The glorious 12th

James Brown

janfebmar wrote: »

Why do you think they had a border poll in 1973? If most people in N I wanted the "Brits out" , they would have gone long long ago, same as they did elsewhere in the world.

Jan, there was never a referendum on, 'Would you like the brits to stay?'.
Our time will come.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Jan, there was never a referendum on, 'Would you like the brits to stay?'.
Our time will come.

In the border poll of 1973, despite the boycott from the nationalists, a majority of the electorate, not just a majority of those voting, voted to stay in the UK.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

In the border poll of 1973, despite the boycott from the nationalists, a majority of the electorate, not just a majority of those voting, voted to stay in the UK.

Do you mean due to?
Any road, so what? It means nothing.
There was never a referendum on, 'Would you like the brits to stay?'.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

In the border poll of 1973, despite the boycott from the nationalists, a majority of the electorate, not just a majority of those voting, voted to stay in the UK.

Jesus you'd think it was gerrymandered or something.

janfebmar

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There was never a referendum on, 'Would you like the brits to stay?'.

The 1973 border pill / referendum in N. I. asked the electorate if they wanted to remain part of the U.K. or join in a United Ireland. Most of the electorate (not just those who voted) wanted to stay part of the UK.
All adults were entitled to vote.

So you are wrong yet again Matt.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you mean due to?
Any road, so what? It means nothing.
There was never a referendum on, 'Would you like the brits to stay?'.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jesus you'd think it was gerrymandered or something.

This is just silly republican propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll

"In addition to taking a majority of votes cast, the UK option received the support of 57.5% of the total electorate."

Even if every person who boycotted it came out and voted for Irish unity, the UK option would still have won. Those are hard facts, not propaganda, not excuses, not fantasies, just plain hard mathematical facts.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

This is just silly republican propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll

"In addition to taking a majority of votes cast, the UK option received the support of 57.5% of the total electorate."

Even if every person who boycotted it came out and voted for Irish unity, the UK option would still have won. Those are hard facts, not propaganda, not excuses, not fantasies, just plain hard mathematical facts.

Wow...there was a majority of Unionists in favour of the union in 1973...that's like stunning info, who knew!

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wow...there was a majority of Unionists in favour of the union in 1973...that's like stunning info, who knew!

A majority of the electorate Francie.

Has the penny not dropped yet?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wow...there was a majority of Unionists in favour of the union in 1973...that's like stunning info, who knew!

That is about the sixth time today that you have taken something from my post that wasn't in it.

A majority of the electorate voted in favour of the Union in 1973. That was a democratic vote that Sinn Fein and the IRA ignored in favour of support for a terrorist campaign.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

This is just silly republican propaganda.

Sound familiar B?

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll

"In addition to taking a majority of votes cast, the UK option received the support of 57.5% of the total electorate."

Even if every person who boycotted it came out and voted for Irish unity, the UK option would still have won. Those are hard facts, not propaganda, not excuses, not fantasies, just plain hard mathematical facts.

Yep indeed Blanch because it was gerrymandered to ensure a unionist majority. A cold hard fact that's undisputed by any historian. Have you got new evidence to suggest all these historians are wrong? You sound young but do you not learn about this in school anymore?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

A majority of the electorate Francie.

Has the penny not dropped yet?

That was a 'majority' of Unionists Jan.

Less than 1% of Catholics voted.

although less then 1% of Catholics voted.

There were also claims of cheating:

Gerry Fitt, leader of the opposition SDLP, said the poll result was entirely predictable. He said his party had organised the boycott of the poll because it feared it would lead to an escalation in violence.

He said: "I think on the figures I have just seen, which have just arrived from London, there has been massive impersonation of votes by the unionist party."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/newsid_2516000/2516477.stm

An entirely ridiculous referendum in the middle of a conflict/war to be pointing to, in fairness.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

That is about the sixth time today that you have taken something from my post that wasn't in it.

A majority of the electorate voted in favour of the Union in 1973. That was a democratic vote that Sinn Fein and the IRA ignored in favour of support for a terrorist campaign.

But you're presenting isolated facts so simplistic and miss-representative that they border on lies.

The state was gerrymandered in the first place and unionist often had two or more votes. It wasn't an effective democracy.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

This is just silly republican propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll

"In addition to taking a majority of votes cast, the UK option received the support of 57.5% of the total electorate."

