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

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

I wonder if MON took the oath of allegiance?

What oath?

Do you know anything about the Assembly?

EDIT: Seems it was answered in good faith and we'll leave it there despite my doubts of it being questioned in good faith.

---

As an aside I'm sure you were aghast at the taigy Claire Hanna and Colum Eastwood's affirmations' to your fair Queen:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eastwood-swears-true-allegiance-to-derry-in-house-of-commons-1.4121471

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/general-election-2019/sdlps-claire-hanna-lodges-respectful-protest-over-pledge-to-queen-in-commons-38796681.html

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

Manifesto , the elite will pay for it all eg apple tax. They are some how going to give free housing, increase social welfare increase PS pay and give some relief to the squeezed middle by taxing the tiny % who earn silly money.

And you reckon the EU and the UK and the US will pay for a UI cause we are a great bunch of lads. Fantasy stuff.


Were SF a fan of the Corrib Oil nonsense a few years back? Think they were.

What's this free housing policy you speak of?

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

I found it in the end. Yeah not a great look for those claiming the UK made a "tacit withdrawal" or the IRA didn't surrender.

The fate of NI is dependant on the subjective view of the British establishment not the people.

The rest of us knew that in 1998 though.

The starting gun on a border poll has to start somewhere and the fact that as part of the GFA the ROI renounced A°2 and A°3, it was then incumbent upon the sovereign govt of NI would have to make this choice at some point. The SOSNI is the obvious choice as the person to make this decision.

The thing is, when the day comes then we'll know it's the right time.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The rest of us knew that in 1998 though.

The starting gun on a border poll has to start somewhere and the fact that as part of the GFA the ROI renounced A°2 and A°3, it was then incumbent upon the sovereign govt of NI would have to make this choice at some point. The SOSNI is the obvious choice as the person to make this decision.

The thing is, when the day comes then we'll know it's the right time.

As the FF senator pointed out during the case it's open to abuse.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

As the FF senator pointed out during the case it's open to abuse.

In what sense?

That the Brits might renege on the deal? Well, that's always a prospect when dealing with the Brits.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Manifesto , the elite will pay for it all eg apple tax. They are some how going to give free housing, increase social welfare increase PS pay and give some relief to the squeezed middle by taxing the tiny % who earn silly money.

And you reckon the EU and the UK and the US will pay for a UI cause we are a great bunch of lads. Fantasy stuff.


Were SF a fan of the Corrib Oil nonsense a few years back? Think they were.

Not because we are great anything...it now suits them to make sure a UI suceeds...just as it suited the EU that the GFA worked.
A UI solves problems for everybody bar belligerent Unionists and bitter pattitionists.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not because we are great anything...it now suits them to make sure a UI suceeds...just as it suited the EU that the GFA worked.
A UI solves problems for everybody bar belligerent Unionists and bitter pattitionists.

And in the event of a good outcome in the Brexit negotiations the problem is solved for the foreseeable future.

The border in the Irish Sea that you have gloated downcow over actually makes a UI less likely.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

As the FF senator pointed out during the case it's open to abuse.

I asked you before...what system would not be open to 'abuse'?

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

In what sense?

That the Brits might renege on the deal? Well, that's always a prospect when dealing with the Brits.

It's subjective. As long as the SoS can give a reason not to have one they are still within the terms of the GFA.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What's this free housing policy you speak of?

Constitutional right to housing is a perfect example of vague populist nonsense from SF.

Maybe Gerry will get a 3rd house!

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

And in the event of a good outcome in the Brexit negotiations the problem is solved for the foreseeable future.

The border in the Irish Sea that you have gloated downcow over actually makes a UI less likely.

Time to pray to the Brexit gods so JH...good luck with that boat and it's captains.

There is more than an Irish Sea border to deal with.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I asked you before...what system would not be open to 'abuse'?

Like pretty much everyone on the island IRA surrender was a good enough reason to vote for the GFA and never really gave the actual text much of a thought. Plus i was in 3rd level at the time so not top of my list of priorities.

I only really thought about it when you posted the link to the court case. I think a piece of legislation where 3 consecutive independently monitored opinion polls suggest a 60% majority in favour would trigger it would be fair.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Time to pray to the Brexit gods so JH...good luck with that boat and it's captains.

There is more than an Irish Sea border to deal with.

Interesting times ahead alright. Doubt there is a secret EU contingency plan of paying for a UI.

I reckon there will be a last minute deal. If that does happen where will the UI money come from in your opinion?

Would SF be brave enough to tell people in the Republic that they will have to pay something towards to it to make it happen?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Like pretty much everyone on the island IRA surrender was a good enough reason to vote for the GFA and never really gave the actual text much of a thought. Plus i was in 3rd level at the time so not top of my list of priorities.

