Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Options
1…101102104106107…242

Comments

  • Options
    #3092
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Yous will have to.ask him that....but they have admitted to having no self interest/stragic interest there....effectively a licence going to run it into the ground,have yous seen state of the roads and electric network about



    Still no sign of this declartion of surrender it seems,keep saying it over and over,not gonna make it true



    And that day,as per thread title is here.....imo its near impossible to condemn saoradh as the requirements to hold a border poll have been met,but the brits wont hold one.......why should irish people persue peaceful means for unity,when the brits wont




    (Anyone,who honestly thinks the ira handed over all their guns/ammo is v.naive....they wont use em again either imo)

    What conditions have been met? Is it not generally accepted that the majority want to remain part of the UK?


  • Options
    #3093
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The conditions set out under the gfa


    No....its not generally accepted the majority wish to remain.....its on a knife edge democratically and a bad winter/covid run riot in older generations would tip it 100% into reunification


    Only the most extreme head-in-sand of unionist leadership,who demand any talk of this be shut down in unionism denies this........time and demographics have simply run out on unionism,its over

    But the condition is that if the British think it is likely to succeed. 51 % isn't likely to succeed due to margin of error in opinion polls.

    Gonna have to see at least 55% in favour before it will even be considered.


  • Options
    #3094
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    51% is a majority in my eyes (its undemocratic to say otherwise)....brexit was carried by 52%


    To.my eyes anyway,the requirements been met and a refusal to hold a poll only strengthens the position of dissidents republicans and id struggle to condemn their actions

    So what poll are you basing this 51% on that with the margin of error could go either way?


  • Options
    #3095
    timthumbni
    Registered Users Posts: 4,845 ✭✭✭timthumbni


    Deleted User wrote: »
    dissidents republicans and id struggle to condemn their actions

    You would struggle to condemn dissident republicans. Oh dear. Would you say that to the faces of family of that wee girl that the same republicans murdered last year. (The journalist from Londonderry)

    Fair plays to admitting that though. It’s clear a lot of the republican types on here get their rocks off on the IRAs murderous actions but they wouldn’t be as brazen as yourself and write it clearly down. You have no issue with republicans bombing and shooting people. Watch out they don’t bomb some one close to you though. They have history in killing their supposed “own kind”


  • Options
    #3096
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    By your admission,this could go either way....therefore its as likely to pass as not




    Just hold the poll and remove the strentghing position of dissidents,deal with outcomes as they fall.....either unity or build for another poll in 7 years

    I didn't say it could go either way. You put forward the idea that 51% wanted it. 51% in a poll doesn't meet the conditions of the GFA as it is just as likely not to pass.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3097
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,185 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    downcow wrote: »
    I think we are getting to the core of the ira surrender/defeat now (with the Brit gov and the more progressive unionists giving them the fig leaf of the gfa)
    Claims of ira success seems to have narrowed down here now to the uk giving up their strategic interest in ni - when every single person on here knows right well that uk has not had a strategic interest in ni for 50+ years.

    It is clear the ira got nothing out of gfa, bar getting those imprisioned released, after a humiliating couple more years. At least the hunger strikers got their own clothes back and bigger sausage rolls

    :):)

    The reason why the truth should be defended even if you get accused of glorifying the IRA is all within the post above.

    Triumphalism and lies and the kind of sad mockery of suffering and death unique to the belligerent Unionist.

    The same poster who will turn the Covid crisis into a sick competition of us versus themuns.


  • Options
    #3098
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,185 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jh79 wrote: »
    I didn't say it could go either way. You lit forward the idea that 51% wanted it. 51% in a poll doesn't meet the conditions of the GFA as it is just as likely not to pass.


    Again JH you need to defer to the truth.

    Earlier in the thread I posted the outcome of a court challenge to the criteria for a border poll. The SoS only has to be of the opinion that it would pass...he/she does not have to back that opinion up.
    The 'conditions are met' on his opinion therefore.

    Do you seriously believe that the result of a BP would be ignored if it was only 51%? :):)


  • Options
    #3099
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Again JH you need to defer to the truth.

    Earlier in the thread I posted the outcome of a court challenge to the criteria for a border poll. The SoS only has to be of the opinion that it would pass...he/she does not have to back that opinion up.
    The 'conditions are met' on his opinion therefore.

