Sinbad_NI

munsterlegend wrote: »

That’s actually incorrect. A SOS can call such a poll whenever he/she wants. There is nothing to stop him/her from doing so.

How did we live before google.

The Good Friday Agreement states that "the Secretary of State" should call a referendum "'if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland."

munsterlegend

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

How did we live before google.

The Good Friday Agreement states that "the Secretary of State" should call a referendum "'if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland."

Yes he is obliged to then. However he/she can still call a poll whenever he/she wants. Nothing legally to stop him. The GFA only sets out when he/she can’t hold such a poll such as where there has already been a poll in the last 7 years.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Sorry but I really don't understand that logic. Why can't I generally support it but disagree with parts of it? Do you follow that same logic with political parties? If you vote for them then you agree with everything that their representatives say and do? I don't subscribe to that theory.

We're not talking about political parties.

We're talking about a constitutional document that governs the future of the island.

Loads of people didn't agree with all of it, but they accept the agreement in its totality. It's mightily different.

My own father had a huge issue with the changes to articles 2 and 3 but voted yes in the end, as I'm sure plenty did like him.

The agreement had an insane amount of support within the Nationalist community for it. It wouldn't have had such support if it didn't offer Nationalism a route to what they want, a UI.

You are free to agree with most of it, but you can't say you are "pro-GFA" if you believe that one of the main parts of it from a Nationalist pov, a border poll, shouldn't occur just 'cause.

By doing so you believe that loyalist agitation and potential violence trumps democracy. And that can't be allowed to be the case.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What about the first part of the question?

I'm not sure they did know. I'm of the opinion that most people didn't look far past the fact that the troubles would end.

FrancieBrady

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Its 20 odd years since I looked at it but from memory (and very simply) they negotiated and both sides made compromises. The UK gave up their claim to the island of Ireland and Ireland gave up their claim to the north. The political wings of the terrorist organisations got a seat at the table and were allowed to be involved in governing (and what a great job they've done :rolleyes:). Rights were guaranteed and terrorists were let out of prison. There was an agreement that some time in the future the people who live in the 2 countries would get to decide their future at the ballot box without having to worry about some prick shooting them or blowing them up.

I think that because there was such huge public support for the GFA on both sides, the terrorists finally realised the game was over. They could no longer spout their crap about fighting for the people when the vast majority of people clearly said they should stop.

You said it...a simple take on it.

how anyone could synopsise the GFA and not prioritise the 'self determination' clause is beyond me. Nor the committment of both governments to implement the will of the people after a border poll.

That is why the guns were decommissioned because the aspiiration/struggle for a UI became a legitimate and recognised one.
Part and parcel of that 'legitimacy' is that a border poll will be held to test the opinion of the people.

No border poll at some point then the GFA is broken as an agreement.

You do not have a say in whether there should be a border poll or not...that has already been agreed.

FrancieBrady

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

I think another thing that’s often forgotten is that a pol won’t be called by the SOS until there’s a clear majority in favour. To rubber stamp it if you like. Sorry going from memory here, can’t remember the exact sentence.

Hopefully this leads to a larger majority than the brexit split fiasco, or frequent pols every 7 years causing instability to economy and politics.

Completely wrong.

The SoS only has to feel that it is 'likely'. There was a long argument about this earlier in the thread and this 'clause' was actually tested in court.
The SoS does not have to provide reasoning for his decision.

munsterlegend

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Completely wrong.

The SoS only has to feel that it is 'likely'. There was a long argument about this earlier in the thread and this 'clause' was actually tested in court.
The SoS does not have to provide reasoning for his decision.

He can actually call a poll when he/she likes anyway as I previously stated. Unlikely but just say it was strategically advantage for U.K. govt to do it or a Labour govt might promise to do it.

munsterlegend

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not sure they did know. I'm of the opinion that most people didn't look far past the fact that the troubles would end.

How old are you? It was a key part of the agreement for the nationalist population and the Irish govt given their concession on articles 2 and 3.

FrancieBrady

munsterlegend wrote: »

How old are you? It was a key part of the agreement for the nationalist population and the Irish govt given their concession on articles 2 and 3.

eagle has got caught out and is trying to implicate everyone else.

FrancieBrady

munsterlegend wrote: »

He can actually call a poll when he/she likes anyway as I previously stated. Unlikely but just say it was strategically advantage for U.K. govt to do it or a Labour govt might promise to do it.

Agreed, it will be very carefully choreographed between the 2 governments.
That's why I am wondering/suspecting that the Unity Unit and major British Universities looking at a UI is the beginning of the final dance.

