How long before Irish reunification?

Fionn1952

15-20 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

. What I won't do is be told that their view is more important than mine, or should count for more than mine.

I presume at this stage ye're deliberately choosing to ignore the actual issue.

It is us voters in the ROI who hold the veto over NI's future - we are perfectly entitled to consider the size of a NI minority who reject unification when considering our own position. Such a right is enshrined in the very foundations of the GFA.

Parking the €10bn a year elephant for a moment - why would anyone, other than the fundamentalist pan-nationalists, think we'd choose to take on a sizable minority of ROI-hating unionists into our country?

There's no way I'd let them near the place. The security issues on their own would convince most ROI voters to run a mile from the issue.

Isn't it amazing that only 37% of people say their willing to pay for a NI and none of these fundamental issues have even been raised yet in public discourse?

Wonder what way the percentages are headed if it ever was discussed in earnest?

As is entirely consistent with my post, if voters in Ireland (of which I'm one, having lived down here for years now) vote against it, that would be an acceptable outcome for me. My issue was clearly with the scenario where a majority vote is not deemed 'good enough' in case the minority are not happy, and deciding that the vote of someone against unification is worth more than the vote of someone in favour. This doesn't apply in your hypothetical scenario, so it's not really relevant.

So what's your point?

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

18% of people in northern ireland say they couldn't live with the result. Meaning 82% could live with it.

I would imagine there would be very few who couldn't live with either a Yes or a No in the south.

So what referendum ever, anywhere didn't pass (was ignored) because 18% of the entire population didn't want it to?

Fionn1952

15-20 years

eagle eye wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote:

There were a lot of people living here who didnt support same sex marriage or the repeal of the 8th amendment, should we have refused to legislate for those because some people didnt agree?

This is not even remotely close to the same thing.

Scenario one - a vote is held on something which would be considered a significant change to their society, a minority feel morally opposed to this change, based on their religion/politics/ethical outlook on life, but the vote is approved by the majority, so the change is made.

Scenario two - a vote is held on something which would be considered a significant change to their society, a minority feel morally opposed to this change, based on their religion/politics/ethical outlook on life, the vote is approved by the majority, but the minority are really unhappy about it, so no change is made.


As Facehugger pointed out, you'll have your chance to prevent it by voting against unification should it pass in the North, without deciding to scrap the GFA and decide that Unionist votes are worth more than Nationalists in the North. That was tried before and didn't work out too well for anyone.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

without deciding to scrap the GFA and decide that Unionist votes are worth more than Nationalists in the North. That was tried before and didn't work out too well for anyone.

It is almost as if the poster doesn't know his/her history. It is a proposal that just invites chaos and is a signifier of the fear that is beginning to envelop some.

facehugger99

Fionn1952 wrote: »

As Facehugger pointed out, you'll have your chance to prevent it by voting against unification should it pass in the North, without deciding to scrap the GFA

It's one of the most important aspects of the GFA. It removed the ridiculous territorial claim to NI and prevents any arrogant ROI politicians from trying to ram a unification agenda down our throats.

It took the decision away from NI and the UK and gave it to us, the voters of the Republic. It's not a power we'll ever likely need, but it's a damn fine insurance policy to have in our back pockets.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The arrogance to assume nobody has considered the issues but lil 'ol clever you.

Wow - original response there Francie - you got me again (and again and again.....)

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The absolute arrogance of you to think that people haven't the brains to work out that there might be a cost, but still think it is the best thing for this island and an investment.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

*cue the arrogant 'they haven't thought through that there might be a cost' nonsense.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again the arrogance that assumes nobody has thought that there might be a cost.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was talking about your sheer arrogance that allows you to GUESS things and come to a position on a UI, but you don't allow anybody else to guess, if they come to a contrary position to you. A hypocritical if not utterly senseless argument.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is such arrogant nonsense from this poster.

It's like being savaged by a dead sheep.

Fionn1952

15-20 years

facehugger99 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

As Facehugger pointed out, you'll have your chance to prevent it by voting against unification should it pass in the North, without deciding to scrap the GFA

It's one of the most important aspects of the GFA. It removed the ridiculous territorial claim to NI and prevents any arrogant ROI politicians from trying to ram a unification agenda down our throats.

It took the decision away from NI and the UK and gave it to us, the voters of the Republic. It's not a power we'll ever likely need, but it's a damn fine insurance policy to have in our back pockets.

It's an aspect of the GFA I fully support - I wouldn't want unification to proceed if it wasnt acceptable to the people of Ireland. Not sure why you keep trying to throw it at me like it's some sort of checkmate move?!

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Wow - original response there Francie - you got me again (and again and again.....)