    Do you seriously believe that the result of a BP would be ignored if it was only 51%? :):)

    I didn't say that.

    An opinion poll of 51% doesn't meet the requirements of the GFA that the British will allow it if they think it is likely to pass.


  • Options
    #3100
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    :rolleyes:






    To me it deos meet the conditions for a border poll anyway....quite how/why you think 51% isnt a majority to pass a poll/referendum is beyond me anyway.....as a junior cert math student could tell you otherwise

    51% with a margin of error of 3% means 48 to 54 % is possible. Just as likely not to pass.


  • Options
    #3101
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    By this logic at 48% its also in reems of possibility of passing??


    Seems to me,its time to hold one so

    You do know that all opinion polls have a margin of error? It's not a new concept.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3102
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    The British Army concluded that they could not defeat the IRA

    The IRA concluded that they were not capable of creating a United Ireland


    They were both right.


  • Options
    #3103
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    Bambi wrote: »
    The British Army concluded that they could not defeat the IRA

    The IRA concluded that they were not capable of creating a United Ireland


    They were both right.

    So the IRA retired because they achieved their aim of getting SF into a partitionist government?


  • Options
    #3104
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Yes....and as yous outlined from 48% up,its possible it could pass

    Hold the poll

    The GFA says it has to be likely to pass not possible.


  • Options
    #3105
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    To me 51% is likely to pass...

    So where is this opinion poll that shows a 51% support for a UI?


  • Options
    #3106
    Fionn1952
    Registered Users Posts: 3,622 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    timthumbni wrote: »
    That’s a bit harsh. Without Sands and the others (No one knows the others names) SF could never have held 500 dollar a head slap up banquets in the US with gullible fat Irish Americans tucking into beef wellingtons. We will never forget you Jimmy Sands etc etc. Pass me the mustard please.

    Awful lot of complaining about a park named after Ramond McCreesh when, 'nobody' knows who he is, Tim.


  • Options
    #3107
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Quoting a 4 day old post,as youve run out of road in a conversation,


    In an desperate attemt,to redirect conversation is a bit sad

    Didn't even realise anyways back on topic.

    Have you a link to this poll with 51 % support for a UI?


  • Options
    #3108
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,185 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jh79 wrote: »
    Blaaz, what was the British strategic interest in NI that Francie claimed they lost?

    If it was a stalemate why did the IRA surrender only for their political wing to facilitate partition?

    Essentially, SF became caretakers of NI on behalf on the UK until the people of NI say otherwise .

    This 'strategic interest' thing? Funny you are following downcow's lead here.

    The British were here, killing our people on the streets to shore up a sectarian bigoted state that Ian Paisley eventually admitted existed.

    How do I know or care what their strategic interest was? Were they just here for target practice, the scenery, the fresh air?

    What is wrong with you? Are you totally unaware of how they fortified the state they allowed to be built?

    The British (Peter Brooke said it, in yet another milestone the Unionists rejected and railed against:)

    '“no selfish, strategic or economic interest in remaining in Northern Ireland.”

    Ask him what he meant, he said it at the behest of Hume-Adams when the historic initiative bore fruit.
    A key element of this discussion was that Britain should be willing to allow the people of Ireland to decide their own political future. This meant that they had to be willing to accept the possibility of a united Ireland. Furthermore, they were to call on Britain to declare it had no "selfish, political, strategic, or economic interest in Northern Ireland" (O'Brien, 1995, p.290). This statement was in response to Peter Brooke's, then Northern Ireland Secretary of State, statement on 9 November 1991 which claimed that Britain had no "selfish, strategic, or economic interest in Northern Ireland."
    https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/peace/talks.htm


  • Options
    #3109
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,185 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jh79 wrote: »
    I didn't say that.

    An opinion poll of 51% doesn't meet the requirements of the GFA that the British will allow it if they think it is likely to pass.

    The only 'requirement' is the SoS 'opinion'. It does not require him/her to prove his/her opinion.

    Read the court judgement in this landmark case...you really should know this before pontificating.

    https://www.irishlegal.com/article/northern-ireland-secretary-not-required-to-publish-border-poll-policy


  • Options
    #3110
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The only 'requirement' is the SoS 'opinion'. It does not require him/her to prove his/her opinion.

