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

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well tell us how you think it should have been?

SF get to decide on when a border poll happens...Dublin decides...Unionists?

If you think there was a better way of doing it...do tell us.

Obviously an evidence based approach is best.

Are you happy with this ruling? Unification in the hands of the British irrespective of the will of the people.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Obviously an evidence based approach is best.

Are you happy with this ruling? Unification in the hands of the British irrespective of the will of the people.

Opinion polls are NOT evidence of anything. As I said, downcow is here trumpeting that it will never happen based on the opinion polls he favours and others are claiming theirs show a desire for a UI.

The GFA is an agreement between two (that's 2 not one) sovereign governments.
I think this decision will be taken when the two governments are ready for it.

Slowly but surely, Dublin is starting the move towards it.

Not calling a poll when it is obvious it is the 'will of the people' will have consequences. Just like ignoring a 51% margin of approval for a UI (just because you don't wish to upset some Unionists having second thoughts about an agreement they signed up to) would have.

Republicans would have to accept only 49% in favour it also has to be said.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Opinion polls are NOT evidence of anything. As I said, downcow is here trumpeting that it will never happen based on the opinion polls he favours and others are claiming theirs show a desire for a UI.

The GFA is an agreement between two (that's 2 not one) sovereign governments.
I think this decision will be taken when the two governments are ready for it.

Slowly but surely, Dublin is starting the move towards it.

Not calling a poll when it is obvious it is the 'will of the people' will have consequences. Just like ignoring a 51% margin of approval for a UI (just because you don't wish to upset some Unionists having second thoughts about an agreement they signed up to) would have.

Republicans would have to accept only 49% in favour it also has to be said.

The way we will know it's what the people want prior to one being called is via opinion polls. What other way is there?

I agree with on the 2nd point. I reckon behind the scenes the British are asking when we will be able to take it off their hands.

And at no point did i say the results of the referendum shouldn't be respected so dunno why you are making that point.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

The way we will know it's what the people want prior to one being called is via opinion polls. What other way is there?

Read the agreement...it is not 'we' that need to do anything.

I agree with on the 2nd point. I reckon behind the scenes the British are asking when we will be able to take it off their hands.

And at no point did i say the results of the referendum shouldn't be respected so dunno why you are making that point.

I dodn't say you said anything...I was just making the point.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Read the agreement...it is not 'we' that need to do anything.



I dodn't say you said anything...I was just making the point.

But Francie that ruling means the IRA and SF achieved feck all. The fate of NI remains in the hands of the British.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

But Francie that ruling means the IRA and SF achieved feck all. The fate of NI remains in the hands of the British.

You were asked how you think it should have been agreed.

Still waiting for an answer to that.

Yeah_Right

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mate,no need to melt down,as your pint has been dismantled and its hyperbole nonsense exposed


And where anywhere did i say i was proud of them....try stay based in reality and not foaming at mouth outraged all the time.....only serves to make you appear illogical

Why are you messing with my pint? Leave it alone, I'm enjoying it.

Ok, so you're not proud of them but you won't condemn them for murdering a journalist and then strutting around celebrating it. You might think they're a great bunch but most decent people don't.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were asked how you think it should have been agreed.

Still waiting for an answer to that.

Opinion polls obviously. Lots of them until a clear pattern is seen.

So essentially the GFA is meaningless with regards unification. Republicans just have to support partition until the SoS grants their wish

Have SF made any comments on this ruling?

markodaly

jh79 wrote: »

But Francie that ruling means the IRA and SF achieved feck all. The fate of NI remains in the hands of the British.

The paradox of the SF/IRA argument.


The British remain firmly in control of NI, yet the IRA were not defeated...:o

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Opinion polls obviously. Lots of them until a clear pattern is seen.

So essentially the GFA is meaningless with regards unification. Republicans just have to support partition until the SoS grants their wish

Have SF made any comments on this ruling?

Any set of opinion polls could be legally challenged...did you read the judgement yet?

The point of it was to establish that the SoS decision cannot be constrained by anybody or anything else.

You are fairly desperate to portray this as a loss for SF and republicans when again and again the evidence points to it being a loss for unionism and even the British themselves. Your sniveling attitude speaks volumes.
Both the unionists and British have challenged aspects of the GFA in court and in a European context and they have lost everytime.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any set of opinion polls could be legally challenged...did you read the judgement yet?

The point of it was to establish that the SoS decision cannot be constrained by anybody or anything else.

