United Ireland discussion thread

VinLieger

votecounts wrote: »

In the event of a majority wanting a United Ireland you want to oppose this to appease a few Unionists. Cannot happen if you are a democrat so what do you propose happens

Ugh if your going to keep straw manning then there's not much point in engaging with you.

Let me know when you learn how to discuss a topic without using fallacious reasoning.

votecounts

VinLieger wrote: »

Ugh if your going to keep straw manning then there's not much point in engaging with you.

Let me know when you learn how to discuss a topic without using fallacious reasoning.

So, no proposals, just a unionist veto forever over a United Ireland, some things never change.

briany

cameramonkey wrote: »

You need to read what I was responding to, unless you think that setting off bombs in Dublin is not a terrorist act.
I said we need to treat Unionsts fairly but that does not mean we should back down when they attempt sectarianism and bullying, unless you also think that is a legitimate position.

Of course bombs going off in Dublin would be a terrorist act, but one of the best ways to prevent this type of action is not to radicalise individuals into it in the first place. We can see the timeline of how the Troubles came about, and how the IRA grew in support. The same mistakes should not be repeated in the event of a UI.

Junkyard Tom

VinLieger wrote: »

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

A rejection by referendum is potentially much worse as it may open up a schism in the body politic in the south. What happens to the flag, anthem, the vision of the 1916 proclamation? What happens when the inevitable claims arise that the above are being appropriated by a partitionist interlopers?

VinLieger

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A rejection by referendum is potentially much worse as it may open up a schism in the body politic in the south. What happens to the flag, anthem, the vision of the 1916 proclamation? What happens when the inevitable claims arise that the above are being appropriated by a partitionist interlopers?

I think that's a bit of an over reaction as any potential rejection in the south would be the result of a weighty referendum campaign with obvious reasons for such a rejection.

briany

In a United Ireland, NI would be an autonomous region. If a UI had to be decided by a simple majority, then the easiest way to salve tensions would be to continue to leave them to it. Dublin would be supreme, but would make legal assurances to remain as a neutral arbiter on contentious issues, and allow Stormont to legislate on these things instead.

votecounts

briany wrote: »

In a United Ireland, NI would be an autonomous region. If a UI had to be decided by a simple majority, then the easiest way to salve tensions would be to continue to leave them to it. Dublin would be supreme, but would make legal assurances to remain as a neutral arbiter on contentious issues, and allow Stormont to legislate on these things instead.

How would that work in relation to the parades issue for example assuming stormont was even in operation. Neither nationalist party would agree that parades should be held where thay are not wanted.

briany

votecounts wrote: »

How would that work in relation to the parades issue for example assuming stormont was even in operation. Neither nationalist party would agree that parades should be held where thay are not wanted.

Parades Commission can rule on parade issues, as that's what it was set up to do.
Other issues would revert to Dublin in the event that Stormont wouldn't sit, although this would not be ideal. An idea would be for Ireland and the UK to propose alterations to the GFA (subject to a referendum) whereby more commissions were created to rule on the contentious issues in the North, or a have a way to prevent the easy collapse of power-sharing while still retaining power sharing.

Fr Tod Umptious

careless sherpa wrote: »

Not according to the GFA , which is essentially a peace treaty. Can't go rewriting it because 20 years down the road you don't like parts of it

I'm not suggesting that the GFA be rewritten.

I'm suggesting that in order to call a UI vote the British government would be wise to wait until they are sure it would pass by a reasonable majority.

blanch152

votecounts wrote: »

So, no proposals, just a unionist veto forever over a United Ireland, some things never change.

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

careless sherpa

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the GFA be rewritten.

I'm suggesting that in order to call a UI vote the British government would be wise to wait until they are sure it would pass by a reasonable majority.

That in itself is undermining the treaty and impeding the aspirations of nationalists. The treaty as laid down was to call a referendum when it was believed a majority would be in favour of unification. Anything else is obstruction

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

When has it ever been about whether it would be a good idea or not ever been important? You're expecting something like the constitutional question to be a rational decision. That's a ridiculous proposal.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

If it is an impossible task to convince 50%+1 of the people of Northern Ireland of the merits of remaining part of the UK, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

votecounts

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

I am just saying that if a majority vote for a United Ireland, then so be it. You know like every proper democracy in the World. Why should unionists have a veto in this case?

blanch152

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If it is an impossible task to convince 50%+1 of the people of Northern Ireland of the merits of remaining part of the UK, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

votecounts wrote: »

I am just saying that if a majority vote for a United Ireland, then so be it. You know like every proper democracy in the World. Why should unionists have a veto in this case?

Except many people on here are crying foul because a simple majority could take Northern Ireland out of the customs union.

Fionn1952

blanch152 wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If it is an impossible task to convince 50%+1 of the people of Northern Ireland of the merits of remaining part of the UK, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

votecounts wrote: »

I am just saying that if a majority vote for a United Ireland, then so be it. You know like every proper democracy in the World. Why should unionists have a veto in this case?

Except many people on here are crying foul because a simple majority could take Northern Ireland out of the customs union.

People are crying foul because the majority of people of Northern Ireland did not vote for it.