Even if every person who boycotted it came out and voted for Irish unity, the UK option would still have won. Those are hard facts, not propaganda, not excuses, not fantasies, just plain hard mathematical facts.

Wow...there was a majority of Unionists in favour of the union in 1973...that's like stunning info, who knew!

The people spoke francie,respect their wishes.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

The people spoke francie,respect their wishes.

According to Gerry Fitt, some of the people spoke spoke and maybe spoke some more, Rob.

I'm looking forward to the next poll on a level playing pitch.

janfebmar

steddyeddy wrote: »

. It wasn't an effective democracy.

It was one person one vote in the referendum. It could not have been simpler. The majority of the electorate voted to remain in the UK. Not surprising, then as now, a not insignificant percentage of Catholics wanted to stay part of the UK. Practically all Protestants wanted to remain part of the UK .

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

It was one person one vote in the referendum. It could not have been simpler. The majority of the electorate voted to remain in the UK.

Not according to somebody who seen the voting data first hand.

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sound familiar B?





Yep indeed Blanch because it was gerrymandered to ensure a unionist majority. A cold hard fact that's undisputed by any historian. Have you got new evidence to suggest all these historians are wrong? You sound young but do you not learn about this in school anymore?

Wow, just explain to me how the referendum in 1973 that had one person, one vote, across Northern Ireland was gerrymandered to ensure a unionist majority.

I am genuinely gobsmacked if that was the case. I cannot understand how such a situation could be gerrymandered.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not according to somebody who seen the voting data first hand.

Gerry Fitt did not say he had seen the voting data first hand. That is an extrapolation by you of what he said.

James Brown

janfebmar wrote: »

The 1973 border pill / referendum in N. I. asked the electorate if they wanted to remain part of the U.K. or join in a United Ireland. Most of the electorate (not just those who voted) wanted to stay part of the UK.
All adults were entitled to vote.

So you are wrong yet again Matt.

What came from it? The GFA was decades later. Point being it meant nothing. Might as well have been Blur or Oasis.
Also how do you know the vote of those who didn't vote?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Wow, just explain to me how the referendum in 1973 that had one person, one vote, across Northern Ireland was gerrymandered to ensure a unionist majority.

I am genuinely gobsmacked if that was the case. I cannot understand how such a situation could be gerrymandered.

I think he's referencing the sham democratic system installed by the British and tailored by the Unionists.

janfebmar

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Also how do you know the vote of those who didn't vote?

Nobody knows the vote of those who did not vote, but way more than 50% of the electorate voted, and those who did vote voted 99% to remain part of the UK, so even you or Francie should be able to conclude that most of the electorate voted to remain part of the UK.

janfebmar

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think he's referencing the sham democratic system installed by the British and tailored by the Unionists.

The referendum was one vote per adult of voting age.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Wow, just explain to me how the referendum in 1973 that had one person, one vote, across Northern Ireland was gerrymandered to ensure a unionist majority.

I am genuinely gobsmacked if that was the case. I cannot understand how such a situation could be gerrymandered.

No problem Blanch the modus operandi of your posts here has strawmen.

No one is arguing that the poll was rigged, we're saying the state in which it was held was rigged to ensure the poll only gave one answer.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What came from it? The GFA was decades later. Point being it meant nothing. Might as well have been Blur or Oasis.
Also how do you know the vote of those who didn't vote?

The point is, it doesn't matter how those who didn't vote would have voted. There were enough votes to defeat them anyway.

Think of it like this, 100 people entitled to vote, 57 of them vote for a united Ireland. It doesn't matter whether the other 43 voted, or what they voted for, a majority of the electorate voted for a united Ireland.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think he's referencing the sham democratic system installed by the British and tailored by the Unionists.

What has that got to do with the result of a one-man one-vote referendum? That is where I am genuinely confused.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

No problem Blanch the modus operandi of your posts here has strawmen.

No one is arguing that the poll was rigged, we're saying the state in which it was held was rigged to ensure the poll only gave one answer.