You are fairly desperate to portray this as a loss for SF and republicans when again and again the evidence points to it being a loss for unionism and even the British themselves. Your sniveling attitude speaks volumes.
Both the unionists and British have challenged aspects of the GFA in court and in a European context and they have lost everytime.

Point out where i was "sniveling"? Given the insults you must rattled by this ruling.

I said this ruling was a disaster for all who believed in self determination but some how you missed that.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Point out where i was "sniveling"? Given the insults you must rattled by this ruling.

I said this ruling was a disaster for all who believed in self determination but some how you missed that.

You are sniveling because you are desperately trying to make the GFA out to be a loss for republicans when the evidence (you know that stuff you never link to to back yourself up) says quite profoundly that the only malcontents are those who have gone to court over aspects and those who tried to slither out of committents and obligations contained in it. Primarily unionists and the British themselves (May and Johnson)
But SF...something something something.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are sniveling because you are desperately trying to make the GFA out to be a loss for republicans when the evidence (you know that stuff you never link to to back yourself up) says quite profoundly that the only malcontents are those who have gone to court over aspects and those who tried to slither out of committents and obligations contained in it. Primarily unionists and the British themselves (May and Johnson)
But SF...something something something.

Never heard about this ruling until today. You expect me to sugar coat its meaning for insecure republicans?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Never heard about this ruling until today. You expect me to sugar coat its meaning for insecure republicans?

The 'ruling' that confirmed that nobody has a veto? That ruling?

The case was taken because unionists are insecure now.
They lost the case.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'ruling' that confirmed that nobody has a veto? That ruling?

The case was taken because unionists are insecure now.
They lost the case.

I don't understand how either side would be happy with this. Basically it is within the terms of the GFA for the SoS to ignore the will of the people whatever that is.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I don't understand how either side would be happy with this. Basically it is within the terms of the GFA for the SoS ignore the will of the people whatever that is.

If he/she wishes to, they can.
But that would have consequences too.

You still haven't outlined a workable way of doing it.
You will understand what 'workable' means if you read the deliberations of the case taken.
A case that if won by Unionists would have effectively given a veto.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If he/she wishes to, they can.
But that would have consequences too.

You still haven't outlined a workable way of doing it.
You will understand what 'workable' means if you read the deliberations of the case taken.
A case that if won by Unionists would have effectively given a veto.

Well unless you're suggesting a return to violence even though the terms of the GFA allow for such to happen, i don't think shutting down Storment is gonna do much.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Well unless you're suggesting a return to violence even though the terms of the GFA allow for such to happen, i don't think shutting down Storment is gonna do much.

The terms of the GFA only apply to those who signed up to it.

There is no facility in it to use violence if any part of it comes to pass or doesn't come to pass, all those who agree/support it have guaranteed to remain peaceful (even if some still think they can support the GFA but engage in un-peacefulness when something doesn't go their way).

What the British nor anyone else(I presume) do not want to happen is for people to move away from the party's they support and gravitate towards the party's that don't support an agreement that has largely kept the peace.
I would fear if the British ignored the need for a border poll then that is exactly what would happen, destroying the work and no little sacrifice of many many people.

I don't believe the British want that to happen.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The terms of the GFA only apply to those who signed up to it.

There is no facility in it to use violence if any part of it comes to pass or doesn't come to pass, all those who agree/support it have guaranteed to remain peaceful (even if some still think they can support the GFA but engage in un-peacefulness when something doesn't go their way).

What the British nor anyone else(I presume) do not want to happen is for people to move away from the party's they support and gravitate towards the party's that don't support an agreement that has largely kept the peace.
I would fear if the British ignored the need for a border poll then that is exactly what would happen, destroying the work and no little sacrifice of many many people.

I don't believe the British want that to happen.

I don 't believe the British do either but who knows who'll be power in the future so i still see it as an unexpected flaw in the agreement.

The Nal

Good craic up there again last night

PSNI condemns 'disgraceful' attack after 29 officers injured

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

I don't understand how either side would be happy with this. Basically it is within the terms of the GFA for the SoS to ignore the will of the people whatever that is.

I mean that is intrepetation you could.take and not unreasonably so.....esp since we are dealing with most immoral shower to ever walk the earth in the british



Is it time for republicans to withdraw support for gfa and policing,until a date is set??

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I don 't believe the British do either but who knows who'll be power in the future so i still see it as an unexpected flaw in the agreement.