BonnieSituation

20-30 years

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not sure they did know. I'm of the opinion that most people didn't look far past the fact that the troubles would end.

In your opinion... Grand.

Ridiculous.

Yeah_Right

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We're not talking about political parties.

We're talking about a constitutional document that governs the future of the island.

Loads of people didn't agree with all of it, but they accept the agreement in its totality. It's mightily different.

My own father had a huge issue with the changes to articles 2 and 3 but voted yes in the end, as I'm sure plenty did like him.

The agreement had an insane amount of support within the Nationalist community for it. It wouldn't have had such support if it didn't offer Nationalism a route to what they want, a UI.

You are free to agree with most of it, but you can't say you are "pro-GFA" if you believe that one of the main parts of it from a Nationalist pov, a border poll, shouldn't occur just 'cause.

By doing so you believe that loyalist agitation and potential violence trumps democracy. And that can't be allowed to be the case.

I generally agree with what you're saying. My point is that I don't think 2 countries are ready for a border poll yet. Yet is a key word there. And it's one that you and Francie keep missing. Probably intentionally in his case.

You are right that violence should not trump democracy. But should we have a vote just to prove we're not afraid of violence? How about the 2 main parties in the north actually do some governing? They could work together, make compromises and show that the 2 sides could actually come together in peace. Then have a border poll with less chance of violence.

RobMc59

10-15 years

Hamsterchops wrote: »

So if there is ever a so called "border poll" and it comes up short, will there be another in quick succession? Or maybe the best of three?

I think the Republican/Nationalist side would have to be certain that they'd win convincingly, otherwise a finely balanced vote (like Brexit) would make more problems & cause a lot of headaches for a very long time to come, with an angry hard-line Loyalist demographic wedded to (an histiric version of the Crown), wedded to King Billy & the Orange Order, wedded to Scotland & wedded to anarchy if needs be!

I agree and something else I've noticed about the staunchest republican posters,they all denounce the UK in one breath then go on to describe in their master plan how they expect the UK and/or EU to pay for all this(and they don't take the financial fallout from covid into account!)The majority of moderate people would probably agree in principle with a UI if a majority wanted it but I'd question there's much of an appetite for it when cold hard financial reality rears its head.

munsterlegend

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I generally agree with what you're saying. My point is that I don't think 2 countries are ready for a border poll yet. Yet is a key word there. And it's one that you and Francie keep missing. Probably intentionally in his case.

You are right that violence should not trump democracy. But should we have a vote just to prove we're not afraid of violence? How about the 2 main parties in the north actually do some governing? They could work together, make compromises and show that the 2 sides could actually come together in peace. Then have a border poll with less chance of violence.

I have no problem with that approach. However a border poll should be called once conditions are met even if it is a bit subjective for a SOS to do so. Nobody wants violence. I still think any loyalist violence is overstated and the British govt who would still be in charge before and after a border poll until a UI is agreed on would actually be keen to stamp any out. They really don’t have much time for them either no matter how much they like the queen.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

eagle has got caught out and is trying to implicate everyone else.

Yet more childishness.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

BonnieSituation wrote:

Ridiculous.

In your opinion.

jm08

20-30 years

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I generally agree with what you're saying. My point is that I don't think 2 countries are ready for a border poll yet. Yet is a key word there. And it's one that you and Francie keep missing. Probably intentionally in his case.


You are right that violence should not trump democracy. But should we have a vote just to prove we're not afraid of violence? How about the 2 main parties in the north actually do some governing? They could work together, make compromises and show that the 2 sides could actually come together in peace. Then have a border poll with less chance of violence.

Neither countries will be ready for a border poll unless there is some preparation done for it.



Its blatently obvious that its not working. The DUP block everything with Petitions of Concern etc. and show nothing but contempt for nationalists and their culture - i.e., the withdrawal of the 50,000 Liofa Grant and their attitude to the Irish language.

FrancieBrady

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I generally agree with what you're saying. My point is that I don't think 2 countries are ready for a border poll yet. Yet is a key word there. And it's one that you and Francie keep missing. Probably intentionally in his case.

Yet another who wants to slither out of something they clearly said and then try and characterise another poster as 'intentionally misquoting them. Don't say stuff like this if you mean the opposite.

Yeah_Right wrote:

I agree with Eagle Eye. I don't want a border poll or a UI.

Yeah_Right wrote:

What makes you think I agreed to a border poll? I never did.

Completely disingenuous and dishonest posting there.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

Yet more childishness.

Well show us your data to back up your contention that 'most' people did what you did...completely misunderstanding what they were signing up to.
Otherwise it is just an excuse for your own mistake.