Just reading about it here and they reduced the number of polling booths from 900 to 300 and only allowed the votes to be counted in a single centre, thereby preventing any analysis of constituencies. The British Labour Party was critical of the reduction in polling stations and suppression of constituency level results.
Note: even with vastly increased mobility 620 polling stations were still needed at the most recent referendum.
Postal votes which were denied to addresses in the South (despite the many who had fled across the border) but allowed for addresses in the UK.
https://treasonfelony.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/the-1973-border-poll/

It is a referendum that is mired in dubious carry on, if not exactly rigged. And was it even binding anyhow? Who says they would have acted on a positive UI vote when they had the previous year shot 14 innocents on the street to shore up the Unionist state, which would still have it's veto up until the AIA.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just reading about it here and they reduced the number of polling booths from 900 to 300 and only allowed the votes to be counted in a single centre, thereby preventing any analysis of constituencies. The British Labour was critical of the reduction in polling stations and suppression of constituency level results.
Note: even with vastly increased mobility 620 polling stations were still needed at the most recent referendum.
Postal votes which were denied to addresses in the South (despite the many who had fled across the border) but allowed for addresses in the UK.

It is a referendum that is mired in dubious carry on, if not exactly rigged. And was it even binding anyhow? Who says they would have acted on a positive UI vote when they had the previous year shot 14 innocents on the street to shore up the Unionist state, which would still have it's veto up until the AIA.

Surely Blanch and jan will be outraged at this? Even keeled unbiased defenders of fair play that they are.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just reading about it here and they reduced the number of polling booths from 900 to 300 and only allowed the votes to be counted in a single centre, thereby preventing any analysis of constituencies. The British Labour Party was critical of the reduction in polling stations and suppression of constituency level results.
Note: even with vastly increased mobility 620 polling stations were still needed at the most recent referendum.
Postal votes which were denied to addresses in the South (despite the many who had fled across the border) but allowed for addresses in the UK.
https://treasonfelony.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/the-1973-border-poll/

It is a referendum that is mired in dubious carry on, if not exactly rigged. And was it even binding anyhow? Who says they would have acted on a positive UI vote when they had the previous year shot 14 innocents on the street to shore up the Unionist state, which would still have it's veto up until the AIA.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Surely Blanch and jan will be outraged at this? Even keeled unbiased defenders of fair play that they are.

A republican history blog? You expect that to have any credibility?

57% of the electorate voted to stay in the UK. Even if fraud was 3%, that would still be a result.

Some of the objections don't make any sense.

"Specific provision was made for postal voting that meant that anyone who was on the 1973 electoral register (for Stormont) was eligible to get a postal vote from an address in the UK only (essentially meaning that anyone who had fled over the border could not use an address in the south)."

This would not invalidate the result, as they remained on the register and entitled to vote. They were part of the 43% which included those who voted against, who did not vote or could not vote because they were in the South.

Now if the result had been different, say 60% of voters voting to stay in the UK, but less than 50% of the electorate, then that objection would have substance. However, the result was what it was, meaning any votes lost to the South in those circumstances couldn't have changed the outcome.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A republican history blog? You expect that to have any credibility?

57% of the electorate voted to stay in the UK. Even if fraud was 3%, that would still be a result.

Some of the objections don't make any sense.

"Specific provision was made for postal voting that meant that anyone who was on the 1973 electoral register (for Stormont) was eligible to get a postal vote from an address in the UK only (essentially meaning that anyone who had fled over the border could not use an address in the south)."

This would not invalidate the result, as they remained on the register and entitled to vote. They were part of the 43% which included those who voted against, who did not vote or could not vote because they were in the South.

Now if the result had been different, say 60% of voters voting to stay in the UK, but less than 50% of the electorate, then that objection would have substance. However, the result was what it was, meaning any votes lost to the South in those circumstances couldn't have changed the outcome.

The objections came before the referendum blanch. All those measures were clearly viewed as reasons for a boycott.
Why would you reduce the number of polling stations for instance if not to restrict the amount of people getting to vote.

If you can cod yourself that this was anything other than a sham referendum, go ahead.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

What has that got to do with the result of a one-man one-vote referendum? That is where I am genuinely confused.

It's not rocket science B.

Let's simplify it.

The state's borders was engineered to ensure a unionist majority. This is the problem for nationalists. Not that they hadn't a vote in the 1973 elections, but that the state was gerrymandered that they were always going to be a minority and they're vote was meaningless.

What was the use of a vote in a state that was engineered so that there would always be a majority unionist?

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

The point is, it doesn't matter how those who didn't vote would have voted. There were enough votes to defeat them anyway.

Jesus you finally got it!!! Now B why was there more unionist votes?