But your only remedy has been specifically ruled out as unreliable and arbitary and would be open to legal challenge.

Not a 'flaw' but a reasonable compromise. Compromise being the operative part of any agreement.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But your only remedy has been specifically ruled out as unreliable and arbitary and would be open to legal challenge.

Not a 'flaw' but a reasonable compromise. Compromise being the operative part of any agreement.

Is there a full transcript of the judgement floating around? Just find it hard to believe that SF or Unionists have not made a bigger deal out of this.

Does it not completely undermine the GFA that one country has the ability to veto the will of the people without having to give any justification?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But your only remedy has been specifically ruled out as unreliable and arbitary and would be open to legal challenge.

Not a 'flaw' but a reasonable compromise. Compromise being the operative part of any agreement.

Read the judgement. I don't agree with McCord's idea of set conditions laid out in law but agree with Daly that the current wording is open to abuse.

The judgement doean't rule out the SoS using opinion polls to judge public opinion they just can't draw up legislation setting out the conditions needed to get a border poll. At least that's my take.

Junkyard Tom

markodaly wrote: »

The British remain firmly in control of NI,

So much they're enamoured with the idea of 'controlling' the northeast of Ireland that they'll let Stormont sit idle for literally years rather than upset former Provos.

In 1972 Unionists felt betrayed when the British government prorogued Stormont. In 2017 former IRA commander Martin McGuinness shuts Stormont with the stroke of a pen because Unionists are misbehaving themselves.

If this is how Unionists claim 'victory' then long may it last.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Read the judgement. I don't agree with McCord's idea of set conditions laid out in law but agree with Daly that the current wording is open to abuse.

The judgement doean't rule out the SoS using opinion polls to judge public opinion they just can't draw up legislation setting out the conditions needed to get a border poll. At least that's my take.

I don't know of another way of doing it. So like everything in life, it may not be perfect but it is satisfactory to republicans as they have never challenged it.

FrancieBrady

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So much they're enamoured with the idea of 'controlling' the northeast of Ireland that they'll let Stormont sit idle for literally years rather than upset former Provos.

In 1972 Unionists felt betrayed when the British government prorogued Stormont. In 2017 former IRA commander Martin McGuinness shuts Stormont with the stroke of a pen because Unionists are misbehaving themselves.

If this is how Unionists claim 'victory' then long may it last.

It's bizarre...and very like the 'IRA are gone/still here' pivoting.

For over 2 decades we have been listening to various levels of Unionist belligerence and upset about the GFA itself, the AIA before it and after it was signed the cry was 'nationalists are getting everything' and the siege mentality deepened and deepened.
Now, because it suits an argument the nationalists lost out from the GFA.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now, because it suits an argument the nationalists lost out from the GFA.

Shhh for goodness sake, we've got to a point where Unionists are even selling being 'devolved' from Britain's trading terms as best-of-both worlds.



It's a long way from these days:

downcow

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So much they're enamoured with the idea of 'controlling' the northeast of Ireland that they'll let Stormont sit idle for literally years rather than upset former Provos.

In 1972 Unionists felt betrayed when the British government prorogued Stormont. In 2017 former IRA commander Martin McGuinness shuts Stormont with the stroke of a pen because Unionists are misbehaving themselves.

If this is how Unionists claim 'victory' then long may it last.

You are getting all mixed up Tom. Of course either party can shuts Stormont, but shutting it does not bring a united island any closer, so it is a rather strange analogy your are making. More clutching at straws..

... You will note that Republicans are currently causing mayhem at one of their bonfires. A large number of police officers injured, including life changing injuries. You will also note that I would not try and roll that out to degrade your entire Irish culture. Pity you would not learn something from this

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

You are getting all mixed up Tom. Of course either party can shuts Stormont, but shutting it does not bring a united island any closer, so it is a rather strange analogy your are making. More clutching at straws..

... You will note that Republicans are currently causing mayhem at one of their bonfires. A large number of police officers injured, including life changing injuries. You will also note that I would not try and roll that out to degrade your entire Irish culture. Pity you would not learn something from this

You know what is strikingly different DC...both the SDLP and SF have been calling this bonfire wrong and unwanted for a number of years...Unionist politicians get themselves photographed at them and don't criticise most of the 'cultural' activity.

And please don't disgrace yourself gloating about injuring people when you don't get your way. No doubt you will get plenty of likes from the usual few but you are fooling no-one.

This, like the 11th bonfires is just thuggery and belligerence...nothing to do with 'culture'