It's like being savaged by a dead sheep.

Despite your little trawl, the point remains, how do you know what people 'have considered'?

Exactly - you don't know. The 37% could just as easily be thinking they would have to replace 10/11/12/13/ billion when anyone with an ounce of sense knows that is nowhere near the true cost.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

It took the decision away from NI and the UK and gave it to us, the voters of the Republic. .

There was a situation when 'NI and the UK' could foist a UI on us against our will?

Really? Apart from the fact that NI and the UK are one and the same, do you know what you are talking about?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Despite your little trawl, the point remains, how do you know what people 'have considered'?

Exactly - you don't know. The 37% could just as easily be thinking they would have to replace 10/11/12/13/ billion when anyone with an ounce of sense knows that is nowhere near the true cost.

Contradicting yourself Francie.

You do seem to get yourself tied in this little logic-knot quite frequently.

You say people have considered the issue (it's actually arrogant to assume they haven't you know), and, in the same sentence, say we don't know what the "true cost" is.

They either have or they haven't - which is it?

Take your time on this one now Francie

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Contradicting yourself Francie.

You do seem to get yourself tied in this little logic-knot quite frequently.

You say people have considered the issue (it's actually arrogant to assume they haven't you know), and, in the same sentence, say we don't know what the "true cost" is.

They either have or they haven't - which is it?

Take your time on this one now Francie

I know there will be a cost. There is a cost to partition too, which has to be offset against a UI. . For others again, it will be the level of cost. . And then there will be those who selfishly consider the cost above any other benefits. They are the kind of people who end up tying bags of bread to the rafters to keep it away from the rats while they have hundreds of thousands in a bank or under the bed someplace.
Cost is not my major issue though in considering whether I am for or against as it won't be for others. And I have worked and paid taxes all my life, even employed a few.
It is solving the cyclical problems of partition.

Not everybody gets hernias worrying about money all the time FH. Sometimes things get done because they are right.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know there will be a cost. There is a cost to partition too, which has to be offset against a UI. . For others again, it will be the level of cost. . And then there will be those who selfishly consider the cost above any other benefits. They are the kind of people who end up tying bags of bread to the rafters to keep it away from the rats while they have hundreds of thousands in a bank or under the bed someplace.
Cost is not my major issue though in considering whether I am for or against as it won't be for others. And I have worked and paid taxes all my life, even employed a few.
It is solving the cyclical problems of partition.

Not everybody gets hernias worrying about money all the time FH. Sometimes things get done because they are right.

It's very easy to tell when you've lost the argument - you ignore the question and start waffling.

Let's go back to the actual point under discussion - have you any idea, for how many people, cost will be the biggest factor in a UI referendum?

Let's start with the 37% who say they won't pay anything extra - these are the "selfish ones" apparently.

Now, lets look at the other 63%. You're going to need to keep 4/5's of these guys on board with paying a cost - a cost that you, despite the bluster of rats and rafters, don't even know the quantum of.

Good luck with that.:D

I'm pretty sure a few of these lads will be moving over to my side of the fence if it ever got real. You can spoof all you want - but I suspect you know it too.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's very easy to tell when you've lost the argument - you ignore the question and start waffling.

Let's go back to the actual point under discussion - have you any idea, for how many people, cost will be the biggest factor in a UI referendum?

Let's start with the 37% who say they won't pay anything extra - these are the "selfish ones" apparently.

Now, lets look at the other 63%. You're going to need to keep 4/5's of these guys on board with paying a cost - a cost that you, despite the bluster of rats and rafters, don't even know the quantum of.

Good luck with that.:D

I'm pretty sure a few of these lads will be moving over to my side of the fence if it ever got real. You can spoof all you want - but I suspect you know it too.

If you don't want to pay...you don't want to pay.

26% say they don't know. That suggests to me that they have an upper ceiling, on how much they are prepared to pay. (your poll is probably irrelevant now that a separate jurisdiction looks like costing us more than it is already, socially and economically)
I.E. They are willing to pay a reasonable cost.

Also factor in that some of the 37% may believe the scaremongers about 10/11/12/13 billion.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

It is almost as if the poster doesn't know his/her history. It is a proposal that just invites chaos and is a signifier of the fear that is beginning to envelop some.

A vote on a UI invites chaos. A vote on a UI could reignite the troubles.
I think it's very likely the troubles start again if UI vote gets a date.
Actually it'll never pass in the Republic of Ireland because as soon as the troubles start most people will see sense and want nothing to do with it.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

A vote on a UI invites chaos. A vote on a UI could reignite the troubles.
I think it's very likely the troubles start again if UI vote gets a date.
Actually it'll never pass in the Republic of Ireland because as soon as the troubles start most people will see sense and want nothing to do with it.