    Read the court judgement in this landmark case...you really should know this before pontificating.

    https://www.irishlegal.com/article/northern-ireland-secretary-not-required-to-publish-border-poll-policy

    And what would he or she base that opinion on other than opinion polls? The hint here is the word opinion.


  • Options
    #3111
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Who anywhere said anything about opinion poll?


    Lucidtalk have shown consistantly with undecided removed support to be for unity however.......my belief comes from the demographics,and that catholic majority to be likely before end of this year


    (catholics out number by prodestants by upto 10% in workforce already,its only among pensioners,where prodestanta hold a majority anymore)........its a one way ticket as demographics have simply run out on the union

    So there is no evidence that the majority want unification.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3112
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    jh79 wrote: »
    And what would he or she base that opinion on other than opinion polls? The hint here is the word opinion.

    Why would you want the SoS to ignore opinion polls anyways? Really want another 7 years added to the 20+ .


  • Options
    #3113
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,185 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jh79 wrote: »
    And what would he or she base that opinion on other than opinion polls? The hint here is the word opinion.

    It could be a 'political judgement' JH...you know the kind of judgements made when it is politically expedient to make them?

    Read the fecking court judgement will ya...don't be so precious about staying unaware and uneducated. I posted it twice in this thread.


  • Options
    #3114
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    To my eyes there is....the fact you want to handwave away clear demographics is both disturbing and fasinating,



    Ive siad lucidtalk polls show it....its clear from your reply to.francy yous dont read links

    Plenty of catholic public servants who wouldn't fancy redundancy in a UI.

    No doubt a few "Republican" families hoping to pass the MLA baton through the generations like landed gentry that wouldn't fancy it either.


  • Options
    #3115
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,185 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jh79 wrote: »
    Plenty of catholic public servants who wouldn't fancy redundancy in a UI.

    No doubt a few "Republican" families hoping to pass the MLA baton through the generations like landed gentry that wouldn't fancy it either.

    You campaigning now JH?


  • Options
    #3116
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Meh....its a 98% corrolation on both religious sides as regards unionist/nationlist


    Its notable youve stopped any/all.attempts at factual content within yous posts

    You're basing the need for a referendum on a number you plucked out of thin air.


  • Options
    #3117
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You campaigning now JH?

    Jaysus no. Just find it interesting the skewed interpretation of reality on this thread.

    The IRA planned it this way all along it seems!


  • Options
    #3118
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Except im not.....im basing it on demographics(along with several polls)

    Which for reasons,only known to yous,you wish to ignore reality

    ,time has simply run out for their grubby lil colony on our island.......all this discussion is easily put to bed,hold the poll

    Are you gonna share these polls? What's the correlation between catholism and the being prounification?


  • Options
    #3119
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users Posts: 6,020 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    [Deleted User] wrote: »

    And that day,as per thread title is here.....imo its near impossible to condemn saoradh as the requirements to hold a border poll have been met,but the brits wont hold one.......why should irish people persue peaceful means for unity,when the brits won't.

    Saoradh. Those are the muppets that murdered Lyra McKee and then strutted down O'Connell St to show how proud they were of it?!? Its actually pretty easy to condemn those dickheads.

    Then you take a look at their other aims. A socialist republic? **** off. They would basically turn Ireland into a 3rd world ****hole. No thanks. I will happily condemn them. And laugh at them.


  • Options
    #3120
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭jh79


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    From.the man who handwaves away a catholic majority as irrelevant to discussion on a border poll.....only one person with a skewed interpetation here

    So all catholics will vote for a UI? Has the pope advised them to do so!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3121
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,185 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    jh79 wrote: »
    Jaysus no. Just find it interesting the skewed interpretation of reality on this thread.

    The IRA planned it this way all along it seems!

    Well you have ignored the evidence presented that the British acceded to a demand emanating from the Hume-Adams talks to tacitly withdraw from Ireland saying they 'have no selfish, strategic or economic interest in northern Ireland' anymore.
    This likely came from Adams as Hume had never mentioned the need for Britain to say it before their initiative.

    You have also ignored evidence presented that built into the agreement (GFA) is a mechanism for the SoS to call a border poll whenever he/she wishes to.
    Unionists spotted that this was a danger to them as they could not 'veto' it by requiring the SoS to present evidence. Hence the court challenge which they lost.

    So yeh, I do think the the above was 'planned' and more to the point 'achieved' by republican/nationalist negotiators.


Advertisement