I only really thought about it when you posted the link to the court case. I think a piece of legislation where 3 consecutive independently monitored opinion polls suggest a 60% majority in favour would trigger it would be fair.

Maybe a piece of legislation saying that aftwr 3

And you would have all manner of legal challenge. Look what happens here if a poll someone doesnt like appears.

The GFA was a compromise and an agreement.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Interesting times ahead alright. Doubt there is a secret EU contingency plan of paying for a UI.

I reckon there will be a last minute deal. If that does happen where will the UI money come from in your opinion?

Would SF be brave enough to tell people in the Republic that they will have to pay something towards to it to make it happen?

There was no 'contingency' for the Peace fund which is at it's 4th gestation or more now.
Brexit makes funds from the EU more likely not less.
Streamlining and rationalising the north and getting iit ready for unification will be a well managed process as the British have accepted the result already
It massively cures many ills for them too.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you would have all manner of legal challenge. Look what happens here if a poll someone doesnt like appears.

The GFA was a compromise and an agreement.

At least with a legal challenge you get to rationalise your argument.

That an example of multiple Red C type poles of lets say 60%. The SoS could say that margin of error and the contentious nature of the country that he / she would prefer 65%. What could be done about it? Not like the GFA has technically been broken.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

At least with a legal challenge you get to rationalise your argument.

That an example of multiple Red C type poles of lets say 60%. The SoS could say that margin of error and the contentious nature of the country that he / she would prefer 65%. What could be done about it? Not like the GFA has technically been broken.

Because, and the British are well aware of this, opinion polls are not accurate and open to challenge.
Why bother with a referendum at all?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There was no 'contingency' for the Peace fund which is at it's 4th gestation or more now.
Brexit makes funds from the EU more likely not less.
Streamlining and rationalising the north and getting iit ready for unification will be a well managed process as the British have accepted the result already
It massively cures many ills for them too.

Wonder would that have to wait until after positive result? Might be seen as meddling. Just a thought.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because, and the British are well aware of this, opinion polls are not accurate and open to challenge.
Why bother with a referendum at all?

Because it is a more tangible measure of public opinion. I get where you are coming from but it is open to abuse and not immune to legal challenge either i would imagine.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What if the SoS is happy,with the polls at 50.1%

Have you anything to suggest,they wouldnt be?

That's my point. If Labour were in charge them maybe but Tories might want 60%. Neither is outside the terms of the GFA.

Fionn1952

jh79 wrote: »

Like pretty much everyone on the island IRA surrender was a good enough reason to vote for the GFA and never really gave the actual text much of a thought. Plus i was in 3rd level at the time so not top of my list of priorities.

I only really thought about it when you posted the link to the court case. I think a piece of legislation where 3 consecutive independently monitored opinion polls suggest a 60% majority in favour would trigger it would be fair.

Why do these suggestions always come with the caveat that a Nationalist vote should essentially count less than a Unionist one?

The GFA stated that a majority was required, not 55%, not 60%, not a supermajority, 50% + 1.

Requiring three consecutive opinion polls at >60% would be absolutely ridiculous. In your hypothetical scenario, two opinion polls at 75% and one at 59%.....nope, no border poll. Now you're in a situation where the majority of the population have expressed a clear preference for unification, and you're saying it isn't, 'likely' to pass? This wouldn't hold up to the most basic of legal challenges.

The fact that you didn't understand the GFA enough at the time to know what you were voting for is quite telling. Don't project your ignorance on to everyone else. Plenty of people thoroughly examined the text of the GFA and knew exactly what they were voting for. It's 35 pages long....lets not pretend there is a University course on the planet so intense that it doesn't leave you the time to read 35 pages. I studied in the STEM field at a postgraduate level and at no point during my studies would I have struggled to find the time to read such a short document.

jm08

jh79 wrote: »

Because it is a more tangible measure of public opinion. I get where you are coming from but it is open to abuse and not immune to legal challenge either i would imagine.

There is a recognised issue with opinion polls in Northern Ireland when it comes to the constitutional question because they are not as anonymous as a referendum would be. For example, a catholic living/working in a mainly protestant area by keep quiet about wanting a UI because some of his unionist neighbours/co-workers might get upset. They just don't want to rock the boat.

timthumbni

BonnieSituation wrote: »

:

There's a simple fact that no-one really says Londonderry except insecure loyalists when in earshot of a Taig, Gregory Campbell and the BBC and UTV News. That it "naturally rolls off the tongue" as DC would have you believe is laughable.

I have no issue with the name per se, .

The so called simple fact you refer to is laughable and nonsense.I refer to the city as Londonderry/ Derry and sometimes stroke city and even doire. The county almost always as Londonderry. I don’t know why republicans on here are so insecure in what anyone else refers to it as.