If somebody(any side) comes in and imposes a sectarian bigoted state - the troubles start again.

If the GFA is ignored and a border poll prevented when it is clear one is necessary (IMO if the North leaves the EU, one is necessary) the potential for conflict arises again.

If the terms of the GFA are changed(your proposal) and Unionist votes(or No votes) are given more weight and a UI denied = immediate conflict in my view.

There are so many instances were conflict can arise again, it is better in my opinion to treat the core problem...we have been kicking that ball down the road for too long. People are still dying and people are still living in conflict.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

Well you have to.protect your own house first and that's the ROI for me. That is why I'm against a UI.
As you say no matter which way it goes it'll cause trouble. Best solution is to try and maintain things as they are.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

Well you have to.protect your own house first and that's the ROI for me. That is why I'm against a UI.
As you say no matter which way it goes it'll cause trouble. Best solution is to try and maintain things as they are.

Except it isn't a 'solution'. The GFA was part of a process not a solution in and off itself.
There are people waiting for it to deliver and because it was supposed to deliver that is why the DUP have basically stagnated and stopped it.

So what do you propose if NI leaves the EU?

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

So what do you propose if NI leaves the EU?

I think they should decide whether to stay a part of the UK or go it alone and rejoin the EU.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

I think they should decide whether to stay a part of the UK or go it alone and rejoin the EU.

In other words you want to re-negotiate the GFA.

Besides, what about the people (clearly a majority don't want an Independent NI, partitionists seem to want it for them IMO) who don't want an Ind NI?
You propose giving a veto to those who don't want a UI, why not a veto for all others too?

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

In other words you want to re-negotiate the GFA.

Yes, I want anything but a UI because I don't want the troubles back and especially don't want them down here in the Republic.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes, I want anything but a UI because I don't want the troubles back and especially don't want them down here in the Republic.

Yes, you seem to be under the delusion that the only trouble will come from those who don't want a UI.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So what do you propose if NI leaves the EU?

It's their issue - other than sharing a land border with them (a common enough issue), it changes little for the ROI.

Our major issues from Brexit will stem from our trade with the mainland UK, NI trade is a tiny percentage of this.

Basically we will have far bigger problems to worry about than trade and a border with small backwater in the northwest of the island.

I know you're creaming yourself at the thoughts of a hard-Brexit but the irony of it, is that it makes NI even more unaffordable than it already is.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's their issue - other than sharing a land border with them (a common enough issue), it changes little for the ROI.

I stopped reading after the stupidity of this. A typical partitionist 'stand back and watch the world burn and hope it doesn't affect me or my wallet' attitude. As rare as it is useless to man or beast.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

Yes, you seem to be under the delusion that the only trouble will come from those who don't want a UI.

The most important issue for me is I don't want troubles in the ROI.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

The most important issue for me is I don't want troubles in the ROI.

Yes, we have 2 or 3 'I'm all right Jacks' on this forum. It may be a surprise to you to know that we cannot insulate ourselves from northern Ireland. We are the co-guarantors of the GFA. And the north has cost this state a great deal since partition.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I stopped reading after the stupidity of this. A typical partitionist 'stand back and watch the world burn and hope it doesn't affect me or my wallet' attitude. As rare as it is useless to man or beast.

I'm devastated Francie - even though I suspect you did read on - you just have nothing of substance to refute with so have reverted to your usual waffle and bluster.



The NI border issue is a complete irrelevance to the ROI in the context of Brexit.

eagle eye

Ulster Says No. It will never happen

FrancieBrady wrote:

Yes, we have 2 or 3 'I'm all right Jacks' on this forum. It may be a surprise to you to know that we cannot insulate ourselves from northern Ireland. We are the co-guarantors of the GFA. And the north has cost this state a great deal since partition.

This is all waffle. You can call me what you want. It's my job to insulate me and my family from trouble and that's what I'll be trying to do my whole life.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

The NI border issue is a complete irrelevance to the ROI in the context of Brexit.

At least now we know what level of political and economic analysis we are dealing with.
Cheers for that revelation.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

This is all waffle. You can call me what you want. It's my job to insulate me and my family from trouble and that's what I'll be trying to do my whole life.

You call it waffle and then you make the archetypal 'I'm alright Jack' reply.

facehugger99

eagle eye wrote: »

This is all waffle. You can call me what you want. It's my job to insulate me and my family from trouble and that's what I'll be trying to do my whole life.

I'm sorry, but unless you're willing to sacrifice your children's futures on the altar of Francie's land-grab dreams, you're a very selfish person (probably somewhat arrogant too).