For the record, I'd like to see more than 50%+1 vote for a UI, I'd like to see a significant number of those from a Unionist background vote for it, but I certainly wouldn't agree with telling Nationalists that their votes are worth less than those of Unionists by legislating for a greater majority than already agreed.

Imreoir2

VinLieger wrote: »

I do but recent evidence has shown that a simple 51% majority is not necessarily the best way to decide such divisive issues and can lead to catastrophe

Preventing a UI that has gained majority support is also liable to be catastrophic. When in doubt, go with the majority.

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

Why would it be forever?

Are you saying that it is impossible to persuade 65% of the people of Northern Ireland that a united Ireland is a good idea? If that is truly an impossible task, then it is worthy to pause and consider whether it is a good idea at all.

If you can't convince 50% of the people of Northern Ireland that staying in the UK is a good idea, then you have to consider wheather traping them in a union they no longer want to be part of is a good idea at all. If you can achieve your aims by peaceful democratic means, what options remain?

Imreoir2

blanch152 wrote: »

Except many people on here are crying foul because a simple majority could take Northern Ireland out of the customs union.

People are crying foul becasue a Unionist veto might be able to overturn the majority will, which is what you are also suggesting on the issue of unification. Why not just be a democrat and abide by the will of the majority?

votecounts

Democracy only suits certain people when it goes their way. Typical

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

People are crying foul becasue a Unionist veto might be able to overturn the majority will, which is what you are also suggesting on the issue of unification. Why not just be a democrat and abide by the will of the majority?

NI is different due to the almost 50/50 sectarian nature of the politics, you know, what with the killing of people and all, and that's why the GFA style arrangements were set up.


However, I'd be happy with a simple majority for NI element of Brexit consent, simply because Nationalists would vote to maintain the no border scenario and more than enough unionists would vote for no border for business reasons, particularly farmers. Actually similar to the NI GFA referendum which had an overall majority, nationalist majority, and a large (estimated) minority unionist yes vote.

ancapailldorcha

votecounts wrote: »

Democracy only suits certain people when it goes their way. Typical

No more of this please. Next time, it'll be a ban.

dabestman1

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Preventing a UI that has gained majority support is also liable to be catastrophic. When in doubt, go with the majority.

Some posters obviously disagree with this.

VinLieger

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Preventing a UI that has gained majority support is also liable to be catastrophic. When in doubt, go with the majority.

Fair enough but triggering the border poll when its possible the result could be 51%/49% either way is a recipe for disaster, it needs to be done when it can be shown the result will be resounding one way or the other.

The only people calling for a border poll when this is a potential result are doing it for entirely selfish reasons imo and refusing to consider the lon term implications. Also again ill never understand why these people cannot see the wisdom in waiting till a point when it can be assured to be a resounding success instead of just leading to decades more conflict and strife

Imreoir2

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough but triggering the border poll when its possible the result could be 51%/49% either way is a recipe for disaster, it needs to be done when it can be shown the result will be resounding one way or the other.

The only people calling for a border poll when this is a potential result are doing it for entirely selfish reasons imo and refusing to consider the lon term implications. Also again ill never understand why these people cannot see the wisdom in waiting till a point when it can be assured to be a resounding success instead of just leading to decades more conflict and strife

That would be against the terms of the agreement. It is very important that the GFA is upheld in all its parts. Peace is fragile, playing fast and loose with the peace treaty would be highly irrisponsible.

VinLieger

Imreoir2 wrote: »

That would be against the terms of the agreement. It is very important that the GFA is upheld in all its parts. Peace is fragile, playing fast and loose with the peace treaty would be highly irrisponsible.

And having a border poll of 51% for a UI wouldnt affect the peace?

Also the GFA is actually kinda vague when it comes to the NI Sec triggering it.

Imreoir2

VinLieger wrote: »

And having a border poll of 51% for a UI wouldnt affect the peace?

Also the GFA is actually kinda vague when it comes to the NI Sec triggering it.

What is to prevent a confirmatory referendum when the transfer arangements have been agreed?

L1011

Imreoir2 wrote: »

What is to prevent a confirmatory referendum when the transfer arangements have been agreed?

Not in the GFA. GFA is incredibly blunt on this; unlike how unclear it is on the grounds for it.

Imreoir2

L1011 wrote: »

Not in the GFA. GFA is incredibly blunt on this; unlike how unclear it is on the grounds for it.

What about the post GFA agreement setting out the new arangements, should the result be close, what is to prevent this new agreement including arangements for NI to have another border poll to rejoin the UK should it ever seem likely that such a poll would pass?

Fionn1952

Imreoir2 wrote: »

L1011 wrote: »

Not in the GFA. GFA is incredibly blunt on this; unlike how unclear it is on the grounds for it.

What about the post GFA agreement setting out the new arangements, should the result be close, what is to prevent this new agreement including arangements for NI to have another border poll to rejoin the UK should it ever seem likely that such a poll would pass?

Theoretically I can't see anything preventing that, but in the event of a vote passing, there would have to be a majority vote passed in the new 32 county Ireland AND in the UK to agree to those terms, followed by said vote actually carrying through to vote yes on it rather than just an openness to the idea. I'd call it unlikely at best, with the greatest of respect.