Anytime I use Londonderry on here you get some real funny guy/gal posting something like where’s that? Or edgelord (ha) etc. Silly. It’s like me saying anyone using the term the north of Ireland is a rabid Ira supporter. Now they may be but I won’t make a big deal of it. The fact is none of these people would correct me in public If I said it so why act the big testes on a message board.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

Constitutional right to housing is a perfect example of vague populist nonsense from SF.

Maybe Gerry will get a 3rd house!

Okay. And where does it say "free" in that?

jh79

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Why do these suggestions always come with the caveat that a Nationalist vote should essentially count less than a Unionist one?

The GFA stated that a majority was required, not 55%, not 60%, not a supermajority, 50% + 1.

Requiring three consecutive opinion polls at >60% would be absolutely ridiculous. In your hypothetical scenario, two opinion polls at 75% and one at 59%.....nope, no border poll. Now you're in a situation where the majority of the population have expressed a clear preference for unification, and you're saying it isn't, 'likely' to pass? This wouldn't hold up to the most basic of legal challenges.

The fact that you didn't understand the GFA enough at the time to know what you were voting for is quite telling. Don't project your ignorance on to everyone else. Plenty of people thoroughly examined the text of the GFA and knew exactly what they were voting for. It's 35 pages long....lets not pretend there is a University course on the planet so intense that it doesn't leave you the time to read 35 pages. I studied in the STEM field at a postgraduate level and at no point during my studies would I have struggled to find the time to read such a short document.

Both you and Blaaz are missing the point. It is entirely at the mercy of a British SoS to decide what public opinion is without having to give a reason other than he or she doesn't think the time is right.

There will always be opinion poles. Put a figure on "likely" and tell me at what point does it fall outside of the GFA?

Ask a unionist what figure of support in an opinion poll is enough to say a referendum is justified? Guaranteed it's higher than yours.

BonnieSituation

timthumbni wrote: »

The so called simple fact you refer to is laughable and nonsense.I refer to the city as Londonderry/ Derry and sometimes stroke city and even doire. The county almost always as Londonderry. I don’t know why republicans on here are so insecure in what anyone else refers to it as.

Anytime I use Londonderry on here you get some real funny guy/gal posting something like where’s that? Or edgelord (ha) etc. Silly. It’s like me saying anyone using the term the north of Ireland is a rabid Ira supporter. Now they may be but I won’t make a big deal of it. The fact is none of these people would correct me in public If I said it so why act the big testes on a message board.

Call it what you wish Timmy.

I've read that post a few times now and I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but you seem agitated. I don't think anyone has paid any notice to to your attention-seeking use of Londonderry on here. I know I glossed over it, as your posts tend to be a bit impenetrable and lacking in anything of substance to discuss. Maybe that's the issue at hand?

Why are Unionists always in need of attention?

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

Both you and Blaaz are missing the point. It is entirely at the mercy of a British SoS to decide what public opinion is without having to give a reason other than he or she doesn't think the time is right.

There will always be opinion poles. Put a figure on "likely" and tell me at what point does it fall outside of the GFA?

Ask a unionist what figure of support in an opinion poll is enough to say a referendum is justified? Guaranteed it's higher than yours.

No one is missing "the point" as you call it, it's just that "the point" you're trying to make is so hamfisted and obtuse.

You didn't know about the provision for the SOSNI within the GFA to call a poll nor did you know about the McCord judgement until a few hours ago, and then feigned shock as to how it "slipped by republicans".

I'd pack it up now tbh if I were you.

jh79

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Okay. And where does it say "free" in that?

So what does a right to housing mean in a constitutional law sense?

If i'm not provided a house i can then i can sue the state to force them as per my constitutional rights.

If it means nothing more than an aspiration to provide housing then it is vague populist nonsense.

BonnieSituation

jh79 wrote: »

So what does a right to housing mean in a constitutional law sense?

If i'm not provided a house i can then i can sue the state to force them as per my constitutional rights.

If it means nothing more than an aspiration to provide housing then it is vague populist nonsense.

Okay. So you think that a Constitutional right to housing means everyone is entitled to a free house?

You can't possibly be that ignorant.

timthumbni

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Call it what you wish Timmy.

I've read that post a few times now and I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but you seem agitated. I don't think anyone has paid any attention to to your attention-seeking use of Londonderry on here. I know I glossed over it as your posts tend to be a bit impenetrable a lacking in anything of substance to discuss. Maybe that's the issue at hand?
Why are Unionists always in need of attention?

I will call it what I wish. Thanks for the permission. You are one who posted it was a “simple fact” regarding who used Londonderry. I was simply correcting you. In the centenary of Northern Ireland celebration thread another poster called me an “edgelord” for referring to Londonderry. That was today. Maybe they needed a few weeks in the Sligo mountains to calm themselves down.

Although it seems even that may still leave a few people a bit on edge.